The NYT suspects a political prosecution

The New York Times runs an editorial on the prosecution and trial of the Democrat Alabama Governor and intimates it was a political hit job by DOJ

The gall! "Selective prosecution"? (What was the prosecution of Lewis Libby, by the way?) 

The Times writes of his defeat in the past election by a few thousand votes "marred by suspicious vote tabulations" (the paper never voices such suspicions when Republicans lose); play for pay scandals usually involve campaign contributions, not money being sent directly to candidates for their personal accounts; the jury dismissed 25 of the original 32 counts against him (that still leaves 7 -- he can be convicted of one and still be guilty, so what does the dismissal prove? If they prove his innocence, then the 7 non-dismissals should be proof that the system works and the charges were upheld after due scrutiny.


The Times practices selective defense of Democratic officials. The paper lambasted on the front page of the paper Republican Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher, who was charged with patronage violations. He was cleared of these charges as part of a settlement, but the resolution of the matter that cleared Fletcher was given virtually no attention by the Times. Yet the paper has repeatedly run articles, and now an editorial, trying to clear Siegelman's name.

The Times picks and chooses whom to defend and who to persecute. Is that the role of the nation's supposed premier newspaper?


The New York Times runs an editorial on the prosecution and trial of the Democrat Alabama Governor and intimates it was a political hit job by DOJ

The gall! "Selective prosecution"? (What was the prosecution of Lewis Libby, by the way?) 

The Times writes of his defeat in the past election by a few thousand votes "marred by suspicious vote tabulations" (the paper never voices such suspicions when Republicans lose); play for pay scandals usually involve campaign contributions, not money being sent directly to candidates for their personal accounts; the jury dismissed 25 of the original 32 counts against him (that still leaves 7 -- he can be convicted of one and still be guilty, so what does the dismissal prove? If they prove his innocence, then the 7 non-dismissals should be proof that the system works and the charges were upheld after due scrutiny.


The Times practices selective defense of Democratic officials. The paper lambasted on the front page of the paper Republican Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher, who was charged with patronage violations. He was cleared of these charges as part of a settlement, but the resolution of the matter that cleared Fletcher was given virtually no attention by the Times. Yet the paper has repeatedly run articles, and now an editorial, trying to clear Siegelman's name.

The Times picks and chooses whom to defend and who to persecute. Is that the role of the nation's supposed premier newspaper?