Former New York Times Editor Lashes Out Against Paper Over Tom Cotton Controversy

Former New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet has finally spoken publicly about his role in one of the most disgraceful chapters in American journalism: the Times’ cringing apology for running a 2020 column by Sen. Tom Cotton. Bennet said publisher AG Sulzberger “set me on fire and threw me in the garbage” to appease the mob. It was an early indicator of what would be a collapse of journalistic values across the industry as “advocacy journalism” swept away traditional reporters and editors. The interview comes in the same week of a new poll showing media at a near record low in trust from the public.

The treatment of the Cotton column shocked many of us. It was one of the lowest points in the history of modern American journalism. During the week of June 6, 2020, the Times forced out Bennet and apologized for publishing Cotton’s column calling for the use of the troops to restore order in Washington after days of rioting around the White House.

While Congress would “call in the troops” six months later to quell the rioting at the Capitol on January 6th, New York Times reporters and columnists denounced the column as historically inaccurate and politically inciteful. The column was in fact historically accurate, even if you disagreed with the underlying proposal (as I did).

Reporters insisted that Cotton was endangering them by suggesting the use of troops and insisted that the newspaper should not feature people who advocate political violence. Writers Taylor Lorenz, Caity Weaver, Sheera Frankel, Jacey Fortin, and others also said that such columns put black reporters in danger and condemned publishing Cotton’s viewpoint.

Critics never explained what was historically false (or outside the range of permissible interpretation) in the column.

In a breathtaking surrender, the newspaper apologized and not only promised an investigation into how such an opposing view could find itself on its pages but promised to reduce the number of editorials in the future:

“We’ve examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication. This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards. As a result, we’re planning to examine both short term and long term changes, to include expanding our fact-checking operation and reduction the number of op-eds we publish.”

One of the writers who condemned the decision to publish Cotton was New York Times Magazine reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones.  Hannah-Jones applauded the decision of the Times to apologize for publishing such an opposing viewpoint and denounced those who engage in what she called “even-handedness, both sideism” journalism. (Notably, Hannah-Jones herself later tweeted out a bizarre anti-police conspiracy theory that injuries and destruction caused by fireworks was not the fault of protesters but actually part of a weird police conspiracy. There was no hue and cry over accuracy).

Bennet reportedly made an apology to the staff.  That however was not enough. He was later compelled to resign for publishing a column that advocates an option used previously in history with rioting.

He remained silent as many of us objected to the handling of the controversy. It would only get worse. Reporters and columnists soon found the environment of raw advocacy and open intolerance to be unacceptable … or were forced out. If the New York Times would not stand on principle, journalists at other smaller papers had little hope for their own newspapers.

Now, two years late, Bennet is publicly objecting. He told the new media outlet Semafor that publisher AG Sulzberger

“blew the opportunity to make clear that the New York Times doesn’t exist just to tell progressives how progressives should view reality. That was a huge mistake and a missed opportunity for him to show real strength. He still could have fired me…I actually knew what it meant to have a target on your back when you’re reporting for the New York Times.

None of that mattered, and none of it mattered to AG. When push came to shove at the end, he set me on fire and threw me in the garbage and used my reverence for the institution against me,. This is why I was so bewildered for so long after I had what felt like all my colleagues treating me like an incompetent fascist.”

Yet, Bennet himself “blew the opportunity” to confront the abandonment of principle by the Times when it occurred. While some of us defended his decision, he remained quiet as did virtually everyone at the newspaper beyond a core of activists. He also signed off on the cowardly editor’s note accusing Cotton of fudging facts about Antifa’s role in civil unrest and using a ‘needlessly harsh’ tone.”

Bennet now says that “my regret is that editor’s note. My mistake there was trying to mollify people…[T]hey want to have the applause and the welcome of the left, and now there’s the problem on top of that, that they’ve signed up so many new subscribers in the last few years and the expectation of those subscribers is that the Times will be Mother Jones on steroids.”

He is, of course correct. Bennet (the brother of Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo) now writes for The Economist.

Cotton and conservatives are also rarely seen on the pages of the New York Times unless it is to criticize the party or Trump. The writers have condemned the “both sideism” of allowing conservative viewpoints in the newspaper and insisted that Cotton and others must be banned as favoring potential violent actions against protesters.

