There was no TDS Meltdown column last week and there was a good reason for that. I write these on Wednesday or Thursday, and I spent both of those days taking Mr. and Mrs. VodkaPundit and two of their best friends on a food and booze tour of my hometown. This should be the last time I use that as an excuse for something. Should be.
For those who missed it, here’s a video of your two PJ Media senior columnists deep in our day-drinking cups. A good time was had by all.
Full disclosure: as I do my morning perusal of the Opinion sections of The New York Times and The Washington Post, I almost always wish that I were day drinking. Breakfast drinking. Whatever.
Because the mainstream media mouthpieces are all obeying the same orders from the Democratic National Committee, we don’t often see many variations on the prevailing Trump Derangement Syndrome narrative theme. For months it’s mostly been: Dictator, Hitler, Threat to Democracy, lather, rinse, repeat.
They really do get in a lather too, don’t they?
This week’s “winner” is a guest essay in the Times Opinion section. It’s written by Kevin Boyle, who is a history professor. Where The New York Times and Academia meet, very little sense and reality is to be found.
Interpretations of history are always subjective. Here in the 21st century, and in the hands of leftist academics, they tend to be self-indulgent works of fiction. It’s safe to say that history and political science professors have been the primary drivers behind the unhinged, ignorant anti-Semitic protests on America’s college campuses.
It’s OK, I’m sure that Prof. Boyle isn’t a big fan of conservative comedian/writer types.
This op-ed is really a long plug for a book that Boyle published in 2021. As an avowed capitalist, I will always support the right of people to pimp their work and make some extra scratch. Yes, even lefty academics. However, in my less-than-humble opinion, Boyle really reaches to tie what Donald Trump is going through to Richard Nixon’s political demise.
Worst of all, it doesn’t speak to Mr. Trump’s actions as president, as the other cases do. But as the Supreme Court oral arguments on immunity last week made clear, it is likely to be the only one the country will see resolved before Election Day.
As a historian who has written about the wrenching events of the 1960s and early 1970s, I can’t help seeing Mr. Trump’s legal troubles through the lens of an earlier Republican president, Richard Nixon. He spent more than two years, from the summer of 1972 to the summer of ’74, trying to prevent investigators from uncovering the tangle of crimes that made up the Watergate affair. But unlike Mr. Trump, Mr. Nixon never faced criminal charges. For that, justice suffered, and the nation suffered, too.
So here we are, watching unfold in Justice Juan Merchan’s utilitarian courtroom the narrow, tawdry version of the trials the nation ought to have had this year and the trial the nation should have had 50 years ago.
Boyle acknowledges that the current trial is the weakest of the cases that the Dems are hitting Trump with. Of course, they’re all weak, but he knows who’s buttering his bread. Because the law and justice mean nothing to the Left, Boyle wants this garbage case against Trump to set an example because it’s going to be the only one before the election.
Without realizing it, they keep admitting that it’s really about election interference.
Boyle spends the rest of the article conflating the Trump and Nixon situations, as well as dutifully parroting narrative talking points about the George Floyd Summer of Mostly Peaceful Riots and Love and the “privilege” that’s getting Trump through the legal travails.
Like I said, not a lot of reality to be found here.
Here is Professor Lapdog’s conclusion:
No verdict in the Manhattan Trump case can undo the disillusionment with the system of justice that followed Mr. Ford’s pardon of Mr. Nixon. But the trial can, in its imperfect way, right the wrong of half a century ago, when the system last had its chance to prove that even the most powerful man in America is subject to its laws — especially when that man is so eager to take advantage of the politics of law and order. And there is a measure of justice in that.
President Ford’s pardon of Nixon was the adult and right thing to do. Only frothing leftists felt disillusioned.
There is no justice in wanting to use a sham trial that perverts the law in order to make an example of a man because he’s a political enemy.
There is only a totalitarian dagger in the heart of the United States Constitution in that.
We’ll keep on top of the Left’s media bias narrative machine. You can help PJ Media by becoming a part of our VIP subscriber family. Subscribe here and use the promo code CENSORSHIP for a huge 50% discount.
Click the button below to get the Morning Briefing emailed to you every weekday. Have your coffee with me, people. It’s free and it supports conservative media!