Pretty sure Dash Sulzberger’s lapses (of news judgment) and John Roberts’ lapses (of fidelity to his oath) concern me a great deal more than the disputable ones the Times keeps hyping.
sort of half convinced swapping out Harris would be a marginal increase in Dem chances, but I am extremely sure that being stuck in this discourse for the rest of the campaign would be ruinous
Setting the particular topic aside for a second, this is a truly spectacular case of the Times' pathologically incompetent "Where there's fire, there's smoke" theory of writing up high-stakes investigative stories
