The Chain of command for using NSA surveillance to spy on political competitors likely goes from Obama to Jarrett to Susan Rice, who ordered the unmasking of Trump operatives. Ben Rhodes is a likely candidate for the leaker, but after dissemination of the unmasked intel by Obama anyone could be guilty of that felony. Crackerjack investigative journalists could unravel this in six months. In the absence of any of those tasked on this case by the MSM, maybe the Congressional investigations will eventually tell us what really happened, by 2020 or 2024.
Pure entertainment watching the New York Slimes trying to slime its way out of this.
1
The FBI and Intelligence agencies investigations that used "wiretapping" were done under Obama's administration, so let's not parse words here. Of course, Obama didn't 'wiretap' Trump himself, but asked the Brits and various agency ti investigate various affairs that involved Trump and his associates.
1
Really? Obama himself personally asked the Brits and 'various agencies' to 'investigate various affairs that involved Trump and his associates'? That's quite a leap there. It's also not what Trump claims. He said Obama ordered *him* to be wiretapped. The Times owrote that conversations with Trump aids (some of whom no longer are aids) were tapped. Comey said he's got nothing that supports Trump's claim, which apparently comes from an anonymous blog post, not the Times . You're getting way ahead of the facts here.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/16/donald-tr...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/16/donald-tr...
Here is the quote from the NY Times itself, Jan 19, 2016:
"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."
So the story refers to both "wiretaps" and "the White House" and yet everybody here is surprised that Trump connected a few dots and claimed he was tapped by Obama??? Ever think that every government official has to deny the tap, or they are admitting they broke the law about spying on Americans?
"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."
So the story refers to both "wiretaps" and "the White House" and yet everybody here is surprised that Trump connected a few dots and claimed he was tapped by Obama??? Ever think that every government official has to deny the tap, or they are admitting they broke the law about spying on Americans?
3
OMG, some words occurred in the same post??? A source said that intelligence reports (based on some wiretaps) were provided to investigators by the White House. Well, duh, intelligence reports deemed important go up the chain and end up at the White House. That's not at all the same as any part of '1) Obama personally ordered agencies to tap 2) Donald Trump's communications for 3)political reasons'. Which is what Trumpy said happened.
NY Times needs to open more, if not all, stories to comments. As it is, you offer very few. I often learn as much from comments as I do the stories.
4
It's just too simple; if a jackass brays "Wolf!' over and over, and there's nothing there, then he has proved himself a liar, and sooner or later, when he actually is attacked by a wolf, nobody will even pay any attention. Trump is a perpetual liar who is attempting to throw suspicion on everyone around him, so as to take eyes off his criminal activities. Only the blindest of blind, the racists who chant "Anything but Black", and the feeble minded would pay any attention to what donald trump says.
3
Ah more name calling in the NYT comment thread. Typical.
2
After eight years of a president who was repeatedly caught lying and hiding the truth, along with his hand picked would-be successor, about the ACA, Benghazi, negotiations with IRAN, surreptitiously meeting with the president of Russia and promising to abrogate a defense treaty with our Polish allies, and you and everyone else on the left completely ignoring all of it or claiming none of it ever happened, why would you think anyone would believe anything you say. AND, where have you seen or heard Trump supporters chanting "Anything but black."
1
What criminal activities has DJT engaged in? Please provide a reference to the criminal act and relevant law. Clearly you have information that the media and law enforcement does not. Thank you.
1
Oh please. Look the NYT only cares about pushing partisan narratives that are damaging to conservatives and Republicans. They pushed the wiretapping story when they thought it was harmful to Trump and they refuted his wiretapping assertions when that would be harmful to him.
Trump is awful but he is 100% right about our liberal media. They are not to be trusted because they aren't even trying to be trustworthy.
Trump is awful but he is 100% right about our liberal media. They are not to be trusted because they aren't even trying to be trustworthy.
6
Nuance. Trump's brigade doesn't like it. Intercept could be anything even paper, group emails and so on. A far cry from claiming Obama doing wiretapping. Trump distorts everything. In response to Trump's chaotic shambles, his equivalent here in Australia - Pauline Hanson's party One Nation- suddenly dropped in her polls numbers and was absolutely trounced in the Western Australian state election yesterday. Over here Hanson in her policies and xenophobia is thought of as Australia's Donald Trump. She loves him. And although we are not important to you guys, we are flooded daily with Trump's antics. The left here in WA, won in a landslide yesterday. Trump did not do conservatives any favours here- I assure you.
1
It seems to me that Trump is lying (not exaggerating), and the wiretaps the Times referred to were on RUSSIANS. Ms. Spayd fails to mention it.
As usual, Ms. Spayd only obscures the issue she is trying to clarify. I miss Margaret Sullivan.
As usual, Ms. Spayd only obscures the issue she is trying to clarify. I miss Margaret Sullivan.
2
You likely don't work in law enforcement, or intelligence. Some context: Often, the target of an investigation isn't the one put under direct surveillance because any mistake would alert them. It is also fishing with a hook rather than a net. Surveillance around the edges provides a richer picure of the target's activities, provides additional leads and information, and ultimately provides plausible deniability for the investigators and leadership chain who initiated the surveillance to begin with. Boiled down, nothing is as straightforward as we are led to believe.
1
If integrity could be measured in NFL terms. The New York Times would be the equivalent of an 0-16 season , followed by starting the next season 0-10.
The Times is being booed by its own fans.
Please shape up , just report facts.
The Times is being booed by its own fans.
Please shape up , just report facts.
3
Did it ever occur to you that the fact some of our team is "booing" means that our team is also THINKING for themselves? We don't get sold a bill of goods and swallow it whole, no questions asked. But the donald's previous actions and lifestyle would suggest that maybe some of our 'team' is leaning over backward to be "fair." This could be a big mistake. Splitting hairs requires 20/50 vision.
1
Pretty much every comment is pretty much laughing directly at the New York Times blunder.
This is the Times version of Clintons " What is the definition of is ? ".
The NYT got caught with their pants down , pretty much they are saying , hey our pants weren't down ! ( Their pants were on fire , as their noses grew in length. ) By the way i voted twice for Obama
This is the Times version of Clintons " What is the definition of is ? ".
The NYT got caught with their pants down , pretty much they are saying , hey our pants weren't down ! ( Their pants were on fire , as their noses grew in length. ) By the way i voted twice for Obama
2
This is very poor.
First, the Obama administration's policies on wiretapping/surveillance over the last eight years are the issue, period. The questions then become who was spied upon, by whom, where, and under what authority. The word choice of the victim are secondary.
Second, the NYT's record of impartiality is questionable at best. Even a sympathetic reading of the Times suggests an extraordinary willingness to find the worst in every member, utterance, and action of the new administration. Case in point - I just logged on to read a glaring headline above the fold - "Spicer may have broken a rule, when tweeting on positive job numbers."
Is the Spicer 'violation' one the most important news events of the day? I mean an event that simply can't wait. Or, are we being subjected to today's installment of why this is the worst administration ever and that any bad news connected to the administration must be part of a NYT reader's daily diet. It sure seems that way.
I noted elsewhere that the Times goes to considerable effort to keep the phrase Obama's CIA and Obama's NSA out of all reporting on wiretapping. That seems to me to be of much more interest to paying subscribers than an urgent headline on the timing of Spicer's tweet. But that's me.
First, the Obama administration's policies on wiretapping/surveillance over the last eight years are the issue, period. The questions then become who was spied upon, by whom, where, and under what authority. The word choice of the victim are secondary.
Second, the NYT's record of impartiality is questionable at best. Even a sympathetic reading of the Times suggests an extraordinary willingness to find the worst in every member, utterance, and action of the new administration. Case in point - I just logged on to read a glaring headline above the fold - "Spicer may have broken a rule, when tweeting on positive job numbers."
Is the Spicer 'violation' one the most important news events of the day? I mean an event that simply can't wait. Or, are we being subjected to today's installment of why this is the worst administration ever and that any bad news connected to the administration must be part of a NYT reader's daily diet. It sure seems that way.
I noted elsewhere that the Times goes to considerable effort to keep the phrase Obama's CIA and Obama's NSA out of all reporting on wiretapping. That seems to me to be of much more interest to paying subscribers than an urgent headline on the timing of Spicer's tweet. But that's me.
5
Liz,
I just caught this statement in your column:
There’s a lot to parse. And doing so, in a way that is clear to readers, is not easy when the subject matter is complicated and the information that reporters receive comes under strict terms of how it can be used...".
Since when does The Times agree to "strict terms" with anonymous sources that have the effect of misleading readers, obscuring facts needed to assess the reliability of the anonymous information being cited, and -- it is quite clear -- protecting illegal conduct by our intelligence agencies, who appear to be engaged in a domestic spying operation intended to destabilize a sitting president?
I just caught this statement in your column:
There’s a lot to parse. And doing so, in a way that is clear to readers, is not easy when the subject matter is complicated and the information that reporters receive comes under strict terms of how it can be used...".
Since when does The Times agree to "strict terms" with anonymous sources that have the effect of misleading readers, obscuring facts needed to assess the reliability of the anonymous information being cited, and -- it is quite clear -- protecting illegal conduct by our intelligence agencies, who appear to be engaged in a domestic spying operation intended to destabilize a sitting president?
7
Maybe when the "sitting president" attained his position by illegal means. Maybe when the potential president was being surveilled for misdeeds prior to his election. Need I go on?
2
As The Times rushes to protect Obama from Trump's charges that his administration wiretapped his campaign and mounted a multi-agency investigation of his campaign associates -- the clear import of the earlier Times story and much other coverage -- the story has suddenly, quietly been given a new headline. No longer is it “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.” Instead, readers are now told, “Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry into Trump Associates.”
No correction. How do you square this with Dean Baquet's recent statement to Brian Stelter that the mark of a newspaper’s fairness and objectivity is the demonstrated willingness to correct mistakes and engage in honest.
self-appraisal
The Times has indeed been engaged in a witch hunt, day after day putting out stories that claim, explicitly or by implication, that the Obama Justice Dept and spy agencies have been investigating Trump's connections to Russia. Now, when Trump says the same thing, blaming Obama personally, you freak out.
This is why Trump can point at you can yell "FAKE NEWS."
No correction. How do you square this with Dean Baquet's recent statement to Brian Stelter that the mark of a newspaper’s fairness and objectivity is the demonstrated willingness to correct mistakes and engage in honest.
self-appraisal
The Times has indeed been engaged in a witch hunt, day after day putting out stories that claim, explicitly or by implication, that the Obama Justice Dept and spy agencies have been investigating Trump's connections to Russia. Now, when Trump says the same thing, blaming Obama personally, you freak out.
This is why Trump can point at you can yell "FAKE NEWS."
9
May be it was the part about "blaming Obama personally . . ." Get it??
1
Are you under the delusion that all those investigations happened without Obama's greenlight? It was his administration, nothing moved without his greenlight.
1
Barbara, we get it, you're a liberal and you love Obama. But think for one moment about how many times the Obama administration claimed they had no knowledge of things happening within the Executive Branch. They were unaware of issues at the VA. They were unaware of partisan investigations/audits at the IRS. They denied knowledge of the DoJ walking thousands of illegal, fully automatic AK-47s into drug cartels in a failed sting operation that killed dozens of Mexicans and several Americans. They claimed no knowledge of a threat to the Benghazi outpost. No knowledge of collateral damage from done strikes. No knowledge of warrentless spying on US Citizens. No knowledge of unaccounted for millions in cash and weapons that simply disappeared in Afghanistan and Iraq. No knowledge of apparently billions in contract fraud at DoS. No knowledge of the criminal records of Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown, before commenting on how innocent they were, poisoning the jury pool before the cases went to trial. The false knowledge that a youtube video sparked a well coordinated multi-phased attack against the Benghazi compounds. The list just goes on and on and on.
FTA: "Readers also expressed confusion with The Times’s assertion that it would be illegal for a White House to receive information about such investigations, when its own wiretapping story in January said the Trump White House was given some information from intercepted communications."
Uh, that story was on Jan 19, and therefore must have referred to the Obama White House.
Uh, that story was on Jan 19, and therefore must have referred to the Obama White House.
6
"Uh, that story was on Jan 19, and therefore must have referred to the Obama White House."
That's a good catch, but a bad conclusion. Instead of "the Trump White House", the PE should have said something like "the Trump White House TRANSITION TEAM". The article itself uses the more concise phrase "the Trump transition".
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-i...
That's a good catch, but a bad conclusion. Instead of "the Trump White House", the PE should have said something like "the Trump White House TRANSITION TEAM". The article itself uses the more concise phrase "the Trump transition".
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-i...
1
ELH: "That's a good catch, but a bad conclusion."
Correcting myself. After reading the article more carefully, I see that it says:
"One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House."
In context, that can only mean the *Obama* White House.
So readers are right. The Times's reporting IS confusing. :-)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-i...
Correcting myself. After reading the article more carefully, I see that it says:
"One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House."
In context, that can only mean the *Obama* White House.
So readers are right. The Times's reporting IS confusing. :-)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-i...
6
Spinning spinning spinning. Keep right on ah spinning.
1
I would not think much of it but then there go Clapper and Comey and make these announcements, the latter practically ordering the DoJ to not do anything. I don't know about these journalists but my ...scientifically curious mind says something is going on here...
4
Obama's minions in the Obama administration did not have the legal power to disseminate ill gotten intelligence on the Trump campaign without Obama's sign off. Obama changed the rules to allow this outrageous behavior. He is complicit after the fact just like Nixon.
6
"The Times has also said Obama administration officials sought to spread intelligence about a possible link between Trump and Russia to ensure a trail of evidence for investigators, but it said Obama himself was not involved." So let me get this straight: the Obama administration, though perhaps not Obama himself, "sought to spread [secret] intelligence" information, prior to the election, that everyone would consider damaging to Trump? And the NYT considers this a defense of Obama? I'd been inclined to dismiss Trump's twitters as lunatic ravings. Thank you for showing me that they aren't.
7
That wasn't prior to the election. It was between Trump's election and his inauguration.
1
Trump didn't claim he was wiretapped. He claimed he was wiretapped _at the direct order of Barack Obama_. It is quite conceivable that any number of law enforcement agencies are surveiling Trump and/or his close associates for any number of potential criminal or national security violations, but it is vanishingly unlikely that such surveillance was undertaken at the personal direction of President Obama. Trump excels that this two-step of false statements and once again the NYT allows itself to be sucked down the rabbit hole while missing the story.
3
Read the new article in the last New Yorker Magazine about our new prezzzz. Only the most willfully obtuse will doubt why someone might be watching "the donald."
1
This is how the Times gets itself in trouble. Telling stories it does not fully understand. Adding speculation and pontification only adds insult to injury.
Stick to the facts please, leave the parsing to the op-ed pages.
Now we know for a fact the FBI investigated Clinton and her campaign for months and the Times couldn't come up with anything more than breathless innuendo as the election loomed ever closer. Were the Clinton campaign or her private phone communications recorded? We know the FBI and congress relentlessly investigated her. But we know almost nothing about the investigation
If the Times want to be regarded as a great newspaper it will have to act like one.
This column is of little help beyond revealing how far from being a well oiled machine the NYTs is. I'l add the Times is becoming infamous for what it chooses not to print.
Stick to the facts please, leave the parsing to the op-ed pages.
Now we know for a fact the FBI investigated Clinton and her campaign for months and the Times couldn't come up with anything more than breathless innuendo as the election loomed ever closer. Were the Clinton campaign or her private phone communications recorded? We know the FBI and congress relentlessly investigated her. But we know almost nothing about the investigation
If the Times want to be regarded as a great newspaper it will have to act like one.
This column is of little help beyond revealing how far from being a well oiled machine the NYTs is. I'l add the Times is becoming infamous for what it chooses not to print.
5
Trouble is, some of the readers want the news 'out there' two minutes after it happened, but insist that it be perfected to the point of a well-researched history book. You can have one or the other, but even the great NYT is incapable of divining instant facts.
1
Best of the Web has just eviscerate this piece.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-wiretapping-and-the-new-york-times-14...
