Read on Twitter
The 2/2017 outlandish NYT story that the Trump team had "repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials" was a transparently dishonest attempt to fuel the Russiagate narrative in its early stages ( https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1120086029224964096?s=20).
Now the FBI's own docs confirm it: https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1284204488073633792
Now the FBI's own docs confirm it: https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1284204488073633792
Reporters on this story were @nytmike @MarkMazzettiNYT @mattapuzzo . They should have retracted it long ago -- when Comey denied it under oath in spring 2017 & when Mueller produced zero evidence of it & in fact undermined it. I don't see how they can justify leaving it up.
This is one of countless sad cases where mainstream reporters could have questioned, and dug into, why they were being leaked transparently false claims about an illicit Trump-Russia relationship. Instead they acted as stenographers for their sources' fictional narrative.
Q for @Comey: new FBI docs show Strzok wrote: "We are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials."
This was after FBI knew @GeorgePapa19 spoke to Mifsfud.
So why, 2 years later, did you claim that Mifsud is "a Russian agent"?
This was after FBI knew @GeorgePapa19 spoke to Mifsfud.
So why, 2 years later, did you claim that Mifsud is "a Russian agent"?
Did you discover some new evidence about Mifsud that Strzok & the FBI didn't have back in 2017, or were you making a false claim? It's one or the other.
At minimum, this is more evidence FBI launched the Trump-Russia probe on a predicate that was missing a key element: Russia.
At minimum, this is more evidence FBI launched the Trump-Russia probe on a predicate that was missing a key element: Russia.
The fact that FBI privately admitted in early 2017 that
"[w]e have not seen evidence of" & "are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with" Russian intel is more evidence that intel officials/Mueller team fed public a false narrative. https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/07/16/mueller_and_weissmann_op-eds_greatly_at_odds_with_their_report_and_evidence_124483.html
"[w]e have not seen evidence of" & "are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with" Russian intel is more evidence that intel officials/Mueller team fed public a false narrative. https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/07/16/mueller_and_weissmann_op-eds_greatly_at_odds_with_their_report_and_evidence_124483.html
NYT: "We stand by our reporting" of 2017 that Trump team had "repeated contacts w/ senior Russian intel officials."
This despite news that Russia probe's lead agent refuted it (oh, & zero evidence has emerged since). On what grounds do they stand by it?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/us/politics/steele-dossier-peter-strzok.html
This despite news that Russia probe's lead agent refuted it (oh, & zero evidence has emerged since). On what grounds do they stand by it?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/us/politics/steele-dossier-peter-strzok.html
Do they stand by this story that Strzok refuted privately, Comey refuted publicly, & Mueller found no evidence of like they stand by their Russia bounty story, which their own reporting contradicted? https://thegrayzone.com/2020/07/07/pentagon-afghan-bountygate-us-intelligence-agencies/
That's not standing by reporting, it's denying reality.
That's not standing by reporting, it's denying reality.
Here is what @nytmike @MarkMazzettiNYT @mattapuzzo & @nytimes editors "stand by": the fact that some anonymous officials -- who fed false info on multiple stories, not just this one -- fed them the false info here. That's not standing by reporting, it's standing by stenography.
