Another Anti-Trump Story Retracted

 

There’s a long list of anti-Trump stories which have fallen apart. Examples are the Russian collusion, Charlottesville, the Ukraine conversation, slandering wounded troops, etc. Now the “subverting Georgia’s election” fable has been retracted by the Washington Post. It’s almost as if they don’t care what’s the truth. A retraction two months later is close to worthless.

Published in Politics
Tags:

This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 52 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Django (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

     

     

     

    Rufus, but the seriousness of the charge. Come on, man!

    You know Trump would have been a dictator if not for a bunch of laws and Constitutional limitations and stuff. Just admit it.

    But, … We were told by NTs that Trump did not believe the Constitution applied to him. You mean that joker was following it all along!

    They were confused because of never having an example of someone on THEIR side following the Constitution.

    • #31
  2. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    OldPhil (View Comment):
    They only found it (in the Sec’y of State’s employee’s “trash” folder) after a public records request.

    Wow.

    So that Sec’y of State employee is in prison right now, I presume?

    Fired for incompetence, if nothing else:  does NOBODY know that putting something in the “trash” doesn’t really delete it?

    • #32
  3. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    Cow Girl (View Comment):

    This is just so obnoxious! I truly hope that Mr. Private Citizen Donald Trump sues the WashPo and Bezos.

    Now that they have printed the retraction, its hard for him to sue for libel. Its one of the ways out.

    Even when “the damage is done?”

    • #33
  4. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Django (View Comment):

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    I wonder how many times was this lie cited as truth on “center-right” podcasts a lot of us listen to.

    I wonder if the retraction will even be mentioned.

    I think we can expect at least some of them to parrot Dan Rather:  “False, but accurate.”

    • #34
  5. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    I wonder how many times was this lie cited as truth on “center-right” podcasts a lot of us listen to.

    I wonder if the retraction will even be mentioned.

    I think we can expect at least some of them to parrot Dan Rather: “False, but accurate.”

    Reminds me of something I heard years ago on NPR: Fiction in support of a higher truth. 

    • #35
  6. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    I wonder how many times was this lie cited as truth on “center-right” podcasts a lot of us listen to.

    I wonder if the retraction will even be mentioned.

    I think we can expect at least some of them to parrot Dan Rather: “False, but accurate.”

    After they point out that the big story is Republicans “seizing” on this issue to further their nefarious goals.

    • #36
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    I wonder how many times was this lie cited as truth on “center-right” podcasts a lot of us listen to.

    I wonder if the retraction will even be mentioned.

    I think we can expect at least some of them to parrot Dan Rather: “False, but accurate.”

    After they point out that the big story is Republicans “seizing” on this issue to further their nefarious goals.

    And “pouncing.”  Don’t forget “pouncing.”

    • #37
  8. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Never Trumpers! Come out to Play! 

    • #38
  9. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Richard Easton: A retraction two months later is close to worthless.

    It’s worthless to be sure, but why would they retract it in the first place?  The MSM doesn’t care about lying, so what do they gain by admitting they made a mistake?  There’s an old expression, “Follow the money.”  Perhaps we need a corollary that says, “Follow the political power” . . .

    • #39
  10. DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone Member
    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    I wonder how many times was this lie cited as truth on “center-right” podcasts a lot of us listen to.

    I would love a series of mea culpas, but did you ever notice that the chattering class doesn’t do that? They can spread a lie for weeks, and when it’s revealed to be false, just move on to the next topic as if nothing happened? And yes, I include several of our Ricochet-hosted podcasts in that. 

    • #40
  11. DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone Member
    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Stad (View Comment):

    Richard Easton: A retraction two months later is close to worthless.

    It’s worthless to be sure, but why would they retract it in the first place?

    As mentioned above, cover for any libel suit.

    • #41
  12. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    I wonder how many times was this lie cited as truth on “center-right” podcasts a lot of us listen to.

    I would love a series of mea culpas, but did you ever notice that the chattering class doesn’t do that? They can spread a lie for weeks, and when it’s revealed to be false, just move on to the next topic as if nothing happened? And yes, I include several of our Ricochet-hosted podcasts in that.

    When the WSJ reported on this five days ago (“Trump Call to Georgia Lead Investigator Reveals New Details: Then-president says ‘Something bad happened’ and presses for investigation into Fulton County votes.”) it did not issue a retraction over previous reporting. Instead it evaded the issue and spun it to be damning against Trump.  It also gave a link to a recording of the phone call, but from the comments it isn’t clear that anybody listened to it.

    I’m pretty sure the link is behind a paywall, but I can send a working link via e-mail to anyone who is interested. 

    I could leave a comment asking if they’re planning to do a retraction on previous reporting, but the four days for comments have expired. (I take the four-day limit to indicate the shelf life of anything they report.)

    • #42
  13. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    I wonder how many times was this lie cited as truth on “center-right” podcasts a lot of us listen to.

    I would love a series of mea culpas, but did you ever notice that the chattering class doesn’t do that? They can spread a lie for weeks, and when it’s revealed to be false, just move on to the next topic as if nothing happened? And yes, I include several of our Ricochet-hosted podcasts in that.

