Yesterday’s newspaper-selling stunt by the New York Times may be the final, desperate move of the dinosaur-like print media, and it has highlighted a major problem within the mainstream as a whole: The fact that they can’t be trusted when it comes to the President.
There is no doubt, and no argument, that the liberal left is attempting to derail and delegitimize the President of the United States. They’ve now admitted to such in a wild way, with a New York Times editorial that highlights the obstructionist policies within the White House itself. The only problem here is whether or not this piece is a truthful retelling of treasonous activities in the White House, (described by John Kerry as a “constitutional crisis”), or if this is a piece of fiction meant to send the entire West Wing into chaos.
If we take a look at the history of the New York Times, the latter seems to become more and more likely.
Trending: Fuel for Thought
Apparently the “senior official” claims to be part of a group of White House staff trying to thwart the president’s agenda from within. He also claims they seriously considered trying to depose the president using the 25th amendment of the Constitution.
Serious stuff. But President Trump should relax and remember it is the New York Times after all. The paper has a scandalous history of lying about the seniority of officials it quotes anonymously – especially when that source parrots their agenda.
A few years back they were caught red-handed deceiving their readers in such a way.
In a lengthy anti-fracking article they claimed that senior industry experts and insiders believed the industry to be little more than a “Ponzi scheme” … “set up for failure”.
Now for the issue…
Well unfortunately for the New York Times, the emails were from the Energy Information Agency – a government organization – so this meant Senate investigators were able to find the original emails and work out the identity of all these different senior experts. It turns out the federal analyst, the energy analyst and the officer turned out to be the same person who was actually an intern when he wrote the first email and in an entry level position when he wrote the other comments. Yes, that’s right, the “Paper of Record” misrepresented an intern/junior employee as a senior official to push an agenda.
More worrisome still, once the Times was outed for their malfeasance they simply rerouted the controversy by removing the role known as “public editor”.