Today’s New York Times has a front page, above-the-fold “article” by Michael D. Shear which talks about the tweets President Trump issued which are severely critical of the FBI.
I put the term “article” in quotation marks, because this is not an article at all; not in any journalistic sense. This is a partisan document that, literally, could have been issued by the Democratic National Committee, which The Times put out as neutral news coverage.
The level of bias here is astonishing – even by The Times’ current standards. I urge you to click here and read every word.
But the paragraphs which particularly caught my eye are the ones relating to Peter Strzok – an FBI agent who was deeply involved in the Clinton email investigation, then on Robert Mueller’s already Democrat-stacked “collusion investigation.
Strzok was fired from the investigation after it came to light that, during an extra-marital affair with an FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, the two were exchanging anti-Trump emails with each other.
But here is how Michael Shear’s Times article describes this obviously damning series of facts:
As he sought to discredit the Russia inquiry, which he has long called a political “witch hunt,” Mr. Trump on Sunday seized on reports that Mr. Mueller had removed a veteran F.B.I. agent because he sent text messages that appeared to express views critical of Mr. Trump.
In several tweets, the president harshly criticized the agent, Peter Strzok, who had previously helped lead the 2016 investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton had mishandled classified information on her private email account. Mr. Strzok is considered one of the bureau’s most experienced and trusted counterintelligence investigators.
“Report: ‘ANTI-TRUMP FBI AGENT LED CLINTON EMAIL PROBE,’” Mr. Trump said in his 10th tweet on Sunday, which by the early evening had been retweeted more than 24,000 times. “Now it all starts to make sense!”
Most presidents enter the Oval Office with an instinct to defend and promote the integrity and capabilities of the nation’s law enforcement agencies. Mr. Trump arrived with a different compulsion, fueled by a belief that intelligence and law enforcement officials were stoking questions about the legitimacy of his election victory.
By suggesting — as he has before — that the F.B.I. and other agencies are motivated by politics, Mr. Trump again embraced the kind of suspicions that feed conspiracy theories about a “deep state” operating with a secret bias against him.
There you go. Yeah, Strzok was removed…but he is considered one of the bureau’s most experienced and trusted counterintelligence investigators”, and, in any event, this is some paranoid reaction by Trump over a “conspiracy theory”.
In other words, Strzok is an asset and Trump is paranoid.
The Times was nice enough to leave out the part that when Strzok was removed in August, the FBI did not mention the anti-Trump messages he was writing.
Does keeping this a secret, thus trying to prevent the Trump administration from knowing that the key FBI agent in the Clinton email investigation and a front-and-center part of the collusion investigation, come across as neutrality to you?
If you want to read an honest appraisal of Peter Strzok ‘s involvement in the investigations of Clinton and Trump, I suggest you read James Rosen and James Gibson’s piece at foxnews.com – that’s right, Fox: the venue that left wing elites at the New York Times look down their noses at. You’ll find actual facts there – which are sorely, disgracefully missing from Shear’s “journalism”.
I again urge you to read the entire Times “article”. You will see that the entire tone is anti-Trump…to the extent that, as noted in the title of this blog, it reads like a document created through opposition-research commissioned by the DNC.
Then you can wonder along with me how The Times has the nerve to call itself a newspaper anymore.