My reply to this article is inline, below. Formatting of the article has been changed to facilitate reply. By Harry Litman I have been a contributor to the Los Angeles Times op-ed page in some fashion for more than 15 years. For the last three years, I have been the Senior Legal Columnist, writing regular weekly columns about Trump’s legal troubles, the Supreme Court, and a wide range of other topics. The Times also permitted me to cover Trump’s trial in New York and the 2024 Democratic convention. From wikipedia.org (Abbreviated): Harry P. Litman (born c. 1958)[1] is an American lawyer, law professor and political commentator. He is a former U.S. Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Litman is married to Julie Roskies Litman, a mathematician,[49] three time jiu jitsu world champion,[50] and former professional bass player. Roskies Litman graduated summa cum laude from Yale University with a double major in philosophy and mathematics. My editors have been skilled, quick, and fair. I have been able to write whatever I like, including blistering criticism of Donald Trump. I’ve been proud of my work and proud to be part of the Times, the most prominent and storied newspaper west of the Mississippi. It’s got gravitas—and 45 Pulitzers to show for it The Pulitzer Prizes[1] (/ˈpʊlɪtsər/[2]) are 23 annual awards given by Columbia University in New York for achievements in the United States in "journalism, arts and letters." - wikipedia.org —combined with a California flair that complements the constant variety and zaniness of my adopted state. Do tell us more about this "Zaniness". But I have written my last op-ed for the Times. Yesterday, I resigned my position. I don’t want to continue to work for a paper that is appeasing Trump and facilitating his assault on democratic rule for craven reasons. Interesting contrast between Trump and the author of this article, Harry Litman. Trump is financially independent, been sued, impeached, charged with crimes, yet persists in his aspirations, seemingly risking everything. Harry resigned because the owner decided to "Appease Trump", yet has not mentioned, at least so far, what his risk would be in staying at the Times. My resignation is a protest and visceral reaction against the conduct of the paper’s owner, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong. Soon-Shiong has made several moves to force the paper, over the forceful objections of his staff, into a posture more sympathetic to Donald Trump. "Visceral reaction"? "Forceful objections"? Clearly reasons enough, it seems. Is this really simply a case of Trump is bad and anyone who supports, or at least anyone who is not actively "Protesting" Trump is bad? As such, Harry feels compelled to effectively "Run away"? Yes, Harry is no Donald, it seems. Those moves can’t be defended as the sort of policy adjustment papers undergo from time to time, and that an owner, within limits, is entitled to influence. The above statements demand specifics: "Can't be defended" and "Within limits", such as related to Why? and how? "Entitled to influence" has a whole different meaning to others outside Harry's close circle, I'd venture. Given the existential stakes for our democracy that I believe Trump’s second term poses, and the evidence that Soon-Shiong is currying favor with the President-elect, they are repugnant and dangerous. Fundamentally, the author saying "I believe" here should reconcile why most voters do not share his opinion. With 85% or so of negative press coverage against Trump, is it not fair to say such concerns reached the public? Concerns the author has expressed many times over the years in his editorials? Soon-Shiong’s most notorious action received national attention. The paper’s editorial department had drafted an endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. Soon-Shiong ordered them to spike it and make no endorsement in the election. (Soon-Shiong later implied he had just ordered up a factual analysis of both candidates’ policies, but that’s at best a distortion: he plainly blocked an already drafted Harris endorsement.) It is hard to imagine a more brutal, humiliating, and unprofessional treatment of a paper’s professional staff. Three members of the editorial page resigned in protest and 2,000 readers canceled their subscriptions. "Most notorious action". Hell of a characterization by Harry for the owner's decision to not endorse a Presidential candidate! Was the owner considering "silly things" like let the people decide or not risking pissing off advertisers? Owners participate in setting overall editorial direction. But it’s a grave insult to the independence and integrity of an editorial department for an owner to force it to withdraw a considered and drafted opinion. And of course, this was no ordinary opinion. The endorsement of a presidential candidate is an editorial department’s most important decision, so the slight was deep. Here I'll just underline the author's comments. Readers can decide how they feel about this. It was also a deep insult