They tend to do this for their “big” stories that they want to trend. They reply to their own Tweets and have others sent out a bunch of Tweets about the story. The problem I find with these stories coming out of the Washington Post and the New York Times is they’ve all been wrong to some extent or 100% wrong. That is the problem we have here. You can’t continue to use anonymous sources for EVERY hit piece you write. Especially when you’ve been wrong, as I noted along with the Daily Wire.

This is the context of the article:

Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election. Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.

Once again, we have anonymous sources leaking information. Four people altogether but two former officials. Who are all these “officials” they keep finding? How can we verify the validity of their sources? Is there even a way to do that?

Trump’s conversation with Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA official, according to the officials. It is unclear if a similar memo was prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to document Trump’s conversation with Coats.

Another memo? Like the Comey memo where the New York Times reporter didn’t even see it and was told to him over the phone?

In his call with Rogers, Trump urged the NSA director to speak out publicly if there was no evidence of collusion, according to officials briefed on the exchange.

So wait, is this what we're up in arms about? That Trump asked the NSA and potentially the DNI directors if they could speak out publicly if there was no evidence of collusion? Really? That’s it? While dumb, that doesn’t actually violate any laws or suggest any obstruction into the investigation. Just shows his ignorance on the topics when it comes to an investigation. If this is what the Washington Compost is referring to, what’s the issue? I will update this if I find any new information regarding the validity of the statements.