#new-york-times
6 entries with this tag
After Watching Its Earlier Indictments of James Comey Collapse, Trump's Justice Department Charged the Former FBI Director Yet Again — This Time With Two Espionage Act Counts Over an Alleged 2016 Leak of National-Defense Information to a Reporter — but Filed It as a Bare "Criminal Information" on the Very Last Day Before the Ten-Year Clock Ran Out, Without a Grand Jury, a Maneuver Legal Experts Say Likely Cannot Stop the Statute of Limitations and That Comey Can Simply Refuse to Consent To
On October 26, 2026, newly unsealed court documents revealed that the Trump Justice Department had charged former FBI Director James Comey for a third time — now with two counts under the Espionage Act: willfully communicating national-defense information to a person not entitled to receive it, and conspiring to do so. The theory is that Comey, "through one or more co-conspirators," directed someone to disclose national-defense information to a reporter at a national news publication (reported to be the New York Times), with the alleged conduct dated to October 5, 2016. The problem is the calendar and the procedure. The Espionage Act carries a ten-year statute of limitations, which expired on October 5, 2026 — and the DOJ filed not a grand-jury indictment but a bare "criminal information" on that exact last day, apparently because it could not get a grand jury to indict in time. Legal experts, including former prosecutor Elie Honig, say an information filed without a grand jury or the defendant's consent likely cannot toll the ten-year clock, and Comey cannot be tried on an information alone unless he waives indictment — which he has no reason to do. His lawyers moved to dismiss, arguing the statute "explicitly demands" an indictment that the government never secured and that the charge is time-barred. Comey's response was a shrug: "Nothing's changed with me." He is still innocent, he said. This is the third swing at the man Trump fired in 2017, after the earlier cases — including the one built around a photo of seashells — fell apart, and it has the hallmarks of the previous ones: a prosecution driven by the president's grudge rather than a case the government can actually win.
Trump Declared Three Major News Organizations — CNN, MS NOW, and Politico — "Banned" From the White House "Effective Immediately," Explicitly Because He Dislikes Their Coverage, Which He Called "FICTION and LIES," and Threatened the New York Times and Washington Post Next — a Viewpoint-Based Purge of the Press That Federal Courts Have Already Ruled the White House Cannot Do
On September 18, 2026, Trump announced on Truth Social that he was banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House "effective immediately," declaring that the three outlets "shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they're covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America." He threatened to extend the bans to others, singling out the New York Times and Washington Post as "crummy." The White House did not immediately clarify the scope — whether the outlets' reporters would lose their credentials entirely or be shut out of briefings, events, and the press pool. But the stated basis was explicit and disqualifying: the outlets are being punished for the content of their coverage. That is textbook viewpoint discrimination, and it runs directly into settled law. In the 1977 case Sherrill v. Knight, the D.C. Circuit held that the White House cannot arbitrarily deny a press pass to a bona fide journalist, and as recently as 2025 a federal court ruled the administration could not bar the Associated Press from covering events open to the press because it disliked the AP's editorial choices. A president gets to dispute reporting he considers wrong; he does not get to decide which news organizations are allowed to cover him based on whether their coverage pleases him. This is the government choosing the press — the precise inversion of a free one.
Trump Blamed "Vandals" for the Peeling, Botched $14.7 Million Renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and Had His D.C. Prosecutor Charge Real People Over It — Including a Former Olympian — Before Every Charge Was Dropped; Now, Per the New York Times, the Contractor's Own Reports Admit the Truth: Its Faulty Work, Not Sabotage, Caused the Damage
The Trump administration fast-tracked a roughly $14.7 million renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool ahead of the Fourth of July. The new blue liner promptly peeled, bubbled, and broke loose. Trump's explanation was not that the rushed job had failed — it was that "vandals" had sabotaged the pool. He pushed to prosecute them, and his U.S. Attorney in Washington, Jeanine Pirro, actually charged several people, including former Olympian David Hearn. Every one of those charges was eventually dropped. Now, according to government documents reviewed by The New York Times, the contractor itself — Atlantic Industrial Coatings — has admitted in its own reports (dated August 14 and September 2) that the damage was caused by its work, not by any vandal: "human oversight" meant workers failed to spray enough primer for the liner's layers to bond, the two chemicals mixed for the liner were incompatible, and heat then loosened the bottom layer. In other words, the crime Trump blamed for his project's failure never happened, and he knew enough to concede "some contractor error" back in August even as the prosecutions proceeded. This is the full sequence of the abuse in one small monument: a botched job, a fabricated culprit, and innocent people — one of them an Olympian — charged with a federal crime to protect the president from the embarrassment of his own contractor's mistakes.
