The ongoing campaign against David Milstein is one of the most grotesque things I've witnessed in journalism, and the New York Times has produced what might be its most despicable installment yet. The Times's Jerusalem bureau chief is gleefully promoting this latest hit piece as an extraordinary "scoop," a strange description for an article that largely debunks itself, repeatedly undermining its allegations while portraying legitimate conduct as evidence of a sinister conspiracy. Buried deep in the article is an acknowledgment that previous U.S. ambassadors to Israel employed political advisers who influenced diplomatic reporting, and that Milstein's responsibilities explicitly include "reviewing and amending information sent to Washington." That's quite an admission for an article characterizing his exercise of that authority as "suppressing," "quashing," and "skewing" information. Reviewing diplomatic cables is a completely normal, standard function. Yet the Times repeatedly treats disagreements over reporting as evidence of corruption. Even its suggestion that Milstein's conduct is unprecedented is bullshit. Responsible Statecraft, the Iran-linked publication the Times credits with originally "exposing" Milstein, previously alleged that Aryeh Lightstone, a senior adviser to former Trump Ambassador David Friedman, and Biden's ambassador Jack Lew blocked reports that were just "critical of Israel" (as if). Then comes the Times's admission that "it is not clear whether Mr. Milstein's interventions have affected White House policy." For an article portraying Milstein as a shadowy figure manipulating foreign policy to "protect Netanyahu," that's a helluva caveat, wouldn't you say? By the way, the article acknowledges that Ambassador Huckabee empowered Milstein to oversee embassy operations, approves most diplomatic cables himself, and has personally overruled Milstein when necessary. In other words, the Times describes an adviser operating under an ambassador who retains ultimate authority, while portraying him as an unchecked rogue operator. There's an enormous difference between misleading Washington and refusing to rubber-stamp every assessment by career diplomats, particularly concerning one of America's closest allies. Ambassador Huckabee categorically rejected the allegations, but apparently his defense of his own senior adviser carries less weight than anonymous officials who disagree with him. Disagreeing with career diplomats isn't corruption. Exercising authority delegated by an ambassador isn't misconduct. Believing Israel is a valuable and well-intentioned American ally certainly isn't evidence of dishonesty. The Times would have us believe it uncovered an extraordinary scandal, when nearly all of what it documents is a political appointee exercising authority the newspaper acknowledges he possesses. If reporters have evidence Milstein actually did something wrong, intentionally or not, put it before the public and let readers judge. Until then, the bureau chief can spare us the self-congratulation about his supposed "scoop," particularly when his own newspaper has undermined its central narrative. This sort of journalism is a disgrace, and everyone participating in this relentless campaign against Milstein should be ashamed.