KEN: New York Times, Washington Post, NBC among those retracting more incorrect reporting in the last 24 hours. Here’s what they retracted recently — and this is what is so terrifying about a news media that’s compromised, lazy, ignorant, or biased. Did I cover it all? Yeah. Except for the seven or eight people, and you know who they are.
There’s about seven or eight people we can trust, and the rest of it’s just a crapshoot. So here you have the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, and they made — again — false allegations about Giuliani. But you may recall the same news media, various factions of it, made false accusations about Carter Page and President Trump and a variety of governors.
They do it on a regular basis against citizens, ’cause most of us don’t have the funding to take on these giants. This is a strategy. “They had to retract their earlier reporting stating that former New York mayor, governor Rudy Giuliani, was directly warned by the FBI that he was targeted by a Russian intel influence operation.” Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.
But they put the lies out at the front end of a news cycle knowing that, unless you host a talk show or you’re a guide for Rush Limbaugh — or you’re one of the millions that voted for Trump and actually care about the integrity of the news and elections — you’re just gonna take it at face value.
Translation: “CNN and the New York Times, they know they can say or do anything. They can post anything. It can be completely wrong — it could fall in the definition of slander, libel, defamation, whatever — and there’s no consequences.” It’s just a little, “Oops!” It’s crazy, and now (as we said at the top of the show) they’re doing more to go after President Trump.
But when you think of what you and I are held to account for, look at the way you are penalized on social media or even in the newspaper. When was the last time, especially if you have a liberal rag where you live — and I’m not gonna call out cities, ’cause I know a whole bunch of ’em.
I try to keep the enemy-making to a minimum now, now that I’m a little older. But if you have a liberal rag paper like we have several liberal rags in central PA, it’s hard to get a factual opposing opinion. And you see it. You see it across the board, from New York to Los Angeles. The thing that we should be worried about…
This is not a matter of, “Oh, the mainstream media’s picking on our guys again.” This is a matter of, “Here we go again. Look at the shiny object over here!” Because I believe one of the reasons the Washington Post and NBC and the New York Times is cranking up some more fakery and tying it to Russia, Russia, Russia is because the truth by China, China, China is coming out along with counting votes, which a lot of people never thought would happen.
That’s why the level of anger against people doing that is ridiculous. But we ought to worry when a major news organization incorrectly states that other news organizations have the same info, and they tried to do that. The Washington Post tried to blame One America News, and this is this game, and we’ve allowed it to go on.
We’ve allowed the leftists — which is probably the majority of most news media operations; I think we can say that with a straight face. We’ve allowed them to create fantasy and then to say, “Oh, by the way, so-and-so said it,” and that’s like a wink and a nod to people that we’re questioning it. “Well, this sounds a little odd, but if One America said it, you know, if Newsmax had it, maybe.”
And no one is held accountable. Nobody. They just retract it. CNN has made so many retractions in the last five years, I can’t believe they still have a signal. I can’t believe they’re still on cable. How do you do that? And then the old “anonymous sources,” the easiest way to lie pathologically on a regular basis to people who are brainwashed by your media outlet. Here’s Rush.
RUSH: We’re relying on the New York Times for accuracy when they have no claim to that anymore. Two years minimum, lying day after day after day about Trump-Russia collusion — and, by the way, those lies have continued on every other adjunct. We’ve had the New York Times going all-in on every Democrat allegation.
If Bolton was such gold, why didn’t Schiff call him? Why didn’t they do their due diligence? Why didn’t they take their time and call Bolton? Well, we know why. Because there would be an executive privilege fight, and it would delay it in the courts, and they had to get this done for the purposes of the 2020 campaign.
It looks to me like we almost have a replay, an exact rehash of the Kavanaugh situation when he was on the verge of being confirmed. Here we are at this trial, after the first day of the president’s team just destroying the Democrat House managers’ whole case — they did it in two hours on Saturday — and then the next day we’ve got this, when all the Democrats have been caterwauling about is, “We need witnesses! The Senate needs to open it up to witnesses,” and so forth. Now all of a sudden, at the very last moment, we’re getting a recycling of a previous Democrat quasi October Surprise-type operation.
You mean journalism has been corrupted? Really? Who knew! But it is. It’s the same revenge playbook, the same thing Comey did. It’s the same thing they tried to do to Clarence Thomas. It’s the same thing they did with Kavanaugh — and remember, it’s all about what Trump said he wanted to do (chuckling), because they can’t say that Trump withheld the aid. They can’t say that Ukraine didn’t get what they wanted. It’s absurd, all of it is.
By the way, I want to make one point here. The New York Times is admitting… It says here they’re “saying,” but they’re not saying. They’re admitting. The New York Times is admitting they have not seen the Bolton transcript, and yet they run a story based on what it says. They’ve not seen the Bolton book!
They’ve just been told about it by anonymous sources. What if it’s an abject lie? What if whoever is doing this is knowingly lying, knowing they’re gonna get two or three days out of it — and maybe even a vote on witnesses — and then at some point when the book comes out in March, it’s gonna be learned or discover that it’s not true? Big deal! That’s also the history. “Trump colluded with Russia. He’s a traitor. He stole the election.” Two years later. “Eh! No evidence. Can’t find it.”
Now we move on to something else that Trump supposedly did: The phone call with the Ukraine president. It’s the same pattern! It’s like every leak for two years on Trump-Russia collusion — and every story had a line buried in the story, “As of now, there is no evidence substantiating this claim, but, but, but,” blah, blah, blah. So the New York Times admits they have not seen the actual Bolton manuscript.
They’ve just been told about it by anonymous sources. We know that Vindman’s brother is in the vetting process. He’s on the staff of the NSC that vets books like this. See, this way if their story turns out to be completely false — if it’s a total lie — they can say, “It wasn’t us! It wasn’t us! That’s what we were told,” and that’s how they’ve been getting out of every lie for the past three years. “Well, our sources told us…”
The original Washington Post leak on the whistleblower’s complaint turned out to be a pack of lies, and among those pack of lies was that the transcript of the phone call was shocking. “It was frightening! It was scary,” the whistleblower said. “It was unreal! Oh, my God, we had to do something, it was so bad,” and then there’s nothing in it. Trump releases the transcript.
None of that was the case, and the Washington said, “Don’t blame us. That’s what we were told.” Their lies got enough attention to kick off this entire impeachment process. The whistleblower’s lies are why we are here, and the Washington Post published this pack of lies and then got out of it by saying, “Well, it’s what we were told. We didn’t actually see it.”