NYT Decided To Openly Lie About Criticism Of Biden’s Fed Pick. Will There Be Any Consequences?

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Font Size:

The New York Times (NYT) openly lied about the criticism comptroller of the currency nominee Saule Omarova faced, claiming she was painted as a “threat” because of her birthplace rather than her apparent allegiance to socialist economic policies.

Omarova withdrew her nomination Monday, telling the White House it was “no longer tenable.”

Biden accepted the withdrawal, saying Omarova “would have brought invaluable insight and perspective to our important work on behalf of the American people” but that “from the very beginning of her nomination, Saule was subjected to inappropriate personal attacks that were far beyond the pale.”

The NYT tried to cast Omarova as simply a pioneer in the digital age of currency, writing that criticism of her nomination stemmed, in part, from a “2020 paper that Ms. Omarova had written about ways the Fed could use its own digital currency.”

The outlet also claimed that “some lobbyists, including the incoming chairman of a group representing community bankers and the chief executive of another group that focuses on big banks, also shared a Wall Street Journal editorial suggesting Ms. Omarova’s Soviet childhood meant that she could not be trusted.”

The Times linked to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) piece and in doing so distorted the entirety of the editorial, leaving out key points made as if readers could not simply read the original editorial themselves.

The WSJ noted Omarova said in 2019 that there was no gender pay gap in the USSR.

“Say what you will about old USSR, there was no gender pay gap there. Market doesn’t always ‘know best,'” she tweeted.

“Sure, there was a Gulag, and no private property, but maternity benefits!” the WSJ retorted before going on to note two papers in which Omarova advocated the Federal Reserve “effectively ‘end banking,’ as we know it” and become “the ultimate public platform for generating, modulating, and allocating financial resources in a modern economy.”

“She’d also like the U.S. to create a central bank digital currency — as Venezuela and China are doing — to ‘redesign our financial system & turn Fed’s balance sheet into a true “People’s Ledger,”‘ she tweeted this summer. What could possibly go wrong?” the editorial board wrote.

The paper in question, “The People’s Ledger,” argued for a “systematic democratization of finance” and outlined ways in which Americans could have retail bank accounts with the Federal Reserve, completely replacing private bank deposits and introducing a central digital currency.

Omarova has come under fire for other reasons, such as when she praised China’s central banking system. (RELATED: ‘I Don’t Know Whether To Call You Professor Or Comrade’: John Kennedy Grills Biden’s ‘Marxist’ Nominee)

Omarova also refused to hand over to the Senate Banking Committee her university thesis on Marxism. Omarova scrubbed any mention of the thesis from her resume, according to the Washington Free Beacon.

The Times was criticized for their claims, with several calling out the left-leaning outlet for their apparent distortions.

“Liars. As you know, it was her publicly held VIEWS, not her place of birth. You are lying propagandists who regularly harm the country,” Senior Editor at The Federalist Mollie Hemingway tweeted.

Senior AEI fellow Christina Sommers said Omarova’s views “may have played a role as well.”

Co-founder of the Federalist called the Times “lying propagandists” and the “absolute enemy of the people” for the claim.

Republican Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey said during a committee hearing that she should be held accountable for her past writings.

“What’s shocking to me is the notion that a person nominated for a very high position in our government shouldn’t be accountable for the things they have advocated for in writing themselves,” Toomey said, noting he had never “seen a more radical choice for any regulatory spot in our federal government.”

Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz called her a “radical threat to our economy” while Omarova defended herself claiming she was just an “easy target” because she is a female minority.