New York Times Issues Retraction In Bombshell Collusion Story

The New York Times caused a firestorm over its reporting that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort attempted to pass internal Trump campaign data to a Russia oligarch with close ties to Vladimir Putin during the 2016 presidential race. Various sites declared the story by reporters Sharon LaFraniere, Kenneth P. Vogel and Maggie Haberman as the final corroboration of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. However, the New York Times later retracted the key connection to a Russian oligarch.

The story was based on a formatting error that disclosed that Special Counsel Robert Mueller claimed Manafort had “lied about sharing polling data … related to the 2016 presidential campaign” with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian-Ukrainian businessman with alleged ties to Russian intelligence. However, the Times also cited “a person knowledgeable about the situation” that Manafort had asked his deputy, Rick Gates, to “tell Mr. Kilimnik to pass the data to Oleg P. Deripaska.” Deripaska is closely linked to Manafort in a 2006 contract to pay Manafort $10 million per year.

Even before the correction, I was underwhelmed by the sharing of polling data that appeared to be public information.

The Wednesday morning story however was corrected in the afternoon:

“A previous version of this article misidentified the people to whom Paul Manafort wanted a Russian associate to send polling data. Mr. Manafort wanted the data sent to two Ukrainian oligarchs, Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov, not Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin.”

In truth, there is little that I would not believe about Manafort who has long been viewed as a sleazy figure in Washington. Many of us were shocked when Trump selected him to head the campaign. However, this is a considerable difference in the accounts. Yet, many stories continue to rely on the original claims of the story of an exchange with a Russian oligarch.

264 thoughts on “New York Times Issues Retraction In Bombshell Collusion Story”

  1. Allan, according to Shakespeare Prospero was a mighty wizard. So I promoted him to a modern equivalent. Harmless and what is important is his most famous line. Which L4D suitably revised to bring it up-to-date.

    Yes, I suppose that is word play. Harmless and possibly helpful.

    1. “The Tempest: Act 5, Scene 1 — The artificial intelligence Prospero
      Shakespeare was far in advance of his time…”

      In other words Shakespeare may have been far advanced in his time but he never discussed “artificial intelligence” in that play.

      You write: “Prospero was a mighty wizard. So I promoted him to a modern equivalent.”

      The modern equivalent would be a wizard. Artificial intelligence is based on a machine that is not human. A more proper comparison would be an Abacus to artificial intelligence.

  2. Remember when the NYT exposed Stalin as a ruthless, gutless, blood thirsty dictator?
    We don’t either. That’s because the NYT fawned over Stalin and couldn’t get enough of the blood flowing in Russia when their friend, Joseph, slit throats and starved millions

    ==

    The Origins of Fake News at The New York Times
    https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/08/23/origins-fake-news-new-york-times/

    News flash from The New York Times: Women may have starved under socialist regimes, but their orgasms were out of this world!

    That’s the creepy gist of one of the Grey Lady’s recent essays this summer hailing the “Red Century.” The paper’s ongoing series explores “the history and legacy of Communism, 100 years after the Russian Revolution.”

    When its essayists aren’t busy championing the great sex that oppressed women enjoyed in miserable Eastern Bloc countries, they’re extolling Vladimir Lenin’s fantabulous conservationist programs and pimping “Communism for Kids” propaganda.

    Since this is back-to-school season, it’s the perfect time to teach your children about faux journalism at the Fishwrap of Record. As the publication’s pretentious own new slogan asserts, “The truth is more important than ever.”

    While the Times hyperventilates about the dangers of President Donald Trump’s “art of fabrication” and “Russian collusion,” this is the same organization whose famed correspondent in Russia, Walter Duranty, won a Pulitzer Prize for spreading fake news denying Josef Stalin’s Ukrainian genocide.

    An estimated 10 million men, women, and children starved in the Stalin-engineered silent massacre between 1932-1933, also known as the Holodomor. Stalin had implemented his “Five Year Plan” of agricultural collectivization—confiscating land and livestock, evicting farmers, and imposing impossible grain production quotas.

