NY Times stands by Russiagate reporting despite new documents that have been released showing that Intelligence knew assertions of collusion were unsubstantiated. Please note that I am unable to see the full NY Times defense of their reporting as it is behind a pay wall.
I just read the entire article in the print addition. That is not what the article said.
Peter Strzok's notes disputed aspects of the NY Times article about the Steele dossier. He questioned its reliability. But Strzok had not participated in the interview of Steele's sources. Lindsay Graham tried to make a big deal out of this. Strzok's lawyer said that Strzok's notes were"nothing more than a dedicated counterintelligence professional diligently vetting public reports of intelligence information".
The article then went on to say that the FBI had identified contacts between Carter Page and Russian intelligence officials and contacts by Manafort with such Russian intelligence officials as well as discussions by Jeff Sessions and Michael Flynn with the Russian ambassador.
"Eileen Murphy, a Times spokeswoman said 'We stand by our reprorting'."
I copied some text .. Times makes copying text tedious. If you need more, I’ll try again.
While Mr. Strzok was still working on other aspects of the larger Russia investigation, he was not part of the team working on the wiretap renewals, his lawyer said. Another senior F.B.I. counterintelligence official, Jennifer Boone, was supervising a team in charge of determining the sources of information for the dossier and of handling the wiretap targeting Mr. Page, according to people familiar with the investigation.
Mr. Strzok was later removed from the Russia investigation after the Justice Department inspector general discovered numerous texts on his work phone expressing animus toward the election of Mr. Trump. The inspector general, however, did not find evidence that he took or withheld any official action because of his personal opinions.
Mr. Strzok’s skeptical annotations of the Times article, headlined “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence,” were similar to congressional testimony months later by the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey disputing it. Mr. Comey did not say exactly what he thought was incorrect about the article, which cited four current and former American officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified information.
Mr. Strzok’s annotations disputed the article’s premise and other aspects. He wrote, “We are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.”
I copied some text .. Times makes copying text tedious. If you need more, I’ll try again.
While Mr. Strzok was still working on other aspects of the larger Russia investigation, he was not part of the team working on the wiretap renewals, his lawyer said. Another senior F.B.I. counterintelligence official, Jennifer Boone, was supervising a team in charge of determining the sources of information for the dossier and of handling the wiretap targeting Mr. Page, according to people familiar with the investigation.
Mr. Strzok was later removed from the Russia investigation after the Justice Department inspector general discovered numerous texts on his work phone expressing animus toward the election of Mr. Trump. The inspector general, however, did not find evidence that he took or withheld any official action because of his personal opinions.
Mr. Strzok’s skeptical annotations of the Times article, headlined “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence,” were similar to congressional testimony months later by the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey disputing it. Mr. Comey did not say exactly what he thought was incorrect about the article, which cited four current and former American officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified information.
Mr. Strzok’s annotations disputed the article’s premise and other aspects. He wrote, “We are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.”
In a column Saturday morning, New York Times opinion writer Maureen Dowd somehow forgot about the 2016 election–namely, who ran on the Democratic ticket. The piece was intended as a reflection on the 1984 race, when Walter Mondale chose New York representative Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate—the last time a male Democratic nominee chose a female running mate. But Dowd wrote, “It’s hard to fathom but it has been 36 years since a man and a woman ran together on a Democratic Party ticket.”
The error overlooked the fact that Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine ran on the Democratic ticket four years ago. “Either @timkaine and I had a very vivid shared hallucination four years ago or Maureen had too much pot brownie before writing her column again,” Clinton tweeted. By mid-morning, the Grey Lady had issued a correction.
I actually think this is a pretty decent article about possible response bias in the presidential polls, so I'm not bashing the NYT. I just think this woman in NC is pretty amusing. She's too afraid to put her Trump sign outside, and doesn't like to admit it to people in her town. But she declares her Trump support to the New York Times. I guess she assumes nobody in her town reads it, so she can stay anonymous.
t wasn’t the most obvious spot for a flag that people usually buy to make a big statement. But there it was, peeking out from the inside wall of a garage, the white “Trump 2020” lettering just visible from the street in this suburban Charlotte neighborhood.
From the front porch, Tiffany Blythe, a stay-at-home mom, said that she and many of the people she knows would be voting for Donald Trump in November — but that many of them were nervous talking about it. And that hesitation is why Ms. Blythe doesn’t trust the polls that are now forecasting losses this fall for Mr. Trump and other Republicans in North Carolina and beyond.
“I’m not buying it,” Ms. Blythe said. “There are a lot of silent voters, and more will come out before the election. I think a lot of states are turning red from blue, but you don’t hear about that in the media.”
Not until the third section of this piece about cancel culture attacking an Omaha diner over a dish called the “Robert E. Lee” does the Times mention it began with the son of the diner’s owner putting up Facebook posts saying BLM protesters should be shot https://t.co/7wHh1eiY07
On the website, top heading is "Sharp Personal Attacks and Name Calling in Chaotic First Debate", above a photo carousel. Left headline beside carousel is "Trump Refuses to Categorically Denounce White Supremacists". Right headline, below fact-checking graphic, is "Chris Wallace Tries to Rein In an Unruly Trump at First Debate"
On the website, top heading is "Sharp Personal Attacks and Name Calling in Chaotic First Debate", above a photo carousel. Left headline beside carousel is "Trump Refuses to Categorically Denounce White Supremacists". Right headline, below fact-checking graphic, is "Chris Wallace Tries to Rein In an Unruly Trump at First Debate"
I'm on the app. And that's what you see. It's pretty much journalistic malpractice on the app.
I don't know why you are barking up the NYT tree. Trump and his enablers are stealing our democracy. That's who we should focus on. We need to beat these people. You are just playing into their hands by confusing things. WTF?
I don't know why you are barking up the NYT tree. Trump and his enablers are stealing our democracy. That's who we should focus on. We need to beat these people. You are just playing into their hands by confusing things. WTF?
people pay attention to mainstream media. Both siderism gave us Trump in the first place and it could help him be reelected
I don't know why you are barking up the NYT tree. Trump and his enablers are stealing our democracy. That's who we should focus on. We need to beat these people. You are just playing into their hands by confusing things. WTF?
They've helped to normalize the most abnormal creature to ever be Prez.
Donald Trump getting COVID-19 and intentionally exposing others to it raises real questions about Joe Biden, according to the New York Times. pic.twitter.com/FKNZ2rdHAa
on the one hand, it's just a small technical error. OTOH, it's an example of the Times missing the big picture story, which is that a far right-wing court declared a law that was 75 years old to be unconstitutional for...reasons.
Apparently there's no truth to the Russia Bounty claims. There does seem to be mounting evidence that the NY Times are basically stenographers for the Intelligence Community.