Yet, the newspaper has published people with anti-free speech and violent viewpoints in the last year. While the New York Times stands by its declaration that Cotton should never have been published, it had no problem in publishing “Beijing’s enforcer” in Hong Kong as Regina Ip mocked freedom protesters who were being beaten and arrested by the government.

Indeed, just before the anniversary of the Cotton controversy, the New York Times published a column by University of Rhode Island professor  Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.  (Loomis has also been ridiculed for denouncing statistics, science, and technology as inherently racist).

The new survey shows how much damage has been done to the profession by figures like Sulzberger and Hannah-Jones. Only 34% of Americans trust in the mass media to report the news “fully, accurately and fairly” — just two points higher than the lowest that Gallup previously recorded (during 2016 during the presidential campaign).

Only 7% of Americans have “a great deal” of trust and confidence in the media, and 27% have “a fair amount.” Some 66 percent have little or no faith in the media.

Yet, none of that matters. The belated admissions and objections of Bennet are welcomed but they are likely to fall on deaf ears. There remains a cringing fear of being the next Bennet in finding yourself on the wrong side of the next flash media mob.

73 thoughts on “Former New York Times Editor Lashes Out Against Paper Over Tom Cotton Controversy”

  1. Let’s compare Bennett’s exit to that of Bari Weiss who made her resignation letter to Sulzberger available for the world to see. The letter was a blistering indictment of how bad the Times newsroom had become with its woke progressives. I used to be a paid subscriber, but had dropped it because of the paper’s bias. Weiss’ letter was the final nail in the coffin for me. I no longer look at it even though a free copy is available to me.

  2. This whole article is moot.

    Paying even a scintilla of heed to anything the New York Times, or any one or anything related to it in any way, utters is akin to taking any aspect of the Chinese Communist Party seriously, excepting only the inherent military threat.

    The Chinese Communist Party is not worthy of any degree of acceptance or heed.

    The New York Times in not worthy of any degree of acceptance or heed.

    1. 100% Real unbiased journalism is in it’s death throws. No sense in paying any attention to 90% of it.

  3. Having fed Cotton to the fire, Bennett’s words have even less gravitas than the smoke said fire generated. A jailer’s non existent conscience now drips with regrets–only for his loss. not that of Freedom’s.

  4. Bennit should have spoken up earlier but when someone finds a new revelation he should be commended. Tulsi Gabbard is an example. However the question remains is will he or she remain on the road to repentance. This is a much harder task than their proclamation of seeing the light. I’m betting on Tulsi because her brother is not a vote with the Democrats 99% of the time politician. It is amusing that one lover of censorship his calling another lover of censorship bad names. Color me gobsmacked.

    1. Snorkraptor, it appears that Mr. Bennet cares a great deal about what happened. Just because you don’t care about a U.S. Senator being censored you should not assume that the rest of us don’t care. We see you peeking out from your little blue bubble and we can just barely hear what your saying.

      1. TIT: rather, I just know the complete hollowness of the right’s faux concern on the issue of free speech.

          1. No no you got it wrong it’s the Democrats that love free speech and are trying to protect it the Republicans hate it they’re trying to get rid of it they only have a ‘Faux’ love of the First Amendment .. according to the commenter above

        1. Lol….faux.
          No it’s the Democrats that love the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and they work tirelessly defending it.
          Those Republicans hate Free Speech they’re trying to get rid of it you’re right

  5. Most of the media has abandoned all pretense of journalism. Most of the media now views its role as shaping public opinion to the benefit of the Democrat Party. If it’s injurious to Democrats, like the Hunter Biden laptop story, they bury it, likewise if it benefits Republicans.

    The Grey Lady is American’s Pravda today.

    1. Karen S.
      Right you are!
      We now call NPR, National Pravda Radio.
      How can they call themselves ‘journalists’ is beyond me. They are nothing but Dems/Leftists hacks.

      1. “We now call NPR, National Pravda Radio.”

        Upstate, ‘the difference between Pravda and the New York Times is that Pravda readers knew they were being lied to.’

