SEN TOM COTTON AND THE NY TIMES

                           
                                                      BY BILL JUNEAU  

                             Born in 1851, the New York Times is a powerful institution in the United States.   Its armchair editors have an agenda, and the Hollywood crowd and others with aristocratic rank, wave its front page enthusiastically and in preference to Old Glory.
                             Likes and dislike of the old Gray Lady run the gamut. Hollywood elitists and high society folk with security fences around their estates, wallow in praise of the New York paper which supposedly provides to a grateful nation  "all the news  fit to print."
                           Other Americans are offended at its lack of journalistic objectivity and fairness, and its candid abhorrence of President Trump and his Republican administration.  One popular conservative author has called the paper a "seditious rag,"  and President Trump labels the Times as a master of "fake" news and has discontinued its delivery to the White House.   
                            Lately, the Times has encountered a new pebble in its big liberal shoe.  His name is Thomas Cotton, the popular United States senator from Arkansas.  This  conservative ex-infantry officer, and combat veteran and lawyer, has one-upped the Times with a tough essay which found its way onto the paper's exclusive opinion pages.  His essay endorsed the use of active duty soldiers to end widespread street rioting and violence which has been the outgrowth of the killing of George Floyd, a black man, by a white policeman in Minneapolis.
                                  In the Op-Ed, the feisty, first-term senator noted that rioters have plunged cities "into anarchy, recalling widespread violence of the 1960s."  In New York, he wrote, Mayor de Blasio "stood by" as midtown manhattan descended into lawlessness.
                                  With authority under the Insurrection Act, Cotton wrote that soldiers are effective in bringing peace to the streets when police have been told to stand down by mayors and governors and let violence, arson and looting run its course.                        .                      Bands looted, fire bombed cars and businesses and even a police station. One retired Black police captain was murdered in St. Louis and some 800 policemen have been injured.  Some elites excused the orgy of violence as an "understandable response" to the wrongful death of George Floyd.   It was sort of a "carnival for the thrill  seeking rich as well as other criminal elements," Cotton fired off in his editorial.
                                  The Times had let it be known that it opposed the use of active duty soldiers to calm protests, but Cotton submitted his essay and editorial page editor James Bennet and Bennet's deputy Jim Dao polished it a bit with the senator's okay, and even wrote the headline, "Send in the Troops."  It was published on June 3, a Wednesday, and  Publisher A.G. Sulzberger reportedly gave it his nod.
                                  In the following days, Times' staffers and other fans addicted to the paper and its liberal bend and its loathing of anything Republican, complained to Sulzberger that Cotton's opining had no place on the sacred Times opinion page. 
                                 In the face of grumbling and  the in-house consternation, the Times did a double flip and announced that the editorial by Sen. Cotton should never have been in the Times.  The editorial was "unnecessarily harsh" and inaccurate and the very headline (which the Times editor wrote) was "incendiary." 
                                 The Times regrets  that it published Cotton's opinion piece, and has blamed it on a "rushed editorial process." To make the point, Publisher Sulzberger, who got that position in January, 2018,  fired the trusted opinion page editor, James Bennet, and  demoted Bennet's deputy, Jim Dao, who provided  oversight of the written word.  Dao, said Sulzberger, will be "stepping off the masthead" for reassignment to the newsroom.
                                 In the discourse that followed, Bennet, 54,  apologized for his mishandling of Cotton's essay.   He had been editorial page editor since 2016, and is the younger brother of  U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, Democrat from Colorado. 
                                 While the Times heard many complaints, hundreds of which came from staffers who signed a letter objecting to the running of the senator's opinion piece, conservative voices have praised Cotton for his demand that rioting and violence and the attack and injuries to policemen be stopped, one way or another, and there is heavy support (based on surveys) for bringing soldiers into the streets when the activity qualifies as an insurrection. 
                                   America is still the greatest country on the globe where freedom of expression and debate are welcomed. Senator Cotton raises points which deserve to be debated, and the Times needs to put aside its biases and and political agenda and get back to reporting the news in a fair and professional way.   
                                             xxx 







