When is stealing NOT stealing? When it's done by Democrats.
Last Friday the Washington Post ran an article titled "JFK's own dirty trick." According to the story, during the 1960 presidential campaign a disgruntled accountant told Kennedy's advisors that Howard Hughes had given Nixon's family $200,000. Kennedy's advisors knew if they could find evidence documenting this, friendly reporters would run the story, damaging Nixon.
The disgruntled accountant knew exactly where the evidence was, and days later "a break-in occurred" at the account's former office.
With the stolen evidence in hand, muckraking reporters Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson ran the story just days before the election--and Kennedy won by a razor-thin margin.
Here's the funny part: Even though this happened over 50 years ago, the author of last week's WaPo article just cannot bring himself to say that his beloved Kennedys or their advisors commissioned anyone to "steal" documents to swing the election. Instead here's the author's wrap-up paragraph:
"Recover" is such a helpful, friendly term. Good thing the thieves didn't actually plan to, y'know, steal something.
Because stealing would clearly be wrong. Sort of like breaking into an office.
Whereas "recovering" something is so much more...positive.
Okay, now for the twist: How many of you had heard of that event before now?
[crickets]
The lamestream media has always prided itself on its ability to swing elections, and their success in 1960 certainly reinforced that idea. It's telling that even 50 years later leftoids still can't honestly describe what they did to win.
Lucky for the country that they've stopped using dirty tricks to steal elections. [/sarc]
The disgruntled accountant knew exactly where the evidence was, and days later "a break-in occurred" at the account's former office.
With the stolen evidence in hand, muckraking reporters Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson ran the story just days before the election--and Kennedy won by a razor-thin margin.
Here's the funny part: Even though this happened over 50 years ago, the author of last week's WaPo article just cannot bring himself to say that his beloved Kennedys or their advisors commissioned anyone to "steal" documents to swing the election. Instead here's the author's wrap-up paragraph:
Indeed, the mysterious break-in to recover Nixon's incriminating financial documents convinced him that such burglaries were standard practice in national politics. Nixon vowed that he would never be caught unprepared again...Did you catch that? The purpose of the break-in, says the WaPo author, was merely to recover the incriminating documents.
"Recover" is such a helpful, friendly term. Good thing the thieves didn't actually plan to, y'know, steal something.
Because stealing would clearly be wrong. Sort of like breaking into an office.
Whereas "recovering" something is so much more...positive.
Okay, now for the twist: How many of you had heard of that event before now?
[crickets]
The lamestream media has always prided itself on its ability to swing elections, and their success in 1960 certainly reinforced that idea. It's telling that even 50 years later leftoids still can't honestly describe what they did to win.
Lucky for the country that they've stopped using dirty tricks to steal elections. [/sarc]
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home