NYT has become nothing more than a rag paper of insinuations for the left

[Cherie]

"The New York Times bombshell headline reads “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence”. But note the third paragraph in, it reads “The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.”.
Shouldn’t the headline read “No Evidence Trump Campaign Had Contacts With Russian Officials”? What a joke. New York Times is #FakeNews". AKA LIES


http://www.newstarget.com/2017-02-15...urnalists.html

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by Cherie

"The New York Times bombshell headline reads “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence”. But note the third paragraph in, it reads “The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.”.
Shouldn’t the headline read “No Evidence Trump Campaign Had Contacts With Russian Officials”? What a joke. New York Times is #FakeNews". AKA LIES


http://www.newstarget.com/2017-02-15...urnalists.html

Cherie, do you remember the name Jason Blair ? This is the same rag that had the lying POS Jason Blair who plagiarized other stories and totally made other stories up during the early 2000's. That's their level of " journalism " and has been that way for years. They hold themselves out as special, but they've been hacks for many decades.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Cherie, do you remember the name Jason Blair ? This is the same rag that had the lying POS Jason Blair who plagiarized other stories and totally made other stories up during the early 2000's. That's their level of " journalism " and has been that way for years. They hold themselves out as special, but they've been hacks for many decades.

Interesting how the left (I'm beginning to understand why they are called the Dimwits) believes allegations without sources.

[Yssup Rider]

Where do you get your news, InfoWars?

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Where do you get your news, InfoWars?

Prolly not from YOUR source, the truckstop gloryholes !

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Where do you get your news, InfoWars?

u are aware on current events aren't ya turdboy? didn't ya know the NYT issued a full page MEA CULPA about their biased attacks on Trump yeah?? ... oh it happened, cupcake, and it's not fake. bahhaa

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/u...itor.html?_r=0

[Jackie S]

The NY Times and their cronies in the Main Stream Media have ceased to be reputable news organizations.

They simply throw unsubstantiated headlines out with the hope that most Americans will be too lazy to actually learn the truth.

They are shills and lackeys for the Progressive/Socialist/Liberal/Democrat agenda, the very groups that rely on voter stupidity for their support.

They are the epitome of "fake news".

[Yssup Rider]

God, you're nuts!

[Luke_Wyatt]

Originally Posted by Cherie

"The New York Times bombshell headline reads “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence”. But note the third paragraph in, it reads “The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.”.
Shouldn’t the headline read “No Evidence Trump Campaign Had Contacts With Russian Officials”? What a joke. New York Times is #FakeNews". AKA LIES


http://www.newstarget.com/2017-02-15...urnalists.html

Go fuck yourself you old over the hill cunt

[Munchmasterman]

So has doing the leg work yourself fallen to trump-speak? Has anyone read the article in the NYT or did you only check this link?

WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.
Para 1 states there were repeated contacts over the last year. It does not state the nature of the contacts.
American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.

The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.[ The underlined statement (or paragraph "3") refers to statement in red (the last sentence of paragraph "2") and nothing else

The first portion of the article. You want more? Look it up yourself.
WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.

The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.

But the intercepts alarmed American intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Mr. Trump was speaking glowingly about the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin. At one point last summer, Mr. Trump said at a campaign event that he hoped Russian intelligence services had stolen Hillary Clinton’s emails and would make them public.

QUOTE=Cherie;1059191703]"The New York Times bombshell headline reads “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence”. But note the third paragraph in, it reads “The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation Note that the second paragraph is not included. Because the third paragraph directly addresses the last sentence in the second paragraph and nothing else. This is a direct attempt to discredit the NYT as a source. And like all attempts using misrepresentation, out of context portions, and the withholding of information found in the source y'all are too lazy to read, this one falls short. Shine a light on it and there is nothing there..”.
Shouldn’t the headline read “No Evidence Trump Campaign Had Contacts With Russian Officials”? What a joke. New York Times is #FakeNews". AKA LIES


http://www.newstarget.com/2017-02-15...urnalists.html
[/QUOTE]

From your source.

NYT commits TREASON in fake news attempt to overthrow the United States Government… is it time to start arresting traitors who pretend to be journalists? They sure better hope they don't.
I thought you were smarter than this, Cherie.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

The NY Times and their cronies in the Main Stream Media have ceased to be reputable news organizations.

They simply throw unsubstantiated headlines out with the hope that most Americans will be too lazy to actually learn the truth.

They are shills and lackeys for the Progressive/Socialist/Liberal/Democrat agenda, the very groups that rely on voter stupidity for their support.

They are the epitome of "fake news".

Maybe. Maybe not.

The point is you can't use this article as a negative example.

And until you show any proof of your statements your judgment is a trumperoo court.

You bought into the link without due diligence. It took 1 fucking minute to see how they (newstarget) put the lie in.

I used to think you were smarter too and presented reasonable points. Points I don't always agree with but opinion was the difference.

I pointed out with facts, not opinion, why this link is a joke.

Or do you buy into the "alternative facts" theory?

[Cherie]

WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

Looks to me like me like hyperbole at its best. Once again ALLEGATIONS without SOURCES.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Cherie

WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

Looks to me like me like hyperbole at its best. Once again ALLEGATIONS without SOURCES.

Un-named sources isn't the same as no sources.
At this point they don't have to reveal the sources. The editors know the legal requirements to publish stories using un-named sources. All they need is a reasonable belief the info is correct. They cover their asses legally.
I
You don't want this to be true. You said nothing about the fact you posted total bullshit to start this thread. You were willing to use that bullshit to shore up your point. A point you've added no evidence to prove. Other than your opinion.

Hint. How many lawsuits has the king of law suits filed? Libel? Slander?

None!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Un-named sources isn't the same as no sources.
At this point they don't have to reveal the sources. The editors know the legal requirements to publish stories using un-named sources. All they need is a reasonable belief the info is correct. They cover their asses legally.
I
You don't want this to be true. You said nothing about the fact you posted total bullshit to start this thread. You were willing to use that bullshit to shore up your point. A point you've added no evidence to prove. Other than your opinion.

Hint. How many lawsuits has the king of law suits filed? Libel? Slander?

None!

You'd better read those NYT's articles better, masterdickmuncher, because the NYTs, et al, in order to avoid charges of "slander, etc.," clearly state that the FBI found nothing connecting Trump or Manafort to the Russians, and those "unnamed sources" say that what they have on Flynn isn't enough to file charges, masterdickmuncher -- let alone "impeach".

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Un-named sources isn't the same as no sources.

You'd best check your dictionary dahlin on the the meaning of the "prefix un"

Better yet let me put it to you:

un- 1. a prefix meaning “not,” freely used as an English formative, giving negative or opposite force in adjectives and their derivative adverbs and nouns (unfair; unfairly; unfairness; unfelt; unseen; unfitting; unformed; unheard-of; un-get-at-able), and less freely used in certain other nouns (unrest; unemployment).