Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
Of course the media will only cite "sources," "law enforcement sources," etc. I don't know if they have said "a source close to the investigation or other indication that they got it from a senior investigator who gave them permission to run it as long as they didn't specify which one. I don't know if the journalists of today even understand those distinctions.
I only see five possible ways the media could be getting that information:
1) The DOJ/FBI is deliberately giving it to the media as part of their strategy.
2) One or more prosecutors or agents is leaking the information against orders as part of their personal "Get Trump" strategy, similar to Strzok, Page and many others.
3) A lower level worker, like a paralegal or techie is leaking the information.
4) Someone is just making it up and feeding it to the media.
5) The media is just making it up as they go.
6) Some combination of the above.
Maybe I should have made it a poll, but no one ever seems to approach those correctly.
In my opinion it is likely the first for much of it, especially for this example:
The media in lockstep reported that documents related to the nuclear capabilities of another nation" were among the items seized. The source was "according to people familiar with the matter." Then, a few days later, another lead explained that it could be news clippings about the capability of a foreign nation, which explained why the story was "documents," and not "classified documents."
Also the trial balloon they floated and dropped about nuclear secrets not being able to be declassified even by the president, due to some law whose only penalty is disqualification from office. If that was the prosecutors, it was a deliberate lie because no law Trumps the constitution. But that might have come from a paralegal or a particularly dedicated anti-Trump techie. The prosecutors would not have wanted to be so obvious that their goal is to "stop him," and not to solve any crime. I'm guessing a reporter ran with it and was asked to stop by the DOJ.
Anyway, main point is that whichever it is, other than the last option, it looks really bad for the DOJ/FBI. Worse if it is 1) since it would be the same people who publicly refuse to answer questions from congressional oversight committees by claiming to be completely closed mouthed about ongoing investigations. Imagine dodging accountability like that and then running off at the mouth to some reporter?
But, hey Democrats: You may have an theory of who is leaking that I haven't thought of.
I only see five possible ways the media could be getting that information:
1) The DOJ/FBI is deliberately giving it to the media as part of their strategy.
2) One or more prosecutors or agents is leaking the information against orders as part of their personal "Get Trump" strategy, similar to Strzok, Page and many others.
3) A lower level worker, like a paralegal or techie is leaking the information.
4) Someone is just making it up and feeding it to the media.
5) The media is just making it up as they go.
6) Some combination of the above.
Maybe I should have made it a poll, but no one ever seems to approach those correctly.
In my opinion it is likely the first for much of it, especially for this example:
The media in lockstep reported that documents related to the nuclear capabilities of another nation" were among the items seized. The source was "according to people familiar with the matter." Then, a few days later, another lead explained that it could be news clippings about the capability of a foreign nation, which explained why the story was "documents," and not "classified documents."
Also the trial balloon they floated and dropped about nuclear secrets not being able to be declassified even by the president, due to some law whose only penalty is disqualification from office. If that was the prosecutors, it was a deliberate lie because no law Trumps the constitution. But that might have come from a paralegal or a particularly dedicated anti-Trump techie. The prosecutors would not have wanted to be so obvious that their goal is to "stop him," and not to solve any crime. I'm guessing a reporter ran with it and was asked to stop by the DOJ.
Anyway, main point is that whichever it is, other than the last option, it looks really bad for the DOJ/FBI. Worse if it is 1) since it would be the same people who publicly refuse to answer questions from congressional oversight committees by claiming to be completely closed mouthed about ongoing investigations. Imagine dodging accountability like that and then running off at the mouth to some reporter?
But, hey Democrats: You may have an theory of who is leaking that I haven't thought of.
