All the News That’s Fit to Fabricate? NY Times’ Latest Lie Sparks Outrage
“This is purely a Clinton corruption story, probably the last in a long line, as neither Bill nor Hillary will have careers when it’s finished, if they stay out of jail.”
The “paper of record” printed a whopper on Friday. Responding to Sen. Chuck Grassley’s (R-IA) public release of the newly declassified appendix (Durham annex) to John Durham’s 2023 Special Counsel report, the New York Times deliberately lied to their readers. The full annex can be viewed here.
The lightly redacted annex contained intercepted emails — that Durham believed to be authentic — between Leonard Benardo, a top official at George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, and Julianne Smith, a foreign policy adviser to Hillary Clinton in 2016. It also included other documents from the “Clinton Plan” intelligence, which further bolstered the case that the former secretary of state intended to portray then-candidate Donald Trump as an agent of Russia to distract voters from the FBI’s investigation into her use of a private server for government business.
Durham is quoted in the annex saying that “there is evidence to believe the Clinton Plan intelligence was authentic and that the Clinton campaign did carry out such a dirty trick.”
The annex also states that investigators were unable to “determine definitively whether the purported Clinton campaign plan [intelligence]…was entirely genuine, partially true, a composite pulled from multiple sources, exaggerated in certain respects, or fabricated in its entirety.”
Here’s how the Times chose to report the story: ‘Clinton Plan’ Emails Were Likely Made by Russian Spies, Declassified Report Shows.
Their sub-headline read: “An annex to a report by the special counsel John H. Durham was the latest in a series of disclosures about the Russia inquiry, as the Trump team seeks to distract from the Jeffrey Epstein files.”
Aside from the Left’s compulsion to deem any unfavorable news an attempt to distract from Trump’s “Epstein scandal,” there is nothing in the Durham annex that suggests the emails were “likely made by Russian spies.”
This story feels eerily reminiscent of the October 2020 public letter signed by 51 former intelligence community officials, claiming the Hunter Biden laptop story bore all the classic hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign. That letter was organized and published for one reason only: to provide then-candidate Joe Biden with cover to deflect questions about his family’s foreign influence-peddling operation during the upcoming debate with Trump. And it did exactly that.
The Times reports that the purported email from July 27, 2016, included in the annex “was most likely stitched together by Russian spies.”
The article says, “It also shows how the special counsel, John H. Durham, went to great lengths to try to prove that several of the emails were real, only to ultimately conclude otherwise.”
Durham did not conclude otherwise. As mentioned above, he believed the documents were genuine, but was unable to authenticate them.
[The article is behind a paywall, but it can be viewed here.]
The Times’ article is not journalism, but propaganda, which many conservatives were happy to point out.
In the social media post below, conservative writer Mark Hemingway called out the Times, sharing a post from fellow conservative Hans Mahncke that highlights another section of the annex that directly contradicts the story in the Times.
Everybody needs to read this for themselves — the spin this morning from NYT and others is the eye-popping claims about Clinton hatching a plan to smear Trump as colluding with Russia were completely fabricated by Russian intel.
But that's not what the report concludes! https://t.co/Y849ByYhfI
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) August 1, 2025
In a separate post, Mahncke points out the double standard that every communication from Trump or one of his associates was scrutinized, while “Durham wasn’t even allowed to access the Soros Foundation emails tied to the Hillary email cover-up and the scheme to smear Trump because the disgraceful partisan hack Beryl Howell, masquerading as a judge, blocked him.”
It’s absolutely enraging that every corner of Trump world—every phone call, every text message, every email—was dissected, re-dissected, and put under a microscope for years, from Russiagate to the post-election legal challenges. Meanwhile, Durham wasn’t even allowed to access… https://t.co/uHnZ4p7pUP
— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) August 2, 2025
In the X post below, the Federalist’s Sean Davis says the Times is “straight up” lying and provides some pretty compelling arguments for why that is so.
1) The Durham annex never states at all that the specific intelligence was “fabricated.” It says the opposite, that his office was never able to “determine definitively whether the purported Clinton campaign plan [intelligence]…was entirely genuine, partially true, a composite pulled from multiple sources, exaggerated in certain respects, or fabricated in its entirety.”
2) At the time the intel which Ben Smith says was “fake” was received, John Brennan took it so seriously that he briefed Obama about it, took notes about it, and stashed the notes away in his safe.
3) James Comey specifically went under oath and cited the Clinton plan intelligence as one of the major reasons he chose to unilaterally usurp the authority of Loretta Lynch and to declare that the U.S. government would not charge Hillary Clinton for her use of an illegal private email server.
4) Comey told Congress that he believed the Clinton plan intelligence was “genuine.” “So far as I knew at the time, and still think,” Comey testified on December 7, 2018, “the material itself was genuine[.]”
5) FBI general counsel James Baker said he was “greatly concerned” about the intel and specifically Lynch’s reaction when confronted with it. Durham’s report said Baker “did not dismiss the credibility” of the intel reports. Andrew McCabe likewise said he was struck by Lynch’s “odd” reaction to the allegations.
6) Everyone on earth knows the Clinton campaign launched a scheme to falsely claim that Trump colluded with Russia. This new claim that somehow it was a fabrication that the Clinton campaign ran an op to falsely tie Trump to Russia is beyond insane. It’s sociopathic.
That's not what it shows at all. The New York Times is straight up lying.
