How the Times misreports the impeachment
The New York Times reported on February 8 that David Schoen, one of the lawyers representing private citizen Donald J. Trump in his Senate trial on impeachment, has asked that the Senate not to convene on Saturday because Mr. Schoen is a Sabbath-observing Orthodox Jew. The article, by Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman, stated that Schoen is among "a second group of lawyers who has stepped in to represent Mr. Trump in his second impeachment trial."
This account then explained that the first set of Trump lawyers for the second impeachment trial "quit after [they] refused to commit to the former president's preferred trial strategy — that they defend him by repeating his baseless claims that the election was stolen from him."
The interjection of the invidious words "baseless claims" leads one to speculate that Times reporters are required to insert anti-Trump propaganda in their coverage of Donald Trump lest staffers demand the immediate termination of any Timesperson who does not comply with the paper's anti-Trump line.
The Schmidt-Haberman story also reported that Schoen said he has not been given a schedule for the Senate trial or told the amount of time set aside for arguments. Will Senator Patrick Leahy, presiding at this "trial," not give President Trump's attorneys time to prepare their case to deal with leftist zealotry?
The reporters also noted that Democrats know "almost certainly" that they lack the votes to convict Trump, who was not described anywhere in this article as private citizen. This acknowledgment is unlikely to pass without notice from the de facto commissar's directing the paper's party line on Trump. Will the paper settle for an editorial or two demanding the ouster of any and all senators who did not vote to convict private citizen Trump?
At the New York Times, all the news that is fit to print does not, apparently, allow for references to constitutional provisions that present difficulties for that paper's zealous campaign to destroy Donald Trump. Schmidt and Haberman did not, for example, inform the paper's readers that the Constitution does not allow bills of attainder against private citizens — that is to say, legislative enactments finding persons guilty of charged offenses (Article I, Section 9).
It is not unreasonable to conclude that Schmidt and Haberman are committing acts of faux journalism — omitting key facts, directly asserting propaganda as fact — worthy of reportage, Stalin-style. And so, in this era of name-changing, shouldn't the Times reconstitute itself as the New York Pravda?
Image: New York Times.