May 17, 2017
So, it’s 5 p.m. Eastern Time, and yes, there’s another anonymously sourced blockbuster breaking news story …
… in which the New York Times reporters say that they were told about a memo that says:
“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”
Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey that Mr. Flynn had done nothing wrong, according to the memo.
Mr. Comey did not say anything to Mr. Trump about curtailing the investigation, only replying: “I agree he is a good guy.”
Then we’re told that:
The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of the memo to a Times reporter.
So, yeah, we’ve got another 5 p.m. release of a Big Big Story based on anonymous sources who didn’t show the Times reporter the memo, but just read some selected parts of it. Being “one of Mr. Comey’s associates,” of course, makes the source completely credible.
Well, no, I don’t trust these 5 p.m. “bombshells.” I don’t trust anonymous sources who are associates of a guy who was just fired for non-performance, and I don’t trust reports based on parts of a memo read to a reporter by this anonymous source.
And I say, show me the memos!
Look, as I seem to end up saying over and over again, these 5 p.m. bombshells don’t have a very good record of working out. Usually, they turn out to be stories where, with a modicum of critical thinking, you’d see that the story looks pretty questionable. In yesterday’s story, for example, we were supposed to believe that Trump blew significant intelligence to the Russians in the presence of the secretary of state, the national security advisor, and a deputy national security advisor—none of whom tried to interrupt or stop him—based on an account of the meeting from an anonymous source who wasn’t actually there.
This article was posted: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:41 am