The seemingly minor incident over sourcing might not have escalated or triggered such emotional responses on both sides if not for tensions between the White House and the Times that had been bubbling beneath the surface for at least the last five years. Biden’s closest aides had come to see the Times as arrogant, intent on setting its own rules and unwilling to give Biden his due. Inside the paper’s D.C. bureau, the punitive response seemed to typify a press operation that was overly sensitive and determined to control coverage of the president.

According to interviews with two dozen people on both sides who were granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive subject, the relationship between the Democratic president and the country’s newspaper of record — for years the epitome of a liberal press in the eyes of conservatives — remains remarkably tense, beset by misunderstandings, grudges and a general lack of trust. Complaints that were long kept private are even spilling into public view, with campaign aides in Wilmington going further than their colleagues in the White House and routinely blasting the paper’s coverage in emails, posts on social media and memos.

Although the president’s communications teams bristle at coverage from dozens of outlets, the frustration, and obsession, with the Times is unique, reflecting the resentment of a president with a working-class sense of himself and his team toward a news organization catering to an elite audience — and a deep desire for its affirmation of their work. On the other side, the newspaper carries its own singular obsession with the president, aggrieved over his refusal to give the paper a sit-down interview that Publisher AG Sulzberger and other top editors believe to be its birthright.

The president’s press flacks might bemoan what they see as the entitlement of Times staffers, but they themselves put the newspaper on the highest of pedestals given its history, stature and unparalleled reach. And yet, they see the Times falling short in a make-or-break moment for American democracy, stubbornly refusing to adjust its coverage as it strives for the appearance of impartial neutrality, often blurring the asymmetries between former President Donald Trump and Biden when it comes to their perceived flaws and vastly different commitments to democratic principles.....

Although the newspaper, like most mainstream outlets with a heavy White House presence, devoted pages of coverage to the president’s early legislative successes, its unrelenting focus on Biden’s advanced age and his low numbers in the NYT’s approval poll have frustrated the president and top aides to no end. Beyond that, they bemoan the newspaper’s penchant for sweepy comparisons, analytical reporter memos — referred to in the Biden press shop as “opinion pieces” or “diary entries” — and story frames that seem consistently skeptical.......

The Times’ desire for a sit-down interview with Biden by the newspaper’s White House team is no secret around the West Wing or within the D.C. bureau. Getting the president on the record with the paper of record is a top priority for publisher A.G. Sulzberger. So much so that last May, when Vice President Kamala Harris arrived at the newspaper’s midtown headquarters for an off-the-record meeting with around 40 Times journalists, Sulzberger devoted several minutes to asking her why Biden was still refusing to grant the paper — or any major newspaper — an interview. Harris, according to three people in the room that day, suggested that he contact the White House press office and later grumbled to aides about the back-and-forth being a waste of the allotted time......

When describing their grievances with the Times, almost every Biden administration and campaign official used the word “entitled” to characterize the institution writ large and several of the individuals within the newsroom, where “Timesian” is an adjective routinely deployed without irony. Those officials described reporters who refused to correct minor errors or mischaracterizations in stories or those who haven’t been willing to engage with anyone besides the most senior administration officials. That said, many White House officials maintain productive working relationships with most of the Times reporters who cover the beat.

An Arizona grand jury has indicted 18 allies of Donald Trump for their efforts to subvert the 2020 election — including former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, attorney Rudy Giuliani and former Trump campaign operative Mike Roman.

The indictment, which includes felony counts of conspiracy, fraud and forgery, also describes Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator.

“Defendants and unindicted coconspirators schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency to keep Unindicted Coconspirator 1 in office against the will of Arizona’s voters,” the 58-page indictment reads.

The names of seven of the defendants, including Meadows, Giuliani and Roman, are redacted, but the document makes clear who they are by describing their roles. Ken Chesebro, an attorney who helped devise Trump’s post-election strategy, is described as “unindicted coconspirator 4.”

The only defendants whose names are visible in the version of the indictment released by the Arizona attorney general’s office Wednesday evening are the 11 Republicans who falsely posed as the state’s presidential electors despite Joe Biden’s narrow victory there. Among them: former Arizona GOP Chair Kelli Ward, state senators Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, and Arizona’s RNC committeeman Tyler Bowyer.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, has been helming the aggressive investigation. Though she initially appeared to be focused primarily on the false electors, in recent months she issued a wave of subpoenas to figures in Trump’s national orbit.

The New York Times reported that Trump was “evidently not happy” when few followed his directive, ignoring the fact that “he wanted a circus to accompany his trial.”

The scene that confronted him as he approached the dingy courthouse at 100 Centre Street was underwhelming. Across the street, at Collect Pond Park, the designated site for protesters during the trial, only a handful of Trump supporters had gathered, and the number would not grow much throughout the morning. ... [T]he streets around the courthouse on Monday were chaos-free — well-patrolled and relatively quiet.

The article added that there were some Trump supporters gathered in the park across from the courthouse, but they were “outnumbered by Trump detractors.”

To the chagrin of the former president, this keeps happening......

Yesterday, the turnout was, once again, largely a joke. So much for “PROTEST, PROTEST, PROTEST!!!”

As for why, exactly, these demonstrations have failed to materialize, there are plenty of competing explanations, starting with the fact that the Justice Department’s extensive prosecutions of Jan. 6 rioters have not gone unnoticed among the former president’s most ardent backers.

But I’m also reminded of an analysis my MSNBC colleague Zeeshan Aleem wrote last year.

“It may have to do with post-Jan. 6 wariness of getting in trouble if a pro-Trump protest spirals out of control,” Aleem wrote. “Perhaps conspiracy theories about the government laying traps for peaceful protesters scared them out of showing up. Maybe Trump finally has exhausted his base with his constant hysteria. ... Whatever the reasons may be, Trump is looking weak.”

Shareholders will soon reveal whether Tesla is a corporation or a cult by voting on whether to make Elon Musk the highest-paid part-time CEO in history despite the stock price collapsing 40%, the company laying off 14,000 workers and a judge calling his hand-picked board’s decision-making deeply flawed.

Musk and Tesla’s directors are spending millions to convince shareholders to give up $56 billion after the company missed sales targets and failed to launch the new Model 2 on time, if at all. Analysts at Houston investment bank TPH Energy Research expect the stock to drop another 17% before bottoming out.

Tesla’s biggest retail shareholder, Leo Koguan, told the energy transition website Electrek that he would vote against the deal in June. “Tesla is a family business masquerading as a public company,” he explained......

Yes, let’s compare Tesla to General Motors. Tesla is valued at about $460 billion with an extraordinary price-to-earnings ratio of 34, which means investors think it is worth $34 for every dollar the company earns.

General Motors is worth $48.82 billion and has a standard price-to-earnings ratio 5.78. The stock yields a dividend of 1.14%, while Tesla yields nothing. GM generated $171.84 billion in revenue in 2023, compared to Tesla’s $96.8 billion.

“I am uncomfortable growing Tesla to be a leader in AI & robotics without having ~25% voting control. Enough to be influential, but not so much that I can’t be overturned,” he posted on X. “Unless that is the case, I would prefer to build products outside of Tesla. You don’t seem to understand that Tesla is not one startup, but a dozen. Simply look at the delta between what Tesla does and GM.”