Image 01 Image 03

Nunes’ Opening Statement: Media are ‘Puppets for the Democratic Party’

Nunes’ Opening Statement: Media are ‘Puppets for the Democratic Party’

“The media, of course, are free to act as Democrat puppets, and they’re free to lurch from the Russia hoax to the Ukraine hoax at the direction of their puppet masters.”

House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes destroyed the media in his opening statement at the third hearing of the impeachment inquiry.

He criticized the way the media has handled the impeachment inquiry. He even accused them of taking direction from the Democrats.

Nunes said:

If you watched the impeachment hearings last week, you may have noticed a disconnect between what you actually saw and the mainstream media accounts describing it. What you saw were three diplomats, who dislike the President’s Ukraine policy, discussing second-hand and third-hand conversations about their objections. Meanwhile, they admitted they had not talked to the president about these matters, and they were unable to identify any crime or impeachable offense the President committed.

But what you read in the press were accounts of shocking, damning, and explosive testimony that fully supports the Democrats’ accusations.

He reminded everyone the media is acting the way they did during the Russian investigation. He described their behavior as a “fevered rush to tarnish and remove a president who refuses to pretend that the media are something different than what they really are-puppets for the Democratic Party.”

Then Nunes brought up investigative journalist John Solomon, who has published many pieces on Ukraine in The Hill.

The Hill stated “it would conduct a review of Solomon’s Ukraine reporting.” This happened three days after a Democrat on this committee told a Hill writer that she would stop speaking to The Hill because it had run Solomon’s stories, and she urged the writer to relay her concerns to Hill management.”

Nunes also pointed out how the Democrats have changed their narrative after the phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky showed no quid pro quo:

After trying out several different accusations against President Trump, the Democrats have recently settled on “bribery”—according to widespread reports, they replaced their “quid pro quo” allegation because it wasn’t polling well.

But if the Democrats and the media are suddenly so deeply concerned about bribery, you’d think they would take some interest in Burisma paying Hunter Biden $83,000 a month. And you’d think they would be interested in Joe Biden threatening to withhold U.S. loan guarantees unless the Ukrainians fired a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma. That would be a textbook example of bribery.

Nunes ended his statement:

The media, of course, are free to act as Democrat puppets, and they’re free to lurch from the Russia hoax to the Ukraine hoax at the direction of their puppet masters. But they cannot reasonably expect to do so without alienating half the country who voted for the President they’re trying to expel.

Americans have learned to recognize fake news when they see it, and if the mainstream press won’t give it to them straight, they’ll go elsewhere to find it—which is exactly what the American people are doing.

Nunes Opening Statement by Anonymous 5DZYb5cl on Scribd


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Wow! Now where are the rest of the Republicans? McConnell? Graham? Anyone? Other than Nunes and Jordan, it’s pretty much Trump/Nunes/Jordan vs the globalist communist swamp.

In the entire MSM there does not appear to be a single person in charge that can ask its news readers…”Do you actually believe this nonsense? Do none of you think that the Bidens/Kerrys/Pelosi were not bribing the Ukraine? Do you really think the Dossier is real?”

buckeyeminuteman | November 19, 2019 at 12:44 pm

About time somebody in Congress says what we’re all saying and thinking. Expect his statement to fall on deaf ears though. In fact, his comments will not even make into the new cycle.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | November 19, 2019 at 1:24 pm

Speaking of puppets, here some more SELF-SERVING Propaganda straight from the DC government district.

Is college worth it? A study measures return on investment – with some surprising results. – Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce

Follow the Money, who paid for the study?

Why “Higher” Education of course.

Totally self-serving and NOT to be believed anymore with their decades of mismanagement and deceit by now.

    That’s not a conspiracy. Pick a worthwhile major and the ROI is still good, even at the current outrageous price (esp. when you factor in tax revenues for those of us who pay taxes).

    The government actually pays for the research, through grants, not the institution itself.

      healthguyfsu in reply to healthguyfsu. | November 19, 2019 at 1:49 pm

      The bigger problem with the higher ed message is one I heard far too often as a teenager (from Democrats and education money mongering cronyists, as you might expect):

      “Everyone should have a college degree”

      No, everyone shouldn’t because
      1) Not everyone can or will do what it takes
      2) Many that can’t hack it in a real major will take a waste of money major
      3) Latent skills (such as trades) may be underdeveloped if you push someone unnecessarily into college that could otherwise discover their talents outside of that system.

