THE PURLOINED PULITZER

                                             

    
                                                 By Florida Bill 
                      The Pulitzer Prize is the the most prestigious award in all of journalism. The award carries the name of Joseph Pulitzer, Publisher of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper who was a fierce believer in newspapers and their role as a watchdog in a free democracy in the greatest country in the world.
                      The late and great Col. Robert R. McCormick, the  conservative bulldog editor of the Chicago Tribune, repeated the Joseph Pulitzer sentiments when he said, that a " newspaper is that check upon government which no constitution can ever provide."
                      Since 1917, Pulitzer prizes have been awarded to newspaper  journalists who worked and fought  for stories which exposed miscreants in government and often brought liars and pretenders to their knees.
                      In April of 2019, a prize went jointly to the Washington Post and the New York Times for 10 articles apiece on "Trump-Russia developments throughout most of 2017, the chaotic first year of Donald Trump's presidency." 
                      It was the biggest disgrace in the history of the 103-year-old Pulitzer awards, and the winners were announced a few weeks after a multi million dollar investigation which had concluded that there was no "collusion" by President Trump or anyone in his administration with Russia in an attempt to influence the results of the 2016 presidential election. 
                      Allegations of "collusion" were all smoke and mirrors fostered by The Post and the Times in countless stories, followed by virtually every corner of the Democrat-tethered media. It was a sad day in journalism which will live in history books. 
                      The papers knew that their attack on the President was without any evidence, but the "journalists" coaxed on by editors, were so overcome with ill will and pure hatred for President Trump that truth was unimportant so long as the president could be taken down, removed from office,  and consigned forever as a seditious charlatan.  They lost big time, and the embattled President has emerged stronger that he was when elected. 
                    The Pulitzer board found that the Post and the Times had earned the awards for work that was--
                     "deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation's understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the president-elect's transition team and his eventual administration."                   
                           Unscrupulous reporting by the named recipients led to a major investigation by a special counsel put in place by Congress.  The investigation went on for 675 days at a cost of $33 million. Some 500 witnesses were interviewed and 2,800 subpoenas were sent out.  Looking for evidence of seditious conduct by President Trump and his supporters  were 40 FBI agents and 19 lawyers.  In the end, special counsel Robert Mueller reported that the President did not conspire or "collude" in any way with members of the Russian government.  
                           Countless stories alleging collusion, pushed by the Post and the Times were a "fake," as President Trump has said, and the big majority of them were attributed to unnamed "sources."  It was a total and complete "hoax." 
                           The President has requested an apology from the Board of the Pulitzer which has sullied the name of a great journalistic award.  The cash given to the individual recipients is reported to be $15,000.  Whatever it is, the money should be returned and the dishonest journalists ought to be fired for their misconduct and a conspiracy designed to rid the White House of the nation's 45th president. 
                           An arrogant Dana Canedy, Pulitzer administrator,  has declined to apologize for the phony pulitzer awards and in anticipation of handing out the awards to the Post and the Times and 19 other recipients characterized the criticism of the Pulitzers to the nation's two leading newspapers as "fake marketing."  She added:
                          "We stand behind the Pulitzer selection process, which has endured for 103 years. And the winning work speaks for itself," she said. "Beyond that, this simply doesn’t deserve comment. 
                      The awards in 21 categories were presented on April 15, 2019, by Canedy, to winners.  In presenting the awards she paid no attention to the dishonesty used in capturing the awards and said:
                       "The journalism categories yet again uphold the highest purpose of a free and independent press, even in these most trying of times" and "these courageous inspiring and committed journalists and their organizations are  undaunted in their mission in support of the Fourth Estate. 
                        "It is a mandate that has been under a seemingly relentless assault of late, but that remains central to a healthy democracy." 
                         THe dishonest reporting by the Post and Times reporters, sanctioned by their editors, provides a  taste of political and corrupt journalism.  The behavior of the Pulitzer board, with Ms. Canedy as administrator, endorses this type of journalism and leaves a mark of disgrace which will long endure.  


                                                              xxx




                             
                                 

                         








                   
                       

Polls and More Polls

                                             

    
                                                 By Florida Bill   

                           Want to know who is ahead, who is behind, who is surging and who made an intentional or unwitting boo-boo in the political maneuvering to become President next November. Want to know how Americans feel at any given moment about all aspects of the Covid-19 pandemic and whether endless testing for the virus is helpful or producing needless anxiety.  Will the drug,  hydroxychloroquine help, or hinder?                       
                   Turn on television for the the answers as new polls seemingly roll out at an incredible rate from the hundreds, maybe thousands of pollsters in the country. They have the crystal balls and are delivering the answers big time, all culled from telephone interviews.
                   You might wonder, who is being asked what, and where was the poll conduced. As a general rule, no one is told of the questions, or how many persons were interviewed; or where the  poll has been conducted, and how many persons have been interviewed. No one wants to get in the way of the fun so you get the findings and that's it. The collective opinion of others is all you need to know.                   
                  My own personal experience with polls did not arouse any admiration-- quite the opposite, in fact.  I was queried once by a telephone voice on a polling mission, but the caller spoke such poor English that declaring whether I was more likely, most likely, less likely or least likely to do this, that or the other thing was too tedious and I just hung up.   
                   How accurate are these telephone shotgun polls?   I heard one today that said that Joe Biden was leading the incumbent President by 11 percentage points, and another that on the pandemic, Biden is to be trusted, but for the economy, it's all Trump.  Another found that the President should not be taking the drug, hydroxychloroquine, because of possible side effects and that it sends the wrong message.
                   Now pay attention--masterminds behind the fine art of polling say that surveys tap into the into the heads of  a "scientifically constituted" group of  maybe 400 to 1,000 persons, and that this selected sample mirrors the larger population in every important way.  Supposedly, I've been told, samples have the  same proportions of men and women, blacks, whites and Hispanics; Democrats and Republicans and old and young people as in the entire population. This small sampling is supposedly accurate to within plus or minus three percentage points. That's the story and they're sticking to it, and if you buy it, well I've got this bridge to sell.

