Following the decision by President Donald Trump to fire the belligerent head of the FBI James Comey, the mainstream media began hemorrhaging articles that promised an impending impeachment. This frenzied media feeding over Comey’s figurative remains has hardly subsided in the week since his ousting, and there seems to be a surplus of microphones and video feeds recording academics, politicians, and Hollywood elites who are hysterically disenchanted with the conduct of the chief executive.
Having just exceeded 100 days in office, the Trump administration has been immersed in controversy since before Inauguration Day, when accusations of Russian meddling in the presidential election threatened to shake the electorate’s confidence in American democracy.
Since then, the most frequently cited source in Washington, D.C. is the the unnamed “senior White House official” who appears to be privy to just about every Oval Office discussion that has occurred in the preceding three months. Most recently, the Washington Post provides extremely intimate details derived from numerous mid-level and senior White House officials, including private conversations between staffers about future job prospects following fears of an impending impeachment. In fact, the only secret information the co-authors of the Washington Post exposé, Ashley Parker and Abby Phillip, appear to not be privy to is Trump’s tax returns and the nuclear launch codes.
Parker failed to respond to requests from Crusade of Truth to explain the improbable nature of her relationships with so many prominent executive officials, or elaborate on the newspaper’s policy for printing stories that entirely lack any credible sources,
Either Vice President Mike Pence experiences some cheap thrill from seeing his partner embarrassed and discredited, or these anonymous sources are of the same reputation as those that leaked the story of Trump’s sordid rendezvous with Russian prostitutes, with whom he performed such lewd acts as being urinated upon in a bed formerly occupied by the Obama family.
Despite the incredible nature of this story, the BBC was comfortable in printing the details of the then president-elect’s sexual adventures, relying upon unnamed sources within the CIA and other government agencies to support their claims. Even after discovering that the bawdy tale was commissioned by “an opposition research firm” and Democratic Party donors, the BBC and others were eager to report the story.
The BBC was apparently satisfied with the credentials of the investigators. “But these are not political hacks – their usual line of work is country analysis and commercial risk assessment…”
The allegations have since been firmly discredited.
The preference for anonymous sources whose often wild claims cannot be verified continued all the way up to Trump’s unapologetic firing of the FBI director. Washington Post media critic Margaret Sullivan, in describing the publication’s breaking news report on Comey’s ouster, believes that anonymous sources provide details to investigations that are actually preferential to information provided by public officials. The report relied upon the testimony of some 30 unnamed officials from the White House to the intelligence community to portray Comey’s firing as a scandalous act.
Sullivan explains the difficulty of using accredited sources to make very serious allegations of the POTUS. “There is no way to get at the story through talking to the White House press secretary or listening to the spin that is offered by officials who are willing to go on the record,” she told CBC News.
When in doubt, simply bludgeon the story into existence with brute force, soliciting anyone close to the government who is willing to speak off the record and without reprisal, regardless of their inherent political affiliation.
Such is the reality of a United States which is administered by a Washington outsider. From President Trump’s first day in the Oval Office, impeachment has been the plan.
Just six days after Election Day and 37 major newspaper publications across America were exploring the possibility of an early retirement for Trump. Academics and legal scholars from some of the most prestigious universities in the world attempted to persuade the public that, even months before Inauguration Day, Trump could legally be impeached. Perhaps the most authoritative among these sources is American University professor Allan Lichtman, famous for accurately predicting the last eight presidents, including Trump, using his proprietary formula. Even Trump voiced praise for the display of foresight by sending a congratulatory note to the professor, although this was likely without knowing that Lichtman’s latest prediction assumes that he will soon be impeached.
Votes were still being tallied in some states and establishment politicians were secretly plotting on how to remove the billionaire mogul and populist republican from the most powerful political position in the world.
Just one month into the Trump administration, and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi claimed that “there are plenty of grounds right now for the current president” to be impeached. However, proceedings would have to wait, according to Pelosi, because citizens “are not ready to accept the fact that their judgement may not have been so great in voting for him.”
Media Matters founder David Brock hosted an extravagant party attended by 100 of the wealthiest and most powerful liberal donors in America, circulating a secret memo explaining how liberals planned to take back America. The strategy focused on impeaching Trump, “monetizing political advocacy,” partnering with Facebook to censor “fake news” and otherwise initiating a tsunami of lawsuits and protests to retake America for the liberal establishment in a bloodless coup.
In a surreal article appearing in the Atlantic, former Barack Obama speechwriter Jon Lovett looks back on the election and describes how reporters were noticeably shocked and consoling to their audiences after the unexpected Trump victory. The White House press conferences consumed with the size of the audience on Inauguration Day are also discussed in the article, before Lovett predicts that the Trump presidency will end in impeachment. All of these were events that characterized the first 100 days of the Trump administration–except that Lovett’s article was written in August of 2015.
Today, Google search the name “Trump” and the word “impeachment” will automatically be suggested. Google “Andrew Johnson” or “Bill Clinton,” two presidents who were actually impeached by the House of Representatives, and no such connection is made by the search engine.
With an array of choices, democratic lawmakers seem to simply be biding their time in selecting which Trump controversy to exploit to begin impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives. The most immediately promising strategy appears to be pursuing claims that the Trump campaign was aware of Russian interference in the election. But with almost daily leaks from the media’s favorite new accomplice, the White House official speaking on conditions of anonymity, Americans can be sure that if there were a smoking gun in the Oval Office, they would already know all of the sordid details…
According to unnamed sources, no anonymous public officials were harmed in the drafting of this article.