[Ed. – Lee Smith makes an elegant case that the name “Crossfire Hurricane” is about this op being centered on Christopher Steele and the dossier. Yet now the ever-shifting narrative is evolving to repudiate any such focus. The whole article is worth the read; the excerpt is from the conclusion, which rips NYT right through the heart of true journalism.]
[A]fter nearly a year and a half filled with thousands of stories feeding the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy, last week still represented a landmark moment in American journalism. The New York Times, which proudly published the Pentagon Papers, provided cover for an espionage operation against a presidential campaign.
There are significant errors and misrepresentations in the article that the Times could’ve easily checked, if it weren’t in such a hurry to hide the FBI and DOJ’s crimes and abuses. Perhaps most significantly, the Times avoided asking the key questions that the article raised with its revelation that “at least one government informant” met with Trump campaign figures.
So, how many “informants” targeted the Trump campaign? Were they being paid by the U.S. government? What are their names? What were they doing?
Trending: ‘Some white people may have to die’
Under whose authority were they spying on a political campaign? …
That they did not ask these questions is evidence the Times is no longer a newspaper that sees its job as reporting the truth or holding high government officials responsible for their crimes.