Well, this is awkward. As Twitchy reported earlier, AFP withdrew a story slamming President Trump for allowing there to be 100,000 child migrants in U.S. detention facilities after it was learned that the number was taken from 2015, during the Obama administration.

Reuters also ran (and withdrew) the story, but not before the DNC War Room linked to it, calling it “a disgusting result of Trump’s family separation policies.” We wonder if they still think it’s disgusting and a violation of a U.N. treaty now that they know the number comes from the Obama administration? The one with zero scandals?

The DNC War Room has since deleted that tweet, but the Reuters story to which it links now reads only:

GENEVA (Reuters) – A Nov. 18 story headlined “U.S. has world’s highest rate of children in detention -U.N. study” is withdrawn. The United Nations issued a statement on Nov. 19 saying the number was not current but was for the year 2015. No replacement story will be issued.

Why will no replacement story be issued? You’d think it would be easy enough to correct the year and replace “Trump” with “Obama,” right?

The Associated Press also was forced to issue a correction:

An earlier version of this article was based on a quotation from Manfred Nowak, author of a U.N. report on detained children, who said that more than 100,000 children are being held in migrant detention in the United States. Nowak later corrected the number, saying it was a 2015 figure that referred to the cumulative number of migrant children held in detention at any point during that year.

So, essentially, all of the big media outlets jumped on this story because of a report by Manfred Nowak, lead author of the United Nations Global Study on Children Deprived of Liberty, that turned out to be bogus. Jeryl Bier was skeptical and broke down the story Monday:


But notice how quick the Democrats were to exploit that and use it as a political cudgel … until it turned out to be their hero putting kids in cages.

No, you were right, and the U.N.’s outside “expert” was wrong.