Giuliani, Miller beat back the Fake News impeachment gang

After reviewing the Sunday morning “news” shows, there is one thing that is obvious — the media is a willing partner in the attempted coup against President Trump.

Every “news” personality who did interviews for ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and yes even FOX engaged in the same tactic — see no Biden, hear no Biden, speak no Biden. They all insisted (to use their favorite phrase against Trump) WITHOUT EVIDENCE that Biden had been cleared of wrongdoing in his and his son’s dealing with the Ukraine (not to mention China).

Worst performance by a media stooge? No surprise. Jake Tapper was disrespectful in the extreme of Rep. Jim Jordan, who was defending the president. Tapper’s low point was bringing up the fact that Jordan had been the object of scurrilous charges about his time as a wrestling coach at Ohio State, and suggesting that Jordan should shut up about Biden unless he wants his own name dragged through the mud again.

Worst performance by a Deep State operative? Easy. Tom Bossert, Trump’s one-time Homeland Security adviser, showed why he was shown the door. He is a disloyal hack who could only tell the anti-Trump side of the story.

Best performance by a Trump supporter? Tie between Rudy Giuliani and Stephen Miller. Both of these gentlemen are hated by the media and are painted as somehow rogue operatives who should shut up and mind their manners. That’s because they keep bringing up inconvenient truths that Democrats don’t want before the public eye.

Giuliani was at the top of his game in his interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.” In addition to his typical fearless stance in the face of a hostile liberal media, Giuliani brought evidence with him — affidavits that prove his case that the Ukrainians were investigating the company that Biden’s son Hunter worked for at the time when Biden got the prosecutor fired. Stephanopoulos ignored the evidence as everyone expected.

As for Miller, he was brilliant as he stood up to the hectoring questioning of Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.” Sometimes in the past, Miller has let his emotions get the best of him and he came across as strident. In this case, he stuck to the facts and dismantled the case against a Trump that was laid out in what he called “the seven-page Nancy Drew novel that the whistleblower put together.”

Miller also cut to the quick and labeled the whistleblower a “deep state operative” who was operating solely to destroy this president.

Click Here to Buy Your PRO TRUMP GEAR

Can’t wait for all the facts to come before the American people!

If you enjoy reading these daily essays, I hope you will consider purchasing one of the books of the “Why We Needed Trump” trilogy. Part 1 is subtitled “Bush’s Global Failure: Half Right.” Part 2 is “Obama’s Fundamental Transformation: Far Left.” Part 3 is “Trump’s American Vision: Just Right.” My new book is “The Media Matrix: What if everything you know is fake?” They are available at Amazon in paperback or Kindle editions. Also subscribe to Heartland Diary on YouTube by clicking here.

Related Post

5 Replies to “Giuliani, Miller beat back the Fake News impeachment gang”

  1. OMGosh !!!!

    “seven page Nancy Drew novel”‘

    Watta blast from the past …Watta great line… .

    Late 40s into early/ mid 50s I read Nancy Drew AND Hardy Boys..Among more serious stuff
    Just a kid then ..

    Per WIKI both are still going strong…I had no idea.

    Gave me a real laugh..
    Thanks for the work..Mr. Miele and the fun .

    Its why I read you in the 2000s.

    Turned some more californians onto your site today


  2. Re the media, Frank, did you look at the Ed Henry-Mark Levin video? The whole problem is the way that these media interactions are structured and conceived. Ed Henry was simply repeating what other reporters have said so “digging dirt up on an opponent” is a phrase that’s been repeated over and over, thrown around thoughtlessly, and Ed Henry is just doing what all the other reporters are doing; so the problem is not Ed Henry per se but journalism as a whole.

    The problem is journalists are not interviewing; they are debating using a “some say“ approach based on a devils advocate position; the “interviewer” becomes the devils advocate—embracing the opposite side of the argument or issue from the guest. Apparently, this is viewed as legitimate—a way to challenge the guest. But That’s not an interview; that’s a debate, and one based on other peoples’ opinions, not facts, and opinions of people who aren’t there.

    some people say a lot of stupid things as we know. Using “some say” something is not making an argument—it’s an appeal to numbers (everyone says this—must be true).

    if you’re going to have an interview that means asking the other person’s opinion; if you’re going to have a debate you need to explain this is a debate and I will be presenting the devils advocate Position. At least then the guest would know what to expect: an adversarial encounter.

    not only do media adopt the devils advocate position but if one devils advocate position is refuted, they switch to another, so every negative against the guest’s point of view will be thrown at the guest like a ping pong game.

    This approach is hugely destructive on many levels—it models as supposedly good or ok the worst kind of human interactions (not listening to another person who is your guest, not letting them speak, talking over them, cutting them off, demanding yes or no answers, etc). Most of all, it is grossly unfair to the guest, who has little chance to actually present a point of view bc they are having to confront a load of “some people say” arguments. it’s such a joke to call this fiasco an interview. The only guests who manage to get through this gauntlet and actually present their point of view are people who attack back, as Levin did.

    1. I did not see Ed Henry and Mark Levin. I will look for it. Regarding the devil’s advocate approach, I would not have much of a problem It it were applied equally to conservatives and liberals. My experience though is that liberals are given softball questions, given unlimited time to make their responses, and encouraged by reporters if they lose their way!

      My approach as a reporter was to let people tell their own story to me and transmit it to the public. If their story raised questions I asked them, but if a rebuttal was needed I tried to find someone else who could present that point of view.

Leave a Reply