Tuesday, September 3, 2019

Briefly Noted: The Grey Lady Stands By Its Man

E-correspondent Jim brought a brief John Crudele piece to my attention: Comey criticism nowhere to be found in New York Times. It speaks volumes regarding the state of "journalism" in the MSM, as described recently by commenter Forbes. Crudele details how the NYT allowed itself to be used in a crass--and illegal--conspiracy. The Grey Lady made itself the handmaiden of a corrupt FBI Director, and even now declines to come clean or even criticize the seducer who debauched the paper. Instead, the NYT has shifted from "Russian collusion" to "Racism". Crudele:

Funny, but I didn’t find much about the criticism of former FBI director James Comey on The New York Times website last Friday. 
That was the day after the Justice Department’s internal investigator, Michael Horowitz, blasted Comey for being deceitful about memos he leaked, through a friend, to The Times. 
The reporter who got the memo from Comey in the now-criticized instance also was part of a team that, back in 2017, wrote a story on direct contact between Trump advisers and Russian officials before the 2016 election. 
It was a blockbuster attempt to prove collusion between Trump’s people and the Russians. And, as the report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller proved, it was also untrue. 
But you didn’t have to wait for Mueller’s report to know that. On June 9, 2017, The Times reported — not very publicly –— that Comey said of the paper’s Trump/Russia article “in the main, it was not true.” 
Maybe that’s why Comey decided to start leaking stuff to The Times. At least the paper would get something right.


But think about. The Director of the FBI leaking "information" to America's supposed "newspaper of record" and then later stating under oath to the Senate--without a blush--that the resulting article was "in the main ... not true". Follow the link for a nice photo of Comey swearing to tell the truth to the Senate Intel Committee. He must've felt right at home in that Den of Thieves!

There Oughta Be a Law! Or ... is there?


  1. Journalists don't write negatively about their secret sources.

    1. Certainly not when they're complicit in their secret sources' lies.

  2. No, we have enough laws now, we could do with a contraction of the law tomes.

  3. Yes, if all we get out of this whole saga is a bunch of new laws, then it has been a massive fail.
    Any smart person can manipulate the law to their benefit.

    1. The link to There Oughta Be a Law! is to a comic strip I read as a kid. I then suggested that there are laws already in place for these eventualities. I thought I was being clear enough.

  4. I should've added, in my earlier comment that you referenced, that "true believers" are also known as "useful idiots."

    The corruption of the media should've been apparent since Mark "Deep Throat" Felt used Woodward and Bernstein as stenographers. Woodward and Bernstein weren't investigative reporters uncovering the story--confidential information was leaked to them by Felt, a high ranking and disgruntled FBI "insider" source. But media couldn't help the self-aggrandizement for snagging a political scalp.

    The Steele dossier is stenography of unknown provenance--possibly fiction, if not Russian disinformation. It is Watergate in reverse--stenographers supplying the FBI with "source material" that doesn't even amount to "chicken feed."

    It has to be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the FBI and the federal government.

    1. I don't think I'd say that any hoax was perpetrated on the Feds. By the nature of what they were trying to do they needed to be able to attribute their narrative to "sources". They simply hired Steele--and payed him handsomely--to fulfill that role.

    2. Indeed. Steele may have thought of himself as Ian Fleming but his masters never saw him as more than a disposable hack.
      Tom S.