Reporter: Claim That Trump Considered Firing Mueller Meant To Distract From Leaked FBI Texts

Editor's Note: The following article contains news and opinion. discusses politics and issues of national importance. This site corrects errors. To submit a correction, please use the form here. To read more about the staff and editorial standards, please view About Us and Community Standards.
rx online

Mainstream media trumpeted the claim that President Donald Trump had considered firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Immediately that set some screaming “obstruction.” But others, like Washington Free Beacon staff writer Elizabeth Harrington, took a deeper dive and questioned the timing of the claim, noting it came just as some of the critical lost FBI text messages were leaked by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA).

The claim that Trump was considering firing Mueller comes from an “anonymous source” cited by a New York York Times article.

Right there, there’s a problem. And there was nothing done to fire him.

But it immediately consumed the media, with some people calling it obstruction. Although what the obstruction would be since there was no action taken would be difficult to argue.

Harrington noted that it was quite strange timing that this allegedly six-month-old event suddenly was making news now.

From Free Beacon:

“Here you have the top agent who had a hand in this Hillary investigation, and then also was brought into the Trump-Mueller probe, and he was completely biased against Trump. We’ve seen it and he was fired from it,” Harrington said of Strzok. “Just as all the text messages are coming out to expose that, now what is the media jumping onto? A six-month-old story which they already had practically reported that Trump considered firing Mueller. But the fact is, he didn’t fire Mueller.”

Harrington also mentioned the text messages have drawn questions about the entire basis of the investigation into Russian collusion, and about Strzok’s influence in the Clinton email investigation. Strzok is reported to have changed the language in former FBI Director James Comey’s speech exonerating Clinton. Rather than refer to Clinton’s behavior as “grossly negligent,” Strzok changed it to “extremely careless.”

Harrington noted how can it be obstruction if nothing was done to fire Mueller.

On the other hand, the FBI texts might very well read as obstruction.

She said she also believed the Mueller team had leaked the story as a distraction to cover the problem of the texts.

“We’ve seen a complete change in narrative now,” Harrington said.

There’s another point that Harrington didn’t make but also seems an interesting coincidence. And that’s the reporters behind the Mueller firing story.

The anonymous source story (aren’t they always anonymously sourced?) was put out by the New York Times.

One of the reporters on the story was Maggie Haberman, who previously had written for Politico.

Haberman featured prominently in a WikiLeaks email involving John Podesta, where she was described as the Democrats go-to person when they needed to “tee up” stories to set the narrative.

And in another interesting coincidence, the other writer on the story is Michael Schmidt, the same guy that James Comey leaked to, through his friend, law professor Daniel Richman.

Small world.

But sure, it’s just a coincidence.

[Note: This post was written by Nick Arama]


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here