Debate Transcript Shows Trump Did Not “Refuse to Denounce” White Supremacists, Contrary to Media Narrative

 Legal Insurrection

"Chris Wallace asked Trump if he was willing to condemn white supremacy. Trump said “sure.” Twice, as Wallace and Biden talked over him."

Trump refused to condemn white supremacists and militia members in presidential debate marked by disputes over race https://t.co/HfC6EVvA2B

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) September 30, 2020

How Leftists’ Critical Race Theory Poisons Our Discussion of Racism

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

 Our fight against prejudice is being done through what is perhaps the worst tyranny of all; namely, the tyranny over the mind.

 It leaves no room for meaningful discourse.

 If we want to fight prejudice, then let’s shape the conversation around our better angels. 

Brian Kilmeade: I Don’t Understand Why Trump Didn’t Clearly Condemn White Supremacists

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Brian Kilmeade: &quot;Donald Trump ruined the biggest layup in the history of debates by not condemning white supremists. I don&#39;t know if he didn&#39;t hear it, but he&#39;s gotta clarify that right away. ... Why the president didn&#39;t just knock it out of the park, I&#39;m not sure.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/Qo52jBDTPl">pic.twitter.com/Qo52jBDTPl</a></p>&mdash; Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) <a href="https://twitter.com/revrrlewis/status/1311254327911211011?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 30, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Trump-Biden I: Reality Is Reality

Issues & Insights  

"One can already hear the punditry repeating the most ridiculous and annoying of all public relations and political nostrums.

“ 'Perception is reality.”

"And when it comes to the first debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, “perception” favors the former veep.

"He stayed on his feet. He was lucid. He had good prepared lines on his sons and other matters. He talked into the camera effectively.

"Meanwhile, Trump was a bully. Interrupting and talking over Biden and moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News. Out-of-bounds in his attacks on Biden’s son and his drug addiction. Turning the event what one CNN commentator surprisingly called a “s—. show.”

"Winner: Not-As-Sleepy-as-Usual Joe.

"Well, here’s one long-time communications practitioner’s response to that whole line of argument.

"To put it politely, bullcrap.

"Perception is not reality. Reality is reality. You just have to make sure people know about it.

"And the reality is that Donald Trump wiped the debate floor with Biden and his plugged pate.

"The president was admittedly not at his best. He too often failed to accomplish his most important job for the evening: underscore his many accomplishments as chief executive and paint a visionary picture of the next four years, while contrasting Biden’s wild and expensive schemes.

"When Wallace gave him a shot to explain why he should get four more years in the job rather than turn it over to his opponent (the basic question Teddy Kennedy flubbed in his famous interview with Roger Mudd), Trump once again missed the opportunity to point to his slam-bang second-term agenda and repeat his pronouncement that the “best is yet to come.”

"But the president clearly did have a strategy, one that recalls the famed statement first attributed to Finley Peter Dunne’s wise-cracking Irishman, Mr. Dooley, “politics ain’t beanbag.” 

"His obvious plan: rattle Biden into making mistakes. Trump forced the Delawarean into a number of indefensible and outright untrue statements (that will never be reviewed by the “fact-checkers” who once again dug into the president)." . . .

Joe Biden Shushes ‘Clown’ Donald Trump: ‘Would You Shut Up, Man?’   . . . "Trump interrupting Biden was a theme throughout the entire debate Tuesday night, with both candidates showing frustration.

"The same was true of moderator Chris Wallace.

"Who won the debate is a topic that will continue to be discussed, but even many Trump supporters did not believe the President did himself many favors by constantly cutting in to Biden’s speaking time.

"The next presidential debate is scheduled for October 15th."

 

The Cleveland Brawl: First Presidential Debate Was a Cage Fight

 

'Shut up,' 'clown,' 'fool,' 'liar' -- the vile debate spewings of Joe Biden  "Joe Biden was in some kind of foul, putrid mode at the debate last night.

