flyangler

NYT Lied Nine Times According to Strzok - Where is the chart?

Rate this topic

18 posts in this topic

What does "All the news that’s fit to print" mean when you can repeat a lie nine times in your publication and not have any consequences?

 

Politico: 
 

Graham releases declassified docs on early months of Russia probe

The documents suggest the FBI had gathered little, if any, evidence that ties between Americans in Trump's orbit and figures in Russia’s shadowy intelligence services existed.

“We have not seen evidence of any officials associated with the Trump team in contact with [intelligence officers],” wrote Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who helped initiate and lead the Russia probe, in internal notes accompanying a Feb. 14, 2017, New York Times article. “We are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.”

 

Those contacts, Strzok wrote, were limited to Russia’s then-ambassador to the U.S. and the Russian Embassy’s liaison to Congress.

Graham also released a 57-page memo detailing the FBI’s interview with a top source for Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence agent whose unverified dossier on Trump described a nefarious, yearslong plot to aid his election. That document, which formed part of the basis for the FBI’s surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser in 2016, was crafted largely through a network of six sources relied on by this associate of Steele’s — and some of its most explosive and salacious findings were based on thinly sourced speculation.

 

In his New York Times annotation, Strzok also indicated that Steele may not have been able to adequately judge whether the sources he relied on for his dossier were reliable. Strzok, who was fired from the bureau in 2018 after drawing Trump’s fury over private text messages that revealed his disdain for the president, raised strong doubts about the Times article, which described “repeated” contacts between Trump aides and Russian intelligence agents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Russia probe memos expose massive errors in NYT anti-Trump story, Steele dossier

The first document is a 57-page summary of a three-day FBI interview in January 2017 with Christopher Steele's 'primary sub-source' in the anti-Trump allegations and 'dossier.' Document number two takes apart a New York Times article written by Michael Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti, and Matt Apuzzo.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has released two newly-declassified documents related to government surveillance abuses against the Trump campaign in 2016.

The first document, withheld from public view until now, is a 57-page summary of a three-day FBI interview in January 2017 with Christopher Steele’s so-called "primary sub-source" in the anti-Trump allegations and "dossier."

According to the analysis by Sen. Graham's office: 

  • The document reveals that the primary "source" of Steele’s election reporting was not some well-connected current or former Russian official, but a non-Russian-based contract employee of Christopher Steele’s firm. Moreover, it demonstrates that the information that Steele's primary source provided him was second and third hand information and rumor at best.
  • Critically, the document shows that Steele's "primary sub-source" disagreed with and was surprised by how information he gave Steele was then conveyed by Steele in the Steele dossier.

Document number two, also withheld from public view until now, takes apart a New York Times article written by Michael Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti, and Matt Apuzzo.

Comments made by then-FBI agent Peter Strzok undercut a litany of claims made in the Times article, which was entitled: "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contact With Russian Intelligence."

Claim in NYT article: "Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 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."

Note by Strzok: "This statement is misleading and inaccurate as written. We have not seen evidence of any individuals in contact with Russians (both Governmental and non-Governmental)" and "There is no known intel affiliation, and little if any [government of Russia] affiliation[.] FBI investigation has shown past contact between [Trump campaign volunteer Carter] Page and the SVR [Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation], but not during his association with the Trump campaign."

Claim in NYT article: "... one of the advisers picked up on the [intercepted] calls was Paul Manafort, who was Mr. Trump's campaign chairman for several months ..."

Note by Strzok: "We are unaware of any calls with any Russian government official in which Manafort was a party."

Claim in NYT article: "The FBI has obtained banking and travel records ..."

Note by Strzok: "We do not yet have detailed banking records."

Claim in NYT article: "Officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, and how many of Trump's advisers were talking to the Russians."

Note by Strzok: "Again, we are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intel officials" and "Our coverage has not revealed contact between Russian intelligence officers and the Trump team."

Claim in NYT article: "The FBI asked the NSA to collect as much information as possible about the Russian operatives on the phone calls ..."

Note by Strzok: "If they did we are not aware of those communications."

Claim in NYT article: "The FBI has closely examined at least four other people close to Mr. Trump ... Carter Page ... Roger Stone... and Mr. Flynn."

Note by Strzok: "We have not investigated Roger Stone."

Claim by NYT: "Senior FBI officials believe ... Christopher Steele ... has a credible track record."

Note by Strzok: "Recent interviews and investigation, however, reveal Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of subsource network."

Claim by NYT: "The FBI's investigation into Mr. Manafort began last spring [2016]."

Note by Strzok: "This is inaccurate ... our investigation of Manafort was opened in August 2016."

Claim by NYT: "The bureau did not have enough evidence to obtain a warrant for a wiretap of Mr. Manafort's communications, but it had the NSA closely scrutinize the communications of Ukrainian officials he had met."

Note by Strzok: "This is inaccurate ..."

There is as yet no explanation in the documents or from the New York Times as to the identities of the four "American officials" who apparently provided the misleading and false information; or what their motivation was. 