    "  

Sunday Morning Drivel

    
                                                 By Florida Bill 
                                               
                                                      Every Sunday morning, CBS television presents its long-running news show, "Face the Nation."  Moderated by the 40-year-old Margaret Brennan, the show calls upon guests to give their take and opinion on important breaking stories. 
                                     Somehow, in recent years, the show has morphed  and become an arm of the Democratic party doing its part to chop up the administration of President Trump.  Lies, falsehoods and innuendos are worked into the themes and with it comes the approbation from the "never Trump" crowd. 
                                    On this recent Sunday, the comely, but inept Brennan, had Attorney General William Barr as one of her guests, and she planned a shellacking of the nation's leading government lawyer.
                                   "Why,"  demanded Brennan, did the AG order the use of tear gas and chemical irritants to break up a "peaceful" demonstration in Lafayette Square, north of the White House. Marchers were showing their constitutional right to demonstrate against police brutality and the denigration of Black Americans. 
                                    The question struck a sour note with Barr and he appeared annoyed at her assertion, but remained poised.  These were not peaceful protests, said Barr,  "and that is one of the big lies that the media is perpetuating."  And by the way, he added, there was no tear gas or chemical irritants used by the police."
                                    Police. were in the process of setting new boundaries for the perimeter of the seven acre park which is home to St John's Episcopal  church, when violence erupted and projectiles were thrown, Barr said.  Police used non-irritant pepper sprays to rein in the trouble makers, and to prevent a repeat of the violence and the church fire which had occurred there the previous day and night. 
                                   Brennan interrupted and declared that "three of my (CBS) colleagues were there  and they never saw any projectiles."  
                                   "I was there," said Barr. "I was there.  They were thrown. I saw them thrown."
                                    Barr said that in that same park on the previous day, a fire was set in the sacred and historic St. John's church.  The violence was out of control.  Bottles and bricks were being thrown; there was damage to the park and  there were injuries.  More than 100 policemen trying to rein in the violence were injured and some suffered concussions and were taken to  hospitals. We did not want a repeat of that.  
                                   Skipping to another subject,  Brennan told Barr that a  CBS newsman reports that a senior administration  official" (no name provided) told him that President Trump had "demanded that 10,000 active duty troops be ordered onto the American streets" to deal with the  protesters.   "Accurate?" she said.
                                 "That is completely false. The President did not demand that," responded Barr who remained poised, but visibly irritated.   
                                 Barr explained that the President, and  Secretary of Defense Esper and I were on the "same page" in reference to bringing in active duty soldiers.  The President has the power to  do so, in accord with law, but the situation on hand did not warrant that action which is reserved for insurrections.  Make no mistake here---We all agreed  and were on the same page that this was not the time to bring in active duty troops to police the streets, Barr said. 
                                 With that, Brennan asserted that CBS "stands by its reporting" that the President had demanded that the attorney general bring in 10,000  active duty soldiers to patrol the streets and put down protesters.  Barr, President Trump and the Secretary of Defense Mark Esper have endeavored to set the record straight  on this point, but CBS "stands by" its report from some unnamed "official."
                                  Both stories to which Brennan referred and of which she questioned the Attorney General had been widely disseminated by the media. The stories were completely untrue. It was a typical Sunday morning as CBS and "Face the Nation" delivered and "stands by" their anti-Trump reporting.   

                                                xxx



                                     .     

THE PURLOINED PULITZER

                                             

    
                                                 By Florida Bill 
                      The Pulitzer Prize is the the most prestigious award in all of journalism. The award carries the name of Joseph Pulitzer, Publisher of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper who was a fierce believer in newspapers and their role as a watchdog in a free democracy in the greatest country in the world.
                      The late and great Col. Robert R. McCormick, the  conservative bulldog editor of the Chicago Tribune, repeated the Joseph Pulitzer sentiments when he said, that a " newspaper is that check upon government which no constitution can ever provide."
                      Since 1917, Pulitzer prizes have been awarded to newspaper  journalists who worked and fought  for stories which exposed miscreants in government and often brought liars and pretenders to their knees.
                      In April of 2019, a prize went jointly to the Washington Post and the New York Times for 10 articles apiece on "Trump-Russia developments throughout most of 2017, the chaotic first year of Donald Trump's presidency." 
                      It was the biggest disgrace in the history of the 103-year-old Pulitzer awards, and the winners were announced a few weeks after a multi million dollar investigation which had concluded that there was no "collusion" by President Trump or anyone in his administration with Russia in an attempt to influence the results of the 2016 presidential election. 
                      Allegations of "collusion" were all smoke and mirrors fostered by The Post and the Times in countless stories, followed by virtually every corner of the Democrat-tethered media. It was a sad day in journalism which will live in history books. 
                      The papers knew that their attack on the President was without any evidence, but the "journalists" coaxed on by editors, were so overcome with ill will and pure hatred for President Trump that truth was unimportant so long as the president could be taken down, removed from office,  and consigned forever as a seditious charlatan.  They lost big time, and the embattled President has emerged stronger that he was when elected. 
                    The Pulitzer board found that the Post and the Times had earned the awards for work that was--
                     "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."                   
                           Unscrupulous reporting by the named recipients led to a major investigation by a special counsel put in place by Congress.  The investigation went on for 675 days at a cost of $33 million. Some 500 witnesses were interviewed and 2,800 subpoenas were sent out.  Looking for evidence of seditious conduct by President Trump and his supporters  were 40 FBI agents and 19 lawyers.  In the end, special counsel Robert Mueller reported that the President did not conspire or "collude" in any way with members of the Russian government.  
                           Countless stories alleging collusion, pushed by the Post and the Times were a "fake," as President Trump has said, and the big majority of them were attributed to unnamed "sources."  It was a total and complete "hoax." 
                           The President has requested an apology from the Board of the Pulitzer which has sullied the name of a great journalistic award.  The cash given to the individual recipients is reported to be $15,000.  Whatever it is, the money should be returned and the dishonest journalists ought to be fired for their misconduct and a conspiracy designed to rid the White House of the nation's 45th president. 
                           An arrogant Dana Canedy, Pulitzer administrator,  has declined to apologize for the phony pulitzer awards and in anticipation of handing out the awards to the Post and the Times and 19 other recipients characterized the criticism of the Pulitzers to the nation's two leading newspapers as "fake marketing."  She added:
                          "We stand behind the Pulitzer selection process, which has endured for 103 years. And the winning work speaks for itself," she said. "Beyond that, this simply doesn’t deserve comment. 
                      The awards in 21 categories were presented on April 15, 2019, by Canedy, to winners.  In presenting the awards she paid no attention to the dishonesty used in capturing the awards and said:
                       "The journalism categories yet again uphold the highest purpose of a free and independent press, even in these most trying of times" and "these courageous inspiring and committed journalists and their organizations are  undaunted in their mission in support of the Fourth Estate. 
                        "It is a mandate that has been under a seemingly relentless assault of late, but that remains central to a healthy democracy." 
                         THe dishonest reporting by the Post and Times reporters, sanctioned by their editors, provides a  taste of political and corrupt journalism.  The behavior of the Pulitzer board, with Ms. Canedy as administrator, endorses this type of journalism and leaves a mark of disgrace which will long endure.  


