Connect with us

The New York Times

The New York Times is desperate to defend one fake Trump scandal



The corporate-controlled press set out to destroy Donald Trump’s Presidency from Day One.

His entire administration was marred by media-generated controversies.

And The New York Times is desperate to defend one fake Trump scandal.

The Russiagate hoax overshadowed the first two years of the Trump administration.

Endless media stories and Robert Mueller’s investigation made it incredibly difficult for Trump to promote his America First agenda.

And even though the Russian collusion narrative has completely fallen apart, the corporate-controlled press is still trying to justify its misconduct.

The New York Times wrote a mind-numbing piece that argued the Russian investigation was kosher despite the dossier being complete bunk.

The Times openly admitted the dossier was baseless:

Was the dossier a reliable source of information?

No. It has become clear over time that its sourcing was thin and sketchy.

No corroborating evidence has emerged in intervening years to support many of the specific claims in the dossier, and government investigators determined that one key allegation — that Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had met with Russian officials in Prague during the campaign — was false.

But The Times argues that the dossier wasn’t central to the Russiagate probe.

The basis for the investigation was loosely connected nonsense.

The Times wrote:

Still, the dossier did not create this atmosphere of suspicion. Mr. Trump’s relationship with Russia had been a topic of significant discussion dating back to the campaign, including before the first report that Russia had hacked Democrats and before Mr. Steele drafted his reports and gave some to reporters.

Trump’s “relationship” with Russia was not a topic of conversation until Hillary Clinton floated the idea publicly.

She whined about Trump’s ties to Russia, but the media didn’t run with the story initially.

Later in the 2016 campaign, Hillary complained, and the corporate-controlled press finally decided to pick up the narrative and run with it.

The Times added:

Among the reasons: Mr. Trump had said flattering things about Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, kept bringing on advisers with ties to Russia, had financial ties to Russia, publicly encouraged Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton, and at his nominating convention, the party dropped a plank that called for arming Ukraine against Russian-backed rebels. In March 2017, the F.B.I. publicly acknowledged that it was investigating links between Russia and Trump campaign associates.

None of this is the basis for an FBI investigation into a political campaign.

Saying nice things about a foreign leader is not worthy of a DOJ probe.

The people with supposed ties to Russia is an absurd contention, especially considering experienced advisers were scared away by the press from working on Trump’s campaign.

And Trump’s “encouragement” for Russia to hack Clinton’s emails was a joke – he was referring to the thousands of emails that disappeared after Clinton destroyed her illegal server.

Everybody in the world knew about the lost emails Trump was making light of.

There was zero basis for spying on the Trump campaign, but the so-called “mainstream” media have to justify why they gave themselves awards for their bogus Russian collusion coverage.

Pants on Fire Official Polling

The New York Times

New York Times reporter tries to blame Tucker Carlson for this heinous act



Tucker Carlson is the most successful man in the news business these days. 

And rather than up their game, members of the Lame Stream Media are busy trying to tear him down. 

A New York Times reporter just took that to the next level by blaming Tucker Carlson for this heinous act.

Leftists never let a crisis go to waste. 

It doesn’t matter how heartrending a tragedy, you’d better believe there’s a political consultant somewhere figuring out how to get the most political mileage out of someone’s suffering. 

And as what’s shaping up to be an ugly midterm election for Democrats approaches, they’re fighting like a little pickpocket who just got cornered. 

As the unofficial press department for the Democrats’, the New York Times is taking the lead in blaming all Republicans for anything and everything. 

Recently, writer Nicholas Confessore, a repeat offender, decided to pin a horrific grocery store shooting on all Republicans with Tucker Carlson accused of being the ringleader. 

Of course, he had to blow a lot of smoke in order to fill an entire article with his nonsensical theory claiming that he fears whites will be replaced by other races is a driving force behind the Republican party. 

 “In recent months, versions of the same ideas, sanded down and shorn of explicitly anti-Black and antisemitic themes, have become commonplace in the Republican Party—spoken aloud at congressional hearings, echoed in Republican campaign advertisements and embraced by a growing array of right-wing candidates and media personalities,” Confessore wrote. 

(True to his type, Confessore conveniently forgot that black, Hispanic, and other minority Republicans exist.) 

He then went on to claim, “no public figure has promoted replacement theory more loudly or relentlessly than the Fox host Tucker Carlson.”

So, was the lunatic gunman a big Tucker Carlson fan? 

Probably not, since he wasn’t even mentioned once as a source of inspiration in the killer’s 180-page manifesto. 

But the New York Times author conveniently forgot to mention one significant fact, Tucker’s boss—Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch—was singled out in an anti-Semitic meme in the manifesto.

Obviously, if Fox News—where Tucker Carlson is the leading personality—were some sort of inspiration a deranged man wouldn’t be lumping the outlet in with every other media company in his rage against the world. 

