HOȚII PROGRESIŞTI CARE DAU ŞTIRI FALSE STRIGĂ "PRINDEȚI HOȚII". Declarația Fostului Şef al FBI, Comey, a scos la iveală că progresistul ziar New York Timea A RĂSPÂNDIT ŞTIRI FALSE
Nota Redacției - Opinia Fluierul.ro:
Nu e prima dată când progresiştii de la New York Times dau ştiri false.
Numeroasele Ştiri False pe care New York Times (dar şi Washington Post, CNN etc...), le-au dat despre Donald Trump, în timpul campaniei electorale, au trezit indignarea cititorilor săi, care au spus că nu vor mai citi şi nu se vor mai abona la New York Times.
Speriat, New York Times şi-a cerut atunci oficial scuze cititorilor săi (vezi foto "We're sorry") şi a spus că nu va mai minți şi că nu va mai publica ştiri false.
Dar aşa cum ştiți "Năravul din Fire, N-are Lecuire"
Şi progresiştii internaționalişti de la New York au continuat să Mintă, lansând minciună după minciună, în legătură cu implicarea Rusiei de partea lui Donald Trump în alegeri.
Iată că acum, mărturia fostului director al FBI, James Comey, din Senat, a demontat unul dintre principalele articole mincinoase şi false, apărute în New York Times pe acest subiect.
Culmea neruşinării este că chiar rețeaua de presă progresistă, internațională şi locală (Digi24, Realitatea, HotNews, Adevărul, Ziare.com şi mai noi chiar bugetofagii de la TVR), la un loc cu Rețeaua Soros cu care lucrează mână-n mână (Pippidi, Cristian Pîrvulescu, turnătorul Mircea Kivu, Mircea Toma etc..), au lansat Diversiunea "Fake News", diversiune şi manipulare care are ca scop cenzurarea ilegală a presei independente conservatoare (printre care se numără şi Fluierul.ro), cu scopul ca nimeni, să nu mai vorbească public de Rețeaua Soros şi de mizeriile şi minciunile pe care presa progresistă le lansează în public
Cu alte cuvinte HOȚII PROGRESIŞTI CARE DAU ŞTIRI FALSE STRIGĂ "PRINDEȚI HOȚII"
Breitbart New -
The New York Times Thursday was forced to defend itself Thursday from accusations of spreading fake news after fired FBI Director James Comey slammed an article the so-called “paper of record” published in February — calling it “not true.”
At a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Comey was asked about a story that featured in the Times on Valentine’s Day — “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence”.
The story opened:
Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.
However, Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) asked about the article at the hearing,
“Okay, so again,” Risch said. “So the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true, is that a fair statement?”
“In the main, it was not true,” Comey replied, before accusing the Times reporting team of not knowing what it was talking about.
“Again, all of you know this, maybe the American people don’t. The challenge — I’m not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information… [the challenge is] that people talking about it often don’t really now what’s going on and those of us who actually know what’s going on are not talking about it.”
“And we don’t call the press to say, hey, you got that thing wrong about this sensitive topic,” Comey said. “We just have to leave it there.”
Sen. Tom Cotton, (R-AR), followed up, asking Comey if the story was “almost entirely wrong.’ Comey said yes.
The Times immediately tweeted that it was “looking into” Comey’s statements.
Eventually the Times published a report and support of its article late Thursday, noting that Comey did not say what it was about the article that was false. However, it had some ideas what Comey may have disputed:
One possible area of dispute is the description of the Russians involved. Some law enforcement officials took issue with the Times account in the days after it was published, saying that the intelligence was still murky, and that the Russians who were in contact with Mr. Trump’s advisers did not meet the F.B.I.’s black-and-white standard of who can be considered an “intelligence officer.”
Another possibility, the Times said, was that he may have disagreed with the paper’s description of the evidence for the contacts with Russia — the Times said authorities had relied on “phone records and intercepted calls” to gain evidence.
However, the Times noted that the reporters’ sources had stood by their accounts, and also pointed to subsequent reporting that it said backed up some of the claims made in the Feb. 14 article.