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.

Instead, the source the mainstream media – including the government-funded NPR – used to back up its “17 intelligence agencies” claim was a letter from members of 17 intelligence agencies, whom former intelligence executives James Clapper and John Brennan stated in sworn congressional testimonies in May were “hand-picked,” meaning – as Consortium News reports – their statements were not indicative of their entire respective organizations’ views.

“As any intelligence expert will tell you, if you “hand-pick” the analysts, you are really hand-picking the conclusion. For instance, if the analysts were known to be hard-liners on Russia or supporters of Hillary Clinton, they could be expected to deliver the one-sided report that they did,” the outlet states.

The “17 intelligence agencies” claim, of course, was used for months by Democrats, Verified Liberals and the mainstream media (such as USA Today) to discredit anyone who dared to call into question allegations of Russian hacking in the 2016 election.

Hillary Clinton even cited the claim during the third and final Presidential debate.

She would bring the lie up again at a May 31 technology conference in California, stating, “17 agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, is hard to get. They concluded with high confidence that the Russians ran an extensive information war campaign against my campaign, to influence voters in the election.”

“The failure of the major news organizations to clarify this point about the 17 agencies may have contributed to [The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman] mistake on June 25 as she simply repeated the groupthink that nearly all the Important People in Washington just knew to be true,” concludes Consortium News’ report.

“But the Times’ belated correction also underscores the growing sense that the U.S. mainstream media has joined in a political vendetta against Trump and has cast aside professional standards to the point of repeating false claims designed to denigrate him.”

Indeed, the mood online among Trump supporters is jubilant following The New York Times’ correction.

Sources:
Consortium News
The New York Times

  • Steffy93

    Liberals will repeat anything that suits their agenda.

  • DaisyToo

    So, just as sane people have proposed throughout this scam, it was Obama intelligence guys who lied about the Russian hacking. Not ONE of them has seen the DNC servers. Not One.

  • L84Cabo

    At what point can the media be sued for fraud…or at the very lease liable/slander? How do stop this B.S. if there’s never any repercussions for doing it?

  • Randy Lay

    The Russians never hacked anything Seth Rich sent the emails to Wikileaks after the DNC railroaded Sanders .. and he paid the ultimate price ..he was clintonated ..in the back ….then the FBI used their vault 7 capabilities to make it look like Russia did the hack ..the hack that never happened

  • Don & Cristina Smith

    Lies on top of lies to cover lies told by liers to the lying media that then runs with the lies forever even after everyone admits it’s been lies from the beginning.

  • OzarkAggie

    The DOJ needs to empanel a grand jury to investigate the Clintons, Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch, and others. No more special counsels or Congressional committees. Prosecute any violations of law. Maybe the swamp will dry up.

  • Subdivisions

    Poor little New York Times! Now they can’t blame Hillary’s loss on Russia. Now they can’t start another Cold War. How sad for them.

  • Dante Alighieri ????

    NYTimes: ✂ 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.

    Admitting you’re wrong is a sign of maturity — Unlike FOX, Breibart & Co. who have yet to reach adolescence or submit any retraction for anything. Does MILO News make mistakes, one wonders?

    • maddog2008

      Troll much Skippy ? Now be a good little liberal loser and go play with your friends at Huff-Po or Salon.

    • kohlrak .

      I’ve heard Fox anchors retract things. To be fair, they’re just the right wing of Pravda.

  • Jason Stearns

    It was their own staffer, Seth Rich, who hacked into their computers and sent those emails to Wikileaks and for which Rich was assassinated by the DNC.

    • kohlrak .

      He released the password. One of the leaked emails was one detailing their plans to kill him.

  • Arizona Ranger

    Too bad they didn’t print the retraction on the deception in the report of the 4 agencies. The agencies only said that in the past Russia has been known to meddle in elections, just like our CIA does. And the only hard evidence they have is an IP Addr they found is one that was used once used, years ago by a russian hacker.

    So basicly they have nothing other than saying yes Russia did it in the past to other countries.

  • jim marcum

    It was early on during all this bullshit that I personally heard that this was not true, that maybe 3 or 4 believed it to be true but all 17 didn’t even have the ability to do this type of surveillance. Even the Motive that the former FBI Dir. gave to the Intelligence Committee was a joke and it’s the only one they have. They state that “they believe” Putin wanted Trump to be President because 1 Putin hates Hillary and 2 Trump was a businessman and he “may have” thought that he could make deals with Trump easier than Clinton. “they believe”, “may have” being key words here. My little Granddaughter told me that a noun was something that you can put catsup on. Well evidence is a noun and no one in the CIA or the FBI or the NSA or any Democratic or Rhino Republican have shown us any evidence that you can put catsup on. Show us the audio, the video, the facts or get off the damn lying subject.

  • chincycoot

    If bullshit was applebutter no one would go hungry. trump is toast and your whining isn’t going to change that.
    Have a tittypink 4th of July