, 109 tweets, 38 min read Read on Twitter
Where to start....

With it not being obstruction to fire Mueller....

With it not being obstruction period because Mueller has been on his witch hunt for years, unimpeded......

With the New York Times being the enemy of the people.....

That one. Enemy of the people.
Only the freaking fake news, left wing radical media could take in all the information about the FBI and DOJ trying to illegally overthrow the President with no evidence of criminal wrongdoing and pretend that Trump is the unprecedented danger here.

and it's like 100+ paragraphs long. I really really don't want to read this garbage lol.

nytimes.com/2019/02/19/us/…
😂 I'm going to start it at least and see how it goes. The problem with the New York Times is that they drop legitimate news in these huge articles but absolutely bury it and editorialize so much it's impossible to find without reading in full.

Honest headline: "Intimidation, Pressure and Humiliation: Inside the FBI's two year war on the Presidency"
When you start your "bombshell" reporting with freaking Stormy Daniels it means you have LITERALLY NOTHING
"according to several American officials with direct knowledge of the call."

Terrible sourcing, what is an "American official with direct knowledge of the call" even supposed to mean? I was going to call out the ongoing illegal leaking but this sounds just made up entirely.
"The president soon soured on Mr. Whitaker, as he often does with his aides, and complained about his inability to pull levers at the Justice Department that could make the president’s many legal problems go away."

This is high school english level creative writing @maggienyt
President Trump has publically and repeatedly fought back against these illegal investigations of him, there is nothing secret about the President and all his supporters demanding you stop investigating him when you have no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever. Obstruction? LOL
"Mr. Trump rages almost daily to his 58 million Twitter followers that Mr. Mueller is on a “witch hunt” and has adopted the language of Mafia bosses by calling those who cooperate with the special counsel “rats.”

By the way, this isn't an OPINION article this is straight news.
The New York Times then laughably tries to call out "conservative media" for pushing a conspiracy theory while pretending to be straight unbiased news.

The news will never stop being fake unless you fire all of the #Resistance media.
So we're now five paragraphs into a New York Times "bombshell" and the only thing they have offered is Stormy freaking Daniels and "accusations of obstruction" regarding a never ending witch hunt. No evidence presented for why the witch hunt was needed though. Trivial details lol
"Interviews with dozens of current and former government officials and others close to Mr. Trump"

Again just terrible sourcing, vague and could be literally anyone. Former government officials like McCabe and Strzok? Current ones like Ohr? "others close to Mr. Trump" lol ok then
Remember how during the Whitaker hearing, every Dem rep was screaming the same question at him repeatedly, even though he had already answered it multiple times? They're now floating trying to go after him for perjury. Of freaking course they are. That was the plan from the start
"“Under oath...then Acting Attorney General Whitaker stated that ‘at no time has the White House asked for nor have I provided any promises or commitments concerning the special counsel’s investigation or any other investigation,"

“Mr. Whitaker stands by his testimony.”
How STUPID does the fake news media think the American people are? How dumb would we have to be to believe for even one second that President Trump has obstructed in the slightest this never ending illegal witch hunt. They think we are so stupid!
"The story of Mr. Trump’s attempts to defang the investigations has been voluminously covered in the news media..."

Yeah it has, because they're the ones that wrote the fictional tale of the evil President and his assault on the virtuous Mueller.
LOL here the fake news New York Times explains to its readers how dumb many Americans are for not realizing how super serious this all is and how "unusual" Trump's behavior is. Based on their own nonstop fake reporting about it. They blamed us for it 😂
"But fusing the strands reveals an extraordinary story..." 😂

They keep using the word story because they have literally nothing but a story about what they allege happened and how we should perceive it.
" president who has attacked the law enforcement apparatus of his own government like no other president in history"

LOL no
Here's a partial list of those "law enforcement officials" that the NYT keeps ominously referencing as being unimpeachable. Looks like a lot of them were fired and or forced out for their illegal activities and many are under investigation themselves.
"Mr. Trump has done it with the same tactics he once used in his business empire: demanding fierce loyalty from employees, applying pressure tactics to keep people in line, and protecting the brand — himself — at all costs."

