“[President Trump’s] demands for investigations are starting to become more formalized… (and) send a stark message: To oppose Mr. Trump will mean risking punishment at the hands of the federal government.”

The New York Times put four “reporters” on this 1,507 word behemoth of yellow “journalism,” titled “Trump Escalates Use of Official Power to Intimidate and Punish His Perceived Foes”, published this weekend.  And if that headline doesn’t sound bad enough, well, it gets even worse, according to the crusted-brie crowd:

Trump has “surrounded himself with loyalists who want him to be able to do whatever he wants…”. Oh no. We can’t have that. Just out of curiosity, how many presidents, do you suppose, have surrounded themselves with disloyal officials? Bah. Never mind. Let’s pause a moment on this insane title for the article: “Trump Escalates Use of Official Power to Intimidate and Punish His Perceived Foes”.

“Perceived” foes? “Perceived”?? They’ve only impeached him — twice — tried to assassinate him — twice — indicted him multiple times, and came perilously close to sending him to Riker’s Island prison, but yeah, it’s just “perceived.” Just that modifier alone got me thinking.  How many other words with a Pravda-like hallmark might be littered throughout this masterpiece? Here’s a count, in no particular order:  

Some permutation of “perceived” was used four times. “Conspiracy theory” once. Some permutation of “adversary” five times. “Critics” or “criticized” each used once. “Enemies” twice, as in “he seeks to use the power of public office to punish people and companies he has cast as enemies and silence potential critics.” Again, “cast” as “enemies”? “Cast”— like Trump just “perceived” these people were trying to impeach, indict, imprison, or assassinate him.  It’s all just a misunderstanding, according to the bow-tied commies in Lower Manhattan.

Some permutation of “baseless” four times. “Retribution” was used once. “Attack” once.  “Politically tinged” once, and “political” three times. Some permutation of “target” five times. “Not like” or “dislike” three times. “Crime” or “criminal” ten times. Some permutation of “anger” twice. “Dangerous” once. “Dark” path was used once, as in “America is headed down a dark path.”  “Unconstitutional” once.  “Control” three times.  And finally, “intimidate” or “intimidating” were each used once.

One thing they did do, which was evidently accidental but refreshing, is make the distinction, subtly, that the DOJ should investigate crimes not people. Hurrah! They wonder if “the president had crossed a line by ordering law enforcement to scrutinize particular people” when previous DOJs had told him “they were responsible for investigating crimes,” a distinction the article makes separated by context and a paragraph, but makes none-the-less.

And, as we’ve all learned during the last decade, Mr. Trump has been on the national stage, and the process is the punishment! “To Mr. Trump’s anger and frustration, prosecutors did not charge them. Still, the targets underwent years of stress, legal defense bills and, in some cases, reputational harm.” Gee, ya think?????

Many of [Trump’s] advisers received subpoenas from the federal and state investigations and shared Mr. Trump’s feeling of persecution.  They also adopted his claim that President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was orchestrating the investigations from the White House. No evidence has emerged to support that allegation, but Mr. Trump is now openly doing to his perceived adversaries what he baselessly accused Mr. Biden of doing.

Where to even begin with that paragraph????? “No evidence” and it’s “baseless” that the Trump targeting emerged from the Biden Oval Office? Really??? We know for a fact he was in on it the first time, way back in 2016, as well as having had knowledge of further targeting operations, however impermanent, since.

“Under guidelines imposed after revelations of abuses of power by the F.B.I. in the J. Edgar Hoover era, the Justice Department is supposed to have some factual basis before opening an investigation.” Again, how did they not burst into flames when typing this nonsense? “Factual basis”??  Like Crossfire Hurricane????? Which, we know now, with absolute certainty, had absolutely no criminal predicate but still threw the country and Trump’s first term into absolute chaos? Seriously???

Mr. Trump has found “ways of using his official powers to impose pain on people and institutions he does not like…” like stripping clearances or government contracts. “The directives appear aimed at crippling those law firms’ business, making it harder for his adversaries to find defense lawyers or, in some cases, jobs.” It was an open secret in legal circles that if you defended Trump civilly or criminally you’d be black-balled at least, and utterly ruined at most: see John Eastman for example!

The entire article is filled with gravity-defying paragraph after gravity-defying paragraph like this. If you don’t suffer from high blood pressure, then, by all means, read it, but you’ve been warned.

Image generated by AI.