Mediaboss Marketing

Dublin, Oct. 15, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Terminal Management System - Global Market Outlook (2019-2027)" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

According to the report, the Global Terminal Management System Market accounted for $911.38 million in 2019 and is expected to reach $1,674.45 million by 2027, growing at a CAGR of 7.9% during the forecast period.

Some of the key factors propelling the market growth include increasing needs for safety and environmental norms in various verticals, growing implementation of terminal management solutions in brownfield projects, low operational cost, increasing awareness about security solutions, and increasing awareness about installing automation solutions. However, fluctuation in crude oil prices impacts the installation of terminal management software in oil & gas industry hampering the market growth.

Terminal management system is a combination of hardware & software elements which helps to carry out all data management task which are required to perform while loading terminal. The components are developed and tested to manage and control a system. According to CGI, terminal management system can be explained as an innovative solution which chains the main business functions involved in bulk terminal management.

By project type, the brownfield projects segment is expected to grow at a significant rate during the forecast period.

The growing demand for automating existing terminals by integrating software will increase the overall productivity, and help conserve both time and energy. Traditional terminal infrastructure such as pipeline connections, tanker berths, and other components is already present, and therefore the automation of such existing terminals by integrating software will help increase the number of brownfield projects.

On the basis of geography, the terminal management system market in APAC is expected to have considerable growth during the forecast period, owing to the rise in the number of terminal automation projects in countries such as India, Malaysia, and the Philippines. For instance, the governments of China and Japan are focusing on innovation and growth, and are taking steps to restructure the market.

Some of the key players in Terminal Management System market include ABB Ltd., Agidens International Nv, Emerson Electric Co. Endress+Hauser Management AG, General Atomics Corp., Honeywell International Inc., Implico Group, Koninklijke Vopak N.V., Offspring International Limited , Rockwell Automation, Inc., Schneider Electric, Siemens AG, Toptech Systems, Inc., Triple Point Technology, Inc. , Yokogawa Electric Corporation, AC2, Inc., Marabu GmbH & Co. KG, Tema business Systems, Motorola Solutions, Inc., and Dearman Systems, Inc.

Project Types Covered:

Offerings Covered:

End-users Covered:

Applications Covered:

Sales Channel:

What the report offers:

Key Topics Covered:

1 Executive Summary

2 Preface2.1 Abstract2.2 Stake Holders2.3 Research Scope2.4 Research Methodology2.4.1 Data Mining2.4.2 Data Analysis2.4.3 Data Validation2.4.4 Research Approach2.5 Research Sources2.5.1 Primary Research Sources2.5.2 Secondary Research Sources2.5.3 Assumptions

3 Market Trend Analysis3.1 Introduction3.2 Drivers3.3 Restraints3.4 Opportunities3.5 Threats3.6 End-user Analysis3.7 Application Analysis3.8 Emerging Markets3.9 Impact of COVID-19

4 Porters Five Forces Analysis4.1 Bargaining Power of Suppliers4.2 Bargaining Power of Buyers4.3 Threat of Substitutes4.4 Threat of New Entrants4.5 Competitive Rivalry

5 Global Terminal Management System Market, By Project Type5.1 Introduction5.2 Greenfield Projects5.3 Brownfield Projects

6 Global Terminal Management System Market, By Offering6.1 Introduction6.2 Services6.2.1 Managed Services6.2.2 Professional Services6.3 Software6.4 Hardware

7 Global Terminal Management System Market, By End-user7.1 Introduction7.2 Chemicals7.2.1 Petrochemicals7.3 Oil & Gas7.3.1 Upstream7.3.2 Midstream7.3.3 Downstream7.4 Railway7.5 Aviation Industry7.6 Renewable Sector7.7 Other End-users7.7.1 Manufacturing7.7.2 Banking and Financial Services7.7.3 Automobile

8 Global Terminal Management System Market, By Application8.1 Introduction8.2 Pipeline8.3 Receipt / Dispatch By Truck8.4 Inspections8.5 Automatic Bay / Berth Allocation8.6 Rail Wagon8.7 Kiosk Functionality8.8 Access Control8.9 Automatic Tank Farm Control8.10 Sealing8.11 Blending

9 Global Terminal Management System Market, By Sales Channel9.1 Introduction9.2 Aftermarket9.3 Manufacturer/Distributor/Service Provider

