Imagine if it was discovered that a couple of FBI officials had targeted a newspaper reporter to the extent that they not only searched out the reporter's home address and spouse's name but also, most creepily, the names of his children. Would that not be a major story in that reporter's newspaper since it involved an obvious attempt at government intimidation?
Well, it would normally be a blockbuster story in almost any newspaper with the very notable exception of the New York Times when such a report would prove incompatible with its political motivations. Such an example happened this week after a January 8 report in The Hill revealing that FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and his mistress, bureau lawyer Lisa Page, exchanged disparaging messages about the reporter they were targeting, Matt Apuzzo of the New York Times. The reaction from the Times? Nothing. No report. Zilch. Nada.
First let us look at The Hill report by John Solomon about New York Times reporter targeting which the New York Times has bizarrely avoided:
FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and bureau lawyer Lisa Page engaged in a series of texts shortly before Election Day 2016 suggesting they knew in advance about an article in The Wall Street Journal and would need to feign stumbling onto the story so it could be shared with colleagues.
...The Hill reviewed nearly three dozen texts in which the two agents discussed articles, tried to track down information about a specific New York Times reporter or opined about leaked information in stories that they fretted were “super specific.”
...The two agents also spent extensive time shortly before the 2016 election trying to track down information — including an address and a spouse’s job — about The New York Times reporter Matt Apuzzo, who has reported on numerous developments in the Russia case.
“We got a list of kids with their parents’ names. How many Matt Apuzzo’s (sic) could there be in DC,” Page texted. “Showed J a picture, he said he thinks he has seen a guy who kinda looks like that, but always really schlubby. I said that sounds like every reporter I have ever seen.”
A minute later, Page added another text: “Found what I think might be their address, too.”
Strzok writes back, “He’s TOTALLY schlubby. Don’t you remember?”
Page responded later by saying she found information on the reporter’s wife too. “Found address looking for her. Lawyer.”
Strzok cautions Page against using the work phone to track down information on the reporter. “I wouldn’t search on your work phone, ,,, no idea what that might trigger,” he texted.
“Oops. Too late,” she responded back.
Apuzzo declined comment when contacted on his cell phone.
This story has been widely reported. On Tuesday, Rush Limbaugh even discussed it at length including naming Matt Apuzzo. However from the New York Times itself...only the sound of crickets.
This is not the first time that the New York Times attempted to downplay the antics of Strzok and Page. On December 14, your humble correspondent noted how the Times declined to mention what was at that time Strzok's most damning text message about the "insurance policy." This latest suppression of Strzok-Page news is the most ridiculous of them all since it involves their own reporter.
Exit question: Does anybody out there believe that the New York Times would have also suppressed a story about a couple of pro-Trump FBI agents targeting one of its reporters investigating Russian collusion?
