The New York Times reported that anonymous sources told them about the existence of emails connecting Donald Trump Jr. to a Russian lawyer. What they left out of the report was the fact that the emails were already in their possession.

On July 10th, The New York Times published an article claiming they were told about the existence of emails between publicist Rob Goldstone and Donald Trump Jr. NYT considered the emails significant because they link the eldest son of President Trump to a meeting Goldstone proposed for him to have with a Russian lawyer. The meeting was orchestrated so the Russian lawyer could provide Donald Jr. with opposition-research against Hillary Clinton, which Trump never ultimately received.

The original NYT headline from July 10th

The New York Times originally broke news of the meeting Saturday, July 8th. The July 10th report about the emails was written by four journalists. The sources who told the reporters about the emails were “three people” with no names or other identifiers. The article claimed that emails between Goldstone and Donald Jr. existed, but provided no transcript or even a quote from them. There was so much information lacking from the Times report that I wrote an entire Twitter thread about how the existence of the emails themselves should be questioned based on the lack of provided evidence.

The Twitter thread I wrote that questioned the authenticity of the emails

The next day, Donald Trump Jr. took it upon himself to share the reported email chain with Goldstone on his personal Twitter account.

The tweets from Donald Trump Jr., sharing his email chain with Rob Goldstone

I was laughed at. Vice political journalist, Eve Peyser, took a screen-shot of a tweet I had written the night before that questioned the existence of the emails, lead with “oops.” Swarms of leftist Twitter accounts began to send me links of Donald Jr.’s email chain post, ridiculing me for ever questioning the email’s existence. For doubting the integrity of The New York Times. Their criticism wasn’t bothersome in the slightest. It’s something journalists with social media accounts deal with. Even as I write this, I stand by my sentiments regarding that July 10th NYT article about Donald Jr.’s emails. It was lacking and deserved scrutiny.

Brian Stelter of CNN, tweeting about what he was told by an NYT source

As I began to read the email chain Donald Jr. tweeted, I noticed something. The New York Times seemed outwardly upset Donald Jr. posted proof of the email chain himself. CNN’s Brian Stelter admitted on Twitter that an NYT source told him the paper was “preparing to publish” a story containing the contents of the email chain, but were “asked for more time” by Donald Jr.’s camp. Trump then took it upon himself to release the emails before The New York Times had a chance to. The NYT source even admitted to Stelter that Trump had “pre-empted” the paper.

If that’s true, why didn’t The New York Times article from the day before mention that the emails were already in their possession?

The New York Times has officially been caught in a lie. Their July 10th article cited that anonymous sources told them about the existence of an email chain. An email chain they knowingly had in their possession.

Why would the New York Times lead their scoop with an initially false report?

The New York Times clearly had the emails in their possession on July 10th. Were they planning on an orchestrated, carefully-timed release of the information they were withholding? And if they consider it such an important story, why?

More tweets from Brian Stelter of CNN about what he was told by an NYT source

CNN’s Brian Stelter hinted at it in an email newsletter preview he teased on his Twitter account. “I repeatedly asked a well-placed NYT source, but the person refused to divulge when the emails first entered the equation,” he admitted in the post. The fact that Stelter’s source refused to comment on whether the The New York Times had obtained the email before their July 10th report speaks volumes. A categorical denial would instantly clear NYT of dishonest reporting, but Stelter’s suspicions were instead met with silence. Leading me to another question.

Was Donald Trump Jr. framed to appear like he sought to collude with Russian entities?

Details about the story are starting to make it appear that way. Rob Goldstone reached out to Donald Trump Jr. to initially set up his meeting with the Russian lawyer. Goldstone used particularly detailed, incriminatingly toned language in his emails to Trump. Donald Jr. opted for short, mostly reserved responses. The Russian lawyer Trump was introduced to never ended up having any actual opposition research on Hillary Clinton. The meeting was a bust. But was it a bust for ‘the resistance’?

Natalia Veselnitskaya, pictured near Obama administration officials days after her meeting with Donald Trump Jr.

Ever since the story initially broke, more and more strange details are emerging. It’s been reported that Natalia Veselnitskaya’s Kremlin connections aren’t as close to Putin as the media originally made them seem. Veselnitskaya also worked for Fusion GPS, the firm that crafted a phony Russian dossier in a smear effort against President Trump. When Veselnitskaya visited New York that June, she was using a visa that was six months past its expiration date. The Hill reports that she was granted special entry into the United States by former President Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch. There are also photographs circulating online that depict Veselnitskaya in close proximity with Obama administration officials. There is even video footage of her being in their presence.

 With all of the information presented, it is very possible Donald Jr. was set-up to look like he was actively working with the Russian government.

Trump didn’t ask for the meeting. He didn’t use any truly incriminating language in his email exchange with Goldstone. Donald Jr. never even received the opposition research he originally attended the meeting for. Trump didn’t commit a crime. Why was the meeting still arranged if Veselnitskaya had no intel to share with Trump? Why did AG Lynch grant Veselnitskaya, the anti-Trump firm employee, special access to the U.S. under an expired visa? Lastly, why did the New York Times report that sources told them about emails they already had in their possession? These questions are starting to outweigh any of the ones I originally had about Donald Trump Jr.

The New York Times has updated their original post from July 10th to acknowledge their possession of Donald Trump Jr.’s email chain with Rob Goldstone.