For Trump, ‘Sentence first, verdict afterwards’
The New York Times, June 27, published seven letters on Mr. Trump’s trial before Judge Aileen M. Cannon in Florida in August. Six of them reflected bias against the former president or Judge Cannon; one clearly hoped Judge Cannon would preside over a trial ending in a Trump conviction. The letters appeared under this heading in the print version: “The Judge and the Jury for Trump’s Trial.”
The online heading was “Worrying about the Judge and the Jury for Trump.” In view of the biased tone of the letters, the heading should have read: “Times readers adopt a Queen of Hearts view of Trump Trial: Sentence first, verdict afterwards.”
The opening letter advises readers “to focus on the likely trial in Georgia and [special prosecutor Jack] Smith’s Jan. 6 investigation, because with Judge Cannon presiding, “the chances of conviction and a serious sentence are small[.]”
The second letter, expressing a suspicion about Judge Cannon, ends with this short paragraph: “How dare [Judge Cannon] ignore calls to recuse herself given her record [not clarified by the writer]? She must be removed.”
The third letter, warning without evidence that “Mr. Trump has primed his followers to threaten and intimidate anyone who might oppose him,” worries that “at least some jurors will vote to acquit because they justifiably fear for their safety.”
The fourth letter worries that Judge Cannon might suppress “crucial evidence” because of the need to maintain secrecy on classified documents.
The fifth letter expresses the hope that Judge Cannon “proves all of her naysayers wrong and goes down in history as an amazing jurist.” (Presiding over a trial ending in a conviction of the former president, apparently.)
The sixth letter indicates that the outcome of the Trump trial should not be “complicated” because Mr. Trump lied to “the FBI and DOJ and [obstructed] justice.”
This array of a uniform anti-Trump response from Times’ readers on the forthcoming Trump trial ends with the following declaration: “I already know how I would vote if I were on the jury of the Trump trial. Good luck finding 12 Americans who don’t.”
Is the writer of this seventh letter signaling that former president Trump can’t get a fair trial — not even in the red state of Florida? The tone the other letter-writers indicates that they define a fair trial for the former president as a trial that ends in his conviction and more than “a slap on the wrist.”
Perhaps we should be thankful that none of the letters contains the left’s knee-jerk phrase “no one is above the law.” Note, however, that none of the letters gives to Mr. Trump the presumption of innocence. All the letters indicate the view that when it comes to Donald J. Trump, a fair trial ends in a conviction and stiff sentence.
But how likely is it that these letters would have been printed in the Times if they did not reflect a “sentence first, verdict afterward” mindset? Behold The New York Times — and, alas, its base: enemies of the American system of justice.
