Media Using Same ‘Anonymous Sources’ Tactic for Capitol Hill Riot That Propelled Russia Hoax
“according to a law enforcement official”
Over the last four years, countless anti-Trump stories in the news relied on anonymous sources. The term ‘according to sources’ has become a punchline, and people in media are the only ones who don’t get the joke. They used this dishonest tactic to push the debunked Steele dossier, the Russia collusion lie, and more.
Now they are doing the same thing with the Capitol story.
See if you can spot the magic phrase in this New York Times report:
F.B.I. Finds Contact Between Proud Boys Member and Trump Associate Before Riot
A member of the far-right nationalist Proud Boys was in communication with a person associated with the White House in the days just before the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, according to a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation.
Location, cellular and call record data revealed a call tying a Proud Boys member to the Trump White House, the official said. The F.B.I. has not determined what they discussed, and the official would not reveal the names of either party.
The connection revealed by the communications data comes as the F.B.I. intensifies its investigation of contacts among far-right extremists, Trump White House associates and conservative members of Congress in the days before the attack…
The communication between the person associated with the White House and the member of the Proud Boys was discovered in part through data that the F.B.I. obtained from technology and telecommunications companies immediately after the assault.
“according to a law enforcement official”
“the person associated with the White House”
There’s something very familiar about all of this.
"in communication with a person associated with" without substance is same garbage style connections NY Times, MSNBC, etc. use to push Russia collusion hoax for years https://t.co/mBGAGU85sX
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) March 6, 2021
Here’s how this game works. The New York Times puts this out, and then all their little cronies repeat the story until it’s just accepted as truth. Here are a few examples:
Trump White House associate tied to Proud Boys before riot via cell phone data
A person associated with the Trump White House communicated with a member of the Proud Boys in the days before the Jan. 6 insurrection, The New York Times reports.
NYT: Cellphone Data Tie Proud Boys Member With Trump White House Before Capitol Riot
Federal law enforcement officials have uncovered a contact between former President Donald Trump’s White House and a member of the far-right nationalist group the Proud Boys mere days before the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. The FBI obtained “location, cellular, and call record data” that revealed the information, reports the New York Times, citing an unnamed source who was briefed on the investigation. The FBI hasn’t been able to figure out what the two discussed and the source wouldn’t reveal any names of the people on either end of the call.
FBI Uncovers Contact Between Trump White House and Proud Boys Before Capitol Attack
Federal law enforcement officials have uncovered contact between the Trump White House and a member of the far-right extremist organization, the Proud Boys, just days before the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
According to a New York Times source, the FBI obtained “location, cellular and call record data revealed a call tying a Proud Boys member to the Trump White House.”
The dishonest and lazy media is doing this for a specific and obvious reason. So that the Democrats can use this against Republicans in the 2022 midterms and the 2024 election.
This will be the Democrat talking point. Republicans are terrorists. Even the New York Times reported it. See?
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“FBI Fabricates Contact Between Trump White House and Proud Boys Before Capitol Attack”
Edited Rolling Stone’s headline for accuracy.
Correcting one aspect of The New York Times report:
“A member of the Proud Boys, a group that defends Americans’ First Amendment rights against Antifa terrorists …”
By which I assume you mean they get themselves arrested by marching into parts of cities they know are 90+% Democrat and getting into fights that fulfill a media narrative and they get themselves arrested?
Proud Boys don’t defend us they help Democrats. Police officers defend us.
Police officers defend us.
Not according to SCOTUS. The police are only there to make a report, draw the chalk outline, and notify the next of kin.
That’s “blaming the victim”, which the left constantly tells us is a terrible thing to do, though I’m not sure why.
As I understand it, the Proud Boys simply play by the other side’s rules.
Or…”FNI testifies there was no phone contact between American living Proud boys and the WH before the mostly peaceful demonstration at the Capital on January 6th”
There, fixed it!
“The dishonest and lazy media …”
I disagree with this formulation. Some of these people put a lot of effort into producing these lies. It’s a job after all and they work hard to be the best!
Give them the credit they deserve.
“Annonymous source” translates to “we made this up!”.
Of course this is an old old game. Remember Capitol Blue? It no longer exists, but it made a specialty of attributing complete bulldust to an “anonymous source”. If you ever heard the story that W Bush had called the constitution “Just a piece of paper”, that’s where you got it from.
But one thing puzzles me: If you’re going to fabricate a story, at least make it good. This story even if true is a big nothingburger, as they say. Why shouldn’t “someone associated with the White House”, or even the president himself, be in touch with someone in the Proud Boys? Well, Trump being personally in contact with them would be embarrassing, because he said (I’m sure truthfully) that he’d never heard of them. But there’s no reason anyone else in the White House shouldn’t have been speaking to one of them.
It could have been just a voicemail left by a Proud Boy member on a Trump associate (what exactly is a Trump associate anyway) after somebody gave him a random phone number or he pulled it from a LinkedIn page.
Of course it could have been anything. But suppose it were exactly what they want us to believe it was. So ****ing what? What would be wrong with that? That’s what I mean by “if you’re going to make up a story, make up a good one”.
The Proud Boys are about as popular as cancer or arthritis which would be a great reason not to be in contact with them.
I agree it isn’t a crime but it is common sense not to create a massive liability for yourself.
I suspect half of the proud boys are FBI agents to (communist party during the cold war was mostly FBI).
The Proud boys initially, my understanding, came together to protect people, like Trump supporters, that were being beat up by thugs from BLM/Antifa when the police refused to help at all
Yeah, support the blue
Hell, even in Support the Blue marches they let Antifa beat up on their own supporters
They have their orders. Sorry for the down-tick. Still waiting for the site revamp.
That’s a political reason. A prudential reason. Not a legal, moral, or ethical reason, which means not legitimate grounds for criticism. If someone chooses to do something impolitic, such as standing up for an unpopular victim (e.g. standing up for blacks in the old South), you may shake your head and call them foolishly idealistic, but you may not legitimately criticize them for it.
Just another example of the corruption of the American Media. There are some honest reporters out there but they are few and far between.
I stopped watching the “news” on television long ago and stopped reading newspapers before that.
If you care about the truth then you are willing to search for it. I do it every day.
So, let me see if I have this right: An unnamed sources was briefed by an unnamed source about an unnamed person having some unnamed contact with another unnamed person at some unnamed point in time. Now this is quality reporting.
Democrats Propaganda Ministry at its finest
another website (i forgot which one) reported days ago that the “Person associated with the White House” was Roger Stone..but who knows
The worst part is that there are people who will quote these articles when discussing the substance and the more outrageous the ‘fact’, the more they will demand agreement
Interest how the propaganda machine can push and fake news they want with no repercussions but if you ask about the 2020 elections you’re branded a subversive.
And what is the evidence that anyone from the Proud Boys played a significant role in 1/6 in the first place? Is this like the Minneapolis “Umbrella Man”?
That would be the same “Proud Boys” whose leader was recently outed as a “former” FBI informant?
Who called who?
At what “level” was each person — low level member / employee, or management, or leadership?
If it was meaningful, that info would have been headline and first sentence, first paragraph.
More chaff from the Biden-Harris Junta.
I did hear that and wondered if it was true
What’s wrong with being an FBI informant, former or otherwise? I never understood how that report (assuming it to be true) was supposed to be an attack on the Proud Boys. So what if their leader did the right thing and told the FBI about some criminals? Who would object, except criminals? And is it right to expose an FBI informant to danger from criminals?
I can see current members of the Proud Boys worrying about this, since the FBI is now persecuting them. But how is that any business of the news outlets who reported it?
I have a vague notion that the underlying premise of the report was that since As Everybody Knows™ the Proud Boys are a criminal organization, it’s newsworthy that their leader was once an informer, and therefore may still be informing. But that wouldn’t work if there aren’t any crimes for him to inform about.
Anonymous sources means that you are making up your story to fit the narrative.
When we see an indictment, we’d know you were telling the truth. Until then you are lying through the teeth. Every motive in power right now would want to see this lead to something credible and public…if it doesn’t, the whole world can assume false (thought about half of this country are too stupid, lazy, and entrenched to do so).
“…someone associated with the White House…”
Gardener, plumber, electrician, housekeeper, trash collector, painter, furniture mover, delivery driver, window washer, etc., etc., et-bloody-c.
Every one is “someone associated with the White House”.
“A phone call”… one call. FBI is certainly pulling out all the stops for the Obama… er… Harris/Biden admin while a summer of destruction yielded nothing. Sounds like Schiff and ShagWell are putting into time with the FSB… er… FBI.
