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

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

so, it is not just a "new york times." news organizations have been struggling with how do you cover where we are politically without always having to get those calls that somehow the coverage is in opposition to the republican party as opposed to just covering what is happening. >> i agree with you that other news outlets are struggling with this as well, these dynamics. there are some who hear about this who say, this is liberal intolerance. what happened to free speech? meet more free speech with more speech? that's a bedrock idea. are you saying that it's -- that bedrock idea doesn't hold up anymore? >> well, free speech is not that i as a sitting senator or i as someone sitting in my living room has the right to run my opinions in "the new york times" unedited and unchecked. that's not what free speech is. senator cotton certainly has the write and say what he wants in this country but we as a news organization should not be oning something offering misinformation to the public unchecked. yes, we absolutely believe his

this is mob rule at "the new york times." , 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 that he expressed in that column, according to a morning consult poll, that is apparently what is putting "new york times" over the edge and causing this whole debacle. it is really another example of the left saying, the quiet things out loud. we all have known about the media bias for years. now we're seeing it plate out with our own eyes. elizabeth: you know "the new york times" also ran an opinion piece by the leader of turkey, the strong man dictator there, erdogan. he is the second worst in the world, his regime is the second worst in the world for locking up journalist. "the times" ran an opinion piece by him. let's listen to senator tom cotton now demanding "the new york times" destrack a quote smear that he says

"the new york times"' reporting and all other subsequent news reports about such an alleged briefing rate. former dni richard grenell said, it's inaccurate, stop politicizing intelligence. joining us tonight, our guest says "the new york times" has blood on their hands for even publishing the fictional story. congressman jim banks, an active officer in the navy reserve who served in afghanistan. congressman, great to have you with us. this is more idiocy from "the new york times". at some point you would think they would become somewhat embarrassed by their unnamed sources and their propensity to report absolute claptrap. >> you would think so, lou, but obviously not. if this is a despicable hit piece by "the new york times" published on friday with one clear intention, and that's to damage president trump as we get closer to election day by rehashing the russian-trump collusion hoax narrative that the american people have have grown so tired of. the democrats, on the other hand to, they took the bait. they jumped the gun on friday, and it's confusing as you already mentioned to keep

allegations altogether and called them baseless so what were these specific claims made by the new york times well in the article of the times claimed that the united states had proof that they've had since early as january that russia was paying taliban linked fighters to target u.s. coalition forces and that they had killed 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 they were under duress when they were allegedly claim that the attacks were carried out by taliban linked militants now their report 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 and it hosted talks with the delegate

it's not the first time that the new york times capitulated to mo mob pressure, even in the last yearremember 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-year-olds who are raised on social justice seminars on our camp

"new york times" facing backlash even from their own staff because their paper ran a column by senator sean cotton. now tonight to "the new york times" is responding again and we will have that for you in just a moment when we speak with him. we began tonight with the investigation into who is backing and inciting the riots that we have seen over the last ten days. at least 12 people have been killed in the riots following the death of george floyd. active homelands secretary joins me now. thank you for being here. we heard that the attorney general was talking today about the instigators, these groups that be he believes that there is evidence to suggest they are involved in wanting to sow the seeds of chaos, so they use these moments and these opportunities to continue to sort of wreak havoc. what can you tell us about the evidence? and exactly which groups and entities this evidence is pointing towards? >> thank you, martha. the attorney general is exactly right. what we see as we see groups like antifa and other extremist groups within the protest and what we are doing is they will

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

. >>> 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

that was me then so here i have now 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

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 cons 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 the erotic 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 cutting takes to heart what george floyd's family was calling for in the article maria bartiromo the h

new york times journalist, that was just beyond the pale, they wouldn't even think of giving any timelike tom cotton. so i would argue the new york times journalist, although maybe when i wrote my book they acted not quite as left as the average democrats in congress. now they're acting even more left than the average democrats in congress. >> but doesn't that demonstratunderscore one of the points in your book edits eating worse and worse, less in terms of diversity and tolerance and more ideological? >> yes, i agree so people are getting their information from the mainstream media but they have no idea what's going on on the other side. >> one little anecdote on this, there's a scholar named john who is a professor at columbia university, i would call him something of a right-leaning moderate. he's an afghan american man and he wrote about the police killings and he said yes, i'm not sure the police are racist, but where are the names of the white people being killed. he said i think there really is a problem. after he said that though, people sent in here are the white people kille

new york. look at this new york times headline, the editorial board of the new york times writes this to de blasioen your eyes. the police are out of control. what can governor cuomo do about it at this point? and rudy, i mean, these thousands on the streets of new york city for a tenth day in a row, how much longer can this go on? >> it can't go on for much longer. they have been peaceful. they were yesterday. they were the day before. it does put a tremendous strain on the police department and the idea that the police department and the new york times -- the police department is out of control is totally crazy. it's complete construct of the left. it's like the hysteria they created over police brutality and last year only nine black men -- unarmed black men were shot by police officers. 20 white men were. and blacks were killed 99% of the time by other people, civilians. 80% black and then everybody else. so basically police brutality when it happens is shocking and terrible but it's not at all -- it's not even close to systemic. it's very rare, actually. that's just the truth. that's not raci