    At the peak of the famine, about 30,000 Ukrainian citizens a day were dying. Untold numbers resorted to cannibalism.

    But you wouldn’t know it if you perused all the phony ground reports filed by Duranty at the time. Based in Moscow since 1921, Duranty gained access to Stalin for a rare interview in 1930.

    Two years later, Duranty won the Pulitzer Prize for 13 typewritten tongue baths with titles including “Stalinism Solving Minorities Problems,” “Industrial Success Emboldens Soviet in New World Policy,” and “Stalinism’s Mark is Party Discipline.”

    And the rest is whitewashed history.

    “There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation, but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition,” Duranty asserted in March 1933.

    Five months later, he wrote: “Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.”

    Meanwhile, Duranty “had all the Beluga caviar that he could eat,” Lee Edwards, a distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation and chairman of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in Washington, D.C., told my CRTV.com show, “Michelle Malkin Investigates.”

    Historian Ron Radosh of the Hudson Institute added: “What [Duranty] did is file totally false, fake stories about how the people were thriving and doing well under Bolshevism and nothing was wrong and any rumors you hear of a famine in the Soviet Union were totally false, made up by enemies of the regime who wanted it to fall.”

    Robert Zapesochny, a New York writer and historian whose own grandfather survived the famine, blasted Duranty’s pursuit of the prize over pursuit of the truth: “As long as there was an award that he could get for his coverage he would do anything.”

    Zapesochny minces no words about Duranty: “The guy was a whore.”

    But Robert Conquest, the whistleblower who chronicled Duranty’s agitprop in his book, “The Harvest of Sorrow,” noted that the Times still clung to its Commie correspondent and his lethal lies, lauding his “dispassionate, interpretive reporting of the news from Russia” a half-century after being debunked.

    Now, 85 years after Stalinist tool Duranty snagged his Pulitzer (which the journalism pooh-bahs refuse to withdraw and the Times’ editors refuse to renounce), the paper has the gall to lecture everyone else about truth, lies, and accountability. And it’s still shilling for collectivism.

    The Red York Times: First in fake news and progenitor of alternative facts.

  3. A blast from the past on NYT history of fake news

    “Media Double Down After New York Times Gets Busted Peddling Fake News”
    http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/28/media-double-down-after-new-york-times-gets-busted-peddling-fake-news/

    There may have been a real White House briefing with real White House officials, but The New York Times couldn’t be trusted to accurately summarize what the White House official said. And it wasn’t on a minor point.”

    A media that desires to hold this president accountable simply must be accurate in its newswriting. It failed dramatically here, and failed to hold itself accountable when caught. This is why the media’s credibility is in tatters and why President Trump and others find it so easy to hold them up for ridicule.

  4. Sorry for trespassing on your turf, Dr. Benson. Per your request, the link below gives a commercial explanation of targeted social-media ad campaigns focused on Facebook. It has been reported that the internet trolls at the Internet Research Agency run by Putin’s Chef, Yevgeni Prigozhin (a.k.a. Concord Management) were able to reach 26 million Facebook users during the 2016 election. The theory holds that targeting the people at the hub of social-media networks magnifies the effect of “word-of-mouth” advertising or disinformation and propaganda, for that matter.

    https://www.smartdatacollective.com/how-big-data-affecting-social-media-metrics-and-facebook-ad-strategies/

    Social media and big data are so interconnected that they have almost … a much more thorough knowledge of how their target audience behaves and what it … of big data analysis and how to implement it in your marketing strategies could …

    1. L4D, this isn’t my turf, so no apology please.

      Your explanation is helpful. Possibly I am beginning to understand how poorly educated the American people are.

          1. No problema. The linked article claimed that 90% of the data in the world did not exist three years ago and that the bulk of the new data comes from social-media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and the like. Whence the importance of “targeting” the messages so as to get one’s customers to become one’s sales force. In the political context, the customers would presumably be voters. However, politics includes suppressing one’s competitor’s customers or voters, as well. Whence the importance of cross-referencing the Trump campaign data analytics with the hacked DNC data analytics.

