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.
Judge Pan asked a reasonable hyperthetical about where you draw the line in the sand regarding presidential immunity. I can see as information gets passed from one reporter to another some facts regarded who sad what gets muddled.
But for sure Matt's pretty good at reporting things correctly. If only others could follow his lead.
"Trump-hating MSM." Your so-called "Trump-hating MSM" has largely given Trump a pass over his worldly transgressions for the duration of his tediously checkered and erratic career. True, it's a hard contrast to the hallucinatory hagiography that's now continuously manufactured from the Right's propaganda mills in the hope of resurrecting the Messiah from Mar-a-Lago (and a very fat cash cow).
Trump not only cultivates the negative publicity he receives from the media, his entire career and public persona is bound up with it and wholly dependent on it. Without it Trump is no longer Trump. Trump's accusations of partisan persecution from the precincts of his political opponents, and his complaints of justice miscarried in every court room that hosts him, and his endless retailing of grievances large and small and his tales of phantom elections stolen, rings hollow. It's all part of the programing. It's what generates the eyeballs and increases the ratings.
It's produced to gain maximum advantage with his gullible base and to take advantage of the timorousness of that good 'ol phantom chestnut you mention, the "MSM." The minute your "Trump-hating MSM" ceases with the fusillades of Trump bile, Trump becomes just another failed businessman and washed-up politician, careening with uncertainty into late-stage dotage.
Which Trump era policies and results don’t you like? Are you unhappy with the lack of wars? The recognition that China presents a threat? The growing real incomes for the lower end of the wage demographic? The progress towards Middle East peace? The quieter North Korea? The secure border? The low inflation?
Maybe you are happy now? Literally has anything gotten better in the last 3 years?
Trump has been fantastic for MSM business, which is why they've been unable/unwilling to stop talking about him since 2016. That doesn't mean they don't hate him. If you disagree, just provide here an example of an MSM article about Trump that speaks positively about him and "gives him a pass" on anything. Go ahead, put your money where your mouth is.
"Trump has been fantastic for MSM business, which is why they've been unable/unwilling to stop talking about him since 2016."
Trump has not only been good for the bottom line of the legacy media, he's been good for the bottom line for ALL media---right-wing media, left-wing media, Marxist Media, Rainbow-Green media---Trump is the gruesome multiple-fatality auto accident from which you can't turn away.
As such it's unclear why the media would want to stop covering Trump---he's certainly remained newsworthy post-presidency: all that insane nonsense about the stolen election and the hijinks surrounding the preposterous claim, energetically adding to his already impressive portfolio of felonies---"fraud" being the overarching theme on the docket. It would be malpractice---not to mention poor business sense---not to be willing and able to cover Mr. Trump.
The free pass takes the form when any of those stories don't end with the summary conclusion that Trump is a criminal fascist who is not only unworthy of office, but belongs in a prison laundry washing and hanging out the johnnies for his fellow jimmies.
Uh, no, that's not quite what I mean. I understand your predicament, though. You're on a steady diet of propaganda and manufactured disinformation, that which Rev. Taibbi teaches us does not exist, but you know me, ever the heretic, breakin' things inside the temple. I understand this, I understand all of it, so it's difficult for you to discern what real news is. I understand this and I have much empathy for you. I'm here to help.
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 remember the night Trump was elected. I had a reluctant but clear epiphany: we just dodged a bullet named Hillary. I still feel that way. Trump was more scary eight years ago; and how much harm can the Bull do now that all the China is already broken.
If I had to choose, I’d take Trump over Uncle Dribble because...Kamala. She terrifies me.
A weird double bill of Trump and RFK is tantalizing. But Trump/Ramaswami looks like a better bet. There are possibilities there.
I never thought I would see the courts just throw precedent in the toilet the way they have done. I could never support a party that would destroy everything just to get to one guy.
Despite his lapses, RFK Jr. is not a conservative. He'sjust really bad on Palestine. The Left is actually split on vaccines or Covid remedies - as is the right, I think. As a Green, I've been living that split for 3 years now.
I have to say to the Borg it is just a number. It/They want to win. Per The Borg no one can possibly vote for Trump. Ballot access? RFKJr/West? No Labels? No access.
Late September or so, here come the ballot harvesters. Issues? Concerns? While you are requesting a driver's license let me help you register and get a ballot mailed to you. I'll come by to help fill it out --- and deliver it!