                          As if polling work is not hard enough, changes in technology are complicating the leg work for pollsters: landlines are giving way to mobile phones; and users on-the-go are less patient with long drawn out questionnaires. Without a doubt, the money saving robo-calls with their computerized voices annoy many people and prompt them to hang up.

                         So scaring up answers from the scientific aggregate, is, I sense, no simple task. Contentions of accuracy strains the imagination.  It's  even more remarkable, considering that the United States has some 330 million persons living in 19,000 cities, towns and villages; and these communities are situated inside 3,141 counties within our 50 states.  And this entire profile is spread out over about 3 million square miles of land and water.    
                          The pollsters, and there too many to count, guide their employees as they sit around a table with a bank of telephones, making calls and recording answers by checking boxes.  The bosses then pull the data together into a press release with the latest findings which is then delivered in one way or another to TV talkers who zip it out for public  consumption.   
                            Accurate--who knows.  A few years back, virtually every pollster alive, had Hillary Clinton creaming her opponent Donald Trump in the 2016 election--but, hey Trump won.  How did that happen?  Sixty-three million Americans voted for Trump and with an assist from the electoral college he became the nation's 45th President.  An embarrassed Gallop, one of the big names in polling, got even with a finding a few months later that Mrs. Clinton, sometimes called "Crooked Hillary" was America's most admired woman. 
                            Some polls are commissioned and one way or another pollsters make a ton of money.  If you are "hopeful" for a certain finding, you hire a pollster and he aims the questions at the areas most likely to produce the desired finding. For example, if you want to know Joe Biden is doing, check with the Harlem area of New York and you see that Biden is way ahead. If you want a reading as to how the incumbent Trump is doing, direct your telephone calls to the voters in West Virginia. 
                            Polls gin up interest in elections and in controversies and keep the pundits talking and talking and talking, and building their bankrolls and driving Bentleys. But as the sages say, "the only poll that counts is the one on election day." 

                                                 xxx

 


                   

                                                

Judge Emmett Sullivan, just another Democrat

 .   


                                                       BY FLORIDA  BILL

                          Federal District Judge Emmett G. Sullivan of the D.C. Circuit, has been notified by Attorney General William Barr that the government is dismissing all charges against the former NSA Director, Gen. Michael Flynn. 
                          The message to Sullivan is clear and unambiguous, but the 72-year-old jurist with long existing ties to the Democratic party, doesn't like it.  Nevertheless, the prosecution of Gen. Flynn is over, and the retired,  three-star general has been exonerated and vindicated of charges that he lied to FBI agents interviewing him.   At a recent hearing, Sullivan was  asked to formally sign an order dismissing the case as is normal procedure when the prosecutor elects not to prosecute. 
                          The veteran judge stunned his crowded courtroom by declining to dismiss the case, and instead called for Amicus Curie briefs to help him decide how to respond to the motion from the Attorney General.  Should he dismiss the case as requested by the government's chief lawyer, or should he allow Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea; or should he dig real deep and hold the defendant in direct contempt and maybe imprison him? 
                          In truth, his courtroom demeanor and handling of the matter borders on the absurd, and the judge is pathetic in his failure to understand the political machinations employed by the FBI and other Obama loyalists  in an effort to destroy General Flynn, and ultimately, bring down President Trump as a handmaiden of Russia..  
                         Sullivan continued the Flynn case for the filing of "Friend of the Court" briefs. Also, he appointed a retired judge, John Gleeson, as his "Amicus" to argue the position that the court  should not dismiss the Flynn case. Gleeson, is an ex-law partner of Sullivan's, and is well known and has spoken out in the past with heavy anti-Trump rhetoric.     
                          Former Federal prosecutor, Andrew McCarthy, was quick to recognize the political nonsense and hostility in the behavior of Judge Sullivan, who has demonstrated a continuing bias against General Flynn, and at one previous hearing suggested that the three-star general might have committed treason.  Sullivan was appointed to the federal bench in 1994 by President Clinton, and his gratitude to Democrats for the life time job goes on and on.  
                          He has become "unhinged" said McCarthy, and he appears to be organizing an "anti-Trump group therapy session."  Amicus Briefs are virtually unheard of in criminal cases, he pointed out, since the parties consist solely of the government prosecutor and a defendant. The opinion of the man on the street is irrelevant as to how the judge rules in a case.                
                           Sullivan is playing to his Democratic friends and is on a path where he cannot prevail and force the prosecution of a defendant over the decision of the government and the Attorney General not to prosecute. Federal judges have immense power, for sure, but the decision as to who will be prosecuted is not the judge's decision to make, and is within the absolute discretion of the Attorney General.   
                          Basically, Judge Sullivan is dallying around because he knows that the media will spotlight him and try and make him look like some sort of a hero.  But it is only an illusion, and when the dust clears for history to record, Gen. Flynn has been cleared of these phony charges and hopefully and soon will be restored as a key member of the Trump administration. 

                                                  XXX