Becket Adams:
The New York Times and the Washington Post are being credited Friday afternoon with releasing two big scoops regarding Trump administration scandals.
The Times report, which alleges the president told the Russians that firing former FBI director James B. Comey had relieved a “great pressure” on him, is a legitimately big story.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer didn’t challenge the Times report, which only increased the appearance that the president improperly fired Comey to wave off an investigation into his campaign.
The Post’s Friday scoop, however, which alleges federal officials have identified a top White House official as being a “person of interest” in the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 election, should be handled with caution.
The Post’s report is thin on details, and it makes use of a great deal of suspiciously vague language.
Here’s how the story opens:
The law enforcement investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign has identified a current White House official as a significant person of interest, showing that the probe is reaching into the highest levels of government, according to people familiar with the matter.
The senior White House adviser under scrutiny by investigators is someone close to the president, according to these people, who would not further identify the official.That’s not saying a whole lot about anything. First off, the sources are implicating a whole group of people (White House advisers close to the president) while deliberately not naming the one “person of interest.” Secondly, that term—”person of interest”—is hopelessly vague.
Attorney Ken White, who also manages the popehat.com law blog, saw the same issues in the Post’s story.
“So today’s WaPo story about a ‘person of interest’ in the White House is a little odd. ‘Person of interest’ is a deliberately ambiguous term, evasive. WaPo reporters are smart and know that. Yet they don’t comment on it,” he remarked on social media.
“‘Subject’ or ‘target’ would be far more precise terms, suggesting that the source has more knowledge and credibility,” he added. “But it’s odd and a bit disappointing that WaPo writers don’t highlight that their source is using notoriously wobbly language with them.”
He concluded with the final thought, “Because ‘person of interest’ could mean ‘target’ or ‘subject’ or could mean ‘person mentioned once speculatively.’ And no, adding ‘significant’ doesn’t make it less ambiguous. That’s like saying ‘no, I STRENUOUSLY object!'”
The Washington Compost like the New York and L.A. Slimes,Atlanta Urinal/Constipation,Medford Mail Trash Bin and the talking heads are mostly all demacratic voters and supporters
All these paper-thin obsessions by the Leftists are looking like less-than-nothing to the vast majority of Americans not on the two extreme coasts.
It is worth noting that the media being frothing mad over pittances is not playing at all well outside the bubble.
On the Other Hand….
What we are seeing in Saudi Arabia with all our females in the delegation NOT covering their heads is a real issue being addressed.
Every Saudi female who is not a slave is looking at this and saying, if them, why not me.
It’s fluff until the “source” comes out in the open and presents the evidence.
Nanny is correct we dont GAF its just another day in the rabid delutional GET TRUMP world.
@Nanny G:
One thing we do know is that those liberal blogs have very few readers. If the NBCompost group didn’t read them and source them for their blogs, they wouldn’t have any rumors to spread.
After lying themselves into ecstasy over Hillary being President, you would think liberals would grow tired of building up their hopes over fantasies, then seem them crash and burn.
On the other hand, I find it amusing.
Are you also amused by Trump’s latest average job approval rating of 39.6 percent? He’s currently in negative territory by double-digit numbers in every recent national poll.
@Greg: Would you be referring to the “popularity rating” based on the lies and fake news issued by the corrupt liberal media? What could that possibly indicate of value?
I find it amusing that you leftists believe this means anything to anyone with a functioning mind.
@Nanny G: Two years ago your Donald criticized Michelle for not wearing a head scarf in Saudi Arabia–said Saudis were insulted.
Just his latest, and certainly not his last, flip flop.
Did you see him dancing with all the Saudi MEN That was fun.
Comey’s gonna testify in open session–must see T.V.
@Bill- Deplorable Me, #7:
Yeah, I know. The percentage of other Americans that members of the Red Hat Brigade are smarter, better informed, and more patriotic than just keeps getting bigger and bigger. At some point it will be TREMENDOUSLY HUGE.
@Richard Wheeler:
Sorry RW, you’re still confused. Mooche wore a scarf. And it was Obozo that bowed, not Trump.
You’re quickly becoming a junkie.
@Bill… Deplorable Me:
And no sign that they’ve ‘got it’ yet.
@Redteam: Was The Donald unable to see the scarf–was he OK?
junkie? His dancing was funny–he was enjoying himself. Melania not allowed to participate.
@Redteam:
Fake news Alternative facts–what’s next oh yea crooked judges
Prefer Yogiisms “You wouldn’t have won if we’d beaten you.”
@Richard Wheeler:
that scarf sure has you confused.
compared to Obama bowing.
Yogi: “Congratulations. I knew the record would stand until it was broken.”
@Redteam: Donald criticized her for not wearing a scarf. You say she was.
You saying Donald was mistaken or you are mistaken?–clear up the “confusion” please.
Seems Donald would rather dance with men than bow to them.
Seems you rightists won’t believe any polls till your guy gets to 50%–won’t happen
Kinda like you didn’t believe unemployment numbers till Your Donald posted them.
Back when Michelle visited SA she wore a wig.
