C’mon New York Times!  You’re letting the news get in the way of the party line propaganda!

Gerren Keith Gaynor of Fox News reports that, “New York Times headline of Trump’s remarks on mass shootings ignites backlash.”

“A New York Times headline about President Trump’s remarks on the recent mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton drew condemnation online– including some Democratic presidential candidates– and was subsequently changed late Monday.”

nyt 11

They changed their headline?

Wow!  That never happens.  That headline must have been pretty vile or grossly inaccurate.

What exactly was the headline?

“The newspaper summarized Trump’s comments, in which he denounced hate and white supremacy, with the headline “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism” on the front page of its first edition.”

Huh?

That was the headline they were forced to change?

That headline was completely accurate and unbiased.  That was exactly what occurred.  President Trump urged for unity against racism, denouncing hate and white supremacy groups.

And therein lies the problem.

How can the democrats’ fairy tale narrative of The President being a racist be true if he is reported as being against racism and denouncing hate and white supremacy groups?

C’mon New York Times!

Get with the program!

Did you forget you’re a propaganda rag that works in concert with the democrats?!

nyt 8

It seems that in a moment of weakness you actually reported “the news” there.

Shame on you!

“A photograph of Tuesday’s first edition was tweeted out by journalist Nate Silver Monday night and was quickly slammed by critics who accused The Gray Lady of inaccurately representing Trump’s comments.”

“The Gray Lady?”

More like “Gray Lady Down!”

nyt 9

“Some Twitter users threatened to cancel their subscriptions and urged others to do the same.”

Really?!

Did you know that “some twitter users” can be found to be doing virtually anything?

Anyway…, I digress.

‘“I canceled my subscription,’ tweeted author and CNN contributor Joan Walsh, adding, ‘I can’t keep rewarding such awful news judgement.’”

Let’s get one thing clear…, Joan Walsh is a liar.  She didn’t cancel anything.  And by “awful news judgment” she means diverting from the “fake news,” liberal narrative.  She is associated with CNN after all.

nyt 4

“Prominent Democrats in Washington also took aim at the Times, including New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.”

‘“Let this front page serve as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by – and often relies upon – the cowardice of mainstream institutions,’ the freshman congresswoman tweeted.”

What?

Please explain to me how “white supremacy is aided” by reporting that The President is calling for unity against racism and white supremacy groups?

nyt 3

These democrats are sooo confused and sooo disingenuous that it is almost beyond commenting on.

nyt 1

“Presidential candidates, many of whom blamed Trump’s rhetoric for the El Paso, Texas, shooting that left at least 22 dead, also decried the headline.”

“New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand tweeted, ‘That’s not what happened.’”

No, Kirsten…, that IS exactly what happened.

‘“Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do,’ wrote Sen. Cory Booker.”

Thank you for your take on the matter “Spartacus!”

I believe we all can “do better…,” including you Cory.

“A photograph of the Times’ second edition of the front page hours later revealed that the headline had been changed to ‘Assailing Hate but Not Guns.’ Its website also showed a similar headline: ‘Trump Condemns Bigotry but Doesn’t Call for Major New Guns Laws.’”

nyt 6

I’m surprised these new headlines were even deemed acceptable.

There is a negative twist to them now, but there is still a bit of positivity there about The President.

“Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy acknowledged in a statement the original headline was problematic.”

“Problematic?”

The headline was “problematic,” but it wasn’t inaccurate, huh?

‘“The original headline was flawed and was changed for all editions of the paper following the first edition,’ the statement read. ‘The headline in question never appeared online, only in the first print edition.’”

The headline was “problematic” and “flawed,” but it wasn’t inaccurate?

Gee…, that reaction to the original headline would seem to be a metaphor for the democrats and their co-conspirators, the mainstream media!

“Problematic” and “flawed.”

nyt 7

nyt 2

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

“Freedom of the Press” does not mean “the press” has the freedom to break the law!

