Wrong By Two Noses: Will The Washington Post Now Perform Journalistic Rhinoplasty on Sarah Huckabee Sanders?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Two years ago, I wrote a column in the Hill concerning a “fact checker” column by the Washington Post . At the time, I was surprised by the column by Glenn Kessler in criticizing White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders over her references to James Comey and his actions following his termination. I had written a column about the lack of objectivity in the media just before the article. As if on cue, the Washington Post assigned Sanders two “Pinocchios” for saying that Comey’s actions “were improper and likely could have been illegal.” I used the article as an example of the bias in reporting on these controversies. Those comments have now been reaffirmed by the Inspector General in its recent report. Will the Post now issue its own correction with the removal of two noses? More is at issue than political cosmetics in correcting the record on Comey’s conduct.
In her Sept. 12 press briefing, Sanders said, “I think there is no secret Comey, by his own self-admission, leaked privileged government information. Weeks before President Trump fired him, Comey testified that an FBI agent engaged in the same practice. They face serious repercussions. I think he set his own stage for himself on that front. His actions were improper and likely could have been illegal.”
As I said at the time:
“Sanders later repeated a litany of laws and regulations to support this claim from FBI employment agreements to nondisclosure rules to the Privacy Act of 1974 . Every line of that statement is unassailably true. The FBI has already indicated that these were FBI documents and nonpartisan Justice Department officials has indicated that they should have been treated as privileged or confidential and not disclosed. Moreover, as discussed below, even the Post recognizes that they “could have been illegal” depending on the outcome of any investigation.”
What is interesting is that the Post relied on the views of CNN legal analyst and Brookings Institution fellow Susan Hennessey who maintained , “It’s hard to even understand the argument for how Jim Comey’s memory about his conversation with the president qualifies as a record, even if he jotted it down while in his office.”
The Post indicated that it had reviewed my prior writings. Those columns list a variety of rules violated by Comey. They were not difficult to find. The FBI website warns employees that “dissemination of FBI information is made strictly in accordance with provisions of the Privacy Act; Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a; FBI policy and procedures regarding discretionary release of information in accordance with the Privacy Act; and other applicable federal orders and directives.”
One such regulation is § 2635.703, on the use of nonpublic information, which states, “An employee shall not engage in a financial transaction using nonpublic information, nor allow the improper use of nonpublic information to further his own private interest or that of another, whether through advice or recommendation, or by knowing unauthorized disclosure.” While this provision covers current employees and would not likely to be applied to Comey on these facts, FBI forms and rules barring such use of FBI information extend to former employees. What is clear is that the FBI has overlapping prohibitions on the type of disclosure made by Comey.
The standard FBI employment agreement bars the unauthorized disclosure of information “contained in the files, electronic or paper, of the FBI” that impact the bureau and specifically pledges that “I will not reveal, by any means, any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI.”
Nevertheless, the Post concluded that Sanders lied by simply saying Comey’s actions “were improper and likely could have been illegal.”
Now the IG has released its report (citing the very same sources that I discussed previously) and concluded that Comey violated federal laws and regulations. It states conclusively that the memos were “federal records” subject to express protections from removal and disclosure.
The inspector general has confirmed what was clear and obvious. The memos were FBI material, and Comey did violate provisions of the Federal Records Act and FBI rules clearly barring their removal and disclosure. Moreover, the inspector general agreed that it was not necessary to guarantee an investigation into Trump. Investigations were ongoing and the report cites other “options” that Comey refused to use. The report concludes, “What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.”
Despite Comey’s spin, the Report did confirm that “Memos 2 and 7 contained small amounts of information classified at the ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ level.” In other words, they were classified at the lowest level but still nonpublic, classified material. They were not declassified under 2018. Of course, Comey did not know what classification would apply because he removed them before they were reviewed. Either way, as I said at the time, it was unlikely that he would be prosecuted on such a case and he knew it.
IG Michael Horowitz described Comey’s conduct as so outrageous that it created a “dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees — and the many thousands more former FBI employees — who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.” The report describes Justice officials as “stunned” and “shocked” by his conduct.
It is now established that Comey’s actions were clearly “improper” and that the statement that they “could have been illegal” is an understatement. While the Justice Department (as I previously predicted) declined to prosecute, the report clearly establishes that he committed the very violations previously discussed — and ignored — by the Washington Post.
At the time of the Post article, I noted that, even if the Post was going to take the view of analysts like Hennessey, if should at least recognize the grounds for reasonable disagreement. Indeed, the Post itself admitted that “to some extent, the level of possible violations is a judgment call, open to legal interpretation, making it problematic to assign a Pinocchio rating.” That is where it could have easily ended the analysis, even with the omissions and contradictions discussed above.
Now a correction is in order on those two Pinocchio noses. Call it journalistic rhinoplasty.
Posted by jonathan turley
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
325 visitors
Allow me:
Four Pinocchios for the Washington Post, which will not apologize to Ms Sanders and four more Pinnocchios for those who keep repeating this blatant lie!