"Distinguishing between Trump’s assertions and The Times’s reporting is essential."
And, given the number of lurid articles the NYT has published based on fact-free assertions from anonymous sources, completely impossible.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-wiretapping-and-the-new-york-times-14...
"Distinguishing between Trump’s assertions and The Times’s reporting is essential."
And, given the number of lurid articles the NYT has published based on fact-free assertions from anonymous sources, completely impossible.
4
At least you're not ignoring your Jan 20 front page story about Trump's staff being wire tapped, but your rejoinder raises more questions than it answers, such as, why is your Washington bureau stone walling? You used to expose the Deep State, now you seem to partner with it.
4
Here are other things to think about when considering the possibility that Obama may have winked winked or directly ordered tapping, monitoring, surveillance on Trump and/or his team.
1) What punishment would Obama face if caught? Think Tricky Dicky. If he'd helped cover up the plumbers break-in in 1976 when he was going out of office -- exactly what would his risk have been? Ditto Obama. What did he have to lose?
2) Obama knows for a certainty that the Times and other Main Stream Outlets would not aggressively a story that Obama in any way shape or form did anything suspect in the 2016 election or sought to undermine Trump's presidency.
3) Obama has plenty of motivation to strike at Trump. Trump's election in and of itself was a repudiation of Obama's legacy and Trump and the Repubs are actively going after O's legacy now that they are in power.
4) Ditto the dems. All the protests and "resistance" rhetoric both in the streets and in congress, as well as in the mainstream media, is orchestrated. Who could do that? Big money lefties like Soros, and Obama loyalists.
To think it isn't possible has a heavy hand in the leaks and the attempts to disable Trump's presidency is naive. To think he wouldn't use various tools at his disposal... well ...
1) What punishment would Obama face if caught? Think Tricky Dicky. If he'd helped cover up the plumbers break-in in 1976 when he was going out of office -- exactly what would his risk have been? Ditto Obama. What did he have to lose?
2) Obama knows for a certainty that the Times and other Main Stream Outlets would not aggressively a story that Obama in any way shape or form did anything suspect in the 2016 election or sought to undermine Trump's presidency.
3) Obama has plenty of motivation to strike at Trump. Trump's election in and of itself was a repudiation of Obama's legacy and Trump and the Repubs are actively going after O's legacy now that they are in power.
4) Ditto the dems. All the protests and "resistance" rhetoric both in the streets and in congress, as well as in the mainstream media, is orchestrated. Who could do that? Big money lefties like Soros, and Obama loyalists.
To think it isn't possible has a heavy hand in the leaks and the attempts to disable Trump's presidency is naive. To think he wouldn't use various tools at his disposal... well ...
4
Obviously Liz has a tough job defending the indefensible in the Times' bias in this Trump reporting.
Those in this thread continuing to defend the Times, and making snark comments about reading proficiency, have a great chance to test their own reading proficiency. Go read a copy of the original Jan. 19th story in the dead trees version of the Times, titled "Wiretapped Data Use in Inquiry of Trump Aides."
Then go read the mobile online version currently available. Note that the word "Wiretapped" in the headline, has now been replaced in the headline with the word "Intercepted." Such dishonest reporting.
Those in this thread continuing to defend the Times, and making snark comments about reading proficiency, have a great chance to test their own reading proficiency. Go read a copy of the original Jan. 19th story in the dead trees version of the Times, titled "Wiretapped Data Use in Inquiry of Trump Aides."
Then go read the mobile online version currently available. Note that the word "Wiretapped" in the headline, has now been replaced in the headline with the word "Intercepted." Such dishonest reporting.
4
"the information that reporters receive comes under strict terms of how it can be used." If those restrictions prevent the Times from telling the whole story, then it's better to leave that information out of the paper.
3
Liz,
Perhaps you can get an answer as to why the Times changed the headline on an article that appeared in the Jan. 20, 2017 edition of the newspaper. In that edition, the headline reads, "Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides." Yet, for some odd reason, the article online now carries a headline that reads: "Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates". Isn't that odd? Must be a coincidence. Would love to see what you can find out.
Perhaps you can get an answer as to why the Times changed the headline on an article that appeared in the Jan. 20, 2017 edition of the newspaper. In that edition, the headline reads, "Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides." Yet, for some odd reason, the article online now carries a headline that reads: "Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates". Isn't that odd? Must be a coincidence. Would love to see what you can find out.
4
Sorry this doesn't cut it. The NY Times is embarrassed because radio host Mark Levin connected the articles the Times had published in 2016. I listened to the FULL Mark Levin tape and it was not off the wall or conspiratorial, he merely read the articles published by the NY Times and a few other outlets including the Washington Post and McClatchey News Service. Frankly I think the NY Times is embarrassed. Instead, they should be happy that their investigative reporting discovered that the U.S. government was in essence spying on a Presidential candidate. That should disturb all Americans regardless of whether you back Trump or not.
5
Very tangled web --- but let's agree to some facts.
1) Flynn was tapped. It could have been us. Flynn could have been the real target OR the Russian ambassador -- and Flynn was collateral damage.
2) Someone leaked the conversation and provided the WH (Obama's) info. That info became public, but while the tap may have been innocent, the leak wasn't. Who leaked?
3) Do political campaigns spy on other campaigns? Old as the hills, the attempts to gather info on your opponent. The Kennedy's wiretapped friends and enemies. Nixon's campaign obviously tried to tap the Dems. Politics is a dirty business.
4) In addition to the Flynn leak, there have been several other serious leaks during Trump's admin. Were these all independent actors or were they orchestrated? If so, by whom?
5) The TImes' reportage clearly states there were taps and surveillance on Trump's campaign members. Who ordered those taps?
We all know the dems were severely hurt Nov 16. Obama's legacy was repudiated. The chosen successor failed to win. Senate, House, state governments are now Republican strongholds. The dems need to find ways to regain political advantage and discrediting Trump, impeding his admin has been the means. Orchestrated protests with paid participants, dem congress people slow walking nominees and opposing everything Trump, the MSM attacks on Trump -- is there any doubt these are coordinated? And why wouldn't Obama's team be motivated to strike at Trump?
1) Flynn was tapped. It could have been us. Flynn could have been the real target OR the Russian ambassador -- and Flynn was collateral damage.
2) Someone leaked the conversation and provided the WH (Obama's) info. That info became public, but while the tap may have been innocent, the leak wasn't. Who leaked?
3) Do political campaigns spy on other campaigns? Old as the hills, the attempts to gather info on your opponent. The Kennedy's wiretapped friends and enemies. Nixon's campaign obviously tried to tap the Dems. Politics is a dirty business.
4) In addition to the Flynn leak, there have been several other serious leaks during Trump's admin. Were these all independent actors or were they orchestrated? If so, by whom?
5) The TImes' reportage clearly states there were taps and surveillance on Trump's campaign members. Who ordered those taps?
We all know the dems were severely hurt Nov 16. Obama's legacy was repudiated. The chosen successor failed to win. Senate, House, state governments are now Republican strongholds. The dems need to find ways to regain political advantage and discrediting Trump, impeding his admin has been the means. Orchestrated protests with paid participants, dem congress people slow walking nominees and opposing everything Trump, the MSM attacks on Trump -- is there any doubt these are coordinated? And why wouldn't Obama's team be motivated to strike at Trump?
2
Good summary. One point, the connection between Nixon campaign and efforts to tap Democrats are not known, only speculated. Remember the group that was caught at Watergate Hotel were not direct campaign employees. Whether they acted by direction or on their own accord has never been proven either way and likely never will be as anyone who would know is now dead. Nixon was at least publication distraught by the Watergate act and in my research, tend to think that he was not aware nor supported it. However, if information of dubious origin came across his desk, he wouldn't have blown the whistle. These situations are incredibly complicated.
You misstate that your linked story (from January 19th) says the info "was shared with the Trump White House" Trump wasn't sworn in until the next day January 20th so that info was apparently shared with the Obama White House.as the original story states. Also, headline now changed from "wiretaps" to intercepts apparently to align with Obama version. Will readers be alerted with explanation?
2
"others, with flagrant political motives" - you can write this with a straight face? What could be the motive for leaking and then reporting the wiretapped information if not flagrant political motives? And then claiming the NYT is above it all. Stunning.
12
During Watergate they claimed Nixon didn't know about the break-in ... until after the fact.
5
I love the little warning at the end of the story about allowing the narrative to be controlled by those with flagrant political bias. How does one describe the reporting of the NYT on Trump except as flagrantly politically biased? Reading the NYT the past year has been like reading a talking points memo from the Democratic party.
13
I am relieved that the NYT has finally realized that it's readers are incapable of understanding the NYT reporting and will now publish Cliff Notes clarifications by its Public Editor. After all, what is the role of the Public Editor, if not to guide understanding when a series of stories seem to support facts contrary to the editorial pages. In fact, I think it would be helpful to have your commentary accompany every article so readers would not have to bear the burden of misunderstanding the facts presented in the "wrong" way.
11
Who put surveillance on the Trump campaign. When, why, who authorized it and who knew about it? If President Obama's administration investigated the opposition party candidate in the 2016 presidential election it is much worse than what the Russians or Wikileaks did.
6
'Elisabeth Bumiller, the bureau chief, said the January story was referring to information picked up from wiretaps and other intelligence collected overseas, a process that requires no warrants.'
Now you're getting closer. There's a rumour going round the eavesdropping was tasked to Britain's GCHQ agency to give Obama's henchman deniability and to evade US laws. If true this is actually worse than Trump's allegation. Something rotten is happening just below the surface here. Don't hold your breath though for NYT 'journalists' to fish any deeper.
Now you're getting closer. There's a rumour going round the eavesdropping was tasked to Britain's GCHQ agency to give Obama's henchman deniability and to evade US laws. If true this is actually worse than Trump's allegation. Something rotten is happening just below the surface here. Don't hold your breath though for NYT 'journalists' to fish any deeper.
6
"There's a rumour going round ..."
That's exactly how trolls start rumors. Please cite a reliable source.
That's exactly how trolls start rumors. Please cite a reliable source.
2
Exactly. Obama and his administration were smart enough to create layers of plausible deniability. Trump's tweet was perfect, he whipped everyone into a frenzy that will lead to an independent congressional commission to investigate. Much more powerful than any evidence he has in hand, that the media would discredit upon arrival.
2
You find the source on Zerohedge.com!
Keep lying to yourself, Liz.
5
This reminds me of the Melissa McCarthy "Circular Usage of Words" SNL Sean Spicer skit.
1
The spin on this story is that Trump accused Obama of personally climbing the walls of Trump Tower and running wires to tap his rotary phone... Seriously the tweet is likely referencing the "Obama-admin" in general and wiretapping in 2017 is done at the click of a button by the NSA/CIA without a warrant.
7
Two words come to mind after reading Ms. Spayd's prevarications: plausible deniability. Saying the president isn't responsible for the actions of his administration is like saying the captain of the Titanic wasn't responsible for the ship hitting an iceberg.
9
Please do not attempt to explicate US intelligence agency gathering of raw data - phone audio, text, email, etc - without referring to executive order 12333 which authorizes US intelligence agencies (including NSA) to collect and store (for eternity) all audio, text, email of Americans without any warrant. This is has been reported for over a decade beginning at least when Bill Binney made such revelations. This data can't legally be looked at without a warrant but the interception, collection, and storing of this data can and is done all the time. The fact that it can't legally be looked at doesn't mean that it is not looked at as reports have indicated 3000-6000 intelligence agents have the ability to access this data some of which is anonymized and some of which is not. The point is this is not news but the media appears to be intentionally obtuse about this basic point but suggesting (falsely) that either there was probable cause to issue a (FISA) warrant against Trump or his associates or Trump is ipso facto lying. A third (and much more obvious) possibility exists: Flynn and other Trump associates communications (email, text, audio) were all collected and stored (as they are collected and stored for virtually all Americans) and then one of the 3,000-6,000 intelligence agents leaked this in the form of a transcript to the NYT. Presumably said intelligence agent could have used intermediaries and feigned digital fingerprints to cover his/her tracks.
4
Thank you
1
I don't fault the Times.
First of all, "sources" now come from many more places than before, and they have widely varying agendas and so they leak their material in targeted ways, to this site and not to that one, and they might even lie to throw a little misdirection at the whole situation.
What exactly do we have here? For one thing, still left to be revealed is why Flynn lied to Pence: (a) There is no way he discussed anything with the Russian Ambassador other than what Trump and he agreed on beforehand, including sanctions relief; (b) There is no way he would choose, on his own, to keep Pence out of the loop. Thus we can readily conclude that the DoJ report of what Flynn had done came as no surprise to the President. But now that it was in the open, Flynn had to go.
There's your TrumpGate right there. He's been covering this up since it happened. At some point somebody is going to be under oath - Flynn, presumably - and will be forced to lie again or come clean. Perjury trap, anyone?
The Times, the Post and others are invaluable at a time like this. Just stick to what you do best, or at least used to do best: Give us accurate reporting and never stop digging til you lay the truth bare.
Remember how important that job used to be? It couldn't be more important anymore. And don't spread yourselves thin chasing every other story that comes along. Stick to being the Fourth Estate, keeping us safe from government run amok.
We need you now more than ever.
First of all, "sources" now come from many more places than before, and they have widely varying agendas and so they leak their material in targeted ways, to this site and not to that one, and they might even lie to throw a little misdirection at the whole situation.
What exactly do we have here? For one thing, still left to be revealed is why Flynn lied to Pence: (a) There is no way he discussed anything with the Russian Ambassador other than what Trump and he agreed on beforehand, including sanctions relief; (b) There is no way he would choose, on his own, to keep Pence out of the loop. Thus we can readily conclude that the DoJ report of what Flynn had done came as no surprise to the President. But now that it was in the open, Flynn had to go.
There's your TrumpGate right there. He's been covering this up since it happened. At some point somebody is going to be under oath - Flynn, presumably - and will be forced to lie again or come clean. Perjury trap, anyone?
The Times, the Post and others are invaluable at a time like this. Just stick to what you do best, or at least used to do best: Give us accurate reporting and never stop digging til you lay the truth bare.
Remember how important that job used to be? It couldn't be more important anymore. And don't spread yourselves thin chasing every other story that comes along. Stick to being the Fourth Estate, keeping us safe from government run amok.
We need you now more than ever.
2
Whatever surveillance that cost Trump's National Security Advisor his job was in place during the Obama Administration. The phone call in question was in Trump Tower and then leaked. Not to mention the monitoring of private phone calls Trump accepted from Taiwan and Australia...also by coincidence leaked to the press. Did Obama have knowledge of this? I guarantee you Obama doesn't want to go down that road.
6
It would seem from the comments that many people are still confused, and are making this a partisan issue. Perhaps Gen. Michael Hayden's (former NSA director, former CIA director) comments may help to make it clearer. This past week he's been on Charlie Rose and on the Stephen Colbert show (to promote his book). When asked if President Obama could have possibly wiretapped Trump Tower, he flat out said "No." He explained, as has been explained in other articles, that the DOJ would have to ask for a FISA order, and in order to obtain one, evidence must be presented that there is reasonable suspicion that the person being monitored is either engaged in criminal activity or is engaged in spying, terrorism, or other acts against the country. The taps from which conversations have been recorded have not been on Americans, but on Kislyak, for example, because it is usual to monitor foreign diplomats who may well be spies. Gen. Michael Hayden, with his experience, knows whereof he speaks, and could not by any stretch of the imagination be called a partisan for the Democrats.
As far as the Congressional investigation -- a separate issue -- that is to try to determine if the Russians did indeed interfere with the election last November. A number of people associated with Trump's campaign (Page, Manafort, Flynn, for example) did have some kind of ties with the Russians. It is looking into how far these ties go and if any wrongdoing resulted.
As far as the Congressional investigation -- a separate issue -- that is to try to determine if the Russians did indeed interfere with the election last November. A number of people associated with Trump's campaign (Page, Manafort, Flynn, for example) did have some kind of ties with the Russians. It is looking into how far these ties go and if any wrongdoing resulted.
