If Trump foe Rep. Adam B. Schiff, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, writes about Russia-gate for the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page, does that mean we can expect to see The New York Times publish a defense of President Trump on its op-ed page?  Don't be silly.

There was nothing new in the Schiff piece, "What We Know About the Trump Campaign's Collusion With Russia."  He dredged up Mr. Trump's sarcastic comment, during the campaign, inviting more Russian hacking and dissemination of Hillary Clinton emails.  He commented darkly that Mike Flynn had "conspired secretly to undermine the effect of the [Obama] sanctions."  But he does not point out that the alleged conspiracy occurred in December 2016 – more than a month after the election that Schiff contends Trump colluded with the Russians to win.

Congressman Schiff brought things up to date, in a strained way, referring to last week's House Judiciary Committee hearing involving Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, during which "Republicans excoriated the FBI and the Justice Department."  The reason for criticism of the FBI and the Justice Department?  You will not find it in the Schiff op-ed.  The names of FBI agent Peter Strzok and his paramour, Lisa Page, for a time a member of the Mueller special counsel team, do not reach Mr. Schiff's computer, and certainly not the anti-Trump vitriol they exchanged on text messages by way of their government-issued phones.

The Wall Street Journal did make its op-ed forum open to Mr. Schiff.  It is, however, not to be expected that The New York Times will consider publishing on its op-ed page a piece setting forth evidence of collusion among Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS, the Democratic National Committee, and the Hillary Clinton campaign for purpose of tricking the American people into thinking Donald J. Trump is unpatriotic – the agent of a hostile foreign power.  For the left, freedom of the press very much includes the right to spike disagreeable views.

Nor is it to be expected that an op-ed piece will appear in the Times outlining how the intelligence cabal, under President Obama, of John Brennan at the CIA; James Clapper, director of National Intelligence; and FBI director James Comey cleverly got FISA surveillance applications approved to monitor the activities of members of the Trump campaign – and thereafter lied about obtaining such surveillance, confident that Clinton would be elected and their plotting would never see the light of day.

A September 20, 2017 Wall Street Journal editorial, "All Mr. Comey's Wiretaps," mentioned that Comey had, last March, denied to Congress that he had information on surveillance of Mr. Trump and that Clapper denied the existence of a FISA order on the Trump campaign.  The editorial then asked: "Were they lying?"  Three months later, the answer, apparently, is yes.

Last week we learned that Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III had gone through thousands of Trump transition team emails.  Given the revelations about anti-Trump bias at the FBI, and at the Mueller team as well, perhaps it is time to go through all the texts of the anti-Trump forces in the bureaucracy for evidence of additional anti-Trump meddling among the probers, meddling with the aim of nullifying the November 8, 2016 presidential election.  What could be more harmful to our democracy than such a conspiracy?