The Immaculate Concession? Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin Posts Bizarre Claim Involving The Democratic Counsel From Trump Impeachment Hearing

Today, I defended the New York Times for an opinion piece that is the basis for a defamation lawsuit by the Trump campaign. Raising such free speech protections can be challenging when you disagree with the author (as I did). It is particularly difficult when you are also the subject of a false representation in a column, as I was this week. Unlike the New York Times column, a representation of Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post was demonstrably false as a factual matter.

Rubin states that Democratic counsel Norm Eisen was able to extract concessions during the impeachment hearing despite the fact that he only asked me one question about a line that I had just published in the Wall Street Journal. Thus, my “concessions” appear to be repeating a line that I had just made in one of my own columns in anticipation of the impeachment hearings. I had been making this point repeatedly. Where is the concession? It was a point that I included in my written and oral testimony and was instructed to only answer “yes or no.” That was the only question asked of me at the hearing by Eisen. Indeed, I believe that that was the only question asked of me by the Democrats in the entire hearing.

I have asked for a correction from both Rubin and the Post and will update this column with any developments. However, given that this column has been running for days, I wanted to set the record straight.

I rarely call out writers or academics for criticism of my writings or positions. Such erroneous criticisms goes with the territory. Yet, I have rarely encountered a more demonstrably (and almost comically) false statement as the one that appeared in Rubin’s column.

Norm Eisen

This week the Post ran a column by Rubin entitled “An Unassuming Mover In Impeachment Departs The House.”  I was delighted to see a column on my friend Norm Eisen, but I was surprised when I started receiving calls from people about one line that is clearly untrue.  The column states that “[Eisen] managed to extract concessions from the Republican witness, Jonathan Turley, that were later used by House managers in the trial.” 

As a columnist, including writing for the Washington Post, I understand that such assertions can be highly subjective but on this occasion it is not just false but would have taken little to confirm that it was false. The reason is simple: I was only asked one trivial question by Eisen and the Democrats in the entire hearing. There was no new information, let alone a concession. Rather I repeated what I had just stated.

The sole question that I was asked by Eisen was actually the subject of audible laughs when I was instructed to solely answer “yes or no” to his reading of a line that I had just written in a column in the Wall Street Journal. Here is the entire exchange with Eisen from the coverage:

“And Professor Turley, you recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, and I quote, ‘There is much that is worthy of investigation in the Ukraine scandal, and it is true that impeachment doesn’t require a crime.'”

“That’s true, but I also added an important caveat,” Turley attempted to interject.

“Sir, it was a yes or a no question,” Eisen continued. “Did you write in the Wall Street Journal, “There is much that is worthy of investigation in the Ukraine scandal, and it is true that impeachment doesn’t require a crime?’ Is that an accurate quote, sir?”

“You’ve read it well,” responded a smiling Turley. 

If you watch the hearing, you will hear laughter in the background because the exercise of having me confirm a line I just wrote was a bit bizarre — as was the incidence that I not say a word beyond “yes or no.”

As I explained to the Post, I fail to see how confirming a line that I wrote a week or so earlier in a national publication is a concession of any kind, let alone multiple concessions.  I had just stated this position without any prompting from the Democrats. Indeed, the Republicans knew that that was my position going into the hearing. I had written numerous columns saying that the Ukrainian matter was worthy of investigation and that impeachment does not require a criminal act. This is akin to saying that I “conceded” that I testified in the Clinton impeachment. I had just said that I testified in the Clinton impeachment. These are less concessions than repetitions of earlier stated points.

Moreover, I know of nothing in the oral testimony that was different from what I stated in my lengthy written testimony or my oral statement.  I stated that previously identified four articles of impeachment, including bribery, were flawed and should be rejected. I stated that two articles could be legitimate but would have to be proven.  The Committee rejected those four articles and went forward with the two that I said could be rejected.  I previously maintained that position and continue to maintain that position.  I also testified that you did not require a crime – a position that I had stated in my testimony, in my prior academic writings, and in my testimony in the Clinton impeachment over 20 years ago.  I do not know of any “concession,” let alone multiple concessions, that I made in my oral testimony.  Indeed, the coverage of various newspapers noted that I was not asked anything by the Democrats of substance in the entire hearing. I received only the request to confirm a line that I had just written and the result of laughter. When Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler ended the hearing, he quoted my previously stated position that abuse of Congress, a non-crime, could be an impeachable offense. I came to the hearing with that position, which I have held for decades as an academic in both scholarship and testimony.

