New York Times: Salman Abedi Met with “ISIS™” Says Secret Sources Providing Zero Evidence

by Scott Creighton

Last year Hillary Clinton’s campaign crumbled largely because of her extreme dishonesty, criminality and the machinations of those around her, specifically the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and John Podesta. Much of it was brought to light by federal and congressional investigations into her use of an illegal private server while she was Secretary of State, a move she made deliberately (not a “mistake”) to shield herself from future prosecution. But still more of the evidence that she was unfit to serve as president came from leaks from various unknown sources via DCLeaks, Wikileaks and other publications. In those cases, yes, the leakers or “sources” were unknown, but the evidence was laid out for all too see and not one of the leaked emails or documents were ever proven to have been falsified. In fact, few if any were ever even question by those parties associated with them.

Though the sources were anonymous, the evidence was rock solid and the damage was clear: the “most qualified candidate for the office of all time” lost her race to a bloviating reality TV star who had once been recorded as saying he liked grabbing women by their genitalia when he met them.

Today, it seems, our complicit media plays by a different set of rules:

According to them – Trump is Putin’s puppet, according to secret sources and evidence even reporters haven’t seen and Russia hacked the election, according to more secret sources who again, provided no evidence to back up the claim. The story of the James Comey memo lived it’s life for two weeks with an unknown source and never once even examined by the writers who reported on it.

Secret sources, secret evidence none of it is actually true and yet that’s good enough for congresswomen to screech their demands for Trump’s impeachment daily.

Back in 2002 and early 2003, the complicit media drove the country to war with Iraq based on lies provided to them by an administration determined to regime change the country so their friends in Big Business could profit from the chaos to follow. They said there were connections to al Qaeda, WMDs and efforts to buy Yellow Cake from Niger and we couldn’t allow the final evidence to show up in the form of a “mushroom cloud”

The press went with it full steam ahead. And back then, these lies were at least supported by so-called “evidence” provided by various “intelligence” sources. Faked documents, satellite images that had been misinterpreted, testimony from supposed named insiders… the lies were backed by something at least and in the end it was the exposure of the faked intel that did them in. Just ask Colin Powell if you can find him under whatever rock he’s hiding under these days.

Faked documents, outright lies and a war for profit that killed a million civilians to start with and still kills more and more to this day… and no impeachment for the administration that did it.

Today, we don’t need no stinking evidence apparently.

Just take the case of the New York Times’ June 3rd article on Manchester bombing patsy Salman Abedi and his new alleged connection with … “ISIS™”

“The bomber who killed 22 people at a pop concert in Manchester, England, last month had met in Libya with members of an Islamic State unit linked to the 2015 Paris terrorist attack, according to current and retired intelligence officials…”

“The content of the communications between the attacker, Salman Abedi, and the terrorist cell remain unknown…”

“… according to a retired European intelligence chief, who spoke on the condition of anonymity…”

“…confirmed by a senior United States intelligence official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity.” New York Times

Their secret sources (who apparently wont stand by their intel) offer no evidence of this claim but apparently that’s just fine with the New York Times and their intrepid staff of “journalists”

Let’s just think about this for a minute.

In Manchester, according to the official story, 22 people lost their lives and another 100 or so were injured with a couple thousand more being traumatized for life. You would think the Times would pay very close attention to the developing story of the man accused of the attack on these people in an effort to make sure justice is done for all of those effected by this tragedy if not for the purpose of making sure yet another terrorism suspect isn’t railroaded by authorities like so many have been in the past right here in the States.

But no.

Instead the Times regurgitates WITHOUT QUESTION anything the Deep State tells them… almost as if their publication is merely an appendage of the intelligence industrial complex… which we all know it is.

Trump is a Putchurian candidate while Abedi is “ISIS™”. No evidence offered. None needed. Just the accusation is required for quilt to be assigned.

Kinda like the kangaroo courts they try terror suspects in these days, right?

I guess they did learn something from the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. The people of this country will literally believe anything, just so long as it comes from the New York Times.