Someone tell the New York Times that not all “conspiracy theories” are created equal, and just because its staff writers may choose to believe one over the other doesn’t make it more legitimate.

Here are two facts that are not in contention with one another: President Trump concealing the extent of his past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is a conspiracy theory. Another conspiracy theory is that Trump’s Democrat predecessor, former President Obama, deliberately sabotaged Trump’s first term in office with fabricated intel. The difference between the two is that one of the theories is backed by overwhelming evidence, and yet it’s not the same one the news media are more invested in proving true.

We know which is which.

Case in point, “chief White House correspondent” for the New York Times, Peter Baker, over the weekend belittled shocking revelations that the Obama administration scuttled an intel report and ignored evidence that would have likely nuked the entire Russia collusion hoax.

“OK, so President Trump’s name is in the Jeffrey Epstein files. But who put it there?” wrote Baker in that condescending tone perfected by Washington journalists. “Could it possibly have been Barack Obama from his prison cell? Or a tranquilized Hillary Clinton? Oh wait, maybe it was etched onto the documents by Joe Biden’s magical autopen.”

Just a bit further in his dismissive piece, Baker wrote, “More than a decade later, Mr. Trump is coming full circle by trying to divert attention from the Epstein conspiracy theory with a new-and-improved one about Mr. Obama supposedly committing treason.”

This isn’t the work of a curious journalist explaining current events. This is the product of a manipulative propagandist who wants the public to focus on a controversy that likely won’t (but might!) cripple Trump’s second term, rather than learn anything about the corruption of U.S. intelligence agencies that led to an epic scam on the American voters. He might very well admit that the Epstein topic is also a “conspiracy theory,” but everyone knows what he’s doing.

Baker should crack open a dictionary. “Conspiracy theories” aren’t whatever he chooses not to believe because he thinks it’s unlikely, too complicated, or inconvenient. They’re not exclusive to far-fetched opinions or suspicions. Even he conceded in his piece that “some conspiracy theories do turn out to be true … or have some basis.”

In reality, there is far more stock in the “new-and-improved” conspiracy regarding Obama than there is in the Epstein one. Trump’s Director of National Intelligence last week published a slew of government documents demonstrating Obama’s direct role in an assessment that ignored key intel — intel challenging the central Russia hoax claim that President Vladimir Putin wanted Trump to win the 2016 election. The new information has been attacked by Democrats as incomplete or misleading, but not false. By pretending this explosive development amounts to nothing more than Trump “stirring the plot pot,” Baker exposes himself as a deceiver working on behalf of one political party against the other.

In contrast, the latest developments intending to establish a closer link between Trump and Epstein are so far limited to a strange birthday letter — Trump denies he’s the author — and a report that he was told by his Justice Department that his name appears in the Epstein “files” (not a surprise, given that the two men have both publicly acknowledged they knew each other).

Both topics can be reasonably called conspiratorial in nature. But by choosing which one to elevate as legitimate and which one to belittle, Baker and his peers in the dying media reveal so much about their motive, which, as always, is to lie.

Eddie Scarry is the D.C. columnist at The Federalist and author of "Liberal Misery: How the Hateful Left Sucks Joy Out of Everything and Everyone."