So a lack of clarity leading to misunderstandings is what exactly?
Parker O'Brien
1

So a lack of clarity leading to misunderstandings is what exactly?

In the actual context where they were accusing the “misunderstandings” of being “bold exaggeration” it’s a statement that dishonest people could twist the words to achieve their own agenda. Which is what happened, and which is what you did.

When did I said anything about wiretapping Trump Tower? In fact I’ve said the opposite.

You did not say “the exact opposite.” You talked out of both sides of your mouth saying: “Trump did appear to go too far when claiming the Obama administration wire tapped him or his tower, but there is a serious basis for his assertion.”

You didn’t even say he went too far, just that “appeared” to. Then you effectively took it all back saying “there was a serious basis for his assertion.” Both can’t be true. I mean he couldn’t have gone “too far” if there was a “serious basis” for what he claimed. It’s classic double talk on your part. I guess you figure most your readers won’t pick up on it, but I did, and I think most would.

And yes, I am quite clearly responding to what you actually wrote. In the meantime, you create the strawman of a NYT admission of “very misleading” that flat out never happened.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.