Thoughts 29 May 2019
By T. F. Williams
I wanted to expand on what I wrote yesterday; so, let's flesh this out a little more. Yesterday I wrote about what happened during the Presidential campaign of 2016 if it were a normal criminal investigation of someone other than a presidential candidate, like you or me. Today let's look at it in regards to how those in the media have handled the coverage of the investigation.
So, throughout the investigation there have been leaks and articles based on anonymous sources from within the intelligence, law enforcement and prosecutorial communities. We have come to find most of the leaked information to be false and unverified; and some are even now in the throws of legal action of defamation (such as Mr. Halpert) concerning the information leaked. In fact, two (2) reporters won a Pulitzer Prize for their reporting which has now been found to be false.
Let's continue the illustration from yesterday. The police officer or prosecutor has this false document on the person of interest in their investigation and really it is a compilation of several documents to make up an investigative file or dossier on the person of interest which they begin to leak to friendly media people/reporters. The reporters then run the information they have received through their editor(s) who then proceed to bring the legal advisors into the conversation. The decision is to delay publishing until verification can be made.
The media organization learns another media outlet is about the publish the same information and legal issues are subsumed by the need to be the first to release the information, to get the scoop. The false information is then published and begins the narrative, though false, the person of interest is up to nefarious activities and is under investigation. Thus begins the narrative to taint the jury pool and take away the presumption of innocence.
The media's dislike for the person of interest is visceral. The person of interest has been a part of their community and feted by them for donations to their causes, actions in support of agendas they believe in, and success within their field; however, the person of interest has chosen to take a stance with people they disagree with and they are feeling betrayed. They run every bit of innuendo that can possibly be found, they lose all sense of objectivity and every leaked falsehood they find is given credence as 85% of their profession run with the leaked information because it comports with their own agenda.
Then a special prosecutor is appointed and they stack their team with investigators and lawyers who are philosophically and and politically opposed to the person of interest. They use every prosecutorial intimidation tactic available to rattle the person of interest and their associates, even going so far as to charge some with crimes outside the chronology of the case of the person of interest. Yet, when the special prosecutor's report is released there is no legal foundation for any criminal charges.
The media feel betrayed by the special prosecutor and continue to push the narrative of the discredited information they reported and now the media is running a story claiming the special prosecutor is involved in a cover up. In addition, they are trying to get some other legal venue to pursue the charges even though those charges have been demonstrated to be false. This is where we are right now in reference to President Trump.