            Don’t be surprised if Mueller’s report casts considerable doubt upon Trump’s margin of electoral-college victory in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.

            1. The Tempest: Act 5, Scene 1 — The artificial intelligence Prospero

              Shakespeare was far in advance of his time…

              1. David, I don’t think the words artificial intelligence were spoken by Prospero. I think you made this up like you do a lot of things but I am open to the fact I might be wrong. Why don’t you quote the entire statement?

                Don’t complain that you can’t read the comment.
                Don’t walk away which is your usual modus operandi.

            2. On second thought, make that “depressing” one’s competitor’s voters instead of “suppressing” them.

              Note: It’s not necessarily illegal unless you hire a foreign intelligence agency to “depress” your competitor’s voters for you.

      1. “how poorly educated the American people are”

        what a riot, this from OED violator “perfursur” DBB.
        Put down your abacus, davy, and stop using your fingers and toes to count.

        “Anniversary of a Fake News Classic by The New York Times”
        https://townhall.com/columnists/humbertofontova/2019/01/05/anniversary-of-a-fake-news-classic-by-the-new-york-times-n2538506

        “One Thousand Killed in 5 days of Fierce Street Fighting!” read a New York Times headline on Jan 4, 1959. The fake news headline dealt with the (utterly bogus) “battle” of Santa Clara in central Cuba where Ernesto “Che” Guevara earned much of his enduring (and totally bogus) martial fame.

        “Commander Che Guevara appealed to Batista troops for a truce to clear the streets of casualties,” continues the breathless The New York Times article. “Guevara turned the tide in this bloody battle and whipped a Batista force of 3,000 men!”

        A year later, Che’s own diaries revealed that his forces (which actually numbered a few dozen) suffered exactly ONE casualty (“El Vaquerito”) during this Caribbean Stalingrad, as depicted by The New York Times!

        True to New York Times-form, during this “battle,” the paper didn’t have a reporter within 300 miles of Santa Clara! Instead, it relied on trusty Cuban Castroite “correspondents.” So who could blame Fidel and Che for GUFFAWING at the scam they pulled! (thanks to the New York Times.)

      1. As has been pointed out here previously, swing of under 10,000 votes in two states would have given the 1976 election to Ford, not Carter.
        Not 80,000 in three states as in 2016, but less than 10,000 votes in two states.
        Presidential elections that turn on relatively few votes are not common, but they’re not unprecedented either.

          1. Her correspondence was already stolen. It was stolen because she’d violated the law in an effort to frustrate FOIA requisitions. This isn’t that difficult.

        1. Allan,
          It seems “highly probable” that those views would make her popular in some circles, and in some pentagrams.

  5. FBI Lawyer: ‘Not Typically Appropriate’ For Hillary’s Aides To Attend Her FBI Interview

    “Lisa Page, a former top attorney at the FBI, told Congress she believed it was neither appropriate nor necessary for two of Hillary Clinton’s aides to accompany the former secretary of state in an interview she gave as part of the email investigation.

    “I would agree with you that it is not typically appropriate or operationally necessary to have fact witnesses attend the interview,” Page told lawmakers during a closed-door interview in July 2018, highlights of which were published by The Epoch Times on Friday.

    – Chuck Ross
    ___________

    Peter Strzok to Lisa Page, “We’ll stop it.”

    Lisa Page to Peter Strzok, “POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    Lisa Page to Congress, “The texts mean what the texts say.”
    ________________________________________________

    Forces of the Obama Coup D’etat in America cleared Hillary of charges to facilitate her campaign for President, 2016.

    Someone write Obergruppenfuhrur Mueller and the SchutzStaffel a letter informing them that we have discovered the “collusion” of the 2016 presidential election.

    It was the Democrats and the DOJ;

    the tip-of-the-spear of the Obama Coup D’etat in America.

