Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., has a right to be a tad confused. The senator noted the matter-of-fact coverage by The New York Times of Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s plan to send troops to New York City to crack down on crime. Cotton posted a “hmmm” note that simply read: “Sending in the troops to help restore law and order…” His point was that, roughly four years ago, the newspaper publicly denounced him after running his opinion piece calling for the use of national guard troops to quell violent riots in Washington.
The Cotton column led to editors being forced out after public confessions and recriminations. Now, after Democratic politicians actually ordered such a deployment, the Times has offered little more than a journalistic shrug.
Hochul announced she will be deploying 750 members of the National Guard to New York City’s subway system to assist the New York Police Department (NYPD) in the crackdown on crime, including bag searches at the entrances of busy train stations.
Mara Gay of the New York Times then ran a story titled “The National Guard May Make Riders Feel Safer.” This is the same Mara Gay who was part of the campaign against Cotton and posted a tweet saying “Running this puts black people in danger. And other Americans standing up for our humanity and democracy.”
I have previously written on the hypocrisy of the Times in how it has handled the Cotton affair. The column itself was historically accurate. Indeed, critics never explained what was historically false (or outside the range of permissible interpretation) in the column. Moreover, writers Taylor Lorenz, Caity Weaver, Sheera Frankel, Jacey Fortin, and others said that such columns put black reporters in danger and condemned publishing Cotton’s viewpoint.
In a breathtaking surrender, the newspaper apologized and not only promised an investigation in 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.”
The sacking of Bennet had its intended effect. Writers and columnists with opposing or critical views were soon forced off newspapers around the country, including at the New York Times.
Editor Adam Rubenstein was also forced out at the paper and recently wrote a scathing account of the bizarre environment within the paper.
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 brushed off the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. Loomis’ article on “Why The Amazon Workers Never Stood A Chance” did not include his earlier violent rationalization. It was in my view a worthy and interesting column for publication. So was Cotton’s column.
While many today still claim that the protests around the White House were “entirely peaceful” and there was no “attack on the White House,” that claim is demonstrably false. As I discussed in my testimony to Congress, there was in fact an exceptionally high number of officers injured over the course of days of protests around the White House. In addition to a reported 150 officers injured (including at least 49 Park Police officers around the White House), protesters caused extensive property damage including the torching of a historic structure and the attempted arson of St. John’s. The threat was so great that Trump had to be moved into the bunker because the Secret Service feared a breach of security around the White House.
Notably, later during the January 6th riot, there were no recriminations for the use of the same fencing and national guard troops to protect the Capitol, albeit too late to have prevented the initial riot.
So now it is a Democratic leader who is not just calling for the use of troops but actually deploying them in New York City. It is part of an effort by many Democrats to change course on crime and immigration before the 2024 election after years of criminal law reforms and sanctuary city policies.
What is clear from the Times coverage is that there is still no sense of compulsion at the newsroom to be consistent or even self-aware. Outrage remains entirely selective and political. There is no hashtag campaign by writers or repeating the same line that “running this put Black @nytimes staff in danger.”
NYTs: Trump —- 5 trillion
Biden ++++ 3 trillion
Have you ever heard leftists criticize themselves? Never will, either.
Republicans Howl About Crime While Cutting Federal Agents
House Republicans have been lauding cuts to nondefense programs as the party has pressed for lower government funding.
The reductions highlighted by Republicans include cuts to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
The ATF would see a 7 percent cut to funding, or a $122 million cut, that Republicans say is aimed at reversing what they describe as “anti-Second Amendment overreach.”
Republicans say the package would mean a roughly 10 percent cut for the EPA, as appropriators on both sides have warned of tight budget constraints while crafting this year’s appropriations bills under the rules set by a previous debt ceiling deal.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4507870-5-things-to-know-about-congresss-plan-to-avert-a-shutdown-this-week/
…………………………………
Republicans allege that ‘terrorists’ are slipping through our borders. Still they demand a 6% cut to the FBI’s budget. You see, the FBI was ‘mean’ to Donald Trump, so now they’ve got to pay.
And the ATF has to pay because they make militias nervous. Never mind gang violence, Mexican cartels or mass shooters. Cutting the ATF’s budget is a guaranteed applause line at conservative events.
The EPA needs pruning because Charles Koch doesn’t like them. And his network of billionaire donors has an outsize influence on Republican policies. Koch pays Leonard Leo to manage the Federal Courts.
Yeah, Republicans chide Democrats for being ‘weak on crime’. Yet Republicans are hostile to most Federal agents. Especially the IRS. Republicans celebrate tax cheats as national heroes. It’s part of their culture.
What a boob
Hillary Clinton sold 20 percent of America’s uranium to Russia and then the Russian government gave $145 million to the Clinton Foundation
William: Hillary did not sell uranium to Russia. Snopes has a piece on this–here’s an excerpt:
“The Uranium One Deal Was Not Clinton’s to Veto or Approve Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can.
All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton “never intervened” in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn’t personally involved.”
And, the uranium went to Canada. The donation to the Clinton Foundatin was from a Canadian, not Russia.
So, please stop repeating this lie.
Not only did she sell the ruskies the mine, willy got $500,000 for giving a “Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”
Lefties are always extraordinarily naive except when they’ve uncovered a sinister right wing plot. They go all out, allowing their depraved minds to travel where devils fear to tread to unveil A VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY, or so hillbilly insisted. Monica was a right wing agent sent to destroy Saint Slick as he labored during such a lonely winter’s freeze. Poor slick (who made a quick, easy 100 mill since he dusted off that dress.)
And, Slick did everything he could possibly do to stop the massacre the second he discovered his black brethren were the victims of genicide. Such a saint!
If Trump had two brain cells, he would remind the world daily of Clinton’s complicity in the Rwandan holocaust. $80 million for defamation and Slick sips wine coolers in the California sun.
President Bill Clinton’s administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time.
Rory Carroll in Johannesburg
@rorycarroll72
Wed 31 Mar 2004 10.59 EST
The Guardan
DO NOT CONDEMN TRUMP until Clinton goes to prison
Republicans celebrate tax cheats…
Hunter the hero!
In a few minutes, Biden is giving his State of the Union Address.
In it he will tell us crime is at its lowest in decades. In NYC the Governor has called out the National Guard to work the subways. . . because crime is at its lowest in decades
@iowan
Yup. I’m sure it’ll be more hate, FUD, gaslighting, and easily verifiable lies from The Great Unifier. 🙄
Buzzwords to watch for:
Bidenomics
Shrinkflation
Climate crisis
Net zero
Republicans are somehow to blame for border/economy/crime
‘Corporate greed’ (that one is rich, pun intended 😂)
MAGA
Ukraine
Nonexistent job creation
Gleefully defying SCOTUS to
‘Save democracy’
Something pandering about the Middle East
All of this will be contrary to earlier gaslighting – yes, it’s ok for things to be bad in the narrative if they can blame literally everyone else – including those damn idiot voters. 🤷🏽♂️
Joe Biden is a traitor to America.
Angry old man snarling and SHOUTING lies….
Dark Brandon has arrived to deliver his Hate of the Union speech.
What a disgrace.
Joe Biden is a bitter, disgusting human being. He must be defeated.
My god, this man is frightening.
Again, he must be defeated.
And prosecuted for his treason.
Man o’ man, the White House docs jabbed up old Joe with some seriously potent drug cocktail. He’s raging like a lunatic. #scary old man
Biden shouts, “I’m president for ALL Americans!”
Except all you MAGA extremists I have instructed my government to target, harass, and go after….
Except my opponent who I have instructed my corrupt DOJ and coordinated with corrupt prosecutors to try to imprison before the election…
Except all the dead Americans due to my open border…
and dead soldiers I caused through MY incompetence….
with NO ONE held accountable…not one…
Did you hear the Gold Star dad shout in the chamber: “Abbey Gate!” “19 marines!” “Abbey Gate!”
before he was promptly escorted out and handcuffed….
The Gold Star dad was Steve Nikoui, whose son, Kareem Nikoui, was killed at Abbey Gate.
This man is a HERO.
Joe Biden is a filthy corrupt traitor who belongs in prison.
Lafayette Lee
@Partisan_O
Steve Nikoui yelling “Abbey Gate!” at the top of his lungs was the only sign of humanity in the whole chamber; he stood for his son and spoke for millions.
@bdomenech
Joe Biden ran and won on a promise of unity and normalcy. Tonight he attacked Supreme Court Justices to their faces after they and their families faced direct threats of assassination for doing their jobs to uphold the Constitution. I will never forgive him for that.
The Justices and the entire Republican Party should have gotten up and walked out.
This was one of the most shameful and divisive speeches in American history.
Biden deserves nothing but our contempt.
@seanmdav
The only thing more embarrassing than Joe Biden right now is the eunuch Speaker of the House clapping and nodding like a bobblehead at every non-sensical word jumble that pours out of Biden’s mouth.
@charliekirk11
Joe Biden is the pawn of the oligarchs. He vacations at a billionaires’ homes. He is supported by the wealthiest people in the world. This is all pure political drivel.
Alabama Passes ‘Stop-Gap’ Bill To Allow IFV Treatments
The Alabama State Legislature passed a bill Wednesday night granting civil and criminal immunity for in vitro fertilization service providers and receivers.
Republican Governor Kay Ivey signed the bill into law within an hour of it passing the Alabama Senate.
The legislation is designed to allow patients and clinics to immediately restart IVF treatments in Alabama, without fear of legal repercussions if embryos are damaged or destroyed.
The bill’s sponsors in the Alabama House and Senate claim this immunity bill is just a stop-gap measure to allow fertility treatments to resume while lawmakers address remaining questions raised by last month’s court ruling.
“I think there’s just too much difference of opinion on when actual life begins,” said Republican Senator and medical doctor Tim Melson, who sponsored the immunity legislation.
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/06/1235907160/alabama-lawmakers-pass-ivf-immunity-legislation
…………………………………………..
KEY PASSAGE ABOVE:
“I think there’s just too much difference of opinion on when actual life begins.”
***
This IFV issue has thrown the anti-abortion movement into a tailspin. For years the Republican Party has encouraged the ‘personhood’ movement without any thought to the real implications.
‘Personhood’ was schemed as a clever end-run around any remaining abortion rights. Ideally it would short-circuit the entire abortion debate. But now this IFV issue has short-circuited ‘personhood’!
Dr. Melson, above, effectively frames the whole problem by noting that no one can decide when life really begins. Scientists and journalists have been making this point for decades. But the anti-abortion refused to ever listen.
So conveniently Johnathan Turley refuses to address this issue. Though oddly it begs for analysis by a legal scholar of his standing. Instead Turley revisits the brouhaha created by Senator Cotton’s op-ed pirce 4 years ago. Like that’s still a burning issue!
Peter Shill rants Alabama Passes ‘Stop-Gap’ Bill To Allow IFV Treatments
What does Alabama do differently than any other state to treat IFV?
Respiratory Antiviral Immunity and Immunobiotics: Beneficial Effects on Inflammation-Coagulation Interaction during Influenza Virus Infection
Influenza virus (IFV) is a member of the Orthomyxoviridae family that contains a negative-sense, single-stranded, segmented RNA genome protected by a capsid of viral ribonucleoproteins.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2016.00633/full
Alabama changes the law, a Judge was required to follow in his ruling.
Imagine that. Everyone staying in their lane.
Big difference from Democrats.
Sen. Joni Ernst introduced a law requiring an illegal charged with a crime would be detained by ICE.
Schumer refused to allow the bill to come to the floor. Because Schumer protects illegal alien gang members, sacrificing Lakin Riley for Schumers cause.
I wonder what the NYT will make of this. In a sane country, this should spell the end of the Trans Movement:
The first link is the explanatory video, and the next link is the voluminous report itself. This is from Matt Walsh, from about 2:00 in to about 22:00.
https://twitter.com/MattWalshShow/status/1765452351278633030?t=0
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56a45d683b0be33df885def6/t/65ea1c1ea42ff5250c88a2f5/1709841455308/WPATH+Report+and+Files%28N%29.pdf
Here is the executive summary of the report. I predict that the Democrats will abandon their support of transing kids, and if they have any sense, the transing of adults, too. I have just started on the report, and it will take several days to read through it.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The World Professional Association for Transgender
Health (WPATH) enjoys the reputation of being the
leading scientific and medical organization devoted to
transgender healthcare. WPATH is globally recognized as
being at the forefront of gender medicine.
However, throughout this report, we will show that the
opposite is true. Newly released files from WPATH’s
internal messaging forum, as well as a leaked internal
panel discussion, demonstrate that the world-leading
transgender healthcare group is neither scientific nor
advocating for ethical medical care. These internal
communications reveal that WPATH advocates for many
arbitrary medical practices, including hormonal and
surgical experimentation on minors and vulnerable adults.
Its approach to medicine is consumer-driven and
pseudoscientific, and its members appear to be engaged in
political activism, not science.
While there is a place in medicine for risky
experiments, these can only be justified if there is a
reliable, objective diagnosis; no other treatment options are
available, and if the outcome for a patient or patient group
is dire.1 However, contrary to WPATH’s claims, gender
medicine does not fall into this category. The psychiatric
condition of gender dysphoria is not a fatal illness, and the
best available studies show that in the case of minors, with
watchful waiting and compassionate support, most will
either grow out of it or learn to manage their distress in
ways less detrimental to their health.2,3,4
As such, this report will prove that sex-trait
modification procedures on minors and people with mental
health disorders, known as “gender-affirming care,” are
unethical medical experiments. This experiment causes
harm without justification, and its victims are some of
society’s most vulnerable people. Their injuries are painful
and life-altering. WPATH-affiliated healthcare providers
advocate for the destruction of healthy reproductive
systems, the amputation of healthy breasts, and the surgical
removal of healthy genitals as the first and only line of
treatment for minors and mentally ill people with gender
dysphoria, eschewing any attempt to reconcile the patient
with his or her birth sex. This report will show that this is a
violation of medical ethics and, as is revealed by its own
internal communications, WPATH does not meet the
standards of evidence-based medicine. It will further show
that the ethical requirement to obtain informed consent is
being violated, with members admitting that children and
adolescents cannot comprehend the lifelong consequences
of sex-trait modification interventions, and in some cases,
due to poor health literacy, neither can their parents.
Given the extent of the medical malpractice WPATH
endorses, our report will conclude by calling on the U.S.
government to oversee a bipartisan national inquiry to
investigate how activists with little respect for the
Hippocratic Oath could have risen to such prominence as
to set the Standards of Care for an entire field of medicine,
leading to the medical abuse of minors and vulnerable adults.
———————–
1 Earl, J. “Innovative Practice, Clinical Research, and the Ethical Advancement of Medicine.” [In eng]. Am J Bioeth 19, no. 6 (Jun 2019): 7-18. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1602175.
2 Singh, D., Bradley, S. J., & Zucker, K. J. (2021). A Follow-Up Study of Boys With Gender Identity Disorder [Original Research]. Frontiers in Psychiatry,
12, 287. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.632784
3 Steensma, T., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. “Gender Transitioning before Puberty?”. Archives of sexual behavior 40 (03/01 2011): 649-50. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10508-011-9752-2.
4 Green, R. The Sissy Boy Syndrome the Development of Homosexuality. Yale University Press, 1987. doi:10.2307/j.ctt1ww3v4c. jstor.org/
stable/j.ctt1ww3v4c.
Nothing new in their behavior. During the Cold War, many expatriates from Communist wonderlands routinely referred to the Times as The New York TASS.
Jonathan: As of today DJT has yet to post the bonds in either the E. Jean Carroll or the AG James judgments. Time is running out. Now I do think DJT will post the bond of about $100 million in Carroll’s judgment. That’s because he offered that amount to Judge Engoron in the other case. But what about the almost $600 million bond in James’ judgment? That’s the nut DJT can’t seem to crack.
There is a lot of speculation about where DJT is going to come up with the cash. He can’t sell assets without first going through the court monitor Barbara Jones. And that would take time which DJT is short of right now. Some think DJT could be asking the billionaire Edelson family in Las Vegas who have been longtime DJT supporters. Others think DJT may ask Jared to intercede with the Saudi Royal family. There may be another avenue for DJT.
This past Sunday DJT met with Elon Musk and wealthy GOP donors in Palm Beach. The two held a private meeting. What was said? I have it on good authority the conversation went something like this: “Elon, I know we have had our differences in the past–but I am desperate here. Any chance you could loan me $600 million so I can post the bond for that crazy Judge Engoron?” Musk was said to reply: “Donald, even $600 million is a lot for me. That insane magistrate in Delaware just took away my $59 billion pay package! Besides, I can’t give you $600 million without violating campaign finance laws”. So where does a desperate guy turn for money? It’s anyone’s guess right now.
And despite the win with the SC over the ballot issue, DJT string of court losses continues. This time in the UK. A British judge ruled last month against DJT over his lawsuit against former M16 office Christopher Steele whose company published an article about “sex parties” DJT had in St. Petersburg and engaged in “golden showers” with prostitutes in Moscow. Judge Steyn awarded attorney fees to Steele in the amount of 600,000 pounds–about $768,000 is US dollars. Where is DJT going to get the money to pay that award? Poor Donald. Just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse–they do!
Denny — Did you hear?
There’s a lot of speculation as to how ‘drugged up’ Mr. Biden will be in order to get thru his big speech.
Most predict old Joe will be ‘higher than a Chinese spy balloon.’
The courts in the UK have been Fubar to the left for a long time.
Trump should have had a slam dunk against Steele in the UK – Defamation law there is quite different than in the US – you need not prove a statement is false – only that it harms your reputation. That was trivial for Trump to prove.
Yet as you note – Trump lost. Which amplifies the perception that Trump and conservatives can not get a fair hearing anywhere.
You created that problem.
Hillary was also sued by Trump in FL for Defamation – and a Clinton appointed Judge who does not understand what conflict of interest is not only dismissed the defamation claim,m not only awarded attorneies fees, but claimed the lawsuit was frivolous and socked Trump and attornies with $1M in penalties.
You do not seem to understand that you have rigged things – such that even where you win you lose.
Here you sit Green with avarice and envy hoping against hope that Kaplan and Engorn will steal 1/2Billion in Money they are not entitled to.
BTW I looked up the Weiselberg “perjury” – What you really mean is the Judicial Blackmail of Weiselberg.
Weiselberg is a CEO and a financial expert. He is not an archtect or engineer.
The alleged claim of perjury comes from a claim that he told a reporter one size for Trump’s Manhattan apartment and testified to a different size. That is not perjury. It is not a relevant fact inside of Weiselbergs area of expertise.
Do you know the number of sq. ft. in your garage ? in your neighbors home ? Could you testify accurately to these things without prior notice ?
This was an issue brought up on Cross and Weiselberg used figures that had been provided to him.
Whether you like it or not – that is NOT perjury.
Testimony in court is NOT supposed to be a means to make people into Criminals. Weiselberg testified for a full day. It is near certain in that time that he must have made some error. The NORM where testimony is in error is for the error to be pointed out to the witness and they are given the oportunity to correct. I would suggest watching the Grilling of Willis and Wade and Bradley in GA as instructive.
They testified to something, the lawyers pointed out that their testimony appeared to be at odds with other testimoney or evidence,
They were asked if they wanted to correct their testmoney.
Or you could look to Cohen’s testimony before Engorn – Cohen testified – on Cross he admitted that his direct testimony had been false.
He testified falsely – was given the oportunity to correct, took it, and can not be charged with perjury.
When the lawyers are not aware the testimony is false at the time of the testimony, but later discover error, the lwyers can recall the witness and ask them to correct.
In some instance – particularly testimony before congress – witnesses reserve the right to revise and correct their testimony – as Stone did.
They then request a transcript, review the transcript and send in notice to correct any errors they may have made.
Perjury requires intentionally false testimony in court of a matter inside your knowledge that you KNOW to be false at the time of your testimony, that is material to the case and tat given an opertunity to correct – you don’t.
Weiselberg was given the oportunity to correct his testimony and he did so. But Bragg attempted to charge him with Perjury anyway.
