Hollywood conservative and “Love Connection” host, Chuck Woolery, tweeted this revelation about fake news New York Times…“
So the #NYTimes actually went into their archives and changed their Headline from Jan 20th. They changed Wire Tapped to surveilled.”
The entertainer was correct in his assertion, and sure enough other twitter users quickly confirmed that The New York Times did indeed remove the word “wiretapped” from the headline of a Donald Trump pre-inauguration post, detailing how data was being used by the federal government to investigate Trump advisors and campaign surrogates.
Here is the original NYT post…
After President Trump tweeted out that his campaign HQ (Tump Tower) was wiretapped by the Obama administration, the NYT changed its headline to this below…
The NYT went from “Wiretapped data used in inquiry of Trump aides” to “Intercepted Russian communications part of inquiry into Trump associates.”
The text of the post still includes the term “wiretapped.”
WND reported Monday that establishment media, including the Times itself, had reported the Trump campaign was under federal surveillance.
On Jan. 19, just as Trump was preparing for his inauguration the next day, the Times revealed, “American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as a part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump.”
The report speculated whether the “intercepted communications had anything to do with Mr. Trump’s campaign, or Mr. Trump himself.”
The Times referred to intelligence reports that are “based on some of the wiretapped communications” and said they were provided to the White House, at the time still under Barack Obama.
“Say, have you noticed, my friends, that the whole Russians-stole-the-election theme is gone? Have you noticed it’s not out there today? You can’t find a story on it? I’m gonna tell you why, ’cause we had a major role in this I am convinced right here on the EIB Network yesterday ’cause we nailed ’em.”
He posted an image of the original Times headline and said: “Have you seen any stories about the Russians hacking the elections? It’s gone, and so is the New York Times headline from the January 20th story with ‘wiretaps.’ They have gone back, and they have changed it. ‘Wiretaps’ is not in that headline anymore.”
He continued: “What has happened to the Democrats’ and media’s story on the Russians working with Trump to steal the election from Hillary? It’s gone. It’s not out there today. There aren’t any updates. We’ve got a revised New York Times headline – sneaky, sneaky, sneaky – as they postdate-change the headline, wiping out the word ‘wiretaps’ and ‘wiretapped’ from their headline on a story January 20th.”
The Master of None blog wondered whether someone figured out at the New York Times “that the word ‘wiretapped’ would prove troublesome.”
The Duran Readers: Tell us what you think?
The huge leak of information from the CIA just published by Wikileaks gives a fascinating picture of how the CIA goes about its business, though I doubt there is much there which will come as a surprise to most people.
In light of all the swirl of activity around the DNC and Podesta leaks and the various allegations of Russian hacking, two questions however immediately stand out for me.
1. The technology used in the DNC/Podesta leaks is decades old and crude. Are the Russians really so far behind the CIA?
The first point is the obvious one that the CIA seems to engage in hacking on an immeasurably vaster and more sophisticated scale than whoever is behind Fancy Bear and Cosy Bear, the two groups of hackers who hacked Podesta and the DNC, assuming of course that they are the same people.
It seems that the CIA is able to read emails and hack into some of the world’s most heavily encrypted social media and communications platforms such as WhatsApp, Weibo, Confide, Signal and Telegram before any encryption can even be applied and without leaving any trace. Obviously there is no need for any ‘phishing’. Moreover it is clear that the CIA has been able to do this for a long time, in some cases for more than a decade.
If Fancy Bear and Cosy Bear really do work for Russian intelligence then the Russians are obviously technologically speaking decades behind the CIA.
I don’t believe the Russians are technologically speaking decades behind the CIA. Obviously the CIA has immense built in advantages: it is working with homegrown US technologies which are easy for it to access, it probably has at least a measure of cooperation from at least some of the manufacturers and some of the platforms involved, it has almost unlimited resources, and it had a huge head start over the Russians during the 1990s, with the Russians only finally getting their act together some time after Putin became President 17 years ago.
Having said all this, the Russians have an abundance of brilliant mathematicians, engineers and computer scientists, and a very advanced science and technology base, probably second only to that of the US and at least matching China’s. The fighting in Syria has shown how advanced some of their technology is. They also have significant resources even if they obviously cannot fully match those of the CIA.
Whilst the Russians are surely not able to do the full range of things the CIA can do, the revelations of what the CIA is able to do at least gives an idea of what a sophisticated intelligence agency is capable of. I would have thought that an intelligence community as large and sophisticated as the Russian should be able to do at least some of it.
That in turn suggests that whoever Fancy Bear and Cosy Bear were – or to be more precise, whoever was using the malware associated with those names (some of which is said to be almost a decade old) to hack Podesta and the DNC – it cannot have been Russian intelligence.
That does not of course mean that the Russians did not hack Podesta and the DNC. What it does means is that the ‘evidence’ cited by Crowdstrike and by the US intelligence community to allege that they did – the activity of Fancy Bear and Cosy Bear – is open to doubt.
It seems far more likely in light of what we have learnt today that Fancy Bear and Cosy Bear are not state actors but private individuals, as many have said.
2. If there are leakers within the CIA why not within the DNC?
No one so far as I know is suggesting that the Russians hacked the CIA to provide Wikileaks with the treasure trove of data which Wikileaks has just published.
I would add that if it was the Russians who gave the information about the CIA to Wikileaks and if they did obtain all this information as a result of a hack or hacks of the CIA, then the Russians must be very advanced hackers indeed – at least as advanced as the CIA – to be able to hack the CIA, in which case it is even less likely that Fancy Bear and Cosy Bear have anything to do with them.
If however – as everyone is assuming and as is surely the case – Wikileaks was provided with all this information from a source within the CIA, then why suppose that the DNC and Podesta emails were not also provided to Wikileaks by people working for the DNC and Podesta, which is what Wikileaks has been saying all along?
After all if the CIA can leak, why not the DNC and Podesta? Why in fact introduce an elaborate Russian angle to explain the DNC and Podesta leaks when the motive to leak them for an inside source is obvious?
This is especially so given my previous point that the ‘evidence’ cited to prove a Russian connection to the leaks – the alleged Russian intelligence affiliations of Fancy Bear and Cosy Bear – now looks even more shaky.
I would have thought these were both obvious questions. Since I have not seen anyone else ask them I thought I would.