Bertarnd, a staff writer for The Atlantic, seemed to construct collusion scenarios out of whole cloth and specious reasoning. She, like many other journalists, paid too much heed and put too much faith in sources that had been thoroughly discredited in the past, e.g., CNN.
Here are a few examples of her penchant for basing her reporting on discredited or anonymous sources as well as assuming what she seeks to prove (collusion) by relying on hearsay upon hearsay and then by an inductive leap, deducing that Trump and/or his campaign staff colluded with Russian agents.
The following are some of my favorite examples of her left-wing partisan bias that badly skewed her reporting.
Despite incontrovertible evidence of FBI spying on the Trump campaign, many reporters and pundits incredulously found fault with Trump for engaging in what they called his illicit war against the intelligence agencies. An example of this distorted perception is found in Natasha Bertrand’s article for the Atlantic entitled: The Chilling Effect of Trump’s War on the FBI,
Bertrand, characterized Trump’s criticism of the Russia probe in the following manner,
“The rhetoric, while normal from this president, is norm-shattering. More puzzling, however, is the extent to which Trump has instigated a Republican-led war on intelligence agencies.”
Bertrand’s article is a bellwether because it is a perfect illustration of Iron Law # 4 for covering the Trump Administration: Deliberately and maliciously, omit to state material facts about a story or report that would make the statements made in the article or report not misleading (legal textbook definition of misrepresentation). Bertrand’s article is symptomatic of the complete lack of interest in aspects of the Russian collusion investigation that make it a potential scandal that would far exceed Watergate. Bertrand further described Trump’s attacks on the Bureau and the DOJ as unhinged and beyond the pale. Bertrand claimed Trump has,
“ … raged against the alleged “unmasking” of Trump associates’ identities in intelligence reports; the FBI’s use of some details in a dossier compiled by a former British spy to bolster its application for a surveillance warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page; and the bureau’s use of an informant to monitor members of the campaign with suspected ties to Russia—a tactic Trump has characterized as “spying” and potentially “bigger than Watergate.”
The omissions in Bertrand’s article are simply astonishing. In one particularly egregious example, Bertrand neglected to mention that the Steele Dossier, upon which the FISA warrant was granted, was paid for by the Clinton Campaign. There is simply no set of facts or journalistic context in which failing to disclose this fact would be viewed as not misleading or the reporter unbiased.
Despite the disgraceful record by CNN of publishing demonstrably false stories on Trump hocked endlessly as “Breaking News”, in an article titled, The Case for a Trump-Russia Conspiracy Is Getting Stronger, Bertrand nonetheless relied on another one of that network’s “bombshell reports.” The breathtaking CNN story this time, that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen claimed that Trump approved a meeting between his son and other unspecified Russians, would later be proven untruthful and added to the growing “Breaking News!”unexploded bombshell reports of CNN. Why would Bertrand continue to rely on information from a network that has turned itself into a laughingstock?
Bertrand didn’t entertain the idea that if the Trump Tower meeting was illegal, then the Clinton Dossier was most certainly criminal as well. The fact that this is never discussed by Bertrand with the same vigor with which she devotes to the criminal culpability of the president, is another example of mainstream media reporters acting as extensions of the Democratic Party.
How Bertrand could fail to discuss the likely criminal liability of the Clinton campaign’s payment to Steele to dig up dirt on Trump, within the context of the poorly sourced Trump Tower meeting, is simply another staggering omission.