I thought you were crystal clear in pointing out that the judge’s comments were being falsely attributed to Trump and his legal team by the dishonest Trump-hating MSM. Thank you for being unafraid to be a real journalist in an era where that is a rare trait. Don’t let the haters get you down. They are probably mostly shills for one candidate or another.
Since Matt mentioned the Iowa caucuses, and I'm bored and here already, I might as well add my 2 cents:
The only possible Republican who will win this year is Don J. Trump.
Even if the Repubs manage to pull off defeating him and crown DeSantis or Haley or someone else at their convention, there is NO WAY Trump goes quietly and doesn't run in Nov as an Independent.
He admirably has zero loyalty to the Republican Party, could really give a shit who the next prez is if it aint gonna be him, and needs to keep running in the hope of staying out of jail.
Prez DeSantis or Prez Haley is just a media enterprise, it's not happening this year.
Trump either wins the nomination or kneecaps the Repub candidate a la Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.
I am no supporter of DJT but in my not so humble opinion what they are doing to him is criminal. I dont hate him and in fact it's hard not to feel sorry for him but I don't want him back in the Whitehouse again and Biden is a Full ON Train Wreck! We need to move ON... there MUST be better candidates than these two. Matt, your appraisal of Trump as "America's Comic" was absolutely right on! The WEF Elites want these two comedians, Biden and Trump, slinging shit to obscure the takeover of our country by The Corporate Cabal..
I suspect that this is part of a more general trend in progressive politics of trying to win political campaigns by judicial means. The high hopes invested in South Africa's case against Israel in the International Court of Justice afford another example of this.
The common thread I see in the media coverage of Trump is that, no matter the actual topic at hand, every report must serve as an opportunity to impugn Trump as always lying and to always attribute to him the worst possible motives imaginable. So, in that regard, the attribution by Democrats and by the press of the "Seal Team Six" assassination scenario to Trump and his attorney, rather than to Judge Pan, is simply par for the course. What I find more troubling is that Judge Pan had to have known that her question, " . . . could a president order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival", which she later repeated, making sure to include "Seal Team Six" in the follow up question, was quote bait. It was as if she went out of her way to throw a fresh piece of red meat to the Democrats and the press.
And Matt is correct when he points out that these tactics make it difficult for reporters, commentators, or any honest critic with a sense of integrity to focus on developing or expressing criticisms of Trump that might have some actual basis in substantive evidence.
And I can't help but wonder if the obscuring of the legitimate, but generally undramatic, criticisms of Trump isn't part of the point. Because to focus on those criticisms risks causing him to look like he might just be one more flawed human political candidate among many others. And that could undermine the ongoing effort to maintain his opponents in a constant state of frenzy and to try to provoke at least some of his supporters into doing something even more whacked out than whatever it was that did or did not occur on January 6,2021.
I might be comfortable defining my present political camp as Anybody but Whomever It Is Who Is Trying to Gaslight Us Into Perpetual Participation In A (very extended) Minute of Hate Against Trump.
For a preview of the courtroom drama to come, watch the courtroom scenes from Idiocracy. Strike that. For anything related to our government, just watch Idiocracy.
Not only on the campaign trail, but now the US Supreme Court will almost certainly decide the next president, ala Bush/Gore (although I'm hoping this time they'll do a better job). And that is a real kick in the balls to the majority of Americans who thought THEY were the ones who got to decide who their leader for the next four years will be, and have been doing so for every presidential election save one since the founding of our nation.
Although, you gotta love the irony if a Trump-majority Supreme Court bench decides the election for Trump, seeing as how the reason Trump was able to move the court to the right was the Dems changing the rule from 60 votes to just a bare majority :)
The question came from the judge, but the answer came from Trump's lawyers. The question can ONLY be considered nutty if the lawyer answered, "Of course not." But he couldn't answer that way, because his point was that ALL criminal charges can only be made after impeachment. The judges absurd question was demonstrating how ridiculous this was. It was a brilliant move on the judge's part.
The democrat party, by demanding/seizing veto over who voters get to vote for, is demonstrating exactly which party represents an existential threat to "our democracy."
"Today’s story wasn’t about the merits of Donald Trump’s immunity argument or Jack Smith’s “election interference” prosecutions, but an effort to manipulate coverage by attributing to Trump and his legal team something that actually came from a judge. "
I believe this style of court reporting predates Trump. It seems to be a staple in how high profile Supreme Court cases are covered too. Judges and Justices regularly interrupt lawyers to pose extreme hypotheticals to see how the lawyers respond to them. And the media usually frames the coverage in the most dramatic way possible.
I always keep Jon Stewart's quote in mind:
"The bias of the mainstream media is towards sensationalism, conflict and laziness"
I thought you were crystal clear in pointing out that the judge’s comments were being falsely attributed to Trump and his legal team by the dishonest Trump-hating MSM. Thank you for being unafraid to be a real journalist in an era where that is a rare trait. Don’t let the haters get you down. They are probably mostly shills for one candidate or another.