2
Of course he said "no." He's a bureaucrat, and bureaucrats lie. Do you think he'd "come clean" on a TV talk and comedy show?
1
On October 16th the the headline in the Times was "Investigating Donald Trump, FBI Sees No Clear Link To Russia". Gee, that implies there was an Obama administration investigation. In the story "F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank." Did the FBI do this without a warrant? Computer logs were supplied to Times reporters by the FBI. Did the FBI conjure them up out of thin air? The FBI usually conducts domestic investigations. Was the FBI using the Times to plant a story? If so, fairness dictates you expose the agents that released gleaned information illegally. It appears the Times was party (albeit willingly) to an illegal act. It's a little late for the Times to try and reclaim its virtue after selling itself on the corner for the last year. The parsing between the FBI, intelligence services and White House is humorous. Those organizations work for the White House! Perhaps you should ask Loretta Lynch if the administration was investigating Trump. But she seems to be unavailable. Is she hiding in the D.C. bunker with Obama and Jarrett? Or, is she a patient in a hospital somewhere, wrapped in bandages, drugged and unable to speak?
7
NYT is on the hit list of the president. Readers must learn to be more discerning, and writers must be more careful to write truth only. Paul Krugman is the only known good guy writer. He knows truth from fiction/guessing. I have only an A.B., but I can tell the difference. Seems too many who write and/or read are too low on intelligence and knowledge. Same as in college. I thought I was being cute when I purposely missed Phi Beta Kappa by 1/1000 of a point on the easiest class I enrolled in. How stupid of me when I knew the subject from the beginning with no extra effort.
Trump never made reference to their being a warrant. Its plausible that he was referring to a confluence of two events. First, current law allows the administration to intercept conversations when one party is outside of a US. Such intercepts are conducted without warrant, court order or congressional authorization. Its likely (given the mass surveillance of international phone calls conducted by the Obama Administration) that the NSA had swept up conversations between Trump and foreign leaders in this large net. Second, on January 12, 2017, President Obama amended Executive Order 12333 permitting the NSA to share these intercepts with 16 other agencies. The consequence of this executive order (intended or not) was to open up this information to thousands of people, some of whom, no doubt, harbored a desire to hurt the incoming administration. The EO enabled members of the intelligence community to data-mine the mass surveillance data looking for conversations from Trump and his campaign team, thus enabling them to use the results for nefarious purposes. The leak of the General Flynn transcript fits this fact pattern. To say that there is no evidence that Trump and his team were victims of President Obama's "order" (EO 12333) concerning "wiretaps" (foreign surveillance) demonstrates willful blindness and an abject lack of curiosity by the NYT.
2
Oh, c'mon. I read the Times reporting and it never alleged, let alone supported that Trump had been subject to wiretapping or clandestine surveillance.
It did report that the Russian influence on the election was being investigated. It did report strong suspicion from intelligence agencies that the Russians deliberately tried to sway the election. It did report that many in the Trump camp had met with the Russian ambassador, and did alleged that sanctions may have been discussed, and that Jeff Sessions lied about the meetings, as did General Flynn. The Times has never reported that Trump was connected to election sabotage. The Times did report that people in the White House acted to assure that evidence gathered in the investigation could not be accidentally lost, or buried.
Frankly, it isn't all that hard to parse. The Russians wanted Trump over Clinton. And Trump is more friendly to Russian interests. But there is no evidence that Trump orchestrated or played a role in the Russian's scheme. Just as there is no evidence that Trump was ever wire-tapped. There is evidence that the prior Administration had little faith that the incoming Administration could be guaranteed to follow-up on allegations.
It is a big smoking mess, and it sure shows the Trump administration off poorly. But as far as the actions of President Obama, what the Times has reported is that there is no there, there.
It did report that the Russian influence on the election was being investigated. It did report strong suspicion from intelligence agencies that the Russians deliberately tried to sway the election. It did report that many in the Trump camp had met with the Russian ambassador, and did alleged that sanctions may have been discussed, and that Jeff Sessions lied about the meetings, as did General Flynn. The Times has never reported that Trump was connected to election sabotage. The Times did report that people in the White House acted to assure that evidence gathered in the investigation could not be accidentally lost, or buried.
Frankly, it isn't all that hard to parse. The Russians wanted Trump over Clinton. And Trump is more friendly to Russian interests. But there is no evidence that Trump orchestrated or played a role in the Russian's scheme. Just as there is no evidence that Trump was ever wire-tapped. There is evidence that the prior Administration had little faith that the incoming Administration could be guaranteed to follow-up on allegations.
It is a big smoking mess, and it sure shows the Trump administration off poorly. But as far as the actions of President Obama, what the Times has reported is that there is no there, there.
Wow, the computer in the Day Room must have been fixed, huh?
If you want to acquit yourself, there are two ways, first way, you have to convince everyone that you are legitimate, or second way, you have to put forward a offender victim creating a perception of your legitimacy. What is more, the first way is very tiring, so many poaeple choose the second way as President Donald Trump.
1
Your admonition helps, I think. I have had no problems following the reporting, but I can see where readers who pay a little less attention may get confused. In an atmosphere in which the highest government officials and their spokespersons are willing to lie without reservation it is essential that reporters take extra care to leave as few openings as possible for miscommunication.
"There is no evidence that what Trump said is true, and a line of prominent officials, most notably the former director of national intelligence James Clapper, have stepped forward to cast doubt on the claim."
Great sentence!!
For starters, there is no evidence whatsoever Russia hacked the DNC, or interfered in the US election. That's hardly prevented the NY Times from repeatedly declaring it as fact.
And James Clapper! Admitted liar! Prominent official!
Go Times!!!
Great sentence!!
For starters, there is no evidence whatsoever Russia hacked the DNC, or interfered in the US election. That's hardly prevented the NY Times from repeatedly declaring it as fact.
And James Clapper! Admitted liar! Prominent official!
Go Times!!!
5
The issue of "wiretapping" will be resolved within weeks, when the Congressional inquiries to the FBI are concluded. But there should be a careful inquiry about face to face meetings at Trump Tower with potential agents of the Russian Federation. I have to imagine that the Secret Service has records/logs of all individuals allowed access to the President-elect's suites (see, e.g., Carrie's visits to PEOTUS in Homeland). And is it plausible that the Ambassador met with DJT's immediate circle at Trump Tower and DJT did not even say hello?
I read both the NY Times and the WoP. I get a lot of my information from the print media and blogs, more than from the "talking heads" on TV. I do watch Rachel Maddow though, she is good at making complicated news easier to understand.
I can understand some of the confusion about this "wiretapping" story. I also understand that the story is ongoing, so bits and pieces of it come out here and there, so I don't get a full picture of what is going on...yet!
What is taking place in our nation today is dangerous, scary and disgusting. People now in the trump administration or bent on "burning it all down"! and are well on their way to accomplishing that if it were not for the digging and reporting of our free press. It is the only thin layer of air between the enormous and very dangerous lies vomiting forth from trump and his vultures and the truth really seeing the light of day via a free press.
The Times has disappointed me in the past with stories that were not vetted properly, but what the Times has done is take responsibility for its errors and took steps not to repeat them. That is very important to me.
I will close with this, trump did not take responsibility for the death of the Navy Seal that he sent on a mission over a dinner. What that says to me about trump is simple, he is not a person of Honor, and is not to be trusted to tell the truth under any circumstances. He is NOT my president!!
Keep on digging Times and Wop, keep on digging.!!
I can understand some of the confusion about this "wiretapping" story. I also understand that the story is ongoing, so bits and pieces of it come out here and there, so I don't get a full picture of what is going on...yet!
What is taking place in our nation today is dangerous, scary and disgusting. People now in the trump administration or bent on "burning it all down"! and are well on their way to accomplishing that if it were not for the digging and reporting of our free press. It is the only thin layer of air between the enormous and very dangerous lies vomiting forth from trump and his vultures and the truth really seeing the light of day via a free press.
The Times has disappointed me in the past with stories that were not vetted properly, but what the Times has done is take responsibility for its errors and took steps not to repeat them. That is very important to me.
I will close with this, trump did not take responsibility for the death of the Navy Seal that he sent on a mission over a dinner. What that says to me about trump is simple, he is not a person of Honor, and is not to be trusted to tell the truth under any circumstances. He is NOT my president!!
Keep on digging Times and Wop, keep on digging.!!
1
After the last several years of HRC coverage, how anyone at the Times can write "...than let others, with flagrant political motives, do so.", is astonishing.
3
This piece fails.
The Public Editor summarizes Trump's claims, then summarizes the Times' reporting, determines that the two summaries are not so dissimilar, and so concludes that the Times' reporting's relationship to the President's claims is unclear.
It isn't true. The Times' reporting does not support Trump's claims - indeed. the reporting taken as a whole places the accusations in their proper historical context i.e, unprecedentness etc.
That a lazy reader could reasonably be confused about all of this does not mean that the murkiness exists independently. It does not.
The Public Editor summarizes Trump's claims, then summarizes the Times' reporting, determines that the two summaries are not so dissimilar, and so concludes that the Times' reporting's relationship to the President's claims is unclear.
It isn't true. The Times' reporting does not support Trump's claims - indeed. the reporting taken as a whole places the accusations in their proper historical context i.e, unprecedentness etc.
That a lazy reader could reasonably be confused about all of this does not mean that the murkiness exists independently. It does not.
Anyone who starts off their article with James Clapper already has some problems.
3
The two things that the NYT and Pres. Trump appear to have in common:
1. Overreliance on anonymous sources.
2. Stories based on another media or Twitter source's spin machine.
Let's get back to credible (to your readers) sourcing of the news.
1. Overreliance on anonymous sources.
2. Stories based on another media or Twitter source's spin machine.
Let's get back to credible (to your readers) sourcing of the news.
2
This may also be helpful: a link to the ACLU's explanation of what government can and cannot do. And remember: the ACLU is not fond of surveillance. The 'CL' stands for Civil Liberties, remember, and privacy is paramount with their mission. They are highly critical of surveillance.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/trumps-wiretapping-accusations-he...
The issue, of course, is warrants. Judges issue warrants based on cause. Barack Obama cannot order any intelligence agency to wiretap anybody without cause. Period. So where are these warrants? Why can't Trump, as President of the United States just ask the Justice Department to produce the warrants? He won't ask, because he knows there aren't any. He just wants us all to think Barack Obama tapped his phones.
Now, if you want to read an interesting slant on why Trump's accusation against Obama may not be protected by First Amendment freedom of speech, try the following link:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-06/trump-s-wiretap-tweet...
All the NYT ever did was report on connections between Trump associates and the Russians. You've supported nothing regarding these Trump phone/Trump Tower wiretapping claims. Trump should have kept his tweets shut on this one.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/trumps-wiretapping-accusations-he...
The issue, of course, is warrants. Judges issue warrants based on cause. Barack Obama cannot order any intelligence agency to wiretap anybody without cause. Period. So where are these warrants? Why can't Trump, as President of the United States just ask the Justice Department to produce the warrants? He won't ask, because he knows there aren't any. He just wants us all to think Barack Obama tapped his phones.
Now, if you want to read an interesting slant on why Trump's accusation against Obama may not be protected by First Amendment freedom of speech, try the following link:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-06/trump-s-wiretap-tweet...
All the NYT ever did was report on connections between Trump associates and the Russians. You've supported nothing regarding these Trump phone/Trump Tower wiretapping claims. Trump should have kept his tweets shut on this one.
1
Trump built his political career as the anti-Obama. Now that he's President, he wants to make sure that his signature issue stays in front of his base which will believe anything that's sinister about President Obama. It will keep it happy while he takes their medical care, dirties the water and air, makes abortions illegal, gives big tax breaks to the wealthy, cuts the social safety net, deports maybe millions of hard working immigrants, cozies up to the Russians who likely have bankrolled his investments and trashes the US reputation around the world with nationalist bluster.
Really disappointed in the NYT trying to backtrack their way out of this. It's hard for me to defend them as an unbiased news source when they write these types of articles. When it comes to Trump, people around him having casual links to Russia is enough for the NYT to justify writing dozens of articles entertaining the idea of Trump being a puppet for Putin. The idea being that if the people around him are doing it, then he must be involved himself. That is the standard of "proof" the NYT has established for itself over the past few weeks. However, when it comes to Obama there is a different standard. The only way they would admit the possibility of fault would be if a video surfaced of Obama telling someone to do this. Short of indisputable evidence they won't even entertain the idea that Obama might have been involved in what seems to be a large scale effort to discredit Trump. The reality is people within any administration will often do things without the President officially signing off on it for purposes of plausible deniability. While sometimes it is genuinely a rogue official, more times than not it is coming from the top. Considering how large scale these leaks have been, it's hard to imagine how Obama could not have known this was going on. Even if he was somehow ignorant of the ongoings of his subordinates, I don't think the idea he might have been involved is so ridiculous that those who entertain it deserve the level of scrutiny the NYT seems eager to deliver.
2
If you are one who gave Obama "credit" for "killing OBL" - then you damn well need to give Obama"credit" for "wiretapping" Trump. Can't have it both ways. Deal with it.###
2
How do you investigate the absence of possible wiretapping? In other words, when there is no evidence of wiretapping found, won't the investigators simply say the investigation must continue. Forever? Until the matter is forgotten? Both the government agencies in authority have said there was none. Why waste more tax money with expensive fake wild goose chases? All to create more cover ups to an already absurd, loopy, documented-as-unsupported tweet.
10
Most interesting is that if there was wiretapping, it could have been done only with the permission of the court, and only after exhaustive investigation...the judge has to have been convinced there was probable cause!
Why would anyone believe what James Clapper says? He blatantly lied to Congress in response to Senator Ron Wydens's questions about NSA spying. We only found out because of Edward Snowden's revelations. Yet the Times dishonestly presents Clapper as a credible source of information about spying without noting that Clapper lied under oath to Congress, about spying.
28
Why do you believe people in Government ? Just because they have not been caught lying doesn't mean they are not. The obvious answers is because want to believe them. Here in lies the problem.
I'm not sure it was blatant, at least in the light of current parlance. Clapper was troubled by his own response and tried to clarify it in subsequent interviews. While perhaps unsatisfying to some, the remarks were remakeably candid and self-critical. Clapper is an incredibly well-respected public servant and should not be denigrated out of hand.
Excuse me, John, but why would anyone believe what Donald Trump says. This is the man who insisted for years that President Obama was born in Kenya, who insisted he won the biggest ("landslide") Electoral College victory (at 306) since Ronald Reagan, when in actuality the only president whose EC totals he *did* exceed was G. W. Bush....twice. He's complained about being shortchanged on everything from the size of his Inauguration Day crowd to the size of his hands. He's denied saying things that are immortalized on video. This man is absolutely pathologically unable to tell the trulth, or perhaps to tell truth from delusion. Either way, I'd believe in the Tooth Fairy before I'd believe anything Donald Trump says.
1
I appreciate the NY Times has cleared some of the alleged confusion on the part of people who at least claim to be readers of the paper. Whenever you hear a spokesperson for Trump claim that mainstream media news reports support their claims you should start from the premise that it's probably a misrepresentation of the facts. We know this from experience with Trump and his representatives. They're "truth challenged" to say the least. But yes, some stories are complicated. A good example was the fake IRS scandal. Very few mainstream media sources ever really understood the complexities of that story or got it right. I personally watched hundreds of hours of testimony and listened to every single witness. Nothing Republicans in the House claimed was ever true, nothing. Similarly virtually nothing Republicans alleged about the fake Benghazi scandal was ever factually accurate either. As far as alleged readers claiming your explanations are disingenuous, in my opinion they are partisan who aren't really interested in complicated stories and getting their own facts right.
19
So illegally releasing taxpayer information to advocacy groups and using donor lists to target people for audits is a fake scandal in your mind? And failing to rescue Americans from a terrorist attack when military assets were available and spinning up, then lying to the American people about the cause and nature of the attack, and finally putting someone in prison as a scapegoat to further your false narrative for your reelection is a false scandal? You would welcome a police state so long as it was one of the Left.
