In 2004 The New York Times sat on a bombshell warrantless NSA wiretapping story until AFTER the election. Why? Because the criminal exposed in the story asked them to. He was afraid the story would cost him the election if his crimes were revealed. It was only after he won reelection to the White House, that The Times published the story.

Why did The Times not print it? As The Times tried to explain it away:

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

Ultimately, the bulk of that story could have been published earlier. The essential point was that the President of the United States personally broke the law 30 times. If the story did not unduly threaten national security a few months after the election, and it clearly doesn’t, it wouldn’t have a year earlier before the election. Simply put, the GOP stalled The Times like a bunch of chumps.

In what context did Administration officials urge the NYT not to publish, and who did the urging? And why? The eventual story explains the truth:

Before the 2004 election, the [Bush White House] official said, some NSA personnel worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected president.

So, in other words, some anonymous Bush Administration appointee told the NYT that somebody at the NSA was worried he might lose his job (spying on Americans) if John Kerry won the election. Again, President Bush is guilty of breaking the law 30 times but the Democrats lacked subpoena power. If John Kerry was elected, his Attorney General might investigate those 30 crimes. Ultimately, the criminals didn’t want to go to jail.

Why in the Lord’s name in vain would the NYT help criminals stay out of jail? What’s the word for that action? Helping a criminal avoid justice…. “Accessory,” leaps to mind. Really, why did The New York Times not publish? Whose side are they on? Now we know.

Once again, American filmmakers in the 1970s nailed it. Presented for your consideration, Sydney Pollack’s 1975 film Three Days of The Condor. In this clip, CIA Analyst Joseph Turner (Robert Redford) tells CIA Coup Member J. Higgins (Cliff Robertson) that he has blown the whistle on a secret cabal within the CIA which is manufacturing evidence and plotting to start a war in Iran in order to seize the oil in the region. What a crazy plot! Yeah, so, in this final scene, the two walk through Times Square so as to make tails and bugging difficult.

Turner: I told ’em a story. You play games; I told ’em a story.

Higgins: Oh, you… you poor, dumb son of a bitch. You’ve done more damage than you know.

Turner: I hope so. [Turns to leave]

Higgins: Hey Turner! How do you know they’ll print it? You can take a walk…but how far if they don’t print it?

Turner: They’ll print it.

Higgins: How do you know?

Now we know. They wouldn’t.

The Times wouldn’t print it. Repeat: The Times would rather protect the criminals. The Times did. This happened. Cancel your subscription. They are not on your side.

Maybe we also know how far Turner would get on a walk in the woods?