> The NY Times should be very careful what it wants. The article is almost implying that the National Enquierer did something illegal with its coverage of the election.
That's no longer in any reasonable dispute, given the non-prosecution agreement between AMI and DoJ. There might still be room for disagreement about the precise scope of the illegality.
> However, the NYTimes has been also accused of u[n]fair coverage against Trump
Not all accusations are created equal.
> If we break the taboo of prosecutors looking at a newspapers political coverage
It's not a taboo, it's already been broken if it was, and there'd be no teeth to campaign finance law if we didn't.
> it won’t be long before The NY Times itself ends up u see the microscope and that will be bad for our democracy.
The political coverage of the New York Times has been the subject of criminal action and civil lawsuits in the past, some of each of which set important First Amendment precedent. Being under the microscope isn't new territory for the Times.