With wiretapping allegations being all the rage of the Democratic Party since Donald Trump’s victory over the all but declared winner Hillary Clinton, the accusations of the Jackass Party are about to go full circle.
On the same day (4 Mar. 2017) that President Trump accused Barack Obama of wiretapping the Trump campaign, the New York Times ran the rather partisan headline of, “Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones“.
If the headline wasn’t enough to allow the reader to get the gist of the write-up, the first sentence says it all;
President Trump on Saturday accused former President Barack Obama of tapping his phones at Trump Tower the month before the election, leveling the explosive allegation without offering any evidence.
Yet in a copy of the front page taken directly from the archives of the New York Times, an article penned by Times reporters Michael Schmidt, Matthew Rosenberg, Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo on Jan. 20, 2017 (the day of Trump’s inauguration), entitled “Wiretapped Data Used In Inquiry Of Trump Aides“.
The same article clearly cites that “wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.”
Interestingly enough, an internet search of the specific article seen on the paper’s front page of the Jan. 20 issue yields nothing. However, the specific article in question can be found online but dated Jan. 19.
But there’s something somewhat odd regarding the Jan. 20 and the Jan. 19 articles;
- As previously cited, the headline on the Jan. 20 scanned entire front page of the NY Times was “Wiretapped Data Used In Inquiry Of Trump Aides“.
- The headline of the Jan. 19 version of the stand-alone article has the title changed to “Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates“.
While it’s inexplicable why the good folks at the Times has the more sensational headline on the Inauguration Day edition, they clearly note on numerous occasions that officials and agencies that answer directly to Barack Obama wiretapped Team Trump.
In a move to possibly downplay the wiretapping aspect of Obama and his underlings, the Times reporters used a number of words and phrases as substitutes for the more nefarious sounding “wiretapped”;
- intercepted data
- counterintelligence investigation
- under surveillance
- under scrutiny
Despite the NY Times reporters doing their level best to downplay the Obama wiretapping, they did note;
The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said.