Don’t fall for the antifa trap


I’m going to botch how it’s pronounced:
antifa? Antfee? Antifa? Antifa? Yeah, antifa. Antifa, short for anti-fascist. It’s an umbrella term for a group that shows
up at protests to confront neo-Nazis and white supremacists. They dress in all black, they wear masks,
and they occasionally engage in violence. Once again, antifa members attack peaceful
demonstrators. The group’s tactics and appearance have
garnered them a lot of media attention over the past few months. America is waking up to the menace of antifa. They’re known as antifa, and they’re also
known for being violent. But for a group that’s getting so much airtime
for being violent and dangerous, they’re not causing that much havoc. In Berkeley, where about 4,000 people showed
up to protest a white supremacist rally, there were 100 antifa, nine injuries, and a total
of 13 arrests. In Boston, where 40,000 protesters showed
up, no major injuries, 33 arrests. In Portland, thousands of protesters at opposing
rallies, no major injuries, 14 arrests. That might sound like a lot, but it’s about
the number of arrests you’d expect at a rowdy NFL game. Antifa look scary, but they make up a tiny
part of the protests they show up at. So why have they become such a powerful boogeyman
in protest coverage? What is antifa? What is antifa? What is antifa? To understand why the media focuses on outliers
like antifa, I talked to Doug McLeod. He’s been studying the way the media covers
protest movements for… Basically 30 years. Anti-war movements, anti-pornography movements,
various civil rights movements, anarchist protests, abortion protests. Okay, don’t brag. You’re already in the video The specific panic about antifa might seem
new, but McLeod says it’s part of a much older media problem. You can see the media’s fixation on radical
protesters in coverage of a lot of big protests. During the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle, cameras
focused on anarchists destroying property. A group we now know as anarchists called the
black bloc began terrorizing the city. With Black Lives Matter in Baltimore, peaceful
protests against police brutality were overshadowed by images of violence and property damage. Rioting has broken out in the street. During Occupy Wall Street, reporters focused
on protesters who looked weird or destroyed property. Anarchists sprang out of the crowd and launched
this full-on assault. You cannot cede public space to thugs and
lawbreakers. Lawlessness, violence, filth. Now, it’s antifa. The peaceful counterprotest against racism
turned violent. The result is a type of outlier bias, where
a small group of violent protesters ends up dominating news coverage. You saw it in Berkeley. By any measurement, nine injuries in a protest
of 4,000 people is an outlier. But headlines fixated on antifa violence instead
of the vast majority of protesters. Berkeley’s mayor says it is time to confront
the violent extremism on the left. In other cities, images of clergy and peaceful
protesters are overshadowed by images of isolated violence played on a loop. I would compel you to air the three hours
of footage where we marched through the streets with literally no violence. A lot of this is about ratings. Images of violence and property damage create
a spectacle, which makes them really hard to look away from. What’s more interesting to watch: a bunch
of smiling protesters banging on drums, or antifa fighting Nazis? Yeah, agreed. But for a lot of reporters, it’s also about
convenience. Protests are kind of a nightmare to cover. They’re leaderless, disorganized, and often
focus on big issues that are hard to reduce to quick soundbites. A lot of journalists are really trying to
get a story straight and they’re trying to get it out there. But they’re operating under a lot of constraints. You’ve gotta find something, you’ve gotta
get back, and you’ve gotta tell it quickly. Those time constraints mean a lot of journalists
rely on official sources for quick summaries of what happened. Gotta get a quote from the police chief. Which means that a lot of protest coverage
gets told from the perspective of law enforcement. Who broke the law, who was arrested, who are
police worried about? The police chief is concerned about today’s
influx of anarchist protesters. That outlier bias has a big effect on how
viewers at home think of protesters. As audience members, we make inferences based
on that small appropriate sample. And it really creates this sort of false sample
of who those protesters really are. That false sample creates an unwinnable situation
for protest movements. In the age of Fox News, images of violence
and property damage get played on a loop to demonize protesters as dangerous and illegitimate. Left-wing thugs have been smashing windows,
burning buildings, beating people up who disagree with them. It’s the normalization really by the left
of police hatred, and there is a war on cops. But this happens even without Fox News’s
help. Media fixation on the most extreme members
of a protest can make the public turn on protesters as a whole. This is not populism, this is maybe anarchism. So that can turn off viewers where people
become angry and hostile and kind of averse to protest. That kind of coverage can also build public
support for aggressive police crackdowns, like the ones we saw in Ferguson and Baltimore. What is stopping Michael Bloomberg from enforcing
the law and cleaning up this health hazard called Occupy Wall Street. If they’re going to assault cops and try
to kill them, the cops will use deadly physical force and do what they have to do to bring
peace back to that community. We have police who are not doing their job. They’re allowing antifa to enter this park. Oppositions will start calling for the police
to take some action. “It’s time to start restoring order to
our communities and stop this lawlessness.” That can kind of embolden the police who were
initially passive into being more active combatants in the conflict. But the most frustrating thing about this
kind of coverage is that it shifts focus away from what protesters are actually organizing
about. It forces us into an endless debate about
tactics over substance. What does that get you? Smashing the windows of a Starbucks, of a
Nike store. What’s the point? Aren’t you becoming a public nuisance? There’s no excuse for that kind of violence,
right? Are you at all concerned, though, about the
rise in violence? That violence begets violence begets violence? And it tends to shut us down to ideas. So instead of confronting big issues like
globalization or police brutality or white supremacy. We get think piece after think piece about
whether protesters are going too far. When you think you’re punching Nazis, you
don’t realize that you’re also punching your cause. Groundbreaking. This isn’t to say you shouldn’t care about
violence or property damage. But you should be wary of how you’re reacting
to a biased sample. News cameras are always looking for the worst,
most radical people who decide to show up to a protest. But those outliers don’t offer you meaningful
information about who most protesters are, what they’re protesting about, or whether
they’re right. Those are the questions that actually matter. And they’re the ones that get lost in endless
debates about fringe groups like antifa.

Trump Uncontrollably Tweets Conspiracies & Trash


Donald Trump had what we call an upper mourning.
There’s upper Trump and downer. Trump upper Trump is the Trump that tweets uncontrollably
and Trump this morning, tweeting again and again and again and again. Everything from
conspiracy theories to disinflation to wild attacks on people. And I want to remind you
that this is not normal and we have to balance at the David Pakman show. I think everybody
has a responsibility to balance. On the one hand, we don’t want to publicize what Trump
says on Twitter as reasonable presidential speech, but we also can’t ignore that while
other world leaders and past American presidents have focused on doing their jobs, we now have
a president whose feed is indistinguishable from a sort of weird blend of Alex Jones conspiracy
theorist and Breitbart right wing propagandists. So let’s check it out first talking about
once again the Roger Stone trial and the judge Amy Berman, Jackson quoting from of course
Fox and friends this morning saying quote, judge Jackson now has a request for a new
trial based on the unambiguous and self outed bias of the foreperson of the jury who’s also
a lawyer by the way. Um, who’s as opposed to who apostrophe S.
