Yanny or Laurel 2.0? Confusion as reporter accused of calling WH press sec ‘lying b**ch’ says it was something ENTIRELY different

Video of a reporter seemingly calling White House spokesperson Kayleigh McEnany a “lying b**ch” has outraged many – but she claims what was actually said was “engage,” and now two opposing camps are battling it out on Twitter.

While taking questions from the press on Tuesday, McEnany was fielding multiple questions at once, one about President Donald Trump’s claims of mail-in voting potentially leading to fraud and another from Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett about a claim that there is “tremendous progress” on a Covid-19 vaccine. 

After McEnany refused to answer Halkett’s question, many on social media could swear she called the press secretary a “lying b**ch.”

Critics immediately called for the reporter to lose her press credentials to the White House, while others predicted she would soon be a hero to the left.

But maybe all was not as it seemed. Halkett responded directly to critics and claimed what she actually said was McEnany did not “want to engage.”

After slowing down audio from the incident, conservatives like Jack Prosobiec defended Halkett and pushed back against claims that she cursed. Halkett thanked him for the support.

Many still did not buy into the explanation and continued insisted hearing “lying b**ch,” which turned the social media debate into ugly bickering back and forth, until some, like author Mike Cernovich, admitted they could hear both versions in the same video and compared the confusion to “laurel and yanny,” a video that went viral in 2018 as people were split on what actually was said. Some heard laurel. Some heard yanny. Some heard both. Trump, on the other hand, heard “covfefe.” He was joking, of course. 

That confusion at the time was chalked up to people’s ability to hear high or low pitches, as well as brains interpreting ambiguous sounds differently.

In a poll presented by Cernovich, of which over 6,000 people voted in as of this writing, over 50 percent said they heard “lying b**ch,” over 20 percent said “engage,” and another 20 did not answer either way.

What may not have helped Halkett’s case with some is a past video of the reporter using the word “b**ch” at a presidential debate. That audio, however, is clearer and was not up for debate at the time.

Finally, the White House released a transcript confirming that Halkett said — or whoever took down the transcript heard — “engage” and not the viral insult, seemingly putting an end to the debate.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!