The statement was issued just hours after a report from the Washington Post stating that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was investigating President Trump for possible obstruction of justice.
Twitter and internet have blown this sky high claiming it is “cryptic”. Cryptic — really? As defined, cryptic is (1) having a meaning that is obscure, enigmatic, mysterious, confusing, mystifying, perplexing, puzzling, abstruse, arcane, oracular, Delphic, ambiguous, elliptical, oblique; or in more modern vernacular–informal “as clear as mud”. (2) serving to conceal; and (3) employing cipher or code.
The only think cryptic about that message is that people have managed to go through school and still aren’t able to comprehend written messages. So let’s break it down and see just how this is a “cryptic” statement. (parentheses are Miriam dictionary definitions)
“Americans should exercise caution (prudent forethought to minimize risk)
before accepting as true ( being in accordance with the actual state of affairs) any stories (a statement regarding the facts pertinent to a situation in question)
attributed to anonymous (of unknown authorship or origin) ‘officials,’ ( one who holds or is invested with an office)
particularly when they do not identify the country ( a political state or nation or its territory )
— let alone the branch or agency of government —
with which the alleged (questionably true or of a specified kind) sources supposedly are affiliated. (closely associated with another)
Americans should be skeptical (an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity)
about anonymous allegations,” he said.
“The Department of Justice has a long-established policy (a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body)
to neither confirm nor deny such allegations,” he added.
I don’t see anything “cryptic” about this message. Citizens have been inundated for the last eight or more years with such crap so we are at least aware that MAINSTREAM MEDIA LIES.
Key phrases I look for when reading articles:
“officials say” – Washington Post , June 14, 2017 and quoted by liberal sites – if these ARE officials then why not say their names? After all, the official is being basically quoted right? In this particular story, first and foremost this is not a public but closed session so how the heck would the POST know events and what investigators are doing? Are they taping the sessions? Are they sitting in on the closed sessions? This is exactly why we know that these people are LYING at a minimum or liable for passing on confidential matters or using language to suggest that a wayward comment “off the record” can be blown up into a “story” line. That is a breech of National Security.
“people briefed on the interview requests, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly” – Well if they are not authorized why put their information out? That means the person has a personal agenda that is suspect and unreliable. So the reporter AND the person are unlawfully presenting as fact something that is a “tidbit” but not factual in representing the entire scenario. Second, the person was briefed? Who briefed them? Was it one who actually attended the meeting? Was it fully explained in context and verbatim?
Why would a reporter allow themselves to be drawn into a “titular” scenario that can neither validate an assumption nor present a clear picture. That’s rather like saying – there is snow…..okay so somewhere there is snow but how or what does it have to do with my world in this minute and on this day–heck its muggy and eighty plus degrees here. Sounds more like that old “Gossip” game to me.
“cloaked in secrecy” – Gee, can’t be that secret if a list of people to be questioned is provided by WP now can it. If the point is to have a “closed door” session, then yeah duh, it is a point of national security and security clearance is a necessity.
“declined to comment” – Don’t get your panties in a wad. National Security, policies, and security clearance are essential so this is more like a child throwing a tantrum then constantly asking why thinking they will get their way after being told NO.
“experts point out” – what experts, what incidents, inquiring minds want to know? What is the legal premise for believing executive privilege won’t be used? Obama and his staff used it quite frequently. Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled January 19, 2016 that the Justice Department’s public disclosures about its response to the so-called “gun walking” controversy undercut Obama’s executive privilege claim. Politico See how easy, took about one minute to find, type, and reference to a LEGAL procedure. Dumb arses.
“according to people familiar with the matter” – Well goodness, familiar huh? How familiar? Did they initiate the matter? Did they present documentation that proved they knew what they were talking about? Nope…just more of the same.
” interviews suggest” – Really what is the author’s expertise and knowledge of the actual events inside the hearing that makes him expert enough to be able to “suggest”? So when a judge hears a case with all the witnesses and then goes off to deliberate before issuing a decision, one can draw a conclusion or suggestion of what the judge is thinking based on unknown information? What happens then when the judge comes back after considering and provides an opposite opinion?
I just picked apart the one article noted above and only made it halfway through. Yet CNN and other groups have quickly picked up and run with that post. No one bothered to question, simply regurgitated the BS. By the way, given that we are six months into an investigation of a FOREIGN interference in our governmental process — don’t you think it is a bit of a reasonable caution considering–just saying.
AND MSM CAN’T UNDERSTAND WHY WE DO NOT TRUST THEM.
Holy crap bubba louie.