Limbaugh Lies About NY Times Changing Wiretap Headline

[Faun]

[



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.

I never said it was altered, fawn.

Too fucking deranged; as always.

- "The Times deleted the front page image"

- "The Times deleted the front page image with the article on the wiretap from their archive."

I said that the scanned archive was removed, which it in fact was. They altered the ARCHIVE by removing the scanned copy that didn't promote the party narrative.

Prove it, demented conservative...

Show me where they deleted it a week ago...

Internet Archive Wayback Machine

I see that page going all the way back to 1.20.17 22:51:40 with the exact same headline as today.

Ya see, the good thing about being as mentally deranged as you are is you're too senile to know how crazy you are.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why is a voice on the radio such a threat to the radical left?

Why is the truth such a threat to RWNJ traitors?

Why is this ^^^^ particular RWNJ traitor trying so desperately to change the subject?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Even though the rhetoric from Limbaugh gets strong sometimes there is always a FACT behind his REPORTING. His delivery style is the part that makes him seem so far out with his statements. If he was a monotonic orator he would be less effective though. I like the fact that the liberal side made up another lie just for Rush, it gives him a great boost in my eyes. Lie some more accusers it is all you have lies, fantasy and BS.

No more factual than his idiotic lying books. You know, like saying Revere's first name was "Rush" and then completely lying about history.

As usual, you RWNJs defend the indefensible.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[edthecynic]

you keep being told that that doesn't mean that trump tower was tapped or that the orange sociopath was the subject.

lying loon

So Jillian -- Was the NY Times lying THEN -- or are they lying now? Seems to be a valid question -- don't it?

YOU are lying, then and now!

 

[edthecynic]

I suppose the answer COULD be that they've lying and spinning for political purposes all along.

The answer IS you've been lying and spinning for political purposes all along.

 

[Billo_Really]

Trust me Billo -- 20 years active in the Libertarian party? I aint' kissing no Dem/Rep ass on this. Not only that -- but I know a bit about Intel Agencies and the terminology and how it applies.. A LOT of people who serve in those agencies are actually dedicated Civil Libertarians like us. And our worst chronic nightmare is politicians ABUSING those awesome powers..

I have awesome powers, but I'm a little too tired to show them off right now.

 

[edthecynic]

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

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!!!

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.

Because the rationalization for the lie was to discredit the NY Times and back Tramp's wiretapping lie. As I said the lie was debunked the same day Judicial Review started it, which was the day BEFORE McCarthy and Limpboy spread the gossip. They both knew it was a lie before they repeated the lie.

 

[edthecynic]

Yep, wasn't Limbaugh lying. Most of use knew about the NY Times altering their archives a week or more ago.

Even when exposed to the truth, DittoTards just keep on lying!

 

[edthecynic]

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

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!!!

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.

BULLSHIT!
There was no archive of the print edition, only the online edition. The Right used their own scan of the paper rather than link to the online edition to hide the fact that the online edition clearly says the wiretaps were in Ukraine and Russia which contradicts Tramp's lie that TT was wiretapped.

 

[edthecynic]

I never said it was altered, fawn. I said that the scanned archive was removed, which it in fact was. They altered the ARCHIVE by removing the scanned copy that didn't promote the party narrative.

The scan originated from the lying Right-wing fake news sites to hide the part of the article that said the wiretaps were in Ukraine and Russia, not the NY Times.

 

[Coyote]

Yep, wasn't Limbaugh lying. Most of use knew about the NY Times altering their archives a week or more ago.

Even when exposed to the truth, DittoTards just keep on lying!

And no one apparently actually read the article...

 

[flacaltenn]

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

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!!!

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.

BULLSHIT!
There was no archive of the print edition, only the online edition. The Right used their own scan of the paper rather than link to the online edition to hide the fact that the online edition clearly says the wiretaps were in Ukraine and Russia which contradicts Tramp's lie that TT was wiretapped.

No actually there IS an archive of the front page of the street edition. Available ONLY to subscribers. Goes WAY back to the beginning of the paper. Be more careful in these assertions. HOWEVER -- it's not relevant to this discussion because the "Title change" was from the earlier E-edition to the title on the street edition that went out the next day. And the whole significance of a WIRETAP vs the source coming from pre-authorized Intel sources and channels is the REASON , , , the title change is significant. It also makes the argument over whether Trump really BELIEVES it was a "wiretap" versus an intel agency insurgency look ridiculous when the folks blasting Trump for simply REPEATING THE NY TIMES (street edition) headline --- don't seem to CARE about the "spin significance" of that that change. OR -- the legal and technical differences between the two...

 

[Faun]

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

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!!!

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.

BULLSHIT!
There was no archive of the print edition, only the online edition. The Right used their own scan of the paper rather than link to the online edition to hide the fact that the online edition clearly says the wiretaps were in Ukraine and Russia which contradicts Tramp's lie that TT was wiretapped.

No actually there IS an archive of the front page of the street edition. Available ONLY to subscribers. Goes WAY back to the beginning of the paper. Be more careful in these assertions. HOWEVER -- it's not relevant to this discussion because the "Title change" was from the earlier E-edition to the title on the street edition that went out the next day. And the whole significance of a WIRETAP vs the source coming from pre-authorized Intel sources and channels is the REASON , , , the title change is significant. It also makes the argument over whether Trump really BELIEVES it was a "wiretap" versus an intel agency insurgency look ridiculous when the folks blasting Trump for simply REPEATING THE NY TIMES (street edition) headline --- don't seem to CARE about the "spin significance" of that that change. OR -- the legal and technical differences between the two...

Still....?

Limbaugh falsely stated....

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.

... last week, Limbaugh claimed the NYT went back and altered the headline of that article to scrub "wiretaps" (actually, it was "wiretapped data").

He's clearly talking of the online edition since it's obviously not possible to change the printed version without reprinting it, which they didn't do to my knowledge.

And [hopefully] by now, you know the online version of that article never had "wiretapped data" in the headline. The NYT had never "gone back" and "changed it." The headline today appears just as it did on January 20th.

It's flat out false. Several on the right ran with that bullshit. As far as I've seen, only one has issued an apology and a correction.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

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!!!

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.

BULLSHIT!
There was no archive of the print edition, only the online edition. The Right used their own scan of the paper rather than link to the online edition to hide the fact that the online edition clearly says the wiretaps were in Ukraine and Russia which contradicts Tramp's lie that TT was wiretapped.

Speaking of misconceptions. What makes you think that the FBI applies for wiretaps "in Ukraine and in Russia"?? Do you even know under WHO'S intelligence service those "wiretaps" were taken? If there's an investigation (and we don't even know that do we? ) --- The FBI is lead JUSTICE team on it. NSA and crew don't DO justice.
That stuff was picked up by OUR Intel Agencies. NOT an FBI authorized "wiretap".. And there is nothing in that article that suggests intercept requests involved overseas resources. Not EVEN in the article. We don't know jack shit about WHO'S listening and under what authority they been given to do that -- do we?

 

[flacaltenn]

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!!!

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.

BULLSHIT!
There was no archive of the print edition, only the online edition. The Right used their own scan of the paper rather than link to the online edition to hide the fact that the online edition clearly says the wiretaps were in Ukraine and Russia which contradicts Tramp's lie that TT was wiretapped.

No actually there IS an archive of the front page of the street edition. Available ONLY to subscribers. Goes WAY back to the beginning of the paper. Be more careful in these assertions. HOWEVER -- it's not relevant to this discussion because the "Title change" was from the earlier E-edition to the title on the street edition that went out the next day. And the whole significance of a WIRETAP vs the source coming from pre-authorized Intel sources and channels is the REASON , , , the title change is significant. It also makes the argument over whether Trump really BELIEVES it was a "wiretap" versus an intel agency insurgency look ridiculous when the folks blasting Trump for simply REPEATING THE NY TIMES (street edition) headline --- don't seem to CARE about the "spin significance" of that that change. OR -- the legal and technical differences between the two...

Still....?

Limbaugh falsely stated....

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.

... last week, Limbaugh claimed the NYT went back and altered the headline of that article to scrub "wiretaps" (actually, it was "wiretapped data").

