John Cardillo critiques Elizabeth Warren’s praise for China’s "whole-of-government strategy," despite Susan Shirk calling Xi Jinping a "dictator for life." He exposes the New York Times’ misleading headline on Andrew McCabe’s fired memo, where Trump’s Russia probe concerns were misrepresented. The segment also scrutinizes Jeff Sessions’ handling of the Flynn case—Judge Sullivan demanded exculpatory evidence while Peter Strzok and Lisa Page backed Flynn’s claims—contrasting it with Kim Kardashian’s prison reform advocacy for Elise Marie Johnson versus Tommy Robinson’s 13-month jail sentence for exposing "Muslim rape gangs," deemed political persecution. Meanwhile, NYT reporter Julie Davis’ retracted crowd-size claim at a Trump rally highlights media bias, with an 80% miscalculation and rare corrections for conservative-friendly errors. Cardillo’s episode underscores systemic double standards in politics and journalism. [Automatically generated summary]
Today on Off the Cuff Declassified, the New York Times looks like it's running cover for Andrew McCabe by going after Rod Rosenstein.
Elizabeth Focahantis Warren praises China's communist government.
I'm going to tell you all about this.
Kim Kardashian visits the White House to discuss prison reform while Tommy Robinson's life is put in grave risk in a British jail.
And I'm going to show you one of the most ironic fake news fails ever to come out of the New York Times.
you're going to love it.
Now, most reputable news organizations don't run feature stories, stories in which the reporters tweet, scoop, and put up the headline.
They don't run stories like that based solely on the musings of people fired from their jobs, publicly disgraced, people with multiple scandals who were fired part and parcel to a criminal investigation, and then those people criminally referred for prosecution to whatever prosecutorial agency has jurisdiction.
Well, but the New York Times really isn't a credible news outlet anymore, is it?
Because that's precisely what they did in a new story.
A story that was published yesterday by the New York Times entitled, FBI Official Wrote Secret Memo Fearing Trump got a cover story for Comey firing.
Now, the headline alone is unethical and problematic.
The FBI official is Andrew McCabe.
But the New York Times knows that Andrew McCabe has no credibility, so they don't start the piece by saying McCabe wrote a secret memo.
Worse, they don't start the piece by writing former FBI official or fired FBI official.
No, the New York Times baits you into their story with a headline that implies that a current and active FBI official wrote the memo.
Now, obviously, McCabe wrote the memo while he was still employed at the FBI, but the headline is incredibly misleading nonetheless.
And McCabe is not a reputable source.
Now, the gist of this article is that Andrew McCabe was so concerned with things he heard when at the time that Rod Rosenstein generated his memo that called for Comey's firing, that McCabe himself wrote secret memos to memorialize his concerns.
Here's the first paragraph.
The former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe wrote a confidential memo last spring recounting a conversation that offered significant behind-the-scenes details on the firing of Mr. McCabe's predecessor, James B. Comey.
Again, according to several people familiar with the discussion, more anonymous sources, presumably some of them in Mueller's camp, ergo, Mueller's team is leaking.
More problems for Mueller.
All from the New York Times piece.
In the document, whose contents have not been previously reported, Mr. McCabe described a conversation at the Justice Department with the Deputy Attorney General, obviously Rod J. Rosenstein, in the chaotic days last May after Mr. Comey's abrupt firing.
Mr. Rosenstein played a key role in the dismissal, writing a memo that rebuked Mr. Comey over his handling of an investigation in Hillary Clinton.
Now, I am no fan of Rosenstein.
Rosenstein appointed Mueller.
But even on this one, Rosenstein saw a problem in the way the Hillary case was handled.
The Office of Inspector General saw a problem.
An independent entity, the head of which, Inspector General Michael Horowitz, was appointed by Barack Obama.
Obama, the guys in Obama appointee.
So here you have the Democratically appointed, Democratic-appointed Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who rose up in the DOJ during the Obama administration, all agreeing Comey should have been fired.
The Office of Inspector General referred McCabe to DOJ for criminal prosecution for making false and misleading statements.
A bunch of congresspeople referred James Comey to DOJ for criminal prosecution.
These people have no credibility.
If Andrew McCabe was put on a witness stand, a defense lawyer would tear him up or a prosecutor if he were a witness for the defense.
But in the meeting at the Justice Department, Mr. Rosenstein, they claim added a new detail.
He said the president had originally asked him to reference Russia in his memo.
The people familiar with the conversation said Mr. Rosenstein did not elaborate on what Mr. Trump had wanted him to say.
So the New York Times makes it seem like Trump engaged in obstruction of justice, right?
That he was pressuring Rosenstein to talk about the Russia investigation.
But really, what it was, when you break it down and you read this piece, is that Trump simply wanted the memo to say that he wasn't under investigation, which we later found out to be the case anyway, which Trump said.
Trump asked Rosenstein to include it.
Rosenstein, according to the piece, let me read you this, read this to you.
One person who was briefed on Mr. Rosenstein's conversations with the president said Mr. Trump had simply wanted Mr. Rosenstein to mention that he was not personally under investigation in the Russia inquiry.
Mr. Rosenstein said it was unnecessary and did not include such a reference.
And Mr. Trump ultimately said it himself when announcing the firing.
Again, they're making Mount Everest have a little speck of sand and nothing.
Actually, no, not even a little speck of sand is nothing.
And they're making Mount Everest out of it.
The president of the United States says to the deputy attorney general, somebody who falls under his executive branch chain of command, hey, do you mind throwing something in there that I'm not under investigation?
This is not good for the country.
It's not good for me.
It's not good for you.
It's not good for our standing in the world.
People need to know we have stability in our government, especially in the White House.
The world, the bad actors in the world, can't think that the president could be removed at any time based on phony rumors.
Nothing wrong with the president saying that to his deputy AG.
And there's nothing wrong.
Now, I disagree with Rosenstein.
Rosenstein saying, Mr. President, you're not even necessary.
Not even necessary.
Don't worry about it.
If you want to say it, you say it, but it's not necessary to put in the memo.
The context of the memo is a little bit different.
And Trump said, all right, I'll say it myself.
That's not obstruction of justice, no matter what the lunatics on the left want you to believe.
It's simply not.
They are trying to make something out of nothing.
They're very nervous.
This New York Times piece proves how nervous the left is because we're seeing Horowitz's report about to drop, the Inspector General report about to drop.
And it is supposedly damning for James Comey and Andrew McCabe on the way they handled the Hillary Clinton investigation.
Who knows what else is in there?
But with the hysteria we're seeing for the mainstream media, I can tell you, it's not going to be good for the left-wing side, for the Spygate side, for the ObamaGate side.
Now, this piece goes on multiple paragraphs, multiple paragraphs, multiple paragraphs, telling you all these things that really amount to absolutely nothing, about absolutely nothing.
What they do tell us, what I do get from reading this, is that Jeff Sessions really, really cannot remain attorney general.
He has completely lost control of the Department of Justice.
We're going to get into that in just a moment.
So this piece ends with Rudy Giuliani comments.
And Rudy added a new explanation for Comey's firing.
He said, Trump was upset that Comey would not publicly clear him in the Russia investigation.
He fired Comey, quote, he fired Comey because Comey would not, among other things, say that he wasn't a target of the investigation.
The president was right.
It was bad for the country.
Now, Rosenstein defended writing the memo that recommended Comey's firing.
Rosenstein said, quote, I wrote it.
I believe it.
I stand by it.
He said that last year, here.
He added that it was never intended to, quote, justify a for-cause termination, end quote.
It was simply his recommendation.
It wasn't a justification.
It was a recommendation.
Now, I think it was a little wimpy of him to say it was never meant to justify.
What he should have said was, my intention wasn't to justify the investigate, the termination, but I can certainly see why my memo led to that.
And I agree with the termination because it comports with what was in my letter.
But we don't see a lot of guts out of DC these days.
Now, Ray Gowdy, a guy that I'm not a fan of, caused an uproar the other day.
And he basically said to let Mueller's investigation run its course.
And if there was a spy placed in the Trump campaign, it was done for the right reasons.
Now, Gowdy's starting to spin because he saw conservatives really go on the offense at him for this, feeling he was part of the deep state, which he is.
But he then backpedaled a little bit.
And he said, quote, if I were the president and I picked someone to be the country's chief officer, meaning Jeff Sessions, and they later said, by the way, I'm not going to be able to participate.
I would be frustrated too.
There are lots of good lawyers in the country could have picked someone else about Jeff Sessions.
Now, let's go back.
A little context here.
Craig Gowdy, like I said, received the ire of conservatives for seeming to imply that it was okay to drop a spy into the Trump campaign.
