Elder Patriot – New Times writers Michael S. Schmidt and Julian E. Barnes have taken it upon themselves to defend the corruption that pervaded former President Obama’s administration.
This required writing the most one-sided, biased, altered account of the mess that greeted Donald Trump when he entered the White House, yet.
Defending corruption within intelligence agencies is not a new phenomena for news sources. History is replete with instances: Stalin’s Russia, throughout the old Soviet Union, and today by the Chinese Communists.
We just never expected the Times to be so blatant about it.
To accomplish this, the authors resort to attacking Attorney General William Barr. Barr has a long and distinguished history in public service. His integrity as a lawman has never before been questioned during his 69 years on this earth.
But the Times’ writers, relying on nothing but a biased narrative, do exactly that.
Schmidt and Barnes write:
But this week, Attorney General William P. Barr engineered a new approach. At Mr. Barr’s urging, Mr. Trump granted him new authorities to examine the start of the Russia investigation, demonstrating a new level of sophistication for an old line of attack. Unlike Mr. Trump’s hollow threats and name-calling, Mr. Barr’s examination of how the intelligence community investigated the Trump campaign could offer a more effective blueprint for the president to take aim at his perceived political enemies.
Mr. Trump’s latest action is a drastic escalation of his yearslong assault on the intelligence community. Since taking office, he has tried to cement the narrative that the Obama administration illegally spied on his campaign, making an apparent attempt to distract from the investigation into his associates’ ties to Russia.
By moving forward with the review, Mr. Barr is bolstering the president’s unfounded claims that his campaign had been spied on.
Uh… they must’ve missed this:
It would seem the only point of contention is over the word “illegally.”
Isn’t that what Barr has said he wants to establish? Whether the origins of the previous administration’s spying was legally predicated?
For those of you were out of the country at the time, here’s a refresher:
AG William Barr says he believes "there was spying" on the 2016 Trump campaign. pic.twitter.com/mpEwQY5x4i
— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) April 10, 2019
Barr: “I think spying did occur. Yes, I think spying did occur.
“The question is whether it was adequately predicated. I’m not suggesting it wasn’t adequately predicated, but I need to explore that.
“I think it is my obligation.”
It seems the Times agrees with Barr’s assessment that spying did occur, even if Schmidt and Barnes might find that to be rather inconvenient to their narrative.
The point of contention is whether or not the ‘spying’ was properly predicated. Everyone should want an answer to that, at least if they truly believe that theirs is the true narrative.
But only Trump, and his supporters, appear to want the answer. What does that tell us?
To listen to Schmidt and Barnes you’d think Trump was the one complaining about transparency, as this paragraph deceptively suggests:
For Democrats, Mr. Barr’s newfound powers served as a sign that Mr. Trump had found a new, and potentially effective, tool in his war on the so-called deep state.
There either is, or there isn’t a Deep State. If there isn’t, this would be an excellent time to disprove its existence and shut Mr. Trump up permanently. Of course, if there was no Deep State, it wouldn’t need defending, would it?
As far as their partisan reference, For Democrats, is concerned, our allegiance should be to finding the truth, not the Democrats’ version of events – nor the Republicans version, for that matter.
These two partisan hacks, masquerading as thoughtful men of conscience, cheered on the search for truth when it entailing investigating the president.
But, only this president – President Trump. Now that a spotlight might illuminate unseemly facts about about a different president, Barack Obama… well that’s just not how it should be done.
Schmidt and Barnes have written an article that is barely fit for lining the bottom of a bird cage.