Unnamed Sources not the way to bring down a sitting President The Washington Post uses “unnamed sources” 12 times in one article.

Home  »  Conspiracies  »  Unnamed Sources not the way to bring down a sitting President
Print This Post Print This Post
May 23, 2017 No Comments ›› admin

By Lynn Woolley

And yet that’s what is going on with two newspapers – the New York Times and the Washington Post. Someone inside the “Deep State” is leaking – and the Times and the Post run it all as fact.

Here’s the problem: the leakers within the Bureaucracy are leaking for one of two reasons.

Either Trump is committing high crimes and misdemeanors – or they simply don’t like him. Given the state of the Anti-Trump Media, that second reason is far more likely that the first.

But in either case, if the goal is to destroy a presidency, it should be done in the light of day.  

Mark Felt

In Watergate, the leaker known as Deep Throat turned out to be Mark Felt, who retired as Deputy Director of the FBI.

He kept his secret for thirty years. With the Trump situation, there appears to be multiple leakers with an anti Trump bias. This is not right. They should resign their posts and step forward.

The unnamed sources game that media plays.

Let me say right off the bat that your writer is a talk show host who came from the ranks of news broadcasting. I gathered, reported and anchored news at such radio stations as KNOW/Austin, WFAA/Dallas, KRLD/Dallas, KAAM/Dallas, and KVET/Austin. I learned the trade from some of the best in the business. I cultivated sources – and protected them from losing their jobs.

But there is a difference in a simple “whistleblower” and this current cadre of unnamed sources. A whistleblower is usually a low-level aide or employee who leaks to the new media that a politician or a corporation is engaged in some type of malfeasance – but who wishes to retain his or her job. An example might be an employee of a supermarket chain who reveals to a reporter that tainted meat is being sold. That person has performed a public serve and should not be fired for it.

The Washington Post

The current situation is different.

What we see going on now is (apparent) multiple source leaks from within the administration or the Intel community from career bureaucrats who do not like Donald Trump.

They are trying to overturn an election and thwart the will of the people – or certainly the Electoral College. They even have a name – the Deep State – referring to the left-wing administrative state that Obama left behind. Some could be Republicans. We don’t know because they are in hide mode.

If we are going to overturn an election and toss Trump out, the President has a right to face his accusers. Not only that, but so much of the leaked material has turned out to be fake news – such as the FBI needing more money for its investigation.

Beyond that, at some point, the American people need to see evidence of what Trump is alleged to have done.

The Washington Post uses “unnamed sources” 12 times in one article.

The Post, owned by Amazon Dot Com’s Jeff Bezos, claims that President Trump urged an FBI pushback on the Russian collusion investigation. How does the Post know that? In a story attributed to Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashyima, the Post constantly quotes unnamed sources.

First of all, the Post’s headline treats the story as truth rather than as hearsay:

Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe after Comey revealed its existence

That headline – even though it was repeated many times over by other newspapers picking up the story from the Post – is nothing but rumor. It would not be allowed in a court of law. But such is the state of journalism in America.

Here the first graph to mention unnamed sources:

President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.

Explosive huh? But unnamed sources are only sources if they can be proven. To repeat, so far, the American people have been provided no corroboration at all. Here’s the second graph to mention unnamed sources:

[Director of National Intelligence Daniel] Coats and [director of the National Security Agency (NSA) Adm. Michael] Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.

Hold on! If this is so big a deal, Coats and Rogers should resign and step forward to make their statements in public. If they do, and they are credible, Trump is in trouble. Here is graph number 3 using unnamed sources:

Current and former senior intelligence officials viewed Trump’s requests as an attempt by the president to tarnish the credibility of the agency leading the Russia investigation.

Really? Who? Never mind – the Post isn’t saying. Here’s graph number 4:

A senior intelligence official said Trump’s goal was to “muddy the waters” about the scope of the FBI probe at a time when Democrats were ramping up their calls for the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel, a step announced last week.

Here is graph number 5:

Senior intelligence officials also saw the March requests as a threat to the independence of U.S. spy agencies, which are supposed to remain insulated from partisan issues.

All this from “senior intelligence officials” who may be committing felonies by leaking this – someone certainly did with the unmasking and subsequent leaking of Michael Flynn conversations. Here’s number 6:

“The problem wasn’t so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements about an ongoing investigation,” a former senior intelligence official said of the request to Coats.

Now, it’s a FORMER senior intelligence official – which is code for someone from the Obama White House. It doesn’t stop. Here’s unnamed source number 7:

In addition to the requests to Coats and Rogers, senior White House officials sounded out top intelligence officials about the possibility of intervening directly with Comey to encourage the FBI to drop its probe of Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, according to people familiar with the matter. The officials said the White House appeared uncertain about its power to influence the FBI.

We’re now down to the bottom of the bucket – people “familiar” with the situation. Number 8:

“Can we ask him to shut down the investigation? Are you able to assist in this matter?” one official said of the line of questioning from the White House.

This source is “one official.” Good job, Washington Post. Here’s number 9:

Current and former officials said that Trump either lacks an understanding of the FBI’s role as an independent law enforcement agency or does not care about maintaining such boundaries.

Back to “current and former” meaning Trump and Obama Deep Staters. And still, no evidence. Only hearsay. Number 10:

In his call with Rogers, Trump urged the NSA director to speak out publicly if there was no evidence of collusion, according to officials briefed on the exchange.

So now the Post is giving some clues as to whom the sources may be. Officials briefed on the exchange. Where is Sherlock Holmes when we need him? I suspect nobody – and everybody! Here’s number 11:

Rogers was taken aback but tried to respectfully explain why he could not do so, the officials said. For one thing, he could not comment on an ongoing investigation. Rogers added that he would not talk about classified matters in public.

The officials. Nice. Sounds like they should have been working a football game. Finally – graph number 12, using unnamed sources:

While relations between Trump and Comey were strained by the Russia probe, ties between the president and the other intelligence chiefs, including Rogers, Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo, appear to be less contentious, according to officials.

Officials again. No names. No real evidence. No disclosed sources. Lots of “officials” and “people familiar with” and “current and former officials.” All the allegations may very well be true. They may not be. It is beyond argument that the Deep State bureaucrats want Trump out. The Mainstream Media wants Trump out. The Washington Post wants Trump out.

Video: Hannity says 5 powerful forces are aligned against President Trump.

If they have to use unnamed sources and hearsay to accomplish that, so be it. That is precisely what they are doing.

lynn@BeLogical.com

FURTHER READING: Leakers who revealed Israel as intelligence source did far more damage than Trump by Marc A. Thiessen

Tagged with: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

%d bloggers like this: