Mollie Hemingway: Media Not Reporting New Russiagate Developments Because ‘They Were Complicit’ in Original Crime
Mollie Hemingway’s recent appearance on FOX News, as reported by Real Clear Politics, sharply criticizes the liberal media for their role in perpetuating the Trump-Russia collusion narrative in 2016 and their current silence on explosive revelations from DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s declassified report. Hemingway argues that outlets like The Washington Post and The New York Times were complicit in spreading false leaks from Obama administration officials, particularly John Brennan, while ignoring evidence that downplayed Russia’s election meddling. This aligns with the broader narrative of accountability emerging from Gabbard’s report and Devin Nunes’ claims about a “grand conspiracy” within intelligence agencies. Hemingway’s assertion that the media’s current reluctance to cover these developments stems from their complicity raises serious questions about journalistic integrity and bias.
The Gabbard report, as analyzed by Jeff Childers, Matt Taibbi, and Margot Cleveland, confirms that the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was built on unreliable evidence, including the Steele Dossier, and was manipulated by Brennan to falsely link Trump to Russian interference. Hemingway’s claim that the Obama administration suppressed intelligence showing minimal Russian meddling is supported by Cleveland’s analysis, which highlights how evidence contradicting Putin’s alleged support for Trump was excluded from the ICA. The media’s role, as Hemingway describes, was to amplify these leaks without scrutiny, pushing a narrative that fueled years of investigations and public division.
Hemingway’s charge of complicity is compelling but not without nuance. The media’s eagerness to publish leaks from high-ranking officials like Brennan reflects a broader issue of access journalism, where outlets prioritize scoops over verification. Posts on X echo this sentiment, with users noting that legacy media outlets have barely covered Gabbard’s report, instead focusing on unrelated distractions or framing Trump’s actions as authoritarian. However, the media’s silence could also stem from caution after years of criticism for Russiagate coverage, rather than deliberate cover-up. Still, the contrast between their 2016 fervor and current reticence lends credence to Hemingway’s argument.
Media Complicity: Hemingway asserts that The Washington Post and The New York Times uncritically published false leaks from Obama administration officials, particularly John Brennan, to push the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
Suppressed Intelligence: The Obama administration allegedly hid intelligence downplaying Russia’s 2016 election meddling to undermine Trump, a claim supported by Gabbard’s declassified report.
Manufactured Narrative: The 2017 ICA, based on flimsy evidence like the Steele Dossier, was deliberately crafted to mislead the public and Congress, with media outlets amplifying the falsehoods.
Current Silence: Liberal media’s lack of coverage on Gabbard’s revelations suggests an attempt to avoid accountability for their role in promoting the “delusional conspiracy theory.”
Partisan Arm: Hemingway views the media as an extension of the Democratic Party, a perception reinforced by their selective reporting and alignment with political narratives.
Hemingway’s critique, backed by the Gabbard report’s evidence, paints a damning picture of media complicity in a politically motivated deception. As the truth gains traction, the media’s silence risks further eroding public trust, proving that, as Satchel Paige warned, something is indeed gaining on those who thought they could outrun accountability.
Comments
Post a Comment