Here is the New York Times article from 2016/12/10: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/10/business/media/pizzagate.html?_r=0 (here saved on archive.is if you dont want to give NYT clicks: https://archive.is/qKS21)). Here the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_(conspiracy_theory)

Even though this NYT article does discuss more of our evidence as most of the other MSM, they still appear to selectively omit what evidence not to cover (such as, more of the Podesta Emails, Alefantis instagram pictures, the Clinton Foundation connection, the Norway Pedo bust, etc). It may be useful if someone could address the flaws in the article in detail.

NOTE: I think obtaining better evidence for the pizza code words in Podesta's emails is a crucial first step to show that pizzagate is real. It would be beneficial for the pizzagate investigation to show that "pizza" is a code word for pedophilia (otherwise, some may argue that pizza could be a code word for something else, such as drugs). For that matter, the "walnut" term is likely not a pedo code word, and may actually refer to sauce; unlike the usage of the "pizza" term, which is especially clear to stand for something else in this Email as well: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/18/18817_re-headcount-for-pizza-.html