It turns out nobody is immune from spreading a little fake news every once in a while.
In a front-page story, the usually reliable Wall Street Journal ran an article with the headline “Spies Keep Intelligence From Trump.”
It was a sensational article, starting with:
“U.S. Intelligence officials have withheld sensitive intelligence from President Donald Trump because they are concerned it could be leaked or compromised, according to current and former officials familiar with the matter.”
The only problem is, it’s not true.
In fact, later down in the story, they have this little sentence:
A White House official said: “There is nothing that leads us to believe that this is an accurate account of what is actually happening.”
Then there’s this one:
A spokesman for the Office of Director of National Intelligence said: “Any suggestion that the U.S. intelligence community is withholding information and not providing the best possible intelligence to the president and his national security team is not true.”
And one more, for good measure:
The officials emphasized that they know of no instance in which crucial information about security threats or potential plotting has been omitted.
So basically, the Wall Street Journal’s story that the intelligence community is trying to keep classified information from Donald Trump is proven incorrect by their own story.
Not only that, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a terse response:
ODNI denies WSJ story that said officials are withholding information from POTUS. pic.twitter.com/u11DPSFfad
— Eric Geller (@ericgeller) February 16, 2017
“Any suggestion that the U.S. Intelligence Community is withholding information and not providing the best possible intelligence to the President and his national security team is not true,” they said in a statement.
And to top it off, even folks over at MSNBC took potshots at the Wall Street Journal.
“It’s an extraordinarily thin story,” Joe Scarborough, a former GOP congressman, said of the Journal’s front-page story. “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.”