    When the WSJ reported on this five days ago (“Trump Call to Georgia Lead Investigator Reveals New Details: Then-president says ‘Something bad happened’ and presses for investigation into Fulton County votes.”) it did not issue a retraction over previous reporting. Instead it evaded the issue and spun it to be damning against Trump. It also gave a link to a recording of the phone call, but from the comments it isn’t clear that anybody listened to it.

    I’m pretty sure the link is behind a paywall, but I can send a working link via e-mail to anyone who is interested.

    I could leave a comment asking if they’re planning to do a retraction on previous reporting, but the four days for comments have expired. (I take the four-day limit to indicate the shelf life of anything they report.)

    That should also mean, then, that anything they don’t correct within 4 days, stands.  Including for purposes of lawsuits.

    • #43
  14. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Richard Easton: A retraction two months later is close to worthless.

    It’s worthless to be sure, but why would they retract it in the first place?

    As mentioned above, cover for any libel suit.

    Has anyone threatened?  They could still sue . . .

    • #44
  15. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Stad (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Richard Easton: A retraction two months later is close to worthless.

    It’s worthless to be sure, but why would they retract it in the first place?

    As mentioned above, cover for any libel suit.

    Has anyone threatened? They could still sue . . .

    I sure don’t see how “Oops, my bad” this long after so much damage was already done, could clear one of libel etc.

    • #45
  16. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Richard Easton: A retraction two months later is close to worthless.

    It’s worthless to be sure, but why would they retract it in the first place?

    As mentioned above, cover for any libel suit.

    Has anyone threatened? They could still sue . . .

    I sure don’t see how “Oops, my bad” this long after so much damage was already done, could clear one of libel etc.

    Didn’t the Warren Court make it almost impossible for a public figure to successfully sue a newspaper, no matter what it printed?

    Nick Sandmann got a couple of out-of-court settlements only because he was not a public figure when he was libeled.

    • #46
  17. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Richard Easton: A retraction two months later is close to worthless.

    It’s worthless to be sure, but why would they retract it in the first place?

    As mentioned above, cover for any libel suit.

    Has anyone threatened? They could still sue . . .

    I sure don’t see how “Oops, my bad” this long after so much damage was already done, could clear one of libel etc.

    Didn’t the Warren Court make it almost impossible for a public figure to successfully sue a newspaper, no matter what it printed?

    Nick Sandmann got a couple of out-of-court settlements only because he was not a public figure when he was libeled.

    Are newspapers immune even if they knowingly print lies for political reasons?  I hope not.

    • #47
  18. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Richard Easton: A retraction two months later is close to worthless.

    It’s worthless to be sure, but why would they retract it in the first place?

    As mentioned above, cover for any libel suit.

    Has anyone threatened? They could still sue . . .

    I sure don’t see how “Oops, my bad” this long after so much damage was already done, could clear one of libel etc.

    Didn’t the Warren Court make it almost impossible for a public figure to successfully sue a newspaper, no matter what it printed?

    Nick Sandmann got a couple of out-of-court settlements only because he was not a public figure when he was libeled.

    Are newspapers immune even if they knowingly print lies for political reasons? I hope not.

    They use the “oops”defense:  they claim they thought the lies were true.  

    Hard to disprove.

    • #48
  19. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Richard Easton: A retraction two months later is close to worthless.

    It’s worthless to be sure, but why would they retract it in the first place?

    As mentioned above, cover for any libel suit.

    Has anyone threatened? They could still sue . . .

    I sure don’t see how “Oops, my bad” this long after so much damage was already done, could clear one of libel etc.

    Didn’t the Warren Court make it almost impossible for a public figure to successfully sue a newspaper, no matter what it printed?

    Nick Sandmann got a couple of out-of-court settlements only because he was not a public figure when he was libeled.

    Are newspapers immune even if they knowingly print lies for political reasons? I hope not.

    They use the “oops”defense: they claim they thought the lies were true.

    Hard to disprove.

    Weren’t there internal memos “leaked” showing otherwise?

    • #49
  20. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Richard Easton: A retraction two months later is close to worthless.

    It’s worthless to be sure, but why would they retract it in the first place?

    As mentioned above, cover for any libel suit.

    Has anyone threatened? They could still sue . . .

    I sure don’t see how “Oops, my bad” this long after so much damage was already done, could clear one of libel etc.

    Didn’t the Warren Court make it almost impossible for a public figure to successfully sue a newspaper, no matter what it printed?

    Nick Sandmann got a couple of out-of-court settlements only because he was not a public figure when he was libeled.

    Are newspapers immune even if they knowingly print lies for political reasons? I hope not.

    They use the “oops”defense: they claim they thought the lies were true.

    Hard to disprove.

    Weren’t there internal memos “leaked” showing otherwise?

    Memos that say “Yep, we were lying”?  Seems unlikely.  

    Probably the best you can go for is “reckless disregard for the truth”.

    • #50
  21. DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone Member
    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone
    @DrewInWisconsin

    You know who knew immediately that the story of the phone call was fake? Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. You know who never said anything in defense of the President? Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

    You know who should be booted from the Republican Party if not immediately removed from his position?

    Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

     

    • #51
  22. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    You know who knew immediately that the story of the phone call was fake? Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. You know who never said anything in defense of the President? Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

    You know who should be booted from the Republican Party if not immediately removed from his position?

    Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

     

    A good title for a book about the Trump Presidency is Cowards and Traitors:  From Jeff Sessions to Brad Raffensperger.

    • #52
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.