Given the new developments in what we know about Donald Trump’s interactions with Russia, some of us have been kicking around that “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia” story that the New York Times served up on October 31, 2016.
Our own Tom Levenson has a theory:
This. It was, I believe, timed to step on a scoop elsewhere describing a Trump Russia side channel. https://t.co/VpLozAe8e7
— Thomas Levenson, Zṓiarchos (@TomLevenson) November 30, 2018
James Fallows agreed.
https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1068502035169861632
Hillary Clinton tried to get the story out.
The Clinton campaign tweeted this out on Oct. 31, 2016. #TrumpRussia https://t.co/xNkU7QUY0B
— Ashton Pittman (@ashtonpittman) November 30, 2018
Here’s a more recent story on that connection to Alfa Bank. Still ambiguous.
After the election, Times public editor Liz Spayd blasted the Times for that story. Editor Dean Baquet has given only short, weak responses like this one.
Here’s Southpaw:
NYT did circle back to the 10/31/16 “no clear link to Russia” story briefly in their Crossfire Hurricane article this year. I want to say why I think it didn’t put criticism to rest. https://t.co/sGho6imlIl pic.twitter.com/2JDvGJuGjE
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) November 30, 2018
The 10/31 story, however, doesn’t report any slow-walking or heed any warnings to avoid conclusions. It portrays a summer-long “widening investigation” that found nothing. It states as fact that both “FBI and intelligence officials” believed Russia wasn’t pro-Trump. pic.twitter.com/jMIQFO2pXn
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) November 30, 2018
Revisiting the 10/31 story in light of NYT’s own reporting about those summertime briefings that Russia favored Trump, a split btw CIA and FBI over Russia’s motives, and CIA winning that fight, it looks downright deceptive and artificially partisan. See for yourself. pic.twitter.com/RveVkd9a68
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) November 30, 2018
tl;dr saying the 10/31 story was the product of law enforcement sources cautioning NYT against conclusions is inapt. The story was full of conclusions—wrong ones—that seem to have served the purposes of a faction of the FBI at that point in the race.
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) November 30, 2018
That October Surprise From The New York TimesPost + Comments (210)