So Is The New York Times Making The Case For Skipping The Paris Climate Accords?

A few weeks ago, many of us supported President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris accords for a couple of reasons.

First, President Obama did not send the accord to the U.S. Senate for a treaty ratification, and second, what’s the point of having an accord that requires nothing from China?  Why do a manufacturing surrender and throw U.S. workers under the bus?

Well, the N.Y. Times’ editorial is making President Trump’s point about China.  I’m not sure that this was their intention, but their attack on China should have come when this deal was being negotiated.

…continue reading

Advertisements

“Lead Went Dead” After 2015 NY Times Story Leaked Intelligence Information

Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum, Gen. Tony Thomas said, “There’s a great need to inform the American public about what we’re up to. There’s also great need to recognize things that will absolutely undercut our ability to do our job.”

Thomas, who heads the Special Operations Command, was speaking about ISIS in Iraq and Syria during a Q and A session moderated by Fox News’ Catherine Herridge.ISIS leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s network has been “dismantled,” Thomas said, but leaked information in 2015 compromised a lead to al Baghdadi himself.

“I mean everyone who worked for him initially is dead or gone. Everybody who stepped to the plate the next time [is] dead or gone. Down through a network where we have killed, in a conservative estimate, 60,000 to 70,000 of his followers, his army.”

…continue reading

 

Here’s 7 Examples Of Establishment Media Burying Key Details In Their ‘Bombshell’ Russia Stories

The bombshell media reports about the Trump-Russia probe habitually put the incriminating information front and center, while burying mitigating information deep within the article.

The New York Times is by far the worst offender, though other publications, such as Reuters, aren’t immune.

The evidence speaks for itself. Here are seven examples, listed below:

…continue reading

New York Times Has Neither Seen Nor Read ‘Russia Email’ to Donald Trump, Jr.

The New York Times reports Monday evening that Donald Trump, Jr. was informed through an email that the information on Hillary Clinton that a Russian lawyer had offered to provide “was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy.”

The email in question “was sent by Rob Goldstone, a publicist and former British tabloid reporter who helped broker the June 2016 meeting” with the Russian lawyer, the Timesreports.

Supposedly, the email would have alerted Trump, Jr. to the lawyer’s alleged links to the Kremlin.

Curiously, the Times does not provide the email. Nor has it actually seen the email. Its source: “three people with knowledge of the email.”

…continue reading

Florida Representative On Trump Jr. ‘Bombshell’: “I Probably Would Have Done The Same Thing”

After multiple days of the New York Times and CNN rallying their progressive base around chants of ‘treason’ on the ‘startling’ revelation that Donald Trump Jr. would be so brazen as to take a meeting with someone offering opposition research on his father’s political opponent, research that, if you believe Trump Jr., turned out to be a giant “nothing burger” (to use CNN’s preferred language), a Republican Representative from Florida appeared on Wolf Blitzer to interject a little reality back into the latest narrative by pointing out that he, and most likely 99.9% of other politicians in Washington D.C., would have done exactly the same thing.

“Do I think it’s appropriate? I think I probably would have done the same thing.”

“I mean, it’s opposition research and you know, anybody that’s been in an election, you’re always looking to get the upper hand.”

“You know, keep in mind she wasn’t an official for the Russian government that way I understand it.  She’s a Russian lawyer.” 

“And if somebody comes to us and says, ‘Hey we’ve got information on an opponent,’ yeah, I think that’s an appropriate thing to do.”

…continue reading

 

NYT Russian Lawyer Story Proves Dems Helped Create Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory

The New York Times published a story on Saturday that revealed Donald Trump Jr. met with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a “Russian lawyer who has connections to the Kremlin,” on June 9th, 2016. On SundayThe Times followed up with a report that said Don Jr. “was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet with [the] Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign, . . .” Paul Manafort, President Trump’s campaign manager at the time, and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and current advisor, also attended the meeting, according to The Times.

Of course, the typical figures are suggesting that this “proves” that collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government occurred during the election. But the critical detail of who sought to broker the meeting is wholly omitted in both of The Times’ reports. In a statement to The Times, Don Jr. said, “I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand.” This individual’s name has not officially been revealed. The Washington Postsuggested the person was Rob Goldstone, a music publicist and personal friend of Don Jr. Don Jr. has neither confirmed nor denied Goldstone’s involvement.

…continue reading

 

Trump’s Son Said To Have Met With Russian Lawyer After “Promise Of Damaging Hillary Info”

Two days after the NYT reported that Donald Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., together with then campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner – but without Donald Trump himself being present – had met at the Trump Tower with a lawyer who was allegedly “Kremlin connected” on June 9, 2016, shortly after Trump was assured of the Republican nomination, the NY Times has followed up with a new article, one which seeks to explain the one thing that was missing from the original NYT article: the motive behind said meeting, as in retrospect it turned out that members of Trump’s campaign simply meeting with a Russian lawyer was less exciting than the NYT had hoped.

Curiously, when the NYT reported of the original meeting it did not have the dramatic punchline it was hoping for – it needed its readers help for that. As it explains, “the Times reported the existence of the meeting on Saturday. But in subsequent interviews, the advisers and others revealed the motivation behind it.” In other words, the new batch of anonymous sources only stepped up after reading the original report which, for lack of a better word, was disappointing.

And, as the NYT clarifies in its sequel – citing three advisers to the White House – Trump Jr. agreed to meet with the lawyer, Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, only after allegedly being promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

…continue reading

 

%d bloggers like this: