Politics: Sean Spicier opened his mouth and made one of the worst comparisons

As I have grown up, my parents always told me to think before I speak. Maybe, someone should have told that to the White House Press Secretary Sean Spicier. He was doing his daily briefing at the White House on Tuesday. During which he decided to compare Adolf Hitler to Bashar al- Assad of Syria.

When the question arose about how Russia may have known about the chemical attacks in Syria last week, Spicier decided to stretch the comparison to Nazi Germany. Spicier said on Tuesday, “Adolf Hitler didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons during World War 2.” He also said, “You had someone who was despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons.” He did not use chemical weapons in the battles of World War 2; he used gas chambers to exterminate the Jewish people.

First, when you are in school, they teach you about what Hitler did to the Jewish people of Europe during World War 2. I think Sean Spicier either was absent from class that day or just forgot. What irks me about this is as a grandchild of a Holocaust survivor, I find this disturbing. When it comes to politics, they teach you not to compare anyone or anything to Adolf Hitler.

After Spicier had already dug his hole after making that comment, he would continue to dig his own hole. A reporter asked him to clarify what he meant with his comment, it made the situation worse. He said, “I think when you come to sarin gas, he is not using it on his own people the same way Assad is doing.” However, he continued to show how he does not think before he speaks. As he would also say that, he brought them into the Holocaust centers. So he is saying that the concentration camps that housed a plethora of people as a Holocaust center.

I personally feel this is incredibly foolish, but not a shocker. Since the Trump Administration has been in office, they seem to like to stick their foot in their mouths. So deep that it comes out the other end.

Opinion: How Rachel Maddow’s Unprofessional Bias Led To Her National Embarassment

Most of the time, this journalist feels bad if he sees someone mortified in front of an audience. I’ve been there before and it doesn’t feel good. At all. So, I naturally don’t like anyone to feel that way.

However, Rachel Maddow is an exception after her stupendous gaffe involving Donald Trump’s tax returns Tuesday night on her NBC show. That’s because she finally outed herself for what she really is (no, not a lesbian, we already knew that), which is an overly biased, unprofessional agenda promoting, audience misleading, fake news journalist. All of which is the antithesis what good news anchors are supposed to be.

Move over Geraldo and Capone’s vault, because Rachel Maddow is now the queen of news blunder jokes after somehow scooping President Trump’s 1040 tax return from 2005 and then revealing that he actually paid 25% or $38 million in taxes.

*cue the failure wah wah wah music*

It actually is somewhat unfair to compare Geraldo’s letdown with the Capone vault to this comedy of errors. For those of you unfamiliar, almost 31 years ago, a system of underground tunnels, an escape route and a gigantic vault were found after the Lexington Hotel, where notorious gangster Al Capone lived for a period of time, was renovated. The giant vault was thought to contain potentially dead bodies or oodles of gold or jewels or cash or whatnot. It was the whole mystery of “What’s in Capone’s Vault?” that was used as a marketing hype. Geraldo had the story and it was shown.

Sadly for Geraldo, when the vault doors were opened, there was nothing there but some bottles that indicated the vault had been used for smuggling more than likely, but no jewels. No gold. No mounds of cash. No dead bodies. Just an empty dirty dark room that had Geraldo right in the middle of a letdown being broadcast on national tv.

But where Geraldo breaks off from Maddow is he certainly didn’t know what was inside the vault ahead of time and I don’t think he had the option to find out. Nobody knew what was inside that vault, nobody alive to their knowledge anyway. It still was a unique story because it also featured the underground aspect of the gangster life and it showed how Capone was concerned enough to create a secret escape route. It just was better suited for a documentary not national news. The mistake there, was assuming that there was something in the vault and hyping everything beforehand.

Maddow on the other hand should’ve known because she had the documents. All she had to do was READ THEM. I’m convinced she didn’t. I can’t know exactly what happened, but I can speculate and I’m a pretty good guesser.

My theory: Once Maddow got her hands on the return, she was so giddy that she had the documents that she forwent the rational train of thought. That’s the only explanation I can give as to why she’d be dumb enough to not read the tax return and check. Granted, it’s well known that Donald Trump had a gigantic loss of nearly a billion dollars in the early 90s, and under tax law, you can use a loss like that as a way to offset paying taxes until you receive enough income to overcome that loss. Since it was nearly a billion dollars, some pundits theorized that would be enough for him to not pay taxes for two decades.

