Theseus

Maybe Facebook needs to learn the ultimate truth, the technology is just not there to fully automate and human intervention is and will always be needed. Hence why I no longer do automated trading unless I am sitting in front of the screen.

Tomorrow's yesterday will always be today.

Why water is a growing faultline between Turkey and Iraq Upstream projects will produce energy and jobs, but Iraq fears for livelihoods downstream Excerpts: They are from different generations, different countries, and live 1,100km apart. Yet the fates of Suleyman Agalday and Nashwa Nasr are intertwined by policies transforming the Tigris River that has irrigated their societies for centuries. Today, both are threatened with displacement. In south-east Turkey, Mr Agalday, 39, will see the ancient caves and rock formations of his hometown, Hasankeyf, flooded as the waters slowly rise because of his government’s controversial Ilisu dam. Engineers are due to start filling the reservoir this month. In the months ahead, homes, gardens and thousands of years of history will be submerged. .... Mr Janabi’s ministry proposed a 20-year project to develop sustainable water practices, at a cost of $184bn. But Iraq, saddled with $71bn of debt and beset by years of low oil prices, cannot afford it. “We need to adapt, but adaptation costs money,” says Mr Janabi. “And that money is not available.” For many along the Tigris, adaptation is not even an option. In Hasankeyf, Mr Agalday awaits the day that he is forced to leave the town — and wonders if his grandmother’s cave will be submerged along with the rest of the lush valley. In sweltering Chibayish, Ms Nasr and her stepsons debate whether to follow neighbours who fled towards Iran’s marshlands seeking a head start against drought. “We won’t survive in a city,” says her stepson Ahmed. “The marshes are our life.” Due to copyright restrictions read the full article here: https://www.ft.com/content/82ca2e3c-6369-11e8-90c2-9563a0613e56 This is something to watch as Iraq tries to implement projects for sustainable water.

Can you slap some cents into the dinar? Preferably about 120 times.

My favorite subject: Unicorns More specifically Unicorns farting rainbows... Why? What's better than stinky smelly BS than a Unicorn farting a rainbow where there is always a bigger pile of crap (Unicorn crap don't stink, doncha know) waiting for ya there if you follow the gobbledygook du jour.

It's not urgent as they are following a defined plan set forth in accordance with the 2016 SBA agreement with the IMF. In the last review the following items were designated to be accomplished and worked on (August 1, 2017): - Significantly improving public financial management will be important. Arrears need to be assessed and paid following verification, and expenditure commitment and cash management should be strengthened to prevent the accumulation of new arrears. - Measures to bolster financial sector stability include strengthening the legal framework of the Central Bank of Iraq, restructuring state-owned banks, and eliminating an exchange restriction and a multi-currency practice. Measures to prevent money-laundering, counter the financing of terrorism, and strengthen the anti-corruption legislation also need to be implemented. - Implementation of the budget-sharing agreement with the Kurdistan Regional Government would put both the federal government and the Kurdistan Regional Government in a better position to address the shocks to the Iraqi economy. The urgency is no urgency at all but a methodical systematic following of what has been outlined in the 2016 SBA agreement. It will be based off of the final review of this agreement before an RV can happen. Seeing articles such as these only affirms that Iraq is working on and completing the objectives of the 2016 SBA agreement. We should find out in the next couple of months whether there will be a third review, in addition to a final review, or the third review is the final review. The issue is Iraq has been barely meeting their milestones or have been given a waiver on the milestones they did miss. With higher oil prices this should render this issue moot except in the non-oil production sectors. The shock to the Iraq economy in the last bullet point is when there is an RI/RV there has been a shock to the economy of the country that has done the reval of their currency. When China does an RV they experience this as well but since they do it so often the shock to the economy is well prepared before doing it. When the country in Europe broke away from the Euro, they experienced a sharp drop in their currency and it has not yet recovered but has been steadily increasing though.

She isn't committing sedition, best that she can be charged with is inciting violence. The sad part is that if she does continue someone is going to get seriously hurt, as has been shown by antifa group. In this case, its reverse inciting. The shouters are trying to get a violent response i. order to exploit it politically. Which in some states can either be a misdemeanour of the first degree or if to incite violence which is felonious it becomes a felony of third degree. It is her right of free speech to call for impeachment of a president. However, inciting violence or to incite a riot is against the law. Inciting others into harassment is also against the law due to the fact harassment is against the law. IF a person incites a person to commit a crime they too can be charged with the crime.

