Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘New York Post’

Mollie Hemingway: When People Claim The Election Was Rigged, They Include Big Tech And Big Media


Mollie Hemingway: When People Claim The Election Was Rigged, They Include Big Tech And Big Media

Federalist Senior Editor Mollie Hemingway said on Fox News Thursday that allegations of a rigged election include big tech and big media conspiring to elect Joe Biden in addition to charges of voter fraud.

“We hear about the rigging of the election,” Hemingway said, “but partly what they mean is the meddling on the part of big media and big tech to affect the outcome of the election.”

Hemingway continued, pointing out that when major revelations about Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, began to surface implicating the former vice president in corrupt and potentially criminal overseas business activity, the stories were suppressed online by Silicon Valley tech giants and delegitimized by legacy media.

“When the New York Post broke the story about these emails,” Hemingway said, referencing the paper’s reporting from an abandoned Delaware laptop expanding the web of Biden’s scandals, “even though they were verified and people who were recipients of these emails verified they were real, the media suppressed that story.”

In October, the New York Post published a series of exposes revealing that Joe Biden stood to rake in millions from Chinese communist leaders, lied repeatedly when denying conversations about his son’s business, and leveraged his high-powered position to benefit the family. A Biden family business partner-turned whistleblower even came forward to corroborate details of the New York Post’s reporting.

The Post’s journalism that made Democrats look bad got the nation’s oldest paper locked out of its Twitter account for two weeks after the platform blocked users from sharing its blockbuster reporting.

Hemingway also pointed out that this week’s news that Hunter Biden is under a federal investigation had already been reported, revealed days before the election.

“We actually also knew that there was an FBI investigation into Hunter Biden before the election except that the media suppressed it,” Hemingway said, depriving the American people of being fully informed when casting their ballots to hand over the country to Joe Biden.

“This meddling on the part of big media and big tech, which banned people from even talking about this on Facebook and Twitter, is a very serious problem and a huge threat to the republic,” Hemingway said.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Tristan Justice is a staff writer at The Federalist focusing on the 2020 presidential campaigns. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.
Photo Grabien screengrab

Daily Beast: Isn’t It Odd That The Hunter Biden Money-Laundering Probe Went “Largely Unnoticed” Until Now?


Reported by ED MORRISSEY | Posted at 11:15 am on December 10, 2020

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/daily-beast-isnt-it-odd-that-the-hunter-biden-money-laundering-probe-went-largely-unnoticed-until-now-2649440096.html/

Largely unnoticed,” purposely ignored, or actively suppressed? The Daily Beast’s reporting team on Hunter Biden’s legal woes sound somewhat surprised that the FBI’s money-laundering probe didn’t get noticed before the election:

The Justice Department’s announcement on Wednesday that it was investigating Hunter Biden, for what he deemed to be “tax affairs,” took root several years ago with a much broader inquiry that included possible money laundering, according to a report by CNN.

That inquiry reportedly fizzled, leading instead to a probe on tax matters that is now being led by the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware. But evidence of the larger probe was apparent in the markings on a series of documents that were made public—but went largely unnoticed—in the days leading up to the November election, according to two individuals familiar with the matter.

The word “unnoticed” is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting in this sentence. Not only did it get noticed, it got reported by Sinclair TV’s James Rosen a few days before the election. A large number of online outlets — mostly conservative — picked up on Rosen’s report about the FBI’s criminal probe of Hunter Biden, including us. Rosen reported that Tony Bobulinski had cooperated in the probe, and that its focus was money laundering:

A U.S. Justice Department official has confirmed to Sinclair Broadcast Group that a 2019 FBI investigation into Hunter Biden, son of Democratic nominee Joe Biden, is still active.

The 2019 criminal investigation looks into Hunter and his associates on allegations of money-laundering.

Sinclair investigative reporter James Rosen spoke with a central witness in these allegations, who suggested that former vice president Joe Biden knew more than he has acknowledged about his son’s overseas dealings.

