Connect with us


CBS correspondent says he ‘felt safer reporting’ in North Korea than at the WH



KimJongUn 1385497733

CBS News’ White House correspondent Ben Tracy said on Monday that he “felt safer reporting” in North Korea than does in the White House, earning him swift condemnation and mockery from across Twitter.

“I felt safer reporting in North Korea that I currently do reporting at the White House,” Tracy said in a tweet posted Monday. “This is just crazy.”

Twitter, especially conservative Twitter, immediately pounced on this statement. President Donald Trump‘s former political aide and contestant on ‘The Apprentice’, Omarosa, even chimed in, simply saying: “Crazy!”’s own Sara Carter joined in, joking that “You need to find your safe space because yes, this statement is really crazy” attached with a GIF of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un waving.

Other commentators brought Tracy’s tweet up as evidence for why many people do not trust the press, such as Jon Nicosia, the President of News Cycle Media.

Harmeet K. Dillon, a Republican committeewoman and legal expert from California, pointed out the immense discrepancy between the White House and the authoritarian regime.

“Yes the White House is just like North Korea,” she tweeted, then saying, “other than the beatings, starvation, lack of electricity, organ harvesting, punishment of your parents, your children, your extended family on the basis of your network’s reporting.”

“You are a clown,” she added.

In 2018, Ben Tracy was the only American news correspondent to be invited to the destruction of one of North Korea’s nuclear testing sites. This trip saw him and other journalists follow strict guidelines by their North Korean hosts, including not being allowed to pull up the window shades on their train because their hosts did not want them to “see how people are living,” according to a Business Insider article from the time.

You can follow Douglas Braff on Twitter @Douglas_P_Braff.

Continue Reading


BREAKING: Trump ordered to pay over $350M, barred from operating his business in NY in civil fraud case ruling



Former President Donald Trump and his business empire faced a significant setback as a New York judge ruled against them in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The 92-page ruling, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and imposed over $350 million in damages.

The case, which unfolded over months of trial proceedings, stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his assets and engaged in fraudulent practices. Engoron’s ruling cited a litany of charges, including persistent fraud, falsifying records, issuing false financial statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

Moreover, the judge imposed restrictions on key figures within the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, barring them from serving in certain corporate roles in New York for a specified period.

Engoron’s scathing assessment of Trump’s testimony during the trial further undermined the former president’s credibility. The judge criticized Trump for evasive responses and irrelevant digressions, highlighting the detrimental effect on his credibility.

In response to the ruling, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, lambasted the court’s decision, alleging political bias and a disregard for established legal principles. Kise argued that the evidence presented during the trial failed to support the allegations of fraud and emphasized Trump’s substantial net worth.

Kise’s assertions were echoed by Alina Habba, another attorney representing Trump, who denounced the verdict as a “manifest injustice” resulting from a politically motivated witch hunt.

Throughout the proceedings, Trump consistently dismissed the trial as politically motivated, accusing both Engoron and James of partisan bias. His legal team also criticized the absence of a jury in the trial, questioning the fairness of the proceedings.

Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit against Trump and his organization, portrayed the ruling as a victory for accountability and transparency in business practices. The lawsuit alleged fraudulent conduct and sought substantial financial penalties, a portion of which would contribute to the state treasury.

The fallout from the case extends beyond Trump and his business interests, with implications for the broader business community and the rule of law. The contentious nature of the trial and its outcome underscored deep divisions and raised questions about the integrity of the legal system.

Trump vows to appeal the decision.

Continue Reading