Madam foreperson, you’re a lawyer. Why are you are as opposed to you apostrophe Ari,
you have a duty, an affirmative obligation to reveal to us when we selected you, the
existence of these tweets in which you were so harshly negative about the president and
the people who support him. Don’t you think we wanted to know that before we put you on
this jury? Pretty obvious he should get a new trial. I think almost any judge in the
country would order a new trial. I’m not so sure about judge Jackson. I don’t know. Then
Trump going into a three tweet spell including an all caps tweet about Robert Mueller saying,
quote, these were molar prosecutors and the whole Mueller investigation was illegally
set up based on a phony and now fully discredited fake dossier capitalizingF andD lying and
forging documents to the Pfizer court and many other things. Now, none of these things are true. None of
these things are true. Trump going on to say everything having to do with this fraudulent
investigation is badly tainted and in my opinion, should be thrown out. Even molar statement
to Congress that he did not see me to become the FBI FBI director again has been proven
false. The whole deal was a total scam. If I wasn’t president, I’d be suing everyone
all over the place and then all caps, but maybe I still will. Witch hunt. Then briefly
drip a sort of dipping into the crooked DNC stuff, which is actually smart to get some
crossover interest from Bernie supporters. Tweeting the crooked DNC is working over time
to take the Democrat nomination away from Bernie again, watch what happens to the super
delegates and round to a rigged convention. Trump may be not wrong about that one. Then going into another three tweets screed
about the U S being difficult to deal with saying quote, the United States cannot and
will not become such a difficult place to deal with in terms of foreign countries buying
our product, including for the always used national security excuse that our companies
will be forced to leave in order to remain competitive. We want to sell. I have seen
some of the regulations being circulated including those being contemplated by Congress and they
are ridiculous. I want to make it easy to do business with the U S not difficult. Everyone
in my administration is being so instructed with no excuses. The United States is open
for business. This is not normal, but you’ve got to hand it to them. It’s a, there’s something
for everybody. Sort of a few hours of craziness on Twitter. If you are most concerned with
the DNC trying to deny Bernie the nomination, Trump is tweeting something for you. If you are one of the folks that was bamboozled
by Trump knowing about trade and how he would deal with the economy. You have a three tree,
three tweets screed. That’s hard to say that three times fast, uh, three tweets screed,
uh, about the economy and about the U S as a place for business and trade and so on and
so forth. If you are still in the Trump is the most persecuted victim, read a little
up, all that stuff. Then you’ve got Trump going after Mueller about a witch hunt and
lie Pfizer, this, that, the other thing. There’s something for everybody here and you’ve got
to zoom out and realize it’s just not normal for a president to be doing any of this stuff
regardless of what the content here is and it may rocket him towards reelection. That’s
the saddest part of the entire thing. Make sure you’re following your David Pakman
show on Instagram. For more on this and other stories from today’s show at David Pakman show on Instagram, the
David Pakman [email protected]

Appeals Court Blocks Trump Administration From Enforcing Sensible ‘Public Charge’ Immigration Rule


A clearly activist court has refused to set
aside an injunction that blocks the administration from enforcing a very sensible rule that withholds
green cards from immigrants who would likely need government assistance to survive in this
country, as Reuters reports: “A federal appeals court on Wednesday refused
to set aside an injunction blocking the Trump administration from enforcing a rule that
would withhold green cards from immigrants likely to require government assistance such
as Medicaid or food stamps. In a brief order, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals in Manhattan also set an expedited schedule for the White House’s appeal of
a lower court ruling against the rule, with legal papers to be submitted by Feb. 14 and
oral arguments to be held soon afterward. The “public charge” rule unveiled last
year would make it harder for immigrants who are poor or need government help to secure
residency and stay in the country. Critics have said the rule would keep out
disproportionately large numbers of people from Latin American, African and Asian countries. Neither the Department of Justice nor the
Department of Homeland Security responded to requests for comment. The rule had been challenged in this case
by New York state, New York City, Connecticut, Vermont and several nonprofits. President Donald Trump has made immigration
a centerpiece of his administration and 2020 re-election campaign, and the public charge
rule has been among the Republican’s signature policies to curtail immigration. Several other lawsuits challenging the rule
are pending around the country. Two other federal appeals courts previously
ruled for the administration by staying nationwide injunctions ordered by lower courts, while
a third appeals court let stand an injunction covering Illinois. Because the New York case also involved a
nationwide injunction, Wednesday’s order means the rule cannot be enforced anywhere. When U.S. District Judge George Daniels in
Manhattan ordered an injunction on Oct. 11, he called the rule “repugnant to the American
Dream” and a “policy of exclusion in search of a justification.” The case is New York et al v U.S. Department
of Homeland Security et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 19-3591.” We disagree with this ruling and believe it
will ultimately be overturned at the Supreme Court, as so many anti-Trump activist rulings
have been.