to the paper’s readership. Like any major paper, the Times has a coherent and consistent line of reasoning to its editorial decisions. That can include idiosyncratic departures on particular issues. Where Trump was concerned, the paper had presented to its readers a long series of opinions that set out, with force and nuance, the great dangers of his return to office. That line of analysis culminated logically in the endorsement of Harris. For the Times to lead its readers to the finish line only to step off the track was bizarre and disrespectful. Questionable characterizations aside, the author seemingly believes changing course is wrong. At least when it comes to Trump. By far the most important problem with Soon-Shiong’s scrapping of the editorial was the apparent motivation. It is untenable to suggest that Soon-Shiong woke up with sudden misgivings over Harris’s criminal justice record or with newfound affection for Trump’s immigration proposals. The plain inference, and the one that readers and national observers have adopted, is that he wanted to hedge his bets in case Trump won—not even to protect the paper’s fortunes but rather his multi-billion-dollar holdings in other fields. It seems evident that he was currying favor with Trump and capitulating to the President-elect’s well-known pettiness and vengefulness. The characterization of "Plain inference" seems misleading. Why not ask the question to the owner and relay his answer or non answer? If the author was fired or even quit by not being allowed to write the owner's non answer, reader sympathy would likely increase and author's cause gaining validation. Trump has made it clear that he will make trouble for media outlets that cross him. Rather than reacting with indignation at this challenge to his paper’s critical function in a democracy, Soon-Shiong threw the paper to the wolves. That was cowardly. US Media credibility is likely near all time lows. Media reforms are needed. If the media is to be believed! Grin. Many journalists, more likely long term career journalists, feel there should be a way to fairly compel the media to return to sound, well established, Democracy protecting practices. How do you, the reader feel about the current state of journalistic integrity? If one says MSNBC or Fox is better, they may be missing the point. Journalistic integrity must be maintained industry wide to avoid counter productive social actions based upon false narratives, for example. And his decision had a sort of force multiplier effect with the similar conduct by Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos, who rammed a similar non-endorsement decision down the throat of his editorial staff. There as well, there was no argument that the intervention was based on sensible policy contrast between Trump and Harris. History will record it as a self-serving protection of other holdings, which, as in the case of Soon-Shiong’s, dwarf the newspaper itself. Has not the policy of non endorsement been with us for hundreds of years in the US? We managed as a Democracy, speaking loosely for recent times perhaps. What if the owner wanted an endorsement that editorial staff opposed? Would have the author's path been any different? Seems to me, a policy of non endorsement is good middle ground for a media outlet wanting to appear less biased. Before joining the Times, I was a contributing commentator for the Post. We used to say there, tongue-in-cheek, that our billionaire was better than their billionaire, meaning Bezos was more aware of his public responsibility and more hands-off in his oversight. As it turns out, both billionaires flinched when the chips were down, choosing to appease, not oppose, a criminal President with patent authoritarian ambitions. Is the author insinuating a "conspiracy of billionaires" here? This would be a fair question to directly ask, as billionaire perceived needs likely differ from perceived needs of the public on many issues. The age old question of the wisdom of the few elite versus the many decisions of many constituents as a "guiding hand" comes to mind. My understanding is the principle of guiding hand is behind our economic system, especially earlier in our nation's history. Would it be fair to apply this system for political candidate selection? Before he has even taken office, Trump has faced down two of the country’s most prominent newspapers, inducing them to back off longstanding, well-reasoned editorial opposition. That is terrifying. The above statement is worth a detailed editorial. Give us the five W's. Who. What. Where. When. Why. Throw us a "How" as well, if so inclined. As a commentator, especially one dedicated to constitutional norms and the rule of law, I have spent much of the last couple of years arguing that Trump is a genuine menace to our constitutional system. November 5 showed that a narrow majority of Americans who voted disagree or don’t care. So we need a way of overruling or influencing these "misguided" voters? Yet here in Southern California and in Washington, D.C., we have evidence of tangible erosion of social guardrails in real time. Trump is in the process of commandeering and corrupting institutions of government and civil society that we have always counted on to nurture our democracy. We been repeatedly told by the media how stupid Trump is. Am I reading this wrong or is the author really suggesting Trump has out maneuvered the majority of media outlets? Or is it more likely people are simply not buying what the Leftist media is selling them? Is the author's proposed solution going to be "Propagandize harder"? Look closely at this already deeply eroded landscape: all the electoral branches are not only Republican but firmly within Trump’s fist and dedicated to loyalty to him over any principle of governance. The Supreme Court has assisted his authoritarian initiatives in ways that the legal profession and society as a whole have condemned. His current nomination process is seeking openly to cut the Senate, even its Republican members, out of their constitutional advice-and-consent role. Love the "Firmly within Trump's fist" characterization here. It is my semi-informed opinion, based upon visiting the offices of several Republican Senators and Representatives, that principles of governance will be adhered to over political loyalty to Trump. Everyone knows Trump has issues. Trump also has great capabilities. Doesn't he? For the moment, the best hopes for desperately needed pushback lie with federal law enforcement, the lower federal courts, the military, and (an economically weakened) mainstream media. All this is material for another Substack, but Trump has taken dead aim at imposing loyalty to him as the defining feature of the first three, including a proposal to permit him to discharge generals who are not, as he put it, sufficiently like “Hitler’s generals.” We need judicial and investigative agency reform. We need to reduce the influence of politics and DEI in our institutions. Our military readiness and credibility has been eroded by transgender generals and counterproductive policy that has hurt recruiting efforts. So the role and responsibility of the media have never been greater. And if major outlets can be bought off and made to cower, the impact on our liberty—and freedom of thought—is in grave jeopardy. A more refined take here would include the words "Traditional journalistic practices" instead of Media. Thus far, I have analyzed only Soon-Shiong’s most notorious and visible action of scuttling the endorsement. That put him in lock step with Bezos. But he has combined it with a general program of cozying up to Trump, especially since the election. Soon-Shiong ordered the shelving of a multi-part series, intended to run with the endorsement but broader and of a piece with the editorial page’s opinion over the last several years, which had been entitled, “The Case Against Trump.” His spiking of the series was part of the explanation given by the editorial board members who resigned. Perhaps the author should mention the Lincoln Project here. There is more: Soon-Shiong went on Fox News after the election to talk about the paper’s editorial direction. He advocated “diverse perspectives” in the editorial pages and voices from across the political spectrum to avoid creating an "echo chamber." Most alarmingly, and escaping the notice of no one, he pandered to Fox and Trump by saying he wanted to make the Times more “fair and balanced.” How dare he! Soon-Shiong followed up by hiring a noted pro-Trump commentator, Scott Jennings, for some as yet ill-defined role of “balancing out” the views on the editorial page. Then most recently, during an interview on CNN in which he was asked about the Jennings hire, the normally mild-mannered Soon-Shiong went full Trump, labeling the CNN correspondent a "so-called reporter" before abruptly ending the interview. It is just me, or does the author seem to be unraveling in the last few paragraphs? Soon-Shiong’s argument for all these moves is to create “balance” on the editorial page, which still remains unstaffed and in chaos, and a neutral, “just the facts” approach to news. It sounds banal, but in fact, it is pernicious; and it goes to the heart of my reasons for leaving. Ah, so the author sees the reporting of facts is not enough. Facts are a effectively a path towards fascism? The end of Democracy? Remember, the author was a prosecutor. How many more prosecutors are there that share this author's beliefs? Perhaps some that prosecuted Trump? Reforms, anyone? First, the idea of balance is fundamentally misplaced when on one side of the balance is a sociopathic liar like Donald Trump. The media has struggled for years to figure out how to call out Trump’s incessant lies while still covering the contentious issues of the day. There’s good reason to think that the propagation of those lies, some of which Trump simply picks up from fringe social media sites and Fox News, influenced the results of the election. The people who voted for Trump were fed a relentless false account of issue after