Burying the lead on back channel to Russia story

NY Times:

Kushner Is Said to Have Discussed a Secret Channel to Talk to Russia


A back channel between Jared Kushner, a White House adviser, and Moscow was proposed to discuss Syria, but never pursued, in the weeks before Donald J. Trump’s inauguration.
So why is the following story the lead at the Times?

Trump Returns to Crisis Over Kushner as White House Tries to Contain It

President Trump with his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, at the White House in March.
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
President Trump with his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, at the White House in March.
President Trump arrived home Saturday to face reports that his son-in-law is under scrutiny in inquiries into possible ties between Russia and associates of Mr. Trump.
It appears that the facts don't fit the narrative of collusion with the Russians, but the media is rolling out the story to continue its efforts to distract the administration and put it on the defensive.  The alleged meeting to discuss the proposed back-channel was also well after the election.  The facts that have been revealed do not support the contention that this story is some kind of crisis.

Not stated in the lead is the illegal nature of the source of this story which evidently came from NSA transcripts of the Russian communications which by their very nature would have been classified.

I suspect the purpose of this story is to continue a media narrative that the Trump White House is under siege.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more