MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘New York Times’

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

New York Times: Lawns Are Symbols of Racism and Bad for Global Warming

Posted by M. C. on August 14, 2019

While this NYT article is a waste of time to read I present it a symbol of how ridiculous the NYT and lamestream media has become.

Just when you think the NYT couldn’t get any worse…

It would be easier to list anything that is now not racist.

The NYT forgot to mention Russia. An update is no doubt forthcoming.

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/08/13/new-york-times-lawns-are-symbols-of-racism-and-bad-for-global-warming/

by Penny Starr

While most Americans are spending time this summer enjoying the sun in the comfort of their houses’ yards, the New York Times is out with a new exposé on how lawn care is problematic, once viewed through the lens of social justice.

Lawns are contributing to pollution and climate change, asserts narrator David Botti, and their origins are far from woke, in a seven-minute video on the history of American lawns.

Botti says lawns are part of the “colonizing of America,” which transformed the landscape from “pristine wilderness” to “identical rows of manicured nature.”

“These lawns come on the backs of slaves,” he continues, zooming in on a painting of George Washington in a field to highlight men cutting the grass with scythes. “It’s grueling, endless work.”

“By the 1870s we also see American culture slowly start to embrace lawns for the privileged masses,” he states.

The video explains that the perfect lawn is associated with being a model citizen, how the first sprinkler was invented in 1871, and about the advent of “so-called trade cards” that “advertised the hell out of lawn and garden products.”

The Times also refers to the work of historian Ted Steinberg, who calls lawns the “outdoor expression of ’50s conformism.”

To drive home the point, he inserts vintage footage of two women being interviewed in their yards talking about how they moved to their communities to live exclusively near other white people. Neither of them says anything about desiring, having, or maintaining a lawn…

Be seeing you

KILLED BY LAWN MOWER PRANK - YouTube

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The NYT’s Pro-War Arguments Against War With Iran | FAIR

Posted by M. C. on August 13, 2019

https://fair.org/home/the-nyts-pro-war-arguments-against-war-with-iran/

The New York Times has published five editorials since the beginning of May that are ostensibly critical of a possible military war between the United States and Iran. As anti-war arguments, however, they are woefully lacking—vilifying Iran without subjecting the US to comparable scrutiny, and hiding US aggression towards Iran.

The editorials regurgitate the same anti-Iran demonology pro-war voices offer to try to justify an attack on the country. In one case (5/4/19), readers are told that

there is no doubt that the Revolutionary Guards is a malign actor. Founded in 1979, it was the revolution’s protector. In time, the corps became a tool of violence and military adventurism as Iran expanded its regional influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Syria.

The same editorial implies that Iran has a nuclear weapons program about which Americans should be concerned, writing:

The administration has fiercely debated imposing sanctions on European, Chinese and Russian entities working with Iran to convert facilities capable of pursuing nuclear-weapons related activities to more peaceful, energy-oriented projects. On Friday, the State Department announced that while work at three key facilities will be allowed to continue for 90 days, the administration will reconsider the decision at the end of that period. Some other nuclear-related activities will be prohibited.

Saying that Iran has “facilities capable of pursuing nuclear-weapons related activities,” which should be “convert[ed]” so that they can work on “more peaceful, energy-oriented projects,” strongly implies that Iran has a nuclear weapons program or is close to having one, as does an editorial (7/19/19) that claims Iran has “nuclear ambitions.” There is no basis for this insinuation: Iran has no nuclear weapons program, hasn’t been close to having one since at least 2003, and perhaps never has. (See FAIR.org, 10/17/17.)

The series of editorials in this series, furthermore, describe Iran as doing (presumably nefarious) “work on missile systems” (7/19/19), and as “a despotic Middle East regime” (6/20/19) that provides “support for regional terrorist organizations” (7/19/19).

No US institution or practice is sweepingly condemned in a comparable fashion. Carrying out an invasion of Iraq, as the US military did, and causing as many as a million deaths is not considered the conduct of a “malign actor” or “a tool of violence and military adventurism”; nor is keeping children in cages or having the world’s largest prison population evidence of a “despotic…regime.” Whatever the Times’ definition of “support for regional terrorist organizations” is, it evidently does not include backing racist groups in Libya, laying waste to Syrian cities or flooding the country with weapons that helped ISIS, or carrying out massacres in Afghanistan, or underwriting brutality in Yemen and Palestine.

In this respect, the Times’ apparent anti-war editorials bolster the case for war against Iran: If Iran is a “despotic . . . regime” that provides “support for regional terrorist organizations” and has a military outfit that is “no doubt . . . a malign actor” and a “tool of violence and military adventurism,” readers can be forgiven for failing to rush out and organize a peace movement. And if the United States is or has none of these things—or, in the case of a nuclear weapons program and “work on missile systems,” is presumably allowed to have them—they may be confused about why the US shouldn’t bomb or invade Iran, or overthrow its government, or some combination of these.

The editorials also muddy responsibility for the crisis, presenting what is happening as roughly equally the fault of the United States and Iran. The first editorial (5/4/19) argued that the “Trump administration is playing a dangerous game in Iran, risking a serious miscalculation by either side.” The problem isn’t so much the risk of “a serious miscalculation by either side” as it is deliberate US calculations to inflict misery on Iranians in an effort to force Iran to submit to US orders. US sanctions are severely harming Iranians, causing food shortages, undermining the healthcare system, preventing flood relief from getting to Iranians, setting off a collapse in economic growth and driving the country into a deep recession while helping to push up inflation; all of this information was publicly available before any of these editorials were published. Iran, of course, has done nothing comparable to US society…

Be seeing you

propaganda

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

New York Times Persists in Russia Election Hacking Conspiracy Theory

Posted by M. C. on August 12, 2019

The problem is that, despite asserting as proven fact that Russia hacked or attempted to hack into US electoral systems, the Times presents no evidence to support that sensational claim. Instead, as is its habit, the Times unquestioningly parroted claims made by government officials, without evidence, as though verified truths. Just as it did prior to the Iraq War, the Times has chosen to propagate a conspiracy theory that serves various political agendas, rather than to properly inform the public.

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/08/09/new-york-times-persists-in-russia-election-hacking-conspiracy-theory/

It never gives up.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Nolte: ‘New York Times’ Changes Trump Headline to Appease Far-Left Extremists

Posted by M. C. on August 6, 2019

2) The New York Times is not an independent news organization with principles and integrity. Rather, its business model is comfort food for leftists, a business model it’s not willing to risk under any circumstance.

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/08/06/nolte-new-york-times-changes-trump-headline-appease-far-left-extremists/#

by John Nolte

The far-left New York Times caved to the leftist Twitter mob with a major switch in headlines between its first and second editions.

The first print edition’s headline read, “Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism.”

But after the Blue Checkmark Mafia freaked out, the Times caved with a late edition headline that reads, “Assailing Hate But Not Guns.”

New York Times print editor Tom Jolly tweeted out the original edition.

Within an hour, through, the Times had caved to the left’s demand that President Trump never-ever-ever receive even a neutral headline.

After the original edition was revealed, and even though we are constantly told that criticizing the media is a form of violence, the Times was assaulted through social media by all the usual suspects.

And because there is no appeasing the left, as of this writing, #CancelNYT is still trending on Twitter and still filled with angry and deeply unhappy Trump-haters threatening to either cancel their New York Times subscriptions, or bragging that they already have.

CNN’s Joan Walsh one of those who announced her cancellation.

Even flailing and failing Democrat presidential candidate Paddy O’Rourke got into the dangerous business of criticizing the media.

This all proves three things we already knew…

1) The left is totally fine with threatening and attacking the media … if those attacks come from the left.

2) The New York Times is not an independent news organization with principles and integrity. Rather, its business model is comfort food for leftists, a business model it’s not willing to risk under any circumstance.

3) These bitter Blue on Blue battles are a thing of beauty… 

Be seeing you

Liberia's Daily Talk: All The News That Fits On A ...

all The News That Fits

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Stories are Beginning to Exceed even the Gullibility of Americans – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on June 17, 2019

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/06/15/80318/

Paul Craig Roberts

The past couple of days have seen interesting developments.  The US or Israel struck a Japanese ship with small rockets and tried to blame it on Iranian mines.  The Japanese ship owner put a halt to the false flag event.  He pointed out that the damage was above, not below the water line and that crew members observed objects approaching in the air. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/06/no_author/the-gulf-of-credibility/ 

