The public was told hourly that Washington DC was expecting violence for the Trump event. That the cost of the inauguration was the highest - NOT BECAUSE OF PLANS BY TRUMP - BUT BECAUSE OF SECURITY PROBLEMS.
That lie - the lie about massive violence - kept a lot of people from going. Was it intentional on the part of the press?
The next day the MSM turned on a dime.
There was ZERO concerns about violence when the women's ‘march’ was covered the very next day. Concern about ‘barriers to stop trucks from moving citizens down’ was GONE in one day! All talk of violence ended when THEIR people were on the streets marching.
"Meet the Press" - - were they in on the lie? Does anyone have the number of times MSNBC or Chuck Todd mentioned possible 'violence' for the Inaugural? Or how many times violence was mentioned about the women's march. My guess is over a hundred - - and 'not once'.
I ask, softly, what the hell happened to all those big, brave motorcyclists suppose to show up at this thing?
The RATagandists "warned" Trump supporters of potential drone bomb-attacks on the crowd.
I had commented that if it were true and they knew about it, they wouldn't be warning the deplorables, they'd have their pre-sighted-in and focused cameras in place to capture the action, and film the gory aftermath.