10 Global Terminal Management System Market, By Geography10.1 Introduction10.2 North America10.2.1 US10.2.2 Canada10.2.3 Mexico10.3 Europe10.3.1 Germany10.3.2 UK10.3.3 Italy10.3.4 France10.3.5 Spain10.3.6 Rest of Europe10.4 Asia-Pacific10.4.1 Japan10.4.2 China10.4.3 India10.4.4 Australia10.4.5 New Zealand10.4.6 South Korea10.4.7 Rest of Asia-Pacific10.5 South America10.5.1 Argentina10.5.2 Brazil10.5.3 Chile10.5.4 Rest of South America10.6 Middle East & Africa10.6.1 Saudi Arabia10.6.2 UAE10.6.3 Qatar10.6.4 South Africa10.6.5 Rest of Middle East & Africa

11 Key Developments11.1 Agreements, Partnerships, Collaborations and Joint Ventures11.2 Acquisitions & Mergers11.3 New Product Launches11.4 Expansions11.5 Other Key Strategies

12 Company Profiling12.1 ABB Ltd.12.2 Agidens International Nv12.3 Emerson Electric Co.12.4 Endress+Hauser Management Ag12.5 General Atomics Corp.12.6 Honeywell International Inc.12.7 Implico Group12.8 Koninklijke Vopak N.V.12.9 Offspring International Limited12.10 Rockwell Automation, Inc.12.11 Schneider Electric12.12 Siemens Ag12.13 Toptech Systems, Inc.12.14 Triple Point Technology, Inc.12.15 Yokogawa Electric Corporation12.16 AC2, Inc.12.17 Marabu GmbH & Co. KG12.18 Tema Business Systems12.19 Motorola Solutions, Inc.12.20 Dearman Systems, Inc.

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/wkg7fm

Research and Markets also offers Custom Research services providing focused, comprehensive and tailored research.

See the rest here:
Insights on the Terminal Management Global Market to 2027 - Strategic Recommendations for New Entrants - GlobeNewswire

Dublin, Oct. 14, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Time and Attendance Software - Global Market Outlook (2019-2027)" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

According to the report, the Global Time and Attendance Software Market accounted for $1,317.38 million in 2019 and is expected to reach $2,493.09 million by 2027, growing at a CAGR of 8.3% during the forecast period.

Customization of the software (cater to the needs of different groups of employees) and growing integration with financial analytics are the major factors propelling the market growth. However, cost of installation of this software is hampering the market growth.

Time and attendance software is a business application developed to optimize and track the number of work hours of an employee, which helps keep record of wages and salaries paid. It provides management personnel with diverse tools to help maximize cash flow and minimize waste.

Based on the type, the biometric segment is going to have a lucrative growth during the forecast period due to its property of serving different individuals and organizations, ardently looking for first-rate security. Furthermore, they are helpful in monitoring the activities of various people entering and leaving the organization, these devices are becoming mandatory security systems.

By geography, North America is going to have a lucrative growth during the forecast period due to the presence of global players in the U.S. Growing organization sizes and increasing application area of time and attendance software is the major factor which is supporting the market for time and attendance software in North American region.

Some of the key players profiled in the Time and Attendance Software Market include ADP, Acumen Data, Cornerstone OnDemand, Inc., Halogen Software Inc., IBM Corporation, Icon Time Systems, InfoTronics, Insperity, Kronos Incorporated, Oracle, Redcort, Replicon, SAP, SumTotal Systems, LLC, Synerion, TSheets, Ultimate Software, and Workday, Inc.

Types Covered:

Channels Covered:

Organization Structures Covered:

Applications Covered:

End-users Covered:

What the report offers:

Key Topics Covered:

1 Executive Summary

2 Preface2.1 Abstract2.2 Stake Holders2.3 Research Scope2.4 Research Methodology2.4.1 Data Mining2.4.2 Data Analysis2.4.3 Data Validation2.4.4 Research Approach2.5 Research Sources2.5.1 Primary Research Sources2.5.2 Secondary Research Sources2.5.3 Assumptions

3 Market Trend Analysis3.1 Introduction3.2 Drivers3.3 Restraints3.4 Opportunities3.5 Threats3.6 Application Analysis3.7 End-user Analysis3.8 Emerging Markets3.9 Impact of COVID-19

4 Porters Five Forces Analysis4.1 Bargaining Power of Suppliers4.2 Bargaining Power of Buyers4.3 Threat of Substitutes4.4 Threat of New Entrants4.5 Competitive Rivalry

5 Global Time and Attendance Software Market, By Type5.1 Introduction5.2 Biometric5.3 Interactive Voice Response (IVR)5.4 Proximity Cards, Badges, and Key Fobs5.5 Time Cards5.6 Web-based Login Stations5.7 Cloud Based

6 Global Time and Attendance Software Market, By Channel6.1 Introduction6.2 Direct Sales6.3 Distributor

7 Global Time and Attendance Software Market, By Organization Structure7.1 Introduction7.2 Large7.3 Medium7.4 Small

8 Global Time and Attendance Software Market, By Application8.1 Introduction8.2 Businesses with Hourly Employees8.3 Businesses that Track Billable Hours8.4 Freelancers8.5 Human Resources Departments

9 Global Time and Attendance Software Market, By End-user9.1 Introduction9.2 Banking, Financial services and Insurance (BFSI)9.3 Government9.4 Healthcare9.5 Hospital9.6 IT and Telecom9.7 Manufacturing9.8 Office Building9.9 Retail

10 Global Time and Attendance Software Market, By Geography10.1 Introduction10.2 North America10.2.1 US10.2.2 Canada10.2.3 Mexico10.3 Europe10.3.1 Germany10.3.2 UK10.3.3 Italy10.3.4 France10.3.5 Spain10.3.6 Rest of Europe10.4 Asia-Pacific10.4.1 Japan10.4.2 China10.4.3 India10.4.4 Australia10.4.5 New Zealand10.4.6 South Korea10.4.7 Rest of Asia-Pacific10.5 South America10.5.1 Argentina10.5.2 Brazil10.5.3 Chile10.5.4 Rest of South America10.6 Middle East & Africa10.6.1 Saudi Arabia10.6.2 UAE10.6.3 Qatar10.6.4 South Africa10.6.5 Rest of Middle East & Africa

11 Key Developments11.1 Agreements, Partnerships, Collaborations and Joint Ventures11.2 Acquisitions & Mergers11.3 New Product Launches11.4 Expansions11.5 Other Key Strategies

12 Company Profiling12.1 ADP12.2 Acumen Data12.3 Cornerstone OnDemand, Inc.12.4 Halogen Software Inc.12.5 IBM Corporation12.6 Icon Time Systems12.7 InfoTronics12.8 Insperity12.9 Kronos Incorporated12.10 Oracle12.11 Redcort12.12 Replicon12.13 SAP12.14 SumTotal Systems, LLC12.15 Synerion12.16 TSheets12.17 Ultimate Software12.18 Workday, Inc.

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/hys2g7

Research and Markets also offers Custom Research services providing focused, comprehensive and tailored research.

View post:
Insights on the Time and Attendance Software Global Market to 2027 - Featuring ADP, Acumen Data & IBM Among Others - GlobeNewswire

Ask any tech investor what makes companies like Google and Facebook so insanely valuable, and you'll hear the magic "p" word: because they're platforms.

Geekwire, for instance, devoted a whole podcast last year to "Platform Power: the hidden forces driving the world's top businesses." Platforms, said MIT's Michael Cusimano, "generated roughly the same amount of revenues [as other firms, but] were almost twice as profitable and also much more valuable." Everyone wants to be a platform these days. Uber's not a taxi company--it's a platform! Airbnb: platform. Twitter: platform. Amazon: platform. Etc.

The thing about online platforms is that they're supposed to function as meeting grounds for users without the company itself needing to get too involved, which is what keeps costs down and makes the economics so attractive. Libraries, actually, are old-school platforms. No one would sue a library, for instance, for defamation as a result of a book or magazine it distributed--they'd sue the author or publisher, and the law protects libraries that way.

And that brings us to this week's Big Tech censorship controversy. Facebook and Twitter yesterday took the extraordinary step of limiting users from sharing a New York Post front-page story about the Biden family's dealings in Ukraine. Facebook said it was waiting on outside fact-checkers to review the story's claims. Twitter, by the end of the day, said the problem was the photographs of emails posted with the story and that they didn't want to encourage hacking. Jack Dorsey later admitted their communication about the situation "wasn't great."

As expected, this sent up howls over censorship, bias, double standards, and free speech. But the real issue is whether these companies are platforms, or publishers. And by acting as publishers yesterday--intervening in how political speech gets treated--the companies are at risk of losing the "platform" protections that have underpinned their success.

