I’m so sick and tired of the NY Times providing cover for the Republican nonsense and then later saying, “Oops, I guess we made a mistake”.
Here is their latest take/spin on the Kushner espionage — Kushner Is Said to Have Discussed a Secret Channel to Talk to Russia (the highlighting on the excerpt is mine):
Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, spoke in December with Russia’s ambassador to the United States about establishing a secret communications channel between the Trump transition team and Moscow to discuss strategy in Syria and other policy issues, according to three people with knowledge of the discussion.
Yes, you got that right. They are already putting out the spin from inside the White House that this was somehow an innocent contact by Jared to help address “strategy in Syria”. This was the opening line of their coverage on this probable espionage story. They don’t ever mention the possibility that Jared was trying a quid pro quo of money for lifting of sanctions or for a payback for the help with getting them elected. Of course not, why report that when you can try to help spin the “nothing to see here” narrative for the Republicans.
This narrative of an innocent reason for Jared’s actions was continually pushed throughout the piece:
Mr. Trump came into office promising improved relations with Russia on numerous issues, including greater cooperation to try to end the civil war in Syria. During the presidential campaign, he frequently criticized the Obama administration’s Syria policy as unnecessarily antagonistic toward Russia.
If this were the first water-carrying nonsense from the NY Times, one might be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately it isn’t. Here’s the big one that I am still pissed about several months later - Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia
WASHINGTON — For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.
Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.
Let’s not forget, the timing of how quickly this article was put out was very questionable. This article came out almost immediately after the story was breaking and was used to shut down more discussion and exploration and to paint those pushing to have any more talk about it as conspiracy theorists. It was almost as if someone was working with the Trump campaign to stifle further discussions or investigation into this area.
Finally, let’s never forget the big doozy of doozies — THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE IRAQIS; U.S. SAYS HUSSEIN INTENSIFIES QUEST FOR A-BOMB PARTS, with its breathtaking claims:
More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today.
In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium. American officials said several efforts to arrange the shipment of the aluminum tubes were blocked or intercepted but declined to say, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence, where they came from or how they were stopped.
It almost feels like the NY Times does everything it can to gain your trust but then at crucial moments when things are really down and out for conservatives and they need a helping hand that the NY Times will betray that trust to help out conservatives to put out some spin that will be believed because “the NY Times says so, so it must be true”.
If you are giving your money to the NY Times, but not supporting the Washington Post with your subscription money, I’d suggest it is time to switch or to add the Washington Post. I have no affiliation with the Washington Post and I just have started a subscription myself to ensure that they can continue to fund their valuable effort at fulfilling the role of the press in providing a check against our government. If you are an Amazon Prime subscriber, you can get a free 6 month subscription to the Washington Post that will convert over to a paid subscription after the free period but you can cancel the subscription at any time.