Its 2019 series about failures by school and police in the Parkland school shooting is also excellent. It also features among its public records work an milestone fuckup by officials in terms of PDF non-redaction .
This is great
No, the work was eligible. I doubt Dershowitz's petition had any sway over the board. Frankly, while Julie Brown's reporting was astounding, there were better work. The Herald was a finalist for a story they did about gold.
To be clear, I'm not saying he is accurate. I just don't know enough either way. He's obviously an interested party to the whole story.
The man pretends to be an intellectual, but makes a mockery of it. It’s really a shame that Harvard continues to lend him its institutional credibility, and that other respected institutions invite him to comment about anything ever.
(I have no insight about the Epstein stuff; I’m just talking about his past public debates about a variety of legal and political topics.)
> Staffs of The New York Times and The Washington Post
> For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.
It's clear that they have no intention of abandoning their Russiagate narrative, despite Mueller's report.
Also, multiple people close to Trump have been convicted of various crimes as a result of the past two years of investigation. Even if once the dust settles Trump stands clean and pure as the driven snow, investigators already have plenty to show for their work.
How delusional are you?
And The NYTimes even published an "apology".
It's disappointing how politicized social media has become.
Mueller never said there was no collusion. Trump said Mueller said there was no collusion. Barr's summary quotes Mueller's report as saying “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” So they didn't find proof of collusion. That is not the same as concluding that collusion did not occur.
Barr also provides this other quote from Mueller's report: “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Also, david brooks is a well established journalist who has written for the nytimes for a long time. Not saying he speaks for The NYTimes but I'm sure he expressed some of their sentiments.
In our legal system, we have the concept innocent until proven guilty. "Didn't find proof of collusion" means there wasn't any collusion for all intents and purposes. To claim collusion without proof is partaking in the world of conspiracy theories.
As for Mueller's statement, of course it doesn't exonerate Trump. In order to be exonerated, you have to be convicted of a crime first. You are exonerated of convictions. You also aren't exonerated for russian collusion because you've never been convicted of russian collusion. Mueller's statement apllies to you, me and pretty much everyone on earth.
You make it impossible to have a logical and rational conversation because you've decided to reject logic and rationality for politics, semantics and conspiracy theory. This is why the surge of politics on social media worries me.
Latest piece is from june 2018(or I missed soemthing fresher?)!
And I'm on mobile now but I'm sure they were awarded for some things having to do with the Iraq War.
If presidents commit crimes, that's highly notable (and a big deal).
The Obama presidency wasn't completely scandal-free, but there wasn't much opportunity for Pulitzer level investigative reporting against him specifically.
It's more about a press corps that let Obama get away with things they would have never given somebody like Trump a pass for.
For example, look at the press reaction to Obama refusing to prosecute CIA torture vs. Trump nominating one of the career officials Obama previously gave a pass to to head up the CIA.
Likewise, I doubt we would give Trump a pass for attempting to move due process free prisons like Gitmo onto American soil.
> When Obama took office, in 2009, he declared that he would not prosecute anyone involved in the C.I.A.’s interrogation programs, not even senior officers, among whom Haspel was one. At the time, Obama said he wanted to look forward and not back. But the past, as Obama well knows, never goes away. With the prospect of American torture looming again, I wonder if Obama regrets his decision. After all, people like Haspel, quite plausibly, could have gone to prison.
Watergate investigation of President Nixon in 1973: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/washington-post
If you expand the scope of "investigation against a president" to include the actions of his administration, then you'll find more examples:
1987 National Reporting Award for the Miami Herald's reporting on Iran-Contra (Bob Woodward of the WaPo was also a finalist on the same topic in this category) 
2011 Editorial Writing to the WSJ for its editorials challenging Obamacare 
2014 Public Service Award to The Guardian and the WaPo for the Snowden revelations 
was hoping to get some awarness about a new cause/topic but this just whats in news cycle everyday.
Pulitzer is rewarding high-brow emotional appeal journalism. All disaster and irrelevant scandal. The journalism we need today is shining light on the ever-increasing complexities of the world and the effects, not the latest shock, awe, and smear.