Posted on 03/09/2017 9:26:56 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Now that the media-Democrat complex has been caught in its own web, there is some serious skullduggery underway. Its revisionist history, Soviet style. You know, the kind where the bad stuff gets disappeared. The New York Times is disappearing its claim that Obama investigated Trump.
For four months, the mainstream press was very content to have Americans believe indeed, they encouraged Americans to believe that a vigorous national-security investigation of the Trump presidential campaign was ongoing. A counterintelligence investigation, the New York Times called it.
As I contended in a column this weekend, it was essential for the media and Democrats to promote the perception of an investigation because the scandalous narrative they were peddling namely, that Trump-campaign operatives conspired with the Putin regime to hack the election required it.
Russia obviously did not hack the election. Russian intelligence services may have hacked e-mail accounts of prominent Democrats, although even that has not been proved. And there is even less evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign in that effort as one would expect, in light of the intelligence agencies conclusion that the Russians sought to hack accounts of both major parties.
So, for this fatally flawed storyline to pass the laugh test, the Left needed the FBI. Even if the election-hacking conspiracy story sounded far-fetched, the public might be induced to believe there must be something to it if the Bureau was investigating it.
But when the election-hacking narrative went on too long without proof, the risk the Democrats were running became clear. If the FBI had been investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded in purported Russian hacking of the election, that meant the incumbent Obama administration must have been investigating the campaign of the opposition partys presidential candidate.
Moreover, if such an investigation had involved national-security wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), that would suggest that the Obama Justice Department had alleged, in court, that Trump associates had acted as agents of a foreign power in this case, Russia.
Get it? If there is no hacking conspiracy and there manifestly is not the big scandal here is not possible Trump-campaign collusion with Russia. It is that the Obama Justice Department may have used its legal authorities to investigate the Democrats top political adversary. And not to be overlooked: This would have been done at the very same time the same Obama Justice Department was bending over backwards to whitewash the extremely serious criminal case against the Democrats nominee, Hillary Clinton. It would have meant Obama had his thumb on the election scale.
I began pointing this out in early January, but matters did not come to a head until last Saturday morning. In a tweet-burst, President Trump made the controversial allegation that President Obama had ordered that Trump be subjected to wiretapping at Trump Tower, where his campaign had been headquartered.
To say the least, it is unfortunate that this was the angle Trump chose to pursue. There is plenty of support for the overarching proposition that the Obama administration used its law-enforcement and intelligence powers to investigate Trump associates during the campaign. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence that Trump personally was wiretapped. So instead of highlighting the alarming things that may be true, President Trumps tweets obsessed over something that probably is not true.
Nevertheless, even if Trumps allegation was false, the tweets demanded attention to the real scandal: Was the Obama administration investigating the Trump campaign?
That was the uh-oh moment for the media-Democrat complex. That was when it dawned on them not only that the election-hacking conspiracy narrative wasnt working, but that the investigation of the Trump campaign could be a much bigger scandal.
So, after insisting for four months that the Trump campaign was under investigation for conspiring with Putin to steal the election from Hillary Clinton, the media decided that it better adopt a different strategy: Investigation? What investigation?
Thus the claim, suddenly, is that Obama was never investigating Trump. How could we possibly believe such a thing . . . even if its the thing the media have wanted us to believe for four months.
That brings us back to the New York Times.
On January 20, when the paper was trying to promote the government investigating TrumpRussia conspiracy to steal the election narrative, heres the headline that appeared on the big story: Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.
See? They wanted you to assume the inquiry was focused on Trump aides who had connections to the Trump campaign. The report elaborated that investigators were poring over intercepted communications of three associates of Donald Trump. Among them was Paul Manafort, who had been Trumps campaign chairman until August. The intimation was clear: The FBI was conducting a FISA investigation targeting Trump associates to determine whether the campaign had colluded with the Putin regime to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. Only in the fine print did the Times acknowledge that whatever the government might be investigating may have nothing to do with Trump, the Trump campaign, or Russian hacking.
But now that the media have been called on this, now that the Obama administration has been called on investigating the Trump campaign, what happens?
Have you checked the Timess January 20 story lately?
Turns out the story has suddenly, quietly been given a new headline. No longer is it Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides. Instead, readers are now told, Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry into Trump Associates.
Why would the Times change its headline in this manner, weeks after the fact?
Because, during the four months when the media-Democrat complex wanted you to believe there was a TrumpPutin conspiracy to hack the election, they needed you to believe that the Justice Department was targeting Trump associates for surveillance because they were Russian agents.
Now that they dont want you to believe there was an investigation because that would be an Obama abuse of power they want to convince you that Trump associates were never targeted for surveillance. If the conversations of these Trump guys were intercepted, they want you to conclude, its not because we were targeting them. No, no, no: Its because we were monitoring Russian agents whom they just happened to call.
Nothing to see here . . . move along.
We shouldnt move along. Lets see the FISA applications and warrants. If there was no targeting of the Trump campaign, as the media and Democrats now say, lets hear an explanation of why theyve pretended otherwise for four months. If the Trump campaign was targeted for an investigation, lets hear why.
Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.
Are the people at the NYT so stupid to think if they change the article headline that all the originals headlines will disappear from the internet and social media. Dumber than a bag of hammers. It takes less than a 30sec to find the original
Party ownership of the print media
made it easy to manipulate public opinion,
and the film and radio carried the process further.
