time2twit🇺🇸🌎

@Grok, fact-check Steve Scalise’s post line by line, focusing specifically on what actually happened to the 442 reporters. Scalise writes: “This morning, ABC tried to claim the Biden White House didn’t cut off press access for over 400 journalists. The facts say otherwise…” He then posts a 2023 Fox News headline: “More than 440 reporters lose press passes after White House changes requirements.” Please determine: 1. Did the Biden White House actually BAN or DENY White House access to 440+ journalists? 2. Or did the number of HARD-PASS HOLDERS decline from 1,417 to 975 after the White House instituted new eligibility and annual-renewal requirements? 3. How many journalists actually applied for renewed hard passes and were DENIED? 4. How many of the 442 simply did not renew or reapply? 5. Could journalists without hard passes still obtain DAY PASSES and access the White House? 6. Did the 2023 change remove 442 journalists from the WHITE HOUSE PRESS POOL, or is the press pool a different thing from holding a hard pass? Most importantly, examine whether Scalise’s own evidence supports his wording. His Fox News screenshot says: “More than 440 reporters LOSE PRESS PASSES after White House changes requirements.” Scalise characterizes that as: Biden “CUT OFF PRESS ACCESS for over 400 journalists.” Are those factually equivalent? Does evidence that there were 442 FEWER HARD PASSES establish that 442 journalists were BANNED, DENIED ACCESS, or otherwise “cut off” from the White House? Then compare that with the September 2026 action involving CNN, MS NOW, and Politico. Were those three organizations specifically named and barred from White House access? Were their reporters subsequently turned away? Were their credentials deactivated or confiscated? Please do not treat these terms as interchangeable: HARD PASS WHITE HOUSE ACCESS DAY PASS PRESS POOL BAN Use primary sources and contemporaneous reporting where possible. Quote the relevant evidence, provide direct links, and identify precisely where Scalise’s wording is supported by the evidence and where it goes beyond what the evidence establishes.

Trump just put an extraordinarily specific date on the Iran war. “I think the war is going to end immediately after the election.” Then he put oil prices on the same calendar: “Right after the election, oil prices are going to be tumbling downward.” One week ago, Trump said the approaching election does not affect his Iran strategy. His explanation now is that IRAN is trying to influence the election and “can’t hold out any longer.” That may be his explanation. But it leaves one enormous question: WHY DOES ELECTION DAY MARK THE ENDPOINT? The war. The oil shock. Both supposedly change immediately after Americans vote. Watch.