As made clear in my written and my oral testimony, some of my views would support the Democrats while some would support the President. The Republicans were aware of that when they first called me but still asked me to testify. The Wall Street Journal piece restated my long-standing position going back decades. It is not clear (and not stated by Rubin) what my concession, let alone “concessions,” were in the hearing when asked about something I had just said and had just written.

That would make this something of an “immaculate concession” devoid of any statement other than the repetition of a prior statement.

Thus far, my request for a correction has not been granted and column still contains a representation that is demonstrably untrue. Even if Rubin was told this by Eisen or someone else, she does not claim that it is a statement from a third party but a fact. She also did not seek to confirm such concessions or state what those concessions might be.

What is concerning is what seems like an utter lack of concern for the factual record. There is widespread distrust of the bias and accuracy of the media, particularly in coverage of the Trump Administration and impeachment.

Rubin is a self-described conservative columnist for the Washington Post and is also a MSNBC contributor. She has previously been criticized by conservatives, Fox News, and President Trump as one of the Post’s designated conservative voices. Past controversies include calls to “shun” and “shame” Trump officials and to “burn down the Republican party.” Such criticism, however, can go with the job as a columnist and Rubin is can certainly be anti-Trump and a Republican.

I have a long and valued relationship with the Washington Post, which has generously published many of my columns. I have often defended the Post against attacks by President Trump and others. However, my continuing respect for the Post and our past relationship should not be a deterrent for calling out errors when they occur. This should never have been put into the column and would have been shown to be untrue with minimal fact checking.

93 thoughts on “The Immaculate Concession? Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin Posts Bizarre Claim Involving The Democratic Counsel From Trump Impeachment Hearing”

  1. Speaking of Chinese denizens, it looks as if the COVID 19 outbreak was opportune and timely for the communist Chinese dictators vis-a-vis the Hong Kong protestors. Is this all merely coincidence?
    _________________________

    HONG KONG — Hong Kong’s Apple Daily newspaper says the outspoken head of its publishing group, Jimmy Lai, has been held by police Friday over his participation in a protest march in August that was part of a months-long pro-democracy movement.

    The paper said Lai, the founder of Next Media, was picked up from his home by officers at around 7 a.m. and taken to a police station in the Kowloon neighborhood.

    – AP

  2. You conceded that as a matter of law, impeachment can be for something less than an actual crime.

    Since the Democrats who wanted to impeach POTUS had little or no evidence except that which might indict a ham sandwich, they wanted a celebrated legal expert to state the bare bones of the law, taken out of context and beyond the principles of impeachment.

    And why? Only so it might appear that their non-existent evidence was “evidence”.

  3. Don’t Worry, Professor

    This Is Not That Consequential

    As a frequent reader of the WaPo I have noticed that Jennifer Rubin sometimes has two or three columns per day. I often read her columns but this one escaped my notice. In any event Rubin’s criticism of Turley is not easily understood. My eyes actually glazed over reading this rebuttal. And that’s a good sign for the Professor. It means it doesnt really sound like that big of a deal.

  4. Off topic. Did V.P. Pence state that smoking does not cause lung cancer? Trump just put him in charge of the coronavirus team.

  5. Oh Professor, you still don’t get it. Truth is not something that matters to them. Only removing Trump matters. Anyone in their way will be defamed, ridiculed and canceled. One day you will hopefully realize this. I cringe every time Trump opens his mouth. But it pales in comparison with what they are doing to this Country

  6. See Fame!
    My name…
    Voili moitri junte fame almost…
    I can say to you that you stink too…and
    We understand why you eat more.

