Another day, another cover-up for Democrats by the New York Times

After numerous poor young black male homosexual prostitutes were found drugged and/or dead in the home of homophobic homosexual (and no, that is not contradictory), racist, sadist, and not so incidentally major white Democratic donor (yes, on this I'm proudly judgmental) Ed Buck, Buck was finally arrested in Los Angeles last Thursday.

And how did the New York Times, whose new tagline seems to be "all the news that fits our narrative," report it?  The paper's tweet sets the tone:

Two men died in the home of Ed Buck, a small-time Democratic donor and political activist. Now federal prosecutors say they have detailed a disturbing pattern in which he exchanged drugs and money for sexual favors, citing at least 11 victims.

He was just a "small-time Democratic donor and political activist," the people running the Times claim, further expanding on his relative unimportance to the Democrats in their article on the case.

Federal prosecutors said Thursday that they had charged Ed Buck, a small-time Democratic donor and political activist, with a federal drug crime in the death of one of two men who died of overdoses in his West Hollywood home. (snip)

Mr. Buck is a recognizable figure in West Hollywood, a former model who became a fixture in Los Angeles Democratic political circles and was known for focusing on animal rights. In 2007, he made an unsuccessful bid for West Hollywood City Council. (snip)

Mr. Buck was not a major Democratic donor, but he handed out tens of thousands of dollars to California Democrats. After scrutiny of Mr. Buck rose this year, politicians began distancing themselves from him, with some donating his contributions to nonprofit organizations.

So where did Ed Buck get those "tens of thousands of dollars" he so casually handed out to California Democrats?  The Times, for some reason, does not answer this certainly important question.  Why?  Did he get the cash from his...uhm...friends, who for some reason didn't want their names known?  Was it his money? 

"Mr. Buck was not a major Democratic donor," they repeat.  Well, maybe to the New York Times and to Democrats, thousands upon tens of thousands of dollars, often $2,500 here, often $5,000 there, more often $500 there again, etc., etc., is not major, but to a deplorable such as myself, Ed Buck's donations to Democratic candidates, Democratic PACs, and to the Democratic Party totaling over a half-million dollars, as extensively documented by Open Secrets, the website listing political donations, certainly seem major.  But I'm not a Democrat, so what do I know of major donations?

Also, strangely — okay, not so strangely — the New York Times, which recently announced with great fanfare its 1619 Project, a series of articles on how slavery affected all aspects of American life, which continues until today, took little notice of a not-major Democratic donor who was white, paying young poor black men for various sexual acts and injecting them with addictive, and often deadly, drugs.

Again, what do I know?

Okay, I'll tell you what I know.  I know that the New York Times thinks it can overrule the democratic (small d) process by which people who do not reside in New York and who, for the most part, do not read the New York Times, elected native New Yorker Donald J. Trump (R) as president of the United States against the wishes of the wise (to them) advice of the entire staff of the Times.  And the Times' partisans will distort the news as long as he is president.

Even a minor political donor such as myself can sense a political cover-up.

After numerous poor young black male homosexual prostitutes were found drugged and/or dead in the home of homophobic homosexual (and no, that is not contradictory), racist, sadist, and not so incidentally major white Democratic donor (yes, on this I'm proudly judgmental) Ed Buck, Buck was finally arrested in Los Angeles last Thursday.

And how did the New York Times, whose new tagline seems to be "all the news that fits our narrative," report it?  The paper's tweet sets the tone:

Two men died in the home of Ed Buck, a small-time Democratic donor and political activist. Now federal prosecutors say they have detailed a disturbing pattern in which he exchanged drugs and money for sexual favors, citing at least 11 victims.

He was just a "small-time Democratic donor and political activist," the people running the Times claim, further expanding on his relative unimportance to the Democrats in their article on the case.

Federal prosecutors said Thursday that they had charged Ed Buck, a small-time Democratic donor and political activist, with a federal drug crime in the death of one of two men who died of overdoses in his West Hollywood home. (snip)

Mr. Buck is a recognizable figure in West Hollywood, a former model who became a fixture in Los Angeles Democratic political circles and was known for focusing on animal rights. In 2007, he made an unsuccessful bid for West Hollywood City Council. (snip)

Mr. Buck was not a major Democratic donor, but he handed out tens of thousands of dollars to California Democrats. After scrutiny of Mr. Buck rose this year, politicians began distancing themselves from him, with some donating his contributions to nonprofit organizations.

So where did Ed Buck get those "tens of thousands of dollars" he so casually handed out to California Democrats?  The Times, for some reason, does not answer this certainly important question.  Why?  Did he get the cash from his...uhm...friends, who for some reason didn't want their names known?  Was it his money? 

"Mr. Buck was not a major Democratic donor," they repeat.  Well, maybe to the New York Times and to Democrats, thousands upon tens of thousands of dollars, often $2,500 here, often $5,000 there, more often $500 there again, etc., etc., is not major, but to a deplorable such as myself, Ed Buck's donations to Democratic candidates, Democratic PACs, and to the Democratic Party totaling over a half-million dollars, as extensively documented by Open Secrets, the website listing political donations, certainly seem major.  But I'm not a Democrat, so what do I know of major donations?

Also, strangely — okay, not so strangely — the New York Times, which recently announced with great fanfare its 1619 Project, a series of articles on how slavery affected all aspects of American life, which continues until today, took little notice of a not-major Democratic donor who was white, paying young poor black men for various sexual acts and injecting them with addictive, and often deadly, drugs.

Again, what do I know?

Okay, I'll tell you what I know.  I know that the New York Times thinks it can overrule the democratic (small d) process by which people who do not reside in New York and who, for the most part, do not read the New York Times, elected native New Yorker Donald J. Trump (R) as president of the United States against the wishes of the wise (to them) advice of the entire staff of the Times.  And the Times' partisans will distort the news as long as he is president.

Even a minor political donor such as myself can sense a political cover-up.