NYT’s article altered the Trump presidency with massive falsehoods new docs show


Senator Lindsey Graham just declassified and released two new critical documents in the Russia-Trump probe. John Solomon at Just the News summarized them and, thanks to the second document of Peter Strzok’s notes, pointed out massive falsehoods in a key NY Times article that helped change the course of the Trump presidency.


The first document is a 57-page summary of a three-day FBI interview in January 2017 with Christopher Steele’s so-called “primary sub-source” in the anti-Trump allegations and “dossier.”

It turns out that the source was one of his employees, not Russian, and not based in Russia. Steele received second or third-hand gossip at best. Also, the sub-source didn’t agree with the information the source gave Steele and was surprised by the amount of info.


The second document shows a NY Times article, which changed the course of the administration’s right to lead and the ability to lead. It was key to the collusion claims. The article titled, “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contact With Russian Intelligence,” was written by Michael Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti, and Matt Apuzzo.

It has long become clear that the NY Times made the move from honest reporting to activism for the far-left, but now there is more proof.

  1. The NYT wrote that phone records and intercepted calls show Trump’s campaign and associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian spies before the election. In his notes, Strzok wrote that they saw no evidence of anyone contacting any Russians. In the past, Carter Page had contacts with Russian intelligence but not during the Trump campaign.
  2. The article claimed Paul Manafort was in phone contact with Russian intelligence. Strzok said they do not have such information.
  3. The paper said the FBI had banking and travel records but Strzok said they did not.
  4. There was another line in the article claiming officials wouldn’t give them details of what was in the call. Strzok again repeated the fact that no one was in contact with the Russians.
  5. The NYT said the FBI asked the NSA to collect info about the Russian ops and the calls. Strzok said, not to our knowledge.
  6. In the article, a claim was made that Roger Stone was probed in the case but Strzok said they did not.
  7. While the Times claimed Christopher Steele had a “credible track record,” Strzok was saying Steele may not be in a position to judge a sub-source. [As it happens, the sub-source didn’t agree with the report.
  8. Manafort’s probe began in August 2016, not in the Spring as the Times wrote.
  9. Manafort was mentioned again with another claim that the NSA closely scrutinized the communications of Ukrainian officials he met. Strzok again said it was inaccurate.

Nine serious errors and the Times will not take the article down. It changed the course of history and it was filled with falsehoods. Their four sources should have revealed themselves if they were legitimate. Instead, they hid behind the corrupt newspaper’s 1st Amendment protections.

The Times, as we mentioned, will not take the article down, but they did have two irrelevant corrections at the end of the story. They want you to think they are accurate and careful:


An earlier version of this article misstated the number of people (in addition to Paul Manafort) whom the F.B.I. has examined. It is at least three, not at least four.


An earlier version of a photo caption with this article gave an incorrect middle initial for Paul Manafort. It is J., not D.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

1 Comment
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
3 years ago

The NYT a once respectable news source has reduced itself to now being the crippled left arm of the degenerating DNC. A yellow journalistic rag suitable as bird cage liner or dog training pads. Dog training pads have more substance..Stop the presses The NYT is a waste of ink.