Posted on 05/24/2017 5:46:53 PM PDT by ForYourChildren
The New York Times dropped another “bombshell” report on Russian influence on the 2016 election Wednesday, and once again what is presented as salacious news in the headline and lead is revealed to be anything but midway through the report.
“Months before the election, U.S. spies learned that top Russians had discussed ways to use Donald Trump’s advisers to influence him,” reads the headline blasted by TheNYT in a breaking news email. The story is clearly meant to further the “Trump colluded with Russia” narrative the media has pushed for months, although it’s as yet totally unsubstantiated.
TheNYT lead builds an atmosphere of wrongdoing around Trump and his campaign aides using important sounding buzzwords and phrases. “Spies” and “revealing” information and big-time Russian officials who “exert influence.” It’s quite official sounding and obviously intended to sow suspicion.
But the (few) readers who make it to the fifth paragraph and are paying attention will realize there’s not actually much meat to the report. That paragraph hedges on the information collected by the spies, and notes the reporter has no real clue whether Russian officials actually made any attempt to influence the Trump aides in question. Oh yeah and the Trump campaign as well as both aides have consistently denied the longstanding accusations of collusion with Russia.
“The information collected last summer was considered credible enough for intelligence agencies to pass to the F.B.I., which during that period opened a counterintelligence investigation that is ongoing,” the paragraph reads. “It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn. Both have denied any collusion with the Russian government on the campaign to disrupt the election.”
{..snip..}
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
The intelligence service of every country in the world would be derelict in their duty if they did not consider how to influence every world leader. I am certain they had the same discussions about HRC in case she had been elected.
They asked Brennan about that in the hearing. First he insinuated that the Russians held back some dirt to release it after she was elected. He used the word husbanded. The R Senator asked him point blank if the Russians "husbanded" anything on Hillary. He said he couldn't answer that in open session (meaning no).
“Both have denied any collusion with the Russian government on the campaign to disrupt the election.”
The Trump campaign was winning and had no need to cheat.
Only 120 days into the D.J.T. Presidency——Historical BTTT!
They hacked the vote so bad that the democrat hack of the vote wasn’t enough.
How come it took 4 paragraphs for The Daily Caller to go straight to the 5th paragraph?
Not to mention that Brennan/Clapper/Comey originally claimed all 17 agencies were in agreement that something happened and now Brennan comes out and says it was compartmentalized mainly between 4 agencies. Funny how they keep trying to make a sweater out of yarn so frayed it resembles drier lint....
Her Heinous takes office?
If there are major problems in 5 large cities FEMA declares martial law and the head of FEMA takes over the government according to an obscure law.
If we keep pushing a secret unicorn ranch theory, eventually there may be a unicorn ranch.
“How come it took 4 paragraphs for The Daily Caller to go straight to the 5th paragraph?”
How come it took you 47 posts to point out that it took The Daily Caller 4 paragraphs to point out that the NYT took 5 paragraphs to say the truth?
Ha.
How come it took you 4 posts to point out it took me 47 posts to point out that it took The Daily Caller 4 paragraphs to point out that the NYT took 5 paragraphs to say the truth? ;-)
LOL!
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.