Still those are THEORIES. Good theories and believable yes, but still worth a check. Every journalism professor on the planet would tell the student to read the document and check the evidence before printing/announcing something.

But Maddow was so sure that Trump used tax loopholes, perfectly legal tax loopholes mind you, that she didn’t even read the copy or at least read it thoroughly. I can’t imagine she knew exactly what she was doing because it isn’t a juicy story if he pays $38 million in taxes, the juicy story is a billionaire paying zip or pennies not 25% of his annual income.

There’s no way on God’s green earth would she hype to the world that Donald Trump is actually a tax-paying citizen. She has shown she clearly hates the man. On election night, she point-blank stated on national television to her audience that: “This isn’t a nightmare. This is real,” about Trump becoming president. What neutral journalist says that?

To back my theory on overexcitement, it was about three o’clock in the afternoon when she went to Twitter and excitedly stated that she had obtained President Trump’s “tax returns,” and then basically said: ‘Oh, I’m going to break this live on my national show so tune in,’ so she could cash in on the high ratings that such a discovery would be sure to draw. She played a move similar to LeBron James’s when he left Cleveland for Miami, he announced it on this radio show that drew millions of listeners to hear him say, “I’m taking my talents to South Beach,” or something similar.

However, in her excitement, she forgot to mention that she only had one return and had to send out a subsequent tweet clarifying it was the 2005 return. Certainly not the same as 15-20 years of returns by any means. But still, people were going to watch her show.

I can’t say whether it was eagerness or fear that she might get scooped, but Maddow clearly jumped the gun and basically tried to leap the Grand Canyon without looking. Then once the White House scooped her and announced the details, she certainly couldn’t cancel her own show. So she did what she had to. Face the music, admit on national TV that she got Trump’s tax return, something the entire left, liberal, and Democratic Party side has wanted to see, and tell the world that Donald Trump pays a ton of money in taxes. Not the story she wanted by any means.

Because the liberal-minded Maddow wanted to make Donald Trump look terrible. She wanted to make him look unpatriotic because he didn’t pay taxes to help his government. She wanted to try to turn the middle and lower class people working on paychecks and midlevel salaries into resenting him. She wanted the entire world to hate this man because he’s so rich; why is he so rich etc. type of emotional manipulation and it blew up in her face like a Wiley Coyote scheme. All that was missing was a cartoon depiction of a roadrunner with a Donald Trump toupee saying: “Meep meep!”

As a journalist, I hold the same high standards for all my colleagues whether it is those who are working in college, at a local or national newspaper, a magazine, a highly viewed blog, a YouTube channel, a local form of radio or TV, or even a national form of radio or TV. I hold the same standards to Ms. Rachel Maddow at NBC as I do Charles Bryce of the San Angelo Standard Times, Rick “Goose” Gosselin of the Dallas Morning News, or Philip Rucker at the Washington Post.

These standards are tell the whole truth and to paraphrase The Godfather: “Make it business, not personal.”

Whether or not a new reporter likes President Trump is irrelevant. The same principle applies to any political figure whether it’s him or Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee or someone really controversial like David Duke, your job is to report the news. Not use it to try to sabotage any one person against the public for the sake of either a political or ratings-driven agenda. That’s unprofessional and it’s dangerous too because it incites the public.

Rachel Maddow has forgotten this and I hope journalism professors never let her forget that because this should be played in every classroom. Because this is a perfect example of what not to do. Of what not to become. Of how not to act. A lesson on how to avoid becoming fake biased junk news in the news world.

How to not be Rachel Maddow.


Why the GOP needs to act quickly on tax reform

It is self-evident that the GOP, in the tumultuous election cycle of 2016, mainly campaigned on a fiscally conservative platform. One of the reasons why Donald Trump was elected President is his excellent tax plan, one that energized the traditional conservative base of the Republican Party. Now he is President, the Donald seems to have forgotten about that important promise. With a Republican House and Senate, it is important to remember one of the priorities of the Trump administration: the simplification of tax brackets, the lowering of the corporate tax rate, and the novel idea of a flat tax.

This video from PragerU intelligently sums up the concept.


America was founded on a principle of equality under the rule of law. That idea, in simple English, is the premise that government, when making public policy, should treat all humans as equals, in an attempt to promote individual freedom. The flat tax solves many of the problems facing our economy today, as it changes the current tax system from one designed for redistribution, to one that exists exclusively to fund the necessary duties of the federal government.

