Wall Street Journal Warns: Don’t Trust The Flynn “Innuendo” We Published Last Night

Jesus folks, a little obstruction of justice on the way to aiding and abetting treason never hurt anyone, right?

Right. Which is why earlier this week, I expressed my wholehearted support for the Wall Street Journal’s contention that Devin Nunes has absolutely no reason to recuse himself from the investigation into ties between Russians, Trump, and the election.

As a reminder, here’s what the Journal said on Wednesday:

Devin Nunes is refusing Democratic calls to resign as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and rightly so. If Mr. Nunes is going to step down for speaking out of school to the White House about his probe, then ranking Democrat Adam Schiff should also resign for spreading innuendo without evidence across the airwaves.

Exactly. Schiff and the Democrats were just spreading “innuendo without evidence.” Assuming you don’t count secret meetings at the White House and canceling public hearings at which potentially damaging testimony was to be delivered by someone Trump fired as “evidence.”

Well, in a testament to just how right the Wall Street Journal truly was about the idea that some folks are “spreading innuendo without evidence,” on Thursday night, the Wall Street Journal reported that Mike Flynn has offered to testify in exchange for immunity from criminal prosecution.

In that story, the Wall Street Journal just proved the point made earlier this week by the Wall Street Journal.  Look at this “innuendo” the Wall Street Journal printed 13 hours ago:

The fact that he was seeking immunity suggested Mr. Flynn feels he may be in legal jeopardy following his brief stint as the national security adviser, one official said.

See? Ridiculous. The Wall Street Journal has proven the Wall Street Journal’s point.

And don’t think this went unnoticed by the Wall Street Journal. Here’s what they wrote (in another editorial) about an hour before the Wall Street Journal started spreading (more) innuendo last night:

California Rep. Adam Schiff may not offer much by way of substance, but give him marks for political flimflam. The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee was so successful at ginning up fake outrage over his Republican counterpart that he successfully buried this week’s only real (and bombshell) news.

Mr. Schiff and fellow Democrats spent this week accusing Chairman Devin Nunes of carrying water for President Trump, undermining the committee’s Russia investigation, and hiding information. The press dutifully regurgitated the outrage, as well as Mr. Schiff’s calls for Mr. Nunes to recuse himself from the investigation into possible Russian electoral meddling.

All this engineered drama served to deep-six the important information Americans urgently deserve to know. Mr. Nunes has said he has seen proof that the Obama White House surveilled the incoming administration—on subjects that had nothing to do with Russia—and that it further unmasked (identified by name) transition officials. This is goes far beyond a mere scandal. It’s a potential crime.

Exactly. “It’s a potential crime.” And it’s a good thing we have the Wall Street Journal to warn us about people trying to “engineer drama [and] deep-six the important information,” because last night, the Wall Street Journal was doing all kinds of “engineering” and “deep-sixing” when they reported that the guy who was fired for lying about colluding with Russia is looking for immunity from prosecution just six hours after the New York Times (another spreader of “innuendo”) reported that one of the people responsible for giving Devin Nunes his information was hired by the same guy who is now looking for immunity.

So thank you Wall Street Journal, for keeping us sane in a world where “fake news” outlets like the Wall Street Journal are constantly “spreading innuendo without evidence across the airwaves” in a nefarious effort to “engineer drama” and “deep-six important information” about “potential crimes.”

And in the same vein, thank you Mike Flynn for reminding us that when it comes to “crimes,” you know someone has “probably committed” one if they’re “given immunity.”

 

Advertisements

One thought on “Wall Street Journal Warns: Don’t Trust The Flynn “Innuendo” We Published Last Night

  1. “the guy who was fired for lying about colluding with Russia” … hmmm

    From WaPo 2/14/2017:

    “As The Washington Post reported late Monday, just hours before Flynn resigned, the White House was told weeks ago that Flynn had misled them about his talks with Russia’s ambassador to the United States.

    Yet the situation didn’t come to a head until the public disclosure last week of what Flynn says was his faulty recollection of the call — and specifically, the fact that it included talk about sanctions [call with Russian ambassador in Dec 29, 2016], which Flynn and Vice President Pence had both denied.”

    – You say “fired” … WaPo “resigned”

    – You say “colluding with Russia” (implying in substance the assertion that ‘but for’ Russia’s meddling in the election, Trump would not be president) … WaPo “faulty recollection … the call … included talk about sanctions” (and specifically the Obama administration’s expulsion of 35 Russian operatives at or about that time) …

    uh oh … your hysteria is showing …

Speak On It