issue, including Trump’s signature distortions about immigrants (eating pets, committing a disproportionate number of violent crimes), which Fox News and right-wing social media parroted relentlessly. I am literally laughing now. There are valid issues for journalistically inclined media to be vigilant on, but the key is to successfully address media's current credibility problem. In that context, the bromide of just being balanced is a terrible dereliction of journalists’ first defining responsibility of reporting the truth. Soon-Shiong apparently would have the Times deliver an on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand presentation to readers. But there is no “other hand.” Trump is an inveterate liar, and journalists have a defining responsibility to call that out. These are not normal times. Look around. We are in the political, cultural, and legal fight of our lifetimes. Trump’s conduct since winning the election only reinforces his determination to replace constitutional rule with some form of authoritarian rule. That needn’t be 1933 Germany, an analogy that typically draws counter-charges of excessive drama (though the existence of certain overlapping features is inescapable). There are other models of democratic demise, ones that Trump obviously wants to emulate, such as Hungary’s slide toward authoritarianism over the last 20 years. Interesting choice of words given all of Trump's impeachment, civil, and criminal trials that many believed were primarily politically motivated. Again, we need effective reforms so our judicial and investigative agencies are no longer hijacked for political purposes. Organized crime and Nation state imperatives benefit when our systems of Government are compromised or worse yet, attacking us from within. We are currently like an animal eating its own tail, it seems. So the neutral posture that Soon-Shiong uses to justify his violence to the paper is exactly, fundamentally wrong. This is no time for neutrality and disinterest. It’s rather a time for choosing. And a choice for true facts and American values is necessarily a vigorous choice against Donald Trump. The owner of the Times has the wisdom, it seems, to realize that working with Trump will be likely more productive than working against him. Perhaps the author and others should consider the same course of action. In other words, give Trump a chance. If Trump were to go off the rails, then change course. I know I would. No quarter or neutrality need be given. I don’t pretend that my resignation is any kind of serious counter-blow to the damage of Soon-Shiong’s cozying up to Trump. And I see, and I thought about, the argument that my most constructive role would be to stay on and continue to use my one voice as forcefully as I could to explain to Times readers the grave dangers on the horizon. In order to be most forceful, most effective over time, especially when addressing an diverse audience, credibility must be maximized. How credible does this author seem to you? How credible are Democrats, in their present state, seem to you? How credible does our media seem overall? How credible are our institutions? If you feel all these are related, we have shared thoughts. Let's lobby all those obligated for reforms. But the cost of alliance with an important national institution that has such an important role to play in pushing back against authoritarian rule, but declines to do so for spurious and selfish reasons, feels too great. And Soon-Shiong’s conscious pattern of détente with Trump has in fact recast the paper’s core identity to one of appeasement with an authoritarian madman. I am loath to affiliate with that identity in any way. I've been told I was a diarrhea poster. I am not alone, it seems! My growing misgivings about the Times are one of the reasons I started this Substack two weeks ago. I’ve been blown away by the response and the number of followers and subscribers in just the first two weeks: thank you to everyone. Having this outlet for my thoughts about where Trump 2.0 is taking us makes it easier to leave. I’m not going anywhere. I will continue to do my best to identify and analyze the dangers that might be hard to see, but for now, here on Substack. I may surface elsewhere, too. Stay tuned! I hope you will follow me here and think about becoming a subscriber. I’ll close by quoting admiringly my former colleague and the former editorial editor at the Times, Mariel Garza: “I want to make it clear that I am not OK with us being silent. In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up." Talk to you later. Good luck on the author's path towards enlightenment. When or if he ultimately chooses it. https://harrylitman.substack.com/p/why-i-just-resigned-from-the-los
Trump is and has been, without question, a pedophile, rapist, grifter and narcissist. These are facts that no honorable person can overlook or excuse. It's like a brick wall across an interstate, it cannot be ignored. You can argue ad populum all you want, but there is no 'getting past' these truths.