The point is, a federal election is just a ballot harvesting exercise for the Dems. Tell me I'm wrong.
I think you are correct. In PA, illegals can get a drivers license. PA law is that applicants for a drivers license are automatically registered to vote unless they opt out. Law passed in 2022 or 2023. PA is clearly no longer a swing state. Dems have it rigged.
Years ago here in Illinois it was referred to as Motor Voter. Of course as in PA, everyone present in the state is eligible for a driver's license --- it's a highway safety issue, you know.
I was recently sent a form from our SOS to renew my drivers license without a trip to the DMV. Which also includes a "Your Voter Registration" section. Hilariously it admonishes that if you lie about your status, you are under "penalty of perjury,"* and that the info you provide will only be used "for voter registration purposes." "Voter reg purposes." Read, we Democrats will hunt your vote down like a dog.
*We have state-wide cashless bail. 'First state to do so. So if I can take your stuff from you in a robbery or drunk drive into your yard, I should be scared if I mis-repped my right to be in the country?
The driver's license app form also reads, "Your decision to register or not register will remain confidential and will not affect any services you may receive from the SOS . . ." It doesn't read, "services you may receive from the State of Illinois."
Finally, quoting my driver's license mail app I got because I'm a good driver: "Non-U.S. citizens who complete a voter registration application may be deported and denied reentry into the U.S." Not sure how the Biden (and thus the Pritzker administration) defines "non-U.S. citizen," but seriously. Please stop insulting us.
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..
RFK Jr seems to have a fighting chance, if indeed our votes matter. If they don't, and it's the deep state that actually decides these "elections," then of course he has zero chance. Either way, he still has my vote.
Our votes don’t matter. I think it’s been a long time since they did. It’s just only become obvious in the last couple of years. We should have listened to the founding fathers and Eisenhower. And yes, I think RFK is the only one with integrity in this whole mess.
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.
Mark Steyn's great novel "The Prisoner of Windsor" brings this up as one of many plausible situations. The European Union's parliament has voted not to allow referendums anymore as they give the people too much say in what gets done. The British Prime Minister (who is actually someone from Ruritania impersonating him because the real Prime Minister is very sick) says at a meeting in England that he will have a referendum on referendums to find out if the British approve. The EU Presidents (yes, there are seven), really criticize him for such a stupid idea.
That’s the way the left operates and has done for decades. The courts are one of the many tools they are willing to use, and given the pipeline of left wing indoctrinated lawyers and judges that our universities are churning out, the strategy should be a very effective one.
Court packing?? Those words don’t mean what you think they do. Appointing judges you don’t like doesn’t mean it’s court packing. And remember who changed the rules on filibuster of judicial nominees? You guys love to accuse the other side of the very things you do.
"...People often use "court packing" to describe changes to the size of the Supreme Court, but it's better understood as any effort to manipulate the Court's membership for partisan ends. A political party that's engaged in court packing will usually violate norms that govern who is appointed (e.g., only appoint jurists who respect precedent) and how the appointment process works (e.g., no appointments during a presidential election)."
Yes, it reflects the ideology of the party in power. It’s exactly what each party does when they’re in power. To suggest that the left is somehow behind in that game is laughable. The amazing thing is how in the Democrats’ view, unless it’s their politics being advanced by any given political act, it somehow becomes illegitimate. If Obama or Biden had three Supreme Court vacancies, it would have been a watershed moment for democracy. Anytime it’s a Republican, it’s an ill gotten gain that must be reversed.
"...If Obama or Biden had three Supreme Court vacancies, it would have been a watershed moment for democracy. Anytime it’s a Republican, it’s an ill gotten gain that must be reversed."
To make my own position clear, I am sympathetic to many of the causes that progressives are seeking to advance judicially, but I have concerns from about the democratic ethics and the strategic sustainability of excessive reliance on this method.
I would like to see Trump defeated politically because a better candidate is able to convince more US people to vote for them in this year's election. I have a problem with using judicial methods (which may themselves entail violations of due process) to deny people the option of voting for Trump or somebody else.
Tee-Jae, the thing is that people are constructing it as something else and/or something more. This morning I have come across a meme saying that the case is really "Mandela vs Balfour". Now that may be a completely fanciful construction of what the case is about and what it could actually achieve, but it shows the way some people are thinking about it.
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.
Great comment. Even Matt does this when he reports on Trump. There always has to be caveats when something good or even neutral is said about Trump. That all wears thin. Imagine if every story about Biden started, "The dementia addled Biden is trying to save democracy. After getting his shot of uppers and anti-psychotic drugs, he stumbles out to the stage under the expert guidance of elder abuser Dr Jill. He announces he has saved America and, of course he has because he is the most perfect president in the history of the world. Corn Pop says so."
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.
People thought it was silly so it wasn't that popular. Same with Demolition Man. It was made in 1993 when Wokeness was confined to a few enclaves like Hollywood. The general public couldn't imagine it going mainstream.
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 :)
And they shot their last wad trying to stop Gorsuch, who was just maintaining the balance of a court which had given them some huge wins, and in fact was way better for them than Scalia as they should’ve been able to see. They likely could’ve torpedoed Kavanaugh if the filibuster were still in place, had they kept it in their pants for Gorsuch.
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.
My God we learned this in grade school! The remedy for “high crimes and misdemeanors” by a president is one thing spelled out with total clarity in the Constitution. There’s no “but what if it it’s really really bad?” exception. The process is impeachment and Senate trial and just like a regular trial, the possibility of acquittal exists. Pan’s hypothetical, unlike Trump’s J6 escapades, would clearly be an official act and clearly would be dealt with by impeachment. You’re all acting like this doesn’t qualify as a legal consequence.
Sounds right to me, too. Any order given to the armed forces by the commander-in-chief is an official act. Whether such an order is legal or correct is the reason we have the impeachment process.
Furthermore, if the President was convicted, that would not only throw him out of office, but invalidate his order as an official act, opening him up to legal prosecution for it. Anything else, we’d have continuous “lawfare”.
Hmmm, ordering the assassination of a major political rival would be an official act? I beg to differ. If done covertly it would certainly not be official. If done openly then said rival's supporters could block it via an injunction or something like that.
Sounds like the assassination topic is loosening people up to the idea that the JFK assassination was Ok. Seems the official record is on it's way out to the public. 2024, the year of clarity.
How do I get my renewed in late Sept subscription canceled & refunded?
Some of u personally know Matt. Pls ask. Cld use the $$ & sanity. You changed course again & have zero interest in elections esp this level with media whore Kirn (he changed)
*They* are all complicit in the death of several friends from warp speed. Sickening last night listening to podcast esp with all going on in world plus my sis still wasting away in nursing home post booster.
I wrote in a comment way back, asking him to do something on Covid. It may have been at the very beginning of the Twitter files. He actually replied, and said he'd been focusing on other things, but it looked like investigations were heading in that direction, IIRC.
His wife an MD of some kind. When I was on twitter I had a high positive response tweet in response to an article Matt wrote re Dr Kory’s censorship issues (including Congress). He felt Kory was exaggerating the power of IVM. In 2021 he was part of every podcast that in a chorus ended “get vaccinated.
Just listening to Ed Dowd on Sarah Westall (Rumble) & he’s correlated how each time deaths/incidents were becoming too obvious to ignore. The first was Ukraine war in 2021 then…constant distractions from an event as bad if not worse than any war. Deaths continue esp in the young. 10% monthly excess deaths currently & crickets.
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."
In one of the better cosmic jokes, the actions of the Democrat party, in trying to remove Trump and any other challengers they find "icky", are proving showing WHY Trump was elected the first time.
"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.
Double Ditto... wasted effort to attempt any further clarification. Anyone who didn't understand the first time, did so deliberately.
As a first time commenter, keep thickening the skin. There is a silent army deeply appreciative of your adherence to core principles.
I now have the smell memory of that chemical stank known as purple mimeograph ink.
🥸
Ultra-short video snippet from Fast Times at Ridgemont High:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu3iCvAQCHg&ab_channel=DanH
(Kids these days have no idea.)
🏆
The problem is that silent armies are too easily defeated.
Yes and amen
Ditto...Thanks Matt and keep up the great work!
and despite all the side junk...thank you, Matt for once again for being a true journalist.
Judge Pan asked a reasonable hyperthetical about where you draw the line in the sand regarding presidential immunity. I can see as information gets passed from one reporter to another some facts regarded who sad what gets muddled.
