Connect with us

Media Bias

‘New York Times’ Caught Lying Over Claims Russia Paid Taliban to Kill American Soldiers

The U.S. intelligence community was shocked when the ‘NY Times’ posted a fake news story claiming Russia paid the Taliban to kill Americans.

Published

on

Members of the U.S. intelligence community were shocked last Friday when the New York Times posted a fake news story claiming that Russia paid the Taliban a bounty for every American they killed.

But almost immediately, nearly every intelligence agency on all sides of the issue claimed that the story was false. Even the Taliban debunked it!

The story was published on June 26, and entitled, “Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says.”

In the fake news, the Times said that an “anonymous source” inside the U.S. intel community told them that Russia hoped “to destabilize the West or take revenge on turncoats, had covertly offered rewards for successful attacks last year.”

Trending: Secret Intel Document Lays Out Coronavirus Excuse for ‘Great Reset’ of World Governments

The paper also claimed that both President Trump and Vice President Pence were told about this bounty system for dead Americans.

But the Taliban was the first to refute the idea.

Even in the paper’s article, the Taliban’s spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, said they had no “such relations with any intelligence agency.” He labeled the accusation as an attempt to “defame” the Taliban.

“These kinds of deals with the Russian intelligence agency are baseless — our target killings and assassinations were ongoing in years before, and we did it on our own resources,” Mujahid insisted. “That changed after our deal with the Americans, and their lives are secure and we don’t attack them.”

The Russians also came out saying they had no such program.

As for Trump, he said he’s never taken a briefing on any such Russian program.

“Nobody briefed or told me, @VP Pence, or Chief of Staff @MarkMeadows about the so-called attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians, as reported through an “anonymous source” by the Fake News @nytimes. Everybody is denying it & there have not been many attacks on us,” he tweeted, adding, “Nobody’s been tougher on Russia than the Trump Administration. With Corrupt Joe Biden & Obama, Russia had a field day, taking over important parts of Ukraine – Where’s Hunter? Probably just another phony Times hit job, just like their failed Russia Hoax. Who is their ‘source’?”

Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, also said he confirmed that Trump and Pence weren’t briefed on any such Russian program.

The most telling part of this nonsense is also right on the Times story:

The intelligence assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and criminals. The officials did not describe the mechanics of the Russian operation, such as how targets were picked or how money changed hands. It is also not clear whether Russian operatives had deployed inside Afghanistan or met with their Taliban counterparts elsewhere.

Notice how the only thing the story is based on is the claim that the Russians paid for U.S. scalps. But there are no details, not even the smallest detail, about this supposed practice.

In other words, the New York Times published an entire story on an “anonymous” claim that every intel agency denies, that has no back up, even from the Taliban, and that contains not even the tiniest detail about the so-called practice.

Can you say fake news?

In fact, I’d dare say it is worse than mere fake news. It is what the Times HOPED would be happening. They’d love to see out troops assassinated for a bounty.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement

Media Bias

Fox News Collapse: Idiot Joe Scarborough Beats ‘Fox & Friends’ for First Time EVER

Fox News’s ratings collapse is so bad that Scarborough’s ‘Morning Joe’ beat ‘Fox & Friends’ for the first time ever last week!

Published

on

One of the dumbest morning shows on TV is Joe Scarboroughh’s Morning Joe on MSNBC, but Fox News’s ratings collapse is so bad that Scarborough beat Fox & Friends for the first time ever last week!

Since Election Day when Fox botched its Election Day coverage so badly, its fans have been turning the network off all over the country. Ratings across the board for Fox have collapsed since Fox earned high ratings for its Election Day coverage.

And now, Morning Joe has beaten one-time morning ratings powerhouse Fox & Friends.

Joe Scarborough is probably one of the dumbest, most insincere, and fake men on TV. And you can bet that Fox viewers are not going to MSNBC to see what Joe has to say.

No, what actually happened is that Joe’s audience hasn’t changed. It’s just that fewer Fox fans had Fox turned on.

