The Washington Post is refusing to publish the entire response of former President Donald Trump to their massive investigative report on the Jan. 6 riot, which they published on Monday.
“Before, During, and After the Attack” pulls together narratives from law enforcement, Democratic investigations of the riot, reporters, participants, and experts. Some of its conclusions are controversial.
- Before the riot, alerts were raised by local officials, FBI informants, social media companies, former national security officials, researchers, lawmakers, and tipsters.
- The U.S. Capitol Police had been tracking threatening social media posts for weeks but was hampered by poor communication and planning.
- For more than three hours, the president resisted entreaties from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, other Republican lawmakers, and numerous White House advisers to urge the mob to disperse, a delay that contributed to harrowing acts of violence.
- The FBI was forced to improvise a plan to help take back control of the Capitol
There are numerous accusations in the Post report, and yet the newspaper refused to post the president’s full response as provided by Trump spokesman, Taylor Budowich, including what the newspaper called, “unrelated, inflammatory claims” that it didn’t see fit to publish.
The Post noted that Budowich said the former president “greatly objected” to all of the newspaper’s findings, dismissing it as “fake news” and describing people who carried out violence at the Capitol that day as “agitators not associated with President Trump.”
The full statement the Post decided not to include also stated the 2020 presidential election was rigged, an assertion that has been widely debunked by government officials and office holders from both parties.
Think of all the times the Washington Post and other American news outlets have published statements by terrorists, mass-murdering dictators, and thugs of every stripe. Statements by Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and Chinese Communist thug Xi Jinping are posted uncritically, including numerous lies and prevarications.
And yet an American president can’t be allowed to say what he wants when he’s literally being accused of high treason?
Last week, The Wall Street Journal defended publishing a letter to the editor from Trump that alleged widespread voter fraud in Pennsylvania, but called his claims “bananas.”
“The progressive parsons of the press are aflutter that we published a letter to the editor Thursday from former President Trump, objecting to our editorial pointing out that he lost Pennsylvania last year by 80,555 votes,” the Journal said. “We trust our readers to make up their own minds about his statement. And we think it’s news when an ex-President who may run in 2024 wrote what he did, even if (or perhaps especially if) his claims are bananas.”
The Washington Post is editorializing by not publishing Trump’s full response. It’s a blatant attempt to squelch speech they disagree with, despite the newsworthiness of the source. This is a man who will probably run for president in 2024 and whose words are of intense interest to anyone who still believes that the main object of a free press is to inform citizens of all viewpoints.
The Post may not like it at all, but Donald Trump is a prominent political figure who is supported by tens of millions of Americans. How can anyone accept an “investigation” of what happened on Jan. 6 when the source is so obviously biased?