The New York Times isn’t a big fan of Donald Trump, going to extraordinary lengths to undermine his credibility by any means (even by slight fabrication and alteration). Now, NY Times writers 

You can read the dull piece here. However, let’s give the counter-analysis on why this article fails by examining their written subsections:


NYTimes’ Claim: Hillary handled Bill’s infidelity “with grace” and that people are going to look at Trump’s three marriages and shake their heads.

Why the NYTimes is Wrong: Hillary’s handling of Bill’s infidelity was not handled with care, considering she lambasted and bullied the women involved with Bill’s sex fetish tendencies. But her biggest mishandling of the situation other than that? She didn’t divorce him. Period. A cheater is a cheater. So what kind of message does that send to women? You really want Hillary to “represent your voice?” And sure, Trump has had multiple wives, but he has never been accused of rape. And he certainly didn’t do it as Commander-in-Chief.



NYTimes’ Claim: Bill left office with high popularity ratings despite his impeachment, and that Trump attacking him on this will only help Bill.

Why the NYTimes is Wrong: It is true Bill left with high ratings. But Bill was also the first impeachment since 1868 (President Andrew Johnson). Bill lied under oath, need I remind? “I did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky,” claimed Clinton. Then later it’s learned it was a total fib.

And it is also 2016, a year when the American public demand clear, transparent anti-establishment honesty as evident by Trump’s rise and Sanders’ popularity. The Clintons have a deep rooted history of fibbing and flip-flopping, and him being impeached and lying under oath is paramount.



NYTimes’ Claim: Hillary invested $1,000 in cattle futures investments and got a $100,000 return profit back in 1979. Basically, there were eyebrow raises as to how she got such a wealthy return. The New York Times points out if Trump tries to hit her with this, there will be counterattack over his “fraudulent” business practices.

Why NYTimes is Wrong: There was never an official government investigation into the background of the investments (wonder why?) when she was accused of bribery. Of course, the investigation was probably shammed off because the scandal was brought up when Hillary was serving as First Lady. Will Trump harp on this issue? Probably not as much, but it’s an evident point to another situation where Hillary has a hard time explaining how exactly that money came to be. Voters aren’t stupid; they know Hillary is capable of the back room politics of bribery and secret deals. This issue just further cements the mindset.


New York Times’ Claim: Hillary e-mailing classified intel through her own private server isn’t posing a national security risk, and that the topic should not even be discussed until the FBI has finished their investigation. Apparently, Hillary is being “compliant” and has “expressed regret.”

Why the NYTimes is Wrong: The e-mails that Hillary not only sent carelessly on a non-secured server, but the e-mails Hillary and her top aides have “mysteriously” deleted by the thousands. Hillary as Secretary of State, one of the highest positions to the presidency, showed complete incompetence in giving explanation to her malpractices. And “expressed regret?” If the Times really thinks Americans are going to demonstrate sympathy to the woman who fumbled with important security measures in the role of protecting the country, then the publication truly is “failing” as Donald Trump has stated in his tweets.  Try harder on making an excuse for why Americans would ignore this. (Hint: there is no excuse).



New York Times’ Claim: Hillary has “weathered hours of grilling before Congress” regarding the 2012 attack on the American embassy Libya, Benghazi which left four Americans dead. Trump will apparently overplay this attack and it won’t be effective.

Why  NYTimes is Wrong:  Four Americans died as a result of Hillary Clinton not acting on securing their safety. And then she has the audacity to blame the attack as a “violent response” from a YouTube video. No. It was terrorism directed at Americans. And yes, Trump should play that card non-stop.


In summary: you’re wrong, Alan Rappeport and Patrick Healy.