"Many people have cited memorable lines from the contentious political slugfest, but the lines that stand out to me are the grotesquely disrespectful ad hominem insults Biden directed at the president of the United States." . . . This next should simplify and crystallize the bottom line:

...Those voters can now decide if they want a crude guy with a good governing record, or a crude guy without a good governing record, who spews insults at both them and the office, just because.

Janice Shaw Crouse  . . . "Trump successfully forced Biden to reveal his leftist positions on several key issues.  Where Biden really blew it was repeating the assertion, "Antifa is an idea, not an organization."  He blamed Trump for the division in the country and for the violence in the cities.  He mentioned several times that violence has gone up "under Trump."  When pushed on his views about law enforcement, Biden couldn't name a single law enforcement group that supported him, nor did he even attempt to give a wholehearted endorsement of the police.  Instead, he talked about the need to have "psychologists and psychiatrists" go with law enforcement to try to "calm people down."  He also talked about the need to "reimagine police" and have "community policing."

"Trump also pushed Biden on his far-left views, linking Biden to the Green New Deal.  Trump focused his climate remarks on the need for clean water and air and commonsense environmental conservation.  Trump gave a strong critique of the forestry policies that he claims lead to the annual fires that sweep so destructively through California.  Trump was particularly strong in defending his executive order to end training in critical race theory.  He bluntly called the training racist and said it trains people to hate America.  Biden supported the training because many people are "racially insensitive" and need to be taught how to "not offend" others.  Trump defended his relaxing the shutdown and pushed Biden to the point of implying that he will shut the country down again if he is elected." . . .

The debate? Trump was great, Chris Wallace was a dreadful disgrace   "Chris Wallace's overt defense of Joe Biden throughout the debate on Tuesday night was so obvious, so blatant, he should be proscribed from ever "moderating" a debate again.

"Wallace's performance was as Biden's protector, his advocate, and that is undeniable.  He stepped in at every moment Biden seemed lost: court-packing, lack of support of law enforcement, and Hunter's criminality.

"The debate was so poorly managed.  The questions were designed to aid Biden, to coddle him.  No wonder Trump felt duty-bound to interrupt.  Trump was debating both Wallace and Biden, and only one of them is sentient.

"Wallace's intent was clear: sabotage Trump.  Wallace succeeded only in looking like the stooge he is. " . . .

But I did wish for a more dignified presence from Mr. Trump. TD

Two crucial things emerged from the first presidential debate

BIDEN: Will you shut up, man?

http://jewishworldreview.com/

Andrea Widburg  "The short version of the debate is that Biden did well if one ignored that almost every other statement he made was a lie or fantasy; Trump dominated him, almost too aggressively; and Chris Wallace may have been the worst and most obviously biased moderator since Candy Crowley.  Most significantly, though, Biden and Trump each made a critical point.  Biden's was a tacit admission that if he is elected president, he will preside over the end of the filibuster, allowing Democrats to pack the courts and add two new Democrat-majority states.  Trump's point was that he's holding damning evidence about the Democrats' coup attempt.

"Let's begin with Biden, whose squirming on court-packing and the filibuster promises the end of the American experiment.  Chris Wallace, in one of the few tough questions he posed to Biden, said this:

So my question to you is, you have refused in the past to talk about it, are you willing to tell the American tonight whether or not you will support either ending the filibuster or packing the court?

                              Presidential debate ERUPTS when @JoeBiden REFUSES to say he won't "pack the court" if @realDonaldTrump's SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed.

"Would you shut up, man?"

😱😱😱 pic.twitter.com/yE30PUJsY7

— The First (@TheFirstonTV) September 30, 2020

Trump Wins Round One, Barely; "It was an unedifying spectacle."   

"There was no clear winner in Tuesday’s presidential debate and the country was the loser. 

"President Trump could have won decisively if he had just followed Napoleon’s famous advice not to “interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” The moderator, Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace, did an excellent professional job largely without bias, and undoubtedly more fairly than those who will conduct the next two debates, but he didn’t come down hard enough on the interruptions. If Trump had just allowed Wallace to follow up on his questions of Biden, the former vice president would have stumbled badly. Trump’s irritating interruptions created an incoherent cacophony that enabled Biden to escape severe embarrassment. 

