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. The NYT will apologize to Sen. Cotton………..and Jesus will return and explain how He now identifies as a wealthy Muslim Lesbian. Book it.

  2. The SEC requires companies like the New York Times to disclose to their investors the biggest risks facing their company. Do you now one of the Times’ greatest risks?

    That Google could change its adverting algorithms in a way that hurts the the New York Times’ revenues. Think about that for a minute. The implications are terrifying.

  3. OT

    Putin’s March to the Sea.

    Lincoln’s March to the Sea.

    Sherman’s March to the Sea.


    Is Karl Marx’s letter of commendation and congratulation prominently displayed at the Lincoln Memorial?

    Marx praised Lincoln for heinous war and “…the Reconstruction of a Social World.”

    The Marxist “Reconstruction Amendments” were improperly ratified by Lincoln’s successors.

    Ratification of one amendment is virtually impossible; coercion was required to ratify three anti-American amendments.

    Putin and Lincoln: Two despotic peas in a pod.

    1. For the record, I strongly support Lincoln’s presidency and the 13, 14, and 15th amendments (and their legality) and strongly disagree with your views on these issues presented here, earlier, and most likely later.

      1. Again, thank you for reading.

        Communism – Good!

        Right, comrade?

        Do you have a copy of Karl Marx’s letter of commendation and congratulation to Abraham Lincoln hanging in your study?

        You, Putin and Lincoln have no regard for the law – you are above the law – in a society of laws; how does that —- work?

        Slavery had been established law for 241 years – a quarter of a millennium – it was initiated by African tribal chiefs, Arab slave traders and British planters.

        Slavery was African, Arab and British, distinctly not American; it is likely that the leaders of the United States wanted to avoid destroying the entirety of the national economy and wealth in one fell swoop.

        Newly minted Americans perceived the contradiction that was slavery and were concerned with its demise from the framing of the Constitution; Washington freed his slaves in his will.

        The next time a conservative gets into office, you will consider him justified in voiding laws, nullifying the Constitution, declaring martial law, seizing all power and implementing whatever he desires, right?

        Lincoln taught America to ignore law and do anything it likes, resulting in the abrogation of the Constitution and the contemporary communist welfare state and “dictatorship of the proletariat” under a totally corrupt, despotic president.

        Let’s celebrate with Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Franklin, Adams, Jay, Mason et al., whaddaya say?

        The “Reconstruction Amendments” were/are unconstitutional and moot as the Naturalization Act of 1802, more pesky law for you to ignore, required the compassionate repatriation of freed slaves.

        Lincoln’s presidency (38.9 % majority?) ended when he unconstitutionally denied the fully constitutional right to and freedom of secession, and when Lincoln criminally invaded a sovereign foreign nation.

        Putin and Lincoln – Lincoln and Putin.

        Two peas in a pod.

        “Crazy Abe” broke every law and fundamental law on the books as a barbarian criminal, just like Putin.

        Slavery must have been ended legally by free people in America and Europe through advocacy, boycotts, divestiture, etc.

        The constitutional amendment process requires a quorum and does not include kinetic force or brutal, post-war, military occupation.

            1. I read your comments when I first started commenting here, but then I saw that you vomit out the same garbage day after day, so now I don’t bother to read most of it. I don’t need to read your comments to know that you’re trolling. All you ever do is troll.

      2. CC,

        For the record, I am strongly for the law – fundamental law and legislated law.

        I am for the law, the whole law, and nothing but the law, so help me God.

          1. A few final points and then I’m signing off on this topic. Lincoln was duly elected in 1860 with an electoral college majority in a 4 way race. In Texas v White (1869), the Supreme Court held that States do not have a right to secede. The Reconstruction amendments were duly ratified and certified and the Supreme Court has not historically questioned ratification amendment determinations and decisions (see Lesner v Garnett in 1922 and Coleman v Miller in 1939).

            1. You’re not serious, right?

              OJ Simpson was found not guilty by a court.

              Bill Cosby and Jussie Smollett were released from prison by a court.

              Are you advocating for the revocation of West Virginia’s secession from Virginia and the United States of America’s secession from Great Britain – Pakistan, Bangladesh, Uruguay, East Timor, etc., and Catalonia’s and Scotland’s vote on secession?

              A state secedes by a vote of its people and no other criteria or concerns apply.

              Don’t quote a disgustingly political and totally corrupt court, quote what the Constitution says.

              I’ll help you; it says nothing and secession is fully constitutional by omission.

              But then, you da– well know that and you are simply prevaricating.

              You believe an abusive husband may stop his wife from divorcing and leaving as “Crazy Abe” Lincoln did, right?

              Spouses and States must remain, in perpetuity, in relationships which are violent and abusive, what, until they’re dead?

              Carry on, comrade.

  4. “Critics never explained what was historically false ” and they never will. it is far easier to cry fake or false than it is to provide evidence to support their cry

    1. Independent Bob – the NYT owes Trump a series of apologies before they get around to Sen. Cotten.

      1. If the NYT owes Trump apologies, then Trump also owes the NYT apologies.

  5. “Will the New York Times Apologize to Sen. Cotton?”

    – Professor Turley

    Will Lesley Stahl and 60 Minutes be secured in the guillotine for perpetrating a malicious, subversive and general fraud against the Constitution and America?

    “There’s no real evidence of that.”

    – Lesley Stahl

    @ :28

  6. Less visible than fabulism, lying and censorship in the corporate media is the more dangerous practice of censorship of scientific research that does not support the preferred narrative.