  6. Are the days of OpEd’s being published in the same media outlet over? So instead of reading the NY Times editorial page for alternate opinions of the same subject, we have to go to the NY Post for example to get that alternate opinion. The echo chamber effect is real. Confirmation bias is real. They have an effect on all of us. We now live in a world where facts and evidence are considered as dangerous opinions that need to be censored. The real danger for anyone desiring to be secure in their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is permitting any entity the power to control the information flow to the masses. Once censorship becomes normalized, we will be on the fast track to the end of our American experiment.

  7. Jonathan: Reviving the controversy over the Tom Cotton racist column in the NY Times, and Bennet’s very belated response, shows I guess that’s there is life after death in the newspaper world. So pardon me if I want to move on to a more important story–one you would probably like to forget.

    Yesterday a jury acquitted Danchenko on all four criminal counts brought by John Durham. And Danchenko didn’t even bother to present a defense! Since you love sports metaphors it appears Durham has struck out again. His batting average is about .000! After a 3 year investigation what does he have to show for spending so much public money? One guilty plea resulting in probation and two trial acquittals. As the team manger Bill Barr brought Durham up from the minors expecting him to hit a lot of homers. All of Durham’s up at bats were swings and misses. So Durham will go back to the minors or retire. A fitting end to his dismal performance.

    From the very beginning you predicted Durham would expose some “deep state” conspiracy by the Clinton campaign and the FBI to destroy Trump’s chances to get elected. Just last month you had a column (9/14) about the revelation that Danchenko was a paid FBI informant. You were “shocked” and you speculated that Danchenko had “possible connections to Russian intelligence”. You even tried to bring the Brookings Institution into the great conspiracy by the Clinton campaign: “everyone in this scandal was six degrees from Brookings”. Unfortunately for you, Durham could not prove any of your claims in a court of law. It was a fool’s errand. Sorry, but no one in the Clintonworld is going to prison. Even Fox’s Neil Cavuto had to admit that the Danchenko acquittal showed the Durham investigation had “fizzled”.

    So to return to sports metaphors. You bet on the Bears and lost. You bet on team Durham and you lost again. When are you going to place your bets on a winning team?

    1. Dennis, for those of us paying attention. Durham has exposed the FBI as spying on the Trump campaign, Trump Transition Team, and the Trump administration with no foundation.

      In less than 27 months Republicans will gut the 7th floor of the Hoover Building and all the top people at DoJ along with the top 100 civil servants, and repay the favor. Enjoy your misplaced gloating while it lasts.

      1. Iowan2: As usual you are the one not “paying attention”. Durham didn’t “expose” anything. He was tasked by AG Barr to come up with evidence of collusion–some “deep state” conspiracy by the FBI and the Clinton campaign to undermine Trump’s campaign. Did Durham prove any of this in a court of law? He lost both cases he took to trial. Will anyone in the FBI, the Clinton campaign or even Hillary be going to jail? Durham spent 3 years trying to prove what Trump wanted but he came up empty handed.

        I know you are upset by all of Durham’s failures in court and you want payback. But even if the GOP takes back control of the House in the mid-terms how do you expect them to “gut” the FBI/DOJ? Biden will remain president and only he can make appointments to the leadership of those 2 agencies. As long as AG Garland is in charge the FBI/DOJ will remain independent of political influences–unlike under your leader Donald Trump who thinks just like you. So, no, the GOP won’t be able to “gut” the two agencies–despite your fondest desires. You are not “paying attention” if you think otherwise!

        1. Yes, Durham did prove all of that in a court of law.

          What he did not do is convict two people of lying to the FBI.

          Nearly everything you claim was not proven in a court of law, was literally admitted by BOTH prosecution and defense.

          FBI agents testified that they KNEW the Steeele Dossier was a hoax by the Clinton campaign – and they used it to go after Trump anyway.

          Danchenko and Sussman’s Defense was – The Steele Dossier was a hoax produced by the Clinton campaign – and the FBI KNEW that.

          Convicted Danchenko or Sussman of lying to the FBI would not change even a tiny bit the FACTS that both the prosecution, the defense, the courts and the jury all accepted as true.

          The verdict in these two cases matters – to Danchenko and Sussman – as they do not have to spend time in jail.

          But it does not change even slightly what not only was proven – but what all involved agreed was true.

