MSNBC has long been part of the “fake news” liberal mainstream media, but it solidified its place last week when one of its hosts accused President Trump of posting an altered video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that was edited to make Pelosi appear much slower in speaking.

The problem? While an edited video of Pelosi has been circulating through social media, the president, in fact, did not publish any such thing.

And the video that MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace accused the president of posting was nothing more than an authentic video of Pelosi stammering through a speech, which is more common these days as she ages.

President Trump titled his posted video, “PELOSI STAMMERS THROUGH NEWS CONFERENCE”

“PELOSI STAMMERS THROUGH NEWS CONFERENCE” pic.twitter.com/1OyCyqRTuk — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 24, 2019

TRENDING: Tim Tebow Teams with Trump Administration To Fight Human Trafficking

That was bad enough, but another, doctored video of Pelosi speaking began making the rounds on the internet.

Unlike the one Trump posted, which was simply edited, this one was deliberately manipulated to make it appear that Pelosi was either drunk or too physically incapacitated to speak.

Check out this KPIX report.

Wallace’s report mixed up the two videos, accusing Trump of posting the doctored one.

Check it out here:

https://youtu.be/rCLOHH1-E2E

To recap, Wallace not only falsely accused President Trump of posting the unflattering Pelosi video, she didn’t even bother to check the very video that she used in her accusation before running with it. I’d say “wow,” but it’s really not surprising anymore.

That’s 2019 fake news journalism at its best, folks. Anything to make Trump look bad is fair game — even if it’s fake.

RELATED: Mainstream News Outlet Trots Out 'Mostly Peaceful' Line Again, Suggests Police Responsible for Louisville Violence

During her “Deadline: White House” screed on Friday, Wallace held nothing back as she slammed Trump supposedly tweeting out the “doctored” video of Pelosi.

“The political war of words between President Trump and Speaker Pelosi has deteriorated to a level beneath words, comprehensible words at least. That’s why we’re going to do something different here to make sure you understand just how low the president has stooped in his efforts to smear the speaker of the House,” Wallace said.

She continued, “We believe that transparency is the best disinfectant for dirty politics, so we’re going to break down what the president of the United States did to the speaker of the House when he shared a doctored video of her with his millions of Twitter followers.”

Does Nicole Wallace owe President Trump an apology? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 100% (2433 Votes) 0% (11 Votes)

Staying the course with her outrage, Wallace then showed her audience just how terrible a doctored video of slowing down someone’s speech could be, using one of her previous news reports as an example. She showed another example, which was of Trump with slowed speech during a 2016 rally.

At the start of the panel discussion segment, Wallace laid out the stakes even more clearly: “This is part of the sexism of Donald Trump where he makes a woman look feeble and this is part of the debasement of our politics where he irresponsibly tweets out a video of someone in a doctored video.”

Except it wasn’t. The video Trump posted was edited, but it wasn’t “doctored” to make Pelosi look bad — that was a separate creation entirely.

The president did nothing wrong. Bottom line.

Not that it’ll matter, because a major percentage of MSNBC’s audience will believe what they want to believe, and it’s doubtful most MSNBC viewers will take the time to dig up the truth behind her accusation.

If this is a taste of what’s to come from the liberal, anti-Trump mainstream media for the 2020 election, it’s going to be a wild ride.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.