For days now we have been enduring the charge that President Trump speaking with a foreign supervisor is a wildly outrageous gossip. This is of course” an impeachable pique “.( By Twichy’s inexact measuring system this builds for the 137 th impeachable offense .) Despite the legend unraveling faster than a t-shirt bought at a truck stop, Brian Stelter utilized his Reliable Sources program to stoke the declining fire.
At issue is the accusation that President Trump contacted the Ukraine to speak with the freshly invested President Volodymyr Zelensky. What has everyone in a dander in the press is the guessed declare that Trump leveraged $250 million in aid to the country in order to force them to help him bring down Joe Biden. Even as details have evaporated this accusation Brian Stelter had on Carl Bernstein to raise the hysterics to proper red-line levels.
— Brian Stelter (@ brianstelter) September 22, 2019
Next Brian helpfully gave us Bernstein’s comments…now we do not have to seek out his evidence and abide his petulance.
Bernstein: “I remain coming asked, are there resonates of Watergate in this? And there are, in the following ways” >> rough transcript now >> pic.twitter.com/ QgsLqOSx9S
— Brian Stelter (@ brianstelter) September 22, 2019
Well now — you mean to tell us that Bernstein likens this latest Trump scandal to Watergate ?? The only people who did not see this coming are those who do not know who Carl Bernstein is.
But in Carl’s own messages now we learn exactly how hollow all of this bluster the past few eras has been. Look at how many qualifiers he has to use in his accusation of impropriety 😛 TAGEND
– “seems to be happening”- “perhaps dirty tricks”- “if this is what happened”
It used to be that back in the working day journalists would not even led a narrative if terms like “seems”, ” perhaps”, or “if” can be applied. Here Carl abuses ALL THREE neutering the requirements and starts forward as if this were a proved gossip of historic proportions.
You. Got nothing…
— the devil’s lettuce (@ Vono1 3) September 22, 2019
Isn’t that the same guy who you all had on all the time swearing up and down the Russia thing was Watergate all over again and he had inside info that was totally wrong? So I reflect I’ll pass on his thoughts, thanks though
— Sean schafer (@ Schafer1 868) September 22, 2019
You need to listen to/ watch yourself. You don’t flow a news show& it’s obviously not reliable-should change the call. It’s an “opinion show” with one goal- has become a hateful& critical& assaulting of POTUS as possible( proof not required ). How can you call yourself a journalist?
— NonBiasedAmerican (@ NoBiasAmerica) September 22, 2019
Just to settle things into perspective, it was just weeks ago that Stelter had declared the Sharpie-hurricane map “scandal” was the biggest lie Trump had ever told, so we need to modulate the hysterics with Tater.
But the funniest position in this; Stelter, the self-proclaimed monitor of journalism does not seem to monitor his own network.
The entirety of this gossip hangs on the testimony of an unnamed and unknown whistleblower. This individual claims that they accept witness to Trump trying to strongarm the newly set Ukrainian President into delivering oppo-research on Joe Biden. It is based on this that laws involving the protection of whistleblowers and the turning over of official documents to the DOJ involving the charges are invoked.
One problem. This mystery individual it seems has no functional knowledge of what they are claiming took place. Harmonizing to one news report,” There is so far no public proof that the whistleblower’s complaint pertains to this conversation or that there was any abuse of power by Trump .” Huh. That seems an interesting detail in this story that is being touted as worse than Watergate.
And it gets worse.
The whistleblower didn’t have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN. Instead, the whistleblower’s concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those items have played important roles in the administration’s determination that individual complaints didn’t equip the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower rule, the official said.
To repeat now. This ENTIRE scandal is hinged on the testimony of one individual, and that individual” didn’t have direct knowledge of the communications .” Which means they are nor coming forward with inside information, they are passing on a rumor. This means that none of the reporting requirement being screamed about do not pertain because this person is not a whistleblower — they are a gossip.
Brian Stelter, the expert media analyst at CNN, could have learned about this crucial detail — if he had inconvenienced to analyze the media delivered by CNN itself. The point this whistleblower does not in fact know about the very accusations was reported by CNN.
That Brian Stelter is inattentive to what his own network is reporting originates this “scandal” all the more comical to watch as it unfolds into a collapsing pup tent.
Read more: twitchy.com