    It is a form of Lysenkoism.

    A good example is described in this substack post:


    An article on adverse events following injection of the vaccine was peer reviewed and published in Current Problems in Cardiology. Later the article was pulled by the publisher without explanation.

    Somebody did not want a professional analysis of vaccine related adverse cardiology events to see daylight.

    Then a ‘reporter’ appeared with the open intention of smearing the study in corporate media.

    Somebody REALLY wanted to suppress and destroy this study.

    Similarly a careful study with a large cohort showed that masks are ineffective. The researchers had considerable difficulty in finding a professional journal that would even consider publishing the study.

    Those of us who follow it know that the same thing has been going on in climate science for years. Shoddy work coming to the accepted conclusion will be readily published. Careful and precise research is suppressed if it counters the political narrative.

    Recently JAMA published an article reporting a study that showed that Ivermectin was ineffective in treating covid. But the actual data included in the article showed exactly the opposite. There were 10 deaths among the non-ivermectin group and only 3 among those who received Ivermectin. Which group would you want to be in? Other elements of the study clearly showed treatment with Ivermectin better than the alternative.

    One has to wonder whether this study would ever have been published if the actual results rather than their opposite had been in the abstract and title?

    Censorship and propaganda has sunk very deep and very poisonous roots.

    1. The problem Young highlights is real. Another thing that happens is that the CDC relies on shoddy studies that contradict sound ones to push its favoured narratives. This has happened on the effectiveness of masks in schools, natural immunity, and other issues. The scientific and publish health establishments have forfeited all credibility over the past two years.

  7. My suggestion to JT, who has a significant media presence, is to thoroughly cover and analyze the underlying issues of a story or topic and not spend time complaining how and how much other media figures are covering the issue or whether they should apologize or how much. My suggestion to readers of this blog is to look at the original sources that JT refers to to get a better understanding of the context and perspective and not rely on JT’s characterization. Thanks for considering my suggestions — hope you find them helpful.

    1. I’m pretty sure that’s why JT provides links to the original sources….you know….so you don’t rely on his characterization.

  8. “It was one of the lowest points in the history of modern American journalism.”

    I think a much lower point is the many rightwing media outlets promoting Trump’s Big Lie that the election was stolen. Your employer, Fox News, comes to mind.

    “the Times forced out an opinion editor”

    The editor resigned after admitting that he hadn’t even read Cotton’s op-ed before allowing it to be published, and so failed to do his job as editor.

    As for the actual NYT editorial, I disagree that “the most striking aspect of the Times editorial was the utter lack of self-awareness.” I think the most striking aspect was the ludicrous claim that “For all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims, Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.” They make a similar claim in other places in the editorial. Freedom of speech has not ever meant freedom from being shamed or shunned. NeoNazis should be shamed and shunned for their speech, for example. They have a legal right to make shameful claims. We should all stand up for that legal right. But only a fool thinks that freedom of speech involves freedom from consequences.

    Turley and I also have different views about how the NYT revealed a “lack of self-awareness” in the editorial. They say “Many on the left refuse to acknowledge that cancel culture exists at all, believing that those who complain about it are offering cover for bigots to peddle hate speech. Many on the right, for all their braying about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms.” Then it contradicts that statemet with “The world is witnessing firsthand, in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the strangling of free speech through government censorship and imprisonment. That is not the kind of threat to freedom of expression that Americans face.” Yes, Americans face government censorship, and it’s occurring with material printed by the NYT itself: the 1619 Project — https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/lawmakers-push-to-ban-1619-project-from-schools/2021/02 That’s the lack of self-awareness that I’d highlight.

    1. what is even worse is that people like yourself and the press are ignoring how the Democrats through the efforts of people like Marc Elias and Zuckerberg were able to manipulate the election processes in states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Election procedures were changed without going through the legislatures as required by the Constitutions. The County Judge (a Democrat) of Harris County Texas put in place ballot boxes to collect ballots (not allowed by state law) only in Democratic dominated precincts. Balloting harvesting was rampant in places like Minneapolis/St. Paul just check the Project Veritas videos.
      most recently the investigation into the election in Wisconsin has turned up solid evidence that Zuckerberg’s money went solely to Democratic areas where it was used to turn out the vote while little if any went to Republican areas. Rather than use the term stolen I would say that the Democrats manipulated the system illegally. and it began well before 2020 when a student working for the Democratic party was found to have registered dead people to vote. For decades we’ve joked about how the Democrats will register and vote dead people. Now we have prima facie evidence that they do. wouldn’t surprise if it is still going on. and let us not forget how ACORN worked double-time to register voters for Democrats until exposed by Project Veritas

    2. The election was stolen and the New York Times’ admission that the laptop was real 17 months after the fact proves that the outcome of the election was heavily influenced by their misinformation and lies. A poll of Biden voters in seven swing states found that 45.1% said they were unaware of the scandal enveloping Biden and his son Hunter (a story infamously censored by Twitter and Facebook, as well as ignored by the liberal media). According to the poll, full awareness of the Hunter Biden scandal would have led 9.4% of Biden voters to abandon the Democratic candidate, flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump. But that’s not the only scandal the media tried to hide. If Biden voters had known about Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations, 8.9% told us they would have changed their vote, again flipping all six of the swing states to Trump. There were six other issues that a large percentage of Biden voters were misinformed about or lied to about and had they not beenTrump would have easily won. The most basic principle of our electoral system is that our leaders are chosen by the people themselves. But if the people are given systematically one-sided information, with crucial facts omitted, then the real power to choose has been stolen from them.