Lazy has nothing to do with it.
The ‘media’ is engaging in dishonest and deliberate propaganda to advance a political agenda.
To the extent any other adjective applies it is stupidity, not laziness. What they are betting on is their target audience is either too dumb and/or ignorant to see through the stupidity.
On the “Biden Press Secretary: Trump Admin Doesn’t Deserve Credit for COVID Vaccine Rollout” comment thread I mentioned a friend of mine who was a journalist but quit in disgust because of, among other things, the 90 percent of people in the newsroom posing as reporters are fully on-board with the cultural Marxist narrative and will lie through their teeth to advance it. They also put a great deal of pressure on the 10 percent who aren’t to join in the lying.
He didn’t quit because of the pressure; he has a spine. And in fact he took a job as head of PR for a nearby county government. He still has to deal with the same lying leftist prostitutes propagandizing for the leftist cause. As I’ve said many times, if the left had an official sport it’d be projection. The MFM lies all the time, so they think everyone else does. As his own boss he doesn’t have to lie. As a reporter if he didn’t tailor his reporting to fit the narrative his editors might kill his story. He’d rather leave that dying industry (he saw the writing on the wall over twenty years ago) than compromise. They put the same kind of pressure on him now as they did then, and they will lie to try to force in their stories to try to force him to tell them what they want to hear. He could care less; he just lets them embarrass themselves.
One of the stories he told me confirms that, as well as what “anonymous sources” really does mean.
A patient died in a local dentist’s chair. The dentist had been using nitrous oxide (N20; laughing gas) to mitigate pain. It wouldn’t have been much of a story except his editor was convinced that N20 was dangerous and had killed the guy. My buddy reported on the story, but he researched the safety of N20 and in entire century dentists had been using it no one had been killed by it.
It’s used on women in labor as well; same safety record. US doctors don’t use it as widely as doctors abroad use N20. Again, there are no records of it killing anyone.
So he refused to write a story saying that N20 had killed the guy. His editor threatened to kill the story. He still refused. They went to see the senior editor and worked out a compromise. The paper would publish the story as he wrote it. But his editor would write a sidebar to accompany the story. And, you guessed it. The editor wrote the sidebar using himself as an anonymous source. In fact, he wrote the sidebar using himself as multiple anonymous sources, noting the fact the patient died while the dentist was using N20, then proceeding to, “Some people question the safety of nitrous oxide…”
There were no “some people,” just this lone idiot.
This is why when I see reporters use the standard propaganda phrase, “Some people say” my default position it was at most a couple of reporters or editors speculating in the news room. Or just the propagandist writing the story. The “FBI official” and “person associated with the WH” could be a janitor in the Hoover building and the wife of a WH waiter, if they exist at all.
Reporters make this kind of crap up all the time. I’d name my friend but since I don’t have his permission and given the twitter mob and their cancel culture groupthink I don’t think I should.
Interesting anecdote. Thanks for that was a good read.
It’s SOP for the MFM. “Everything you read in the newspaper is true except for those things you have personal knowledge of”
“ The term ‘according to sources’ has become a punchline, and people in media are the only ones who don’t get the joke. ”
That’s like saying the comedian doesn’t get his own joke.
It’s amazing listening to these progressive fascists lie about the demonstrators. They didn’t throw bricks at the police like the Democrat’s Brownshirts, ANTIFA and BLM. They didn’t carry or use guns.
If they really were serious they would have been armed, killed people and set fire to the Capital building.
That’s what they were hoping would happen. Their entire post-event narrative was written for a real Reichstag moment with lethal violence, massive looting, and destruction of parts of the Capitol. When it didn’t happen, they stuck to the narrative that had already been drafted, which is why they sound like lunatics now, talking about an “armed insurrection” and suggesting outrageous infringements upon personal liberties in response, as if what they had hoped for had actually occurred. And they have enough of the population gaslit to think they can get away with it.
Another FBI fabricated story idea fished to the fiction writers at the NYT.
…so who killed Ashli and what caused Brian’s death??
Anything from an anonymous source should not be considered a fact, because according to science facts are repeatable.
By definition, an anonymous source is not someone that another reporter can go to and get the same information from.
Using an anonymous source is no different than saying “We have heard unconfirmed rumors that you have stopped beating your wife.”