Trump and Kushner Didn't "Blackmail" Scarborough, Source Says

So today's Daily Twitter Convulsion turns out to have been, get this, more bullshit.

A top White House aide never suggested a quid pro quo during a call with Joe Scarborough regarding an upcoming National Enquirer Story, a source told Fox News -- despite Scarborough's claim Friday morning that a Trump adviser recently tried to blackmail him into giving positive coverage of the president....

But a White House source familiar with the matter said Scarborough called senior adviser Jared Kushner, with whom Scarborough has a friendly relationship, to ask about a National Enquirer article slated to run in early June regarding the relationship between Scarborough and Brzezinski, who have since announced their engagement.

Scarborough asked Kushner if there was anything that could be done about the article, the source said, given Trump’s friendship with David Pecker, the chief executive of The Enquirer’s parent company, American Media. Kushner allegedly told Scarborough that the former Republican congressman needed to talk to the president himself about the issue, to which Scarborough replied that Trump was angry at him. The source said Kushner answered: "Well, then maybe you should apologize."

But this is he-said, they-said, right?

Well, Scarborough claimed he had proof the conversation happened as he said-- but MSNBC is saying they won't be releasing that proof.

Here's why I think the evidence will support the Trump/Kushner claim: This NYMag writer, apparently sympathetic to Scarborough, would have the account from Scarborough or someone close to him, and could have seen the emails, if Scarborough wanted to share them.

But notice how... crafty the article gets about specifying who it was who initiated this discussion:

One thing I know about being a writer: If you have the facts, and if those facts support the story you're telling, the easiest (and best) thing to do is to be specific about the facts.

Writing vaguely actually takes more time and mental effort than writing specifically -- assuming you have the facts at hand, and the facts are helpful.

So when I see a writer -- and writers are lazy by nature, as most are -- doing additional work to be vague on an important point, I have to assume that either his source didn't tell him who started the conversation, or was deliberately vague on that point himself, or that he does know who started the conversation, but has chosen to do extra mental work to avoid disclosing this fact.

posted by Ace at 05:00 PM

| Access Comments