I quite often find in New York Times that American writers often use an objective relative pronoun--or omitted it all together--where, I strongly believe, a subjective relative pronoun should be present.
Example 1
thanks to well-publicized remarks about the women he suggested weren’t attractive enough for him to have assaulted
Here, the original two chunks are "Thanks to well publicized remarks about the women" and "he suggested the women weren't attractive enough for him to have assaulted." And, as we can obviously see, "the women" is the subject of a noun clause embedded in the second chunk; thus when the two were combined, it should have been "Thanks to well publicized remarks about the women who he suggested weren't attractive enough for him to have assaulted." And since it is a subjective relative pronoun, it should not have been omitted.
Example 2
from the arrival of the soldiers, whom they believed had been sent to help them.
Here, the original two chunks are "from the arrival of the soldiers" and "they believed the soldiers had been sent to help them." Again, as we can see, "the soldiers" is the subject of a noun clause embedded in the second chunk; thus when the two were combined, it should have been "from the arrival of the soldiers who they believed had been sent to help them." And since it is a subjective relative pronoun, it should not have been omitted.
I understand that languages change with time and according to the usage of native speakers, or writers in this case, not vice versa. Is this why objective relative pronouns are replacing subjective ones?