Quote:Trump Adviser’s Visit to Moscow Got the F.B.I.’s Attention.” That was the page-one headline the New York Times ran on April 20, 2017, above its breathless report that “a catalyst for the F.B.I. investigation into connections between Russia and President Trump’s campaign” was a June 2016 visit to Moscow by Carter Page.

It was due to the Moscow trip by Page, dubbed a “foreign policy adviser” to the campaign, that “the F.B.I. obtained a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court” in September — i.e., during the stretch run of the presidential campaign.

You’re to be forgiven if you’re feeling dizzy. It may not be too much New Year’s reverie; it may be that you’re reeling over the Times’ holiday-weekend volte-face: “How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt.”

Keep Reading Hee...

Wait, I'm confused. Was it Carter Page or Nick Papagiorgio? The nyt needs to get their story straight, because the internet doesn't forget. LOL, oops.

I love how the nyt always has all the answers after the alt-left's narrative is backed into a corner, and never before. It's almost like they sit down in a board room and war game how they can spin their way out of their lies, rather than do any actual reporting on actual facts. Hmm.

"Yeah, yeah, that'll work. That will get us out of this jam. Just preface that with 'anonymous source says', and our brain dead readers will lap it up. They merely want the justification (that we conjured up and fed them) for why they lost to be reaffirmed anyway, so they'll totally forget about what we wrote 6 months ago. Send it to print!"

SAD!

(01-02-2018 09:33 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Wait, I'm confused. Was it Carter Page or Nick Papagiorgio? The nyt needs to get their story straight, because the internet doesn't forget. LOL, oops.

I love how the nyt always has all the answers after the alt-left's narrative is backed into a corner, and never before. It's almost like they sit down in a board room and war game how they can spin their way out of their lies, rather than do any actual reporting on actual facts. Hmm.

"Yeah, yeah. That'll work, that will get us out of this jam. Just preface that with 'anonymous source says', and our brain dead readers will lap it up. They merely want the justification (that we conjured up and fed them) for why they lost to be reaffirmed anyway, so they'll totally forget about what we wrote 6 months ago. Send it to print!"

SAD!

You nailed it.

Buckle up buttercups. Muh j3st3r isn't done with his hacking yet. He's right like 9% of the time. So and so said so ten years ago.

(01-02-2018 09:49 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Buckle up buttercups. Muh j3st3r isn't done with his hacking yet. He's right like 9% of the time. So and so said so ten years ago.

Be careful how you post about a certain lib poster's messiah.

(01-02-2018 10:42 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 09:49 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Buckle up buttercups. Muh j3st3r isn't done with his hacking yet. He's right like 9% of the time. So and so said so ten years ago.

Be careful how you post about a certain lib poster's messiah.

I don't give a care.

Sorry to be so crass.