THE WASHINGTON POST’S FUSION GPS REVISIONIST HISTORY

There are two kinds of lies.

-Lies of commission, when you say something that is untrue;

-Lies of omission, when everything you say is true but you leave out parts that, due to their omission, lead to the wrong conclusions.

Nowhere is this more evident than in David Ignatius’s disgraceful revisionist-history of the Fusion GPS opposition-research group and its coordination with the Hillary Clinton presidential camapaign.

Paul Mirengoff has a superb column on how Ignatius does it.  I am posting this segment only because I hope it prompts you to use the link I am providing and read his entire piece:

I have a few thoughts on the column. First, Ignatius is offering the side of the story told to him by his contacts at the FBI. These are not disinterested sources. They may well be telling the truth, but we shouldn’t exclude the possibility that they aren’t.

Second, Ignatius isn’t telling the whole the truth. He says that Christopher Steele was hired by GPS Fusion, which was “paid to dig up dirt on Trump, first by Republican opponents, then by Clinton supporters.”

But GPS Fusion hired Steele, the author of the anti-Trump dossier, when it was being paid by “Clinton supporters,” not when it was being paid by Republicans. Moreover, GPS Fusion was paid by the Clinton campaign, with the money funneled through the law firm representing the campaign. Ignatius’ own newspaper has so reported. But Ignatius talks not of the Clinton campaign but of “Clinton supporters.”

Second, Ignatius speaks of Steele’s sources without telling the reader that among his key sources were Russians with connections to the government. I assume Ignatius omits this seemingly significant detail because he doesn’t want his readers to realize that the Clinton campaign, through Steele, was colluding with Russians.

Does anyone imagine that if Trump or his supporters had used an investigator who relied on Russian sources with ties to the regime, Ignatius would have omitted this fact? Of course not.

And so on.  There is plenty more.

Could it be clearer?  Could the attempt to sell a Clinton/Democrat version of things, in the guise of straight reporting, be more blatant?

This article is a blot on journalistic integrity – what little of it is left, as formerly serious news organs like the Washington Post sink further and further into their propaganda hole.

And the worst part?  There are still plenty of people who will lap it up, like a hungry cat being hand-delivered a plate of  fresh milk.

Do they think reading material of this “quality” makes them knowledgeable?  God help them.