quite strong words there from the new york times. what is important is that this is an opinion piece on the front page of the new york times. this is not a news piece, which is what you would expect on the front page of the paper. it is worth reading out, it says, brexit has propelled the nation to its current calamity. basically, it singles out the prime minister for basically, it singles out the prime ministerfor making basically, it singles out the prime minister for making claims basically, it singles out the prime ministerfor making claims going back to what happened, taking us out of europe, a decision that the new york times obviously disagreed with and the way, it is a critique of the way the boris johnson administration has what it feels mishandled and mismanaged the whole coronavirus crisis, taking late decisions, not admitting the mistakes that he has made and then throughout coming in late with the lockdown and now the way the relaxation is being done, actually, probably leading us to another pitfall and maybe even a cala

yes, it looks at the new york times —— the new york times looks at developing countries such as indiae governments are having a very hard choice because they have to choose between the economy and the public health, and because the economic situation everywhere is very difficult and very dire, they opt to open the economy again. but if you look at mexico, i think it was india, sorry. 10,000 new infections a day. russia still sees 8000 new infections a day. so this is quite a scary outlook when you have to choose between the economy and the public health. the pandemic is farfrom being under control. i'm pleased to say that caroline we are learning alsojoined us say that caroline we are learning also joined us now. say that caroline we are learning alsojoined us now. —— caroline wheeler. good to see you. just standing on that new york times story because if this balance between health and the economy when it comes to developing countries, it's just so tough for them to make that call. absolutely. we can see it even in the uk. there's been a phenomenal struggle within government to weigh

it was me then so here i have now to tell you what's going on with the new york times because now 4 months later the new york times is admitting that the so-called election fraud conclusion was flawed that's the word they use in their article but that's not where they leave the story interestingly enough then in what appears like a case of double speak the new york times is writing that it doesn't mean that the election in bolivia was free and fair. and they cite a source who says quote there was fraud we just don't know how much but which is it i mean if you'll pardon me for the journalistic comparison here it's kind of like saying that look there's no proof that i rick sanchez beat my wife but there's evidence somewhere they just don't know how much. by the way by that standard let me also ask this question what election anywhere in the world including ours is perfectly fair and without criticism and one more question. what happens now i mean does that guy the elected official president evo morales does he get his office back and he was seemingly according to the new york times cheated o

" wants to actually have credibility -- i haven't read the sunday "new york times" in years because of stuff like this. i grew up reading the sunday "new york times." i grew up in new york and new jersey. but if they want to have credibility again, they have to start citing where their sources are coming from. let's know who the people are. let's know who's actually reporting it. do they have an agenda? are they making this up? this anonymous stuff has to stop. host: understand the point, john. more from "the new york times" piece about republican reaction in a statement a response to questions senator mcconnell, mitch mcconnell of kentucky said he had long warned about russia's work to undermine american interests in the middle east and southwest asia and noted he wrote an amendment last year rebuking mr. trump's withdrawal of source from syria and afghanistan. the u.s. needs to prioritize defense resources, maintain a regional military presence, and continue to pose serious consequences on those who threaten us and our allies. the taliban and russian mercenary fo

members of the radical house democrats today received a white house briefing following new york timeseporting that russia had paid the taliban to kill our troops in afghanistan. "the new york times" reporting dependent on anonymous sources, reporting that was knocked down in today's intelligence briefing. president trump, the white house, the pentagon, the director of the national intelligence all dismissing "the new york times" report. and they've denied that president trump was ever briefed on those charges. a conclusion that house majority leader steny hoyer today seemed to agree with. >> i also agree with john bolton who said it was inconceivable, from his perspective, that there is not a cause for briefing on this matter of such importance. apparently, that did not happen. i left the white house with the impression -- and the president has said he was not briefed. leave it at that. lou: and leave it at that. the democratic party may do that, but that's not its typical course, is it? the democrat party has managed to destroy its alreadity min you shoulded credibility -- already di

times" staffers in danger. that was a show of solidarity by staffers of the paper. there are times when columns and op-eds in "the new york times" cause controversy, that's sometimes the intent. what makes this difference, i think, is how widespread the reaction was inside "the new york times" with more than 1,000 staffers talking about it in internal chat rooms and by what management then did as a result. because at first "the new york times" editor acknowledged the concerns but tepidly saying i believe in the principle of openness to a range of opinions, even those we may disagree with, and this piece was published in the spirit. james bennett wrote, readers who might be inclined to oppose cotton's position needs to be fully aware of it and reckon with it. the paper said we found a rushed editorial process led to an op-ed that didn't meet our standard. there was a tense town hall meeting with staffers on friday. salzburger said cotton's piece shouldn't run and bennett announced it would not run in print and there wouldn't be as many op-eds in the future. friday evening "the times" added an editor's note to the piece exp

and i find it amazing that in the last 24 hours, the editor of "the new york times" and the publisherork times" have both defended the decision to publish the op-ed, but in the face of the woke mob of woke kids that are in their news room, they took tail and to they ran, and they confessed and said that they were going to go to reeducation camp in cut the number of op-ed said they would run, i will say to the world you are welcome to getting "the new york times" to publish less of the garbage that you see in their pages. >> martha: well, you know, i think as all media outlets strive to show different opinions on their pages, it is interesting that jack dorsey of twitter stopped following "the new york times" as a sign of protest to your piece. also eliot engel who is obviously up for his conversation in new york said that he will not seek the editorial backing of "the new york times," which is interesting, because alexandria ocasio-cortez is the opponent running against impaired who knows that he would've gotten in any way. but to the content that you were writing about, here's the po

this may have been a revolt by journalists at the times that got the column reneged, got benefit pushed out. it's not the first time that the new yorkimes capitulated to mo mob pressure, even in the last year. remember last august, the news division had a front page headline altered after they got backlash on social media, people accused the times of misrepresenting something president trump said in his speech. it turned out to have been taken almost verbatim from his speech. they're making the decisions on the editorial side and journalism side so it seems to be the paper -- this is a concerted effort, not something that is happening piecemeal, it's a definite direction that the paper as a whole is moving in. also, if we're at the time now where americans can no longer have their own opinion, the moment is much more dangerous than we even think as we're battling a global pandemic. it's more dangerous. howard: i'm trying of underscore that here. senator cotton has certainly been using this backlash, let's take a quick look. >> this all goes back to the publisher and his unwillingness to stand up to a bunch of 20-year-olds and 30-yea

claims and even calls the accusations baseless so rachel what were these specific claims made by the new york times well in the article the new york times claims that the u.s. has proof that it's had since as early as january there russia paid taliban linked fighters to go in and target u.s. coalition forces and that it resulted in the death of at least one american now when we take a look at the sources that they used in this article we find that they start by claiming the report is based on conversations with anonymous american intelligence officials they say those officials made their intelligence assessment based on interrogations of captured afghan militants which means that they were under duress when they allegedly claims the claim that the attacks were carried out by taliban linked militants now they're important then goes on to claim that russia was. targeting u.s. forces in 2019 during peace talks between washington and the taliban to try to stir up more chaos in the region and to keep them from achieving peace but if we look back we find that russia was also actively pushing for peace an

. >>> the front page of the "new york times" is not the venue for discussing classified investigation. the white house podium is not the venue for discussing classified investigatioformatio. we're here having a conversation because of an irresponsible anonymous leak to the note. there is no good scenario as a result of this report. who will want to cooperate with the united states intelligence community. who will want to be united stat intelligence community? who wants to be a source or an asset if they know their identity will be disclosed. which allies want to share nifx with out if they are going to be splashed on the front page of a u.s. newspaper. there are two bad scenarios that emerge from this report. number one, this report makes it difficult to come to a consensus on this matter to verify intelligence. and number two, this level of controversy and discord plays correctly in the hands of russia and unfortunately serves their interest. since before president trump assumes office, dangerous leaks seeking to under mine the elected president have been published. according to the

