More FAKE News … AP Makes Correction to Trump-Russia Stories (FOUR, Not 17 U.S. Intelligence Agencies)
EVEN WITH COMMON CORE MATH: 17 – 4= 13
On the Friday of a July 4th holiday day week with many not paying attention, the AP took the opportunity to report that they have been reporting FAKE NEWS for quite some time. Earlier in the week, the NY Times did the same retraction. It would appear that they, the AP, and numerous other media outlets and Democrat politicians have been using the fictitious number of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. It turns out to be a fabricated number. Because 17 sounds much more impressive than 4. In essence, the AP, and in turn Democrats were trying to make it sound like 100% of the US intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. Actually, it was only 23.5%. Hmm, that’s much difference, isn’t it?
This news was put out by the media as weaponized information against Donald Trump. The MSM colluded with the Democrat party. Who leaked this information to the media who purposely put forth this incorrect information so that the MSM would run with it and it would become talking points for Democrats.
In stories published April 6, June 2, June 26 and June 29, The Associated Press reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. That assessment was based on information collected by three agencies – the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency – and published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies. Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment.
How much more fake news do we have to have forced upon us for the American people to understand that the MSM really can no longer be trusted? The media has an agenda and they are colluding with the Democrat party. Maybe that is the investigation that needs to be looked into?