Warning: You are allowed to discuss the President, however if you only wish to call him names - your comment will be deleted.
Why should they apologize?
The Inspector General has just verified that everything Sanders said was true. The Post called her a liar. You don't think an apology is warranted?
Nope.
Since working for Trump SHS has never told the truth. A paid liar.
Now working for faux spews she is staying true to form.
Why don't we stick to the article. Calling people liars dosen't work here.
Just move on CJ, we can only discuss this ONE statement. Nothing else.
The article deals with one specific incident. I'm sorry if it's not a broad evaluation of every single press conference granted to the media.
Do you believe in journalistic integrity?
Bull. Everything Sanders says is a lie. Working for faux says it all.
I guess that's that.
None of which was classified, and what he did violated company policy, but was not illegal.
It didn't have to be illegal to confirm what Sanders said was accurate:
Comey’s actions “were improper and likely could have been illegal.”
She was dead on accurate!
"Could have been"....but left out, " but weren't". A lie by omission is still a lie.
It certain makes sense before the report came out. Comey can still be charged for those bogus FISA applications.
No. The DOJ has already said they will not prosecute Comey. You lost, move on.
I think your'e being a bit premature. The scheming son-of-a bitch may still go down. He signed those FISA Warrant applications.
There were multiple chains of evidence leading to the FISA actions. The Steele dossier was just one of them.
I think we have learned that the multiple chains were a ruse. For instance, the FBI used a Yahoo story to back the Steele Dossier. Do you know where the Yahoo story came from? - Christopher Steele. If you know of any chains that weren't simply disguised evidence reverting right back to Christopher Steele, I'd like to see it.
Just stop.
Do you not understand how time operates?
It was a slam-dunk story. No wiggle room.
Some of the lies told by sanders... (This is a very small sampling)
Denying knowledge of Trump’s in-office hush-money payoffs, despite the fact that Trump himself admitted to them ;
Claiming that Trump had created far more jobs for African Americans than Obama, when, in reality, Obama created four times as many as Trump ;
Insisting, with a straight face, that her boss had never “promoted or encouraged violence ,” seemingly forgetting the time Trump told supporters at a rally, of a protester who’d been ejected, “I’d like to punch him in the face”; or the time he told a crowd in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, okay. Just knock the hell—I promise you I will pay for the legal fees, I promise”; or the time he openly fantasized about “Second Amendment people” preventing the appointment of liberal judges; or the time he instructed police officers to knock suspects’ heads against the side of their squad cars.
Smearing the many, many women who have accused Trump of sexual harassment or assault and claiming they are the liars ;
And, of course who could forget the time she created an elaborate yarn about how she’d heard from “countless…individuals who work at the FBI who said they were very happy” with Trump’s decision to fire James Comey, in an attempt to make the story that the firing was all about agency morale stick, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Russia investigation. Which, of course, she admitted was a total lie during her interview with Special Counsel Robert Mueller. She subsequently doubled down, telling George Stephanopoulos that she only admitted to lying about hearing from “countless” people, before shifting the focus to Comey, who she described as a “disgraced leaker” and a “dirty cop.”
"President Trump in his first year and a half has already tripled what President Obama did (for African-American employment) in eight years."
------------------
When Sanders can apologize for her lies that she spewed about others on a daily basis, I don't think she deserves an apology for ANYTHING.
I hate to see you waste your time, but the article only concerns what she said about Comey and the Post wrongly called false, a prime example of biased reporting.
I hate to waste yours but those lies are included. I get it, you want an echo chamber where no matter what, you appear to be right and you can flag any post that doesn't fit your agenda.
Don't call trump names, only discuss ONE statement made by sanders that has a sliver of truth and ignore the multitudes of lies she told.
What exactly IS the point of the article if we cannot discuss anything but ONE statement?
An echo chamber? Where have I heard that before?
you appear to be right
It is not a matter of appearing. I am right. Sanders was truthful and the Post committed journalistic malpractice in calling the truth a lie. Try all you want, you cannot dispute the facts of the article!
Remember, in crazy progressive world it's perfectly okay to call someone a liar for telling the truth.
You mean the charge itself equates to evidence? I see.
If you think Sanders is a liar that's fine. It should be something that is easily proven. It shouldn't be necessary to throw integrity out the window to make the case. That's what the WaPo fact-checker does almost daily.
This is a great example of how worthless "Fact checkers" are. They are simply liberal pundits who push liberal opinion journalism under the name of "fact checking" and trust their ignorant audience of liberals will mindless accept whatever opinion they offer without looking into it themselves.
It's simply not honest to characterize - as the Washington Post does pretty much daily - an analysis of someone's opinion as "fact-checking."
Saying something could be illegal is an opinion unless you can prove conclusively that it would be impossible for it to be illegal.
The Post's fact check articles frequently equivocate when it comes to the details, admitting in the dark corners of paragraphs that there might be room for different points of view on a topic. Nevertheless, they routinely give two or three Pinocchios to someone who has done nothing more than express an opinion they don't like. Their entire process deserves at least two Pinocchios just for the misleading claim that they are checking facts.