it is inexcusable the failed russian reporting of the new york times and i think it's tim that the new york times and the washington post hand back there pulitzer's. >> why hasn't the president condemned white power. why hasn't he condemned that tweet? >> we want to bring our pan power panel in. thank you both for talking to us . a lot to unpack coming out of the white house press briefing with kayleigh mcenany. let's start with russia. she slammed the new york times saying that there was no consensus made in the intelligence community. therefore to wait for the facts blaming one reporter on exposin a story about the president allegedly being briefed on the scenario that russia had put bounties on u.s. soldiers and u soldiers heads, that not being validated at this point, the president was not briefed on th matter, what say you? >> i guess i will go first. so, the press secretary could not have been more clear here. this is where the reporters her in the room our journalist activist, they are trying simpl to create their own false narrative bring up the russian collusion hoax yet again

it is inexcusable, the failed russia reporting of the "new york times" and i think it's time the "new york times" and also "the washington post" hand back their pulitzers.

everyday pretty new york times and washington post . dean of the new york times hates donald trump. are not objective. how can you stand before all of your viewers here and saying things like objectiveot news. to balance the new york times, you have got to go to something like the daily columns or summing pretty when you resort to the new york times daily. greta: what we read a myriad of papers, wall street journal also in washington times. two papers that are perceived as conservative. the new yorkie times and washington post, those are national newspapers . would rated them to show you what folks in washington, the decision-makers are reading. so that you know how they are getting their information. you can disagree print were not promoting these newspapers . whatletting you know others are reading. and you can disagree with it and call up and voice your opinion. the washington post this morning

this whole point about tom cotton, you remember when the new york times said we can't run that op ed,mber who protested, it wasn't the opinion writers of the new york times, it was the journalists, it was the news writers. the point in my book is that i ask the thought experiment. say you read the content from journalists and you asked the content that instead of knowing it was a new story, what if instead you thought it was a speech by a politician. what would you guess is the ideology of that would be politician and one thing i found my book, i said all the major media to the left, but not quite as left as a mainstream democrat. but the new york times journalist did, i would argue was even less, more left what the average democrats in congress are doing. just watch anytime on c-span whenever there's a major bill, nancy pelosi, steny hoyer, whenever they introduce a bill the democrats will say two hours from the day, the first thing they do is say i give half my retirement to the republican. new york times journalist, that was just beyond the pale, they wouldn't even think of giving

talk of unity reading the new york times these days. this added those outlets are dryindrawing of nude moments, nt floyd. where way past george floyd i guess. were talking about new grievances. a structural evils. into american itself. the police, military, flag, and of course the president, told about the president. actually, what is really about, is the president's voters, the people s who elected him. about the red states like mine. it is aboutiv the people who lie there. the elite media, the mob, they dislike these people. and they want the rest of america to dislike them too. this is why they are telling us that it was not a homicidal cop who killed george floyd. death now is a product of systemic racism we are told. and anyone who does not acknowledge their role in his death, anyone who does not bend and their need to this extreme ideology, is composing in violence. apparently not to bring him for justice for his crimes that we have to define all of the police. there is none no scab that they will not pick at and no controversy the

trillion dollars wasted in afghanistan what is the american media specifically in this case the new york times what is their role in these ongoing wars. that because it came directly from the cia people might not believe it but 60 long detour the new york times in the new york times mainstream media as an establishment media that is to take and defending and extending the interest on the little shrimp particularly their foreign agenda state reporting on international stares from the point of view of a neutral observer and showing a complex or because of the conflict in the drama and america just being another player there pushing an agenda and part of that by the way as george was saying years it adds trump lots of pull troops. out of germany. the start or to go or not be on a use of all these things real power in the united states the one wishing operating under cover of the new york times does not want to see the imperial interests and gender of the u.s. should be meddled with by anyone including someone in the white house this is what their problem has been with this guy should. not that he

