Liberal media outlets dumped two “scoops” of absolute garbage on the internet Friday afternoon in another attempt to derail the president and grow page views.
New York Times “great pressure” story
The New York Times published a report claiming Trump said that firing Comey relieved a “great pressure” on him.
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
The problems with the Times’ report are numerous.
First, an unnamed official read a report to the Times. They didn’t fax it to them, they didn’t email it to them – they read it. That means that the document is unverifiable. It could be complete fiction as far as the reporter knows. The report could have said that 60 anonymous sources confirmed the content of the document and it would have no more credibility. Without independent verification, the document is fiction.
Second, the reporter assumes that the “great pressure” on Trump is his relationship to possible targets of the investigation. That’s incorrect according to an on record source from the White House [emphasis mine]:
“By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia’s actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia. The investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it. Once again, the real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations,” Spicer added.
The pressure Trump was feeling, according to Spicer, was frustration over the Russia investigation’s interference with his ability to work with Russia on eliminating ISIS – a task nearly impossible to accomplish without their help.
Calling Comey a “nutjob” was unnecessary, but in a supposedly private setting, it shouldn’t be an issue.
Washington Post “Person of Interest” Story
The Washington Post reported Friday that “The law enforcement investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign has identified a current White House official as a significant person of interest, showing that the probe is reaching into the highest levels of government, according to people familiar with the matter.”
Holy nothingburger! This one sentence is the premise of the entire article and it’s full of vague terms and facts that may be inventions of the author.
“People familiar with the matter” are the sources for this massive scoop. Those “people” could have become “familiar with the matter” by watching the news or researchers at WaPo. Hell, I’m a person familiar with the matter. The sources aren’t identified as anyone in the administration or the FBI. Anonymous sourcing is bad enough, but “people familiar with the matter” lends zero credibility to the story.
If we take the giant leap of faith that the Post hopes we will by believing the source is credible, the accusation that someone “close to the president” is a “person of interest.” Oh noes!
“Person of interest” has no legal meaning. It could apply to anyone that is cooperating with an investigation or just has information that might be helpful. If the FBI was seriously after someone in the White House, they would have been “the subject of an investigation.”
WaPo chose their words carefully to make a source out of no one and a scandal out of nothing.
What are the New York Times and Washington Post Doing?
As Special Counsel Robert Mueller starts his work, information available through Congressional leaks and administration leaks will go from a deluge to a drip. These two untrustworthy news giants may be fabricating sources and information for less nefarious reasons than many think.
Are they both full of sneering liberals that hate the president? Yes. Would they like to see his agenda fail? Yes. Is that their main motivation for using dubious sources? Nope.
Follow the money.
WaPo saw record readership after posting the story on alleged sharing of classified information by Trump to Russia.
Applause in the newsroom as the Russia-leak scoop breaks the Hollywood Access record for most readers per minute
— Glenn Kessler (@GlennKesslerWP) May 15, 2017
The Times has seen record online subscription growth as their coverage grows almost entirely anti-Trump.
In an earnings call on Thursday, Mark Thompson, chief executive of the Times Company, called digital growth “unprecedented” and expressed optimism in the company’s subscription-first growth strategy. He also used the call to needle President Trump…
Both outlets see Trump-bashing as a source to grow readership and revenue. It’s really that simple and similar to the motivation of Congressional Democrats. They’ll be able to raise record funds for the 2018 mid-term election off the Trump-Russia “connection,” whether real or imagined.
