Posted on 03/08/2017 7:32:28 AM PST by Helicondelta
LOL. Don’t neglect the CPUSA, S0r0$, and CIA funded WaPo.
Comb your hair Liz, or is the reason your hair is so messy because you are spinning so hard?
You have to remember this was written for consumption by regular NYT readers. To be true in these people’s mind all the the NYT has to say is “this is what’s true today, check back tomorrow for tomorrow’s truth”.
Yeah, right. No one would ever accuse the NY Times of having flagrant political motives.
“Brand value of the NY Times seems to be slipping.”
And all it took was a handful of tweets.
Little did the Times realize that by being involved in the leaks that they might actually hurt their cause.
Trump played this masterfully!
Beside the spotlight is squarely focused on the agencies and those who are leaking. It was less important to the agencies before Trump made his accusation, now there is very likely some housecleaning going on and heads are about to roll.
AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO REMEMBERS THESE FISA COURT NEWS STORIES FIRST COMING OUT ABOUT 3 MONTHS AGO????
(I bet Trump knew back then, and fed them false info- like pretending they were worried about losing to hilLIARy so that she sat on her big fat ass)
First of all, the fact that someone produced a transcript of a conversation between Mike Flynn and Amb. Kiryalin - a conversation that occurred at Trump Tower - is prima facie evidence that an electronic intercept occurred. If it occurred without FISA authorization, it is a violation of law, whether conducted by the FBI, the NSA or the CIA.
Secondly, since FISA affidavits are always classified at least at the SECRET level (proceeds of electronic surveillance by the NSA or CIA is classified at even higher levels), the transcript is classified at that level and dissemination of the transcript without downgrade and/or sanitization is a violation of federal law.
Ergo, there should be a paper trail a mile long. So why aren’t ADM Rogers, Jim Comey and John Brennan in a dark room with a bright light in their face answering some very difficult questions...? Oh, and strap them up to a poly while you’re at it.
Especially if he (wink wink) knew there was a warrant to wiretap the Russians, who just happened to talk to some of Trump’s associates (Kelly, Manafort, etc), then he can say what he did without lying. Clapper and also deny it as he did without lying and Comey can ask DOJ to deny it as he did.
No one is lying but no one is telling the complete truth either.
Too clever by half?
There’s a lot to parse. And doing so, in a way that is clear to readers, is not easy when the subject matter is complicated and the information that reporters receive comes under strict terms of how it can be used.
Translation:
We LIE about EVERYTHING and Make crap up as we go, sometimes it is very difficult to keep ALL THE LIES STRAIGHT!
I read the whole thing and my only thought was....what???
Democrats throw around the word “treason” for phone calls, or meetings by associates of President Trump. But Hillary’s actions while serving as Secretary of State perfectly fits the definition of treason. Hillary’s State Department approved giving one fifth of the U.S. uranium stock to Russia, at the same time top executives of the uranium company gave Hillary $500,000 for one speech and “donated” $145 million to her foundation.
Obama and his crony Attorney General did nothing to investigate these blatant crimes. It’s clearly time for President Trump and Congress to start investigations.
If phone calls to Russians merit an investigation, what is the significance of the Clinton Foundation accepting $145 million from the Russians, while Hillary is Secretary of State and being lobbied by these same people to sell off America’s valuable resources? Or Hillary’s campaign manager’s brother lobbying on behalf of Russia’s biggest bank while his brother runs her campaign for President?
Here is the thing NYT. You were all too happy to leave the innuendo out there when you broke these stories. You were all too happy to let the public believe that the Trump campaign was caught colluding with Russians based on info collected in an active investigation.
Trump flips it on those who tapped him. Why was a campaign monitored during an election?
Now you want to flip to: oh wait, the surveillance was accidentally obtained. Uh-huh.
I just read the entire editorial “explanation” and had the same joyous feeling I get whenever I reflect on the fact that Donald J. Trump is now my president.
It’s hilarious, Obama didn’t order any of it himself, just like Nixon never knew anything it was all Haldeman and Ehrlichman. And they ignore the fact that when listening to overseas calls, the government is supposed to stop soon after an American comes on, but this was expanded to include the Americans. Then they ignore the illegal leaks.
BTW did their sainted Obama ever even criticize the leak of the classified info his administration was collecting?
And I love, love, love the part about how Obama merely let the agencies pass this all around so as to enhance their “investigation”.
Because of course it was so honorable to be working up until the last possible second, to destroy the incoming president. /s /s /s /s
Obama is a thug and the NYT are scum democrat operatives. Duh.
Obama ordered it. Lynch wouldn’t do anything of the sort without Obama knowing about it, and approving of it. So whether he “ordered” it directly or not, he knew of it and didn’t stop it.
Either way, Trump is correct
Obama requested surveillance from FISA and it was denied. Shortly thereafter, Lynch requested surveillance from FISA and it was approved. Only committed Leftists won’t be able to make that very short leap from the Obama request to the Lynch request. I REALLY DETEST LYING LEFTISTS.
“Five Eyes” data swap.
Will no one rid me of the troublesome ........
below ZERO .... shareholders take a hit
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.