over the article i will say in my op ed didn't meet the time standards that far exceeded their standard sen tom cotton setting the record straight about his opinion piece that ran in the new york times after the department's editor is now out of a job new york times editorial page editor and owner defended it in public statements but then they totally surrendered to a woke child mob from their own news around that apparently gets triggered if they're presented with any opinion contrary to their own who you can see james bennett the times a former opinion editor even tweeting about why they ran cottons piece in the 1st place if you actually read the article and sides with peaceful protesters and calls out rioters he suggested president trump call in the troops invoking the insurrection act he can run a part liberal cities like los angeles already called in the national guard after intense looting and rioting happened in several neighborhoods but in the editor's note they cite factual questions like anti fed being part of the mass and the tone of the essay be needlessly harsh when in fact cut and takes to heart what george floyd's family was calling for in the article maria bart

we published op of eds in the new york times before. it was the exact same process. senior leaders of the new york times publicly defended the decision to publish the op ed after this woke mob began to rise up. it was only after another day of in-fighting that they finally back pedaled. they haven't identified any facts that are wrong in the op ed, haven't identified what was so rushed about the process. they only prostated themselves in front of their young children who are acting like children who are acting like kids in a social justice seminar as opposed to acting like grown-ups in the workplace. >> maria: let me get a word on the situation taking place right now. a couple weeks ago we had mayors and governors upset by the lockdown, upset by the shutdown and now we've got all of these people on the ground, protesting, many of whom are peaceful, but is there a worry that they're going to get covid, being so close to each other? >> well, i hope that's not the case. we won't know for a week or two, given the incubation period of the virus. but i think we can say that

this calls cotton to attack the new york times. editorial page editor, a towering figure in one of the most important jobs in journalism, the brother of michael bennett, has now resigned. the publisher of the payment said it was clear in reason days that they needed to make a change. there is been a number of controversies involving bennett and this is the most reason of them so he is stepping down, clearly under pressure. a woman named kathleen kingsbury is taking over. this is after internal revol at one of the biggest newspapers about what opinions, about what points of view should be given space in the newspaper. >> so what does this say about the state of affairs at the "new york times"? >> i think this applies to the "times" and other major newspapers are grappling with, what is important and what is worth amplifying in this era of incredible unrest, and political turmoil and polarization? there's an argument that all speech, of course, should be treated equally and it should all be printed. clearly a lot of staffers at the ne

people who work there decided it was improper to even discuss the constitutional possibility, the new york timesimousine liberals, apparently now it is the paper of mercedes marxist and they are going ahead and acting more like product even more than any u.s. news ever should have. it is disgraceful. lou: when you talk about the division in the new york times newsroom, it is stunning because the reporting is uniform and monolithic despite the rupture in the newsroom, jim hanson as always, good to have you with us. thank you very much. elon musk has had it with amazon for silencing the china virus economic shutdown led by the radical dem mayors in many parts of the country. he tweeted time to break up amazon, monopolies are wrong, this after amazon blocked our experience into new book block because it did not meet its guidelines. the book is called unreported truths about covid-19 and lockdowns. it undercuts some of the perceived popular consensus on the wuhan, china virus. up next the new york times apologizing after the staff and senators published an op-ed by publisher tom hansen and john solo

i might differ with you a little bit 1st the new york times is a private organization it is entitle to print were wishes or not print it had an editor to was in charge of the opinion page it's very important page. and what that editor does is 1st he decides what gets printed and then he decides are facts correct in the article nerves of i sent an op ed piece to the new york times in which i said i know that donald trump never went to college because i put that in the arts it is incumbent upon him to take that out correct or edit it if he allows it so when as for example he published that the end in the end of fatah and yeah. and chief sorry. when they they cut in said that they were responsible for a lot of this well as not a fact correct that's a fraud not a fact he also asserted that the brunt of the violence is delegated against the police that is not a fact so what they added to should have done is ask them to amend that or remove that sentence so the times have every right to ask them to do that and cotton had no knowledge that this group had infiltrated the left wing it's reporte

president or the vice president were ever briefed on this and trump himself labeled the piece of fake news. the news new york times must reveal its anonymous source but they can't do it this person probably does not even exist the article has been slammed by the russian foreign ministry which called the piece deliberate dissin from asian saturday also saw the taliban denying the new york times article artie's it was done after it's a closer look at the piece in question and asks who might benefit from it publication. it's time to blow off the dust that circled around any smear tactics guide book since the last us election but as democrats are looking to wash away the humiliation of 2016 by trying to bring down trump this time they are resorting to the same all narrative that failed them in the 1st place russia gate american intelligence officials have concluded that the russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to taliban linked militants for killing coalition forces in afghanistan the peace rests on the familiar pillars of pulitzer winning journalism anonymous sources that believed concluded an

this is the left's version of fake news. a staffer at the "new york timesree with the column and wanted to squelch the opinion without debating the issues. it's a rejection of liberal values. the mission of the "new york times" is a page for civil discourse and debate. when you have a faction of the newsroom demanding censorship and shutting speech down that's not the type of journal i am familiar with and it's disturbing with the "new york times." >> harris: look at the screen. your title is editor. this is what you do. you have conversations about what makes a publication as an editor. what strikes you to really be the worst part of this for the "new york times"? >> well, i believe a good healthy newsroom has diversity of thought and it looks like america. you have need to have diversity of all kinds in any newsroom. it looks like the diversity of thought especially in an op-ed page and the "new york times" always made it clear they want liberal and conservative views. they want to push the boundaries. this is not like some publications that have a certai

the new norm. the world is driven by shaped. no dares thinks. we are here to ask. welcome back 'd i'm still leave camp the new york times is perhaps best known for helping the united states create kudo's around the world they've hardly ever met a war they didn't love but every once in a while if you pay attention they will later at mit their mistakes digging a little deeper is our very own intelligence failure and. the coronavirus to the anti-police protest to an orchestra playing for thousands of plants news sure is moving fast in 2020 so fast that trusted institutions like the new york times are struggling to keep up with their own articles their slogan after all is all the news that's fit to print not read necessarily i mean who has the time these days they're working harder than usual to make sure the reporting doesn't have any force which you'd think you'd be able to smell in the newsroom but i guess the scent of printing ink overpowers in response to a month of uprising sweeping the country the times opened up their opinion page to arkansas' birdlike sen tom cotton and avian species who survived by licking the moi

at "the news york times." i published an op-ed there that said simply while we respect peaceful protesters we have zero tolerance to looting and rioting. if the police are overwhelmed or outnumbered the national guard and if necessary the federal troops have to restore order. that p support from a large majority of americans if you look at the polls. the editorial page editor admitted publicly, the publisher defended the decision publicly rosethe news york times" up and amended the op-ed be taken down. they demanded the grown-ups or i should say the suppose the grown-ups did run "the news york times" apologize and that's exactly what happened. what could only be called a struggle session and the cultural revolution and the greatest traditions of mao the publisher of "the news york times" fired the editorial page editor and reassigned the deputy editorial editor and apologized. he said we will do much better. the new editorial page editor told the times if you see anything that gives you the slightest pause cont

the media misled millions by jumping the gun and essentially laying it all on morales look at the new york times then burying morality his presidency versus the new york times now a close look at believing election data suggests an initial analysis by the oas that raised questions of vote rigging and helped force and the president was fluent the oas by the way is to stink champ a see they now claim there were so many irregularities that new one could find the truth you're doing a statistical exercise on documents that are falsified the question is not whether the false numbers add up the question is whether the false or not and the it's like the movie inception you know a dream within a dream within a dream except in this case it's apparently election monitoring fraud inside made up statistics inside thick grass and at the end of the day bravo ladies and gentlemen the oas an organization mostly funded by the united states you may be surprised to hear virtually stolen elections sparking a military coup and got rid of a leader that the united states didn't like without falsifying a single vote now

up next the new york times apologizing after the staff and senators published an op-ed by publisher tomhansen and john solomon had of just the news.com with us next. stay with oh, we love our new home. neighborhood's great. amazing school district. the hoa has been very involved. these shrubs aren't board approved. you need to break down your cardboard. thank you. violation. violation. i see you've met cynthia. at least geico makes bundling our home and car insurance easy. and it does help us save a bunch of money. two inches over regulation. thanks, cynthia. for bundling made easy, go to geico.com [shouting]nthia. [clapping and shouting] [cymbals clanging] [knocking] room for seven. and much, much more. the first-ever glb. get 0% apr financing up to 36 months on most models, and 90-day first-payment deferral on any model. we do things differently and aother money managers, don't understand why. because our way works great for us! but not for your clients. that's why we're a fiduciary, obligated to put clients first. so, what do you provide? cookie cutter portfolios? nope. we tailor por

for sharing his thoughts, greenfield then became the brunt of enmity including from "new york times" opinion columnist who replied saying this. free and open discourse carries an implicit within the accepted bounds of democratic society. now the "new york times" has said it won't run senator cotton's essay in tomorrow's print edition as planned. by the way, i want to know what you think. go to my website this hour. smerconish.com. answer this week's survey question. should they be running it in sunday's print edition? now, here are my thoughts. if we choose to disengage we'll fall into a trap established by those parties more interested in division than unity. maybe we can learn a thing or two from a viral video. this is a former nfler who this week published a nine-minute video titled how to have an uncomfortable conversation with a black man. it's been viewed more than 6.5 million times. the video is simple in presentation. it is just him looking straight into a camera addressing from a black man's perspective such thorny issues as white privilege, systemic racism, white on black cr

the editor of "the new york times" editorial page, his name is james bennet, he has resigned after "news" staffers objected to "the times" publishing an opinion piece from republican senator tom cotton on using the military to back up police, to stop rioting, arson, looting and destruction of businesses across the country. also now this, we have number of people dead. 18 people dead, eight of them african-americans in rioting. let's welcome kelly bolar of the independent women's forum. your reaction to this? the criticism comes after "new york times" ran previous opinion pieces from american adversaries including vladmir putin, nicholas nicolas maduro and the taliban. "new york times" staffers didn't complain about that. >> you are absolutely right to point that out, this is mob rule at "the new york times." apparently, those op-eds from terrorists and dictatorships are not too much for these "new york times" journalists to handle but but an op-ed defending united states law from a united states senator, that 5% 8% of american -- 58% of the american population holds the same opinion tha

liz: welcome back the editor of the new york times editorial page james bennett has resigned after newd to the times publishing in the opinion piece from republican senator tom cotton and using the military tobacco police to stop writing, arson and looting and the destruction of businesses acrossry the couny and also now this, we have a number of people dead, 18 people dead, eight african-americans in the writing. let's welcome kelsey boler of the independent women's forum. the previous opinion pieces from american adversaries including vladimir putin, nicolas maduro and the taliban, new york times staffer did not complain about thatat. >> you are absolutely right to point that out, this is bob at the new york times, apparently those op beds from terrorist and dictatorship are not too much for the new york times journalist to handle but an op-ed defending united states law from united states senator that 58% of the american population holds an opinion that amm cotton expressed, 58% of the american population holds the same opinion that he expressed in the column according to a morning

still ahead, the editor of the new york times has resigned after doctors objected to the new york timesce by republican senator tom cotton and he is saying just like lbj, jfk, george h.w. did the used of militaryry to back up the cops d the looting. we will ask kelsey of the independent women's forum where was the new york times outrage after the times ran opinion pieces from the american enemy including vladimir putin, nicolas maduro and the taliban. nicolas maduro and the taliban. that story the new house is amazing. so much character. original crown molding, walk in closets... we do have a ratt problem. ♪ round and round! ♪ with love we'll find a way, just give it time. ♪ at least geico makes bundling our home and car insurance easy. it does help us save. ♪ round and round! ♪ with love we'll find a way, just give it time. ♪ ♪ round and round! ♪ what comes around, goes around. ♪ for bundling made easy, go to geico.com and still going for my best. even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib... ...not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than

that publishes classified material which i in my 15 years at the new york times did as most investigative journalists of the times did right well 1st of all if he's connected if he's tried if he's extradited if he's tried if he's connected there will be an appeal and it will go through the courts of appeals and i think probably go up to the supreme court and of course it depends on who's sitting on the supreme court at the time supreme court now is very very precarious lee balanced keeping to the right if trump gets another term he will solidify that to make those $72.00 right wing majority for decades to come so it depends on who's sitting on the supreme court. so. then once this case is published and decided by the higher courts then there is a precedent for whoever is in power at the time ministration at the time to use that precedent assuming that he loses his appeals julian assange chooses his appeals to go after journalists and. outfits like the new york times should be very very concerned and of course this is a political prosecution a lot of it depends up

joining us now is katey benner, justice department at "the new york times." she and three of her colleagues at "the new york times" broke the story tonight. thank you so much for talking us through this. congratulations on this scoop. >> thanks for having me. >> i am not asking you to comment on your sources, and i do not want to ask you to associate yourself with what i just said in terms of sdny squawking. you are not describing your sources. i don't have any inside information about it. i want to make that clear. but beyond that is there anything i just described that missed the point or got any of this wrong, or is that the basic plot you and your colleagues have been able to describe here? >> yeah, you know, i think you represented a lot of the story really well. one point i think to add is that bill barr believes truly that as the attorney general he does have the right to have strict oversight over the southern district. the southern district is independent not because it is allowed to be by something in the u.s. attorneys manual or statute but simply b

the outlines of the story as first reported by "the new york times" have now been confirmed by nbc news. "the new york times" phrased it this way and each word of this matters. american intelligence officials have concluded that a russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to taliban linked militants for killing forces in afghanistan, including targeting american troops amid the peace talks to end the long-running war there according to officials briefed on the matter. the times reported, quote, the intelligence finding was briefed to president trump. that's the crucial line there, the intelligence finding was briefed to president trump. an awkward phrasing that leaves possibilities. "the washington post" followed "the new york times" reworport h this. russian bounties offered to taliban-linked militants to kill coalition forces in afghanistan are believed to have resulted in the deaths of several u.s. service members, according to intelligence gleaned from u.s. military interrogations of captured militants in recent months. the reporting on this story this weekend lef

it is inexcusable, the failed russia reporting of "the new york times" and times that the "the new york" and also "the washington post" hand back their pulitzers. >> i have a separate question. >> okay. we're going to skip over that back piece because what we really need to get at is the truth. this story today is absolutely huge. "the new york times" reporting it. we are reporting it. "the washington post" is reporting it. what i'm talking about is the fact that russia essentially bribed taliban militants to take out coalition forces in afghanistan. coalition forces equals american lives. american troops. and "the washington post" has reporting that in fact americans were killed because of this. so the question is, was the president briefed of something of this nature? and he says he hasn't. she said he hadn't been and apparently the british briefed in the last week. how did this not rise for the commander in chief to know? there are a lot of questions. i have the pentagon correspondent barbara starr standing by. we heard the same line, she was ready. daniel o'day is with us, as well.

we could lay the evidence out and show time and again the number of stories that "the new york times"uring the russian collusion scandal that were false. but instead, they celebrate intolerance by trying to apologize for allowing a u.s. senator to pose an idea slightly different than maybe its readership had. i don't know where we're going, but they feel like an institution that has moved towards yellow journalism, intolerance and a bias toward limousine liberals. i think that's the only way to look at this. lou: well, and the pulitzer committee has a lot to explain as well handing out pulitzers for false reportings on obamagate. it's outrageous, what they have done and what they continue to do. rod rosenstein finally going before the senate judiciary committee this week. he -- >> yeah. lou: the performance was, i think, somewhat predictable. i do think the idea that he would blame the fbi for keeping him in the dark in so many areas was perhaps a surprise, a novel defense, if you will. your thoughts. enter yeah. listen, he's no harry truman because the buck didn't stop with him at al

the coronavirus to the anti-police protest to an orchestra playing for thousands of plants news sure is moving fast in 2020 so fast that trusted institutions like the new york times are struggling to keep up with their own articles their slogan after all is all the news that's fit to print not read necessarily i mean who has the time these days they're working harder than usual to make sure the reporting doesn't have any force which you'd think you'd be able to smell in a newsroom but i guess the scent of printing ink overpowers in response to a month of uprising sweeping the country the times opened up their opinion page to arkansas' birdlike sen tom cotton and avian species who survived by licking the moisture off of boots hot and treated the issue with the nuanced and sensitive measure it deserves in his editorial entitled send in the troops. after a wave of objections to the articles hysterical tone and reliance on misinformation or the polite term the times updated its website to include an editor's note half the length of war and peace to proceed cottons op ed that's how many words the times needed just to say i didn't mean it they also announced the resign

and now 2nd thoughts about those accusations oh boy the times writes that a new study by independent researchers quote using data obtained by the new york times from the bolivian electoral authorities has found the oas is statistical analysis was itself flawed why because it relied on incorrect data and inappropriate statistical techniques. the election fraud allegations led to violent protests in bolivia and charges against morale is terrorism and sedition braless fled bolivia to mexico city on nov 10th and was granted political asylum replacing him as interim president was janine on yes religious conservative of european descent backed by the united states who stands as a contrast to morality is socialist party and indigenous roots u.s. officials and some academics quickly supported the oas his findings and morality his ouster in fact u.s. secretary of state mike pompei a tweeted back in november quote fully support the for. findings of the oas official report recommending new elections in bolivia to ensure a truly democratic process representative of the people's will the credibility of the electoral system must be restored it's note

activists and defund the police proponents are doing right now just outside city hall in new york city dug to occupy city hall protesters have taken over the city hall park with the new york times noting that what started on a patch of lawn in a few square feet has now taken over most of the park and drawn extensive attention across social media they have one goal and one goal on. too deep on the new york city police department to the tune of $1000000000.00 and it's there in the heart of the real fight for justice and equality we start watching the hawks. if you want to build what's going on a city in the streets. that are so you'd like to see that rises the joys of state and city employees drone strikes mass graves suggest slaves systemic deception is to late show which is our way so when the bill is. welcome i want to watch a lot i robot and i'm in the crowd and joining us today to discuss new york city's occupy city hall movement is jamie tiber good director of development for new york city's new york communities for change thank you so much for joining us jamie a pleasure to have you on. thanks for having me on today. occupy city hall is demanding a $1000000000.00 taken off

we just saw a report from "the new york times" and the last, you know, very recently about money transfers potentially to the taliban from russia. electronic transfers being monitored. there is a lot of new information coming out and i'm just trying to be very careful in the way that i talk about it. >> bill: why don't we see what kayleigh mcenany has to say in about 10 minutes. a lot of time and the briefing room. i know you watched the joe biden press conference. questions like what keeps you up at night, what would you do to prudent and can you get america on the same page. to which ari fleischer tweeted this "the difference between the tenor of the questions with biden compared to trump is striking. after eight years of going easy on obama, for years to being brutal to trump. the mainstream media seems happy to go easy again." was that your observation? >> i think it was a gentle session with biden not really being tested. he wasn't asked anything about the revelations about michael flynn and the discussion of the logan act or anything of that nature. one thing i thought was interestin