      1. The election was not stolen. Trump lost.

        Voters often do not know all sorts of things that might influence their votes. You’re citing a poll by the right-wing Media Research Center that did not even attempt to ask Trump voters similar questions. They and you cherrypick issues that might have negatively influenced Biden voters while ignoring things that might have negatively influenced Trump voters and also ignoring things that might have positively influenced both groups.

        The NYT is not in a position to assess whether all of the contents of the laptop are authentic or not.

        1. The election was stolen…more importantly RIGGED. It is sad your ilk thinks that such an incompetent and thoroughly morally vacant man of visible mentally diminished capacity such as biden could have/be alleged to have so many votes but can’t get a rally of more than a dozen tropes then or now. The 51 “experts” that called hunter’s laptop fiasco “russian disinformation” sit diel with egg on their face as their lies and propaganda are now exposed that after all they were wrong and hunter’s laptops from hell are real and show the moral and financial depravity to which the biden clan businesses’ operates in. Sad you lot of sheeple are that not only are you unwilling to see truth , you openly suppress it in favor of your political bent.

          1. I voted for Biden. But I’m not a fan of Biden’s, and I would not bother going to a Biden rally.

            I and many other people simply believed that Biden was better than Trump (admittedly, an extremely low bar). I had good reasons for this belief, and Trump only underscored that I made the right choice: he’s promoted the Big Lie that the election was stolen, he tried to get Pence to act unconstitutionally to prevent Congress from certifying the Electoral College vote, he planned a huge rally on the day of Congress’s certification, riled up the crowd with lies and sent them marching to the Capitol (despite never even requesting a permit for a march), refused to immediately condemn the violence, … I consider Trump’s authoritarian bent one of the biggest dangers to our democracy in our history.

            You claim “The 51 “experts” that called hunter’s laptop fiasco “russian disinformation” sit diel with egg on their face as their lies and propaganda are now exposed.” Here’s their letter: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000
            What did they say that’s a lie?

            “hunter’s laptops from hell are real”

            The question has always been whether the contents of the laptops are 100% legit from HB, or if the contents are instead a mix of legit content plus Russian disinformation. And the truthful answer is: we still don’t know.

            I think your last sentence applies to Trumpists at least as often as it does to Trump opponents.

            1. Bobolinsky was there and confirmed the emails are legit. Only liars and/or naive people don’t know that by now. If you want to call Bobolinsky a liar, what is your evidence? He’s not a liar and has no reason to lie about his experience.

              1. The laptops contain more than the emails you’re referring to. I was talking about the entire contents. I didn’t “call Bobolinsky a liar.”

              1. I bet they do think Biden was better. He didn’t try to extort their President. But you and I can only guess about their responses, and unlike you, I won’t pretend that my guess is anything other than a guess.

        2. If you want to know what Biden voters would have done then you ask Biden voters. The NYT was in a position to investigate the contents of the laptop but they chose to allow the false narrative about Russian disinformation to spread.

          1. Sergeant,

            I suspect that if the computer repairman had not made a copy of the hard drive and set it aside Hunter’s laptop would have been lost and forgotten.

            I suspect that if the NYPD hadn’t gotten a good look at Weiner’s laptop and the tons of government information on it, that laptop too would have gone into a black hole and forgotten.

            The feebs are not trustworthy. “If you see something, say something” but don’t say it to those people. Find a reputable law enforcement agency to provide with the information.

            It shocks me to realize that there was a time, now long past, when I thought they were great. Then I realized they were mostly great at self promotion. Now they aren’t even good at that anymore.

  9. Like the other item concerning buildings speaking to humans this one asks a bit of paper never known to deal in any conversation much less those truthful in ‘print.’ Remember they represent the true meaning of unable to speak also known as ‘dumb’ likewise are ‘deaf’ and in that phrase also ‘blind.’ Deaf, Dumb and Blind.

    1. Agreed! But don’t expect the professor to do that he’s no a Republican apologist.

    2. enigma – The FBI is currently unwilling to go on record as to how many double-agents were at the Capitol. Until they do, everything is sus

      1. Suspect of what exactly? Organizing and coordinating the event? Bringing weapons to the Capitol. Having a written plan to occupy congressional offices. There are already admissions and convictions related to those. The only question is whether the justice department is willing to go to the top.
        Did you have a problem with COINTELPRO, and the FBI infiltrating every civil rights organization and Black fraternities and sororities?

        1. enigma – I have a big problem with the FBI infiltrating organizations. BTW, I did not know the FBI had enough black agents to infiltrate every black fraternity, much less sorority.

      2. A double agent is someone “who pretends to act as a spy for one country or organization while in fact acting on behalf of an enemy” (Oxford Languages definition). When was the FBI ever asked about double agents at the Capitol?

        Did you mean some other term, like “FBI informants”? FBI informants are not FBI agents!

    3. Veritas has video of a NYT reporter admitting there were in fact ‘tons’ of FBI people in the crowd.

      The govt refuses to release all the video. Must be to protect sources and processes… right. Oh wait, during a spontaneous riot? Hmmm

      1. I don’t see your issue. How much credibility you want to give what a reporter allegedly said to a group that constantly distorts information is up to you. I would expect FBI agents to be in the crowd given the build-up to the event and promises of what would happen. If you are getting your news from places other than Project Veritas you’d know the riot was anything but spontaneous.

