This evidence was cleverly hidden on the front page of the New York Times. No WONDER nobody saw it.
Everything that the media is desperately trying to deny about the wiretapping is based on news that they accidentally reported, not knowing it would hurt the future narrative.
You would think it isn’t all that hard to find in their own records… being as it is ON THEIR FREAKING FRONT PAGE!
Rush Limbaugh breaks down the journalistic malpractice of a contributor by the name of Michael S. Schmidt. On one hand, he’s claiming that there’s no evidence of Trump being wiretapped. On the other hand, he’s part of a story from January claiming he is.
Now, folks, January 20th, New York Times, Michael Schmidt wrote that Team Trump had Russia connections, and to support his point, said that Trump’s people were wiretapped, and that’s in the New York Times in January. So Trump tweets over the weekend that Obama’s wiretapping him, and how low that is and what Trump thinks of it and so forth. This same reporter comes back and says there’s no evidence of that. Trump’s a lunatic. There’s no evidence that. Trump’s insane. — Full article available here: Rush Limbaugh
So, what’s the original story saying about wiretaps, and how is it relevant for today?
Here is the image of the ClashDaily search results from the New York Times website:
You can almost hear the author salivating in his opening paragraphs:
American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.
The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts. Original story New York Times
[Except that no such evidence of Russian/Republican collusion has yet been produced. No matter HOW hard they are searching for it. Sorry to burst that bubble.]
The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.
It is not clear whether the intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself. It is also unclear whether the inquiry has anything to do with an investigation into the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computers and other attempts to disrupt the elections in November. The American government has concluded that the Russian government was responsible for a broad computer hacking campaign, including the operation against the D.N.C.
The counterintelligence investigation centers at least in part on the business dealings that some of the president-elect’s past and present advisers have had with Russia. Mr. Manafort has done business in Ukraine and Russia. Some of his contacts there were under surveillance by the National Security Agency for suspected links to Russia’s Federal Security Service, one of the officials said. Original story New York Times
“it is unclear whether … (followed by a couple of accusations which will be immediately joined in the mind of the reader)” It’s not exactly a NEW or CLEVER smear-without-without-libel tactic, is it? The burden of proof is on the accuser (NYT) to show how Trump’s team had any direct connection to the hacking. Otherwise, you’re editorializing. (Or, in plain English: VERY fake news.)
Were you interested in which departments were responsible for these investigations? (It sure sounded like Jason Chaffetz might like to know. And possibly Trey Gowdy, too.)
Mr. Manafort is among at least three Trump campaign advisers whose possible links to Russia are under scrutiny. Two others are Carter Page, a businessman and former foreign policy adviser to the campaign, and Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative.
The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.
Counterintelligence investigations examine the connections between American citizens and foreign governments. Those connections can involve efforts to steal state or corporate secrets, curry favor with American government leaders or influence policy. It is unclear which Russian officials are under investigation, or what particular conversations caught the attention of American eavesdroppers. The legal standard for opening these investigations is low, and prosecutions are rare. –Original story New York Times
The only remaining question is, were they lying in January? Or are they lying in March?