Will the New York Times Apologize to Sen. Cotton?

Every recovery program starts with the mantra that the first step in dealing with a problem is to admit that you have a problem.

That cathartic moment seems to have escaped the editors of the New York Times in denouncing a cancel culture that they helped spread in the media. Many of us were both bemused and bothered by the editorial in the New York Times opposing cancel culture. The Times has not been some dedicated antagonist of this culture but rather one of its most unabashed ambassadors.  Indeed, one of the most outrageous acts of cancellation by the media was the treatment of Sen. Tom Cotton over his 2020 Times editorial.

Given its history, the most striking aspect of the Times editorial was the utter lack of self-awareness.  The editors wrote:

“In the course of their fight for tolerance, many progressives have become intolerant of those who disagree with them or express other opinions, and take on a kind of self-righteousness and censoriousness that the right long displayed and the left long abhorred.”

As with the recent admission of the Times that the Hunter Biden laptop and emails are authentic, there was no effort to address its own leading role in spreading viewpoint intolerance and censorship.

The treatment of the Cotton column shocked many of us. It was one of the lowest points in the history of modern American journalism. During the week of June 6, 2020, the Times forced out an opinion editor and apologized for publishing Cotton’s column calling for the use of the troops to restore order in Washington after days of rioting around the White House.

While Congress would “call in the troops” six months later to quell the rioting at the Capitol on January 6th, New York Times reporters and columnists denounced the column as historically inaccurate and politically inciteful. The column was in fact historically accurate, even if you disagreed with the underlying proposal (as I did).

Reporters insisted that Cotton was endangering them by suggesting the use of troops and insisted that the newspaper should not feature people who advocate political violence. Writers Taylor Lorenz, Caity Weaver, Sheera Frankel, Jacey Fortin, and others also said that such columns put black reporters in danger and condemned publishing Cotton’s viewpoint.

Critics never explained what was historically false (or outside the range of permissible interpretation) in the column.

In a breathtaking surrender, the newspaper apologized and not only promised an investigation into how such an opposing view could find itself on its pages but promised to reduce the number of editorials in the future:

“We’ve examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication. This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards. As a result, we’re planning to examine both short term and long term changes, to include expanding our fact-checking operation and reduction the number of op-eds we publish.”

One of the writers who condemned the decision to publish Cotton was New York Times Magazine reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones.  Hannah-Jones applauded the decision of the Times to apologize for publishing such an opposing viewpoint and denounced those who engage in what she called “even-handedness, both sideism” journalism. (Notably, Hannah-Jones herself later tweeted out a bizarre anti-police conspiracy theory that injuries and destruction caused by fireworks was not the fault of protesters but actually part of a weird police conspiracy. There was no hue and cry over accuracy).

Opinion editor James Bennet reportedly made an apology to the staff.  That however was not enough. He was later compelled to resign for publishing a column that advocates an option used previously in history with rioting.

What was particularly galling was the open hypocrisy of the editors as they continued to publish authors with violent viewpoints and anti-free speech agendas.

For example, the newspaper had no problem in publishing “Beijing’s enforcer” in Hong Kong as Regina Ip mocked freedom protesters who were being beaten and arrested by the government.

Likewise, the New York Times published a column by University of Rhode Island professor  Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.  (Loomis has also been ridiculed for denouncing statistics, science, and technology as inherently racist).

In truth, there is a reason to publish all of these authors as part of a diverse set of viewpoints in a newspaper. The problem is that the Times only moved against one: Sen. Cotton.

When confronted by the very mob described in the recent editorial, the Times let them in and rushed to join them in cleansing its pages and editorial staff.

Everyone loves a redemptive sinner and I would be the first to applaud the New York Times in rescinding its earlier position on the Cotton editorial.  However, absent that recognition, the Times is just another member of the mob haunted by its own lack of courage.

If the Times has decided to truly oppose the anti-free speech movement, it can start with an apology to Senator Tom Cotton.


155 thoughts on “Will the New York Times Apologize to Sen. Cotton?”

  1. Remember if you vote Democrat…you Hate America
    Democrats don’t believe in laws!

  2. Fascists don’t apologize. They don’t care about truth, laws, fascists
    Democrats are greedy, hate filled,lying, cheating, hypocrites!

    Time to Remove all RINOs and go scorched earth! Cut 50% of DC federal gov and move 40% to the Heartland. DC is lost.
    Also a 5% Tax on all financial trades…stocks, bonds, derivatives, options, commodities…make trading about trading not gambling. Squeeze Wall Street and the RICHEST!

  3. Remember when Twitter, Youtube, and Facebook coordinated the censorship of the Hunter Biden Laptop story? Remember when 50 intelligence officials signed a letter claiming it was Russian misinformation, despite admitting they had absolutely no evidence of such?

    The story turned out to be true.

    Democrats engage in Putin-level censorship and propaganda, and they control the public education system, academia, Hollywood, social media, most of the news…In short, the party of censorship and misinformation controls much of the flow of information and culture in our country.

    This should worry any reasonable person.

    1. Karen,

      “Remember when 50 intelligence officials signed a letter claiming it was Russian misinformation, despite admitting they had absolutely no evidence of such?”

      No, I don’t remember that, because that’s not what they said. This is what they said: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000
      Either your own memory is faulty, or you don’t understand the difference between what they actually said and how you’re describing it, or you’re purposefully misrepresenting it. Which is it?

      “The story turned out to be true.”

      The “story” has multiple components, and there’s a lot that has yet to be verified. I doubt that you could even put into words what “the story” is that’s known to be true (maybe you can, but you haven’t, so I’m doubtful).

      “the party of censorship and misinformation controls much of the flow of information and culture in our country.”

      There is no one “party of censorship and misinformation.” Both parties sometimes censor. Both parties sometimes put out misinformation. Both parties sometimes fight against censorship. Both parties sometimes fight other misinformation.

      1. Anonymous:

        Do you deny:

        1. Twitter deplatformed NY Post in order to censor the story
        2. The story was censored across multiple social media platforms
        3. The media claimed it was Russian disinformation
        4. Joe Biden claimed it was Russian disinformation, and Trump’s fault (I can provide video)
        5. those 51 former intelligence officials were wrong

        Both parties do not censor at the same level. That’s not possible. Republicans do not control all major social media, and so could no possibly censor FB, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube. Google is owned and operated by Democrats, who deliberately write their algorithm to produce search results that bury stories injuries to Democrats, promote stories that help them, and promote stories injuries too Republicans.

        The major news media is nothing more than Democrat communications czars. They routinely pushed misinformation about Trump, from claiming he was antisemitic to false accusing him of calling racists “very fine people.”

        Increasingly, Democrat activists have gained positions in all the major 3 letter agencies. Notable examples are the IRS under Lois Lerner deliberately targeting conservative groups, and the FBI notorious shielding of Hillary Clinton, and promoting the Russia hoax.

        There is no “both sides” about this issue. Frankly, it’s like Pravda.

        1. Karen,

          You still haven’t clarified what you mean by “the story.” If you’re referring to the NY Post’s original story, again, much of it remains unverified.

          You make claims about “it” without clarifying what “it” refers to. I can’t read your mind to know what “it” includes and excludes.

          If you think that the letter from the 51 people contains a false claim, quote what you’re referring to. Because in my reading, their letter contains a mix of true factual statements and opinions, not any false statements, so no, I won’t say that they were wrong.

          “Republicans do not control all major social media”

          Neither do Democrats, nor is social media all that counts.

          “Google is owned and operated by Democrats, who deliberately write their algorithm to produce search results that bury stories injuries to Democrats, promote stories that help them, and promote stories injuries too Republicans.”

          That’s quite a claim. But you haven’t presented any evidence for it, and I’m not going to go searching on your behalf.