        1. Enigma, don’t let iowan2 confuse you. On the PV tape, Rosenberg made a claim on tape about FBI informants, not about FBI agents. Informants are not FBI employees, they are often criminals, and sometimes provide the FBI with information and might get some $ for that. FBI agents — including undercover agents — are FBI employees. They’re people like Special Agent Strzok, who Mike Flynn lied to when he was interviewed.

          When it comes to FBI agents (not informants), Rosenberg has written things like “The reima­gin­ing of Jan. 6 has not so much evolved as it has splintered into rival, but often com­ple­ment­ary, false nar­rat­ives with a com­mon goal: to shift blame away from Trump, his sup­port­ers and a Repub­lican Party man­euv­er­ing to win back con­trol of gov­ern­ment. [These false narratives include:] The riot was a “false flag” oper­a­tion by antifa, the loose leftwing col­lect­ive; the FBI planted agents to stir up the crowd; the pro­test­ers were mere “tour­ists” wrong­fully accused by a Demo­cratic-led Justice Depart­ment and vil­i­fied by a biased main­stream media; police officers recount­ing their injur­ies and trauma were “crisis act­ors.” … [Tucker] Carlson has emerged as a lead­ing pro­ponent of Jan. 6 revi­sion­ism, most prom­in­ently with his three-part “Pat­riot Purge” series. Car­ried on the Fox Nation stream­ing ser­vice, it amp­li­fied a debunked “false flag” con­spir­acy the­ory that the FBI had instig­ated the viol­ence as a pre­text to lock away peace­ful but con­cerned Amer­ic­ans because of their polit­ical views, cre­at­ing a class of pat­riot mar­tyrs.”

      2. “Veritas has video of a NYT reporter admitting there were in fact ‘tons’ of FBI people in the crowd.”

        To be clear: Rosenberg claimed there were a “ton of FBI informants” in the crowd. You never provided evidence that this is true, but even if it is, FBI informants are people — sometimes criminals — who supply information to the FBI on a confidential basis. They are not FBI employees, and noting that someone is an informant doesn’t imply that the person is acting on government orders. The NYT reported that a member of the Proud Boys is an FBI informant, was in the Jan. 6 crowd, and texted his handler that day: https://web.archive.org/web/20210930010800/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/25/us/politics/capitol-riot-fbi-informant.html

        A lot of people claim that Ray Epps is an FBI informant, but the Jan. 6 Committee said “The Select Committee has interviewed Mr. Epps. Mr. Epps informed us [under oath] that he was not employed by, working with, or acting at the direction of any law enforcement agency on January 5th or 6th or at any other time, and that he has never been an informant for the FBI or any other law enforcement agency.”

        “a spontaneous riot?”

        Some was spontaneous, some was planned. Part of the plan was to rile up others who were not connected to the plans. This is the quote from U.S. v. Charles Donohoe 21-CR-175-4, with Proud Boys discussing ahead of time their desire to get “normiecons” to lose control:
        UCC-1: I want to see thousands of normies burn that city to ash today
        PERSON-2: Would be epic
        UCC-1: The state is the enemy of the people
        PERSON-2: We are the people
        UCC-1: F–k yea
        PERSON-3: God let it happen . . . I will settle with seeing them smash some pigs to dust
        PERSON-2: F–k these commie traitors
        PERSON-3 It’s going to happen. These normiecons have no adrenaline control . . . They are like a pack of wild dogs

        1. FBI informants do what their FBI handlers instruct them to do. Should we really take Ray Epps word as gospel. I think it’s odd that he was on video more than once encouraging others to enter the Capital and was in what has been called a “restricted” area. The FBi even had him listed on their website until he wasn’t. There are a lot people in jail who never assaulted an officer or entered the Capital and yet Epps got a pass. All those quotes from a transcript and not one fire was set, not one statue was toppled, not one American Flag burned. The only person who was killed that day was an unarmed protestor.

          1. “FBI informants do what their FBI handlers instruct them to do.”

            Sometimes, but most of what they do has nothing to do with the FBI. You certainly haven’t provided a shred of evidence that any informants were instructed to do anything on Jan. 6, and if so, what they instructions were.

            “Should we really take Ray Epps word as gospel.”

            I don’t his word as gospel. The fact remains that he made a statement about it under oath. If you’re suggesting that he committed perjury, present your evidence. I doubt you have any.

            “The FBi even had him listed on their website until he wasn’t.”

            The FBI lists lots of people on their website for a period of time and then the person isn’t listed anymore, generally because they’ve been able to identify and question the person. Do you think they’re all informants?

            “There are a lot people in jail who never assaulted an officer or entered the Capital”

            You do understand that the people in jail have all been charged with crimes, and crimes aren’t limited to assaulting an officer or entering the Capitol, right? Consider Enrique Tarrio, for example, the Proud Boy leader who wasn’t even in DC on Jan. 6 because was arrested on Jan. 4. He’s still been charged with felony conspiracy: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1480986/download

            “not one fire was set, not one statue was toppled, not one American Flag burned”

            Millions of dollars of damage were done to the Capitol on Jan. 6: https://www.archpaper.com/2021/03/architect-of-the-capitol-details-millions-in-damage-after-insurrection/

            1. If Epps wasn’t an informant then why didn’t the FBI just say so during a Congressional hearing when they were asked by Ted Cruz? There’s absolutely no reason for them to avoid the question if Epps wasn’t involved. The FBI didn’t take down his picture until after the New York Times reported that Epps had encouraged Trump supporters to breach the Capitol. My point was Epps got a pass even though he was filmed encouraging people to “breach the Capitol” like the NYTs reported. He was also within the restricted zone. People are jailed and being charged for doing exactly what Epps was doing. “Millions of dollars of damage….” Blah, blah, blah. Again, not one fire was set, not one statue were toppled, not one American Flag burned. Like the NYT’s reporter said “The left’s overreaction, the left’s reaction to it [Jan. 6], in some places, was so over the top…” What’s that, nothing to say about the unarmed protestor killed that day?

