The Trump-Russia coverage

It was a busy weekend and I didn't get any posts in, but I do have a couple in the works. One thing to mention real quick is that I'm taking notice of the coverage that Trump is accused by the Washington Post citing an anonymous source (as always) that Trump gave Lavarov highly classified information. Remember when the PissGate dossier scandal blew up the media backpedaled that they were merely "covering the coverage." It's a bullshit excuse, but just the same it's what they'll use if this story backfires. Here's the screencap from my google news feed.

There can be no similar excuse made in this iteration. I'm pre-emptively calling them out. At best the headlines tag a disclaimer to the end. Many go without it entirely. The outlets are clearly running the story that Trump revealed critically classified information to the Russians; it's not coverage of coverage.

This is likely to be fake news. The Washington Post, who illegally fundraised for Hillary during the Democrat primaries and then hired her failed campaign manager as soon as the recount dust had settled, is in no way an impartial source. Also, let's look at the possible hypotheses here.

1. It's valid, American source
2. It's valid, Russian source
3. It's a fake leak by Team Bannon
4. It's completely fake

There were only 4 US officials in the meeting: Trump, McMaster, Tillerson, and one I've unnamed (as far as I know). So that's a very narrow scope for determining the leaker. We assume the Washington Post isn't colluding with the election-hacking Russian government. It's hard to imagine the Post completely made up the story, but possibly they were duped by notorious Trump team double agent John Miller. 

There are two things that must happen for this story to pass muster. First, the source must go on the record. Second, we have to verify that information was actually conveyed in an irresponsible manner. According to the only other individual named in the WaPo article, McMaster, it was not. Here's the thing: the president inherently owns all classified information. He is legally authorized to share it with the Russians. The question is whether the act was responsible. To make that determination one must have access to the information. So for the American public to really judge they must be granted access. So there's the rub: the only way to really verify that sensitive data was "leaked" would be to broadcast the same sensitive data! So the WaPo is in the position that they can't really be contradicted. This assumes, of course, the stance the left has taken with Trump, in that he is an exception to the rule that people are assumed innocent if no evidence can be made to substantiate claims against him.

The only way around all this is if a person who is considered trustworthy corroborates the story. But the source is anonymous, and WaPo cannot be trusted in the matter. So we only have McMaster as a verified source of information, but he refutes the claim. The liberal media has decided McMaster's testimony is not credible. Which is funny. Do you think they would dismiss his comments if they corroborated the claims? Of course they wouldn't! We'd be hearing all about how he is a man of integrity and a great patriot. These people are so biased it makes your head spin.