How to Write for the New York Times

[JimBowie1958]

First step, make something up that did not happen.

Step two, insist that someone considered doing that thing,whatever it is.

Step Three, run that as your story no matter how ludicrous or innocent it may be.

So say we were to do a story on Comey considering raping a tied up chimpanzee.

Since we are not saying that he did do it, but only considered it, we dont have to prove ANYTHING at all. Brilliant heh?

And whats even better, say we are accusing him of something that is totally legal to do but slanted it like it was a crime, like Mueller was considering divorcing his wife and becoming a monk in Tibet.

How can Mueller ever prove his inocense?

And then fan the flames of Meuller's haters by suggesting he might have been considering it due to the stress of prosecuting an innocent President, even more hilarious and effective!

That is how you write for the New York Times, CNN or MSNBC, lol.

 

[my2¢]

I didn't get past step 1 before LOL. Now I'll go back and enjoy the rest.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I didn't get past step 1 before LOL. Now I'll go back and enjoy the rest.

Wait, are you considering joining the Alt-Right?

Sounds kinda iffy to me!

 

[usmbguest5318]

First step, make something up that did not happen.

Step two, insist that someone considered doing that thing,whatever it is.

Step Three, run that as your story no matter how ludicrous or innocent it may be.

So say we were to do a story on Comey considering raping a tied up chimpanzee.

Since we are not saying that he did do it, but only considered it, we dont have to prove ANYTHING at all. Brilliant heh?

And whats even better, so we are accusing him of something that is totally legal to do but slanted it like it was a crime, like Mueller was considering divorcing his wife and becoming a monk in Tibet.

How can Mueller ever prove his inocense?

And then fan the flames of Meuller's haters by suggesting he might have been considering it do to the stress of prosecuting an innocent President, even more hilarious and effective!

That is how you write for the New York Times, CNN or MSNBC, lol.

Since we are not saying that he did do it, but only considered it, we dont have to prove ANYTHING at all. Brilliant heh?

If by that remark you are alluding to the recent report of Trump having last year shared with at least one of his top advisors that he was of a mind to fire Mueller and that did so is yet another nail in the "coffin" that may become Trump indeed being guilty of obstructing justice, I ask this: Are you aware that obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor plus intent, not a crime of achievement and intent, or of mere achievement?

• 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
  • 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
    
    In this particular section of federal obstruction codes, one finds the following language "Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States..."
    
    That is the general tone and tenor of, AFAIK, all obstruction of justice statutes.

Because the law is as it is, whether ones successfully obstructs justice -- by a single act or by a collection/sequence/series of acts -- is legally irrelevant because prosecutors are not at trial burdened with proving that one's efforts did obstruct justice. They are not so burdened, if for no other reason, because the mere fact that one has been charged with obstruction (a charge that's difficult to prove, thus one that's not lightly brought) necessarily means that some aspect(s) of one's efforts to do something (criminal or not; e.g., having sex with Monica L. violated no federal laws) and do so undiscovered and unpunished failed.

That obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor is why the disclosure of the fact that Trump considered firing Mueller and that only upon the WH General Counsel (not Trump's personal attorney; the distinction between the two being significant) threatening to resign if Trump sallied forth and fired Mueller. [1]


Note:

1. OT:
   Make no mistake; that WH counsel doesn't remotely strike me as a man of sterling character insofar as he's defended several ethically questionable choices Trump has made. That said, I think he knew full and well that were Trump to have fired Mueller his licence to practice law could very easily have been called into question and possibly revoked.
   
   Quite simply, an attorney cannot be knowingly complicit in or party to an illegal act. Among other common attorney behaviors, not asking an accused criminal whether they did indeed commit the crime with which they've been charged is not among the questions defense attorneys, for example, don't ask their clients. Were they to know one is guilty, and also, on one's behalf, enter a not-guilty plea, and then prevail at trial, they would then be deemed complicit in the commision of their defendant's crime. Once that happens, bye-bye bar membership.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I didn't get past step 1 before LOL. Now I'll go back and enjoy the rest.

Well, in fairness, "steps one through three" struck me as too absurd to construe that JimBowie1958 even meant them as anything other than as an sardonically hyperbolic foil for (1) introducing the actual substantive element of the OP, (2) establishing his position on the actual topic of import, and (3) perhaps some other rhetorical-only purposes. I think that because this thread has been created in the "Current Events" subforum rather than in the "Political Satire" one.

I could, of course, be mistaken in thinking that; however, should I find I am, I sure won't have more to contribute to this thread than I already have.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Gather up your work tools...

