Is the NYT trying to discredit the Durham investigation before it announces anything?
Durham could indict half of the Beltway, and the New York Times would never make a retraction.
They’d just concoct another bizarre, false narrative to distract the cell-phone addicted proletariat.
John Durham doesn't even exist and they know it. Beat the rush and take credit for the biggest non-story of the year.
New York Times says Durham investigation has failed, before report is issued
“Is the NYT trying to discredit the Durham investigation before it announces anything?”
Not at all. They are using words to further the reader’s opinion that the investigation didn’t find anything, whether it was there or not, so it didn’t achieve the effort it was created to do. But it did open the door to lie to their readers about the findings and truth of the investigation.
So instead of saying there wasn’t anything to find which the investigation accomplished, it was identified as a failed effort to not find anything because it was never really there to find and they are lying to the public.
It was actually an effort to create something. Years ago they would have called this a fishing trip. So they aren’t telling the truth of what was accomplished. They are misleading their readers by blaming the investigation for not finding what they wanted. Reverse mislead. Kind of like the question do you only beat your spouse on Tuesdays? There is no correct answer to that.
Wy69