Trump Accuses John Kerry Of ‘Shadow Diplomacy’


THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS
THREATENED TO SET THE IRAN DEAL ON FIRE BY THE END OF THE
WEEK. THAT IS THE DEAL THAT ENDED
IRAN’S NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAM. THEY DIDN’T HAVE A WEAPONS
PROGRAM, BUT NOW THEY COULDN’T NOT ONLY HAVE NUCLEAR ENERGY
PROGRAM, IT’S GOT THE URANIUM FROM IRAN, IT WAS AMAZING. IN
RETURN, WHAT DID WE GIVE THEM? NOTHING. WE HAD TAKEN THEIR MONEY HOSTAGE
AND WE HAD CONVINCED OTHER COUNTRIES TO FREEZE ALL THEIR
ASSETS. NOT OURS, THEIRS. IT WAS IRANIAN MONEY AND WE
FROZE THEM ALL ACROSS THE WORLD. WE KIDNAPPED THEIR MONEY AND
THEN IN RETURN FOR ENDING THEIR ENERGY PROGRAM, WE GAVE
THEM THEIR MONEY BACK. IT WAS AN UNBELIEVABLY GREAT
DEAL. LOOK, I DO NOT WANT I DO NOT
WANT THEM TO HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, THEY ARE RUN BY CORRUPT
PEOPLE. WE DIDN’T GO TO WORK, WE GAVE UP
NOTHING, AND WE TOOK AWAY ANY HOPE OF AN NUCLEAR PROGRAM. SO OF COURSE, THE MORON DONALD
TRUMP THINKS, I AM GOING TO DO A BETTER DEAL SO I AM
THINKING OF RIPPING THAT ONE UP. SO JOHN KERRY, THE FORMER
SECRETARY OF STATE WHO NEGOTIATED THAT DEAL IS
APPARENTLY GOING AROUND TO ALLIES AND TO THE PEOPLE HE
TALKED TO IN A RUN TO MAKE THE DEAL INCLUDING THE FOREIGN
MINISTER AND SAYING, HERE IS HOW WE CAN RESCUE THE DEAL, ETC. HE IS ON HIS OWN, HE IS DOING
THAT. IS THAT A GOOD IDEA? I HAVE MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT IT. IF A REPUBLICAN SECRETARY OF
STATE WAS DOING THAT TO OBAMA I DON’T KNOW IF I WOULD BE HAPPY
ABOUT IT ON THE OTHER HAND, HE IS FIGHTING FOR PEACE AND THOSE
GUYS FIGHT FOR WAR, SO THAT MEETS A GIANT DIFFERENCE AND HE
IS THE ONE WHO PUT THE DEAL TOGETHER AND AS THE FORMER
SECRETARY OF STATE HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO AT LEAST TALK TO
OUR ALLIES, THAT IS FOR SURE. DOES NOT AGREE. HE TWEETS: IF BY MESS YOU MEAN AND
EXCELLENT DEAL, THAT WAS JOHN KERRY. THAT IS PROBABLY THE SHINING
MOMENT IN HIS RESUME. EXCELLENT DEAL CRITICIZED BY
DONALD TRUMP. BY DEFINITION YOU KNEW IT WAS A
GOOD DEAL. ANYWAY, THE ANSWER FROM KERRY’S
CAMP IS: THAT IS TRUE. TALKING TO THEIR FOREIGN
MINISTER, INTERESTING, BUT LET ME GIVE YOU
THE CONTEXT THAT ALMOST NO ONE ELSE IN MEDIA IS GIVING YOU. DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
AS THEY WERE NEGOTIATING THAT DEAL, 47 REPUBLICAN SENATORS LED BY TOM
COTTON WROTE A LETTER DIRECTLY TO THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT SAYING
DO NOT DO THE DEAL. THAT IS ONLY 1 MILLION TIMES
WORSE SO WHERE IS EVERYBODY ON CABLE NEWS TALKING ABOUT
THE TREASONOUS REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO BESEECHED THE
AYATOLLAH TO NOT DO A DEAL WITH OUR GOVERNMENT AS WE WERE
NEGOTIATING A DEAL? WHERE ARE YOU GUYS? SO MAJOR GENERAL PAUL EATON WAS
ASKED ABOUT IT AT THE TIME, IT WAS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. AND HE SAID: WHEN ASKED TO DESCRIBE THE
REPUBLICAN SENATORS ACTIONS HE SAID: PLEASE SPARE ME YOUR CROCODILE
TEARS ON JOHN KERRY UNLESS YOU ARE ALSO CALLING OUT TOM
COTTON TODAY AND BY THE WAY, OTHER SENATORS LIKE LINDSEY
GRAHAM AND JOHN MCCAIN WHO NEVER SAW WAR THAT THEY DIDN’T
ABSOLUTELY LOVE. THEY WERE THE ONES WHO WERE
MUTINOUS. OKAY. THEN RUDY GIULIANI WAS SPEAKING
OVER THE WEEKEND TO A GROUP. THEY PRETEND TO BE FOR FREEDOM
IN IRAN. IF ONLY IT WERE SO. USUALLY, IT’S SHADOWY GROUPS WHO
SUPPORT ANOTHER COUNTRY WHO WANT A WAR WITH IRAN. THEY DO IT UNDER THE GUISE OF
FREEDOM FOR IRAN. SPEAKING TO THAT GROUP, GIULIANI
SAID: WAIT A MINUTE, GIULIANI DOESN’T
HAVE NATIONAL SECURITY CLEARANCE. HE DOESN’T EVEN WORK FOR THE
GOVERNMENT. HE HAS DONALD TRUMP’S PERSONAL
ATTORNEY, SO IS TRUMP SHARING NATIONAL SECRETS WITH GIULIANI? FIRST OF ALL, YOU KNOW THE
ANSWER TO THAT. OF COURSE HE IS. YOU THINK HE IS NOT BLABBERING
ALL OVER THE PLACE ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WHO DON’T
HAVE CLEARANCE. OF COURSE HE IS. AND THEN GIULIANI BECAUSE HE IS
APPARENTLY TOTALLY UNHINGED GOES AND SPEAKS OF THIS GROUP
AND IS LIKE LET ME TELL YOU CLASSIFIED INFORMATION THAT I
SHOULDN’T EVEN HAVE ACCESS TO. WE ARE GOING TO DO A REGIME
CHANGE IN IRAN. THAT MEANS WAR. THAT MEANS NOT ONLY ARE THEY
GOING TO TEAR THE DEAL, WE MIGHT GO TO WAR WITH IRAN. IRAN IS FOUR TIMES THE SIZE
OF IRAQ. THAT IS AT LEAST FOUR TIMES THE
SIZE OF DISASTER. THEIR MILITARY IS WAY SUPERIOR
TO IRAQ’S. THEY DON’T HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS
THANKS TO OBAMA AND JOHN KERRY BY THE WAY, BUT THEY DO
HAVE A TON OF CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS AND IF YOU THOUGHT WE
GOT STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF IRAQ, WAIT
UNTIL YOU GET A LOAD OF IRAN BUT ALMOST EVERYONE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION NOW IS A NEOCON WHO IS IN FAVOR OF THAT
WAR. GIULIANI WENT ON TO SAY THAT
RIPPING UP THAT DEAL AND GOING FOR REGIME CHANGE WOULD MEAN WAR
IS: I DO NOT KNOW THE ANYONE WHO HAS
EVER WRITTEN A BOOK BETTER THAN 1984. ORWELL HAS GOT TO BE THINKING,
NAILED IT. THE ONLY WAY TO PEACE IS WAR. INDEED. HOW ABOUT THE CURRENT SECRETARY
OF STATE MIKE POMPEO. WHAT HE HAS SAID IN THE PAST,
WHEN HE WAS A CONGRESSMAN? CONGRESS MUST ACT TO CHANGE
IRANIAN BEHAVIOR AND ULTIMATELY, THE IRANIAN
REGIME. THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR IS
JOHN BOLTON WHO HAS NOT MET A WAR HE DID NOT WANT TO
MAKE LOVE TO AND THE IRAN WAR, HE CANNOT WAIT FOR IT. HE IS AMONG THE ORIGINAL
MONSTROUS MORONIC NEOCONSERVATIVES THAT STARTED
THE IRAQ WAR SO ALL OF YOU LIBERTARIANS WHO VOTED FOR
DONALD TRUMP BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT HE WAS AGAINST INTERVENTION IN
THE MIDDLE EAST, JOKE IS ON YOU. AND UNFORTUNATELY, ON THE REST
OF THE PLANET AS THEY BEAT THOSE WAR DRUMS. THE REPUBLICANS WILL ALWAYS VOTE
FOR WAR. IF YOU BOTH FOR THE REPUBLICANS
THINK THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DRIVE YOU INTO WAR, YOU ARE AN
IDIOT.