In the New York Times, David Sanger, a generally unreliable reporter in my opinion, released what a person with my quarter century of experience in Washington would regard as sensitive national security information when he reported that Washington was putting malware into the Russian electrical grid.  Who leaked this sensitive national security information?  Why aren’t they being arrested and prosecuted for leaking to a reporter?  Why isn’t Sanger himself, like Julian Assange, arrested for trumped-up reasons?  It makes no sense to give to Russia the information in public disclosure as that allows Russia to find and eliminate the malware.  As it makes no sense, it raises the question whether Sanger’s story is correct or merely something handed to him by the NSA which wants to polish its image before it becomes a victim along with Brennan and Comey and Hillary in the attempted Russiagate frameup of President Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/15/us/politics/trump-cyber-russia-grid.html?ref=cta&nl=top-stories?campaign_id=61&instance_id=0&segment_id=14339&user_id=c57a8c2d498023b54c8a416a37b2bb8a&regi_id=21653813ries

Sanger’s story loses all credibility when he repeats the disproven allegation that “Russia’s Internet Research Agency [is] the group at the heart of the hacking during the 2016 election in the United States. It was one of four operations his so-called Russia Small Group organized around the midterm elections. Officials have talked publicly about those, though they have provided few details.”

Ray McGovern, William Binney and other retired intelligence professionals have proven conclusively that there was no hacking.  The information revealed by Wikileaks was a leak from inside the Democratic National Committee.

How is it possible that David Sanger doesn’t know this?  How can his New York Times editor not know this?

Be seeing you

ABC, NYT Reporters Lie About Texas Shooting to Dismiss ...

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

MoA – Odd NYT ‘Correction’ Exculpates British Government And CIA From Manipulating Trump Over Skripal Novichok Incident

Posted by M. C. on June 7, 2019

That the ‘paper of the record’ now corrects said ‘record’ solves a big problem for Gina Haspel, the CIA/MI6 and the British government. They can no longer be accused of manipulating Trump (even as we can be quite sure that such manipulations happen all the time).

In the end it is for the reader to decide if the original report makes more sense than the corrected one.

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/06/odd-nyt-correction-exculpates-british-government-and-cia-from-manipulating-trump-over-skripal-novich.html#more

Odd NYT ‘Correction’ Exculpates British Government And CIA From Manipulating Trump Over Skripal Novichok Incident

A piece in the New York Times showed how in March 2018 Trump was manipulated by the CIA and MI6 into expelling 60 Russian diplomats. Eight weeks after it was published the New York Times ‘corrects’ that narrative and exculpates the CIA and MI6 of that manipulation. Its explanation for the correction makes little sense.

On April 16 the New York Times published a report by Julian E. Barnes and Adam Goldman about the relation between CIA Director Gina Haspal and President Donald Trump.

Gina Haspel Relies on Spy Skills to Connect With Trump. He Doesn’t Always Listen.

The piece described a scene in the White House shortly after the contentious Skripal/Novichok incident in Britain. It originally said (emphasis added):

During the discussion, Ms. Haspel, then deputy C.I.A. director, turned toward Mr. Trump. She outlined possible responses in a quiet but firm voice, then leaned forward and told the president that the “strong option” was to expel 60 diplomats.To persuade Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the conversation, officials including Ms. Haspel also tried to show him that Mr. Skripal and his daughter were not the only victims of Russia’s attack.

Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals. She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives.

The 60 Russian diplomats were expelled on March 26 2018. Other countries only expelled a handful of diplomats over the Skripal incident. On April 15 2018 the Washington Post reported that Trump was furious about this:

The next day, when the expulsions were announced publicly, Trump erupted, officials said. To his shock and dismay, France and Germany were each expelling only four Russian officials — far fewer than the 60 his administration had decided on. The President, who seemed to believe that other individual countries would largely equal the United States, was furious that his administration was being portrayed in the media as taking by far the toughest stance on Russia.
…
Growing angrier, Trump insisted that his aides had misled him about the magnitude of the expulsions. ‘There were curse words,’ the official said, ‘a lot of curse words.

…

The NYT report created some waves. On April 18 2019 the Guardian headlined:

No children or ducks harmed by novichok, say health officials
Wiltshire council clarification follows claims Donald Trump was shown images to contrary

The report of the dead duck pictures in the New York Times was a problem for the CIA and the British government. Not only did it say that they manipulated Trump by providing him with false pictures, but the non-dead ducks also demonstrated that the official narrative of the allegedly poisoning of the Skripals has some huge holes. As Rob Slane of the BlogMire noted:

In addition to the extraordinary nature of this revelation, there is also a huge irony here. Along with many others, I have long felt that the duck feed is one of the many achilles heels of the whole story we’ve been presented with about what happened in Salisbury on 4th March 2018. And the reason for this is precisely because if it were true, there would indeed have been dead ducks and sick children.