He's clearly talking of the online edition since it's obviously not possible to change the printed version without reprinting it, which they didn't do to my knowledge.

And [hopefully] by now, you know the online version of that article never had "wiretapped data" in the headline. The NYT had never "gone back" and "changed it." The headline today appears just as it did on January 20th.

It's flat out false. Several on the right ran with that bullshit. As far as I've seen, only one has issued an apology and a correction.

He got it backwards. Simply because virtually NO journalist or commentator USES the paper version for research. If you picked up the NY times paper saw the headline and then went back to the site to pull quotes and search the article -- the EARLIER E-version is ALL that exists at the site. So OBVIOUSLY -- IT CHANGED. Except that the sequence in time is reversed from the way he said it on air. B F D

Go to the mat on this -- it's fun watching you persist in discrediting Limbaugh for noticing ANY change that is significant like that one. Not fun watching the BIGGER picture unfold of all these ALLEGATIONS of an investigation and separate FISA warrants, and "wiretaps" -- when in REALITY -- it appears that some traitors under partisan direction -- used sequestered pre-approved bulk collection to LEAK all this stuff.

Look geniuses. The old days of sitting in a van with headphones for a WIRETAP is gone. The conversations from Manafort and his dealings in Ukraine go back YEARS. Which means to "listen to them" you have to go to someone who BULK COLLECTS AND ARCHIVES EVEEEERRRRYTHING that happens. And there are few places to go. NSA here, the British GCHQ (their NSA) which has a standing reciprocal agreement to spy on EACH OTHERS citizens. That last point is an interesting story in itself -- because it's a complete WORKAROUND to the FISA system. You want to quickly and quietly tap Americans -- Go to GCHQ. MI5 needs an immediate track on something in Britain -- They go to NSA. That's for another discussion. POSSIBLE even that happened here -- without any "due process" or FISA mess or fuss. Someone in leadership called in a favor from GCHQ.

GCHQ: The British Are Spying On Us More Than the NSA Is

If the NYT wasn't just pulling all this investigation stuff out of it's ass, that stuff was likely collected under the PATRIOT act authorized system designed to "catch terrorists". That's the ONLY place where ANY US intel agency currently has running authorization to bulk collect and archive data DOMESTICALLY.

What Americans don't KNOW about the depths of this domestic spying is gonna hurt them sooner or later...

 

[Faun]

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.

BULLSHIT!
There was no archive of the print edition, only the online edition. The Right used their own scan of the paper rather than link to the online edition to hide the fact that the online edition clearly says the wiretaps were in Ukraine and Russia which contradicts Tramp's lie that TT was wiretapped.

No actually there IS an archive of the front page of the street edition. Available ONLY to subscribers. Goes WAY back to the beginning of the paper. Be more careful in these assertions. HOWEVER -- it's not relevant to this discussion because the "Title change" was from the earlier E-edition to the title on the street edition that went out the next day. And the whole significance of a WIRETAP vs the source coming from pre-authorized Intel sources and channels is the REASON , , , the title change is significant. It also makes the argument over whether Trump really BELIEVES it was a "wiretap" versus an intel agency insurgency look ridiculous when the folks blasting Trump for simply REPEATING THE NY TIMES (street edition) headline --- don't seem to CARE about the "spin significance" of that that change. OR -- the legal and technical differences between the two...

Still....?

Limbaugh falsely stated....

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.

... last week, Limbaugh claimed the NYT went back and altered the headline of that article to scrub "wiretaps" (actually, it was "wiretapped data").

He's clearly talking of the online edition since it's obviously not possible to change the printed version without reprinting it, which they didn't do to my knowledge.

And [hopefully] by now, you know the online version of that article never had "wiretapped data" in the headline. The NYT had never "gone back" and "changed it." The headline today appears just as it did on January 20th.

It's flat out false. Several on the right ran with that bullshit. As far as I've seen, only one has issued an apology and a correction.