I mentioned libraries; bookstores and newsstands have also traditionally been exempt from defamation claims. So when internet platforms came around, Congress offered them the same treatment, in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This gave online platforms immunity for users' defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. But, "they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication--not curators of acceptable opinion," as City Journal has noted.

Yes, the platforms are encouraged to moderateoffensivespeech--so they can't get in trouble for removing content that is, for instance, "obscene," "excessively violent," or "otherwise objectionable." But courts have ruled that "otherwise objectionable" does not include political speech.

It would seem, in other words, that by limiting political speech, especially in such a high-profile way this week, Facebook and Twitter are practically asking to lose their Section 230 protections. If they did, they would suddenly become liable for everything "published" on their websites; I don't see how they could survive that. Still, investors don't seem too concerned. Shares of each are off only about 2% today after monster gains this year.

A final point: both Trump and Biden have come out in favor of repealing Section 230 altogether, and it would seem to have plenty of public support. But why should that even be necessary? Section 230 could continue to protect online platforms that are genuinely open forums from litigation, while those like Facebook and Twitter (and possibly Google) who choose to moderate speech would lose that protection.

Perhaps that would be the fairest way to "punish" and/or regulate Big Tech; let it fall victim to its own success. Only by becoming so central to the political dialogue and getting sucked into it themselves have these companies now put their entire business model at risk.

More coming up around 2 p.m! See you then...

Kelly

P.S. Click here to listen to The Exchange as a podcast.

Twitter: @KellyCNBC

Instagram: @realkellyevans

More here:
Kelly Evans: The Big Tech censorship confusion - CNBC

North Carolina Republican Rep. Ted Budd introduced a bill Friday morning limiting the Section 230 immunity of Big Tech, after conservatives blasted social media giants for censoring a New York Post article about the Biden familys alleged ties to Ukrainian energy firm Burisma.

The bill, which mirrors Missouri Republican Josh Hawleys in the Senate, would allow Americans to file lawsuits against Big Tech companies who breach good faith user agreementsby censoring political speech or suppressing content.

The bill also withholds Section 230 protections from Big Tech companies unless they change their terms of service to promise to operate in good faith. They would agree to be subject to a $5,000 fine, actual damages and attorneys fees if they violate the agreement.

Recent acts of political censorship by Twitter and Facebook are a disgrace, Budd said in a statement announcing the bill. Big Tech bias has gone too far in suffocating the voices of conservatives across our country. If these companies want to continue to receive legal protection, they should be forced to play by a fair set of rules in good faith. Im extremely proud to join Sen. Hawley in this fight.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS CALL FOR EMERGENCY HEARING ON TWITTER, FACEBOOK CENSORSHIP

On Wednesday, the Post released a report on purported emails theyd obtained from a whistleblower that appear to show that Hunter Bidenintroduced his father, the then vice president, to a top executive at Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings less than a year before the Obama administration pressured government officials in Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the company.

Facebook admitted to limiting distribution of thePost story until it could be verified by independent fact-checkers, and Twitter prohibited the story from being shared via tweet or direct message altogether.

President Trump has called for stripping Big Tech of their Section 230 protections altogether.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

The section has been pivotal in the rise of today's social media giants by allowing not only Internet service providers but also Google, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others to be shielded from liability from content posted on their platforms by third parties, in most cases. But some critics on the right feel that tech giants should no longer benefit from protections of Section 230 if they censor conservative viewpoints, including controversial postings by Trump.

SENATE REPUBLICANS CALL ON TWITTER, FACEBOOK BOSSES TO TESTIFY AMID CENSORSHIP CLAIMS, SAY SUBPOENA IN WORKS

Big Tech got something years ago that let them become Big Tech, Trump said of social media platforms liability protections. Were going to take away their Section 230 unless they shape up.

The companion bill in the Senate is led by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., along with Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Mike Braun, R-Ind.,Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga. It was introduced in June.

For too long, Big Tech companies like Twitter, Google, and Facebook have used their power to silence political speech from conservatives without any recourse for users. Section 230 has been stretched and rewritten by courts to give these companies outlandish power over speech without accountability, Hawley said in a statement. Congress should act to ensure bad actors are not given a free pass to censor and silence their opponents.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee have also called for an emergency hearing before the Nov. 3 election to hold Twitter and Facebook accountable for "election interference."

