After President Donald Trump last week called for "due process" for former White House aide Rob Porter after accusations that he abused both his ex-wives, the dominant liberal media responded by again resurrecting discredited claims that Trump lobbied for the execution of the Central Park Five who were accused of raping a jogger in 1989. In fact, according to a transcript recently posted in Nexis, Trump argued against executing juveniles and pushed instead for longer prison sentences as he appeared on CNN's Larry King Live in May 1989 and responded to questions about his ad calling for New York to pass a new death penalty law for murder cases.

 


On Sunday's MSNBC Live, host Yasmin Vossoughian repeated the discredited claim that President Donald Trump in 1989 used an ad to urge the execution of a group of underage teens who turned out to be innocent, as she even gave a forum to one of the teens, Yusef Salaam, to rail against Trump talking up "due process" for members of his administration accused of domestic violence.

 


On Friday night, during coverage of the resignation of White House aide Rob Porter over spousal abuse charges, CNN's Anderson Cooper, MSNBC's Katy Tur and MSNBC's Jonathan Alter were not content to just complain that President Donald Trump sounded too sympathetic to Porter, but they even had to inject suggestions of racism into the discussion by bringing up debunked claims that Trump used an ad to demand the death penalty for black teens who were actually innocent. 


Yes, you are reading the headline correctly. On Thursday’s Deadline: White House, Wall Street Journal White House reporter Eli Stokols was very upset that President Trump called for the death penalty to be imposed on the terrorist who just killed eight people in New York City because – wait for it – Trump didn’t also call for the execution of the Las Vegas mass shooter. No one bothered to tell Eli that Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock already killed himself.


Since Donald Trump began his run for President in June 2015, parts of the dominant liberal media have repeatedly parroted the incorrect claim that, in 1989, Trump ran a newspaper ad in which he urged the execution of a group of young black and Hispanic teens who ended up eventually being proven "innocent" in spite of confessing to the infamous rape and beating of a Central Park jogger that year.

 


After the Big Three networks spent days forwarding accusations that Senator Jeff Sessions was a bigot, the time for his first confirmation hearing had finally arrived. The hearing was interrupted some nine times by roughly 25 people. This caught the attention of Senator Ted Cruz who made it his mission to set the record straight on his colleague’s history of combating racism and dared the liberal media to report the truth. ABC, CBS, and NBC all failed Cruz’s challenge Tuesday evening. 


Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton ducked a question from a gay newspaper about her foundation taking millions of dollars from countries that persecute gays. In an exclusive interview with The Washington Blade published Nov. 3, Clinton touted the Clinton Foundation’s fight against HIV and claimed, “As your president, I will continue to fight for LGBT rights here in the United States and around the globe.”

 

Once upon a time, the right had (some) reason to complain about media bias, acknowledges Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall, but these days, not so much. According to Marshall, when conservatives back in the day “went about creating their own counter-establishment,” what they built wasn’t a normal mirror image, but a funhouse-mirror image. For example, "Fox News [was] the supposed antidote to the 'liberal media'. Of course, Fox is 'conservative' in a way that the mid-century elite media simply never was. And with generations of ref-playing what had been a vaguely establishment liberal national press ceased almost entirely to be so."


I took it for granted that a leftist like Bernie Sanders would be opposed to the death penalty. Still, I was truly shocked to see Sanders—not in some throwaway comment on the campaign trail but in prepared remarks on the Senate floor—flatly call the death penalty "murder." On his MSNBC show this morning, Al Sharpton played the clip to illustrate how Sanders is working to differentiate his policy positions from those of Hillary Clinton, who says she supports the death penalty in "rare" cases.

Question: how can we begin to explain the moral compass of liberals like Sanders who call imposing the death penalty on adults duly convicted of heinous crimes "murder," but refer to the killing of innocent, unborn babies as "choice" or other grotesque euphemisms like "women's health?"


New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak weighed in on Tuesday's front page on two Supreme Court decisions, both favorable to conservatives. Yet in both cases Liptak led his coverage off by detailing the losing liberal arguments: "The move, which supporters of race-conscious admissions programs called baffling and ominous, signaled that the court may limit or even end such affirmative action."


Just when you find yourself doubting the legitimacy of capital punishment, a liberal comes along and erodes that doubt.

On his HBO program Sunday night, former Daily Show correspondent John Oliver mocked the efforts of Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts to acquire the drugs needed for the lethal-injection execution of an inmate after the solidly Republican state legislature voted to end capital punishment in Nebraska. The new law won't take effect for three months.


The front of Sunday's New York Times will evidently be blessed with "Death Penalty Leaves Boston Unsure of Itself." The paper found the death sentence handed down to convicted Boston Marathon terrorist bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev a distasteful "blot" on Boston's compassionate liberal reputation, which has rendered the finish line "a place of ambivalence," with no end of self-righteous Bostonian handwringing on the matter.