              1. “If Epps wasn’t an informant then why didn’t the FBI just say so during a Congressional hearing when they were asked by Ted Cruz?”

                You haven’t quoted what Cruz asked and what the answer was, and I have no reason to assume that your memory of / description of the exchange is correct. Quote the exchange, and let’s see what Cruz asked, and who he asked, and what the answer was. (If you know what hearing it was, you can search the automated closed captioning transcript at C-Span so that you don’t have to transcribe it yourself. Or if you heard about the exchange by reading some article, you could check whether that article quoted the exchange.)

                “There’s absolutely no reason for them to avoid the question if Epps wasn’t involved.”

                Again: I’m not going to assume that whatever exchange you have in mind is as you describe it. But even if your description is accurate, of course there could be reasons for FBI staff not to answer. For example, whoever was being questioned might not even know who Epps is. Or, the FBI might have a policy about not commenting on some things in a public hearing rather than a closed one. I don’t know, just pointing out that your claim that there’s “absolutely no reason” is a huge and unwarranted leap.

                “Epps got a pass even though he was filmed encouraging people to “breach the Capitol” like the NYTs reported”

                There too, you haven’t presented any video or quotes of him saying that. Snopes quoted Epps as saying on Jan. 5 “I’m going to put it out there. I’ll probably go to jail for it. Tomorrow, we need to go into the Capitol. Into the Capitol. Peaceably! Peacefully! We are freedom, we are peaceful. That’s what its about. It’s not about hurting people.” An Arizona paper that interviewed him later quotes him as saying “The only thing that meant is we would go in the doors like everyone else. It was totally, totally wrong the way they went in” (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2021/01/11/fbi-capitol-investigation-arizona-trump-supporter/6624406002/).

                “People are jailed and being charged for doing exactly what Epps was doing.”

                AFAIK, none of the people indicted for crimes in relation to Jan. 6 were indicted for encouraging people to enter the Capitol building peacefully through the doors. If you believe otherwise, name one. Here’s a list of everyone indicted so far, and you can use a text search on the charges: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
                On the other hand, if you’re alleging that Epps said something else, then produce some actual evidence of what he said.

                “nothing to say about the unarmed protestor killed that day?”

                Nothing that I haven’t said previously, which is that Zach Alam had broken the window in the top half of a locked door between the hallway and the Speaker’s Lobby. The Speaker’s Lobby is a highly restricted area that opens directly onto the floor of the House, and there were still members of Congress and staffers in the chamber. Babbitt was warned that there was an officer with his gun out pointing, and she chose to start climbing through the broken window in the door anyway. I don’t advocate police shooting people, but that officer had a duty to protect the members of Congress and staffers, and it doesn’t surprise me that he shot her, just as I expect Secret Service would have done if Pence had been in the House. More info about the shooting: bellingcat.com/news/2021/01/08/the-journey-of-ashli-babbitt

                1. Obviously you’re just lazy. You can find the exchange between Cruz and the FBI if you tried. You can also find video footage of Epps encouraging people to “breach the Capital”. Obviously the NYTs found it, why can’t you? Answer = Lazy. You say “…and there were still members of Congress and staffers in the chamber.” Who told you that? According to one of the officers interviewed “we moved all the members out” before “protestors showed up there, started banging on the door”. He also stated that after he heard “one of the glass panes fell out” he stepped into the East lobby and “saw that officers and Lieutenant Byrd had taken up positions with the guns out”. How many officers were present? Well the officer stated after the shooting incident they did a head count “and made sure everyone was accounted for that. We had up there with us before all this started, we have 15 officers that were posted up there.” Actually it was Lieutenant Byrd, two Sergeants, and 15 officers according to the statement. Another officer stated in an interview “We got them out on the West side of the Lobby. So it was pretty much just strictly officers in that ed so that group made it around to the Lobby East. And it was like Lieutenant Byrd, me, like Sergeant ####. And it was somebody else like each pillar, like Lt Byrd was at the first pillar. I was at the second pillar, Sgt #### was behind me and somebody was behind him.” So Lieutenant Byrd, the man in charge of two Sergeants and 15 officers had to shoot an unarmed protestor. If you want to read those statements that were obtained through a FOIA do some research.

                  1. I’ve tried to post this several times, but it’s not posting, so I’ll try breaking it into 2 parts, to see if I can figure out what text is problematic …

                    Part 1:

                    “Obviously you’re just lazy. You can find the exchange between Cruz and the FBI if you tried.”

                    It’s not my job to waste my own time looking up Sergeant Major’s claim. He asked me about an exchange that he did not quote, and he’s the one who has the burden to quote whatever he’s referring to. I’m not going to do his work for him. LOL that you call me lazy instead of calling him lazy.

