The New York Times and its devouring obsession with President Trump By David Zukerman
The first time The New York Times demanded a special prosecutor to investigate President Trump, was less than a month after his inauguration.
From the opening paragraph of its February 17, 2017 editorial, the call for a special prosecutor was based on the fabrication conceived by the Hillary Clinton-based resistance that the president was a Putin agent — and the Times colluded, seeking to overthrow a legitimately-elected president.
Then, on May 11, 2017, a contributor for the publication urged Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to name a special prosecutor to investigate President Trump. Less than a week later, following the firing of FBI director James Comey, Rosenstein tapped Robert Mueller to be special counsel.
Six days after that, the paper published an op-ed calling for an investigation of President Trump’s dismissal of FBI director James Comey, arguing that the firing may have constituted a criminal act by the president.
And just two days ago, the Times took the rhetoric to a new level, and called for the former president to be indicted — apparently in hopes that its editorial lightning will strike again. Having succeeded in pressing Mr. Rosenstein to appoint Mueller to investigate a sitting president after just four months, it appears that the Times is now confident they can replicate the situation and pressure Attorney General Merrick Garland to indict former President Trump. Garland will be as obsequious to the Times diktat as was the craven Mr. Rosenstein. (And with nary a Republican voice in Congress heard in protest!)
Here is the title of the August 28, 2022 New York Times editorial, in boldface letters:
Donald Trump Is Not Above the Law
The Times editorial is predictable in that from February 2017 to the present, the paper has demanded the investigation, the impeachment, the ouster of Mr. Trump. It’s also pathetic, wallowing for six years and counting, in its obsession with the former president. To what end? Banishment to St. Helena, if not imprisonment?
Herewith is the essence of the Times’ argument with the former president, quoting from the second paragraph of the August 28 editorial:
Mr. Trump’s unprecedented assault on the integrity of American democracy requires a criminal investigation.
(One hastily asks, does an unprecedented assault on the integrity of “American democracy” merely call for a criminal probe — or something rather more: the aforesaid banishment, if not imprisonment.)
The unvarnished truth is that The New York Times has been in the forefront of the Resistance to Trump for more than the past six years, even while he was just a Republican candidate for the presidency. The pages of the Times, as indicated from the articles referenced here, have been accusing Mr. Trump of undermining democracy, in conclusory terms it must be noted, and demanding his investigation from February 17, 2017, if not earlier, to the present day.
Previously, the baseless charges hurled at the former president included the accusation connoting treason — for working with Russia, and being criminal in his dismissal of the nausea-inducing James Comey.
However, the basis of all the emotionally-charged hostility is this: Donald J. Trump was elected the 45th President of the United States — and may seek a second term. The management and staff at The New York Times (no MAGA personnel permitted) will not abide a second term for Mr. Trump. That’s the essence of the false, baseless, bizarre editorial of August 28, demanding that Merrick Garland do as he is told and indict the current leader of the Republican Party. The specific charges are of no consequence. “Obstruction of justice” will probably suffice.
But if The New York Times is convinced that, a second time, its pressure will compel a Washington bureaucrat to do as he is bidden, I’d like to ask: How did the past efforts by the paper to persecute Mr. Trump and eject him from the public arena unfold?
Apparently, the zealots at The New York Times have yet to learn that the obsession motivating them to devour their target might just bite them, instead. At which point, of course, the perpetrators will be quite beside themselves.
Comments are closed.
