Friday, March 29, 2024
Miles from the Mainstream
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor

The New York Times Transformed -- From Newspaper to Partisan Zealot


July 1, 2014 -

In a front page news article, June 20, and in an editorial, June 21, The New York Times made it perfectly clear that it is a major advocate in the left's war on conservatives.

The June 20 story began by reporting that prosecutors in Wisconsin "assert that Gov. Scott Walker was part of an elaborate effort to illegally coordinate fund-raising and spending between his campaign and conservative groups during efforts to recall him and several state senators two years ago...." The Times then suggested that the allegations "threatened to cloud" Walker's political future.

Eight paragraphs further down, on page A14, the Times acknowledged that a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction to halt the prosecutors' probe. The Times did not quote from the Decision and Order of U.S. District Judge Rudolf T. Randa granting the preliminary injunction. Here is one quote from that ruling: "The [prosecutor] defendants are pursuing criminal charges through a secret John Doe investigation against the plaintiffs for exercising issue advocacy speech rights that on their face are not subject to the regulations or statutes the defendants seek to enforce. [Emphasis added.]" Note that Judge Nanda here indicated that the prosecutors could not have established guilt because they had no law to connect to their allegations/

The plaintiffs in the federal action -- a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 -- are Eric O'Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth (WCFG). The defendants include John Chisholm, district attorney Milwaukee County and two Milwaukee County assistant district attorney, Bruce Landgraf and David Robles. Defendants also include Francis Schmitz a former deputy U.S. attorney general, and nominally a Republican, brought in to serve a special prosecutor. The fifth defendant is Dean Nickels, a state official who allegedly played a key role on the October 3, 2013 raids (see below) on conservatives. The last defendant is Wisconsin State Judge Gregory Peterson, apparently included as a defendant for technical reasons. (Judge Peterson quashed subpoenas in state proceedings, finding the prosecutors had no probable cause for criminal conduct.)

The New York Times reported that the allegations were made by "five country district attorneys." LPR finds only three country district attorneys among the six defendants.

Judge Randa, in his Decision and Order, noted that "the timing of the investigation has frustrated the ability of WCFG and other right-leaning organizations to participate in the 2014 [Wisconsin] legislative session and election cycle." It would seem to LPR that such frustration is a one of the aims of the left in its war against conservatives.

The New York Times editorial, June 21, bolstered its June 20th story. The editorial carried this title: "Gov. Walker's Campaign Violations." What is the Times' source for its editorial declaration that Gov. Walker committed campaign violations? It must have something to do with this quote in the editorial: "According to state prosecutors, [Walker] was at the helm of a broad and illegal fund-raising effort that involved coordinating with outside spending groups and even controlling them." LPR is aware that determination of guilt, in totalitarian dictatorships, is established merely by the prosecutor's accusation. In the United States a determination of guilt does not issue from the mouth of the prosecutor but requires a trial. applicable of the facts to the law, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. LPR regrets that The New York Times, apparently, has little difficulty when conservatives are silenced by manipulation of the legal process by partisan prosecutors. The actual offense? Participating in politics while being conservative.

The Times editorial acknowledged that a Wisconsin state judge and a federal judge found that there were no campaign violations as claimed by the Wisconsin prosecutors, but the paper expressed the hope that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit would permit the prosecutors to resume their probe of conservative groups in Wisconsin. The Times, however, did not inform readers that for a preliminary injunction to issue, the judge must be persuaded, among other things, that the party seeking the injunction is likely to prevail on the merits of the action. In issuing the preliminary injunction, Judge Nanda signaled his view that the plaintiffs would prevail on the merits of their federal civil rights action. Also, the Times did not report that the defendants in the civil rights action brought -- and lost -- a motion to dismiss.

Also not reported by The New York Times were the pre-dawn armed raids, throughout Wisconsin, October 3, 2013, by sheriffs' deputies on conservative targets of the prosecutors, with the deputies seizing business records, computers, phones, while police prevented targeted individuals from contacting their attorneys. This, LPR, believes, is what happens in a police state, not in our land of liberty.

In his Decision and Order granting the preliminary injunction against the defendants, Judge Nanda found that plaintiffs O'Keefe and Wisconsin Club for Growth "have been shut out of the political process merely by association with conservative politicians." Judge Nanda noted, "This cannot square with the First Amendment and what it was meant to protect." The New York Times made it clear in its June 21 editorial that it is disappointed in Judge Nanda's ruling. At the New York Times, the First Amendment does not apply to conservatives.