According to the official story, Mr Skripal and his daughter became contaminated with “Novichok” by touching the handle of his front door at some point between 13:00 and 13:30 that afternoon. A few minutes later (13:45), they were filmed on CCTV camera feeding ducks, and handing bread to three local boys, one of whom ate a piece. After this they went to Zizzis, where they apparently so contaminated the table they sat at, that it had to be incinerated.

You see the problem? According to the official story, ducks should have died. According to the official story children should have become contaminated and ended up in hospital. Yet as it happens, no ducks died, and no boys got sick (all that happened was that the boys’ parents were contacted two weeks later by police, the boys were sent for tests, and they were given the all clear).

After the NYT story was published the CIA and the British government had to remove the problematic narrative from the record. Yesterday they finally succeeded. Nearly eight weeks after the original publishing of the White House scene the NYT recanted and issued a correction (emphasis. added):

Correction: June 5, 2019An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the photos that Gina Haspel showed to President Trump during a discussion about responding to the nerve agent attack in Britain on a former Russian intelligence officer. Ms. Haspel displayed pictures illustrating the consequences of nerve agent attacks, not images specific to the chemical attack in Britain. This correction was delayed because of the time needed for research.

The original paragraphs quoted above were changed into this:

During the discussion, Ms. Haspel, then deputy C.I.A. director, turned toward Mr. Trump. She outlined possible responses in a quiet but firm voice, then leaned forward and told the president that the “strong option” was to expel 60 diplomats.To persuade Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the conversation, officials including Ms. Haspel tried to demonstrate the dangers of using a nerve agent like Novichok in a populated area. Ms. Haspel showed pictures from other nerve agent attacks that showed their effects on people.

The British government had told Trump administration officials about early intelligence reports that said children were sickened and ducks were inadvertently killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives.

The information was based on early reporting, and Trump administration officials had requested more details about the children and ducks, a person familiar with the intelligence said, though Ms. Haspel did not present that information to the president. After this article was published, local health officials in Britain said that no children were harmed.

So instead of pictures of dead ducks in Salisbury the CIA director showed pictures of some random dead ducks or hospitalized children or whatever to illustrate the effects consequences of nerve agent incidents?…

Be seeing you

mbird

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Media Stenography Turns Beheaded Saudi Protesters Into ‘Terrorism’ | FAIR

Posted by M. C. on May 17, 2019

Is this a case of NYT as government mouthpiece. Or NYT as incompetent? Or both?

One thing this piece shows is Isis and SA are different sides of the same coin.

https://fair.org/home/media-stenography-turns-beheaded-saudi-protesters-into-terrorism/

Saudi Arabia executed 37 men on April 23, as it announced in a press release in its official gazette. The first line of the release read, “Saudi Arabia said it executed 37 citizens last Tuesday after they were convicted of terrorism.”

A cursory Google search would have shown that this assertion was completely false. But many in the US press dutifully stenographed this claim into a headline:

  • “37 Saudis Executed for Terrorism-Related Crimes”: Time (4/23/19)
  • “Saudi Arabia Executes 37 in One Day for Terrorism”: New York Times (4/23/19)
  • “Saudi Arabia Beheads 37 Prisoners for Terrorism Crimes”: PBS NewsHour (4/23/19)

In fact, by looking at court documents from the Saudi government, we know that of these 37 men, 11 of them were accused of being “Iranian spies,” and 22 were accused of participating in a demonstration during the Arab Spring. (These 33 belonged to the Shia minority; the others practiced Sunni Islam or could not be identified.)

Of the 22 men accused of protesting, six were juveniles at the time. Mujtaba Al Suweikat was on his way to study at Western Michigan University when the Saudi authorities arrested him and charged him with “inciting disloyalty to the king.”

Saeed Mohammed Al Skafi was 17 during the protests. One of the charges against him was “posting pictures of other detainees.” Most of the others were convicted of offenses like “chanting disloyal slogans about the king” and “using social media to incite demonstrations.”

Of the 11 convicted of being Iranian spies, they were also found guilty of farcical offenses such as “condemning the bloodshed” (in February 2012, Saudi forces in the Shia-majority Saudi governorate of Qatif had sprayed protesters with bullets) and saving images and documents of the protests (which are also available on YouTube) on their hard drives…

In its first version of the article, which has changed since then, the New York Times wrote of Saudi Arabia, “It listed the 37 men by name but provided little information about what specific crimes had been committed by whom or when.” Instead of relying on a Saudi press release, the Times could have tried a cursory web search–or even searched its own archives. In an article by the Times editorial board (8/3/17) nearly two years ago, it had a short biography of Mujtaba Al Suweikat, the “disloyal” Western Michigan student, and the specific crimes he had been charged with.

