Quantcast
Connect with us

New evidence suggests the New York Times was tricked into retracting a major Mueller probe bombshell

Published

on

Last week, the court published an in-depth and partially redacted transcript of a hearing between Special Counsel Robert Mueller and lawyers for Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chair.

This trove of information provided a fresh glimpse inside the workings of Mueller’s team, revealing new details about the case that look increasingly bad for the president. And as reporter Marcy Wheeler noted, it also appears to significantly contradict previous reporting from the New York Times about a major development in the Russia investigation.

That development came when Manafort’s lawyers accidentally filed an improperly redacted document addressing allegations that their client lied to the special counsel about material facts in the investigation. Most strikingly, investigators believe Manafort lied about a meeting with Russian-born political consultant Konstantin Kilimnik, who the government believes has ties to Russian intelligence, where the campaign chair handed over polling data on the 2016 campaign.

When the New York Times first reported on this fact, it contained a stunning revelation: Manafort had given the polling data to Kilimnik to pass it along to Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin. This was significant for many reasons. First, of course, it ties the campaign directly to Moscow, which had been working on efforts to help secure Trump’s victory. Second, previous reports of emails from Manafort during the campaign showed that he had offered private briefings to Deripaska to use his position close to Trump to fulfill his debts to the oligarch. And third, it makes the Trump administration’s recent decision to lift sanctions on Deripaska specifically in a particularly generous fashion look even more suspicious.

However, after publication, the Times retracted this specific claim about Deripaska, issuing the following correction:

ADVERTISEMENT

A previous version of this article misidentified the people to whom Paul Manafort wanted a Russian associate to send polling data. Mr. Manafort wanted the data sent to two Ukrainian oligarchs, Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov, not to Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin.

But a post on Wheeler’s blog reveals that, based on the length of redactions in the transcript, it appears Mueller’s team believes the polling data was indeed intended for Deripaska:

JL notes that neither of the two Ukrainian oligarchs identified by NYT’s leakers, Lyovochkin and Akhmetov, fit the 9-character redaction after “Mr.” in the last screen cap. But “Deripaska” does. And we know this meeting was specifically focused on Kilimnik reporting back to Deripaska. In addition, Deripaska’s plane was in NY just after the meeting.

ADVERTISEMENT

There also appear to be other significant facts the Times report got wrong or reported in a misleading way.

For example, it reported that Manafort “transferred the data to Mr. Kilimnik in the spring of 2016 as Mr. Trump clinched the Republican presidential nomination, according to a person knowledgeable about the situation.” But the new transcript shows that Mueller’s team appears to believe the transfer happened on Aug. 2, 2016. This is significant in the timeline of the Trump campaign because it comes after Manafort’s emails about potential briefings for Deripaska and after the campaign’s infamous meeting at Trump Tower, which Manafort attended, with a Russian lawyer promising dirt on Hillary Clinton in June.

Another portion that doesn’t exactly contradict the Times story, but adds much more detail than was initially revealed, is about the polling data itself. The Times said its source claimed, “Most of the data was public, but some of it was developed by a private polling firm working for the campaign…” But according to the transcript, even Manafort’s lawyers appear to admit (reading between the lines on some narrow redactions) that the polling data was highly detailed, complex, and difficult to comprehend. Judge Amy Berman Jackson noted, in response to arguments from Manafort’s lawyers, that this level of sophistication in the data shows that Manafort’s decision to give it to Kilimnik was “significant and unusual.”

ADVERTISEMENT

It is, of course, not clear who the Times’ source was on the initial story. But these apparent contradictions or differences with the new transcript suggest that the person conveying the information may have not fully understood what they were discussing or was potentially misleading the reporters on purpose.

But while it’s often assumed by critics of the media that outlets like the New York Times consistently exaggerate developments in the Russia investigation, this incident shows that errors may also be common in the other direction. Mainstream outlets may also be prone to making mistakes that downplay the importance of central facts in the case, despite what their critics say.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected]. Send news tips to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Gun ownership increases homicides — but only a very specific kind of them: study

Published

on

Does the frequency of gun ownership impact the homicide rate? In the broad sense, many studies have shown it does. But how does it do so exactly?

A new study, conducted at the University of Indianapolis and published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, offers a profound hint. The study, which examined homicide rates by state from 1990 to 2016, suggests that most forms of homicide — those committed against friends, acquaintances, and strangers — are negligibly affected by firearm ownership rates. But one particular category of homicide is sharply correlated with the presence of guns: domestic violence.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Conservatives are furious over Trump’s budget deal with Democrats — president brags about ‘real compromise’

Published

on

Nancy Pelosi clap

House conservatives are livid after President Donald Trump struck a budget deal with Democrats.

"You should veto this bill because it is fiscally irresponsible," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Trump. "It blows well beyond what was intended with the 2011 [Budget Control Act] caps. Furthermore, it continues spending hundreds of billions more than what we take in a year and does not put our nation on a path towards a balanced budget."

The effort is being driven by first-term Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX).

"As the greatest nation in the history of the world, the least we can do is cut a deal that does not sabotage the fiscal future of our nation while endangering millions of American and migrants because of our porous border," the lawmakers wrote. "We can do better."

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Male Fox News personality rewarded by the network after being caught sending lewd texts to female colleague

Published

on

Less than, two weeks after the Huffington Post published shocking text messages a Fox News contributor reportedly sent to his female Fox Nation co-host, the network rewarded the male employee.

“Tyrus, a Fox News contributor and a host on the network’s digital channel, Fox Nation, sent lewd and inappropriate text messages to his now-former Fox Nation co-host, Britt McHenry, according to four sources familiar with the texts’ contents,” the Huffington Post reported.

Continue Reading
 
 
 

Copyright © 2019 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections or concerns, please email [email protected]

Join Me. Try Raw Story Investigates for $1. Invest in Journalism. Escape Ads.
close-image