Fox News' Tyler Olson contributed to this report.

Continue reading here:
Rep. Budd introduces bill to limit Big Tech's Section 230 immunity amid censorship outcry - Fox News

(Pixabay)

Today is a doozy: Facebook and Twitter decided that their users shouldnt see or be able to read a particular article in the New York Post, and why so many Democrats perceived the Post story as a traumatic flashback to former FBI director James Comeys letter about Hillary Clinton on October 28, 2016.

There Is No Credible Reason for This Kind of Targeted Suppression

The editors of National Review have something important to say about the way two of the largest and most prominent social-media companies, Facebook and Twitter, decided to effectively block access to a news article in the New York Post.

Andy Stone, Facebooks policy communications manager (and, per his bio, a former staffer for Barbara Boxer, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the House Majority PAC), announced that the social-media giant would begin reducing the distribution of aNew York Postinvestigation into emails purporting that Joe Biden met with a top executive from the Ukrainian natural-gas firm Burisma Holdings at the behest of his son Hunter Biden.

Bad idea.

Instead of simply asking pertinent questions, or debunking thePosts reporting, a media blackout was initiated. A number of well-known journalists warned colleagues and their sizable social-media audiences not to share the story.

By the afternoon, Twitter had joined Facebook in suppressing the article, not only barring its users from sharing it with followers, but barring them sharing it through direct messages as well. It locked the accounts of White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, thePost, and many others for retweeting the story.

There is no credible reason for this kind of targeted suppression. Over the past five years there have been scores of dramatic scoops written by major media outlets such as theNew York Times, theWashington Post, and CNN that were based on faulty information provided by unknown sources that turned out to be incorrect. Not once has Facebook or Twitter concerned itself with the sourcing methods of reporters. Not once did it censor any of those pieces.

The editors conclude the mentality at work in the high commands of Facebook and Twitter further damages the reputation of Big Tech. For another, it renders the industry more susceptible to a new regulatory regime already being championed by some in Congress. Mostly, however, it just makes the story theyre trying to suppress a far bigger deal.

Last night, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey offered a tweet conceding, our communication around our actions on the New York Post article was not great. And blocking URL sharing via tweet or DM with zero context as to why were blocking: unacceptable.

He linked to a series of tweets from the corporate account declaring:

The images contained in the articles include personal and private information like email addresses and phone numbers which violate our rules. As noted this morning, we also currently view materials included in the articles as violations of our Hacked Materials Policy. Commentary on or discussion about hacked materials, such as articles that cover them but do not include or link to the materials themselves, arent a violation of this policy. Our policy only covers links to or images of hacked material themselves. We know we have more work to do to provide clarity in our product when we enforce our rules in this manner. We should provide additional clarity and context when preventing the Tweeting or DMing of URLs that violate our policies.

If you believe that news organizations should never publish anything that was not legally obtained or distributed, you would bar the publication of the Pentagon Papers and President Trumps tax returns.

Note that according to the New York Post, the information wasnt hacked by any traditional definition: The email is contained in a trove of data that the owner of a computer repair shop in Delaware said was recovered from a MacBook Pro laptop that was dropped off in April 2019 and never retrieved. The computer was seized by the FBI, and a copy of its contents made by the shop owner shared with The Post this week by former Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

In fact, the dynamic at work in the New York Post story about the emails regarding Biden is the same as the New York Times scoop about the presidents tax returns. That computer repair shop in Delaware has legal access to the files in the computer (because they were presumably hired by the FBI to fix something) but not legal authority to distribute whats in those files. The New York Times source has legal access to the presidents tax returns, but not legal authority to distribute whats in those tax returns. There is no moral distinction, just a partisan one.

The distinction between being a platform and being a publisher is impossible to ignore, and the longtime insistence from those big tech companies that theyre not publishers is no longer operable. For years, they insisted they were no more responsible for what gets written on Facebook then the people who build bathroom stall walls are for someone writing for a good time call Jenny at 867-5309.

The spectacularly wrongheaded decision-making at Facebook and Twitter is going to set off a lot of deliberately obtuse semantic arguments about whether or not what the companies did can legitimately be labeled censorship, driven by those who insist that only government actions can constitute censorship.

As we all know and are unnecessarily reminded every time one of these controversies comes down the pike, Facebook and Twitter are private companies. Users sign on to operate under the companies rules and judgment. The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee you a right to speak your mind on a private companys online platform. If you go to the New York Times and say, I have a terrific and important freelance article or op-ed or letter to the editor, and the Times declines to run your submission in its pages, no one believes theyve been censored.

But the companies touted themselves as neutral, minimally restrictive platforms and have, year by year, morphed into publishers with broader (and vaguer) limitations on what can be posted and shared on their sites. As I wrote back in 2018, when Apple, Google, Facebook, and Spotify erased most of the posts and videos on their services from raving lunatic/radio- and web-show host Alex Jones, none of the people who run these companies are constitutional scholars specializing in First Amendment cases, nor did they ever aspire to be in that role. They set up and joined these companies to make money and now theyre in the weird position of American Public Discourse Police.

Facebooks slogan used to be, make the world more open and connected. Twitters slogan was, see whats happening. They sold themselves on the notion that you could have a platform, and make your voice heard, no matter who you were. They clearly envisioned a society full of pleasant, relatively polite stamp collectors and poodle owners and wildlife photographers and Trekkies, groups of individuals who would want to connect and share their passions and who would do so in an amiable, harmonious, focus-group-pleasing way that could never harm others.

Except society isnt just made up of nice people with noncontroversial interests and hobbies. Our world has more than a few lunatics, hate groups, conspiracy theorists, Holocaust deniers, violent criminals, and every other unsavory type, and much to the surprise of these companies, they want their voices heard, too! They may be particularly driven to share their views online, because people are so unreceptive to their views when they share them offline.

And for a long while, most people didnt mind Facebook and Twitter and the rest taking a tougher stance to remove lunatics, hate groups, conspiracy theorists, Holocaust deniers, violent criminals, etc. Although sometimes the line between the dangerously unacceptable and simply odd or outlandish is hard to draw. QAnon is a nutty conspiracy theory, but so is the idea that Trump has been an asset of Russian intelligence since 1987. Smart, seemingly normal people can buy into conspiracy theories.

Now that theyve built their user base, Facebook and Twitter and other social-media companies want to change the rules. They want to limit what sorts of political news stories can be shared, which was never how they sold themselves or what they promised. No one complains about the New York Times refusing to publish a letter to the editor, because the Times never sold itself as the place where everyone has a voice and everyone gets a chance to speak their mind.

They might as well update the user agreement language: User agrees to believe all denials from Joe Biden regarding anything involving his sons international business partners.

The Traumatic Flashbacks of Comeys Letter

Why did the tech companies, and quite a few big names in mainstream journalism, go to DefCon One on a story with evidence suggesting Biden lied about meeting a Ukrainian politician?

Allow me to suggest that yesterday, a lot of people had flashbacks to FBI director James Comey sending a letter to Congress announcing the reopening of the email probe on October 28, 2016, eleven days before the November 8 election.

The fact that President Trumps margin over Hillary Clinton was so narrow he won Michigan by 10,704 votes, Pennsylvania by 49,543 votes, and Wisconsin by 27,257 votes means that any one factor can plausibly be labeled the decisive one. Many Democrats reacted to Clintons shocking loss by looking for the most convenient explanation possible. For some, it was Russian disinformation on social media. For others, it was Jill Stein siphoning off votes that Hillary Clinton deserved. For others, it was that the country was full of racist deplorables, even though many of these voters had just cast ballots for Barack Obama twice.

But I suspect quite a few Democrats chose to believe that it was Comeys letter which decided the election. Never mind that Comey wrote another letter, two days before the election, declaring that the reopened investigation had found nothing new or incriminating. (Yes, 24 million Americans cast early ballots in 2016, but thats out of 136 million total votes in the presidential election.)

This is one of the reasons political journalism matters. What happens is important; what we choose to learn from what happens is almost as important. Many elite progressives chose to learn the lesson that late-breaking news stories that look bad for the Democrat can elect the worst Republican in the world, and thus that scenario must be prevented, at any cost.

If a person believes that a big scoop involving the FBI looking into emails of the Democratic nominee led to Trumps election . . . how do you think they will react to the New York Post announcing this week they have a big scoop involving the FBI looking into emails of the Democratic nominee?

ADDENDUM: In the middle of all this, keep in mind that Joe Biden does not believe that Burisma was attempting to influence U.S. policy when they hired his son, that his son was hired on his own merits, and not because his father was vice president, but because hes a very bright guy.

Read the rest here:
Censored and Suppressed - National Review