The new york times

Hunter Biden re-entered the political limelight last month on 28-year-old Andrew Callaghan's podcast, filling three hours with stories from his life, including his battle with drug addiction. Those three hours were apparently not enough. In a subsequent episode last week, Biden spent another hour giving his two cents about Jeffrey Epstein. That video has wracked up 1.3 million views and has landed him a $1 billion lawsuit from the First Lady. Melania is kindly asking Hunter to apologize for and retract the following statements: "Epstein introduced Melania to Trump. The connections are, like, so wide and deep" and "Jeffrey Epstein introduced Melania, that’s how Melania and the First Lady and the President met... Yeah, according to Michael Wolff.

Has Bill de Blasio become Bill de Blasé? Details regarding the former New York City mayor’s so-called “non-divorce” from Chirlane McCray, his lesbian wife of twenty-seven years, seem weird. For instance, their “trial separation” involves them continuing to live in the same house while they date other people. Still, compared to the headline-grabbing track record of de Blasio’s life, this latest revelation made Cockburn yawn. Even the way the couple arrived at the decision, “after another stale Saturday night of binge-watching television at their Brooklyn home,” is disappointingly run-of-the-mill.

I like it when I can endorse the other side. It makes me feel like I’m part of the big happy family of man instead of just another snarling partisan. So it was with gratitude that I absorbed David Axelrod’s recent observation about Joe Biden on CNN. Pay attention now: Axelrod was the chief strategist for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and what he doesn’t know about the emotional weather of the left is not worth knowing. “There is this sense that things are kind of out of control,” quoth Axelrod when asked about the Big Guy™, “and he’s not in command.” Right you are, Dave! My only question is: what took you so long? Of course, Axelrod’s devastating admission was not a disinterested or impartial judgment. Nothing Obama’s main men say is that.

The first sentence of the New York Times report on John Bolton’s tell-all memoir about his time in the Trump White House contains a bombshell — but not the one that everybody thinks. The real revelation is that it suggests that President Trump is innocent of the charges on which Democrats are trying to impeach him. Maggie Haberman and Michael Schmidt reported on Sunday that Trump 'wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

The news media of the late 1700s and early 1800s consisted almost entirely of partisan political operations. Ron Chernow, the biographer of Washington and Hamilton, describes the newspapers of that era as 'avowedly partisan’, with 'no pretense of objectivity'. It was, Chernow, writes, a 'golden age for wielding words as rapier-sharp political weapons’. Some two centuries later, we are returning to a media landscape in which the majority of sources are 'avowedly partisan' with little pretense of the objectivity that only a few decades ago was a hallmark of American journalism.

In the New York Times’s latest self-centered Hulu special, the op-ed board invited Democratic primary candidate after candidate into their lavish board room, peered over their elitist glasses at them and demanded why each of them might be worthy of their precious ink. One by one, the candidates willingly prostrated themselves before the court. At the end of this hour-long special, the Times revealed its endorsement. The suspense is over. The New York Times has endorsed Donald Trump for president. That television special, like the Times’s docu-series The Weekly, lets the mask slip.

Remember 'Anonymous'? He — or, of course, she (or 'zhe' or 'they', etc.) — was the person who, back in September 2018, wrote an anonymous op-ed for our former paper of record, 'I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration.' 'Anonymous' claimed to be a 'senior Trump administration official'. He took to the pages of the official fish-wrap because he didn’t approve of President Trump. He and 'like-minded colleagues...have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda'. Indeed, according to 'Anonymous', 'many of the senior officials in [Trump's] own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda.' Who knows whether 'Anonymous' is for real — I mean, just how 'senior' do you suppose he (or, again, she, etc.