  7. Posturing a bit, Jon? Seeing how you were testifying for on the Republican side and Trump’s counsel was maintaining nothing about Trump was worth investigating and that, indeed, impeachment and removal required an underlying crime, it seems you not only made two concessions…

    You made two honking huge monstrosities of concession in countering their position. Good on ya, matter of fact. Basically you were conceding to two basic truths, not lying and parading around in cray land like Trump’s counsel was doing.

    Don’t run, Professor. Stand firm and rise up.

    1. If I say that it is possible that the BettleGuese will go supernova tomorow and destroy our solar system – that is no different from the “concessions” Turley made.

      There is a difference between – there is something worth investigation in Ukraine – and you have found an actual crime or misconduct.
      At other Times Turley testified that so far the House investigation had not built a strong enough case.

      The house can impeach without a crime. It can impeach for walking and chewing gum.
      What it can do and what it should do are not the same.

      The house can and did impeach Trump in a manner fully consistent with what Turley said was possible – Turley has never disagreed.

      But this did impeach in a manner that Turley has consistently claimed was not wise.

      Much of the country would agree with that.

        1. “Much of the country wanted witnesses in the Senate trial.”

          Much of the country don’t want to work but want to receive a check for $5,000 per week net.

          1. You’d be a fool if you didn’t want 5G/wk for nothing, most people work for far less.. oh, this is Alan, still stupid.

            1. YNOT, we already know that you always have your hand out. There are people that believe in working for what they get. You probably receive welfare and food stamps paid for by the rest of us but that might be OK because it doesn’t appear you are good for anything.

        2. The house is the body that calls witnesses and determines if a crime is present. Got to have a crime. If the dems wanted witnesses they should have used that month for calling them instead of rushing a dumbaXX vote and doing nothing for 35 days. Postpone the vote, call your witnesses, let the defense call theirs, proceed to vote.

            1. Democrats had full control over the House so they could have called as many people as they wanted while stopping Republican witnesses. Now we will hear Anon make all sorts of excuses or twist the facts or outright lie.

                1. I liked the fact that they all had their own opinions. It would have been better if they rendered their opinions in the Washington Post but like the Post they didn’t have the facts except one… No Quid Pro Quo.

                  Can you imagine the dummies out there that still haven’t gotten that right?

                  1. Signified by Sondland’s testimony of, yes, there was Quid Pro Quo and everyone knew. But he was clearly joking.

                    1. When it came down to the factual question and not the fantasy that Anon lives in the clear answer was NO Quid Pro Quo. That was the only thing said that counts in a court of law.

                      We will forget about the fact that the QPQ is also fantasy. What is not fantasy are the QPC’s that benefitted the Biden Family, the Warren Family and the Sanders Family. Those QPQ were based on their political power where they used their position to earn undeserved money.

    2. Paulie, You are right. Prof Turley seems to be getting thin-skinned – but I guess “posturing” is closer to it. Did he make one concession or two. Two = more than one = “multiple” concessions. What’s the big deal, Prof?

  8. “What is concerning is what seems like an utter lack of concern for the factual record.”
    Concerning, but not surprising.

    Outlets like wapo make “noise,” not “news.”

  9. It would seem professor, that you expect her to correct her opinion that your testimony was a concession. After all, is was published in the Opinion section.

    To quote you from your Trump campaign suit post:

    Rubin’s [Frankel’s] column falls within this “breathing space.” It is protected not because he was right or fair but because protecting his speech protects us all . . . including President Trump.

  10. Rubin is the MSNBC whipping conservative much like Colmes used to be the progressive whipping boy on Fox. She ought to be ashamed of her writing here but she’s not.

    1. Was Colmes a transmission belt for Republican talking points? I recall complaints he was otiose and didn’t contend with Hannity with sufficient vigor, but that’s not the structural position Brooks and Ponnuru have occupied at PBS.