 

[usmbguest5318]

I didn't get past step 1 before LOL. Now I'll go back and enjoy the rest.

Well, in fairness, "steps one through three" struck me as too absurd to construe that JimBowie1958 even meant them as anything other than as an sardonically hyperbolic foil for (1) introducing the actual substantive element of the OP, (2) establishing his position on the actual topic of import, and (3) perhaps some other rhetorical-only purposes. I think that because this thread has been created in the "Current Events" subforum rather than in the "Political Satire" one.

I could, of course, be mistaken in thinking that; however, should I find I am, I sure won't have more to contribute to this thread than I already have.

I could, of course, be mistaken in thinking that; however, should I find I am, I sure won't have more to contribute to this thread than I already have.

Well, insofar as the OP-er thinks my comments are funny, I clearly was mistaken in thinking/hoping he entreated for a serious discussion about the law and the nature and extent to which Trump's actions re: firing Mueller impugn his defense against an obstruction charge. Indeed, it seems your, my2¢, and Ridgerunner's remarks are more fitting to the OP-er's intents and desired discussion tack. Oh, well, it's not the first time I hoped a member aimed for a "more elevated" theme only to find s/he had no such aspirations.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I believe ole Xelor needs to be nominated...

 

[Wyatt earp]

First step, make something up that did not happen.

Step two, insist that someone considered doing that thing,whatever it is.

Step Three, run that as your story no matter how ludicrous or innocent it may be.

So say we were to do a story on Comey considering raping a tied up chimpanzee.

Since we are not saying that he did do it, but only considered it, we dont have to prove ANYTHING at all. Brilliant heh?

And whats even better, so we are accusing him of something that is totally legal to do but slanted it like it was a crime, like Mueller was considering divorcing his wife and becoming a monk in Tibet.

How can Mueller ever prove his inocense?

And then fan the flames of Meuller's haters by suggesting he might have been considering it do to the stress of prosecuting an innocent President, even more hilarious and effective!

That is how you write for the New York Times, CNN or MSNBC, lol.

Since we are not saying that he did do it, but only considered it, we dont have to prove ANYTHING at all. Brilliant heh?

If by that remark you are alluding to the recent report of Trump having last year shared with at least one of his top advisors that he was of a mind to fire Mueller and that did so is yet another nail in the "coffin" that may become Trump indeed being guilty of obstructing justice, I ask this: Are you aware that obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor plus intent, not a crime of achievement and intent, or of mere achievement?

• 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
  • 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
    
    In this particular section of federal obstruction codes, one finds the following language "Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States..."
    
    That is the general tone and tenor of, AFAIK, all obstruction of justice statutes.

Because the law is as it is, whether ones successfully obstructs justice -- by a single act or by a collection/sequence/series of acts -- is legally irrelevant because prosecutors are not at trial burdened with proving that one's efforts did obstruct justice. They are not so burdened, if for no other reason, because the mere fact that one has been charged with obstruction (a charge that's difficult to prove, thus one that's not lightly brought) necessarily means that some aspect(s) of one's efforts to do something (criminal or not; e.g., having sex with Monica L. violated no federal laws) and do so undiscovered and unpunished failed.

That obstruction of justice is a crime of endeavor is why the disclosure of the fact that Trump considered firing Mueller and that only upon the WH General Counsel (not Trump's personal attorney; the distinction between the two being significant) threatening to resign if Trump sallied forth and fired Mueller. [1]


Note:

1. OT:
   Make no mistake; that WH counsel doesn't remotely strike me as a man of sterling character insofar as he's defended several ethically questionable choices Trump has made. That said, I think he knew full and well that were Trump to have fired Mueller his licence to practice law could very easily have been called into question and possibly revoked.
   
   Quite simply, an attorney cannot be knowingly complicit in or party to an illegal act. Among other common attorney behaviors, not asking an accused criminal whether they did indeed commit the crime with which they've been charged is not among the questions defense attorneys, for example, don't ask their clients. Were they to know one is guilty, and also, on one's behalf, enter a not-guilty plea, and then prevail at trial, they would then be deemed complicit in the commision of their defendant's crime. Once that happens, bye-bye bar membership.

Hillary deleted emails used bleachbit and you are telling us with a straight face that was not intent ? But Trump mentions something that's intent?

 

[my2¢]

I didn't get past step 1 before LOL. Now I'll go back and enjoy the rest.

Wait, are you considering joining the Alt-Right?

Sounds kinda iffy to me!

That's pretty good but I can assure you I'd be kick out for enjoying Morning Edition. Otherwise I'm not a big fan of today's journalism, no matter what the ideology.

 

[Ridgerunner]