                    “You can also find video footage of Epps encouraging people to “breach the Capital”.”

                    Your claim, your burden of proof. You have not given me any reason to believe you, and I’m not going to waste my time trying to find the video you allege exists when you’re too lazy to link to it. Do it yourself.

                    “You say “…and there were still members of Congress and staffers in the chamber.” Who told you that?”

                    I read statements by members of Congress who were trapped in the balcony, and unlike you, I’ll substantiate my claim:

                    1. Like I said, you’re just lazy. And I’m going to go with two official statements from officers who stated “we moved all the members out”.

                    2. Sergeant Major,

                      You’re too lazy to substantiate your own claim. That reflects on you, not me. Unlike you, I don’t run away from providing evidence for my own claims when asked to do so.

                      And it’s striking that you choose the 2 officers who noted they’d moved people out from the floor while ignoring the officer who said there were still members and staff in the balcony, and you also ignore statements from the members of Congress themselves. Apparently you’d rather continue to believe something false than accept new information. That’s a terrible stance to have in the world.

                  2. I’ve tried more than once to post Part 2, but I suspect that the link is causing problems, so I’ll replace it with a different link …

                    Part 2:

                    If you weren’t so lazy, you also could have linked to a source for the officer statements you quoted:
                    [direct link omitted, instead, click on “500 pages of internal documents” here: https://www.foxnews.com/us/documents-ashli-babbitt-death-foia-capitol-police%5D

                    And what you’d find is that the officer who said “we moved all the members out” was talking about the floor of the House chamber, not the balcony of the House chamber. There is no one who said “one of the glass panes fell out” so you’re not quoting accurately, and I’m not going to guess what you were trying to quote. The last person you quoted was also talking about the House floor.

                    But you can find other officers’ statements about the Representatives and staff who were still in the balcony, such as: “All the members on the floor for the most part were gone. I think there was only a few of us left, but in the balcony, the balcony hadn’t been, urn, evacuated yet. … So there were still members and staff that were on the floor in a balcony. … I would consider them trapped…”

                    Happy now? Your own FOIA source confirms that there were still members and staff in the House chamber.

                    1. Anonymous – generally, if they are on a balcony, they would be outside the chamber. I would have to see a diagram.

        2. Releasing all the evidence, like all the video tape, and all of Pelosi’s and Schumers communications, would go a long to eliminating the need for guess work. Something the Jan 6 Democrat selected committee will never let happen.

          1. So you want them to release all the video that would make it easier for foreign enemies or another set of domestic rioters to identify the locations of all of the security cameras and spray paint them to prevent them from operating? and you want them to release all of the video showing the secure locations that Pence and others were spirited away to, to make it easier for someone who wants to assassinate the VP and top members of Congress to do that? Have you ever considered why some of the video is classified?

            Do you really want ALL the evidence to be released, or do you only want the evidence that interests you? Because if you want it ALL released, you should also be talking about Donald Trump’s, Rudy Giuliani’s, Jim Jordan’s, Mark Meadow’s, Kevin McCarthy’s, Ivanka Trump’s, … communications, not just “all of Pelosi’s and Schumers communications.”

    4. It wasn’t an ‘insurrection’ and it appears that the FBI and other federal agencies were deeply involved in trying to create a Reichstag Fire moment that our corrupt media was delighted [paid?] To promote endlessly.

      There is something very wrong when people charged with misdemeanors sit in jail for over a year while the thugs who rioted, set fires and destroyed property at the time of Trump’s inauguration were set free and their charges quietly dropped.

      Step back, take a good look, and then ask yourself what in hell is going on.

      By the way, we recently learned the government paid nealy all major media to promote the vaccine and, apparently, smother negative information about it. I wonder what else the government is paying the media to parrot? Maybe nothing, but having been caught once one must wonder.

      1. “It wasn’t an ‘insurrection’ and it appears that the FBI and other federal agencies were deeply involved in trying to create a Reichstag Fire moment that our corrupt media was delighted [paid?] To promote endlessly.”

        You really will believe anything. Hopefully for you Trump can finally get his social media launched and you can live wholly within a bubble.

      2. One of the Jan. 6 criminals has already pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy, and several others will be tried for seditious conspiracy.

        Trump publicly called for Pence to betray his oath of office and interfere with the peaceful constitutional transfer of power via certification of the EC vote.

        I call that an attempted self-coup — an illegal attempt by Trump and his supporters to keep him in office longer than his lawful term.

        I agree that people charged with misdemeanors shouldn’t be in jail pending trial unless they’re either a danger or a flight risk.

        “we recently learned the government paid nealy all major media to promote the vaccine and, apparently, smother negative information about it.”

        Is that a royal “we”? You certainly haven’t presented any evidence to support your claim.

          1. “HHS revealed that it purchased advertising,” how nefarious!

            Next you’ll tell me that the government pays for military recruitment ads and Post Office advertising.

            1. It seems to have gone well beyond mere advertising which, normally, is recognizable as advertising. They were expected to push positive stories about the experimental product and not cover negative information. Laura Logan seemed to disappear from Fox News after covering problems with the big experiment.

              Emerald has worked in the industry and still has personal contacts.

              She said after mentioning whistleblowers:

              “Let me add another personal detail: I was contacted by top Newsmax executives and told to halt any negative coverage of the vaccines in 2021. I was told that “it was problematic” for Newsmax. I was given some version of this warning multiple times by multiple executives. Obviously, I did not heed their advice.”

              When the government pays to promote an agenda as if it were news, that is propaganda.

              When the government pays [or threatens to withhold payment for noncompliance] to have particular stories suppressed, that is censorship.

              I suspect that you would find it easier to understand the article if you read it, but perhaps not.

              This is not the only article touching on this subject. When you get better at doing internet searches you will be able to find others.

    5. Are you insinuating that when Cotton asked the Assistant Director of the FBI in a Congressional hearing about January 6 if the FBI had any undercover agents in the crowd is an effort to “pin” the events of January 6 on the FBI? If not, then what exactly are you referring to?

    6. Are you implying the FBI wasn’t involved? That’s funny because Pulitzer Prize winner and national security correspondent Matthew Rosenberg from the same New York Times told an undercover reporter that the New York Times “went and uncovered the fact that like, there were a ton of FBI informants amongst the people who attacked the Capitol.”

      1. Involved how? IO’d be amazed if the FBI wasn’t present given the hype leading up to the event. Maybe that’s what let to the hundreds of arrests and admissions/convictions of conspiracy.
        Unrelated to your post, I don’t respond to anyone named Anonymous or Someone due to the constant trolling by someone you all know.

        1. “IO’d be amazed if the FBI wasn’t present . . .”

          Then why didn’t they stop it?

          1. In an analogy that might be more relevant than you think, picture an undercover FBI agent.informant in the Klan at a lynching. One or two of a hundred, all intent on carrying out their mission. Should he hold up his badge and say, “Stop in the name of the law?”
            The rioters were already attacking uniformed officers. How would you propose they “stop it” when the armed uniformed officers couldn’t/wouldn’t?
            I understand that the FBI presence was mostly informants as opposed to trained agents. Of course there is a video of a reporter saying there were “tons” of agents as if he has any way of knowing. But how would you propose they be stopped.
            Of course they could have actually shot the rioters? If they had been Black Lives Matter I have no doubt that would have occurred. Ashli Babbit is being martyred for having been killed while doing things that get you killed. I have yet to understand Capitol Police and others taking beatings rather than fire their weapons?

            1. Enigma,

              “Of course there is a video of a reporter saying there were “tons” of agents as if he has any way of knowing.’

              No, he said that “there were a ton of FBI informants,” not agents. They’re not the same thing. An FBI agent is employed by the FBI, is trained by the FBI, works a full-time job for the FBI, can arrest someone and read them their rights, is a member of law enforcement. An FBI informant is generally a criminal or someone who associates with criminals, is not an FBI employee, but sometimes passes info along to the FBI and may be paid for specific info, can’t arrest anyone because they’re not law enforcement. For example, the FBI may have informants who are Proud Boys or informants who work for a drug cartel. Informants aren’t going to stop illegal behavior, they cannot arrest anyone.

              Re: “I have yet to understand Capitol Police and others taking beatings rather than fire their weapons,” here’s what Officer Hodges said about this in the Congressional hearing where 4 of the officers testified:
              “Once we got to the Capitol and we were fighting, I was wondering, how many more bombs are there? What’s the trigger? Is it going to be a cell phone? Is it on timer? How many guns are there in this crowd? If we start firing, is that the signal to them to set off the explosives, however many there are in the city? Is that the signal for them to break out their firearms and shoot back? So that’s the reason why I didn’t shoot anyone, and I imagine many others didn’t. Because like I said before, there were over 9,000 of the terrorists out there with an unknown number of firearms and a couple hundred of us, maybe. So we could not -, if that turned into a firefight, we would’ve lost, and this was a fight we couldn’t afford to lose.” “Over the radio, I heard our gun recovery unit working constantly, monitoring those in the crowds suspected of carrying firearms and making arrests and seizures when possible. Multiple gun arrests were made from January 5th through the 7th against those attending and likely had attended or planned to attend Donald Trump’s gathering. Unfortunately, due to the course of events that day, we will never know exactly how many were carrying firearms and other lethal weapons.”
              I assume that by “more bombs,” he’s referring to the pipe bombs that had been found outside the DNC and RNC offices near the Capitol. Elsewhere in his testimony, he explained why he referred to the protesters as “terrorists”:
              “I came prepared: U.S. Code, Title 18, part one, chapter 113B (as in brown), section 2331. ‘The term domestic terrorism means (A) activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, and (B) appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’”

              As should be clear from the contents of my comment, I post anonymously, but I’m not the troll Meyer.

              1. “Once we got to the Capitol and we were fighting, I was wondering, how many more bombs are there?

                About those bombs.

                Nothing on them. The Vaunted FBI is wholly clueless about the bombs, who built them, who placed them.
                Another strange anomaly. VP elect was at the DNC office, during the day. That would mean the SS teams that sweep sites preceding their protectants visits, missed a bomb a person could have tripped over.

                In short, we have a claim by the FBI and media, with no supporting evidence.

                1. “About those bombs. Nothing on them.”

                  That’s a lie. The FBI doesn’t know the identity of the person who placed them, but they’ve released photos and videos of that masked person, seeking info and offering a large reward. The Assoc. Press reports “In the search for the person who left the pipe bombs at the RNC and DNC offices, investigators have interviewed more than 900 people, collected 39,000 video files and examined more than 400 leads. They have dived into the components of the explosives and have been working to try to discern anything they can about the suspect, from analyzing the person’s gait to trying to collect information about purchases of the distinctive Nike sneakers the person wore.”