GOP LAWMAKERS INTRODUCE CENSURE MEASURE, CALL ON MAXINE WATERS TO RESIGN 1:07 AM 06/26/2018 Scott Morefield | Reporter 23880 1897 Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs on Monday introduced a measure that would censure Rep. Maxine Waters and ask her to resign for inciting people to publicly confront Trump administration officials. Biggs told The Hill that Waters’ comments do “not become somebody who’s in Congress” and warrant disciplinary action. “So we just introduced it, we have some cosponsors, but what she did was to basically incite people to come after and attack members of the president’s cabinet,” the Arizona Republican told The Hill. “And also spread that out to more people.” “Everybody agrees that it was just highly objectionable what she did,” he added. The measure calls on Waters to apologize to Trump administration officials “for endangering their lives and sowing seeds of discord,” to release a statement making it clear that violence and harassment aren’t appropriate ways to protest, and finally to resign her House seat. Twitter Ads info and privacy “If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd,” Waters told a gathering Saturday. “And you push back on them. Tell them they’re not welcome any more, anywhere!” (RELATED: Maxine Waters: God Is On The Side Of People Driving Trump Officials From Restaurants) Earlier on Monday, Former George W. Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer called on Congress to censure Waters. “There’s enough in this society, you don’t engage in those types of practices. And, Maxine basically denied that she called on people to harass others. No peace, no rest. So she is still sticking by what she has done,” said Fleischer. “The press needs to have a feeding frenzy among the left as they always do on the right. It’s her turn now. Frankly I’m at the point where, if she continues to double down the house ought to take up a motion to censure her. Because this does lead to violence.” (RELATED: Ari Fleischer Calls For Congress To Censure Rep. Waters ‘If She Continues To Double Down’ On Harassment Comments) So far, five members have agreed to sign onto Biggs’ measure.

Justices Back Pregnancy Centers That Oppose Abortion, in Free Speech Case Image The case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, concerned a California law that requires centers operated by opponents of abortion to provide women with information about the availability of the procedure.CreditAl Drago for The New York Times By Adam Liptak June 26, 2018 WASHINGTON — A state law requiring “crisis pregnancy centers” to supply women with information about abortion likely violates the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in blocking the law. The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s more conservative justices in the majority. The case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, No. 16-1140, concerned a California law that requires centers operated by opponents of abortion to provide women with information about the availability of the procedure. The centers seek to persuade women to choose parenting or adoption. The state requires the centers to post notices that free or low-cost abortion, contraception and prenatal care are available to low-income women through public programs, and to provide the phone number for more information. The centers argued that the law violated their right to free speech by forcing them to convey messages at odds with their beliefs. The law’s defenders said the notices combat incomplete or misleading information provided by the clinics. ADVERTISEMENT The California Legislature found that the roughly 200 centers in the state used “intentionally deceptive advertising and counseling practices that often confuse, misinform, and even intimidate women from making fully-informed, time-sensitive decisions about critical health care.” A separate part of the law applies to unlicensed clinics. They are not required to post notices about the availability of abortion, but are required to disclose that they are not licensed by the state. The Supreme Court’s Biggest Decisions in 2018 The nation’s highest court faces a far-reaching list of cases that renew its central role in American life. June 18, 2018 A unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, had upheld both parts of the law. “California has a substantial interest in the health of its citizens, including ensuring that its citizens have access to and adequate information about constitutionally protected medical services like abortion,” Judge Dorothy W. Nelson wrote for the panel in upholding the requirement that licensed clinics post a notice about abortion. ADVERTISEMENT “The notice informs the reader only of the existence of publicly funded family-planning services,” Judge Nelson wrote. “It does not contain any more speech than necessary, nor does it encourage, suggest or imply that women should use those state-funded services.” Other federal appeals courts had struck down similar laws, saying that the government could find other ways to inform women about their options. The Ninth Circuit also upheld the requirement that unlicensed clinics disclose that they are unlicensed. “California has a compelling interest in informing pregnant women when they are using the medical services of a facility that has not satisfied licensing standards set by the state,” Judge Nelson wrote. “And given the Legislature’s findings regarding the existence of” the centers, “which often present misleading information to women about reproductive medical services, California’s interest in presenting accurate information about the licensing status of individual clinics is particularly compelling.”

Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Travel Ban Image Protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court in June of last year over the president’s disputed travel ban.CreditAl Drago for The New York Times By Adam Liptak June 26, 2018 WASHINGTON — President Trump acted lawfully in imposing limits on travel from several predominantly Muslim nations, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday. The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s conservatives in the majority. The court’s decision, a major statement on presidential power, marked the conclusion of a long-running dispute over Mr. Trump’s authority to make good on his campaign promises to secure the nation’s borders. Just a week after he took office, Mr. Trump issued his first travel ban, causing chaos at the nation’s airports and starting a cascade of lawsuits and appeals. The first ban, drafted in haste, was promptly blocked by courts around the nation. ADVERTISEMENT A second version, issued two months later, fared little better, although the Supreme Court allowed part of it go into effect last June when it agreed to hear the Trump administration’s appeals from court decisions blocking it. But the Supreme Court dismissed those appeals in October after the second ban expired. The Supreme Court’s Biggest Decisions in 2018 The nation’s highest court faced a far-reaching list of cases that renewed its central role in American life. June 18, 2018 In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to Mr. Trump’s third and most considered entry ban, issued as a presidential proclamation in September. It initially restricted travel from eight nations, six of them predominantly Muslim — Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad, Venezuela and North Korea. Chad was later removed from the list. You have 3 free articles remaining. Subscribe to The Times The restrictions varied in their details, but, for the most part, citizens of the countries were forbidden from emigrating to the United States and many of them are barred from working, studying or vacationing here. In December, the Supreme Court allowed the ban to go into effect while legal challenges moved forward. Hawaii, several individuals and a Muslim group challenged the latest ban’s limits on travel from the predominantly Muslim nations; they did not object to the portions concerning North Korea and Venezuela. They said the latest ban, like the earlier ones, was tainted by religious animus and not adequately justified by national security concerns. The challengers prevailed before a Federal District Court there and before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. EDITORS’ PICKS The Glamorous Grandmas of Instagram Facebook Gave Phone Makers Vast Access to Users’ Data First Canada Tried to Charm Trump. Now It’s Fighting Back. ADVERTISEMENT The appeals court ruled that Mr. Trump had exceeded the authority Congress had given him over immigration and had violated a part of the immigration laws barring discrimination in the issuance of visas. In a separate decision that was not directly before the justices, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., blocked the ban on a different ground, saying it violated the Constitution’s prohibition of religious discrimination.

BREAKING 5-4 ruling in which SCOTUS has upheld the Travel Ban but has sent it back down to the lower courts with strict guidance. SCOTUS says EO within Presidential authority by stating that the President is within in his powers to limit entry according to Immigration law. More to follow.

People need to read the U.S. Constitution more. Article II. Section 2. Paragraph 1 specifically speaks to the Pardoning power of a President. Notice the last clause of the last sentence of the paragraph: Article II. Section 2. Paragraph 1. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he [The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. This makes Presidential self-pardon, if any President were to be impeached, to be null and void. However, also note any impeachment by Congress is limited to only the removal office, if impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. A President can be removed from office but the Congressional trial cannot include imprisonment or any consequence other than removal from office. However, Censure is an acceptable outcome and precedence for Censure has been set.

Bo!!

Whatcha talkin bout Willis! Dems have been throwin the term Nazi around since Reagan and beyond. To the dems its all about invoking raw unfettered emotion because when this is invoked there is no logic or reasoning to the vitriol that spews forth from the disease-ridden mouths like a supervolcano having a super eruption, violent and who cares where the fallout lands.

I once threw a leader into the stream and caught a walleye. I had to throw it back because the dems got angry because they believed I had an eye on the wall. DummyCrats i swear!

And very tainted with things you have no idea that crawls around at night in the dark recesses of that thing.

Is chuck a woodchuck that up-chucks when chucking wood?

Let me rephrase this It's tough to keep people on the concrete plantation and get rich off their backs if they break free of their proverbial chains.

