In August 2020 The Gateway Pundit’s Joe Hoft posted an article about COVID-19 that sent shockwaves throughout the internet — The CDC website admitted that only around 6% of COVID recorded deaths were due entirely to the Coronavirus-
The gist of the reporte was that COVID-19 is not nearly as deadly as first projected by the WHO and then by Dr. Tony Fauci and Dr. Debra Birx. Based on CDC numbers in Ausust only 6% of all deaths attributed to COVID-19 were instances where the only factor in the individual’s death was due to COVI9-19.
From the CDC website.
For all the other deaths reported by the CDC linked to COVID-19, the individuals who passed away had 2-3 other serious illnesses or co-morbidities.
Twitter user Mel Q shared a calculation which showed that 6% of all COVID-19 deaths as reported by the CDC turned out to be 9,201 deaths at the time.
Only 9,201 people died in the US according to August numbers where COVID-19 was the only cause of death.
We used Mel Q’s tweet in our report and the President of the United States retweeted Mel Q’s tweet as well.
But Twitter took down the tweet claiming fake news. They notified Mel Q that the tweet that used actual CDC data “violated their policy on misleading information about COVID-19.” Her account was suspended from posting for 12 hours.
On Sunday CDC Director Rochelle Walensky finally admitted that “many, many hospitals” were counting COVID deaths to include cases that were not COVID deaths.
The Gateway Pundit was right.
Trump was right.
The tech giants and CNN were wrong again pushing fake news.
But we were the ones who were punished.
We see this a lot.
Of the people who died after being fully vaccinated, 42 were asymptomatic or not related to COVID-19, according to the CDC. Additionally, 342 of the hospitalizations were asymptomatic or not related to COVID-19.
“Many, many hospitals are screening people for COVID when they come in, so not all of those 223 cases who had COVID actually died of COVID. They may have had mild disease, but died, for example, of a heart attack,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday.
Under the usual counting program, people who have not been vaccinated but who die of heart attacks or other causes are typically listed as a COVID-19 death.
Here is the video of CDC Director Walensky on CNN.
President Joe Biden’s comments on the Chauvin trial, in which he suggested he was “praying” for a guilty verdict, prompted a sharp rebuke from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who argued that such comments could lead to a mistrial.
“I’m praying the verdict is the right verdict,” Biden said on Tuesday. “Which is — I think it is overwhelming in my view. I wouldn’t say that unless the jury is sequestered.”
Ted Cruz denounced Joe Biden’s rhetoric as being equally as irresponsible as Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA).
“Joe Biden decides that Maxine Waters shouldn’t be the only politician foolishly providing grounds for a mistrial or a possible basis on appeal to challenge any guilty conviction,” Cruz tweeted.
Joe Biden decides that Maxine Waters shouldn’t be the only politician foolishly providing grounds for a mistrial or a possible basis on appeal to challenge any guilty conviction. https://t.co/zGOz0963No
Cruz was referring to the incendiary comments made by Congresswoman Maxine Waters over the weekend, before the jury was sequestered, when she said people should “get more confrontational” if a guilty verdict is not delivered in the Chauvin trial.
“We’re looking for a guilty verdict. We’re looking for a guilty verdict. And we’re looking to see if all of this [inaudible] that took place and has been taking place after they saw what happened to George Floyd,” Waters said. “If nothing does not happen, then we know, that we’ve got to not only stay in the street, but we’ve got to fight for justice, but I am very hopefully and I hope that we’re going to get a verdict that will say guilty, guilty, guilty. And if we don’t, we cannot go away.”
“We’ve got to get more active. [We’ve] got to get more confrontational,” she added. “[We’ve] got to make sure that they know we mean business.”
Chauvin’s defense attorney later requested a mistrial due to Waters’ comments. Though Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill denied the motion for a mistrial, he did reluctantly admit that the congresswoman’s comments may create an avenue for defense to appeal a guilty verdict.
“And it is so pervasive that it is I just don’t know how this jury it can really be said to be that they are free from the taint of this,” the lawyer representing Derek Chauvin said. “And now that we have U.S. representatives, threatening acts of violence in relation to the specific case, it’s mind-boggling to me, judge.”
“Well, I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trail being overturned,” Cahill responded.
Cahill, however, did not believe that the congresswoman’s comments ultimately mattered.
“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government,” he said. “Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don’t think it has prejudices with additional material that would prejudice history, they have been told not to watch the news. I trust they are following those instructions, and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case. A Congress woman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot. Anyway, so motion for mistrial is denied.”
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.
House Democrats Unanimously Support Waters’ Calls For "More Confrontation", Block GOP Censure Vote
In what is perhaps not a shocking vote at all in this insanely partisan world in which we live, The House has just rejected a Republican resolution to censure Rep. Maxine Waters for saying that “we’ve got to get more confrontational” about police brutality against African Americans.
Republicans argued that Waters incited violence with her remarks at a protest over the weekend in Minneapolis.
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) commented ahead of the vote that:
“Right now I haven’t heard any Democrats speaking out against what Maxine has said. And it’s time for Democrats to speak out when they see it on both sides. They only want to speak out on one side of the aisle, not on both. And that hypocrisy, I think, is starting to shine through.”
As The Hill reports,lawmakers voted along party lines 216-210, with no defections on either side, to table the resolution from Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) that would have issued the chamber’s harshest disapproval short of expulsion.
INBOX: House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy introduces resolution to censure Maxine Waters pic.twitter.com/oNdNhc27gQ
Riots and peaceful protests — there’s a clear difference between the two, right? The question is simple enough, but some on the left still can’t seem to make the distinction. (Consider the establishment media’s riot coverage, for instance.) Polk County, Florida, Sheriff Grady Judd employed two photographs to help illustrate the difference at a Monday…
Even if Derek Chauvin is convicted, it will reinforce to the destructive masses that not only did much of their violence persist with impunity, but it was rewarded.
Congressional Democrats, led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), reintroduced the Green New Deal on Tuesday, a sweeping progressive legislative agenda designed to fundamentally transform the U.S. economy to end capitalism while promoting so-called racial, economic, and climate "justice."
"Not only do we refuse to leave any community behind but those who have been left behind come first," Ocasio-Cortez said at a news conference announcing the reintroduction of the Green New Deal. "We’re going to transition to a 100% carbon-free economy that is more unionized, more just, more dignified and that guarantees more health care and housing than we’ve ever had before. That’s our goal."
More than 100 Democrats are co-sponsoring the reintroduction of the Green New Deal resolution in the House, which comes ahead of a virtual international summit hosted by President Joe Biden to discuss climate change on Earth Day, this Friday.
While President Biden’s administration has not officially endorsed the Green New Deal, the president has signed several executive actions to curb U.S. oil and gas production and increase renewable energy production.
Sen. Markey urged Biden to be willing to go further to address climate change.
"We are going to be calling for the highest aspirations that our country can reach," he said Tuesday. "We want to go big. Even bigger."
Rep. @AOC reintroduces the Green New Deal: ’The climate crisis is a crisis born of injustice and it is a crisis bor… https://t.co/239OuAhpVf
Ocasio-Cortez first introduced the Green New Deal in 2019 as a nonbinding resolution in the House that broadly outlined a Democratic legislative agenda to remake the economy. The plan sets a goal of "net-zero greenhouse gas emissions" which will be met after a "10-year national mobilization" that would restructure government social programs, vastly expand government power to centrally plan the economy, and dramatically increase federal taxes and spending to fund it all.
The Green New Deal calls for "100 percent of the power demand in the United States" to be met through "clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources." Infrastructure and public transportation would be overhauled to the point where "air travel stops becoming necessary," relying on boondoggles like "high speed rail" and mandates requiring the public to use electric cars to meet the government’s standards. The resolution calls for "all existing buildings" in the United States to be upgraded for maximum energy efficiency.
But the "all hands on deck approach" of the Green New Deal goes well beyond climate policy. Ocasio-Cortez said the Democratic initiative must "rectify the injustices of the past" by providing free higher education for all Americans, "affordable, safe, and adequate" housing, free health care, and millions of "union jobs."
She further added that Green New Deal legislation must address the "systemic cause of climate change."
"While climate change is a planetary crisis, it does not have a random or environmental genesis," she asserted. "It’s not just human-caused, it’s societally-caused. The climate crisis is a crisis born of injustice. And it is a crisis born of the pursuit of profit at any and all human and ecological cost.
"We must recognize in legislation that the trampling of indigenous rights is a cause of climate change. That the trampling of racial justice is a cause of climate change," she continued. "We are allowing folks to deny ourselves human rights and deny people the right to health care, the right to housing and education."
Green New Deal legislation is likely to remain aspirational for Democrats as Republicans are adamantly opposed to these policies, arguing they would make Americans poorer. Sen. John Barasso (R-Wyo.) called it the "Green New Disaster" in a statement responding to Markey and Ocasio-Cortez’s news conference.
The Green New Disaster is back.And if you’re somebody who pays taxes, heats your home, or drives a car…you’re g… https://t.co/DQtnDwQsa0
"It’s about massively increasing the size of government and dictating how Americans live their lives," Barasso said. "The last thing we need now is to double down on the punishing policies we have already seen from the Biden administration."
Various bills related to Green New Deal policies that have already passed the Democratic-controlled House and have gone nowhere in the U.S. Senate. The Democrats’ narrowest possible 50-50 majority cannot overcome a filibuster threat from Republicans, leaving the viability of a plan to fundamentally restructure the U.S. economy very much in doubt.
For now, the Green New Deal serves as a messaging tool for Democrats to rally their progressive base and Republicans to attack ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.
Last week, UncoverDC reported on the FDA and CDC’s pause of Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) COVID-19 vaccine due to complications from a severe but rare clotting condition known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), which appeared in combination with a condition called thrombocytopenia (often referred to as immune thrombocytopenic purpura, or ITP).
Essentially, ITP causes the immune system to malfunction and produces antibodies that attack the body’s platelets. The most dangerous complication of ITP is bleeding in the brain, causing a cerebral hemorrhage and catastrophic brain damage or death.
In explaining the pause, the CDC reported seven women suffered thrombotic complications following the J&J vaccine. Although evidence establishes a relationship between COVID-19, thrombolysis and clotting, which is one of the main reasons for sudden decline and death with the virus, the connection between clotting and the three available COVID-19 vaccines in the United States—Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson—is less explicit.
As pandemic research continues, scientists concede that vaccine development against SARS-CoV-2 within a timeframe as tight as the ongoing COVID-19 vaccine campaign makes it difficult to thoroughly understand the long-term effectiveness and potential side effects of the current vaccines. Therefore, it is not unexpected to see complications, including death. The United States, in just four months, has administered approximately 212 million COVID-19 vaccines, with 85.3 million people now fully vaccinated, or 25.7% of the population. According to CDC data, around 85% of those receiving the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine experienced some type of reaction.
Armed with the knowledge, or lack thereof, we have thus far; most scientists would agree that when navigating through catastrophic, life-altering events that transpire quickly, it is important to pause, reflect upon, and study “how did we get here” and “what would we do differently?”
The Vaccine Road That Led Us To Where We Are Now
In Jan. 2020, immediately after China released the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2, the race to produce a vaccine got underway. There are close to a dozen COVID-19 vaccines currently approved for use around the world. While there are many different kinds and types of vaccines, they all have the same objective—tricking a healthy body into thinking it is under assault by a particular disease so the immune system will learn to create the cells and proteins needed to immediately fight off the disease if it becomes a threat. Simply put, vaccines are designed to create antibodies that allow the body to protect itself from future infections without actually getting sick.
