Another interesting question: will it exceed sales for Tapper’s stupid book?

That’s one way to end the War on Christmas

Oh agreed. My comment was wondering about how many stories we see in prestigious outlets like the Times originate from these kinds of companies. I’m guessing it’s more than zero

Iirc that was an under explored angle of the Times’s Justin Baldoni-Blake Lively investigation. I was like, really interesting piece…so, how many Times stories are driven by these crisis PR firms?

We’re already in the bad place resulting from the back and forth, because the administration is full of lawless cranks who want to persecute their enemies. Also, I’d have had much more sympathy for this position before Garland slow walked us into Trump dodging (much deserved) criminal liability

This is some weak ass merrick garland brain

But as the excerpt acknowledges, they’re breaking the law! We need specific deterrence so these same people don’t staff the next Republican administration and break it again. Trump might drop dead in a few years but his criminal hatchet-men will be around for decades absent accountability

A useful rule of thumb for a 13 justice court when considering what cases from the Roberts/Rehnquist era deserve any kind of precedential deference!

Citizens United and even Rucho fall into the first category, whereas Bush v Gore, Shelby County and Trump v US are in the latter

When we look at the current era of right wing SCOTUS control (1991-present), I think it’s worth separating the cases that, imo, are very wrong but are defensible under a conservative judicial philosophy from the ideological power grabs that cannot be defended with a straight face

Ultimately the problem is this: the paper is controlled not by scrupulous reporters but by a clique of Leonhardt types, who surround themselves with chattering class nitwits, cogitate on the news mostly through insular group chats and similar, and always think the GOP has at least half a point

Hey the NYT politics team was running important articles back then www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/u...

I don’t understand how someone who follows politics *for a living* can still be regurgitating middle school social studies talking points about the purpose of the Senate instead of, you know, looking at how the Senate actually operates in real life.