Recently, as Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard outlined her department's findings that President Barack Obama falsified intelligence reports about Russia's meddling in the 2016 election, CNN cut away.
"This is hardly information that we should even be repeating," National Affairs Correspondent Jeff Zeleny declared. "I'm not sure that we should spend that much more time on it, frankly."
Other mainstream outlets followed suit, with CBS saying Gabbard is "attempting to rewrite the history of Russia's 2016 election interference, accusing former President Obama, without evidence, of manipulating intelligence."
Meanwhile, Gabbard has released hundreds of pages of evidence that have been referred to the Justice Department. And while CBS's Ed O'Keefe admits "Russia did engage in an aggressive effort to influence the 2016 election," the liberal media outlets are ignoring the distinction that it was not to help rig the election for Trump.
Curtis Houck of the Media Research Center says the more the liberal media throws out words like "unsubstantiated," "without evidence," or "falsely claiming," that is a tell that "you're barking up the right tree" – especially in the Trump era.
"It is remarkable to see the liberal media complaining about the Gabbard report and accusing them of looking backwards, when the entire Epstein discourse is looking backwards," he notes.
He says the Epstein files are the media's latest possible white whale to remove Donald Trump from office.
