Opinion: New York Post editorial should worry Trump

The conservative-leaning daily is not a random anti-MAGA publication; it instead gave Trump full approval when he ran for re-election in 2020 while saying a Joe Biden administration “would be beholden to a socialist left.”
The New York Post is a tabloid that reaches Trump voters where they are. The newspaper, founded in 1801 by Alexander Hamilton, has a reputation for attracting working-class readers. In 2021, the post described itself as the sixth largest newspaper in the United States, claiming that more than 80 million people read its content online each month.

One thing about the New York Post that Trump should be concerned about is something from his own playbook: He doesn’t hold back when he slams people — even someone like the ex-president he once championed. The newspaper is known for using clear, direct language and powerful framing — and that’s exactly what it deployed in its Trump-crushing op-ed. The editorial began:

“As his supporters stormed the Capitol, calling for the hanging of his vice president, President Donald Trump sat in his private dining room, watching television, doing nothing.

“For three hours, seven minutes.”

The Post specified the time in hours — instead of saying “187 minutes” as lawmakers did during Thursday’s House committee hearing — to more clearly delineate the time that elapsed between the when Trump finished his speech on Jan. 6 and when he finally released a video at 4:17 p.m. urging his supporters to go home.

To say the least, “three hours, seven minutes” seems much longer than 187 minutes – the time increment that most politicians and media players use to measure Trump’s inaction – and the Post gets it.

From there, the editorial got worse for Trump. In his scathing rebuke, he pointed out that Trump was the only person who could have stopped his angry supporters, but he only made it worse.

“To his eternal shame, as appalled aides implored him to publicly call on his supporters to go home, he instead fanned the flames further” by tweeting that his vice president, Mike Pence, did not have the ” courage” to block the congress. certification of victory from Biden’s Electoral College.

The Post wrote that Trump’s indefensible purpose through it all was “to find any way — to hell with the consequences — to block the peaceful transfer of power.” Emphasizing that the Department of Justice must pronounce on possible criminal behavior, the newspaper’s editorial board concluded that “in principle, in principle characterTrump has proven himself unworthy to be the chief executive of this country again.”

Did the January 6 hearings hurt Trump's political prospects?  Don't count on it
That assessment alone would be troubling to the former president who reportedly set to announce plans soon to launch a candidacy for the 2024 election to get his old job back. But shortly after the New York Post published his story, the editorial board of another Murdoch publication, The Wall Street Journalalso criticized Trump in an op-ed titled “The President Who Shut Down Jan. 6.”

The Journal wrote that, of all of Trump’s condemnable behavior presented by the Jan. 6 committee over the past few weeks, “the most gruesome” were the witnesses describing how “as the riot raged…he sat in front of the television, posting inflammatory tweets and refusing to send aid.”

These editorials align with the chilling story painted by the Jan. 6 committee of a president refusing to act as his supporters brutally beat officers and besiege the seat of our nation’s legislature. Trump made no calls to law enforcement or the National Guard, the committee said. He did not summon his staff to find ways to stop the attack. He did not immediately post a video demanding his supporters go home – despite calls from a host of his advisers and Washington officials for him to do just that, including his White House lawyer and his wife. daughter Ivanka.

No, he watched the attack unfold on TV for hours.

Common sense tells us that if Trump had been troubled by attacks by his supporters, he would have used his immense power as president to stop them. There is no “other side” to this story. No ambiguity. In fact, even in his flurry of online postings after Thursday’s hearing – although he attacked various participants of the hearing – he did not rebut the accusation that he sat on his hands during the attack.

One thing is perfectly clear at this point: either people support Donald Trump or they support the United States of America. There is no overlap. Even the New York Post, a former Trump fan, tells us the ex-president’s behavior that day is indefensible.


About Author

Comments are closed.