  4. Why the NYT’s sudden interest in the Biden family corruption?

    With his tanking poll numbers and shocking mental decline, Joseph Robinette Biden has become an intolerable liability for the Democrats. He will soon be the fall guy for the horrible mess created by their failed progressive ideologies. Or as Roger Kimball puts it, Biden and the disaster that is Kamala Harris are being prepared for ejection:


    1. “Silberman, who serves as a senior judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, appears to have bought into this panic. His Thursday email—sent to every judge currently serving on a federal district or appeals court—prompted a mixed response. Judge John Walker, a George H.W. Bush nominee on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: “Thank you for your email. I couldn’t agree more.” Judge Donald Graham, a George H.W. Bush nominee on a district court in Florida, shot back: “How would we as judges all over the country know about the activities of a particular student? Shouldn’t there be a finding that a student acted inappropriately at least by the institution of higher learning. I don’t intend to get into the fact finding process. I have enough trials in my District.” Finally, Judge Andrew Gordon, a Barack Obama nominee on the district court in Nevada, closed the conversation by writing: “Please do not hit ‘reply all.’ It’s very distracting to receive all these comments when I’m trying to get my work done. And it clogs up my email inbox.””

      This Slate article also has video showing that the Washington Free Beacon made some major mistakes in its reporting, including the fact that the protesters walked out after being warned by YLS Prof. Kate Stith, and the invited speakers went ahead with their discussion.

  5. Jonathan did anyone ever tell you that you are a slow learner? Marxist don’t apologize, they name, blame, shame, then kill. do keep up.

    1. A veteran. An unarmed woman. Invited inside. Invitation summarily, capriciously withdrawn. Tried to stop a riot (“disorder”) forced by Capitol Police. Failing to calm the agitators, she attempted to escape, only to be planned in a prone position (“cold blood”) by the Capitol Hero with plausible cause. Demos-cracy is aborted at the Twilight Fringe.

  6. Just curious, will any of the “journalists” who got Pulitzer’s for their reporting on “Russian collusion” return their coveted prizes? NOT.

  7. new york slimes…..
    “weapons of mass destruction”
    …..1940’s…” there is no evidence of any holocaust happening ”
    nobody with any sense listens to or respects the new york slimes, its just the mouth piece of the left and the deep state.

  8. Jonathan: Tom Cotton is the darling of the far-right hawkish wing of the GOP. In almost every foreign policy issue Cotton goes for the use of the hammer rather than diplomacy. As a former US Army Captain in Iraq Cotton sees foreign policy issues in black and white. Cotton led the charge to dismantle the nuclear deal with Iran–even though the IAEA certified Iran was in full compliance. He convinced Trump to get out of the accord despite opposition from all our allies. Cotton called for regime change in Iran–urging airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and arming Iranian opposition groups. We know where we would be now had that happened.

    Cotton is no stranger to controversy involving the NY times. In 2006 while serving in Iraq Cotton sent a letter to the Times complaining about the paper’s reporting on secret attempts by the Bush administration to track down so-called “terrorists” attacking the US occupation. Cotton claimed the Times reports had “greatly endangered the lives of my soldiers” and said the Times was violating espionage laws. He hoped the DOJ would “prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law”. Cotton concluded his letter: “By the time we return home maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements but behind bars”. For Cotton if you print anything unfavorable about a US foreign occupation you should go to jail. Shades of the persecution of Daniel Ellsberg for exposing the folly of the Vietnam war! Former Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni said it best about Cotton’s hawkish non-sensical views: “Like I tell my friends, if you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you’ll love Iran”.

    The Times did not publish Cotton’s 2006 letter but it did publish his 2020 op ed–probably to their everlasting regret. In his essay Cotton blamed the protests over the killing of George Flloyd as being led by “cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes”. Sounds a lot like the language you used in describing the unrest over Floyd’s killing. Blame it all on Antifa! Cotton described the protesters as “insurrectionists”–a term Cotton doesn’t use to describe those who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6. In his op ed Cotton called on Trump invoke the Insurrection Act, declare martial law, and send the US military around the country to put down the protests. Trump was prepared to follow Cotton’s advice but for the Joint Chiefs who refused to go along because that would violate a number of US laws.

    It was probably a good thing the Times published Cotton’s op ed because it exposed him for what he is–a proponent of the use of US military force, even here at home to solve every problem. That’s the stuff of military dictatorships not democracies. For that Cotton doesn’t deserve an apology but condemnation!

    1. That Cotton and most GOP members including Trump are scum bags is not the point. The point of this article is the hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness of the NYT. The point is that the NYT promotes violence as long as it’s against perceived enemies of the left and the government politburo, while simultaneously acting as if they are against violence but only when it is promoted by a political enemy.

