Ethics Villain? “Bias makes you stupid”? “Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!”? Unethical Quote of the Month? Oh, let’s start with that one:

“Donald Trump, who relentlessly undermined the justice system while in office and since, is enjoying the same protections and guarantees of fairness and due process before the law that he sought to deny to others during his term.”

—-The New York Times editorial board, in yesterday’s biased, manipulative, Trump-Deranged misinformation-fest titled, “Donald Trump and American Justice”

This is no more and no less that a “WE HATE YOU TRUMP! HATE HATE HATE!” statement. As President, Trump never did anything to “deny fairness and due process” to “others.” The claim to the contrary not journalism and it’s not punditry. It is just hurling accusations without support. Yet the Times editorial board never protested when President Obama used his “bully pulpit” to suggest that American citizens were guilty of crimes before they had been tried or even charged, as in the case of George Zimmerman. The editorial provides no examples or evidence to support the statement, because there aren’t any.

The entire editorial is based on contrived ignorance, or deliberate dishonesty. The Times really believes it is persuasive to celebrate the reliability of juries in communities strongly inclined toward a particular verdict just days after O.J. Simpson’s death reminded us that his jurors acquitted him substantially as “payback”!

The Times recounts the various prosecutions of the previous President (and major obstacle to continued Democratic Party puppet rule). Strangely, it never mentions the rather critical fact that all of the prosecutions have been brought by Democrats, and that the array reeks of using the law as a partisan weapon, which figures, since that is what is going on. Trump is not verbally adept, so the Times’ quibble about his use of “witch hunt” is defensible (though I don’t think it’s a bad description of making specious and dubious accusations to destroy a public figure’s reputation), but an objective paper, especially one that purports to be the pinnacle of journalistic excellence, might mention that every one of the cases against Trump are contrived.

The civil case involving an alleged sexual assault was only brought after the statute of limitations was lifted, probably so that Trump could be sued. The current trial also required suspicious manipulation to be weaponized: the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor had run, so the alleged crime was bounced up to a felony. The kind of election law violation that Trump is accused of has been specifically rejected when Democrats have been involved, as in the spectacular case of John Edwards, who paid to have his mistress pretend that the father of his love child was another man recruited by Edwards for the role, while the then-Senator was running for President and had a wife dying of cancer. As Jonathan Turley recently pointed out, the “star” witness for the prosecution will be Michael Cohen, a serial perjurer: that alone would lead any prosecutor without a partisan agenda to drop the case against Trump.

The documents case is obviously tainted by the fact that Joe Biden committed the same violation, and arguably worse. The Georgia election interference case against Trump has become a clown show, thanks to the unprofessional conduct of a Fulton County DA who hasn’t even tried to hide her personal and political bias. Jack Smith’s federal prosecution of Trump may be the most contrived of all. How could the Times editorial board write, “[Trump] portrays himself as a victim of an unfair and politically motivated prosecution. That defense is built on lies. Mr. Trump is no victim. He is fortunate to live in a country where the rule of law guarantees a presumption of innocence and robust rights for defendants” without all of them breaking out in giggles and guffaws?

The Times has not only always portrayed Trump as guilty of whatever Big Lie the Axis was pushing at the time, it is talking about multiple prosecutions of the #1 threat to the Democratic Party’s totalitarian aspirations as the Times’ favorite party tries to hold on to the Presidency with its metaphorical fingernails, bolstering a doddering, mumbling, intellectually declining (if it is even reasonable to use the word “intellectually” in reference to Joe Biden) figurehead who makes the ancient USSR premiers of dark days past seem like Jack Kennedy in his prime by comparison.

And what a coinkydink! All of the prosecutions are occurring in an election year, interfering with Trump’s ability to inform the public and rally support, while crippling his finances!

The editorial is stuffed with similarly hypocritical statements. “A guiding principle of the American experiment is that the law applies to everyone equally,” for example. Sure. The Democrats are interfering with an election by trying to convict their chief rival of interfering with an election. The special counsel who investigated Biden’s classified document games concluded that he was guilty, but “the law applies to everyone equally.”

Most ridiculous and obvious of all is the Times extolling the fairness of the legal system once it has been activated while ignoring the central issue of whether it should be used against Trump at all.

Let me turn over the post to Ann Althouse, whom I now notice commented on this despicable editorial yesterday while I was out looking for ways to afford my expensive ethics addiction. She states the issue well, and saves me some typing. She wrote in part,

Trump’s assertion that the prosecution is “unfair and politically motivated” may be true even if the court carries out its duties perfectly. Trump may be “fortunate to live in a country” that has some dedication to the rule of law, but that doesn’t deprive him of the reason to complain that the prosecution seems politically motivated. Again, even if the court perfectly carries out its obligation to the rule of law, Trump is motivated to cry out about the onerous prosecutions, which are undercutting his ability to campaign for the presidency.

Trump has made these complaints part of his campaign. And don’t most Americans, at this point, agree that the prosecutions are politically motivated? Will anyone change their mind because the New York Times Editorial Board assures them that we’ve got the rule of law in this country and Trump, the criminal defendant, has “robust rights”?

It’s too far gone. And it’s painful to watch.

Exactly. I am increasingly approaching the conclusion that Americans who are really concerned about preserving democracy must vote for Donald Trump, as repulsive and untrustworthy as he is, as the only way to impress upon Democrats and the rest of the Axis that their tactics are intolerable as well as antithetical to core American values.

[I took down the paywall on the editorial, so click with confidence.]