The reason is is that the DemoRats are trying to find something that will 1) Stick to Trump since collusion and obstruction doesn't seem to be working. Even though they had no issue on this subject matter prior to Trump's Admin. 2) break the Trump campaign pledge to finally resolve the situation and the DemoRATS don't want to solve either issue of Immigration nor Racism. Doing so would suck all the power they have left in their little balloon . They need more to counter the sinking ship called CA, Detroit, New Orleans, Colorado, Chicago, Seattle etc. 3) allow the DemoRATS see open borders as ushering in new demoRAT voters. 4) lastly, they need to keep emotion alive in the campaign since they cannot run on issues. (It's the economy, stupid, etc.) This is why the demoRATS have been obstructionist on this issue. If it were to get solved once and for all, then demoRATS would not be able to replenish their supply of voters as voters en masse catch on to what they are doing and flee the demoRAT party. Its tough to keep people in poverty and then get rich off of their backs if they rebel against the system.

IF a woodchuck could chuck wood how much up-chuck could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Answer as much BS as gets thrown in the Rumor section!

IF you don't know, neither do I. I am confuzzled and confrazzled that sometimes it bedazzles us all. Jing-a-ling-aling.

50 Media Mistakes in the Trump Era: The Definitive List by sattkisson on June 10, 2018 in News 49 Comments Wethe media have “fact-checked” President Trump like we have fact-checked no other human being on the planet—and he’s certainly given us plenty to write about. That’s probably why it’s so easy to find lists enumerating and examining his mistakes, missteps and “lies.” But as self-appointed arbiters of truth, we’ve largely excused our own unprecedented string of fact-challenged reporting. The truth is, formerly well-respected, top news organizations are making repeat, unforced errors in numbers that were unheard of just a couple of years ago. Our repeat mistakes involve declaring that Trump’s claims are “lies” when they are matters of opinion, or when the truth between conflicting sources is unknowable; taking Trump’s statements and events out of context; reporting secondhand accounts against Trump without attribution as if they’re established fact; relying on untruthful, conflicted sources; and presenting reporter opinions in news stories—without labeling them as opinions. What’s worse, we defend ourselves by trying to convince the public that our mistakes are actually a virtue because we (sometimes) correct them. Or we blame Trump for why we’re getting so much wrong. It’s a little bit like a police officer taking someone to jail for DUI, then driving home drunk himself: he may be correct to arrest the suspect, but he should certainly know better than to commit the same violation. So since nobody else has compiled an updated, extensive list of this kind, here are: 50 Notable Mistakes and Missteps in Major Media Reporting on Donald Trump 1. Aug. 2016-Nov. 2016: The New York Post published modeling photos of Trump’s wife Melania and reported they were taken in 1995. Various news outlets relied on that date to imply that Melania—an immigrant—had violated her visa status. But the media got the date wrong. Politico was among the news agencies that later issued a photo date correction. 2. Oct. 1, 2016: The New York Times and other media widely suggested or implied that Trump had not paid income taxes for 18 years. Later, tax return pages leaked to MSNBC ultimately showed that Trump actually paid a higher rate than Democrats Bernie Sanders and President Obama. 3. Oct. 18, 2016: In a Washington Post piece not labelled opinion or analysis, Stuart Rothenberg reported that Trump’s path to an electoral college victory was “nonexistent.” 4. Nov. 4, 2016: USA Today misstated Melania Trump’s “arrival date from Slovenia” amid a flurry of reporting that questioned her immigration status from the mid-1990s. 5. Nov. 9, 2016: Early on election night, the Detroit Free Press called the state of Michigan for Hillarious Clinton. Trump actually won Michigan. Nancy Sinatra via Twitter 6. Jan. 20, 2017: CNN claimed Nancy Sinatra was “not happy” at her father’s song being used at Trump’s inauguration. Sinatra responded, “That’s not true. I never said that. Why do you lie, CNN?…Actually I’m wishing him the best.” 7. Jan. 20, 2017: Zeke Miller of TIME reported that President Trump had removed the bust statue of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office. The news went viral. It was false. 8. Jan. 26, 2017: Josh Rogin of the Washington Post reported that the State Department’s “entire senior administrative team” had resigned in protest of Trump. A number of media outlets ranging from politically left to right, including liberal-leaning Vox, stated that claim was misleading or wrong. 9. Jan. 28, 2017 CNBC’s John Harwood reported the Justice Department “had no input” on Trump’s immigration executive order. After a colleague contradicted Harwood’s report, he amended it to reflect that Justice Department lawyers reportedly had reviewed Trump’s order. 10. Jan. 31, 2017: CNN’s Jeff Zeleny reported the White House set up Twitter accounts for two judges to try to keep Trump’s selection for Supreme Court secret. Zeleny later corrected his report to state that the Twitter accounts had not been set up by the White House. 11. Feb. 2, 2017: TMZ reported Trump changed the name of “Black History Month” to “African American History Month,” implying the change was untoward or racist. In fact, Presidents Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton had all previously called Black History month “African American History” month. 12. Feb. 2, 2017: AP reported that Trump had threatened the president of Mexico with invasion to get rid of “bad hombres.” Numerous publications followed suit. The White House said it wasn’t true and the Washington Post removed the AP info that “could not be independently confirmed.” 13. Feb. 4, 2017: Josh Rogin of the Washington Post reported on “Inside the White House-Cabinet Battle Over Trump’s Immigration Order,” only to have the article updated repeatedly to note that one of the reported meetings had not actually occurred, that a conference call had not happened as described, and that actions attributed to Trump were actually taken by his chief of staff. 14. Feb. 14, 2017: The New York Times’ Michael S. Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo reported about supposed contacts between Trump campaign staff and “senior Russian intelligence officials.” Comey later testified “In the main, [the article] was not true.” 15. Feb. 22, 2017: ProPublica’s Raymond Bonner reported CIA official Gina Haspel—Trump’s later pick for CIA Director—was in charge of a secret CIA prison where Islamic extremist terrorist Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in one month, and that she mocked the prisoner’s suffering. More than a year later, ProPublica retracted the claim, stating that “Neither of these assertions is correct…Haspel did not take charge of the base until after the interrogation of Zubaydah ended.” 16. April 5, 2017: An article bylined by the New York Times’ graphic editors Karen Yourish and Troy Griggs referred to Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, as Trump’s wife. 17. May 10, 2017: Multiple outlets including Politico, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, AP, Reuters and the Wall Street Journal reported the same leaked information: that Trump fired FBI Director James Comey shortly after Comey requested additional resources to investigate Russian interference in the election. The New York Times’ Matthew Rosenberg and Matt Apuzzo, and CNN’s Sara Murray reported the information in sentences and paragraphs that omitted attribution, as if it were an established fact. The Washington Post’s Philip Rucker, Ashley Parker, Sari Horwitz and Robert Costa wrote news articles in the style of opinion pieces and from an omniscient viewpoint as if they were somehow in the mind of Trump. For example, they reported, “Every time FBI Director James B. Comey appeared in public, an ever-watchful President Trump grew increasingly agitated that the topic was the one that he was most desperate to avoid: Russia.” (Other reporters —Reuters’ Dustin Volz and Susan Cornwell— did properly attribute the claim.) The Justice Department, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe said the media reports were untrue and McCabe added that the FBI’s Russia investigation was “adequately resourced.” 18. June 4, 2017: NBC News reported in a Tweet that Russian President Vladimir Putin told TV host Megan Kelly that he had compromising information about Trump. Actually, Putin said the opposite: that he did not have compromising information on Trump. 19. June 6, 2017: CNN’s Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper and Brian Rokus; and ABC’s Justin Fishel and Jonathan Karl reported that Comey was going to refute Donald Trump’s claim that Comey told Trump three times he was not under investigation. Instead, Comey did the opposite and confirmed Trump’s claim. 20. June 7, 2017: In a fact-check story, AP reported erroneously that Trump misread the potential cost to a family with insurance under the Affordable Care Act who wanted care from their existing doctor. 