Kim Strassel Blows Away NYT’s Cover Up of Spying on Trump Campaign


The New York Times story, Crossfire Hurricane, the secret origins of the Trump Investigation, published yesterday, attempted to cover up the serious crime of spying on the Trump campaign. The article was actually devastating to the former administration despite the lipstick on a pig approach by the Times. Kimberly Strassel blew up the Times piece in a series of tweets Friday.

This is outrageous and unAmerican.  The government refuses to release information to the Congress and to the public while leaking to their friendly news outlet. The culprits engaged in a cover up with their media arm as they try to get ahead of what might be a scathing report from the Inspector General for the DoJ. These people framed the President as they look for his thought crimes.

Wall Street Journal reporter/editor Kimberly Strassel wrote an explosive piece last Friday about the spying on the Trump campaign under the Obama administration. It helped blow the case apart. That undeniable, verifiable exposé led to the New York Times admitting to it in an New York Times Thursday while at the same time excusing it away.

Kimberly Strassel has responded in tweets.

She pinpoints the big takeaways from the article n these tweets, including the fact that the Times confirmed everything she said:

1. So a few important points on that new New York Times “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.

2. 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.

3. In self-serving desire to get a sympathetic story about its actions, DOJ/FBI leakers are willing to provide yet more details about that “top secret” source (namely, that spying was aimed at Page/Papadopoulos)–making all more likely/certain source will be outed. That’s on them

4. 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?

5. Back in Dec., NYT assured us it was the Papadopoulos-Downer convo that inspired FBI to launch official counterintelligence operation on July 31, 2016. Which was convenient, since it diminished the role of the dossier. However . . .

6. Now NYT tells us FBI didn’t debrief downer until August 2nd. And Nunes says no “official intelligence” from allies was delivered to FBI about that convo prior to July 31. So how did FBI get Downer details? (Political actors?) And what really did inspire the CI investigation?

7. As for whether to believe line that FBI operated soberly/carefully/judiciously in 2016, a main source for this judgment is, um . . .uh . . . Sally Yates. Who was in middle of it all. A bit like asking Putin to reassure that Russia didn’t meddle in our election.

8. On that, if u r wondering who narrated this story, note paragraphs that assure everybody that hardly anybody in DOJ knew about probe. Oh, and Comey also was given few details. Nobody knew nothin’! (Cuz when u require whole story saying u behaved, it means u know you didn’t.)

You might also want to go to the Federalist and read Andy McCarthy’s 10 Takeaways from the New York Times article.





  1. Isn’t it interesting how ALL these temporary, short-term employees such as AG, DAG, and all the Directors of Agencies have complete and full access to the most sensitive information, Yet, the “Gang of 8”, who DO have appropriate clearances have to fight tooth and nail for the same information.

    Because of the widespread corruption in the whole of Government it should be time for Congress to pass legislation that no Agency, Department, or Government employee can withhold any information by method of redaction or any other means, including any non-compliance, and any person, or persons who violates this statute shall, under preponderance review, be henceforth terminated from employment. In such cases of sensitive or national security the recipients shall be confined to the “Gang of 8”.

  2. A noteworthy detail that has been reported by many outlets is that Gina Haspel was stationed in the UK at the time of these meetings. It is unknown if she has any knowledge of this affair.

  3. It would be worthwhile to investigate the hatred of Flynn by Obama and whether that precipitated the investigation of Flynn’s 45,000 Russian speech, in comparison to Clinton’s half million, to see if that had morphed into the spying on the Trump campaign. This evidently began in 2015, and considering Flynn was on the Trump team, it would seem the investigation escalated from there. By viewing Flynn as a “Russian agent” it would be natural to expand it to the entire campaign, and, to really seal the deal, Trump also could be implicated. This could easily make it plausible to the public about Russia by staging and creating the entire narrative. I wouldn’t be surprised that it didn’t begin this way but understanding what “Could” be created it took on a whole new life. By examining the character of all the players among Obama, Clinton, and certain appointees the capability for such actions are within the realm of possibilities.

    The secrecy of Government allows people to “believe” they can get away with such actions. Congress had to update statutes regarding the OIG because Justice forbade the IG from any information by the NSD part of Justice. Until then secrecy in Justice was prevalent. I believe Rosenstein, Wray and Sessions are very worried that the entire corrupt conspiracy may be revealed and possibly damage their entire Departments to the point of being beyond repair. So, basically, they are worried about their “good name”. If, instead, they were to open up about All the malfeasance and openly work with Congress it would actually be much better for them in the long run.

  4. Ads cover content. Even after clicking “stop seeing this ad” and reason “ad covers content ” a white box remains that still covers the content.

    • Thank you. Is it all of the ads or the large Lockerdome ad? Also, were you viewing it on a desktop or a smart phone?

Leave a Reply