NY Times puts out cover story to lie to you on why NSA paid a Russian $100K

The New York Times loves and covers for Democrats, and they hate Trump.  And with that said, everything they print becomes far more understandable.

Example:  Yesterday the Times printed an article titled

U.S. Spies, Seeking to Retrieve Cyberweapons, Paid Russian Peddling Trump Secrets

Seems a year or so ago, Russian hackers broke into the supposedly-super-smart-NSA's computers and stole a copy of a "toolbox" containing scores of computer routines used by the NSA to hack other computers.  It was a devastating loss.

So the premise of the article--that when a mysterious Russian contacted the NSA offering to sell the tools back, that the NSA jumped on the offer and paid the guy $100,000--merely the first installment of a reportedly-agreed one million bucks--is superficially plausible.

But in fact it's utter hogwash.  Bullshit.  A cover story.

Reason:  As everyone with an IQ over 100 should know, data is infinitely replicatable, meaning that the offer to sell the tools back to the NSA would obviously not retrieve all copies already made by the hackers.  So no rational "intel" agent would make such an offer.

Oh, the agency did make an offer, and paid $100,000.  But if it wasn't to recover the "hacking tools," what was the real purpose of the payment?

They were buying more anti-Trump information.

Oh wait...right up near the top of the story the Times says that even though the "shadowy Russian" "insisted" that the tools the NSA was supposedly buying back would come with the bonus, at no extra cost!, of anti-Trump info, "Several American intelligence officials said they made clear that they did not want the Trump material from the Russian."

That's the lead sentence of the 3rd 'graf, so you know reporter propagandist Matthew Rosenberg thought it was damned important to make sure every reader saw and understood it.  Yep, the splendid, scrupulously honest, fair, non-partisan NSA people made clear that they didn't want any of that anti-Trump stuff. 

Uh-huh.

But they paid the cash, and that almost always creates a paper trail. 

If Hilliary had won, no problem.  But...ooops.

Oooh, what do we do now?  So they concoct this utter bullshit story about "buying back data"--a story that sounds superficially plausible to morons and Democrats, but is obvious bullshit to anyone who knows jack-shit about computers and data.

They can get away with that because they refuse to answer questions from any critic who knows c'mere from sic-em. 

But wait, you say:  They can be subpoenaed to appear before a congressional committee, where they'll have to answer the hard questions!  So there, mister smarty!

Uh, no.  Didja watch how IRS commissioner John Koskinnen smirked and told congress to go f itself when they asked him why his agency didn't save copies of all of Lois Lerner's emails, as required by federal law?  And whether he found it at all odd that Lerner claimed to have suffered 3 crashed hard drives in four years?  And whether he found it odd that one of the hard drives was smashed with a sledge hammer, since otherwise there are ways of getting data off even a crashed drive?

He smirked and told 'em to go pound sand.  And they didn't do shit to him.  He's still walking around free, still has his pension.  You really think the intel guys will be more forthcoming?

But no matter:  The Times has put the Narrative out there, as ordered.  Yay!  Adam Schiff and Chuckie Schumer have another talking point they can use to delay and obfuscate.