21. June 8, 2017: The New York Times’ Jonathan Weisman reported that Comey testified Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions told Comey not to call the Russia probe “an investigation” but “a matter.” Weisman was mistaken about the attorney general and the probe. Actually, it was Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch (not Sessions) who told Comey to refer to the Hillarious Clinton classified email probe (not the Russia probe) as “a matter” instead of “an investigation.” 22. June 22, 2017: CNN’s Thomas Frank reported that Congress was investigating a “Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials.” The report was later retracted. Frank and two other CNN employees resigned in the fallout. 23. December 2, 2017: ABC News’ Brian Ross reported that former Trump official Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was going to testify that candidate Trump had directed him to contact “the Russians.” Even though such contact would not be in of itself a violation of law, the news was treated as an explosive indictment of Trump in the Russia collusion narrative, and the stock market fell on the news. ABC later corrected the report to reflect that Trump had already been elected when he reportedly asked Flynn to contact the Russians about working together to fight ISIS and other issues. Ross was suspended. 24. July 6, 2017: Newsweek’s Chris Riotta and others reported that Poland’s First Lady had refused to shake Trump’s hand. Newsweek’s later “update” reflected that the First Lady had shaken Trump’s hand after all, as clearly seen on the full video. 25. July 6, 2017: The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman, CNN and numerous outlets had long reported, as if fact, the Hillarious Clinton claim that a total of 17 American intelligence agencies concluded that Russia orchestrated election year attacks to help get Trump elected. Only three or four agencies, not 17, had officially done so. 26. Aug. 31, 2017: NBC News’ Ken Dilinian and Carol Lee reported that a Trump official’s notes about a meeting with a Russian lawyer included the word “donation,” as if there were discussions about suspicious campaign contributions. NBC later corrected the report to reflect that the word “donation” didn’t appear, but still claimed the word “donor” did. Later, Politico reported that the word “donor” wasn’t in the notes, either. 27. Sept. 5, 2017: CNN’s Chris Cillizza and other news outlets declared Trump “lied” when he stated that Trump Tower had been wiretapped, although there’s no way any reporter independently knew the truth of the matter—only what intel officials claimed. It later turned out there were numerous wiretaps involving Trump Tower, including a meeting of Trump officials with a foreign dignitary. At least two Trump associates who had offices in or frequented Trump Tower were also wiretapped. 28. Sept. 7, 2017: The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman reported Democrat leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi called President Trump about an immigration issue. Trump actually made the call to Pelosi. 29. Nov. 6, 2017: CNN’s Daniel Shane edited excerpts from a Trump event to make it seem as though Trump didn’t realize Japan builds cars in the U.S. However, Trump’s entire statement made clear that he does. 30. Nov. 6, 2017: CNN edited a video that made it appear although Trump impatiently dumped a box of fish food into the water while feeding fish at Japan’s palace. The New York Daily News, the Guardian and others wrote stories implying Trump was gauche and impetuous. The full video showed that Trump had simply followed the lead of Japan’s Prime Minister. 31. Nov. 29, 2017: Newsweek’s Chris Riotta claimed Ivanka Trump “plagiarized” one of her own speeches. In fact, plagiarizing one’s own work is impossible since plagiarism is when a writer steals someone else’s work and passes it off as his own. 32. Dec. 4, 2017: The New York Times’ Michael S. Schmidt and Sharon LaFraniere and other outlets reported that Trump Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland supposedly contradicted herself or lied about another official’s contacts with Russians. The story was heavily, repeatedly amended. CNN, MSNBC, CBS News, New York Daily News and Daily Beast picked up the story about McFarland’s “lies.” 33. Dec. 4, 2017: ABC News’ Trish Turner and Jack Date reported that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort had recently worked with a Russia intelligence-connected “official.” But the Russian wasn’t an “official.” 34. Dec. 5, 2017: Bloomberg’s Steven Arons and the Wall Street Journal’s Jenny Strasburg reported the blockbuster that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had subpoenaed Trump’s bank records. It wasn’t true. 35. Dec. 8, 2017: CNN’s Manu Raju and Jeremy Herb reported that Donald Trump Jr. conspired with WikiLeaks in advance of the publication of damaging Democrat party and Clinton campaign emails. Many other publications followed suit. They had the date wrong: WikiLeaks and Trump Junior were in contact after the emails were published. 