That witness was Bobulinski, who went public about Hunter’s business dealings after the Biden campaign tried sloughing him off as a malcontent business partner. Rosen himself addressed this last night:

 

This didn’t go “largely unnoticed.” It was widely noticed, everywhere except in the mainstream media. Why? It started with the New York Post exposé of Hunter’s laptop, which Biden’s team claimed was Russian disinformation and social media platforms actively suppressed:

MacIsaac also said he copied the contents of one of the laptops for Giuliani. And, sure enough, those contents quickly made their way to conservative media personalities and outlets. Giuliani and others, including Steve Bannon, appeared on network television, stirring conspiracy theories and pushing unsubstantiated claims about Hunter’s overseas business dealings.

One of the main outlets pushing emails and pictures from the hard drive was the New York Post. And for one of its stories, the paper published what appeared to be federal law enforcement documents given to MacIsaac in return for his handing over the Biden laptops.

One of those documents—from the FBI— included a case number that had the code associated with an ongoing federal money laundering investigation in Delaware, according to several law enforcement officials who reviewed the document. Another document—one with a grand jury subpoena number—appeared to show the initials of two assistant U.S. attorneys linked to the Wilmington, Delaware, office.

Gee — you mean if media outlets had actually checked the details, they might have found a real story about corruption around Joe Biden? As in, acting like real journalistic organizations and speaking truth to power? The deuce you say. The excuse in this article for failing to report on this — even with Rosen’s report already made public — was that law enforcement wouldn’t comment and the Biden team stonewalled the Daily Beast. But the documents themselves apparently left that very big clue two months ago that they’re reporting …. now.

[Update: That’s too harsh in regard to the Daily Beast, actually. They did try to follow up. That puts them head and shoulders above other media outlets … like, for instance …]

As Glenn Greenwald says — memories …

It’s not just media outlets that should get the heat, either. Twitter and Facebook actively suppressed the New York Post article — and the New York Post itself — for days. Democrats called it Russian disinformation, and both Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey nearly twisted their ankles in a rush to suppress it. Now, and only after Hunter Biden issued a press release acknowledging the accuracy of Rosen’s reporting, have all of these “institutions” suddenly cured their myopia.

The clear conclusion is that the national media didn’t want to report anything detrimental to Joe Biden, no matter how accurate it might have been. Now that the election is over, they’ll tell their readers and viewers that the story went “largely unnoticed” [see update above as to TDB, which did at least notice it] as a passive-voice dodge to avoid responsibility for their active decision to ignore and in some cases suppress it. It’s an utter disgrace.

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – RIP Freedom of Speech

Social media and the mainstream media working hard to smother the Biden corruption scandal.

Social Media Killing Free SpeechPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Let Them Eat COVID

Pelosi is holding back COVID relief in fear if it pasted it might give Trump a win before the election.

Pelosi Holding COVID Relief HostagePolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.

Report: Facebook Hires Chinese Nationals to Censor Platform


Reported by LUCAS NOLAN | 

Read more at https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/10/21/report-facebook-hires-chinese-nationals-to-censor-platform/

Chinese President Xi Jinping, centre, talks with Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, right, as Lu Wei, left, China’s Internet czar, looks on at Microsoft’s main campus in 2015 / TED S. WARREN/AFP

The New York Post reports that a Facebook Insider told the publication that at least half a dozen “Chinese nationals who are working on censorship,” are employed at Facebook. The insider told the Post: “So at some point, they [Facebook bosses] thought, ‘Hey, we’re going to get them H-1B visas so they can do this work.’ ”

The insider provided the Post with an internal directory of the team that does much of the censorship work at Facebook. According to the Post, the job is referred to as “Hate-Speech Engineering” and most of its members are based out of Facebook’s Seattle offices. Many of those working there have Ph.D.s, and their work involves machine learning and AI.

At Facebook, this mainly pertains to teaching the Facebook algorithm to manage what content shows up in users’ newsfeeds. The Facebook insider states that this means making sure certain content “shows up dead-last.” The insider used New York Post op-ed editor Sohrab Ahmari as an example of an average Facebook user, stating: “They take what Sohrab sees, and then they throw the newsfeed list into a machine-learning algorithm and neural networks that determine the ranking of the items.”

