Here is one of hundreds of examples that can be given to show the bias of the mainstream (I.e. liberal, progressive, socialist, lying) media against President Trump – this particular topic being Trump’s phone conversation with the President of Ukraine.
This hit piece is from the New York Times of September 26, 2019, with the headline…
Whistle-Blower Is a C.I.A. Officer Who Was Detailed to the White House
Adam Goldman, Michael S. Schmidt and Julian E. Barnes
_______________________________
The Times: “WASHINGTON — The whistle-blower who revealed that President Trump sought foreign help for his re-election and that the White House sought to cover it up is a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his identity.”
____________________________________
Note the phrase “who revealed”. The phrase “who revealed” presumes that undisputed facts follow. In any other news story, such a presumption is suppressed, and the word “alleges” is used. In this case the New York Times, and other similar leftist media outlets rush to judgement, breaking journalistic protocol, and agree with the secretive, anonymous whistle blower before facts are known.
© Doug Mills The New York Times The C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va. The whistle-blower is a C.I.A. officer, people familiar with the matter said.
________________________________
The Times: “The man has since returned to the C.I.A., the people said. Little else is known about him. His complaint made public Thursday suggested he was an analyst by training and made clear he was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge of the law.”
_________________________________
The Times fails to question why this CIA operative was in the White House to begin with. Was he a spy for the deep state? For the Democrat Party"? Or for an anti-American foreign interest?
______________________
The Times: “The whistle-blower’s expertise will likely add to lawmakers’ confidence about the merits of his complaint, and tamp down allegations that he might have misunderstood what he learned about Mr. Trump. He did not listen directly to a July call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that is at the center of the political firestorm over the president’s mixing of diplomacy with personal political gain.”
_____________________________
The Times presumes a “mixing of diplomacy with personal political gain” by Trump’s conversation with Ukraine’s new President. Must corruption in a foreign country by US officials be dismissed and ignored just because a member of the family involved in such corruption is running for political office in the United States?
And here is the real gem, below: A threat against anyone who reveals the identity of the whistle blower:
______________________________
The Times: “Lawyers for the whistle-blower refused to confirm that he worked for the C.I.A. and said that publishing information about him was dangerous.
“Any decision to report any perceived identifying information of the whistle-blower is deeply concerning and reckless, as it can place the individual in harm’s way,” said Andrew Bakaj, his lead counsel. “The whistle-blower has a right to anonymity.”
“A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, said that protecting the whistle-blower was his office’s highest priority. “We must protect those who demonstrate the courage to report alleged wrongdoing, whether on the battlefield or in the workplace,” Mr. Maguire said at a hearing on Thursday, adding that he did not know the whistle-blower’s identity.”
____________________________________
Is publishing information about the whistle blower dangerous for the whistle blower, or more dangerous to those who reveal his identity? An interesting question given it is proffered by the CIA.
The whistle blower is attempting to take down the President of the United States – attempting to hide under the shield of anonymity while he slanders our President. In this case, the so-called “whistle blower laws” do NOT serve the public interest. With all due respect for the Director of National Intelligence, in this case the identity of the whistle blower should NOT be protected and his sources of second and third hand hearsay information should be made public.
What ever happened to our cherished legal principle of the accused being able to face his accuser? The citizens who voted for and continue to love and support our president deserve to know who the accusers are, and to understand the accusers’ motives.
One more point from Steve Scalise via Breitbart:
No comments:
Post a Comment