TVNewser noted that last week Morning Joe averaged 1.6 million viewers while Fox and Friends averaged 1.4 million. It is the first time that Morning Joe has earned the distinction of number one cable news morning show—as well as the first time since 2001 that any MSNBC morning show finished a week at number one.

This is the first time in Scarborough’s life that he finished a week as the number one morning show.

He didn’t earn it, granted. Fox just lost it.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Media Bias

MSNBC Analyst Secretly Wrote Joe Biden’s Speech, Pretended to Hear it For First Time On Air

BIAS: MSNBC analyst and supposed “presidential historian,” Jon Meacham, secretly wrote Joe Biden’s recent speech. and never told viewers.

Published

on

MSNBC analyst and supposed “presidential historian,” Jon Meacham, secretly wrote Joe Biden’s recent speeches and then went on the air and pretended to hear it for the first time as an MSNBC contributor.

According to a report at Fox News, Meacham was fired from MSNBC after it was learned that the contributor was a direct Biden operative and was then going on their network and pretending to be a unconnected analyst.

Neither Mecham nor MSNBC ever told viewers that their unbiased “analyst” was actually part of Biden’s campaign!

The network fired Meacham after it was learned that Meacham was “playing a larger role than was previously known” and was “both writing drafts of speeches and offering edits on many of Mr. Biden’s big addresses, including one he gave at Gettysburg last month and his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.”

Deeply biased and inherently Democrat-connected actors is what passes for a “political analyst” at MSNBC, apparently.

Former Fox News host Megyn Kelly had just the right reaction when she wrote, “This is crazy. He helped Biden draft his speech on Sat night, without disclosing that fact to the audience (or anyone?), then reacted to the speech live on the air as a paid MSNBC contributor. Let me guess- he liked it?”

Imagine how the left would be screeching if a Fox host did this.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Media Bias

Russia Accuser ‘Anonymous’ Exposed as Low-Level Nobody Despite NYT’s Claim He Was a ‘Top Official’

We now know that the left-media lied that the Trump accusing “anonymous” was a “high level official.” It turns out he is a nobody working for CNN.

Published

on

We now know that the left-media lied when it claimed that the Trump accusing “anonymous” was a “high level government official.” It turns out he is a nobody who is working for CNN.

Two years ago, the New York Times published a long-winded piece accusing Trump of wrong doing that the paper said was penned anonymously by a “highly placed government official.” That person has finally been identified and we now know that the Times lied. Mr. “Anonymous” was actually a low-level nobody who never worked in the White House and who could not possibly have known anything about what he was talking about.

And guess what? He was hired by CNN!

Worse, he went on CNN and said straight out that he was NOT “Anonymous.” So, he lied directly to CNN and its audience.

And guess what? CNN isn’t going to fire him.

Figures, huh?

Per Breitbart News:

Miles Taylor, chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security under Kirstjen Nielsen, revealed Wednesday that he was the anonymous “senior” white house official who authored a critical op-ed of President Donald Trump.

The 2018 op-ed published by the New York Times described President Trump as “impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective” and said that he was just one of many officials in the administration working against the president.

Taylor revealed his identity to prominent media outlets on Wednesday afternoon, despite denying he was responsible for the op-ed in previous interviews.

Breitbart adds: “Taylor was chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security under Kirstjen Nielsen and resigned from the administration and took a job with Google before taking leave to publicly endorse former Vice President Joe Biden for president and campaign against Trump. He was also signed as a CNN contributor earlier this fall.”

This guy was a low-level government official, not the highly placed official that the New York Times claimed that he was.

As John Notle pointedly noted:

Taylor wasn’t even senior at DHS.

The way the far-left New York Times hyped “anonymous,” we were deliberately misled to believe this was someone in Trump’s cabinet. There was even talk it could be Vice President Mike Pence!

This was a pretty big deal at the time, another one of those week-long, highly-coordinated, everyone in the national media singing from the same hymnal of five-alarm freakouts, and it was all a hoax, a lie, a con — more fake news from the fake news freaks at the New York Times.