Though the Times article was edited after publication to include some information that didn’t come from the Saudi press release–citing a Human Rights Watch official’s concern that many of the cases “raised serious rights concerns,” for example–the revised article was still misleading. For example, in paragraph three, it stated,  “Some men had been involved in bomb attacks on security headquarters that had killed officers, the [state news] agency said.” As far as we know, none of the 37 executed men had been involved in any bomb attacks, but the Times never challenged this Saudi government assertion.

Furthermore, the Times said that 14 of those killed had been arrested in relation to “sometimes violent protests.”  It failed to mention that that violence came from the Saudi government. This video, from July 2012, clearly shows Saudi police firing on unarmed protesters…

The articles in the Times, Time magazine and the NewsHour all mentioned Saudi/Iranian relations, thereby amplifying longstanding Saudi propaganda that accuses Shia of being naturally loyal to Iran, which is blamed for  “stoking unrest” to justify brutal crackdowns of the religious minority.

All three outlets also added gratuitous details about the attack in Sri Lanka and/or other ISIS-related attacks–attacks that there’s no suggestion any of the defendants were connected to…

Be seeing you

scimitar

The other knife problem

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

New York Times Suspends All Future Syndicated Cartoons Amid Antisemitism Crisis Inside Newspaper

Posted by M. C. on April 30, 2019

PC comes home to roost.

All people are equal – especially Israel.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/29/new-york-times-suspends-all-future-syndicated-cartoons-amid-antisemitism-crisis-inside-newspaper/

by Matthew Boyle

The New York Times has suspended the publication of all future syndicated political cartoons in its international print edition, the newspaper’s spokeswoman Eileen Murphy confirmed late Monday.

The Daily Beast’s Lloyd Grove spoke with Murphy in the wake of the newspaper’s publication of a second controversial cartoon that drew critical condemnation from the Jewish community–after a first cartoon, which the paper now admits was antisemitic, was retracted and then subsequently apologized for over the weekend.

The newspaper is in a full internal crisis on this matter, as executives and editors have launched a full-scale internal investigation into what happened, who is responsible, and what procedural and structural changes need to take place so the Times does not publish more antisemitic content.

It all started last Thursday when the Times published a cartoon on the opinion pages of its international print edition showing Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu as a dog with a Star of David around his collar on a leash leading U.S. President Donald Trump–depicted as blind and wearing a skullcap–around.

Under immense criticism, the Times on Saturday retracted the cartoon and issued an “editor’s note” in response admitting it was antisemitic and an “error in judgement to publish it.”…

Be seeing you

US X-Mas Facts & Figures, EU Immigration Crisis, Listener ...

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

To Ramp Up Fear of Russia in Africa, NYT Downplays Massive US Military Presence on Continent | FAIR

Posted by M. C. on April 6, 2019

In the Times, Official Enemy threats are unquestionably bad, and unquestionably sinister in nature. The only answer? Let the Pentagon gravy train run its course, year in and year out, because invariably there will always be, with the help of the New York Times, the specter of an enemy threat “advancing on a new front.”

https://fair.org/home/to-ramp-up-fear-of-russia-in-africa-nyt-downplays-massive-us-military-presence-on-continent/

The New York Times (3/31/19) added to its series of reports depicting Official Enemies surpassing the US in the race for global dominance. It seems that having taken control of the Arctic (FAIR.org, 9/15/15), the nuclear domain (FAIR.org, 3/7/18) and a whole host of other spaces the US is “behind” in, Russia is now gobbling up Africa—a threat the US, presumably, must counter with an even greater military build-up.

The report, “Russia’s Military Mission Creep Advances to a New Front: Africa,” by Eric Schmitt, asserting an uptick in Russian weapons contracts and military training exercises in Africa, is thin on context and hard numbers, but is artificially fortified with a series of anecdotes and frightening quotes. Since the obvious rejoinder to any discussion of increased Russian presence in Africa is, “OK, but what is the US’s current reach?” the Times hangs a lampshade on the inconvenience with this throwaway line:

The United States military has a relatively light footprint across Africa.

About 6,000 United States troops and 1,000 Defense Department civilians or contractors work on a variety of missions throughout Africa, mainly training and conducting exercises with local armies.

