Trump-Hating Columnist Throws a Tantrum & Quits (The REAL Reason Why)

The fallout from the blindside that hit many democrats recently is still reverberating in many circles.

More than a month after President Trump rocked their world by doing what no one who believed the mainstream media thought he could do — win — those particularly clueless souls in the media are still reeling, and lashing out as a consequence to his unexpected win.

The well-known leftist opinion columnist Harry Litman is the newest bell-ringer to blow his top and opt out of his own job simply because President Trump won an election.

He will tell you otherwise, that it is because this or that justifiable reason, but don’t you believe him.

Litman’s motivations are nowhere near as complicated as his delusions — but don’t try telling him that.

I forget who first said that “elections have consequences”; but, they do.  And Litman is one of those who simply can’t stand the thought that a single ounce of consequence might be coming down the pipe because of President Trump — who he hates with a hatred few of us ever know.

So he did what all small children do when they are unhappy with the latest lay of the dice or position of the pieces on the board, particularly when the person they MOST HATE to see win, is winning — he quit.

But he didn’t just quit; Harry Litman is far too childish and emotionally immature to simply quit, and call it good.

Like a completely non-adjusted toddler he went out with a whiny Substack article, and an appearance on MSNBC (of course…) to put his whiney written word into spoken whiney words, in order to bring the most attention possible to his victimhood; while pretending to play the “big boy” role of a grownup with principles.

But there is a big difference between grownup principles and toddler-sized passive aggressive tantrums designed to catch attention and make one feel like they have chosen that adult-sized proverbial “highroad”.

The difference being that toddler’s can’t traverse the highroad; and they look foolish when they try.

Here’s the clip of the toddler trying to traverse the highroad.

If you squint just right, you can just barely catch that manufactured smugness designed to make him feel high and mighty… as opposed to lowly and defeated since the lawfare that he and his federal lawfare buddies have been waging against President Trump and his supporters for four years is crashing down around their frustrated little heads.  (In true southern fashion, may I simply say — bless their hearts…)

Here is former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman unable to cope with a world where President Trump is President again.

Litman: I think there is no other inference but the owner of the LA Times has decided to curry favor with Trump.. I think they cowered and are worried about their personal holdings.. that is a really shameful capitulation. I felt I couldn’t be a part of it and had to resign. pic.twitter.com/1ChIj7uLzv

— Acyn (@Acyn) December 5, 2024

So let’s set the context of this scene.  What he is blithering on about really has nothing at all to do with President Trump — except that in Litman’s world, everything that doesn’t go his way “MUST” be Trump’s fault in some form or fashion.

The issue that he can not, or simply will not, wrap his head around is the fact that his former boss, the owner of the LA Times, properly recognized by the trouncing of Kamala Harris the lesson to be learned in that loss.

The abysmal failure of democrats as a whole at the ballot box (yes, at the hands of President Trump), was the crystal clear handwriting on the political wall for anyone willing to see it.

Namely, that the push towards the left and progressivism wasn’t going to be tolerated any longer by the American electorate, and “fair and balanced” would be the logical next step for a newspaper wanting to remain relevant.

Now, Litman has tried to pretend (and that’s all he is doing) that the owner of the LA Times has turned to political pandering in the hopes that President Trump will not send the Times to the gulag, or something awful like that.

But as Fox News has pointed out, the straw that broke the (in this case) toddler’s back was the introduction of an AI-powered “bias meter” to soon be attached to all LA Times news articles.

“And it’s in their finest tradition, and Trump has made clear he’ll go after them. And that’s an, you know, absolute five-alarm fire,” he added.

The columnist, a former U.S. Attorney appointed by President Bill Clinton, declared on his Substack page on Thursday that he had “written my last op-ed for the Times” and “resigned my position” the day before.

“I don’t want to continue to work for a paper that is appeasing Trump and facilitating his assault on democratic rule for craven reasons,” he added in the article.

He continued telling Wallace, “And I just think this is not a time for balance when you have someone who’s not telling the truth on the other side. And it’s a deep responsibility. And instead, I think they cowered and are worried about their personal holdings and just being threatened by Trump.”

In addition to a new editorial board, Soon-Shiong recently announced his paper was looking at rolling out an AI-powered “bias meter” in the near future.

ADVERTISEMENT

During an episode of “The Mike Gallagher Show,” Soon-Shiong told Jennings, who was guest hosting, “Whether it be news or opinion — more likely the opinion or the voices — you have a bias meter so somebody could understand as they read it that the source of the article has some level of bias.”

I’m not onboard with the idea of a “bias meter” any more than Litman, in all honesty.

Although I understand the desire to simply introduce an awareness of bias, the subjective nature of bias will at best make such a gauge consistently inaccurate, and at worse it will itself become inconsistently biased — the very problem it is intended to solve, to some minor degree.

Nevertheless, Litman didn’t quit because of a “bias meter” that’s in the works for the Times.

He quit because he can’t handle even the inkling of chance that somehow President Trump has managed to effect a change that would in some miniscule way create the consistent questioning of whether Litman is JUSTIFIED in his bias.  (Read that part again.)

In his own Substack article, proudly lamenting his victimhood and self-sacrificial imagined victory over President Trump in an attempt to safeguard his ego — not the critical nature of the press, as he espouses — Litman highlights that before now he could write whatever he wanted without internal critique from the Times; in his mind now gone, manifesting a direct extension of Trump’s successful attack on him personally.

The problem with his logic is that it isn’t logical.

No one has told him that he can’t still write whatever he wanted as a member of the editorial board.

The problem isn’t based in reality; it’s based in his psyche.

Because (…drum roll…) President Trump now lives rent free in his head.

As well he should, considering the time, effort, and energies put forward by former Deputy Attorney General Litman and all his lawfare goons in trying to bring President Trump down.

And if you dare think I am being somewhat exaggerative in my estimation of Litman’s intentions and purposes towards President Trump… please, listen to this.

1/2 Harry Litman, one of MSNBC’s leading JournoLawfare™️ dark-arts practitioners confesses that Stormy Daniels’ testimony yesterday DOES NOT matter for the case against Trump.

Says she’s just there for the “feeling.” Take that in.

This admits that putting her on was improper. pic.twitter.com/6hli0OjZAr

— Jeff Clark (@JeffClarkUS) May 8, 2024

He is saying that in the case brought against President Trump, in which the Biden DOJ attempted to claim President Trump failed to correctly disclose a payoff to Stormy Daniels in an attempt to illegally affect the outcome of a federal election (that is an oversimplification of the convoluted twisting of that case, but you get the point)… he is literally saying that EVEN IF IT WERE ALL COMPLETELY MADE UP… it didn’t matter.

That is despicable.  And everything that has masqueraded as “journalism” originating from his writing has been just as despicable for all of recent history.

Maybe, just maybe, the LA Times will move forward from the progressive quagmire of anti-conservative and anti-Trump hatred of years past, now that they are (shall we say) “unburdened by what has been”?

I’m not counting on the LA Times to become the new bastion of conservative ideals.

But maybe, just maybe — without the unmitigated lawfare driving the so-called “journalism” of the likes of Harry Litman stinking up their newsprint… they might just return to something more like the Press, and far less like the thought-police of our recent venture into dystopian society.