Yep. Exactly right.

Indeed, here is what the Times wrote to explain its source in Sept. of 2018 (our bold):

I understand readers’ frustration that we didn’t provide a more precise description of the official. But we felt strongly that a broader categorization was necessary to protect the author from reprisal, and that concern has been borne out by the president’s reaction to the essay. The term we chose, senior administration official, is used in Washington by both journalists and government officials to describe positions in the upper echelon of an administration, such as the one held by this writer.

Now we know this is all a lie.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Media Bias

Worst Bias Ever: TV Networks Coverage of Trump 92% Negative, 66% Positive for Biden

A look at TV network political coverage show more bias than ever with 92 percent negative coverage of Trump versus 62 percent positive for Joe Biden.

Published

on

The latest look at TV network political coverage show more bias than ever with 92 percent negative coverage of Trump versus 62 percent positive for Joe Biden.

If you thought the coverage of the 2016 race was biased, you ain’t seen nuthin’ until you look at the coverage for 2020. With only a week to go until Election Day, it is utterly clear that the networks have chosen their candidate, and it isn’t Donald Trump.

The review of the network coverage was conducted by the Media Research Center:

For this study, the MRC analyzed all coverage of President Trump and former Vice President Biden on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). This is the same time period examined by the MRC four years ago, in advance of that year’s election.

This time around, it’s obvious that the networks are pouring their energy into confronting and criticizing the President, not equally covering both campaigns. During the twelve weeks we examined, Trump received 839 minutes of coverage, compared to just 269 minutes of airtime for Biden, a three-to-one disparity.

Even more lopsided, our analysts found ten times more evaluative statements about Trump than Biden: 890 comments about the President, of which 822 (92.4%) were negative, vs. 68 (7.6%) that were positive. Note that these totals do not include statements about the candidates’ prospects in the campaign horse race (i.e., standings in the polls, chances to win, etc.), nor does it include partisan statements from the candidates or their surrogates.

There is no way on earth that this disparity is merely a result of legitimate news coverage. The disparity is too great to be anything other than a concerted effort to destroy Donald Trump

But Biden has enjoyed softball interviews and fawning treatment, even more than Hillary got in 2016.

MRC added:

And compared to his campaign four years ago, Trump has been bludgeoned with 32 percent more negative comments (822 this year, vs. 623 in 2016), while Biden has enjoyed 65 percent fewer negative comments than Hillary Clinton faced in 2016 (31 for Biden, vs. 145 for Clinton). Trump’s coverage during these same weeks in 2016 was 91% negative, compared to 92% this year, while Biden’s overall press score was substantially more positive than Clinton’s (79% negative for Clinton, vs. 66% positive for Biden).

Clearly the networks are working in tandem with the Biden campaign to destroy Trump.

This is not a free and independent press.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Media Bias

Amazon Prime Cancels Black America Documentary from Conservative Scholar Shelby Steele

Amazon Prime has not only decided to cancel the showing of a documentary about black America by conservative scholar Shelby Steele.

Published

on

Amazon Prime has not only decided to cancel its showing of a documentary about black America by conservative scholar Shelby Steele, they also told Steele he would be denied any appeals on the decision.

Steele is a preeminent scholar of American history and its social order and he recently put that expertise to work with a new documentary created with his son, Eli, entitled What Killed Michael Brown?

But, according to a report at the Wall Street Journal, Steele has now been told that his documentary is no longer welcome at Amazon Prime.

Amazon said the movie was rejected because it “doesn’t meet Prime Video’s content quality expectations.” Amazon added that the show isn’t “eligible for publishing” and they “will not be accepting resubmission of this title and this decision may not be appealed.”

It isn’t as if Steele has no credentials. He is a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a well-regarded intellectual who has decades of published articles, books, and studies exploring race relations in America.

As National Review noted, “Steele received a National Humanities Medal and won a National Book Critics Circle Award for his essay collection The Content of Our Character.”