He got it backwards. Simply because virtually NO journalist or commentator USES the paper version for research. If you picked up the NY times paper saw the headline and then went back to the site to pull quotes and search the article -- the EARLIER E-version is ALL that exists at the site. So OBVIOUSLY -- IT CHANGED. Except that the sequence in time is reversed from the way he said it on air. B F D

Go to the mat on this -- it's fun watching you persist in discrediting Limbaugh for noticing ANY change that is significant like that one. Not fun watching the BIGGER picture unfold of all these ALLEGATIONS of an investigation and separate FISA warrants, and "wiretaps" -- when in REALITY -- it appears that some traitors under partisan direction -- used sequestered pre-approved bulk collection to LEAK all this stuff.

Look geniuses. The old days of sitting in a van with headphones for a WIRETAP is gone. The conversations from Manafort and his dealings in Ukraine go back YEARS. Which means to "listen to them" you have to go to someone who BULK COLLECTS AND ARCHIVES EVEEEERRRRYTHING that happens. And there are few places to go. NSA here, the British GCHQ (their NSA) which has a standing reciprocal agreement to spy on EACH OTHERS citizens. That last point is an interesting story in itself -- because it's a complete WORKAROUND to the FISA system. You want to quickly and quietly tap Americans -- Go to GCHQ. MI5 needs an immediate track on something in Britain -- They go to NSA. That's for another discussion. POSSIBLE even that happened here -- without any "due process" or FISA mess or fuss. Someone in leadership called in a favor from GCHQ.

GCHQ: The British Are Spying On Us More Than the NSA Is

If the NYT wasn't just pulling all this investigation stuff out of it's ass, that stuff was likely collected under the PATRIOT act authorized system designed to "catch terrorists". That's the ONLY place where ANY US intel agency currently has running authorization to bulk collect and archive data DOMESTICALLY.

What Americans don't KNOW about the depths of this domestic spying is gonna hurt them sooner or later...

He didn't get it backwards, he got it wrong. The NYT did not, as he falsely claimed, go back and change the headline. He's accusing them of nefariously altering a headline after the fact when they did no such thing. I'm amazed to see anyone even try to make excuses for him.

 

[edward37]

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.

BULLSHIT!
There was no archive of the print edition, only the online edition. The Right used their own scan of the paper rather than link to the online edition to hide the fact that the online edition clearly says the wiretaps were in Ukraine and Russia which contradicts Tramp's lie that TT was wiretapped.

No actually there IS an archive of the front page of the street edition. Available ONLY to subscribers. Goes WAY back to the beginning of the paper. Be more careful in these assertions. HOWEVER -- it's not relevant to this discussion because the "Title change" was from the earlier E-edition to the title on the street edition that went out the next day. And the whole significance of a WIRETAP vs the source coming from pre-authorized Intel sources and channels is the REASON , , , the title change is significant. It also makes the argument over whether Trump really BELIEVES it was a "wiretap" versus an intel agency insurgency look ridiculous when the folks blasting Trump for simply REPEATING THE NY TIMES (street edition) headline --- don't seem to CARE about the "spin significance" of that that change. OR -- the legal and technical differences between the two...

Still....?

Limbaugh falsely stated....

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.

... last week, Limbaugh claimed the NYT went back and altered the headline of that article to scrub "wiretaps" (actually, it was "wiretapped data").

He's clearly talking of the online edition since it's obviously not possible to change the printed version without reprinting it, which they didn't do to my knowledge.

And [hopefully] by now, you know the online version of that article never had "wiretapped data" in the headline. The NYT had never "gone back" and "changed it." The headline today appears just as it did on January 20th.

It's flat out false. Several on the right ran with that bullshit. As far as I've seen, only one has issued an apology and a correction.

He got it backwards. Simply because virtually NO journalist or commentator USES the paper version for research. If you picked up the NY times paper saw the headline and then went back to the site to pull quotes and search the article -- the EARLIER E-version is ALL that exists at the site. So OBVIOUSLY -- IT CHANGED. Except that the sequence in time is reversed from the way he said it on air. B F D

Go to the mat on this -- it's fun watching you persist in discrediting Limbaugh for noticing ANY change that is significant like that one. Not fun watching the BIGGER picture unfold of all these ALLEGATIONS of an investigation and separate FISA warrants, and "wiretaps" -- when in REALITY -- it appears that some traitors under partisan direction -- used sequestered pre-approved bulk collection to LEAK all this stuff.