1
Oh yes, the fake Benghazi scandal. Do you get paid by the hour or by the post?
If it was ever asserted that "Trump administration officials authorized wiretaps but not Trump himself" The NY Times Et al. would never find this credible in the least.So if Obama administration officials truly tapped Trump to find incriminating material on him then it's no different.If Obama staff wiretapped Trump it's likely it was with the tacit if not overt approval of President Obama.
Trump may well be right on this.
Trump may well be right on this.
21
Why are people so convinced that if there was wiretapping that the permission didn't come from the White House and probably from the Oval Office.
Wiretapping the campaign of the opposing party in a presidential election is probably one of the most potentially damaging things that a sitting administration could ever do. It would be politically explosive.
No rogue underling would even have a prayer of getting away with it unnoticed, and the higher one goes in the chain of command the more sensitive to the political ramification the matter becomes. A choice to do this would rocket its way up the chain of command all the way to the top.
We already know that the Obama administration intercepted conversations between Gen. Kelly and the Russian Ambassador. So, we know that a portion of the government was looking, but we don't really know how the authorization was obtained, the extent of the authorization, and what agencies were allowed to do the snooping.
My beef with the NY Times is their sweeping it under the rug as President Trump being belligerent and paranoiac even though there is ample evidence that the Obama administration was sweeping telephone calls.
Isn't it better for the Times to investigate until there is sufficient evidence to conclude this is all noise that to leap to judgment without knowing the whole picture?
The Times readers gleefully approve of the pejorative assessments set forth in the news articles (see Comments), but is that really good journalism?
Wiretapping the campaign of the opposing party in a presidential election is probably one of the most potentially damaging things that a sitting administration could ever do. It would be politically explosive.
No rogue underling would even have a prayer of getting away with it unnoticed, and the higher one goes in the chain of command the more sensitive to the political ramification the matter becomes. A choice to do this would rocket its way up the chain of command all the way to the top.
We already know that the Obama administration intercepted conversations between Gen. Kelly and the Russian Ambassador. So, we know that a portion of the government was looking, but we don't really know how the authorization was obtained, the extent of the authorization, and what agencies were allowed to do the snooping.
My beef with the NY Times is their sweeping it under the rug as President Trump being belligerent and paranoiac even though there is ample evidence that the Obama administration was sweeping telephone calls.
Isn't it better for the Times to investigate until there is sufficient evidence to conclude this is all noise that to leap to judgment without knowing the whole picture?
The Times readers gleefully approve of the pejorative assessments set forth in the news articles (see Comments), but is that really good journalism?
3
It seems like Obama didn't know about anything. Everything that happened in the Executive Branch that was even slightly out of line was "unknown" to Obama. It's called plausible deniability, and the liberal elite are excellent at establishing it for themselves.
It was General Flynn, not Kelly, who was recorded. In Flynn's case, he made repeated contact with Kislyak, and it was Kislyak's phone that was tapped, as a matter of course.
I have no doubt that the Ru$$ians will monitor all of Jon Huntsman's conversations once he is confirmed and sent off to Moscow.
I have no doubt that the Ru$$ians will monitor all of Jon Huntsman's conversations once he is confirmed and sent off to Moscow.
1
Sorry to say, but sometimes I wish a big hole would open up and just swallow the entire USA. I think the world would be much better off, although I would miss baseball.
13
will you marry me?
1
Me too. I'm up in years and beginning to believe nearly all we see and hear is nonsense. Beginning to be boring, especially TV, where it seems goofy commercials rule programming.
Or at least DC and NYC (i.e., Wall Street, Long Island)...
Instead of addressing this to NY Times readers, maybe clarifying this with trump's staff (especially Sarah Huckabee Sanders) that needed this to be clarified.
4
Good luck with that. Ms. Sanders makes the late Prof. Irwin Corey seem coherent.
1
Trump accused Obama of ordering wiretaps. It seems clear enough there were wiretaps, instigated at the behest of the Justice Department and/or the IC. Presidents can't (and did not) order wiretaps and that is what Comey, Clapper, etc. are saying.
5
True, but the permission to proceed on such an explosive and politically misguided effort would quickly have reason to move rapidly up the chain of command since the knowledge of such interference would be frightfully damaging.
1
Trump knows only what interests him. What I want to hear and read is his personality disorder, which makes him believe he is is ruler of the world.
So if your direct employees do something, are you responsible?
President Trump consistently displays behaviors associated with a mental condition called Narcissistic Personality Disorder. You can check his public behavior against the typical behaviors of one suffering from this condition and find nearly a one to one match. Here's a link to the Mayo Clinic description... http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-d....
It's not for me to diagnose the president's mental state, but the constant stream of lies and grandiose pronouncements make me lean toward the notion that Mr. Trump is under the control of his out sized ego and he's not really big on empathy nor rational thinking nor consideration of others. Rule by decree seems to be his style, but his decrees seem to reflect a sociopathic bent that dovetails with the doctrinaire thinking of the far-right, who seek to impose their doctrine on everyone else through legislation. Betsy deVos as Secretary of Education is is just the camel's nose. Expect an infection of similar dogmatically driven leadership throughout the Trump presidency.
So, wiretapping? Trump certainly showed cause by cozying up to Putin during the campaign, so it's plausible. Was it done? There doesn't seem to be any court order giving permission, so if it was done it was illegally done or legally done but in secret, which is probably illegal, since a court order is a public document. Obama is a constitutional lawyer and a very smart man. DT lies.
It's not for me to diagnose the president's mental state, but the constant stream of lies and grandiose pronouncements make me lean toward the notion that Mr. Trump is under the control of his out sized ego and he's not really big on empathy nor rational thinking nor consideration of others. Rule by decree seems to be his style, but his decrees seem to reflect a sociopathic bent that dovetails with the doctrinaire thinking of the far-right, who seek to impose their doctrine on everyone else through legislation. Betsy deVos as Secretary of Education is is just the camel's nose. Expect an infection of similar dogmatically driven leadership throughout the Trump presidency.
So, wiretapping? Trump certainly showed cause by cozying up to Putin during the campaign, so it's plausible. Was it done? There doesn't seem to be any court order giving permission, so if it was done it was illegally done or legally done but in secret, which is probably illegal, since a court order is a public document. Obama is a constitutional lawyer and a very smart man. DT lies.
3
The doctor who developed the diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder says Trump is not crazy.
8
Interesting...
And what does that same document say about your Prime Minister?
I find it exceedingly objectionable that you insert yourself into the discussions of American citizens about our domestic politics.
You would be bouncing off the walls if Americans attempted to interfere with your internal politics. Why would you expect us to welcome your presence?
And what does that same document say about your Prime Minister?
I find it exceedingly objectionable that you insert yourself into the discussions of American citizens about our domestic politics.
You would be bouncing off the walls if Americans attempted to interfere with your internal politics. Why would you expect us to welcome your presence?
1
Owl, his Prime Minister? Freeman's handle says he is from Vancouver, WASHINGTON. Don't think they have a Prime Minister, mate.
Jeepers, you guys, this is not that hard. You don't have to tap Trump's computer lines to find out he's communicating with Russia, if you're tapping Russia's lines. Which everyone openly admits.
14
You know, there is that bit about if. when tapping a foreign power's line, you run across an American citizen in the conversation, you need the permission of higher-ups to continue.
Enter the FISA Court.
It is alleged that two requests for wiretap permission were proposed and rejected, and that one was proposed and authorized.
The Press needs to dig into what that "approved" FISA request authorized on order to determine what wiretapping was done legally and what was not.
It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that after being granted FISA permission, that the agency or agencies unilaterally allowed mission-creep to expand the wiretapping base not thinking that they were violating its provisions.
Again, such an act against an opposition's political campaign or its transition organization would have explosive political implications, and few, if any, in the chain of command would be willing to have their signature sitting at the top of the authority chain.
It is not difficult to presume that a decision like this was bumped to the White House, and once in the White House, the normal. common-sense response would to be protected one's own hide.
There is a lot more to this story, and the Times needs to go after it "without fear or favor" for the benefit of The People.
I find it odd that Ms. Spayd isn't publically on board with this recommendation
Enter the FISA Court.
It is alleged that two requests for wiretap permission were proposed and rejected, and that one was proposed and authorized.
The Press needs to dig into what that "approved" FISA request authorized on order to determine what wiretapping was done legally and what was not.
It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that after being granted FISA permission, that the agency or agencies unilaterally allowed mission-creep to expand the wiretapping base not thinking that they were violating its provisions.
Again, such an act against an opposition's political campaign or its transition organization would have explosive political implications, and few, if any, in the chain of command would be willing to have their signature sitting at the top of the authority chain.
It is not difficult to presume that a decision like this was bumped to the White House, and once in the White House, the normal. common-sense response would to be protected one's own hide.
There is a lot more to this story, and the Times needs to go after it "without fear or favor" for the benefit of The People.
I find it odd that Ms. Spayd isn't publically on board with this recommendation
Right, Nancy. Why can't everyone see this?
Acrually Owl, in your fantasy, if the FISA Court approved a wiretap request, the most important thing for the press to find out is on what basis they approved it. i.e. just what was the Trump campaign doing that warranted the approval.
1
"That, in turn, has allowed his administration to assert that the basis for his claims rests, in part, on reporting by The Times."
So POTUS & Co. are claiming he got the information from one of the news outlets he specifically singled out as a failing newspaper publishing 'fake news'? When is the White House going to distribute a handbook so the rest of us can figure out which news is real and which news is fake?
So POTUS & Co. are claiming he got the information from one of the news outlets he specifically singled out as a failing newspaper publishing 'fake news'? When is the White House going to distribute a handbook so the rest of us can figure out which news is real and which news is fake?
11
It's really easy. If it praises 45 or advances his agenda then it's real. If it is negative, not matter how factual it is fake.
No, the Times (I do not capitalize the 'the's' for newspapers) and several other news outlets are pointed to because they are public. The idea is that either these newspapers are making false reports, or they provide support for the view that the Obama administration used it's power to engage in surveillance against an opposition candidate. If the news reports are false, then the news outlets should acknowledge this. Trump has turned the tables. Before, reports of such surveillance were pointed to as evidence of sinister activities by Trump. Trump has successfully pointed to such reports as evidence of sinister activities by the previous administration (and/or the "intelligence community"). How you feel about these to ways of looking at things depends on which you think is a more serious threat to American democracy: Russia or the deep state (to roughly refer to unelected government people undermining those who have been elected by means of a cooperative press).
1
This is a disingenuous explanation that I think unfortunately tarnishes NYT. You've been caught with your pants down and your bias is showing. Your story in January on investigations about alleged ties between Trump and Russia apparently came from sources meaning to harm Trump with the story, and the NYT duly reported it. Now you are in the position of having to refute Trump's allegations about Obama Administration wiretaps by explaining away your own story, and with the same objective -- to again discredit Trump. What can't you simply do it the honest way? Thing is, the NYT is itself now part of the story.
39
Wrong. Multiple sources are always tapping Russian communications. Trumpanzees got discovered in that web. Obama had nothing to do with it. This is just the Gropenfuhrer himself sounding like his mindless trolls on every stupid issue: "Thanks, Obama." In what UNIVERSE does the Gropenfuhrer ahve NAY CREDIBILITY at ALL?
1
Well said Scott.. thank you
Ok, so the NYT is confused because of its own reporting--well, so am I.
Here's a thought: How about the Times assign a reporter to find out the truth and write and unbiased article on their findings?
Then we will all know the truth.
Here's a thought: How about the Times assign a reporter to find out the truth and write and unbiased article on their findings?
Then we will all know the truth.
17
It's called reading beyond a 4th grade education. It's called understanding that facts may be inconclusive or limited. It's called accepting information for what it is, not twisting it to be what you wish it was.
4
I agree with your conclusions. However, James Clapper is not credible. He has already lied, eyes wide open, to Congress.
As far as I know, he is the only person who can lie to Congress with impunity, playing the "patriotism" card. You will need to look elsewhere for confirmation. Hopefully. Comey is not playing the same card.
Obama's word is good enough for me, and will be for many others.
As far as I know, he is the only person who can lie to Congress with impunity, playing the "patriotism" card. You will need to look elsewhere for confirmation. Hopefully. Comey is not playing the same card.
Obama's word is good enough for me, and will be for many others.
16
Obama's word? He who lied that "if you like your health plan you can keep it." Who also made the claim that there is not a smidgen of corruption related to the IRS targeting conservative groups? You sure have a low bar for honesty.
15
Whatever the bar for honesty was before 45, now a pit is required. Everybody lies at some point, but the quantity and size of the lies under 45 are stunning. The first one that came to mind was "drain the swamp." Then there was the "inauguration size" and I won the popular vote lie, except for "voter fraud". I could go on, but space here is limited. And keep in mind it hasn't even been 100 days yet.
S, if that's your standard, then we will hold you to Trump's claim that his plan, and he endorsed Ryan's would be cheaper, and would cover more people better. Good luck with that.
1
Trump likely repeated a fake news story. If he's wrong (as I suspect), he owes Obama (and others) a public apology.
11
The New Yorker magazine ran an investigative story at least a year ago regarding Trump's loans from Russian oligarchs in London. Trump had numerous bankruptcies on his credit record, and could not get loans fro legitimate banks in America or Europe. He was going under again financially; he needed a bailout from bad real estate investments. His sons do business in Russia; he was put in touch with rich Russians who could get the money laundered through a third party bank: The Bank of Cyprus. Ross is on the Board of that bank, and Ross is not talking. Trump was suddenly solvent.
11
The Times clearly reported that the intercepts were gained through surveillance of Russian phone/electronic communications; that the targets were not U.S. officials but if a Russian person of interest were talking to a U.S official, of course, both sides of the conversation would be picked up. Kislyak, who is widely suspected of being a Russian spy, would, of course be a possible wiretap target. The Times did report this clearly enough for me to pick up on it and I bring no special skills or background to my reading of the news. I know you're trying to be objective about the Times' coverage but your allegation that the Times has been murky in its coverage strikes me as disingenuous.
25
Are we so accustomed to surveillance that no one cares about a warrant, just because the data happens to cross a border? Back in 2013-2014 everyone assured us warrantless recording of citizens never happened; it was just metadata domestically, and calls to or from citizens were not retained when they called internationally. What a difference three years make!
Your read is halfway there. What type looking at is plausible deniability. "How can we intercept the Trump team's comms?" Get authority to put a few likely contacts under surveillance, under separate cover. It's dirty pool.
I agree. I also recall that it was clear that the information was gleaned as a result of routine legal surveillance of foreign targets.
Trump's modus operandi is to keep him at the center of attention, no matter what. The media then follows him, inevitably, paying little attention to other stories. The only positive I see in this continual throwing of bones to hungry animals (no disrespect intended) is that, tith russiagate now growing ever bigger, soon Trump-haters (probably the majority of the country by now) can start yelling, "Lock him up! Lock him up!"
3
No, how about "Investigate!" The dirt at the bottom of that rabbit hole will crush the Democratic party forever. Trump is four steps ahead of everyone here. Why would he show you the little evidence he has in hand, when an independent investigation would uncover so very much more?
What's this? Ms. Spayd says the Times "bold exaggeration." That's news, indeed. She must not read the editorials and op-ed pieces...
5
Sorry, don't fully buy it...the buck stops with the President and he gets daily intel reports...something is still fishy.
9
The duplicity I'm now witnessing from the Times is amazing. For God's sake the January 20th, '17 headline read "WIRETAPPED DATA USED IN INQUIRY OF TRUMP AIDES." Whether the data was gathered by issuing a warrant against Russians or against Trump and associates, the optics are terrible for the Obama administration. A sitting President's administration investigating the opposition party candidate in a presidential election is very troubling. Woodward and Bernstein would have killed for this kind of story. It seems like the present "4th estate" is happy to sit on it's hands for this one. Michael Schmidt appears more comfortable writing implication stories instead of going after the bigger fish - who was surveilling the Trump campaign, who authorized it and did President Obama have knowledge of the surveillance?