However, it is clear that inaccurate reporting such as that in the Times had a significant influence on the trajectory of the Trump-Russia collusion probe, which ultimately concluded there had been no collusion on the part of Trump, anyone in the Trump campaign, or any U.S. person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The communists believe that the NY times is the final arbitrator of the truth. That they have the special ability to discern what is intelligent to believe. Just look at how influential they are with regards to controlling what the news cycle will be today, tomorrow, the next day. Disgusting liars with a bias and subscribers. The AP is no better.

 

The editor who recently quit suggested all of that and more in her resignation letter. I haven’t believed anything the Times suggests is truth in a long time. I always know that whatever it is in the story that might actually be true, will be hidden within the bias that becomes their product. Like a little hair in the Spam revealing that it is indeed meat.

 

Nice thread. I hope that others can avoid engaging with the communists as they make their best attempts to derail it via picking little fights over inconsequential matters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who pushed these lies, they were published the day after Flynn was fired/ resigned. Someone was working with the media to double down on the lie that Flynn was bad and a Russian agent even though the opposite has been proven.............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 mins ago, Flybyme said:

So who pushed these lies, they were published the day after Flynn was fired/ resigned. Someone was working with the media to double down on the lie that Flynn was bad and a Russian agent even though the opposite has been proven.............

 

41 mins ago, Flybyme said:

Timelines are important

 

This is a national security threat. The colluding to overthrow the Office of the President. Whoever the reporter was, his communications at this time should be scrutinized under a warrant and his/her co-conspirator ID'ed and held accountable. 

 

RICO the whole bunch..... Obama all the way down to the last clown involved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, flyangler said:

I am waiting for @BrianBM to chime in. 

 

8 hours ago, J said:

Brian has been awful quiet as of late. 

Brian's been spending time in the Fly Tying Forum of late, and a lot more at the vise. I'm tying a lot for little tunny and the other small scombrids that are showing up now. My existing inventory is too big. I'm tying now on #4 and #6 hooks; mostly versions of Mikkelson's Epoxy Baitfish, in a variety of color schemes.

 

As to the awful lies told by the NYT, I see something quite different. Clearly, Steele's report wasn't worth the money spent to buy it. The "non-Russian contract employee" was surprised by what Steele made of what he gave Steele? Fine, scratch Steele as a resource for future background information. Steele "may not have been in a position to judge his  sources?" Does that mean he was deceived? Perhaps so.

 

Claim in NYT article: "Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 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."

Note by Strzok: "This statement is misleading and inaccurate as written. We have not seen evidence of any individuals in contact with Russians (both Governmental and non-Governmental)" and "There is no known intel affiliation, and little if any [government of Russia] affiliation[.] FBI investigation has shown past contact between [Trump campaign volunteer Carter] Page and the SVR [Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation], but not during his association with the Trump campaign."

 

Fine. It may be that the Times was deceived by the "four current and former American officials." It is also possible that the said officials read more into Carter Page's contacts than was justified by further review. A question; was Strzok's memorandum written before or after Don Jr. sat down with Ms. Veselnitskaya to entertain her offer of clandestine assistance for the Trump campaign?

 

9 hours ago, Flybyme said:

Timelines are important

Yes. I assume that the entire documents will turn up within a day or two.

 

Sen. Graham has said he would subpoena Mueller to appear before his committee. By all means, let him subpoena Strzok too. Open session, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it happens, the NYT  has an article today about the Strzok memorandum, with links to the various other documents relevant to the discussion.

 

"

Mr. Strzok’s skeptical annotations of [the original article], headlined “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence,” were similar to congressional testimony months later by the former F.B.I. director James [Comey] disputing it. Mr. Comey did not say exactly what he thought was incorrect about the article, which cited four current and former American officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified information.

Mr. Strzok’s annotations disputed the article’s premise and other aspects. He wrote, “We are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.”

Still, he also added, the bureau had identified contacts between[ Page and Russian intelligence before the campaign], contacts between an associate of Paul Manafort, the onetime campaign chairman, and Russian intelligence; and contacts between two campaign advisers, Jeff Sessions and Michael T. Flynn, and Russia’s ambassador to the United States.

Edited by TimS
links

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BrianBM said:

As it happens, the NYT  has an article today about the Strzok memorandum, with links to the various other documents relevant to the discussion.

 

"

Mr. Strzok’s skeptical annotations of [the original article], headlined “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence,” were similar to congressional testimony months later by the former F.B.I. director James [Comey] disputing it. Mr. Comey did not say exactly what he thought was incorrect about the article, which cited four current and former American officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified information.

Mr. Strzok’s annotations disputed the article’s premise and other aspects. He wrote, “We are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.”

Still, he also added, the bureau had identified contacts between[ Page and Russian intelligence before the campaign], contacts between an associate of Paul Manafort, the onetime campaign chairman, and Russian intelligence; and contacts between two campaign advisers, Jeff Sessions and Michael T. Flynn, and Russia’s ambassador to the United States.

You did read the FBI and DOJ Memos clearing Flynn before they changed him?

Edited by TimS
links in quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.