WaPo Cites Guys Who Talked To Guys Who Talked To A Guy Who Talked To Trump As Source For Obstruction Of Justice Claim

In what, if true, would appear to be a major bombshell, The Washington Post has claimed that President Donald Trump asked a top intelligence official to “intervene with Comey on FBI Russia probe.”

To back this claim up, the outlet literally cites anonymous sources who spoke to a guy that spoke to Trump.

The outlet cites these sources as stating that, on March 22, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats had a private meeting with Trump alongside CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

During that meeting, Trump allegedly (key word – allegedly) complained about Comey’s handling of the FBI’s Russia investigation and asked Coats and Pompeo to publicly deny the existence of evidence showing collusion, according to WaPo’s sources “familiar with the account Coats gave to associates.”

In other words, as The Daily Caller puts it, “Trump has a private conversation with Coats and Pompeo. Coats discusses the contents of that conversation with some ‘associates…’ Those associates in turn relay what is now a secondhand account to some ‘officials.'”

Referring to WaPo writer Adam Entous, The Daily Caller continues, “what exactly does Entous mean by ‘associate’ here? Are these other high-ranking intelligence officials? Former officials? Coats’ favorite staffers? The guy who does his dry cleaning? And what bar does a source have to meet to be considered ‘familiar with’ an account of an account?”

“The wording in the report seems deliberately vague, perhaps in order to lend the report greater credence, perhaps to justifiably protect sources. We don’t know.”

The mainstream media has relied on anonymous sources for numerous stories related to the Trump/Russia narrative.

Said mainstream media outlets have fought to defend their use of anonymous sourcing in this vein, as seen clearly by CNN’s Kate Bolduan literally screaming at a guest who questioned the veracity of said sourcing.

As seen yesterday, however, information provided by anonymous sources can fall apart quite quickly.

Following the release of former FBI Director James Comey’s opening statement yesterday, CNN was forced to correct a story in which it stated – citing anonymous sources – that Comey, during his House Intelligence Committee hearing today, was set to dispute Trump’s claim that he was told he was not under investigation.

When Comey’s statement proved otherwise, the outlet had to add the following embarrassing amendment to its story:

CORRECTION AND UPDATE: This article was published before Comey released his prepared opening statement. The article and headline have been corrected to reflect that Comey does not directly dispute that Trump was told multiple times he was not under investigation in his prepared testimony released after this story was published.

The Daily Caller
The Washington Post



  1. Kat121

    June 8, 2017 at 10:41 am

    Wow – talk about #fakenews

  2. Chesapeake

    June 8, 2017 at 10:56 am

    I think I saw that episode of Spongebob Squarepants. WaPo’s supposed source.

  3. swampdrainer65

    June 8, 2017 at 11:01 am

    A friend of a friend of a friend of a WaPo reporter who interviewed an unnamed source told me Trump hangs rolls of toilet paper the wrong way and that should be a an impeachable offense.

  4. misha1d1

    June 8, 2017 at 12:31 pm

    A friend of my friend told me that the Washington Post makes your butt smell worse if you use it for toilet paper after taking a dump. I know that is true.

  5. Clayton ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    June 8, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    There WAS NO SOURCE. You should see the WaPo’s email server. They’re emailing back and forth right now about how to word it so it looks like Comey dumped all over Trump when he didn’t.

  6. Bill R

    June 8, 2017 at 5:53 pm

    I have from reliable sources that puts Trump crowding in the buffet line at Luby’s and then pretending it was the back of the line. I hate Trump.

  7. AlexCorvidae

    June 13, 2017 at 11:22 pm

    18 U.S. Code § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection

    “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
    (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)”

    I don’t have, and refuse to ever get a twitter account. But if you do, feel free to report everyone who has hash-tagged anything to do with not my president.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top