In his recent Thursday column, “No more wishy-washy feelings about impeaching Trump,” Mr. Leonard Pitts, by bitterly clinging to a collusion-and-obstruction narrative, served raw meat to his peeps — but in doing so missed the larger point.
His focusing on President Donald Trump’s impeachment, and Washington’s political games, was Pitts’ feeble attempt of obscuring his and his colleagues’ laziness, lack of curiosity and political partisanship, while getting their stories wrong, and by extension, assaulting the First Amendment.
Two examples: The ongoing coverage of the border crisis and Special Council Robert Mueller’s report.
For more than a year, and following the Socialist/Democrat narrative, the press insisted that “there is no border crisis,” and that the crisis had been “manufactured.” But wait — it turns out that the delusional left was disingenuous, and the press, who’s charged with reporting facts, did not. And rather than sticking to facts, the press concentrated on sharpening its political ax.
In other words, they betrayed the First Amendment.
With regards to the Mueller Report, the press’ war-chants of “collusion-and-obstruction” went on — uninterrupted — for two years.
You have free articles remaining.
Here's the bottom line: The press got it wrong again. They substituted wishful thinking for shoe leather and probing queries and hocus-pocus, an omelet was delivered upon their collective faces, as they again failed the First Amendment.
But it gets worse. The press has the fiduciary duty of being the public’s bloodhounds and curiosity should be coursing through their veins. Sadly though, such responsibilities have been superseded with political skullduggery. I offer proof: Mr. Pitts and company, not being curious, won’t ask, or are reluctant to ask, these pregnant questions:
1) What was the genesis of the Mueller investigation? (Think “fake dossier” and “fake FISA court order.”)
2) What was the genius of the fake dossier and who paid for what and why?
3) When precisely did Mr. Mueller’s team (comprised, to a large degree, of Hillary Clinton’s supporters) establish that no collusion or obstruction had taken place?
4) For how long, after the accusations were debunked, did the Mueller investigation continue and did such morph into a fishing expedition, and why?
Long ago, my father suggested, “Son, believe less than half of what you hear and less than half of what you read.” Given such advice, I’ll not hold my breath that either Mr. Pitts or his uncurious fellow slackers will honor their profession, and serve the public by investigating and telling us the truth, while respecting our First Amendment.