I think they basically have it right, but they should stop with the "If he has nothing to hide why is he worried about attorney-client privilege?" bullshit. I'm sure he has a lot to hide, but even if he didn't he has, as we all do, a reasonable expectation of privacy. I'm 99% sure Cohen committed some crimes, so the point is moot, but it's bothersome that they would use that line here. I don't have any crimes to hide, and I don't want anyone going through my emails. There's enough fuel to burn Trump with, NYT, so don't debase yourselves with that bad line of reasoning.
I see what your saying, but the president is held to another standard, eg norms of tax releases. If this were a private citizen, yea, we as a country have agreed that “you shouldn’t be worried if you have nothing to hide” is not a valid argument for government intrusion of privacy. But the NYTimes is right here. Trump should not be afraid of egregious privacy invasion if he isn’t breaking countless laws and yet hampering every effort to investigate the matter.
It probably has more to do with Trump whining about attorney-client privilege being dead when it's not. He's just scared and doesn't realize that there are limits to it. And the bar to break it is extremely high. Probably a bit of poorly executed reasoning. But he's a goddamn moron. How do you respond to some of this nonsense? I had to sit through an economist on the radio try to take seriously things like "trade wars are easy." I follow Trump on Twitter. Dude is seriously unhinged. I don't know how you can rebuke all the bullshit he spews and not make a few rhetorical missteps. But I don't know. I can't speak for the editorial board.
For sure. It's just so unnecessary. Would NYT think that about their reporter-source communications? You shouldn't hold others to a standard that you would never apply to yourself; they come off like whiners here. You don't need to resort to whining to tear down literally everything this jagoff does.