Kudos to The Washington Times for its May 16 story suggesting rescission of the Pulitzer Prizes that went to The New York Times and The Washington Post for reporting the (false) story alleging Trump-Russia collusion.

Here is the description of the 2018 Pulitzers for national reporting by the Pulitzer people:

Staffs of The New York Times and The Washington Post

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. (The New York Times entry, submitted in this category, was moved into contention by the Board and then jointly awarded the Prize.)

"Deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest"?  Hardly.  Compare that Pulitzer fabrication to this brief excerpt from the Durham Report, as quoted in The Hill:

"The objective facts show that the FBI's handling of important aspects of the Crossfire Hurricane matter were seriously deficient," Durham wrote, arguing that the bureau relied on "raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence."

Special counsel Durham found that the FBI "relied on 'raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence.'"  Do The Washington Post and The New York Times dare claim that they went beyond the FBI's rush to discredit the Trump 2016 presidential campaign for political reasons?

Interestingly, the account of the Durham Report that appeared in The Times, May 16, omitted the term "uncorroborated," hurled by the special counsel like a spear into the heart of the FBI — and those who eagerly lapped up the lie now known as the "Russian hoax."  Given the definition of "uncorroborated," this observer does not doubt that The Times avoided "uncorroborated" as a vampire avoids sunlight: "not confirmed or supported by other evidence or information."  "Not supported by ... evidence or information."  This is the Durham Report's verdict on the aid given by the FBI to the Hillary Clinton campaign; likely, that verdict applies to the faux Pulitzers handed to the Times and Washington Post for their service in trying to bring down the Trump presidency.

Bear in mind that the FBI was reported to have offered Christopher Steele a million bucks if he could corroborate his dossier on Mr. Trump, the dossier that Hillary Clinton paid for.  Steele failed his chance for a million bucks.  By mid-October 2016, the FBI should have known that Operation Crossfire Hurricane — the operation to crush Trump — was a piece of Democrat disinformation.  But they did not want to abandon the chance to help Hillary become president.  The truth is that Operation Crossfire Hurricane was an example of political projection to the Nth degree — the bad guys not being the Russians, but American intel left-wing zealots.

The Times asserted that Durham failed to come up with "blockbuster revelations."  But how can the perpetrators of the "Russia hoax" respond persuasively to questions based on the findings in the report?  How, to provide one example, can the dishonorable Adam Schiff defend his claim about collusion as reported in Politico, four years ago: that the evidence was in "plain sight"?

For another example, how can Nicholas Kristof now corroborate his December 2016 column deriding President-Elect Trump as "The Russian Poodle"?

He can't, of course, except to continue bearing false witness.  But that is the real point about the Durham Report — absent "blockbuster revelations."

The Durham Report is a White Paper to the American people setting forth the evidence that the cabal to undermine and destroy Donald J. Trump is a pack of liars intent on transforming the country into their own, self-aggrandizing image.  And now it is up to House Republicans to use Special Counsel Durham's report as working guide to chase the rascals out of what they claim to be their natural habitat: Washington, D.C.

Image: Jim Jordan.  Credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.