Media’s Tunnel Vision Regarding Trump Misses the Real Story

Two stories in the news Monday. One receives 99.9 percent of the coverage. The BIG story – from the Washington Post – “Trump Reveals Classified Information to Russians.” The LITTLE story (the one getting NO coverage) – “Murdered DNC Staffer Was in Communication with WikiLeaks.” These two stories are actually related in a VERY important way.

The reason the Washington Post story is getting ALL the coverage is because it furthers the Democrats’ and the Left’s “Russian Conspiracy Narrative,” and the reason the murdered Democratic National Committee staffer story is getting NONE is because it undermines, if not completely destroys, it.


Let’s take the LITTLE story first. Seth Rich, a DNC staffer with access to all the emails dumped by WikiLeaks prior to the election, was shot and killed on his way home from a bar last July in what D.C. police claim was a “botched robbery attempt,” a robbery in which nothing was taken.

Their investigation, the D.C. Police report, has “hit a dead end.” Now, a former D.C. homicide detective investigating the murder for some “third party” and “an anonymous source inside the FBI” say that Rich’s laptop reveals that he forwarded 44,053 DNC emails and 17,761 attachments to Gavin MacFadyen, a director of WikiLeaks (and now conveniently deceased), between January and May 21, 2016.

Presumably, this laptop is still in possession of the D.C. Police or the FBI. And, if the FBI assisted in examination of the computer as reported, our pal Jim Comey knew all about it. If true, what does this all mean?

Well, for one thing, it means that the Russians did NOT hack the DNC and publish the emails through WikiLeaks, as the “U.S Intelligence Community” all agrees, because Rich was the source of the emails.

I have yet to see or hear any EVIDENCE, or even a vague description of any kind of evidence, to support the Russian hacking premise, have you? This premise is now taken as fact by the Media and the many idiots in Congress. The Seth Rich story suggests a cover-up of Watergate magnitude and deserves a closer look, don’t you think?

The upshot of the BIG story is that Trump, in a scheduled meeting with the Russian Ambassador to discuss common interests in combatting ISIS, identified a particular city as the source of information concerning an ISIS laptop bomb threat. This information was supposedly supplied by a foreign “intelligence agency” that had not agreed that Trump could disclose it.

Even the Washington Post does not claim that Trump revealed the source of the information or the means by which it was obtained. Well, I say what good is “intelligence” if the President of the United States cannot use it?

The REAL question is, HOW DID THE WASHINGTON POST GET ITS INFORMATION about what was said during this White House meeting? The paper cited “unnamed current or previous high government officials.”

Here are the choices: (1) the source was in the meeting, which means it was one of the highest ranking members of the Trump Administration or one of the Russians (Uh… how would the Russians know the information was “classified” and why would they disclose it to the Post if they did?); (2) the source was “eavesdropping” on the meeting; (3) the source had access to a transcript or recording of the conversation made with Trump’s knowledge.

Those are the choices. Trump ought to be able to find this rat, cut off his head and stick it on a pole on Pennsylvania Avenue. Now that would be a REALLY BIG STORY.

The BIG story is a NON-story. The LITTLE story is THE story. Stay tuned.


Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Disclaimer loves free speech. But please be respectful and constructive. Our number one priority is to provide an environment where people can enjoy this website. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate our terms and conditions.

For any order status questions/comments please email us at [email protected] or visit our "Contact Us" page.
Contact Us| Terms & Conditions| Privacy Policy
Information contained on such as text, graphics, images and other materials are for educational use only. Although not guaranteed, every attempt has been made for accuracy. The information contained on is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice or service. If you have any concerns or concerns about potential risks with implementing the information on, you should contact a registered professional for assistance and advice as is necessary to safely and properly complete any implementation. We may be a compensated affiliate for some of the services and products we introduce you to. We only introduce you to services and products that we have researched and believe have value.