The New York Times is not a trustworthy and reliable source when it comes to reporting about President Trump, especially when the article stands or falls based on what anonymous sources are said to believe. The anonymous sources here are “two American officials,” who could be current or former administration employees, high-level or low-level, or Deep State/CIA officials. The NYT withheld key information. Without it, we can’t reasonably judge.
We’ve seen in the last week that the early reports about the Ukraine transcript were false, especially ones that stood or fell based on what anonymous sources are said to believe. As The Federalist’s article put it: “Blatant Media Lies About Trump-Ukraine Non-Scandal Are Never-Ending.”
Let’s say, hypothetically, that not only the president is entirely innocent of any wrongdoing as probed by the Mueller investigation–but that the investigation itself, in the dismissive words of the NYT, “had corrupt and partisan origins” that rose to illegality under U.S. criminal law. And let’s say that AG Barr is truly convinced that there is probable cause to investigate criminal activity. Wouldn’t this be what AG Barr and President Trump might do?
I’m reminded of what Victor Davis Hanson has to say about U.S. deep state collusion against President Trump and possible criminal liability:
The Mueller report ignored the likely illegal origins of the Christopher Steele dossier, the insertion of an FBI informant into the Trump campaign, the unlawful leaking of documents, and the conflicted testimonies of former high-level intelligence officials.
All of those things were potential felonies… it it is a crime to knowingly hire a foreign national to work on a presidential campaign – in other words, to “collude.” That is exactly what the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee did when they paid British subject Christopher Steele to smear Trump.
So what really explains the furor now directed at Barr?
One, progressives are terrified that a number of Trump’s critics – Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe – may soon be indicted. They apparently seek to preempt such indictments by attacking Barr, a seemingly no-nonsense prosecutor who will likely follow up on any criminal referrals from any inspector general that reach his desk.
A few things:
The New York Times is not a trustworthy and reliable source when it comes to reporting about President Trump, especially when the article stands or falls based on what anonymous sources are said to believe. The anonymous sources here are “two American officials,” who could be current or former administration employees, high-level or low-level, or Deep State/CIA officials. The NYT withheld key information. Without it, we can’t reasonably judge.
We’ve seen in the last week that the early reports about the Ukraine transcript were false, especially ones that stood or fell based on what anonymous sources are said to believe. As The Federalist’s article put it: “Blatant Media Lies About Trump-Ukraine Non-Scandal Are Never-Ending.”
Let’s say, hypothetically, that not only the president is entirely innocent of any wrongdoing as probed by the Mueller investigation–but that the investigation itself, in the dismissive words of the NYT, “had corrupt and partisan origins” that rose to illegality under U.S. criminal law. And let’s say that AG Barr is truly convinced that there is probable cause to investigate criminal activity. Wouldn’t this be what AG Barr and President Trump might do?
I’m reminded of what Victor Davis Hanson has to say about U.S. deep state collusion against President Trump and possible criminal liability:
Read the whole thing.