Breitbart | Page 16 | Media Matters for America

Breitbart

Tags ››› Breitbart
  • “The Fix Is In:” Conservative Media Decries F.B.I.’s Recommendation Of No Criminal Charges In Clinton Email Investigation

    ››› ››› TYLER CHERRY

    Right-wing media figures are claiming that the “coverup is on” following FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that the bureau will not recommend criminal charges to the Department of Justice in the investigation relating to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Conservative commentators have previously lauded Comey for his “impeccable integrity” and ability to impartially conduct the investigation, while legal experts and media figures have predicted that no criminal charges would be brought forward in the case.

  • Conservatives Lose Their Excuse To Question The Results Of The Clinton Email Investigation

    ››› ››› TYLER CHERRY, CYDNEY HARGIS & NICK FERNANDEZ

    Conservatives have just lost their excuse to question the results of the investigation relating to Hillary Clinton’s email server, which legal experts say lacks a “legitimate basis” to charge Clinton with crimes. Right-wing media figures have ignored those experts to suggest that if the investigation does not result in a Clinton indictment, it must be politically tainted. But Attorney General Loretta Lynch affirmed that she will “be accepting the recommendations” made by “career agents and investigators” and FBI Director James Comey in the case, and conservative media have spent months lauding Comey’s “impeccable integrity” and ability to impartially conduct the investigation.

  • Amid Economic Turmoil, Right-Wing Media Spin Brexit As Good For Trump

    ››› ››› NICK FERNANDEZ & NINA MAST

    Right-wing media are reacting to the U.K. referendum to leave the European Union -- commonly referred to as Brexit -- by labeling the result a “very, very ominous sign for Democrats in the United States,” saying Donald Trump “looked like a genius” for saying the U.K. should leave the European Union, and claiming that “Hillary [Clinton] lost and Trump won.” Meanwhile, mainstream media warn of economic ramifications from the vote.

  • Trump Claims Obama Supports Terrorists, Echoing Breitbart’s Debunked Talking Point

    ››› ››› JULIE ALDERMAN

    Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump hyped a debunked talking point from a Breitbart News article to claim that he was correct to insinuate that the Obama administration supports terrorists. However, the memo cited in the Breitbart article never says that the U.S. and Al Qaeda worked together, and in fact Breitbart News' interpretation has been “widely debunked.”

  • Following Orlando Tragedy, Trump Ally Roger Stone Smears Clinton Aide As Potential “Terrorist Agent”

    Blog ››› ››› ERIC HANANOKI

    Donald Trump ally Roger Stone urged the presumptive Republican nominee to capitalize on the deadly terror attack at a gay nightclub in Orlando by smearing Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin as a potential “terrorist agent.” Conservative politicians and pundits have linked Abedin to terrorists despite the charges having “no factual basis.”

    Stone worked for Trump’s presidential campaign last year and now heads a pro-Trump super PAC. Stone talks to Trump on a “semi-regular basis,” suggests campaign strategies to him, and “stump[s]” on his behalf. Stone has a decades-long history of political dirty tricks, and he regularly spouts violent, racist, and sexist rhetoric.

    As Politico noted, Stone appeared as a guest today on Sirius XM’s Breitbart News Daily and discussed the political fallout of the deadly June 12 terror attack at the gay nightclub Pulse. Stone claimed that Trump would politically “benefit” from the attack and explained that “there’s going to be a new focus” on supposedly disloyal Americans like Abedin. Stone remarked of the Clinton aide: "She has a very troubling past. … So we have to ask: Do we have a Saudi spy in our midst? Do we have a terrorist agent?” Stone later encouraged Trump to “ask a series of questions publicly about Huma and” her purported relationship with terrorism.

    Several reporters condemned Stone’s remarks. Spencer Ackerman, The Guardian's US national security reporter, tweeted that Stone’s comments are “pure bigotry”; Wall Street Journal reporter Michael S. Derby classified the comments as “Neo-McCarthyism.” New York Daily News reporter Meera Jagannathan tweeted that Stone’s comments “would be hilarious if it were not so incredibly dangerous.”

