Does Times Reporting Support Donald Trump’s Wiretap Claim? (NY Times Implosion Underway)

The New York Times ^ | MARCH 8, 2017 | Liz Spayd THE PUBLIC EDITOR

[MAGAthon]

Wikipedia is odd for NYT’s Michael S. Schmidt “propagandist”?

Wikipedia: Michael S. Schmidt
Michael S. Schmidt (born 1983) is an American journalist, propagandist, and correspondent for The New York Times in Washington, D.C....
In 2016 Schmidt penned an article citing his sources and irrefutable evidence that then President Elect Donald Trump’s offices had been wire tapped by the Justice Department. Only 43 days later in another article penned by Schmidt, Schmidt wrote there is no evidence Trumps office had been wired tapped. The incongruity of the two articles led to allegations against Schmidt that he is a provocatour of fake news. Describing these problems as a “red alert” highlighting the need for more diligent and skeptical reporting and editing.[19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Schmidt#cite_note-:1-19

if you click on citation #19, you get:

Systemic Change Needed After Faulty Times Article
By Margaret Sullivan December 18, 2015

only if you know to link on “Public Editor’s Journal Liz Spayd” above the Sullivan story, do you get Spayd’s piece on the wiretapping articles!

what’s going on?

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for the confusing heads up.

Re what’s up, is a probable full panic scramble by the Slimes and other liberal reporters.

Next will we be reading that Michael S. Schmidt was found dead in Central Park with several self inflicted wounds to his back and back of his head, another suicide in Central Park is suspected.

[Chode]

yeah, right...

[Luigi Vasellini]

Excellent response for throw ing treason at trump and hillarys actual treason with uranium 1

[agere_contra]

Were they using British M16 as proxy to monitor without a warrant?

I have a horrible feeling that that's exactly what they did.

And that there might be a reciprocal arrangement between intelligence agencies of different countries to end-run the laws of their own states.

[i_robot73]

Don’t trust us then, trust us NOW

Sad it was only DJ that brought up and make ‘fake news’ stick. Any other (R) would have curled up at first ‘outrage’ from the Left.

[Yardstick]

This sharing of data across the agencies had apparently been initiated under Bush. It was part of avoiding the compartmentalization that had been identified as a factor in the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11. Obama continued work on developing this “new framework” throughout his administration. The upcoming rollout of the new rules was announced in February of 2016 and was projected to happen within months. The rule change was put in place in January of 2017 as Obama was on his way out the door.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/us/politics/obama-administration-set-to-expand-sharing-of-data-that-nsa-intercepts.html

If this is all true, then the idea that the new rules were inspired by the intent to damage Trump would seem to be false.

[John S Mosby]

Little loser Ben Rhodes,forging an AG letter request. Watch and wait— this little queer is due, right up there with Robby the Mook. Cannot make this up— these are a cabal of court queers-— quote: not that there’s anything wrong with that=Seinfeld— except that the psychiatric DSM categories used to have homos as a psych disorder, and by a clever organizational coup led by (you guessed it queer psychs) normalized unbalanced sociopathy.

[HotHunt]

The fact that this was supposedly in the pipeline for some time, doesn't negate the fact that Obama saw it as a way to get back at Trump before he went out the door.

He could have left it for Trump to implement. But his antipathy towards Trump is obvious now, regardless of his lying rhetoric about wanting to help Trump, and that appears to be his motivation to implement it before he left.

This relaxing of the rules about sharing raw data is now what's causing the intelligence to be passed around and leaked to the press. To the detriment of Trump.

Call it what you will, all I have to know is that Obama was involved and that taints whatever reason he gave for doing this as he walked out of the WH for the last time. Nothing was done under Obama without an ideological bent to it.

Obama wasn't just some innocent bystander in this leak mess. He enabled it to damage Trump and further his own globalist goals.

[Valpal1]

I figured Lynch did it for the Clinton crime syndicate, expecting to be rewarded when Herself became president. Obama knew about it, but didn’t really have a personal interest in it until Hilary lost. That threw a spanner into the works because the revelation of corruption threatens his “legacy”.

Plus he is no longer a sitting president, he can be prosecuted or sued now.

[henkster]

I am usually loathe to play the Hitler card, but I will here. They say 0bama didn’t order the wiretap of Trump. Well, Hitler didn’t order the Holocaust either. He didn’t attend the Wansee Conference where the Final Solution was decided upon. Nobody ever produced the order with his signature that said “Ermordern die Juden.” But there is no question he created the climate where the Holocaust could happen and knew of it once it commenced.

Same with 0bama and his apologists. If 0bama didn’t order it, he set the climate where it could be and I’m certain at some point he was made aware and approved.

[New Jersey Realist]

Good comment. Otarto certainly took credit for the SEAL killing of Osama bin Laden so he can take credit for this!

[Yardstick]

Yes, the rule change had a convenient side benefit for Obama against Trump but that wasn’t the original intent. If you go wading into unfriendly liberal territory with your original statement “This was only done to be able to use those conversations to discredit Trump, not for some other laudable purpose” you’re going to get chopped off at the knees because A) it wasn’t only done to discredit Trump and B) there was in fact some other laudable purpose.

[HotHunt]

Well, then, I guess I'm safe because I never "go wading into unfriendly liberal territory".

Like I wrote before, I don't care what the "original" intent was and whether it was "laudable" or not.

That is the very definition of unintended consequences that liberals encounter every time they try to do something, as in, "Well, our original intentions were laudable in creating ObamaCare but somehow, unforeseen by us liberals, it turned into a pile of crap."

I'd quit defending the etiology of this program. Passing around of raw, unsourced or unvetted intelligence data has caused a mess in the intelligence services and the leaks to the media are flowing like water through a sieve.

Unintended consequences of a not well thought out policy....