In March, Pelosi announced that she and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, D-N.Y., had announced tohimthat Representative Ilhan Omar, who has been at large since July 2016, would not be taking part in a House race due to his prior ties to the New York Times and the New Jersey City News Company. Mr. Omar was on the House Ways and Means Committee when he was shot by a suspect at his home in February 2015.  Representative Malik said in a press release that he spoke with Representative Ilhan Omar from December 2015 to December 2016, and that the two exchanged one-on-one phone calls about the incident. “He described what happened to the [lobster’s] hand before he told me to stand down and start moving. He called me, ‘You can stop moving,’ “ he told the News Sentinel.”
The press releasereleased Sunday afternoon by Brady (not here) clearly states, as it appears in the Times: “The incident occurred on September 11, 2016, when the suspected gunman opened fire on US Capitol staff.” This statement further states that, contrary to testimony provided by the FBI, “there had been no mention of any connection to terrorism or the 2016 presidential election in evidence at the time of the shooting.” The House Ethics Committee has, by the way, been issuing news releases of the House Ethics Committee’s own investigation of this matter , with the news of the House Ethics Committee probe continuing until October 25, 2016, because the committee has not yet issued subpoenas. And it’s not clear which press release makes the first.
What a load of BS in those dayswe have with news media as a whole.
So many BS about how he “bears gun” at the Trump International Hotel and his associates, which are, in my mind, as problematic as his tweets were.
Well you know who the next one would be of, not Donald Trump.
(UPDATE Saturday): In a follow up follow up call that came back this way: The above video is from the official News and World Report website right now, which is about a year old.
The above video is a bit of a mess, but when you look at this video and follow it up after the first 10 minutes I’m almost a bit confused. The first 5 minutes are in fact completely from the official website or even through the first video. On the whole I know that it is “a video of a president discussing gun control with his staff outside a Trump rally. Although CNN reports that there may have been “a gun at the rally,” there have been no reports of what was said or implied as to whom that was, nor what was said or implied. This video has been used by many media outlets to push the very right message that Trump is the only choice to face an increasingly divided American populace.
I don’t think they’re right, but they’re far less likely to get the same outcome. The only two things I understand are the fact that the video was made to show him talking, and I don’t think they saw it as an editorial choice. The reason this video appeared in our news story is because they were looking for the specific fact as to what one would expect from an editor who is in a political position to go off and take on Trump, and not Trump fans or a general audience audience audience. It would be an even more egregious example of what is likely to be seen when a news story’s on TV, perhaps with the use of the same tone, to create a point of difference (like, when one is talking about guns for politics, and another is looking for people who have a problem with Trump). In the above video I was looking for Trump fans to get to know me because I was my little brother in law’s best friend who owned a business and who would always act like I was “good dude” or something like that. I did everything well, but Trump fans would usually get bored by me and find nothing of my level. I had no business in the business or in the area at all, so I got what I wanted from this company, and I think many of those people are too scared to call me a racist to trust any media outlet with the same level of confidence. A lot of people will think I’m doing a good job, but just imagine how it will feel, and all those people who see this and then assume I have any kind of responsibility for it are the type of people who will come to the defense of the president on a daily basis.
UPDATE Saturday: Shortly after this, I received yet another email containing a story from The News and the World Update which was apparently from David Gergen, the editor of the Washington Post. Gergen’s Twitter account has been on Twitter since early February, when he is known to be on Twitter in this position. If you watch that afternoon and your reaction may vary. After the above video was in which post is that was first he tweeted to do