Rather than pinning anything on Carlson and Republicans in general, these types of longshot attacks merely show how desperate partisan “journalists” are becoming as they try to distract Americans from the profound failures of Democrats at every level of government. 

Pants on Fire News will keep you up-to-date on any developments to this ongoing story.

Continue Reading

The New York Times

The New York Times is attempting to demonize one organization for this ridiculous reason



The Supreme Court leak lit a match inside the Democratic Party.

Politicians and media outlets are on the warpath.

And the New York Times is attempting to demonize one organization for this ridiculous reason.

Pro-abortion zealots are terrified over the Supreme Court leak that signaled the overturning of Roe V. Wade.

In response, Democrats have activated full-on assault mode.

Activists are illegally protesting outside the homes of Supreme Court justices, and the corporate press is attacking anyone that harbors pro-life views.

Now, The New York Times is going after crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs).

In a comically dishonest piece, The Times tried to present CPCs as somehow nefarious.

In an op-ed entitled, “Pregnant? Need help? They Have an Agenda,” The Times lamented the fact that CPCs currently outnumber abortion facilities three to one.

The Times wrote that “a large share of women who visit C.P.C.s are not pregnant or undecided but are parents who in many cases have been failed by a society that does little to help poor mothers. The anti-abortion movement takes advantage of their economic vulnerability.”

So CPCs are taking advantage of women by trying to convince them not to get an abortion?

And unlike Planned Parenthood, CPCs do not charge money for their services.

Planned Parenthood is a moneymaking enterprise that performs almost zero services beyond abortion.

Democrats do not want see see a cultural shift away from abortion, which is why they despise CPCs that provide free resources.

For example, CPCs have ultrasound machines; when women see that their baby is alive, they keep the baby at a rate of 80%.

Conversely, Planned Parenthood does not allow women to view ultrasounds.

The so-called pro-choice movement is fine with a woman’s choice so long as she opts to kill the baby.

If they were really about choice, they would provide women with all of the pertinent facts.

But Democrats have to lie in service to the pro-abortion position.

Roughly two-thirds of Americans believe that abortion becomes legal if Roe V. Wade is overturned when in reality the issue simply goes back to the states.

Also, 65% of Americans are against abortion after the first trimester.

That number jumps up to 81% after the second trimester.

CPCs are partly why people are getting the real data about abortions.

Pants on Fire Official Polling

Continue Reading

The New York Times

The New York Times wrote one obituary that will turn your stomach



The corporate press is clearly biased toward the Left.

No better example exists than The New York Times.

And The Times wrote one obituary that will turn your stomach.

One of the main differences between the Left and the Right is that right-wing extremists are strongly condemned by conservatives, but left-wing extremists are embraced by leftists.

The Left have a long history of keeping their radicals in the fold.

For instance, upon the death of far-left domestic terrorist Kathy Boudin, The New York Times wrote an accurate obituary for her, then hours later softened it after pushback from liberals.

The original obit read:

“Kathy Boudin, who as a member of the Weather Underground took part in the murderous 1981 holdup of a Brink’s armored truck, died on Sunday. She was 78.”

The revised version read:

“Kathy Boudin, a member of the Weather Underground imprisoned for her role in a fatal robbery but who later helped former inmates, died at 78.”

So the revision takes out the word “murderous,” and almost makes it seem as if Boudin was passively involved in a less specific “fatal robbery” when she was suddenly “imprisoned.”

The revision also made sure to add in that she helped former inmates, framing her as a reformed, do-gooder liberal and not a murderous psychopath.

Major left-wing outlets do this all the time.

The Times deleted a tweet after being shamed for quoting one of their old obits that described communist mass murderer Mao Zedong as “an obscure peasant” who rose to power and “died one of history’s great revolutionary figures.”

Upon the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Badhdadi, The Washington Post described him as an “austere religious scholar.”

The Post also described Iranian general Qassim Suleimani, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike, with the obituary: “Qassim Suleimani, Master of Iran’s Intrigue and Force, Dies at 62.”

Around the same time, in the obit for former Cincinnati Bengals head coach Sam Wyche, The Post made sure to mention that Wyche was reprimanded for “barring a female reporter from the team’s locker room.”

Sadly, many of the radicals of the 1960s and 1970s moved into teaching positions and other areas of liberal influence, which is largely why society is such a mess today.

For example, Boudin’s son Chesa, who was raised by other Weather Underground terrorists after both his parents went to prison, is one of the radical leftist district attorneys bankrolled by George Soros.

The terrorists who raised him—Obama adviser and ghost writer Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn—both got teaching positions at University of Illinois at Chicago and Northwestern Law, respectively, without ever having to renounce their radical past.

Radicals have been hiding in plain sight for decades, and it might take just as long to undo all of the damage they have done.

Pants on Fire News will keep you up to date on this developing story.

Continue Reading

Sign Up For FREE Alerts

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.