          The Clinton campaign sold a HOAX to the FBI/DOJ which then ran with it to Spy on Trump and this misconduct continued through Mueller.

        2. AG Garland makes it clear that we all dodged a bullet not putting him on the Supreme court.

          This is the most corrupt DOJ ever. Going far beyond Trump or republicans.
          Garland has weaponized DOJ/FBI to go after all “enemies of the regime”.

        3. “He was tasked by AG Barr to come up with evidence of collusion–some “deep state” conspiracy by the FBI and the Clinton campaign to undermine Trump’s campaign. Did Durham prove any of this in a court of law?”

          Yes, the prosecution and defense in both cases agreed that is exactly what happened.
          They even agreed that Danchenko and Sussman lied about it.

          The reason that Sussman and Danchenko were aquitted is because the FBI/DOJ knew they were lying.

          Durham does not need to prove in a trial what no one is contesting.

        4. I am “upset” with Durham tactically – I do not give a schiff whether Sussman or Danchenko go to jail.

          Durham has very successfully exposed very large scale political corruption and misconduct in the FBI/DOJ/SC,

          But he has not prosecuted any of it, and it is likely too late now.

          We know most of the crooks, and we know what they have done, and many of them are still there.
          At the very least they should lose their jobs.

    2. DennisMcIntyre is dancing in the end zone. You see it in football but the dancing stops when their team loses the game. Dear Dennis the game is far from over. Speaking of losing, you lost the Russiagate game and you lost the Hunter laptop game. You haven’t yet come close to meeting the spread but you act like you’ve already won the Super Bowl. One play does not a game make. Let’s see if your still spiking the ball come November.

      1. TiT,
        It is not just November.
        While Dems try to spin the election is about abortion, the abortion issue is not a top priority for voters, just like the Jan6th hearings are not a top priority for voters either.
        The economy and inflation are.
        Biden is already, knowing Dems are going to lose in the mid-terms, trying to spin that if the GOP wins the midterms, inflation will rise.
        Fact is, inflation is going to go up no matter who wins.
        We are now beginning to see the numbers come in for crop harvests and they are not good.
        Energy is going to be tight, so much someone farts sideways and we could see a energy spike.
        So if someone tries to blame price increases on the midterms, dont buy it, and if anything, tell that person they are an idiot. The midterms did not have anything to do with a drought, high fuel prices, fertilizer costs back last spring during planting season. Midterms are not changing if the UK, EU or even America has a cold hard winter.

    3. From the very beginning you predicted Durham would expose some “deep state” conspiracy by the Clinton campaign and the FBI to destroy Trump’s chances to get elected. Just last month you had a column (9/14) about the revelation that Danchenko was a paid FBI informant. You were “shocked” and you speculated that Danchenko had “possible connections to Russian intelligence”. You even tried to bring the Brookings Institution into the great conspiracy by the Clinton campaign: “everyone in this scandal was six degrees from Brookings”.

      That’s actually a very good summary of what Durham accomplished in the Dancheko trial. It was always going to be difficult to convict Dancheko for lying to the FBI when lying to the FBI was the foundation for Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller investigation. Gloating that the Durham investigation failed to secure convictions over what he has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a grand conspiracy involving the FBI, DOJ, NGO’s, foreign actors, Media and Congress to undermine our electoral process and the office of the President as being on a winning team is flat out disgusting. Turley is a principled man. He loves his Bears and he loves our country. He’s not about to sell his soul to get a win.

      Margot Cleveland expresses this very well:

    4. Expecting any jury based in DC to convict a democrat is a fool’s errand. The first thing a Republican administration should do (if one ever finds a way to get o power) is allow federal trials to bring in out of the area jurors. At least, the bubble could be pierced by unbiased jurors.

      1. Cede most of DC back to MD and VA. Outside of the whitehouse and Capital the remained of DC should be returned to the states.
        That will permanently solve lots of problems.

        It will get DC representation. It will also put DC under the governmental restraint of a governor.
        Rather than a federal govenrment that pays scant attention to it.

    5. Just because you do not agree with something does not make it racist.

      Everything Cotten discussed was publicly considered by Democrats in early 2021, instead they opted for Razor wire and national guard arround the capital.