Facebook engineers reportedly test hundreds of different iterations of the rankings to determine an optimal outcome and remove what top executives refer to as “borderline content.” The insider stated: “What they don’t do is ban a specific pro-Trump hashtag. Content that is a little too conservative, they will down-rank. You can’t tell it’s censored.”

The Post notes that the employees on Facebook’s Hate-Speech Engineering team earned their degrees from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, Jilin University in northeast China, and Nanjing University in eastern China. Another engineer reportedly worked for Huawei, a company that has been labeled a security threat by the U.S. and Sweden.

The idea of one of America’s most powerful companies using Chinese censorship experts is troubling for reasons beyond the obvious. The Chinese nationals could be in a position to spy on both the company and its users. The National Security blog Lawfare notes that Chinese intelligence law allows the country to deputized any of its citizens into doing intelligence work such as acquiring data. Lawfare writes:

Article Seven stipulates that “any organization or citizen shall support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work according to law.” Article 14, in turn, grants intelligence agencies authority to insist on this support: “state intelligence work organs, when legally carrying forth intelligence work, may demand that concerned organs, organizations, or citizens provide needed support, assistance, and cooperation.” Organizations and citizens must also protect the secrecy of “any state intelligence work secrets of which they are aware.” These clauses appear to limit the obligations on individuals to Chinese citizens, but they do not stipulate that only Chinese “organizations” are subject to these requirements.

A Facebook spokesperson denied that these employees influence the site’s broad policies, stating: “We are a stronger company because our employees come from all over the world. Our standards and policies are public, including about our third-party fact-checking program, and designed to apply equally to content across the political spectrum. With over 35,000 people working on safety and security issues at Facebook, the insinuation that these employees have an outsized influence on our broader policies or technology is absurd.”

Read more about Facebook’s recent censorship scandals at Breitbart News here.

Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or email him at lnolan@breitbart.com

Shocking Fox News Impeachment Poll Debunked by New York Post


Posted By Paul Duke | 

Donald Trump’s last few weeks in office have been quite eventful, to say the least, as House Democrats continue on their push to possibly impeach the 45th President of these United States.

He has weathered this storm before, or at least something fairly similar in the form of Robert Mueller’s “Russia Gate” conspiracy theory.  This time, during the newly christened “Ukraine Gate” scandal, Trump has a much simpler story to massage, free from the nuanced nonsense of Mueller’s probe.

Still, the mainstream media has done a fairly stout job of pinning trouble on Trump during this go-round, even coercing an ugly, impeachment-favoring poll out of Fox News – the shock of which was touted ad nauseam over the weekend in an effort to snowball its results  into something tangible for the liberal left.

The poll itself is coming under some scrutiny, however.

The New York Post released an analysis Saturday, which found Fox News had “mispresented” their poll, suggesting a majority of Americans supported impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Fox News released a poll this week which found that 51 percent of registered voters want President Trump impeached and removed from office, while 4 percent want Trump impeached but want him to stay in office, and 40 percent of voters oppose impeachment. The Fox News poll found that supposedly showed a double-digit increase in the number of voters who wanted Trump impeached and removed from office.

But is that really the case?

However, according to a New York Post analysis, Fox News misrepresented Americans’ alleged support for impeachment.

Braun Research, the pollster firm that conducted the survey, noted that 48 percent of its respondents were Democrats; however, the Post revealed that the “actual breakdown” based on party affiliation is 31 percent Democrat, 29 percent Republican, and 38 percent independent.

The Post noted that, when weighting the poll for party affiliation, would have revealed that only 44.9 percent of Americans, or less than a majority, back impeachment of President Trump. Forty-four percent of Americans oppose impeachment, according to the Post‘s analysis.

As President Trump would say:  “FAKE NEWS!”.

Anti-Oprah Presidential Campaign Having Field Day With Their New Slogan


Reported By Randy DeSoto | January 10, 2018 at 5:58am

The New York Post splashed the word “NOPRAH!” over its front page on Monday in response to the presidential buzz following Oprah Winfrey’s highly publicized speech at the Golden Globes the previous night.

Post columnist Maureen Callahan sought to interject some reality into the elation some have professed at the prospect of a Winfrey presidency.

In her piece, “What does Oprah represent? Fake science, hucksters and greed,” Callahan first noted some of the accolades Oprah received from Hollywood stars.

“I’m on the bus with Oprah,” ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel said.

“I want her to run for president,” Academy Award-winner Meryl Streep added.

Even NBC tweeted a pictured of Oprah with the caption, “Nothing but respect for OUR future president,” which it has since deleted.

Winfrey’s longtime partner Stedman Graham told the Los Angeles Times Sunday night following the Globes, “She would absolutely do it,” when asked about a presidential run.

Callhan’s response is to all the clamor is, “She should absolutely not.”

“Yes, Winfrey is a singular presence in the culture,” Callahan conceded. “She is entirely self-made and a decades-long mover in television, film, publishing and philanthropy. As of 2017, she was one of only two women on Forbes’s Black Female Billionaires list. There is much to admire.”

“But none of this makes her fit to be leader of the free world,” the writer added. “And just because the precedent has been set with Donald Trump — to horrible effect — doesn’t mean the Democrats should run a charismatic celebrity with zero credentials. Not Tom Hanks, not The Rock, not Oprah Winfrey.”

Callahan went on to offer other reasons Americans should think before getting on the Winfrey train. She particularly highlighted Winfrey’s endorsement of books like 2006’s The Secret and New Age gurus including Eckhart Tolle, who preached about vacuous beliefs like “The Power of Now.”

The Washington Post reported while the American public does not know too much about her political views, Winfrey has made some of them known.

She endorsed both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for president. Winfrey also stated that her faith teaches her that God makes people gay, so she supports LGBT rights.

“The God I serve doesn’t care whether you’re tall or short, or whether you were born black or Asian or gay,” Winfrey said of Ellen DeGeneres in 1997. “And so that’s just a difference of belief. And I don’t expect to change your belief today.”

“I believe God created Ellen,” she added. “I believe God did that. Ellen says she’s gay. I believe God created her gay. … I support her right to be who she thinks she is.”

Winfrey also supports increased gun control measures, as she stated in 2013 during a commencement address at Harvard University.

“We understand that the vast majority of people in this country believe in stronger background checks because they realize that we can uphold the Second Amendment and also reduce the violence that is robbing us of our children,” she said. “They don’t have to be incompatible.”

In June of last year, Winfrey told The Hollywood Reporter, “I will never run for public office.”

President Donald Trump stated on Tuesday he does not believe Oprah will run in 2020, but if she did it would be “a lot of fun.”

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: Weinstein’s Pimps: Revenge Of The Ugly Girls


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

Liberalism is a sexual assault protection racket. Judging by the last week’s news coverage, EVERYONE in the liberal universe — Hollywood, the fashion industry, the media and Democratic politics — knew about Harvey Weinstein’s sexual predations and nearly all of them were covering it up.

Liberals circle the wagons to protect fellow liberals. All those sacrosanct laws about rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment are the fire ax behind a glass door: “Break in case of conservative.” Weinstein admitted as much by immediately responding to the accusations against him by offering to donate money to fight the National Rifle Association. (That’s not the thing we’re worried about being cocked and loaded, Harvey.)

According to Ronan Farrow’s comprehensive article in The New Yorker, “(m)ultiple sources” told him how Weinstein bragged that he could use his allies in the press to crush anyone who crossed him.

Longtime editor Tina Brown — ironically, one of Weinstein’s erstwhile clean-up gals — told Charlie Rose: “What I found really unsettling was how many journalists, frankly, were on his payroll. I mean, you know, Harvey would have everyone on his payroll. All the people at the (New York) Post and people in all the tabloids, people writing stuff, entertainment writers, gossip writers.”

I knew the gossip pages were written by PR agents, but I didn’t realize they were written by sexual predators, too. I was curious about exactly who was protecting Harvey and, luckily, I have a Nexis account. The full list would take me well over my word limit, so this column will focus on the tabloid most slavishly devoted to protecting Weinstein’s good name: the New York Post.

