Skip to main content
29) { ?>
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

Durham Calls On Former New York Times Journalist To Answer All Questions In Sussmann Trial


The New York Times is the premier outlet for manufacturing state consent…

This is where all the illusory ‘prestige’ of the paper comes from, it isn’t that they do groundbreaking reporting, it isn’t even that they are the first outlet to market with a story…It is purely because they are the instrument of choice for the state.

As an outlet, the New York Times relentlessly attacked President Trump, conservative Americans, and suppressed the Hunter Biden story, all of this is only accounting for the last 5-6 years, it says nothing of their previous duplicity…

Like manufacturing consent for the invasion of Vietnam, or helping to lie us into the 2003 Iraq War.

It should come as no surprise then that the outlet was, along with The Washington Post, the main peddler of the now debunked Russia collusion hoax…

New York Times ‘journalists’ helped to catalyze one of the most vicious lies of our times—a revered tradition at the paper.

This is not to say that everything the paper prints is a lie, after all, former New York Times journalist Eric Lichtblau did write this in 2016:

Lichtblau made headlines this week after his request to censor certain questions in the ongoing Sussmann trial faced pushback from Special Counsel John Durham.

Durham wants Lichtblau to answer “all relevant questions” if he takes the witness stand in the ongoing trial.

I think that is completely appropriate given the scope of the trial, the nature of Lichtblau’s reporting, and his contact with Michael Sussmann…

Here’s more on the story:



John Durham’s request appeared in a recent Fox News article:

“If Lichtblau takes the witness stand at trial, the Court should require him to answer all relevant questions posed to him that fall within the scope of his direct testimony, the criminal charge, or his credibility and reliability,” Durham wrote in a response to Lichtblau’s motion for protective rights.


Law & Crime states:

Lichtblau’s filings identify him as “Reporter-1” in the Sussmann indictment and confirms that the New York Times was called “Newspaper-1.”

“According to the indictment, Mr. Lichtblau communicated with the defendant . . . in advance of Mr. Sussman’s September 19, 2016 meeting with FBI officials,” the motion indicates.

“Statements that the defendant allegedly made at that meeting [with the FBI] form the basis for the charge in this case.”

29) { ?>


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

29) { ?>

Hey, Noah here!

Wondering where we went?

Read this and bookmark our new site!

See you over there!

Thanks for sharing!