Fox News host Laura Ingraham revealed on her show Wednesday night that last May, the New York Times quashed a story about a White House meeting that took place in January 2016 between Obama administration officials, Ukrainian officials, and the alleged whistleblower, which addressed Hunter Biden’s position on the board of Burisma Holdings.

According to Ingraham, she obtained a chain of State Department emails from May 2019 between New York Times journalist Ken Vogel and State Department official Kate Schilling, when Vogel was seeking comment on his story about the White House meeting between the whistleblower, Ukrainian officials, and the Obama administration.

In the email, Vogel wrote, “We are going to report that [State Department official] Elizabeth Zentos attended a meeting at the White House on 1/19/2016 with Ukrainian prosecutors and embassy officials as well as … [redacted] from the NSC … the subjects discussed included efforts within the United State government to support prosecutions, in Ukraine and the United Kingdom, of Burisma Holdings, … and concerns that Hunter Biden’s position with the company could complicate such efforts.” Ingraham said this email was forwarded to Schilling’s colleagues Zentos and George Kent, who appears to have been a source for Vogel. The conversation ended on May 3, with the State Department declining to comment. Kent, who was stationed in Kyiv at the time, told House investigators during an impeachment hearing last year that he raised concerns in 2015 about Hunter Biden holding a position with Burisma but was rebuffed by a Joe Biden aide. Using archived Obama White House visitor logs, Ingraham said her team was able to corroborate details of the January 2016 meeting, showing on the screen the names of Ukrainian officials checked into the White House by Ciaramella, who was Ukraine director on the National Security Council.

It’s previously been established that the Obama State Department had raised “red flags” about Hunter Biden’s position on the board of Burisma. But, the story about the White House meeting was never published and Ingraham reached out to Vogel and the New York Times to find out why.

Ingraham got a reply from the New York Times director of communications who told her that “Vogel’s request for comment was consistent with their news-gathering process.” Basically, a nonresponse.

Nevertheless, Ingraham believes “the timing of their request and the subsequent quashing of the story are very interesting,” because Joe Biden announced his presidential campaign a week before Vogel’s request. Ingraham speculated that Joe Biden’s campaign may have gotten the NYT to kill the story. Indeed, Biden’s campaign has threatened media outlets not to run stories, so Ingraham’s theory is definitely plausible.

So, why was the story killed? Was someone trying to protect Joe Biden? The Obama administration? This revelation raises lots of questions.

On the same day as Vogel’s request to the State Department, he had a report published examining how in 2016, then-Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees if Ukraine did not fire its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. […] Vogel has continued to report on the Bidens and Ukraine and the unfolding impeachment saga. He said in a Sept. 21 interview that the Ukraine story posed a “significant liability” for Joe Biden and that there was “more to be told.” Vogel got a report published the next day that declared no evidence had surfaced that showed Joe Biden intentionally tried to protect his son by getting Shokin fired.

What the report for all the details.

Watch @IngrahamAngle #ingrahamangle Whistleblower, meetings with Ukrainians and that Ken Vogel story. Using archived Obama visitor logs, they learned the WB checked in numerous Ukrainian officials into the WH. pic.twitter.com/YxHVSjtCan — Heather Champion (@winningatmylife) January 23, 2020

Perhaps the biggest question from Ingraham’s bombshell scoop is why does the media seem to kill stories that are damaging to Democrats rather than report the facts.

But it’s not really a question, is it, because we already know the answer.