WaPo sources say that Muller article was “Rushed” and “poorly sourced”

    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)

    After James Comey was fired he led a campaign of revenge to destroy Donald Trump. He leaked his memos to the press and testified under oath in about as theoretical of a way as possible. As we pointed out in prior articles Comey’s testimony was nothing more than a Soap Opera. Since then his ties to the special prosecutor Robert Muller have come to the forefront.

    Last Night The Washington Post dropped another article claiming that Donald Trump is now under investigation for “Obstructing Justice”.

    This article is what we have come to expect from The Washington Post. It cites unnamed sources and makes broad claims in an attempt to stir more controversy.

    According to the True Pundit, this article has received doubts from the editors of The Washington Post:

    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.



    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