As the walls are closing in on Hillary Clinton with mounting evidence of her criminality, the media are scrambling to find excuses not to cover the story.
According to New York Times writer Charlie Savage, the New York Times is not reporting on John Durham’s bombshell special counsel claim that Hillary Clinton’s team unlawfully spied on Trump during the presidential campaign because their readers will ‘not be able to understand’ the material.
Although a pitiful excuse, this is probably true for regular readers of the Times.
What a great way to dumb down your viewers. After years of spoon feeding leftist falsehoods and fantasies to its readers, the New York Times has obliged to concede that it can’t serve them a slice of genuine news because the truth would upset their sensitive stomachs.
Savage, who covers national security and legal policy issues for the New York Times, has gone on record explaining why the paper joined nearly every major American media outlet in suppressing the blockbuster John Durham special counsel charge that Hillary Clinton’s campaign spied on internet traffic at Trump Tower, as well as Trump’s New York City apartment and the White House, in a criminal attempt to frame Trump as a Russian agent.
According to Charlie Savage, the allegations made in motions by special counsel John Durham in his investigation into the Obama administration’s Russia probe are just too much effort for Times readers to understand.
Durham’s accusations “tend to involve dense and obscure issues, so dissecting them requires readers to expend significant mental energy and time — raising the question of whether news outlets should even cover such claims,” Savage stated two days after the bombshell news surfaced.
WND report:
He went on to lament that “Trump allies portray the news media as engaged in a cover-up if they don’t.“
Savage’s “news analysis” published Monday is titled “Court Filing Started a Furor in Right-Wing Outlets, but Their Narrative Is Off Track.”
The subhead is “The latest alarmist claims about spying on Trump appeared to be flawed, but the explanation is byzantine — underlining the challenge for journalists in deciding what merits coverage.”
Fox News found the TV networks ABC, NBC, CBS and MSNBC gave no air time to the story while CNN gave it two minutes and 30 seconds.
Margot Cleveland of The Federalist dissected the Times writer’s defense in a long threat on Twitter, challenging each point.
She noted, for example, that Savage refers to a target of Durham’s investigation, Michael A. Sussmann, as a lawyer “with links to the Democratic Party.” But as a counsel for the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign, he is much more than that.
Savage also uses the “it’s old news” argument famously deployed by the Clintons.
Durham, in a 13-page motion filed Friday against Sussmann, alleged that enemies of Trump fed disinformation gathered from their surveillance to intelligence agencies in an effort to frame him during the campaign and while he was in the White House.
Sussmann was charged last September with one-count of lying to then-FBI general counsel James Baker during a meeting just before the 2016 election. The indictment alleges Sussman was trying to provide the FBI with evidence of a secret communication channel between the Trump organization and the Russian Alfa Bank.
Sussmann told Baker he was not working on behalf of any client when in fact he was working for Hillary Clinton.
The Clinton campaign also was behind another major catalyst for the now-debunked charge against Trump of Russian collusion, the infamous “dossier.” by former British spy Christopher Steele. Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, through the law firm Perkins Coie, financed the production of the discredited dossier by the intelligence firm Fusion GPS.
Yes Charlie, after all we are those deplorables and we can’t think for ourselves::::: NEWS-FLASH :: we do have highly intelligent brains and we can smell a RAT from a mile away (YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE RATS)
OK Charlie. Your job is to obfuscate, bury what your bosses tell you, amplify what your bosses tell you, spin delails for weeks or years depending on evolving propaganda needs, deny that you do these things and proclaim you are indeed a real journalist, and then finally explain your viewers’ confusion about your slippery weathervane-like statements as their own stupidity. Got it.
Gee I’m 80 and I understand everything I read about this. But of course I have never lowered my standards and read your rag. Guess I’m smarter then your average reader.
…” because their readers will ‘not be able to understand’ the material.”… well my bad, I thought that part of the repsonsibilty of journalists was to unerstand important issues and the put it out to a public who may have a difficult time to understand in a way that yes they too can be a part of a knowing more infored society… unless your job as a journaist is to keep people in the dark…
NY Times…we can digest it just fine. It’s you people who can’t…stop trying to think for the American people, we are not as stupid as you