By Peter Lucas
What would Joseph Pulitzer say?
He was the New York newspaper publisher who in 1917 established the Pulitzer Prize to be awarded annually to reporters and papers for excellence in journalism.
He was also founder of the Columbia school of journalism, once the gateway for jobs in communications.
The Pulitzer is — or was — considered to be the most prestigious award in journalism.
Last year the Pulitzer for National Reporting went to the staffs of the New York Times and the Washington Post, the countries two leading newspapers, for running “deeply sourced” stories on something that did not happen.
That something was Donald Trump and Russian collusion, and the “deeply sourced” stories were phony. It was all a hoax hatched by anti-Trump, pro-Hillary/Obama rogues at the FBI and the Justice Department.
Unfortunately for President Trump and the country, the Trump-hating left-wing media con job of Trump collusion by the papers set the tone for media outlets across the country. They tried to bring down a president on fabricated stories all based on questionable leaks and anonymous sources.
It almost succeeded. And in retrospect, it might have brought down a lesser man, but not Trump, the counter-puncher.
Yet the two papers were able to jointly win journalism’s highest honor in 2018 for reporting as fact something that did not happen. And that was the hoax of Trump’s collusion with the Russians that allegedly helped him win the 2016 presidential election.
How did that happen? It happened because the two papers control the board that makes the awards, that’s how. Talk about collusion.
Of course, the newspapers were not alone in the Democrat-inspired effort to dethrone Trump. News media giants across the nation like NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, CNBC and others joined in as well.
And they were supported by former President Obama officials like John Brennan, former CIA director, who spewed out hate and misinformation about Trump and Russian on a regular basis on CNN.
These news outlets, predicting that Trump would be impeached, or worse, over colluding with the Russians are the same news organizations that told you Trump had no chance of being elected in 2016.
They hated him for proving them wrong, and they hate him still, especially after the report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller cleared Trump of allegations that he or his campaign had colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton.
It was a major victory for Trump and a devastating defeat for the anti-Trump main-stream media, which has lost all credibility when it comes to things Trump. Outside of Fox News, the national main-stream media, led by the Times and the Post, is guilty of perpetrating a hoax on the American public.
Grasping for straws, the main stream media and the Democrats (same thing) are hoping that Democrat-controlled House hearings can still bring Trump down on allegations of obstruction of justice.
Mueller, an old hand at Washington bureaucracy and deep state politics, appears to have played it both ways in his report, as outlined by Attorney General William P. Barr in his four-page summary of the report, which has yet to be released.
Keep in mind that in all the world, there is no person as wily as a Washington bureaucrat.
While Mueller cleared Trump of collusion, which made Trump and the Republicans happy, he also threw a bone to the Democrats by keeping the issue of obstruction alive.
Mueller found no conclusive evidence that Trump obstructed justice by firing former FBI director Robert Comey or by doing anything else. But he left the issue unresolved in his report to Barr.
So, Barr, after consulting with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, concluded that the evidence of obstruction of justice was “not sufficient” to establish Trump committed an obstruction of justice offense.
But Mueller, being the Washington player that he is, was careful to cover all his bases, and that meant giving the Democrats something they could run with.
After all, he and his family would have been shunned by the Washington Democrat political and social establishment that runs the town had he not done so.
So, on obstruction, Mueller said, “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
You can bet the Democrats will make much out of that.
But if Trump did not commit a crime with obstruction, why wasn’t he exonerated of that, too?
Maybe the Times and the Post can find out and give themselves another Pulitzer. Or return the bogus ones they got.
Email comments to: firstname.lastname@example.org