New York Times

Senator Tom Cotton Rips the NY Times for Latest Lies

Editorial credit: Osugi /

The New York Times has hit a severe rough patch in recent days with their decision to publish various stories propped up by anonymous sources that keep seeming to get things wrong. Just last week former FBI Director James Comey called some of the reporting he’s seen at the Times and the Washington Post “nonsense,” and various members of the Trump administration have been attacking their reporting for months.

The latest anonymously sourced New York Times effort argues that “several” intelligence agency sources were very worried about Michael Flynn having access to classified intelligence during briefings in the White House.

Senior officials across the government became convinced in January that the incoming national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, had become vulnerable to Russian blackmail.

At the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — agencies responsible for keeping American secrets safe from foreign spies — career officials agreed that Mr. Flynn represented an urgent problem.

Yet nearly every day for three weeks, the new C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo, sat in the Oval Office and briefed President Trump on the nation’s most sensitive intelligence — with Mr. Flynn listening. Mr. Pompeo has not said whether C.I.A. officials left him in the dark about their views of Mr. Flynn, but one administration official said Mr. Pompeo did not share any concerns about Mr. Flynn with the president.

However, according to Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) the story is apparently rife with misinformation, and many conservatives believe it was placed in the Times solely for the purpose of undermining new CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

Cotton took to Twitter on Thursday to rip into the Times and to explain why their latest story is simply wrong.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back?

  • Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Fuel for Thought

As Cotton explains, once former assistant Attorney General (and Democrat partisan) Sally Yates informed the Trump administration of Flynn’s troublesome ties to Russia, Flynn would have stopped being an intelligence concern. Why? Because the Russians wouldn’t be able to “blackmail” him any more! So there really wouldn’t be any reason to worry about him as an intelligence problem.

Cotton’s Twitter takedown is brilliant and in he expertly exposes the Times as the liberal hacks they are with a few short tweets. However, the best shot may be in his last tweet where he attacks the anonymous leakers who pretend to be worried about the sanctity of our national intelligence, while simeltaneously LEAKING CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE. It’s a disturbing bit of hypocrisy and one that deserves to be ridiculed. 🇺🇸

I am the supreme law of the United States. Originally comprising seven articles, I delineate the national frame of government. My first three articles entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Articles Four, Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship to the federal government. Article Seven establishes the procedure subsequently used by the thirteen States to ratify it. I am regarded as the oldest written and codified constitution in force of the world.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.