According to David Burton of the Heritage Foundation:

“Replacing the corporate or individual income tax with a business flat tax would have a substantial positive economic impact because doing so would eliminate the double and treble taxation of savings and investment, eliminate unwarranted tax preferences, and reduce marginal tax rates substantially. Reducing the cost of capital would increase investment and the size of the capital stock, which would, in turn, make the economy more productive. Output per worker would grow and real wages would increase.”

The flat tax will bring America back to its capitalist roots and decrease the role of government by further preserving Americans’ individual property rights. It is also worth noting that the Reagan administration, with its massive tax cuts and deregulation, increased federal tax revenue from $517 billion in 1980 to $909 billion in 1988.

While the flat tax should definitely be one day considered and implemented, the current administration’s campaign stances on taxes should be followed through, as soon as possible. The Trump administration’s current priority, aside from promoting and securing Americans’ right to life, should be to address the 10,000,000 word monstrosity that is the Federal Income Tax (FIT). Ever since the Progressive era, which witnessed the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, the FIT has been a burden for many Americans.

President Trump ran on a platform of Reagan-esque tax reforms and decreasing of bureaucratic power. The simplification of the tax bracket, from 7 to 3, will make tremendous gains in creating new jobs and stimulating growth. With his proposed tax plan, Trump will also work to eliminate the estate tax and decrease federal spending while he’s at it.

If the President’s promises on the campaign trail were so good, why isn’t Congress acting on it and carrying out their legislative duties? America needs to hold our representative lawmakers accountable. The current Republican Congress should postpone their disastrous attempt to repeal Obamacare and focus on their mission of tax reform. These decisions have long-lasting impacts on all Americans and are considerably simpler than the repeal of Obamacare.

Opinion: How The Daily Beast’s Jenna Jameson Article Defines “Fake News”

The Daily Beast published an article  about Jenna Jameson’s “transformation” into a vocal political Twitter user who voices her support for Israel and her opposition to Islam. The idea behind such a piece is to interview Jameson and basically ask her why all the change?

Surrounding her quotes would be the quotes of her friends, former colleague; people who know her personally.

The reality that was given to the American people was a classic example of the journalistic garbage plaguing news feeds and search engines known as “fake news,” and a betrayal by Aurora Snow, someone Jameson called a colleague at one point.

Now, ever since Pizzagate and Hillary Clinton’s following response calling the subject “fake news,” the phrase “fake news” has been uttered with enough frequency to warrant consideration for it’s own entry into the Oxford Dictionary.

However, what exactly is “fake news?” That’s the question that Oxford, Brittanica, or Webster’s would ask before adding the phrase into its official dictionary. This is quite the question because as a journalist, I can attest that fake news comes in all forms and sizes.

The obvious and self-explanatory definition is: “News that is fake. It is maliciously or unintentionally false with no basis in fact.”

Example: “Ed Asner is a woman.” That statement is completely false without factual premise.

However, fake news can be rooted in fact, but presented in such a biased and one-sided viewpoint that it becomes fake by intentionally leaving out the entire truth. It’s not libelous because it is rooted in fact, but it’d be like saying:

“Martin Luther King is known for being a notorious cheat who had multiple affairs on his wife while being lauded as a leader of the African American community.”

Well, yes. Martin Luther King did had affairs on his wife. Many affairs. But it’s not right as a journalist to present this story without mentioning that he’s got a national holiday named for him. That he was assassinated. That he was one of the premier peaceful protest leaders who advocated racial unity and made a famous speech focusing on making a “dream” a reality.

Stories are never one-sided and it is the duty of the journalist to show all sides uncharged in a critical longform nonfiction story. It is unethical to focus solely on a negative or bash one side while pretending that this is an accurate and truthful account of a person. That’s where Aurora Snow’s piece becomes fake news.

This piece saddens me because it is quite well-written. Seriously, for a lady who started out life as a theater major before venturing into the adult entertainment role as Aurora Snow and no background that I’m aware of in writing besides blogging etc, this is quite the article.

The transitions are smooth and make the flow outstanding. The vocabulary isn’t basic, but it’s far from being elitist. The overwhelming majority of readers will have zero comprehension issues.

