WHY is the NYT misleading the country?
The editorial below, authored by the NYT editorial board, is so misleading, so full of outright lies contradicted — by their own newspaper’s coverage — one has to finally wonder, what is the NYT doing?
From the New York Times Editorial Board
NYT — In nearly every crime-caper movie there’s a shifty guy on the street corner who, seeing the cops in hot pursuit, flips over a fruit cart to slow them down and give the culprits a chance to get away.
Whenever I read a lede like that, I’m already suspicious, what follows will almost always be mostly pure speculation, since no talks about facts after a lede like that.
NYT — In Trump-era Washington, that role is being played with impressive conviction by Devin Nunes, the eight-term Republican representative from California and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Mr. Nunes, supported by a rotating coterie of conspiracists in Congress and the usual suspects on right-wing cable news, has labored to divert attention from the expanding Russia investigation by tossing out sinister-sounding allegations of wrongdoing by federal law enforcement officials.
Wow. What a complete fabrication, just layers and layers of lies. They are accusing Nunes, the one investigating a conspiracy — of being the conspirator! More importantly, they are COMPLETELY ignoring long-time, deeply respected, Senator Chuck Grassley who just this week released a dramatic letter to FBI director Wray on this topic. The letter is reprinted her and the NYT editorial continues below. As you read the two, compare the tone and ask yourself if the NYT is being honest with you.
Dear Director Wray:
The Committee on the Judiciary is conducting oversight of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and their investigation of classified information on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server. On January 19, 2018, in response to previous requests from the Committee, DOJ produced to Congress 384 pages of text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. However, according to a cover letter accompanying the production, the FBI did not preserve text messages between Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page between December 14, 2016 and May 17, 2017. The text messages that were provided raise serious concerns about the impartiality of senior leadership running both the Clinton and Trump investigations.
Pulling Punches in the Clinton Investigation.
On February 25, 2016, Strzok and Page discussed via text how many personnel from DOJ and FBI would be included in the Clinton investigation and what the best ratio should be. In that discussion, Ms. Page issued the following warning to Mr. Strzok, about dealing with Secretary Clinton:
Page: One more thing: she might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?
Strzok: Agreed. I called Bill and relayed what we discussed. He agrees. I will email you and [redacted] same.
Consideration of a Special Counsel.
On May 17, 2016, I wrote to FBI Director James Comey, expressing my concern that conflicts of interest existed between Attorney General Lynch and the Clintons due to her firm’s prior representation of the Clintons in tax matters and the fact President Clinton nominated Ms. Lynch to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. In that letter I also asked then-Director Comey how Attorney General Lynch’s conflicts in the Clinton investigation were any different than those of Attorney General Ashcroft’s for which he recused himself. In the Plame matter, Ashcroft had prior professional associations with one of the suspects, just like Attorney General Lynch had in the Clinton investigation. Department regulations make clear that when there is a conflict of interest or “other extraordinary circumstances,” and it is in the public interest, a special counsel should be appointed. In the Plame matter, then-Deputy Attorney General Comey believed a special counsel was necessary. However, to this day, Comey has failed to adequately explain the difference between the Plame and Clinton investigations.
Further, Attorney General Lynch’s meeting on the tarmac with President Clinton days before Comey announced his decision not to recommend charges was described by Comey as the moment that “capped” his decision to publicly announce the closing of the investigation due to concerns about Lynch’s independence. In public testimony, Comey voiced concerns that Lynch required him to refer to the Clinton investigation as a “matter,” a term that matched the public position of the Clinton campaign at that time. Comey testified that Lynch’s directive “confused and concerned me” and that it was “one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude, ‘I have to step away from the department if we’re going to close this case credibly.’” On March 18, 2016, Strzok and Page engaged in a discussion about the possibility of a special counsel in the Clinton investigation and referenced Patrick Fitzgerald, who was the Special Counsel in the Valerie Plame matter:
Strzok: Thought of the perfect person D can bounce this off of[.]
Strzok: Pat  You gotta give me credit if we go with him. And delay briefing him on until I can get back and do it. Late next week or later.
Page: We talked about him last night, not for this, but how great he is. He’s in private practice though, right? Suppose you could still bring him back. And yes, I’ll hold.
Strzok: Yes, he’s at Skadden in Chicago. I haven’t talked to him for a year or two. Don’t forget that Dag Comey appointed him as special counsel in the Plame matter, and that he was there for Comey’s investiture.
Strzok: I could work with him again. And damn we’d get sh*t DONE.
