This article is a masterclass in how reporters can write in elaborate circles to avoid saying clearly what they know to be true.
What they WANT say is:
Trump regrets all the times lawyers made him obey the law. He wants lawyers so fanatical that they will flout the laws and let him do whatever he wants.
What do we call such lawyers? “More aggressive.” “Ideologically and temperamentally suited.”
The reporters sincerely hope you will decode their euphemisms.
Judging by the replies, I need to be clearer about what I’m trying to say here. These are superb reporters, all three. This story uncovers and assembles a lot of information that Trump’s people would rather you didn’t know. You can’t duplicate this kind of reporting by searching the web or sucking your thumb.
But the Times has developed a set of unwritten rules that, in my opinion, deforms its political coverage. The euphemistic phrasing of much of this article is a result.
@JamesGleick So, what's the answer? Kill the old institutions and let some upstarts innovate with plain, direct language?