I believe that counts as a head covering.
I think she’s been going a little bit more natural since they left the WH.
https://img.r7.com/images/2017/02/01/92sxwmslqy_8n36nvlfg6_file?dimensions=780×536&no_crop=true
@Greg: So far, of the dozen or so “scandals” and “impeachable offenses” you liberals have invented, there has yet to be a single shred (smidgen?) of actual substance to support a one. Nothing. Nada. Dry hole. It is simply hilarious to watch you whiny, crybaby, sore loser liberals work yourselves up to the drizzles with your freshly fabricated “THIS IS THE ONE!!!” scandals.
What isn’t so funny is the harm and damage you leftists are causing the nation in your infantile quest to reverse a legal election. But, you don’t care how much damage you do, do you? After all, you cheered Obama as he presided over 8 years of disaster.
@Richard Wheeler:
Liberals don’t understand it that some people don’t need polls to tell them what to think. Hell, the Democrats are even poll testing whether or not to impeach. Now, are their grounds to impeach or is it a political ploy those blowhards are afraid will blow up in their stupid, liberal, anti-American faces?
@Richard Wheeler:
No. @Richard Wheeler:
I believe the polls now. at 40% that means 60 % don’t know what they like and 40% like Trump.
Don’t believe you’ll find where I’ve agreed that Trump’s unemployment numbers are correct. I say that about 50-55% of the work force is unemployed. That 4% number is only how many have applied for unemployment in the last 3 weeks or so. Means absolutely nothing. Trump didn’t invent the method.
Yogi: “I’m not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did.”
@Richard Wheeler: PS,
Most of those 60% thought they were for Hillary but didn’t vote for her.
It was a leftists rag like the NYT’s and its infamous liberal leftists reporters like Walter Duranty and Herb Mathews that covered up for the war crimes of Stalin.Mao and Castro against their own people and the New York Slimes is nothing by another liberal leftists propeganda rag
@Bill… Deplorable Me:
The libs here are breathlessly watching MSNBC for the latest “unnamed source” to come forward with a big revelation they can cling to.
We have a lot of investigations in search of a crime.
Next up it’s the Comey testimony they are putting their bets on.
It’s fun watching these children prance around.
They have nothing but false hopes in a media pimping for rating.
We’ve seen this movie before.
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #17:
Multiple independent investigations of Donald Trump, his closest associates, and Russian influence and election meddling are now being conducted by the Justice Department, the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee—none of which have yet released findings, or even revealed the specifics of all that they’re looking into. If anything is found, there could already be enough to make a case for obstruction of justice charges.
I would say it’s a bit early for any pronouncements about dry holes. It’s not like we’ve already had a series of seven full Benghazi investigations that have all come up empty, one after the other.
Maybe at some point during the Russian connection investigations a subpoena will be issued to procure Trump’s tax returns. That could be interesting.
From Vox, May 19, 2017: Here’s every Trump-Russia investigation happening now.
(At least that we know of.)
@Greg:
Really? With the number of Obama moles buried within the government leaking anything they can find to damage Trump (to no avail thus far), you think if there was anything of substance, it would not have been leaked already? Also, every head of every agency has pronounced NO evidence of collusion has been found. ANYWHERE. (of course, they haven’t investigated Hillary yet)
They didn’t come up empty. We know Hillary denied additional security, the entire administration lied about what happened, they blocked rescue attempts and the entire episode could have been avoided had the administration been able to admit their narrative of Obama having defeated terrorism was premature, at best. What we never found out, and can only surmise, is why they did all this lying about their incompetence.
Maybe during the investigations, we will find out who has been leaking classified information, who ordered the illegal investigations of US citizens, how deep the illicit surveillance of citizens Obama had gone and all the Democrat Russian connections and the width and breadth of the left wing attempt to undermine a lawful election out of spite . You leftists should tread very lightly; more than the corrupt media can cover up might be revealed.
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #23:
That would be relevant, were any of the investigations complete. Ahead of such a point of completion, no organizational head can properly discuss the specifics of what evidence has or has not been found. There haven’t actually been any conclusive statements made by the heads of investigative organizations at any point—only comments that have been misrepresented as such.
The Trump administration appears to have attempted to shut down investigations of itself—a monumentally stupid move, since doing such a thing always creates the appearance of a cover up effort. We seem to be left with the possibilities that there’s either something serious to be covered up, or that monumentally stupid decisions are being made.
@Greg:
like your decision to write this comment?
Perhaps you should consider addressing the content of the comment itself, rather than throwing pointless insults at the person who made it.
@Greg:
Possibly correct, except that these investigations have been ongoing for 7 months. In the cases of the IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious and Obamacare scandal investigations, the scandalous acts were revealed first (as opposed to merely loudly accused) and the why and wherefore was what was sought. In YOUR case, you simply have an accusation and you investigate to try and find a crime.
With heavy emphasis on “appears”, in relation to the unsubstantiated, undocumented, uncredited left wing accusations, conjured up out of thin air.
@Greg:
Perhaps you will consider putting some content in your comments that is worth addressing.