Header Ads

BOMBSHELL! NYT hints that some investigators think the Mueller report is more damaging than Barr says

OK, the only reason we put “bombshell” in the headline is that we were amused by this guy, who assures us it’s “a very big deal.”
NYT bombshell tonight about investigators saying Mueller Report was misrepresented by Barr and bad for Trump is not just important in its own right...its a warning shot. Its investigators saying they won't sit silently by and be misrepresented. A very big deal.

1,897 people are talking about this
It doesn’t sound like a bombshell — it sounds like a source leaking information they know the press and public wants to hear:
Members of the special counsel’s team “have told associates” there might be some bad news for President Trump in the Mueller report, and Attorney General William Barr isn’t correctly summarizing their findings.
It’s not a bombshell if it doesn’t catch you by surprise; the New York Times has a lot riding on the Mueller report damaging Trump. So maybe the “Mueller Time” and “tick-tock” crowd is getting a little serotonin boost Wednesday night, but it sounds like meh to us.
Of course it is. What competent attorney spends 2 years and 400 pages on nothing?

See M Pohl's other Tweets


This comes as no surprise. If the Report was as exculpatory, like they said it was...they would have been released already.

See 🍁TrmommaCENSOREDBYTWTER's other Tweets
His four page book report on a 400 page book wasn’t thorough and well thought out, even though he read the book and wrote the summary in less than 48 hours? That’s crazy!! I am sooooooooooo surprised!!

See Peggy Walter's other Tweets

Did you actually read the whole article? Nothing to indicate there's anything being hidden other than grand jury and classified info

See farrellpatrick1993@gmail.com's other Tweets
Um, hold up everybody. Remember how Resistance leaders like John Brennan were saying a week before the report’s release that there was absolute proof of Russian collusion? Do you really want to do this again and end up crying and vomiting like the women at Hillary Clinton’s victory party?


Therefore, some of them don’t. The fake news New York Times clings desperately to this story line.
See Christopher Vaccaro's other Tweets
Wouldn’t, you know, Mueller himself have issued a formal statement if he thought Barr were mischaracterizing his findings?
Refreshing to see how many people are willing to take this article at face value. Just as they did with the accusations of Pissgate, and Russian collusion despite all the sources being anonymous and no evidence presented.
See Aaron Williams's other Tweets

You’d think the Times would at least consider waiting for the release of the redacted report before pushing any more of this speculation out there? They still have to sell papers, we guess.

No comments