    Stone has long smeared Abedin as a potential terrorist. He previously tweeted that Abedin is a “Muslim Brotherhood spy” and Clinton’s “Muslim Brotherhood handler,” and compared her to accused Soviet spy “Alger Hiss.” He wrote in his book The Clintons’ War on Women -- which Trump has been mining for attacks against Clinton -- that Abedin has “troubling ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.” Stone also wrote a Breitbart News piece today claiming America needs “answers about Huma Abedin” because she might be a “Saudi plant.”

    Republicans and conservative media have for years pushed ugly smears that Abedin is connected to terrorism through Muslim Brotherhood-linked entities. Media outlets shouldn’t allow conservatives to slime Abedin without noting the charges are bogus.

    Rumor-debunking website Snopes.com wrote that "claims that her late father, her mother and her brother were all 'connected' to Muslim Brotherhood have no factual basis to them." The Atlantic called the conspiracy theory “a little nuts” and concluded that "from person to person, you kind of have to do a somersault to get from Huma Abedin to the Muslim Brotherhood." Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and former Republican House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) have also defended Abedin from terrorist accusations.

    Ed Rollins, who now helps lead the pro-Trump super PAC Great America PAC, wrote in 2012 for FoxNews.com that “Abedin has been thru every top clearance available and would never have been given her position with any questions of her loyalty to this country.” He added that the Republican Party will “become the party of intolerance and hate" if it allows such attacks. 

  • After Orlando Massacre, Breitbart Homepage Declares “It’s Time for Gays To Come Home To Republican Party"

    Blog ››› ››› RACHEL PERCELAY

    After the worst mass shooting in U.S. history where 49 people were killed at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Gateway Pundit’s Jim Holt declared it’s “time for gays to come home to [the] Republican party.”

    On June 12, a gunman killed 49 people and wounded 53 others before being killed by law enforcement at the gay nightclub Pulse in Orlando. The number of casualties makes the terror attack the worst mass shooting in U.S. history.

    In response to the massacre, Breitbart News’ homepage featured an article by Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft, declaring “it’s time for gays to come home” to the GOP. Hoft -- who has a history of regularly promoting fabricated, baseless attacks on liberals -- is also known for his 2009 anti-gay smear campaign against Kevin Jennings, the Department of Education official responsible for preventing bullying in schools. During his attacks on Jennings, Hoft regularly drew on the work of anti-gay hate group MassResistance.

    In the June 13 Breitbart News article, Hoft declared that presumptive GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump is the only one who can “protect all gays,” and came out as a “conservative gay activist” to “defend [the country] from the socialist onslaught.”

    From Breitbart News:

    After the deadliest Islamist attack on American soil since 9-11 Barack Obama blamed hatred and guns. His inability to called the attack what it is – Islamic jihad – has progressed from denial to psychosis. It’s never been more apparent than Sunday, when Barack was comparing the Pulse club attack to a movie theater shooting by a schizophrenic, that our poor president has lost his own grasp of reality.

    Obama was not the only one. Leftwing gay activists posted ridiculous and ignorant remarks after the deadliest single attack on gays in modern history.

    [...]

    I came out in the 1980s to family and friends during the AIDS epidemic. I saw a lot of friends get sick. I saw a lot of friends die. I went to a lot of funerals.

    It was a scary time to be gay.

    Like most gay Americans, I don’t wear my sexuality on my sleeve. I go about my daily business. I try not to harm anyone. I love my family. I love my friends. I love my country.

    I’ve been a conservative activist for years. But today I’m coming out as a conservative gay activist.

    In the past few years I’ve built one of the most prominent conservative websites in America. I created The Gateway Pundit because I wanted to speak the truth. I wanted to expose the wickedness of the left. I was raised to love my country. Today I serve my country by defending her from the socialist onslaught.

    But last night at least 49 gays were slaughtered at an Orlando club.

    Despite this obvious Islamic attack, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are still in denial.

    I can no longer remain silent as my gay brothers and sisters are being slaughtered at dance clubs.

    There is only one man who can lead this nation and protect all gays and all Americans. His name is Donald Trump.

    In 2015 a conservative Supreme Court granted gays the right to marry.

    In 2016 only one candidate will protect gays from another Islamist attack.

    I pray that gays will come back home to the Republican Party – no more death.

    Dear God, please no more death.

  • Media Call Out Trump’s Glaring Teleprompter Hypocrisy

    ››› ››› TYLER CHERRY

    Media outlets highlighted presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s hypocritical use of a teleprompter during a campaign speech, noting that he “has previously derided [teleprompters] for being a tool of entrenched politicians” and “routinely mocks his rivals for using" them.

  • No, Conservative Media, That’s Not What “La Raza” Means In Spanish

    Blog ››› ››› CRISTINA LóPEZ G.

    Conservative media are echoing presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s ethnicity-based attacks on federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel using an incorrect interpretation of the Spanish term "la raza." These right-wing media figures are criticizing Curiel’s affiliation with the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association -- San Diego’s Latino/Latina bar association -- by attempting to smear the group as a radical organization.

    During the June 6 edition of his radio show The Sean Hannity Show, Sean Hannity asked, “Why is a judge connected to a lawyers group called ‘the race’?” using a literal but incorrect translation of "la raza." In a piece attempting to justify Trump’s explicitly racist remarks, Breitbart News made the same mistake: 

    “[Judge Curiel] is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine,” Trump told CBS’s John Dickerson. “But I say he’s got bias.” The club Trump was referring to was La Raza Lawyers; an organization with the stated mission “to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state.”

    Translated, “la raza” means “the race.” Imagine the outcry if white attorneys from Mississippi, such as this author, started a a (sic) legal association called “The Race” with the stated mission to promote the interest of white, Southern communities. Hollywood stars and entertainers, such as Bryan Adams, would boycott the state in perpetuity.

    The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association explicitly notes on its website that translating la raza “as ‘the race’ is not only inaccurate, it is factually incorrect” (emphasis added):

    Many people incorrectly translate the name, “La Raza,” as “the race.” While it is true that one meaning of “raza” in Spanish is indeed “race,” in Spanish, as in English and any other language, words can and do have multiple meanings. As noted in several online dictionaries, “La Raza” means “the people” or “the community.”

    Translating our name as “the race” is not only inaccurate, it is factually incorrect. “Hispanic” is an ethnicity, not a race. As anyone who has ever met a Dominican American, Mexican American, or Spanish American can attest, Hispanics can be and are members of any and all races.

    [...]

    Mistranslating “La Raza” to mean “the race” implies that it is a term meant to exclude others. In fact, the full term coined by [Mexican scholar José] Vasconcelos, “La Raza Cósmica,” meaning the “cosmic people,” was developed to reflect not purity but the mixture inherent in the Hispanic people. This is an inclusive concept, meaning that Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny.

    Ilan Stavans, professor of Latin American and Latino culture at Amherst College, confirmed in an email to Media Matters that these interpretations are “indeed a case of loss in translation.” According to Stavans, connecting the name to activist agendas would also be an outdated interpretation, since today the name is just “a relic of more activist times”:

    “La Raza” is a charged name dating back to José Vasconcelos’ seminal book La raza cósmica (The Cosmic Race, 1925). Often rendered as “the bronze race,” it was indeed a racialized term used to distinguish the civil-rights struggle of Mexican-Americans from the fifties to the seventies. It actually started in Mexico, in working-class neighborhoods seeking to distinguish themselves from the ruling class, and it was attached to comedians like Cantinflas and Tin Tan. Today “La Raza,” as an appellation, is a relic of more activist times.

    Conservative media have a long history of attempting to smear Latino civil rights organizations with "la raza" in their name, based on this culturally incompetent translation.

  • Conservative Media Are Making Violent Anti-Trump Protests Clinton’s Responsibility

    Clinton Campaign Has Denounced Anti-Trump Violence, While Trump Himself Has Regularly Instigated Violence

    ››› ››› TYLER CHERRY

    Right-wing media figures are calling on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to condemn violence that broke out at presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign rally, ignoring that her campaign denounced the violence the night of the protests. Conservative media figures previously defended Trump when violent protests broke out at his rallies, despite many major media outlets noting that Trump’s rhetoric has incited and encouraged the violence.

  • Conservative Media Fight Over David French Trial Balloon

    Blog ››› ››› BOBBY LEWIS

    Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, who has long advocated for a third party alternative to the presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, announced his desire to recruit National Review writer David French as his chosen candidate. French’s coworkers and some core Never Trump figures supported the possible candidacy, while many other right-wing media figures called it “embarrassing” and “preposterous.”

    The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol Pushes National Review's David French To Enter Presidential Race

    Wash. Post: "David French Is Urged To Enter Presidential Race As Independent." On May 31 The Washington Post reported that Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, sought to recruit National Review writer David French as a third-party conservative presidential candidate. French has not stated whether or not he will run:

    Tennessee attorney David French, who in recent years has become a prominent right-wing writer, is being urged by some conservative leaders to make a late entry into the 2016 presidential race as an independent candidate, according to two people close to him.

    William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard magazine and a former Republican White House official, is at the fore of the draft effort. A group of well-known evangelical leaders and GOP operatives is also involved in the discussions, the people said, requesting anonymity to discuss private conversations. 

    [...]

    When reached by phone Tuesday, French’s wife, Nancy, declined to comment. David French did not respond to multiple calls and emails over the past weekend. [The Washington Post, 5/31/16]

    Some Never Trump And National Review Figures Support A French Candidacy

    National Review: "French Is Preposterous? This Year?" National Review blogger Mona Chen defended Bill Kristol's selection of French for a third party bid, calling for "an honest man in this contest." Chen asserted that since “the Democrats are about to nominate a woman who may be indicted” and the Republicans “a reality star who knows nothing of policy, but ... threatens to undermine" the GOP itself, French has a viable opportunity to enter the presidential race:

    Twitter tittered with a combination of contempt and amusement yesterday when word leaked that it might be our own David French who is considering an independent run for president. On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” — that great “herd of independent minds” — the same tone prevailed (except for Mark Halperin, who noted that much would depend upon whether French could get financial backing). Mika Brzezinski scoffed that Bill Kristol needed a vacation, and the assembled crew were unanimous that French lacks the stature to enter the race. 

    In any normal year, they would certainly have a point. But look around people. This is the year when the Democrats are about to nominate a woman who may be indicted. The Republicans are nominating a reality star who knows nothing of policy but excels at schoolyard taunts, and threatens to undermine the one party that, until recently, stood (broadly) for the Constitution. But David French is out of his league? French is a graduate of Harvard Law. While Trump was bedding married women and allegedly defrauding strivers who signed up for Trump University, French was earning a bronze star in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He’s a major in the US Army Reserve. He’s a bestselling author of, most recently, The Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can’t Ignore and countless brilliant articles. He is past president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and has worked for the Alliance Defending Freedom and the American Center for Law and Justice. [National Review, 6/1/16]

    National Review Editor Jim Geraghty: “If A David French Candidacy Gets All Of America To See The Alt-Right Clearly, He’s Done A National Service.”

    [Twitter.com, 5/31/16]
     

    Talk Radio Host Charlie Sykes: “David French Is A Class Act, Would Be An Impressive Candidate.”

    [Twitter.com, 5/31/16]

    RedState's Leon H. Wolf: "French ... Will Easily Get My Vote." RedState.com writer Leon H. Wolf wrote that French “will easily get my vote over any of the options that are currently on the ballot.” Even though Wolf conceded that French has little realistic chance to win, he asserted that he will never “bow before the con man who bragged that I would support him even after he destroyed my party.”

    I guess some are determined not to give French a shot on the basis that he can’t possibly win. Personally, I could not care less. A realistic chance of anyone who deserves the office winning left the building a long time ago.

    I don’t have a duty or obligation of any kind to vote for a candidate who might win. The only duty I have – to myself or anyone else – is to vote for the candidate who is most deserving of my vote. Hell, by the time election day of 2008 rolled around, McCain had no chance, and we all voted for him, didn’t we?

