Rabid Dogs

The mental image of a pack of angry rabid dogs, snarling as saliva dripped from their mouths, seemed appropriate as the Democrats and mainstream media pounced on the resignation of General Michael Flynn as national security advisor. Recall that Flynn has worked within the military and the government tirelessly for 30 years, but left-wing Salon suggests that this decorated veteran and/or Donald Trump himself are traitors with the headline, "None Dare Call it Treason." That. Is. Unhinged. But no surprise.

The talking point from Democrats and their trained hamsters in the media was "What Did the President know and When Did He Know It?" Odd that they didn't ask that question during the Benghazi scandal, where actual people actually died in an election year cover-up, or the IRS scandal, where actual U.S. citizens were actually targeted by a federal agency, but no matter.

I decided to sit back and let the outrageous claims settle a bit before commenting. My sense was that this entire episode was a political assassination, grossly overblown, but it was difficult to be sure.

Now, the entire story and all of its most outrageous accusations are falling apart. Patrick Pool summarizes the current status of this story:

The media narrative that recently ousted National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was involved in nefarious -- nay, sinister and possibly treasonous!!! -- dealings in his December call with the Russian ambassador is quickly collapsing, as CNN reports that the FBI will not be pursuing any criminal investigation involving Flynn's phone call.

So too is the hype that the Trump campaign was riddled with contacts with Russian intelligence, as reported yesterday by The New York Times.

I addressed this story yesterday in my post-Flynn resignation roundup, noting that the screaming headline was undercut by the Times' own reporting that no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence had been found.

The trained hamsters of the MSM are being forced to report that most of their outrageous claims (e.g., this is "Trump's Watergate") are nonsense, but then again, since November 8th, the MSM, driven by their overt hostility to Trump, has been all about reporting nonsense as truth and unsubstantiated innuendo as fact. Even NPR is forced to admit this with a headline that reads "Intelligence Official: Transcripts Of Flynn's Calls Don't Show Criminal Wrongdoing."

There is another element to this story that the Democrat's trained hamsters in the media seem far less interested in discussing. Peggy Noonan comments:

Who is listening to, and leaking information to the press about, not only Mr. Flynn’s conversations but the president’s phone calls with foreign leaders? And what is their motive?

Is this, as some suggest, “deep state” revenge for the haughty, dismissive way Donald Trump spoke of the U.S. intelligence community during and after the campaign? Is it driven by sincere and legitimate anxieties that the new White House has an unknown relationship with Vladimir Putin’s government that potentially compromises U.S. security, independence of judgment and freedom of action? Is it driven by the antipathy of the permanent government toward Mr. Putin, and a desire to bring down those, like Mr. Trump, who hope for closer relations with Russia? Is it that they’ve seen—and listened to—enough of Mr. Trump to think he’s a screwball, period, and a threat to the republic?

So it seems that the the media has a new-found interest in ferreting out all of the details of an administration's foreign dealings with an international adversary, Russia, but little interest in investigating potential national security leaks my members of the "deep state" that are opposed to Trump. Franly, the latter is far more dangerous than the former. But at least they're investigating. Maybe they'll now have interest in going back and investigating the secret meetings and agreements between the previous administration and an international enemy, Iran—a country sworn to "Death to America" in the run-up to the disastrous Iran deal.

Nah ... after all, a few telephone calls between an incoming administration and Russia is far more foreboding than an the Iran deal that just might set the stage for nuclear war.

By the way, one has to wonder why the transcripts of the secret meeting between the past president and the Mullahs of Iran were never leaked. Oh, I forgot, the past president was beyond reproach, so there is nothing to learn from his meeting with the Mullahs. Unless there is.

UPDATE-1:
----------------------
The lowly editors of The New York Post take on the left-wing propaganda machine that was once the vaunted New York Times and provide an example of how the NYT is working to discredit Trump:

Take a deep breath and realize how precious little substance there is in all the breathless reporting about supposed skulduggery by President Trump, his team and the Russian government. If the nation’s lucky, the coming congressional probes — and whatever surfaces from the apparent ongoing FBI investigation — may one day provide some clarity.

Hostile, hysterical reporting based on anonymous leaks provide no hard facts — just “narratives” that could come out of a creative-writing class.

Take Wednesday’s breathless New York Times story, “Trump Aides Had Contact With Russian Intelligence” — which was remarkable for containing the same facts the Times reported back in October as “Investigating Donald Trump, FBI Sees No Clear Link to Russia.”

Both reports say various Trumpites talked to figures in Russia’s government — but that US investigators found nothing to show they’d discussed the US election, or that anyone on Team Trump was even aware of any effort by Moscow to influence it.

Oh, and the Times also reported Jan. 19, “Intercepted Russian Communiques Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates.”

How many times can the Times recycle the same stuff and still call it news?

As many times as required to re-enforce a very dubious narrative, I suppose.

UPDATE-2:
--------------
The Washington Examiner provides a list of media errors over the first month of the Trump presidency. In most cases, these are fueled by bias and hostility toward Trump, rather that the everyday errors that all media organizations make. They write:

The press has a problem, and it seems to be getting worse. Whether through bias, sloppiness, or sheer panic, the mainstream media has dropped its standards since President Trump was sworn in.

Rather then adjusting adeptly to Trump's easy relationship with the truth and his tendency to abuse members of media, by dialing up their standards, a significant number of journalists have tripped over themselves recently to repeat every bit of gossip and half-cocked rumor involving Trump and his administration.

The rush to get these supposed scoops out in the open, whether in print, on television or on social media, has, of course, produced a rash of shoddy reporting.

Now this isn't to say that all coverage of this new administration has been slipshod. Rather, it's to say that there has been a disturbing and unusually large number of stories that have turned out either to be overhyped, inconclusive, half-true or flat-out incorrect. There have also been a number of reports whose sourcing is so thin, that to believe them would be to take a major leap of faith.

Or a major desire to discredit this administration in its first weeks in office.

UPDATE-3
---------------
It is literally insulting to listen to media types express mock outrage over Trump's wholly accurate characterization of them as "the opposition" and "dishonest." Here's a little reference material that compares the media's treatment of Michael Flynn's telephone calls and the death of four Americans at Benghazi along with the near-instant cover-up that ensued. Julie Kelly writes:

Fun fact: While Trump press secretary Sean Spicer fielded 55 questions on February 14 related to the Flynn debacle, Obama’s press secretary Jay Carney received only 13 questions from reporters on September 12, 2012 [the days after the Benghazi attack], three of which were set-ups to blast Mitt Romney’s criticism of the administration after the attack. 55 to 13.

So as we now suffer through yet another patch of media mania, conspiracy theories, and unsubstantiated claims about how Trump hearts Russia, as well as the daily beatings endured by Spicer, let’s reminisce to when the media and Obama’s press flaks spun, deflected—even joked about golf and “Saturday Night Live!”—less than a week after Benghazi.

The day after Hillary Clinton’s deputy had that call with key Capitol Hill staffers, including advisors to senators Durbin, Feinstein, and McGaskill, to dispute the notion the attack was about an anti-Muslim video, here’s what Carney said: “I think it’s important to note with regards to that protest that there are protests taking place in different countries across the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet. As Secretary Clinton said today, the United States government had nothing to do with this movie. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible.”

Nah ... what's "disgusting and reprehensible" is a biased media somehow characterizing itself as a victim when criticized by this president.