And Obama was a pussycat right? lol give me a break
I'd say that anyone that becomes the President of the United States, against all odds and fierce opposition, will fit every one of those characteristics that the New York Times nefariously refer to as being Trump only. You think Hillary doesn't fit the bill for all of those? 😂
The New York Times has an insane graph stating that the serial killers in their research department have tracked over 1000 times that Trump has attacked the "Russia investigation" they include THEMSELVES (the news media) in their calculations at the bottom lol. Just wow.
The New York Times, after spending the last few paragraphs talking about the story they had to tell, claim that President Trump is trying "to create a narrative" lol.

The absolute delusion of this entire "article" so far lol.
"The new Democratic majority in the House, and the prospect of a wave of investigations on Capitol Hill this year, will test whether the strategy shores up Mr. Trump’s political support or puts his presidency in greater peril."

LOL "The end of Trump for sure, this time!!"
"The president has spent much of his time venting publicly about there being “no collusion” with Russia before the 2016 election, which has diverted attention from a growing body of evidence that he has tried to impede the various investigations."

😂😂😂😂 they wrote that....
The New York Times basically says here "The President has spent so much time pointing out how there is literally no evidence of any wrongdoing by him or his campaign that he is trying to divert away from the accusations that he obstructed those investigations that found nothing"
lol this is a comedy article. I am laughing quite a bit. After two straight years of promising the end of Trump's Presidency and a vast Russian conspiracy they have.........high school creative writing prompts about a man possibly obstructing a never ending investigation lol.
Just like we went from the SUPER SPY DOSSIER to "George freaking Papadopoulos" we are going from STEALING THE ELECTION to "he said mean things about the investigation!" and I am laughing at the pathetic attempts to spin it lol.
Some random lawyer believes there is "ample public evidence that Mr. Trump had the "corrupt intent to try to derail the Mueller investigation" so we should all just forget that President Trump has the legal authority to fire Mueller whenever he wants and also that he NEVER DID
Here, the New York Times tells their readers to get ready to be disappointed in Mueller, but fear not, the Democrats will continue the war on Trump:

"Mr. Mueller will have to make judgments about the impact on the country of making a criminal case against the president."
And if that's not enough, we have the stupid Stormy freaking Daniels thing and the Trump inaugural committee nonsense and whatever else their minds can dream up! It never had to be about Russia!

I wonder why President Trump talks badly about the media and these "investigators"?
If the New York Times is writing a hundred paragraphs on a completely made up scenario surrounding possible obstruction imagine what they would have done had he actually fired Mueller. Like just renamed themselves to The Resistance Times I guess because this is super pathetic.
"The president's defenders" counter all of the New York Times make believe fairy tale assumptions with...........the constitution, the office of the Presidency itself, the precedent that the President cannot be indicted, and his Presidential powers.

😂 this article is ABSURD
"President Trump, will you please take an hour out of your day to read a 100 paragraph essay full of lies and speculation and provide comment to us exclusievly before publishing?" LOL pathetic.

The NYT claims that it is a "novel response" to point out that the President has been extremely public about his disdain for the witch hunt and he isn't secretly doing anything. After they just pointed out he could legally fire Mueller and end it anyways.

Disaster article lol
The NYT says the President has the legal authority to fire Mueller and end the investigations, has been open about his hatred for them, and hasn't stopped them in any way, and their takeaway?

"In other words, the president’s brazen public behavior might be his best defense."

😂
Absolutely disgusting garbage from The New York Times to try to justify the FBI spying on General Flynn for just doing his job. The Obama Administration spied on the communications of the Trump transition team and used their legal conversations as justifications to take them down
All under the guise of a Russian collusion hoax they knew was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC and provided no evidence at all of any wrongdoing.

Literally Russia, Russia, Russia.
The NYT then includes some stupid anecdote about the phrasing surrounding the departure of Flynn. Firing VS Resign. Asking for someone's resignation. Literally just semantics. But to the New York Times? Evidence of obstruction of justice lol.

This articles a freaking joke lol
They keep using this word, "reported" or variations, like reporting and reportage, but all this is is a complete work of fiction surrounded by narrative shaping and it's really, really pathetic. Like they don't even believe themselves anymore.