Farrow’s sources cited as their proof of how Weinstein could dirty up an accuser the coordinated tabloid attacks on Italian model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez after she reported Weinstein’s assault on her to the police in 2015. According to the detailed, heavily sourced and, apparently, 100 percent accurate account given by Farrow, 22-year-old Gutierrez met Weinstein at a Radio City Music Hall reception. The next day, Weinstein requested that Gutierrez come to his Tribeca office, “as soon as possible,” according to her agent. The moment she walked into his office, Farrow reports, Weinstein “began staring at her breasts, asking if they were real … then lunged at her, groping her breasts and attempting to put a hand up her skirt while she protested.”

Several things happened next.

No. 1:

As she was leaving, Weinstein offered Gutierrez tickets to his show “Finding Neverland” that night, saying he’d be there. But instead of using the tickets, Gutierrez went straight to “the nearest police station.” We know she didn’t attend the show because, when Weinstein called her later to complain that she hadn’t come, she happened to be sitting with Special Victims detectives, who recorded his call.

This is how the New York Post headlined Gutierrez’s non-attendance at “Finding Neverland”:

HARVEY ‘GROPE’ GAL’S BIG SHOW

Attended Weinstein’s Broadway play the day after accusing him (EXCLUSIVE)

— Mara Siegler, Jamie Schram, Emily Smith and Danika Fears, New York Post, April 1, 2015

The U.K.’s Daily Mail repeated the claim in its headline — citing the Post as its source: Harvey Weinstein model used the $227 ticket he gave her to see his Broadway show the day AFTER she alleged he groped her … ‘despite knowing he would be at the theater’

No. 2:

The next day, Gutierrez wore a police wire to a meeting with Weinstein at the Tribeca Grand Hotel. As she stood intransigently outside his hotel room, Weinstein implored her to come in, promising, “I’m not gonna do anything. I swear on my children.” Thanks to Farrow’s reporting, the taped conversation is now available everywhere.

Key exchange:

Gutierrez: Why yesterday you touch my breast?

Weinstein: Oh, please. I’m sorry. Just come on in. I’m used to that.

Gutierrez: You’re used to that?

Weinstein: Yes, come in.

Gutierrez: No, but I’m not used to that.

Weinstein: I won’t do it again.

Here’s the New York Post’s description of the meeting where Weinstein — according to his admission — grabbed Gutierrez’s breast:

SHE TRIED TO REEL & DEAL (EXCLUSIVE)

Squeezed Harvey for movie role

Stalled grope claim during talks

— Jamie Schram, New York Post, April 3, 2015

No. 3:

The police working the case believed they had more than enough evidence to prosecute Weinstein. Farrow quotes a detective who was actually “involved in the operation,” saying: “We had the evidence.” The source added, “It’s a case that made me angrier than I thought possible, and I have been on the force a long time.”

Another police source recently told The Daily Beast’s Michael Daly that they’ve convicted subway gropers on far less evidence.

Here is how the New York Post reported the police’s attitude toward the case at the time, quoting not officers “involved in the operation,” but random “law-enforcement sources”:

“Some law-enforcement sources say her allegations will be difficult to prove, since there were no cameras in Weinstein’s office. …

“‘There’s no physical evidence. In a nutshell, there’s no corroboration of her story.’”

— Mara Siegler, Jamie Schram, Emily Smith and Danika Fears, New York Post, April 1, 2015

No. 4:

The police sting capturing Weinstein’s admission was soon leaked to the press.

The U.K.’s Daily Mail came clean, announcing in its headline: “‘There’s no question he did it’: Harvey Weinstein ‘did not deny groping Italian model in phone sting set up by police’”

Even a radio station in Columbus, Indiana, reported on the police sting.

Not the New York Post! For the first time that week — the day newspapers around the world were bristling with news about Weinstein’s taped, incriminating comments — the Post had zero Harvey Weinstein news.

The Post did briefly mention the operation a few days later at the end of a Jamie Schram article, full of sneering about Gutierrez’s alleged attendance at Weinstein’s play after she was groped (she did not attend), and referring to the model’s “ties to disgraced former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.”

