The New York Times is in the middle of a real problem now, as Kevin Drum notes, the same journalists who gave us "Hillary is the target of a criminal probe!" are the same Village Idiots behind "Obama failed to stop social media jihadis in San Bernardino!"
So where did this notion come from, anyway? The answer is a New York Times story on Sunday headlined "U.S. Visa Process Missed San Bernardino Wife's Zealotry on Social Media." It told us that Tashfeen Malik "talked openly" on social media about jihad and that, "Had the authorities found the posts years ago, they might have kept her out of the country." The story was written by Matt Apuzzo, Michael Schmidt, and Julia Preston.
Do those names sound familiar? They should. The first two were also the authors of July's epic fail claiming that Hillary Clinton was the target of a criminal probe over the mishandling of classified information in her private email system. In the end, virtually everything about the story turned out to be wrong. Clinton was not a target. The referral was not criminal. The emails in question had not been classified at the time Clinton saw them.
Assuming Comey is telling the truth, that's two strikes. Schmidt and Apuzzo either have some bad sources somewhere, or else they have one really bad source somewhere. And coincidentally or not, their source(s) have provided them with two dramatic but untrue scoops that make prominent Democrats look either corrupt or incompetent. For the time being, Schmidt and Apuzzo should be considered on probation. That's at least one big mistake too many.
The real issue is that the Gray Lady is getting "scoops" that are 100% false, that all happen to help the GOP advance its agenda, fed through the same reporters.
It's not like that hasn't happened before or anything, guys. Seems like there may be some exciting new career options soon for Apuzzo and Schmidt, ya know?