Last word about Salon

Sometimes I wonder why I waste time refuting websites like Salon.

But since the George Soros-linked blogger Justin Elliott and his compatriots at that Barack Obama defense machine are publishing out-of-context my email responses, I thought it might be a worthwhile exercise to publish some of their in-context emails so you can witness firsthand their duplicity and deceit.

To recap for those who missed the inside-baseball war of words between Salon and WND, it all started with Elliott's effort to discredit Donald Trump's assertion that Barack Obama has spent as much as $2 million in campaign funds to prevent the release of a $10 birth certificate.

Yes, it was WND, alone among the news media, that explored how much money Obama spent on legal fees at the time he was fighting efforts to see that elusive document. Obama the Compassionate, who pledged to conduct the most open and transparent administration in history, even permitted a decorated Army lieutenant colonel to go to prison rather than show him the secret birth certificate.

Here is the entirety of an email Elliott sent me less than 90 minutes before publication of his sneering slice of agitprop:

From: Justin Elliott [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:04 AM

Advertisement - story continues below

To: Joseph Farah

Subject: obama legal bills

Joseph – I'm doing a piece for Salon about the claim that Obama has spent $2 million on legal fees to fight eligibility lawsuits. Much of this seems to come from WND's reporting – I'm wondering, do you believe it is accurate when Donald Trump asks, "Why has he spent over $2 million in legal fees to keep this quiet and to keep this silent?" Does WND have evidence for this?

Best,

Justin

Since I was alerted by Google that his story was out before ever seeing the email he sent less than 90 minutes before, my only response was: "Thanks for asking after your story came out."

Now here's his answer – one that reveals the Salon blogger knew he was misrepresenting WND's news reports about the money Obama spent on his law firms:

From: Justin Elliott [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 2:12 PM

Advertisement - story continues below

To: Joseph Farah

Subject: Re: obama legal bills

Actually I asked an hour and a half before it came out. If you have a substantive way to back up the number, I'm happy to add it.

I don't think trump is even accurately reflecting yor (sic) stories.

What does his last illiterate sentence show? It reveals that this Soros apparatchik knew all along that WND never reported that Obama had spent $2 million hiding his birth certificate. Yet that was his assertion in print.

Watch the sleight of hand Elliott uses to discredit three flawlessly reported WND news stories that he admits in his private email don't say what he claims they say publicly: "The implication of the WND stories – though not explicitly stated – is that because Perkins Coie (Obama's law firm) worked on a birther suit, and because the Obama campaign paid Perkins Coie $1.7 million, therefore the campaign paid $1.7 million fighting birther suits. That's an obvious logical fallacy."

No, the obvious logical fallacy is to assert publicly one conclusion, while privately suggesting quite another.

Do you get the picture?

Trump was the little Soros crony's target all the time. He was hoping to use me to undermine Trump – inviting me to dispute the billionaire GOP front-runner for the presidential nomination. I think Trump essentially spoke truth. We don't know exactly how much money Obama has spent hiding public documentation about his nativity story. I suspect it could be substantially more than $2 million. I do know that he has completely broken the public trust and misused his office in covering up all evidence of his constitutional eligibility.

But I didn't take his bait. I didn't dispute Trump. And that's why Salon has been smearing me and WND ever since.

Once again, if Salon didn't think Trump was accurately reflecting WND's stories, why did he link them? Why did he feel it was necessary to attack those stories? Why did he have to read into those stories "implications"?

I'll tell you why.

Because truth is meaningless at Salon.