Craig Gowdy backpedaled a little and he said, well, it's what Trump wanted too.
Donald Trump was an honest man.
He would have wanted a spy in his campaign.
He would have wanted to know if these things were going on because he didn't want to collude with the Russians.
So Gowdy then covered his own butt, did a good enough job.
Trump, who's a master of seizing on comments, took to Twitter and he spun Gowdy's comments in his favor, but then he said something very telling about Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
So Trump's tweets, and this was all from a Gowdy CBS interview last Sunday.
Gowdy's quote, what I just read you, I don't think so.
I think what the president is doing is expressing frustration that Attorney General Sessions should have shared these reasons for accusal before he took the job, not afterwards, something we all agree with.
If I were the president and I picked someone to be the country's chief law enforcement officer, and would he get what I just told you?
They told me later, oh, by the way, I'm not going to be able to participate in the most important case in the office.
I would be frustrated too.
That's how I read that.
Senator Sessions, why didn't you tell me before I picked you?
Now, many of us feel that way.
Why didn't Jeff Sessions tell Donald Trump he would recuse?
However, I've been told by people in DC that Sessions did tell that to Trump.
Others say, not true.
Sessions said that he would have to recuse if the ethics committees told him to, but the ethics committees cleared him.
So there are a lot of different ways people are interpreting this.
I'm going to go with the president because what Trump said in a follow-up tweet, this was a tweet he put out yesterday, actually, at about a little before 9 a.m., 847 a.m.
There are lots of really good lawyers in the country.
He could have picked somebody else, again, quoting Trey Gowdy.
Trump then said, and I wish I did, exclamation point.
Donald Trump on Twitter says he wished he'd have picked someone else for attorney general of the United States.
I don't see how Jeff Sessions can remain attorney general.
The president appears to have lost confidence in him.
America has no confidence in him.
The left loves that they have no confidence in him because they feel their guy, Robert Mueller's running the DOJ.
The right is livid.
The right is livid that Jeff Sessions has completely disappeared.
He has literally been the most ineffective attorney general in history.
We need a strong attorney general.
Now, look, I'm a law and order guy.
If the Trump campaign, if Donald Trump, if anybody, if anybody had colluded with Russia, I would not want them in the White House.
I don't care if it's Trump, whose policies I agree with 98% of the time.
I don't care if it's Obama, whose policies I disagreed with 98% of the time.
I don't care.
I don't want foreign governments interfering in our sacred electoral process.
That's a given.
But I also don't want witch hunts.
I also don't want these biased witch hunts.
And what Mueller is now doing is disgraceful.
Just look at the General Flynn case.
This morning, I put out a tweet because the left-wing attorneys and all of these conspiracy theorists were attacking me.
General Flynn took a plea.
General Flynn took a plea.
Yes.
But before General Flynn knew and his legal team, his defense team knew many things.
So let's just run down some of the problems in the General Flynn case.
The initial judge, Rudolph Contreras, recused himself.
The new judge, Emmett Sullivan, now wants to see all exculpatory evidence.
The FBI bosses on top of the investigation, Comey investigation, Comey and McCabe were, of course, disgracefully fired and criminally referred either by Congress in Comey's case or Inspector General in McCabe's case.
Agent Peter Stroke ran the interview with General Flynn.
He's been transferred to HR for texting his mistress.
Agent Pienka, who was also in the interview, whose name you hadn't heard, is testifying to OIG, and it's assumed his testimony is going to be that General Flynn was truthful.
Now, the left is saying, oh, he's only going to say his body language seemed truthful, but that's not true.
Pienka has also alluded to the fact that General Flynn gave the FBI very detailed, classified information, perfectly legal.
The FBI was cleared to receive that information.
When they asked him questions, his information on classified operations was so detailed that what sources say is that Pienka, Pienka's opinion, and even Strokes at the time and Comey's was that somebody being that detailed was doing all they could to be truthful.
Now, all of these things, had General Flynn's defense team had all this, they probably would not have taken a plea.
Things Are Happening With Jeff Sessions00:05:09
But what do you have here?
You've got the Inspector General's report dropping.
You've got General Flynn's next hearing date getting closer after Judge Sullivan looked at all the exculpatory info.
You've got things about to be released from Chuck Rassley on the Senate side.
Devin Nunez has been very quiet.
He's conducting his own investigation.
