News or Commentary? You Decide

by James A. BaconThe Washington Post

leads its story about Governor Glenn Younkin’s comments on the indictment of former president Donald Trump this way:

RICHMOND — Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) is famous for being just Trumpy enough to woo MAGA Republicans without alienating more moderate voters, but the former president’s indictment this week by a Manhattan grand jury investigating hush-money payments to an adult-film star found Youngkin leaping to Donald Trump’s defense.

It goes on to quote Youngkin not as defending Trump but criticizing the New York district attorney who prosecuted him.

‘It is beyond belief that District Attorney Alvin Bragg has indicted a former President and current presidential candidate for pure political gain. Arresting a presidential candidate on a manufactured basis should not happen in America,’ Youngkin tweeted on his personal account Thursday night after the news broke. ‘The left’s continued attempts to weaponize our judicial system erode people’s faith in the American justice system and it needs to stop.’

Reporters Gregory Schneider and Laura Vozzella proceed to quote tweets, emails and comments from five Youngkin critics, contrast Youngkin’s “forceful response” to the Trump indictment with his restrained response to Irvo Otieno’s death in a state mental health facility “in his own state,” and assert that the governor’s comment belies “his carefully crafted image as a zipped-up vest-wearing suburban moderate.”

If this article had appeared in the op-ed section of The Washington Post, I would not have given it a second thought. But Schneider and Vozzella purport to report the “news.”

Let’s start with the snark: Youngkin is “famous for being just Trumpy enough to woo MAGA Republicans without alienating more moderate voters.” Oh, really? He’s famous for that? Perhaps that’s the opinion that Schneider, Vozzella, their editors, and their fellow Democrats hold of Youngkin, but it is an opinion limited to them and those who think like them. That kind of language belongs in an editorial, not a news article.

Now, let’s let’s consider how the WaPo frames the story as Youngkin “leaping to Trump’s defense.” Youngkin did not leap to Trump’s defense. He said nothing regarding the propriety of the former president’s relationship with a porn star or his payment of hush money. He did not excuse Trump’s actions in any way. He criticized Alvin Bragg for weaponizing the judicial system…which he did.

Trump engaged in an affair with a porn star. The porn star demanded payment of hush money. Either Trump or his agent, Michael Cohen, paid the hush money. The porn star took the money but didn’t stay hushed. In a novel interpretation of the law, the DA says the hush money should have been reported as a campaign contribution. There is no way of knowing whether that interpretation will be upheld in the courts.

In my personal opinion, Trump is a sleazy cad whom I wouldn’t allow to get within 100 feet of my daughters. I have zero respect for his character. I consider it a taint on the American people that they elected a president of such low moral fiber. George Washington weeps. But I don’t suffer Trump Derangement Syndrome, and I don’t think every character flaw is an indictable offense.

I’ll offer a counter-interpretation to the WaPo’s spin on Youngkin’s tweet. Unlike the “news reporters” who wrote the story, I will admit that I’m engaging in speculation: Youngkin was motivated to tweet not by some Machiavellian calculation to make himself “just Trumpy enough to woo MAGA voters” but by genuine outrage at prosecutorial excess.

After four years of the Russia-collusion hoax, the deep-sixing of Hunter Biden’s laptop, the relentless prosecution for trespassing of participants in the January 6 riot at the Capitol, the non-prosecution of rioters at the federal courthouse in Portland, the Justice Department’s monitoring of conservative parents in school board meetings, the highly publicized raid on Mar-a-Largo for Trump’s classified documents, the raid that never happened for Biden’s classified documents, and dozens of judgement calls that somehow always land on the side of absolving Democrats and prosecuting Republicans, many Americans have concluded that some Democratic prosecutors regard the criminal justice system as just another tool to be wielded for partisan political advantage.

It is possible that Youngkin shares the same concerns and that his tweet reflected this jaundiced view. Of course, that’s pure speculation, and I don’t pretend to have insight into what’s going on inside his head. The Washington Post “news” department could preserve what little credibility it retains if it showed the same level of self-awareness.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

75 responses to “News or Commentary? You Decide”

  1. UVAPast Avatar

    The only sure felony is the leak from the grand jury. What is being done to investigate this?

    1. Nathan Avatar

      The illegal leaks over the last several years have been so plentiful I’ve lost track. The leaks are almost always harmful to Republicans and no charges are ever filed.

      Who’s facing charges for the leak of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade?