24
I truly believe that Times reporters can't keep their biases out of their reporting. Therefore, Schmidt, Shear, Haberman, Thrush and the rest of the sorry lot have no real curiosity to discover that.
1
So you're saying that there is no difference between listening in on Russian communications inside the United States and getting a warrant to tap Trump's telephone and wireless? Did you study with the same people who taught Conway about alternative facts and trumped up terrorist attacks?
2
Dan, it not hard for anyone with an IQ over 75. The Russian officials were wiretapped, so if Trump aides called them, they would be recorded. That is quite different from wiretapping the Trump campaign.
The prime motivation for Trump here is sheer spite against Barak Obama.
Trump is tortured by Obama's popularity as well as his smooth, scandal free terms as President, whereas Trump's has been an unmitigated disaster from the beginning.
Not to mention that Obama is 10X times the man Trump claims to be.
If Trump had any decency, he would at least recognize that by accusing Obama of effectively being a criminal, he is also harming Malia and Sasha.
We should all hope he gets a toxic case of syphilis.
Trump is tortured by Obama's popularity as well as his smooth, scandal free terms as President, whereas Trump's has been an unmitigated disaster from the beginning.
Not to mention that Obama is 10X times the man Trump claims to be.
If Trump had any decency, he would at least recognize that by accusing Obama of effectively being a criminal, he is also harming Malia and Sasha.
We should all hope he gets a toxic case of syphilis.
12
The public editor has zero credibility. The convoluted explanation makes no sense and again demonstrate that the media is the opposition party.
15
So let me get this straight. The NY Times publishes an article back in January 2016 that states:
"One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House."
That's Obama's White House btw.
And now you want us to believe that "the January story was referring to information picked up from wiretaps and other intelligence collected overseas, a process that requires no warrants." Yet that wasn't made clear in the article? And now we're just supposed to believe it because someone else in the NY Times says it's so?
Ok, so let's say that is true. That it really was overseas intelligence. And let's also say that it's true Obama really did not order it even though it was being performed by employees in his administration. Are we to then believe that Obama was just in the dark about it? That he had no idea?
I'm sorry but I don't buy that and it's sad that the "Fake News" NY Times is trying to get us to buy it. You can pull the wool over your liberal readers' eyes, but not mine.
"One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House."
That's Obama's White House btw.
And now you want us to believe that "the January story was referring to information picked up from wiretaps and other intelligence collected overseas, a process that requires no warrants." Yet that wasn't made clear in the article? And now we're just supposed to believe it because someone else in the NY Times says it's so?
Ok, so let's say that is true. That it really was overseas intelligence. And let's also say that it's true Obama really did not order it even though it was being performed by employees in his administration. Are we to then believe that Obama was just in the dark about it? That he had no idea?
I'm sorry but I don't buy that and it's sad that the "Fake News" NY Times is trying to get us to buy it. You can pull the wool over your liberal readers' eyes, but not mine.
25
Taken out of context, read the whole article. Also, this is old news, so what one morning 45 wakes up and suddenly remembers this new article? And if that was the basis for the claim why not say so? I read 45's tweets it's pretty clear he thinks Obama personally had him targeted at 45 towers, there is no evidence for that at all.
That's assuming that the liberal "blind eye" is suddenly and inexplicably able to see, Bob.
1
This really is not rocket science. The president can't wiretap United States citizens. We wiretap **foreigners** all the time. Get it now?
1
This article doesn't help. What needs to be said unequivocally is about the potential ways a conversation can be tapped. Various Times articles allude to this, but never spell it out explicitly. The distinction you have been trying to draw is simple and straightforward (unfortunately, the Times seems not to be able to do straightforward these days).
Everyone knows that the US intelligence agencies and FBI tap the phones and other electronic communications of foreign agents, such as ambassadors, embassy staff, etc. No surprise there. Now if someone, like Michael Flynn, calls such a person, like the Russian ambassador, that call will be captured because all of the ambassador's calls are captured. Hence Michael Flynn's conversation legitimately ends up in the capture database.
This is entirely different than if the agencies were to tap Michael Flynn's "wires". This requires a well-defined and controlled legal procedure involving warrants issued by the courts and validated by the telecommunications carrier(s) involved, that is, significant checks against abuse. This procedure would result (if successful) in *all* of Michael Flynn's communications being intercepted, not just the ones with a foreign agent. Flynn would be the object of the intercept, not "incidental" to it. This is different from someone whose conversation was captured because he was talking with someone else who was the target of an intercept.
Subtle, maybe, but distinct, definitely!
Everyone knows that the US intelligence agencies and FBI tap the phones and other electronic communications of foreign agents, such as ambassadors, embassy staff, etc. No surprise there. Now if someone, like Michael Flynn, calls such a person, like the Russian ambassador, that call will be captured because all of the ambassador's calls are captured. Hence Michael Flynn's conversation legitimately ends up in the capture database.
This is entirely different than if the agencies were to tap Michael Flynn's "wires". This requires a well-defined and controlled legal procedure involving warrants issued by the courts and validated by the telecommunications carrier(s) involved, that is, significant checks against abuse. This procedure would result (if successful) in *all* of Michael Flynn's communications being intercepted, not just the ones with a foreign agent. Flynn would be the object of the intercept, not "incidental" to it. This is different from someone whose conversation was captured because he was talking with someone else who was the target of an intercept.
Subtle, maybe, but distinct, definitely!
9
This article is a mish mash offering no clarity. It adds to the murk. NYT fails again.
13
The Times' reporting coupled with Trumps' accusations citing the NY Times as confirmation certainly does not dispel the thought that Trump may be right.
Further, we also know, and we know it from Times reporting, that the Obama administration certainly was not beyond using the bald-faced lie to evade revealing that which they are actually doing.
It would be wise for the NY Times' credibility to admit that they have, indeed, contributed to the sense that President Trumps' statements regarding the Obama administration spying on the Republican and Trump election campaign could easily lead to the above conclusion.
And, if it is to be proven that such actions were being taken, it would be an and enormous, and illegal abuse of power, and truly a patently political and unconstitutional extension of powers ceded to the federal government.
Further, we also know, and we know it from Times reporting, that the Obama administration certainly was not beyond using the bald-faced lie to evade revealing that which they are actually doing.
It would be wise for the NY Times' credibility to admit that they have, indeed, contributed to the sense that President Trumps' statements regarding the Obama administration spying on the Republican and Trump election campaign could easily lead to the above conclusion.
And, if it is to be proven that such actions were being taken, it would be an and enormous, and illegal abuse of power, and truly a patently political and unconstitutional extension of powers ceded to the federal government.
16
The headline of this column posed a question that the column, unfortunately, didn't answer, at least as I could fathom it.
7
This attempt at an explanation is very convincing. Unfortunately for The New York Times, it convinces us a coverup is well underway.
14
The confusion this column addresses only exists because readers are trying to figure out Mr. Trump's claim that Pres. Obama bugged Trump Tower, without he benefit of any explanation from Trump. This column would not have been needed if President Trump had provided facts.
The fact that Mr. Trump failed to communicate his evidence obviously means that he does not have it, and wants Congress and the press to stay busy investigating fake stories instead of his own ties to the Russians.
Now, I do not oppose any legitimate claims against Pres. Obama being investigated, and prosecuted if appropriate. Whatever the law calls for. But that is a separate matter from Mr. Trump conspiring with Russia's Putin in his war on democracy. That would be treason!
The two issues should NOT be considered in a single probe, because a single probe subconsciously invites a "balancing" of Obama's infractions against Trump's. Mr. Trump would have us excuse his own impeachable offenses if it transpires that his predecessor did wrong, yet still walks free.
Alternatively, this controversy could be handled privately, under Trump Rules. President Obama could file a slander or defamation of character suit against President Trump, for a $1 billion damage to his "brand." Then when Trump is questioned under oath (in a deposition), he will either reveal the truth or become the defendant in an impeachment trial in the Senate.
The fact that Mr. Trump failed to communicate his evidence obviously means that he does not have it, and wants Congress and the press to stay busy investigating fake stories instead of his own ties to the Russians.
Now, I do not oppose any legitimate claims against Pres. Obama being investigated, and prosecuted if appropriate. Whatever the law calls for. But that is a separate matter from Mr. Trump conspiring with Russia's Putin in his war on democracy. That would be treason!
The two issues should NOT be considered in a single probe, because a single probe subconsciously invites a "balancing" of Obama's infractions against Trump's. Mr. Trump would have us excuse his own impeachable offenses if it transpires that his predecessor did wrong, yet still walks free.
Alternatively, this controversy could be handled privately, under Trump Rules. President Obama could file a slander or defamation of character suit against President Trump, for a $1 billion damage to his "brand." Then when Trump is questioned under oath (in a deposition), he will either reveal the truth or become the defendant in an impeachment trial in the Senate.
5
I never believe anything Trump says. Even his self-proclaimed "grabbing of genitals" seemed to be over the top braggadocio. I'm glad I'm in a position where nothing he says will ever matter to me. There are plenty of jerks in the world, and he is just one more of them.
5
Whenever the "mainstream" media lets itself veer into a sort of sloppy vagueness that seems to support an obvious Trumpian fantasy, I begin to despair that even the NYT, let's say, is falling for the propaganda. Possibly they are not, but supreme clarity is urgently required in these dangerous times. A very welcome article on this important issue!
2
Good grief, is Elisabeth Bumiller still working for The Times? And as Washington Bureau Chief? After her dive into the tank with the GW Bush administration on invading Iraq (I'm quite sure she's the one who said "You can't call the President a liar,") she's the very last reporter who should be covering Mr. Trump who is world class in the lying department. Bumiller started out on the Social pages reporting on the wedding of Charles and Diana and she should go back to it. Let her stand outside the gate at Mar-A-Lago and take down the names of Palm Beach grandees going to the Red Cross Ball. That seems about her speed. Making her Washington Bureau Chief is about like making Katie Couric the anchor of CBS Evening News. What was Dean Baquet thinking?
4
You are correct. She is the one about the president lying. I agree with your sentiments with one exception. Do you have evidence that Baquet actually thinks?
This explanation is clear as mud.
It is entirely possible that Trump conversations were tapped...if he was speaking to Ru$$ians, such as Kislyak, as Flynn was proven to have done. The tapping, though, might have been done from the other end in that case. In that event, Trump's accusation could come back to bite him, hard.
James Clapper, sigh. You mean the guy who lied under oath to the $enate Intelligence Committee under questioning by Ron Wyden (D-OR)? The guy who later admitted it was the least untrue untrue answer he could give? THAT guy? I've got to say, I am not compelled by Clapper's credibility.
I agree that confirming that Times reporting does not actually substantiate Trump's claims might require stripping anonymous cover from some sources.
All the more reason for the Times to adopt a policy that sources granted anonymity whose information proves to be false forfeit that grant of anonymity. Fix your problem right quick for you.
It is entirely possible that Trump conversations were tapped...if he was speaking to Ru$$ians, such as Kislyak, as Flynn was proven to have done. The tapping, though, might have been done from the other end in that case. In that event, Trump's accusation could come back to bite him, hard.
James Clapper, sigh. You mean the guy who lied under oath to the $enate Intelligence Committee under questioning by Ron Wyden (D-OR)? The guy who later admitted it was the least untrue untrue answer he could give? THAT guy? I've got to say, I am not compelled by Clapper's credibility.
I agree that confirming that Times reporting does not actually substantiate Trump's claims might require stripping anonymous cover from some sources.
All the more reason for the Times to adopt a policy that sources granted anonymity whose information proves to be false forfeit that grant of anonymity. Fix your problem right quick for you.
5
Brilliant!
1
It feels like institutional capture has already taken place with this public editor. The Russia paranoia that has been displayed by the NYT for months now has left me disbelieving most of what I read. And not just about the Russia paranoia. This piece is underwhelming in tackling the issue. Is it now the case that to get a story on the 'front', all an NYT reporter has to do is pitch a Russia angle? I noticed, even in coverage of the latest Wikileaks data dump, a reference to maleware blah blah blah used in many countries "including Russia". Oooooo so "including Russia". Then it must be bad. The PE needs to take on the bigger issue of overwhelming Russia paranoia and the stoking of anti-Russian sentiment, nearly all of it based on no hard facts and endless anonymous sources. Of course a previous PE tried to take on the overuse of anon sources, and obviously didn't get very far.
11
Does anyone in the world know where Trump got his information? Surely, someone can say "I asked him, and he told me that....."
And if no one can, that really makes his statement ludicrous.
He's already the least transparent President ever, by not releasing his tax returns.
He will be the least responsive by not answering this critical question.
And if he says "The NY Times" then the obvious followup would be
where and when?
Note, I doubt that it was the NY Times due to the timing of his tweet. His tweet said I just learned....and the Times articles came before that time frame.
And if no one can, that really makes his statement ludicrous.
He's already the least transparent President ever, by not releasing his tax returns.
He will be the least responsive by not answering this critical question.
And if he says "The NY Times" then the obvious followup would be
where and when?
Note, I doubt that it was the NY Times due to the timing of his tweet. His tweet said I just learned....and the Times articles came before that time frame.
2
Emperor Donnie calls the New York Times "fake news."
To the extent that he is relying on reports published in the New York Times, he must be relying on "fake news.
He says he has "just learned" of the wire tapping that he accuses President Obama of conducting or ordering. He fails to provide any factual basis for his allegation.
In my opinion, this article attempts to find meaning in a tweet when no meaning actually is present.
If I alleged that someone robbed me at gunpoint, the police would ask me to provide details: where, when, what was taken, what did the robber look like, how was he dressed, what kind of gun did he have, etc.
Here Emperor Donnie asserts that "he has just learned" of wiretapping. He can be expected to state what facts he bases his claim on, at the very least. So far, radio silence, with absolutely no facts presented. Just a bald-faced allegation from a guy who has lied in public numerous times.
Without more, the claim is simply a libelous and defamatory accusation that President Obama committed a felony.
To the extent that he is relying on reports published in the New York Times, he must be relying on "fake news.
He says he has "just learned" of the wire tapping that he accuses President Obama of conducting or ordering. He fails to provide any factual basis for his allegation.
In my opinion, this article attempts to find meaning in a tweet when no meaning actually is present.
If I alleged that someone robbed me at gunpoint, the police would ask me to provide details: where, when, what was taken, what did the robber look like, how was he dressed, what kind of gun did he have, etc.
Here Emperor Donnie asserts that "he has just learned" of wiretapping. He can be expected to state what facts he bases his claim on, at the very least. So far, radio silence, with absolutely no facts presented. Just a bald-faced allegation from a guy who has lied in public numerous times.
Without more, the claim is simply a libelous and defamatory accusation that President Obama committed a felony.
4
One of the most tainted Presidents since Harding is now accusing one of the most slander free gentlemen to ever occupy Jefferson's house. Why are we listening to the Trump U scammer? His presidency will not last through four years of increasing scandals. Not to mention his lack of education and inability to string two rational sentences together. The reading of someone else's words from a teleprompter does not count.
1
".... one of the most slander free gentlemen to ever occupy Jefferson's house"
Oh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Oh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Does the grate orange one not know that President Obama is no longer President?! What is rump's fixation with blaming/accusing/admonishing etc., President Obama? rump is like the little brat in the neighborhood that no parent wants their children to play with because he's such a little monster. Bannon should send the orange one to the Lincoln bedroom until he can act his age..if that's at all possible...which I seriously doubt.
4
So the Times can use anything the current government or any of the White House staff says or does, i.e. the implementation of the first travel ban, to excoriate President Trump and blame him personally, but they can't bridge the connection to President Obama's involvement? No wonder no one trusts this piece of trash newspaper. Either they are so blind to their bias or they are a bunch of incompetent journalist wanna-be's. I think it's both.
10
And you are reading this inside baseball column in a newspaper that you think is incompetent because....????
Your slander, like your lying presidents, of Pres. Obama is bizarre. Let trump put up his proof. Or he should do the honorable thing and admit he is a liar.
Your slander, like your lying presidents, of Pres. Obama is bizarre. Let trump put up his proof. Or he should do the honorable thing and admit he is a liar.
