Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Representative Darrell -- it has asked for front.
From New York Times after the Paper -- what some consider -- hit piece on the Republican congressman from California.
Now the story excuse -- of using his official powers as the chairman of the house oversight committee to enhance his personal business interest.
The congressman hit back pretty hard saying the story was full of -- citing thirteen erroneous statements and ask the times to issue.
The front page were traction.
Let's take a look at the title to Begin with it's entitled a businessman in congress helps his district and himself.
Written by Eric like wow.
In a ritual that but I liked -- -- make sure that you get your facts right yeah I'll look.
As an inherent disparity in these kind of cases -- they put you on the front page with the headline and then -- corrected you know an ad giant.
-- tight tight practically on.
Page a two -- there's just this story saying look he's unusual -- that for congressman because as a businessman with various interest that be one thing but as the headline suggested.
They said outright that He was working to benefit has not own business interest in -- -- the examples they had for this.
We're just flatly wrong wanna go to one.
Example of -- in New York Times wrote this about a piece of property that ice -- purchase quote the congressman.
Bought the complex in 2008 soon after securing -- first of two earmarks for the two mile project and unsuccessfully seeking millions more.
-- sensors office now values accomplices sixteen million a 60%.
Appreciation -- turns out wasn't true I -- fired back with a following the property in question was not purchased for ten point three million.
As -- New York Times reports but for sixteen point six million.
The appreciation is roughly zero.
And right that got it wrong I I -- I have to say this about Eric but -- the reporter He is an extremely meticulous thorough reporter I'm very surprised.
That some of these facts.
-- He says today's New York Times that that that -- is an admission came from the Sandia it gets -- county assessor office that's not an anti Clinton.
I thought He explained we have the information came from -- the China China has always.
The offense but erroneous information that you got from sources you trust is not.
Yeah -- or not they -- -- that the information I think and here's the question should they -- track the story not just offer.
I think there in the correction slow motion.
Taking back pieces of it but just have helped Judy on I think you should be called a formerly known meticulous and careful reporter not not a currently -- I -- that I sent.
And communication operators done a great job of this and even caught most Anderson -- -- An alleged incidents of plagiarism by it would file against a -- named lead saying who worked for the senator -- American centered American progress a liberal think tank.
Who'd tweet it out themselves as -- thing tweeting about -- while.
By the way a lot of your story looks familiar because I had it first now those are serious allegations and and that the near times on investing ill or something tells me they're not going to.
-- it begins in the very first paragraph of the story I'll quote it here on the third floor of -- gleaming office building overlooking a golf course it goes on and on well the San Diego union Tribune shot the video.
Afterwards -- a golf course if overlooks a busy highway how -- the New York Times be this irresponsible.
Well I think -- -- it out for it yes and this reporter just obviously wasn't careful enough.
And you know that again that the thrust of the story is that is that is corrupt and if you put that on the front page and played with a big headline you have responsibility take it back in the times public editor is now investigating Allen do you think you should be a retraction of the story I don't hear anything particular track specific things in -- -- that kind of Iran that's at least you have to hand at the time to have a public editor.
They have some renewed there's due diligence on the publication and they retracted it three times three pieces so far maybe more to come.
But are they were tracking the the facts they got wrong or the premise of the story which is that what is so damaging is that congressman.
And then let's talk with the -- Darrell ice is investigating the Obama administration He has the job that Henry Waxman them sort of need to write congressman from California once -- And the leftist fully aware that -- pace of pursues a gangster government agenda against Obama Obama has trouble.
And so they're trying to take him out in the New York Times is happy about it part of that you Andrea taxes consciously protecting Obama -- -- visited.
You think is a conscious effort they've had an indicator -- -- I just -- saying there was smear job on ice -- to protect the president and I dare I say and his subpoena power represented a real threat but there's no evidence -- New York Times is purposely smear somebody had a disservice to protect you I didn't say there's evidence has -- I think.
All right what and -- -- and I think --
Filter by section