Why did Washington Post change its story about Kushner and his meetings with diplomats?

Paul Sperry:
Trump senior adviser Jared Kushner privately met with dozens of officials from a wide range of nations as part of his role during the campaign and transition as conduit to foreign governments. But the liberal media, led by The Washington Post, have zeroed in on only one of those countries: Russia.

Why? Because the “Russia stole the election” narrative helps them explain how a political novice like President Trump could beat the seasoned Democratic candidate they’d anointed to carry President Barack Obama’s torch, Hillary Clinton.

In fact, the WaPo knew Kushner served as the official “primary point of contact” with the Russians and other foreign ambassadors as early as Feb. 10, when it published a fairly flattering story about him serving as “a shadow diplomat” in talks with “more than two dozen countries.”

The February story noted that Kushner had secretly met with foreign officials in New York and even established “back-channel communications” with other nations. But back then it portrayed the off-the-grid talks as healthy, because Kushner was “a moderating influence” among what it viewed as foreign-policy “extremists” in the new White House.

“Some of the leaders who have dealt with Kushner said they were initially skeptical but found him to be a good listener and courteous intermediary who quickly intuits the core of their issues,” the paper reported.

But then, as the manufactured “Russiagate” conspiracy was fizzling, the WaPo published its sensational May 26 story that made it seem as if there was something nefarious about what the paper three months earlier had known Kushner was doing. This time, his private, back-channel meetings with Russia were cast in a dark and sinister light.

The Washington Post also based its story last week on an anonymous letter. That’s right: It has no idea who wrote it.
The Washington Post like CNN and others in the liberal media are so deep in the fever swamps of a conspiracy theory that they can't see the fallacy of their own narrative.  If Kushner was having a conversation in December after the election about setting up a backchannel, that is pretty strong evidence that there was not one during the campaign.  If there were there would be no need for the one discussed in December.  The media is being blinded by its own bias.


Popular posts from this blog

Democrats worried about 2018 elections

Obama's hidden corruption that enriched his friends

The Christmas of the survivors of Trump's first year in office?