  11. You have the power to amaze, Turley. You made two concessions by answering the question affirmatively, which are: 1, there is much worthy of investigation in the Ukraine scandal; and 2. that impeachment doesn’t require a crime. “Multiple” means more than one. Two is more than one. The two concepts are not the same thing, or even the same topic. What Jennifer Rubin said is not untrue.

    You constantly defend Trump, fail to comment on most of his lies, even the egregious one, you constantly criticize any Democrat about anything you can, you reinforce Fox News talking points, and yet you get your shorts in a twist over this? Trump isn’t worth it.

    1. “ You constantly defend Trump, fail to comment on most of his lies, even the egregious one, you constantly criticize any Democrat about anything you can, you reinforce Fox News talking points, and yet you get your shorts in a twist over this? Trump isn’t worth it.”

      Memo to WHO, CDC, Ghostbusters:

      We have located the source of Coronavirus and we report she comes from outer space…..way outer space

      1. You really shouldn’t trash a good horror film like this. I tend to think this organism could have been living underneath that rug on Trump’s head, evolving and morphing over time, fed by mendacity.

    2. You are correct – though the word concession is “spin”.

      What you do not gather is there is a difference between what is possible constitutionally and what is reasonable or wise.

      Turley did not concede anything that is not obvious. There is no oversite on the Houses power to impeach. They CAN do as they please. That does not mean they should.
      And that is Turley’s point.

      With respect to Ukraine. You statement is inaccurate. Adding adjectives and spin changes what Turley said.

      Trump’s actions in Ukraine meet the low bar needed to investigate.
      Just as Biden’s actions in Ukraine meet that bar and justify Trump’s request to investigate.
      But the House investigation has thus far NOT turned up evidence of anything beyond policy differences and naked assertions of beleif that there was other misconduct.
      Turley advised the house not to rush – to continue the investigation to take Trump to court for more witnesses and documents.
      The house failed gambling they could leverage the Senate to do what the house failed to.
      And they lost.

    3. That’s 2 concessions, and you are correct. Perhaps Rubin should be considering a suit against JT, though I think she understands better than he that the Congress and the WaPo ‘are the big leguaes. If you want to play, expect to sometimes get your feelings hurt.

  12. The MSM is for fools.

    The MSM has diminishing, little or absolutely no credibility.

    The MSM is a hoax machine.

    The MSM is the propaganda and indoctrination arm of American communist party.

    The only entities that follow in lock-step, aka goosestep, are entities which are paid and provided status to do so.

    When American freedom, free enterprise, self-reliance and merit regain dominion, the communist MSM and party will become insolvent.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.”

    – Warren Buffett

  13. As in his thin-skinned column on Rep Swalwell a month or so ago, where he misrepresented his effective interrogation of him as somehow rude and crude – it wasn’t – here he misrepresents what Rubin wrote. She did say that Eisen extracted “concessions” from JT but did not say “multiple” or use any similar word as he alleges. If you remove the last s from “concessions”, the meaning is virtually unchanged and true, and could have been in error, though given JTs untruthful recounting, maybe not. For a guy so eager to be in the spotlight, he needs to either handle himself better or grow thicker skin. The origin of this feud probably goes back to her column of Dec 5, 2019 “Even the Republican witness helped the Democrats” which savages JT pretty thoroughly and must have left marks.

    As to JR, she is a legitimate and long standing Republican, who like many true conservatives hates Trump’s guts. Anyone who read her before 2017 will vouch for that fact.

    1. As to JR, she is a legitimate and long standing Republican, who like many true conservatives hates Trump’s guts.

      She isn’t. She appears to have re-invented herself around 2005 and then did so again around 2015.

      As we speak, Trump’s approval rating among self-identified Republicans is 89%. That’s nothing unusual. George W Bush had similar approval ratings prior to the fall of 2005. There are always a corps of self-identified Republicans dissatisfied with the Republican president and indicate as much in their responses to surveys or in their voting. If exit poll data can be trusted, these usually sum to about 9% of the population of self-identified Republicans at election time. There’s no indication it’s any different this year.

