Kudos to The Washington Times for its May 16 story suggesting rescission of the Pulitzer Prizes that went to The New York Times and The Washington Post for reporting the (false) story alleging Trump-Russia collusion.
Here is the description of the 2018 Pulitzers for national reporting by the Pulitzer people:
Staffs of The New York Times and The Washington Post
For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration. (The New York Times entry, submitted in this category, was moved into contention by the Board and then jointly awarded the Prize.)
“Deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest”? Hardly. Compare that Pulitzer fabrication to this brief excerpt from the Durham Report, as quoted in The Hill:
“The objective facts show that the FBI’s handling of important aspects of the Crossfire Hurricane matter were seriously deficient,” Durham wrote, arguing that the bureau relied on “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence.”
Special counsel Durham found that the FBI “relied on ‘raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence.'” Do The Washington Post and The New York Times dare claim that they went beyond the FBI’s rush to discredit the Trump 2016 presidential campaign for political reasons?