    If French really does run, he will easily get my vote over any of the options that are currently on the ballot, in addition to my help gathering signatures and whatever spare money I can afford. Not only will he deserve it, but I won’t submissively tuck my tail between my legs and bow before the con man who bragged that I would support him even after he destroyed my party. [RedState.com, 6/1/16]

    Erick Erickson: “I’d Gladly Vote For David French Over Either Hillary Clinton Or Her Donor Donald Trump.”

    [Twitter.com, 5/31/16]

    Erickson: “I’d Be Happy To Participate In The #FrenchRevolution.”

    [Twitter.com, 5/31/16]

    Daily Caller's Matt Lewis: “I Will Vote For David French … But We Could Probably Hold Our Convention In A Phone Booth.”

    [Twitter.com, 5/31/16]

    Ben Shapiro: “Voting For David French Over Hillary And Trump Would Be The Easiest Call Ever.”

    [Twitter.com, 5/31/16]

    Others In Right-Wing Media Ridicule The "Embarrassing" Potential Candidacy Of French

    Hot Air: Bill Kristol Is "Now Pulling Fans Out Of The Stands To Play QB." Conservative blogger Allahpundit ridiculed Kristol's choice of French in a May 31 blog post on HotAir.com:

    This was who he had in mind with that much-hyped tweet this weekend that had everyone wondering if Romney had reconsidered? An … NRO writer? Trump fans are forever deriding #NeverTrump as a “movement” consisting of, like, six guys at National Review and the Weekly Standard. And now here we are.

    [...]

    As it turns out, Kristol actually touted French as a potential independent candidate in a piece published in the Standard just a few days ago. No one put two and two together this weekend, though, presumably because, um, no one thought he could possibly be serious.

    [...]

    There’s a sense that, having exhausted everyone on the team’s depth chart, you’re now pulling fans out of the stands to play QB. I’m not sure either what the value is in picking a conservative challenger to Trump who’s even less well known than Gary Johnson is. [HotAir.com, 5/31/16]

    Breitbart News: “It’s Likely This Will End Up In The Ash Heap Of Kristol’s History Of Inaccurate Positions.” Breitbart News dismissed Kristol’s selection of French, writing in a May 31 post that “it’s likely this will end up in the ash heap of Kristol’s history of inaccurate predictions”:

    Kristol created a media firestorm after tweeting that an “impressive” third party candidate would run with a “real chance.” If David French is all Kristol can come up with, it’s likely this will end up in the ash heap of Kristol’s history of inaccurate predictions. [Breitbart News, 5/31/16]

    Guy Benson: French Candidacy “Will Represent An Embarrassing Fizzle For A ‘Never Trump’ Movement That Once Seemed Potent. Or At Least Relevant.” Townhall political editor Guy Benson called French’s selection by Kristol an “embarrassing fizzle” for the Never Trump movement in a May 31 post:

    And the grand reveal is...National Review writer David French? And it's not even confirmed? Don't get me wrong: French is a decorated Iraq war veteran, a strong writer, and a principled conservative whose stalwart commitment to religious liberty is admirable, even if one disagrees from time to time. … He's an impressive man. The impressiveness of his team -- if this presidential run ever actually comes to pass -- remains to be seen. But the notion that a relatively little-known writer could parachute into this race at such a late juncture and have a prayer of winning even a single state is, frankly, preposterous. 

    [...]

    So with due respect to the potential candidate, and with strong sympathy for its most prominent backers, I must say that if the French report proves accurate, it will represent an embarrassing fizzle for a 'Never Trump' movement that once seemed potent. Or at least relevant. Instead, it will have roared in like a lion after Indiana, then trotted impotently and inexorably toward the political abyss ahead of California. [Townhall, 5/31/16]

    Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "I Like And Respect David, But This Can’t Be Right.”

    [Twitter.com, 5/31/16]

    Morrissey: A French Candidacy Is “Like Picking George Will To Pitch For Your Fantasy Baseball Team.”

    [Twitter.com, 5/31/16]

    NY Times Columnist Ross Douthat: “Both David French And Bill Kristol Will Be Mocked If French Is The #NeverTrump Candidate.”