The current COVID-19 vaccines approved for emergency use in the United States (and therefore do not need FDA approval) are manufactured by J&J, Pfizer, and Moderna. They each work by fooling cells into making spike proteins—the sharp bumps that protrude from the surface of the outer envelope of the coronavirus. These proteins are the pathogens needed to cause the immune system to develop resistance to the virus. For this to happen, DNA or RNA must be injected and delivered to the inside of the cells.
Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca’s vaccines use genetically engineered viruses called adenovirus vectors to serve as a Trojan horse and carry the genetic material to the cells to create spike proteins. The J&J vaccine uses a form of human adenovirus called Ad26, and the AstraZeneca vaccine uses a genetically engineered version of a chimpanzee adenovirus. However, despite being over thirty years in the making, other than for military personnel, no approved adenovirus vaccine is available to the general public, with the technology existing commercially only in a rabies vaccine.
And while not “vaccines” in the traditional sense, using nascent technology, the Pfizer and Moderna shots are gene-modifying agents that insert synthetic, chemically protected mRNA into cells (using a chemical called polyethylene glycol, or PEG). Never before used in an approved vaccine, PEG may be the culprit behind severe allergic reactions in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Once in the cell, the synthetic mRNA instructs it to produce a protein matching the spike protein found on the outer surface of a SARS-CoV-2 virus molecule. The cells then eject this protein out, which triggers the creation of COVID-19 antibodies.
Hoping to achieve the same goal, both Pfizer and Moderna, who are fierce competitors, are making every effort to be the first company to bring this synthetic mRNA technology to life in a vaccine against COVID-19.
A Closer Look At Moderna, Bill Gates, and Dr. Anthony Fauci
For years, Moderna, under the leadership of Stéphane Bancel (who, along with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, just announced that a booster shot will probably be necessary for the company’s mRNA vaccines), has been quietly working on advanced protein therapies—a multi-billion dollar industry responsible for drugs like Humara. Confident its technology would level the playing field by creating therapeutic proteins inside the body instead of in a lab and manufacturing facility, Moderna’s mission has hinged on one feat that no biotech facility has successfully accomplished—harnessing mRNA.
National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Francis Collins and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci meet with Bill Gates of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to discuss research opportunities in global health in June 2017 at NIH. Credit: National Institutes of Health | FlickrCC
According to Moderna, the purpose of its collaboration with the Gates Foundation (who also funds the pandemic policy-dictating entity the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, tied to Dr. Anthony Fauci) is “to advance the development of a novel, affordable combination of mRNA-based antibody therapeutics to help prevent HIV infection,” with the potential for future follow-on projects of up to $100 million to “support the development of additional mRNA based projects for various infectious diseases.” At the time of the partnership, Moderna was valued at close to $5 billion, making it worth more than any other private biotech lab in the country.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the World Economic Forum, sponsored the ‘Global Pandemic Exercise’ Event 201 on Oct. 18, 2019. The pandemic tabletop exercise “simulated a series of dramatic, scenario-based facilitated discussions, confronting difficult, true-to-life dilemmas associated with response to a hypothetical, but scientifically plausible, pandemic.” Three days prior, on Oct. 15, 2019, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) launched a call for proposals to attract funding applications for ground-breaking platform technologies in order to:
“develop vaccines and other immunoprophylactics to rapidly respond to future outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases and unknown pathogens, known as ‘Disease X’.”
…and in September 2019 the Rockefeller Foundation released their $100 million precision health data tracking initiative "to better predict public health challenges such as infectious disease outbreaks before they occur" https://t.co/2RmiPjPxio
Interestingly, CEPI—which supported the production of Moderna’s vaccine candidate for the Phase 1 clinical trial and is supported by the Biden administration’s National Strategy—was co-founded in 2017 by the governments of Norway and India, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, (funded in part by Gates, Wellcome has a £29.1 billion investment portfolio, and is a partner with the ChanZuckerberg Initiative) and the World Economic Forum. Dr. Richard Hatchett, CEO of CEPI, had this to say of the initiative:
“We can be sure that another epidemic is on the horizon. It is not a case of if, but when. We need to be prepared. We need to invest in platform technologies that can be used to quickly respond to the emergence of a pathogen with epidemic potential.”