      Lying to the FBI should not be a crime – Flynn, Papadoulis and Van Der Zant never should have been charged, nor should Danchenko.
      False criminal reports should be a crime – Sussman should be in jail.

      But Durham did expose the political corruption in the FBI and the FACT that cross-fire Huricane and the and the Mueller special counsel investigation NEVER should have occured, they were an unconstitutional violation of the civil rights of those involved – which BTW is a crime, though there is no way Durham would ever get a conviction in DC and N VA.

      All that does is expose the corruption of the DC and surrounding Courts.

      So what is it we actually Know ?

      The Steele Dossier, and Alpha Bank scam all originated with the Clinton Campaign. They were political dirty tricks.
      They were nasty and immoral, and odious, but not illegal. Politics frequently involves such Dirty Tricks – though not on this scale.

      The only Crime was when Sussman brought these to the FBI to trigger a criminal investigation of Trump.

      That is where the real corruptions starts.
      The FBI/DOJ used known Garbage as the basis to not merely open an investigation – which is illegal, unconstitutional and violates DOJ/FBI guidelines. But subsequently ADDED further lies to create the affidavit for the infamous FISA warrant which was subequently renewed 3 times – Twice by Mueller. This was the foundation for an illegal, unconstitutional political investigation that violated DOJ/FBI guildelines and continued for over 2 years finding NOTHING. Several people involved should go to jail. Everyone involved should be removed from Government service.
      Many who were involved are within the current Biden administration – including then VP Biden himself.

      These are the SCUM that people like you idolize.

      I have no axe to grind with Danchenko. Nor his conduct. In private life – particularly within the political sphere people engage in immoral repugnant and reprehensible conduct all the time. Danchenko, Sussman, and so many more in Clinton’s campaign including Clinton herself have been exposed as the slime creatures they are.

      Though I would note that the Trump campaign passed when they were offered Dirt on Clinton. They certainly did not manufacture such Dirt.

      Regardless, DOJ/FBI spent 2 years trying to find improper connections between Trump and Russia, the media found $40M of them between Joe Biden and Russia just recently.

      If course this will not get reported in NYT or WaPo.

      Why are the FBI Agents that were part of Crossfire Huricane or The Mueller SC investigation still part of the FBI ? Why is anyone in the DOJ part of that still in the DOJ ?

      The actions of those within the Clinton campaign were repugnant and immoral.
      Those within the DOJ and FBI were criminal, abuse of power and politically motivated.

      We hear Trump, Trump, Trump all the time from the left. Trump is a threat to democracy ? Why ? Because he, and his voters and often a majority of americans want policies that you do not like ? Trump did not weaponize the DOJ/FBI against political opponents. He did not, contra claims of the left blackmail a foreign country to do his bidding – something Biden has done ATLEAST twice.

      The hypocracy of those of you on the left is beyond beleif.

      You are willing to use every dirty trick in the books to gain power, hold power, and to punish political opponents – while accusing everyone else of doing the same.

      You not only do not listen to those who tell you that your policies are wrong and will fail – but you actively SILENCE them,
      And then lie to everyone when as predicted they fail.

      And you think that Durham’s failure to convict Danchenko means anything ?

      It is odd, those of you one the left were desparate to convict people, and you got a few convictions for things having nothing at all to do with the substance of the Collusion Delussion Farce – but somehow the conviction of people that in an honest world never would have been investigated, and who “crimes” were failing to cowtow to an illegal investigation – that is somehow meaninful to you.

      While Durham has been exposing the worst example of political corruption in federal law enforcement in US history and your take away is that he was unable to convict two people of lying to the FBI BECAUSE the FBI was so corrupt it already KNEW they were lying.

      Lying to a federal agent is a crime – specifically if/because it wastes government resources chasing phoney leads.

      What is it when the FBI does that on its own ? I have no problem concluding that Sussman and Danchenko are innocent – because they did not misdirect the FBI to conduct an unfounded investigation.

      But a MASSIVE unfounded unconstitutional illegal politically motivate investigation did take place.


      Someone must be. Constitutional rights were violated.

