Corporate Media Disregards Russia Hoax Revelations | The American Spectator

A recent Rasmussen poll revealed that 60 percent of Democrats still believe the debunked claim that President Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 election. Can such people be disabused of this delusion by DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s Friday revelation that former President Obama helped launch that hoax in an attempt to undermine the first Trump administration? Not if they still listen to the legacy media. Gabbard has the receipts and plans a criminal referral to the Department of Justice, yet the news outlets that peddled the Russia collusion hoax dismiss her charges.

Gabbard declassified and released more than 100 pages of documentary evidence showing that Obama directed his top intelligence officials to create a fraudulent intelligence report. In addition, she published a detailed timeline illustrating that the Obama administration knew before and after the 2016 election that Russian interference did not affect its outcome yet issued an intelligence assessment containing manufactured evidence to the contrary. Yesterday morning, Gabbard appeared on Fox News where “Sunday Morning Futures” host Maria Bartiromo asked her, “Are you referring this in a criminal matter?” SNI Gabbard answered this question as follows:

We are referring all of the documents that we have uncovered to the Department of Justice and the FBI for a criminal referral … I will do all that I can, and we have whistleblowers actually, Maria, coming forward now after we released these documents because there are people who were around who were working within the intelligence community at this time who were so disgusted by what happened. We’re starting to see some of them come out of the woodwork here because they too, like you and I and the American people, want to see justice delivered.

It would appear, however, that not everyone wants to see justice delivered. The Washington Post, whose unintentionally ironic motto is “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” shows no interest in shining a light on this scandal. The Wall Street Journal has been equally quiescent. The New York Times did run a perfunctory story in order to give Democrats a platform from which to denounce the DNI. It quoted Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) who accused Gabbard of somehow “trying to cook the books.” The Grey Lady also gave Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) an opportunity to denounce her disclosures as “baseless.” Not one Republican was quoted in the entire story.

Politico also deigned to run an article on the DNI’s charges, but portrayed them as part of a larger Trump administration plot to target critics of the president. Likewise, CNN wrote them off as “the latest example of officials going after perceived enemies of President Donald Trump.” Inevitably, the only major outlets that honestly covered DNI Gabbard’s disclosures were Fox News, which published this story on Friday, and the New York Post, which published this story on Sunday. Consequently, we must rely on independent journalists like Julie Kelly, who wrote an excellent piece highlighting former FBI director James Comey’s pernicious influence:

Not only do the documents demonstrate the intelligence community did not believe Russia could (before) or did (after) interfere in the 2016 presidential election, Gabbard’s report disclosed an important 24-hour period where ex-FBI Director James Comey suddenly parted ways with his intel colleagues who at the time were preparing a president’s daily brief indicating the Russians did not meddle in the election. Comey told the briefing participants to remove the FBI’s seal from the file. “FBI will be drafting a dissent soon,” an FBI official indicated.

The following day, December 9, several events occurred that provided the impetus for the interminable Russia collusion hoax that disrupted at least two years of President Trump’s first term. Obama called an urgent and confidential meeting with everyone he needed to cook up some serious skuldugery: Comey, of course, CIA Director John Brennan, DNI James Clapper, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, Homeland Security Advisor Lisa Monaco, and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Anyone even slightly familiar with this questionable cast of characters could have easily predicted that something wicked was Trump’s way coming.

On the same day, the intelligence community began springing leaks. The Washington Post, which refuses to publish a syllable on DNI Gabbard’s revelations, published an unsubstantiated article titled, “Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House.” But, as Julie Kelly points out, such leaks actually began more than a month earlier with yet another unsubstantiated article featuring a quote from a source that most readers will recognize as a man of “imperfect honesty”: then-Congressman Adam B. Schiff: “We’ve seen an unprecedented intrusion and an attempt to influence or disrupt our political process.”

With such a source how could anyone doubt that President Trump was colluding with Vladimir Putin and the Russians? Just look at how well they get along now! This brings us back to that 60 percent of Democrats who still believe President Trump colluded with the Russians in 2016. How is it possible to believe such implausible nonsense? The answer seems obvious. Included among the transgressions of the corporate news media there are many sins of omission. That is what is happening at this moment. Few informed Americans doubt that DNI Gabbard is right, but millions are getting the mushroom treatment from the legacy media.

READ MORE from David Catron:

The GOP’s Audacious Midterm Strategy

Is Elon Musk Ross Perot Reincarnated?