New York Times goes full Trump Derangement Syndrome

245293 5

by David Zukerman at

The title of the April 9 Times Sunday Opinion piece was: “Four Opinion Writers on Trump’s Indictment and ‘the Borderlands of Illegality‘”, but, for purpose of precision, it should have been styled: “Three anti-Trump propagandists and one Never Trumper on the need to keep humiliating the S.O.B.”

The propagandists participating in this anti-Trump exercise were Times Opinion (as propaganda) columnists Lydia Polgreen, Ross Douthat (the Never Trump voice), Carlos Lozada and Michelle Cottle of the Times editorial (as propaganda) board.

Polgreen started the anti-Trump propaganda by expressing surprise (dismay) that the former president had no prior arrests and suggested that was because he “always manag[ed] to wriggle out of trouble.”   Ms. Polgreen thereby suggests that she studied at the Pelosi “guilty unless you prove your innocence” school of law.  Ms. Cottle (sharing Ms. Polgreen’s conclusion) did not think Mr. Trump would end up in prison.   Thereupon, Douthat interjected:  “If we don’t think he’s going to end up in jail for any of these potential prosecutions [sic], then the purpose of a prosecution is a symbolic conviction?

Lozada followed with a puzzling comment,  insisting  Trump must still be prosecuted, and then added this:

“When Donald Trump incites an insurrection, when Donald Trump attempts to strongarm Georgia election officials to find 11,780 more votes, that has to have legal consequences even if it doesn’t have political consequences.” 

The phrase “asserting facts not in evidence” springs to mind.  Lozada’s virulent exposure to Trump Derangement Syndrome seems to have rendered irrational his remarks about an insurrection and “strongarming” election officials in Georgia, but at The New York Times, rational lucidity apparently is  not considered a plus in hiring opinion writers.  Behold, Lozada is trying to transform phony, off-the-wall anti-Trump Democrat talking points into LEGAL arguments.  What balderdash, what sleight-of-hand.  What chutzpah.

Cottle tried to rescue Lozada from his incomprehensible mutterings, declaring the Georgia matter to be a “better sell” than the New York case.  “Better sell” to whom?   A Georgia jury handpicked by the Fulton County district attorney is likely to be as anti-Trump as the Manhattan panel.  Isn’t that what this is all about — ways and means to destroy our legacy of liberty?

Threupon, Lozada digressed to tell his fellow anti-Trump panelists that he read Michael Cohen’s book.  At which point Douthat and Polgreen stated likewise.  Incredibly, three of these four anti-Trump propagandists acknowledged to readers that they sought out a convicted felon as source for reliable information about former president Trump.


Leave a Reply