Tuesday, November 29, 2022
Miles from the Mainstream
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor
In essence, The New York Times is Pathetic in its Devouring Obsession With Donald J. Trump

September 5, 2022 --

The New York Times first demanded a special prosecutor to investigate President Trump less than a month after his inauguration.


As will be apparent from the opening paragraph of its February 17, 2017 editorial, the call  by the Times for a special prosecuor was based on the fabrication conceived by the Hillary Clinton-based resistance that the president was a Putin agent.   NYT's aim was the overthrow of the president.  

On May 11,  2017 NYT 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 Come,  Rosenstein named Mueller to be special counsel.


May 17, 2017,  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.


August 28,  The New Yorks  calls  for the former president to be indicted.  The Time, apparently, hopes that its editorial lightening will strike again -- that having succeeded in pressing Mr, Rosenstein to appoint Mueller to investigate a president in office only four months, the Times now is confident that by pressing Attorney General Merrick Garland to indict former President Trump, Garland will be  as obsequious to  Times diktak  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 and capital letters replicating the original:


The Times editorial is predictable -- in that from February 2017 to the present, the paper has demanded the investigation, the impeachment, the oustter -- what now, the exile if not imprisonment?-- of Mr. Trump.   The Times is also pathetic, wallowing for six years and counting, in its obsession with Mr. Trump. To what end -- banishment to St. Heleena, if not imprisonment?

Herewith is the essence of The Times's  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:  te aforsaid 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 workiong with Riussia, and being criminal in his dismissal of the nausea-inducing  James Comey.   This charge, the subject of a May 17, 2017  Times op-ed (as it was then called) was, actually, an allegation of criminality while acting as a president.

This, however,  is what has irked most The New York Times, and its adherents in the Deep State, together with its base:  that Donald J. Trump was elected the 45th Presidetn 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.    Probably "obsruction of justice" will suffice.

But if The New York Times is convinced that, a second time,  its lightning will strike a Washington bureaucrat to do as he is bidden, how did the past efforts by the paper  to persecute Mr. Trump and banish  him from the public arena turn out?

Apparently, the zealots at The New York Times have yet to learn: The obsession motivating you to devour your target might just bite you, instead.  At which point, of course, the perpetrators will be quite beside themselves.