All the anti-Trump propaganda fit to deceive
This Glenn Thrush article in the June 17 New York Times, "Special Counsel Aims to Dodge Distraction in Trump Case" (online "In Trump Prosecution, Special Counsel Seeks to Avoid Distracting Fights") was falsely labeled "News Analysis."
The Times summary of it is here:
Jack Smith has taken an iron-fist-in-a-kid-glove approach, sidestepping secondary issues that could divert attention from the weight of the evidence he has assembled in his case against the former president.
It was, actually, a litany of observations imputing the worst about Donald J. Trump while covering up even more lurid examples of Trump hatred previously expressed by three of the sources of anti-Trump nastiness quoted by Thrush.
The ostensible point of the piece was to explain to the Times base why Special Counsel Jack Smith did not treat the former president more harshly at his June 13 arraignment in Miami.
After all, it goes without saying that, more likely than not, the base of Trump hostiles had hoped to see the former president in manacles, and remanded on exorbitant bail, prevented from traveling about the country, and so forth.
Common sense dictates that treating former president Trump as harshly as an ordinary defendant would have even stirred the outrage of the 20 GOP congressman who gave the dishonorable Adam Schiff a free pass the other day to continue his habit of dishonesty.
Leftists simply are born without genes allowing or gestures of magnanimity.
Thrush went out of his way to throw blue meat to Times readers by seeking out comments from Jack Goldsmith, Barbara McQuade, and Mary McCord. Goldsmith was identified as a Harvard Law professor and former assistant attorney general. He was quoted by Thrush, in part, to seem to criticize the Justice Department for its "actions against Trump marked by error and excess." Goldsmith, however, went on to accuse "''Trump and his allies'" of intending to "'demonize the prosecution as unfair'" -- this from a partisan who, among his anti-Trump screeds, co-authored one called "How to Reform the Presidency After the Wreckage of Trump."
Besides, the term "unfit" addressed to Garland/Biden/Smith is not a denouncement, but simply descriptive of reality.
Let's consider another source quoted by Thrush, Barbara L. McQuade, identified as a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, from 2010 - 2017, an Obama appointee. Thrush omitted noting that she is now on the faculty of Michigan law school and wrote a Time essay faithful to Rule No. I of Trump-haters: say the worst you can think of about the former president. McQuade's seemingly innocuous point that Special Counsel Smith did not want to limit Mr. Trump's travel was printed right after Thrush wrote that Smith wanted to keep the focus on Mr. Trump's threat to national security and obstruction.
See McQuade's June 12 Time attack on the former president -- "The Dangerous Whataboutism in the Trump Classified Docs Case" -- which ends by denouncing him as a "grave threat to our national security" -- after suggesting that MAGA represents an authoritarian movement. It's an unhinged anti-Trump propaganda play.
Perhaps, however, the most bizarre anti-Trump source quoted by Thrush, on the record, is Mary McCord, identified as a former official in the national security division of the Justice Department. Her accusation, quoted by Thrush, was that Mr. Trump "'has tried to influence witnesses.'" Thrush himself went on to parrot this baseless witness-tampering accusation a few paragraphs down in his anti-Trump propaganda piece masquerading as "News Analysis."
Not disclosed by Thrush is that McCord accused President Trump of crossing a constitutional line by urging voters to liberate Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia. McCord is a visiting professor at Georgetown law school. She might better qualify as a proponent for the proposition that there is no such thing as hyperbole.
Thrush also cites the execrable Andrew Weissmann of Muellergate to accuse special counsel Jack Smith of applying a double standard for the purpose of protecting Mr. Trump.
That is not "analysis" but propaganda with the intent to deceive.
Image: Pixabay / Pixabay License