Everything Damaging To Dems Is ‘Russian Disinformation’ To The Media

There’s a reliable pattern: Whenever something truly devastating to Democrats comes to light, the dying news media will immediately call it “Russian disinformation,” even when the goods are 1,000 percent real; the latest being newly declassified documents this week with yet more evidence indicating that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign planned to smear Trump by connecting him to Russia — the basis of the completely fabricated Russia-Trump collusion hoax that ultimately framed President Trump and his associates with crimes they didn’t commit.

An alternate reality exists wherein the New York Times assesses the new details and concludes that one of the country’s major political parties engaged in some truly corrupt, sinister conduct, and perhaps there might be avenues to pursue legal accountability. Unfortunately, we live in this reality where the Times runs the headline, “‘Clinton Plan’ Emails Were Likely Made by Russian Spies, Declassified Report Shows,” a naked attempt to dismiss what the new information actually shows.

Senate Republicans on Thursday declassified a portion of a special counsel report that included purported communications involving the 2016 Clinton campaign and a left-wing non-profit group, which suggest the parties plotted to implicate Trump and his campaign in Russian election interference. The best part of the article, authored by Times reporters Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman, is when they brush annex revelations aside, essentially because Durham couldn’t locate the originals of a couple of emails.

Pack it up guys! Nothing to see here!

That’s not an exaggeration. “[U]ltimately, in weighing all the evidence,” the article said, “[Special Counsel John] Durham concluded that the Russians had probably faked the key emails…” But that’s not true. The immediate paragraph thereafter quotes a line included in the annex documents that literally says Duram’s office assessed the emails in question to be “a composite of several emails that were obtained through Russian intelligence hacking of the U.S.-based Think Tanks, including the Open Society Foundations, the Carnegie Endowment, and others.” As The Federalist’s Elle Purnell noted, that’s “obviously not the same thing as saying he thought the Russians completely made them up.”

The annex docs also explicitly state that while Durham may not have been able to track down the originals of Bernardo’s emails, his office did “identify certain emails, attachments, and documents that contain language and references with the exact same or similar verbiage.”

In other words, Durham found overlapping content, even though he was unable to conclude that the final format it was presented in was authentic. That’s like being able to cross-reference the information on a Wikipedia page, even if you can’t be certain who authored the entry. Not knowing who wrote it doesn’t automatically make the content untrue.

That Clinton’s campaign conspired with former President Obama’s intelligence agencies and the news media to push the Russia-collusion hoax has long been established. What we’re seeing now are the specific communications that appear to be behind a plan to smear a key presidential nominee ahead of the 2016 election.

But the Times prefers a different historical record, one that instead views the perverse plot as “a product of Russian disinformation.” That’s the dying media’s preferred method when Democrats are exposed. Recall that immediately after Hunter Biden’s sticky laptop surfaced, it too was brushed aside as “Russian disinformation.”

And then, when it no longer mattered, the media admitted it was real. How long before that plays out again? Or maybe they’ll just stick with the lie this time.