According to documents obtained by the Intercept’s Nick Turse (12/1/18), the US currently has 34 military bases in Africa; Russia has zero. The Times doesn’t tell us how many “contractors’ and “troops” Russia has in Africa, so it’s not clear what the so-called “light footprint” is “relative” to. Is it 10? 100? 10,000? If it’s a lot less than 6,000, then the story is a bit of a dud. Alas, we’re simply left guessing at the “relative” size of Russia’s Africa presence.

Also worth noting: “Light footprint” is the same Orwellian phrase the Pentagon has been using for years to obscure the growth of AFRICOM, as in this AFRICOM press release (6/13/12) :

AFRICOM Will Maintain Light Footprint in Africa — The United States has no plans to seek permanent bases in Africa, and, in the spirit of the new defense strategic guidance, will continue to maintain a “light footprint” on the continent, the top US Africa Command officer said.

It’s always reassuring when the paper of record adopts the US government’s preferred press release language. (See also New York Times, 1/25/12 , 3/1/19.)

Aside from quotes from US military brass, Schmitt’s report was primarily propped up with testimony from weapons contractor-funded think tanks, namely the Institute for the Study of War and the Center for International and Strategic Studies, which both provided urgent, stakes-raising narratives:…

Be seeing you

mbird

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Top 10 Propagandists Who Pushed Russia Collusion Hoax

Posted by M. C. on March 25, 2019

Hillary number 1 with me.

Fake news mystery wrapped in a coup d’etat enigma. CNN, WaPo, & NYT were the leaders.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/22/top-10-propagandists-who-pushed-russia-collusion-hoax/

by Joshua Caplan

…Here are ten of the top promoters of the narrative:

    1. CNN — CNN first reported that President Trump was briefed on the “pee dossier,” which prompted BuzzFeed to publish the dossier in full. CNN has also given vast amounts of airtime to analysts, former officials, and Democrat lawmakers pushing the Russia collusion narrative. It has also published a number of stories that advanced the narrative, including several that turned out to be false.
    2. BuzzFeed — BuzzFeed first published the “pee dossier” in full — which released to the public unfounded accusations against President Trump, including the unverified claim that he hired prostitutes to urinate on a bed during a visit to Moscow in 2013. At the time of publish, the dossier remained “salacious and unverified,” in then-FBI Director James Comey’s own words.
    3. The Washington Post — The Washington Post was on the forefront of publishing anonymously-sourced stories suggesting collusion between Russia and Trump campaign officials. It published the intelligence leak that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak that led to his firing later. Flynn ended up pleading guilty to one count of lying. There were no collusion charges.
    4. The New York Times — The New York Times published a front-page, top-of-the-page story on Inauguration Day suggesting that President-elect Trump’s associates had been “wiretapped.” Though the report admitted, “It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself,” it set the very inauguration of President Trump as part of a Russian conspiracy.
    5. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) — Schiff, now the House Intelligence Committee chairman, has been the No. 1 pusher of the Russia collusion hoax in Congress. Absent any direct evidence of collusion, Schiff has argued for months that the evidence is “hiding in plain sight.” Schiff has also tried to fundraise off of the hoax.
    6. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) — Lieu has been a close second to Schiff’s promotion of the Russia hoax in Congress. He once called for a pause in the “entire Trump agenda” until an investigation into the collusion ties was completed.
    7. Benjamin Wittes — Wittes, a journalist who is close to former FBI Director James Comey, was a lead inciter on Twitter of the Russia hoax, infamously tweeting cannon gifs every time a new sensational report came out that advanced the Russia collusion narrative.
    8. Louise Mensch — Mensch, a former British parliamentarian, has become a household name among the anti-Trump resistance in the U.S., with her fantastical tweets about “sealed indictments” and grand juries.
    9. Hillary Clinton — Clinton, the day after losing the election to Trump, wanted to promote the idea that Comey’s reopening of the investigation into her emails and Russia led to her defeat, according to the book Shattered. “She wants to make sure all these narratives get spun the right way,” a Clinton ally told the book’s authors.
    10. Robby Mook — Mook was the first Clinton campaign official to go on record suggesting there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, during an ABC News interview at the Democratic National Convention in July 2016, shortly after stolen DNC emails were released.

Breitbart News’ Joel Pollak contributed to this report.

Be seeing you

'Welcome to 'All Sides of the Issues.' Here's our panel of commentators -- a communist, a socialist, a liberal, and a progressive....'

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »