On the evening of May 27th and the following morning, TheHill.com featured prominently, this opinion piece by Marik Von Rennenkampff. While you disclaim that his views do not represent your own, by publishing it and featuring it you are promulgating an opinion untethered to good journalism or productive opinions. Mr. Von Rennenkampff’s piece is a one-sided, distorted interpretation of the facts of the Flynn case that is more propaganda than informed opinion and is more suited for a website like Slate.com than what I would expect from The Hill.
While I tend to lean more on the side of those who believe that the FBI and the highest levels of government over-stepped the boundaries of civil justice, I also recognize that this story is extremely complicated and nuanced, and I don’t begrudge those who believe the opposite. In many circumstances, the facts can be read in different ways and both sides have good arguments.
Mr. Von Rennenkampff’s arguments, however, ignore all of that. He takes the strongest arguments from the prosecution’s side puts them up against the weakest (and even non-existent) arguments from defense’s side all while twisting and pulling the facts of the case to suit his opinion.
For example, he twice points to the DOJ’s finding no evidence of political bias after an “exhaustive review.” By saying it was the DOJ finding no evidence and not mentioning it was a review by an independent watchdog within the DOJ he falsely gives the impression that even a politically-motivated organization found no evidence of bias. Additionally, he omits the fact that the DOJ explicitly did not try to determine whether there was political motivation. Their conclusion was basically that “the reasons given to us, pass a minimum threshold to support their decision to investigate.” This is similar to believing that even though a robber broke into your house and stole your jewelry, he said he was actually just looking for flour to make cookies.
If this was the only example of this abandonment of objectivity and sticking close to the facts instead of straying deep into partisan interpretation, it wouldn’t be worth discussing. He claims the Trump-Russia investigation was not based on “bogus information”, omitting any mention of the Steele Dossier and how the actual basis of the investigation – Papadapoulos’s claim to the Australian was fed to him from an untrackable source and the content of the discussion was not true.
He claims that Obama/FBI did not spy on Trump even though the FBI clearly listened in to Flynn’s phone calls, illegally surveilled Carter Page in an effort to investigate Russian collusion even if Carter Page wasn’t an official part of the campaign and completely omits the existence of the confidential informants. Given the facts, a normal person, not trying to spin the facts to suit his biases would not completely dismiss the allegation of spying.
He also tries to knock down a straw man that the FBI Investigation into Flynn was bogus. Only the most extreme are claiming that the investigation was totally bogus. The claims in support of Flynn are that the investigation was properly predicated but politically motivated (jury’s still out), that the FBI had investigated and found nothing for months and then pushed him in a corner where he lied and threw the book at him, and that the FBI bended or broke its own rules to prosecute him. The latter three charges are harder to tackle so Mr. Von Rennenkampff ignores them. He also assigns nefarious motives to an incoming administration official working in an official capacity (albeit before he officially should) to prevent the outgoing administration from blowing up an international relationship.
It is not my intent to condemn opinions that I disagree with, but only to point out unrestrained opinions that do more to activate their own side than to inform. Opinions such as these do nothing to persuade the other side but only strengthen the resolve of the most partisan. The Hill should be more deliberate in choosing what it publishes to inform and challenge instead of instigate.
No comments:
Post a Comment