That Comey ‘Memo’ Info Is Not As Accurate As You Thought

A new detail has emerged about the Comey memo that shatters any claim to accuracy that an anonymous source could have had. This latest detail is the nail in the coffin for the fake news from The New York Times. The anonymous source did not read parts of the former FBI Director’s memo, he repeated back parts of a memo that he thought he saw. This is quite the change from what was represented before. It is obvious that this surreptitious leaker does NOT have a copy of this memo, and is remembering something that was supposedly seen. How accurate is that? Not very, if you ask me.

As Written By Martin Lioll for the Conservative Tribune:

On Tuesday, The New York Times fired a shot heard round the world when it claimed President Donald Trump had asked former FBI Director James Comey “to shut down the federal investigation” into former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s contacts with the Russian and Turkish governments.

According to the writer of the story, Michael Schmidt, the exchange was all written down in a memo by Comey after a meeting with Trump.

I mean, allegedly. And the memo was read off to him over the phone. Oh, wait, no — not quite read off. His source saw it and vouchsafed for its authenticity. But he didn’t remember the exact wording.

Do you perhaps begin to see the problem here?

Schmidt revealed this during an interview on MSNBC with Brian Williams — a man not exactly known for veracious rigor — when The Times reporter was asked about his sources.

“We’d been working — I’d been working on a story for the past few days about the fact that Comey had written these,” Schmidt said. “We thought that was pretty significant in and of …….


“Comey Memos” Turned out to Be Just Something Somebody Thought They Saw

Leave a Comment

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.