Project Veritas, whose recent work includes exposing ESPN’s racism and the FDA’s politicization, strikes again. The video shows a New York Times reporter making very embarrassing admissions on January 6.
Matthew Rosenberg (pulitzer-winning reporter) was caught laughing at his colleagues, pointing out how they exaggerated what they saw during the Capitol attack early last year.
“There were a ton of FBI informants amongst the people who attacked the Capitol.”
Matthew Rosenberg, NYT’s national security reporter was captured in surveillance video that contradicted his reporting. He also admits his colleagues exaggerated Jan. 6 dangers.https://t.co/rASt0aemBD
— Andy Ngô 🏳️🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) March 9, 2022
Here are some of the highlights per Project Veritas’ write-up.
Rosenberg, who covers national security matters for the Times says on the undercover video that “there were a ton of FBI informants among the people who attacked the Capitol.”
This revelation is a break from Rosenberg’s reporting on the matter where he characterized such a notion of FBI informants in the crowd as a “reimagining of Jan. 6.”
This was not the only time Rosenberg’s commentary to Project Veritas’ undercover reporter directly contradicted his own published words. Despite telling a Veritas journalist that January 6 was “no big deal,” his article says that downplaying the events of that day was “the next big lie.”
Soundbites of Rosenberg published Tuesday show him saying, “It’s not a big deal as they [media]They were making too much of it. They were making this an organized thing that it wasn’t.”
There’s a lot more in the video to check out, and I think most of Rosenberg’s statements speak for themselves. Despite the fact that the video is not complete, you can still see some key points that give an indication of how the news media projects their narrative, regardless of what the facts are.
Consider the FBI informants. That is something that has been admitted to at this point by the government, so it is no longer a “conspiracy theory” or a “reimagining” of January 6th, as Rosenberg previously put it. Yet, for the better part of a year, anyone who pointed out that the FBI’s involvement was worthy of discussion was treated with scorn. Even though we had evidence in the past that the FBI was involved in crimes and acting in an openly political manner, this attitude persists. I mean, even if there was nothing nefarious going on, wouldn’t you expect there to be FBI informants on the ground? Is it necessary to protect a narrative or deny this?
Past that, there’s also the issue of reporters, including those who were sitting in studios and not actually there, claiming they were “traumatized” by what happened at the Capitol. This was absurd. No one in the crowd attacked a journalist, and while I personally believe the Capitol breach was stupid and wrong, there’s a difference between something being bad and something being traumatizing. Where are the journalists who claim they were traumatized from the BLM Riots? Oder does partisanship play a role in traumatization?
Lastly, I’d say the biggest thing here is Rosenberg’s admission that January 6th was clearly not an organized event. Many of us have been saying that since the day it happened because it has been obvious for that long that the unrest was spontaneous, short-lived, and in no way a “coup” or “insurrection.” Organized coups do not involve crowds of people wandering aimlessly into open doors, having no idea what to do next, mingling with cops, and taking selfies. These involve deadly weapons being used to achieve a specific goal. It was impossible to see any of these on January 6th, because participants weren’t trying overthrow the government.
This is the reason why January 6th committee has become such a joke. It’s a partisan witch-hunt chasing a ghost. Some crowds can get out of control and commit terrible acts. This is not a way to make excuses for the events of January 6. Project Veritas has just made it clearer with its latest sting.
About Post Author