  9. The NYT will apologize to Sen. Cotton………….and Jesus will return and explain that He now identifies as a wealthy, Muslim lesbian. Book it.

  10. I can understand and appreciate Prof. Turley’s focus on the mainstream media and the issues of accuracy, reliability, and free speech. But a large percentage of the public has already come to undertand that the mainstream media today really consists of what I’ve termed presstitutes, and that includes social media corporations like Google, Twitter, and the like. They know that those presstitutes are simply another part of the Democrat Party and are outlets for its propaganda dedicted to surpressing and censoring the truth. Consequently, intelligent people don’t expect the media presstitutes to have any interest in reforming themselves. And today’s LIEs (Leftist Indoctrination Entities)–formerly known as colleges and universities–are steadily cranking out more presstitutes to replace the older ones in the presstitution industry that are dying off.

    However, a far more sinister problem are the current and former Deep State criminals and liars that are working or worked in the US government and other organizations, like John Brennan, James Clapper, Christopher Wray, James Comey, Leon Panetta, Michael Hayes, Michael Morrel, John McLaughlin, and so on. What about these enemies of America working within the system to destroy America and to advance the Globalist One World agenda? These are individuals that are above the law and readily break the law without fear of consequences. These are the individuals that should be the focus of our attention.

    So far, The New York Post is one of the few, lone brave voices exposing these Deep State criminals and liars: https://nypost.com/2022/03/18/intelligence-experts-refuse-to-apologize-for-smearing-hunter-biden-story/

    1. Turley works for one of the biggest “presstitutes,” Fox News.

      As for “the current and former Deep State criminals,” what crimes did they commit? Why didn’t Barr’s DOJ indict them, or is Barr among these “Deep State criminals”?

      The Post editorial says “[the 51 former “intelligence” officials’] Deep State sabotage has been shown again and again to be a lie.” But here’s the actual letter from those former intelligence officials: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000
      The Post claims that they lied, yet does not quote even one lie.

      They partially quote “the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” The Post editors haven’t provided any evidence that it’s even false, much less that it’s a lie.

      They partially quote “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.” Again, the Post editors haven’t provided any evidence that that’s false, much less that it’s a lie.

      They partially quote “We are all individuals who devoted significant portions of our lives to national security. Some of us served in senior positions in policy departments and agencies, and some of us served in senior positions in the Intelligence Community. Some of us were political appointees, and some were career officials. Many of us worked for presidents of both political parties. We are all also individuals who see Russia as one of our nation’s primary adversaries. All of us have an understanding of the wide range of Russian overt and covert ac<vi<es that undermine US national security, with some of us knowing Russian behavior intimately, as we worked to defend our nation against it for a career. A few of us worked against Russian information operations in the United States in the last several years." That's all true.

      Please help: can you identify an actual lie? If not, then the NY Post editors are the ones who are lying.

      1. When it comes to Anonymous [the foolish one] and his ilk, who despise the truth, I follow the advice of the Bible: “Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.”–Proverbs 23:9.

        1. I love the truth.

          If I said anything false, just show me that it’s false, and I’ll agree that I was wrong.

      2. The Biden/Maidan/Slavic Spring in the Obama Spring series with “benefits”, and operation of illicit bio-hazard research labs a la Wuhan.

      3. I love when the “Experts” claim that they can’t possibly have any bias toward one party because they “worked for Presidents of both political parties” like that absolves them of any kind of political misconduct or funny business

        1. They didn’t “claim that they can’t possibly have any bias toward one party.” So if you love when experts claim that, you must have some other letter in mind.

      4. Anomaly,

        You expound on the fact that the NY Post provided no evidence that the letter provided by the 51 former “intelligence” officials was false or a was lie. The problem with this argument is that the letter itself offered no true evidence that the claim made by the former ‘intelligence” officials was true, it was all conjecture. You cannot falsify that which was never objectively claimed to be true.

        “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails…are genuine or not and that we do not have
        evidence of Russian involvement…”

        “Such an operation would be consistent with Russian objectives…”

        “Such an operation would be consistent with some of the key methods Russia has used…”

        “Such an operation is also consistent with several data points…”

        “According to the Washington Post…”

        “According to USA Today…”

        If this is the best evidence that you can offer that Hunter’s laptop is ‘Russian disinformation’?