The problem is the piece is so negatively charged towards Jameson that it spits in the face of what news journalism is about: Neutrality. This isn’t a news story. It’s an editorial wrapped in a wool cloak and pretending to be news.

It’s not even trying to be covert about it, any person can tell that Aurora Snow is slamming and quite frankly betraying her former colleague. It starts out nice. In her opening paragraph, Snow begins by praising and identifying Jameson:

“Jenna Jameson is once again the talk of the porn industry. An icon with close to 200 adult films under her belt, Jameson is still idolized by many women getting their start in the biz. But there will never be another Jenna.”

While opinionated, this is accepted as true by any unbiased party and therefore objective. Jenna Jameson was and still is a brand name unto herself. She isn’t just known in the XXX circles or fan bases, she’s transcended into pop culture. Her 2004 autobiography was a New York Times bestseller for six weeks is just one supporting factoid to that claim.

However, Snow loses her objectivity right after that, beginning by using a quote out of context by Jameson from the 2008 AVN Awards. Let’s examine.

Jameson said: ‘I’ll never, ever, ever spread my legs again in this industry. Ever.'”

Snow’s narrative continued: “While shaming the adult industry is apparently forgivable, a series of alt-right social media tirades has forced even Jameson’s most ardent supporters in the XXX world to reexamine the woman who’s come to represent it.”

There is nothing objective about this section. Anyone with personal experience with Jameson knows she is a blunt woman which accounts for the blunt even crude retirement statement. However, let’s “assume” for a moment she is shaming the industry. Well ensuing logic would say that she’s ashamed of her time in the business.

Well, there’s no evidence to support that Jameson is ashamed of being in the porn industry. In fact, in an interview with Oprah, she stated that she has few regrets; it’s not Snow’s job as a journalist to charge the language.

“Shaming?” “Apparently forgivable?” “Tirades?” That’s not neutral language.

The first two imply that she said something wrong and the last implies that she’s acting like an immature bratty child in a grocery store checkout line because they want Reese’s Peanut Buttercups. That’s the image I see when I use the term, “tirade” to describe someone’s vocal statements.

A neutral depiction is needed and here’s an example of what I’d write: “Jenna Jameson, since leaving the industry in 2008 and saying (insert quote), has undergone a series of changes in the past nine years and the former face of the adult industry has even her most ardent supporters questioning her choices, particularly her alt-right social media opinions.”

That’s neutrality, Ms. Snow. A free lesson from me to you. Moving on, Snow crafts a narrative that calls Jameson’s fiancé “shady” and nothing else. Why isn’t the fiancé interviewed? The ex-husband is interviewed at the end, but not the fiancé?

That’s like doing a documentary on Paul Newman and not interviewing Joanne Woodward.

In addition the piece says:

Jameson has adopted a fierce and public anti-Islam stance, ranting against Muslims online and clapping back at those in disagreement.

She regularly shares stories and videos about the alleged havoc wreaked by adherents of Islam from dubious far-right sites like the pro-Trump agitprop outlet Breitbart and conspiracy theory forum Infowars, along with bigoted replies from her army of close to 700,000 Twitter followers.

Huh? I actually follow both Jameson and Snow on Twitter because I find them interesting. I didn’t know I had entered Jameson’s army. Well, General Jenna does have a nice ring to it. When is boot camp?

Kidding aside, Snow is trying to make Jameson sound like some nutjob and not even bothering to hide her disdain for Breitbart or Infowars. “Dubious?” Are you kidding me? That’s a word that no news reporter should even touch let alone print in a news story unless it’s quoted. Granted, I do not think of Infowars as a reliable news site and Breitbart is highly opinionated, but that’s not a journalist’s job.

Just say the names and also, “ranting” and “clapping back” are again, charged terms.

The 42-year-old ex-porn star clearly appears happy to embrace the controversy of her alt-right views. She idolizes Ann Coulter (“I want to be her when I grow up”) and the Illuminati-obsessed Paul Joseph Watson, has called Iran “a cancer,” regularly shares anti-Muslim scare stories, and even tweets anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about George Sorros funding cabals of liberals (the irony is apparently lost on her).

She even trolled Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who is a Muslim, into blocking her on Twitter—before declaring him “Anti-Semitic” for doing so.

“Clearly appears?” You didn’t ask her, Ms. Snow? You’re a 2017 AVN Hall of Fame inductee. Surely you could call your fellow Hall of Famer and conduct a very thorough phone interview.