....... The Ministry of Truth, Winston's place of work, contained, it was said, three thousand rooms above ground level, and corresponding ramifications below. The Ministry of Truth concerned itself with Lies. Party ownership of the print media made it easy to manipulate public opinion, and the film and radio carried the process further. The primary job of the Ministry of Truth was to supply the citizens of Oceania with newspapers, films, textbooks, telescreen programmes, plays, novels - with every conceivable kind of information, instruction, or entertainment, from a statue to a slogan, from a lyric poem to a biological treatise, and from a child's spelling-book to a Newspeak dictionary. Winston worked in the RECORDS DEPARTMENT (a single branch of the Ministry of Truth) editing and writing for The Times. He dictated into a machine called a speakwrite. Winston would receive articles or news-items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, in Newspeak, rectify. If, for example, the Ministry of Plenty forecast a surplus, and in reality the result was grossly less, Winston's job was to change previous versions so the old version would agree with the new one. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs - to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. When his day's work started, Winston pulled the speakwrite towards him, blew the dust from its mouthpiece, and put on his spectacles. He dialed 'back numbers' on the telescreen and called for the appropriate issues of The Times, which slid out of the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes' delay. The messages he had received referred to articles or news-items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to rectify. In the walls of the cubicle there were three orifices. To the right of the speakwrite, a small pneumatic tube for written messages; to the left, a larger one for newspapers; and on the side wall, within easy reach of Winston's arm, a large oblong slit protected by a wire grating. This last was for the disposal of waste paper. Similar slits existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building. As soon as Winston had dealt with each of the messages, he clipped his speakwritten corrections to the appropriate copy of The Times and pushed them into the pneumatic tube. Then, with a movement which was as nearly as possible unconscious, he crumpled up the original message and any notes that he himself had made, and dropped them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames. What happened in the unseen labyrinth to which the tubes led, he did not know in detail, but he did know in general terms. As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of The Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in its stead. In the cubicle next to him the little woman with sandy hair toiled day in day out, simply at tracking down and deleting from the Press the names of people who had been vaporized and were therefore considered never to have existed. And this hall, with its fifty workers or thereabouts, was only one-sub-section, a single cell, as it were, in the huge complexity of the Records Department. Beyond, above, below, were other swarms of workers engaged in an unimaginable multitude of jobs. There were huge printing-shops and their sub editors, their typography experts, and their elaborately equipped studios for the faking of photographs. There was the tele-programmes section with its engineers, its producers and its teams of actors specially chosen for their skill in imitating voices; clerks whose job was simply to draw up lists of books and periodicals which were due for recall; vast repositories where the corrected documents were stored; and the hidden furnaces where the original copies were destroyed. And somewhere or other, quite anonymous, there were the directing brains who co-ordinated the whole effort and laid down the lines of policy which made it necessary that this fragment of the past should be preserved, that one falsified, and the other rubbed out of existence. |
HOWEVER, THERE DOES EXIST ACTUAL PAPER COPIES OF THE JAN 20 NYT. Saw them in my own library a few days ago.
Heh...beautiful. Nice work.
Of course, your experience means thousands of other libraries across the nation (perhaps the world) have copies of the NYT wire-tap story.......in the periodical section.
(Evil Laugh) the NYT plumb forgot the library copies.
Maybe the NYT plans a mass periodical burning ala Nazi Germany.....ROTFLOL.
ROTFL....good one, Laz.
(JIM0216 hat tip)......the issue isn't whether Trump was wiretapped (Obama admitted such and apparently, there was a FISA warrant issued for the wiretapping). The issue is whether there was probable cause to issue a warrant. Probable cause is defined as the reasonable likelihood that a crime is or has been committed by the person or at the place designated........
===============================================
(REAGANGENERATION2 HAT TIP)---Trump should be able to review all 2 or 3 FISA requests (if he hasnt already), and then let Congress determine if the requesters lied about the probable cause justifying them......then (1) youd prove perjury, and, even worse, (2) the intent was to abuse executive power.
===========================================
A good beginning....and then it gets downright lethal for the Obama gang:
Via Breitbart, JOHN HAYWARD observed that the FISA court may have approved a warrant submitted without Trumps name but which Obama then misused to spy on Trump and many connected to Trump.
Ergo the most serious legal jeopardy that might be faced would be (a) perjury for lying to the FISA court, and, (b) the dissemination of collected intelligence that should have been kept tightly classified.
===========================================
It is also entirely possible that Obama and his legal team may have perjured themselves before the FISA court by willfully withholding material information in order to manipulate the FISA courts willingness to permit the government surveillance.
FALSIFYING GOVT DOCUMENTS would fall under the Crimes Act of 1958. Moreover, falsifying official documents is the criminal MO to hide larger crimes.
EXCERPT A person falsifying documents can be held criminally liable if they are deliberately acting with the intention of deceiving or defrauding another party.
Falsifying documents is a very serious offense and is generally classified as a felony. This means that a person charged with falsifying documents may be subject to the following legal penalties:
◾Having to pay a monetary fine
◾Incarceration in a prison facility
Depending on the gravity of the offense, as well as individual state laws, falsifying documents can result in a prison sentence of 5-10 years.
And if official government documents or govt authorities were involved, the legal penalties may be more severe. Legal penalties may increase with repeat offenses.
Many different types of acts can be considered as falsifying a document, including:
◾Altering or misrepresenting fact-based information
◾Stating false information when requested to provide truthful statements
◾Forging a signature
◾Using official letterheads without authorization
◾Knowingly using or distributing a fake document
The penalty for falsifying government documents is outlined in the Crimes Act of 1958.
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.