NYT defends Biden’s CIA Director amid Epstein controversy.

Did CIA Director William Burns Cover for Jeffrey Epstein?

A recent report from The Wall Street Journal revealed that President Joe Biden’s CIA director William Burns met with the international sleazebag of mystery Jeffrey Epstein in 2014. So, what does The New York Times do based on that report? “The Gray Lady” published a glossy profile of Burns that ran cover for both America’s top spook as well as Epstein.

What Happened?

In late April, The Journal reported that Burns met with Epstein three times in 2014. Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to procuring a minor for prostitution and received a lenient punishment. That raised the question, how and why did Burns — who was deputy secretary of state at the time — meet with Epstein?

CIA spokeswoman Tammy Kupperman Thorp defended the meetings. “The director did not know anything about him, other than that he was introduced as an expert in the financial services sector and offered general advice on the transition to the private sector,” she told The Journal. “They had no relationship.”

High-ranking officials are typically more cautious with who they meet and certainly don’t take meetings with just anybody off the street, so of course the media world has demanded more answers.

What Did The New York Times Do?

For now, the closest we can get to Burns to ask those questions is via The Times. On Tuesday, the paper published a story, titled, “William Burns, a C.I.A. Spymaster With Unusual Powers.”

Here’s how the paper described Burns, and this is not a joke:

His ascent is an unlikely turn for a tall, discreet figure with wary eyes, ashen hair and a trim mustache, a sort you could easily imagine in a John Le Carre novel whispering into a dignitary’s ear at an embassy party that the city is falling to the rebels and a boat will be waiting in the harbor at midnight.

So, how did The Times address Burns’ connections to Epstein?

Here are the two paragraphs, and let’s see if the audience can catch what The Times did incorrectly:

As Mr. Burns prepared to step down from government service in 2014, The Wall Street Journal reported last month, a mutual friend introduced him to Jeffrey Epstein, the financial consultant who would later be convicted of multiple sex crimes. A spokeswoman for the C.I.A. said that Mr. Burns met twice with Mr. Epstein, both times to discuss private sector opportunities, and did not socialize with him.

In a statement to The New York Times, Mr. Burns said that he deeply regrets having met with Mr. Epstein and did not know who he was, adding, “I wish I had done my homework first.”

The first thing the paper did wrong is incorrectly characterize Epstein’s convictions. The impression left is that Burns met with Epstein prior to any convictions. Yet as mentioned, in 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to procuring a minor for prostitution and was a registered sex offender.

The second thing the paper did wrong was that they apparently did not dig for more information and took that excuse at face value.

One can only imagine how that conversation went:

New York Times: “Hey, Mr. CIA Director, why did you meet with Jeffrey Epstein in 2014?”

CIA Creep: “I didn’t know who he was. Didn’t do my homework.”

New York Times: “Works for us! Thanks for clearing that up, boss!”

Does it give you much confidence that a deputy secretary of state was meeting with sex offenders, unaware of who he was speaking with? Does Burns’ excuse seem believable to you?

The profile goes on to speculate that Burns will be tapped as Biden’s secretary of state in a second term if Biden is re-elected. Ominously, The Times also reported that “Richard Armitage, Mr. Burns’s friend and former superior at the State Department, said only, ‘Whatever the president asks, he’ll do it.’”

Lapdog media outlets such as The Times don’t exist to report the truth. Their existence is to act as the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.

• Key Takeaways:
• President Joe Biden’s CIA director William Burns met with Jeffrey Epstein in 2014.
• The New York Times published a profile of Burns that ran cover for both Burns and Epstein.
• The Times incorrectly characterized Epstein’s convictions and did not dig for more information.
• Burns’ excuse for meeting with Epstein seems unbelievable.