New York Times Reporter Admits There Were "Tons" Of FBI Informants Among Those Who "Attacked the Capitol" on January 6th; Mocks Reporters Who Claim They Were Traumatized: "Come on, you were not in any danger."

Project Veritas catches New York Times National Security correspondent Matthew Rosenberg contradicting his published claims and admitting what he really believes and knows about January 6.

This is caught on a hidden camera social interaction sting interview.

NYT National Security Correspondent, Matthew Rosenberg, contradicts his own January 6 reporting: "There were a ton of FBI informants amongst the people who attacked the Capitol."

This contradicts what Rosenberg wrote in the Times -- or what the Times edited his reports to say -- which claimed that any reports of government agents mixed in with the "insurrectionists" were a "reimagining" of the events of the day. In other words, a fantasy, a conspiracy theory, something dreamt up by wack-a-doo Hobbits.

Rosenberg: "It was like, me and two other colleagues who were there [January 6] outside and we were just having fun!"

Rosenberg: "I know I'm supposed to be traumatized, but like, all these colleagues who were in the [Capitol] building and are like 'Oh my God it was so scary!' I'm like, 'f*ck off!'"

Rosenberg: "I'm like come on, it's not the kind place I can tell someone to man up but I kind of want to be like, 'dude come on, you were not in any danger.'"

Rosenberg: "These f*cking little dweebs who keep going on about their trauma. Shut the f*ck up. They're f*cking b*tches."

Rosenberg: "They were making too big a deal. They were making this an organized thing that it wasn't."

Rosenberg RESPONDS: "Will I stand by those comments? Absolutely."

Yeah well I guess we'll see about that!

Video at the link.

By the way, Project Veritas tweeted this out using an account called UnmaskNYT.

Twitter almost immediately suspended and deleted the account.

National Review supports this censorship. It's "individual private business freedom of choice about free speech," except, you know, to the extent that Democrats in positions of power threaten to punish these illegal-but-tolerated monopolies unless they censor the Democrats' political enemies on the Democrats' behalf.

But apart from executing the dictates of government actors to achieve illegal censorship the government is absolutely forbidden to execute -- sure, National Review. It's "individual private business freedom of choice."

This gets at the observation that National Review sees its mission as policing the right, not defeating the left-- they have no objection to the left using government power to dictate the censorship policies of the tech monopolies and weaponizing those policies against the right.

But then they kick up a hissy-fit about Corporations' Absolute Right to be Free of Government Interference In Censorship Policies when anyone suggests that maybe the biggest monopolies in the whole of human history maybe should have some restrictions on how and why they censor people, if they want to keep their unprecedented freedom from lawsuit granted by the government in s.230 of the Community Decency Act.

They do not whisper a word about the constant threats, both subtle and overt, issuing from the Democrats demanding that the tech monopolies censor voices on the right.

But if Josh Hawley proposes a change in s.230? Then the cvcks start clucking and shedding feathers.

posted by Ace at 01:07 PM

| Access Comments