The Durham report has revived criticism of the Pulitzer Prizes awarded in 2018 to The New York Times and The Washington Post for his or her protection of alleged Trump-Russia hyperlinks, discredited allegations which were put to relaxation by the particular counsel’s findings.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, stated the Durham report has proven “that The New York Times and Washington Post were given a Pulitzer Prize for writing a bunch of politically motivated crap.”

“When it comes to reporting on Donald Trump, the mainstream media is dead,” he stated.

Steve Guest, an aide to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, stated on Twitter that the particular counsel’s report reveals the 2018 Pulitzer Prizes for nationwide reporting “are utter garbage.”

Neither The Times nor The Post nor the Pulitzer Prize board responded to requests for touch upon Tuesday.

The prizes have been awarded in 2018 “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.”

On Monday, particular counsel John Durham launched his closing report on the origins of the FBI’s counterintelligence probe of alleged Trump-Russia conspiracy. He concluded after 4 years of investigation that “neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion” between the Trump marketing campaign and Russia.

He additionally stated officers demonstrated potential “confirmation bias” in favor of continuous to research Mr. Trump and “ignored or simply assessed away” proof that was per exonerating Mr. Trump of allegations of collusion with Moscow.

Mr. Trump demanded beforehand that the Pulitzer Prize board rescind the prizes for The Times and The Post. Responding to complaints, the board commissioned two unbiased opinions of the work by The Times and The Post.

In July 2022, the board stated these opinions discovered “that no passages or headlines, contentions or assertions in any of the winning submissions were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes.”

“The 2018 Pulitzer Prizes in National Reporting stand,” the board stated on the time.

The New York Times’ story on the Durham report on Monday stated the particular counsel “revealed little substantial new information about the [FBI] inquiry.” The story additionally famous the report’s remark that the FBI “had an affirmative obligation to closely examine” a tip from an Australian diplomat that the Trump marketing campaign had entry to filth on Hillary Clinton from sources in Russia.

Content Source: www.washingtontimes.com