Page: I know. Like I said, we discussed boss and him yesterday.
Strzok: And it frustrates me, because Bill at his 7:15, brings up the whole matter in front of his DADs. One who is acting for Dina. Who immediately goes to John and tell[s] him how Bill is stressed because all the stuff is going on about a special prosecutor. Bill needs to learn to not talk to everybody about this when he’s upset about it. And I guarantee that agent, while discreet, is certainly going to tell at least a few other people.
Strzok: I’m sending [redacted] to the 8:30 with Jones so that I can meet with John.
Page: Did he go so far as to talk about why we started talking special prosecutor?!
Strzok: Don’t think so. In my office talking to John[.]
Later, on May 13, 2016, Page texted Strzok:
Hey forgot to ask if you mentioned the whole special counsel thing to andy?
Congress, and the American public, have a right to know whether the DOJ and FBI considered the appointment of a special counsel. Accordingly, please answer the following:
Did the FBI ever recommend a special counsel for the Clinton investigation? If not, why not? If so, did DOJ ever explain why it did not appoint one? Did Attorney General Lynch refuse?
Were there any legal memoranda or analyses of the issue prepared? Please provide all records relating to DOJ and FBI communications about the potential appointment of a special counsel for the Clinton investigation.
The FBI Chief of Staff Believed McCabe Should Recuse Himself from the Clinton Investigation.
On October 28, 2016, I wrote to then-Director Comey regarding a Wall Street Journal news article that reported a set of troubling facts about potential conflicts of interest in the criminal investigation into Secretary Clinton. That news article noted that Mr. McCabe’s wife’s political campaign received over half a million dollars from entities tied to Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe. It is well known that Gov. McAuliffe is a close friend and confidant of Hillary Clinton. The Wall Street Journal reported that 98% of the Gov. McAuliffe related donations to his wife came after the FBI launched the investigation into Secretary Clinton.
In a reply to our letter, the FBI responded, “[b]ased on these facts, it did not appear that there was a conflict of interest – actual or apparent – that required recusal or waiver.” However, text messages on October 28, 2016, indicate that contrary to the FBI’s December 2016 response, the Director’s Chief of Staff apparently believed that Mr. McCabe actually did need to be recused at a later date. McCabe’s recusal did not take place until one week before the presidential election – a fact that the FBI failed to disclose in its December 2016 response to the Committee.
Page: Rybicki just called to check in. He very
clearly 100% believes that Andy should be recused because of the “perception.”
Page: Our statement affected the stock market.
Page: Don’t understand your email, if it’s a matter similar to those we’ve been talking about lately, why no recusal before? Something different?
Strzok: I assume McAuliffe picked up. But that doesn’t make sense. He said he was interviewing, maybe he’s headed into private practice.
As Ms. Page asked, “why no recusal before? Something different?” If McCabe eventually recused himself one week before the election, why did he not do so sooner?
Why did the FBI fail to disclose McCabe’s November 1, 2016 recusal in its December 14, 2016 response letter?
Did Mr. McCabe’s recusal have any relation to the reported McAuliffe investigation? Or was it related to private sector employment negotiations, and if so, with whom was he negotiating that would have triggered the recusal?
Transmitting Government Records on Non-Government Systems.
In addition, I have raised concerns in multiple letters to the FBI about whether the FBI’s investigation was improperly narrow, focusing only on issues related to classified information, and not considering the alienation or destruction of federal records, whether classified or not, which is a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2071. On April 10, 2016 and on June 3, 2017, respectively, Strzok said the following to Page:
Gmailed you two drafts of what I’m thinking of sending Bill, would appreciate your thoughts. Second (more recent) is updated so you can skip the first.
Type on home computer and email to yourself.
Additionally, in many messages they refer to related conversations they were having via iMessage, presumably on their personal Apple devices. It appears that Strzok and Page transmitted federal records pertaining to the Clinton investigation on private, non-government services. It is important to determine whether their own similar conduct was a factor in not focusing on and developing evidence of similar violations by Secretary Clinton and her aides.
In October 2015, then-Director Comey said, “If you know my folks…they don’t give a rip about politics.” Mr. Comey’s statement may be true of the vast majority of rank and file agents. However, the more we learn about the Clinton investigation and how the DOJ and FBI handled it, the more clear it becomes that Director Comey was dead wrong about the key senior officials who were responsible for the investigation. They cared very much about politics, to the detriment of the Bureau’s mission and objectivity.
