The left-leaning media often emphasizes that the real lesson from Watergate is that the cover-up can be worse than the crime. That’s a fair point, but it would carry more weight if these same outlets acted consistently.
Take the New York Times, for example. Recently, it demonstrated a significant oversight by not reporting a major story from Washington. Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed under Biden, apparently collaborated with the FBI to monitor the communications of several Republican senators.
Under new management, the FBI, led by Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino, disclosed that Smith and his team, investigating the January 6 Capitol riot, tracked calls and messages from Senators Lindsey Graham, Marsha Blackburn, Cynthia Lummis, and Tommy Tuberville, among others.
Patel and Bongino mentioned that some agents involved in this questionable surveillance have been terminated, and further investigation is ongoing.
Targeting GOP Leaders
The tactics used included subpoenas directed solely at opposing senators. It remains unclear if there was any coordination with Nancy Pelosi’s partisan committee, which was also looking into the January 6 events. Nevertheless, the fact that the FBI was surveilling elected Republican officials is a significant revelation.
This isn’t new—there’s a long history of the FBI spying on political dissidents, dating back to the Cold War and through the civil rights movement. For example, J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI attempted to undermine Martin Luther King Jr. by falsely associating him with communism.
While this current situation doesn’t exactly mirror past abuses, it’s still concerning whenever the FBI investigates someone for political reasons.
Yet, during previous controversies, key facts often went unreported. It seems inconvenient truths can clash with the narratives the media prefers to maintain.
Bizarrely, the narrative painted Trump as the sole figure who abused the Justice Department for political gain. Reporting on Smith’s actions would mean admitting the challenges he posed to the Biden administration.
It really feels like the media is playing a selective game, using distraction and biased headlines like, “As Trump’s Justice Department pursues enemies…” Which is strange, considering the story was about a few donors allegedly involved in illegal contributions from foreign nationals.
By elevating these minor cases, the media has afforded Trump an avenue to critique how the Justice Department has been wielded against him. Here’s where the paper’s own lack of transparency becomes evident.
Leaking Information
During James Comey’s tenure, the FBI leaked extensively, particularly regarding the Russia investigation. The Times seemed to act as a willing participant for those seeking to control the narrative surrounding Trump.
Importantly, the Times editors understand that Trump is acutely aware of their allegations that suggest law enforcement is acting unjustly. They understand Biden’s moves were orchestrated, too, albeit somewhat discreetly.
In fact, it was reported that upon taking office, Biden sought to prosecute Trump, according to anonymous sources. If that’s not weaponizing the Justice Department, what is?
Just imagine if Trump had aimed to indict Barack Obama back in 2017; the coverage would have been night and day.
What’s more, Biden’s actions led him to want to imprison the man he just defeated in an election. But since the Times is fully invested in protecting the narrative, they continued to present the story in a way that downplays Biden’s explicit desires.
There was even a suggestion that Garland, the Attorney General, was unaware of Biden’s feelings. You’d have to wonder how he couldn’t have known what was going on.
Not long after that narrative, Garland appointed Jack Smith, putting Trump directly in the crosshairs. Smith initiated two separate indictments against Trump—one related to January 6 and another concerning alleged classified documents.
This controversy included a highly unusual FBI raid on Trump’s residence, even searching through Melania Trump’s personal belongings.
A Double Standard?
Staying loyal to its perceived biases, the Times has yet to draw any connections between Biden’s stated intentions and the subsequent charges against Trump. There’s no evidence of any direct coordination between the Biden administration and the state-level prosecutions against Trump.
For instance, Fani Willis in Georgia had private meetings with Garland’s Justice Department, and in Manhattan, the lead prosecutor left his esteemed position to pursue Donald Trump’s business records case.
This all highlights a significant weaponization of law enforcement for political motivations, yet you wouldn’t glean that from reading the Times or similar outlets.
For them, the party line prevails, declaring Trump as a looming threat while conveniently ignoring facts that challenge this narrative.
