FAKE NEWS: Donald Trump is not currently being investigated for Obstruction of Justice

    A sign hangs on the outside of the Washington Post Building August 6, 2013 in Washington, DC, the day after it was announced that Amazon.com founder and CEO Jeff Bezos had agreed to purchase the newspaper for USD 250 million. Multi-billionaire Bezos, who created Amazon, which has soared in a few years to a dominant position in online retailing, said he was buying the Post in his personal capacity and hoped to shepherd it through the evolution away from traditional newsprint. AFP PHOTO / Saul LOEB (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

    According to Trump’s lawyer, Jay Sekulow Donald Trump isn’t under investigation for obstruction of justice.

    In an interview on CBS’s Face the Nation Sekulow had this to say:

    DICKERSON: In which he wrote, “I’m being investigated for firing the FBI director by the man who told me to fire the FBI director. Witch hunt!” What’s he talking about?

    SEKULOW: The president issued that tweet on social media because of the report in the Washington Post from five anonymous sources none of which, of course, anyone knows about, alleging that the president was under investigation in this purported expanded probe. The fact of the matter is the president has not been and is not under investigation. So this was his response, via twitter, via social media was in response to the Washington Post piece with five anonymous sources. And by the way John the five anonymous sources, they don’t even identify the agencies upon which these individuals reportedly worked. So the response there is clear andI want be really clear about this. The president is not and has not been under investigation.

    DICKERSON: How do you know?

    SEKULOW: Because we’ve received no notice of investigation. There has been no notification from the special counsel’s office that the president is under investigation. In fact, to the contrary. What we know is what James Comey said, the last thing we know is when he testified just a couple weeks back. That the President was not and is not a target of investigation.  

    DICKERSON: Of course, there have been events since James Comey told them that. But is it your view and just to educate viewers that- that if you were under investigation, there would be an obligation for the special counsel to let you know. Couldn’t you be under investigation and they’re just not letting you know yet?
    SEKULOW: Well, look, I- I can’t imagine a scenario where the president would not be aware of it. Number one, there is a serious constitutional issue here. I mean I want you to think about the context upon which this would take place. Under the Washington Post theory of the case, this is the Washington Post theory, that the president of the United States, after being advised by his Attorney General and the office of the Deputy Attorney General, determined to remove James Comey from the FBI directorship. If the Washington Post leaks were correct, the President of the United States, would be, if this was correct, would be under investigation for taking the action that the Department of Justice asked him to take. That raises not only a serious – not even a serious constitutional question, it’s an easy constitutional question. That’s impossible. The President can not be investigated, or certainly can not be found liable for engaging in an activity he clearly has power to do under the constitution.

    A report from ABC backs up Trump’s lawyer:

    “Now my sources are telling me that he’s begun some preliminary planning, plans to talk to some people in the administration, but he has not made that momentous decision to go for a full-scale investigation,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

    The interview from Trump’s lawyer and the report from ABC’s Pierre Thomas both contradict the report from The Washington Post that Trump is currently being investigated for Obstruction of Justice.

    Now, the day the report dropped we covered the fact that sources inside of the Washington Post said their report was rushed and poorly sourced.

    Excerpt from The True Pundit

    The story never appeared on the morning and afternoon menu at news meetings held daily by the paper’s editors to decide on upcoming political stories for Thursday’s newshole. Instead, the heavily anonymous-sourced story simply appeared late Wednesday night already published, bypassing the once-mandated editorial process established to flush out poorly-sourced stories or stories with weak reader appeal.

    “Came from the top, from Martin (Baron),” a former colleague at the Washington Post told True Pundit. “Wasn’t on the daily budget. Would have been major lead for front page Thursday but it was rushed and hushed.”

    Another Post source and former colleague offered similar sentiment: “My recommendation would have been to push to Sunday but I wasn’t asked. Story like that would normally go out front (page one) Sunday and could set national agenda for the week.”

    Editors said the story was likely written after the afternoon news meeting and kept quiet and was obviously “rushed out the door” in a small window of one to two hours, likely bypassing a review by the newspaper’s lawyers which could take a day in itself.

    Now, it is still possible that Trump comes under investigation but at this point, he is not. This is just another example of poor reporting from The Washington Post.

    Share Your Thoughts

    We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.


    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here