In addition to the aforementioned questions, please answer the following no later than February 8, 2018:
Please provide all records of communication, including emails, between Strzok and Page from July 10, 2015 to his removal from Special Counsel Mueller’s office, relating to either the Clinton or Trump campaigns, or any related FBI investigations.
Does the FBI have any records of communication, including emails, between Strzok and Page from December 14, 2016 to May 17, 2017? If so, please provide those communications. If not, please explain why not.
Has the FBI been able to obtain texts between Strzok and Page from any other source, such as physical phones, carrier records, or any other source? Please explain.
Has the FBI asked Mr. Strzok or Ms. Page to voluntarily provide any information from their personal accounts? If so, have they been cooperative? If the FBI has not asked, please explain why not.
Has the FBI performed any voluntary searches of Strzok or Page’s non-government phones or email accounts to determine whether federal records exist? Please explain why or why not?
How and on what date did the FBI discover that messages were missing?
I anticipate that your written reply and most responsive documents will be unclassified. Please send all unclassified material directly to the Committee. In keeping with the requirements of Executive Order 13526, if any of the responsive documents do contain classified information, please segregate all unclassified material within the classified documents; provide all unclassified information directly to the Committee, and provide a classified addendum to the Office of Senate Security. Although the Committee complies with all laws and regulations governing the handling of classified information, it is not bound, absent its prior agreement, by any handling restrictions.
Should you have any questions, please contact Josh Flynn-Brown of my Judiciary Committee staff at (202) 224-5225.
Charles E. Grassley
Committee on the Judiciary
Is the NYT insinuating that Grassley is also “tossing out sinister-sounding allegations of wrongdoing by federal law enforcement officials.”?
They also characterize the Russian investigation as expanding!
Everybody in America — except the NYT editorial board — knows this is a lie. They know this investigation is tainted, has found nothing except a conspiracy to overthrow a legitimately elected president and is now searching for a way to criticize, not charge the president, for using his constitutional authority to fire Comey. See Dershowitz.
NYT — Mr. Nunes’s act has kept alive the prospect of impeding or ending the investigation even as President Trump has backed off his efforts to fire the man in charge, the special counsel, Robert Mueller.
Over and over again the president says he does not intend to fire Mueller, and over and over again the NYT repeats this. It is highly unethical for a newspaper to behave this way toward a normal citizen and sedition for them to do it to a sitting president, but this president has a thick hide and he puts up with the NYT better than I would.
NYT — Last year he accused top Obama administration officials of improperly “unmasking” Trump associates in intelligence reports — a charge that turned out to be baseless.
Pure NYT fiction. This unmasking charge is absolutely true, at least 260 times, and somebody, soon, will be charged with this crime. Samantha Power already would be, but she denied, under oath — doing it — meaning either she lied and they are gathering the perjury evidence, or somebody else used her credentials to do so, which is also illegal, but requires a different investigation.
NYT — No matter: The whole point of this game is to make the job of the actual investigators harder while confusing the public about where the true scandal lies.
The NYT editorial bard will regret that sentence. It’s projection; the crimes all happened against Trump, he did not commit them. They should know this at the NYT, Peter Strozk and Lisa Page were SOURCES for them.
NYT — For the past week or so, Mr. Nunes — who supposedly recused himself from the Russia inquiry last April — has been dangling something even juicier: a classified memo by the committee’s Republican staff that is said to allege that the investigation was corrupted from the start by law enforcement officials intent on toppling Mr. Trump.
Just a cheap shot attack on Nunes, something a great newspaper would never do, it lowers them, something the old time NYT news people used to understand. They have certainly read the Page/Strzok stuff, where is their concern, the balance necessary for this piece? It’s completely not there!
NYT — In the heat of the 2016 presidential race, the memo reportedly claims, the F.B.I. tricked the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court into issuing a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
How does the NYT know what the memo says?
The FISA court did rely on the memo — and the memo was funded by the Clinton campaign — is the NYT suggesting that is the FISA court knew the memo was funded by the Clinton campaign – they would have still approved wire taps against Trump and his top people?
We know the FISA court would NOT have done this — because they issued a report saying so in April of 2017, and because they turned the first request – the one without the dossier “evidence” – down, and yet the NYT mentions NONE of this, none!
NYT — Sounds pretty serious! One would assume Mr. Nunes, who has previously appeared very concerned about the improper handling of classified information, would do all he could to protect any potentially sensitive material from public exposure. Yet he is refusing to show the memo to the Justice Department or the F.B.I. — an “extraordinarily reckless” approach, as Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd, a Trump appointee, wrote in a harsh rebuke to Mr. Nunes on Wednesday. “We do not understand why the committee would possibly seek to disclose classified and law enforcement sensitive information without first consulting with the relevant members of the intelligence community,” Mr. Boyd wrote.
