New York Times office
New York Times office Flash 90

Jeffrey Dunetz, editor of The Lid, a conservative Washington-based blog, hit upon a glaring contradiction in NY Times reporter Michael S. Schmidt's writings on the wiretapping of President Trump during the election period, an issue that is being hotly argued about since last weekend when the president accused the Obama administration of wiretapping him.

The lead article on The Lid today, said:

"On January 19th and 20th 2017, The NY Times reported that wiretaps of people on the Trump team were passed along to the Obama White House. One of the story’s authors was Michael S. Schmidt. On Saturday, March 4, 2017, that same Michael S. Schmidt was one of the reporters who wrote the story, 'Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones.'

"That’s right," Dunetz continues, "the same NY Times reporter who was one of the sources for the [current] President’s claim, said today that there was no evidence for the President's claim."

Dunetz goes on: "The first story by Mr. Schmidt appeared on the NY Times website the evening of January 19, 2017 and appeared on the front page of the paper the morning of Inauguration Day, January 20, 2017."

The January story made the front page of the NY Times because it was part of the ongoing claims by Democrats and anti-Trump media of Russian involvement in Trump's election. The NY Times article with Schmidt's byline said:

"American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

"The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him."

This investigation was the justification for wiretapping the Trump team's phones, as the January NY Times article with Schmidt's byline explained further on: "The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House."

Dunetz writes: "This past Saturday, the day the POTUS tweeted that he was wiretapped, the NY Times claimed President Trump had no evidence. If you look at the by-line of Saturday's story, you will see the same Michael S. Schmidt."

Rush Limbaugh, on his daily show, quoted Dunetz's findings on The Lid, saying:

"Now, I want to share something with you about the actual story accompanying this headline, 'Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.' And this comes from a blog called Yid With Lid. 'In January Michael S. Schmidt perpetuated the rumor that Team Trump had Russian connections, and to support his point he said that Trump’s people were wiretapped' – In other words, Michael S. Schmidt in the New York Times perpetuated the rumor that Trump had Russian connections and maybe affected the election, 'and to support his point he said that Trump’s people were wiretapped.'

"Well, how does he know? Somebody in the Regime, in the outgoing Regime, somebody had to share with him the data on the wiretaps, somebody had to tell him there were wiretaps, somebody had to tell him what the wiretaps had produced, ’cause he’s writing about it in the New York Times. But yet when Trump over the weekend claims they were wiretapped, this same guy, Michael S. Schmidt who wrote the piece in January, said there was no evidence that Trump had been wiretapped."

Did you find a mistake in the article or inappropriate advertisement? Report to us