Or even call to ask a follow-up question.

Why is Snow mentioning the “Illuminati” unless it’s to disparage a source. I can arguably let “scare stories” go but the verb “trolled” is negative whereas she should’ve used “argued” and also, why isn’t she just taking pictures of the actual tweets and posting the entire conversation?

The piece can put a GIF mocking Jenna Jameson (another clear indicator of its bias) but it can’t show a few tweets.

Mark Twain said, “Show don’t tell.” Show me the entire arguments, don’t just tell me about them; that way an audience can see Jameson’s POV as well as Rep. Ellisons and others. Also the unnecessary barb about “irony is apparently lost on her” while it’s clever, I wonder if Snow understands the irony of displaying an opinion as fact.

Snow does let Jameson defend herself by quoting her. For example, Jameson defended Milo Yiannopoulos to a degree despite his comments about hebephila.

Jameson tells The Daily Beast that she does not condone Milo’s comments, but empathizes with him. “I think people were quick to judge and label him without realizing he was a victim of sexual abuse,” says Jameson. “Having been a victim myself, I know people can deal with the pain of victimization with callousness.”

See this is real journalism above right here!

No one is denying that Jameson is taking some pretty controversial stances. That’s why she’s news! She’s a public figure and her opinion is important because she is quite the intelligent woman regardless of how you feel about her personally.

So what I don’t understand is why Snow didn’t finish the whole effort. Why not thoroughly ask Jameson a line of questions to show why she’s behaving this way the way she showed her reasoning for defending Yiannopoulos just then. Jameson even brought up that fact that he was a victim of sexual abuse which could even explain things.

That’s what journalists are supposed to do. Help the subjects explain themselves.

I can and do praise Snow for her success with weaving quotes. To me, the hardest part of doing news stories, is flowing quotes. It’s like sewing information together and your brain and keyboard are the needle and thread. It’s very hard, it requires a lot of skill and an innate knowledge of flow and Snow did that.

I’m happy to see she even got a fellow star like Richelle Ryan who agreed with Jameson’s support for Donald Trump, to comment and not just getting those who wanted Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders to be president.

But what I don’t get is how Snow can go to all that trouble and then louse up what could be, and what should be if done correctly, an award worthy piece that would transform Snow from a former porn star/decent writer to being the true voice of the adult industry, not just her own voice, but their messenger voice. Someone they can rely on to deliver their accurate message.


Jameson’s attacks on outsiders are rubbing the porn industry the wrong way, especially when so many women in porn understand what it feels like to be marginalized firsthand. It’s shocking that someone who has represented the adult industry can be so intolerant.

Both Snow and the editors deserve to be reprimanded for allowing the final sentence. This is clearly an opinion by Aurora Snow the Hall of Fame porn star, not Aurora Snow, the journalist. How it wasn’t deleted can only be explained by unethical editors.

Oh and yes, Ms. Snow those are two people that you are, you’re not one and the same. Unlike the acting world, you can’t play dual roles in journalism specifically when it comes to being a reporter and an interviewed subject.

Your opinion means less than a used ketchup packet in a news story.

Let me be frank here (but many will just twist and deny this anyway), this is not an attack on a story just because I didn’t like what it said. I’m attacking this story because it’s not a real news story.

It’s an opinionated editorial that Snow and the Daily Beast is trying to pass off as news and it’s borderline libelous.

If Snow wants to write a story that says, “Jenna Jameson is the ultimate hypocrite and is becoming a member of the entity that has abused, harassed, stalked, and emotionally brutalized myself and our colleagues for years etc etc etc,” sprinkle some tears for the crowd that needs a tissue; then fine.

If Snow wants to call Jameson a nut job then fine. If she thinks she should douse herself in kerosene, light a match and become a human candle, then go ahead. Write that. Write that opinion.

But don’t write an opinionated story and pass it off as fact because any objective reader would want to know why Jameson decided to do what she’s done. Instead, readers got well-written fake news that belongs in the garbage bin or the shredder.

Snow’s last quote, Jameson’s ex-husband Brad Armstrong said. “She’s not news… she’s a cautionary tale.”

Gee, I can say the same thing about this supposed news story.


