comScore

Scarborough Slams ‘Thinly-Sourced’ WSJ Story on Intelligence Withholding: ‘Bending Over Backwards’

Just one day after he slammed Republicans and newspaper editorials for focusing their efforts on the leaks out of the White House instead of the substance of General Michael Flynn‘s impropriety, Joe Scarborough was back criticizing the Wall Street Journal for its “thinly-sourced” attention-grabbing headline this morning.

Late Wednesday, the Journal‘s story, by Shane Harris and Carol E. Lee, reported that members of the intel community have been intentionally withholding information from President Donald Trump out of fear that the materials could become compromised. The Wall Street Journal said:

The officials’ decision to keep information from Mr. Trump underscores the deep mistrust that has developed between the intelligence community and the president over his team’s contacts with the Russian government, as well as the enmity he has shown toward U.S. spy agencies.

But Thursday morning Scarborough slammed the pages of the WSJ, identifying the about-face that the paper seems to have undertaken since Trump was elected to the presidency. “There is no doubt the Wall Street Journal has gone from being the most hostile conservative voice toward Donald Trump during the campaign to certainly now seeming to bend over backwards to actually parrot much of what the administration puts out.”

Former WSJ reporter and frequent Morning Joe guest David Ignatius said, “The issue has been the Wall Street Journal’s ability to shape the coverage.”

“Their [Wednesday] editorial focused solely on leaks!” Scarborough said today, an issue that the Morning Joe host called out angrily on yesterday’s show. Scarborough said Wednesday morning:

We have information and the intel community has had information of connection between the Russians and members of Donald Trump’s campaign at the very same time that the Russians are trying to fix the United States of America’s election for president. Republicans and editorial writers can not be so stupid to think they just picked on poor Michael Flynn out of nowhere.

Thursday he continued, “Look at the headline today,” saying of the blaring story from the Journal‘s front page: Spies Keep Intelligence From Trump. “That’s the screaming headline. You dig down deeper into the story, and you actually find out that they don’t have one single instance where important intelligence was kept from the President of the United States!”

“The story is thin,” admitted Ignatius. The WSJ admits in the story that this sort of behavior is certainly nothing new, saying, “Intelligence officials have in the past not told a president or members of Congress about the ins and outs of how they ply their trade.” But in this case, the WSJ alleges, the move is driven out of a concern for the President’s “trustworthiness or discretion.”

“It’s an extraordinarily thin story,” Scarborough continued, “in a story that is thinly-sourced, and even their thin sources say ‘well at the end of the day, we really don’t have anything here.'”

Watch above, via MSNBC.

[image via screengrab]

––
J.D. Durkin (@jivedurkey) is an editorial producer and columnist at Mediaite.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Filed Under: