There is a second wave of media reactions to John Durham’s latest dossier on the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation. The first wave was silence, hoping somehow that the whole story would go away. Now the second wave is the “Explainers”, who are trying to surround the whole thing defensively.
The Associated Press “Explainer” was titled “How the Latest Trump-Russia Dossier Generated the Buzz.” This article was sent to me on Twitter by a guy who apparently hates Donald Trump with the energy of a thousand suns, which illustrates the type of people who eagerly share these dismissive articles.
The AP reporter on this was Eric Tucker. He channeled all of the rebuttals from Michael Sussman, the Hillary Clinton-linked attorney Durham had indicted for lying (omitting his Hillary ties). Tucker helpfully tweeted the Democratic line: “Sussmann’s attorneys have hit back at the Durham team over his inclusion in the court filing of allegations which they called false and ‘intended to further politicize this case,’ to ignite media coverage and taint the jury “.”
Take out the laugh track.
That’s the threat Durham poses. He exposes that all the Clinton campaign did here was politicize the national security agencies, share their slanders with the FBI and CIA to boost spying on Trump advisers, inflame media coverage, and then taint the court process through the Mueller team, where 11 of the 16 prosecutors were Democratic donors. Five of them were Clinton donors.
Tucker also had to jump on the S-word. That’s not espionage! They were “mining information” to establish an “inference” linking Trump to Russia. “The researchers were not ‘spying’ on the Trump campaign in 2016, but rather were working at the request of federal officials to investigate Russian malware attacks that targeted the US government and the White House.”
A similar twist came from taxpayer-funded NPR, under their internet headline “John Durham filing that sparked conservative media, explained.” Their online summary of the ‘All things considered’ story was blatantly editorialized: “The political right is taking advantage of a recent filing in Special Counsel John Durham’s probe into the Trump investigation. -Russia. We uncover the truth behind their outlandish claims.”
Weird? Replacement host Elissa Nadworny claimed, “Fox News even said that Clinton had, in quotes, ‘infiltrated Trump Tower and the White House.’ But is that really what Durham said?”
Journalist Ryan Lucas replied, “No. Durham never said in his filing that Clinton paid agents to spy on Trump or his campaign. He never used the word ‘infiltrate’.” Monica Lewinsky, since he claimed it was oral sex.
Nadworny hinted that this was ancient history: “So this all relates to events that happened five or six years ago. Why does it matter now?” Lucas explained, “Trump had hoped that Durham would come up with a report before the 2020 election that might help Trump’s campaign. That, of course, didn’t happen. But the battle to shape perceptions still rages on.”
NPR is “aggressively shaping perceptions” that conservative media are fabricating “outlandish” claims that destroy the truth.
This is also how the New York Times and the Washington Post jumped on the bandwagon, declaiming “conservative conspiracy theories doused in fresh misinformation”.
So the media that pushed a bogus dossier with “pee tapes” and regularly implied that Trump was either on good terms with the Russians or blackmailed by the Russians, is lecturing us on the theories. empty plots. The biggest fraud in all that’s going on right now is that there’s conservative media and then there’s a “reality-based press”.
Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and editor of the NewsBusters.org blog. To learn more about Tim Graham and read articles by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.