NYT Throws a Fit: We're Standing By Debunked Trump-Russia Collusion Story

|
|
Posted: Jul 20, 2020 3:55 PM
NYT Throws a Fit: We're Standing By Debunked Trump-Russia Collusion Story

Source: AP Photo/Evan Vucci

They just can’t admit that they’re wrong. It’s pure and simple. One of The New York Times’ pieces that got this Trump-Russia collusion myth going was this fantastical lie about Trump aides having super-secret communications with Russian intelligence officials before the 2016 election. The best part of this whole story was that upon original publication, it was already quasi-debunked. There was no evidence that such interactions ever occurred. 

“The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.” Shoot first and then ask questions later. This story from the get-go was simply too good to be true. And after a year, it was pretty obvious that there was no Trump-Russia collusion. None. It was a myth manufactured by the media and low-level intelligence officials. It got credence because top officials at the Obama Department of Justice decided to weaponize it to spy on the Trump campaign and go after his top aides. The NYT, like the rest of them, failed. It has to be one of the biggest journalistic fiascos in recent memory that exposed the depth of the bias against this president. The liberal media was always biased but this story showed how far that rabbit hole went. 

I can’t even recall how many bombshells were duds. Michael Flynn's meeting with the Russians was the story that got Brian Ross tossed from ABC News. Okay, to be more accurate, Ross said Flynn met with the Russians during the election. He did not. Flynn met with them after the election, which was as part of any protocol with a new incoming administration, but the story tanked the markets. It was wrong. And Ross was given a lengthy suspension from which he never returned. Yeah, that happened, but Trump’s tweets can cause damage or something. Then, CNN’s epic screw-up regarding some donor who gave Trump, his son, and his inner circle and encryption key to read the Wikileaks emails from the DNC before it was released. Gasp! Except the documents were already public and CNN would have known that of they could read time stamps on emails. These people suck and I’m sure you’ve reached that conclusion long, long ago. 

Disgraced FBI Agent Peter Strzok was reportedly one of the key people who signed off on the counterintelligence probe into Russian collusion. As you’d expect, the authorization form is a total train wreck—and that’s from former FBI intelligence officials who reviewed the reasoning for this spying operation. He also had an affair with bureau lawyer Lisa Page, sent tens of thousands of anti-Trump texts, embarrassed the FBI, and placed into question the institution’s ability to be a nonbiased investigatory body. He was fired for these texts. Yet, his notes on this whole fiasco also exposed the NYT piece as a total fraud. Almost everything it in was shredded as misleading, inaccurate, or simply not true. The paper said Manafort was in on the calls. He wasn’t. Roger Stone was part of the FBI’s investigation. He was not. Hell, even then-FBI Director James Comey said this story was garbage, but the publication stood by it. And now, they’ve dug in again (via Daily Caller News Foundation):

The New York Times is standing by a February 2017 report alleging that Trump associates were in communication with Russian intelligence officers, even after the release of an internal FBI memo that identified numerous inaccuracies in the story.

“We stand by our reporting,” New York Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy told her own paper for its report on the newly released documents.

Attorney General William Barr declassified two documents this week related to the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. One released Friday is a 57-page memo of interviews that dossier author Christopher Steele’s primary source conducted with the FBI in January 2017.

The second is former FBI official Peter Strzok’s annotation of a Feb. 14, 2017, report that said four American officials claimed that authorities had intercepted communications and call logs of Trump advisers speaking with Russian intelligence.

“This statement is inaccurate and misleading as written,” Strzok wrote in reference to opening paragraph of the Times story. “We have not seen evidence of any individuals affiliated with the Trump team in contact with [Intelligence Officers].”

[…]

The Times story advanced the prevailing narrative at the time that the Trump campaign may have conspired with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election. The story also hit a day after Michael Flynn resigned as national security adviser because of a scandal involving phone calls he had with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016.

Strzok was aware of those calls because the FBI obtained a transcript of them through surveillance of Kislyak.

Investigators ultimately found no evidence of collusion between Trump associates and the Russian government. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report did not make any reference to communications in 2016 between any Trump associates and Russian intelligence operatives

This is called getting wrecked, children. And the Trump-Russian collusion story has been a rotting corpse for years now, but the media and the Democrats continue to think that there is something lying there, something in the maggot-infested stomach lining if this dead story that was never real. Unable to admit their defeat due to their insufferable arrogance, they carry on as if this has no bearing on the press itself. This is how one can make the case for state media. If we’re going to be lied to on a daily basis like this, might as well have a government stamp on it, right? I’m not advocating that of course, but at least you’d know it’s trash. For millions of Democrats, they believe the NYT and still do because...‘orange man, bad.’ You already know this but part of growing up is accepting responsibility when you’re wrong. The ‘woke,’ who have taken over the paper, are crybabies, little children who cannot handle that there are indeed differing opinions in the world. With this type of person, such lessons must be beaten into them—literally. We don’t have a “belt” to administer this type of punishment in media yet, but someone should create one because this cannot happen again. Some people were sold one of the biggest lies—ever. And many still believe it.