The matter was then addressed in chambers with Judge Merchan, Merchan threatened to send Weiselberg to jail for a decade if he did not plead gulty to perjury – so Weiselberg under Durres Plead. MErchan also told Weidelberg that even with a plea he was going to get serious jail time.
Only there was a problem – Bragg CAN drag Weiselberg infront of a judge during plea negotiations, it is technically improper for the judge to threaten someone to get them to plea, but judges can “work arround this” by telling them the likely sentence they will get.
All that is kosher.
What is NOT Kosher is that the Judge in question was or could be the preciding judge over actual trials or please involving the defendant.
That is a VERY SERIOUS conflict of interests. Brag/Merchan at some point realized they had violated the code of ethics – and they had Weiselberg plead infront of a totally different judge who recognizing this for the nonsense it was added 2 months to Weiselbergs probation.
In other words the alleged perjury was NOTHING.
But Marchan has a problem – he previously presided over a case involving Weiselberg – he CAN not participate in settlement or plea negotiations.
In court you CAN have a judge preside over a trial and verdict.
You can have a judge preside over settlement discussions – including telling the parties what the outcome in court MIGHT be.
But no judge can do BOTH M<erchan tried to weasle out of the ethical problems by getting another judge to take Weisleberg's plea – and then sentence him. But that does NOT clear Merchan's ethical problem. Because Merchan HAD previously presided over a trial involving Weiselberg that could be a factor in his future sentencing, and because Merchan did not tell Weiselberg what MIGHT happen, but what WOULD happen, and that HE would be the judge doing it.
A judge can not act as prosecutor, mediator, and then judge and jury – it is unethical.
But those of you on the left have major problems with ethics.
With respect to the size of Trump's apartments – that is NOT a proper subject for testimony. It is a FACT. The means to enter the size of Trump's apartments into evidence is to have an expert – an architect or engineer or someone else who makes such measurements professionally enter documents into the record to establish the size. Alternately the parties can stipulate to the size.
Ordinary witnesses testify to what they observed or they are used to enter records into evidence.
I would further note that Trump is already challenging Bragg over serious ethical problems related to Cohen – James had the same problem in the Engoron case but Engoron "fixed" also known as rigged it for her.
Cohen was actually the key plantiffs witness in the Engornon case and he is the key states witness in the Bragg case.
Cohen has already plead guilty to perjury, and he has subsequently lied under oath again – though he corrected that under cross.
Laywers can present witnesses that lie. They can not present a witness they KNOW will lie.
Trump has put Bragg on notice that he is preparing a claim of selective prosecution – based on the disparate handling of Weiselberg and Cohen. The claim is powerful – but Bragg can possibly wriggle past it – because Cohen's perjury conviction was federal and he subsequent perjury was state. But winning that motion is NOT the big deal. Making the motion puts Bragg on notice that he must be very very careful with using Cohen as a witness. That if Bragg is not careful in handling Cohen – who has admittedly presented false testimony multiple times and been convicted of perjury and other "crim in falsi" crimes, that Bragg must be certain that the Testimony he is offering from Cohen is correct – BEFORE putting him on the stand.
Bragg has no case without Cohen, and has serious personal ethical problems using Cohen to testify to anything.
So have fun.
Thank you for that in-depth comment!
“With Daniel Penny Arrested, NYC Forced To Deploy National Guard To Protect Subway”
https://babylonbee.com/news/with-daniel-penny-arrested-nyc-forced-to-deploy-national-guard-to-protect-subway
OT,
Fences being erected in DC. National Guard deployed to NYC subways. I don’t know what these arseholes are up to but be safe everyone. Head on a swivel pic.twitter.com/A6RQKpN1rG
— Bronconation (@Bronconation_80) March 7, 2024
Federal Bureau of Investigation warned earlier this week that a rogue Iranian intelligence officer is on the loose in the US, with assassination attack plans against former and current government officials.
Are these more of the “norms” the Biden campaign promised us?
But Mayor Adams says “all crime is down” in NYC.
So why militarize the subways? Don’t we have enough cops in NYC?
Why not fire DA Bragg for refusing to arrest and prosecute criminals?
Why erect fencing around the Capitol now? Will it stay up thru the November elections? What are they up to?
How many times in his Hate of the Union speech will dementia Joe demonize MAGA voters?
Do you think Biden knows that at least half the country are MAGA now?
President Unity is using his bully pulpit to target “MAGA extremists” as holding “unacceptable views.”
Methinks the creeping militarization is for all those “MAGA domestic extremists”
and “racist white supremacists” — the “number one threat to the Homeland,” says the head of the Gestapo, Chris Wray.
btw, I do not trust a thing that comes out of the FBI these days…let alone a ‘warning’ re a rogue Iranian attack.
and if there is a terrorist attack that the FBI says was ‘on their radar’ but they ‘missed’ yet again…
what are the odds the terrorist will be a brown-skinned, white supremacist wearing a MAGA hat?
joking, but not joking.
The Swamp is itching to start bombing Iran….
remember McStain’s favorite jingle? “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran”
Why only today ? Is there some significant thing the FBI or the deep state has told the truth about – in the past 8 years, in the 21st century ? In my lifetime ? Whether it is MLK or Richard Jewel or Randy Weaver or Iraq WMD’s we can universally count on those in government to lie to us, to stoke fear.
This is not new. It is not partisan – as a generalization – though at any given time one party or the other might be the intentional beneficiaries.
Correct.
The FBI is a domestic terrorist organization. Everyday.
Military now in the subways randomly searching people.
Violation of 4th Amendment?
What happens if a citizen asserts their rights and refuses to comply?
What happens if a citizen asserts their rights and refuses to comply?
Lotsa luck with that, going up against armed troops. Even in the civilian world, people can’t just resist arrest because they believe their rights have been violated. That’s for the judge to sort out later.
If the police – or here, the national guard – do arrest without probable cause, or execute a Terry stop without reasonable suspicion, the Fourth Amendment will require that in any such scenario, none of the evidence gained by the police in violation of the defendant’s rights can be used against him. And any outright abuse by an officer of his or her powers may be subject to civil liability, depending on New York State’s sovereign immunity statute. But that doesn’t translate into a “right to resist arrest.”
A search is not an arrest, and you can refuse a search. When you do officiers have 3 choices – back down, get a warrant of find exigent circumstances.
Further a search or arrest without meeting the constitutional requirements could result in a lawsuit against the city.
If police ask your consent to search, you can refuse consent. But if the police have reasonable suspicion to believe you’re involved in a crime, they can conduct a Terry stop and a search without your consent.
In terms of your second point, it depends on the state’s sovereign immunity law. If the police conduct is outrageous it may be deemed to fall outside the scope of his duties. But if it’s unconstitutional without being outrageous, the only remedy is suppression of any incriminating evidence.