  2. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    Jim, I’m disappointed in you for claiming prosecutorial excess and citing the DA for weaponizing the judicial process. It is reported or rumored that there are 30 charges. We don’t know the nature of them and won’t for at least 24 hours. You and the Governor have jumped to a conclusion before you know the facts.
    What will you say if most are serious felonies?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      That two plus two is now five. Look, for two years they have turned over every stone looking for real evidence Trump planned or encouraged the planning of the January 6 riot. That conspiracy would be a major felony, deserving of a handcuffed perp walk and years in prison. They ain’t got that, meaning it likely never happened, so they are going with this nonsense.

      As to the Post passing off editorial commentary as news, so what a shock is that?

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      That two plus two is now five. Look, for two years they have turned over every stone looking for real evidence Trump planned or encouraged the planning of the January 6 riot. That conspiracy would be a major felony, deserving of a handcuffed perp walk and years in prison. They ain’t got that, meaning it likely never happened, so they are going with this nonsense.

      As to the Post passing off editorial commentary as news, so what a shock is that?

    3. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      That two plus two is now five. Look, for two years they have turned over every stone looking for real evidence Trump planned or encouraged the planning of the January 6 riot. That conspiracy would be a major felony, deserving of a handcuffed perp walk and years in prison. They ain’t got that, meaning it likely never happened, so they are going with this nonsense.

      As to the Post passing off editorial commentary as news, so what a shock is that?

      1. M. Purdy Avatar
        M. Purdy

        “They ain’t got that, meaning it likely never happened, so they are going with this nonsense.” Yeah, not even close to accurate. But please go on.

      2. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        Steve, Don’t you think that credibility would be well served by waiting until the NY charges are made public, the Fulton County DA makes her decision, and Jack Smith decides what he is going to recommend? I think that a “reasonable man” would conclude that he tried, incompetently, to steal the election and improperly took a trove of classified documents and then obstructed their return. Why and what would happen to anyone else who tried to illegally hold on to highly classified documents?

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          That, as was the WAPO article, is opinion. You and they are welcome to it. Jim is equally welcome to his. The complaint was about the WAPO presenting opinion as news.

          1. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            I didn’t criticize the basic thrust of Jim’s criticism; only his seeming to agree with “weaponization” and “prosccutorial excess”. Until we know what the charges are those are uninformed opinions and Jim is smarter than that in my opinion.

    4. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Jim wrote an article about WAPO presenting opinion as news. Comment on that.

    5. Nathan Avatar

      “We don’t know the nature of them and won’t for at least 24 hours.”

      Now we know. Love Trump or hate him, it’s a big load of bull crap.

      Bragg’s Legal Slurpee: The Trump Indictment is Designed for Instant Satisfaction Without Substance

      Jonathan Turley – attorney and a professor at George Washington University Law School.

      https://jonathanturley.org/2023/04/06/braggs-legal-slurpee-the-trump-indictment-is-designed-for-instant-satisfaction-without-substance/

      1. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        Without substance? What about falsifying financial records and tax fraud? I prefer to wait to see the outcome of the trial.

        1. Nathan Avatar

          You didn’t read the article by Professor Turley, did you?

          Wait for the facts was the first admonition, now we’re suppose to reserve any judgement pending the outcome of the trial?

          That’s called moving the goalpost, and I’m not going to shut off my brain to wait for the outcome of the trial.

          We have the facts, for anyone who wants to read the charges. Every charge is:

          1. A misdemeanor charged as a felony

          2. Crime that has a stature of limitations which has expired

          3. Only chargeable based on “intent to commit another crime” which has not been named or charged.

          In essence, there’s only one crime, charged 34 times.

          No matter one’s politics, any objective person can see this for what it is.

          Bragg’s case against Trump hits a wall of skepticism — even from Trump’s critics

          https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/05/alvin-bragg-case-against-trump-00090602

        2. Nathan Avatar

          You didn’t read the article by Professor Turley, did you?

          Wait for the facts was the first admonition, now we’re suppose to reserve any judgement pending the outcome of the trial?

          That’s called moving the goalpost, and I’m not going to shut off my brain to wait for the outcome of the trial.

          We have the facts, for anyone who wants to read the charges. Every charge is:

          1. A misdemeanor charged as a felony

          2. Crime that has a stature of limitations which has expired

          3. Only chargeable based on “intent to commit another crime” which has not been named or charged.

          In essence, there’s only one crime, charged 34 times.

