The Washington Post Junk Journalist Philip Rucker is proving that what you don’t say is more important than what you do say in his report on former FBI Director James “crybaby” Comey. Comey apparently described himself near tears after President Trump defeated Hillary Clinton.

Rucker writes “The nation’s intelligence chiefs had just finished briefing Donald Trump on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election when FBI Director James B. Comey stayed behind to discuss some especially sensitive material: a “widely circulated” intelligence dossier contained unconfirmed allegations that Russians had filmed Trump interacting with prostitutes in Moscow in 2013.”  Rucker lies to his readers by omission when fails to tell his readers the dossier Comey discussed with Trump was opposition research paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Rucker lies by omission when he does not tell his readers the  FBI used the dossier to obtain surveillance warrants. Rucker fails as a journalist by not considering the possibility that the dossier is proof of Russian collusion between the Hillary campaign, FBI, and Russian, a much more serious possibility than anything Trump is alleged to have done in the dossier.

It’s not like Junk Journalist Rucker needed to dig for the information on the Hillary campaign and  Democrats contribution to the funding of the dossier. It was in his newspaper and reported on by many news organization. However, the link is not remembered by the majority of Junk Journalists because it undermines the Trump / Russian collusion story and points to a Russian / Hillary collusion effort.


Rucker ignores the fact that the dozier was used by the FBI to surveil people related to the Trump campaign and is the continuing source of the thus far unproven  Russia collusion story.

The Washington Post readers are thoroughly convinced collusion occurred, and believe the most salacious of claims in the dossier, which even Comey says were unverified. It shows how a lie told repeatedly becomes the truth for the uninformed and uninquisitive.

The consumers of Junk Journalism only need ask themselves a few simple questions, and if they can cut through the hate generated by Junk Journalism The Washington Post feeds them daily, they will see the awful truth. They are following people who lie to them on a daily basis. Only the truly deranged believe a man with orange hair, and bare-chested Russian thug outwitted what The Washington Post readers believe are the smartest people in the country.

    1. How is it that The Washington Post, CBS, ABC, NBC, The New York Times, and about every other mainstream media outlet considered Trump a joke who would be brutally defeated by the brilliant Hillary Clinton, but rightly knew Trump would win and helped him do it?
    2. Why would Putin want to elect a candidate who is arguing for increased U.S. military spending?
    3. Why would Putin want to elect a candidate who is arguing for greater U.S. influence in trade and world affairs?
    4. Why would Putin want to elect a candidate who is arguing to unravel a nuclear deal with a Russian client state
    5. The readers of the Washington Post in one instance Putin outwitted, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, the Democrat Party, the geniuses at the networks and newspapers while at the same time electing a candidate who is actively working against Russian interests

Rucker quotes Comey as saying “I have one perspective on the behavior I saw, which while disturbing and violating basic norms of ethical leadership, may fall short of being illegal,” he writes.” However, again Rucker omits that while Comey talks about Trump violating basic norms and ethical leadership, Comey is alleged to have done worse, and at least in one case, admitted to acting unethically.




By Editor

Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x