Need a rudder in this endless sea of leftist MSM/democratsharks bullshit? …
First, Molly Hemingway @ The Federalist offers some important consumer tips on swallowing the dirty spoon-feeding currently in a shark-like feeding frenzy mode right now by the MSM…
Tips For Reading Washington Post Stories About Trump Based On Anonymous Leaks: In the midst of an active shooter situation, we have tips for how to judge breaking news. We need similar tips to manage anti-Trump breaking news.
Previous Washington Post stories sourced to anonymous “officials” have fallen apart, including Josh Rogin’s January 26 report claiming that “the State Department’s entire senior management team just resigned” as “part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior Foreign Service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.”
The story went viral before the truth caught up…
In the immediate aftermath, news outlets will get it wrong. Don’t trust anonymous sources. If democracy dies in darkness, anonymity is not exactly transparent or accountable. Unless someone is willing to to put his or her name with a leak, be on guard. Pay attention to how well the reporters characterize the motivations of the anonymous leaker. All leakers have motivation. Does the paper seem to have a grasp on how the motivation affects the veracity of the leak? If someone is leaking national security information in order to support the claim of a national security violation, be on guard. If someone is claiming a serious national security crisis but not willing to go public with the claim and resign in protest of same, be on guard. Compare sources willing to put their name and reputation on the line. Big anti-Trump news brings out the fakers. Pay attention to the language that the media uses. Is a story about something unimportant being written in such a way as to make it seem more important? Beware confirmation bias. Everyone has the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one’s existing beliefs or theories. Be on guard that you don’t accept critical or exonerating evidence to match your political preferences. Pay attention to how quickly and fully editors and reporters correct stories based on false information from anonymous sources. If they don’t correct at all, it’s an indication of a lack of respect.
Read the whole thing for fat/calorie count and ingredients.
And part of the pure and organic context comes from from, of all places, a writer from the NYTimes who scolds her own paper for clumsily dumping into this feeding frenzy of irresponsibility…
Via Instapundit: ELIZABETH PRICE FOLEY IN THE NEW YORK TIMES: Trump’s Statements Are Not an Obstruction of Justice.
Widespread howls erupted, including by editors of this paper, asserting that President Trump obstructed justice. But as distasteful as the president’s statements may be, they do not constitute an obstruction of justice. Indeed, if they did, virtually every communication between criminal defense lawyers and investigators would be a crime. . . .
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Trump intended an implied offer of continued employment in exchange for Mr. Comey’s dismissal of the Flynn investigation, it would be implausible for Mr. Comey to construe it as such. Mr. Comey was aware that he was an at-will employee who could be fired by the president at any time, for any reason. Indeed, when President Obama endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in June 2016 — during the height of the F.B.I.’s investigation into Secretary Clinton’s private email server — it would have been similarly implausible for Mr. Comey to construe Mr. Obama’s pro-Clinton remarks as an implicit offer of continued employment, in exchange for dropping the Clinton investigation. Even though Mr. Comey dropped the investigation one month later, he presumably knew that although it would please both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, it would not insulate him from being fired.
But even if one adopted an unprecedentedly broad conception of bribery, Mr. Trump’s purported statement still would not violate Section 1510. The statute is designed to preserve the free flow of information, prohibiting only acts that obstruct investigators’ access to information. Bribery of a potential witness, for example, is behavior prohibited by Section 1510. But telling the F.B.I. director that someone is a “good guy” and expressing the hope that an investigation will cease does not obstruct the free flow of information.
Another, broader federal obstruction statute is Section 1505 of Title 18, but even this statute does not fit. Specifically, Section 1505 declares that anyone who “corruptly” endeavors to obstruct the proper administration of law “under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States” is guilty of a felony. Even putting aside the difficulty of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that President Trump’s brief and generalized words evinced the necessary “corrupt” mind-set, Section 1510 applies only to a “pending proceeding.”
“Principled objections to Mr. Trump’s policies and leadership style should not blind opponents to the dangers of repeated, knee-jerk calls for criminal prosecution of the president of the United States. Let the evidence unfold, and reserve serious charges if and when the evidence warrants it. Crying wolf undermines the credibility of the opposition, further divides an already deeply divided country and breeds cynicism about American institutions that is as dangerous to our republic, if not more, than outside meddling.”
Gregg Jarrett: Comey’s revenge is a gun without powder
Under the law, Comey is required to immediately inform the Department of Justice of any attempt to obstruct justice by any person, even the President of the United States. Failure to do so would result in criminal charges against Comey. (18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361) He would also, upon sufficient proof, lose his license to practice law.
So, if Comey believed Trump attempted to obstruct justice, did he comply with the law by reporting it to the DOJ? If not, it calls into question whether the events occurred as the Times reported it.
Obstruction requires what’s called “specific intent” to interfere with a criminal case. If Comey concluded, however, that Trump’s language was vague, ambiguous or elliptical, then he has no duty under the law to report it because it does not rise to the level of specific intent. Thus, no crime.
There is no evidence Comey ever alerted officials at the Justice Department, as he is duty-bound to do. Surely if he had, that incriminating information would have made its way to the public either by an indictment or, more likely, an investigation that could hardly be kept confidential in the intervening months.
Comey’s memo is being treated as a “smoking gun” only because the media and Democrats, likely prompted by Comey himself, are now peddling it that way.
Comey will soon testify before Congress about this and other matters. His memo will likely be produced pursuant to a subpoena. The words and the context will matter.
But by writing a memo, Comey has put himself in a box. If he now accuses the President of obstruction, he places himself in legal jeopardy for failing to promptly and properly report it. If he says it was merely an uncomfortable conversation, he clears the president of wrongdoing and sullies his own image as a guy who attempted to smear the man who fired him.
Either way, James Comey comes out a loser. No matter. The media will hail him a hero.
After all, he gave them a good story that was better than the truth.
Well, if you’ve lost Dennis: Dennis Kucinich Calls ‘High BS Quotient’ on WaPo Story, Asks Who Leaked
And isn’t that, after all, what’s important in this full-blown Alinsky era? The American media still cannot get over Hillary’s loss in November. But even worse they cannot recognize the American people have had it with their off-the-rails out-in-far-left-field bullshit … and this continual spinning and lying and passing it off as ‘news’ is making even more people pissed at them…
Senate Judiciary Committee requests all Comey memos related to Pres. Trump *and* Pres. Obama, as well as Trump & Obama DOJ officials pic.twitter.com/J1pLQb9Dyq
— Phil Mattingly (@Phil_Mattingly) May 17, 2017
Has anyone seen the #ComeyMemos on the Hillary email investigation? Asking for a friend.
— Dan Bongino (@dbongino) May 17, 2017
As to the current piece of journalistic malpractice tainting the waters, this almighty damning memo regarding a meeting with PDJT and then FBI Director Comey, the ‘memo’ was read to a NYTimes reporter over the phone. The Times never saw a hard copy of said memo, nor did they have any solid verification of its authenticity. Just another anonymous source chumming the MSM’s insatiable appetite for ammo against PDJT…
— Fox News (@FoxNews) May 17, 2017