Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually the lie was started by Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch, and debunked the same day, the day before LimpBoy and McCarthy and all the other Right-wing fake news outlets like WND, Breitbart, IBD, the Washington Examiner, National Review, the NY Post, etc., spread the Republican GOSSIP. So the lie was already debunked the day before Limpboy and McCarthy spewed their gossip!!!I don't think Limbaugh lied.
He likely got his information from his close friend Andrew McCarthy, who has since retracted his claims, and apologized for his mistake. Here it is here:
My Error: The New York Times Did Not Change Its Headline – There Were Two Headlines from the Start
Still lying to cover Tramp's lies! There was NO mention of FISA warrants in the NY Times article, that was just another Tramp lie spread by Tramp's White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and swallowed by mindless dumb SUCKERS like YOU!Yeah, 'cuz it's not like we can actually read the NY Times article talking about FISA warrantsPossible, but not probable! What is most probable is you pathological liars have been lying about the NY Times to protect pathological liar Tramp!And it's entirely possible the NY Times and others have been flat out lying in their reporting of this since October.
Exactly, so until Tramp declassifies the nonexistent FISA warrants, there is only idle speculation and GOSSIP on their existing!Uhm... You realize they're classified, right?Please post a copy this imaginary FISA warrant, and not a article SPECULATING on it existing!
Please post a copy this imaginary FISA warrant, and not a article SPECULATING on it existing!
Uhm... You realize they're classified, right?
you keep being told that that doesn't mean that trump tower was tapped or that the orange sociopath was the subject.
lying loon
You go, mod, go! Represent! We're all behind you on the Patriot Act rant.Don't need a wayback machine. It the SAME DAMN article. Word for word EXCEPT the headline.
I posted BOTH. The early E- edition and the Street paper edition. The ARTICLE is all about the info coming from Intel Collections, And E-edition said NOTHING about wiretaps. Which are WAY different terms of art and meaning from "wiretap".
And SOMEONE didn't want to call attention to the actual report that implies the leaks came NOT thru a separate legal process, but thru general Intel sources and methods --- REQUESTED that headline be changed to imply all the stuff came from an investigation with separate judicial review.
This is ALL because the game being played is NO ONE wants to point out that traitors buried deep in the intel community are doing the leaking. And USING their massive power to spy on political opposition. Because virtually ALL politicians love the PATRIOT act and the Big Brother Domestic spying toys it bought for them. And THEY don't WANT to admit to the public that these have been GREATLY abused.
But hey, I'm no kiss-ass!
The headlines were different from day one. The NY Times never went back and changed the headline, like Rush and some others falsely claimed. Folks who promoted such a fallacy are either idiots, liars, or both; and those who fell for it are mindless dupes who accept everything they hear from talking heads as gospel. That's why American thinker issued a retraction along with an apology to their readers.Great, use the wayback machine and produce a version of their online edition which had 'wiretapped' in the headline.What is the DATE of the "new" headline that you are "looking" at????I'm looking at the new one. They changed it alright.
Compare the print edition Front Page title (in TinyDancer's post to the electronic version of the story filed on the 19th..
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=0
POLITICS
Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT, MATTHEW ROSENBERG, ADAM GOLDMAN and MATT APUZZOJAN. 19, 2017
WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.
The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.
It's the same story hothead.. . And SOMEONE decided to place the keyword "WIRETAP" into the print edition.
I COULD go on the Internet Way Back Machine and check how the ELECTRONIC version looked. But I already know the NY Times is trusted LESS than your fact-checkers.
So the truth PROBABLY IS that all those "leaked" intel products were NOT from a wiretap. They are a product of that massive domestic spying operation that BOTH PARTIES want to keep in that huge new NSA building in Utah. That's WHY -- everyone is dancing about the LEGALITY of tapping that awesome resource for political pranks. THAT'S the story I AM interested. The NYTimes is totally fucked at this point anyway.
So I ask YOU ----- WHY are all you leftists whining that Trump has NO PROOF of a wiretap -- if the "PROOF" was on the front page of the NY Times? Were they lying THEN -- or are they lying NOW?
No wonder the media and politicians that have TAKEN those powerful tools to ABUSE THEM --- want you to be confused...
Don't need a wayback machine. It the SAME DAMN article. Word for word EXCEPT the headline.
I posted BOTH. The early E- edition and the Street paper edition. The ARTICLE is all about the info coming from Intel Collections, And E-edition said NOTHING about wiretaps. Which are WAY different terms of art and meaning from "wiretap".
And SOMEONE didn't want to call attention to the actual report that implies the leaks came NOT thru a separate legal process, but thru general Intel sources and methods --- REQUESTED that headline be changed to imply all the stuff came from an investigation with separate judicial review.
This is ALL because the game being played is NO ONE wants to point out that traitors buried deep in the intel community are doing the leaking. And USING their massive power to spy on political opposition. Because virtually ALL politicians love the PATRIOT act and the Big Brother Domestic spying toys it bought for them. And THEY don't WANT to admit to the public that these have been GREATLY abused.
What part of that don't you understand?
Actually the lie was started by Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch, and debunked the same day, the day before LimpBoy and McCarthy and all the other Right-wing fake news outlets like WND, Breitbart, IBD, the Washington Examiner, National Review, the NY Post, etc., spread the Republican GOSSIP. So the lie was already debunked the day before Limpboy and McCarthy spewed their gossip!!!I don't think Limbaugh lied.
He likely got his information from his close friend Andrew McCarthy, who has since retracted his claims, and apologized for his mistake. Here it is here:
My Error: The New York Times Did Not Change Its Headline – There Were Two Headlines from the Start
The headlines were different from day one. The NY Times never went back and changed the headline, like Rush and some others falsely claimed. Folks who promoted such a fallacy are either idiots, liars, or both; and those who fell for it are mindless dupes who accept everything they hear from talking heads as gospel. That's why American thinker issued a retraction along with an apology to their readers.Great, use the wayback machine and produce a version of their online edition which had 'wiretapped' in the headline.What is the DATE of the "new" headline that you are "looking" at????
Compare the print edition Front Page title (in TinyDancer's post to the electronic version of the story filed on the 19th..
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=0
POLITICS
Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT, MATTHEW ROSENBERG, ADAM GOLDMAN and MATT APUZZOJAN. 19, 2017
WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.
The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.
It's the same story hothead.. . And SOMEONE decided to place the keyword "WIRETAP" into the print edition.
I COULD go on the Internet Way Back Machine and check how the ELECTRONIC version looked. But I already know the NY Times is trusted LESS than your fact-checkers.
So the truth PROBABLY IS that all those "leaked" intel products were NOT from a wiretap. They are a product of that massive domestic spying operation that BOTH PARTIES want to keep in that huge new NSA building in Utah. That's WHY -- everyone is dancing about the LEGALITY of tapping that awesome resource for political pranks. THAT'S the story I AM interested. The NYTimes is totally fucked at this point anyway.
So I ask YOU ----- WHY are all you leftists whining that Trump has NO PROOF of a wiretap -- if the "PROOF" was on the front page of the NY Times? Were they lying THEN -- or are they lying NOW?
No wonder the media and politicians that have TAKEN those powerful tools to ABUSE THEM --- want you to be confused...
Don't need a wayback machine. It the SAME DAMN article. Word for word EXCEPT the headline.
I posted BOTH. The early E- edition and the Street paper edition. The ARTICLE is all about the info coming from Intel Collections, And E-edition said NOTHING about wiretaps. Which are WAY different terms of art and meaning from "wiretap".
And SOMEONE didn't want to call attention to the actual report that implies the leaks came NOT thru a separate legal process, but thru general Intel sources and methods --- REQUESTED that headline be changed to imply all the stuff came from an investigation with separate judicial review.
This is ALL because the game being played is NO ONE wants to point out that traitors buried deep in the intel community are doing the leaking. And USING their massive power to spy on political opposition. Because virtually ALL politicians love the PATRIOT act and the Big Brother Domestic spying toys it bought for them. And THEY don't WANT to admit to the public that these have been GREATLY abused.
What part of that don't you understand?
Do you understand the PRINT EDITION on the street is NEVER changed? The papers all offer E-delivery so that folks can get their morning paper on their tables at 10PM or so the night before. And SOMEONE decided to de-emphasize the "collections" aspect and spin that to "wiretap" for the edition that 10MIll MORE people glance at news stands the next day. They're not reading the article. They are looking for headlines while they buy their Tic Tacs.
Actually the lie was started by Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch, and debunked the same day, the day before LimpBoy and McCarthy and all the other Right-wing fake news outlets like WND, Breitbart, IBD, the Washington Examiner, National Review, the NY Post, etc., spread the Republican GOSSIP. So the lie was already debunked the day before Limpboy and McCarthy spewed their gossip!!!I don't think Limbaugh lied.
He likely got his information from his close friend Andrew McCarthy, who has since retracted his claims, and apologized for his mistake. Here it is here:
My Error: The New York Times Did Not Change Its Headline – There Were Two Headlines from the Start
And how do you know it was a lie, and not just a mistake?
I believe McCarthy when he says he assumed the print paper and the online version would use the same text.
Sounds like you're finally accepting the reality that Trump was not wiretapped and his claim that he was is pure unadulterated bullshit.
you keep being told that that doesn't mean that trump tower was tapped or that the orange sociopath was the subject.
lying loon
Considering everyone around him is undersurveillance, it would be natural to believe he was being wiretapped as well.
