The New York Times, which continues to suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, published on Monday the most absurd assertions possible regarding the nature of a second Donald Trump presidential term.
Multiple polls indicate that Trump, the leading candidate in the 2024 Republican primary, is ahead of President Joe Biden in key swing states including Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. This has sparked widespread concern.
A significant portion of the over 2,400-word article, authored by three of the newspaper’s most prominent political correspondents (Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan, and Charlie Savage), is redundant liberal criticisms of Trump’s first term in office. It is important to note that the article is presented as news and not as an opinion piece.
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.”
Although The Times acknowledged that the remark was a “throwaway line” made by a prominent New York businessman at the time (43), the liberal publication used it as a springboard to assert that Trump harbors totalitarian inclinations.
“Come on, man!” to quote the current president.
During Trump’s first term, the Times and other media outlets propagated such nonsense, claiming that he spoke too positively of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
However, in spite of this, Trump imposed severe tariffs on China and sanctioned Russia, and vehemently condemned “Little Rocket Man.” Significantly, their public presence was minimal throughout his four-year term in office.
It was successful for the 45th president to implement Ronald Reagan’s “Peace through strength” strategy. None of them were renewed conflicts. Islamic State was annihilated, and the authoritarian Iranian government was brought to its knees by debilitating sanctions.
Both the Russian invasion of Ukraine and North Korea’s long-range missile tests ceased.
This is all untrue under the administration of Joe Biden.
Biden has been lenient toward these autocratic regimes, and each has gained influence during his administration.
It goes without saying that Trump confronted America’s authoritarian adversaries with considerably more assertiveness than his successor has done.
Although opposed to dictatorships internationally, he maintained an authoritarian stance within his own country.
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.”
Peruse the term “blind spot.” What do Haberman, Swan, and Savage believe the Biden administration has been up to for the last three years exactly? Moreover, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign was initiated by the Obama-Biden DOJ.
Biden’s DOJ is presently attempting to secure the former president’s life imprisonment.
This action appears to be the most egregious “naked challenge to democratic values” in contemporary United States history. For a more blatant assault on democratic ideals, one might suggest examining the circumstances surrounding the Southern states’ refusal to acknowledge Abraham Lincoln’s victory in the 1860 election, which coincided with the outbreak of the Civil War.
The Biden administration has attempted to compare the incursion into the Capitol on January 6, 2021, to the American Civil War, but in reality, no “insurrectionist” discharged a rifle that day, nor even entered the Capitol with one. There was little to no insurrection.
On that particular day, the overwhelming majority complied with Trump’s appeal to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
Notwithstanding this, the Biden administration of the Department of Justice initiated the most extensive inquiry in the organization’s history in order to apprehend and indict over a thousand demonstrators, the majority of whom refrained from violent behavior.
This behavior should be characterized as harassment and intimidation of political adversaries, the dreaded MAGA Republicans.
In contrast, the DOJ’s actions subsequent to the “social justice” demonstrations in the summer of 2020 and the “Disrupt J20” protests that occurred on Trump’s Inauguration Day in Washington, D.C. in January 2017 differ significantly.
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.
— ABC News (@ABC) January 20, 2017
In July 2018, NBC News reported that the Justice Department dismissed all outstanding charges against individuals implicated in acts of violence throughout the 2017 inauguration. They were not even required to perform community service.
Thus, the DOJ did not conduct a major roundup at that time, notwithstanding the violence.
Likewise, when demonstrators breached the outer security barriers at the White House in May 2020, Secret Service agents reportedly hurried then-President Trump to a bunker beneath 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, according to The Associated Press.
Ultimately, there was no incursion because the location was better fortified than the Capitol grounds; nevertheless, a significant number of Secret Service agents sustained injuries and property was vandalized.
A statement from the Secret Service at the time stated that over sixty officers were injured when demonstrators attacked them with bricks, pyrotechnics, and other projectiles. Eleven personnel required hospitalization.
— Evy Mages (@EvyMages) May 30, 2020
The majority of the seventeen individuals arrested by Washington police were accused with disturbance, according to USA Today.
The Washington Post reports that, over the course of the weekend, 106 individuals were apprehended by D.C. police during demonstrations throughout the district.
Nevertheless, that does not sum up the narrative.
Although “many of those arrested were charged by police with felony rioting, that charge was generally dropped by prosecutors,” according to the news source.
These prosecutors were, by chance, U.S. attorneys employed by the Trump DOJ.
Which Justice Department, therefore, has demonstrated a greater propensity to single out political adversaries: Biden’s or Trump’s? Undoubtedly 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
It goes without saying that the left-leaning orientation of the DOJ during Trump’s administration was evident from its conduct prior to, during, and subsequent to his tenure.
Should he choose to clear house within that agency, he would be impregnable in the eyes of all.
Overall, the article in The New York Times is Democratic propaganda based on Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Opportunity and freedom were pillars of Trump’s inaugural term, and there is little doubt that this would continue to be the case in a second term as well.