Over on the homepage, I have a piece about the New York Times’ hit job on Rick Perry. America’s paper of record claims that Trump’s nominee for Energy secretary “knew almost nothing” about DOE’s responsibility for the U.S.’s nuclear arsenal, a claim for which they have precisely no evidence.
But the Times isn’t backing down: “We stand by our story, which accurately reflected what multiple, high-level sources told our reporters,” a spokesperson for the Times tells Politico.
The only problem with this explanation is that Michael McKenna, a former member of the Trump transition team (he left in mid November), is the only source named in the story — and he has said the Times’ claims “don’t really reflect what I said.”
So the Times’ explanation for its dubious reporting goes something like this: “We stand by calling Rick Perry an ignoramus based on conversations with multiple high-level sources we cannot name, and whose existence we didn’t even bother to allude to in our original reporting.”
Seems credible.
P.S. The Weekly Standard dug up some interesting video from 2014:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=GH01VDvTYSE
Here’s the key exchange, from the forum on energy independence at the Commonwealth Club:
“You served in the Air Force and probably know a big part of the Department of Energy is National Security and nuclear, nuclear arsenal,” said Greg Dalton, founder of the Climate One forum.
“Yep,” said Perry.
Oh.