The New York Times and Trump: The Same As It Ever Was

 

 

 

Here is the link to the new (March 5, 2022) article in The New York Times explaining why Alvin Bragg, the elected Manhattan District Attorney, is not seeking an indictment against Donald Trump for allegedly having inflated the value of his properties when he sought bank financing. See Ben Protess, William K. Rashbaum, and Jonah E. Bromwich, ‘How the Manhattan D.A.’s Investigation Into Donald Trump Unraveled,’ The New York Times (Mar. 5, 2022), <https://tinyurl.com/2p8tshfw>. The March 5 article tells the same tale that it had reported in its February 23, 2022 article. Not just the same tale, but the same tale by the same three reporters. See William K. Rashbaum, Ben Protess, Jonah E. Bromwich, Kate Christobek, and Nate Schweber, ‘2 Prosecutors Leading N.Y. Trump Inquiry Resign, Clouding Case’s Future,’ The New York Times (Feb. 23, 2022), <https://tinyurl.com/2y7h36ep>.

 

The basic thread of both New York Times stories is that two dedicated, experienced frontline prosecutors—Dunne and Pomerantz—albeit both holding temporary appointments in the Manhattan district attorney’s office—were ready to seek an extension from the judge having supervisory authority over the soon-to-expire Trump-related grand jury. They wanted to extend the life of the grand jury in order to continue the Manhattan district attorney’s investigation. According to the three New York Times reporters, the newly elected Bragg stopped the two prosecutors from seeking an extension; instead, Bragg will allow the grand jury to expire absent any indictment against Trump.

 

The problem with the New York Times’ story is that the known facts are equally consistent with the opposite story. The alternative view is that the frontline prosecutors realized that they had no case, and they were unwilling to seek an extension from the judge having supervisory authority over the grand jury. Bragg may have ordered them to seek an extension or be fired. Having no good faith basis to seek a judicial extension of the grand jury proceedings, the prosecutors chose to resign.

 

Rashbaum, Protess, and Bromwich and The New York Times would have us believe that it is Bragg, along with some of the permanent staff prosecutors in Bragg’s office, that are holding up the investigation and a Trump indictment. But these three reporters do not explain how they arrived at that conclusion. The three New York Times reporters don’t explain who their source is or who their sources are, or how many sources they have, and who they work for. Or what interest they may have for anonymously communicating their information to the media. Because the reader does not know who the sources are, the reader cannot evaluate the sources’ potential biases. Was Bragg a source? Someone on Bragg’s staff? Were Pomerantz or Dunne sources? Or one of their underlings or associates in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office? A grand juror? Or someone in a supervisory role over the grand jury? The judge?—or, someone on the judge’s staff? We don’t know, and three New York Times reporters won’t tell us. There is not even a vague statement by the three New York Times reporters along the lines that the reporters’ findings were “confirmed by multiple highly placed sources in the District Attorney’s office.” Indeed, the three reporters’ March 2022 article has no discussion of sources at all. It is as if the whole story fell into the three reporters’ collective lap as manna from heaven.

 

For example, the article by the three New York Times reporters discusses e-mails sent by or to their narrative’s central players. But their article does not explain if the three reporters actually viewed these e-mails or if they were merely characterized by unnamed sources.

 

A prosecutor’s revealing confidential grand jury testimony material is, at least, civil contempt of court, if not criminal contempt of court. [See <https://sgp.fas.org/crs/secrecy/R45456.pdf>.] One might think that Bragg’s, Pomerantz’s, Dunne’s, their underlings’ or colleagues’, or some judge’s or judicial staff person’s disclosing confidential prosecutorial deliberations and the nature of what information was put before a grand jury was itself the story—or, at least, a story (among others) worth exploring. But, no, that would require some introspection. And we cannot have that at The New York Times.

Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘The New York Times and Trump: The Same As It Ever Was,’ New Reform Club (Mar. 6, 2022, 5:18 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2022/03/the-new-york-times-and-trump-same-as-it.html>; 

My prior post: Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘The Manhattan District Attorney’s Trump Probe,’ New Reform Club (Feb. 25, 2022, 8:54 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-manhattan-district-attorneys-trump.html>;