  6. Resolved: The NYT is a fraud, propagates lies and no better than CNN, National Enquirer and Mad Magazine all morphed into fish wrap.🐠🤮

    Which brings to mind Professor JT’s conclusions about the Russians vs Deep State narratives in today’s The Hill article

    ###

    “Witch hunt or mole hunt? Times bombshell blows up all theories”
    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/425033-witch-hunt-or-mole-hunt-times-bombshell-blows-up-all-theories

    Of course, neither side can accept at this point that they may have been wrong about the other side. In economics that is called path dependence. So much has been built on the Republican and Democratic sides on these original assumptions that it is impossible to now deconstruct from those narratives. In other words, there may have been no Russian mole and no deep state conspiracy. Moreover, the motivations may not have been to obstruct either the Trump administration or the Russia investigation. Instead, this could prove to be the greatest, most costly example of cognitive bias in history, and now no one in this story wants to admit it.

    1. WoW! Prof Turley is one hell of a fiction writer, lazy , out of time or a fool!

      For example: What kind of paper work does the FBI fill out for a Counter Intelligence Investigation verses a Criminal Investigation & what paper work did the FBI actually fill out?

      That is part of what the real evidence of Fact that goes to this case.

      That is not simple cognitive bias on the part of Trump World of Supporters it’s a prima fascia in our face Coup by the Dems & some, SOME!, inside US intel, including the FBI/DOJ & Federal Judges, (FISA)!

      Anyway, maybe Prof Turley hasn’t the time to do a simple investigative flow chart is why he seems so uninformed as to the real Facts as to what is known to have happened in this case?

      He can start here, just start & stop the video as he writes down the names, the relationships & why is it relevant:

      Watch the whole thing or 13:00 min in:

  7. Even before the correction, I was underwhelmed by the sharing of polling data that appeared to be public information. – JT

    Would he still be underwhelmed if he knew the polling data was private to the campaign and not a public poll?

    1. Great catch, bettykath. There was, in fact, in-house Trump campaign data mixed in with the public information that Turley focused on like a laser-beam cherry-picker. “Polling data” is the most likely the term that only Manafort’s lawyer’s used to minimize the significance of Manafort’s lie. It’s possible that Mueller used a term other than “polling data” to refer to the in-house Trump campaign data. For instance, Mueller might have described the data as “data analytics.” Cross-referencing Trump data analytics with the hacked DNC data analytics could yield the sort of targeted social-media campaign that can change the outcome of an election that turned on just 80,000 votes in just three states.

      1. L4D, please start over with a new comment regarding “targeted social-media campaign”. So far beyond my ken.

        1. Dr. Benson said, “Usually L4D is wide enough to read.”

          When all they’re doing anymore they’re throwing one gutter-ball after another gutter-ball, the only thing left to do is to get down into the gutter with them and give those gutter-balls of theirs a damned good thrashing with the old Nerf mallet. Ha-ha!

          1. You read too much into it.

            I am only writing of the formating of commentary here on Jonathan Turley’s blog as it appears on my hand-held device.

            1. Part of what you say David is true but a large part is just an escape from the problems you have created for yourself. When I reviewed what you couldn’t see some of the stuff was was written as a new response to make it wider for you to see. You blamed its narrowness as a reason you couldn’t read it.

              Rating: Part true, mostly lie.

              1. Allan,..
                Actually, the text on this site has not been at all easy to see, or even view at all, on my smartphone since the site was evidently redesigned late last sumner..
                C
                a
                n
                d
                i
                s
                p
                l
                a
                y
                the comments in a single-letter verticle stack, like the sample.
                That might be how it looks on his display, too, if he’s using a smartphone.
                The only way that I’ve found to get around it is to click on ” Display desktop site”
                …..the content of the page will “spill over” on my device, but by moving the cursor I might be able to “chase down” the words in the comments.
                Here’s an example right now with a log in box this( -) wide….the width of that dash, so it there’s no room to type in the letters to log in.
                It’ll just post as “anonymous”.
                Tom

                1. Tom, my point was that there likely was a solution but I didn’t bother with that since who knows what type of phone David has and it might be unfixable. However, that is not the real issue. The real issue is that David uses that problem as an excuse when the problem doesn’t even exist. I never permitted excuses to be used by children to get out of situations. David was a tenured professor, I think, so perhaps excuses worked well in that situation or alternatively he could blame someone else.