On DECEMBER 12, 2019 an agreement was signed (pg 105) that Dr. Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina would receive "mRNA corona virus vaccine candidates developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna"@Rossana38510044@ydeigin@BillyBosticksonhttps://t.co/taAbB9FIvp
For decades, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the NIAID, has been conducting research on the coronavirus, which was first characterized in the 1960s. Throughout the current pandemic, there have been critical observations surrounding a controversial type of research banned in the U.S. by the Obama administration in 2014, called gain-of-function. The risky research requires taking wild viruses and passing them through live animals until they mutate into a form that could pose a pandemic threat. According to Dr. Peter Navarro, this research genetically engineers a virus to make it more deadly and dangerous—“to weaponize it.”
"People don’t want to think about the fact that our hero of the pandemic Dr. Fauci might also have been connected to this research which might also have been connected to the outbreak…"@JoshRogin on what we know so far. Listen, and download here: https://t.co/F96HgIpiAupic.twitter.com/6EN4KuoWkY
Effectively side-stepping Obama’s ban on gain-of-function research, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins, at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer, intentionally moved the experiment to China. In fact, an expanding body of evidence suggests that Dr. Fauci funded scientists at the Chinese Communist Party’s Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions to work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.
There are also well-documented concerns, examined by Dr. David E. Martin, surrounding COVID-19 and pre-pandemic research, patents, and associations between the NIAID, the University of Chapel Hill (UNC), Harvard University, Emory University, Vanderbilt University, University of Pennsylvania, and Tsinghua University. Martin’s investigation also points to many other research institutions and their commercial affiliations, including that of Peter Daszak, a self-proclaimed “virus hunter” and long-time president of EcoHealth Alliance, a New York-based non-profit whose claimed focus is the business of pandemic prevention.
A Dec. 17, 2020 FDA Briefing Document from Moderna stated numerous times that there were “no known neurologic, neuro-inflammatory, and thrombotic events, that would suggest a causal relationship to the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.”
Prior to that, on Dec. 8, 2020, in response to an FDA request for comments regarding Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine, Patrick Whelan, M.D., Ph.D., submitted a report intended to alert the agency to the possibility that, instead of creating immunity, COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have the potential to cause injury when instructing the body to make spike proteins. In his letter to the FDA, Whelan, who urged particular caution in the mass vaccination of children before actual safety data is available, stated:
“I am concerned about the possibility that the new vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (including the mRNA vaccines of Moderna and Pfizer) have the potential to cause microvascular injury (inflammation and small blood clots called microthrombi) to the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys in a way that is not currently being assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.”
The CDC and the FDA have not issued another statement following their announcement pausing the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
Researchers Indicate Possible Connection Between Vaccines & Clots
Scientists have offered no conclusive answer to the exact cause of COVID-19 or the reason why a handful of thrombotic events following the receipt of COVID-19 vaccines completely shut down two vaccine trials. Immediately following the pause of its vaccine, J&J released a statement that was met with criticism, declaring:
“We are aware that thromboembolic events including those with thrombocytopenia have been reported with all COVID-19 vaccines.”
Well‐documented cases of ITP have been reported following other drugs and vaccinations, including MMR. However, research suggests that in the absence of testing pre‐vaccination platelet counts prior to COVID-19 vaccination, combined with the time it takes to discover thrombocytopenia, it is difficult to accurately estimate the percentage of secondary ITP incidences following vaccination.
Most recently, on April 16, the New England Journal of Medicine issued an article indicating the cause of blood clots that may be linked with certain coronavirus vaccines, adding that their findings have important implications for treating the condition, regardless of whether vaccines cause it. Even though the link is not yet firm, they’re calling the condition vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia or VITT. It’s characterized by unusual blood clotting combined with a low number of platelets. Patients suffer from dangerous clots and, sometimes, hemorrhaging at the same time.
#NEW: Dr. Anthony Fauci on return to normalcy from pandemic:
"If ‘back to normal’ means acting like there never was a Coronavirus problem, I don’t think that’s going to happen until we do have a situation where you can completely protect the population."pic.twitter.com/JbE7uasbO2
On average, it takes between ten and twelve years to develop a safe and effective vaccine. In fact, researchers have been searching for a vaccine against HIV—a project supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, CEPI, BARDA, and Dr. Anthony Fauci—since the early 1980s. Unfortunately, so far, they have not been successful. Citing the pandemic, scientists have raced to shorten the time to find a COVID-19 vaccine and suggest accelerating or limiting the typical time it takes to get vaccines approved. Once COVID-19 vaccines are FDA approved and produced, researchers will begin observing the progress of the vaccinated patients, which is Phase IV of vaccine development.
As the current clinical trials on current COVID-19 vaccines continue and new emerging variants spark talks of new vaccines, the bigger question remains—what other circumstances and side effects, besides blood clots, are we overlooking or not yet fully aware of?
MSNBC has long displayed its hatred for Trump supporters and it is continuing to show its contempt even now that he is out of office.
On Sunday afternoon’s Alex Witt Reports, MSNBC host Alex Witt brought on political analyst and MSNBC host Mehdi Hassan to go on an unhinged diatribe against Trump voters. The hateful Hassan justified Hillary Clinton labeling Trump supporters “deplorables” because they have “racist, far-right, authoritarian views.”
Witt initiated Hassan’s despicable monologue by suggesting that Trump “helped to amplify, to unleash” racist and violent behavior.
Among many repulsive comments, Hassan disgustingly defended Clinton’s “deplorables” remark and condescendingly suggested that Trump caused such deplorables “to crawl out from under rocks”: (Click "expand" to read more.)
This idea that you can beat Donald Trump in an election, put aside the fact that he doesn’t accept the results and insights an insurrection, separate to that, there’s the wider issue of quote unquote Trumpism for want of a better word, which as you say, the unleashing, the amplification of these views. These views have always been there in America. People who point out that, you know, Trump is not new, they’re right. But what happened in recent years is — was they had become taboo, they had become, you know, on the fringes, they weren’t seen as mainstream. What happened under Trump was these people and these views were able to crawl out from under rocks.
They were given amplification, legitimization from the most powerful man in the land. And therefore just beating Donald Trump in an election’s not enough. These people are out there. They turned up in the capital. They represent a big chunk of the country. Whatever you want to call them, you know, Hillary Clinton was famously attacked for talking about a basket of Trump supporters as deplorables. But the reality is there are millions of Americans out there who either support racist, far-right, authoritarian views or are willing to turn a blind eye and still vote for the people pushing those views.
Hasan is fast making a name for himself at MSNBC for making some of the most abhorrent remarks at the network. Just recently, Hasan wrote a nasty piece on MSNBC.com where he attacked liberal Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer for not stepping down to let President Biden appoint a far-left Supreme Court justice and even mocked the elderly judge for potentially not having much time left on the court due to his age. Hasan has also alleged that “the Republican playbook” is to “make racist policy and then complain about being accused of racism” and advocated for federal and state prosecution of Trump for murder over “avoidable COVID deaths.”
Hasan then went on to blame Republicans for all of the recent political violence and declare that violent rhetoric has “become acceptable on the right”:
But it looks like it’s becoming the new norm where, you know, we look — there’s a line on Twitter that people always eat up — what would you say if you saw this in another country, Alex? What would you say? You would say a failed state. You would say a democracy that’s, you know, a weak democracy in decline. How can you have a country, how can you have a political system where political violence is now part of everyday conversation, is now seen as a tool by members of the electorate, by political groups. And this violence, don’t forget, again has been incited by the former president but not just the former president. You have — you have a GOP official in Michigan — we covered this on my show not long ago, who says burn them at the stake — referring to witches — in Michigan referring to Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Secretary of State and — and the Attorney General who all three of them are women in Michigan. That kind of language that’s become acceptable on right that now right wingers themselves — Republicans themselves having fed the beast are now becoming victim to and now living in fear.
MSNBC does not care about the news but about nastily smearing anyone who opposes the Democrats.
This hatred was sponsored by Subway and Velveeta. Let them know here if you think they should be sponsoring this content.
Read the full April 18th transcript here:
Alex Witt Reports
4/18/21
1:46:49 PM
ALEX WITT: Is — is it something that — that Donald Trump though helped to amplify, to unleash? In other words, licensing the ability to behave this way —
MEHDI HASAN (MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST; HOST OF THE MEHDI HASAN SHOW): Yeah.
HASAN: — to express yourself this way?
HASAN: 100% and this is the big, you know, this was the big issue for many of us when Trump looked like he would be defeated and then was defeated. This idea that you can beat Donald Trump in an election, put aside the fact that he doesn’t accept the results and insights an insurrection, separate to that, there’s the wider issue of quote unquote Trumpism for want of a better word, which as you say, the unleashing, the amplification of these views. These views have always been there in America.
WITT: Right.
HASAN: People who point out that, you know, Trump is not new, they’re right. But what happened in recent years is — was they had become taboo, they had become, you know, on — on the fringes, they weren’t seen as mainstream. What happened under Trump was these people and these views were able to crawl out from under rocks. They were given amplification, legitimization from the most powerful man in the land. And therefore just beating Donald Trump in an election’s not enough. These people are out there. They turned up in the capital. They represent a big chunk of the country. Whatever you want to call them, you know, Hillary Clinton was famously attacked for talking about a basket of Trump supporters as deplorables. But the reality is there are millions of Americans out there who either support racist, far-right, authoritarian views or are willing to turn a blind eye and still vote for the people pushing those views. Look at the polls Alex. Look at the number of people who think — I think it’s what 50 — nearly 50% of Republicans according to a recent poll thought, you know, what happened on January 6th wasn’t that bad —
WITT: Yeah.
HASAN: — wasn’t a big deal —
WITT: Yeah. Shocking.
HASAN: — may have been done by Antifa.
WITT: Yeah. So according to Punchbowl News Mehdi, lawmakers who criticize Trump spent tens of thousands of dollars across the first quarter this year on personal security. You had Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Eric Swalwell. You had Republicans like Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney. What is this tell you, lawmakers spending money to make sure they can safely work at the capitol or in their home district or just go about their day? Is this the new norm?
HASAN: It shouldn’t be the new norm.
WITT: No.
HASAN: But it looks like it’s becoming the new norm where, you know, we look — there’s a — there’s a line on Twitter that people always eat up — what would you say if you saw this in another country, Alex? What would you say? You would say a failed state. You would say a democracy that’s, you know, a weak democracy in decline. How can you have a country, how can you have a political system where political violence is now part of everyday conversation, is now seen as a tool by members of the electorate, by political groups. And this violence, don’t forget, again has been incited by the former president but not just the former president. You have — you have a GOP official in Michigan — we covered this on my show not long ago, who says burn them at the stake — referring to witches — in Michigan referring to Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Secretary of State and — and the Attorney General who all three of them are women in Michigan. That kind of language that’s become acceptable on right that now right wingers themselves — Republicans themselves having fed the — fed the beast are now becoming victim to and now living in fear. I mean, we talk about cowardly Republicans in Congress who don’t stand up to Trump and co., which is true, but there is also this issue which you point out, which is some of them are literally living in fear of physical violence, of getting killed. And we should have called this out much earlier when Mitt Romney voted against — voted for convicting Donald Trump in the first impeachment trial. You had CPAC saying we can’t guarantee your security and Mitt Romney, you know, when you say stuff like this you’re not welcome in Republican circles. That kind of rhetoric is just not acceptable.