                                                              xxx




                             
                                 

                         








                   
                       

Polls and More Polls

                                             

    
                                                 By Florida Bill   

                           Want to know who is ahead, who is behind, who is surging and who made an intentional or unwitting boo-boo in the political maneuvering to become President next November. Want to know how Americans feel at any given moment about all aspects of the Covid-19 pandemic and whether endless testing for the virus is helpful or producing needless anxiety.  Will the drug,  hydroxychloroquine help, or hinder?                       
                   Turn on television for the the answers as new polls seemingly roll out at an incredible rate from the hundreds, maybe thousands of pollsters in the country. They have the crystal balls and are delivering the answers big time, all culled from telephone interviews.
                   You might wonder, who is being asked what, and where was the poll conduced. As a general rule, no one is told of the questions, or how many persons were interviewed; or where the  poll has been conducted, and how many persons have been interviewed. No one wants to get in the way of the fun so you get the findings and that's it. The collective opinion of others is all you need to know.                   
                  My own personal experience with polls did not arouse any admiration-- quite the opposite, in fact.  I was queried once by a telephone voice on a polling mission, but the caller spoke such poor English that declaring whether I was more likely, most likely, less likely or least likely to do this, that or the other thing was too tedious and I just hung up.   
                   How accurate are these telephone shotgun polls?   I heard one today that said that Joe Biden was leading the incumbent President by 11 percentage points, and another that on the pandemic, Biden is to be trusted, but for the economy, it's all Trump.  Another found that the President should not be taking the drug, hydroxychloroquine, because of possible side effects and that it sends the wrong message.
                   Now pay attention--masterminds behind the fine art of polling say that surveys tap into the into the heads of  a "scientifically constituted" group of  maybe 400 to 1,000 persons, and that this selected sample mirrors the larger population in every important way.  Supposedly, I've been told, samples have the  same proportions of men and women, blacks, whites and Hispanics; Democrats and Republicans and old and young people as in the entire population. This small sampling is supposedly accurate to within plus or minus three percentage points. That's the story and they're sticking to it, and if you buy it, well I've got this bridge to sell.

                          As if polling work is not hard enough, changes in technology are complicating the leg work for pollsters: landlines are giving way to mobile phones; and users on-the-go are less patient with long drawn out questionnaires. Without a doubt, the money saving robo-calls with their computerized voices annoy many people and prompt them to hang up.

                         So scaring up answers from the scientific aggregate, is, I sense, no simple task. Contentions of accuracy strains the imagination.  It's  even more remarkable, considering that the United States has some 330 million persons living in 19,000 cities, towns and villages; and these communities are situated inside 3,141 counties within our 50 states.  And this entire profile is spread out over about 3 million square miles of land and water.    
                          The pollsters, and there too many to count, guide their employees as they sit around a table with a bank of telephones, making calls and recording answers by checking boxes.  The bosses then pull the data together into a press release with the latest findings which is then delivered in one way or another to TV talkers who zip it out for public  consumption.   
                            Accurate--who knows.  A few years back, virtually every pollster alive, had Hillary Clinton creaming her opponent Donald Trump in the 2016 election--but, hey Trump won.  How did that happen?  Sixty-three million Americans voted for Trump and with an assist from the electoral college he became the nation's 45th President.  An embarrassed Gallop, one of the big names in polling, got even with a finding a few months later that Mrs. Clinton, sometimes called "Crooked Hillary" was America's most admired woman. 
                            Some polls are commissioned and one way or another pollsters make a ton of money.  If you are "hopeful" for a certain finding, you hire a pollster and he aims the questions at the areas most likely to produce the desired finding. For example, if you want to know Joe Biden is doing, check with the Harlem area of New York and you see that Biden is way ahead. If you want a reading as to how the incumbent Trump is doing, direct your telephone calls to the voters in West Virginia. 
                            Polls gin up interest in elections and in controversies and keep the pundits talking and talking and talking, and building their bankrolls and driving Bentleys. But as the sages say, "the only poll that counts is the one on election day." 

                                                 xxx

 


                   

                                                

Judge Emmett Sullivan, just another Democrat

 .   