          No matter one’s politics, any objective person can see this for what it is.

          Bragg’s case against Trump hits a wall of skepticism — even from Trump’s critics

          https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/05/alvin-bragg-case-against-trump-00090602

          1. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Until the trial we don’t have ALL of the facts. He’ll either be innocent or guilty. Why rush to judgment?

          2. Nathan Avatar

            So you’re telling me you don’t have opinions about anything that hasn’t been adjudicated in court?

            Fine. Go for it.

          3. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Don’t be foolish. Everyone has opinions but opinions are not facts and are not what’s important in this case. It’s the verdict of the jury that counts.

  3. Ronnie Chappell Avatar
    Ronnie Chappell

    Richard Nixon condoned the Watergate break-in, participated in the cover-up, lied about all of it and resigned from office before the Senate voted to remove him. Ford pardoned Nixon. A divided nation healed. Ford paid the political price for an action many historians now describe as selfless and courageous.

    Trump and Stormy Daniels seems tawdry and trivial by comparison. John Edwards and Bill Clinton stuff. Which is why this prosecution feels so sad and tawdry.

  4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “But I don’t suffer Trump Derangement Syndrome, and I don’t think every character flaw is an indictable offense.”

    So much wrong with this piece but I will start here. Given that a grand jury recommended indictment, the offenses (way more than one, btw) are clearly indictable.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Overcharging is a classic strategy for a weak case. The hope is that a jury will ignore the vast majority of the counts while deciding that convictions on “one or two” counts represents a fair compromise.

      Even Van Jones gets this. “That said, I hear my conservative friends saying he is being overcharged. It is so aggressive. It’s so terrible. Welcome to my world, folks. Prosecutors overcharging, being over aggressive, being ridiculous with minor stuff and turning it into major stuff happens every single day in America, every courthouse in America. I think you want to be consistent now. If you’re concerned that this particular person named Donald Trump is being overcharged and mistreated by a prosecutor, join the rest of us who are trying to stop that from happening to ordinary people.”

      1. M. Purdy Avatar
        M. Purdy

        “Overcharging is a classic strategy for a weak case.” Not quite. Overcharging has been a long-standing problem in the judicial system, largely because law and order types pass all manner of criminal laws essentially criminalizing the same offense under different names. (Don’t even get me started on RICO.) It’s not necessarily a weak case that leads to overcharging, it’s the desire to avoid going to trial. As every lawyer knows, anything can happen at trial. But if the defendant pleads out, you avoid that uncertainty. And if someone is facing 30 counts as opposed to six, it incentivizes pleading out.

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          In a strong case, people would plead out even without overcharging, no?

          1. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            Not necessarily. If you’re facing 5 years for one strong charge vs. 30 for a bunch of related charges, you might go to trial.

        2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          RICO? Now you’re threatening the Biden familia. Be careful.

          1. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            Hunter’s a true piece of work, and massive political liability, but I don’t think he’s a threat to the republic.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Van who…??…

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      As is a ham sandwich.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        So much for Conservatives being for law and order…

        1. M. Purdy Avatar
          M. Purdy

          Amazing how the law and order types want to let this particular crime wave slide.

  5. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Alvin Bragg is a useful idiot but maybe not in the way most people think. The point of the indictment wasn’t to cripple Trump, it was to enable him. The Democrats desperately need Trump on the ballot in 2024 to make the observably senile Joe Biden seem like the lesser of two (or perhaps three) bad choices. The whole key is the Republican nomination. If Trump leverages his ridiculous indictment into a victory in the Republican nomination, the Democrats (and unfortunately America) get 4 more years of Sénior Senile. If Trump loses the nomination but feels sufficiently emboldened to run as a third party candidate, we also get another four years of Confused Joe.

    The indictments aren’t meant to kill off Trump, they are meant to empower him.

    He’s the only candidate that Biden – Harris can beat.

    Yet even the Democrats know that four more years of Joe “I float like a butterfinger and sting like a tree” Biden will be disastrous for their brand. Modern technology and communications make it harder and harder to hide a sitting President who has descended into mental incapacity. The days of Woodrow Wilson are long gone. Watch carefully to see if Kamala Harris stays on the ticket. I could easily see an attempt to swap out Harris for someone like Hair Gel Newsome. FDR had three different vice presidents.
    Maybe an offer of a US Supreme Court nomination for Harris would do the trick. Once reelected, Biden would resign allowing Newsome to choose his new VP.

