Attempts To Sink Trump Via Menage Trois?
By: Jake Fogg
The Anatomy of a Lie!
The mainstream media has pushed a narrative to the extreme by doubling-down with a twist and double-speak, telling a story with no real facts or evidence. One example of this molding of the “narrative” occurred on Friday, June 16th. It involves six authors, two news agencies, one “spokesman”, and a June 12th statement from a has-been from the past in an interview with yet another news reporting agency, ABC.
The major components of this story come from a CNN report and a June 14th Washington Post report that required a whopping six reporters. The first two, Faith Karimi and Evan Perez, are from CNN, and Devlin Barrett, Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima, and Sari Horowitz, are from Washington Post. Based on the quality of writing for both stories, it is possible to see why a total of six writers were required.
The story is another effort by both major organizations to turn the “Russian” collusion story into a “President Trump obstructed story”. As in the previous narrative, CNN and Washington Post use the continued platform of alleging based on statements of “officials”, “sources”, “anonymous sources”, “sources close to…”, and “sources familiar with…”
On Friday, June 16, 2017, CNN reportedly spoke to Peter Carr, an apparent “spokesman” for Robert Mueller. Carr happens to be the only person actually named as having spoken to a reporter, at in this case, CNN. According to Carr, Mueller has brought 13 “high powered” lawyers on board to handle the “Russian Investigation” with plans to hire more.
Apparently the names of five of the attorneys are known but the other 8 have not yet been identified. Two allegedly come from Mueller’s old law firm, Wilmer Hale and another, Andrew Weissman, is given accolades by CNN for having led the Enron investigation.
After this is mentioned, the writers for CNN went straight to a quote from Ken Star during an ABC News interview. The quote, “That is great, great team of complete professionals, so let’s let him do his job.” CNN mentions that Ken Star was the independent counsel whose investigation into Bill Clinton caused the former president’s impeachment.
While it is likely that Star’s quote was intended to make it appear that he was an unbiased input, CNN also forgot to mention two other things. First, Ken Star buried the hatchet with the Clintons and endorsed Hillary’s presidential campaign, therefore making him not so “unbiased”.
In addition,the June 12th ABC news video footage to which CNN is referring, is four and a half minutes long with that quote at the very end. The majority of the interview shows Starr expressing doubts to the host as to whether Trump actually obstructed, saying that he thought it was going to turn out as a “he said, he said” and “I don’t even think it’s close”.
CNN then alleges that the special counsel’s investigators will be “looking into questions” of Russian interference in last year’s election and plan to speak to senior intelligent officials, “a source familiar with the matter told CNN”.
The branches of the U.S. military have “Special Forces” who perform spectacular feats of heroism on a daily basis. CNN and Washington Post have “Special Sources”. They are so special that it is unknown who they are or what they actually do. But apparently, they are there, and…do…something.
CNN handed off the story by reporting, “Mueller is also investigating whether President Donald Trump attempted to obstruct justice, the Washington Post reported Wednesday.”
The rest of the CNN story ends with the minor fact that the President might be weighing the option to terminate the special counsel but yet another “(unknown)source close to the President told CNN’s Jim Acosta that Trump has been advised to avoid such a dramatic move.”
The Washington Post reports “Trump had received private assurances from then-FBI Director James B. Comey starting in January that he was not personally under investigation. (Unnamed)Officials say that changed shortly after Comey’s firing.”
The Post also reported “Five people briefed on the interview requests, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly”, said that Daniel Coats, the current director of national intelligence, Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and Richard Ledgett, agreed to interview with Mueller.
The story by the Washington Post went on to say that “The obstruction-of-justice investigation of the president began days after Comey was fired on May 9, according to people familiar with the matter.”
The Washington Post then engaged in conjecture, using a term that had already been used in the June 12th ABC News interview by reporting,” The interviews suggest that Mueller sees the question of attempted obstruction of justice as more that a “he said, he said” dispute between the president and the Fired FBI director, an(unnamed) official said.”
According to the Post, Donald Trump spoke to Coats and Rogers about the Russian Investigation soon after the FBI refused to publicly acknowledge that he was not a part of it.
The Washington post went on to say “(Unnamed)Officials said one of the exchanges of potential interest to Mueller took place on March 22, less than a week after Coats was confirmed by the Senate to serve as the nation’s top intelligence official.”
The Post writers continued by saying that shortly after March 22, the President spoke with Coats and Rogers separately, on the telephone, asking them to publicly acknowledge that there was no evidence of collusion between his campaign and the Russian government. “Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the president’s request, (unnamed) officials said.
The rest of the Washington Post story was primarily evoted to showing James Comey, a known liar, as a hero. However, it finished up by trying to say that Trump’s tweet about being vindicated might somehow be incorrect by the “change in scope of the probe.”
But, according to the Washington Post’s actual words, there is no change to anything. Only speculation based on what a number of unknown people “said”.
After reviewing both of these articles with the ABC video footage, it is clear that collusion did, in fact occur. However, the collusion that was proven, was essentially between three “news-reporting” agencies and a total of six writers, who apparently worked very hard to keep the story straight.