I rarely look at the New York Times, since it abandoned any pretense of being a real newspaper years ago. Still, I was shocked when I saw the Times’s online front page a little while ago. Here is a screen shot of the top of the page:
Trump’s defense is “incendiary”? I guess that means his lawyers aren’t going along with the absurd charge against him. And by “reframing Trump’s words,” I suppose they mean that the lawyers are actually quoting him: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Is that incitement to riot, or what?
The Times notes that Trump’s lawyers called the claim that he incited violence at the Capitol “a preposterous and monstrous lie,” which it is. But look at what comes next:
His lawyers claimed, contrary to facts, that Mr. Trump never glorified violence…
“Contrary to facts”? The Times makes no pretense of being anything but a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.
…and falsely equated his conduct to Democrats’ use of combative rhetoric.
Actually, the lawyers said that the Democrats’ conduct was worse, and they are right. But “falsely”? This is supposedly a news story, not an op-ed. I think the Times’s over-the-top headline writers are referring to this video, which makes the point well: Trump has consistently stood up for law and order and backed peaceful protest, while the leaders of the Democratic Party have repeatedly condoned and even incited violence:
WATCH: President Trump's rhetoric VS the Democrats' rhetoric. pic.twitter.com/H1mvamlgtE
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) February 12, 2021
The Democrats’ first impeachment of President Trump was dumb and doomed to fail. This second impeachment of Private Citizen Trump is unconstitutional, crazed, and equally doomed. One wonders what depths of hysteria the Times and other Democratic Party outlets will reach when their impeachment effort inevitably fizzles out.