Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

deminks

(11,014 posts)
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 12:18 PM Jan 2019

So theTimes come out with the secret agent story now. Why the 'no clear link' story in 2016?




To hone in: I don’t care about an *apology* so much as an *explanation*. NYT screwed up some shit in 2016. It’s OK. It was a hard election to cover. NYT is great. But the “no clear link” story is literally sort of incomprehensible, in light of subsequent reporting. What happened?

(end snip)

If the orange menace was even suspected of being a foreign agent why is he not at GITMO?
15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

chimpymustgo

(12,774 posts)
3. As I posted on another thread, it will be interesting to see how the Sunday am shows
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 12:23 PM
Jan 2019

handle the bombshell. "You can't handle the truth!!!!!!"

Claritie Pixie

(2,199 posts)
2. Hmmm. Maybe it was on purpose so the FBI/Mueller could complete the investigation.
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 12:23 PM
Jan 2019

Whether we like it or not, accusing Individual-1 at that time without an airtight case would not have been effective.

Obama trusted our system to work even though damage is being done. I do too.

Mueller has the goods and will present them in such a way that NO ONE will be able to discredit.

shraby

(21,946 posts)
4. I think you're right. If it was in the news that there was a clear link,
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 12:25 PM
Jan 2019

the perps would have hidden stuff better and it would have put the FBI at a disadvantage.

delisen

(6,044 posts)
7. NY Times often covers up news instead of covering news.
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:30 PM
Jan 2019

Among the NY Times disgraces: Judith Miller's phony reporting on Iraq War -propaganda for Cheney and the GW Bush administration.

Grasswire2

(13,571 posts)
6. Silver is off the mark here. (Not the first time.)
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 01:11 PM
Jan 2019

It would have been nuts to report on the information that was available to the FBI then, compared to what evidence is available after 2.5 years of investigation now. NYT likely had very little info then.

Hamlette

(15,412 posts)
8. agree, remember, the counter intell investigation happened bec. of Comey firing in May 2017
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:32 PM
Jan 2019

he was suspected because he said nice thing about Russia but even Comey admitted Trump was not under investigation in early 2017

delisen

(6,044 posts)
9. Silver is being too kind. Trump operated in NY for decades-
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:32 PM
Jan 2019

right under the nose of The NY Times-they are part of the old boy network.

Nasruddin

(754 posts)
11. They were gaming the system?
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:46 PM
Jan 2019

Pretty sure Hillary would take it, & they had a pretty good idea how both parties would react - why not break a few windows and sell a few more papers?

fierywoman

(7,685 posts)
12. Because tRump and his cronies has some kind of dirt on the powers
Sat Jan 12, 2019, 02:46 PM
Jan 2019

that be at the NYT who make the decisions?

Pachamama

(16,887 posts)
15. Because the FBI sources told them there wasn't?
Sun Jan 13, 2019, 09:26 AM
Jan 2019

Reality is that no FBI official would have commented on an ongoing investigation and possibly even purposefuly put out disinformation at the time so as not to tip Trump, the Russians and affect any investigation.

A reporter has to go with what their sources says and they believe to be true. So the reporter and newspaper reported what they believed was true and what they had as information.

So it changed - no surprise there - that happens.

Nate Silver is off the mark there.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So theTimes come out with...