2
No he is correct. Also Obama had one of the most corrupt administrations in recent memory (something the Times will never tell you). He has weaponized nearly every federal agency and he also harassed the press including James Rosen, it is not a reach to believe he was involved in some way in what Trump charges.
2
RML, because it was a link from an article about, not surprisingly, the decline in NY Times revenue and the income hit the publisher is taking this year. And sorry you can't understand a simple argument, by that's probably why you read the Times.
Maybe you should just do the honorable thing and admit that you are biased, intolerant and filled with too much hatred toward Trump to analyze or debate anything about him fairly.
Maybe you should just do the honorable thing and admit that you are biased, intolerant and filled with too much hatred toward Trump to analyze or debate anything about him fairly.
1
This article is deserving of a large headline on the front page. The New York Times is either responsible for creating fake news upon which President Trump relied, or the New York Times is accurate and the Obama administration was involved in intercepting Trump campaign information.
16
Look the truth is fewer and fewer people trust the Times. You have been partisan advocates of the Democrat party for years. That advocacy has accelerated in the last 8 years. You refused to report on many negative aspects of Obama and his corrupt administration. Now you try to claim that Trump is absolutely wrong and that the Times never really said anything that even partially supports his claim. It just does not fly. Additionally we see the Times constantly hiring reporters from sites like Politico who have an axe to grind and we also see evidence that some of your reporters like Haberman colluded (as did Thrush) with the Hilary campaign as shown in Podesta's emails.
15
Yeah, the difference between tapping Russian officials and tapping Trump Tower isn't that hard to understand.
3
I'm sure Ms. Spayd had the best intentions, but this column -- which smells a little like false equivalence -- will not help. Could the Times put together a graphic or short explainer that contrasts its reporting vs. Trump's claims? Yes, that would be useful. But by using words like "similarities" and "bold exaggeration" (instead of, say, "outright falsehood") in discussing Trump's claims -- which to this point are founded on nothing but whatever madness lurks in his skull -- the column will only provide more fuel to wacko conspiracy theorists, including the one in the Oval Office.
5
Wiretaps require a FISA Warrant which requires a lot of evidence to grant such a Warrant. There is NO evidence that President Obama ever requested a FISA Warrant to wiretap this wingnut's Tower server, phones or anything else. Trump's connection to Russian oligarchs was reported in the New Yorker magazine at least a year ago. He got money from them, laundered through a third party bank. He was going bankrupt, again, and could not get legitimate loans. Does anyone believe that Putin is not aware of those loans? Does anyone believe that Trump is trashing NATO because he disagrees with a defense line put in place after WWII? He does not read history; he knows nothing of the history of NATO. He does know that he better keep Putin happy.
1
The Times is no longer viewed as a "neutral" fact gatherer.
9
Bla, bla, bla. Trump is ripping the Times to shreds. And this from someone who believes he is a dangerous demagogue.
9
Hoisted with their own petard.
8
As much as I enjoy the writings of the Public Editor, I have to agree with those who say that there is not there there. This column doesnt say or add anything new.
What IS true is that official Washington, and all right thinking people, were shocked at the lunatic tweets from trump. Had the NYT been referring to wiretaps at the direction of Obama, there would not have been such unmitigated surprise.
How about our president not slander his predecessor? Or maybe the president should produce evidence or, maybe, ask those who have the true information.
Even better, trump should just shut up!!
What IS true is that official Washington, and all right thinking people, were shocked at the lunatic tweets from trump. Had the NYT been referring to wiretaps at the direction of Obama, there would not have been such unmitigated surprise.
How about our president not slander his predecessor? Or maybe the president should produce evidence or, maybe, ask those who have the true information.
Even better, trump should just shut up!!
1
She did a poor job explaining the final point but from everything I've read, there was an FBI investigation into Russia/Trump campaign ties. Russians were wiretapped and they communicated with the Trump campaign. Thus there is information about them in wiretaps but they were not the direct targets, the Russian nationals were.
None of this is illegal, wrong, McCarthy like, a personal attack on Trump etc. It's what would happen if an investigation was going on looking at Russian ties to the Trump campaign while following the law.
None of this is illegal, wrong, McCarthy like, a personal attack on Trump etc. It's what would happen if an investigation was going on looking at Russian ties to the Trump campaign while following the law.
1
Great, so the Times merely confuses the matter further with this article. A better approach would be to skip this step and just point out how Trump misconstrues details intentionally to spread falsehoods to make himself look good. In other words, lies.
2
If Trump was suspected of colluding with the Russian Government or its agents -- wouldn't US intel be expected to gather information?
My guess is that Trump's queasy strategy here is that he has evidence of intelligence gathering -- and once presented via Twitter, Wikileaks, or a Congressional committee, we will instantly forget all other untruths or lies. (Bully 201 -- "Getting Out of Trouble")
Incidentally -- this is what Obama should have said rather than quickly denying all.
My guess is that Trump's queasy strategy here is that he has evidence of intelligence gathering -- and once presented via Twitter, Wikileaks, or a Congressional committee, we will instantly forget all other untruths or lies. (Bully 201 -- "Getting Out of Trouble")
Incidentally -- this is what Obama should have said rather than quickly denying all.
1
If Trump's people (e.g., General Flynn) were caught in wiretaps, it doesn't mean Trump Tower was bugged; it means they were talking to Russian or other foreign agents whose devices were under surveillance.
4
You know we are in an escalating situation when publishers and out-of-office ex-presidents disdain with contempt any assertion that the sitting president of the united states is somehow in possession of better intelligence than the media.
It is only a matter of time before the president is run out of office on a rail. Donald Trump is the great scapegoat of the 21st century. In him we can stuff all of our societies problems. He incorporates all the tensions of global warming, gender resentment, race resentment, wealth inequality, the crushed pride of elite politicians and media figures, stephen colbert's infantile sexuality... It's only a matter of time before we destroy our problems within him, by lynching him, but nothing will be solved because of it.
It is only a matter of time before the president is run out of office on a rail. Donald Trump is the great scapegoat of the 21st century. In him we can stuff all of our societies problems. He incorporates all the tensions of global warming, gender resentment, race resentment, wealth inequality, the crushed pride of elite politicians and media figures, stephen colbert's infantile sexuality... It's only a matter of time before we destroy our problems within him, by lynching him, but nothing will be solved because of it.
so, key information is left out of the January 19 & 20 articles - >("January story was referring to information picked up from wiretaps and other intelligence collected overseas, a process that requires no warrants.").
and readers are left to draw their own conclusion
and are told their conclusions are wrong because we didn't give you all the info which even the public editor didn't know about and had to ask a bureau chief for an explanation.
and it's my fault for not knowing and making the issue political?
got it.
at least you didn't give the "limited space for the story" excuse, so kudos to you.
and readers are left to draw their own conclusion
and are told their conclusions are wrong because we didn't give you all the info which even the public editor didn't know about and had to ask a bureau chief for an explanation.
and it's my fault for not knowing and making the issue political?
got it.
at least you didn't give the "limited space for the story" excuse, so kudos to you.
4
I am quoted in this report and , first of all I , want to thank your Public Editor for looking into this very important issue. I want to clarify something about it. I organized anti-war and anti-nuclear weapons protests at the RNC in Cleveland and at the Inauguration in Washington. I was a Bernie Sanders supporter and did not vote for Trump or Clinton. Absolutely, the only thing I liked about Donald Trump getting elected was the possibility of a de-escalation of relations between Russia and the United States. I do not want to see a new nuclear arms race and possible military conflict with Russia and Trump looked like he was going to go in a positive direction on this. Now, it is clear that elements in the Government, both politicians and various Government agencies are attempting to make it impossible for this to happen and are using anonymous leaks to the NY Times and other major media because they want another Cold war , or worse , with Russia. This is my personal political agenda and it is why I sent a letter to your Public Editor yesterday. Thank you. John Penley.. Vietnam Era Navy Vet who worked with nuclear armed aircraft as an air traffic controller and did a year in Federal Prison for a non-violent protest at the Savannah River nuclear weapons plant in 1982 in South Carolina.
2
We already have another Cold War via the at risk Balkan States. Putin is not Stalin; however, he is an old KGB warrior. He wants to claim what he perceives to belong to Russia. The Balkans never "belonged" to Russia; Russia grabbed them after WWII; Churchill warned against that grab and tried to convince FDR not to sign a treaty with Stalin. FDR was very ill at the time. Churchill was right, as he often was when it pertained to Stalin and Russia.
Too bad the nuclear arms race appears to be on the Korean Peninsula, and China appears disinclined to rein in Pyongyang and their madman.
1
JP: "Now, it is clear that elements in the Government, both politicians and various Government agencies are attempting to make it impossible for this to happen and are using anonymous leaks to the NY Times and other major media because they want another Cold war , or worse , with Russia."
Please cite some reliable, NAMED sources supporting that "theory".
Please cite some reliable, NAMED sources supporting that "theory".
It appears that the NYT has been hoisted by its own petard.
4
I think it's been pretty clear. Many governments are snooping on Russian leaders. If you talk to any of them, you risk having your conversation picked up. Apparently, Trump is scared of what's out there.
4
This will be a major embarrassment for the establishment media. It has little credibility. It will have even less after the investigations.
4
The problem with this piece mirrors a problem with respect to quite a bit of Trump-related media coverage: it fails to adequately distinguish between routine monitoring of communications involving foreign governments with fraught relationships with the U.S., and the *entirely* unprecedented notion of an outgoing president ordering covert wiretaps of an incoming president.
The Times has made clear in its reporting, in my opinion, that the intelligence garnered by various agencies has been a) based specifically on communications between Trump's transition team and foreign ambassadors, and b) collected under long-standing protocols in place long before Trump won the election.
What *is* true, however, is the assertion that the White House has a sizable number of leakers who have been providing material -- on condition of retaining anonymity -- about the Trump administration to the media, most notably The Times and Washington Post. The latter recently published a story confirmed by 17 (!!) separate senior-level governmental officials. If anything, this is evidence that a sizable contingent of inside-the-Beltway power players share the same belief as many Americans: that Trump and his policies are fundamentally problematic, up to and including the point of tipping into unconstitutional actions.
More simply, Trump -- as per usual -- is blaming outside parties, in this case The Times and Post, for problems within his own sphere of control and influence.
The Times has made clear in its reporting, in my opinion, that the intelligence garnered by various agencies has been a) based specifically on communications between Trump's transition team and foreign ambassadors, and b) collected under long-standing protocols in place long before Trump won the election.
What *is* true, however, is the assertion that the White House has a sizable number of leakers who have been providing material -- on condition of retaining anonymity -- about the Trump administration to the media, most notably The Times and Washington Post. The latter recently published a story confirmed by 17 (!!) separate senior-level governmental officials. If anything, this is evidence that a sizable contingent of inside-the-Beltway power players share the same belief as many Americans: that Trump and his policies are fundamentally problematic, up to and including the point of tipping into unconstitutional actions.
More simply, Trump -- as per usual -- is blaming outside parties, in this case The Times and Post, for problems within his own sphere of control and influence.
2
The Times coverage of the wiretap allegations in the wake of Trump's tweety assertions last Saturday has been absolutely incoherent. I read a front page story and then wondered, what is the truth here about wiretaps. I know that the wiretapping of overseas agents is allowed without a FISA court order, and this was not where the Times sowed confusion. The article was specifically trying to play both sides. There was no way to read it otherwise. I thought, what is the Times refusing to report about this story or, why are they refusing to call a spade a spade? The paper should publish a clarification, and if it can't be complete, describe why.
2
Pretty clear that the Trump Russia connection was bogus from day one, and a tool Podesta suggested may be useful.
5
Frankly, I'm surprised that so many readers have a hard time distinguishing between wiretapping Americans' phones and eavesdropping on hostile foreign governments (e.g., Russia). It was clear all along that the evidence of contact between the Trump campaign and Russians came from the latter.
If you don't think the NSA is doing everything it can to eavesdrop on Russian government officials (and that they are trying to do the same), you are indeed naive. If you don't think NSA should, you are even more naive.
But then again, if Americans weren't naive, Trump would not be president.
If you don't think the NSA is doing everything it can to eavesdrop on Russian government officials (and that they are trying to do the same), you are indeed naive. If you don't think NSA should, you are even more naive.
But then again, if Americans weren't naive, Trump would not be president.
3
It's funny to see The Times scramble to reverse-engineer a story that both supports their previous reporting and refutes Trump's claims -- a pretty difficult task for sure. I've also noticed that there's been little if anything of prominence on the previous story lines in The Times pages over the last couple of weeks...
7
Damage Control.
5
Kellyanne Conway states the president has info and intelligence... that's all the New York Times has. If it's good enough for the New York Times, it's good enough for Pres. Trump.
3
Trump makes unfounded claims, founded on NY Times reporting. That's the gist of it. Just shows how quickly the press is to jump on Trump, before even checking the inconsistencies in their own stories.
So far the press is backtracking and trying to explain itself. Trump isn't wavering, because he's not the one that put the underlying facts out there. The press did.
Oh, and it is rich to besmirch other media outlets as having "flagrant political motives". As someone who has been a NY Times reader for years, you can't pull the wool over my eyes there. Maybe newer readers will believe the NY Times doesn't have a political motive. But that is naive.
So far the press is backtracking and trying to explain itself. Trump isn't wavering, because he's not the one that put the underlying facts out there. The press did.
Oh, and it is rich to besmirch other media outlets as having "flagrant political motives". As someone who has been a NY Times reader for years, you can't pull the wool over my eyes there. Maybe newer readers will believe the NY Times doesn't have a political motive. But that is naive.
5
Clapper is a know perjurer. Does it really matter which particular agency - under the Obama administration - wiretapped the Trump Tower? What ever happened to "the buck stops here?"
7
What proof do you have, other than the rantings of a serial liar, that ANY agency under the Obama administration tapped Trumps phone?
1
Trump trolls do not need proof. Trump does not need proof. Bannon's chaos theory in action; destroy the "administrative State" which is the U.S. government. Then you will get "the Turning", an old debunked theory from Harvard. Bannon is full of such garbage theories; Bannon directs Trump's mindless decisions. The frosting on this cake is the little toady Stephen Miller; the guy all his classmates hated, and still do.
Times Public Editor Liz Spayd writes: "...several conservative media outlets are now trying to assert that The Times’s reporting is proof that Trump is right in his claims. That is a bold exaggeration, but it is made more possible by a shortage of clear and complete information on The Times’s part."
Huh? Is Spayd admitting that those "conservative media outlets" may be correct? Is Trump lying, or is his claim a "bold exaggeration"?
Readers of this muddled, convoluted Spayd column will have no idea of the answer. Once again, the public editor has dropped the ball.
Huh? Is Spayd admitting that those "conservative media outlets" may be correct? Is Trump lying, or is his claim a "bold exaggeration"?
Readers of this muddled, convoluted Spayd column will have no idea of the answer. Once again, the public editor has dropped the ball.
12
It would have been good for the Public Editor to mention that Trump defenders point to articles in several newspapers, including reports about FISA requests. The New York Times report about wiretapping is not the only thing pointed to. These are pointed to because they are public. The fact that Trump complains about the NYT and other media does not make pointing to them on occasion illegitimate. In fact, he explicitly distinguishes between fake news and news--both of which any outlet is in principle capable of. Also, in combatting public perceptions, pointing to what the media says has legitimacy. If wiretapping reports can be used to undermine Trump, Trump can use those same reports to point to what he takes to be the more serious problem.
“That, in turn, has allowed his administration to assert that the basis for his claims rests, in part, on reporting by The Times.”
In a word, no.
An honest assertion would have laid out the evidence or given an explanation that made sense. This was not an honest assertion it was a manufactured distraction to provide cover for Jeff Sessions perjury at his confirmation hearing. As with all mendacity it has no valid evidence to back it up.
In a word, no.
An honest assertion would have laid out the evidence or given an explanation that made sense. This was not an honest assertion it was a manufactured distraction to provide cover for Jeff Sessions perjury at his confirmation hearing. As with all mendacity it has no valid evidence to back it up.
5
You cannot have your cake and eat it too...
If Trump was wiretapped it is improbable that 0bama knew nothing about it. If he knew about it at all than he is guilty.
If Trump was wiretapped it is improbable that 0bama knew nothing about it. If he knew about it at all than he is guilty.
5
A very poor attempt to cover one's butt. It was the NY Times that referred to the FBI giving the Times computer logs of contacts between Russian servers and a server in Trump tower. That was almost a year ago. On January 19th the Times referred to wiretaps on the front page of the paper! This is pretty embarrassing. And, of the myriad of stories, none of them were sourced.
8
"than let others, with flagrant political motives, do so."
That made me laugh out loud. Physician, heal thyself.
That made me laugh out loud. Physician, heal thyself.
9
There seems to be a simple solution. The Times must identify the individuals or organizations who leaked the information regarding wiretaps and intel intercepts linking the Trump campaign and Russia.
Someone here is lying.
Someone here is lying.
27
Lying about what, exactly? There is zero evidence to support Trump's claim that Trump Tower was "wiretapped" after he won the election. There's also no evidence contradicting the claims that information derived from wiretaps of foreign ambassadors -- which by all accounts were in place well before Trump won the election -- had anything whatsoever to do with attempts by the outgoing Obama administration to undermine Trump's.
Further, it isn't even remotely reasonable to expect The Times or its reporters to reveal their sources. It's simple fact that anonymous sources have helped uncover some of the biggest governmental scandals in American history, with Watergate's "Deep Throat" likely being the most famous example. It's also simple fact that these sources would lose their jobs -- and their access to this information -- if their identities were known.
Members of the Trump administration and transition team stand accused of a litany of serious charges, thanks in considerable part to the reporting efforts of The Times and other media outlets. The public's right to know, in this instance, plainly outweighs the administration's need for secrecy. Finally, note that The Times has explicitly refused to reveal information in its possession that could pose a legitimate threat to national security interests, e.g. many of the specific names and events cited in this week's WikiLeaks release.
Further, it isn't even remotely reasonable to expect The Times or its reporters to reveal their sources. It's simple fact that anonymous sources have helped uncover some of the biggest governmental scandals in American history, with Watergate's "Deep Throat" likely being the most famous example. It's also simple fact that these sources would lose their jobs -- and their access to this information -- if their identities were known.
Members of the Trump administration and transition team stand accused of a litany of serious charges, thanks in considerable part to the reporting efforts of The Times and other media outlets. The public's right to know, in this instance, plainly outweighs the administration's need for secrecy. Finally, note that The Times has explicitly refused to reveal information in its possession that could pose a legitimate threat to national security interests, e.g. many of the specific names and events cited in this week's WikiLeaks release.
Forcing the free press to divulge the names of anonymous sources is a direct attack on the First Amendment and would essentially put an end to investigative reporting.
Well done, traitor.
Well done, traitor.
The president claimed that the communication lines at the Trump Towers were tapped. It is a totally different process for the U.S. or one of the countries with which the U.S. shares intelligence to intercept communications "from wiretaps and other intelligence collected overseas, a process that requires no warrants." It is not necessary for a member of the press to reveal the name of the source in order for the reader to understand this distinction. If the reader doesn't wish to read any news that is based in whole or in part on anonymous sources, then that is the reader's choice. The myriad of unlawful activities that we now refer to as the Watergate Affair, became known to the public because an anonymous source gave the information to the Washington Post. By doing that, a patriot prevented the development of an authoritarian regime, by which I mean a government that reserves the right to do such things as breaking into private offices without a warrant and interfering in Dept. of Justice investigations. If any crimes or misdemeanors were committed in relation to the election, then I want to see them made public. Information like that should not be allowed to be classified. Anonymous sources are essential to freedom from authoritarian governments.
1
The question the Times should be investigating is whether or not any US government agency was listening or recording ANY telephone calls of a Presidential candidate or his staff or his campaign headquarters for any reason -- warrants or not -- and why. The Times could try to discover who ordered or suggest such an intrusion.
Trying to justify or split hairs about "why our reporting was accurate but we say Trump is lying" is hardly really journalism and it is not a proper explanation from the Public Editor, who should just tell the Times journalists to do honest journalism -- tell the truth as it is, without all the partisan bias.
Trying to justify or split hairs about "why our reporting was accurate but we say Trump is lying" is hardly really journalism and it is not a proper explanation from the Public Editor, who should just tell the Times journalists to do honest journalism -- tell the truth as it is, without all the partisan bias.
48
It's not "partisan bias" to report -- accurately -- that members of Trump's administration and transition team were not only in direct contact with Russian envoys (which intelligence officials already knew had interfered in last fall's election), but also purportedly lied about it under oath in congressional testimony. It's also not "partisan" for American intelligence to continue investigating its findings that hackers with proven ties to Russia were responsible for leaking information that was deleterious (and likely fatal) to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, while simultaneously not releasing any similar batches of emails from either the Trump campaign or RNC (despite proof that Russian-sponsored hackers did, in fact, hack the RNC's servers as well).
2
If the Russian or if ISSI sources are monitored for National Security, then if someone calls/contacts those sources what is the Intell community supposed to do? Evaluate the source and if it is coming from a Presidential candidate's team should they ignore them?
There isn't an easy answer to this. All calls to the Russian ambassador are monitored. As an American citizen if I start to contact ISIS suspects I would start to have my communications monitored too.
I believe the whole "Russian interfering with elections" is a ruse. That said I also want to see Trump's tax returns to understand if he has any financial ties to Russia.
There isn't an easy answer to this. All calls to the Russian ambassador are monitored. As an American citizen if I start to contact ISIS suspects I would start to have my communications monitored too.
I believe the whole "Russian interfering with elections" is a ruse. That said I also want to see Trump's tax returns to understand if he has any financial ties to Russia.
2
The truth has no partisan bias.
I'm not sure what the point of this story was, but it did little to help clear anything up.
122
I completely agree. I read this hoping for a clear and definitive explanation on why the wiretaps in the January article are different from the wiretaps our so-called "president" referred to on Saturday, and didn't receive one. Can it be the Liar in Chief might actually be telling the truth?
Come one, NYTimes! We need you as a credible source of truth now more than ever. Explain!
Come one, NYTimes! We need you as a credible source of truth now more than ever. Explain!
1
Martin.
Agreed. Ms. Spayd actually states or at least implies culpability on the part of the Times.
What does Ms. Spayd mean when she closes:
'(It) is a bold exaggeration [by other media outlets}... that Trump is right in his claims, but it is made more possible by a shortage of clear and complete information on The Times' part'?
Why is the Times even parsing this?
Trump said Obama tapped his phones.
Comey said he did not.
Trump walked away from it at that point.
By all appearances it did not happen.
By all appearances Trump lied.
End of story unless and until Trump responds with evidence in support.
Stop groveling Ms. Spayd.
It is unbecoming of your paper.
Agreed. Ms. Spayd actually states or at least implies culpability on the part of the Times.
What does Ms. Spayd mean when she closes:
'(It) is a bold exaggeration [by other media outlets}... that Trump is right in his claims, but it is made more possible by a shortage of clear and complete information on The Times' part'?
Why is the Times even parsing this?
Trump said Obama tapped his phones.
Comey said he did not.
Trump walked away from it at that point.
By all appearances it did not happen.
By all appearances Trump lied.
End of story unless and until Trump responds with evidence in support.
Stop groveling Ms. Spayd.
It is unbecoming of your paper.
1
Agree it would have been a lot more helpful if Spayd had actually gotten the NYT to do the side by side comparison of Trump's claims versus the Times' reporting.
I get it. The Times has no flagrant political motives. Could have fooled me. I guess the Public Editor never reads the opinion pages, with the Times editorials, Times columnists, Times Op-Eds, and the letters to the editor that the Times sees fit to publish, most all of which are nothing but flagrantly political. From the left.
I’ll keep the Public Editor’s statement in mind when I next read the opinion pages awash in anti-Republican and anti-Trump and the next time an election comes up and the Times endorses the Democratic candidates, as it always does.
Well, that’s just opinion, flagrantly political though it may be. Opinion doesn’t affect Times reporting of the news. Except it does. And the same would be true even if the motives were not “flagrantly” political but just political.
I’ll keep the Public Editor’s statement in mind when I next read the opinion pages awash in anti-Republican and anti-Trump and the next time an election comes up and the Times endorses the Democratic candidates, as it always does.
Well, that’s just opinion, flagrantly political though it may be. Opinion doesn’t affect Times reporting of the news. Except it does. And the same would be true even if the motives were not “flagrantly” political but just political.
38
I feel like this is Journalism 101, but The Times -- as is the case with all traditional news operations -- maintains a strict delineation between its news and opinion reporting, and there is no evidence this de facto barrier has been breached in its reporting of Trump.
Case in point: The Wall Street Journal's op-ed pages -- including its editorials, opinion pieces and letters to the editor -- are unambiguously right-leaning. That doesn't change the fact that its newsroom routinely reports unflattering stories about Trump and other GOP officials, or that it's won a slew of Pulitzers over the years for its reporting (as has The Times).
You can argue all you want that The Times has "political" motives for publishing anything remotely critical of Trump, but the simple fact is that Trump's problems -- as well as those of his cabinet picks and senior-level officials -- are almost entirely of their own making. Back in the reality-based world, publishing stories about those problems reveals the unvarnished truth, not some "vast left-wing conspiracy" to discredit the Trump administration.
Case in point: The Wall Street Journal's op-ed pages -- including its editorials, opinion pieces and letters to the editor -- are unambiguously right-leaning. That doesn't change the fact that its newsroom routinely reports unflattering stories about Trump and other GOP officials, or that it's won a slew of Pulitzers over the years for its reporting (as has The Times).
You can argue all you want that The Times has "political" motives for publishing anything remotely critical of Trump, but the simple fact is that Trump's problems -- as well as those of his cabinet picks and senior-level officials -- are almost entirely of their own making. Back in the reality-based world, publishing stories about those problems reveals the unvarnished truth, not some "vast left-wing conspiracy" to discredit the Trump administration.
Apparently no one taught you the difference between the editorial section and the news portion of the paper.
It sounds to me like you have a case of hurt feelings because the opinions of liberals make you feel sad.
I'm sure you are familiar with the sound of tiny violins.
It sounds to me like you have a case of hurt feelings because the opinions of liberals make you feel sad.
I'm sure you are familiar with the sound of tiny violins.
Reporting is objective. Opinion is opinionated. The Times editorial sections may be well-reasoned opinion, but they are still opinion and are therefore kept clearly separate by both their heading (Opinion) and the section of the paper in which they occur (Editorial). And very often the opinions in the Editorial section are far more conservative than the facts reported in the News section would seem to indicate appropriate. I cannot see how someone would confuse the opinions expressed in the Editorial section for the facts reported in the News section. It is an arrangement used by most great newspapers of record.
In fact, the issue of a lack of clarity as described by the Public Editor is an ongoing one at the Times precisely because the editors try to keep opinion away from their reporting sections. There seems to be a phobia of synthesizing facts strewn across several articles in the paper into a single cohesive "landscape" of various arguments and events by political camps which tends to compartmentalize their reporting and hide related facts from each other. Sort of like using 20 medical examiners to determine the cause of death by giving each a fraction of the entire body. Sure the individual viewpoints may collectively present the facts of the body, but no one examiner will be able to convey the entire story of the systemic failure. I think that synthesis is an important role for reporting, and something that is often missing from the NYTimes.
In fact, the issue of a lack of clarity as described by the Public Editor is an ongoing one at the Times precisely because the editors try to keep opinion away from their reporting sections. There seems to be a phobia of synthesizing facts strewn across several articles in the paper into a single cohesive "landscape" of various arguments and events by political camps which tends to compartmentalize their reporting and hide related facts from each other. Sort of like using 20 medical examiners to determine the cause of death by giving each a fraction of the entire body. Sure the individual viewpoints may collectively present the facts of the body, but no one examiner will be able to convey the entire story of the systemic failure. I think that synthesis is an important role for reporting, and something that is often missing from the NYTimes.
1
This is a wishy-washy analysis that draws no conclusions, other than the Times needs to do a better job of explaining the issue. Yet it uses terms such as "bold exaggeration" to describe Trump's claim. Why is it a bold exaggeration? Nothing here answers that question. I still have no reason to believe Trump wasn't telling a substantial truth and was justified to do so based on the Times' own reporting.
65
Well, you don't have the ability to read the material analytically.
1
Why is it a bold exaggeration? Seriously? The president of the United States has openly accused the former president of the United States of covertly spying on him, up to and including secret wiretaps of his private residence at Trump Tower. Such a claim is plainly "bold" on its face.
"I still have no reason to believe Trump wasn't telling a substantial truth"
You mean aside from the absence of ANY evidence whatsoever that it's true? Trump himself has presented none, and even his most senior aides have steered clear of even *discussing* this set of accusations. Do you simply believe *anything* Trump says, despite the literal hundreds of instances over the past 18 months in which he's stated bald-faced, easily provable lies?
"I still have no reason to believe Trump wasn't telling a substantial truth"
You mean aside from the absence of ANY evidence whatsoever that it's true? Trump himself has presented none, and even his most senior aides have steered clear of even *discussing* this set of accusations. Do you simply believe *anything* Trump says, despite the literal hundreds of instances over the past 18 months in which he's stated bald-faced, easily provable lies?
"I still have no reason to believe Trump wasn't telling a substantial truth."
Really? No reason at all? Not even the fact that he blatantly lies to us every time he moves his mouth? That's not reason enough?
I guess you think he also had the biggest inauguration crowd ever and the biggest electoral victory in history?
Really? No reason at all? Not even the fact that he blatantly lies to us every time he moves his mouth? That's not reason enough?
I guess you think he also had the biggest inauguration crowd ever and the biggest electoral victory in history?
3
Mr. Trump irresponsibly relies on vague speech to implicate, incite, dodge, etc.. This is his modus operandi and expecting anything more of him will only lead to frustration and perhaps madness. ...This vague speech is made worse by the White House communication team's flat out lies and inaccurate claims in defense of the President's "statements."
18
Like the vague insinuations and innuendo used to smear Trump in the first place?
4
Sure Trump isn't a politician and certainly doesn't act like one... but in this case wasn't the Times own vague reporting that led to this editorial?
1
In the last weeks of the Obama adim. the president issued an executive order allowing the National Security Agency to share its massive data base with the FBI and all homeland security agencies, The NYT reported that this was to assist the " Russian Investigation ".
Is it possible that Trump was part of this Data base ? I would hope that the NYT could determine if this is what Trump is talking about.
Is it possible that Trump was part of this Data base ? I would hope that the NYT could determine if this is what Trump is talking about.
22
Isn't in curious that Linch made the data share so late in the game?
2
That is hardly the same thing as "Obama authorized wire taps on Trump"
And you know it
And you know it
At 70 yrs. old, President Trumph is exhibiting several symptoms of Dementia; delusions, paranoia. This medical condition can only be expected to worsen in severity. His advisors are taking full advantage of his mental condition to promote their agenda by feeding him false data which encourages his delusions and paranoia further.
The Congress needs to have a plan to remove him from office. Perhaps invoking Article 4 of the 25th Ammendment? Remember, he has the launch codes and authority.
The Congress needs to have a plan to remove him from office. Perhaps invoking Article 4 of the 25th Ammendment? Remember, he has the launch codes and authority.
34
This is a shameful assertion, not only against a president, but for any and all seniors. So, at age 70, we are all "dementia prone?"
4
Then now is the time to pass age limit laws for those seeking to run for President (we would be facing the same potential issue if the Democratic nominee had been elected), otherwise we'll see both Clinton and Sanders vying again for the nomination in 2020.
2
an infection of the brain or spinal cord caused by the spirochete Treponema pallidum. Abnormal gait, Confusion, disorientation, Sudden personality changes, Changes in mental stability, Dementia, Irritability, Memory problems
Mood disturbances, Poor concentration, Psychosis, Neck stiffness, Squinting!
Mood disturbances, Poor concentration, Psychosis, Neck stiffness, Squinting!
