General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRachel reported tonite that NY Times stands by their report
of frequent contact between members of Trump campaign and Russian Intelligence
contradicting Comey's testimony today that the story was mostly untrue.
Something smells.
Glimmer of Hope
(5,823 posts)still_one
(92,387 posts)"Mr. Comey did not say exactly what he believed was incorrect about the article, which was based on information from four current and former American officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because the information was classified. The original sources could not immediately be reached after Mr. Comeys remarks, but in the months since the article was published, they have indicated that they believed the account was solid.
Continue reading the main story
One possible area of dispute is the description of the Russians involved. Some law enforcement officials took issue with the Times account in the days after it was published, saying that the intelligence was still murky, and that the Russians who were in contact with Mr. Trumps advisers did not meet the F.B.I.s black-and-white standard of who can be considered an intelligence officer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/politics/james-comey-new-york-times-article-russia.html
MedusaX
(1,129 posts)article's general/overall assertion {main point} that there was no evidence of collusion....
>snip<
The Feb. 14 story said that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump advisers and Russias campaign to disrupt last years presidential election, a fact that officials have since said publicly. The F.B.I. declined to address Mr. Comeys comments about the article.
>snip<
That seems more plausible, relative to Comey's choice of words, than the possibility that Comey was nitpicking the definitions /classification of 'Russian intelligence' or the accuracy of the specific methods of data acquisition cited.
Just a guess...FWIW