Having established the smear of “collusion,” the New York Times must now link every story with the word “Russia” to it in the hopes that the rubes and suckers won’t stop believing that President Trump somehow cheated his way into the White House.
“A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.” Proverbs 6:19 (KJV)
EDITOR’S NOTE: When I was a kid, one of the highlights of my Sunday was when my dad brought home the massive New York Times Sunday Edition. I went right to Section 2 – Arts & Leisure – and worked my way into the political stuff. Since 1851, it has been THE paper of record, no doubt about it. So how sad is it that in 2017, the Times has become nothing but an organ of the radical Left, bent on tearing down a duly-elected sitting American president and his administration. The “Gray Lady” has left the building.
The New York Times published an article using an unsupported argument already negated by the CIA’s former director, John Brennan, as well as a recent extensive Washington Post article, to explain why all 17 of the United States’ intelligence agencies did not assess charges that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.
This after the Times recently had to issue an editor’s note clarifying that the Russian interference conclusion was drawn by “four intelligence agencies” and not 17, as the Timesand major news agencies worldwide falsely reported.
New York Times Apologizes for Fake News:
Ironically, after propagating the falsehood about 17 U.S. intelligence agencies, the Times’ latest misleading claim comes in the form of an article last Thursday titled, “Trump Misleads on Russian Meddling: Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don’t Need to Agree.”
The Times was referring to the January 6, 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community report alleging Russian interference in the presidential race.
The report on Russia was the product of only three intelligence agencies – the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency. In its clarification, the Times wrote that the Russian interference conclusion was drawn by “four intelligence agencies” – including James Clapper’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which issued the January 6 report although its conclusions were not included in the report itself.
Without citing evidence, the Times in its latest article on the subject offers its own explanation as to why the other thirteen intelligence agencies were not included in the assessment about alleged Russian interference:
The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign. The rest were doing other work.
The Times is clearly arguing that the other intelligence agencies were simply dedicated to other national security efforts.
The Times‘ claim stands in contrast to testimony from former CIA Director Brennan as well as information provided in an extensive, 7,700-plus word Washington Post article published June 23 detailing the highly compartmentalized nature of the Russia interference investigation and the manner in which other U.S. intelligence agencies were deliberately kept in the dark.
New York Times’s very misleading article on Donald Trump. Jr.
The news was delivered by the New York Times in the breathless tones that might announce a cure for cancer or the discovery of life on Mars:
“President Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign, according to three advisers to the White House briefed on the meeting and two others with knowledge of it.”
To which a rational response is … who wouldn’t? And also: So what? A third response is unprintable.
James Comey Calls Out New York Times as Fake News:
Just as the “Russian collusion” fantasy — a resentful smear cooked up in the immediate aftermath of Clinton’s stunning defeat last fall — was finally fading from the fever swamps of the “resistance” and its media mouthpieces, along comes the Times with a pair of journalistic nothingburgers.
They first reported that Trump Jr., along with Paul Manafort (then the campaign manager) and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, met with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer “linked to” the Kremlin, back in June, shortly after Trump had clinched the Republican nomination. The second claimed she’d promised dirt on Clinton and the Democrats in order to entice Trump Jr. and the others.
According to the younger Trump, the Clinton angle was just a ruse: “Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered,” he told the Times.
The real reason, it seems, was that Veselnitskaya wanted to lobby for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act, an Obama-era law that allows the US to deny visas to Russians thought guilty of human rights violations. In retaliation, the Russians promptly ended the adoption of Russian orphans by Americans.
And that’s what all the fuss is about? No campaign in its right mind would turn down an offer of information on their opponent. That is what opposition research is all about. You can bet Hillary wouldn’t have hung up on the person who claimed to have dirt on The Donald. After all, the Clinton campaign lobbied the comedian Tom Arnold two days before the election to release potentially embarrassing footage from Trump’s TV show, “The Apprentice.” Arnold declined.
But in the end, the lawyer had nothing, gave nothing, got nothing in return, in a meeting that lasted 20 minutes. This is a scandal?
Having established the smear of “collusion,” the New York Times must now link every story with the word “Russia” to it in the hopes that the rubes and suckers won’t stop believing that Trump somehow cheated his way into the White House.
Hasn’t the Times learned its lesson from its disastrous Feb. 14 story, also anonymously sourced, about the Trump campaign’s “repeated contacts with Russian intelligence”? In his congressional testimony last month, former FBI Director James Comey said: “In the main, it was not true.”
But then, so are the other “collusion” stories the left is trying to peddle as proof of some sinister plot to subvert democracy. And all because they refuse to accept the results of the 2016 election. As the president might say: Sad! source