- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 16,568
- Reaction score
- 7,253
- Location
- California Caliphate
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...ons-distort-russia-probe-narrative-and-shield
So the relevant phrase here is "lies of omission" used to change the context of the reports.
CNN and others ran speculative reports suggesting Russians or Republicans could be involved in a mysterious grand jury subpoena fight involving special counsel Robert Mueller.
[Snip]
Here’s another one. The New York Times — which considers itself a bastion of journalism but whose work of late was questioned by its former editor — wrote a story this week on the federal obstruction-of-justice indictment of Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.
[Snip]
And there’s more paradigm-changing facts excluded from the Times story. Veselnitskaya managed to get into the U.S. because the Obama administration originally gave her a special parole visa.
Hmmm. The lawyer who sets up the Trump Tower meeting gets her original entry to the United States based on a special act by the Obama Justice Department. Seems relevant but, once again, absent from the story.
[Snip]
Here’s why that omission is relevant: If U.S. intelligence knew long ago of Kilimnik’s ties to Russia, and the George W. Bush intelligence apparatus warned a presidential contender in 2005, why didn’t the Barack Obama intelligence community do the same in 2016 when Kilimnik’s colleague, Manafort, joined the Trump campaign as chairman?
So the relevant phrase here is "lies of omission" used to change the context of the reports.