      1. John Say,
        I dont think Durham expected a “win.”
        I think he knew he would not get a guilty verdict. But as you point out quite well, he proved the misconduct by the FBI/DOJ. And there was nothing they could do to stop him. They had to let it play out, thinking it would only discredit Durham. It also exposed them too for all to see.
        I would call that a win.

        1. Sussman brought a false criminal allegation to the FBI – and he should have been convicted for that.
          In that SPECIFIC instance, it is not relevant that the FBI already knew the allegation was a lie.

          Making false reports to law enforcement is a crime throughout the US.

          There is an open question as to whether he was directed to do so – he was a lawyer and arguably acting on behalf of client.
          I do not give a schiff that he lied about his clients.

          However if those clients directed him to file the false report – they too are guilty of the crime of false reports.

          But that is not the big deal.

          The really big deal from Durham is that he vastly expands the findings of Horowitz.

          Horowitz found that the Papadoulis allegation was enough to open an investigation.
          But that after Papadoulis and Downer were interveiwed that Foundation no longer existed.

          Horowitz then found that the Steele Dossier and the Alpha Bank allegation provided the foundation to continue the investigation.
          The alpha bank claim failed quickly. According to Horowitz the Steele Dossier remained sufficient until Mid Januarty 2017 When the FBI interviewed Danchenko and determined the whole thing was garbarge.

          Horowitz found that the initial investigation was justied – but that justification ended quickly.

          Howorwitz was not happy with the conduct of those in the FBI but was unwilling to 2nd quess their judgement given a barely suficiently predicated investigation. That is why he only recomended disciplinary measures for a few Agents.

          Durham has found evidence that obliterates the premise that the Steele Dossier EVER was a predicate.

          Quite litterally the verdict in the Sussman and Danchenko cases is that they did not commit crimes because the FBI KNEW they were lying and KNEW the Steele Dossier was garbage.

          As that is the case there NEVER was a legally predicated investigation. That means the entirety of Crossfire Huricane, and the subsequent Special Counsel investigation were unconstitutional – they were an abuse of power to violate the counstitutional rights of everyone involved.

          It is remotely possible that Mueller did not know that from the start. It is remotely possible that Rosenstein did not know that when he appointed Mueller, It is remotely possible that Barr was not familiar with this at the start.

          But there is absolutely zero possibility that Mueller, Rosenstein, and Barr and everyone working for them did not quickly learn everything that we know now from Durham.

          Durham is not making public deep darks secrets that no one knew.

          He is making public darks secrets that the DOJ/FBI/SC knew from the very begining.
          That were deliberately hid from the public,
          that were deliberately hidden from the House and Senate investigations.
          That were deliberately hidden from the courts.

          I have heard Barr speak on this – and he CONSTANTLY claims that the investigations at the start of Trump’s presidency were “unfair”.

          That is WRONG = there is no fairness standard. The issue is that they were unconstitutional and illegal.

          And either that was being hidden from HIM – which is likely a crime, certainly a firing offense, and also a failure on his part as AG,
          Or he was aware and did not act.

          Allowing the SC investigation to continue KNOWING that the steele Dossier was a hoax which Durhams has established the FBI knew from the very beginning, is a CRIME. It is a civil rights violation under color of authority – it is no different than the LA police officers who beat the crap out of Rodney King. It was an abuse of power. It was a use of the power of law enforcement without a legitimately predicated investigation.

          Contra those on the left, US law enforcement may not investigate people and events merely because it wants to.
          All investigations by law enforcement must have a predicate. When that predicate is disproven – either another must be found, or the investigation must cease.

          I am over simplifying a bit – the actually requirements are more complex, and only make this WORSE.

          The standard for a legitimately predicated investigation is low. But each level of more intrusive investigative steps requires meeting a higher standard.

          The Steele Dossier NEVER met the standard to open an investigation – because the FBI knew it was manufactured political gossip from the start.

          I am not sure what if anything Durham does next. I suspect he provides a report and shutdown.
          I am not sure what the statute of limitations on the other crimes that he has obviously exposed are.
          And whether he would try to prosecute – given the impossibility of getting a conviction for a DC jury.

          But contra the Left – these aquittals actually significantly STRENGTHEN charges against those in the FBI for civilrights violations.

          Sussman’s and Danchenko’s SUCCESSFUL defenses are that the FBI knew what they were provided was FALSE.

