New York Times lies about Rosenstein letter

A New York Times article published on April 3 inaccurately summarized the letter Rod Rosenstein, acting in the stead of recused Attorney General Sessions, sent to President Trump recommending the removal of James Comey as FBI Director. According to the Times, “Mr. Rosenstein cited the handling of the Clinton case in a memo the White House used to rationalize Mr. Trump’s firing of Mr. Comey.”

---

BBC published the Rosenstein letter in full

However, the BBC published the Rosenstein letter in full with the following introductory paragraph: “President Donald Trump followed the recommendation of his deputy attorney general when he fired FBI boss James Comey. What did Rod Rosenstein say? This is his letter in full.” To make it fit with the Times narrative in an article supposedly referring to opinions of unnamed members of Special Counsel Mueller’s team, they changed what the Rosenstein letter actually was and made it out to be something IT TOTALLY WAS NOT: a short note where a couple of negative things about Comey were said that were falsely used as an excuse for firing Comey. First of all, the memo was a letter consisting of a couple of thousand words and not just a few brief sound bite sentences. Secondly, it was written expressly recommending the removal of Comey after cautioning the President to carefully consider the impact of doing such a thing. Thirdly, the President did not need reasons outside of the scope of this letter to fire Comey. Nothing in it was misconstrued to be a “rationalization” for some other reason for firing Comey.

Excerpts of Rosenstein’s letter

Here are some excerpts of Rosenstein’s letter:

“The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016 and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors.”

---

---

“On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.” “The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.” “The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then - if prosecution is warranted - let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.” “Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.”

---

---

Congressional Democrats are working hand in hand with the liberal media. This is the same way that the creators of the 2016 Collusion hoax in the FBI and intelligence agencies planted articles then used them as evidence for FISA warrants. The article in Tuesday’s New York Times titled “Some on Mueller’s Team See Their Findings as More Damaging for Trump Than Barr Revealed” is proof this is true. Look at the specious sourcing used so Schiff, Nadler and the rest of the Inquisition team in the House of Representatives can say the New York Times is “evidence” they need to get EVERYTHING from the Mueller investigation so they can dissect it and turn it into “proof” of illegal and/or impeachable offenses of anything Trump: What kind of sourcing is that? Makes you wonder what they teach these days in journalism schools, because this isn’t journalism. It’s Maoist-style propaganda - frame the news inside the desired political outcome you are seeking.

---