Go Straight To The Fifth Paragraph Of The Latest NYT ‘Bombshell’ On Russia Collusion

If you go to the fifth paragraph of the latest NYT 'Bombshell' on Russion Collusion you'll come across this statement...

"It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn"​

And there is this statement in a Reuters article...

"The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far."​

And there is this statement in another NYT article...

“American officials have said that they have so far found no proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”​

And there is this statement in another NYT article...

“Mr. Brennan acknowledged that he did not know whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russian operatives and said the contacts might have been benign.”​

As you can see, none of the headlines match the reality of the situation. Which is, there is no evidence of any collusion or tampering.

 

Grounds for impeachment!!! Liberal logic 101.

 

Former CIA Director John Brennan testified on Tuesday that intelligence officials had found "contacts and interaction" between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and agents for the Russian government.

 

What crime was committed?

Politicians speak with people from other countries every single day.

 

And that he had no idea if that meant collusion, he said the CIA only gather intelligence lol. Must have been some really good intel. Hey joe talked to russia officials today, did you get it on tape, Oh no sire they just said hello. Call the times.

 

Excellent work. The corporate media does this a lot. They know that the vast majority of readers don't read past the headlines. When I get back to my PC I'll show other examples and prove all this.

 

He referred it for further investigation He warned the Trump people that it was a "problem".

Trump really COULD shoot someone in public and you'd still support him

 

I think we all know that most libs only read the headlines, so the fifth paragraph might as well not even exist.

they don't get it. Our president could have hired Putin as a campaign consultant along with the entire Kremlin and would not have broken any laws.

 

And he could save a family of 12 from an out of control train and you would blame him for screwing up the train.

 

Yet still nothing.

 

Nope. I've said if (as was the claim) that if Trump were to actually broker a ME peace deal I would change my opinion of him. That's a matter of record.

Huge fail on your part...again.

But thanks for admitting you WOULD still support Trump if he shot someone in public

 

Carlson has created a home for a caliber of mangy stray cat contributors who find it virtually impossible to plant their stories with any other outlets except perhaps Alex Jones and Carlson’s Daily Caller.

 

Who said I supported Trump?


And why do you think supporting a sitting President is so bad?

 

There still searching for that smoking gun:

At some point even Democrats will have to admit there just isn't evidence to sustain their claims.

 

Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer

WASHINGTON — American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers, according to three current and former American officials familiar with the intelligence.

The conversations focused on Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign chairman at the time, and Michael T. Flynn, a retired general who was advising Mr. Trump, the officials said. Both men had indirect ties to Russian officials, who appeared confident that each could be used to help shape Mr. Trump’s opinions on Russia.

Some Russians boasted about how well they knew Mr. Flynn. Others discussed leveraging their ties to Viktor F. Yanukovych, the deposed president of Ukraine living in exile in Russia, who at one time had worked closely with Mr. Manafort.

The intelligence was among the clues — which also included information about direct communications between Mr. Trump’s advisers and Russian officials — that American officials received last year as they began investigating Russian attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of Mr. Trump’s associates were assisting Moscow in the effort. Details of the conversations, some of which have not been previously reported, add to an increasing understanding of the alarm inside the American government last year about the Russian disruption campaign.

The information collected last summer was considered credible enough for intelligence agencies to pass to the F.B.I., which during that period opened a counterintelligence investigation that is continuing. It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn. Both have denied any collusion with the Russian government on the campaign to disrupt the election.
_______________________

The headline perfectly matches what was reported, actually, namely that Russian officials discussed how they could influence the Trump campaign. The headline does not say anything contrary to the line quoted from paragraph 5.

Daily Caller.. lol

 

Following the money is a much better way to nail Trump about collusion. If the dirty money trail matches the campaign with Russia, then collusion is a no brainer.

It's a fair bet that the country may never be able to find collusion in the verbal sense. You would need witnesses or tape. But if the money trail leads to Trump/Russia during the campaign, then that is more than enough to prove collusion from a financial stand point.

But, then again, it isn't necessary to prove collusion when we've already proven obstruction of justice with seventeen possible charges; It's about the cover up.

 

Good grief. I've posted often enough that my support of Trump begins and ends with him not being Hilla, and even *I* know that this kind of fishing expedition is fruitless on the part of the Dems. I rather imagine that with his business dealings all over the world Trump has previously met with politicians and civilians of every stripe, good and bad, imaginable. I think a case can be made that this is becoming the Dems newest example of McCarthyism, where people get blacklisted because someone they knew in college a dozen years ago happens to be a communist or suchlike.

And in any event, all of that is merely a rabbithole leading away from the fact that the NYT, the "Paper of Record" says one thing in its headline - then says something else in the article. I can almost imagine Rachel Maddow in the background typing away about Trumps tax returns for twelve dozen pages, only to come up with something perfectly tame from a decade ago.

Looks like the NYT is STILL making up stories. If their newest crusade is trying to make the Weekly World News look respectable in comparison, well - I guess they're succeeding in that respect.

 

There were 100 current and former officials familiar with the intelligence who said this isn't true.

 

Which part?

 

Forget about the daily caller article and look at the three NYT articles and the one Reuters article that I reference that proves my case.

 

You do realize that the article that you posted proves my case?

From your article: "...according to three current and former American officials familiar with the intelligence."

More unnamed unidentified anonymous sources.

Just more #fakenews.

 

If pigs can fly.

 

All of it.

 

There is also zero evidence that there WASN'T collusion.
The investigation isn't over.