This diary brought to you by the Ministry of Truth

Updated to add link to video of Rachel’s segment about this.

The Atlantic reports that Reuters reporter Jeff Mason’s question to Putin was edited out of the White House transcript. What was the original exchange?

Putin (replying to previous question): That could be a first step, and we can also extend it. Options abound, and they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework. Mason: President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that? Putin: Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russian relationship back to normal.

However, the White House transcript, um, abbreviated the exchange as follows:

Putin: That could be a first step, and we can also extend it. Options abound, and they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework. Mason: And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that? Putin: Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.

The edit excises the damning question about helping Trump win the election. The omission completely changes the meaning of the exchange, and makes it look like Putin acknowledges doing something legitimate and diplomatic, instead of admitting to hijacking the Presidential election from the American people.

In addition, Rachel reported tonight that on the video on the WH website, the same part of the reporter’s question is edited out. They’ve removed the evidence!

You can hear it already — “Of course no one admitted any election interference; just read the transcript and watch the video for yourself! No collusion! No collusion!”

Collusion, meet Obstruction of Justice.

Obstruction of Justice, meet Collusion.

Updating to add link to video of Rachel’s segment about this: