President Trump might be openly hostile to the mainstream media, but it was the Obama administration that was engaged in a widespread effort to thwart the media. Which do you think is more harmful to a free press?

The full extent of Obama’s actions against the press are only now coming to light.

The Columbia Journalism Review reports on a newly released government document showing that the Obama Justice Department engaged in a far more sweeping effort to spy on the Associated Press than previously believed.

“In 2013, the Justice Department launched a brazen attack on press freedom,” the CJR notes, “issuing sweeping subpoenas for the phone records of The Associated Press and several of its reporters and editors as part of a leak investigation. At the time, the subpoenas were widely seen as a massive intrusion into newsgathering operations. Last month, we learned that they told only part of the story.”

The spying came in the wake of the AP’s reporting on a thwarted Yemen-based bomb plot, which contained classified information about the CIA operation. Months later, the AP learned that the DOJ had vacuumed up two-months of phone records on 21 different lines trying to find the leaker.   

Liberals sure love #Science, but like all conservatives I just hate #Science so very, very much. Did you know that 97% of #Science-people, who clearly love #Science, agree that the global warming climate crisis means we have to immediately give the liberal elite a bunch of our money and freedom because of #Science? Well, we do – and as of a couple of months ago, noted #Scientist AOC informed us that we have exactly 12 years to do it. Okay, 11 years, ten months. Tick tock!

You know it’s true #Science because of the specificity of her 12 years figure. Not 11 years. Not 13 years. Twelve years. Now you’re talking some #Science! What can’t #Science do?

Well, it apparently can’t explain what a fetus is. #Science, according to those who love #Science, does not teach us that the human baby inside the human mother that will indisputably be a human being someday is a human being from day one. It’s unclear what #Science says it is. Take your pick: a miscellaneous clump of cells, a parasite, a cancer analog. But #Science does teach us that whatever it is, #Science won’t let it interfere with the liberal elite’s pro-abortion narrative that destroying it is a morally inconsequential act.

See, the truly useful thing about #Science is its flexibility. It’s not going to let its conclusions be clouded by inconvenient facts, observations or evidence.

#Science is reliable.

Reliably liberal. 

News that Attorney General William Barr appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham to examine the origins of the Trump–Russia collusion investigations has sent shockwaves across Washington.

Simultaneously, it was reported that Barr is working with the directors of the CIA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to review the intelligence-gathering techniques used to investigate President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.

The announcements are significant given the amount of information already known, much of which points to irregularities in the investigations and a severe bias.

Take, for example, text messages sent between FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page—both of whom were working on the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign—in which Page asked Strzok: “He’s not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.

Here are 10 key questions that remain to be answered in the scandal that has become known as “Spygate”:

Ben Shapiro is the famous, fast-talking pundit who regularly ‘owns’ aggressive campus students with his quick wit and rapid repartee.

Alas, Shapiro isn’t so ‘crazy smart’ when he comes up against difficult questions from a real interviewer. Yesterday he just couldn’t cope with an interrogation from the BBC’s Andrew Neil. He decided that Neil must be a typical BBC leftist and had an epic tantrum.

The day that I told CBS News I wished to leave my job as investigative correspondent ahead of my contract, I didn’t give a reason. I didn’t see the point because the problem wasn’t fixable.

Nor was it isolated to CBS News.

My own take is that—as our industry has changed in ways that have become undeniable to most—I was a bit of the canary in the coal mine. By that, I mean I believe I was among the first to really pay attention to the increasingly effective operations to shape and censor news—the movements to establish narratives rather than follow facts—and to see the growing influence of smear operations, political interests, and corporate interests on the news.

It’s not that I’m smarter than my peers, and I’m surely far less smart than many, but my particular brand of off-narrative reporting happened to draw the intense attention of the smear operators and propagandists, so I began to study it.

A case in point: the smear that was promulgated when I left CBS. It was often incorrectly reported that I told CBS management I was quitting due to liberal media bias. That false story turned out to be convenient for both political sides, and largely survives today. It simply wasn’t rooted in fact. And I don’t recall reporters even asking me whether it was true. Once a few articles reported that it was, others simply copied the claim and adopted it as if established fact, eventually without attribution. Now there would be no point in trying to clarify it. After all, Wikipedia says it’s true. No going back from that.