Compromised News Network cuts off McCarthy presser to keep the Left in the dark re: Schiff and Swalwell

On Tuesday, the Compromised News Network (CNN) did not want their dozen or so viewers to see and hear what House Speaker Kevin McCarthy had to say about Reps. Adam "Bugeyes" Schiff (D-CA) and Eric "Gasman" Swalwell (D-CA).

The network known for the most in sexual misconduct, misreporting and CNN+ began to carry the press conference at 11:11 a.m. ET. By then, McCarthy was already answering questions from reporters.

 At around 11:25, an unidentified female reporter and obvious Democrat challenged McCarthy's claim that House Democrats would be free to select which members of their party would serve on committees. As the correspondent put it, “[T]he other side will get to name their members. But that’s not true with the Intelligence Committee, is it? You said you’re going to let Democrats appoint their own members to the [Intelligence] Committee, but you’ve also indicated that you’re not going to let Congressman Swalwell…?”

Before she could continue her biased attack, McCarthy interrupted her, but the question was clearly referring to the Speaker previously saying he would prevent certain Democrats, such as Schiff and Swalwell from serving on committees and this was in direct conflict with his new statement that Democrats would “get to name their members,” hence the question.

He offered this explanation for the apparent inconsistency:

Let me phrase something very direct to you. If you got the briefing I got from the FBI, you wouldn’t have Swalwell on any committee. And you’re going to tell me other Democrats couldn’t fill that slot? He cannot get a security clearance in the private sector. So would you like to give him a government clearance?

… Not only was he getting a clearance, he was inside an Intel Committee. He had more information than the majority of all the members. Did you ever raise that issue? No, but you should’ve. You’re going to tell me there are 200 other Democrats that couldn’t fill that slot, but they kept him on it?

After a few more choice words about Swalwell, McCarthy switched targets: “Adam Schiff openly lied to the American public!”

Well, that got CNN to clutch the pearls Brian Stelter left behind and they pulled the plug on McCarthy before their dozen viewers had to hear any more facts about the scummy behavior of House Democrats.

Kate Bolduan of "At This Hour" quickly cut in: “All right, so we’re listening in to new House Speaker Kevin McCarthy... Let’s talk about some of what has been discussed already.”

Twitter followers of @TheGasMan felt a sigh [at least I think it was a sigh, well, it sort of sounded like a sigh] of relief.

Tweet

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin defends child porn offenders while showing his hands

Jeffrey Toobin smiling for some reason

Having Jeffrey Toobin talk about child porn is like having a meth head discuss the benefits of pharmaceuticals. In any case, the disgraced legal analyst for the Comedy News Network (CNN) defended Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's lenient sentencing of child porn offenders in her Senate confirmation hearings.

Toobin now speaks on camera in the style of Nancy "Dancing Hands" Pelosi, gesturing with his hands to show that he isn't "petting the cat," so to speak. As you may have heard, he has a reputation for masturbating in mid-conversation.

Last Tuesday, during the hearings, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) asked Judge Jackson about her extremely lenient sentencing record of child porn and sex offenders.

Toobin Appeared on CNN’s "At This Hour with Kate Bolduan." He agreed with Jackson's reasoning that today's child porn sentences have yet to be adapted for a "post-internet" society. In other words, since it's easier for scumbags to get child porn online, they shouldn't have to face tough sentencing. 

How does that make sense to the children being abused?

"I remember, when I was an assistant U.S. Attorney back in the ’90s is that when those sentencing guidelines were written for those cases, that this was a time when the people who committed these crimes would order individual photos and get them usually through email, and then they would be sentenced based on the number of photos they possessed. This was all pre-internet," Toobin explained. "So once the internet came in and people got access to hundreds and then thousands of photos, the sentencing guidelines would reflect hundreds and then thousands of photos. Federal judges have been struggling with the issue of how do you create a fair system that was designed pre-internet, yet you have to sentence people post-internet."

"It wasn’t like she was letting these people go, but they were somewhat less than the guidelines because the guidelines had not been adapted for the internet era," Toobin said, implying that a 3-month sentence as opposed to a 10-year sentence was sufficient because the scumbag got the porn easier than his predecessors. 

What does that have to do with the act of promoting child pornography and sexual abuse?

* * *

Sex. Now that I have your attention: for more hard-hitting content, and a few soft-hitting ones too, subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against John Kerry's global warming, the heebie-jeebies and the dreaded omicron.

* * *

Toobin attacked Hawley for even asking the question saying that the reason he asked the question of Jackson's light sentencing was to appeal to the QAnon audience. "This is about appealing to the QAnon audience. This cult that is a big presence is Republican Party politics now where Senator Hawley is trying to ingratiate himself and run for president with their support."

Yeah, and Russian collusion.

Tweet