          I want to reiterate – Neither Sussman nor Danchenko tried to claim they had not lied to the FBI.
          Neither of they tried to claim that the Steele Dossier or anything in it MIGHT have been true.

          Their defense was – Yes, this was Garbage and we are not guilty because the FBI KNEW it was garbage.

          I beleive it is establushed as a matter of legal Fact from each of these trials that The Steele Dossier and the Alpha Bank scam were both HOAX’s,

          That is the factual conclusion of these DC Juries.

          In a subsequent criminal trial of those in the FBI for violations of civil rights, It enters evidence as an established fact.

    6. Durham has exposed the Deep State.

      Klinesmith altered evidence submitted as part of an affadavit to get a warrant. Altering it from Carter Page was a CIA Asset to Cart page was never a CIA asset. That was massive misconduct – not merely did it subject Page to a criminal investigation that was not justified, but the result harmed US national security as the CIA can never US Carter page again. This was worse than the Bush administration leaking Valarie Plame’s prior status as NOC. Page effectively outed herself by taking a public role prior to being outed, and could not work under cover again.

      Page would have been useful to the US in the future.

      Durham has PROVEN beyond any doubt at all that the Steele Dossier was a hoax created by the Clinton Campaign.

      You say Danchenko did not present a defense. That also means he did not rebut the prior testimony.
      The jury correctly acquited Danchenko – because his lies to the FBI were not material. Not because he did not manufacture the Steele Dossier from whole cloth.

      In both the Sussman and Danchenko trials absolutely no effort was made to defined either the Steele Dossier or the Alpha Bank scam.

      It is an established FACT at this time that the foundation for Crossfire Huricane and the subsequent Special Counsel investigation was all Fraudulent.

      It is ALSO a FACT that the CIA/FBI/DOJ Knew that FROM THE START.

      Nor are those the limit to the revealed malfeasance of the DOJ/FBI.

      Steele was offered $1M to prove ANYTHING in the Steele Dossier and could not.

      Danchenko was PAID as an informant – even though the FBI KNEW that his information was all lies, and that he was a possible Russian asset.
      buy paying Danchenko the FBI was able to HIDE information about him for several additional years by claiming he was a confidential source.

      We also learned that Crossfire Huricane was run out of the highest levels of the FBI in the DC offices.

      There are many both left and Right criticizing Durham.

      I would prefer if Durham went after those in the FBI that are the REAL criminals in this SAGA.
      But if you can not get a DC jury to convict Sussman of filing a false criminal complaint, there is no way you will get them to convict FBI agents – or FBI Director Comey.

      But Sussman has done an excellent job of taking the legs COMPLETELY out from underneath the collusion delusion.

      The US politicians who are pawns of the Russians are Clinton and Biden. Not Trump.

  8. Bennet is worse than a coward — he’s a craven opportunist. Can there be any doubt that he went along with AG’s demands, even though he knew his days at the Times were numbered, because he was thinking two steps ahead? Bashing his then-current boss would not have made him very “marketable,” so he kept his powder dry until landing a comfy position in yet another pro-globalization liberal biased rag. Now it’s safe for him to come out of the closet and speak the truth. A year too late. This has nothing to do with ethics. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

  9. Liberal media today has been hijacked by leftist pirates who have little training, know little history, have zero journalistic ethics, and can’t even write well. And gullible libs pay for the privilege of being lied to and scammed. Maybe we should take down the memorial to Jefferson in DC and put up a statue of PT Barnum. That would better express the quality of today’s elites.

  10. When a Republican suggests “calling for the use of the troops to restore order in Washington after days of rioting around the White House,” Democrats lose their lunch and fall back to aggressive censorship. But it’s just fine for the mayor of DC to beg for the National Guard because of a few extra migrants in her city. Being a Democrat means never having to tell the truth, face reality, or grow up.

  11. Why continue to refer to such businesses as NEWS ORGANIZATIONS when they are clearly, and almost admittedly, propaganda arms of a prog/left ideology movement.

  12. Just a reminder of how far journalism has fallen.

    All the more importance of independent media like Glenn Greenwald, Bari Weiss, Matt Taibbi, Sharyl Attkisson and more.

