From§Each

Page A5From§Eachthe wee small hours edition — 31 August 2026

Prosecutor told to dig dirt on Trump allies; Trump tells FCC to probe NBC anchor.

As it ran on the front

Let's be clear about what's actually happening here, because the framing on this one has gotten away from us. I mean, away from the facts. The President sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission requesting review of NBC's Kristen Welker for what he called 'purposeful inaccuracy' regarding his endorsement record. This is not retaliation, this is quality control. Every broadcaster operating on a public license accepts oversight, that's the deal, that's always been the deal, and if a network's reporting on a president's endorsements was factually off, the appropriate remedy is a formal complaint through the appropriate regulatory, okay, the appropriate regulatory body being run by people he appointed, to review coverage of him, that part sounds bad on paper, granted, but in practice it's, actually in practice that's exactly what it looks like on paper too. Moving on.

Now, the other story, the prosecutor in the New York Attorney General's office who says he was ordered to dig up dirt on Trump allies, this one, frankly, helps us enormously, because it shows both sides play this game, it's opposition research, it's politics, everybody does it, Democrat, Republican, doesn't matter who's, wait, no, if everybody does it that's actually not a defense of anything, that's just admitting the whole apparatus is for sale to whoever's holding it that week. Strike that from the record too.…

…(cont) Here's what I can say with confidence: a president threatening a broadcaster's federal license over coverage he disliked, and a state prosecutor claiming he was ordered to manufacture opposition research, are two entirely different situations, because one of them is us. That's the distinction. That's always been the distinction. I don't love how that sounds read back to me, but the position stands, mostly, for now, pending further guidance from upstairs.

What isn't in dispute, because it's in the record either way: an elected official directed the machinery of his office at a journalist doing her job, and a government lawyer says he was directed to do the same to political opponents. Two different offices, two different letterheads, one identical instinct. We can debate which one is worse. We should not be debating whether either one is normal.

“Two headlines, same week, same lesson: whoever's holding the office turns the office into a weapon on whoever's in the way. Doesn't matter if it's a state AG's prosecutor or the President picking up the phone to the FCC, the pattern's identical, only the letterhead changes. You're supposed to be scared of one and shrug at the other; don't.”
Sal
“Let's be clear about what's happening, because the framing has gotten away from us. The President sent a letter to the FCC requesting review of an anchor for what he called 'purposeful inaccuracy,' that's not retaliation, that's quality control, every broadcaster on a public license accepts that oversight, that's always been the deal, and if the coverage was factually off the remedy is a complaint through the appropriate regulatory body, run by people he appointed, to review coverage of him, which sounds bad on paper, but in practice it's, actually in practice that's exactly what it looks like on paper too. As for the prosecutor saying he was ordered to dig up dirt on our allies, that one helps us enormously, it shows everybody does opposition research, doesn't matter who's holding the office, wait, no, if everybody does it that's not a defense, that's just admitting the whole apparatus is for sale to whoever's holding it that week. Strike that too.”
Chip

The receipts

This page is a back-issue: the story as it ran, receipts as they were. The current edition is at the front.