Skip to comments.FISA-gate: The New York Times Revises History in Real Time
Posted on 03/09/2017 9:26:56 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Now that the media-Democrat complex has been caught in its own web, there is some serious skullduggery underway. Its revisionist history, Soviet style. You know, the kind where the bad stuff gets disappeared. The New York Times is disappearing its claim that Obama investigated Trump.
For four months, the mainstream press was very content to have Americans believe indeed, they encouraged Americans to believe that a vigorous national-security investigation of the Trump presidential campaign was ongoing. A counterintelligence investigation, the New York Times called it.
As I contended in a column this weekend, it was essential for the media and Democrats to promote the perception of an investigation because the scandalous narrative they were peddling namely, that Trump-campaign operatives conspired with the Putin regime to hack the election required it.
Russia obviously did not hack the election. Russian intelligence services may have hacked e-mail accounts of prominent Democrats, although even that has not been proved. And there is even less evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign in that effort as one would expect, in light of the intelligence agencies conclusion that the Russians sought to hack accounts of both major parties.
So, for this fatally flawed storyline to pass the laugh test, the Left needed the FBI. Even if the election-hacking conspiracy story sounded far-fetched, the public might be induced to believe there must be something to it if the Bureau was investigating it.
But when the election-hacking narrative went on too long without proof, the risk the Democrats were running became clear. If the FBI had been investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded in purported Russian hacking of the election, that meant the incumbent Obama administration must have been investigating the campaign of the opposition partys presidential candidate.
Moreover, if such an investigation had involved national-security wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), that would suggest that the Obama Justice Department had alleged, in court, that Trump associates had acted as agents of a foreign power in this case, Russia.
Get it? If there is no hacking conspiracy and there manifestly is not the big scandal here is not possible Trump-campaign collusion with Russia. It is that the Obama Justice Department may have used its legal authorities to investigate the Democrats top political adversary. And not to be overlooked: This would have been done at the very same time the same Obama Justice Department was bending over backwards to whitewash the extremely serious criminal case against the Democrats nominee, Hillary Clinton. It would have meant Obama had his thumb on the election scale.
I began pointing this out in early January, but matters did not come to a head until last Saturday morning. In a tweet-burst, President Trump made the controversial allegation that President Obama had ordered that Trump be subjected to wiretapping at Trump Tower, where his campaign had been headquartered.
To say the least, it is unfortunate that this was the angle Trump chose to pursue. There is plenty of support for the overarching proposition that the Obama administration used its law-enforcement and intelligence powers to investigate Trump associates during the campaign. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence that Trump personally was wiretapped. So instead of highlighting the alarming things that may be true, President Trumps tweets obsessed over something that probably is not true.
Nevertheless, even if Trumps allegation was false, the tweets demanded attention to the real scandal: Was the Obama administration investigating the Trump campaign?
That was the uh-oh moment for the media-Democrat complex. That was when it dawned on them not only that the election-hacking conspiracy narrative wasnt working, but that the investigation of the Trump campaign could be a much bigger scandal.
So, after insisting for four months that the Trump campaign was under investigation for conspiring with Putin to steal the election from Hillary Clinton, the media decided that it better adopt a different strategy: Investigation? What investigation?
Thus the claim, suddenly, is that Obama was never investigating Trump. How could we possibly believe such a thing . . . even if its the thing the media have wanted us to believe for four months.
That brings us back to the New York Times.
On January 20, when the paper was trying to promote the government investigating TrumpRussia conspiracy to steal the election narrative, heres the headline that appeared on the big story: Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.
See? They wanted you to assume the inquiry was focused on Trump aides who had connections to the Trump campaign. The report elaborated that investigators were poring over intercepted communications of three associates of Donald Trump. Among them was Paul Manafort, who had been Trumps campaign chairman until August. The intimation was clear: The FBI was conducting a FISA investigation targeting Trump associates to determine whether the campaign had colluded with the Putin regime to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. Only in the fine print did the Times acknowledge that whatever the government might be investigating may have nothing to do with Trump, the Trump campaign, or Russian hacking.
But now that the media have been called on this, now that the Obama administration has been called on investigating the Trump campaign, what happens?
Have you checked the Timess January 20 story lately?
Turns out the story has suddenly, quietly been given a new headline. No longer is it Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides. Instead, readers are now told, Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry into Trump Associates.
Why would the Times change its headline in this manner, weeks after the fact?
Because, during the four months when the media-Democrat complex wanted you to believe there was a TrumpPutin conspiracy to hack the election, they needed you to believe that the Justice Department was targeting Trump associates for surveillance because they were Russian agents.
Now that they dont want you to believe there was an investigation because that would be an Obama abuse of power they want to convince you that Trump associates were never targeted for surveillance. If the conversations of these Trump guys were intercepted, they want you to conclude, its not because we were targeting them. No, no, no: Its because we were monitoring Russian agents whom they just happened to call.
Nothing to see here . . . move along.
We shouldnt move along. Lets see the FISA applications and warrants. If there was no targeting of the Trump campaign, as the media and Democrats now say, lets hear an explanation of why theyve pretended otherwise for four months. If the Trump campaign was targeted for an investigation, lets hear why.
Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.
The NYT = the Ministry of Truth.
OBAMA was spying on Trump for political purposes WITHOUT a warrant per the following admission by the NY Slimes.
“Elisabeth Bumiller, the bureau chief, said the January story was referring to information picked up from wiretaps and other intelligence collected overseas, a process that requires no warrants.”
The MSM is the Country’s greatest threat.
I wonder when Trump found out. Did he decide to tweet that because of the Sessions’ recusal?
RE: Elisabeth Bumiller, the bureau chief, said the January story was referring to information picked up from wiretaps and other intelligence collected overseas, a process that requires no warrants.
Obama has a legal out for that. He can always say that the INTENT was to monitor the Russians but the side effect was to have captured their conversations and communications with the Trump team.
Unless you’re God, How do you gauge INTENT?
Webs we weave, practice to deceive and all that.
Seems the Dems have been buying their Dirty Tricks(tm) from ACME, inc. and now it’s all blown up in their faces, Wile-E Coyote-style.
Haven’t always been a big fan of Andrew McCarthy, but this is what real journalism looks like. Calling out the Obama administration and their sidekick the Failing New York Times. He’s got them cornered. As usual though, for those who would not believe, no proof is sufficient.
Trump finally called “bullsh_t” and they blinked. Folks this is what fighting back looks like.
“The NYT = the Ministry of Truth.”
Right you are! For those who may not get the connection, the main character of “1984”, Winson Smith, worked for the Ministry of Truth. His job was to take the old articles that proved Big Brother wrong, and re-write them. Then burn the old papers.
However, WE have electronic copies!
The problem with electronic books and media, the record is no longer permanent and can be changed with the political wind.
WINSTON, not Winson...
They can’t go back and change the print version though!
One way we can circumvent their cover ups is to check the Newseum site every day and take a print screen of their print front page.
Also, use archive.is to capture the articles in their original form.
Why would the Times change its headline in this manner, weeks after the fact?
This is a Scandal all on its own for the Times to do this is pure straight 1984 memory hole stuff!!!
That what the 1984 hero did for the state... take an old article in the library that had an inconvenient fact. Edit it to for reflect the current party line and Destroy evidence of the old article. Scrubbing history
That this is become such a relevant story and for the quote “paper of record” to then scrub this is a crime. And just beyond stupid to boot. But also scary if you think about it
Because if they'll do this on something that everybody knows because we are seeing it done before our eyes....
You can assume they go back to all articles and scrub them up Politically Incorrect facts or inconvenient before they get caught ...
The NYT alter the news. The "Paper of record" Alters the record to reflect whatever's convenient for their political desire of the moment
New York Times: the Paper of Altered Record
This is nothing less than Evil. Pure Lying Evil. Right in front of our faces.
(2009) The firm headed by Hillary Clintons former chief strategist, Mark Penn, is helping run incumbent President Victor Yushchenkos campaign. Meanwhile Paul Manafort, whose firm worked on Republican John McCains losing effort, and Tad Devine, a top strategist on the Democratic presidential campaigns of Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, are consulting for Victor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian frontrunner in the polls.Both Manafort and Devine consulted for Victor Yanukovych.
Trump adviser Manfort was viciously attacked for being "linked to Russia". Not a peep was said about Sanders adviser Devine. 
Why is that?
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.