The NYT published an article claiming intelligence officials are warning US lawmakers that Russia is already interfering in the 2020 election—and there is apparently nothing the US can do about it in a country that budgeted nearly $63 BILLION for its National Intelligence Program in 2020…
The New York Times released an article with the headline “Lawmakers Are Warned That Russia Is Meddling to Re-elect Trump,” where they claimed that intelligence officials warned House lawmakers during a classified briefing.
The article states that although “intelligence officials have previously told lawmakers that Russia’s interference campaign was continuing, last week’s briefing included what appeared to be new information: that Russia intended to interfere with the 2020 Democratic primaries as well as the general election.”
In addition to the fact that the Mueller Report confirmed there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016, this article also claims that Russia has been and is currently working to influence our election.
That raises a much bigger question, considering the fact that in 2020 alone, the United States National Intelligence program was funded to the tune of nearly $63 billion dollars—so if intelligence officials did, in fact, have evidence that another country was trying to influence our election, why wouldn’t they do anything to stop it?
A spokesperson for President Putin was quick to deny the Times’ article, but he said he was not surprised by it and he warned these claims will only continue.
In a statement, Dmitry Peskov said, “This is just another paranoid report of the kind which, unfortunately, we will see more and more of as the election approaches. Of course, such claims bear no relationship to the truth.”
Before Trump was elected, outlets like the New York Times, claimed Russia preferred to have Trump in office over Hillary Clinton. However, Moscow has repeatedly denied those claims and we have seen Trump increase tensions both by keeping a firm US presence in Syria, and by pulling out of the INF treaty.
The article credited four authors, and the names that are listed are very familiar with both the 2016 election and the Russiagate narrative.
Among those authors is Maggie Haberman, the New York Times’ White House Correspondent. She was featured in internal documents from Clinton Staffers leaked by Guccifer 2.0 in 2016. The memos described Haberman as “friendly” to Hillary Clinton, and her campaign press secretary was quoted as saying, “We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed.”
Then there is Adam Goldman who is contributing to the article about Russiagate after he has reported on the flimsiness of the Steele Dossier, and he has admitted that he was one of the ones who chased the infamous Trump “Pee tape.” When asked what happened, he just said, “I don’t want to get into it.”
The important thing to remember here is that the New York Times’ story is once against making claims based on vague “anonymous sources.” That is a practice we saw repeatedly in 2016, and even though claims about Russiagate turned out to be blatantly false, we are seeing it once again in 2020.