    [Twitter.com, 5/31/16]

  • The Breitbart Team Turned An Anti-Clinton Smear Book Into A Terrible Documentary

    Blog ››› ››› JOE STRUPP

    The upcoming anti-Clinton documentary Clinton Cash largely rehashes the shoddily-researched conspiracies from the 2015 book on which it’s based.

    Media Matters attended a screening of the film Thursday in New York City ahead of its release. Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart News executive chairman Steve Bannon – who co-wrote and co-produced the film -- were on hand to promote it to an audience that included Fox News personalities Bill Hemmer and Brian Kilmeade. 

    When the book -- which largely pushes the evidence-free claim that while serving as secretary of state, Clinton did favors for foreign entities that donated to the Clinton Foundation -- was published last year, Schweizer, a Republican activist with a history of factual problems, was criticized by Media Matters and other outlets for a series of sloppy errors. Some of the errors were later corrected in the Kindle version of the book. 

    Clinton Cash also heavily relied on innuendo in the absence of solid proof for its central allegation that the Clintons have traded favors for money. As Slate writer Jamelle Bouie put it, “Peter Schweizer’s attack on the Clintons leads with his conclusions and never connects the dots.”

    The film has many of the same factual problems. For example, a key accusation lobbed at the Clinton Foundation in the film in order to undermine the idea that it does important charitable work is the claim that only “10 percent” of its donations actually go to charity.

    Schweizer repeatedly relied on this talking point while on the Clinton Cash book tour last year, claiming that other than the 10 percent the Clinton Foundation gives to “other charitable organizations, the rest they keep for themselves.”

    But the “10 percent” statistic is deceptive -- even Fox News labeled it “incredibly misleading.” Network correspondent Eric Shawn explained in a report last year that the Clinton Foundation doesn’t “give grants to other charities. They do most of it themselves." He also cited IRS figures indicating the foundation has a "rate of spending of about 80 percent" and "experts for charity say that's very good.”

    The film uses big headlines and grainy news clips to paint the Clintons as being in the pocket of anyone who pays for a speech or donates to the Clinton Foundation, but still fails to connect the dots with substantial evidence.

    “You have money coming at certain times and then you have policy decisions that are made that affect the people that sent the money, then people are left to the question: is this all coincidence or is this a case of follow the money,” Schweizer told Media Matters after the screening. “I just don’t believe it’s coincidence.”

    The film doesn't feature interviews with sources or people with direct knowledge of the events that Clinton Cash claims prove a quid pro quo arrangement. 

    “That was intentional,” Schweizer said about the missing outside voices. “We simply wanted to narrate the stories as they came through and explain to people how it rolled out. We didn’t want it to be talking head.” 

    Following the screening, Bannon said the film is going to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival on Monday, and that the producers are “in discussions with people approaching us to get this out before the [Democratic] convention.”

    Bannon added, “We may cut a TV deal with a broadcast or a cable network like Yahoo or Netflix, we are in discussion with people to get this out to a broader audience.” He later joked, “We’re open for bids right after this.”

    He said the movie “cost a couple million bucks” to make, but did not elaborate on the funding sources.

    Schweizer claimed the documentary is not designed to just throw “red meat” out to a conservative audience, instead suggesting the filmmakers are trying to dissuade people outside the Republican party from supporting Hillary Clinton. 

     “This is really designed to appeal to people in general, who may not know much about how the Clintons have operated,” Schweizer said. ”You can have a business model that says ‘let’s throw red meat out there that make a lot of money,’ or you can create a documentary film that’s designed to inform people who may not necessarily agree with your point of view and get that information out.”

    When Bannon was asked by an audience member about the reaction to the book, he turned defensive, claiming the mainstream media was ignoring the findings. He also criticized the Democratic primary debate panelists for not raising any of the issues in the debates.

    “12 to 14 debates, 35 to 40 hours of prime time debates, not one question about anything in this film,” Bannon said. “That’s an indictment on the mainstream media and that’s an indictment of everybody who had a debate.”

    Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has recently indicated that he plans to use the claims from Clinton Cash in a likely general election matchup with Clinton. In an interview with Breitbart News this week – where Schweizer also serves as senior editor-at-large – Trump called the Clinton Cash book “amazing” and said he is sure the movie “will be good” because of Bannon’s involvement.

    Breitbart News has faced widespread criticism over the past year for its Trump cheerleading. Last year, Buzzfeed reporter McKay Coppins reported that “many” people inside Breitbart “believe Trump has provided undisclosed financial backing to the outlet in exchange for glowing coverage.” (Bannon called the allegation “a lie.”)

    After the screening, Schweizer said Trump and his campaign had “zero” involvement with the film, and said that because of his role as president of the non-profit Government Accountability Institute, “we are not allowed to do that.” 

    When asked what he thought of the reaction the book got and if he was disappointed with all of the criticism, Schweizer said, “I think we got good media coverage. Some people in your organization have disagreements on some of these matters, the interpretations."

    Media Matters’ fact check of Schweizer’s book can be read here

  • Conservative Media Keep Relying On Shoddy Research From This Anti-Immigrant Group To Push Xenophobic Agenda

    Blog ››› ››› CRISTINA LóPEZ G.

    Fox News and numerous other conservative media outlets uncritically presented the misleading conclusions of a May 2016 report by the anti-immigrant Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which claimed that immigrant-headed households consume more welfare than households headed by native-born people. Right-wing media have ignored criticism from experts pointing out the report’s methodological flaws and exaggerations in order to present immigrants as a fiscal burden.

    Right-wing outlets including Breitbart, Newsmax, and The Daily Caller hyped the May 9 CIS report claiming that immigrant-headed households receive more welfare than households headed by native-borns. On May 12, Fox correspondent Eric Shawn presented the study’s claims uncritically during the “Truth Serum” segment of Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor. Host Bill O’Reilly introduced the segment by announcing the story was about “tax money going to support illegal aliens”:

    Experts have already leveled criticism at the report. Immigration policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh wrote that “The CIS headline result … lacks any kind of reasonable statistical controls” and that “CIS’ buried results undermine their own headline findings.” The American Immigration Council called the report “fundamentally flawed” and criticized its methodology as “creative accounting”:

    The biggest shortcoming of both reports is that they count the public benefits utilized by U.S.-born children as costs incurred by the “immigrant-headed households” of which they are a part—at least until those children turn 18, that is, at which point they are counted as “natives.”

    The problem with this kind of creative accounting is that all children are “costly” when they are young because they consume educational and health services without contributing any tax revenue. However, that situation reverses when they are working-age adults who, in a sense, “pay back” in taxes what they consumed as children. So it is disingenuous to count them as a “cost of immigration” one minute, and then as native-born taxpayers the next minute.

    According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), CIS has ties to hate groups in the nativist lobby and “has never found any aspect of immigration that it liked, and it has frequently manipulated data to achieve the results it seeks.” CIS has repeatedly been criticized for publishing shoddy research work that includes the “misinterpretation and manipulation of data” and methodologies that are “deeply flawed.”

    These criticisms of the new report received no mention on right-wing media reports on the study. Previous equally flawed CIS studies have been similarly promoted by conservative media, indicating a pattern: CIS publishes a study with anti-immigrant conclusions, and right-wing media ignore facts to report it uncritically, despite expert criticisms pointing to methodological flaws, nuances, or controls that undermine the study’s conclusion. This cycle joins other dishonest strategies from the immigrant smearing playbook that have been repeatedly employed by right-wing media.

  • Error-Filled Book Clinton Cash To Be Turned Into Movie For 2016 Election

    Blog ››› ››› ALEX KAPLAN

    Breitbart News' Stephen K. Bannon and Republican activist and strategist Peter Schweizer have turned Schweizer’s error-ridden book Clinton Cash into a movie in order to "engage voters" and attack Hillary Clinton.

    According to Bloomberg News, the movie will premiere in Cannes, France in May at a screening arranged for distributors, but it will make its American debut “on the eve of the Democratic National Convention.” As Bloomberg explained, "the Clinton Cash movie is less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons”:

    But while polls suggest Trump and Sanders will have a hard time stopping [Clinton], the team behind Clinton Cash—[Peter] Schweizer and Stephen K. Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News—haven’t given up. They’ve turned Clinton Cash into a movie, directed by M.A. Taylor, that will premiere next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors).

