As Zanotti reported:
Lavin, a "guest instructor" for New York University's journalism program, made her ridiculous claims in the storied Washington Post, which published her op-ed entitled, "How the far right spread politically convenient lies about the Notre Dame fire." In it, she alleges, without regard to the political position of the commentator or the real meaning of their words, that just as the first flames were licking the roof of Notre Dame, conservative writers set about to pushing conspiracy theories on how the fire started, apparently in the hopes of inciting violence against Muslims.
Comparing Shapiro to Spencer is about as true a sign of being an utterly insipid dunderhead as one could possibly concoct. Spencer is a notorious "alt-right" Jew-hating provocateur, and Shapiro was the single most targeted journalist during the 2016 election precisely due, in part, to his consistently staunch criticisms of the anti-Semitic "alt-right."
"This, from [Talia Lavin] in The Washington Post, is the sheerest form of disgusting bulls***," Shapiro tweeted. "I blamed no one for the Notre Dame fire, since it was an accident by all available evidence, and imputing malicious intent to me is simply gross."
"This, from [Talia Lavin] in The Washington Post, is the sheerest form of disgusting bulls***," Shapiro tweeted. "I blamed no one for the Notre Dame fire, since it was an accident by all available evidence, and imputing malicious intent to me is simply gross."