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

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 contact me immediately to have any trigger warnings don't worry i will find a safe spacewa for you. "the news york times" made itself a laughingstock but this is no laughing matter. the cancel culture brightens the very principles of free inquiry and open debate upon which our society is based. you see other manifestations of the cancel culture all across the country today. many cases they have that thought did the >> of a mop in the french revolution. trying tog completely erase our culture and our history. unfortunately the democrats want to be the rogue speier for this mob. look at what's happening in seattle. revolutionaries anarchist have taken over city government buildings. they have taken over neighborhoods. they have declared themselves an autonomous zone.

liz: welcome back the editor of the new york times editorial page james bennett has resigned after newublishing 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 call. apparently

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 force that is threatened our partners, mr. become connell said, aid for other top republicans either declined to comment or d

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.

the opinion editor of the "new york times" is stepping down amid back lash about an op-ed by senator on. a 180 by the paper. has the time given into liberal critics yet again? >> ♪ >> harris: another "new york times" controversy is making headlines. an editor quit among reports of outrage about an op-ed about the republican senator tom cotton calling for the government to call in troops as a last resort for rioting. that forced the newspaper to did a 180. senator cotton called out the decision. >> the "new york times" asked me to explain that comment i made and they defended and the mob in their newsroom demanded it be taken down. it turned into a struggle session. >> harris: joining me is josh, politics editor for the national journal. are they having a crisis in terms of what meets the standards for an opinion that the journalists are involved in that or something else. i never thought i would see the day where cotton would be a stronger advocate for liberal values than the "new york times." this is the left's version of fake news. a staffer at the "new york times" didn't agree with

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" report with 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

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 upon who's in power what pub

call the piece a deliberate dissent from ation saturday all to solve the taliban denying the new york times article to. spin taking a closer look at the piece in question and asks who could benefit from its 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 and desist the claims are said to be based on interrogations of captured afghan militants at least in part the article says well because less than in part well would be nothing at all really the alleged culprits is the same russian intelligence unit that is accused of this elsberr

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 on the economy. penn everything hobble the economy for years. saying he disagrees that the shut down in the first place, as downturn will dramatically affect businesses big and small. million oklahoma, you support shutting down again. why, what is happening. guest: 411 uncl four where i lin oklahoma, on saturday we had an increase of like 2200. in 25 cases or something, where i live, no one wears masks or gloves. everyone pretty much just acts

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

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 only to defund 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 horrors. if you want to know what's going on a city in the streets you want to see. it is so you like to see the rises the joys of state and city employees drone strikes mass graves city displays systemic deception is to late show which days i will be so when the job is. welcome i want to watch a lot i robot and i'm going to 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 bring 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 $1000000000.0

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.

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 moisture off of boots cotton treated the issue with the new ones in 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 resig

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 new york times, including journalists, newsroom staffers, say that's not the case. there are not two equal sides. they said that this opinion piece was actually dangerous. to say send in the troops was a ridiculous overreaction and was dangerous for african-americans in this country. so the argument you're seeing in the "new york times" is about whether there are many more than two sides. where one side is most important to amplify and other sides should not be given as much attention. that's the argument. that's the fight. a lot of folks like tom could the only say it is a bunch of liberals overreand acting like children. that was his response. it

it was me on this newscast on this very set 4 months ago now 4 months later the new york times is admitting that the so-called election fraud conclusion was flawed. by then in what appears to be a case of double speak the times is now also writing that it doesn't really mean that the election in bolivia was free and fair by the way and they cite a source who says quote there was fraud we just don't know how much which if you'll pardon me for the journalistic comparison here is like saying that there is no proof that i rick sanchez have beaten my wife but there is 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 our own here in america is without criticism. one more question what happens now does the elected guy president evo morales does he get his office back should he. this is the news with rick sanchez again covering a story you will simply not see covered on c.n.n. or fox or the b.b.c. or n.b.c. . because we believe it's time to do news again. part here we go the list of the question

some new york times employees flooded social media to claim their bosses had risked reporters physical safety with a senator's scary words. outside left, the paper for airing the argument. the times itself began lying about senator cotten said. the pavers on twitter account as claimed he called for a crackdown on peaceful protest. when he distinguished them, from violent writers. known opinion writer called his view fascist. in claiming an upside the boundless a legitimate debate. remember this is a sitting senator discussing a proposition that have majority support from the american people. discussing power that congress and the president 213 years ago and wish presence in the past have exercised. all but the facts cannot hold a candle with hard feelings. hurt feelings. the new york times said previously by making people confront and different viewpoints. it hurt their feelings. by making them confront a different viewpoint. they had to atone. so the dust settles, the senior editor was gone and his deputy reassigned. the piece was holdout of the print edition and wandering multi- para

you are i mean this is the new york times. are saying. you know thin sources. it's horrible to know a lot of all this i mean by one this is the new york times response to be the record no of the other really and article doesn't really spells of. i how it gets into our was generated out so personally it was based at least somewhat on speaking with criminals in afghanistan military taliban etc but that doesn't actually seem that reliable there can't be a leadership has denied the story of the russians have also tonight the story and also over the past 34 years we've seen no u.s. intelligence agencies have been highly politicized and so we don't necessarily have as much faith in their assertions as we did before of course there's an election coming up in this is a very you know tightrope story because it helps to promote your trope that he that trump is in cahoots with him because a lecture trump knew about these bounties but didn't try to punish russia in any way and so certainly there's a partisan impulse to promote this story even though we get it seems to rest

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

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 champagne a c. they now claim there were so many irregularities that no 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 your yes 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