More NYT hypocrisy. They are the reason the FBI has not seen it, the committee members know giving it to the FBI will cause an immediate leak to the NYT.
NYT — He added that neither Mr. Nunes nor most of the committee members had even seen the highly classified materials on which the memo appears to be based — and the release of which could be damaging to national security.
More complete B.S., which they know to be B.S., but can still print, because a stupid official said it first.
NYT — Democrats have called the memo “profoundly misleading” and have said its factual allegations are taken out of context. They have prepared their own classified memo addressing the origins of the warrant, which they say was properly sought and approved.
How could the NYT print a paragraph like that? First the Democrats denied a FISA warrant was used against Trump — now they admit it exists — but claim it was properly obtained. How can the NYT still believe a word their Dimocrat sources say after they have changed their story ten times over the last ten months?
Here is a prediction. Next week, the FBI agents secretly working for the DNC will admit the FISA warrant was improperly obtained — BUT that the people using the dossier — were doing it in good faith, as good Americans, and therefore, ever though it crosses many legal boundaries, should be forgiven. And here’s the nauseating part, the NYT editorial board will then agree with that.
In for a penny, in for a pound at the NYT.
NYT — But even if Mr. Nunes’s memo never sees the light of day, it has done its job — spawning a new wave of conspiracy theories as well as suspiciously timed calls to #ReleasetheMemo amplified across social media, many coming from what a German Marshall Fund tracking project found to be part of Russian-linked influence networks.
This had been completely disproven by the time of the NYT release of this editorial, so this is just pure propaganda, NYT’s Russian fear mongering.
The people on the The_Donald subreddit are the ones who created that traffic wave; you could actually see them doing it over network surveillance software. Data on this is now available to Congress, and the NYT, since they asked for it, they have the answer — and a Russian bot campaign, it was not.
Shame on the NYT for stringing together a series of lies like this, so late in the game, when Grassley is knocking at the jailhouse door for the Democrats. They should be preparing their base for the shocks coming concerning Page, Strzok, Hillary, McCabe, Rosenstein, the Awan Brothers, Pakistani ISI, the Clinton Foundation and more — not feeding the mass hysteria nothing burger that Russian-gate is — and has been from the start.
NYT — Mr. Nunes is not alone in trying to change the subject to anything other than Mr. Trump and the Russians. Thanks to some intrepid Republicans in Congress, America learned last week that the F.B.I. is harboring a “secret society” dedicated to destroying Mr. Trump. The proof? A text message using that phrase that was sent between Peter Strozk and Lisa Page, F.B.I. employees who worked on the Russia investigation and who, like roughly 65 million other Americans, expressed horror at the thought of Mr. Trump becoming president. On Tuesday, Senator Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, said the society’s existence was corroborated by an “informant” — by which he probably meant his Twitter feed. On Thursday, he admitted what reasonable people everywhere had already surmised — that the reference to a “secret society,” in the context of the full message, was a joke.
Again, the forest is burning around the NYT and they keep asking, “Fire, what fire?”
NYT — Putting aside the irony of members of the law-and-order party delusionally attacking America’s law enforcement community, Mr. Nunes and his ilk are causing real and possibly lasting damage for nothing more than a short-term political win.
This is the desperation part. Please don’t hurt the F.B.I. Mr. Republican, that’s not good for your base. Bullshit. The Republican base wants the traitors thrown out of the FBI, and they would love to overthrow the editorial board of the NYT as well, but they’ll settle for a cleanup at the FBI, and DOJ.
NYT — It must be frustrating to be a Republican in Congress these days. For years, the G.O.P. has been flogging supposed conspiracies and scandals, from Benghazi to Hillary Clinton’s email server to systemic corruption at the highest levels of the nation’s law enforcement community. Now, at last, a real conspiracy comes along, setting off an actual federal investigation by veteran law enforcement officials and leading to multiple indictments and guilty pleas — and it’s aimed at their own man.
Another projection paragraph the NYT will regret in a few weeks when Grassley gets his answers and in 10 months when the Republicans pick up 6 seats in the Senate, lose 6 in the House, and retain majority’s in both — during a mid-term unlike any other.
Trump’s tax plan popularity will help Trump candidates across America and the NYT will scream and whine all the way, lying like today, and the American people will continue to ignore them.