In my opinion, this is a test to see how compliant people will be as their rights are violated in the name of protecting their safety. Similar to how people capitulated during Covid tyranny.
If the officers ask to search your bag say: “I do not allow my bag to be searched, it is a violation of my rights. And I assert my rights.”
If you assert your rights, they cannot force the issue, nor can they seize your property.
Or can they?
You as a law-abiding free citizen can say: “With all due respect, I assert ALL of my RIGHTS.”
And the officers should say: “Ok have a nice day.”
In addition, test your right to refuse the next time the airport TSA waves you over to stand spread eagle in the full body scan machine.
With TSA, flying is a federal regulated privilege, on private aircraft. Not comparable to walking down the street.
Right, but you can refuse the full body scanner machine and elect to walk thru or possibly then be subjected to pat down. That’s my understanding.
It depends on if they have reasonable suspicion. If not, then it’s a “mere encounter” and they have to respect your refusal. But if they do have reasonable grounds to suspect you’re involved in committing a crime, then they can do a stop and frisk without your consent.
“If you assert your rights, they cannot force the issue, nor can they seize your property.
Or can they?”
Here are the two relevant facts (as opposed to airy 4A theory) about the NG subway deployment:
1) They cannot arrest a person. They can detain you and call for local police.
2) You can refuse the search, and they will bar you from using the subway.
OT: I am curious. Do Democrats hate boats, water skiing, and fishing, and do they wish those living on islands to build more bridges?
“feds near approving 10-knot maritime speed limit”
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/watchdog-sounds-alarm-feds-near-approving-10-knot-maritime-speed-limit?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
For those unaware of maritime speeds, a top-notch swimmer can swim half as fast as the maximum speed they wish to impose on everyone, while a kayaker’s rate is twice as fast.
S. Meyer said: “‘feds near approving 10-knot maritime speed limit’”
That seems absurd on its face. There are state waters, Federal waters, and international waters. The extent of state waters varies somewhat by state:
https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/docs/gis-learnaboutmaritimezones1pager.pdf
With the exception of a few sensitive locations (e.g. near marinas) most states do not enforce speed limits in their waters. The boundaries between state and Federal waters is seldom marked, except vaguely, by some GPS devices. I do not think that state marine police are authorized to enforce Federal regulations in Federal waters. How would this limit be enforced? I suppose commerical vessels could be required to have speed limiting devices installed and inspected, but recreational boaters will never do that. So, is the plan to drastically increase the size of the US Coast Guard to do this, or would NOAA get its own marine police, along with a few tens of thousands of fast enforcement cruisers, at a cost of 20 billion dollars or so? Also, if commercial vessels are speed-limited, what is the skipper expected to do if caught in a situation requiring out-running a major storm (it happens). In the realm of loony proposed regulations, this one deserves top billing.
I cannot help but indulge in a bit of paranoia by wondering if the mandate for EVs with very limited range and this regulation, which would have similar effect in the water, could have a common motivation?
“That seems absurd on its face.”
Number 6, you are correct. It is absurd, but the Biden administration is absurd in almost everything, so why should this be different? Be careful about defining ‘ownership’. The regulatory agencies caring for our environment are a bit crazy. In the beginning, they regulated large lakes, but now, a puddle on a piece of property can cause a landowner to run into difficulty. Thus, Chevron is reappearing before the Supreme Court.
As an aside, South Florida’s eastern Intracoastal is littered with speed limitations.
A long time ago. mid 80’s, Lake of the Ozarks instituted a NIGHT TIME speed limit of 100 mph, the day we arrived. Seems the night before, a 44 ft twin engine cut a boat in half, killing all four on the boat. Day light was no limit.
On federal jurisdiction, it could get very muddy. Most lakes were built for flood control/power generation, by the Corps of Engineers. Lock and damns on the Mississippi are all under the control of the Corps. That might give them all the power they need to set speed limits
NYPD Chief of Transit Michael Kemper interviews on FOX. Do you want the cherry?
The Babylon Bee
@TheBabylonBee
With Daniel Penny Arrested, NYC Forced To Deploy National Guard To Protect Subway
https://buff.ly/3Pc2eMh
More Team Blue in-your-face hypocricy
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/03/07/exclusive-feds-build-a-wall-for-joe-bidens-sotu-address-walls-work/
Oh I love the Babylon Bee!
https://babylonbee.com/news/with-daniel-penny-arrested-nyc-forced-to-deploy-national-guard-to-protect-subway
The first ‘warning sign’ is timely…😊
https://babylonbee.com/news/do-you-have-white-rural-rage-know-the-warning-signs
JAFO,
The pic of the loaf of sourdough bread, indeed, truly terrifying.
That last one really sums up Sammy’s “attempted coup” theory.
Right? 😂
WOW! I just got a Top-Secret Text from Q-Anon!
“Special Alert to All Members of The Gold Star Q-Anon Club: Operation Faubus – Real reason for deployment of National Guard to NYC is the forcible desegregation of The Hamptons. Repeat, illegal aliens to be resettled in The Hamptons under guise of desegregation. Cost-shifting move to save NYC budget. Face-saving move for Mayor and Governor. Do not be fooled!”
I wonder if this is true???
Floyd,
Really, you need to up-grade from Gold to Palladium. Then you get Super-Duper Top-Secret texts.
THAT one says only the top 1% of 1% are going to be allowed to stay in The Hamptons.
All others and especially the “townies” are getting evicted.
The NG that is supposedly being deployed to the NYC subways, nope. They are the ones doing the evictions in The Hamptons.
The new residents are going to be Hillary’s lizzard people from dimension 5.
LOL! This is what I get for being cheap, and not ponying up the extra $4.99 per month! But I really wanted Pandora!
This thread does an excellent job of proving the importance of free speech.
John Say,
I have had more than a few near miss coffee out the nose incidents reading some of the comments.
Nah, she’ll send them away with a nickel’s worth of gold-pressed latinum.
JAFO,
Awesome TNG, DS9 reference!
Here’s one person’s take on the move by the Guv. He points out that Giuliani brought crime way down without having to resort to the National Guard.
https://nypost.com/2024/03/06/opinion/hochul-putting-the-national-guard-in-nyc-subways-is-a-political-stunt/
Oldman, I remember when Giuliani did that. I ended up spending more time and money in NYC. His method (Police Chief Bratton and Giuliani) was copied in other large cities. I went everywhere, but progressivism reared its ugly head, and the policies were reversed. The Giuliani era led to the building boom in NYC, and the progressives are once again leading NYC into bankruptcy.
I was born in NYC and have a home in Manhattan, so I have a stake in what happens there. Listening to some of the comments on this blog makes me believe that a large portion of our country is brain-dead.
It’s sad what’s happened to both NYC and NY State. The voters there are absurd, always voting D no matter the quality of the candidates. For example Lee Zeldin was the obvious choice in 2022 if they wanted any improvement in their lives. But he had an R and Hochul had a D and that is all that mattered to the brain-dead voters. They get what they deserve. You are an innocent victim of their despicable voting patters but you need to minimize your harm and get the F out of there. I have kids in NYC so to me it is a painful issue too. But the young’ns want to be there because it’s more exciting socially and (at least for one of my kids) that’s where the high-paying job is. Sigh…..
OMFK – Is the problem really stupidty or even ignorance? I think the real problem is dependency. A large part of the population is dependent on government payments. They know, or at least believe, that Democrats will keep those payments in effect and may add others. As long as that hope exists, they will vote Democratic whatever the quality of the candidates. Romney touched upon this problem with his 47% comment. In general. Republicans are the middle class that supports itself, and Democrats are the people who receive government benefits and those who adminster them. As the middle class contracts, the Rs fall and the Ds rise. This also has structural implications. A real, stable democracy is dependent on a middle class.
Edward – Batya Ungar Sargon was on Steve Bannon last night talking about how Trump is politically almost identical to the D party from 50 years ago (pro-working class, pro-border security, abortion 16-week restriction, etc.). [As an amusing aside Bannon plays a clip wher Sargon schools Bill Maher on this topic on Maher’s own show.] Sargon expressed that the D party of today represents two constituencies: upper-class highly-educated elites, and the very poor who are dependent on government and/or refuse to work. TBH I had never heard of her, but she’s no slouch; she’s a Newsweek editor and has authored a very recent book on the topic:
Second Class: How the Elites Betrayed America’s Working Men and Women (Hardcover 2024).
I just looked on Amazon and it’s available there.
“Trump is politically almost identical to the D party from 50 years ago (pro-working class, pro-border security, abortion 16-week restriction, etc.)”
Oldman, my understanding is that Trump was a Democrat, and at the time, so was I, though independent thought flowed through us. I think the Democrats could have gotten much of what they wanted from Trump at the time because he didn’t understand the political arena early in his presidency. When he learned it, he didn’t turn Republican; Republicanism turned to him. We refer to his ideology as populism, but I think it is more than that. He, as an elite, is returning more to the roots of this nation.
“I have kids in NYC so to me it is a painful issue too. ”
I understand, Oldman. If they are in the financial sector, they probably live downtown and are close to the Hudson, one of my favorite walking spots. I understand that area is reasonably safe.
NYC is a hotspot for kids or the newly married. They congregate at the bars and food shops filling the places. Who cooks? Takeout is high on the list.
What is amazing to me, is that even before Giuliani, way back in 1957, people were already making fun of progressive ideas. From West Side Story (I did not know Sondheim wrote this! Live and learn!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwrfS54yhk4
So, then NYC went bonkers. Giuliani cleaned it up, and then the city went bonkers again. This reminds me of my Bible Story Book I had when I was young, where the Israelites went up and down and up and down. One minute things were great, then there were harlots on every street corner, and idols, and a good king would come and clean it all up, and then next thing you know, harlots on every street corner, and idols, and then a good king would come, and then the next thing you know, they were all sitting in a lion’s den in Babylon, and Esther does the Dance of the Seven Veils to get them out or something like that.
I did not understand then, how people could just keep self-destructing over and over. Why not just do the thing that works?
Floyd, the way I look at it, when poor and hungry, one works to survive and when children appear work to protect the children. As they become more successful the children who learned from the parents build on what they had and coddle their wonderful children who are brilliant. Some children continue like their grandparents but others use capital to protect themselves from life and their children do the same until they find they are back where they started.
You saw this in your Bible studies. David was the least likely of his siblings to be great. He struggled but produced a Kingdom. His son Solomon expanded it and built the Great Temple, but the children that followed were not borne of the same cloth which eventually meant subjugation.
It is common for those on the left to take the tools that conservatives successfully used and amplify them into somethings far more sinister.
Gulliani originated “Stop and Frisk” which is credited with radically lowering violent crime.
“Stop and Frisk” was a targeted effort used only in known gang areas. Officers in special units observed gang members until they saw something that gave them probable cause. then they stopped and searched the gang members.
Often this resulted in evidence that allowed prosecution for crimes. Almost always this was small crimes – but it still put these people away for short periods and it significantly disrupted gang efforts on the streets. It also empowered cdommunities – resulting in more citizens reporting more significant crimes.
Bloomberg came in – decided that bigger was better, dismissed the observe and seek probable cause requirement, expanded the effort beyond targeting gang members.
As a result while the crime rate continued to drop under bloomberg – Bloomberg’s version of stop and frisk triggered or amplified the backlash.
Hoschul is moving the NG into NY Subways – they appear to be doing a version of Stop and Frisk.
If the NG is searching the bags of affluent Wall Street workers – how well do you think this is going to work out ?
How long do you expect it will be tolerated ?
Conversely if the NG targets those most likely to commit crimes – they will be accused of racial profiling.
Too many do not understand that effective law enformcement – and crime reduction requires putting resources where the problem is.
Hoschul is putting the NG in the subways – that is where alot of problems are.
Intentionally or otherwise the NG will focus on those most likely to committ crimes – because that is the wisest use of resources.
And that will trigger a backlash.
And somehow it is conservatives who will get blamed.
For a stop and frisk the LEO only needs reasonable suspicion of the subject’s involvement in crime, not even probable cause. But it can’t be random, again, because of the reasonable suspicion requirement.
As an undergraduate in the 1970s I took a criminology class from James Q. Wilson who is credited with the technique of not tolerating small crimes such as vandalism, as a means of inducing a feeling of law and order, thus deterring larger crimes (the so-called “broken windows theory”). Giuliani used that to great effect in NYC – for example, every night train-car graffiti was washed off.
To his credit Giuliani as US Attorney for SDNY (before being mayor) also largely took down the mob in NYC by making pioneering use of federal RICO – he proved there was a commission, something the mafia families had previously vehemently denied.
So, Presidents are responsible for NYC urinals? It would be nice if they could just patrol the southern border.
This is a misplaced comment. It was addressed to a reply of dgsnowden below about the cleanliness of NYC subways.
Edward Mahl,
Us normal people call that “common sense.”
As we have seen under other, past WH admins, it can and has been done to a degree.
But for some reason, the Biden admin cannot do it without passing a bill or something.
Then, there is the fact the Biden admin flew some 320,000 illegals into the US.
Odd is it not?
Upstate Farmer, are you avoiding the 3 questions asked below?
1) Was the Cotton piece news or opinion?
2) Was the Hochul piece news or opinion?
3) Is it “hypocrisy” for a newspaper to report an action as news but refrain from allowing its Opinion department from publishing opinions advocating for a similar action?
