The Left keeps looking for ways to accuse the right of interfering with elections, reducing confidence, or suppressing the vote. So what do we call it when NYTimes does THIS?
The New York Times hates Trump. This isn’t just obvious, it’s on record. When Russian Collusion and the Mueller Report crashed and burned, details were leaked by left-leaning SLATE about an editorial meeting where they decided — in 2018 — that the narrative from then until the election would be putting a Trump-is-racist lens on every issue.
Now they are already breathless at the possible implications of being well and truly rid of Orange Man Bad.
No big deal. Just The New York Times openly wondering if (read: rooting for) Trump should QUIT the election and thus preemptively concede to Joe Biden.
And yet, the national press don't want to be called the enemy of the people. pic.twitter.com/loY3Id4uG2
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) October 2, 2020
Wow, NYTimes, really?
Stay classy.
Who was raising this issue, and suggesting Republicans should fold like a cheap lawn chair?
While many critics have sent the president well wishes, the Gray Lady was quick to float the idea that he should just scrap seeking re-election altogether.
“If he becomes sick, it could raise questions about whether he should remain on the ballot at all,” Times reporters Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman wrote after noting that Trump’s positive test throws “the nation’s leadership into uncertainty.” — FoxNews
Does that name ring a bell? It should. Haberman was a central player in the Russiagate saga, and had something to say about Hillary’s emails too.
What ELSE do we know about Maggie Haberman? The Clinton campaign saw her as a useful flunkie.
One January 2015 strategy document — designed to plant stories on Clinton’s decision-making process about whether to run for president — singled out reporter Maggie Haberman, then of Politico, now covering the election for the New York Times, as a “friendly journalist” who has “teed up” stories for them in the past and “never disappointed” them. Nick Merrill, the campaign press secretary, produced the memo, according to the document metadata:
…That strategy document plotted how Clinton aides could induce Haberman to write a story on the thoroughness and profound introspection involved in Clinton’s decision-making process. The following month, when she was at the Times, Haberman published two stories on Clinton’s vetting process; in this instance, Haberman’s stories were more sophisticated, nuanced, and even somewhat more critical than what the Clinton memo envisioned.
But they nonetheless accomplished the goal Clinton campaign aides wanted to fulfill of casting the appearance of transparency on Clinton’s vetting process in a way that made clear she was moving carefully but inexorably toward a presidential run. — Intercept
