by Frank Holmes, reporter
For years, Democrats promised Robert Mueller’s report on Russian collusion would be “a bombshell,” possibly putting the president of the United States behind bars for high crimes and misdemeanors.
But when Mueller released a summary of his report this weekend, the only thing that exploded were Democrats’ heads.
It was a total dud.
The media hyped the story 24/7 and earned untold millions of dollars by drawing in gullible liberals.
The New York Times and The Washington Post even won a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of phony Russian collusion in 2018… and now they’re shaking in fear that it’s finally time for them to face the music.
Conservatives nationwide say the two Fake News outlets should return their Pulitzer Prizes — or have the awards stripped from them.
Nine reporters from the two elitist papers won journalism’s top prize — and $15,000 — for their supposedly “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 two papers shared something more than just this award: They both reported full-blown lies to their readers.
The New York Times reported that during the campaign Donald Trump Jr. had met with a lawyer “connected to the Kremlin.”
But he actually talked with Natalia Veselnitskaya… who worked for Fusion GPS, the political dirty tricks firm that Hillary Clinton’s campaign hired to fake-up the dossier.
The Post recycled the lies it was handed, too.
The D.C. paper, owned by Jeff Bezos, smeared former Attorney General Jeff Sessions with a fraudulent allegation of collusion.
The newspaper said that Sessions met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential campaign to plot against the Democrats.
But Sessions actually met with Kislyak because he was still a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Accurate or not, the two papers couldn’t stop praising themselves for the incredible job they did spreading lies about Donald Trump.
The Times told its readers that its reporters won “the national reporting award for changing the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 election.”
The Post bragged that its stories had “altered America’s political landscape” and “helped set the stage for the special counsel’s ongoing investigation of the administration.”
But Mueller’s investigation isn’t ongoing anymore. After wasting millions of dollars, he finally closed up shop and admitted that he couldn’t find a shred of evidence that President Trump or his campaign had colluded with anybody in the Russian government.
It was all a huge lie…and the media’s self-congratulations look like a sick joke.
Tucker Carlson called the international award “a monument to human absurdity.”
The only problem is that “the Times and the Post don’t get the joke. They have no plans to return their prizes. They think they did a great job.”
Conservatives say they need to hand the prize—and the money—over to real news outlets.
A Wall Street Journal article said the papers had proved Trump’s claims they were fake news.
“No unverified rumor was too salacious and no anonymous tip was too outlandish to print” – just as long as it made Trump look illegitimate.
New York Post writer John Crudele asked, “Are the New York Times and the Washington Post going to return the ill-gotten Pulitzer Prizes the two papers received for their coverage of the nonexistent collusion between President Trump’s administration and the Russians?”
But some bitter Trump-haters won’t give up their belief that, somewhere, somehow, Trump worked with Vladimir Putin.
Never Trumper and CNN commentator David Frum knocked the Wall Street Journal’s article, which “blasts the Pulitzer-winning reporting by NYT and WashPo of Russia’s interference in 2016 US election. Cites not a single error in that reporting. Not a single one. Is there such a thing as an anti-Pulitzer?”
WSJ oped blasts the Pulitzer-winning reporting by NYT and WashPo of Russia's interference in 2016 US election. Cites not a single error in that reporting. Not a single one. Is there such a thing as an anti-Pulitzer? https://t.co/tx25MuZ1wL pic.twitter.com/rt6OlYKwWV
— David Frum (@davidfrum) March 26, 2019
Rest assured that the media will keep their prizes tightly within their own cozy little circle of Ivy League liberals—but the facts will always come out.
Donald Trump has been exonerated of collusion.
Now President Trump and every American patriot must turn their full attention to “an even more important issue,” according to Crudele. “Is the NYT ever going to follow through on the inconvenient — but Pulitzer-worthy — story about our government spying on Trump?”
If the Times ever pursued that story, it might actually deserve a Pulitzer Prize.
Frank Holmes is a reporter for The Horn News. He is a veteran journalist and an outspoken conservative that talks about the news that was in his weekly article, “On The Holmes Front.”