    As the trailer below indicates, the Clinton Cash movie is less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons[.]

    “It’s a story that resonated with people on the printed page,” said Schweizer. “We felt we needed to look at other platforms, too. The key is to engage voters. If you look at what’s motivating Trump and Sanders fans, it’s disgust with cronyism and corruption in Washington.”

    […]

    According to Bannon, the film’s U.S. premiere will be held in Philadelphia on July 24 on the eve of the Democratic National Convention. During the first week of August, he added, it will have a limited release in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and San Francisco.

    Media outlets -- particularly The New York Times and The Washington Post, which had exclusive editorial agreements with Schweizer -- hyped the book before its release. Fox News gave the book more than $107 million in free publicity -- before the book was even released. However, the book contained numerous false and misleading claims. Many media outlets subsequently admitted the book had little evidence to back up its claims. Schweizer, who has a history of faulty reporting, attempted to claim he was non-partisan because he was also investigating Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R). The result of that effort was a 38-page e-book, which is nearly a quarter of the length of Clinton Cash.

    To read more about the 20-plus errors, fabrications, and distortions in Peter Schweizer's book, click here.

  • Breitbart News Uses Anti-Transgender Slur To Defend Curt Schilling

    Blog ››› ››› ERIN FITZGERALD

    Breitbart News used an anti-trans slur in an article about former ESPN analyst Curt Schilling and his controversial social media post.

    Breitbart News contributor and anti-gay hate group leader Austin Ruse used the word “tranny” in an April 20 article about Schilling’s controversial social media post. This isn’t the first time Breitbart News or Ruse has used the slur when covering the transgender community. Ruse also highlighted Schilling’s follow-up blog post and the ensuing backlash:

    On a later comment, Schilling said, “A man is a man no matter what they call themselves. I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, men’s room was designed for the penis, women’s not so much. Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.”

    Predictably, the Big Tranny Hate Machine quickly pounced. Jay Brown of the anti-Christian Human Rights Campaign said Schilling’s “public and derogatory attack on transgender people was extremely troubling.” He said comments like Schillings constitute “ugly propaganda” and would be dangerous for men in dresses. Brown also insisted that transsexuals are baseball fans.

     

  • Trump's Birtherism Fueled By Breitbart Reporting

    Blog ››› ››› SIMON MALOY

    Donald Trump went on CNN this afternoon to do what has become his specialty of late: make a complete fool of himself. His appearance was precipitated by every sensible person on both sides of the aisle wondering why, exactly, Mitt Romney voluntarily chooses to associate with Trump, given the real estate mogul's vocal obsession with birtherism and his many years as the cartoonish avatar of repellant avarice.

    So there he was, in the Situation Room, getting manhandled by Wolf Blitzer on President Obama's place of birth -- an issue that never actually was an issue and was unmercifully put to rest by the president himself when he released his long-form birth certificate. The highlight of the interview? After Trump questioned the birth certificate's authenticity, the presence of Obama's mother at the hospital, and the birth announcements in the Honolulu papers, Blitzer responded with admirable restraint: "Donald, you're beginning to sound a little ridiculous, I have to tell you."

    The new fuel for Trump's birther fire is the Breitbart.com "exclusive" about Obama's publisher wrongly claiming 20 years ago that he was born in Kenya -- the same "exclusive" that the Breitbart people said had nothing to do with birtherism. During an interview with CNBC earlier today, Trump referred to the Breitbart story, claiming that Obama told his publisher that he was "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia." He brought it up again in his CNN interview: "Obama hates the subject. When his publisher comes out with a statement from him made in the 1990s that he was born in Kenya and that he was raised in Indonesia, and all of the sudden it comes out, I think it's something that he doesn't like at all."

    That's factually incorrect; the statement was not from Obama but was rather a "fact-checking error" by the literary agency, which told Political Wire: "There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii."

    Regardless, it's become the new shiny object for the incurable birther remnant. Who could have predicted?