For The New York Times (and its ilk), Donald J. Trump can't be hounded enough

The title of Katherine Miller's anti-Trump article in the April 30 Opinion section of The New York Times asked, "Are We Making an Example of Trump?"  Compare, however, the online title: "Donald Trump May Have Begun Losing."

What does the printed title of the Miller piece have to do with the online title?  The latter presents the biased, fervent wish of a Times propagandist that Donald Trump will not be re-elected.  The print title offered the possibility that the writer was about to criticize the zealous opposition to the former president, to suggest that he has become a symbol of hard-left witch-hunting.  How foolish that thought; perish the thought that The New York Times, agent for the Deep State, should pause to reflect that Deep State hounding of former president Trump is excessive.  (Arguably, the hounding of the former president violates the spirit of the Former Presidents Act of 2012 — which, may the Almighty allow, will be revealed at the May 12 Pomerantz deposition.)

A quick reading of the Miller article revealed it to be a rambling, misinformative paean to the infamous Jan. 6 select committee, including an attempt to hail a back-stabbing former Trump press aide, one Sarah Matthews, who apparently told the Jan. 6 committee what it wanted to hear about the former president — that he could have "called the insurrection off."  The quoted words come from Ms. Miller — leaving readers to conclude that the thought about "insurrection" came from Matthews, another Trump turncoat.

We should keep in mind that the falsehood that Jan. 6 amounted to "insurrection" comes from the same politically hysterical camp that has made it a habit of lying about Mr. Trump — from "Russiagate" in 2016 and thereafter to the baseless accusation that the true New York Post account of Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation."  (But then isn't "hard left accusation" a synonym for baseless political propaganda?)

Interjections of a certain lucidity can be found in Miller's article — her acknowledgment, for example, that the Jan. 6 panel was "political."  Alas, she did not explain the truth of this acknowledgment that it reduced the "political" to the witch-hunting days of yore.

At the midway point of her screed, Miller wrote that the aim of the Jan. 6 committee was to provide a "presentation" to build a "consensus" on how "bad Jan. 6 really was."  Alas, Miller did not explain how this "presentation" was carefully skewed for an anti-Trump/Republican purpose.  Propagandist Miller did not mention this New York Times story reporting that the Jan. 6 panel hired a veteran TV exec to produce the hearings for "maximum impact."  I call this disinformation by purposeful omission.

Also deceiving was Miller's reference to Jan. 6 panel member Zoe Lofgren, who "noted that the Jan. 6 committee was different from any experience she'd had, beginning with its unique presentation structure."  Except Lofgren never explained the true nature of the uniqueness of the Jan. 6 select committee.  Lofgren is a Democrat zealot from California.  But then, of the seven Democrats on the panel, who wasn't a Democrat zealot?  They were joined by two Republican anti-Trump zealots carefully selected by then-speaker Pelosi, providing political irony to style the panel as the "Jan. 6 House Select Committee." 

Apparently Miller did not ask Rep. Lofgren, "Have you ever been a member of a House committee whose members were chosen for their antipathy to a former president?"  The forthcoming answer could not have been other than "no."

Consider, also, that the Jan. 6 panel ignored the terms of the organizing resolution, House Res. 503, with regard to the membership and procedures.  Miller apparently did not inquire of Ms. Lofgren: "Have you ever been a member of a panel that, ignoring the terms of the organizing resolution, conducted itself in an ultra vires manner?"  Rep. Lofgren would have had to answer "no" — if not ducking the question.

Further, Miller, apparently, did not question Ms. Lofgren as to how Republican Liz Cheney got to be vice chair of a committee that had no provision for a vice chair — and also got to be regarded as de facto ranking member, when ranking members are named by the leader of the House minority.  Cheney was named by Democrat Pelosi to the committee.  "Ms. Lofgren, ever been on a committee whose ranking member was chosen by the speaker?"  Again, the truthful answer likely would have been "no."  How different, indeed, the Jan. 6 partisan panel was — in ways, significant ways, quite different from the Miller "presentation."

Five paragraphs from the end of Miller's contribution to the pile of propaganda pieces erected at The New York Times, she wrote: "It's like the best society can do is to keep applying a kind of societal weight to Mr. Trump[.]"  That is New York Timesese for We must hound Donald J. Trump to the grave.  Not very sporting, is it?  Certainly not consistent with the spirit of the Former Presidents Act of 2012.

If you experience technical problems, please write to