When Arthur Sulzberger retired at the end of 2017, handing off the reigns of The New York Times to his son of the same name, President Trump tweeted that he hoped the change in publishers would put the paper back on firm, factual, and fair ground. While we didn’t have any more hope for that than the president likely did, maybe we were wrong to be so dismissive of the idea. Could it be that the Gray Lady is actually turning over a new leaf? We don’t expect to read the columns of Pat Buchanan in the paper anytime soon, but is it possible that the paper will actually bring SOME degree of fairness back to their coverage of President Trump?
We’re still deeply skeptical, but we have to admit we were surprised to read their coverage of the Mueller investigation on Thursday, because it was like nothing we’ve seen from the liberal press in a long time.
Granted, the story’s headline and lede are firmly in the Times’s traditional “gotcha” journalism pattern, claiming that President Trump’s lawyer tried to keep Attorney General Jeff Sessions from recusing himself from the Russia investigation last year. The story is the same as one you’ve read a million times before – oh my God, Trump is mad with power and scared to death that his collusion with the Russians is going to doom his presidency and send him to prison. He’s trying to take full dictatorial control over the very rule of law itself, and lordy, we might be looking at America’s answer to Adolph Hitler, if not some other infamous strongman of the past.
You know, the usual BS that gets liberals all excited for the weekend.
But if you are brave enough to dig beneath the dung, you’ll find that the Times actually hides some gold in them hills. Later in the story, they admit that not everyone believes in this Russian collusion fairytale.
“Legal experts said that of the two primary issues that the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, appears to be investigating — whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice while in office and whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia — there is currently a larger body of public evidence tying the president to a possible crime of obstruction,” they write.
The tone of the paragraph says: Look out, the president is guilty of obstruction. But the subtext says something far more interesting: Legal experts don’t really believe that Mueller can prove a case of collusion. And since collusion is THE crime at the center of this investigation, this is tantamount to saying there’s nothing there. Let Mueller try to accuse Trump of obstructing an investigation into a crime that didn’t occur. We’d love to see how far he can fly on those wings.
Even on the subject of obstruction, the paper is forced to acknowledge that Mueller has an uphill climb ahead of him.
“The experts are divided about whether the accumulated evidence is enough for Mr. Mueller to bring an obstruction case,” they write. “They said it could be difficult to prove that the president, who has broad authority over the executive branch, including the hiring and firing of officials, had corrupt intentions when he took actions like ousting the F.B.I. director.”
The question is: If your FBI director is spending all of his time pursuing an investigation you personally know to be nonsense, is it “corrupt” for you to fire him? We submit that it is not. We submit that President Trump has a responsibility to the country to make sure his leadership is not diminished because a partisan FBI director is chasing down wild geese at the behest of the Democrats.
Upon closer examination of this article, we’re forced to conclude that no, nothing has changed at the New York Times. It was big of them to admit (without admitting) that the Trump/Russia investigation was made up of so much fluff and smoke, but until they make the same point in banner type at the top of the front page, they’re still nothing more than a cog in what appears to be (sing it with us) a vast left-wing conspiracy to take down the president.