USA Today may be USA's nastiest left-wing propagandist
I'm constantly stunned by how unethical USA Today has drifted, dropping virtually any pretense of newsworthiness, in its campaigns to denigrate anything American, and frame a dialog into the democrats dungeons of thought. For example:
USA Today deceptively says on Christmas Day, 12/25/16:
"Russia has developed one of the world's most sophisticated cyberwarfare networks -- one that the CIA says interfered in America's election to help Donald Trump."
Accurately stated, this would read:
"Every major nation on Earth has developed sophisticated cyberwarfare networks that are constantly in use against each other in every imaginable way."
"Unconfirmed leaks exist that Russia and others used its hackers to release criminally damaging information to WikiLeaks about Hillary Clinton's corruption and malfeasance throughout her entire operation, which apparently may have hurt her election chances."
We needed various (not just possibly Russian) hackers and WikiLeaks to discover and report that networks and cable "news" stations were working in collusion with the democrats to get their preferred candidate elected.
When we found out, they accused the Russians of throwing the election, which they continue to claim to this day, and will never stop claiming, until they put it in history books for government-school classrooms, which they also (currently) manage.
Although alerted about the ethical problem, USA Today never responds.
NOTE: No one has challenged the accuracy of the information revealed.
How the Clintons, who spent their entire lives in public service, amassed a fortune estimated at more than $200 million, has never been satisfactorily explained. On leaving the White House they were "dead broke," they said.
If democrats had not colluded to defeat their own candidate Bernie Sanders, and had not colluded with the media to corrupt the debates, and had not run an unsecured email server for top secret government business, and had not lied about everything, and did not have a campaign manager who gave the word corruption a new darker meaning, hackers would have little to give to Wikileaks for the public to see. We almost have to thank whoever hacked them for releasing the truth, because the Clintons worked so hard to hide it. Failure to elect a gang that corrupt, because their secrets came out, is hardly a bad thing, except to the people supporting the gang.
I've been informed I have to take it back about USA Today. The entire lamestream media is that way.