"On balance, Trump almost certainly won, but a very few viewers would have had the perseverance to listen carefully enough to note that Trump defended his own record quite capably, and Biden was very shaky and imprecise both in criticism of his opponent and in explaining why he should be president. As was expected, the fact that he got through 90 minutes in the ring with Trump without becoming incomprehensibly muddled, empowered his supporters to claim that in limping out intact, he had won." . . .By Conrad Black

 

Chris Wallace: Trustworthy Debate Moderator?

Nor is it likely that Biden will be asked about last week’s revelations concerning influence-peddling in Ukraine and the related foreign money transfers to members of his family. Wallace will, however, almost certainly ask President Trump about the latest installment of the New York Times long-running serial concerning his fabled income tax returns.

Spectator  "Chris Wallace, the moderator of the first presidential debate Tuesday night, insists he will try to remain “as invisible as possible.” That would certainly be a welcome change from his performance in the final 2016 debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. A lot of Democrats no doubt assume Wallace will go too easy on the president simply because he hosts a talking-heads show for the “conservative” Fox News network. But Wallace is not an admirer of Trump. Nor is he above gotcha questions and phony “fact checks.” It was Wallace, you will probably recall, who pompously lectured Trump as follows during that last 2016 debate:

Sir, there is a tradition in this country, in fact, one of the prides of this country is the peaceful transition of power and no matter how hard-fought a campaign is that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner. Not saying you’re necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and the country comes together in part for the good of the country.

"At length, “the invisible man” asked an actual question: “Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?” Despite how ironic that question turned out to be in light of subsequent events, Wallace pressed Trump on the very same issue in an interview last July: “Can you give a direct answer that you will accept the election?” Considering that the loser of the 2016 contest and many other Democrats have advised Joe Biden not to concede if President Trump wins in November, it will be interesting to see if Wallace asks the former vice president if he will “commit to the principle” of the peaceful transition. His belligerence during the Trump interview suggests that he won’t.

"Ironically, Wallace’s purported commitment to avoid fact-checking either candidate will serve to protect the former vice president, who can no longer speak extemporaneously on any subject. 

"During that exchange, the president pointed out that Biden supports defunding the police. Wallace went directly into fact-checker mode, interrupting Trump and contradicting him: “Sir, he does not.” Just 10 days earlier, Biden had endorsed “redirecting” police funds. This sly euphemism emerged during a NowThis interview with Ady Barkan, who suggested it would be good public policy to “redirect some of the funding for police into social services, mental health counseling and affordable housing.” Biden attempted to change the subject to generic police reform, but Barkan pressed him, “But do we agree that we can redirect some of the funding?” Biden unequivocally replied, “Yes, absolutely.”

"Wallace certainly knew this at the time of his interview with Trump, and he isn’t dumb enough to believe there is any real difference between “defunding the police” and “redirecting police funds.” Yet he was determined to cover for Biden. It was reminiscent of Candy Crowley’s notorious “fact-check” of Mitt Romney’s correct assertion, during his second 2012 debate with President Obama, that the latter failed to acknowledge the Benghazi attack as an “act of terror” for two weeks. Crowley contradicted Romney with a transparent lie to protect Obama from the consequences of his own lie. Wallace probably won’t attempt anything that dishonest, but President Trump expects him to protect Biden:" . . .

But afterward: Chris Wallace’s Debate Performance Was Absolutely Disgraceful  . . . "The debate was about what you would expect. Trump was overly aggressive while Biden lied and relied on the moderator to save him continuously. That wasn’t supposed to happen. This was Fox News, and Chris Wallace is supposed to be a serious newsman. He was anything but that, though.

"As the night wore on, Wallace grew more and more hostile, refusing to let Trump answer questions at times, asking slanted questions that benefitted Biden, and not bringing up topics that would have been beneficial to the President. At one point, Wallace even joked with Biden about Trump supposedly ranting, which was really just Trump trying to answer a question, in what was one of the most unprofessional displays by a moderator I’ve seen." . . .