      You do have a number of opinion journalists who are inveterate NeverTrumpaloos. In spite of their protestations, they’re not notable for ‘muh principles’. They’re notable for their vanity. They made a number of categorical statements in 2015 and 2016 that haven’t panned out. Instead of re-assessing, they keep doubling-down. You should be familiar with the phenomenon. That’s you.

      This leads to a problem: there actually is no audience among Republican readers for opinion journalists who act as escalatingly silly transmission belts for Democratic talking points. The Weekly Standard was shut down by it’s parent company because they were sick of the red ink in the service of Wm. Kristol’s shticks. A liberal billionaire named Pierre Omidyar has been bankrolling something called The Bulwark (which has been reduced to recruiting from Slate). National Review has lost 40% of its paid circulation and has had to tell the NeverTrumpaloos on their masthead to take their copy elsewhere. (Said NeverTrumpaloos have now started an e-newsletter; no clue how they make rent). Of course, Ross Douthat, David Brooks, George Will, Jennifer Rubin, SE Cupp, and Ramesh Ponnuru are all taking salaries or per diems from the Sulzbergers, Bezos, the widow Jobs, Jeff Zucker, or PBS. They’re not, at this juncture, being paid for critical distance.

    2. who like many true conservatives hates Trump’s guts.

      I’d ask for a citation proving that, but you and I both know that doesn’t exist. What does exist is your operational definition of true conservative. Provide that and we can argue the merits of your opinion.

      1. Among conservatives who hate Trump’s guts are most of those committed to those principles including Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham much of the National Review staff,. National columnists like Will and Rubin, and academics like Ferguson, Charen, and Krauthammer. The Trumpster party is no longer conservative ,unless that means high deficits, appeasing dictators, abandoning long time allies, extending presidential power at the expense of Congress including the power of the purse and oversight, and celebrating low character in our leaders.

        1. LOL! Again, your opinion doesn’t qualify as a citation. You said many and then list in your opinion, a handful. And you still haven’t given me your definition of true conservative. Either you can’t, or if you did, you’d be describing the overwhelming number of people that support President Trump.

        2. Among conservatives who hate Trump’s guts are most of those committed to those principles including Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham much of the National Review staff,. National columnists like Will and Rubin, and academics like Ferguson, Charen, and Krauthammer.

          There is no indication that Ted Cruz or Lindsey Graham ‘hate Trump’s guts’, much less have an antipathy so severe that it prevents business from being done. (They have reason to dislike Trump for things he’s said, but there’s business and there’s personal).

          National Review‘s staff has for some time been notable for a deficit of rapport with National Review‘s readers. This is particularly so in regard to their continued employment of Jason Lee Steorts, who has no discernible constituency among National Review‘s readers. There’s a reason their subscription base has imploded in recent years. These problems predated Trump, but have been exacerbated by it. Richard Lowry, the capon who edits National Review has been compelled to make adjustments, one suspects in large measure because most of his staff actually are interested in ideas and policies, which means they’re not interested in obsessively disparaging the President, which is what the NeverTrumpaloo die-hards wish to do.

          Neither Andrew Ferguson, Mona Charen, nor Charles Krauthammer were ever academics. Krauthammer had the necessary training to hold a faculty position, the others never had. All three have been opinion journalists. Krauthammer died a year and a half ago and hadn’t uttered a word publicly on any topical question for a year or thereabouts prior to that. What he would make of the current situation is unknown, simply because people of similar kidney have had different reactions. Charen keeps babbling about character, but a precis of her reactions to Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, and John McCain would leave an ordinary reader somewhat puzzled as to just what her sorting criteria are.

          Again, Jennifer Rubin’s constituency has always been editors, not readers, and, as Charles CW Cooke has demonstrated, she’s been increasingly incoherent in recent years. As for Will (who actually was an academic, 50-odd years ago), he’d largely largely morphed into a snippy libertarian in his old age, and this was manifest 15 years ago. He had an affectionate regard for Ronald Reagan, a certain asperity toward George W Bush, and frank contempt for the other four Republican presidents who’ve held office since he’s been writing columns. Will was, 35 years ago, a man who could persuade you of an opinion you didn’t hold before. That’s gone. He’s grown weirdly antic at age 78 and persuades no one, just provides emotional validation for the Bezos Birdcage Liner‘s residual readers.

          The decay of the discursive culture among liberals and the decay in character among them is such that (except for a few policy wonks) you all actually are dreadful and, as ever, are projecting your wretchedness on normal people. Your conception of ‘true conservative’ is a bunch of people suffering various idiosyncratic problems who lack any serious critique of the administration or awareness of our current political predicament. There may come a time when the culture of the left is reconstructed and manifests actual political principles (rather than just improvisations justifying aggression), but that will be in the Keynesian long run, when you and I are both dead.

          nn

          1. Absurd, I think you are right about Cruz and Trump. He may bear a bit of a grudge because he was handled roughly in the primaries but I thought at the time that Cruz is very smart and is a lawyer and any lawyer ought to be able to take a few hard knocks without getting the vapors. I thought in the end they would work well together for shared goals and I think that is what has happened. Romney, on the other hand, is a sad, nasty case..combs his hair well, though, and that is the only thing going for him.

            1. I don’t think he cares much one way or another about anything Trump said about him. Again, there’s business and there’s personal. It’s that Trump tossed lawn darts at his father and his wife. Graham was a great admirer of John McCain. Trump was tasteless and brutal about McCain.

  14. Meet Honey Bun the Pangolin…99% genetics are same as corona virus. China did it again. Trafficking unclean animals, & hunting them down for food. 3X!

    1. Hahaha, I love Honey Bun. Mischievous, should I say, curious animal, getting into all the none natural human property. What’s this, what’s that?..

      But honestly, no one should have this animal as a pet. Along with many other animals ppl keep as pets.

  15. Here’s an assessment of some of Rubin’s other writing by the libertarian Charles CW Cooke:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/12/jennifer-rubin-trump-obsession-mindless-opponent/

    She’s a lawyer who quit practicing in 2005 or thereabouts where her family relocated to DC consequent to her husband’s career. She landed a berth at Commentary and then at the WaPoo. Her peregrinations over the years have been quite puzzling – as if she were always a shill.

  16. “[Eisen] managed to extract concessions from the Republican witness, Jonathan Turley, that were later used by House managers in the trial.”

    Professor, imagine that not just happening one time in one newspaper on one day. Imagine that type of “Libel” with different stories happening multiple times, in multiple newspapers and on multiple TV stations by many commentators each and every day for 4 years with your wife and children being insulted as well where many of the statements have already been proven fraudulent. I would like to know what you would do under such circumstances.

            1. Of course I don’t have to mention how Trump turned things around and even some of the mess created by that awful woman Hillary has been corrected.

              The states look great. Thank God for Trump and may he have the additional 4 years.

            2. “The fact that the recession lasted so much longer than needed made Obama’s terms in office intolerable.”

              The false opinion the recession lasted so much longer than needed made Obama’s terms in office intolerable.

              Fixed. Your welcome.

              1. Just like one of your other personalities you don’t know what you are talking about. We all know that having experienced lie after lie from you, but I guess this is the only way you feel you can get noticed. You are worthless.

                  1. After being proven wrong by many people there is no longer a need to prove you a liar. That is why you have changed your alias so many times. Your low level of intellect and low level of behavior stick with you. I expect you to maintain several aliases at a time which probably increases Turley’s ratings so ahead, Turley is a good guy who is center left.

                    1. Actually, to be clear, one of ex names is my real one. As far as the other, well, let’s just say in my responses to you creative swearing is frowned upon by the moderator.

                    2. DSS, If we count the past couple of days I think it would be 4 not counting how many times he may have used anonymous. It’s hard to say because sometimes its difficult to figure out which is Anon and which is Anonymous the Stupid.

