Have you noticed that Trump no longer tweets as frequently as he once did: "the failing New York Times"? Trump used to do that all the time. Obviously, it was insulting and embarrassing to the Times. Made them defensive. "Sorry, Mr. President," they wrote once countering his characterization. When was the last time Trump tweeted "the failing New York Times"? It's been a while, hasn't it?
Why would that be? Remember Maggie Haberman's bizarre, defensive, imperious, responsive tweets to readers who questioned her gullibility at the Hope Hicks resignation story? That was the first time I ever read Haberman's twitter stream and I was troubled, as I wrote about here.
My wonder at what is going on with Times reporting (I see no evidence of a tacit quid pro quo from the editorial board but, candidly, I do not read the Times' editorials frequently.) on Trump did not begin with Haberman's "fake news" tweets. I remember it precisely. I had a hard time finding it but finally did tonight. My wonder dates back to October 8, 2017 and this report under this lede:
Remember that? It was a Times interview of Senator Corker that birthed the hilarious "adult day care center" hashtag. I loved that article on Corker's comments.
But I alerted to this line, almost a throw away line, that was tangential to the Corker interview story, the characterization is certainly gratuitous,
Maggie Haberman contributed reporting from New York, and Thomas Kaplan and Noah Weiland from Washington.
Remember this one?
White House Plans Tillerson Ouster From State Dept., to Be Replaced by Pompeo
Tillerson_Putsch
And Megaton Maggie gets one-third "credit" for this one.
By Peter Baker, Maggie Haberman and Gardiner Harris
November 30, 2017
The White House has developed a plan to force out Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson...and replace him with Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, perhaps within the next several weeks, senior administration officials said on Thursday.
Mr. Trump has not signed off on the plan developed by John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, officials said, but the president is said to have soured on Mr. Tillerson and is ready to make a change at the State Department....but did not seem ready yet to replace him, according to one person close to the president.
So basically what we have here is this:
Kelly: "Hey Peter, Maggie, Gardiner, come into my office right now!"
P/M/G, salivating, tongues panting: "Yes, sir, yes sir."
Kelly: "I've got an exclusive scoop for you."
P/M/G:
White House aides have made it clear to a number of presidential appointees that Mr. Tillerson’s days were numbered, and the only question was how long he would remain.
Why would that be? Remember Maggie Haberman's bizarre, defensive, imperious, responsive tweets to readers who questioned her gullibility at the Hope Hicks resignation story? That was the first time I ever read Haberman's twitter stream and I was troubled, as I wrote about here.
My wonder at what is going on with Times reporting (I see no evidence of a tacit quid pro quo from the editorial board but, candidly, I do not read the Times' editorials frequently.) on Trump did not begin with Haberman's "fake news" tweets. I remember it precisely. I had a hard time finding it but finally did tonight. My wonder dates back to October 8, 2017 and this report under this lede:
Bob Corker Says Trump’s Recklessness Threatens ‘World War III’
Remember that? It was a Times interview of Senator Corker that birthed the hilarious "adult day care center" hashtag. I loved that article on Corker's comments.
But I alerted to this line, almost a throw away line, that was tangential to the Corker interview story, the characterization is certainly gratuitous,
While [Corker] opposed President Barack Obama’s divisive nuclear deal with Iran, he did not prevent it from coming to a vote...
"Divisive." What does "divisive" have to do with the price of tea in China? That is a bullshit pro-Trump zinger thrown into the middle of an article almost completely unrelated to the story's subject matter. Done deliberately! Done deliberately and gratuitously. Why?
As you can see there were two Times reporters credited with authorship of that story, neither of them named Maggie Haberman. But, at the end of the article:
"Divisive." What does "divisive" have to do with the price of tea in China? That is a bullshit pro-Trump zinger thrown into the middle of an article almost completely unrelated to the story's subject matter. Done deliberately! Done deliberately and gratuitously. Why?
As you can see there were two Times reporters credited with authorship of that story, neither of them named Maggie Haberman. But, at the end of the article:
Maggie Haberman contributed reporting from New York, and Thomas Kaplan and Noah Weiland from Washington.
Remember this one?
White House Plans Tillerson Ouster From State Dept., to Be Replaced by Pompeo
Tillerson_Putsch
And Megaton Maggie gets one-third "credit" for this one.
By Peter Baker, Maggie Haberman and Gardiner Harris
November 30, 2017
The White House has developed a plan to force out Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson...and replace him with Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, perhaps within the next several weeks, senior administration officials said on Thursday.
