The Pulitzer Prize in Fake News

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Who Can You Trust?

new york times scrubbed the word wiretap from their jan 20 headline and story about trump

Maybe because it is looking more and more like Trump was not a target .

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/new...ate=2017-03-09

The White House on Wednesday said that President Trump was not the target of any investigation, even though five days earlier he claimed in a series of tweets that he had indeed been the target of a wiretap initiated by former President Barack Obama.
"There is no reason that we should -- that we have to think that the President is the target of any investigation whatsoever," White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said during his daily briefing with reporters.
Spicer's comments came several minutes after he had first implied that the White House was unsure whether the president was a target or not.
Responding to a reporter's question asking if the president was the "target of a counter-intelligence investigation," Spicer initially said, "I think that’s what we need to find out. There's obviously a lot of concern."
But apparently, that wasn't the final answer.
At the end of the briefing, Spicer was handed a sheet of paper by an aide, from which he read the aforementioned assertion that the White House had no reason to believe the current commander in chief was a target of an investigation.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white...ry?id=46010328

[nevergaveitathought]

here's a good understanding of why the ny times first made the claim

and now, like soviet masters who would clip murdered politburo members out of official pictures, has revised history as well

here's a story in the national review, no trump lovers, they

"Now that the media-Democrat complex has been caught in its own web, there is some serious skullduggery underway. It’s 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 party’s 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."

http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/3533119/posts

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

here's a good understanding of why the ny times first made the claim

and now, like soviet masters who would clip murdered politburo members out of official pictures, has revised history as well

here's a story in the national review, no trump lovers, they

"Now that the media-Democrat complex has been caught in its own web, there is some serious skullduggery underway. It’s 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."

http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/3533119/posts

So you are saying that President Trump.....got his news from Mark Levin whose one of many sources was the NYTimes. A paper Trump and his followers call fake!

Our Commander in Chief can not make some calls and find out if Mark Levin was telling the truth?

Do you homo's realize how stupid you sound. Bottom line....

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost. com/news/world/sean-spicer-refused-to-deny-trumps-wiretap-claims-then-an-aide-slipped-him-a-note-during-a-press-briefing&pubdate=2017-03-09

Either the president’s assertions are baseless, or he may have implicated himself in a government investigation of contacts between his presidential campaign and Russia

[I B Hankering]

.

[nevergaveitathought]

more fake news?

the grey lady

the newspaper of record

all the news that's fit to print

refuses to call what happened to those two little girls by the muslim doctor, genital mutilation

no its just they were cut..a cutting

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

here's a good understanding of why the ny times first made the claim

and now, like soviet masters who would clip murdered politburo members out of official pictures, has revised history as well

here's a story in the national review, no trump lovers, they

"Now that the media-Democrat complex has been caught in its own web, there is some serious skullduggery underway. It’s 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 party’s 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."

http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/3533119/posts

And now, there are lying liberals floating the idea that Russia interfered in the most recent elections in France to benefit Marine La Pens chances for election. Guess those libs, in Europe AND America, figure that anytime THEIR candidate loses, it's because someone else was more successful at cheating !

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Who Can You Trust?

new york times scrubbed the word wiretap from their jan 20 headline and story about trump

We sure can't trust you.

The chain of events.
Andrew McCarthy made a claim in the National Review. Without checking the claim yourself, you use it to attempt to spread mistrust of the Times, being a member of the "it doesn't matter if this one thing is true or not, I know they've spread other fake stories" gang, you haul it out for the general attack on trump multi-scandals.


New York Times 'fixes' headline - WND.com
http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/new-york-...ixes-headline/

New York Times Changes Headlines To Bash Trump | The Daily Caller
dailycaller.com/.../for-the-second-time-in-three-days-the-nyt-changes-a-headline-to-b...


New York Times changes headline to say Trump's claim against ...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ne...ine.../2619442

Then, oops. So then what happens?
McCarthy apologies and admits he made a mistake. The other "crdible" news sources might report the correction but at least they stop saying the Times was trying to pull something, Now the lazy poster's "trickle down" info system he relies on fails.

Here is where that doesn't matter because the lazy poster doesn't care if it's accurate or not.

National Review columnist apologizes to New York Times over ...
National Review columnist Andrew McCarthy has apologized for accusing The New York Times of changing a story's online headline for political reasons.

McCarthy initially charged that The New York Times had changed the headline of a web story related to President Trump's connections to Russia after the fact due to a "shifting political narrative."

The Times's front-page headline for the story in a mid-January print edition read, "Wiretapped data used in inquiry of Trump aides," with two sub-headlines: "Examining Russian ties" and "Business dealings of campaign advisers are investigated." Online, the same story was topped with a single headline, "Intercepted Russian communications part of inquiry into Trump associates."


McCarthy suggested that after Trump's allegation that President Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower, the media needed to downplay reporting about the Obama administration's investigation into Trump's possible connections with Russia.
"[D]uring the four months when the media-Democrat complex wanted you to believe there was a Trump–Putin 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," McCarthy wrote in his column. "Now that they don’t 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."

However, The New York Times had not changed its online headline, but had originally run different headlines in its print paper and website.

"I owe the New York Times an apology, and am extending it in this post. It corrects my column from earlier today, which I have asked National Review to withdraw," McCarthy wrote Thursday.

"I accused the Times of altering the headline of an important report (pertinent to the so-called FISAgate controversy) in order to revise history in light of a shifting political narrative," he continued. "I was wrong. The Times did not change the headline. Instead, the report has always had two different headlines — one in the print version of the paper and one in the version that appears on the Times’ website.

"I regret the error. As I have tried to explain here, I came upon it honestly. But in light of the fact that I was essentially accusing the Times of slyly rewriting history, I should have given the paper the opportunity to show me I was wrong before I embarrassed myself by publishing something that was wrong. I am sorry."

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

here's a good understanding of why the ny times first made the claim

and now, like soviet masters who would clip murdered politburo members out of official pictures, has revised history as well

here's a story in the national review, no trump lovers, they

"Now that the media-Democrat complex has been caught in its own web, there is some serious skullduggery underway. It’s 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 — They reported.
Now, without facts, this op-ed is encouraging the opposite.
Because it has been proven a counter-intelligence investigation as the Times said was going on.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.
Another flagrant mis-representation. One of the goals of the investigation (you know,
gathering facts) is to determine if there is any evidence of wrong doing, whatever type that wrong doing is.
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 party’s presidential candidate.
Wrong. This has been explained thoroughly. It was surveillance of the Russians. So anyone in contact with the Russians is fair game.
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 over looked: 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."

http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/3533119/posts

Your post (his op-ed is only op-ed. It also uses some incorrect facts to arrive at it's conclusions)falls apart at this point. And there is a woolly mammoth standing in the room.The trump campaign had many, many contacts with the Russian government.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

The trump campaign had many, many contacts with the Russian government.

And hildebeest and Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator pocketed millions from the Russians while Pelosi supped with the Russian ambassador, masterdickmuncher.

[Munchmasterman]

Well if it isn't top tranny weighing in with his usual off topic bullshit. You NEVER present info for the other argument. Because it proves your side wrong. And now you get mad because I didn't add your "Bill" sippy cup to make you warm and fuzzy.
When was that Pelosi thing? 2005? 2006? And since you know the Clintons made that money, they didn't try to hide the cash or the context it was made in. The stupid example you brought up has nothing to do with the current thread and was slapped down and proven wrong as easily as you are.
So guess why you are on ignore with gay rey. Because you are a much more offensive and long winded gay rey.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And hildebeest and Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator pocketed millions from the Russians while Pelosi supped with the Russian ambassador, masterdickmuncher.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Well if it isn't top tranny weighing in with his usual off topic bullshit. You NEVER present info for the other argument. Because it proves your side wrong. And now you get mad because I didn't add your "Bill" sippy cup to make you warm and fuzzy.
When was that Pelosi thing? 2005? 2006? And since you know the Clintons made that money, they didn't try to hide the cash or the context it was made in. The stupid example you brought up has nothing to do with the current thread and was slapped down and proven wrong as easily as you are.
So guess why you are on ignore with gay rey. Because you are a much more offensive and long winded gay rey.

You'd be lying again, master dickmuncher. Slick Willie and hildebeest were exposed for failing to report millions in donations, masterdickmuncher.

hildebeest Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations

The New York Times examined Slick Wilies’s relationship with a Canadian mining financier, Frank Giustra, who has donated millions of dollars to the hildebeest Foundation and sits on its board... Giustra’s company secured a lucrative uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan and in return received 'a flow of cash' to the hildebeest Foundation, including previously undisclosed donations from the company’s chairman totaling $2.35 million.

(Bloomberg)

BTW, master dickmuncher, Pelosi supped with the Russian ambassador in 2010, you pathetically ignorant and lying SOB.

[Munchmasterman]

No relevance to the topic.
Didn't know the date because it to is irrelevant and wasn't worth the time to look it up.
You call people liar while not showing and proving the lie.
You also live a lie but that's your boy friend's problem.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You'd be lying again, master dickmuncher.



BTW, master dickmuncher, Pelosi supped with the Russian ambassador in 2010, you pathetically ignorant and lying SOB.

[Munchmasterman]

How do you explain the difference between these 2 instances? One set done years ago.
One set during this last election.
Go ahead and have them start an investigation into these earlier instances. Oh wait. There is no evidence of wrong doing. Just your whiny ass bitching saying there is. And you're a fringe voice on a hooker board.

so now just shut the fuck up and let the investigation procede

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

How do you explain the difference between these 2 instances? One set done years ago.
One set during this last election.
Go ahead and have them start an investigation into these earlier instances. Oh wait. There is no evidence of wrong doing. Just your whiny ass bitching saying there is. And you're a fringe voice on a hooker board.

so now just shut the fuck up and let the investigation procede

You're a stupid voice lying again on a hooker board, masterdickmuncher. Pelosi very recently lied about meeting the Russian ambassador so as to perpetuate the myth that the act of meeting or speaking with a Russian is itself highly suspect and morally outrageous -- if one is a Republican, and that "myth" is very today very much in vogue with ignorant lib-retards like you, masterdickmuncher. And hildebeest didn't report the donations until she was caught just two years ago, masterdickmuncher -- after hildebeest started her campaign.

BTW, masterdickmuncher, there's still no proof of wrong doing by the Trump campaign either, you equivocating jackass. So, take your own advice and shut the fuck up, masterdickmuncher.