Jeff Sessions may have done more harm to the Trump Presidency

It seems that it has been a crazy train for the Trump Administration for the over a month of him being in office. A few weeks ago, it was reported that Michael Flynn was stepping down from his position after it was revealed that he had discussions with Russian officials and he never told that to anyone. Now it seems another member of the Trump Administration has been caught doing the same thing, Jeff Sessions.

It is being reported that recently appointed Attorney General Jeff Sessions has had conversations with Russian officials and didn’t divulge that to members of Congress at his hearing. While nothing has happened to his position as of this writing, time can only tell as to his future as being the attorney general. However, due to not telling anyone about these conversations that Sessions, who at the time was the Republican Senator from Arkansas, had with Russian officials could lead to a special counsel appointed by Congress to investigate the role of Russia in the 2016 election.

This also becomes interesting and could be a conflict of interest as Jeff Sessions oversees the Justice Department and the FBI, which have been in charge of investigating Russian’s role in the election and any links to the Trump administration. It should be noted that since Trump became the president back on January 20th, there has been accusations that the Russians were the ones who helped Trump beat Clinton. When Jeff Sessions was at his confirmation hearings back in January, he was specifically asked by Senator Al Franken of Minnesota if he was aware if anyone, who was associated with Trump’s campaign, had any conversations with Russia.

In regards to Jeff Sessions, it will be interesting to see how much longer he is still the Attorney General and this will not help Donald Trump as that would then mean two high-level members of his administration would end up resigning due to conversations with Russia.

President Donald Trump won’t be attending the White House Correspondents Dinner

The White House Correspondents Dinner has been an event that has been held by the President and First Lady since 1924 when Calvin Coolidge hosted the first one. The President and First Lady has hosted the event every year, except for now. There are various reports being circulated that President Donald Trump will not be attending the event.

Typically, this event is attendant by celebrities, members of the Washington media, and other members. Also, there is usually a roast done of the President. However, this shouldn’t come as a shocker that Donald Trump won’t be attending the event as he hasn’t had the best of times with the media since he became president back in January. Since he took over from President Obama, he has continued to attack the media from calling them “fake news” to “the enemy of the American people.”

He sent out a tweet on Saturday afternoon through his official account (@realDonaldTrump) and it read, “I will not be attending the White House Correspondents Association Dinner this year. Please wish everyone well and have a great evening.” As I read through the responses on his tweet, none of them were supporting his decision and were calling him out.

It has become almost toxic between Trump and the media after he went ahead and barred several news outlets from the briefing on Friday. There have been other outlets who have decided to boycott the event due to how Trump has handled the media in the first month of him being in office. As he continues his first term, he is handling a lot of the problems that are brought upon him very immature.

It should be interesting to see if the relationship between Trump and the media ever gets better or continues to become worse and worse. I don’t recall any president from my readings to talking to people who has had a more toxic relationship with the media.

Politics: The Trump Administration pushed the line

I am aware that President Donald Trump is allowed to do what he wants within reason, but the actions that his administration pulled on Friday afternoon are pushing the line. At the off television briefing that was done by the White House press secretary Sean Spicer, he spoke to a room of handpicked news outlets and went as far as barring some of the major news outlets from the briefing.

The news outlets that were barred from the briefing were CNN, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and Politico. It should be noted that since President Trump has been in office, he has vowed to stop the “fake news.” He recently made comments saying that the media was an enemy of the American people. I say that this pushes the line because this shows that if you speak wrong of the President then you are not allowed to cover him. This is also in clear violation of our first amendment with freedom of speech.

Instead of barring these news outlets, he should have handled this situation more head on. I don’t agree with this at all because the media is doing their job by reporting what the president is doing. Essentially, these outlets were speaking the truth and his administration couldn’t handle it. As many Americans know, the media outlets all report from different angles.

It should be noted that some of the outlets that were allowed in were Breitbart, the Washington Times, and One America News. This shouldn’t come as a surprise because these outlets have not reported anything negative about Trump or his administration. Breitbart also should not be a surprise to have been one of the outlets that were allowed in as Trump’s right hand man Steve Bannon had a major role with them prior to joining the Trump administration.

It should be noted that representatives from the Associated Press, Time Magazine, and USA Today would end up boycotting the briefing due to how the situation was handled. Also it should be noted that the common theme that was presented by the outlets that were barred were that they have never seen this happen before. I also don’t see this helping the already tense relationship between Trump and the media, but we shall see how this all plays out in the end.