Seems some computers are glitching. Had to force a restart on a corporate networked computer. Perhaps you were editing the quoted post as I was responding. Your post has been reformatted to facilitate response: QUOTE="Tuxan, post: 6065093, member: 546951"]Trump is and has been, without question, a pedophile, Trump has never has a problem getting beautiful woman to sleep with him. He actually married a few. Are you referring to Epstein Island? Where apparently thousands, including politicians, attorneys, and influential businessmen, perhaps including media and Hollywood personalities also visited. Assuming Trump had sex there with a minor, could he have reasonably known she was underage? What do you consider to be underage? With Matt Gaetz, he apparently slept with a 17 year old, legal in many states and countries. Some girls look older than their chronological age, especially if they try. Matt allegedly stopped sleeping with her after he found out about her age. Could the same situation apply to Trump? Are you basically suggesting trial by a biased, perhaps compromised media should be sufficient to convict Trump of being a pedophile? I guess the legal term is statutory rape. Maybe pedophile is a legally safer term to use reduce risk of lawsuits or jurisdictional issues. Underage laws differ significantly by country and even by US state. Was Trump set up by an entity seeking to have influence over him and we only now hear of Epstein Island because he refuses to be influenced? There is a greater cause that needs to be addressed than the short sighted needs of his would be influencers? Weren't there multitudes of Democrat Party affiliated visitors that also visited Epstein Island who were also likely exposed to being influenced? Should all people in positions of power be removed because of their illegal, unethical, immoral, and or compromised position as suggested by Epstein Island, DC prostitution Ring 1, DC Prostitution Ring 2, or other known "Rings of compromise", such as certain Hollywood Parties? Or is this a selective "outrage"? Just get rid of Trump but don't discuss anyone else? rapist, Are you referring to the reporter who won a civil suit against Trump? Could have this been related to another way to gain influence over him? Was this a he said - she said situation with an influenced jury, according to some? Was this really a setup? These are fair questions given prior history, it seems. grifter Are you referring to Trump University? Yes, that is a bad mark on him as I understand the situation. But this information was also made to the 77,237,942 people who voted for him in 2024, right? and narcissist. What top level executive is not, at least to some degree, a narcissist? I prefer nicer, like everyone else, but our choice of leaders is often not very diverse. Again, Trump has some superpowers. Superpowers are indeed needed to make much needed reforms, especially given the unprincipled opposition facing him. These are facts that no honorable person can overlook or excuse. You left at least one fact out. Trump is also President elect. Should he survive though inauguration, Trump will be our President. No overlooking that. Trump is who we have to make needed reforms. Military reforms, justice department reforms, investigative agency reforms, Government spending reforms, Immigration reforms, and likely other reforms. You will agree, like so many Trump voters, that at least some of the mentioned reforms are necessary, right? Trump said he would attempt these reforms. He is accountable to US citizens in this and his performance, assuming it is not unfairly interfered with, will be judged by history. It's like a brick wall across an interstate, it cannot be ignored. You can argue ad populum all you want, but there is no 'getting past' these truths. Trump is scheduled to be US President. Is that a truth some people you know are looking to get around? Edit: I see you edited your post. My response is to your unedited post. Please feel free to object to any unintended information. View attachment 355818 [/QUOTE
No amount of verbal diarrhea will change the facts. Popular opinion doesn’t rewrite reality. If hell were a real place, it would have plenty of room for those who excuse or enable such behavior. The truth remains, no matter how many try to talk their way around it.
I see you edited this post again, substituting a Simpsons style cartoon image of Trump in a coffin with the current, "Rats" video. Concerned how it looked? As far as your organization attempting to intimidate me, we are now past that. I know the survivability of those who know too much is not great, to say the least, but you people never let off. Even after I stopped posting for over a year. Basically my posting will not affect my fate at this point, it seems. It is a free roll, in effect, on hopes of helping others remain free. Besides, based on upon my estimated remaining life, adjusted for perception of time as we grow older, is 88% over. I have lived my best years. If your people want the remaining 12%, enjoy. Actually, because of the continued heavy surveillance, I actually know more than "too much", especially when it comes to the organizational and operational topography of the organization you are associated with. The organization in question, while meticulous in linear, process oriented tasks, has made numerous meta mistakes. These have been documented in part within multiple reports to the FBI. I have little doubt you are already aware of these reports. You are also smart enough to realize I have a dead man's switch, where trusted sources will release additional information when I disappear over a certain period of time. I created and distributed this dead man switch while under said heavy electronic and physical surveillance. My dead man switch, if activated, will likely be a pin prick. Maybe more. The heavy, long term surveillance of me left a lot of footprints. There are videos and documents of crimes ranging from breaking and entering to minor theft, to civil rights violations against me. There are also credible witnesses of including multiple law enforcement and private investigators around the country of said heavy surveillance. Private investigators have a system in place to reduce chances they are utilized in illegal activity. They often will document with law enforcement when an investigation takes an unusual turn. A lot of what I've been doing over the last few years has been getting you people to increase the size of your footprints and learning what I'm up against. I am just a truck driver, currently living inside of his truck, but apparently considered a threat as apparently I'm seen as a social media influencer, with the 30-50 reads typically seen on my posts, to a foreign based organization that has an interest in the US political system. If such resources are being utilized against a such little fish as myself, what about those with a greater following? Especially those who are way further right than I am? Especially interesting, considering that on social issues, I test as solid Left. Perhaps a "me too" moment is at hand, where those have been in the same situation as I'm in, or worse, set up and politically charged with politically motivated charges, will come forth together, including other posters here on ET, others in social media, positions of power, and significant political donors. Or worse, yet, have been murdered. Maybe certain suspicious murder investigations need to be looked at in a different light. My dead man switch includes ways to encourage others so affected to reach out. Remember, I have marketing experience and you know how I think. So you people have a choice, suffer my posts in a relatively limited venue for the next few years, or kill/disappear me and risk giving my story increased credibility. Love, BeautifulStranger PS: Want to edit your video, yet? The "Rats" video, that is? @Baron Do you have a file that contains post edits?
