NY Times Quietly Retracts part of Trump-Russia story

The New York Times has been forced to (finally) retract a popular Democratic talking point that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agree that Russia conducted cyber attacks on the U.S. during the 2016 election.

As Consortium News reports, The New York Times’ correction came after the outlet, in a report on Monday, mocked President Donald Trump for “still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help him get elected.”

Today, The New York Times removed that portion of the article and stated – way at the bottom of the piece – the following:

Correction: June 29, 2017

A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.

“The Times’ grudging correction was vindication for some Russia-gate skeptics who had questioned the claim of a full-scale intelligence assessment, which would usually take the form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a product that seeks out the views of the entire Intelligence Community and includes dissents,” reports Consortium News.


3 thoughts on “NY Times Quietly Retracts part of Trump-Russia story

  1. Vlad

    I tried to find the NYT “retraction” you mentioned and could not. But, I did find this NYT article published 8/16/2017, three days after your posting.

    KIEV, Ukraine — The hacker, known only by his online alias “Profexer,” kept a low profile. He wrote computer code alone in an apartment and quietly sold his handiwork on the anonymous portion of the internet known as the dark web. Last winter, he suddenly went dark entirely.

    Profexer’s posts, already accessible only to a small band of fellow hackers and cybercriminals looking for software tips, blinked out in January — just days after American intelligence agencies publicly identified a program he had written as one tool used in Russian hacking in the United States. American intelligence agencies have determined Russian hackers were behind the electronic break-in of the Democratic National Committee.

    But while Profexer’s online persona vanished, a flesh-and-blood person has emerged: a fearful man who the Ukrainian police said turned himself in early this year, and has now become a witness for the F.B.I.

    “I don’t know what will happen,” he wrote in one of his last messages posted on a restricted-access website before going to the police. “It won’t be pleasant. But I’m still alive.”

    It is the first known instance of a living witness emerging from the arid mass of technical detail that has so far shaped the investigation into the election hacking and the heated debate it has stirred. The Ukrainian police declined to divulge the man’s name or other details, other than that he is living in Ukraine and has not been arrested.

    Also emerging from Ukraine is a sharper picture of what the United States believes is a Russian government hacking group known as Advanced Persistent Threat 28 or Fancy Bear. It is this group, which American intelligence agencies believe is operated by Russian military intelligence, that has been blamed, along with a second Russian outfit known as Cozy Bear, for the D.N.C. intrusion.

    Rather than training, arming and deploying hackers to carry out a specific mission like just another military unit, Fancy Bear and its twin Cozy Bear have operated more as centers for organization and financing; much of the hard work like coding is outsourced to private and often crime-tainted vendors.

    Continue reading the main story

    Gl remote August 17, 2017
    NYT! When did speculation become news? Where is the story about Guccifer 2.0 actually being in the Eastern time zone, and the Russification…
    Byron Walker August 17, 2017
    Let us not forget that the U.S. has interfered with other nations for many decades. Not that that makes it right for the likes of Russia,…
    Cutter August 17, 2017
    Me. Smith son, re. your statement “ridiculous search for nonexistent connections between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia”, I would…
    There is no evidence that Profexer worked, at least knowingly, for Russia’s intelligence services, but his malware apparently did.

    That a hacking operation that Washington is convinced was orchestrated by Moscow would obtain malware from a source in Ukraine — perhaps the Kremlin’s most bitter enemy — sheds considerable light on the Russian security services’ modus operandi in what Western intelligence agencies say is their clandestine cyberwar against the United States and Europe.

  2. Vlad

    OK.. I saw the retraction later.. but I also found an “explanation”….

    Four out of the 17 were involved in the January assessment about Russia: CIA, FBI, NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which is an umbrella agency that oversees all 17 organizations.

    This doesn’t mean the remaining 13 intelligence organizations disagree with the January assessment, nor does it mean the report was insufficient, according to multiple national security experts.


  3. RomanInUkraine Post author

    In all of these accusation that you and the media are repeating — doesn’t it seem like the Russian just did what normal journalists SHOULD be doing?

    The persistence of this “nothing burger” story sure looks like the powers that be trying to discredit President Trump.

    This is even more true now that 1) Russian propagandists have been caught trying to undermine Trump (showing that Russia doesn’t really support him), and 2) the Clinton – Podest – Russia ties have come to light, and the media ignores them.


Leave a Reply