Struggling to understand how such a vast departure from reality could get constructed & then published - by ‘accident’ or though simple ‘carelessness’ … smells rancid!
I think even the rewritten version of the Times story is reprehensible. It continues to maintain that on Trump’s plan “most” of the illegal immigrants in this country will be treated “humanely.” Trump never used that word, as far as I can tell, and made no claim whatsoever about how illegal immigrants escaping deportation will be treated (nor is there any way to calculate how many undocumented immigrants would remain, especially given that he vowed to deport millions of criminals, visa overstays, and immigrants using government services). The author (Patrick Healy) even suggests that this moderate speech might lose some of Trump’s hardcore supporters. I guess he meant those to the right of David Duke and Ann Coulter…
WTF is going on with NYT? I mean this is just getting ridiculous 
This shit isnt hard.
For the most part,I stopped reading the NY Times years ago. Maybe I need to stop altogether.
The NYT lost its credibility during the run-up to the Iraq invasion and has yet to recover it.
I wonder whether this was written from an advance copy of the speech, which was then abandoned by Trump? Consistent with Trump’s Razor.
If so, other “outlets” must have the same advance copy, no?
This, and way they’ve been covering the Clinton Foundation, I think this is not an “accident”.
I think the Trump camp is intentionally creating confusion and will continue to do so as long as the press takes the bait.
This misleading lede by the New York Times should cast quite a shadow on its reputation and cloud the readership’s trust in its reporting.
I think the Grey Lady should be checked for Alzheimer’s…
I think he wrote the article for the print deadline, before actually watching/listening.
Before that, with their creation of the (non-existent) Whitewater scandal, that led ultimately to Bill Clinton’s impeachment.
Clear and irrefutable bias against anything Clinton and then these attempts to soften and humanize Trump.
As posted above the NYT cheerleading of the Iraq invasion and these badly handled stories, they continue on a path that goes against everything they purport themselves to be.
The Grey Lady apparently has dementia…
Sad to see it slipping into the shadows.
I prefer the Washing Post nowadays. At least they write detailed, fact checking articles on a regular basis. I really like their push back on Republicans and Trump blaming NAFTA on Clinton and Democrats. Bush Sr, and the Republicans baked the NAFTA cake and gave it to Bill along with the container of NAFTA frosting. Bill basically did the equivalent of frosting the cake:
TRUMP:
“NAFTA, which her husband signed, is a very, very big reason [for economic problems in upstate New York].” 12/17/92.
We’ve been over this time and again. Bill Clinton was certainly a supporter of NAFTA who pushed approval through Congress. But it was negotiated and signed by President George H.W. Bush. (Here’s a photo.) Moreover, more Republicans than Democrats voted for the deal, as the trade pact was vehemently opposed by labor unions. One key ally for Clinton was then-House Minority Whip (and later House speaker) Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), now a Trump supporter.
Clinton did put his political prestige on the line to get it approved by Congress — even as two top Democrats, House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt (Mo.) and House Majority Whip David Bonior (Mich.), opposed it. In the House, NAFTA passed 234-200; 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voted in favor of it. The Senate approved NAFTA 61-38, with the backing of 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
In the House and the Senate, more Democrats voted against NAFTA than for it — a signal that the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party was strong even then. Clinton held a signing ceremony for the implementing legislation on Dec. 3, 1993, flanked by former presidents and congressional leaders of both parties. But that’s not the same as negotiating and signing the treaty with Mexico and Canada. The trade agreement went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994.
I am still waiting for someone, anyone, to ask him about the American children of these undocumented parents.
Trump’s ugly but the media ain’t looking too pretty this morning either.
If I hear another jurnopundulist explain “what Trump meant” I’m going to scream. CBS This Morning’s political roundtable in the lead segment was a joke, Gayle & Charlie can’t return soon enough.