          2. “They” mostly observed a 10 day Christmas Truce with you, and continue to be excessively polite and restrained in any criticism of you.
            And you are better at dodge-ball than “gutter-ball”, so keep the “old Nerf mallet” on the shelf.

            1. Mr. Smith sent L4D’s comments to the bit bucket–as he calls it–for however many days it was. It started shortly after Judge Sullivan gave Flynn a piece of Judge Sullivan’s mind. That was December 18th, 2018. Shortly after that would’ve been December 20th, 21st, or 22nd. I can’t remember what day it was that one of my caretakers reminded me of how to get around Smith’s bit bucket blockade. So much for being . . . what’d you say? . . . “excessively polite and restrained in any criticism of [L4D] . . . I read every word that you and your cohorts posted about me during the blockade. Ha-ha!

              1. I can see why there’s a cover story to conceal the fact that the institution suspened L4B’s keyboard privileges for the time frame mentioned.

  8. Rays of light on the Obama Coup D’etat in America, the most prodigious scandal in American political history:
    _________________________________________

    LOVELY: Lisa Page Sang Like A Canary

    Jan 11, 2019
    By Patrick Howley

    As Big League Politics accurately reported, lover Lisa Page belted out a few show tunes during her behind-closed-doors testimony with House Republicans including gentlemen from the Freedom Caucus.
    Jeff Carlson of The Epoch Times has now obtained bombshell transcripts from the Page testimony, and highlights the following “key points”:

    Brennan was aware of the so-called Steele dossier in early August 2016…he included information regarding the dossier in a briefing given to then-Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

    The FBI appears to have considered investigating President Trump for obstruction of justice both before and after FBI Director James Comey was fired.

    Page says the DOJ refused to pursue “gross-negligence” charges against Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server to send classified information.

    FBI agent Michael Gaeta, head of the Eurasian Crime Squad, who received the dossier from former MI6 spy Steele in July 2016 is referred to in the transcript as Steele’s handler.

    The FBI maintained a previously unknown verification file for the Steele dossier. Congressional investigators did not previously know of its existence.

    John Carlin, the head of the DOJ’s National Security Division, was kept abreast of the FBI’s investigative activities through contact with then-Deputy FBI Director McCabe.

    Page worked directly for DOJ official Bruce Ohr for at least five years and had met his wife, Nellie, once.

    The role of FBI Agent Jonathan Moffa and DOJ official George Toscas may have been greater than initially assumed.

    1. McCabe Admits FBI Let Hillary Off The Hook Early, Says It Was ‘Only Time’ – Jan 11, 2019

      Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe admitted that he could think of no other instances in which the FBI let somebody off the hook prior to the conclusion of an investigation — except for Hillary Clinton.

      “This is the only time that I am aware of, sir,” McCabe told the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees according to a leak to the Epoch Times. McCabe was questioned about the drafting of an exoneration statement for Hillary Clinton in the email case, a full two months before the FBI officially concluded their probe.

    2. I think a lot of people would like to take a look at this video, including Prof Turley.

      Then even Prof Turley might then wonder why Paul Manfort is being held as a political prisonor by a Terrorist Mueller & Co. & why in the hell isn’t Mueller & the rest of his gang not in prison as a National Security Threat!

      https://www.youtube.com/user/DanBongino

  9. HOW OFTEN DOES FOX NEWS ISSUE CORRECTIONS?

    I remember very clearly when Scott Walker took over as governor of Wisconsin. Labor unions staged noisy demonstrations at the Wisconsin State Capitol. Yet Fox News’ report on those demonstrations actually featured video of a melee at McArthur Park here in L.A. In that melee a decidedly hostile crowd was throwing missiles at police. It wasn’t recent news, either, at the time Walker took over. So the question was, “How did that video get on the screen?”