But for sure Matt's pretty good at reporting things correctly. If only others could follow his lead.
"Trump-hating MSM." Your so-called "Trump-hating MSM" has largely given Trump a pass over his worldly transgressions for the duration of his tediously checkered and erratic career. True, it's a hard contrast to the hallucinatory hagiography that's now continuously manufactured from the Right's propaganda mills in the hope of resurrecting the Messiah from Mar-a-Lago (and a very fat cash cow).
Trump not only cultivates the negative publicity he receives from the media, his entire career and public persona is bound up with it and wholly dependent on it. Without it Trump is no longer Trump. Trump's accusations of partisan persecution from the precincts of his political opponents, and his complaints of justice miscarried in every court room that hosts him, and his endless retailing of grievances large and small and his tales of phantom elections stolen, rings hollow. It's all part of the programing. It's what generates the eyeballs and increases the ratings.
It's produced to gain maximum advantage with his gullible base and to take advantage of the timorousness of that good 'ol phantom chestnut you mention, the "MSM." The minute your "Trump-hating MSM" ceases with the fusillades of Trump bile, Trump becomes just another failed businessman and washed-up politician, careening with uncertainty into late-stage dotage.
Which Trump era policies and results don’t you like? Are you unhappy with the lack of wars? The recognition that China presents a threat? The growing real incomes for the lower end of the wage demographic? The progress towards Middle East peace? The quieter North Korea? The secure border? The low inflation?
Maybe you are happy now? Literally has anything gotten better in the last 3 years?
If these hallucinations comfort you in these troubled times, I won't intervene further. Rest up. Be strong.
Trump has been fantastic for MSM business, which is why they've been unable/unwilling to stop talking about him since 2016. That doesn't mean they don't hate him. If you disagree, just provide here an example of an MSM article about Trump that speaks positively about him and "gives him a pass" on anything. Go ahead, put your money where your mouth is.
"Trump has been fantastic for MSM business, which is why they've been unable/unwilling to stop talking about him since 2016."
Trump has not only been good for the bottom line of the legacy media, he's been good for the bottom line for ALL media---right-wing media, left-wing media, Marxist Media, Rainbow-Green media---Trump is the gruesome multiple-fatality auto accident from which you can't turn away.
As such it's unclear why the media would want to stop covering Trump---he's certainly remained newsworthy post-presidency: all that insane nonsense about the stolen election and the hijinks surrounding the preposterous claim, energetically adding to his already impressive portfolio of felonies---"fraud" being the overarching theme on the docket. It would be malpractice---not to mention poor business sense---not to be willing and able to cover Mr. Trump.
The free pass takes the form when any of those stories don't end with the summary conclusion that Trump is a criminal fascist who is not only unworthy of office, but belongs in a prison laundry washing and hanging out the johnnies for his fellow jimmies.
So you mean it's a "free pass" if a story just, you know, reports the news, without telling you what you should think? Good luck with that then.
Uh, no, that's not quite what I mean. I understand your predicament, though. You're on a steady diet of propaganda and manufactured disinformation, that which Rev. Taibbi teaches us does not exist, but you know me, ever the heretic, breakin' things inside the temple. I understand this, I understand all of it, so it's difficult for you to discern what real news is. I understand this and I have much empathy for you. I'm here to help.
Are you a varnish?
Would you like me to be a varnish? If so, what kind of varnish would you like me to be?
Never heard of feldspar varnish.
Spar
Could not agrée more. Keep it up Matt.
Who are the haters? Yeah, I know, but I just find it funny to hear that. We live in a time of t0t@l war donchtya know?? ;)
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 remember the night Trump was elected. I had a reluctant but clear epiphany: we just dodged a bullet named Hillary. I still feel that way. Trump was more scary eight years ago; and how much harm can the Bull do now that all the China is already broken.
If I had to choose, I’d take Trump over Uncle Dribble because...Kamala. She terrifies me.
A weird double bill of Trump and RFK is tantalizing. But Trump/Ramaswami looks like a better bet. There are possibilities there.
I will still go with "none of the above".
I felt the same way! And I voted Green Party in 2016.
We see that a large number of people have been going to unusual lengths to dismantle Trump since 2016.
