The Washington Post needs to give back the Pulitzer Prize. They are making a joke out of it. General Michael Flynn was cleared a month before they wrote an article that helped the Bezos paper win the grand prize.
Let’s face it, the Pulitzer is a sham. It has been politicized.
Watch:
Tucker Carlson hammers The Washington Post over the Pulitzer Prize that it won for its reporting on former national security adviser Michael Flynn:
“What Jeff Bezos’s personal newspaper didn’t tell you was that the so-called investigation into Flynn was a sham.” pic.twitter.com/Z3WELTYf3H
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) May 3, 2020
THE PULITZER STORY
The Washington Post and The New York Times won the 2018 Pultizer Prize for their national reporting of President Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia. They were awarded $15,000 in a joint prize.
The “award-winning” journalists include Maggie Haberman, Jo Becker, Matt Apuzzo, and Mark Mazzetti from The Times and Rosalind Helderman, Tom Hamburger, Ellen Nakashima, Adam Entous and Greg Miller from WaPo.
They received the award “For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team, and his eventual administration. (The New York Times entry, submitted in this category, was moved into contention by the Board and then jointly awarded the Prize.)”
“Deeply sourced?” They must be joking. As for “relentlessly reported,” that is true. As for “furthering understanding,” no, it didn’t.
WaPo boasted of the “prestigious award” on their website and wrote in part:
The Post’s Russia stories contained several startling revelations: that Michael Flynn, Trump’s designated national security adviser, had discussed lifting U.S. sanctions on Russia with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period, potentially in violation of the law; that acting attorney general Sally Yates had told the White House that Flynn had misled senior officials, including Vice President Pence, about his Russia contacts, making him vulnerable to Russian blackmail; that attorney general-designee Jeff Sessions failed to disclose two conversations with Kislyak when asked about contacts during his confirmation hearing; and that Trump revealed secret intelligence to Kislyak and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in an Oval Office meeting in May. The newspaper also published a lengthy account of President Barack Obama’s struggle to retaliate against Russian President Vladimir Putin’s interference during the 2016 campaign, and explored Trump’s unwillingness to confront the issue of Russian election interference.
-
The Importance of Prayer: How a Christian Gold Company Stands Out by Defending Americans’ Retirement
The news about Sessions’s undisclosed encounters prompted him to recuse himself in March from an investigation of Russia’s election conduct. Sessions then appointed his deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, to oversee the investigation. The New York Times subsequently reported that notes taken by ousted FBI director James B. Comey recounted a conversation in which Trump urged Comey to drop an investigation of Flynn. That led Rosenstein to appoint Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel last year.
The statements and the report were very dishonest. We now know that James Comey framed Michael Flynn and there was no Russian collusion. Flynn having Russian contacts — innocent contacts — is appropriate and helpful in his role as NSA.
There was no collusion, no obstruction, and the probe was a setup.
As for Sessions, he clearly forgot the two conversations and there’s nothing wrong with him speaking to the ambassador.
wpDiscuz
