The trap of faulty comparisons is a doozy if you’re the New York Times’s chief White House correspondent Peter Baker.

On Tuesday, the outlet published an essay by Baker titled, “To Trump, Foreign Business Is Scandalous, Unless It’s His Own” and throughout the editorial, he made several minor missteps … but one whopping blunder.

Taking issue with a recent video posted to social media by Donald Trump in which the president brazenly referred to Robin Ware—oops! I meant Robert L. Peters—oops again! Mea culpa! I meant to say Joe Biden, Donald Trump referred to Joe Biden as the patriarch of the “Biden crime family” and Baker wasn’t having it. From Baker’s article, shared via Yahoo! News:

For Mr. Trump, outrage is a selective commodity when it comes to presidential families taking millions of dollars from foreign countries. During his four years in the White House and in the more than two and a half years since, Mr. Trump and his relatives have been on the receiving end of money from around the globe in sums far greater than anything Hunter Biden, the president’s son, reportedly collected.

Preoccupied by his animus, Baker failed to spot what should be a blinding difference: Hunter has nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing to offer except access to friends in high places, namely his own father; however, Trump does.

Over the course of decades, before he ever entered politics, and in the private sector (key difference), Trump has built a real estate and business empire that spans the globe, so he actually has a legitimate product and/or service to sell — the same ones he’s been selling all along, the ones which have made him a billionaire without having American political influence to peddle — Hunter doesn’t. (“Trainwreck” doesn’t even begin to cover the person of Hunter Biden.)

In fact, as pointed out by long-time contributor Jack Hellner, Trump’s “taking millions of dollars from foreign countries” is no different than the NYT selling newspapers to foreign countries. I get it this guy is a “political analyst” and not an economist, but it should be common knowledge that an exchange of goods and/or services for money, is a legitimate market transaction, even if the business is conducted with outsiders. What’s not legitimate is lined pockets, with no goods or services in sight — these are what’s known as “kickbacks” Mr. Baker.

Baker, bless his heart, tried to darndest to flip the script, and sought to insinuate that Trump was the one monetizing political access and favoritism:

The luxury hotel he [Trump] opened down the street from the White House, for example, became the favored destination for lobbyists, dealmakers and foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain, which paid handsomely for accommodations, galas and more.

Now, maybe Baker has never been in the five-star former Trump International hotel in D.C. — the establishment recently changed hands, and is now branded as a Waldorf Astoria — but it’s an exquisite and historic structure (1899), with top-notch service and amenities. So maybe, just maybe, these extremely wealthy Arab leaders prefer extremely luxurious digs; it’s also located just blocks from the White House, so if they’re there to conduct official business, proximity must be a determining factor.

The essay drones on, a house of cards carefully stacked upon one logical fallacy after another, but the burning question remains: Why the outrage over a man who amassed a fortune before his time as a public servant, instead of the nothing-to-offer unhireables hunkered down in Washington, raking in hundreds of millions for … voting on federal policy? The math ain’t mathin’.

Image: Free image, Pixabay license.