                                                       BY FLORIDA  BILL

                          Federal District Judge Emmett G. Sullivan of the D.C. Circuit, has been notified by Attorney General William Barr that the government is dismissing all charges against the former NSA Director, Gen. Michael Flynn. 
                          The message to Sullivan is clear and unambiguous, but the 72-year-old jurist with long existing ties to the Democratic party, doesn't like it.  Nevertheless, the prosecution of Gen. Flynn is over, and the retired,  three-star general has been exonerated and vindicated of charges that he lied to FBI agents interviewing him.   At a recent hearing, Sullivan was  asked to formally sign an order dismissing the case as is normal procedure when the prosecutor elects not to prosecute. 
                          The veteran judge stunned his crowded courtroom by declining to dismiss the case, and instead called for Amicus Curie briefs to help him decide how to respond to the motion from the Attorney General.  Should he dismiss the case as requested by the government's chief lawyer, or should he allow Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea; or should he dig real deep and hold the defendant in direct contempt and maybe imprison him? 
                          In truth, his courtroom demeanor and handling of the matter borders on the absurd, and the judge is pathetic in his failure to understand the political machinations employed by the FBI and other Obama loyalists  in an effort to destroy General Flynn, and ultimately, bring down President Trump as a handmaiden of Russia..  
                         Sullivan continued the Flynn case for the filing of "Friend of the Court" briefs. Also, he appointed a retired judge, John Gleeson, as his "Amicus" to argue the position that the court  should not dismiss the Flynn case. Gleeson, is an ex-law partner of Sullivan's, and is well known and has spoken out in the past with heavy anti-Trump rhetoric.     
                          Former Federal prosecutor, Andrew McCarthy, was quick to recognize the political nonsense and hostility in the behavior of Judge Sullivan, who has demonstrated a continuing bias against General Flynn, and at one previous hearing suggested that the three-star general might have committed treason.  Sullivan was appointed to the federal bench in 1994 by President Clinton, and his gratitude to Democrats for the life time job goes on and on.  
                          He has become "unhinged" said McCarthy, and he appears to be organizing an "anti-Trump group therapy session."  Amicus Briefs are virtually unheard of in criminal cases, he pointed out, since the parties consist solely of the government prosecutor and a defendant. The opinion of the man on the street is irrelevant as to how the judge rules in a case.                
                           Sullivan is playing to his Democratic friends and is on a path where he cannot prevail and force the prosecution of a defendant over the decision of the government and the Attorney General not to prosecute. Federal judges have immense power, for sure, but the decision as to who will be prosecuted is not the judge's decision to make, and is within the absolute discretion of the Attorney General.   
                          Basically, Judge Sullivan is dallying around because he knows that the media will spotlight him and try and make him look like some sort of a hero.  But it is only an illusion, and when the dust clears for history to record, Gen. Flynn has been cleared of these phony charges and hopefully and soon will be restored as a key member of the Trump administration. 

                                                  XXX 
                             

Mike Flynn Story

    
                                                 By Florida Bill  

                                              Hopefully, the Covid-19 crisis will play out and come to an end, and when that happens, there are other controversies crying for resolution.  One of them involves Michael Flynn, a three-star army general who has been dealt a bad hand by the same forces that pushed the nonsensical Russian "collusion" investigation of President Trump.
                               In December of 2017, Gen. Flynn, who had been appointed National Security Adviser, by President Trump, was accused of lying to two FBI agents concerning the precise contents of a telephone conversation he had with the Russian Ambassador, a year earlier, on December 16, 2016. The criminal charge was at the very least, clumsy and unfair, in that the FBI agents had a full transcript of the call, and knew precisely what had been discussed between the new NSA chief  and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and nothing in the call involved secret or confidential matters.
                               The agents did not tell Flynn that they had a transcript of the conversation.  Instead, they finagled him into hedging on answers, and then advised the media that the "Russian" probe was bearing fruit, and that General Flynn had perjured himself. The accusation against the retired three-star army officer, suggested "Russian" involvement, and the biased and Trump-hating media, screamed loudly that this was  proof of "collusion" committed by an ally of President Trump. 
                                Flynn was charged with "perjury" and told that prosecutors would seek five or more years of prison time. But here it is 2020, and the charge still hangs over his head with the court declining  to sentence him even though he had actually entered a guilty plea to the indictment.  
                                In the latest development of this strange and manufactured wrongdoing,  Gen. Flynn has petitioned the court to withdraw his plea on grounds that the government acted improperly, withheld exculpatory evidence and otherwise committed outrageous crimes in "a plot to convict an innocent man." As part of the picture, and obviously weighing heavily on the mind of the district judge, was testimony by former FBI Director James Comey before a congressional committee that the general had not been dishonest in his answers to the FBI agents.     
                               What about the conversation that Gen. Flynn had  with the Russian ambassador?  Reportedly, much of it included chit chat with the Russian diplomat who extended his congratulations to Flynn on his new position. There were references to sanctions placed upon Russia by the Obama administration and apparently the Russian official wanted to know the possibility of relaxing those sanctions, with Flynn suggesting that they would be dealt with later by the Trump administrations.   

                          Because Flynn's official tenure as NSA adviser did not commence until the new President's swearing in in January, discussions of sanctions were supposedly off- limits at that time to Gen. Flynn as the new appointee of President-elect Trump.                                      Gen. Flynn spent 33 years in the army serving in both domestic and combat zones, and was the recipient of medals and honors.  Under President Obama he had served as the country's Defense Intelligence chief. After leaving that office, he became an adviser to then candidate Donald Trump, and as such, drew the enmity of a biased media which was pushing for the election of Hillary Clinton and spouting the tenets of the Democratic National Committee.  
                         Reportedly, the prosecutors pushing the story of Flynn's dishonesty, also drew the guilty plea from the general after threatening him with a future prosecution of his son for unauthorized dealings with a foreign country without registering his business in accord with USA law. 
                         Some legal scholars are arguing that the charges against General Flynn should be thrown out as they have no standing in law.  Former Harvard Criminal law Professor Alan Dershowitz has said that even if Gen. Flynn told a lie in connection with this meaningless conversation, there was no crime.  
                          "The lie has to be material to the investigation," asserts Dershowitz, "and if the FBI already knew the answer to the question and only asked him the question in order to give him an opportunity to lie, his answer, even if false,was not material to the investigation." Other attorneys have suggested that the FBI conduct smacks of "entrapment," and that the agents ought to be sanctioned for their misbehavior. 
                            On Feb. 27, District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan continued the Flynn case indefinitely.  
                            

                                            XXX

      

    

                                                 

Fact Checkers"--Are they For Real?

                              
    
                                                 By Florida Bill  

                                Recently in the Chicago Tribune, I saw a comment  by  Columnist Clarence Page that President Trump has lied more than 16,000 times in public statements since he took office in January, 2017--and Page's source: "Fact Checkers" at the Washington Post. 
                         Page complains regularly about Trump and has categorized him as a "racist" in many columns.  He doesn't like Trump--I get that.  The Washington Post is a bombastic critic of Trump and for that very reason alone, its reliability for producing accurate "fact finding" data is highly suspicious.  In fact, its finding of 16,000 prevarications is absurd on its face and a veteran reporter like Clarence Page has to know that, but apparently he wants to remain in good standing with the media's "Trump-hating" crowd.  
                        Based upon a three year time frame, (including weekends) during which the President allegedly misstated  facts, the President would be lying at the rate of 44 times a day.  I know that Post "fact checkers" may contend that there are countless prevarications in a single speech, but that statistic strains the imagination since prepared statements are for the most part examined by aides in the White House and by attorneys  and former newsmen before they are delivered for pubic consumption.  It is easy to sit back and  point to this or that as false and untrue, and then call it a lie and pass out those armchair findings to hungry Trump critics in the subservient Democrat controlled media. 
                         A main contention by the fact finders is that Trump's "most repeated falsehood" is his claim that the government is "going to have over 400 miles of wall built by the end of  year (2020)." The President has repeated that more than 160 times, fact checkers assert. Since several hundred miles of the wall are already up, who is doing the fibbing on that one.  

