Crossfire Hurricane Refutation Round-Up

To get out ahead of the truth, anonymous government officials and three reporters from the New York Times – who will not be referred to as the Three Stooges – have joined forces on a Marcel Proust-length apologetic regarding the Trump Russia collusion investigation. When that much ink is spilled trying to explain, backpedal, and amend an already convoluted story, common sense tells you something is not quite right.

If you didn’t read the tome from The Times, don’t feel bad. It is a slurry of errors and inconsistencies – even going so far as to contradict their own reportage on the subject. There are, however, a few sharp people who have pointed out the many glitches in The Times article that don’t quite add up.

So, Liberty Nation culled the rebuttals and presents the following Refutation Round-Up for your edification and reading pleasure:

Our top three come from Molly Hemmingway of the Federalist:

Number One

“One thing that is surprising about the story is how many errors it contains. The problems begin in the second sentence, which claims Peter Strzok and another FBI agent were sent to London. The New York Times reports that “[t]heir assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling.”

Of course, it was previously reported that Strzok had a meeting with the Australian ambassador. He describes the embassy where the meeting took place as the longest continually staffed embassy in London. The ambassador was previously reported to have had some information about a Trump advisor saying he’d heard that Russia had Clinton’s emails.

Number Two:

“The story claims, “News organizations did not publish Mr. Steele’s reports or reveal the F.B.I.’s interest in them until after Election Day.” That’s demonstrably untrue. Here’s an October 31, 2016, story headlined “A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump.” It is sourced entirely to Steele. In September, Yahoo News’ Michael Isikoff took a meeting with Steele, then published “U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin” on September 23, 2016. That story was even used in the Foreign Intelligence Service Act application against Page.

Number Three:

The New York Times writes, “Crossfire Hurricane began exactly 100 days before the presidential election, but if agents were eager to investigate Mr. Trump’s campaign, as the president has suggested, the messages do not reveal it. ‘I cannot believe we are seriously looking at these allegations and the pervasive connections,’ Mr. Strzok wrote soon after returning from London.”

There are multiple problems with this claim. For one, Strzok wrote that text in all caps with obvious eagerness. As the Wall Street Journal noted months ago, “Mr. Strzok emphasized the seriousness with which he viewed the allegations in a message to Ms. Page on Aug. 11, just a few days before the ‘insurance’ text. ‘OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THE PERVASIVE CONNECTIONS,’ he texted.”

Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal put it perfectly in the following tweet:

“So a few important points on that new NYT "Hurricane Crossfire" piece. A story that, BTW, all of us following this knew had to be coming. This is DOJ/FBI leakers' attempt to get in front of the facts Nunes is forcing out, to make it not sound so bad. Don't buy it. It's bad.”

Then Ms. Strassel counts the ways:

Biggest takeaway: Govt "sources" admit that, indeed, the Obama DOJ and FBI spied on the Trump campaign. Spied. (Tho NYT kindly calls spy an "informant.") NYT slips in confirmation far down in story, and makes it out like it isn't a big deal. It is a very big deal.

DOJ/FBI (and its leakers) have shredded what little credibility they have in claiming they cannot comply with subpoena. They are willing to provide details to friendly media, but not Congress? Willing to risk very source they claim to need to protect?

We can’t leave out the summation from Sundance over at The Conservative Treehouse:

See what they’re doing here?  Political spin.  Attempted justification etc.

Mr. Comey was briefed regularly on the Russia investigation, but one official said those briefings focused mostly on hacking and election interference. The Crossfire Hurricane team did not present many crucial decisions for Mr. Comey to make.

Top officials became convinced that there was almost no chance they would answer the question of collusion before Election Day. And that made agents even more cautious.

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said. That has become a politically contentious point, with Mr. Trump’s allies questioning whether the F.B.I. was spying on the Trump campaign or trying to entrap campaign officials.  (read more)

D’oh, there it is again… keeping Comey in the ‘willfully blind’ dark again.

I can’t go on – it’s one thing to read propaganda, it’s another thing entirely to submerge yourself in the parseltongue obtuse obfuscations and lies.

The leaky obfuscation goes on to say in retrospect the FBI and DOJ couldn’t tell President Trump about their spying, wire-tapping and campaign surveillance…. because it would reinforce Trump’s impressions of the FBI and DOJ wire-tapping, spying and surveillance upon him…..  Seriously, that’s their excuse.

I’m done with this nonsense.  The third-phase of IG Horowitz looking into the FISA court abuse will reveal much of this; and I prefer to outline bite-sized portions of corruption one thread at a time.

The Obama Intelligence Community is screwed.

They know it, and their justifications in the New York Times proves they know it.

Mark the date.

The tide has turned.

Just a few days ago, Liberty Nation’s Managing Editor Mark Angelides wrote, “ And if indeed this was a scam or sting or trap – or whatever you want to call it — that played out step by step until now, it is time for the truth to finally and fully come to light and for justice to be done.” But The New York Times article looks for all the world like the powers-that-be plan to keep on spinning, covering up, and trying to tie up loose ends that don’t belong together.

Unfortunately for them, the American people are no longer buying their story. Sundance may be right – the jig is about up and no amount of column inches over at The Times is going to fix it. On the contrary, it might well dig those involved even deeper.