WhatFinger


Only to have Sean # bring forth the documents that show the whole thing was totally false

Fake news: Washington Post claims Trump tried to block Sally Yates from congressional testimony



It's not exactly breaking news that the Washington Post lies. We've been down this road before. And you should always be very skeptical when any media outlet claims that it "has learned" something without telling you how they supposedly learned it. But you can't learn something that ain't so, however much you may want to pretend otherwise. So if you were skeptical when you read this, stick a gold star on your forehead:
The Trump administration sought to block former acting attorney general Sally Yates from testifying to Congress in the House investigation of links between Russian officials and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, The Washington Post has learned, a position that is likely to further anger Democrats who have accused Republicans of trying to damage the inquiry. According to letters The Post reviewed, the Justice Department notified Yates earlier this month that the administration considers a great deal of her possible testimony to be barred from discussion in a congressional hearing because the topics are covered by the presidential communication privilege.
No, the Washington Post has not learned that, because that is not true. The Washington Post read some correspondence concerning Yates's possible testimony, and then either totally butchered its explanation of what it all meant or flat-out lied about it. Being that we're dealing with the Post, my money would be on them lying, but what I know for sure is that they didn't get it anywhere close to right. Here's Sean # ripping them a new one for messing up the story as abysmally as they did, which was very abysmal indeed:

Support Canada Free Press


Now how could you possibly get "Trump tried to block Yates from testifying" out of the documents the Post saw?

Now how could you possibly get "Trump tried to block Yates from testifying" out of the documents the Post saw? Either they didn't see all the documents, in which case they had no business claiming to have "learned" anything because they didn't have the complete picture - and apparently made no effort to get it by asking anyone . . . or, they jumped to conclusions about the documents they did see based on their built-in bias and preconceived notions about how the Trump Administration operates. Now let's step back and consider a question: The media would have you believe that Trump is jeopardizing the survival of the nation with supposed falsehoods he spews daily, even though much of the "information" that supposedly tells the media Trump is lying comes from anonymous sources who are breaking the law by saying the things they're saying to the media - and much of it turns out to be completely inaccurate. But why is it an existential crisis of Trump says something false, but it's just another day at the office if the Washington Post reports utter garbage like this? Which source is the average American more likely to get information and/or misinformation from directly? The president himself? Or one of the nation's leading newspapers? Also, let's review why this happens as often as it does? Despite the instruction of every Journalism 101 professor that you don't just run with information from anonymous sources except under extraordinary circumstances, today's media does so routinely. They are only too willing to receive documents from people who are not authorized to provide them, and they run with this information as if there's not the slightest question in the world that it's all accurate. That's how the AP ended up beclowning itself with fake news about Trump wanting to call up 100,000 National Guard troops to patrol the border. It was totally false, based entirely on a draft memo that was not under serious consideration as real policy. But because the media will run with anything that makes Trump look bad, it was too good to check, so they didn't check it.

Washington Post continually gets things wrong and shows no remorse whatsoever

And they ended up looking like the fools they are. And the same thing happened here with the Post. They either didn't understand the documents they had, or figured they had a welcome opportunity to misrepresent their meaning to the public and take another piece of flesh out of the president - not expecting they would be called out as effectively as they were when # got the chance to do so. Post writer Callum Borchers recently complained about people who "abuse the term fake news." What did he mean by that? He meant people who apply it to the mainstream media when they lie, because when the MSM invented the term in the wake of the election, they meant to apply it only to nontraditional sources who don't hue to their orthodoxy. And when these folks report stuff that isn't true, it should be called fake news. But when the Washington Post does the same thing, it should also be so labeled. Except that it's more dangerous when the Post does it, because most people expect what they report to be accurate, and they consider the Post's stories trustworthy. So when they lie, an awful lot of people will believe the lie because they think it's coming from a trustworthy source. It's not. The Washington Post continually gets things wrong and shows no remorse whatsoever, because it's on a mission to destroy Donald Trump - not to tell the truth. Today they're busted, which is good, but it needs to happen pretty much every day.


View Comments

Dan Calabrese -- Bio and Archives

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain

Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.


Sponsored