Why has the NY Times fallen so far?

You could read this article/apology for an example of what they stand for today.

House Republicans this week formalized their impeachment inquiry into President Biden with a party-line vote, as leaders of the investigation argued they needed to take the step to ward off potential legal challenges to their work. But they have so far found no evidence that Mr. Biden committed high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal.

Republicans charge that he was merely peddling influence and selling access — or at least the perception of access — to his father, who served as vice president from 2009 to 2017. But Republicans have yet to find evidence tying Hunter Biden’s business practices — including his alleged financial misdeeds — to his father,

Republicans have also toiled, so far without success, to prove that Mr. Biden was enriched by his son’s business dealings.

There are other examples in the story where they continue to suggest that there has been no evidence of any wrongdoing by the President, in spite of actually admitting that there is evidence of wrongdoing by the President.

Using their subpoena power, Republicans have obtained more than 36,000 pages of bank records; 2,000 pages of suspicious activity reports from the Treasury Department; and dozens of hours of testimony from two of Hunter Biden’s business partners, a senior official from the National Archives and Records Administration, seven federal agents and three U.S. attorneys.

The closest they’ve come to directly tying Hunter Biden’s business activities to his father is the testimony of his former business partner Devon Archer, who told investigators he could recall about 20 times when he and Hunter Biden were meeting with business associates and Hunter Biden put his father on speakerphone.

Apparently the NY Times has not gotten the legal memo that this sort of racketeering and influence peddling legally treats payments to friends and relatives exactly as if those payments were going to the person being accused. In other words, if Joe Biden was on criminal trial, there would be no legal need to actually prove he ever got a dime from anyone. All that would need to be proven is that he used his influence to enrich people close to him.

Either way, the article brushes aside 2000 pages of suspicious activty reports that has led to the discovery of 19 shell corporations used by the Bidens to funnel millions in foreign money to multiple Biden family member accounts in a manner to avoid discovery by the IRS, SEC, and other government agencies. This is the very definition of textbook money laundering. But apparently the NY Times is buying the idea that none of this is illegal unless those accounts were owned by Joe. There is the law, then there is White House spin. Guess which reality the NY Times is pushing on their readership?

Oh and when all else fails, just repeat an oft repeated lie as if it is the truth:

Republicans have also been unable to find proof that as vice president, Mr. Biden tried to change policy or otherwise use his power to benefit his son’s business partners. They have alleged that Mr. Biden’s push for the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma was a corrupt move meant to benefit his family, but that was the official position of both the U.S. government and the European Union at the time.

Even a cursory look at our policy at the time debunks this "fact checking". In fact our own State Department had just written a glowing review of Viktor Shokin for his work with corruption. In fact Shokin was brought in specifically to deal with corruption and by all accounts he was doing a fine job. Where was the "official position" from "both" the US government and the European Union? Certainly nothing "official" was ever provided as evidence that such an "official position" existed from either entity.

From the (fact checking) articles you might see written about this you generally just see a quote from someone who worked "for" Biden at the time suggesting that Shokin needed to be fired. So to the degree that this was "fact checked" was to ignore what was officially written by our State Department and to instead quote Joe Biden and members of his staff. How often that this has been repeated falsely as the truth is mindboggling.

But after a full throttled support of two Trump impeachments which barely had any association to anything remotely illegal, they suggest the following:

Even if the House does so, the likelihood of removing him from office is virtually zero. The Senate is controlled by Democrats, who would be all but certain to lead the charge to acquit him.

So there you go. Apparently we should not hold an impeachment inquiry because the Senate will refuse to remove him as President. Such logic from such a reputable media source!