                          Trump is called a liar for having said that the Mexicans would pay for a border wall.  A lie?  No, it was  a prediction--a promise.  Did it come true?  Your call. Tariffs on goods have been turned upside down so that Mexico's whopping deficit on goods sold has been flipped around with the Mexicans paying billions dollars more in tariffs to the USA.  Even before becoming President, Trump explained in an interview with Bill O'Reilly that tariff adjustments would produce money for use in construction of the wall on the nation's southern border. Overlooked by the fact checkers?

                            But what about the "fact checkers" who are accountable to no one? What are their credentials, and how do these gifted minds go about their work? The Post has published various commentaries patting themselves on the back, noting awards received for their work from other Trump-hating organizations. I waded through some of the Post's accounts of its fact-finding process, and concluded that its process would never stand the test of cross examination.  But then--who cares.  Freedom of the press!!!
                            The Post, like all corners of the news media, is protected by a First Amendment privilege which allows it to say in print absolutely anything, and the Post will pay no penalty for its scurrilous behavior and dishonesty.  As every lawyer knows ( and I am one), it is virtually impossible to ever sue successfully for libel or defamation when the defamed party is a public official.  There is a pathway in some cases, but it simply does not happen.  
                          The Post has a "fact checking" team of four reporters headed by Glenn Kessler, 60, a veteran newsman with credentials in investigative journalism and as an author of one book. His has three assistants and their experience and abilities are anyone's guess. But their allegiance to the Post and its liberal anti Trump agenda presumes that they will pull out all stops in a team effort to discredit the president, honesty and objectivity be damned. 
                          With their fact checking, the team awards "Pinocchios" that correspond to increasing levels of untruth, culminating at four.   A pinocchio-4 is as bad as it gets and is called a "whopper," and with this process, the "fair minded" newspaper  can say they do not call someone a "liar,--only that he has a long nose with the length indicating the severity of the dishonesty. The Post simply leaves it to others in the media, print and electronic, to denounce President Trump as a "liar," and point to the "fact checkers" at the Washington Post as the unassailable source. 
                           Supposedly, other working bureaucrats are fact- checked in response to requests, but in truth it is President Trump that is the principal target for mendacious behavior. Around Post editorial offices, that mission is referred to as "Project Trump." Kessler has written that the Trump project takes up huge amounts of time, but not every entry to the "fact checkers" database, is a full length article and most require only 15 minutes on average for the armchair evaluators to compose a comment.  
                           The Post which is committed to bringing down the nation's 45th President, and without having to account or be penalized for any fabrications and nonsensical interpretations, the Post is free to accuse the President of unadulterated dishonesty, and serial exaggeration. The burden for proving the accuracy of a claim rests with the speaker, Kessler says.  Trump haters love it, and it always supports the agenda of the Democrat party.
                            I have found that citizens who oppose the President call him a "liar," but are unable to cite examples. Some point to Trump's assertion that the Mexicans will be paying for the "wall," which was more of a promise than a lie, and actually in view of the tariff change, has come true. Like Trib columnist Page, who clearly hates Trump and has abandoned all objectivity, they "know" he is a liar because the Washington Post says so, and so do Democrats in the House of Representatives headed by Nancy Pelosi.  
                           Thus far, in the past 40 months, the Post has been unsuccessful in destroying the Trump presidency through the phony "Russian" investigation and then the "Ukraine Quid Pro Quo," hoax and currently is attempting to blame the President for failing to properly lead the country's fight against Covid-19.  Is this the Post's dreamy reenactment of their reporting in the 1970s, which was key in the take down and resignation of President Nixon?  
                            The Post ignores all of the false and foolish statements of Joe Biden who they are supporting in a race against incumbent Trump next November. Stories of Biden's sexual attack on a senate aide is ignored. No "fact checking" there, although there would be plenty to feed into that "database."                                                                  Currently, and even with WaPo's shameful reporting and lack of journalistic objectivity,  pundits, without an agenda, are predicting that President Trump will win reelection in a landslide.

                                               xxx