all right. i am laura ingraham and this is the ingraham angle fromhe s washington tonight.cus it s all leaking out. that s the focusof of tonight s angle. uld co me well, we always knew the truth would come out, not just about the origins covid, butvert about our own government s complicity in whatwhat may be oe of the most shocking cover ups in medical history. and now, three years later, we have a clearer picture of how officials at the nih, including anthony fauci protect chinwork furiously behind the scenes to protect china and the american academics who are actively engaged in and promotingics who the same type of research that resulted in the release of sars-cov-2 now trulyt a lot independent thinkers. and a lot ofem the arem were on the show, knew in 2020 thatwt that whole wet market theory was just absurd. and that the sars-cov-2 virus was almost certainly an escape from gain of function research on bad viruses, which is donepue by something called serial packagi
accused cotton of pushing a debunked conspiracy theory. and when it issued a correction a year latera year l, they chana to a, quote, fringe theory. it still hasn t updated the piece again. now that we know that the most it arkely scenario is that fauci covered it up. joining me now is arkansas senator tom cotton. senator , these emails between collins fauci and then drlsies follow up with this guy, dr christian anderson, at scripps. this was this was quite the the operation they had going because they were freaking out that china was going to behe pel blamed. and then indirectly, the people in the unite thed states that we working over the yearse with chinese scientists, an is that not the case? you were right from the beginning and you were pilloried. willaura, i think you put ito well, and i appreciate beingge together. back in februaryn , of 2020, pointing out what anybody with some common sense, looking
saying it s untrue, they portrayed it as a routine editing thing, and then also had the headline. and the paper comes out, and we have it right here. obama defense his response. what s your take? i think as betsy saidist perplexing they have not explained this, either the headline or the editing. there needs to be a correction a or a clarification if there was a reason behind it. i think that s more true for the editing. headlines get changed all the time and there s space considerations in print, but taking taking out that paragraph is perplexing and potential damaging. new york times got scolded by the public editor for a story about the san bernardino attacks, the female terrorist malik, the paper posted she had