New York Times Goes Into Full Panic Mode Over Potential Trump Victory
The New York Times clearly continues to have a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, leading it to make the most preposterous claims about what a second Donald Trump presidential term would look like in an article Monday.
The panic comes after multiple polls show Trump — the frontrunner in the 2024 GOP primary race — leading President Joe Biden in key swing states such as Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania.
Much of the more-than-2,400-word article, written as a news story and not an opinion piece, mind you, by three of the paper’s top political reporters — Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan and Charlie Savage — is a rehash of the liberal complaints about Trump’s first term in office.
Headlined “Why a Second Trump Presidency May Be More Radical Than His First,” the piece opens by quoting the Republican candidate from an interview he gave in the spring of 1989 describing the Chinese Communist Party’s conduct in quashing the Tiananmen Square protest as “vicious” and “horrible” but saying it demonstrated the “power of strength.”
The Times conceded it was a “throwaway line” from a then-43-year-old celebrity New York businessman, but the liberal outlet nonetheless used it as a launching board to argue that Trump has totalitarian tendencies.
“Come on, man!” to quote the current president.
This was just the kind of stuff the Times and other outlets were peddling during Trump’s first term when they argued that he talked too favorably about Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping and North Korea dictator Kim Jong-un.
Yet Trump sanctioned Russia, imposed stiff tariffs on China and spoke out strongly against “Little Rocket Man.” Notably, the world heard little from them during his four years in office.
The 45th president incorporated Ronald Reagan’s “Peace through strength” strategy, and it worked. There were no new wars. The authoritarian Iranian government was brought to its knees through crippling sanctions, and the Islamic State group was obliterated.
The Russians did not invade Ukraine, and North Korea stopped its long-range missile testing.
None of this is true under President Joe Biden.
Biden has been soft with these dictatorial regimes, and all have grown in power on his watch.
The record is clear that Trump was much more forceful toward America’s authoritarian foes than his successor has been.
While he did not support dictatorships abroad, he was not an authoritarian at home, either.
Perhaps the most extraordinary sentence in the Times’ article is this: “Mr. Trump’s vow to use the Justice Department to wreak vengeance against his adversaries is a naked challenge to democratic values.”
Talk about a blind spot. What in the world do Haberman, Swan and Savage think the Biden administration has been doing these past three years? For that matter, the Obama-Biden DOJ launched the Crossfire Hurricane investigation of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Biden’s DOJ is currently trying to put the former president away for the rest of his life.
This unprecedented move seems like the greatest “naked challenge to democratic values” in modern U.S. history. I suppose one would have to go back to the outbreak of the Civil War, when the Democratic-led Southern states refused to accept Abraham Lincoln’s win in the 1860 election, for a more naked challenge to democratic values.
The Biden administration has tried to put the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol incursion on par with the Confederacy, but the truth of the matter is no “insurrectionist” fired a shot that day, nor even entered the Capitol with a gun. Not much of an insurrection.
The vast majority there that day did what Trump exhorted them to do: “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Nevertheless, the Biden DOJ undertook the largest investigation in department history to arrest and charge more than 1,000 protesters, most of whom did not engage in violence.
Let’s label this action what it really is: intimidation and persecution of political opponents, those dreaded MAGA Republicans.
Contrast that response with the DOJ’s actions following the “Disrupt J20” protests on Trump’s Inauguration Day in D.C. in January 2017 or the “social justice” demonstrations in the summer of 2020.
ABC News reported on Jan. 20, 2017, “Violence flared on some streets of Washington, D.C., today amid Donald Trump’s inauguration — with people smashing car and store windows, clashing with police and even torching a limo, leading to more than 200 arrests.”
“The #DisruptJ20 coalition, named after the date of the inauguration, which promised that its participants would attempt to shut down the inauguration events, tangled with Bikers for Trump, a group clad in leather biker gear that backs the president,” the report said.
Two vehicles lit on fire during protests in Washington, D.C. as inaugural parade continues. https://t.co/rTG3wfLgw9 pic.twitter.com/8w896BDMCw
— ABC News (@ABC) January 20, 2017
NBC News reported in July 2018 that the Justice Department dropped all remaining charges against those who engaged in violence during the 2017 inauguration. They didn’t even have to do community service.
So no big DOJ round-up then, despite the violence.
Similarly, in May 2020, The Associated Press reported that Secret Service agents rushed then-President Trump to a bunker under 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. when rioters broke through the outer security barriers at the White House.
The location was better defended than the Capitol grounds, so no breach ultimately occurred; however, many Secret Service agents were injured and property was vandalized.
The Secret Service said in a statement at the time that more than 60 officers were injured as rioters launched bricks, fireworks and other projectiles at them. Eleven officers needed hospital care.
Protesters tear down barricades outside the White House #GeorgeFloydprotest pic.twitter.com/uvPKGzeMGo
— Evy Mages (@EvyMages) May 30, 2020
USA Today reported that Washington police arrested 17 people, most of whom were charged with rioting.
Overall, D.C. police said 106 people were arrested in protests around the district that weekend, according to The Washington Post.
But that’s not the end of the story.
The news outlet said that although “many of those arrested were charged by police with felony rioting, that charge was dropped by prosecutors in most cases.”
Those prosecutors happened to be U.S. attorneys with the Trump DOJ.
So whose Justice Department has displayed more of a tendency to target political foes, Trump’s or Biden’s? Clearly Biden’s.
Would he go so far as to raid the home of his political opponent? Would he be such an authoritarian dictator that he’d attempt to jail political adversaries on baseless charges? Would he politicize the country’s justice department and law enforcement? #BidenIsDestroyingAmerica
— B Wemyss (@wemyss_b) December 4, 2023
Of course, we know that the DOJ under Trump had a leftist bent based on its actions before, during and after his administration.
If he should decide to clean house in that agency, no one would be able to rightfully gainsay him.
The Times story, all told, is Democratic propaganda grounded in Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Freedom and opportunity were the touchstones of Trump’s first term, and there is no reason to believe the same would not be true in a second.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
