Julie Hirschfeld Davis
CNN’s Inside Politics continued on Friday the latest liberal media crusade to do not only Russia’s bidding by sowing dissent, but argue with a rhetorical wink and nod that Donald Trump is an illegitimate President. Most amusingly, host John King and his fellow panelists claimed that “no one” has been “saying” in the wake of Thursday night’s New York Times article “that Trump was colluding with Russia again.”
It was a great day for the body politic-poisoning and ethics-free CNN on Friday as the Department of Justice announced that their contributor Andrew McCabe would not be facing charges for lying. In the three shows since news broke, it was nothing but an ebullient sense of relief for the network, celebrating how “a black cloud” has lifted despite all “he has endured” and having suffered “a tremendous cost monetarily not just when it comes to sort of stress” which they unanimously panned as having been a waste.
In the past couple of weeks, New York Times reporters Michael Shear and Julie Hirschfeld Davis have made TV appearances to promote their book Border Wars: Inside Trump's Assault on Immigration. In appearances on CNN and MSNBC, anchors have underlined revelations that President Trump suggested the extreme step of government agents shooting immigrants in the legs -- often leaving out the notion that it would be in response to immigrants throwing large rocks...and of course, often leaving out the word "illegal" to characterize the immigrants.
In May 2017, Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel to look into issues around possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which the media and Democrats quickly boiled down to a single word, “Collusion,” a vague charge which Donald Trump nonetheless was almost surely guilty of when it came to Russia. Twenty-two months later, the report has been issued and been summarized by Attorney General William Barr. Mueller and his team issued no indictments against Donald Trump or anyone in the Trump administration. To mark the end, here’s an extremely incomplete list of occasions Times reporters, editorialists and columnists freely tossing around the accusation of “collusion."
The front of Wednesday’s New York Times declared all was well on the Southern border, no matter what President Trump or his alarmed supporters may say: “No Crisis Here, Say Neighbors Close to Mexico -- Citing Other Problems ‘That Need Fixing.’” The reporting team found nothing but “tranquility” all along the border. The jump-page headline: “No Immigration Crisis Here, Tranquil Town Along Southern Border Says.” Even as the television networks reluctantly aired a few concerns about border security, the tone of the Times story was utterly dismissive of border security concerns.
New York Times reporter Julie Hirschfeld Davis delivered a not-particularly friendly farewell to House Speaker and former vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan of Wisconsin on Thursday. The story is notable for ideological labeling that’s severely slanted even for a Times story, with the prefix “ultra” dropped on Republicans no less than three times in this one report.
With elections fast approaching, Friday’s New York Times was packed with accusations of President Trump as a racist and hostile to immigrants, most intensely in the lead story by Michael Shear and Julie Hirschfeld Davis. The headline deck: “Trump Invoking ‘Crisis’ at Border As Voting Nears – Message For Midterms – A Presidential Theme Is Built Around a Fear of Immigrants.” Illegal immigrants, actually, but don’t count on the Times to ever clarify.
The New York Times reported from Omaha on Saturday: “Trump Seizes On Migrant Caravan to Rev Up Republican Voters.” "Barely two weeks away from an election that threatens to sweep Republicans from power in the House of Representatives and dash any lingering hope of conservative immigration reform, the party, led by President Trump, is leaning more aggressively into dark portrayals of undocumented immigrants in a bid to galvanize voters. Mr. Trump, whose political appeal among his core voters has largely been rooted in warnings about illegal immigration as a threat to American security, sovereignty and identity, has stepped up his hard-line, inflammatory attacks on Latin American migrants...."
As congressional elections loom, New York Times reporter Julie Hirschfeld Davis revealed Monday that “Republicans Find an Unexpectedly Potent Line of Attack: Immigration.” (Unexpected to the Times, at least.) The text box: “Heart-rending images are countered with fear-laden appeals.” Davis’s Monday story tilted the playing field with tone and labeling choices: "But Republican candidates across the country, leaning on the scorched-earth campaign playbook employed by President Trump, saw an opening nonetheless, painting Democrats as the ones pursuing an extreme immigration agenda that would fill the country with “sanctuary cities” where violent criminals roam free."
The New York Times gave vastly different views of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford regarding their extraordinary testimony, consistently chiding Kavanaugh as "angry" and "aggrieved" and calling his judicial temperament into question -- as if anger wouldn't be a perfectly reasonable response to false allegations of sexual assault. The paper was clearly disappointed with Sen. Lindsey Graham for his fierce attacks on Democrats.
Tuesday’s New York Times led with Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Maggie Haberman rushing to tar President Trump’s criticism of the “deep state” and the mainstream press as corrosive, paranoid, and conspiratorial (while unwittingly strengthening his case) in “Trump’s Embrace Of ‘Spygate” Plot Sows Suspicions -- Eroding Public Trust -- Conspiracy Theories Are Brought From Fringes to the Oval Office.” The text box didn’t offer much benefit of the doubt: “Ex-aides cite political opportunism and the president’s paranoia.”
Tuesday evening (for Wednesday's print edition), New York Times reporter Julie Hirschfeld Davis, covering President Donald Trump's rally in Nashville, Tennessee, reported that it attracted "about 1,000" attendees. The Times issued a correction on Wednesday, stating that "the fire marshal’s office estimated that approximately 5,500 people attended the rally." So the crowd was 5-1/2 times larger than originally reported. How can that happen?