The DOJ Sent Federal Agents to the Homes of Four New York Times Reporters With Grand-Jury Subpoenas — for Reporting That Trump's Qatari Air Force One Lacks Missile Defenses and That the Secret Service Told Him Not to Fly It — and the Prosecutor Who Issued Them Is Trump's Nominee to Run National Intelligence
The Justice Department subpoenaed four New York Times journalists — Julian E. Barnes, Eric Lipton, Tyler Pager, and Eric Schmitt — ordering them before a Manhattan federal grand jury "in regard to an alleged violation of criminal law." Federal agents delivered some of the subpoenas to the reporters' homes. Their offense: reporting that the Secret Service urged Trump to leave the NATO summit in Turkey aboard the old Air Force One rather than the Qatari-gifted Boeing 747, and that the gifted jet lacks "defensive countermeasures that were security features of the old model, including its advanced antimissile capabilities." The subpoenas were issued by Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan — who is himself Trump's nominee to become Director of National Intelligence, with a confirmation hearing days away — and followed a White House meeting involving FBI Director Kash Patel. The Times said it will fight the order. Its newsroom lawyer David McCraw said federal agents on reporters' doorsteps "should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects." The National Press Club called it "an extraordinary assault on the freedom of the press that strikes at the heart of the First Amendment." The DOJ claimed "reporters are not the targets, those leaking classified information are." The move fits a pattern: the department earlier issued then withdrew similar subpoenas against Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporters, the FBI searched a Post reporter's home in January, and in April 2025 AG Pam Bondi rescinded the Biden-era policy that shielded journalists' records in leak investigations. The reporting being criminalized is the same reporting documented here days ago — that the $400M+ rushed retrofit produced a plane one analyst said was suited to "domestic hops rather than hostile skies."
White House Secretly Pressured the Board Meant to Protect Civil Servants — Sherk Told MSPB Head to Follow "the Company Line," Board Then Broke with Decades of Precedent, and 50,000 Workers Lost Protections
A New York Times investigation by Michael Schmidt reveals that the Trump White House secretly pressured the Merit Systems Protection Board — the independent agency created after Nixonian abuses to protect federal employees from political firings — into adopting the administration's theory that the president can fire any civil servant at will. White House aide James Sherk, author of the Schedule F memo and a man who has said "every federal employee should serve at the pleasure of the president," met with acting MSPB head Henry Kerner while Kerner was being considered for a permanent position. Sherk told Kerner he was expected to follow the Office of Legal Counsel's opinions on unitary executive theory — described by experts as "little different from calling a federal judge and telling him how to rule." The MSPB then broke with decades of precedent and ruled that it could weigh in on constitutional questions in a way that effectively endorsed the president's power to fire employees without cause. This followed Trump firing Democratic MSPB member Cathy Harris in February 2025 — converting the bipartisan board into one controlled by his appointees — and the Supreme Court blocking her reinstatement via shadow docket. On March 9, 2026, the Schedule Policy/Career rule took effect, stripping civil service protections from up to 50,000 federal workers, making them at-will employees who cannot appeal firings to the MSPB, cannot access statutory whistleblower protections, and cannot challenge their reclassification. An initial executive order reclassified about 8,000 positions. When DOJ prosecutor Maureen Comey (daughter of James Comey) was fired via an Article II letter, a federal judge ruled she could bypass the compromised MSPB and sue directly in federal court — finding the constitutional basis for her firing placed her case "outside the universe" Congress intended the MSPB to resolve. The D.C. Circuit dissent warned: "Under my colleagues' reasoning, it appears that no independent agencies may lawfully exist in this country."
Trump Claims Vandals Cut a "350-Foot Gash" in the Reflecting Pool and Calls Them "Enemies of Our Country" — But the Government Won't Produce Any Records, the Gash Length Keeps Growing, a PolitiFact Reporter Couldn't Find It, and the Only Person Charged Is a 67-Year-Old Three-Time Olympian Who Touched a Piece of Already-Peeling Paint
As the Reflecting Pool renovation continues to unravel — algae, peeling paint, storm drains, $16+ million in costs — Trump has constructed an alternative explanation: vandals did it. He claims six people were arrested and seven cited for cutting "a 350-foot gash" in the sealant with "a very sharp knife or razors." He calls them "enemies" who "want to destroy our country." The problems: (1) The government has produced no records of these arrests — no complaints, no citations, no court filings. The New York Times reported "no records of arrests or citations have been produced to support the president's claims." (2) The alleged gash keeps growing: 150 feet, then 250, then 300, then 350. (3) A PolitiFact reporter visited the pool and saw no visible gash. Officers on-site could not point to it. (4) Interior Department staff noticed coating defects including bubbling and small holes in May — before any alleged vandalism. (5) The only confirmed arrest is David Carter Hearn, a 67-year-old three-time Olympic canoeist, who says he simply reached in to touch a piece of already-peeling paint during a bike ride and was held in a Park Police jail for five hours. (6) Pool experts say the polyurea coating is naturally chemical-resistant, and the tools Trump describes would cause only superficial damage. Former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori: "My operating hypothesis is that this information is not being produced to the public because it would not support the president's claims." He compared it to a pattern where the D.C. U.S. attorney's office under Jeanine Pirro loudly publicizes cases that serve the narrative — like the "sandwich guy" arrest video — but goes silent when the facts don't cooperate. Khardori: "I don't believe him. I'll just be honest."