New York Times Reports On An Alleged Memo ‘That Someone Saw’
In the latest report that will “surely end Donald Trump’s presidency,” the New York Times has published a second hand unverified report about a memo “that someone saw,” without actually seeing the document for themselves to verify the claims.
The unverified report claims in their headline that President Trump had asked former FBI DIrector James Comey to end their investigation into General Mike Flynn. The shocking claim is a loose version what they actually describe in their report, however, which is that Trump simply said, “I hope you can let this go.”
The report is based solely on “two people who read the memo,” who are unnamed. The author, Michael Schmidt, admits that he has not seen the document for himself — yet has reported the secondhand sources as fact.
The meeting allegedly took place on February 14, one day after the administration had let Flynn go.
The memo quotes the sources describing a memo that they claim to have read as saying:
“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”
The White House has refuted the claims, saying that while Trump has repeatedly expressed his view that General Flynn is a decent man who served and protected our country, the President has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn.”
The statement added that the President has the utmost respect for law enforcement agencies and investigations — and maintains that the report is not a truthful or accurate portrayal of the conversation between Trump and Comey.
It is also important to note that Deputy Director Andrew McCabe confirmed in his testimony before the Senate last week that the White House has not interfered with any investigation.
If Comey or McCabe — or anyone from the FBI — really believed that Trump was attempting to interfere with an active investigation, shouldn’t they have come forward months ago?
Without anyone willing to put their name on the “leak,” this report from the Times is nothing more than a he-said-she-said.
The same can be said for the Washington Post’s report two days earlier that Trump had shared classified information with Russian officials during their meeting at the White House.
The paper claimed that “a current and a former American government official” told them that Trump had “revealed highly classified information” about an ISIS plot during the meeting with Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, and Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States.
Again, the paper does not provide any names of their sources, nor were they in the room for the conversation. It is essentially hearsay.
What we do know is that Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, HR McMaster, his deputy, Dina Powell were present, there may have also been five or six high level staffers.
Those five or six staffers then write memos which are sent around to various foreign policy and national security teams. If each staffer sent their memos to 3-4 people, we now have possibly more than 30 people with direct knowledge of what happened in the meeting — or can claim that they do — to newspapers who are willing to publish their assertions without confirmation.
Of those people, it is highly probable that even 10% are deep state moles or anti-Trump — and it only takes one to embellish a leak or mischaracterize it for their own purposes. The only people who really know what was said were the people in the room — and the paper did not name anyone credible within the room.
Trump has denied the allegations.
“As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism,” Trump wrote in a pair of tweets.
These latest revelations appear to be nothing more than just another deep state attack on Trump through the complicit mainstream media — without any names or documents to back them up.