Things are happening with regards to Jeff Sessions.
President is lashing out of Jeff Sessions.
It just feels like something's going to pop, like something's going to break.
And it's not going to be good for teams Hillary and Obama.
It's not going to be good for John Brennan and James Comey and Andrew McCabe.
And it looks like their people on the left are doing everything humanly possible to cover for them, led by these outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post and CNN.
CNN, by the way, is doing so poorly, so poorly that its prime time lineup is in 10th place after HGTV and 12th place, HGTV and NBC Sports and TLC and all these other stations.
NBC is in 12th CNN primetime lineup, 12th place.
Fox News dominating.
People are sick of it.
They're sick of it.
But this FBI, this New York Times FBI piece hit a new low because now they're cannibalizing themselves.
And I want to see, I want to see what happens.
I want to see the hysteria on the left when the Inspector General report drops.
It's imminent.
And I think it's going to be a game changer in a positive way for the Trump administration.
Once again, Democrats prove they love communists.
This time, Elizabeth Focahontas Warren praises China's communist government.
This story is outstanding.
And a good catch by our friend Kyle Olson and his writer Victoria Skinner over at the American Mirror.
They've been doing great work over there.
Good buddies of ours here at the Rebel, good personal friends of mine.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren would rather praise communist China than the president of the United States.
This was about an interview she did on CBS this morning.
He's obviously, Elizabeth Warren has 20-20 presidential aspirations, and she was talking about North Korea.
And she was essentially saying the president got played, that Trump doesn't have a clear strategy, and that Trump should take his cues from communist China because communist China has what Warren calls, this is amazing, a long-term whole of government strategy.
Long-term whole of government strategy.
In other words, a communist dictatorship.
And Elizabeth Warren thinks that's something positive.
Now, here's her quote on CBS this morning.
Quote, you know, look, North Korea is a bad actor.
We understand that.
And the president had already promised that they could have a meeting with the president of the United States, something that both Kim Jong-un's father and grandfather had long, long sought.
Then it's been back and it's been forth.
I want this to work.
I want this to work to reduce the threat to South Korea, to Japan, to our allies in the region, to the United States of America, to the entire world.
But it really takes a strategy.
And I look at the comparison with China.
Look at what China is doing.
China's got the long-term arc and it's playing everybody.
Playing North Korea.
It's playing South Korea.
It's playing the president of the United States of America because it has a long-term whole of government strategy that keeps driving towards an end.
Meaning that its communist dictatorship doesn't have to worry about free and fair elections.
It doesn't have to worry about the transfer of power, the peaceful transfer of power.
It's an all-encompassing, all-controlling, brutal regime.
But hey, big statism.
It's driving toward an end.
So Elizabeth Warren absolutely loves it.
He goes on to say, actually, no, Bill Clinton's former president, President Bill Clinton's former deputy secretary of state, Susan Shirk, said, quote, what is going on here is that Xi Jinping is setting himself up to rule China as a strongman, as a personalistic leader.
I have no problem calling it a dictator for life.
It's even when Bill Clinton's former deputy secretary of state says that Xi Jinping is trying to be a dictator for life and Elizabeth Warren, Elizabeth Warren is praising their long-term whole of government strategy.
You see just how far the Democratic Party has become.
The Shift in Democratic Values00:06:19
Bill Clinton was a liberal guy in some respects, but if you look at his platform, he was far right, far, far right of today's establishment, Rhinos.
I mean, he was far right.
He was Bill Clinton.
If you look at Bill Clinton's statements in 93, 94, 95 on issues like immigration, on crime, forget about crime.
I worked as a cop under Clinton on crime.
We had millions coming to us from the federal government for better firearms, new vehicles, better body armor, training, tactics.
Bill Clinton was brutal on crime.
I give credit where due.
He was good to the cops, very tough on crime.
You look at Bill Clinton's platforms from back then.
He was, I mean, he was hard, hard right, he party-esque.
He would have been called, Bill Clinton would have been called alt-right with some of his positions, seriously, by today's Rhino establishment.
Forget today's Democratic Party.
Today's Democratic Party is so left.
I always tell you, when they wake up in the morning, they fall off San Francisco.
They're so far left into San Francisco Bay.
This is really, really, though, beyond the pale.
Really beyond the pale.
When you have a sitting U.S. senator, somebody we know loves, loves, loves the left, loves communism.
