We are just five days away from an epic election, and both campaigns are making their final pitches. Supporters and opponents are also doing everything they can to shift the perceived momentum in the final days.
It’s at these times when some of the silliest attacks are lobbed. This week, reporters tried to find a connection between GOP nominee Donald Trump and a Russian bank. That story quickly fell apart and embarrassed those who wrote it.
But the story did remind people that anonymous sources should be taken with a grain of salt. In writing about the Trump stories, the Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway advised: “[L]et’s agree that the closer we are to an election, the less anonymity we will tolerate.”
If I hadn’t read that from Hemingway, I might have jumped on the bandwagon of conservatives and others in the media who now think it is “likely” we will see an indictment stemming from the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
Here’s what happened: On his news program Wednesday night, Fox News host Bret Baier said he had talked to “two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations into the Clinton emails and the Clinton Foundation.” These sources said the investigation into the Clinton Foundation has been going on for more than a year, believe with 99-percent accuracy that foreign intelligence agencies hacked Hillary Clinton’s email server and that an indictment was “likely” (Baier’s word) in the case of the Foundation’s pay-to-play schemes.
As it is now, I’m skeptical of this suggestion, for a number of reasons.
First, the use of anonymous sources this close to the election. Team Clinton is flailing after FBI Director James Comey announced the investigation over her emails was back on. Throwing anonymous sources into the mix isn’t as convincing.
Second, the Clintons have avoided punishment in every scandal in which they’ve been involved. Maybe this is the scandal that finally nabs the Clintons, but they seem to have gotten away with so much else, I’m just not convinced anything can bring them down.
Third, from what Baier said, we’re not even sure if it would be Bill Clinton or Hillary who would be indicted over the Clinton Foundation. When one first reads the story, the obvious implication is that a Clinton would be indicted, but nothing in Baier’s report makes that definite. Some poor staffer could end up taking the fall to protect the Clintons.
There is one saving grace for this anonymously sourced story: Bret Baier. Say what you want about Fox News, but Baier is pretty solid.
It makes me trust the story more than if it were coming from, say, Alex Jones, but it’s not enough for me to buy an explosive story from anonymous sources. I’m not saying I think the whole thing could be made up. I’m just not convinced the anonymous sources are really who they say they are.
Ashe Schow is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
