GREGG JARRETT: In a tortured defense of Ilhan Omar, the New York Times reaches for its darkest Trump analogy
Here we go again. Trump is behaving just like Hitler.
On Friday, the New York Times published an editorial with the provocative headline "Trump Is Turning to an Old Tool of Authoritarian Repression."
The editorial was a defense of Minn. Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar, who is under investigation for potential immigration fraud and more.
GREGG JARRETT: ILHAN OMAR COULD FACE INDICTMENT, DENATURALIZATION AND DEPORTATION
The Hitler defense of Rep. Omar was conjured by the Editorial Board of The New York Times. Insofar as name-calling goes, it’s lame.
It is also an unmistakable deflection. It’s the kind of stuff kids do in the schoolyard when caught cheating in kickball. But some kids never grow up. Perhaps they just move on to a fancier playground called The New York Times.
The Trump-Hitler comparison is a tired cudgel that the Times loves to trot out periodically to remind its readers that the current occupant of the Oval Office is evil. But in the newspaper’s Friday editorial, it deployed the insult in a remarkably disconnected way.
The editors argue that since tyrants in history —Hitler included— used "revocation of a political opponent’s citizenship" as a "tool of authoritarian repression" that must be what President Donald Trump is doing to Omar.
REP ILHAN OMAR'S IMMIGRATION HISTORY FACES NEW SCRUTINY AS FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS SUBPOENA RELATIVES
Never mind those pesky things called the law and its enforcement thereof. In fact, the Times disregards the code of federal statutes entirely, tossing them out as utterly irrelevant or meaningless.
In their conceit, the editors openly confess that they are little acquainted with the known facts or evidence. "We do not pretend to know whether the allegations have merit," they write while adding, "They are not the main issue."
FEDERAL AGENTS RAID ILHAN OMAR’S DC HOME AMID IMMIGRATION FRAUD INVESTIGATION
Really? Are potential crimes like false statements, fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice of no consequence? Immaterial? Try explaining that to the roughly 6-thousand federal prosecutors who spend their professional careers upholding those types of laws.
What the Times is really arguing —but doesn’t have the courage to admit— is that a Democratic member of Congress should be entitled to get away with suspected crimes because a particular person they despise is president.
Of course, this ignores that the original incarnation of the Omar investigation began under the presidency of Joe Biden. Again, just another pesky detail destined to be overlooked.
Instead, the Editorial Board traduces Trump for his "affront to free speech, the rule of law and American ideals." It doesn’t get more syrupy than that. And demonstrably wrong.
Let’s take free speech as an example. It is not —and never has been— a defense against false statements or fraud in immigration matters. Period.
Even more obvious is how the Times editors managed to mangle "the rule of law." It is a cherished principle that dates back to the Magna Carta in 1215. It means that all people are subject to the same rules and receive equal treatment in the legal system.
But apparently the Times believes that Omar is above the law while Trump is not. That’s quite the reversal.
You may recall that during the criminal investigations of Trump, the same newspaper published numerous opinion pieces and editorials that explicitly invoked the maxim that "no one is above the law." Indeed, those very words were heralded in the titles of editorials.
OBAMA BACKS ILHAN OMAR AMID PROBE, ACCUSES TRUMP ADMIN OF 'APPALLING' TARGETING IN LENGTHY STATEMENT
Predictably, the Times accuses Trump of trying to "silence a critic," conveniently omitting how Biden’s Department of Justice targeted his opponent with indictments.
But the real kicker is how the newspaper sobs that "no naturalized citizen will be safe." That is a clever artifice. Naturalized citizens have nothing to fear if they told the truth during the application process. But those who did not are subject to the rule of law.
Congress passed a statute 120 years ago revoking citizenship in cases of fraud or false statements. Elected lawmakers did that, not Trump. But how dare the president abide by his constitutional duty to enforce the law! Or so the New York Times would have you believe.
The government, regardless of who is in charge, has an obligation to investigate the possibility of criminal wrongdoing whenever evidence of it arises. In our national ideal, Lady Justice is blind. It should never matter whether there is a letter "R" or "D" after an individual’s name.
Someone should tell the New York Times.
FEDERAL AGENTS SEIZE PHONE OF REP ILHAN OMAR IN RAID TIED TO IMMIGRATION FRAUD PROBE
Omar flatly denies that she did anything wrong or violated any laws. But it cannot be missed that it was a Democrat judge in Washington, D.C. who authorized the search of her home based on sufficient evidence that probable cause existed.
The evidence seized and the accompanying warrant raise serious questions. Is Omar the person she purports to be? Was her citizenship obtained through false statements or fraud? Was there a cover-up? And did she engage in a sham marriage to her brother?
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Omar did herself no favors in a recent interview when she responded to the latter question by stating, "Not to my knowledge." That cautious and qualified reply only compounded suspicion. Was it feigned ignorance? Plausible deniability? Or was it a technical or legalistic phrase to avoid lying while hiding the truth?
Journalists at The New York Times have done extensive reporting on the Ilhan Omar case. But the Editorial Board seems more interested in blaming Trump than examining the facts.
So, what will those same editors do if it turns out that the congresswoman committed citizenship fraud? Will they offer a sincere mea culpa or apology for prejudging the investigation and denouncing Trump? Not likely.
They will still compare him to Hitler. Because that’s the playground on which they operate.