Yes. We've all seen trump supporters claim the NY Times reported federal agencies investigating the russian hacking during the election.
And the same people often conflate the alleged wire tap trump referred to and this event.These are also the same people who believed the birthed stories about Presiendt Obama, conspiracy stories about clinton's involvement in uranium deals and the benghazi attacks, yada yada yada.
These "stories" are put out by hate media outlets like Breitbart in order to obfuscate, confuse and sensationalize fraudulent claims.
Stick ti integrity NY Times. I appreciate a reputable news source when there are so many burgeoning alt right hate dories springing out of the deranged mind of
those incapable of following the facts and using common sense.
And the same people often conflate the alleged wire tap trump referred to and this event.These are also the same people who believed the birthed stories about Presiendt Obama, conspiracy stories about clinton's involvement in uranium deals and the benghazi attacks, yada yada yada.
These "stories" are put out by hate media outlets like Breitbart in order to obfuscate, confuse and sensationalize fraudulent claims.
Stick ti integrity NY Times. I appreciate a reputable news source when there are so many burgeoning alt right hate dories springing out of the deranged mind of
those incapable of following the facts and using common sense.
24
i believe the full quote is 'Och weill, it must be the Picts', which applies to this issue as well as to the fortuitous pseudonym of the above commentator. The Picts, a mysterious and preliterate Caledonian culture, left visual traces but no language to the modern day Scots, and are blamed for everything that has no answer or source to this day.
Hopefully we will be lucky enough to say, in future, halcyon times, 'Oh well, it must be Barack.'
Hopefully we will be lucky enough to say, in future, halcyon times, 'Oh well, it must be Barack.'
Thanks for the laugh. The Times is just as partisan as Breibart and Fox....Left leaning and using anonymous sources that can never be substantiated. Granted it seems at times like Breibart and Fox gets their stories from the Enquirer, but if the Times expects to only cater to the left, it misses a lot of middle and right leaning viewers. News should be neutral. FYI, Benghazi and Uranium One are real things... you should read up on it.
3
Trump's allegations of Trump Tower phone taps have been evidence-free, roundly denied and are almost certainly false. That he knows or has good reason to know they're false would mean he's lying.
But let's not prop up the corpse of James Clapper's honor in an effort to discredit Trump's claim. His integrity has been six feet under since he was caught lying before Congress about the surveillance of US citizens.
But let's not prop up the corpse of James Clapper's honor in an effort to discredit Trump's claim. His integrity has been six feet under since he was caught lying before Congress about the surveillance of US citizens.
18
How did Clapper explain lying to Ron Wyden under oath, to a question Wyden submitted to Clapper's office in advance, and would have refrained from asking, had Clapper requested that?
"So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least most untruthful manner, by saying, ‘No.’"
"Least most untruthful manner..." calling the grammar police, and a Federal Prosecutor...
"So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least most untruthful manner, by saying, ‘No.’"
"Least most untruthful manner..." calling the grammar police, and a Federal Prosecutor...
5
Ms. Spayd,
I'm afraid your attempt at explanation has not resolved the question at hand. "Was/is there an investigation that involved wiretaps" or not? Is the Times reporting accurate or speculation? I must be dense because I can't figure out whether you are confirming it or not...and I desperately want the Times to be accurate here.
I'm afraid your attempt at explanation has not resolved the question at hand. "Was/is there an investigation that involved wiretaps" or not? Is the Times reporting accurate or speculation? I must be dense because I can't figure out whether you are confirming it or not...and I desperately want the Times to be accurate here.
87
The question raised by Trump's statement isn't whether or not there was surveillance - there may well have been. It is whether such surveillance was _personally ordered by President Obama_. Because that's what Trump claimed.
Pulleaze! It is obvious to anyone with at least a modicum of cognitive functioning that Trump is an adolescent having a tantrum, with no understanding of how government works, or the implications of what he tweets or says.
If wiretaps were ordered, Trump is in real trouble. If not, he is just lying, again. What a stupid article.
If wiretaps were ordered, Trump is in real trouble. If not, he is just lying, again. What a stupid article.
30
The New York Times has created some ambiguity. However, the notion that this supports Trump's baseless claim is just intellectually dishonest demagoguery. Trump simply subscribed to yet another conspiracy theory. It is scary.
It is also unheard of for the President of the United States to personally attack his predecessor. Mr. Trump fails to appreciate the damage that such expressions do to the office of the president and it is possibly irreparable.
Underlying the noise is a basic question that the American people want answered: Was the president's campaign complicit in Russia's hacking of our election?
It is also unheard of for the President of the United States to personally attack his predecessor. Mr. Trump fails to appreciate the damage that such expressions do to the office of the president and it is possibly irreparable.
Underlying the noise is a basic question that the American people want answered: Was the president's campaign complicit in Russia's hacking of our election?
50
"It is also unheard of for the President of the United States to personally attack his predecessor."
Please cite a reliable source for that claim.
In fact, Obama used his 2009 inaugural address to obliquely criticize Bush:
'He [Obama] criticized "our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age." He promised to "restore science to its rightful place." He rejected "as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." He assured the rest of the world "that we are ready to lead once more."'
Bush loyalists striking back at Obama and critics
By PETER BAKER
JAN. 23, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/americas/23iht-assess.1.19630957...
Please cite a reliable source for that claim.
In fact, Obama used his 2009 inaugural address to obliquely criticize Bush:
'He [Obama] criticized "our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age." He promised to "restore science to its rightful place." He rejected "as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." He assured the rest of the world "that we are ready to lead once more."'
Bush loyalists striking back at Obama and critics
By PETER BAKER
JAN. 23, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/americas/23iht-assess.1.19630957...
2
"OUR COLLECTIVE FAILURE..."
That is NOT a personal attack on his predecessor, or even close to one.
That is NOT a personal attack on his predecessor, or even close to one.
1
Paul: I said "obliquely", and "our" is ambiguous. Obama could be blaming the American public, including, presumably, you.
Transcript:
Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address
JAN. 20, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html
Transcript:
Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address
JAN. 20, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html
"Hoping to take advantage of the circumstances" - what does it mean? What do you mean by the word "circumstances"?
6
Thank you for speaking out with this clarification, Public Editor.
5
As a progressive I’m disheartened by the media coverage of Russia’s interference of the November election. “RussiaGate” has morphed into a web of innuendo attempting to link Trump’s campaign with the Russian hacking. Let’s be realistic. Flynn's resignation and Sessions' recusal resulted from perceptions of misconduct, not conclusive proof.
Masha Gessen, Russian-American journalist and strong critic of Vladmir Putin, said in a recent article that the RussiaGate narrative is “promoting a xenophobic conspiracy theory in the cause of removing a xenophobic conspiracy theorist from office.” Gessen further cautioned “The dream fueling the Russia frenzy is that it will eventually create a dark enough cloud of suspicion around Trump that Congress will find the will and the grounds to impeach him.” Gessen concludes: “More likely, the Russia allegations will not bring down Trump.“ I find myself forced to agree with Ms. Gessen.
The cause of progressives would be best served if we stop letting our loathing of Trump blind us to reason. We are entering a war of innuendo. Let’s get back to the fight we can win, albeit more slowly and with greater effort. Trump’s administration is rife with self-dealing and nepotism. Let’s build a case around his conflicts of interest. The RussiaGate story is a shiny bauble that is distracting us from the real prize.
Masha Gessen, Russian-American journalist and strong critic of Vladmir Putin, said in a recent article that the RussiaGate narrative is “promoting a xenophobic conspiracy theory in the cause of removing a xenophobic conspiracy theorist from office.” Gessen further cautioned “The dream fueling the Russia frenzy is that it will eventually create a dark enough cloud of suspicion around Trump that Congress will find the will and the grounds to impeach him.” Gessen concludes: “More likely, the Russia allegations will not bring down Trump.“ I find myself forced to agree with Ms. Gessen.
The cause of progressives would be best served if we stop letting our loathing of Trump blind us to reason. We are entering a war of innuendo. Let’s get back to the fight we can win, albeit more slowly and with greater effort. Trump’s administration is rife with self-dealing and nepotism. Let’s build a case around his conflicts of interest. The RussiaGate story is a shiny bauble that is distracting us from the real prize.
25
Russiagate is part of the conflicts of interest story!
"Trump’s administration is rife with self-dealing and nepotism." Where is the proof of that or is it only your opinion? You qualify to be a ace NY Times reporter!
1
Excellent point. We can start by pointing to the Muslim ban which curiously (yeah, not really) excludes countries where Trump has business interests are on his "bad dudes" list and go from there.
2
President Obama's administration was caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, there was ample evidence that members of the Trump campaign were in contact with Russian operatives. On the other hand, if this information was made public, then it would appear that the Obama Administration was trying to influence the election process... Obama, the nice guy, decided not to influence the election process. Why? Because everyone on both sides of the equation thought that Clinton would easily win the election. Unfortunately, no one anticipated FBI Director Comey's intervention in the final few weeks....
29
"The nice guy". Yikes.
2
Trump is a small inept manically insecure coarse and unrefined boor. He is envious and hates Obama because Obama was bigger by every positive measure than Tiny Trump, from his larger crowds and almost double approval rating and early accomplishments to his larger hands. Obama spoke, acted and carried himself like a President, dignified, stately, steady, and confident because he actually is smart and competent. Now in an unprecidented number of measures Trump leads in Presidential negative characteristics from being paranoid, delusional, thin skinned and incompetent to being boorish and a proven serial liar
78
only in the mind of progressives -- and Obama's personal characteristics didn't make him a great leader, or even good. But he is Black so you can feel good about yourself for supporting him. Oh, he also wears a nice suit. And those book deals. Wow.
Thank you for pointing out the fuzziness in the reporting. Perhaps the journalists were so familiar with their topics that they made assumptions that the readers had the same background.
13
...or that the public is at least minimally intelligent. Clearly 62,979,636 of us are not.
1
Wow. What a lame explanation. 1) Everyone knows James Clapper lied under oath. Now we are supposed to believer him? 2) The difference between NYT reports and Trump claims is that Obama did not do it personally? Pathetic explanation. Nobody claimed Obama was personally wire-tapping. The bogus explanation here supports the accusation that the NY Times is dishonest, lacks integrity and reporting is influenced by political considerations.
43
Nobody except the President of the United States.
2
Apparently, many governments are snooping on the Russians and with good reason. So it is entirely likely one of them picked up conversations between the Trump campaign operatives and the Russians. They must be a pretty naive group if they didn't know of this possibility.
It is very hard to believe that any alleged electronic surveillance of the Trump/Republicans during the 2016 election did NOT have the direct and express approval of the White House. And given the supercharged nature of the action, it is almost impossible to believe that the Oval Office wasn't directly involved in the discussions and approvals.
The action is a far to politically dangerous move to be made by underlings except in the case of extraordinary incompetence or hatred of the opposition.
But any way this cake is sliced, it is laced with an incredible amount of poison and legal exposure for the pastry chefs.
The action is a far to politically dangerous move to be made by underlings except in the case of extraordinary incompetence or hatred of the opposition.
But any way this cake is sliced, it is laced with an incredible amount of poison and legal exposure for the pastry chefs.
3
The NYT is now caught in their lie. The innuendo was and is there are significant investigations being run by the FBI. The intelligence was collected in-house by our own agencies. No one in the FBI, AJ, or intel agencies pushed back against the NYT article over the past 3 months. Now that the investigations are relying on circumventing USA laws of domestic spying , by using cut-out agences from foreign governments is parsing. WHat I want to know is what Obama's WH was doing to investigate, or use foreign intel against Trump. Obama WH is not clean. I hope the Congress gets to the bottom of what is known, proven, and who knew it was happening?
30
Can the Times stay neutral riding Trump's moving train of thought? You have said too much, or too little...tell me!
3
What were the circumstances of the wiretap of
the conversation of General Flynn and the Russian
Ambassador in January 2017 in the U. S. and the
leak of the transcript of that conversation?
President Trump is patently correct that there was
a leak. Is he also correct that the wiretap was of
Flynn's telephone?
the conversation of General Flynn and the Russian
Ambassador in January 2017 in the U. S. and the
leak of the transcript of that conversation?
President Trump is patently correct that there was
a leak. Is he also correct that the wiretap was of
Flynn's telephone?
20
The words to pay attention to: intelligence picked up overseas ". If Flynn or others were talking to Russians overseas, no warrant would have been involved.
4
This has been covered by the NYT and other mainstream news outlets repeatedly. U.S. intelligence agencies "monitor" the calls of Russia's U.S. ambassador. Hence, they had recordings of Flynn's conversations with him. There's no mystery here.
3
@WSGNY: The tap was on Kislyak's phone, and explained as standard operating procedure. Flynn should have known that Kislyak's phone was likely tapped. I have no doubt that our ambassador and consular personnel in Ru$$ia are instructed to proceed as if every call there is tapped.
3
Wait a minute. This is false equivalence. I read the Times everyday. Its coverage made me think an independent prosecutor was necessary to investigate Russian influence in our elections and the extent of the Trump administration's involvement. Nothing more. Conversely, when the president makes an assertion, I expect it to be based on facts - no matter what the Times says or does. To now contend that president Trump's outrageous statements were derived from the Times is no less than preposterous... One day the NYT is "fake news", the next it's a credible source? Come on, give me a break.
27
Works the other way around too, doesn't it? Either the wire tapping took place or it didn't, otherwise the original reporting about the Trump administration being under investigation is fake news, is it not?
2
Thank you for writing "the Times" and not "The Times." When did it become the practice to capitalize "the"? I read another article, and multitude of capitalized the's--the article about the American Affairs Journal. Overtime there was a journal or newspaper mentioned, the 'the' was capitalized although in the middle of sentence. How did we survive so long without this?
Fermenting chaos is an excellent political tool, particularly when you're just trying to sway the "undecided".
5
Fomenting, not fermenting, though this one stinks like very old kimchee.
4
The Dem leadership is calling for not just investigations but a special prosecutor for a connection there is no evidence--according to the Times--to support.
That is, collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. Clapper said on Sunday on Meet the Press there was no evidence of such collusion. The Times has said so. But no one is calling out the Dem leadership or calling them paranoid or crazy.
Meanwhile the Times and other media keep quoting leaked taps and intercepts but Trump is called crazy for saying they were done.
I voted Dem, don't like Trump a bit, but this strikes me as not only confusing and hypocritical but pretty convincing evidence of some pretty nasty collusion of a different type.
That is, collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. Clapper said on Sunday on Meet the Press there was no evidence of such collusion. The Times has said so. But no one is calling out the Dem leadership or calling them paranoid or crazy.
Meanwhile the Times and other media keep quoting leaked taps and intercepts but Trump is called crazy for saying they were done.
I voted Dem, don't like Trump a bit, but this strikes me as not only confusing and hypocritical but pretty convincing evidence of some pretty nasty collusion of a different type.
32
Congress -- not just Democrats -- are conducting an investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. Stop.
Trump campaign members and staffers had contact with Russian entities during the 2016 election cycle. In addition several of them have lied about that contact, to the point of one being fired and another having to recuse himself from involvement. This collection of activities casts suspicion on the Trump administration to conduct an honest and thorough investigation.
Congress (not just Democrats) is being diligent, not crazy.
Trump campaign members and staffers had contact with Russian entities during the 2016 election cycle. In addition several of them have lied about that contact, to the point of one being fired and another having to recuse himself from involvement. This collection of activities casts suspicion on the Trump administration to conduct an honest and thorough investigation.
Congress (not just Democrats) is being diligent, not crazy.
12
The Dems want an investigation because they believe that it would show conclusively that Trump is incorrect in his assertions that his phones in Trump Tower were tapped. No one is denying that there was surveillance of conversations between Trump and Russian operatives that took place outside the US. That's legal and reasonable, and aimed more at the Russians than at Trump's people.
The problem is Trump's conflating normal surveillance of foreign agents with tapping his personal phone lines, something for which there appears to be no evidence.
The problem is Trump's conflating normal surveillance of foreign agents with tapping his personal phone lines, something for which there appears to be no evidence.
40