This will be used to cast doubt on the accuracy and truthfulness of both Comey’s testimony, AND all reporting on Russia’s coercion into our last election by ALL media. End result, we don’t know what to believe, so let’s ignore everything and assume T rump & Co. is completely innocent.
They will enlarge this tiny fragment of a much bigger story, spin it perpetually for the base, which will use it as a last refuge for their abject ignorance…
And what do you bet the Times will come back with “We stand by our reporting!” ?!?
Did Comey’s characterization of Kislyak as being more ambassador than intelligence agent maybe explain this?
Journalism is the first draft of history. First drafts often contain mistakes.
Yes, history often records several mistakes.
So I just re-read the article that NYT linked to with regards to Comey’s suggestion that it was not fully in target … there’s not a lot there that isn’t verifiable/factual (links or public statements, essentially) or question marks (like, " pthey would not confirm" or “it is unclear if”.)
Forgive me, but I’m going to compile the passages that seem most likely to be “wrong.” (Since, IIRC, Corey said that the article was wrong b/c people only had a limited view.)
(EDIT: These are sort of stream of consciousness notes. The quoted paragraphs are the ones I felt had any degree of wiggle room, either in the facts/context or interpretation. Don’t have time to be more articulate. 
sorry.)
American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.
Timing of intercepts, motive behind investigation.
The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.
Existence of evidence at that time.
The intercepted calls are different from the wiretapped conversations last year between Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, and Sergey I. Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the United States. In those calls, which led to Mr. Flynn’s resignation on Monday night, the two men discussed sanctions that the Obama administration imposed on Russia in December.
Could be one and the same? Or maybe it’s the wiretapping part? Comedy’s a stickler for details, in that tres archetypical lawyer way.
But the cases are part of American intelligence and law enforcement agencies’ routine electronic surveillance of the communications of foreign officials.
Cases were not part of routine surveillance? Or routine surveillance of that kind? Maybe due to preexisting cases? Or from GCHQ? Or informant?
The National Security Agency, which monitors the communications of foreign intelligence services, initially captured the calls between Mr. Trump’s associates and the Russians as part of routine foreign surveillance. After that, the F.B.I. asked the N.S.A. to collect as much information as possible about the Russian operatives on the phone calls, and to search through troves of previous intercepted communications that had not been analyzed.
Details of what FBI asked for, or, again, reasons behind collection. Or what spurred capturing of calls.
The F.B.I. has closely examined at least three other people close to Mr. Trump, although it is unclear if their calls were intercepted. They are Carter Page, a businessman and former foreign policy adviser to the campaign; Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative; and Mr. Flynn.
Number of people and/or identities. (Could be more, or less.)
As part of the inquiry, the F.B.I. is also trying to assess the credibility of the information contained in a dossier that was given to the bureau last year by a former British intelligence operative.
Maybe they aren’t trying to assess credibility of info, or that’s just tangential/verified one way or other, or unrelated – they’re not going to rely on outside intel for any case they’re trying to build.
The F.B.I. has spent several months investigating the leads in the dossier, but has yet to confirm any of its most explosive claims.
Maybe they have confirmed the veracity of said claims (or lack thereof).
The agency’s investigation of Mr. Manafort began last spring as an outgrowth of a criminal investigation into his work for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine and for the country’s former president, Viktor F. Yanukovych. It has focused on why he was in such close contact with Russian and Ukrainian intelligence officials.
When/if investigation began or why or its focus.
The bureau did not have enough evidence to obtain a warrant for a wiretap of Mr. Manafort’s communications, but it had the N.S.A. scrutinize the communications of Ukrainian officials he had met.
Degree of evidence, or what/why it asked NSA to scrutinize.
And Cotton takes a victory and turns it into a face-plant:
“Did you have at the time that story was published any indication of any contact between Trump people and Russians, intelligence officers, other government officials or close associates of the Russian government?” Cotton pressed.
“That’s one I can’t answer sitting here,” Comey said.
Meaning what was not (yet) true at the time of the story is now likely true.
Or (how I heard it) there had been contacts, but not to the degree the NYT story suggested. Either way, the GOPers are so intent on playing defense for the indefensible that they go stupidly overboard in the attempt.
I read it rather as “I had a top-secret clearance at the time, and learned about the evidence as a result of my clearance, so I can’t tell you in open session when, where or whether.”
Right. Seems he’s saying he can’t discuss further in open session. Why Cotton – a detestable hard-right partisan, but a lawyer, and smart – didn’t leave well enough alone but was compelled to go for the categorical “Nobody had any contact ever!” I don’t quite understand, except as a manifestation of the mental haze these folks can fall under when they’re in full-hack mode.
The hysterical part of all this is the outcome if you apply the Clinton Rules.
Take everything Trump has done so far, switch “Hillary Clinton” for “Donald Trump,” and ask what Republicans would be saying about the exact same facts.
'Nuff said.
It doesn’t matter at what time trounce became a part of the investigation. Just that he is and that he’s up to his orange knickers in it now.
Plus, think about this.
Trumpty Dumpty fired Comey because he thought that he should’ve squashed an investigation that now they are saying wasn’t even a thing at the time. Doh!
No wonder Comey didn’t do it, it didn’t exist.
“He did not specify how much of the story was inaccurate, or which allegations were untrue.”
Well, but there was this exchange:
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) asked Comey, “Would it be fair to characterize that story as almost entirely wrong?”
“Yes,” Comey replied.
“Almost entirely wrong” covers a lot of territory in my book. I’d be interested in seeing the Times response.
SENATOR COTTON (looking down at index card): It says here that more than one half of the world’s population thinks Donald Trump is a lying, slimy, self-dealing sack of shit who doesn’t have a clue about being president. Would it be fair to characterize that statement as almost entirely true?
COMEY: Yes
This reminds me of the blood-lust they exhibited in their persecutions of Pres. Clinton over the fact that he received a bj from an intern. But, in their defense, that bj was much worse for America than a foreign adversary hijacking a presidential election. Let’s keep our perspectives straight.