When the intel community was targeting his daughter and son in law AND Jared's freaking mother and crawling thru their bank accounts dollars to donuts one could conclude that the surveillance was widespread and Trump would be the main target.
The headlines were different from day one. The NY Times never went back and changed the headline, like Rush and some others falsely claimed. Folks who promoted such a fallacy are either idiots, liars, or both; and those who fell for it are mindless dupes who accept everything they hear from talking heads as gospel. That's why American thinker issued a retraction along with an apology to their readers.Great, use the wayback machine and produce a version of their online edition which had 'wiretapped' in the headline.Compare the print edition Front Page title (in TinyDancer's post to the electronic version of the story filed on the 19th..
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=0
POLITICS
Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT, MATTHEW ROSENBERG, ADAM GOLDMAN and MATT APUZZOJAN. 19, 2017
WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.
The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.
It's the same story hothead.. . And SOMEONE decided to place the keyword "WIRETAP" into the print edition.
I COULD go on the Internet Way Back Machine and check how the ELECTRONIC version looked. But I already know the NY Times is trusted LESS than your fact-checkers.
So the truth PROBABLY IS that all those "leaked" intel products were NOT from a wiretap. They are a product of that massive domestic spying operation that BOTH PARTIES want to keep in that huge new NSA building in Utah. That's WHY -- everyone is dancing about the LEGALITY of tapping that awesome resource for political pranks. THAT'S the story I AM interested. The NYTimes is totally fucked at this point anyway.
So I ask YOU ----- WHY are all you leftists whining that Trump has NO PROOF of a wiretap -- if the "PROOF" was on the front page of the NY Times? Were they lying THEN -- or are they lying NOW?
No wonder the media and politicians that have TAKEN those powerful tools to ABUSE THEM --- want you to be confused...
Don't need a wayback machine. It the SAME DAMN article. Word for word EXCEPT the headline.
I posted BOTH. The early E- edition and the Street paper edition. The ARTICLE is all about the info coming from Intel Collections, And E-edition said NOTHING about wiretaps. Which are WAY different terms of art and meaning from "wiretap".
And SOMEONE didn't want to call attention to the actual report that implies the leaks came NOT thru a separate legal process, but thru general Intel sources and methods --- REQUESTED that headline be changed to imply all the stuff came from an investigation with separate judicial review.
This is ALL because the game being played is NO ONE wants to point out that traitors buried deep in the intel community are doing the leaking. And USING their massive power to spy on political opposition. Because virtually ALL politicians love the PATRIOT act and the Big Brother Domestic spying toys it bought for them. And THEY don't WANT to admit to the public that these have been GREATLY abused.
What part of that don't you understand?
Do you understand the PRINT EDITION on the street is NEVER changed? The papers all offer E-delivery so that folks can get their morning paper on their tables at 10PM or so the night before. And SOMEONE decided to de-emphasize the "collections" aspect and spin that to "wiretap" for the edition that 10MIll MORE people glance at news stands the next day. They're not reading the article. They are looking for headlines while they buy their Tic Tacs.
Yuppers. There was a conflict. We won.
Now just check notices. I just bought a new house. I'm a happy camper.
LOLThe headlines were different from day one. The NY Times never went back and changed the headline, like Rush and some others falsely claimed. Folks who promoted such a fallacy are either idiots, liars, or both; and those who fell for it are mindless dupes who accept everything they hear from talking heads as gospel. That's why American thinker issued a retraction along with an apology to their readers.Great, use the wayback machine and produce a version of their online edition which had 'wiretapped' in the headline.What is the DATE of the "new" headline that you are "looking" at????
Compare the print edition Front Page title (in TinyDancer's post to the electronic version of the story filed on the 19th..
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=0
POLITICS
Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT, MATTHEW ROSENBERG, ADAM GOLDMAN and MATT APUZZOJAN. 19, 2017
WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.
The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.
It's the same story hothead.. . And SOMEONE decided to place the keyword "WIRETAP" into the print edition.
I COULD go on the Internet Way Back Machine and check how the ELECTRONIC version looked. But I already know the NY Times is trusted LESS than your fact-checkers.
So the truth PROBABLY IS that all those "leaked" intel products were NOT from a wiretap. They are a product of that massive domestic spying operation that BOTH PARTIES want to keep in that huge new NSA building in Utah. That's WHY -- everyone is dancing about the LEGALITY of tapping that awesome resource for political pranks. THAT'S the story I AM interested. The NYTimes is totally fucked at this point anyway.
So I ask YOU ----- WHY are all you leftists whining that Trump has NO PROOF of a wiretap -- if the "PROOF" was on the front page of the NY Times? Were they lying THEN -- or are they lying NOW?
