Media Coverage of Politics & Elections

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 381
  • Views: 8K
  • Politics 
My father was the coach of my soccer team when I was young. At that age, playing goalie was the least popular position, so they would rotate different players through to share the burden. After a while I noticed that I was given a disproportionate amount of time in the position because my father didn't want to appear that he was being lenient towards me. In doing so, he actually overcompensated and treated me unfairly. (To the detriment of my team, I was a terrible goalie.) I feel like the New York Times has a bit of that mindset going on.

What were they thinking with this BS?

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | Jack Smith Owes Us an Explanation

The Justice Department should not have allowed revelations about the Trump Jan. 6 case to be disclosed so close to Election Day.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
tallheel95 said:
My father was the coach of my soccer team when I was young. At that age, playing goalie was the least popular position, so they would rotate different players through to share the burden. After a while I noticed that I was given a disproportionate amount of time in the position because my father didn't want to appear that he was being lenient towards me. In doing so, he actually overcompensated and treated me unfairly. (To the detriment of my team, I was a terrible goalie.) I feel like the New York Times has a bit of that mindset going on.

What were they thinking with this BS?

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | Jack Smith Owes Us an Explanation

The Justice Department should not have allowed revelations about the Trump Jan. 6 case to be disclosed so close to Election Day.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
This opinion is not an outlier among criminal prosecutors and defense attorneys. Not saying it is a majority opinion, either, but I don't knock the NYT for printing this guest opinion column.
 
nycfan said:
This opinion is not an outlier among criminal prosecutors and defense attorneys. Not saying it is a majority opinion, either, but I don't knock the NYT for printing this guest opinion column.
Click to expand...
1. I can't speak to these other speakers, but that op-ed is objectively bonkers. Basically, Goldsmith admits that no rule on this issue exists, and yet criticizes DOJ for not following it. it is criticizing the Justice Department because "The Justice Department does not believe it is violating this or any other rule" immediately after admitting that no such rule exists. There's a bunch of other bullshit about Jack Smith not explaining the need for speed (it's obvious) and then there's this kicker:

Ms. Harris also crossed a line when she described Mr. Trump in the presidential debate as “someone who has been prosecuted for national security crimes” and election interference. Some may say that since she is a political candidate, this is fair game. But she both commented on Mr. Smith’s prosecution (which could influence its outcome) and used the prosecution to hurt her political opponent and help herself in the election. The vice president chose political advantage over commitment to apolitical law enforcement.

First, that isn't actually a comment on the prosecution. It's noting the existence of that prosecution. Second, it doesn't violate any rules or norms because those rules and norms could never have reasonably extended to silence about ongoing threats to our system of government. This extreme idea of "apolitical" law enforcement is comically naive (to the point where I doubt Goldsmith believes it at all), because it has never existed and it shouldn't.

2. In general, it's flabbergasting that Goldsmith would simultaneously criticize (as he does) Smith for 1) asking the Supreme Court to rapidly dismiss Trump's immunity argument; and 2) continuing to brief the case on the schedule the Court set for him. Gee, I wonder why Smith wanted the Supreme Court to move quickly? Was it because he didn't want to be doing the trial during the 60- or 90-day window?

He says, "well, Smith could have just dropped the brief after the election," which should be the stupidest comment I've heard from a Harvard professor about the rule of law (but alas!). Every defendant would prefer to pick the time and place for his trial. But in Goldsmith's mind, only an aspiring president should have that luxury because reasons.

3. The standard should be to do exactly what Jack Smith did. Show the evidence. Would it be better if the special counsel filed a brief saying, "we've got all this evidence that Trump committed crimes, but we won't tell you until after the election." THAT is precisely the formula for election interference. That was Comey in 2016. By contrast, if DOJ says, "we've been prosecuting this for a while, and here is the evidence we plan to use against the defendant," that's the right way to go about it. If it's BS, then it will show. If it's fabricated, people should go to jail. If it's released in good faith, it's what we should want the government to do.
 
superrific said:
3. The standard should be to do exactly what Jack Smith did. Show the evidence. Would it be better if the special counsel filed a brief saying, "we've got all this evidence that Trump committed crimes, but we won't tell you until after the election." THAT is precisely the formula for election interference. That was Comey in 2016. By contrast, if DOJ says, "we've been prosecuting this for a while, and here is the evidence we plan to use against the defendant," that's the right way to go about it. If it's BS, then it will show. If it's fabricated, people should go to jail. If it's released in good faith, it's what we should want the government to do.
Click to expand...
Super....I would add to your third point the fact that Smith actually submitted his brief under seal as had been requested by Trump and ordered by Judge Chutkan. The date for so filing ended up in this purported "window" because of Trump's delay tactics. But the redacting and unsealing of the redacted brief was done not by Smith but by Chutkan.
 
To give credit where it's due, CNN has the PERFECT photo accompanying its story about Trump providing Covid tests to Putin -- https://www.cnn.com/

I'd link the story but I think the photo only appears on the home page, not in the story itself.
 
Rock said:
Yeah, Trump was awful today and I'm just at a loss for words. If he doesn't lose the election, I don't know that I will be able to speak to anyone for about a week.
Click to expand...
Yep. And this is precisely why Trumpers vote for him. By voting for him they can own the libs and taunt and trash-talk them and so on. The fact that he's completely unqualified to be POTUS - and proved it in his first term - doesn't matter. The fact that he is now uttering blatantly fascist and racist and xenophobic and sexist and homophobic crap doesn't matter. The fact that he seems increasingly senile and out of touch with reality doesn't matter. The fact that the lives of a great many Americans may be destroyed if he wins doesn't matter. What matters is that he scares the libs and makes his cult feel powerful, so there you go. It seems to be all that many of his supporters have left. If he wins, this board will likely be flooded with gleeful Trumpers who will have completely ignored just how awful he has been throughout this campaign just so they could have the thrill of coming here for a few days and talking trash to the snooty LibDems who look down their noses at them. It's pitiful, but here we are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top