Steele also won an Emmy for his documentary, “Seven Days in Bensonhurst,” about Yusef Hawkins, a black teenager who was murdered by a white mob in 1989.

Is Stanford now a step lower than talk radio, as far as Amazon Prime is concerned? Are all these prestigious awards mere fluff to the high intellectuals at Amazon Prime?

So, what is going on? It’s all about politics, not the seriousness of the project.

Steele does not spout the left-wing dogma that the half-wits at Amazon like.

Update – Oct. 22

Amazon has reversed its ban on the film and will now stream What Killed Michael Brown.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Media Bias

CSPAN Suspends Debate ‘Moderator’ Steve Scully After Lie that His Twitter was ‘Hacked’

“Journalist” and presidential debate moderator Steve Scully was suspended by CSPAN after admitting he lied that his Twitter had been “hacked.”

Published

on

“Journalist” and presidential debate moderator Steve Scully was suspended by CSPAN after admitting that he lied when he said his Twitter account had been “hacked.”

Scully, who has been a 40-year “journalist” in Washington D.C., was — until now — CSPAN’s senior executive producer and political editor. He was one of the hosts for the network’s “Washington Journal,” and was also picked by the Commission on Presidential Debates to be a debate moderator this year.

Now he is neither.

Why? Because he lied that his biased tweets about Trump. After his tweets were discovered, he claimed he never wrote them and his account was “hacked.”

He has finally admitted that he lied, though.

But, guess what? It wasn’t his fault, he said. He lied because conservatives were mean to him.

Get a load of this nonsense:

“For several weeks, I was subjected to relentless criticism on social media and in conservative news outlets regarding my role as moderator for the second presidential debate, including attacks aimed directly at my family,” Scully wrote. “This culminated on Thursday, October 8th when I heard President Trump go on national television twice and falsely attack me by name. Out of frustration, I sent a brief tweet addressed to Anthony Scaramucci. The next morning when I saw that this tweet had created a controversy, I falsely claimed that my Twitter account had been hacked.”

See. It isn’t his fault that he lied. Really, really, it isn’t.

Well, CSPAN wasn’t fooled. They dumped him.

And he deserved it.

Once again, Trump was right again:

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Media Bias

Fake News Fraud: NBC’s ‘Undecided Voters’ Appeared Earlier on MSNBC as ‘Biden Supporters’

NBC presented a number of people who claimed to be “undecided” voters, but these are the same people who already said they were Biden Supporters.

Published

on

During Joe Biden’s recent NBC “townhall,” the network presented a number of people who claimed to be “undecided.” But it turns out these are the same people who earlier appeared on MSNBC and claimed to be solid Biden Supporters.

NBC aired a supposed townhall on Oct. 5 that featured a lawyer named Peter Gonzalez, and a marketing executive by the name of Ismael Llano. During the Oct. 5 TV event, both Gonzalez and Llano claimed to be “undecided” voters in the telecast.

However, these exact same two men had already appeared on MSNBC in August claiming to be locked-in Biden voters.

As the Washington Free Beacon reported:

Both Gonzalez and Llano, however, were featured in an MSNBC segment in August to explain why they support Biden. “If we get four more years of Trump, good luck, and good luck with the future attracting younger voters,” Gonzalez said as an MSNBC chyron noted he was “voting for Biden.” Llano was also identified as “voting for Biden” and offered praise for the former vice president.

On Monday, NBC’s Lester Holt said that Llano “voted for Hillary Clinton four years ago but has voted Republican in the past.”

By the Beacon’s count, the media has recently presented no less than four other voters as “undecided” even though all four of them have repeatedly attacked Republicans and Trump on their personal social media accounts.

One of them who claimed to be “undecided” has posts on social media calling Trump a “fucking moron,” “pathetic,” “pig,” “swine,” and a “punk ass” on social media. That seems pretty undecided, huh?

Once again, we see the left-media perpetrating a fraud on America all with the singular purpose of destroying Donald Trump.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
 
Send this to a friend