I disagree with Nunes that the media are the Democrats’ puppets.

Often it is the other way around.

“We [globalists] are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. … It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

Purported remarks of David Rockefeller at a Bilderberg Group meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany in June 1991. While purported, it does ring true for a NWO type backed by Democrats and the MSM

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to fscarn. | November 19, 2019 at 1:47 pm

    This report gave me a big laugh!

    Voters “Numb And Disoriented” From Constant Political Drama And Fake News: NYT

    Here’s David speaking with full attribution, not purported. It’s found in his Memoirs (2002),

    “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

    All the charges leveled at NWO Central, the Council on Foreign Relations (incorporated in NY, 08/05/1921), are basically true.

But one could say Republicans are puppets of Trump too right? There is as much propaganda coming out of the White House as there is anywhere in government. It’s not just one sided. Everyone is spinning continually.

I listened to portions of the hearing on NPR. During Jordans question period regarding Col. Klink’s prior testimony Audi Cornish chose to do a brief station ident – she purposefully talked over Jordan – a critical moment of summation regarding Klink’s sidestepping of authority and chain of command when tattling to a national security (democrat) lawyer.

I wonder if anyone else noticed her doing that bit of passive aggressive nonsense?

I don’t think the dinosaur media acts like a puppet. It is more like a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat party. Uses the same talking points, emphasizes same themed, basically parrots Dems/Progs lack of principles.

    txvet2 in reply to Romey. | November 19, 2019 at 8:14 pm

    “”I don’t think the dinosaur media acts like a puppet.””

    I agree. They aren’t puppets, they’re co-conspirators.

50 years ago, Vice President Spiro Agnew.

Media Monopoly and Beginning of Fake News – November 13, 1969

Spiro Agnew gives a speech on the abuse and bias of the Liberal Media in the year 1969. One of the first in America to publicly call out the news media for it’s liberal bias, Vice President Agnew’s speech has taken on prophetic properties in recent years and is hailed as a landmark speech on the subject of Liberal News bias.

    n.n in reply to n.n. | November 19, 2019 at 4:59 pm

    Agnew gave an excellent speech that’s not limited to a particular partisan or ideological bias, but reviews the challenges of insularity, parochialism, special interests, bias, and responsibility of publishing platforms, especially with a disproportionate reach and penetration (e.g. visual media).

Folks, the Ds are in a real pickle. Support for impeachment has not grown, and in fact appears to be fading, especially among independents. The only way it ever could’ve succeeded is if it broke out of the zealot base, and it is failing. If they don’t turn it around this week (fat chance) the hearings will end where they started: as a purely partisan stab in the dark.

But I expect that the Ds will probably still impeach him, having let the idiot train gone too far to stop. And then McConnell will drag out a trial to inject maximum chaos into the D primaries.

Now look at the D field. Biden is probably the biggest loser from the hearings. If they nominate him, Trump will shred him to pieces with his son’s corruption, not only in Ukraine but in China. Warren and Sanders? They would arrive with more baggage than Queen Marie’s 13-car art train out of Romania. If the Ds pick either one of them, the candidate might as well change the name to George(-ette) McGovern and be done with it.

Mayor Pete? Folks, I happen to be gay myself, but I don’t have such a strong tribal identity that I will vote for him like a lab rat punching the bar for a pellet of food. Besides, I don’t count in that calculus. Who matters there is the 20% of the D electorate comprised of black voters, a great deal of whose participation is mediated through the black churches. Good luck, Pete. You’ll need it.

That brings me to the biggest surprise so far to me, the seeming disintegration of Kamala Harris. She had the Clinton-Hollywood money. She had the media training. She was slippery enough to be a politician for either party. I still don’t count her out, though, because I expect a brokered D Convention in Milwaukee.

It will not surprise me in the slightest if she’s the #2 on their ticket, and I won’t even be shocked if she winds up at the top. If that happens, the media will rush to her side, declaring that she wasn’t incendiary enough during the primaries and therefore qualifies as “steady” and “smart.”

Meanwhile, as always, the condition of the economy in the spring of an election year has called the tune in every presidential election since WW2. The stock market is a good indicator of economic conditions 9 months out, and it’s been hitting new highs. There have been three Fed interest rates cuts this year.

No matter who the Ds nominate, it would be a twilight struggle. But their chaos could push Trump’s margins a good deal higher than the 4% I’ve been thinking about.

    “… Now look at the D field. Biden is probably the biggest loser from the hearings. If they nominate him, Trump will shred him to pieces with his son’s corruption, not only in Ukraine but in China. …”

    Add to that this was to influence him, as Vice President. He knew full when what was going on and word was, he benefited from direct payments, as well as junior. I expect he solicited the deal or at least welcomed the offer.

    Slow Joe may see prosecution, if there’s still any justice left here.

I agree with RandomCrank that Kamalatoe looked very good “on paper” but in the real world she proved herself overwhelmingly not ready for prime time, even compared to the rest of the dubious Dem field. I’d be very surprised if she were on either end of the ticket.

    RandomCrank in reply to FOAF. | November 20, 2019 at 12:44 pm

    I don’t want to argue too hard about Harris, because for one thing I’ve already been wrong about her. Boy oh boy, I thought she was a shoo-in given who supported her behind the scenes, and her generally slippery nature. It’s by far the biggest surprise of the political season as far as I’m concerned.

    Another surprise would be if the Ds were to have a sanity attack and drop impeachment. That’s what they ought to do, and of course they should’ve listened to Pelosi from the get-go and not let Adam Schiff usurp both her and the Judiciary Committee.

    But at this juncture, it doesn’t seem likely that they’ll step off the ledge and climb back through the window. If they were to do it, their stalwarts (I hate that word, “base”) would go as crazy as the R stalwarts would if Trump endorsed a gun control package. I think the Ds are locked into their coming suicide gesture. Watch me be wrong.

    Just to be logical for a stupid second, impeachment makes no sense from any sentient angle. The legacy media are all for it, but public attitudes are locked into partisan affiliation. Independents are really hard to survey, so the most recent poll showing a 10-point drop in support among that cohort has to be taken not only with a grain of salt but the whole shaker.

    That much said, it’s also clear that support for impeachment is, at best, stagnant. I love to go to rodeos, so I’ll use an analogy: they opened the gate but the bull has stayed in the chute, and there will be no score on the ride.

    So why did the Ds do this? The best answer I can think of would go back to 1998 and the R impeachment of Bill Clinton. I thought then and still think that it was ridiculous; maybe not quite as empty as this one, but close enough for horseshoes. Not only that, but impeachment caused the Rs to lose ground in Congress.

    No matter; impeachment also put enough of a cloud over Clinton’s tenure to boost R chances in the ’00 presidential election. But for the ’98 impeachment, I think Gore would have been elected president. Similarly, the Benghazi hearings were the longest hand-wringing about 4 deaths in American history, but they did dig out Hillary’s e-mail scandal, without which she’d have been elected in ’16.

    So, this time around, the Ds know they’ll fail at impeachment but a) they want simple revenge for the ’98 impeachment and for the Benghazi hearings, and b) they think they can do enough damage to Trump to prevail in a close election. That’s the only rationale I can imagine that might involve anything more than the lizard-brain hatred of Trump by the Ds.

    By the way, I doubt these hearings have put the same sort of tarnish on Trump that impeachment put on Clinton or Benghazi put on his wife. The ’98 impeachment did involve misconduct, although IMO not nearly seriously enough to merit impeachment, and Benghazi wound up uncovering misconduct by his wife. The impeachment hearings seem to have mainly uncovered a bunch of people who don’t like Trump’s policies.

    Past that, I don’t think impeachment will stay on the radar screen long enough to do real damage. Even if McConnell drags out the trial to screw up the D primaries, there will not be the drip-drip-drip of new evidence like there was in Benghazi and Bill Clinton’s case, and of course in Watergate.

    So, in the end, I think this will be a swing and a miss on the homerun front, but some of the foul balls might do some damage to Joe Biden and Rudy Giuliani.