                1. See, since Trump has surfed the momentum of Obama’s recovery, it’s an impossible sell. No data exists pointing down in the Obama years and up in the Trump years. It’s the same recovery. Each had slight channels in the DJIA, Trump a little while back, Obama towards the end of his 2nd term. If you take the position that Obama’s recovery didn’t exist it automatically implies that Trump’s doesn’t either.

                  1. Actually the important skew between Obama and Trump exists within the deficit realm. Obama’s went up at first with his economic stimulus then went down until a slight turn up near the end of his second term. Trump has skyrocketed them during his term with a corporate tax giveaway. He’s drained a lot of the sugar from the relative strength and things have been of late moving primarily on momentum. A hollowing of the markets. Makes it possible for big shocks in the markets like this week because there’s not a strong pulse beneath them.

                2. To prove I’m lying, this would be where you respond with charts and graphs, correct? Money talks, Allan walks.

                  1. Anon, you were supplied with graphs and numbers along with economic explanations. You ran away, changed your name, abused other posters and of course you lied.

                    1. “False”

                      No need to argue with Anon. Let me put a little spice back into the equation just to keep things interesting. Dealing with Anon has become boring.

                      The new question is: Is Hillary at it again?

                      https://www.theblaze.com/news/police-say-initial-reports-calling-obama-era-whistleblowers-death-a-suicide-were-misinformation

                      Police say initial reports calling Obama-era whistleblower’s death a ‘suicide’ were ‘misinformation’

                      Local authorities are calling on the FBI to assist in the ongoing investigation

                      Breck Dumas
                      Police investigating the death of former Department of Homeland Security official Philip Haney announced Wednesday that initial reports suggesting he died by suicide were “misinformation.”

                      Ditch the fake news ==> Click here to get news you can trust sent right to your inbox. It’s free!
                      What are the details?

                      Haney, 66, who became a whistleblower on his own agency during the Obama administration, was found deceased in his vehicle on Friday at a park-and-ride area less than three miles from where he was living, roughly 40 miles east of Sacramento, California.

                      According to Fox News, the Amador County Sheriff’s Office said in its initial press release on Haney’s death that he “appeared to have suffered a single, self-inflicted gunshot wound” and that “a firearm was located next to Haney and his vehicle.”

                      In a new press release issued Wednesday, the Amador County Sheriff’s Office stated:

                      Unfortunately, there was misinformation immediately put out that we have determined Mr. Haney’s death to be a suicide. This is not the case. We are currently in the beginning phase of our investigation and any final determination as to the cause and manner of Mr. Haney’s death would be extremely premature and inappropriate.
                      The release from Wednesday reiterated that the investigation into Mr. Haney’s death is active and ongoing. The sheriff’s office has reached out to the FBI to assist in processing evidence and has scheduled an autopsy to be conducted by forensic pathologists from the Sacramento County Coroner’s Office.

                      Mr. Haney testified to Congress in 2016 that the DHS under then-President Barack Obama had instructed him to delete the files of hundreds of individuals linked to Islamic terrorist groups and argued that several U.S. domestic terror attacks could have been prevented if the files had not been destroyed.

                      Anything else?

                      Immediately upon the news of Haney’s death, several pundits and media outlets questioned the reports that the whistleblower had committed suicide.

                      The Washington Examiner spoke to several individuals close to Haney, who told the outlet that the former official was in talks to return to the DHS and that he was engaged to be married. Haney himself told the outlet in November that he was planning to write a sequel to his first book, “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad.”

                    2. So let’s just pause to realize you are providing no evidence to support your thesis right now. Glaringly so. But it’s tough to argue your position because it’s driven by opinion rather than data.

                    3. You play this game all the time. Why should I do your homework? We all know you are a liar and walked out when this information was provided.

                    4. The circumstances are such that neither a suicide nor an ordinary homicide look like a good fit.

  17. Great Piece! I remember that incidence when you giggled during the trial because I also smiled and knew where he was going. You did great against 3 so called “experts”

  18. Good luck getting a retraction, let alone an apology.

    The WaPo’s obstinacy is only matched by their partisanship.

    Helps to have a rich daddy eager to fund their TDS.

Leave a Reply