The New York Times Claims Hillary Clinton Russiagate Scandal Too Complex For It’s Readers

“Byzantine” is word that can either refer to the eastern portion of the ancient Roman empire, or this:

(of a system or situation) excessively complicated, and typically involving a great deal of administrative detail.
“Byzantine insurance regulations”.

This is the exact language The New York Times chose to print in an effort to excuse their lack of reporting on what could potentially be the biggest political scandal in U.S. history…

If your readers understand what Byzantine means then they can understand the intricacies of a scandal that would put Watergate to shame.

The idea that the highly educated readers of The New York Times can’t grasp the massive corruption taking place at the highest levels of both government and intelligence baffles the mind.

The New York Times is obfuscating. They are refusing to run this story because The New York Times is the official newsletter of the C.I.A.

Manufacturing consent for the deep state is the mission behind The New York Times; the Iraq war proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt, and those in the know have been aware of this since the 1970’s.

Margot Cleveland of The Federalist took to Twitter to lambast The New York Times:

OMgosh: "What merits coverage?" Compare Mueller Special Counsel with Durham re coverage. pic.twitter.com/rpLoqPWptm

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 15, 2022

2/ LOL: "Old news." Yup, just as I said: Sussmann-friendly folks fed a cleaned up version of the story the same "journalist" who wrote this clean up piece, back in September to get a head of the news. So now it is "old news." pic.twitter.com/kQROJ6IHy0

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 15, 2022

3/ Of course, I only realized that after Durham's filing hit and we doing some research and came across Savage's previous pro bono defense work. https://t.co/j8XB79o5y8

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 15, 2022

WND writes:

The accusations filed in motions by special counsel John Durham in his investigation of the Obama administration’s Russia probe essentially are too much work for Times readers to digest, wrote Charlie Savage, who covers national security and legal policy issues.

 

4/ Seriously, Savage's piece is one jaw-dropper after another. I'm not sure which is more damning:
"Our readers are too stupid to understand."
or
"We don't want our readers to spend too much time thinking." pic.twitter.com/G8mFbyqJL4

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 15, 2022

5/ "Links to the Democratic party." I guess that's one way you could put the fact that he represented the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton Campaign. pic.twitter.com/kANecO0COk

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 15, 2022

6/ And there it is "old news." pic.twitter.com/oNlPDXbGa1

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 15, 2022

Other left-wing outlets like The Washington Post are attempting to downplay the seriousness of the Russiagate-spygate claims:

A filing from Sussmann’s legal team and statements from others involved in the situation like the researchers who analyzed the data state, for example, that the period in which the White House (to shorthand the “executive office” descriptor) was included in the analysis ended before Trump took office.

Durham’s filing doesn’t suggest otherwise. Also, the data being evaluated were not a function of anything having been hacked or stolen; instead, it was an analysis of a particular, limited kind of data file that had been shared by both the White House and outside Internet service providers as part of standard practice for detecting illicit online activity.

(In fact, this appears to be why the White House was sharing the data; it was a response to a Russian infiltration in 2015.)