Posted on 03/08/2017 10:24:58 PM PST by Helicondelta
In the aftermath of the Trump accusation that Obama wiretapped his phone during the election, an allegation which the flagbearers of the "truthful" (according to their various advertising campaigns) anti-Trump media wave, namely the Washington Post and the New York Times have vehemently denied, an unexpected victim has emerged over the past few days: the New York Times itself.
The reason is that while the NYT has repeatedly criticized and denied Trump's allegation, it itself had written an article on January 19 titled, in the print version, "Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides', and online "Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates", by reporters Michael Schmidt and Michael Shear, which paradoxically corroborated much, if not all of what Trump himself said, and quotes the usual anonymous source who said that “wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House” as part of an investigation into “the business dealings that some of the president-elect’s past and present advisers have had with Russia.”
So with various conservative blogs taking the NYT to task over this seeming contradiction, and even the WaPo's own fact-checker seemingly confused today the NYT's public editor, Liz Spayd felt compelled to address its January 19 article which, implicitly, substantiated much of Trump's allegation, and to explain why that's not the case.
...
Sarcasm aside, what the NYT's long-winded explanation boils down to is that Trump's inner circle was wiretapped, but the difference is whether Obama knew about it or not. And if anyone harbors any gullible thoughts that the president who lied to the public about his knowledge of Hillary's email server..
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
“We accidentally printed the truth and apologize to our readers for it.”
Oh what a tangled web they weave, its only themselves that they deceive.
We have inadvertently printed news that no longer fits our agenda. Disregard the previously printed news. It is no longer news.
That clears it up for me.
Who in the Obama administration had the authority to wiretap the President-elect on his own, without informing the current President? I would sure like to see that list of names.
I think the average voter might believe, just like I do, that there isn't a single name on that list.
We've been lying to everybody for more than a Century, so there!
In "1984" it was handled very smoothly -- "We have always been at war with Eastasia."
In real life, such changes become ... messy.
LOL.......hey, accidents happen.
Seems Obama has heard disturbing reports that some Democrats have been disloyal to him, and, like any reasonable Third World dictator, he wishes to take (cough) appropriate action.
The next sound you'll hear is Obama conducting surveillance on liberals and progressives. He'll compile dossiers on their sexual activities, financial holdings, and record any suggestions of disloyalty to him.
He knew.
I suggest new names for the so called journalists...
Instead if Schmidt and shear, Schidt and schmear...
Great point!
I am reminded of many of the Communist front groups prior to WWII that were demonstrating in the USA for US involvement in the European war to fight the Germans, then, when Hitler and Stalin signed the pact, they changed their placards to plead for isolationism, and for the US not to become involved in the war.
Then, when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, they simply dropped their placards and held up new ones imploring the US to fight the menace of Germany.
In retrospect, we can all roll our eyes, but hey, it is the exact same thing liberals and the media do quite effortlessly today.
If something becomes more expedient, without any explanation or shame, they change their colors in midstream and carry on as if nothing happened.
Think Eurasia and Eastasia.
No kidding-see my post at #13...
This all makes sense if a hookah smoking caterpillar has given you the call. Just ask Alice.
It’s nuance, you see...
Hammer them, President Trump. Hammer them HARD.
but the difference is whether Obama knew about it or not...
Of course he knew about it, he read it in the paper, he got briefings on it. Look, he took credit for the SEALs killing bin Laden, he can do no less here.
Obama is the ultimate control freak. Nobody did anything in his administration without him knowing about it.
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.