We know that about Elizabeth.
We know that about her.
But when she's now praising, praising a communist dictator, now it shouldn't surprise you because back in 2016, when he was running for office, Bernie Sanders defended his praise of Fidel Castro.
In the 1980s, he gave an interview, and here's what Hillary Clinton said about it.
He said, quote, I think in that same interview, he praised what he called the revolution of values in Cuba and talked about how people were working for the common good, not for themselves.
I just couldn't disagree more.
This is me agreeing with Hillary Clinton.
It's a first.
You might want to record this.
You know, if the values are that you oppress people, you disappear, you imprison people, even kill people for expressing their opinions, that is not the kind of revolution of values that I ever want to see anywhere.
That's Hillary Clinton.
That's me agreeing with Hillary Clinton.
Now, here's what Sanders said, Bernie Sanders said back in 1985.
Bernie Sanders, a darling of today's Democratic Party, said, quote, everybody was totally convinced that Castro was the worst guy in the world.
All the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro.
They forgot that he educated their kids, gave them health care, totally transformed the society.
The moderator gave Bernie Sanders an opportunity back in 1985 to disavow.
And moderator at the debate, the presidential primary debate in 2016, gave Sanders the opportunity to disavow his 1985 comments.
But Sanders declined.
He said, quote, what that was about was trying, was saying that the United States was wrong to try to invade Cuba, that the United States was wrong to try to support people to overthrow the Nicaraguan government.
Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders.
It's, ah, yeah.
He then went on to say, quote, Cuba is, of course, an authoritarian, undemocratic country.
Notice he doesn't say brutal, oppressive, wrong, an authoritarian, undemocratic country.
And I hope very much as soon as possible it becomes a democratic country.
But on the other hand, Sanders' caveat in 2016, but on the other hand, it would be wrong not to state that in Cuba, they have made some good advances in healthcare.
They are sending doctors all over the world.
They have made some progress in education.
The communist Bernie Sanders couldn't bring himself to fully condemn the communist regime in Cuba because he fundamentally believes in it.
Like Elizabeth Warren fundamentally believes in it.
This is today's Democratic Party.
This is very simple.
This is who today's Democrats are.
You see people like Maxine Waters, Representative Al Green, the other members of the Congressional Black Caucus embracing Louis Farrakhan.
Just the other day, I told you last Sunday, Louis Farrakhan had a sermon where he called for the eradication, the end of white men.
Democrats embrace Louis Farrakhan, especially the Congressional Black Caucus.
How Americans continue to vote for Democrats is absolutely mind-blowing.
Beyond me.
I don't understand it.
I will never understand it.
You have Democrats that openly support communism.
They openly praise communism for its long-term whole of government strategy, driving, driving towards an end for the advances that communism has made in medicine and education.
Yeah, I know that when I don't feel well, I think, let me go on a plane and go to Moscow and have those communist doctors.
Well, not even Russia anymore.
Let me go to Cuba and have the commie doctors.
Take a look at me.
Let me go to China and have the communist doctors.
Take a look at me.
Let me not stay here in the United States where medical school is incredibly competitive.
Let me not go to Europe where medical school is incredibly competitive because even though it's incredibly competitive, socialized medicine will kill me.
But let me not stay here in the United States where it's incredibly competitive.
We have the best doctors and facilities in the world.
No, no, no, no, let me go down to communist Cuba.
This is terrifying.
If these people are elected, they're going to try to turn this nation into a socialist state.
And I don't think it's inconceivable.
I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to think that generations down the road, Democrats, if in power long enough, would attempt to fundamentally change our electoral process.
They would attempt to fundamentally change our system of government from a constitutional republic to democratic socialism or just flat out socialism.
Concerns About Future Political Shifts00:10:24
People are losing their minds because Kim Kardashian went to the White House to meet President Trump.
She went there to talk about prison reform.
She popped over to the White House yesterday.
This is from the New York Post, page six.
The post headline is simply bizarre.
You can see an image of it there.
It calls her Kim Thong-un and makes a bunch of references to her butt.
I mean, this is unhinged from the New York Post.
So she went to the Oval Office to discuss prison reform sentencing reform.
She's talking about the plight of a woman named Elise Marie Johnson.
Now, apparently, this Elise Marie Johnson has been in prison for a long time.
She was convicted of a drug conspiracy.
She's been behind bars 21 years.
The woman, you know, many people in the entertainment industry are saying that drug convictions are unfair, that they go for longer than they should.
Now, it all depends on how violent it was.
I brought you the story yesterday of this guy, Matthew Charles, served 21 years for a nonviolent drug offense, was released, 21 years of a 35-year sentence, was released.
Unfortunately, the government wants to put this guy back in jail.
I don't agree with it.
I agree with those who think he should be allowed to stay out.
The government freed him.
It was their error.
He's lived his life very well for the last two years.
The president should commute him.
Now, this woman, Alicia Johnson, let me tell you a little bit about her case.
She became involved with cocaine dealers after she lost her job.
Her son was killed, and she and her husband divorced.
Her home was foreclosed on.
She didn't sell drugs or make deals, but it did admit to acting as a go-between, an intermediary for those involved.
She passed long messages.
Now, I worked a case on a federal task force where a guy made a phone call from a phone booth.
Federal sentencing is very harsh.
All he did, one phone call to set up a heroin and a gun deal at a diner.
Case was a federal case.
He called someone in New Jersey.
They came over to New York.
We worked on the federal task force.
I was with NYPD.
And we locked all these guys up.
And the guy who made the phone call, other guys got 60 years, life, 80 years, 100 years.
The guy who made the phone call got 25 years no parole.
Federal government doesn't mess around with these cases.
So this woman basically got life without parole, her first time nonviolent status.
Now, I empathize with that.
But the side of the coin is, who was she involved with?
How violent were they?
Were murders part and parcel to this drug dealing conspiracy?
So Kim Kardashian goes to the White House.
She calls it unfair.
She says the meeting with the president went well.
Kardashian then went to Jared and Ivanka's DC home for a private dinner.
Apparently, it was that woman, Elise Murray Johnson's birthday yesterday.
Now, this woman, again, this Elise Murray Johnson was sentenced to life without parole, as I just told you, back in 1997.
But again, you have to look at all the facts of the case.
And there aren't, I'm going to have to go into the federal government's PACER system.
It's the federal court record system and pull all the facts of this case.
And I'm going to do that when I have a little bit of time.
And we're going to revisit this because I want to know who else was involved in this conspiracy.
Were they involved with the cartels?
Like I said, were there murders?
Were there weapons involved?
Did this woman know that?
Was this woman intercepted on wiretaps, a present when they were discussing murders of rival drug gangs, murders of police officers, federal agents here or abroad?
There are a lot of facts of this case we don't know.
So it's very easy at face value to say, oh my God, this woman's in her 60s.
She was simply an intermediary.
She got life without parole.
She shouldn't have gotten life without parole.
Very easy to say that a Matthew Charles case, I was able to dig into a little bit.
He was a nonviolent drug dealer.
It wasn't tremendously large amounts of drugs.
But more importantly, about the Matthew Charles case, he's proven, he's proven that he's now a contributing member of society.
He's proven that in the two years he was released, he's gained fully employed.
He's very involved in his church.
He volunteers.
He helps keep kids out of trouble.
He's got a home.
He's got a stable relationship.
He's proven that he can be a productive member of society, that he can contribute.
I mean, alone, the fact that he's very involved in his church and keeps kids out of trouble alone.
You combine that with a job and a stable relationship.
When you look at the equation that gives indicators as to whether or not people will reoffend, his chances are probably that of the general public.
In fact, maybe greater that he won't reoffend because he's been there.
He's seen how terrible jail his prison is.
And I think a guy like this is going to go out of his way to not so much as creep up to a yellow light too quickly.
He's going to do all he can to live his life within the confines of the law.
Probably too cautiously.
I don't know enough about this woman.
Now, people are also saying, why should Kim Kardashian get an audience in the White House?
Regular people don't get an audience.
Trump is no different than Obama.
He's swooning over celebrity.
Maybe, maybe.
But the reality is, Kim Kardashian's brand, and I read this yesterday when researching the story.
Well, it reaches a billion people worldwide.
And so I do think it's incumbent upon world leaders to meet with those that have that kind of voice.
I think that's important because we need issues, be it good or bad.
Look, maybe the facts of this case come to pass that this Elise Marie Johnson was never involved in anything illegal, was trying to feed her kids, made one phone call, acted as an intermediary for a month, had never been in trouble prior and has never been in trouble in prison.
Then I might be behind her sentence being commuted.