36. Jan. 3, 2018: Talking Point Memo’s Sam Thielman reported that a Russian social media company provided documents to the Senate about communications with a Trump official. The story was later corrected to say the reporter actually had no idea how the Senate received the documents and had no evidence to suggest the Russian company was cooperating with the probe. 37. Jan. 12, 2018: Mediaite’s Lawrence Bonk, CNN’s Sophie Tatum, the Guardian, BBC, US News and World Report, Reuters and Buzzfeed’s Adolfo Flores reported a “bombshell”— that President Trump had backed down from his famous demand for a wall along the entire Southern border. However, Trump said the very same thing in February 2016 on MSNBC, on Dec. 2, 2015, in the National Journal, in October 2015 during the CNBC Republican Primary debate, and on Aug. 20, 2015, on FOX Business’ Mornings with Maria. 38. Jan. 15, 2018: AP’s Laurie Kellman and Jonathan Drew reported that a new report showed trust in the media had fallen during the Trump presidency. But the report that AP cited was actually over a year old and was conducted while Obama was president. 39. Feb. 2, 2018: AP’s Eric Tucker, Mary Clare Jalonick and Chad Day reported that ex-British spy Christopher Steele’s opposition research against Trump was initially funded by a conservative publication: the Washington Free Beacon. AP corrected its story because Steele only came on the project after Democrats began funding it. 40. March 8, 2018: The New York Times’ Jan Rosen reported on a hypothetical family whose tax bill would rise nearly $4,000 under Trump’s tax plan. It turns out the calculations were off: the couple’s taxes would go actually go down $43; not up $4,000. 41. March 13, 2018: The New York Times’ Adam Goldman, NBC’s Noreen O’Donnell and AP’s Deb Riechmann reported that Trump’s pick for CIA Director, Gina Haspel, had waterboarded a particular Islamic extremist terrorist dozens of time at a secret prison; and that she had mocked his suffering. In fact, Haspel wasn’t assigned to the prison until after the detainee left. ProPublica originally reported the incorrect details in Feb. 2017. 42. March 15, 2018: AP’s Michael Biesecker, Jake Pearson and Jeff Horwitz reported that a Trump advisory board official had been a Miss America contestant and had killed a black rhino. She actually was a Mrs. America contestant and had shot a nonlethal tranquilizer dart at a white rhino. Watch Sharyl Attkisson’s TEDx Talk: Is Fake News Real? 43. April 1, 2018: AP’s Nicholas Riccardi reported that the Trump administration had ended a program to admit foreign entrepreneurs. It wasn’t true. 44. April 30, 2018: AP reported that the NRA had banned guns during Trump and Pence speeches at the NRA’s annual meeting. AP later corrected the information because the ban had been put in place by Secret Service. 45. May 3, 2018: NBC’s Tom Winter reported that the government had wiretapped Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen. NBC later corrected the story after three senior U.S. officials said there was no wiretap. 46. May 7, 2018: CNBC’s Kevin Breuninger reported that Trump’s personal lawyer, Cohen, paid $1 million in fines related to unauthorized cars in his taxi business, had been barred from managing taxi medallions, had transferred $60 million offshore to avoid paying debts, and is awaiting trial on charges of failing to pay millions in taxes. A later correction stated that none of that was true. 47. May 16, 2018: The New York Times’ Julie Hirschfeld Davis, AP, CNN’s Oliver Darcy and others excerpted a Trump comment as if he had referred to immigrants or illegal immigrants generally as “animals.” Most outlets corrected their reports later to note that Trump had specifically referred to members of the murderous criminal gang MS-13. 48. May 28, 2018 The New York Times’ Magazine editor-in-chief Jake Silverstein and CNN’s Hadas Gold shared a story with photos of immigrant children in cages as if they were new photos taken under the Trump administration. The article and photos were actually taken in 2014 under the Obama administration. 49. May 29, 2018 The New York Times’ Julie Davis reported the estimated size of a Trump rally to be 1,000 people. There were actually 5,500 people or more in attendance. 50. June 1, 2018 In a story about Trump tariffs, AP reported the dollar value of Virginia’s farm and forestry exports to Canada and Mexico was $800. It’s $800 million. Politicians are often fact-challenged. But for us in the media— our whole business is in facts. And we’ve played too fast and loose with our own.

Confuzzled about this post? Wellllll, let me explain this little meme. Watching the Dinar on XE right now is like watching grass grow. Confrazzled now? Good, I knew you could.