The New York Times Fuckers Are Back

Here we go again. Whether it's Wen Ho Lee in the 90's, or Judith Miller in the last decade, or making up shit about the San Bernardino couple's social media postings, the New York Times cultivates reporters whose sole purpose is to drip venomous conservative lies into the mainstream media. These days, the reporters are Matt Apuzzo, Michael Schmidt, and Julia Preston.

Apuzzo, Schmidt, and Preston. Remember those names. They will be back.

Today, FBI director James Comey said the San Bernardino shooters never talked openly about violent jihadism on social media.... So where did this notion come from, anyway? The answer is a New York Times story on Sunday headlined "U.S. Visa Process Missed San Bernardino Wife's Zealotry on Social Media." It told us that Tashfeen Malik "talked openly" on social media about jihad and that, "Had the authorities found the posts years ago, they might have kept her out of the country." The story was written by Matt Apuzzo, Michael Schmidt, and Julia Preston.

Do those names sound familiar? They should. The first two were also the authors of July's epic fail claiming that Hillary Clinton was the target of a criminal probe over the mishandling of classified information in her private email system. In the end, virtually everything about the story turned out to be wrong. Clinton was not a target. The referral was not criminal. The emails in question had not been classified at the time Clinton saw them.

...Schmidt and Apuzzo either have some bad sources somewhere, or else they have one really bad source somewhere. And coincidentally or not, their source(s) have provided them with two dramatic but untrue scoops that make prominent Democrats look either corrupt or incompetent.