From what I can tell, you admit that: (a) Cotton’s opinion piece suggesting similar measures for Washington, DC was met with a very dramatic reaction in which people got fired for allowing that opinion to be printed in the NYT, (b) Hochul plans to actually deploy the National Guard to NYC subways, and (c) the NYT has not published an opinion piece giving its views on Hochul’s move, right?
If you agree that those three things are true, then how is it not hypocritical for the NYT to stay strangely silent when a (D) actually does something that they went into hysterics about an (R) simply suggesting?
You didn’t answer the questions. This is a NEWS piece, not an Opinion piece. Do you have a link to a NYT opinion piece, where the Editorial Board praises Hochul for her decision?
If not, then it cannot, by definition, be hypocritical. They literally haven’t taken an opinion on it.
Does that make sense?
All content that the NYT prints is a result of editorial CHOICE.
NYT does not as an example report a 0.02 increase in the price of baked beans in a Harlem grocery story.
You can not evade the hypocracy of your choices by classifying one as news and the other as opinion.
I would note that Cotton’s peaice was a bit more than an opinion – it was the early expression of a plan.
A part of the reason that you can not game your way out of hypocracy is that actions are directed by ideas, and opinions.
Hoschul did not wake up one mornign and without thought order the NG to NY subways.
NYT may not have known or reported on it , But lots of thought and discussion went into the decision.
And not just discussion outside the public in Hoschul’s office – because Hoschul’s office did not come up with this out of the blue. They may not specifically have considered Cotton’s editorial – but with certainty they gave conscious or unconscious thought to “opinions” expressed many many times previously.
The opinions on the NYT Editorial page become the actions of tomorow.
It is the WORST hypocracy to endorse with your silence acts that when offered as ideas you criticized as “beyond the pale fascism”
ATS – you think you are clever, but you are not.
You are constantly trying to game things with word games.
An idea you claim is fascist and repulsive does not become neutral news, when it turns into an actions by those you favor.
You can not word game your way out of hypocacy.
Morality is not altered by word games.
See my response to you below. What you are advocating for is the same advocacy journalism Turley waxes poetic about frequently.
You either agree with me – that the news and opinion sections should be independent – or you disagree with Turley in articles like this one: https://jonathanturley.org/2023/11/05/new-york-times-controversy-exposes-the-inherent-conflict-in-advocacy-journalism/
And this is the problem I have with this post from Turley. If he truly believes that advocacy journalism is bad, then he must recognize the independence of a paper’s news and opinion sections.
With the media, the ABSENCE of opinion, is often about the same as an opinion. For example, in 2020, the Legacy Media pretty much did NOT run the Hunter laptop story. Was that anything less than a form of propaganda?
As a follow up, a quick search of the NYT Editorial Board Opinion articles shows that the last piece they have written, which references Gov. Hochul was on January 21, 2024. Thus, there is no opinion piece praising Hochul for her decision to send troops to NYC’s subways.
Full stop.
Well I disagree with you. After making such a ruckus about someone from the opposite party even suggesting what someone from their party is now actually doing, the NYT’s silence on their editorial page is deafening. My opinion is that that very silence is hypocritical. That’s my opinion and you undoubtedly have a different opinion. But I think you’re factually wrong to suggest that such silence “cannot by definition” by hpyocritical.
In my view, you can only deem omission as action when party has an affirmative obligation to act, and that party fails to do so. Thus, if the Editorial Board was required to opine as to every action Gov. Hochul makes, and then it fails to opine as to this action, you could view their “silence” as action by omission.
Where, as here, the Editorial Board has no obligation to opine about every action under the sun, it is beyond unfair to consider the NYT hypocritical for failing to criticize Hochul.
Furthermore, the decision to deploy troops happened YESTERDAY. You haven’t even waited a week to consider the lack of an article as evidence of hypocrisy! That is beyond ridiculous.
Finally, and most importantly, Prof. Turley’s article here does not even make this action by omission argument. He writes: What is clear from the Times coverage is that there is still no sense of compulsion at the newsroom to be consistent or even self-aware.”
“NEWSROOM” not Editorial Board. Do you agree that his criticism of the NEWSROOM is thus misplaced?
Okay, you make a fair point about giving them a chance, since it hasn’t been that long. In fact I was wondering about that myself (i.e., about how long it’s been and how long they usually take to react on the editorial page).
But to your other point . . . again I disagree. You’re taking the position that, apart from an obligation to speak, silence can *never* be hypocritical. That’s simply not true – and it also fails to state your point clearly: what kind of obligation? Moral, legal, or other?
To illustrate – and this is exaggerated, but it’s the same *kind* of thing that I’m talking about – suppose every day for a year an R takes some action and the next day the NYT writes a blistering editorial denouncing that person. Now suppose a D takes the exact same action, and the NYT is completely silent, never once criticizing that person. They had no legal obligation to criticize the D, but I would consider it hypocritical.
Again, that’s just my opinion. Where I factually disagree with you is in your claim that such silence “can’t by definition” be hypocritical.
Again, if your critique is of the NYT Editorial Board, then perhaps in your hypothetical, the critique may be warranted.
But, that critique should be directed to the NYT Editorial Board, not to the News Section. Professor Turley’s post was directed to the NEWSROOM, which is completely unfair.
So, what we have is — criticism of the News Section for the Opinion’s Section’s failure within 24 hours to criticize the actions of Gov. Hochul.
I re-read Turley’s article. Mostly it criticizes “the paper” or “the Times” — i.e., the newspaper as a whole. If in the coming days, the Times still says nothing on its editorial page, then such criticism will be valid (IMO). For now, he should have acknowledged that it’s a bit early. Sen. Cotton’s single “Hmmm” is justified, though.
With that said, there is one spot where Prof. Turley mentions the newsroom by name. As to that, I agree with you that it’s misdirected. It is careless, or at the very least, imprecise.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/14/nyregion/new-york-subway-national-guard.html
And here is your anti-National Guard on subways NYT op-ed…
So do you agree then that there is no hypocrisy?
Anonymous said: ” you can only deem omission as action when party has an affirmative obligation to act, and that party fails to do so”
I am a literalist, for the most part, so in a narrow sense, I tend to agree with that analysis. HOWEVER, if that silence does not make the NYT “hypocritical”, per se, then it must and does make them extremely biased, low-quality (piss-poor is more the term I prefer to use), and worthless to any reader who wishes to peruse an objective, balanced, view of events. And THAT, in turn, DOES represent rank hypocrisy with respect to their slogan “all the news that’s fit to print”.
As that anonymous, I don’t disagree that the NYT editorial board is biased. Of course it is. As is EVERY editorial board. I use the WSJ for it’s news section even though I often disagree with its conservative leaning editorial board. That’s why you have to differentiate the two sides of a paper.
Which speecks volumes on the hypocrisy of NYT.