Or those same billion people that watch Kim Kardashian might find out that this woman was, you know, embedded in the conspiracy.
She was a foundational member.
Maybe she didn't physically deal the drugs, but she was present for all the meetings where massive drug deals occurred.
She gave her strategic input.
Maybe she was there when hits of rival gang members were discussed.
Maybe when they were carried out and paid for.
Maybe she was an intermediary delivering money to pay for the murders of rivals or police.
We don't know.
And if that turns out to be the case, then Kim Kardashian's global audience is going to find that out as well.
And that's not a bad thing, right?
Information is never a bad thing.
But I'm not, I'm not beside myself that the president took a meeting with Kim Kardashian.
Now, her husband, Kanye West, was pretty complimentary to the president.
So you had to figure something like this was going to happen.
It is not the big deal that the mainstream media is making this out to be.
I think that's, they're going way overboard.
Now, a case that's not getting enough attention is the case of our friend Tommy Robinson.
Tommy used to be here with the Rebel.
Now he's an independent journalist.
Jailed, we've been bringing this to you for 13 months, summarily jailed for 13 months for reporting on Muslim rape gangs.
And it was Tommy who was one of the people that really brought this critically important issue to light.
But this isn't about the details of his case.
We've been there.
But another problem.
Tommy has known for a long time that if he's put in prison in England, his life is in danger.
He might not live out those 13 months because he's been so critical of radical Muslims that there's a price on his head.
Now, there's a story here from the Daily Star over in the UK inside jail housing Tommy Robinson as supporters fear price on his head.
Now, he pled guilty to committing contempt of court.
He was jailed by the judge.
He had a suspended sentence for that guilty plea.
He went to report on these Muslim rape gangs again.
The judge essentially yanked that suspended sentence and sentenced him to 13 months.
He will now spend time at Her Majesty's pleasure in Hull Prison, which has housed very significant inmates.
One ex-con described 24 hours in the prison and reported hearing inmates screaming.
He told the Daily Mail, when you are new to prison, you just feel left in the lurch.
Prison officers don't really help you.
It's a very scary time.
You hear other prisoners shouting and screaming.
It can be very intimidating when you are new.
You cannot write to your family for the first week and a half.
When you arrive, you receive either a smoker's pack or a sweet pack.
If you don't have any money, you need to make the smoker's pack last for two weeks.
Tobacco is currency in jail, along with drugs and mobile phone.
Now, that's all pretty common in prison, in jail.
But they go on to say his life, Tommy's life, is in grave danger in Hull Prison.
And an attorney for Robinson says that his life, he's been the victim of assault and custody.
Now, I know people who speak with Tommy, and that's true.
He doesn't expect to survive this.
This is a very dangerous situation what this judge did.
And many of us feel that this is political persecution.
This is not justice.
Tommy Robinson wasn't out there hurting anybody.
I'm seeing bad info on social media.
He was prejudicing the trial.
He was going to step in the middle of this trial.
These people were only accused.
They weren't convicted.
Well, maybe, but their names were already published by the BBC, so that's all nonsense.
He wasn't interfering with anything because state-run media in the UK had published their names.
He wasn't going to derail the trial because they had published their names, and they weren't deprived of any privacy because their names had been published previously.
The only person is being deprived of any due process, any civil rights, is Tommy Robinson.
Unfortunately, you don't have Kim Kardashians over in England willing to go to bat for Tommy Robinson because he's a conservative, because he's not towing the liberal line.
And that's truly, truly tragic.
Epic Fake News Fail00:07:07
We here at the Rebel have to do it.
Friends of ours, Katie Hopkins in the UK, has to do it, our colleague here at the Rebel.
But it's really tragic that other celebrities won't galvanize around a reporter jailed for trying to give the public information on very, very dangerous individuals.
But we have celebrities here in the United States who will do it for convicted drug dealers.
You know how much I love doing this show for you every day.
But some days, I love it even more.
And some things I get to bring you are just so beautiful.
They're so absolutely, absolutely perfect that it makes me smile when I can report them to you.
I'm hoping to be able to do that with the Inspector General report when it epically takes down Comey and McCabe.
It may not, it's still the U.S. government or Obama pointee, but I'm hoping.
I'm hopeful.
I have hope.
This one.
This one.
Oh my God.
I can't wait to bring it.
I honestly went to sleep last night, comping at the bit to bring you this.
So a reporter from the New York Times tweets out a couple of days back this.
Her name is Julie Davis, and she's been working with Michael Schmidt, the guy who's breaking all these scoops from Mueller's office, protecting Cabe and vilifying Rod Rosenstein now.
Well, anyway, Julie Davis tweets, quote, depressing sight at Trump rally in Nashville.
Adorable young boy, probably about my son's age, pointing iPhone, pointing iPhone at me and other reporters and snapping pics while screaming, fake news, fake news.
A child who will grow up believing a free and fair press is the enemy.
A bad thing.
To be mocked and hated.
Okay, that's what she wrote.
Really depressed because a child.
Now, of course, she's implying that President Trump is corrupting the minds of children and causing them to believe that the objective and fair New York Times is demonizing her and her other objective and fair reporters who do nothing wrong.
Well, that was tweeted on May 29th, 2018.
So Tuesday at 8.59 p.m., just around 9 p.m.
Yesterday, Wednesday, at 1.18 p.m., the same Julie Davis who complained and told us how depressed she was that a young boy at Trump's Nashville rally called her fake news.
Julie Davis, less than 24 hours later, had to correct fake news she reported about Trump's Nashville rally.
Here's her tweet.
President Trump is correct about his crowd last night.
My estimate was way off.
And we have corrected our story to reflect the fire marshal's estimate of 5,500 people.
When we get it wrong, we say so.
So Julie Davis and the New York Times said there were only a thousand people at the Trump rally.
They mocked it.
They mocked Trump.
They prematurely printed fake news.
Donald Trump tweeted, and she was quote tweeting Donald Trump.
The failing and corrupt New York Times estimated the crowd last night at 1,000 people when in fact it was many times that number and the arena was rocking.
And he goes on to clam the New York Times.
The irony.
The irony is beautiful.
I actually tweeted, New York Times is Julie Davis, who complained about being called fake news by a little boy at Donald Trump's Nashville rally, had to correct fake news she reported about Trump's Nashville rally.
You cannot make this up.
You can't make it up.
They don't even try anymore.
So the best part was after she prints the fake news, she goes, see, we're not fake news because we corrected it.
No, you corrected it because the president of the United States called you out and the president of the United States put up the fire marshal's estimate.
If Twitter didn't exist, if the president didn't have this kind of immediate platform to call you out, you wouldn't have corrected this, Julie.
Or you might have printed a retraction on page 38.
This is ridiculous.
And how do we know it's fake news?
How do we know it's not just an honest mistake?
Well, I'll pose you a question.
When was the last time you ever saw CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times have to retract or correct a story because the mistaken content was favorable to Donald Trump or favorable to Republicans, favorable to conservatives.
I've never, I've never seen that happen.
Now, it could have happened.
I could have missed it.
But I'm a news junkie.
I consume content day and night.
I'm interested in it.
I have to prepare for the show.
I'm always preparing for the show.
I've never once, never once seen them have to retract or correct a story favorable to Trump, the Republicans, or conservatives.
But story upon story upon story has to be corrected or retracted because it was critical of Trump, Republicans, conservatives with bad information.
So it's fake news.
But this was great.
I mean, not even 24 hours.
Not even 24 hours.
He had to retract a story after complaining for printing fake news after being called out by a little boy for being fake news and crying about it.
And let me tell you something, okay?
You know the difference between 1,000 people and 5,000 people.
If she'd have said 1,000 and the fire marshal said 1,300, I would have said, same difference.
And if Trump criticized her for that, I would have said, oh, come on.
On this one, Trump's wrong.
Rare occasion.
I got to give it to the New York Times, 1,000, 1,300.
Anybody can make that mistake.
But you don't make a mistake between 1,000 and nearly 6,000 and 5,500.
That is an 80% miscalculation.
An 80% miscalculation.
And Julie Davis and anyone else at the New York Times could have gone up to any of the security people handling admission, any of the fire rescue people.
Any of the police brass and said, hey, what do you estimate this crowd to be?
And they could have said, well, the arena holds X,000.
It's about, oh, 80% full.
Yeah, probably between 5,000 and 6,000.
It literally would have been that easy to fact check the story.
No, the New York Times, Julie Davis, they wanted to print a story that downplayed the crowd.
They were called out.
And I'm going to give this the most epic fake news fail so far this month.
In fact, we're at the last day of May.
I'm going to give this the award for epic fake news fail in the month of May.