    Regardless of the Republican candidate, the Dems have a major problem with Joe Biden, who will turn 82 before the next inauguration. He is already in observable decline. He makes ridiculous claims in public speeches – like being appointed to the US Naval Academy in 1965. His mental capacity is deteriorating quickly and it is becoming more and more obvious. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris is a laughing stock.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Agreed, the real point is to keep Trump front and center and make him the R nominee. It’s working. Youngkin, DeSantis, Haley, Pence, etc. have all had to kiss the ring since the announcement. None have had the guts to say, maybe he shouldn’t have been with the whore in the first place. History is going to laugh itself silly.

    2. WayneS Avatar

      I could easily see an attempt to swap out Harris for someone like Hair Gel Newsome.

      Or even, God forbid, Hillary Clinton.

    3. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Agreed, the real point is to keep Trump front and center and make him the R nominee. It’s working. Youngkin, DeSantis, Haley, Pence, etc. have all had to kiss the ring since the announcement. None have had the guts to say, maybe he shouldn’t have been with the whore in the first place. History is going to laugh itself silly.

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        Sure is.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Wow! Machiavellian much? Mmmm, no. Goldbergian.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          No, true.

  6. M. Purdy Avatar
    M. Purdy

    “Now, let’s let’s consider how the WaPo frames the story as Youngkin “leaping to Trump’s defense.” Youngkin did not leap to Trump’s defense. He said nothing regarding the propriety of the former president’s relationship with a porn star or his payment of hush money. He did not excuse Trump’s actions in any way. He criticized Alvin Bragg for weaponizing the judicial system…. which he did.” This is really splitting hairs–a distinction without a difference. Attacking the DA for politicizing his office is the same as shifting the blame to the prosecutor and away from Trump. That *IS* a defense. And, once again, I repeat my suggestion that BR find a sensible lawyer before going out with statements about “weaponizing” the judicial system, etc. Trump will be charged with over two dozen crimes over the course of the last seven years; that is not an exercise is no harm no foul; that’s a crime spree, and the result of only *one* of *three* concurrent investigations into Trump. So spare us all the legal judgments, BR. Stick to fabricating stories about Virginia colleges.

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Kinda amazing that he can comment on a SEALED indictment, which means he is either purely speculating or broke the law.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Without speculation, you wouldn’t be having this conversation. And the WAPO would be a one-page paper.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        And BR wouldn’t exist. Bill Barr was in a one-on-one interview and called the charges “meritless”. The interviewer never even bothered to ask “Have you read it?”

  8. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table.”

    Lotta table pounding…

    Hey, Trump raised $4M on the indictment showing that, yes, Republicans really can make crime pay. Of course, they aren’t stealing from Democrats, so have at it.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      I got three texts in two days asking for $$. When I replied “stop”, the appeal still came again, perhaps from a different server…He’s loving this. Flipping channels I saw Fox was running a camera shot of the Trump motorcade to the airport, a la OJ Simpson….

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Uh yep. Oh, and whatever happened to OJ?

        Bragg’s the first. Trump’s gonna raise a helluva lot of cigarette money.

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          What happened to OJ was he got away with murder. Twice over. You’re point in asking?

        2. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          What happened to OJ was he got away with murder. Twice over. You’re point in asking?

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Okay. If you call spending years in prison and a huge wrongful death lawsuit, “getting away”.

          2. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            He did not go to jail for murder.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Oh. Ever spend more than a day in the Graybar Hotel? They don’t care why you’re there.

          4. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            The discussion and context was OJ & getting away with murder.

            If I recall correctly OJ went to jail for trying to steal back some of his trophies at gunpoint.

            I certainly agree with you that spending any time in the slammer is no fun.

          5. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            NY, Possession of a Deadly Weapon, Class D Felony. You?

            Street Cred. I’ve written a couple of Country Rap songs. Wanna hear?

          6. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Bragg is dismissing more than half of the felonies that even get charged. Odds are pretty good for anyone but Trump to be set free.

            Wonder if some of Trump’s charges will be felonies for wielding a pen to sign checks as a deadly weapon?

  9. vicnicholls Avatar
    vicnicholls

    Jim, I would say its odd given his response to the Suffolk debacle.

  10. WayneS Avatar

    It’s commentary. But it is hardly new behavior by the WaPo.

  11. Thomas Dixon Avatar
    Thomas Dixon

    It is a shame Trump isn’t as clean as Biden according to the media.

