Posted on 03/08/2017 7:32:28 AM PST by Helicondelta
Several readers have written in this week saying they’re having a hard time squaring The Times’s own past reports of wiretapping with the paper’s assertions that there is no firm evidence that any warrants for wiretaps have been issued. Readers also expressed confusion with The Times’s assertion that it would be illegal for a White House to receive information about such investigations, when its own wiretapping story in January said the Trump White House was given some information from intercepted communications.
“For months now the NY Times and many other mainstream news sources has been running stories based on anonymous leaks saying that a massive investigation was going on into Trump and company’s Russian dealings based on wiretaps and intel intercepts,” wrote John Penley of Asheville, N.C. “Now Obama officials are saying this all never happened so my question is this: Why have the NY Times and others been saying it has for months now basing their stories on anonymous leaks?”
I reached out to editors in the Washington bureau to seek their help in clarifying the difference between Clapper’s — and The Times’s — assertions that no warrants had been issued, and the reference to wiretapping in the January story.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It has been slipping for decades, along with a host of others, but Republicans were too frightened to ever confront any of them. This was a big reason I supported Donald Trump, he has been and continues to expose the MSM for the sycophant enablers that they are for the lying Democrats. There is no way they can any longer hide behind the contention that they are unbiased at all. Because anyone who is unbiased themselves sees the reality.
The nyt times is freaking out because now it can’t figure out what it’s going to need to memoryhole next. Too many people have original copies of what they write to be able to get rid of evidence.
Next they will stop allowing the adminitration to access their articles. While at the same time demanding press access to Trump. Soon only liberal socialists will be able to access their content because then when they scrub facts that expose their lies or show a non liberal socialist to be correct, no one will say anything.
When King Henry II asked, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”, his minions knew exactly what he meant.
Like those of Henry II, Obama’s minions didn’t need direct orders to stop at nothing to undermine the Trump campaign. Fortunately, Trump’s story didn’t turn out like Becket’s.
what she didn’t answer was is there a massive investigation of Trump or not?...If not then they were spun by the Obama administration...Obama (administration) wanted us to believe their was
Maybe the answers to some very pointed and direct questions might be telling. No wiggle room for parsing and spinning. The correctly worded question might reveal the truth (or result in another lie that can be checked on).
From the article’s hilarious conclusion: “Better if The Times helps readers understand this crucial story than let others, with flagrant political motives, do so.”
ROFLMAO
Listening to foreign entities is legal without the FISA warrant but divulging or revealing the portion of the conversation with an American citizen is not legal without the FISA warrant.
That is why the FBI or DOJ are involved in getting the FISA warrants because they involve domestic investigations and surveillance.
Flynn's problem was not that he talked to the foreign ambassador but that he lied about the conversation to Pence, which got him fired.
The real crime in the Flynn caper, was that someone leaked the "unauthorized" portion of the conversation between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the Washington Post.
That is a felony and that crime should be pursued and investigated.
Have I stated this correctly? Please comment if I am off base.
Lynch did it, assumed future President Hillary ordered it, as Lynch was going to keep her job. Oh heck she lost, good thing we got that FISA....
The FISA is the key now
Could it be a foreign entity that recorded the conversation?
A foreign entity did the bugging?
A foreign entity did the bugging?
“the Times asserts that the wiretaps were collected from conversations tapped OVERSEAS.”
lol
Flynn was not overseas. A FISA warrant is needed to spy on US citizens on US soil.
They also say that there was an “inquiry of Trump aides” (see #35) but the targets of the intercepts were the Russians.
They published conflicting lies and even their editor can’t explain the BS they print.
Not necessarily ‘foreign’.
If you are of the mind that laws do not apply to you..................
I read somewhere that in the Mafia, the "capo" doesn't actually assign anyone to do a hit, and they don't "bring in" outside experts to whack someone who's well protected.
The process is more along the lines of this: the boss makes it known that he would be very pleased if a certain person was to be removed from the ranks of the living, and whomever was able to make that happen would receive the boss's eternal and substantial gratitude.
Mainstream Media = Fake News
CNN = Very Fake News
New York Times = Extremely Fake News
Mainstream Media = Fake News
CNN = Very Fake News
New York Times = Extremely Fake News
Heck, Trump is not only responsible for the behavior of those around him, Trump is responsible for the leftist agitator in Chicago who punches a Trump supporter.
1. "....There is no evidence that what Trump said is true, and a line of prominent officials, most notably the former director of national intelligence James Clapper, have stepped forward to say so. Both Democrats and Republicans have spoken up to express their displeasure....."
James Clapper was caught publicly lying to Congress. He admitted as much, at a later date.
The thing about liars and dishonest people, is that they don't ever change their stripes. Once a liar, always a liar. The trust is gone. If this guy didn't have any compunction in lying to Congress (and then got caught), why does ANYBODY think we should believe his lying ass now as a private citizen on TV?
"Expressing displeasure" with Trump's claim does not amount to evidence that it is not true. It just means partisans don't like what he said.
2. "....Better if The Times helps readers understand this crucial story than let others, with flagrant political motives, do so...."
Where does the notably liberally biased newspaper like the NYT get off calling people who disagree with them as having "flagrant political motives"?
I see a pot calling a kettle black somewhere in this author's motives.
Great analogy. NY Times is loading up its own circular Firing Squad.
Their real problem is that they can’t publish anything critical of Obama or which might support Trump. IF they weren’t so biased it wouldn’t be hard at all, and they wouldn’t have to write editorials attacking the results of their own articles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.