. . . "There are many more examples to give. When they talked about the California fires later in the debate, Trump gave the scientific answer that it was due to bad forest management, not some sudden, tiny shift in temperature that magically starts fires. Instead of letting him finish, Wallace interrupted and tried to chastise Trump.

"Before that, though, Wallace refused to have a discussion on why Biden’s son got a $3.5M wire transfer from a Russian oligarch’s wife. Trump tried to bring it up multiple times and the Fox News anchor simply refused, repeatedly changing the subject." . . .

Australian Law Professors Give Trump his Third Nobel Peace Prize Nomination

“He is really producing peace in the world in a way in a which none of his predecessors did, and he fully deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.”

 Legal Insurrection  "Four Australian law professors nominated President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.  That gives Trump three nominations. Eminent law professor David Flint spoke to Sky News:

. . . "Members of a national parliament or law professors can nominate someone for the Nobel Peace Prize.

"Norwegian Parliament Member Christian Tybring-Gjedde nominated President Donald Trump for the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize for brokering the peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates.

"Tybring-Gjedde said he is not a Trump fan, but he did something while “Barack Obama did nothing.”

The Norwegian also mentioned how Trump has been active in trying to bring peace between North and South Korea, India and China, and bringing home troops from the Middle East.

"Swedish Parliament Member Magnus Jacobsson nominated Trump a few days later after he negotiated a deal between Serbia and Kosovo." . . .

Some Questions for Biden at the first Debate

  Jonathan Cohen  "Fox News has been promoting the upcoming presidential debate that will be moderated by their own Chris Wallace. The reporters on Fox have been assuring their viewers that Biden will not escape challenging questions from the tough-reporting Wallace. I am not that hopeful. Wallace got the job in part because Biden has declined to be interviewed by Wallace on Fox News Sunday. That is no guarantee that he will ask Biden tough questions.

"Here are a few questions for Biden that might clarify his views for voters." Quoting:

Will a Biden education department pressure high schools to allow boys to shower with girls and compete on girls’ sports’ teams?

Will a Biden education department reinstate the “Dear Colleague Letter” which pressured colleges to impose federally mandated standards to adjudicate accusations of sexual assault? Such standards denied the accused male students the right of counsel, the right of cross-examination, the right to confront the accuser, the right to receive exculpatory evidence, and mandated a standard of proof that required only that the accusations were more likely than not.

Will the Justice Department prosecute business people who don't want to participate in same sex weddings?

Will a Biden administration support giving trillions of dollars to African Americans as reparations?

Will Biden reinstitute Critical Race Theory training in all agencies of the federal government including the military?

Will Biden be pressed about his green energy policies?

Will Biden be pressed about his obvious ignorance of what the Trump administration response to the virus actually has been? Biden’s own suggestions are mostly copies of Trump administration policies.

Will Biden be pressed about favoring Iran during the Obama administration? I suspect he may actually be tough on Biden about this.

Will he question Biden about his family enriching themselves while he was vice president?

Will he ask Biden if he intends to let the Durham investigation proceed?

Will he ask Biden if he would seek to place any limits on abortion?

With foreign policy not a focus of the debate, I suspect Biden will get off relatively easy. I doubt Wallace will ask Biden on any of the tough questions on social issues. On the other hand, he is likely to go after Trump on his handling of the pandemic, suggesting that Trump negligence is responsible for so many deaths. Trump needs to be prepared to pressure Biden to address these contentious issues as well as being very precise about his decision making in combatting the pandemic. If he can do these things well, he will greatly improve his election chances.    End quote.

A few suggestions for Chris Wallace as he manages Joe Biden tonight

https://townhall.com/political-cartoons

 Josh Kantrow  "Below is a list of questions Chris Wallace could stand to ask Joe Biden at the debate tonight."

1. Why did members of your family keep getting lucrative business opportunities overseas while you were vice president? 

2. How did your brother, Frank, secure $45,000,000 in taxpayer loans from the Obama administration for his Caribbean projects? 

3. How did a newly minted firm employing your other brother, James, receive a $1.5-billion contract to build homes in Iraq despite having no experience in construction or international development? 

4. Why did your son Hunter accompany you on your official trip to Beijing in December 2013?  What did he do on that trip?  Whom did he meet with?  What should the American public make of the fact that just ten days after this trip, your son’s boutique private equity firm secured a $1-billion investment deal from the state-owned bank of China (later expanded to $1.5 billion) despite having no prior experience in China, and why, with this deal, did the Chinese government grant your son's firm a first-of-its-kind arrangement to operate in the the recently formed Shanghai Free-Trade Zone — a perk not granted to any of the large established financial institutions? 

5. Should the American public be concerned that your son's private equity firm partnered with a Chinese government-owned aerospace and defense conglomerate to facilitate the purchase of an American company that produced strategically sensitive dual-use military technology that the Chinese government wanted?

6. Does your "Build Back Better" proposal contain any provisions to ensure that American taxpayer-funded technology is not bought off by Chinese state-backed enterprises working with private equity firms like your son's?

7. Back in 2000, you voted in favor of giving permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) to China.  At the time, you said this would not lead to "the collapse of the American manufacturing economy" because China is "about the size of the Netherlands" and could not possibly become "our major economic competitor."  Furthermore, you predicted that free trade with China would establish "a path toward ever greater political and economic freedom" for the people of China.  Do you stand by these statements today after 3.4 million American jobs have been lost to China and millions of China's citizens have been imprisoned, surveilled, disappeared, and used as slave labor by an increasingly authoritarian regime enriched by 20 years of record trade imbalances from flagrant trade violations?

8. The People's Republic of China has a bold plan called "Made in China 2025" to dominate the key technologies of the future in order to overtake the United States militarily and economically.  Do you still contend that China is "not competition for us"?

9. Why did you promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to financial special interest groups when research was clear that the deal would make it easier for corporations to move U.S. jobs overseas?

10. Do you believe that Xi Jinping kept his promise to Barack Obama to end cyber-espionage against the United States?  If not, what are you prepared to do about it?

11. Do you accept that the coronavirus originated in China?  Do you think China was honest with the world in its handling of the coronavirus?  Are you satisfied with China's explanations for how it spread?  Do you believe Chinese claims about the number of cases and fatalities in China?

12. Do you think China should be held responsible in any way for its handling of the coronavirus?  If not, why not?  What, if any, repercussions should there be for China in its handling of the coronavirus?

13. Did you suggest investigating Michael Flynn under the Logan Act, as Peter Strzok's notes suggest?

14. You said in your DNC acceptance speech that America is ready to "do the hard work of rooting out our systemic racism."  What did you do in your 36 years as a U.S. senator and eight years as vice president to root out systemic racism?  Why didn't it work?

15. You have called for "revolutionary institutional changes."  What does that mean in practice?

16. You have vowed to rescind the Trump tax cuts.  Can you think of a single example of a country that recovered from a recession by raising taxes?

That's the entire thing.

Tulsi Gabbard Backs Ban on Ballot Harvesting After Project Veritas Video

 MSN    "Representative Tulsi Gabbard has called for a ban on ballot harvesting following a video from Project Veritas allegedly showing political operatives in Minneapolis, Minnesota illegally carrying out the practice.  Ballot harvesting refers to laws in some states allowing third parties to collect and deliver ballots. Where it is legal, campaign workers or volunteers can go to voters' homes and collect completed ballots. They can then deliver them en masse to polling places or election offices. Some states allow ballot harvesters to be paid an hourly rate for their work." . . .  James O'Keefe, of Project Veritas, exposes massive Minneapolis voter fraud.  . . ."With the help of a courageous whistleblower, undercover video, and hidden camera videos, the latest Project Veritas video reveals that Omar's campaign is up to its eyeballs in ordering absentee ballots for elderly people, filling out the ballots in her favor or for someone else in her clan, and then submitting them." . . .