  12. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    OMG. Now there is a camera focused on the runway at LaGuardia awaiting Trump One. All Trump All Day coverage. What more could he ask for?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Have you tried changing the channel from Fox?

      After 2 weeks in Fla. taking care of the spousal unit’s baby brother, I’ve found new entertainment. He turned me onto CourtTV! What a hoot!

      You begin to realize the “weaponized” justice system is run by inarticulate barrel bottom law school, 3-times to pass the bar exam prosecutors and public defenders.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        That camera was CNN’s.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Does that matter?

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Remember, by your own theory, this benefits Democrats.

      2018, 2020, 2022,… are you tired of winning?

  13. M. Purdy Avatar
    M. Purdy

    “Now, let’s let’s consider how the WaPo frames the story as Youngkin “leaping to Trump’s defense.” Youngkin did not leap to Trump’s defense. He said nothing regarding the propriety of the former president’s relationship with a porn star or his payment of hush money. He did not excuse Trump’s actions in any way. He criticized Alvin Bragg for weaponizing the judicial system…. which he did.” This is really splitting hairs–a distinction without a difference. Attacking the DA for politicizing his office is the same as shifting the blame to the prosecutor and away from Trump. That *IS* a defense. And, once again, I repeat my suggestion that BR find a sensible lawyer before going out with statements about “weaponizing” the judicial system, etc. Trump will be charged with over two dozen crimes over the course of the last seven years; that is not an exercise is no harm no foul; that’s a crime spree, and the result of only *one* of *three* concurrent investigations into Trump. So spare us all the legal judgments, BR. Stick to fabricating stories about Virginia colleges.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      It’s okay. Remember Trump attacked the “Mexican” judge in the Trump U. case. He lost.

      Stone tried this tactic. He lost.

      In fact, the end result of EVERY single “political witch hunt” (as labeled by Republicans) ended in a post-conviction Trump issued pardons.

      They’re batting goose eggs.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      It’s okay. Remember Trump attacked the “Mexican” judge in the Trump U. case. He lost.

      Stone tried this tactic. He lost.

      In fact, the end result of EVERY single “political witch hunt” (as labeled by Republicans) ended in a post-conviction Trump issued pardons.

      They’re batting goose eggs.

    3. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      “This is really splitting hairs–a distinction without a difference.”

      It is a difference you clearly fail to understand, which is not a surprise. Bragg’s behavior is no better than Trump’s, but it is very different. He is using public office to do wrong. Trump was able to do wrong all by himself.

      1. M. Purdy Avatar
        M. Purdy

        I’ve noticed that you have a tendency to twist and turn to make moral equivalents out of things that are not. It’s not a good quality.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          You are as wrong about that as most everything you say, Displacement of your own poor behaviors to others is not equity or a good quality.

          1. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            Huh? Don’t follow.

          2. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            That’s not surprising either.

          3. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            Yes, I have a bias towards clear speech and thought (really two sides of the same coin).

          4. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            That must be a very recent development. Congrats on seeing the light. That must also mean you have renounced the woke racism you have espoused. Glad to hear it.

  14. M. Purdy Avatar
    M. Purdy

    At the risk of giving publicity to a dude I generally dislike, the interview that John Reid had with Stephen Benjamin today, a prominent VA defense lawyer, on the Trump indictment was really illuminating and thoughtful. Reid tried to get him to decry the prosecution as a political act, but Benjamin didn’t take the bait and raised a thoughtful question about the propriety of the prosecution itself. https://www.audacy.com/podcast/richmonds-morning-news-with-john-reid-2cc24/episodes/steven-benjamin-april-4-2023-92b01 Worth a listen.

  15. M. Purdy Avatar
    M. Purdy

    MTG and George Santos showed up to the courthouse to protest at the Trump arraignment today. They left after a while when no one showed up. Trump attracts the best of the best….hahahaha

    1. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      and the Dems get the rest. Think dirtbag Joe Morrissey and dumb as a stump Mark Warner. Think also glass houses and throwing stones… hahahaha or sobsobsob for us Indys a pox on both their houses.

  16. M. Purdy Avatar
    M. Purdy

    Following up on the discussion below, I don’t think the charges were all that compelling today. I do think Trump engaged in multiple crimes through covering up hush $$ payments, but the notion that these are felonies because they’re furtherance of another crime (and therefore clear the statute of limitations). Well, that’s TBD. This will be a tough case for the DA.

Leave a Reply