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
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WashPo OP: New NYT article on Papadopoulos raises questions about pre-election NYT article (Original Post) triron Jan 2018 OP
Thanks. elleng Jan 2018 #1
I was as baffled as anyone when the NYT ran that article. ffr Jan 2018 #2
I suspect a lot of cash was spread around under the table to make Trump ruler L. Coyote Jan 2018 #5
I was as well triron Jan 2018 #6
In 2016, the NYT poo-pooed Russiagate while portraying Hillary's emails as criminal. SunSeeker Jan 2018 #3
NYT is up the FBI New York Corgigal Jan 2018 #4
I vividly remember DemocracyMouse Jan 2018 #7
The liberal TV news stations (MSNBC and CNN) BigmanPigman Jan 2018 #8
What? The NY Times print a misleading story? Let's ask Judith Miller what she thinks still_one Jan 2018 #9

elleng

(130,740 posts)
1. Thanks.
Mon Jan 1, 2018, 11:24 PM
Jan 2018

'It was a week before the 2016 presidential election that the New York Times wrote this headline: “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia.” The story’s lead cited the curiosity of federal law enforcement on this front: “For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign,” read the story by Eric Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers. “Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.” . .

The New York Times piece pooh-poohed the possibility, reporting that agents “ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts.” Furthermore, the story gave this summary of the investigations: “Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.”

More than a year later, we now know much more about the FBI’s pre-election Russia-Trump activities, courtesy of the New York Times. On Saturday, a three-byline story — Sharon LaFraniere, Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo — reported that Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos, addled by the offerings of a London pub, told an Australian official in May 2016 that “Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass [Democratic presidential candidate Hillary] Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.” A couple of months later, hacked Democratic emails surfaced — prompting the Australians to tell U.S. officials what Papadopoulos had said.

The combination of the hacking and Papadopoulos’s disclosures, reported the New York Times, helped launch the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation. The newspaper notes that FBI officials proceeded on a particularly hush-hush basis: “Senior agents did not discuss it at the daily morning briefing, a classified setting where officials normally speak freely about highly sensitive operations.” Another key detail relates to Papadopoulos’s own disclosures — the story reaches no conclusion on whether he told campaign colleagues about his information-gathering. “Whether Mr. Papadopoulos shared that information with anyone else in the campaign is one of many unanswered questions. He was mostly in contact with the campaign over emails,” reads the story.'>>>

ffr

(22,665 posts)
2. I was as baffled as anyone when the NYT ran that article.
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 01:04 AM
Jan 2018

It didn't seem right. Now we know it was completely and factually wrong. Hey, just in time to give the voting public the wrong message, coincidentally at the same time as they were also being given another deceptive piece of information in the form of James Comey's October surprise.

I hate republicans.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
5. I suspect a lot of cash was spread around under the table to make Trump ruler
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 01:23 AM
Jan 2018

Like millions and millions in bribes to the media.

SunSeeker

(51,515 posts)
3. In 2016, the NYT poo-pooed Russiagate while portraying Hillary's emails as criminal.
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 01:05 AM
Jan 2018

The NYT enabled Trump and the Russians to spread their propaganda against Hillary, all in a misguided attempt at looking "balanced." They even breathlessly ran excerpts from that pure GOP progaganda tome, Clinton Cash, giving those lies legitimacy.

Corgigal

(9,291 posts)
4. NYT is up the FBI New York
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 01:15 AM
Jan 2018

Office ass. They want Trump to call them so they can just record it and print. Big news story there, cause he makes no damn sense.

Washington Post is now the official newspaper of record. The times could have taken out Trump before the Republican convention, but chose not too.

All New Yorkers know Trumps history, BUT The New York Times.

I also prescribe to the Post, the Times betrayed us.

DemocracyMouse

(2,275 posts)
7. I vividly remember
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 02:00 AM
Jan 2018

That tepid statement by the Times comes back to me. I had been reading all the news about the server (in Slate) and other stories. I drew a very different conclusion than the NYT.

Goes to show the Times is staffed, like any large corporation, with careerists playing it safe. The first thing a careerist does when burdened with a truth? Check what is the current norm and spin the story to sound normative.

Yes, the Wash Post is today much more independent than the Times.

Another piece of the puzzle: there has been a massive migration of artists, musicians, writers and independent thinkers out of New York. Even Brooklyn has suffered from the unbridled cost of living increases. The corporate devdumping (development dumping) has driven all those independent thinkers out. New York's culture, while still leaning Democratic, is no longer as likely to question the status quo.

BigmanPigman

(51,567 posts)
8. The liberal TV news stations (MSNBC and CNN)
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 02:11 AM
Jan 2018

along with "credible print journalism" are at fault for promoting the moron. Throw social media into the mix and you can see how the moron was given way too many opportunities to promote himself. That is why his campaign ended up spending such little money. 90% of the money the campaign used was to buy into Facebook, etc.


Latest Discussions»General Discussion»WashPo OP: New NYT articl...