No wonder the media and politicians that have TAKEN those powerful tools to ABUSE THEM --- want you to be confused...
Don't need a wayback machine. It the SAME DAMN article. Word for word EXCEPT the headline.
I posted BOTH. The early E- edition and the Street paper edition. The ARTICLE is all about the info coming from Intel Collections, And E-edition said NOTHING about wiretaps. Which are WAY different terms of art and meaning from "wiretap".
And SOMEONE didn't want to call attention to the actual report that implies the leaks came NOT thru a separate legal process, but thru general Intel sources and methods --- REQUESTED that headline be changed to imply all the stuff came from an investigation with separate judicial review.
This is ALL because the game being played is NO ONE wants to point out that traitors buried deep in the intel community are doing the leaking. And USING their massive power to spy on political opposition. Because virtually ALL politicians love the PATRIOT act and the Big Brother Domestic spying toys it bought for them. And THEY don't WANT to admit to the public that these have been GREATLY abused.
What part of that don't you understand?
Do you understand the PRINT EDITION on the street is NEVER changed? The papers all offer E-delivery so that folks can get their morning paper on their tables at 10PM or so the night before. And SOMEONE decided to de-emphasize the "collections" aspect and spin that to "wiretap" for the edition that 10MIll MORE people glance at news stands the next day. They're not reading the article. They are looking for headlines while they buy their Tic Tacs.
Actually the lie was started by Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch, and debunked the same day, the day before LimpBoy and McCarthy and all the other Right-wing fake news outlets like WND, Breitbart, IBD, the Washington Examiner, National Review, the NY Post, etc., spread the Republican GOSSIP. So the lie was already debunked the day before Limpboy and McCarthy spewed their gossip!!!I don't think Limbaugh lied.
He likely got his information from his close friend Andrew McCarthy, who has since retracted his claims, and apologized for his mistake. Here it is here:
My Error: The New York Times Did Not Change Its Headline – There Were Two Headlines from the Start
And how do you know it was a lie, and not just a mistake?
I believe McCarthy when he says he assumed the print paper and the online version would use the same text.
It was neither. Edtheliar is the one lying, as always. I don't even listen to Limbaugh, but I knew that the Times had altered their archive to delete the 1/20 headline a week ago.
How about posting here, in reality. There's no proof of that. If there was, the White House would have dropped that bombshell onto the public instead of walking back Trump's moronic tweets a week and a half ago.Sounds like you're finally accepting the reality that Trump was not wiretapped and his claim that he was is pure unadulterated bullshit.
you keep being told that that doesn't mean that trump tower was tapped or that the orange sociopath was the subject.
lying loon
Considering everyone around him is undersurveillance, it would be natural to believe he was being wiretapped as well.
When the intel community was targeting his daughter and son in law AND Jared's freaking mother and crawling thru their bank accounts dollars to donuts one could conclude that the surveillance was widespread and Trump would be the main target.
And you are missing the point of the distinct legal and process difference between spying on someone via an investigation and a separate warrant thru a WIRETAP -- and being spied on via a PRE-AUTHORIZED Intel collection system that needs no "wiretap authorization". You need to get beyond that and see the potential damage to your country if an existing INTEL SYSTEM was weaponized as a political tool.
Don't BE a political TOOL -- worry about your country and the AWESOME damn near unimaginable TOOLS that YOU allowed them to build to collect DOMESTIC intelligence on all of us.. If I'm right on this. That system and program will be protected by damn near EVERYONE in DC -- and WE will likely never know it's been abused.
That's what all the smoke and frantic dancing is about. The leadership is pranking each other over who is gonna TELL you the Intel programs are now political tools. .
[
LOL
The online headline never changed either. Limbaugh, among others, falsely claimed the NYT went back and changed the headline of their online edition by scrubbing the words, wiretapped data, which they didn't actually do. Most on the right don't have the dignity to admit they fucked this one up. But to their credit, American thinker did issue a retraction and an apology for getting this one wrong.
[
LOL
The online headline never changed either. Limbaugh, among others, falsely claimed the NYT went back and changed the headline of their online edition by scrubbing the words, wiretapped data, which they didn't actually do. Most on the right don't have the dignity to admit they fucked this one up. But to their credit, American thinker did issue a retraction and an apology for getting this one wrong.
The Times deleted the front page image with the article on the wiretap from their archive.
That is a pretty significant change, hack.
[
No, they didn't. You're just senile.
Want proof?
Post an image of their online edition with the words, "wiretapped data", in the headline. Not the headline from their print edition, the one from their online edition which you idiotically claim they altered.
Here, I'll even help a loon like you out.... you can't as no such image exists. They never deleted the "wiretapped data" headline.
