NY Times DENIES ITS OWN REPORTING on Trump Wiretaps as reported by them on the 19th of January. And, I’m sure it was a coincidence this story published the day before Trumps inauguration when “fake news” NY Times headlined“Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates.”

Trump Wiretaps
NY Times ‘Fake News’ Jan 19th

So, why didn’t the story explode then? Could it be because no one trusts the NY Times anymore?

The New York Times earns its “fake news” label by playing fast and loose with the truth.

On January 20th, the NY Times headline read: “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.”  Yet, nearly two months later, the same NY Times protects Obama by claiming no evidence exists of Trump wiretaps.

A couple of questions beg answers. First of all, why would any reputable newspaper directly contradict itself? And secondly, is this a retraction of the first story?

Let’s break it down.

Trump Wiretaps
NY Times “Fake News” Jan 20th

The January 19th article alleged that intelligence agencies intercepted communications between Trump associates and Russian officials. The second story from NY Times declares that “no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing” existed. So, which is true?

And the lies continued.

NY Times then goes on to claim in the first article that agencies provided them with “intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications they received.”

However, an Obama spokesman recently called Trump’s wiretap accusation completely false. He claimed the former president never ordered wiretapping of ANY U.S. citizen. So, Obama may not have ordered the wiretaps or interfered in DOJ investigations.

NY Times stated that Obama was the direct beneficiary of the Trump wiretaps that his administration carried out. Furthermore, in January, they even asked the Trump transition team for a comment:

We have absolutely no knowledge of any investigation or even a basis for such an investigation,” said Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for the Trump transition.

So, what spurred Trump to ask for an investigation?

In addition to reporting “fake new”, the NY Times reporters also claim that Breitbart News “spurious” reporting provoked Trump’s recent allegations. Nonsense. 

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect the dots and see that the NY Times own reporting spurred this investigation.

As the January 19th NY Times article declared:

“Of the half-dozen current and former [intelligence agency] officials who confirmed the existence of the investigations, some said they were providing information [to the NYT] because they feared the new administration would obstruct their efforts.”

Thie above statement appears to be about the Trump administration.

However, as the article continues, you see the report refers to “The Obama Holdovers,” who are in the Trump administration.

Trump believes the “deep state” intelligence community, staffed with Obama administration holdovers, wiretapped several of his campaign associates because of a spurious Breitbart article.”

So, Breitbart didn’t tip off Trump; the January 19th NY Times article did. We need to wake up and face reality. Just because they call themselves a journalist, does not automatically make them an honest journalist.

Calling a Spade, a Spade

One of the reporters (Schmidt) from the January 19th article, co-wrote yesterday’s hit piece, which says in part:

“Mr. Trump’s demand for a congressional investigation appears to be based, at least in part, on unproved claims by Breitbart News and conservative talk radio hosts that secret warrants were issued authorizing the tapping of the phones of Mr. Trump and his aides at Trump Tower in New York.”

The contradiction by the NY Times compelled Breitbart to respond.

Trump Wiretaps
What is the NY Times hiding for Obama?

The Breitbart article links directly to their own January 19th article.

Here is the  printed version of the headlined: “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.”

Why would reporters, assigned to cover the White House, not remember what they wrote just six weeks ago?

This lapse in memory only makes sense if you consider the character of the NY Times.

Everyone knows The NY Times‘ is politically bias against Trump and his agenda. Maybe one day the NY Times will figure this out as well.

Copy */
Back to top button