by Robert Zimmerman
The Cleveland Plain Dealer was forced on June 18, 2024 to retract entirely a June 9th op-ed written by Democrat lawyer and political consultant Neil Baron when it was threatened with slander and libel lawsuits from three FBI whistleblowers because of the blatent false accusations Baron included in this op-ed.
Baron’s op-ed, which can still read here, was mostly a partisan attack on Congressman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and his effort to expose the FBI’s non-stop abuse of power. In doing so, however, Baron accused three FBI whistle-blowers of doing things they did not do.
George Hill, advocated dismantling the FBI, claiming it’s better to “die than to have domestic intelligence.” Another, Garret O’Boyle, said Jan. 6 was a “set up” by Democrats and the FBI. He posted a video of himself at the Capitol sporting body armor, a gas mask and an AR-15 rifle. A third, Marcus Allen, assaulted several Capitol Police on Jan. 6, and claimed the insurrection was a government scheme.
As noted in the newspaper’s apology and retraction it admitted Baron’s accusations were simply false.
Allen was not a participant in the Jan. 6 insurrection in Washington D.C. and has never been accused of assaulting Capitol Police officers during the insurrection. O’Boyle did not claim the insurrection was set up by Democrats or post video of himself at the Capitol wearing body armor, a gas mask and an AR-15 rifle. While George Hill has been critical of his former employer, he did not make a quote attributed to him in the column or advocate for dismantling the FBI.
In other words, Baron was making these accusations up, and the newspaper did no fact-checking prior to publication, accepting those bald-faced lies without question. That they were lies is illustrated by how fast the newspaper reacted when told they were lies, retracting the op-ed only one day after it was approached by representatives of the whistle-blowers.
Baron’s nonchalant willingness to slander and libel these FBI whistleblowers might have been simply laziness or it could have been intentional. Either way, that he did it — and the newspaper was so willing to publish it — is sadly normal behavior these days for the left and the Democratic Party, something that became normalized and universal during the Obama administration. While this demagoguery on the left existed beforehand, Obama made it the number one debate tactic for the left, what I call his legacy of hate.
What if there had been no liable threats? No doubt, the paper would have rolled along with the lies and the op-ed would have been picked up by other papers and spread further. The left LOVES lies, or at least depends on them heavily, because there is absolutely nothing else they have to promote themselves.
We call them Demon-Rats they a re evil and vile
Still trying y to prove your a total Know Nothing trying to prove you the Answer Man we already know your a total idiot