.

James O’Keefe’s enemies are trying to use the police state to stop him

Joe Biden’s Campaign Requests Breaks EVERY 30 MINUTES during Tonight’s First Debate — VIDEO

The Gateway Pundit   "On Tuesday morning the Biden Campaign requested TWO debate breaks tonight during the presidential debate.

"The Biden campaign want breaks EVERY 30 MINUTES during the debate tonight!

"So far the Trump campaign has NOT AGREED to this last minute request by the Biden Campaign!

"This casts doubts on Joe Biden’s health and stamina.

"Also — The Trump campaign has requested a third party entity to inspect both candidates for communication devices like an ear piece before the debate tonight.

"The Biden Campaign has NOT AGREED to this." . . .

Joe Biden keeps a tight lid on mainstream media

http://www.terrellaftermath.com/

Boston Herald  "Why is Joe Biden always putting a “lid” on his campaign? If you’re not familiar with the press lingo, a “lid” is a note to your press pool that you plan no further public events on your schedule. Biden tends to put a “lid” on it at 9 or 10 in the morning, saying his press corps has nothing to cover.

"On Sept. 23, they called a “lid” at 9:30 a.m. — the ninth time they’ve done it this month. Is it due to never-ending debate prep? Biden denied that, saying he’s just getting ready to prepare.

"Since March, Biden has barely done any campaigning, trying to make a virtue out of the fact that he’s not going anywhere or saying much of anything during the coronavirus pandemic. Biden’s staff would claim that while Trump endangers his voters by having rallies, their candidate is leading by example.

"He’s not leading by example. He’s lidding by example.

"Guess what? The liberal media, those energetic watchdogs who bombastically claim to keep democracy from “dying in darkness,” don’t care one whit. I popped into the Nexis search engine to find out how many times Brian Stelter’s Army at CNN has raged against Biden’s “lid.” In the last month, there are two scripts that contain the words “Biden” and “lid.” Neither was about a Biden story.

"One was CNN’s White House shrieker Jim Acosta still obsessing over the Lafayette Square protesters cleared out on June 1 so President Trump could strike a pose in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church. Apparently, someone in the military wanted to use a heat ray on protesters, but it was never used. How this nonstarter is “news” is anyone’s guess." . . .

Air Force Deploys New Weapon To Deal With Iran, North Korea

Clarion Conservative  "The United States Air Force has reportedly deployed 20 new missiles to deal with the escalating threats from North Korea and Iran that can “zap” their military electronics, thus rendering their militaries completely ineffective.

"“Known as the Counter-Electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP), the missiles were built by Boeing’s Phantom Works for the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory and tested successfully in 2012,” The Daily Mail reported. “They have not been operation until now.”

"The Mail’s report came from Ronald Kessler, a former Washington Post and Wall Street Journal investigative reporter who is also a New York Times bestselling author. Kessler writes:

Because of sequestration budget cuts, the CHAMP missiles did not become operational under the Obama administration. But after I emailed then Trump National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster in August 2017 information about CHAMP that I was about to include in my book, The Trump White House, he thanked me for letting him know about the capability, agreed to an interview, and ordered a briefing from the Pentagon." The missile, which reportedly has a range of 700 miles, is delivered from bombers and flies at a low altitude and delivers “sharp pulses of high power microwave (HPM) energy.”

"The pulses delivered by the weapon system can reportedly destroy electronic systems that are buried deep inside mountain bunkers and underground military facilities.

"Kessler reports that U.S. officials believe that even if North Korea and Iran tried to shield their military equipment that their efforts would not be sufficient. Kessler adds:

Most amazing of all, the missile renders inoperable any radar that might detect it as it flies to and from a target. Thus, a country cannot take out CHAMP before it strikes and has no way of knowing why its facilities have suddenly gone dead.

CHAMP missiles emitting HPM also differ from an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack that is created by detonating a nuclear weapon in the atmosphere. Because it is targeted, HPM leaves intact civilian facilities needed to sustain life. . . .

 More at the Daily Wire