    And there was another instance where Fox News was talking about a Republican congressman from Florida who was resigning amid allegations of improper advances on a minor. But during that report, Fox News displayed a photo of then Senator Al Franken. Again the question was, “How did that photo get on the screen?”

    One suspects that Fox News makes factual errors on a routine basis that never get corrected. Or, perhaps, they never get reported as major headlines in mainstream media. But Media Matters reports those errors every single day.

    If, however, The New York Times, Washington Post or CBS News issues a correction on a story critical of Republicans, you can bet that correction will be a major, major story in right-wing media. And I saw that this morning when investigating this column. It seemed Professor Turley was doing ‘his’ part in giving the story ‘play’.

    Furthermore I noticed that the N.Y. Times correction was scarcely covered in mainstream media. The correction stated that Manafort shared the data with “Ukrainian Oligarchs” as opposed to Russian spy. Is the difference really that significant? Those Oligarchs are allies of the former Ukrainian strongman that Manafort worked for.

    Professor Turley’s column today is essentially a form of manufactured outrage. And one see that in the comments of all our Trump supporters; ‘howls of manufactured outrage’.

      1. I’ll tape Fox News for you as well, David and then we can discuss what was said. We don’t have to listen to your opinions. Instead we can garner the facts and actually have proof of what is happening. Do you agree or are you willing to just provide statements without any basis?.

        Allan

    1. ” But Media Matters reports those errors every single day.”

      A long time ago I was looking at Media Matters and found that their trancripts didn’t match the video and in other videos that Media Matters moved the frame times around. I think one of the tapes involved James O’Keefe’s exposure of Acorn. I wrote to their blog but they would never post anything that that they didn’t like or exposed them. I think Media Matters is crooked. I haven’t bothered to use them as a source of information for a long time.

      I am sure Fox News makes mistakes but I have noted retractions at times so I don’t think their errors are grievous. The retractions I have seen are up front and noticeable. I have seen you make mistakes and misleading statements all the time but we don’t find you an honest broker.

      Despite the fact that I find you personally dishonest I am willing to investigate your claim with you. You pick the shows and the time frames. I’ll make sure to record whatever you wish and then you can tell us where they lied. I’ll check along side you and keep my video as long as you like. I don’t consistently watch any TV news but I can recored many shows even broadcasted at the same time. How about it Peter. Are you game or were you just showing off?

      Since you say “Media Matters reports those errors every single day” you should have no problem in providing the evidence, your view of the program and I will provide mine. Then we can go to the net and frequently will find a video that captures exactly what we are talking about. Again, are you game or just shooting your mouth off?

      1. AN EXAMPLE OF HANNITY’S NONSENSE

        Although this isn’t exactly a ‘correction’, a correction might be needed. It’s a transcript from a Sean Hannity radio broadcast on January 8.

        SEAN HANNITY (HOST): They want socialism, well, [Alexandria Ocasio-] Cortez said she wants a 70 percent tax bracket. 70 percent? Alright, well, let me start here. The bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay less than three percent of the income tax bills in this country. The top 20 percent pay almost 90 — so, 20 percent of Americans pay 90 percent of the bill.

        Now, if you take that money from them, and you confiscate it, vis-a-vis high tax rates or the threat of a jail cell, raising it 70 cents — no, you know, all the — you have a mass exodus out of New York, New Jersey, California, all these high tax states. They’re leaving, all these people are leaving for better weather, lower taxes, affordable living, nicer homes, everything’s better.

        You know, and people got mad at me, they said, “Hannity, you were talking about, well, rich people won’t buy boats” — no, rich people won’t go to restaurants, because they won’t have the money. Rich people won’t invest in companies, that means they’re not going to hire people.

        Rich people are not going to remodel their homes, they’re not going to build new homes — who benefits? The contractor, the electrician, the plumber, the — the carpenters, they’re the ones that benefit, when rich people spend money on their homes.
        ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

        Should we honestly believe that a 70% tax rate would prevent the wealthy from gong to restaurants or remodeling their homes? Did the wealthy not have money for those luxuries in the postwar era when the upper bracket rate was 70%?

        Although this piece didn’t air specifically on Fox, Hannity is, without a doubt, Fox’ most prominent personality. How often is he making baseless assertions like these?

        From today’s MEDIA MATTERS

        1. LAURA INGRAHAM MAKES DUBIOUS CLAIM

          During a January 10 discussion of border security, Laura Ingraham made this dubious assertion on Fox’s “The Ingraham Angle”

          LAURA INGRAHAM (HOST): It’s political, it’s 2020. They think they can flip states with a massive immigration surge, illegal, legal, into the United States. They’ve done it with California, in part, and they think they are going to do it with other states.
          …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

          Here Ingraham is essentially echoing Trump’s UNPROVEN claim that “illegal immigrants’ were voting in large numbers. Trump created a sham commission to substantiate his claims. Said commission famously went nowhere and utterly failed to prove that voting by ‘illegal’s was a major problem.

          1. “They think they can flip states with a massive immigration surge, illegal, legal, into the United States.”

            Do you note the word THINK? That makes this opinion not fact, her opinion to be exact. California just lost a court case and has to remove names from the voting registration list. There were more names than citizens on the voter rolls in certain areas.

            Once again you think your opinion is better than someone else’s opinion but despite it being a difference of opinion you would like to call the other’s opinion a lie. Actually I agree with Ingrahams opinion and there is enough evidence to make me believe this may be happening. If that is so then I think a lot of people are lying to you.

            I need you to tell me which Fox TV shows you wish to discuss including the length of time they need to be held so that I can see to it they are taped and not erased. I also need you to learn the difference between opinion and fact. We also need a clear statement in advance of what you intend to prove in writing. You had said that Fox News lies and those lies are seen in Media Matters once a day so you should have no problem proving you case.

            So far you have proven nothing except you have a different opinion than the people you say you disagree with.

              1. “Judicial Watch wins suit, California forced to remove up to 1.5 million inactive voters and ‘clean up’ its rolls
                January 4, 2019 | Vivek Saxena “

        2. Who did the transcript? Do you have an audio to check the transcript. We can’t trust Media Matters because they stretch the truth and go as far as lying.

          Hannity is probably right that spending will fall with those tax rates but that is my opinion as it is his, The statement doesn’t discuss whether the rich will spend. They will and so will the poor. The question is whether they will SPEND LESS and that may have been proven in the past. I believe that in downturns a lot of people spend less even if they were unaffected by the downturn. I know that happened to me.

          This is what you call a lie? You are ridiculous.

          Let’s get to Fox News where you say Media Matters is able to demonstrate at least one lie a day. Let’s get to a specific TV program(s) so I can tape it and check the Media Matters transcript. Let’s get to substantive things that are not open to opinion.

          Where are your numbers to prove Hannity’s opinion wrong? You don’t have them because (“Should we honestly believe that a 70% tax rate would prevent the wealthy from gong to restaurants or remodeling their homes?”) is nothing more than your opinion. Since there are no facts here to prove one case or the other why shouldn’t we consider your opinion a lie?

            1. Good. Bear it in mind when Peter provides the data again so that it can be verified. Take note neither Hannity nor Ingraham use Briticisms.

                1. Then I must be failing for it a second time. You made a response. I took you at your word and responded. Are you telling me that you were acting in bad faith?

                  Explain to us what you bad faith action was attempting to do.

  10. The Times merely did what any professional, reputable, and ethical media source would do. It issued a correction to a story when it discovered that it’s earlier version had included an error. The “Paper of Record” shows why it is the most respected and revered newspaper in the world. Well done.

    Perhaps Pravda Faux News will begin emulating the fine valued demonstrated by the Times; or not, most likely.

Leave a Reply to Late4Dinner Cancel reply