  13. Will there be a time when advocacy journalism and the cancel culture are in the rearview mirror as is the McCarthy Era or are we beyond the point of no return for this country? I fear it is the latter.

  14. It’s always good to read the plain truth spelled out in front of you, but it makes me sad to admit that this is an expected story. Nothing new here except the confession of Bennett. The journalistic values that existed when I was young are, practically speaking, dead and buried.

    1. Quiet: “The journalistic values that existed when I was young are, practically speaking, dead and buried.”
      I wondered the same and then suspected they have always been corrupt one way or another but without alternative media we had no way of knowing.

      I am concerned about corruption in professional journals and have begun to think that pharmacy companies should be banned from advertising in them. Phil Harper at The Digger substack has done very good work peeling back evidence of improper influence on published ‘studies’. He doesn’t argue; he guides you through it so you can see the problems for yourself.

  15. The professor should also have mentioned Donald G. McNeil Jr., the long time NYT reporter and then-science editor, who in 2021 was forced to resign for making “racially insenstive remarks” on a Times-sponsored school trip to Peru. [ Donald _G._McNeil_Jr.]

  16. James Bennett acts like a coward. What use to say this now 2 years later when nobody cares. If you are unwilling to stand up and say no when it’s appropriate to say no then why are you there. You could put a blowup doll in Mr. Bennett’s chair and get the same result. Life is a risk, ethics is a risk. This is almost as worthless as when Former Defense Secy Robert McNamara finally said years after he left the office, that he opposed the Vietnam War and much of how it was conducted. When you take on a job like the Editor of a Major Newspaper like the NY Times, it carries weight in the world just like any other public trust. You are supposed to make a difference because you have been put in there to make decisions that can make a difference. Few people ever get the chance to make a difference. When that time comes and you are faced with that kind of decision, then make it and stand by it. Sometimes people will step back because of your stand, some may pause, some may still fire you and then change what they were going to do because of your stand, or they may fire you and ignore you. But make the stand. Otherwise you are just another waste of space.
    Nothing like being threatened with firing to get your blood flowing and you anger up. Sharpens the mind also. The same institution that threatened to fire me, offered me a faculty position a year later. But either incident could have gone either way.
    Sometimes you just have to be ready to work away, especially if you plan to live with yourself.

    1. If you are unwilling to stand up and say no when it’s appropriate to say no then why are you there. You could put a blowup doll in Mr. Bennett’s chair and get the same result. Life is a risk, ethics is a risk. “

      All that is true, but the left views those that deviate from their dogma as ones to be destroyed and never heard from again. He is a coward, but would he have his job at the Economist if he was outspoken? People have families.

      That is why one should never be associated with today’s leftists even if one is ideologically on the left. Being a leftist today means one is part of the Borg that assimilates or dies. Bennet chose near death and a compromise of all his values. He has become a non-person and moved on to be a Borg once again at the Economist.

    2. “When you take on a job…You are supposed to make a difference…”
      He did that.
      “some may still fire you”
      They did that.
      “Sometimes you just have to be ready to work away, especially if you plan to live with yourself.”
      Seems like he did that, too. Discretion is the better part of valor.

  17. Simple fact, Democrats always lose when debating facts. Cotton is well equipped to defend his position, and cannot be allowed a platform to spread his world view….because Democrats have nothing to answer his statements.

    What is the Democrat solution to security problems? If not using trained personal to protect the life and property of citizens.

    A very basic function of Government is to provide safety, and punish wrong doers.

    It seems Democrats much prefer prior restraint, in violation of the Constitution, than enforcement of laws and punishment of crimes.

    1. Prior restraint is but one of a laundry list of violations of the Constitution the Dems are willing to do in furtherance of power. I just read some comments in another venue about how we are facing totalitarianism. The comments were written by a Democrat who sees a return of at least one house of Congress as a step in that direction. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

    2. Aside from making a claim that is the opposite of the truth, Iowan omits the burgeoning parallels between the American right and the Third Reich.

  18. Bennet is like a political figure who never quits on principle but does so “to spend more time with his family.” Nice to know he’s with the Economist now, another major publication that hates Israel and frames its reporting on Middle East issue with that bias.

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: