Framing bias example!

 

This just popped into my inbox from the NYT:

Judge Delays Trump’s Sentencing Until After Election Day

The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s criminal case in Manhattan rescheduled the sentencing for Nov. 26, a significant victory for the former president as he seeks to win back the White House.

A 'significant' victory? Really? How do they know what the political impact of a sentencing before election day might be? They don't; this is just lazy narrative-shaping baloney. If the judge intends to toss Trump in jail, doing so before the election could might benefit him in terms of remobilizing his base to turn out, knowing that him winning the election would be the only possible way to stop the state of New York from putting him in custody (and even then, it's a state case, so in theory he could start a term of US President while in custody!) If the judge thinks a lighter sentence is deserved, Trump could spin that as evidence the case should never have been brought in the first place. Or, maybe a sentencing would remind people that he has a pattern of acting and asserting that he is above the law and end up hurting him politically. The point is that whomever wrote this sub-headline should be mildly ashamed of themselves because they were making a speculative assumption in the subheadline of a news (not analysis or opinion) story. Indeed, the story as published online has a different subheadline already.

Furthermore, the judge's action could serve to restrain Trump from trying to undermine the election results after election day with bogus claims of fraud, intimidating officials involved in certifying the election outcomes in various states, etc. Judge Merchan has the power to shut him up by remanding him to custody (which is SOP at a sentencing that results in a prison term). Doing so would be a breach of legal ethics, but if the fate of the republic is on the line, all bets are off.

In related news, the federal judge overseeing the Trump insurrection case is asking the prosecutor to file a motion that will include a swath of yet-unseen evidence by the end of September. That strikes me as being a 'significant defeat' for the Trump legal team and their obvious efforts to delay the trial. Judge Chutkun isn't playing!! She made it clear that the case has already been pending for a full year, and she also made it clear that she thinks the argument that Jack Smith's appointment as prosecutor was unconstitutional to be "unpersuasive" i.e. she (like nearly every law professor on earth) thinks its idiotic and isn't going to allow a whole separate round of appealing on that basis, even though that decision can and will be appealed. She's clearly had it with the delays, and stated repeatedly that she doesn't give a darn about the political impact on the upcoming election. So, all in all, IMO the past 24 hours were not good news for Trump in respect being held legally accountable.