It's not reporting. Not even close
He was talking about the legal Russian sanctions talk that the left tried to use to take him down like they took down General Flynn.
If this anecdote is true, the New York Times just admitted to its readers that President Trump couldn't have been obstructing an investigation because he thought it was over lol

“What do you mean? Flynn met with the Russians. That was the problem. I fired Flynn. It’s over.”
The New York Times says Sean Spicer overstated the thoroughness of an investigation into Flynn lol. Literally arguing semantics about what is overstated and what is thorough. Literally got nothing else.
*redoing the last three tweets, wrong screenshot in one*
Then the New York Times just straight up lies to its readers and says that President Trump "asked Mr. Comey to end the F.B.I's investigation into Mr. Flynn" (L)

(M/R) Comey testifying that he was never asked to drop the investigation, he just interpreted it that way.
They literally say that the President asked Comey to end the investigation as if it is a fact but list Comey's response as "according to a memo he wrote"

Unbelievable just how bad this article is.
"Mr. Trump was also growing increasingly frustrated with Mr. Comey, who refused to say publicly that the president was not under investigation."

The New York Times leaves out the part where he told him three different times privately that he was NOT under investigation.
"Instead of ending the Russia investigation by firing Mr. Comey, Mr. Trump had drastically raised the stakes."

The New York Times again undermines the entire premise of its stupid article by pointing out that President Trump didn't obstruct anything, it all spiraled even harder
No joke there are 50 paragraphs left in this article lol. This is just cruel.
😂😂😂
The New York times again setting the stage for both nothing to come of Mueller's probe and the House Democrats intentions to investigate the President further regardless.

His "anger" and "reckless behavior" will be the "building blocks". Because who needs evidence of crimes?
Another entire paragraph of lies and speculation presented as fact:

"On Twitter and in news media interviews, Mr. Trump tried to pressure investigators and undermine the credibility of potential witnesses in the Mueller investigation."
Trump saying he would have never hired Sessions to be AG if he had known he would give up all his power as Attorney General and allow a coup by the FBI to take over his administration "stunned Washington" lol.

Same people who saw no reason for Loretta Lynch to recuse I bet.
"Privately, he tried to remove Mr. Sessions"

uhhhh

Publically, he fired Jeff Sessions. And the witch hunt continues. So this is also not evidence of obstructing anything lol. This is so freaking dumb.
"The president even tried to fire Mr. Mueller himself, a move that could have brought an end to the investigation"

NO HE DIDN'T. Also, great job admitting yet again the President has the power to fire Mueller and end the investigation whenever he wants yet he still didn't.
🙄 I seriously can't keep track of this article. They said this was what Trump did from day one, to constantly and publically slam the investigation, and are now pretending like it's a new strategy.
Rep Gaetz and Rep Jordan decided that enough was enough and it was time to stand up for the President. Time to play some offense against the nonstop attacks of the left wing media and the Democrats and the deep state So of course the NYT will vilify them.
Also they rightfully pointed out that the cowardly @GOP leadership was beaten into a defensive crouch leaving the President of the United States, a member of their own party, to be repeatedly and viciously attacked by his enemies on all sides.
The New York Times thinks neverending investigations of the President based on no evidence of wrongdoing, accusations of impropriety, and his anger and recklessness are fine but the GOP investigates the investigators and it's a "strategy" to influence the electorate. Unreal.
They say the investigation strategy "convinced many Americans that the country’s law enforcement apparatus was determined to bring down the president."

They have admitted as much, the NYT have repeatedly admitted as much, this entire article is trying to take down the President!
The New York Times then straight up lies and claims that they wanted a second special counsel "to essentially reinvestigate Hillary Clinton for her handling of her emails"

lol just blatant propaganda. Ignore the FBI and DOJ and FISA court abuses and pretend it's about "emails"
"the president’s fiercest allies in Congress and the conservative media were busy trying to flip the script on the federal law enforcement agencies"

If you are going to repeatedly call people the "conservative media" then you better start labeling yourselves the left wing media.
They say that President Trump falsely claimed that President Obama had his wires tapped but I think the jury is still out on that one. Given all the things we already know President Obama's DOJ and FBI did to Trump's campaign that wouldn't be shocking at all.
Here the New York Times blames the Congressional GOP investigation for making public the existence of an FBI informant while ignoring the fact that it was the media themselves that named him and outed him as an "informant" to cover for him SPYING AND SETTING UP the Trump Campaign
The NYT refers to the currently ongoing Uranium One investigation as "a debunked Obama-era uranium deal indirectly linked to Mrs. Clinton"

I thought you weren't allowed to denounce senior law enforcement officials and their investigations? Is the New York Times obstructing?
"All the times the New York Times tried to obstruct the Uranium One investigation" would make a great article. You could even put a giant serial killer graph showing how you tracked all their words for years to figure it out too like they do.
" Peter Strzok and Lisa Page — repeatedly criticized Mr. Trump in their texts...."

Giving cover to the demon weasel now. "Repeatedly criticized" doesn't even begin to describe them outwardly saying they will stop him from becoming President.
"which were featured in a loop on Fox News and became a centerpiece of an evolving and powerful conservative narrative"

You can't just make people FORGET that they saw the Strzok/Page texts no matter how much you try to make it out to be a right wing Fox News conspiracy theory.
This isn't an "evolving conservative narrative" this is actual evidence of a criminal conspiracy.

The New York Times has presented zero evidence of a criminal conspiracy involving Trump, yet this article is all about how evil Trump is and how virtuous these FBI officials were.
Buried like 90 paragraphs in here the New York Times explains that President Trump was hoping for fair treatment from Mueller even while praising the House GOP uncovering the coup attempt.

This is like the fifth time they've directly disputed the premise of this whole article.
The New York Times again thinks we will all just take the FBI's word at this point. While presenting no evidence themselves they say that the FBI was concerned about the House GOP memo's accuracy. No mention of the actual inaccuracies recently revealed in the Dems response.
Here's some info on that, and an article actually worth reading:

The New York Times tries to claim that President Trump was improperly leaning on his administration officials to provide the House GOP with the oversight documents they were requesting. Then they point out that Trump has the authority to release it all himself regardless.
What they don't point out is that he never forced them to declassify anything, even though he had the power to and demanded it at one point. The House GOP tried to impeach Rosenstein over it. Such ridiculous revisionist history. Completely detached from reality.
😂😂😂 they actually, in the next paragraph, pointed it out. That's how insane this article is. They frame everything in a certain way but then include facts to directly dispute their premise.

What a nuts article. Absurd.
lol upon hearing that the FBI illegally implanted a spy in his Presidential campaign, Trump took to twitter to let the world know.

The New York Times pretends that this statement was made "without evidence" when they previously admitted to exactly that, in this freaking article
How can there still be 25 paragraphs left in this? How much time was spent writing and editing and publishing such insane nonsense? They don't even believe any of this themselves and it shows. It's just desperate narrative crafting and no evidence and they know it.
This is the second time that they phrase Trump's legal strategy in the terms of his old attorneys "counseling that he should cooperate" while making it sound like he hasn't. He has cooperated in full with Mueller, making people and documents available whenever asked.
President Trump even went as far as to repeatedly and publically say he would love to sit down for an interview with Mueller and had to be talked out of it by his legal team because it's insane and an perjury trap based on an illegal investigation.
The New York Times using the phrase "without evidence" about things that are true and there is evidence for is great. It's even better in an article that, without evidence, pushes both the Russia collusion conspiracy theory and a liberal fantasy obstruction theory.
The New York Times pretends that the perfectly legal and publicly known information sharing agreement between President Trump's lawyers and Paul Manafort's lawyers is nefarious.

"Highly unusual" is fake news code for "nothing illegal or improper at all happened here"
And they again blame the "attacks on the Mueller probe" for the American people at large turning against it. 😂

No. The fake news media screaming for two years that the President is a Russian agent, without evidence, have turned the people against the Mueller witch hunt.
The media cried Russian Wolf, intelligence agencies cried Russian Wolf, Democrats cried Russian Wolf, Hollywood cried Russian Wolf, for years now. Most people don't follow any of this at all, but they realize Trump is still President. Must not be a Russian Wolf after all.
And now we get to the Cohen raid. Also something that has literally nothing to do with anything illegal done by President Trump, regardless of how many times the media tries to make Non Disclosure Agreements "illegal campaign contributions"
When women try to extort a Presidential candidate by threatening to reveal their consensual sexual relationships with him to the media it's not buying their silence when you agree to their demands.
lol between the Non Disclosure Agreements and the very public and NEVER COMPLETED Trump Tower Moscow the New York Times pretends that President Trump was feeling pressure and that the investigations were "moving ever close to him" 😂😂😂
"Mr. Cohen’s descriptions of the president’s actions made Mr. Trump, in effect, an unindicted co-conspirator and raised the prospect of the president being charged after he leaves office."

AFTER he leaves office 😂. That'll be in 6 years SDNY. By then, no one will care at all.
But don't worry New York Times readers! Democrat Congressman Nadler says that "the implied offense was probably impeachable"

The IMPLIED offense was PROBABLY impeachable is LITERALLY all you guys have? After two freaking years? #ShutItDown #ShutItAllDown #WitchHunt
President Trump (again in the full view of the public and on twitter) destroyed Michael Cohen as a liar and a thief and a rat and Democrats said he was trying to intimidate a witness.

“He’s only been threatened by the truth,” the president responded. 😂😂😂

I love that man.
That was about 8 paragraphs on Michael Cohen and Congress and Trump where the @nytimes failed to mention that Michael Cohen pled guilty to lying to Congress by the way, if you want to know how much they care about who is lying and who is telling the truth. politico.com/story/2018/11/…
"Made the call" "to see if" "Berman" "recused himself"

I guarantee you to the extent this call happened at all, it was the President asking one of his advisors the legality of Berman recusing after all the evidence of the coup has come to light.
They know about the call but not what happened after, meaning they either got an illegal leak of the call itself (which would be a huge crime worthy of a 100 paragraph article) or they heard secondhand from someone leaking the basic content. Or it's completely made up.
They try to make it sound super scary here that Trump nominated Barr for AG because he said that a President can't be charged with obstruction for acts well within his power lol. That goes for all Presidents, not just Trump. That's how our government works.
"A president cannot be found to have broken the law, Mr. Barr argued, if he was exercising his executive powers to fire subordinates or use his “complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding.”

There's literally nothing controversial about that statement.
"Many officials there hope he will try to change the Trump administration’s combative tone toward the department as well as the F.B.I."

😂😂😂 only if he fires half of them and locks up the other half.
"Whether it is too late is another question. Mr. Trump's language, and allegations of “deep state” excesses, are now embedded in the political conversation, used as a cudgel by the president’s supporters."

Yeah, it's Trump's language and not the coup that is riling us up lol.
The New York Times and the rest of the media missed what really happened at the General Flynn hearing. The Judge basically threatened General Flynn with serious prison time if he didn't reconsider withdrawing his plea because he knows he was set up.
The Judge went repeatedly asked General Flynn if he stood by his plea before repeatedly warning him and asking him over and over if he wanted more time to reconsider because if not he wouldn't guarantee he would not give him serious prison time. And then they delayed it.
And the New York Times, to end their article, alludes to President Trump potentially being willing to pardon General Flynn. That's just the start. Pardon and full reinstatement is what he deserves. He was set up by a deep state trying to take down the President. #ClearFlynnNow!
This was your bombshell @maggieNYT? Your pathetic attempt to spin a defeated narrative alleging obstruction of justice against an investigation that has gone on, unimpeded for years including to this day? This is what everyone is freaking out about on twitter? LOL
That's why I have to read these myself. They are long and stupid but reading them immediately makes you realize just how desperate and out of ammo the Resistance and the fake news media is. They are running on fumes. The witch hunt is almost over and #MuellerTime will never come.
/end of thread and the collusion narrative for good
ADDENDUM: lol this chucklehead blocked me but thanks for pointing this out @Bobbyding23.

Literally just pure delusion and mental illness on the left.
ADDENDUM 2: I'm worst at summaries, but to sum up.

The New York times spent 100 paragraphs pretending that a President that has the power to fire Mueller, yet didn't, obstructed Mueller. Also they never even tried to push collusion. It's dead. There's no more narrative there.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Shem Horne
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!