Gutierrez’s “ties” to Berlusconi consisted of her immediately reporting a Berlusconi orgy to the police. She was there, but had not participated.

No. 5:

About a week later, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. decided not to prosecute. The International Business Times reports that, soon thereafter, David Boies, an attorney for the Weinstein Company, contributed $10,000 to Vance’s political campaign. Boies and other Weinstein lawyers, including defense attorney Elkan Abramowitz, have donated a total of about $200,000 to Vance’s political campaigns.

As a police source recently told Daly, “When you say no after a week, it’s not usually over the facts.”

The New York Post’s headline on D.A. Vance’s decision not to prosecute:

It’s ‘grope’ fiction:

DA: No paw rap on Harv as doubts dog model

— Rebecca Rosenberg and Jamie Schram, New York Post, April 11, 2015

This story again repeated the false claim that Gutierrez “wasn’t upset enough by the alleged groping to surrender a primo seat for Weinstein’s new Broadway show — which she attended less than a day after the incident.”

In her interview, Tina Brown explained exactly how Weinstein controlled reporters: “If there was any stirring of a negative story, Harvey would offer them a book contract, a development deal, a consultancy, and they used to succumb. Journalists are often short of money, and they were also very star-struck with the world that Harvey offered, which was movies and Hollywood.”

So what DID the bitter gossip girls get? Did Mara Siegler, Jamie Schram, Danika Fears or Maria Wiesner end up with phony “consultancies,” “book contracts” or “movie options” with Weinstein’s companies? (Paging the IRS!)

The only other explanation is that the Weinstein-compliant scandal sheets illustrate the oldest primal urge, one even more basic than the compulsion that drove Weinstein: Ugly girls taking their revenge on pretty girls.

Book Claims Hillary Clinton Had Explosive Oval Office Meeting With Obama Over Email Scandal: ‘Call Off Your F***ing Dogs, Barack!’


Posted by

A new book by Edward Klein claims Hillary Clinton exploded at President Barack Obama during an Oval Office meeting over her emails, telling him to “call off your f**king dogs,” the New York Post reported.

In this Jan. 25, 2013 file image taken from video and provided by CBS, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speak during "60 Minutes" segment in Washington. (Image source: AP)

The Post said it obtained an excerpt of the book, “Unlikeable: The Problem with Hillary,” which is set to publish next Monday and indicates the former secretary of state believed Obama aides were behind leaks that led to multiple investigations of her. But her husband, former President Bill Clinton, reportedly didn’t want her to meet with Obama.

During the meeting, according to the book, Obama acted as though he didn’t know what Hillary was talking about. “He was almost being deliberately dense,” a Clinton source noted, the Post added. “It really angered her.” This allegedly led to Clinton breaking with White House decorum — calling Obama by his first name — and dropping the F-bomb.

“What I want for you to do is call off your f**king dogs, Barack!” the book claims Clinton yelled at Obama, citing sources close to Clinton and Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, the Post said.

Apparently, the president was sufficiently shocked by Clinton’s alleged outburst, so he needed a moment to compose himself.

“There is nothing I can do for you one way or another,” he allegedly responded. “Things have been set in motion, and I can’t and won’t interfere. Your problems are, frankly, of your own making. If you had been honest —”

The book says Clinton cut off Obama — “There are always haters out there to get the Clintons” — and then later regretted her behavior, but only because of the weakness she showed.

Nick Merrill, Clinton’s spokesman, told the Post that Klein’s claims are “bulls**t.”

“Another book? Someone should do a book about Ed,” Merrill told the paper. “They could call it ‘Bulls**t: The Problem With Anything Ed Klein Writes.’”

“The only true thing about him is his consistent and utter lack of a relationship with the facts,” Merrill continued to the Post. “He has more hair than credibility, and the man is bald. So we’re not going to get down in the gutter with him and his outrageous fabrications.”Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

Klein has authored numerous political-insider books and is the former foreign editor of Newsweek, former editor-in-chief of The New York Times Magazine, and a contributing editor of Vanity Fair.

This story has been updated.

95b119e45c50cbea1e7a4fbfa33415f3 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: