New York Times White House correspondent Peter Baker got really excited over impeachment, making comparisons to John Dean and Watergate in his front-page “news analysis” of the hearings into “quid pro quo” allegations involving President Trump and Ukraine: “Democrats Detect Watergate Echo.” The headline to the “jump” page betrayed the same giddiness: “An Echo of Watergate As Sondland Remarks Refocus the Debate.” Baker didn’t wait a single sentence before breathlessly declaring Sondland’s testimony a “John Dean moment” -- as in the infamous witness for the prosecution in the impeachment of President Richard Nixon.
The New York Times has abruptly changed its tune on the “Deep State,” a name given to the entrenched bureaucracy supposedly determined to work via secret machinations and selective media leaks to bring down the Trump administration from within. As Trump and his Republican allies railed against the “Deep State,” the Times typically mocked the very idea as a phony conspiracy theory. The headline under a March 2017 analysis: "What Happens When You Fight a ‘Deep State’ That Doesn’t Exist.” But the Times has changed its tune in startling fashion. Now the Deep State is real, and it’s just wonderful.
Peter Baker, New York Times White House correspondent, reviewed Tom Lobianco’s book “Piety and Power -- Mike Pence and the Taking of the White House,” but reserved his most hostile, pungent criticism for Pence’s boss: "How does a devoted evangelical Christian serve a foulmouthed, thrice-married vulgarian who boasts of grabbing women by their private parts and paid hush money to a porn star alleging an extramarital affair?"
New York Times national security correspondent David Sanger’s “news analysis” on the font page basically took Iran’s side in the fraught geopolitical confrontation over the recent attacks on oil fields in Saudi Arabia, against U.S. President Trump and his “tirades and untruths.” The online headline suggested Trump could be lying about the Iranian threat: “Trump’s Challenge: Can His Word on Iran Be Trusted?” Sanger used Trump’s exaggerations and fibs in his partisan speeches to suggest his word can’t be trusted on Iran (meanwhile, the Times has a history of whitewashing the mendacity of the Iranian regime).
The New York Times’s lead story Monday morning was of course the mass murder of 29 people in two mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso. The second paragraph cast some blame at “angry words directed at immigrants...by right-wing pundits and President Trump.” The theme of Monday’s paper was to tie President Trump to the El Paso mass murderer. Peter Baker and Michael Shear’s “news analysis,” “In Texas Gunman’s Manifesto, An Echo of Trump’s Language,” handed flailing Democratic candidate Beto O’Rourke (and several other Democratic opportunists) a microphone to blame Trump.
Over the last few days, President Donald Trump has used his Twitter account to go after Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings and “civil rights leader” Al Sharpton. The New York Times could not resist, featuring not one but two front-page stories Tuesday, while egregiously calling the racially inflammatory Sharpton a “civil rights leader” and blotting out his past offenses against decency. The Times lead story led with the race card: "President Trump widened his war on critics of color on Monday with new attacks on the Rev. Al Sharpton and other political opponents."
The New York Times gave former special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony on Capitol Hill a negative review in Thursday’s edition, terming it “shaky” and “halting,” even “excruciatingly awkward,” while tucking in rumors that he wasn’t fully engaged in the prosecution. Can one detect some frustration, even embarrassment in the paper’s coverage, now that the former special counsel, whose reputation for tenacity and “straight-arrow,” law-and-order omniscience the Times helped inflate, has flopped hard in public view? Now that Mueller’s shaky command of the details in his own report is public knowledge, we learn there were hints beforehand, which the Times apparently chose not to share.
Wednesday was Mueller Day on Capitol Hill. For seven hours the special counsel provided testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, carried live for those Americans still interested in his completed investigation into Russian meddling in the U.S. electoral process in 2016. The Times saw "conservative conspiracy theories" and griped that Rep. Devin Nunes was "desperately trying to portray Mueller, the F.B.I., the Democrats and the media as working together to take down the president.” Where could Nunes have gotten that idea?
The front page of Saturday’s New York Times featured White House correspondent Peter Baker’s “news analysis” on Iran and attacks on oil tankers, “Trump’s Foggy Truth Meets Fog of War.” Ostensibly on the controversy over Iran’s culpability in the attack on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, but Baker, whose reporting has grown harsher and more partisan against President Trump, used the crisis as a springboard to attack Trump as a liar who can’t be trusted while the threat of conflict looms: "...for a president known for falsehoods and crisis-churning bombast, the test of credibility appears far more daunting."
On Tuesday's Andrea Mitchell Reports on MSNBC, host Andrea Mitchell fretted that President Trump could lead the country into a war with Iran and was assisted with that assessment thanks to New York Times White House correspondent Peter Baker and former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin.
While promoting planned House Democratic hearings on the Mueller report, on her Monday show, MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell complained that President Trump “had three weeks head start” when it came to “branding this as case closed.” She advised Democrats that it would be up to them to keep pushing the case against Trump.
After a 22-month investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller investigating Russian ties to the Trump campaign and possible presidential obstruction of justice, the final 448-page report on the investigation has been released, confirming the previous summary by Attorney General Bill Barr that Mueller found no collusion and uncovered insufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstruction. Which didn’t stop the New York Times from sounding bitter, and in particular targeting Barr for sounding too much like an advocate for Trump (who, after all, was not charged with anything).