This sounds like these reporters spent a lot of time working on this story, didn't find anything out, and wrote what they had anyway. You can tell by the prominence given at the end to one incident--the worst that comes out of it is that two people forgot about a meeting at which nothing of consequence happened.
And a meeting which, frankly, is none of the NY Times' business in the first place.
bashing the NY Times for investigative journalism of a former President running for an effective third term. Very Hillaryis44 Social Club of you. Sorry, this is an open forum.
Yeah. If you're doing a scientific study, then it's important to write up and report negative results to save the next research team the trouble of replicating your unsuccessful experiment. But if you're doing investigative journalism, negative results are not newsworthy, and cloaking them in innuendo to make them look that way is unethical.
