There's a batch of news making the rounds right now announcing that former US Attorney in Manhattan, Preet Bharara considered taping a telephone conversation with President Trump because he thought Trump was unhinged. In early 2017, right after Trump fired Jim Comey as the head of the FBI, Bharara got word that Trump wanted to speak to him on the phone. Bharara was worried that the "unhinged" president might start discussing pending investigations or prosecutions. That would violate customary norms of the DOJ. Bharara discussed with his deputy whether or not to tape the call. He decided not to do so. When he had the call, Trump did not raise any pending investigation or prosecution. Everything discussed was perfectly proper according to Bharara. In other words, this was a non-event which a publicity seeking former US attorney is now using to get his name in print.
And how does the media play this? Nearly every article talks about how Trump was so unhinged and such a liar that someone like Bharara had to consider taping the President just to protect himself. A better report would be to say Trump spoke to a mid level federal employee and nothing of moment happened, but how does that attack Trump. And remember attacking Trump is always the goal of most of the mainstream media.
And how does the media play this? Nearly every article talks about how Trump was so unhinged and such a liar that someone like Bharara had to consider taping the President just to protect himself. A better report would be to say Trump spoke to a mid level federal employee and nothing of moment happened, but how does that attack Trump. And remember attacking Trump is always the goal of most of the mainstream media.
No comments:
Post a Comment