BBC slips up, but bounces back

Update 1, July 28:

I forgot about Republican Louie Gohmert. Here he is bashing Mueller

Original post:

I watched the recording of most of Robert Mueller’s testimony before Congress. Not all of it, because I began to skip the Democrats’ questions as they made their loathing for President Donald J. Trump clear, at times referring to him as “Trump.”

Then I had a look at BBC coverage, fully expecting the bias to jump out at me, especially when the name Anthony Zurcher appeared at the top of the first Google result. It didn’t. It was so factual and balanced I nearly fell off my chair. Zurcher even included a few lines on the damning indictment of Mueller’s report by Republican John Ratcliffe who objected to his conclusion that he could not exonerate the president on the charge of obstruction of justice:

John Ratcliffe: … Which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?

Robert Mueller: I cannot, but this is a unique situation …

John Ratcliffe: You can’t. Time is short, I’ve got five minutes, let’s just leave it at you can’t find it because, I will tell you why, it doesn’t exist. The Special Counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the Special Counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It’s not in any of the documents, it’s not in your appointment order, it’s not in the Special Counsel regulations, it’s not in the OLC opinions, not in the justice manual and it’s not in the principles of federal prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together because respectfully, respectfully Director, it was not the Special Counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it including sitting presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never ever need to conclusively determine it.

Now, Director, the Special Counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that I can’t find and you said doesn’t exist anywhere in the department policies and you used it to write a report and the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says, as you read this morning, this authorises the Special Counsel to provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel. That’s the very first word of your report, right?

Robert Mueller: Right.

John Ratcliff: That’s correct. Here’s the problem, Director. The Special Counsel didn’t do that. On volume one you did, on volume two, with respect to potential obstruction of justice, the Special Counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declination decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning and in your report that you made no determinations so, respectfully, Director, you didn’t follow the Special Counsel’s regulations. It clearly says, write a confidential report about decisions reached. Nowhere in here does it say, write a report about decisions that weren’t reached. You wrote a hundred-and-eighty pages – a hundred-and-eighty pages about decisions that weren’t reached, about potential crimes that weren’t charged or decided. And respectfully, respectfully, by doing that you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions of prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren’t charged.

So Americans need to know this as they listen to the Democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisle as they do dramatic readings from this report that volume two of this report was not authorised under the law to be written. It was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the justice department. And it was written in violation of every DOJ principle about extra-prosecutorial commentary.

I agree with the chairman this morning when he said Donald Trump is not above the law. He’s not. But he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law which is where volume two of this report puts him.

However, the BBC never disappoints, and the bias was evident in a report titled Trump was not exonerated by my report, Robert Mueller tells Congress.

The opening sentences take a predictable dig at the President:

US President Donald Trump’s claim that he was “totally exonerated” by special counsel Robert Mueller was rejected by Mr Mueller in a hearing on Wednesday.

Mr Mueller said he had not exonerated Mr Trump of obstruction of justice.

Only then do we get a grudging admission that Mueller did not establish collusion between Trump and the Russians. I suppose an ‘editor’ read the report by Anthony Zurcher after it was published and decided to do some damage control. After all, only in its worst nightmares would the BBC want to be regarded as being fair to Donald Trump.

If hacks from the BBC see this post, they might like to be educated on the outrage from some Republicans over the witch hunt against the president, as expressed during several hours of questioning of Mueller on Wednesday. OK, it’s highly unlikely but hope springs eternal in the human breast:

Jim Jordan

Matt Gaetz

Ken Buck

Guy Reschenthaler

Ben Cline

And here’s Devin Nunes:

Welcome everybody to the last gasp of the Russia collusion conspiracy theory.

Midweek Open Thread 24 July 2019

The Biased Far Left BBC knows full well that the new British Prime Minister is no great fan of it . This will lead to a concerted effort to destroy him before he either achieves a successful Brexit and/or turns his attention to reforming a State Broadcaster which has lost its way and is no longer ‘British’.

Obviously making the BBC British and unbiased again can’t be done with the current corrupt Parliament in place . Boris has a long list of issues to repair the damage done by Mrs May to our country . But with help he must start to drain the corrupt swamp including the Biased BBC. Good luck Bo.

Weekend Open Thread 20 July 2019

The Far Left biased BBC , being naturally anti American , will spin the 50th anniversary of the landing of a Man on the Moon in its current propaganda mode .

So it’s all about – waste of money – not green – no Wimmin -no blacks -no gays -no Muslims . Why no disabled astronauts ? Why hasn’t The great EU sent a rocket yet ?

I Still feel pleased to have watched it live on TV live though .

Midweek Open Thread 17 July 2019

The Far Left Failing Biased BBC keeps on giving doesn’t it ? It doesn’t even pretend to be neutral any more . There is just one ‘approved ‘ story ;facts which don’t fit the narrative are minimised or ignored . And people are forced to pay for it .

And if you think the MPs see it as biased – think again – the link below is to the debate on the useless petition about BBC bias

Trump to fight Social Media

This is not strictly to do with the BBC, but there is a strong connection between that most-trusted broadcaster and the Farcebookers, Twattterati, YouFlubbers and others. They all seem intent on destroying the good in Western society and beyond and elevating the bad. They just go about it in more or less extreme ways and with varied degrees of deceit and subterfuge.

The eminent Donald J Trump hosted a group of conservative media personalities last Thursday. Diamond and Silk were there, reminding me of that glorious day in Congress when they fought back, without being intimidated, against mainly-black Democrats who were trying their dirty ‘Democratic’ tricks to discredit them.

Trump invited the two big black women onto the stage, called them “beautiful” and hugged and kissed them. Perhaps that will give the lefty media pause next time they insist that he is a ‘racist’ and a ‘misogynist’ but I doubt they can find the pause button when it comes to insulting the president, even when he isn’t their president. Does the BBC’s Anthony Zurcher even have a pause button when it comes to vilifying Trump?

He was on top form, joking with the audience and proving how quick-thinking he is when he brushed off a fly and then asked how a fly got into the White House.

Here he discusses the fact that people who want to join him on Social Media are blocked.

Here he invites a leading First Amendment lawyer up to speak about the deplatforming and harassment of political opponents so rife in Social Media.

The most important thing to be gleaned from the event is this: he intends to step up the fight against the Social Media censors and propagandists, and when Donald J Trump says he is going to do something ….

It’s unclear exactly how he intends to do this, but I think that is just Trump keeping his powder dry till the right time.

The event is on YouFlub, paradoxically, and it doesn’t look like it’s been restricted in any way so we are not quite in dire straits yet.