        1. “Anomaly,”

          Grow up.

          “You cannot falsify that which was never objectively claimed to be true.”

          If you believe that, then you’d have to conclude that the NY Post lied when it asserted that the letter’s 51 signatories had lied, since a lie is a knowingly false statement intended to deceive.

          FWIW, I don’t agree that the letter “was all conjecture.” It was a mixture of T/F claims and opinions.

          “If this is the best evidence that you can offer that Hunter’s laptop is ‘Russian disinformation’?”

          I have never asserted that Hunter’s laptop is Russian disinformation, and it’s not my responsibility to provide any evidence for a claim that’s not mine. I was simply responding to JFeldman’s use of the NY Post article as support for JFeldman’s assertion that the letter’s authors were “criminals and liars.” The NY Post article asserts they’re liars, but does not actually provide evidence for that. JFeldman hasn’t produced his own evidence of their being “criminals and liars” either.

      5. It’s not news to long time readers here that Brennan and Clapper perjured themselves to Congress. Those are felony crimes. That Barr did not prosecute them is not a surprise either. Only people who think a cop will give another cop a ticket for going 75mph in a 65 are stupid enough (or big enough liars) to be surprised at Barr’s lack of prosecution. It’s called “professional courtesy.”

        Your best friend Comey’s first meeting with then-POTUS Trump: at that time Comey knew that Hillary and the DNC purchased the so-called “Trump Dossier” pack of lies and hid that info from his boss Trump. Anderson Cooper had the guts to ask Comey if it occurred to him that he should have mentioned it to Trump at that meeting. Scum bag Comey laughed to Cooper’s face and said, “It didn’t occur to me to tell him.” Which actually was true because Comey was part of the conspiracy to destroy Trump pre and post election, so of course he wanted to hide those facts from Trump to further the effect of the lies. And this scum bag Comey now teaches Ethics at university. Which makes progressive liars happy.

        1. Or perhaps Barr concluded that he could not demonstrate that the statements were knowingly false rather than mistakenly false. (The former must be demonstrated for a false statement to Congress to be illegal.) Unlike you, I do not pretend to read Barr’s mind.

          LOL that you call Comey my “best friend.”

      6. “can you identify an actual lie?”

        The entire piece. It’s a grotesque charade that uses woozy implications and innuendo to promote a fiction. It’s a dishonest piece of tripe. And the authors knew exactly how D’s, the media, and much of the general public would interpret it.

        1. In order words, Sam, you’re unable to identify any actual lie, despite your opinion about the piece as a whole.

          1. “. . . unable to identify any actual lie . . .”

            The retort of those whose power of observation is staring at a speck of bark on a tree.

            1. You still haven’t identified any lie, no matter how many false claims about me you make.

            2. Sam, don’t waste your time with Anonymous [the foolish one]. The fool wants to pretend that opinion statements can’t be lies. The fool wants to pretend that when speakers have no basis for their statements, are aware of material facts that cut against their statements, or make material omissions of fact, the speakers still weren’t lying. And making stuff up to present a false picture isn’t lying to Anonymous [the foolish one] either. So, don’t waste your time with Anonymous [the foolish one] and his ilk, who despise the truth. Instead, follow the advice of the Bible on this issue: “Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.”–Proverbs 23:9.

              1. JFeldman, I love the truth.

                I also love evidence.

                If you think the people who wrote that letter “have no basis for their statements,” present evidence for it.
                If you think the people who wrote that letter were “aware of material facts that cut against their statements,” present evidence for it.
                If you think the people who wrote that letter made “material omissions of fact,” present evidence for it.
                If you think the people who wrote that letter were “making stuff up to present a false picture,” present evidence for it.

                If I’m wrong, I’ll have no problem saying I was wrong.

                The problem is: so far you’ve been unwilling to make an evidence-based argument. If you have evidence to substantiate your claims, present it. Don’t engage in childish name-calling while you avoid having an evidence-based, adult discussion.