Mr. Trump has not signed off on the plan developed by John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, officials said, but the president is said to have soured on Mr. Tillerson and is ready to make a change at the State Department....but did not seem ready yet to replace him, according to one person close to the president.
So basically what we have here is this:
Kelly: "Hey Peter, Maggie, Gardiner, come into my office right now!"
P/M/G, salivating, tongues panting: "Yes, sir, yes sir."
Kelly: "I've got an exclusive scoop for you."
P/M/G:
White House aides have made it clear to a number of presidential appointees that Mr. Tillerson’s days were numbered, and the only question was how long he would remain.
Trumpists were talking to NYT pencils, giving them "scoops." In return for what? Go a little easy on us? Was this even a scoop? Was it true? It was not. Let's be reasonable and say "several weeks" was two months, eight weeks. It's March 8, Tillerson is still on the job. P/M/G do acknowledge that they may have been used:
The disclosure of Mr. Kelly’s transition plan may have been a way to nudge him into making a decision, according to that person. It may also have been meant as a not-too-subtle message to Mr. Tillerson that it is time to go.
From Politico via Buzzfeed during the Rob Porter blowup:
Feb. 13:
5 a.m.: Sanders set up an off-the-record meeting between Porter and four reporters for him to defend himself following the Daily Mail report.
According to Politico, the White House press secretary arranged an off-the-record meeting with reporters from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and Axios.And on March 3:
Mueller’s Focus on Adviser to Emirates Suggests Broader Investigation
MARK MAZZETTI, DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and MAGGIE HABERMAN
Now what is the significance of that lede and story. According to both it is that Mueller is going beyond the authority given him by Rod Rosenstein to investigate Russia. In other words it's a message directed to Trump that he has grounds to fire Mueller. When the Times interviewed Trump many months ago they asked him if delving into his personal finances would cross the line of Mueller's authority. I think it would, Trump said.
Mr. Nader is now a focus of the investigation by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel. In recent weeks, Mr. Mueller’s investigators have questioned Mr. Nader and have pressed witnesses for information about any possible attempts by the Emiratis to buy political influence by directing money to support Mr. Trump during the presidential campaign, according to people with knowledge of the discussions.
The investigators have also asked about Mr. Nader’s role in White House policy making, those people said, suggesting that the special counsel investigation has broadened beyond Russian election meddling to include Emirati influence on the Trump administration. The focus on Mr. Nader could also prompt an examination of how money from multiple countries has flowed through and influenced Washington during the Trump era.
How much this line of inquiry is connected to Mr. Mueller’s original task of investigating contacts between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia is unclear. The examination of the U.A.E. comes amid a flurry of recent activity by Mr. Mueller.
If we are to rely on reporters to get the truth and not jump to conclusions as "partisans" we are not getting the unvarnished truth from Times reporters. There's a "divisive," ingratiating layer of makeup on the The Grey Lady's face.
From Politico via Buzzfeed during the Rob Porter blowup:
Feb. 13:
5 a.m.: Sanders set up an off-the-record meeting between Porter and four reporters for him to defend himself following the Daily Mail report.
According to Politico, the White House press secretary arranged an off-the-record meeting with reporters from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and Axios.And on March 3:
Mueller’s Focus on Adviser to Emirates Suggests Broader Investigation
MARK MAZZETTI, DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and MAGGIE HABERMAN
Now what is the significance of that lede and story. According to both it is that Mueller is going beyond the authority given him by Rod Rosenstein to investigate Russia. In other words it's a message directed to Trump that he has grounds to fire Mueller. When the Times interviewed Trump many months ago they asked him if delving into his personal finances would cross the line of Mueller's authority. I think it would, Trump said.
Mr. Nader is now a focus of the investigation by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel. In recent weeks, Mr. Mueller’s investigators have questioned Mr. Nader and have pressed witnesses for information about any possible attempts by the Emiratis to buy political influence by directing money to support Mr. Trump during the presidential campaign, according to people with knowledge of the discussions.
The investigators have also asked about Mr. Nader’s role in White House policy making, those people said, suggesting that the special counsel investigation has broadened beyond Russian election meddling to include Emirati influence on the Trump administration. The focus on Mr. Nader could also prompt an examination of how money from multiple countries has flowed through and influenced Washington during the Trump era.
How much this line of inquiry is connected to Mr. Mueller’s original task of investigating contacts between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia is unclear. The examination of the U.A.E. comes amid a flurry of recent activity by Mr. Mueller.
If we are to rely on reporters to get the truth and not jump to conclusions as "partisans" we are not getting the unvarnished truth from Times reporters. There's a "divisive," ingratiating layer of makeup on the The Grey Lady's face.