As an opinion – the NYT thought that the use of the NG to restore public order was so fascist and dangerous that several editors had to be sacked for allowing it and the newspaper had to apologize to its readers.
But as an actual action carried out by those NYT is favorable too – not a word – suddenly the fascism and the danger disappear.
That IS hypocrisy.
Condoning in practice what you condemn vehemently as an idea is the worst hypocrisy of all.
ATS – lets take the 3rd question first as that is the most important.
“Is it “hypocrisy” for a newspaper to report an action as news but refrain from allowing its Opinion department ”
YES.
Is that hard to understand ?
The choices you make demonstrate your biases and hypocrisy.
Both the news pages and the op ed pages must be triaged. The NYT is not a legal blog where everything that anyone wishes can be expressed as fact or opinion.
NYT must choose what news it will report and what opinions it will allow expressed.
It is hypocracy to disallow opinions on significant actions that you have no problems reporting as actions.
“It is hypocracy (sp) to disallow opinions on significant actions that you have no problems reporting as actions.
This is factually untrue: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/business/new-york-times-op-ed-cotton.html
Here is a NEWS article about the Tom Cotton opinion piece ordeal.
There is journalistic value in running News and Opinion independently. The separation of these sections is intentional, to allow news reporting to be fair and independent. If you “triage” the news pages, then you will have biased, advocacy news reporting, which is a topic Turley himself thinks is a bad result.
Do you disagree with Professor Turley’s many posts like this one: https://jonathanturley.org/2023/11/05/new-york-times-controversy-exposes-the-inherent-conflict-in-advocacy-journalism/
In these articles, he notes the problem with advocacy journalism. Yet, here you want the NYT to muzzle its news section to align with the perspective of its Editorial Board?
“Upstate Farmer, are you avoiding the 3 questions asked below?”
Do not let others use their irrational questions as a club over your head.
That is this one’s favorite club.
Sam,
Who? 😉
I don’t know if presidents are responsible for NYC urinal-caked subways, or patrolling the southern border, but I’ve heard that is ‘where the buck stops’.
Dgsnowden,
In normal times I would agree with the ‘where the buck stops’.
However, despite all their campaign promises to bring back “norms,” the Biden admin has done anything but bring back “norms.”
The ‘buck’ does not stop at the Biden admin WH. The ‘buck’ goes through various LLC shell companies from various foreigners for something no one seems to be able to say for what that ‘buck’ got them.
Then the ‘buck’ gets wired transferred to various Biden family members to include grandchildren.
Probably take a small army of forensic accountants 10 years to sort it all out. If they were so inclined. .. Joe Biden may be ‘well-meaning’, but he doesn’t know what day it is (see SC Hur report.).
*congress has ‘invited’ Hunter back for a public hearing on Mar. 20 to help clear things up .. . but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
dgsnowden said : “where the buck stops…”
When his bladder is too full?
The New York Times can justify their obvious double standard in how they handled Senator Tom Cotton and Governor Kathy Hochul effortlessly. National Guard Troops for me, but not for thee. They are true Kool-Aid drinkers Jonathan.
“There is no hashtag campaign by writers or repeating the same line that “running this put Black @nytimes staff in danger.” Won’t that deployment put black criminals, a few of whom might read NYT, and other black patrons who ride the subway “in danger”? Oh, my, what’s Hochul thinking???
Professor Turley,
The NYT article (which you did not link to) is not an opinion piece. It is a news report of the Governor’s actions. Cotton’s article was handled by the Opinion side of the paper.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/06/nyregion/subway-national-guard-police.html
As further evidence, the NYT’s News Section repeatedly REPORTED on the internal debate at the paper following the Cotton ordeal. This is because the topic was newsworthy (as you clearly believe by bringing it up 3 years later).
When you conflate the News and Opinion sections of a newspaper, it is a disservice to your readers, who follow you blindly without thinking critically about the substance of your views.
Please revise your article to note this crucial difference.
Just because your Fox News has argued in court that its News Section is actually opinion does not mean that other media outlets take the same questionable position.
“When you conflate . . .”
When you habitually deflect and smear, it is an abuse of your own mind.
What exactly is your issue with my post?
Did you actually read the NYT piece? Are you familiar with the difference between the news and opinion sections of a traditional newspaper? Was I inaccurate in distinguishing the NYT piece as news and the Cotton piece as opinion?Or, was your response made without any basis – like the kind of blind follower of Professor Turley, which was noted in the above post?
What did I say that was a “deflection”? I am not defending the NYT with this post. I have many issues with the NYT, but their neutral, fact-based report of a newsworthy event – in NYC no less – is not one of them. I did not agree with the way they handled Cotton at all. But, I also think it is unfair to criticize the NYT for this report. Sometimes, one’s views are not so black-and-white. Nuance is a thing when you think critically.
“Sometimes, one’s views are not so black-and-white.”
Including that one?
The Fool is at it again. The NYTimes does not keep politics out of the news section, no matter how hard they tried to in this article where they added partisan editorial content to the news.
“Since then, Democrats have walked a fine line, aiming to respond to voters’ public safety concerns without stoking fears about crime that could hand Republicans talking points.”
Bug, learn how to read before posting!
“The NYTimes does not keep politics out of the news section, no matter how hard they tried to in this article where they added partisan editorial content to the news.”
I am not sure you are you familiar with the difference between the news and opinion sections of newspapers. A proper news section does not “keep politics out;” rather, it offers factual reporting of a newsworthy event, even if that event concerns politics. For example, the News section may report the results of an election (which concerns politics!), while the opinion section may analyze why the winning candidate was victorious.
In this case, the NYT reported on Gov. Hochul’s decision without taking a stance on whether this decision was good or bad (which would be the purview of an opinion piece). Go ahead and look for yourself — was there a normative judgment attached to this report… No. They reported that certain groups, like civil libertarians, were outraged by what was perceived as overreach. But, they also reported why other groups believe the need for safety warranted the action.
If you go back and read Cotton’s editorial, he clearly is advocating for a particular policy. It is a completely different article.
I taught my 2nd graders this distinction. Hopefully, it will help you in your future endeavors.
You taught second graders? If true, that is a crime. You should be kept away from young children, and you should return to second grade yourself. You sound more like the Bug who can’t even control his language.
A second grader can read better than you. Look at the quote I took from the article. The NYTimes tried not to be obvious, but they failed. You fail as well, and that failure has been noted by almost everyone.
On your way home from Starbucks stop at the low-life bar and tie one on.
Ok, let’s look at your quote:
“Since then, Democrats have walked a fine line, aiming to respond to voters’ public safety concerns without stoking fears about crime that could hand Republicans talking points.”
Does the NYT make a normative judgment about what Democrats are doing? Yes or no?
It isn’t a terrible breach of journalistic responsibility, but the spin is there and obvious to anyone but a dolt. When you wake up from your stupor, reread it.