“The swamp,” or “the deep state,” if you prefer calling it that, are always more than happy to help “the cause” by providing otherwise classified information, making available personal and protected information, and leaking anything else that is required to the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media.”

In this case, we have a person, or people, from the IRS, who have provided some of President Trump’s tax return information to The “failing” New York Times.

trump tax 6

According to Hans A. von Spakovsky, a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, for Fox News, “NY Times publication of Trump tax information violates his legal right to confidentiality.”

trump tax 3

“The New York Times no doubt considers it quite a coup to have obtained and published President Trump’s tax return information from 1985 to 1994.  But doing so violated President Trump’s right under federal law to the confidentiality of his tax returns.”

Just a minor consideration, in their eyes, I’m sure.

trump tax 1

“The Times – which reported on Trump’s businesses…has no more right to Trump’s tax returns than it has to mine or those of any of you reading these words.”

I keep having to remind all of these people that all of these “rights” and “laws” of protection only apply to card carrying members of “the swamp;” conservatives and republicans and all the rest of us peasants operate at the mercy of democrats and “the deep state.”

“Confidentiality, as the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in 1991 in U.S. v. Richey, is essential to ‘maintaining a workable tax system.’”

Hmmm…, the Ninth Circuit Court?  Isn’t that the court out on the left coast that is constantly trying to legislate from the bench?

I guarantee you that the “U.S. v. Richey” case either protected a liberal or attacked a conservative.

“Taxpayer privacy is ‘fundamental to a tax system that relies on self-reporting’ since it protects ‘sensitive or otherwise personal information,’ said then-Judge (now Supreme Court Justice) Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1986 in another case when she served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.”

Hmmm…, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia?  The most liberal court in the land; second only to the Ninth Circuit Court we mentioned previously.

RBG of course was referring to the privacy of democrats and liberals at the time, I’m sure, and not conservatives or republicans.

“Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of The New York Times story, tax returns themselves, as well as tax return information such as these IRS transcripts (which are a summary of the tax returns), are protected from disclosure by federal law.”

“Federal law – 26 U.S.C. §7213(a) (1) – makes it a felony for any federal employee to disclose tax returns or “return information.” Infractions are punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine as high as $250,000 under the Alternative Fines Act (18 U.S.C. §3571).”

“According to the newspaper, it did not actually obtain Trump’s tax returns but ‘printouts from his official Internal Revenue Service tax transcripts, with the figures from his federal tax form, the 1040, from someone who had legal access to them.’”

Yes…, THEY (Meaning a liberal IRS confidant; probably Lois Lerner’s brother or sister!) had legal access to them.  But THEY did not have the rights to give others access to them.

trump tax 9

trump tax 10

trump tax 8

“Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of The New York Times story, tax returns themselves, as well as tax return information such as these IRS transcripts (which are a summary of the tax returns), are protected from disclosure by federal law. If the newspaper obtained this information from an employee of the IRS, that employee will be in big trouble if he or she is identified.”

“Could the editors and reporters at the New York Times be prosecuted for publishing this information?”

“Section (a)(3) of the law makes it a felony for ANY PERSON who receives an illegally disclosed tax return or return information to publish that return or that information. But it’s unknown if the bar on publication by a media organization could survive a First Amendment challenge.”

I believe the words “ANY PERSON” would mean “ANY PERSON,” but that’s just me!

“Now the interests of protecting the privacy of taxpayers warrants the opening of a government investigation to find the leaker who provided the Trump tax information to The New York Times.”

YES!  Bravo!

“The IRS and the U.S. Justice Department should investigate how this disclosure happened, find out who did it, and prosecute anyone who violated the law.”

Again…, YES!  Bravissimo!

Why do these people seemingly do whatever they want and always get away with it?  It’s way past time that we start to hold these government weasels accountable.

trump tax 4

trump tax 5

DRAIN THE SWAMP!

DRAIN THE SWAMP!

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

My reaction to some recent headlines about the Electoral College, AOC and the 22nd Amendment, DNC Chair calls Republican lawmakers “cowardly,” Joe Biden’s behavior with women, and did the NY Times and The Washington Post help elect President Trump!?

There are so many topics I’d like to offer my insight on, but so little time!

Welcome to my first crack at the “MrEricksonRules headline buffet line!”

Pick your favorite(s) or have some of each.  It’s totally up to you.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

Senate democrats introduce measure to abolish Electoral College.

“Would election by popular vote be better than the Electoral College?”

“A group of Democratic senators on Tuesday introduced a measure to do away with the Electoral College, picking up on a talking point that has caught fire in the 2020 Democratic presidential field.”

“According to NBC News: ‘Leading Democratic senators are expected to introduce a constitutional amendment Tuesday to abolish the Electoral College, adding momentum to a long-shot idea that has been gaining steam among 2020 presidential candidates.’”

“…changing the Constitution is seen as virtually impossible today. A constitutional amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds supermajority in both the House (about 290 votes) and Senate (67 votes) and requires ratification by 38 states.”

As is usually the case with the democrat party, what we have here is either disingenuous political grandstanding, uninformed ignorance, or a combination of the two.  I’m going to give them some credit and say it’s disingenuous political grandstanding for the most part, since actually amending the Constitution would never happen, mostly due to the requirement of having 38 states go along with it.

So…, in the grand scheme of things, it’s kind of like “The Green New Deal,” a bunch of noise that ain’t never going to happen.

Andrew O’Reilly of Fox News contributed.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Liz Cheney disagree over knowledge of 22nd Amendment, Constitution.

“[Liz] Cheney, R-WY, took issue with a comment [Alexandria] Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, made during a recent MSNBC town hall event in which the freshman congresswoman talked about Democrats being in control of Congress in the 1930s and 1940s.”

‘“When our party was boldest, the time of the New Deal, the Great Society, the Civil Rights Act and so on, we had, and carried, supermajorities in the House, in the Senate. We carried the presidency,’ she told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes.”

‘“They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure (President Franklin D.) Roosevelt did not get reelected,’ Ocasio-Cortez continued.”

“In response to Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks, Cheney tweeted: ‘We knew the Democrats let dead people vote. According to AOC, they can run for president too!’”

“The New Yorker then fired off her own response. ‘Hey Rep. Cheney, I see from your dead people comment that you get your news from Facebook memes, but the National Constitution Center + Newsweek are just two of many places where you can clarify your misunderstanding of the history of the 22nd Amendment,’ she wrote.”

“Roosevelt died while in office in 1945 and the 22nd Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1947.  The Amendment reads, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some of other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

I think we can safely score this:

Representative Liz Cheney………..ONE

Representative Ocasio-Cortez…….ZERO

Kathleen Joyce of Fox News contributed.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

DNC Chair Tom Perez calls Republican lawmakers “cowardly,” says they will be “judged harshly” by history

“Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez launched a stunning attack on Republican lawmakers, saying history will “judge” them for supporting President Trump.”

What’s so “stunning” about that?  I hear much worse on a daily basis directed at President Trump, republicans and various conservatives.

‘“The reason why we [Democrats] are winning, and we won at scale in 2018, is because our message is clear. Our message was: we are the ones who actually have your back on the issues that really matter. Healthcare, education. He said he had your back, but actually he had a knife in your back,’ Perez said.”

The truth is the democrats under performed in the 2018 midterms, and by any measure we can say the democrats do not “have our back.”  The democrats, most recently led by Barack Obama, sold America and Americans out.  They gave away our jobs, our wealth, our respect around the world, and our American soul.

“The DNC chair continued that President Trump found success in 2016 by putting ‘fear on the ballot,’ and that Republican lawmakers who have supported his policies over the last three years are ‘cowards’ who have allowed damage to be done to their part.”

That’s a good one Tom!  The democrats are historically the party of fear.  How many times have we heard “the republicans will gut social security,” due to the republicans, millions will die without healthcare, our children will starve and grandma will be left out on the street!?

We didn’t need President Trump to “put fear on the ballot” in 2016, we were all scared already that our country was going down the drain. And rightly so.

‘“I mean, history will not only judge Donald Trump harshly. It will judge Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and all the other cowards who refused to stand up to this president and allowed the party of Lincoln to die. They will be judged harshly because whatever he says goes right now.’”

I feel more correctly, “history” will judge these times as the times of the great liberal lies.  The times of liberal propaganda and the times of the corrupt and biased media who backed them up rather than do their jobs as watchdogs for We the People.

Anna Hopkins of Fox News contributed.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

Pelosi: Biden didn’t know “the world we’re in now.”

“House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi is the most high-profile Democrat to come to the defense of former Vice President Joe Biden’s ‘affectionate demeanor,’ Peter Doocy reports from Washington.”

Ha! “Affectionate demeanor!?”  Is that what we’re calling “Uncle Joe’s” creepy behavior now?

And according to Politico (a news journalism company), “Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that she does not think the allegations against Joe Biden of unwelcome contact are disqualifying for a 2020 run, but that the former vice president should be more aware of others’ personal space. ‘I don’t think it’s disqualifying,’ Pelosi said… ‘He has to understand in the world that we’re in now that people’s space is important to them, and what’s important is how they receive it and not necessarily how you intended it.’ … Pelosi pushed back against the tone of former vice president’s apologies. ‘It is how it’s received, so to say, ‘I’m sorry that you were offended’ is not an apology,’ the California Democrat said. ‘‘I’m sorry I invaded your space,’ but not, ‘I’m sorry you were offended.’ What’s that? That’s not accepting the fact that people think differently about communication.’”

I’m a little confused.  Is she coming to Joe’s defense or is she scolding him?

National Public Radio (NPR) noted, “On the most obvious level, complaints of this kind renew the criticism of Biden’s past performance on issues affecting women and people of color, the two constituencies likely to matter most in choosing the next Democratic nominee.”

As usual with the democrats, us poor white guys are treated like second class citizens.

“Perceptions of Biden as ‘old school’ or ‘old fashioned’ are not just liabilities to be shed. They are also the basis of his appeal to many older, white, working-class Democrats and independents.”

The democrat party can say what they want about the new breed of democrat-socialists out there; Joe Biden leads in the polls for president, and he hasn’t even officially declared yet!

“Biden’s advisers believe coverage of allegations of inappropriate behavior is being stoked by rival Democrats…”

No kidding.

That basically leaves one guy…, and I can hear ‘em now, Bernie, Bernie, Bernie.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

New York Post: How the New York Times, Washington Post helped get Trump elected.

“If either paper had done the sort of digging on Hillary Clinton that they did on Trump, then Clinton would never have been the presidential nominee for the Democratic Party.”

headlines 2

True.  And actually, “If either paper had done the sort of digging on Hillary Clinton that they did on Trump,” she would be in jail, along with a lot of her friends.

“So, in a different scenario, if the Times and the Washington Post probe Clinton, alert the public to all of her ‘problems’ then the Democrats are forced to pick someone else as their candidate.  In that case, Trump might not have won.”

In reality, Mr. Crudele, anything “might” have happened.  It really annoys me these days when reporters say, “this might happen,” or that “could happen,” or this “may” happen.

Here’s some news for all of you journalism majors: ANYTHING “MIGHT,”  “COULD,” OR “MAY” HAPPEN!  THAT’S NOT NEWS!

John Crudele of The New York Post contribued.

headlines 1

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

Robert Mueller and his “investigation” were just bad jokes.  End of story.

Robert Mueller and his Hillary Clinton “hit squad” just were not able to manufacture any wrong doings by The President, his family, or anyone involved in his campaign.

Remember that Mueller and his team and everyone else knew going in that President Trump wasn’t guilty of any of this stuff, but Hillary, Obama, the Obama DOJ and the Obama FBI were, and it was their job to create a distraction and deflect an investigation away from their “swampy” friends.

This was not an investigation of a crime, this was an “investigation” in search of a crime…, any crime…, but there was no crime to be found.  Believe me…, if they could have found anything…, ANYTHING…, A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G…, that’s all we would be hearing about.

But as it is, Robert Mueller and his team finally had to slink away, with their tails between their legs, unable to come up with anything that would justify the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media’s” and the democrats’ daily charges (for almost two years now) of Russian collusion and obstruction of justice.

This is what today’s New York Times headline SHOULD look like!

mueller report paper

Instead, after close to two years of bashing our president on a daily basis, they are sporting some mealy-mouthed small print headline that doesn’t come anywhere near giving The President his due.

According to Dan Gainor of Fox News, “[The] Liberal media’s Mueller collusion coverage turns out to be Titanic of media disasters.”

The “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” bought “the swamp’s” fantasy narrative, hook, line and sinker!

The rallying cries of “It’s Mueller time!” have turned into “What you talkin’ ‘bout Willis?”

mueller time

The much anticipated Mueller Report has exposed, “… one of the worst disasters of media bias in history – the false claim that Donald Trump, his campaign or associates colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election.”

“Attorney General William Barr sent a letter to members of Congress Sunday stating that Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion – something the president has been saying [all along].”

“Like the luxury liner Titanic, the supposedly unsinkable passenger ship that sank when it collided with an iceberg in 1912 in the Atlantic, the claim of Trump-Russia collusion was supposed to be unsinkable. At least that’s what we were told repeatedly by the anti-Trump media.”

“But in reality, there’s nothing new about Russia’s attempts to influence our elections. The Washington Post has reported that Russia and its predecessor Soviet Union have been trying to influence American elections since 1960.”

“Yet ever since President Trump was elected – surprising media pundits who expected Democrat Hillary Clinton to defeat him – many news organizations have claimed he only got to the Oval Office because of help from Russia.  Forget that President Obama had promised Russia’s leader he’d have “more flexibility” working with Russia after the 2012 election. It had to be Trump who was the one working with Russia.”

“Journalists set aside ordinary things like honesty, professionalism and accuracy in their desperate quest to be the one who took down Trump.”

I would argue that things like honest, professionalism and accuracy had been set aside long before this by the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media.” The whole Russian collusion hoax just removed any shadow of a doubt that the “biased, liberal propaganda, fake news media” was real and an enemy of We the People, just like President Trump had warned.

“The Russia collusion claim dominated the news for the past two years because much of the media couldn’t accept that their favored candidate – Hillary Clinton – was beaten by a man they could not stand.”

“There had to be another reason Trump won. The media had reported many times he was almost guaranteed to lose.”

“Buzzfeed published the uncorroborated dossier attacking Trump with salacious gossip and rumor even before he took office. Then it defended the foul result.”

“Three CNN reporters resigned after their false Trump-Russia story was removed from the CNN website.”

“On it went. ABC’s then-investigative reporter Brian Ross incorrectly reported that Trump directed Michael Flynn to contact Russia. ABC had to bail the lifeboats when it turned out that the contact was post-election. The Dow was underwater briefly for about 350 points. Ross was later suspended and he no longer works at ABC.”

“The list of such failures is almost endless. Now the press is forced to admit the Mueller report vindicated the president on collusion.”

“According to Barr, Mueller found that when the president said repeatedly that “there was no collusion” the president was right.”

“The narrative collapse would cause sane men and women to stop and reassess how they got here, how they got to a point where they violated every tenet of journalism they claim to support – just for revenge on Trump.”

“A few have noticed. Liberal writer Matt Taibbi released a whole chapter of his upcoming book ‘Hate, Inc.,’ demolishing media coverage of Trump. The piece was headlined: ‘It’s official: Russiagate is this generation’s WMD,’ comparing the false collusion claims to the incorrect claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction to justify the U.S.invasion.”

“Taibbi called the Mueller report ‘a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media.’

“The media didn’t just ignore warnings like the Titanic captain. They aimed right at an iceberg (Trump) and were determined to smash it. Instead, the only thing that sank was their reputation.”

mueller report meme

Agreed, Mr. Gainor, although I would say a lot more than their reputation has sank…, many of these networks, newspapers and magazines have lost any shred of credibility they may have had, and their viabilities as functioning media outlets are now in question.

WINNING!

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the very bottom of this page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

For all of those liberals living in denial…, well here you go, straight from the horse’s…, uh, I mean the editor’s mouth!

Jill Abramson, a veteran journalist in her own right, and the former executive editor at The New York Times newspaper from 2011 to 2014, says “The Times” has a financial incentive to bash the president and that the imbalance is helping to erode its credibility.  She added that, the paper’s “news” pages have become “unmistakably anti-Trump.”

Please go on Ms. Abramson, but tell us something we don’t already know.

Being the executive editor for four years during President Obama’s tenure was obviously a pretty boring time at “The Times.”  The “biased, liberal, fake news media” wasn’t interested in any hard hitting investigative “journalism” concerning President Obama or his administration.  There were no daily attacks of President Obama, the first lady, or his family. There was only properly spun propaganda or propaganda by omission.

I’m sure “The Times,” version 2017-2018, looks and sounds quite different today compared to the paper she left four years ago.

I do wonder, however, what she is referring to when she says “The Times has a financial incentive to bash the president….” What “financial incentive” exactly do they receive for bashing the president, and from whom?

This definitely does not sound like something a “fair and balanced” news source would practice.  Does it?  Fair minded people of course would say “no,” but how do my liberal friends respond to this?  I’m just wondering, and I hope they give me some feedback.

I can’t see any possible justification for this behavior unless you’re okay with a major media outlet being a propaganda tool for any ideology or political party, while claiming to be objective.

According to Howard Kurtz, of Fox News, for Media Buzz, “In a soon-to-be published book, ‘Merchants of Truth,’ that casts a skeptical eye on the news business, Abramson defends the Times in some ways but offers some harsh words for her successor, Dean Baquet.  And Abramson, who was the paper’s only female executive editor until her firing, invoked Steve Bannon’s slam that in the Trump era the mainstream media have become the “opposition party.”

‘“Though Baquet said publicly he didn’t want the Times to be the opposition party, his news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump,’ Abramson writes, adding that she believes the same is true of the Washington Post. ‘Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis.’”

“Abramson describes a generational split at the Times, with younger staffers, many of them in digital jobs, favoring an unrestrained assault on the presidency. ‘The more “woke” staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards,’ she writes.”

President Trump routinely claims that he “is keeping the failing New York Times in business.”  Some would say this is an exaggeration, but the former editor acknowledges a “Trump bump” that saw digital subscriptions during his first six months in office jump by 600,000, to more than 2 million.

I would call that quite significant!

‘“Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative…,’ Abramson added.”

When her boss, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. decided to let her go, he called her in, fired her, and handed her a press release announcing her resignation.

Abramson says she replied, “Arthur, I’ve devoted my entire career to telling the truth, and I won’t agree to this press release.  I’m going to say I’ve been fired.”

Just one more attempt at “fake news” I guess!

Of course the rest of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” claim that a result of losing her job she is now being vindictive and making false claims against The New York Times.

It’s funny, but I never hear “the biased, liberal, fake news media” claiming that former Trump appointees or employees are acting in a vindictive manner or making false claims against him.

Just sayin’.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

nytimes-fake_news-all_the_news

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