No concern at all, the "Simpsons always get it right" meme is an old one, and unless Trump and Elon somehow upload their consciousness into immortal AIs, it’s only a matter of time before it comes true. In the middle of the night, I realized the "Enabling Rats" song was a better choice, especially for those clinging to the endless gaslighting, that his re-election would somehow change his nature. If you haven’t read The Scorpion and the Frog, now’s the time. After half a lifetime in unstable developing countries, I predicted this: his return would be the tipping point where intelligent people collectively say, "F-this," and begin dismantling the "McOligarchy." Just look at the United Healthcare CEO, no one’s shedding tears for him. This is the pattern. Every. Damn. Time. Plato had it right: democracy often devolves into a "tyranny of the majority." The Electoral College was meant as a safeguard, but the reality is that most people, shaped by millions of years of social hierarchy, yearn to be ruled by benign kings. This is the aristocracy, the idea of the wisest and most capable governing. That’s why we have representative democracy rather than pure democracy. But the American aristocratic class grew soft, and the far meaner oligarchs seized the reins. Bannon's "fifth turning". Incidentally, V for Vendetta shot up as the most-watched free-with-ads movie on YouTube after election night. Funny how art echoes reality as the aristocracy, the best of the people*, steel themselves. Right now, I can see the roof of the church near Pablo Escobar’s grave. Plenty of "enabling rats" still venerate him as a good man who simply loved the people. Trump will always have his share too. They’ll keep doing Trump tours, selling merch, and praising his name. It was late at night. I figured the enabling rats were asleep BS. And I have the ADHD now of course. *in the mode of Plato, not the corrupted rule of "divine appointed" heriditary kings.
AFL-CIO was at the heart of 2020 election, these commies were in on the steal. https://patrickbyrne.locals.com/pos...cument-confirms-their-role-in-2020-revolution
Oh and @BeautifulStranger I hope you are kidding with the paranoid stuff but if not, you have a solid enough case of clinical paranoia. A friend used to have a tshirt that said "The voices in my head say you should go out with me", maybe you make it work like I do my ADHD. I can't imagine it's very much fun living with voices, I don't know if you are full on Nash beautiful mind level but I'd talk to somebody. Also, please get on the CB and tell the truckers in Florida to hurry up with Amazon packages going from Jacksonville to Miami? Been sitting there three days now and the missus wants her new curtains. Ta.
Interesting I can predict the time and location of an event based upon a different event in a different state. Say Southern IL to Sandy, UT, with an unanticipated, but related, highly specific, follow up event in Boise, ID. To name a few more, Portland, OR. Grand Island, NE. Amarillo, TX twice. My current base, innumerous. Relatively recently, while delivering an impromptu speech at a Toastmasters in Lincoln, NE, there was a psychologist in the audience who evaluated me. I am unclear how this was initiated, but I had attended a Toastmaster's meeting the prior week with the later meeting being recommended to me. She gave a favorable opinion of my mental health. Fooled her, didn't I? Edit: Troutdale, OR instead of Portland, OR.
So magical thinking leaning to schizotypal traits plus apophnia and narcissistic coping mechanisms? The usual? Yeah probably not that rare at Toastmasters. No luck with the curtains, oh well, I'm sure they will move soon. Jacksonville is often a delay point.