The New York Times is at it again.

The paper published a grossly misleading report Thursday evening suggesting U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley is responsible for sizable spending decisions reportedly made by the Obama administration. Because the truth is more important now than ever or something.

The story, titled “ Nikki Haley’s View of New York Is Priceless. Her Curtains? $52,701,” begins with these lines:



The State Department spent $52,701 last year buying customized and mechanized curtains for the picture windows in Nikki R. Haley’s official residence as ambassador to the United Nations, just as the department was undergoing deep budget cuts and had frozen hiring.



[...]



The government leased the apartment, just blocks from the delegation’s offices, with an option to buy, according to Patrick Kennedy, the top management official at the State Department during the Obama administration. The full-floor penthouse, with handsome hardwood floors covering large open spaces stretching nearly 6,000 square feet, was listed at $58,000 a month.



The report seems like bad news for Haley – until you get to the sixth paragraph. It states, “A spokesman for Ms. Haley said plans to buy the curtains were made in 2016, during the Obama administration. Ms. Haley had no say in the purchase, he said.”

You’d think the author would get to the bottom of that detail before going public with a “Nikki Haley’s curtains” narrative. But you’d be wrong. And this is on top of the fact that paper itself reports that the "State Department decided in 2016 to find a new home for its top New York diplomat because of security concerns"!

CNN’s Jake Tapper reported independent of the Times that a source at the U.S. Mission to the U.N. said, “It was decided, well before the election in 2016, that the U.S. Ambassador’s residence would move from the Waldorf to its new location.”

“In June of 2016 it was decided that the State Department's Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations would outfit the new residence,” the source added. “It's [standard operating procedure] for outfitting Ambassadors' Residences. The outfitting of the USUN residence just happened to start in 2016.”

Bottom line, per the source: Haley “had no choice in the location of the residence or what curtains were picked out that summer.”

As if the Time’s clear attempt to smear Haley wasn’t infuriating enough already, the report goes on to quote an Obama-era official who is shocked – shocked! – to learn of wasteful government spending.

“How can you, on the one hand, tell diplomats that basic needs cannot be met and, on the other hand, spend more than $50,000 on a customized curtain system for the ambassador to the U.N.?” said Brett Bruen, former Director of Global Engagement for the Obama White House. Interesting question, Brett. Let’s ask some of your former colleagues.

The story also quotes an Obama-era State Department official as defending the purchase. “All she’s got is a part-time maid, and the ability to open and close the curtains quickly is important,” Patrick Kennedy, former Undersecretary of State for Management, helpfully told the Times.

That's arguable the worst quote in the entire story and it doesn't even come from any of Haley's people!

The “Nikki Haley’s curtains” narrative has, of course, taken off in the press, with at least one competing news outlet similarly downplaying that the purchase was allegedly decided in 2016.

“Nikki Haley spent over $52K in State Department money on curtains,” read a New York Post headline.

The story’s opening paragraph reads, “Nikki Haley spent $52,700 in State Department money on 'customized and mechanized' curtains for her luxury apartment across from the United Nations on the East Side of Manhattan ..."

Then there is the tweeting.

MSNBC’s Kyle Griffin, whose entire job appears to consist of accumulating sweet, sweet “resistance” retweets, wrote, “The State Department spent $52,701 last year buying customized and mechanized curtains for Nikki Haley's official residence, just as the department was undergoing deep budget cuts.”

“It's tough enough having to defend Nikki Haley's government-purchased $52,000 curtains in her government-paid $58,000-a-month digs. But then the official defending the UN ambassador says, ‘All she’s got is a part-time maid,’” said Poynter contributor David Beard.

The New York Times’ Jonathan Weismann said elsewhere, “For $52,701, Nikki Haley’s new taxpayer-funded curtains better be special.”

His colleague Eric Lipton also shared the story on social media, characterizing it as “our latest update re housing/decor from the Trump-era diplomatic front.”

A “Trump-era” descriptor for an Obama-era decision. Nicely done, truth-tellers.