Magnitude of Trump adviser Flynn's Russia scandal gains clarity

Are you denying that the MSM was given access to signals intelligence from the transcripts of the conversations? Do you think the were allowed to actually listen to the conversations?

I apologize for thinking the "Reuters" tag on my plain text copy identified the reporter. Note that I did give you the link to the MSM source.

 

Doublespeak describes your post. MSM had no access to any of the intelligence. They were not given any transcripts. They were informed/leaked by the intelligence department that Flynn lied to Pence and the rest of the info came directly from Flynn and Pence in public interviews and public observations of the actions by those two. If Flynn had not lied to Pence or Pence did not give a public denial of the, what were then, rumours I doubt that the intelligence leaks would have happened. Trump's "delay" tweet is damning

Thank you

 

I take it you do not read the NYT - which is a good thing I suppose. If you did you would know that the NYT (and other MSM outlets) have published "the content of leaked phone intercepts".

“The intercepted calls are different from the wiretapped conversations last year between Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, and Sergey I. Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the United States. In those calls, which led to Mr. Flynn’s resignation on Monday night, the two men discussed sanctions that the Obama administration imposed on Russia in December.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/...edCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article

The intelligence agency leakers and the reporters who published the contents have both committed serious felonies. Given Trump's fondness for Fake News reporters and leakers do you think he will resist the temptation to order a grand jury to investigate these crimes?

 

How could they publish the content of the conversations without relying on the transcripts or the actual recordings of the conversation? Or do you think NYT/WP/CNN have just made the whole thing up?

 

If they were not allowed to either listen to the conversations or read the transcripts they do not know what was actually said? Why would any responsible journalist report as fact what they do not know to be true?