Look geniuses. The old days of sitting in a van with headphones for a WIRETAP is gone. The conversations from Manafort and his dealings in Ukraine go back YEARS. Which means to "listen to them" you have to go to someone who BULK COLLECTS AND ARCHIVES EVEEEERRRRYTHING that happens. And there are few places to go. NSA here, the British GCHQ (their NSA) which has a standing reciprocal agreement to spy on EACH OTHERS citizens. That last point is an interesting story in itself -- because it's a complete WORKAROUND to the FISA system. You want to quickly and quietly tap Americans -- Go to GCHQ. MI5 needs an immediate track on something in Britain -- They go to NSA. That's for another discussion. POSSIBLE even that happened here -- without any "due process" or FISA mess or fuss. Someone in leadership called in a favor from GCHQ.

GCHQ: The British Are Spying On Us More Than the NSA Is

If the NYT wasn't just pulling all this investigation stuff out of it's ass, that stuff was likely collected under the PATRIOT act authorized system designed to "catch terrorists". That's the ONLY place where ANY US intel agency currently has running authorization to bulk collect and archive data DOMESTICALLY.

What Americans don't KNOW about the depths of this domestic spying is gonna hurt them sooner or later...

He didn't get it backwards, he got it wrong. The NYT did not, as he falsely claimed, go back and change the headline. He's accusing them of nefariously altering a headline after the fact when they did no such thing. I'm amazed to see anyone even try to make excuses for him.

he's a lying sack of s----t ,a republican ,,,,but I repeat myself

 

[DigitalDrifter]

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

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!!!

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.

Because the rationalization for the lie was to discredit the NY Times and back Tramp's wiretapping lie. As I said the lie was debunked the same day Judicial Review started it, which was the day BEFORE McCarthy and Limpboy spread the gossip. They both knew it was a lie before they repeated the lie.

Well you'll have to come up with more proof before you can conclude they drove the story fully well knowing it wasn't truthful.

 

[edthecynic]

HOWEVER -- it's not relevant to this discussion because the "Title change" was from the earlier E-edition to the title on the street edition that went out the next day.

But all the Right-wing liar are claiming the "Title change" was from the street edition of Jan 20th to the E-edition on March 9th.
That's right, the GOP fake news are saying that the title was changed on March 9th FROM the Jan 20th edition, not from the Jan 19th edition to the Jan 20th edition.
Get it???

 

[edthecynic]

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

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!!!

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.

BULLSHIT!
There was no archive of the print edition, only the online edition. The Right used their own scan of the paper rather than link to the online edition to hide the fact that the online edition clearly says the wiretaps were in Ukraine and Russia which contradicts Tramp's lie that TT was wiretapped.

Speaking of misconceptions. What makes you think that the FBI applies for wiretaps "in Ukraine and in Russia"?? Do you even know under WHO'S intelligence service those "wiretaps" were taken? If there's an investigation (and we don't even know that do we? ) --- The FBI is lead JUSTICE team on it. NSA and crew don't DO justice.
That stuff was picked up by OUR Intel Agencies. NOT an FBI authorized "wiretap".. And there is nothing in that article that suggests intercept requests involved overseas resources. Not EVEN in the article. We don't know jack shit about WHO'S listening and under what authority they been given to do that -- do we?

Well here is what the Times article actually says:

"The counterintelligence investigation centers at least in part on the business dealings that some of the president-elect’s past and present advisers have had with Russia. Mr. Manafort has done business in Ukraine and Russia. Some of his contacts there were under surveillance by the National Security Agency for suspected links to Russia’s Federal Security Service, one of the officials said.
Mr. Manafort is among at least three Trump campaign advisers whose possible links to Russia are under scrutiny. Two others are Carter Page, a businessman and former foreign policy adviser to the campaign, and Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative.

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit."
snip/
"Counterintelligence investigations examine the connections between American citizens and foreign governments. Those connections can involve efforts to steal state or corporate secrets, curry favor with American government leaders or influence policy. It is unclear which Russian officials are under investigation, or what particular conversations caught the attention of American eavesdroppers. The legal standard for opening these investigations is low, and prosecutions are rare."