Over the weekend a number of left-leaning media outlets stunned by the President’s debate performance wrote that it’s now time for President Biden to step aside. The biggest shock came from the New York Times’ Editorial Board calling for Joe Biden to walk away.
This is an amazing Olympic medal-winning backflip by the paper which has spent the better part of the spring and early summer pushing back harshly on anyone raising questions about Biden’s competency.
This is not a column about Biden and his campaign. Viewers of the debate can come to their own conclusion. This is a column about what the hell was going on in the New York Times’ newsroom and its Editorial Board.
First, here a few unassailable facts. The Times has arguably the largest Washington D.C. reporting staff, has ready access to the White House and let’s say - diplomatically - wholeheartedly cheers for the blue team.
Just this month, the Times picked a very public fight with the Wall Street Journal over what appeared to be a very well-documented story about Biden’s mental sharpness.
On June 4th, the WSJ published an article “Behind closed doors, Biden shows signs of slipping”. The Journal story was based on interviews over several months with 45 people who were in meetings with the President or were briefed on the details in those encounters.
The NYT punched back with a flurry of denials all containing defiant quotes from the White House and Democratic operatives calling it “Republicans election year messaging strategy”. The New York Times headline read “Special Counsel Report ‘Went Off the Rails,’ Biden’s Lawyer Says”.
Now also keep in mind the rabid hostile coverage of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s February report regarding the mishandling of classified documents. Hur refused to file charges in part because he described the President as a “sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory”.
A few days after the release, celebrated NYT columnist Paul Krugman lashed out: the language in his column, bordering on hysteria, called “Why I am now deeply worried for America”. His lead sentence: “The frenzy over President Biden’s age is a very bad sign”.
Given the NYT editorial coverage of its rival newspaper this month and the defensive posture this winter, the only logical conclusion is that the paper’s editors suddenly saw a dramatic decline in the President’s acuity in the last several to three weeks. Does that really seem probable?
Or instead, were there frequent indications of the President’s decline that the “Grey Lady” chose to ignore?
In the criminal justice system that behavior can be a crime. It’s called willful blindness or sometimes conscious avoidness.
The law maintains that a person can be found guilty of a crime where they reasonably should have been aware of the criminal nature at hand.
Here’s the celebrated case that upheld that principle. In 1976 Charles Jewell was approached on the southern side of the U.S. Mexican border and was solicited to buy marijuana. He declined. But when asked to drive a small package across the border a few miles away, he gladly accepted the payment and headed north.When the police stopped him back in the U.S. he claimed he did not know what was in the package in the trunk.
This lead to a famous jury instruction know as the “Ostrich Instruction” which said the requirement of knowledge to establish a guilty mind is satisfied by “deliberate ignorance” or willful blindness. Not surprisingly Jewell fought his conviction, but the Appellate court gave him the back of its hand, writing “deliberate ignorance and positive knowledge are equally culpable”.
I am not a lawyer, I only know about this legal theory because I once had a lobbying client facing deportation because of a similar conviction. In his case the Wisconsin businessman was convicted of willfully turning a blind eye to a scheme where a U.S. government official had been illegally skimming a portion of a federal grant directed at health research.. Anyone glancing at the accounting records could see money was missing. Because he was in ill health and over 80, he was able to stay in the U.S., despite Immigration law saying he could be deported for the crime.
So take your choice. Either the New York Times wasn’t particularly good at ferreting out the truth under the watchful eyes of its massive bureau or it decided to ignore the facts to cover up an uncomfortable narrative.
This is an interesting set of facts. I think we were all a bit surprised by the debate last week and Biden’s reaction. I however seem steadfast in my belief that Biden is a more capable and knowledgeable candidate for this election. Trump has volumes of flaws that are inexcusable. He is basically a criminal.
In response to Robert Hur he is a special counsel not a neurologist or a psychiatrist. His opinion. I think the travel from Europe to the west coast and back alone would be exhausting let alone with obligations of a President, and he picked up a cold and was basically having a hard time focusing and staying awake.
I think he deserves another chance and the benefit of doubt in regards to “sudden dementia”.
A great article to think about.
Thanks Scott