1) The Durham annex never states at all that the specific intelligence was “fabricated.” It says the opposite, that his office was never able to “determine definitively whether the purported Clinton… https://t.co/svfce97aGu
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) August 1, 2025
And finally, journalist Matt Taibbi, a former editor at The Rolling Stone, who is not a conservative but an honest reporter, has concluded the obvious in a Friday post on his Substack website: “No Doubt Left: Russiagate Was a Cover-Up.”
According to Taibbi:
This is purely a Clinton corruption story, probably the last in a long line, as neither Bill nor Hillary will have careers when it’s finished, if they stay out of jail.
I’ve tiptoed for years around what I believed to be true about this case, worrying some mitigating fact might emerge. Now, there’s no doubt. Hillary Clinton got in a jam, and the FBI, CIA, and the Obama White House got her out of it by setting Trump up. That’s it. It was a cover-up, plain and simple.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I have always maintained that Barrel, er, Beryl Howell, deliberately misused and abused her position as Chief Judge of the DC District Court for her own political ends, or as her political masters ordered her to so do. Just looking at Judicial Canons 3, 4, and 5, she has either openly violated all three of them, or—at a minimum, appeared to have violated them. And is it NOT the unwritten, commonly accepted standard that judges are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety itself?
They should change their name to “The New York Fabricators”.
For instance, when a white woman is violently assaulted by a gang of black ferals and beaten so badly that she is left in a coma, the headlines call it a “brawl”.
Sh*tlib journos are the root of all evil. If it wasn’t for them, none of this deep-state-manufactured trash would’ve gotten very far from the dumpster it belongs in. I couldn’t possibly hate these people any more.
Or, as Mark Levin says, The New York Slimes.
The wretched and vile Pravda on the Hudson propaganda rag and its staff of Dhimmi-crat shills/lapdogs/trained seals/stenographers are dutifully and gleefully carrying water for the Dhimmi-crat Party and its preferred Narratives(TM) — as per usual.
New tagline Lying to Cover for Leftists Since 1851.
Having read the annex, there is independent information that corroborates, not to mention what actually happened.
Telling, too, is what the actors said, when not playing dumb, that they could not rule out the authenticity or that what was presented did not happen.
The NYT will only make the same dupes more convinced over their fantasies. To admit reality would be too threatening, a red pill, so to speak. Their “truth” will live on. Long live democracy and all that jazz.
For many in NYC, the Times defines reality. I spent nearly 40% of the first part of my life in NYC. I know the New York mentality, especially the Jewish mentality. For many secular and Reform Jews, the Times functions as their Book of Job. So good luck trying to convince the faithful that the Times lies. Therein lies the problem with the Times, many people take it seriously out of habit. They grew up reading the Times. I remember in high school a guy would come into home room with a shopping cart full of that day’s NYT. I think it cost a nickel.
I personally stopped reading it more than 30 years ago. I hate the paper with a passion. Even as a little kid. I took a tour at about age nine of Times building. The tour guide kept trying to sell us on the greatness of the paper. Even as a little boy I became suspicious.
I bet the bigwigs at the NYT gnash their teeth at least once a day to realize that they don’t have a monopoly on the people’s propaganda feed anymore.
I thought the reported response by Attorney General Lynch to the T1 Information after being briefed by Andrew McCabe and Counsel Trisha Anderson was very interesting. It is tempting to say that her reaction was a confirmation of the content of the T1 information. The expected reaction was some sort of a sharp denial of any interaction between Lynch and the Clinton campaign as stated in the T1 information. But Lynch just said “okay” as if this was no big deal. There are a lot of players in this mess.
Perhaps the New York Times could find another Pulitzer Prize in relating this story.
How can anyone even read the NYT at this point? The paper of record, has been toilet paper for a long time. For new york I always thought the daily news was the one people actually read? The times seemed to be for the snooty set. Now it’s decidely for the brain dead.
It wasn’t the break in at the Watergate that sank Nixon. He wasn’t aware of it. It was the cover up he initiated that blew him out of the water.
Anyone not wearing opaque ideological blinders knows what happened and who was behind it. The problem is that nothing will come of it and no one will go to jail. Obama will build his library, Bill and Hillary will stay on the speaking tour and the rest will continue their paid cable gigs
Most of the people who read the ny times will believe it. They dont get an alternative news. Not good.
Maybe we should have let the dramacrats pass theit disinformation crap. Then we could use those levers of government against the ny times.
This is not journalism. it ought not to be covered by the first amendment. They are free and publish any opinion but distortion like this should not be allowed.
Yes I know its a very slippery slope,
The first amendment does not require, or refer in any way, to “journalism”. It protects all speech, with a tiny number of known exceptions. It protects speech on matters of public concern, equally no matter who makes it, whether it’s me or you, a blog, a celebrity, or the NYT. And it protects it whether it’s truth or lies.
See the Supreme Court decision striking down the “stolen valor” law.
Long-term, this is a question of survival for the NYT. As the truth of the Clinton “Russia Hoax” becomes more and more obvious, the NYT will become more and more hysterical in its denials and lies. Combine this with the ongoing “Escape from New York” movement eroding its ad base, and the Times is set to follow the Washing Post into irrelevance. I don’t know if the NYT was part of the conspiracy against Trump, but their actions and writing supported it. Even the mid-wits who stay in NY who still believe that NYT is a reliable information source will eventually understand it’s lying to them. When that happens, the NYT will be toast..
My basic rule is to not trust liars even if at the time they are lying to my benefit. A person or entity is either honest or dishonest. It might be politically expedient to fabricate a story, but there is always the longer term cost of damage to ones credibility. I believe a parable about a wolf covers this.
What bothers me is the number of people who are willing to keep on believeing lies to the point where it is fatal to them.