I was hoping the take was: “we shouldn’t have released the Epstein files because the Justice Department should have done their job and the citizenry shouldn’t have to do it for them,” but nope, it’s just a “we can’t spy on folks as effectively if they know about it afterwards.” This is the best they’ve got at Columbia Law?
the justification is literally “the epstein files should never have been released, because it might make people less willing to let the government spy on them.”
That’s not what I took away from this at all. I think he’s saying the Epstein files shouldn’t have had to have been released because we should have been able to trust those in power to prosecute anyone for whom there’s evidence of a crime, however there’s been a lack of trust for many years now that has grown more acute since Pam Bondi took over. Despite the headline, I think this editorial is directed more at the functioning of the Dept of Justice and federal law enforcement rather than at the Epstein files directly. The headline sure grabbed your attention though, huh? (Also fuck the NYT)
Of course they did. After seeing arrests on the other side of the pond, they worry the same will happen to them or their masters.
TIL: An opinion piece from a guest essayist = official position.
it’s an editorial choice.
Correct. It may be someone’s opinion, and NYT can say it’s someone’s opinion and not their own, but how many pro-victims, pro-women, pro-Palestine, pro-human rights opinions were not printed so this “opinion” could be printed?
If you’re the biggest newspaper in the country (or one of them), you can’t claim opinion. You’d get thousands of submissions. What you print reflects your values because there are things you chose not to print. (You being them. English is strange.)
“One” may work better in this situation.
If one is the biggest newspaper in the country (or one of them), one can’t claim opinion. One would get thousands of submissions. What one prints reflects one’s values because there are things one chose not to print.