                As for whether I “pretend that opinion statements can’t be lies,” that would be because lying, by definition, is knowingly making a *false* statement with intent to deceive, and opinions are not T/F statements. T/F statements are either true (in which case they’re facts) or they’re false (in which case they’re either lies or mistakes). If you cannot show that a claim is false, then it’s not a lie.

      1. I’m not going to watch a 20 minute video on your behalf. Again: the NY Post editors said that “[the 51 former “intelligence” officials’] Deep State sabotage has been shown again and again to be a lie,” but the Post editors did not identify any lie in the letter those former 51 intelligence officers wrote.

        When I asked you “can you identify an actual lie?,” I assumed that you understood I was asking about their letter. If you didn’t understand that, now you do. Either you can quote an actual lie from the letter, or I will conclude that — like me — you cannot find any lie in that letter, and therefore the NY Post was lying.

        1. The irony of two impeachments ordered on less substantive evidence, and, in fact, by actors who spoke truth through projection.

        2. Anonymous – the 51 former intelligence officials admitted in that letter that they had no direct evidence that the story wasn’t true. They basically said they felt in their gut it was Russian misinformation. In retrospect, they appear to be political operatives under cover of authority.

          There was mass censorship of a story that turned out to be true, and may have helped get a dishonest man elected.

          This is a problem.

          1. Karen, you keep referring to “the story,” but I don’t know what you’re using “the story” as a shorthand for — what you’re including or excluding. How about you describe “the story” is a sentence or two?

            “the 51 former intelligence officials admitted in that letter that they had no direct evidence that the story wasn’t true.”

            Yes, they said “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.” You’re complaining that they made a true statement and were up front about what they didn’t know?

            “They basically said they felt in their gut it was Russian misinformation. ”

            No, that isn’t what the letter’s authors said. They said “There are a number of factors that make us suspicious of Russian involvement,” and then they identified the factors.

            “There was mass censorship of a story that turned out to be true”

            If by “the story” you’re referring to the Post’s article, we still don’t know whether all of it is true. For example, we still don’t know whether Hunter Biden is the person who dropped off the 3 laptops or if the 3 laptops belonged to HB. We still don’t know whether everything that was on the hard drive that the shop owner gave to Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello, and that Costello gave to the NY Post came from HB.

            I’ll repeat a comment from Marcy Wheeler:
            “I’m going to explain how The Laptop that Rudy Giuliani floated just before the election is the functional equivalent of the Steele dossier. Before I do, let me make a fairly obvious (if counterintuitive) point: Of the three people that powerful Ukrainians attempted to cultivate for their ties to the Vice President or President — Paul Manafort, Hunter Biden, and Rudy Giuliani — just one provably affected US policy through the Vice President or President: Rudy. …
            “According to the NYT story that has renewed the frenzy around the laptop Rudy Giuliani released just before the election, Federal prosecutors still haven’t determined whether Hunter Biden’s treatment of Chinese, Kazakh, and Ukrainian influence efforts amounted to a crime. But they do have evidence that Hunter Biden tried to be explicit that he could not influence his father to help Burisma. …
            “Of these three well-connected Americans being cultivated by powerful and corrupt Ukrainians — some but not all of them known Russian agents — only Rudy Giuliani is known to have had a direct effect on policy. Among other things, Rudy got Marie Yovanovitch fired. In only Rudy’s case, then, do we have clearcut proof that a Ukrainian influence operation had the desired effect of changing American policy. Though even there, it’s not yet clear whether Rudy’s unregistered influence peddling was criminal.”

            Do you disagree with any of that? If so, what do you disagree with?

        3. It appears that the “classic earmarks of Russian disinformation” can apply to anything truthful that undermines a Democrat politician’s campaign.

          Media ran headlines claiming that these officials claimed the story was Russian disinformation, which did not accurately reflect their admission that they had no evidence of such. They can evade accusations of lying because they can claim it was just their opinion.

          Twitter suspended the NYP’s account leading up to the election, on the grounds that it released hacked information. They had proof of chain of custody.


          When experts use their authority to claim a legitimate news story is Russian disinformation, and it turns out to be true, and thus pertinent to the election, then they owe the country an apology. None of them have done so. This should negatively impact their credibility, but it won’t.

Comments are closed.