                  Like you and me, the FBI is imperfect, and they can’t always identify someone just because they want to.

                  “we have a claim by the FBI and media, with no supporting evidence.”


                  They’ve released supporting evidence, including: https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/washingtondc/news/press-releases/fbi-washington-field-office-releases-video-and-additional-information-regarding-the-pipe-bomb-investigation-090821

      2. Again: FBI informants are not FBI agents. If an FBI informant does something, that does not imply that the FBI is “involved.”

          1. Nope, that doesn’t apply to FBI informants. Informants are not employees or agents of the FBI.

            1. FBI informants often receive pay for their work. I know, my dad was an informant for the DEA and was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of decades.

              1. Yes, they sometimes get paid. But they still are not FBI employees or agents in the legal sense of Respondeat Superior, which is what I was commenting on.

                1. The ‘he was only an independent contractor’ has been tried before and it often doesn’t work. A pizza company tried it when one of their independent deliveryman had a car accident. Didn’t work.

                  Often hospital ER rooms are managed by independent contractors but unless the hospital makes it very clear that a patient is dealing with a distinct organization the hospital itself can be held liable for errors either under respondeat superior or implied agency.

                  In ‘the legal sense’ you thought you were commenting on, you are looking at it too narrowly. There is more than one path to feeb liability, respondiat superior is only an example that avoids writing a brief instead of a comment. I am sorry you didn’t understand it. I think everyone else did.

                  1. Again: respondiat superior does not apply simply because someone happens to have been an FBI informant for some unnamed thing.

                    My claim that FBI informants are not FBI agents is true. My claim that if an FBI informant does something, that does not imply that the FBI is “involved” is also true, and you have not said anything to the contrary.

                    1. Good thing you are not a lawyer. You lack the tolerance for ambiguity for one thing. I have little care for what you mean by ‘imply’ or ‘involved’. I am thinking more in terms of finding routes to civil and criminal liability and they do appear to exist. Nor will I squabble over whether informants are or are not agents. Not important. If I can show a non-agent, informant or otherwise, is acting under the direction and control of an actual agent to achieve a goal set by the actual agent his acts and omissions can tumble back on the agent and the miserable agency he works for. If the non-agent actor is paid for his acts, it is even more delicious. I imagine you will keep coming back to definitions and never actually grasp the point if you do your usual thrashing about in the brush.

                      By the way, I should have said ‘ostensible agency’ rather than ‘implied agency’ when referring to the ER docs. Pretty much the same thing but ‘ostensible agency’ has become a term of art.

                    2. “I am thinking more in terms of finding routes to civil and criminal liability and they do appear to exist.”

                      Whose civil and criminal liability, and for what?

                      “If I can show a non-agent, informant or otherwise, is acting under the direction and control of an actual agent to achieve a goal set by the actual agent his acts and omissions can tumble back on the agent and the miserable agency he works for.”

                      That’s a big IF. You haven’t shown it for the FBI or any other government agency with respect to Jan. 6, and I doubt that you can.

                      “I imagine …”

                      Yes, you have an active imagination. I think just as highly of you as you do of me.

                    3. Anon: “That’s a big IF. You haven’t shown it for the FBI or any other government agency with respect to Jan. 6, and I doubt that you can.”


                      Of course you doubt it. We have gone over that before. You aren’t a lawyer.

                      People like you doubted it with Richard Jewell and Dr. Hatfill too. They were paid millions.

                    4. Again: you haven’t shown it. You may wish to believe that you can, but you haven’t.

                      “People like you …”

                      As I said, you have an active imagination. You make an allegation about unnamed people who’ve done something I haven’t done, and then you pretend that they’re like me. You may be a lawyer, but based on your comments here, you’re not a good one.

  10. It is a failure of all of us, including those of us pleased to hear the NYT affirm the validity of the Hunter Biden laptop and content, to feel these things have been authenticated now because the NYT says so. The so-called “paper of record” abdicated that lofty perch 5 plus years ago.

    We should consider the NYT validation a mea culpa, not an imprimatur. To do otherwise empowers it and it’s scoundrel approach to what was journalism.

  11. I don’t think they have truly admitted they have a problem. They are more like the chronic alcoholic who wakes up one morning in a gutter somewhere , with less clothes than he started with and no wallet and thinks he might have been drinking a little too much the previous night. He has yet to come to terms with previous10-15 years or more of similar episodes. He just gets up, slowly and unsteadily, and thinks that “I need to maybe check if I was in a wreck or did something bad last nite and deal with it”.
    This lasts for a day or 2 or maybe even a week and then he is right back to doing the same thing that momentarily was revealed to him as “a problem”. I have little hope that this recent Illumination for the Times will be lasting.

  12. I remember the New York Times of old……the Times in the 1950’s and first-half of the 1960’s. It is quite an accomplishment that the Times has managed to retain a fair portion of its earlier well-deserved reputation (All the News that’s Fit to Print)…..to the point at which even today, it remains one of the most widely relied upon sources of news and opinion. I happen to believe that the Times is now so far gone, regaining its journalistic excellence is no longer possible.

  13. Erik Loomis and Nikole Hannah-Jones are university professors. You wonder what is left of academic standards.

    1. Monument says:

      “Lefties lie”

      Not as much as Trumpists however. Even Turley recognized Trump as a liar. And those like you who claim that Trump is a man of integrity and honest to a fault are lying.

      Are you calling Turley a liar?

Comments are closed.