Since Matt mentioned the Iowa caucuses, and I'm bored and here already, I might as well add my 2 cents:
The only possible Republican who will win this year is Don J. Trump.
Even if the Repubs manage to pull off defeating him and crown DeSantis or Haley or someone else at their convention, there is NO WAY Trump goes quietly and doesn't run in Nov as an Independent.
He admirably has zero loyalty to the Republican Party, could really give a shit who the next prez is if it aint gonna be him, and needs to keep running in the hope of staying out of jail.
Prez DeSantis or Prez Haley is just a media enterprise, it's not happening this year.
Trump either wins the nomination or kneecaps the Repub candidate a la Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.
I am no supporter of DJT but in my not so humble opinion what they are doing to him is criminal. I dont hate him and in fact it's hard not to feel sorry for him but I don't want him back in the Whitehouse again and Biden is a Full ON Train Wreck! We need to move ON... there MUST be better candidates than these two. Matt, your appraisal of Trump as "America's Comic" was absolutely right on! The WEF Elites want these two comedians, Biden and Trump, slinging shit to obscure the takeover of our country by The Corporate Cabal..
Even recovering from the Coof, Matt makes more sense than the Globalists seeking to enslave humanity.
Stay warm, Matt. Thanks for doing what you do.
I suspect that this is part of a more general trend in progressive politics of trying to win political campaigns by judicial means. The high hopes invested in South Africa's case against Israel in the International Court of Justice afford another example of this.
The common thread I see in the media coverage of Trump is that, no matter the actual topic at hand, every report must serve as an opportunity to impugn Trump as always lying and to always attribute to him the worst possible motives imaginable. So, in that regard, the attribution by Democrats and by the press of the "Seal Team Six" assassination scenario to Trump and his attorney, rather than to Judge Pan, is simply par for the course. What I find more troubling is that Judge Pan had to have known that her question, " . . . could a president order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival", which she later repeated, making sure to include "Seal Team Six" in the follow up question, was quote bait. It was as if she went out of her way to throw a fresh piece of red meat to the Democrats and the press.
And Matt is correct when he points out that these tactics make it difficult for reporters, commentators, or any honest critic with a sense of integrity to focus on developing or expressing criticisms of Trump that might have some actual basis in substantive evidence.
And I can't help but wonder if the obscuring of the legitimate, but generally undramatic, criticisms of Trump isn't part of the point. Because to focus on those criticisms risks causing him to look like he might just be one more flawed human political candidate among many others. And that could undermine the ongoing effort to maintain his opponents in a constant state of frenzy and to try to provoke at least some of his supporters into doing something even more whacked out than whatever it was that did or did not occur on January 6,2021.
I might be comfortable defining my present political camp as Anybody but Whomever It Is Who Is Trying to Gaslight Us Into Perpetual Participation In A (very extended) Minute of Hate Against Trump.
For a preview of the courtroom drama to come, watch the courtroom scenes from Idiocracy. Strike that. For anything related to our government, just watch Idiocracy.
Not only on the campaign trail, but now the US Supreme Court will almost certainly decide the next president, ala Bush/Gore (although I'm hoping this time they'll do a better job). And that is a real kick in the balls to the majority of Americans who thought THEY were the ones who got to decide who their leader for the next four years will be, and have been doing so for every presidential election save one since the founding of our nation.
Although, you gotta love the irony if a Trump-majority Supreme Court bench decides the election for Trump, seeing as how the reason Trump was able to move the court to the right was the Dems changing the rule from 60 votes to just a bare majority :)
The question came from the judge, but the answer came from Trump's lawyers. The question can ONLY be considered nutty if the lawyer answered, "Of course not." But he couldn't answer that way, because his point was that ALL criminal charges can only be made after impeachment. The judges absurd question was demonstrating how ridiculous this was. It was a brilliant move on the judge's part.
A sad commentary when you have to clarify what was obvious to anyone who actually read the article.
You, too, dear man! Take care of your health and don’t push too hard.
The democrat party, by demanding/seizing veto over who voters get to vote for, is demonstrating exactly which party represents an existential threat to "our democracy."
Lol @ "narratives all the way down," we need to make that more common use
Nice to know that illiterate and logic-challenged people read Racket News. Who knows, perhaps reality will penetrate those barriers some day.
"Today’s story wasn’t about the merits of Donald Trump’s immunity argument or Jack Smith’s “election interference” prosecutions, but an effort to manipulate coverage by attributing to Trump and his legal team something that actually came from a judge. "
I believe this style of court reporting predates Trump. It seems to be a staple in how high profile Supreme Court cases are covered too. Judges and Justices regularly interrupt lawyers to pose extreme hypotheticals to see how the lawyers respond to them. And the media usually frames the coverage in the most dramatic way possible.
I always keep Jon Stewart's quote in mind:
"The bias of the mainstream media is towards sensationalism, conflict and laziness"
https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2011/06/jon-stewart-says-press-favors-sensationalism-036830