Posted on 05/27/2017 6:21:55 AM PDT by EyesOfTX
When fake news corrects fake news.: The fake journalists at the WaPo issued a “blockbuster” report – based solely on anonymous sources – that Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner contacted Russian officials in December to discuss the concept of creating a “secret” communications channel with the Trump transition team. The fake reporters for the Post spend about 1,000 words without ever landing on two key bits of information: 1) was such a channel actually established, and 2) what did they wish to discuss? To get that information, you have to go to a follow-up report, filed not by the fake reporters at the Post, but by the fake reporters at the NYTimes, who actually chose for once to inform their readers. Turns out that 1) no one – not the Russians or the transition team – ever followed up on the call, and 2) the Trump team simply wanted to establish a channel of information regarding the situation in Syria, most likely because it couldn’t get accurate information from the Obama Administration, and was by that time sick of being spied on by the Obama minions.
One more item of info the WaPo conventiently left out: The fake reporters at the WaPo want its brainwashed readers to think Kushner’s request somehow violated U.S. law. Guess what? It didn’t. The Post’s own report admits – 400 words in – that it is very common for presidential transition teams to establish communications with foreign governments. Just another nothing-burger from the WaPo.
(Excerpt) Read more at dbdailyupdate.com ...
Is there anyway to sue these bastards? We should start a petition of millions, get some rich farts to help us sue them...How to start?!
Last night, trolls over at Breitbart were pushing this “back channel” story as confirmed fact, claiming that Kushner wanted to use it to negotiate low-interest deals with Russian banks in exchange for favorable US policy regarding the Russians’ dealings with the Ukraine.
When a Democrat does this it’s called a “back-channel”
So, if they needed to “establish” a channel AFTER the election, this basically proves they could not have colluded BEFORE the election. They are destroying their own narrative.
“...proves they could not have colluded BEFORE the election...”
Great point! Also - more than likely the story itself could prove illegal unmasking of Kushner’s name to the press as well.
A piece of propaganda exposed for what it is. The goal of propaganda is not to inform the people but to mold their minds to get them to act it ways they normally wouldn’t.
Facts aren’t necessary in any liberal written “bombshell news” story.
The scum of MSM #FakeNews.... they can’t even understand that if Kushner et al. in DECEMBER 2016 asked about creating a private channel to Russian officialdom, that PROVES that no such channel existed prior to December 2017 (and as is now reported, no such channel was created during/after Dec. 2016 either).
WaPo and NYTimes #FakeNews journalists just blew up their own “Trump-Russia collusion” narrative, but they are too stooopid to realize it.
I agree it is time to sue. When your character is assassinated by anyone with absolutely no proof, no evidence, you should be able to bring that paper, news reporter, station show to court.
....that Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner contacted Russian officials in December to discuss the concept of creating a “secret” communications channel with the Trump transition team...
Just guessing that Team Trump, therefore, had no lines of communications with the Russians BEFORE December, therefore no collusion
Author seems to have the Wash Po confused with the NY Times.
It was the Wash Po which said there was no followup, as I recall.
Correct. This report is yet another nail in the coffin of the whole “Trump-Russia Collusion” Unicorn.
“Secret” probably means “secure”.
If true, would not have been illegal, and considering the leaks from embedded Obama holdovers, was a smart, necessary move.
In fact, the Wash Po report seems more accurate than the Times [which was parroted by The Hill... seems to me the WashPo article, though it contained spin, was probably the most insightful of the reports thus far if one reads between the lines.
They [all these articles, including the Wash Po’s, which I think they regret] appear to be an effort to neuter some sharp questioning by Grassley:
Is this intel what Grassley was referring to, here?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3551041/posts
42 posted on ...by piasa
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.