If there's any truth in the saying that "if voting made a difference, they wouldn't let us do it", then maybe Trump does indeed deserve a deeper look.
I never thought I would see the courts just throw precedent in the toilet the way they have done. I could never support a party that would destroy everything just to get to one guy.
Despite his lapses, RFK Jr. is not a conservative. He'sjust really bad on Palestine. The Left is actually split on vaccines or Covid remedies - as is the right, I think. As a Green, I've been living that split for 3 years now.
Getting Trump to split the repubs has been the dem's goal all along. How else could they run President Roomba?
I have to say to the Borg it is just a number. It/They want to win. Per The Borg no one can possibly vote for Trump. Ballot access? RFKJr/West? No Labels? No access.
Late September or so, here come the ballot harvesters. Issues? Concerns? While you are requesting a driver's license let me help you register and get a ballot mailed to you. I'll come by to help fill it out --- and deliver it!
The point is, a federal election is just a ballot harvesting exercise for the Dems. Tell me I'm wrong.
I think you are correct. In PA, illegals can get a drivers license. PA law is that applicants for a drivers license are automatically registered to vote unless they opt out. Law passed in 2022 or 2023. PA is clearly no longer a swing state. Dems have it rigged.
Years ago here in Illinois it was referred to as Motor Voter. Of course as in PA, everyone present in the state is eligible for a driver's license --- it's a highway safety issue, you know.
I was recently sent a form from our SOS to renew my drivers license without a trip to the DMV. Which also includes a "Your Voter Registration" section. Hilariously it admonishes that if you lie about your status, you are under "penalty of perjury,"* and that the info you provide will only be used "for voter registration purposes." "Voter reg purposes." Read, we Democrats will hunt your vote down like a dog.
*We have state-wide cashless bail. 'First state to do so. So if I can take your stuff from you in a robbery or drunk drive into your yard, I should be scared if I mis-repped my right to be in the country?
The driver's license app form also reads, "Your decision to register or not register will remain confidential and will not affect any services you may receive from the SOS . . ." It doesn't read, "services you may receive from the State of Illinois."
Finally, quoting my driver's license mail app I got because I'm a good driver: "Non-U.S. citizens who complete a voter registration application may be deported and denied reentry into the U.S." Not sure how the Biden (and thus the Pritzker administration) defines "non-U.S. citizen," but seriously. Please stop insulting us.
Thanks for the Illinois update. I expect this.from a.blue state. Pennsylvania was a purple, swing state. Red.has disappeared from PAs purple.
I don't think you are wrong.
either way, he is either the Repub candidate or runs Independent—there will be no Prez DeSantis, Haley etc
They're actually running for Veep, or for 4 years from now.
Four years from now? Paraphrasing film Merry: By then all that is good and honorable about the Shire may be lost.
But TR just wound up getting Wilson elected. And we see how well that turned out!
TR might be the one person with an ego as massive as Trump's...(but his was more deserved).
Thanks for the insight!! So hard to tell from here what is going on out there.
Or, according to Judge Pan and the leftist media, can (and probably will) sic Seal Team Six on them. ;)
I can agree with your assessment, despite disliking Trump immensely. I've come to dislike the Democrats even more.
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..
They'll never let anyone good get close to the WH, sadly.
Operative word is 'they' and not 'We'.
This is a point in Trump's favor.
RFK Jr seems to have a fighting chance, if indeed our votes matter. If they don't, and it's the deep state that actually decides these "elections," then of course he has zero chance. Either way, he still has my vote.
Our votes don’t matter. I think it’s been a long time since they did. It’s just only become obvious in the last couple of years. We should have listened to the founding fathers and Eisenhower. And yes, I think RFK is the only one with integrity in this whole mess.
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.
After Brexit and Trump, the self anointed experts decided democracy can no longer be entrusted to the voters.
Mark Steyn's great novel "The Prisoner of Windsor" brings this up as one of many plausible situations. The European Union's parliament has voted not to allow referendums anymore as they give the people too much say in what gets done. The British Prime Minister (who is actually someone from Ruritania impersonating him because the real Prime Minister is very sick) says at a meeting in England that he will have a referendum on referendums to find out if the British approve. The EU Presidents (yes, there are seven), really criticize him for such a stupid idea.
Read the book.
It's true, Our Democracy is way too important to leave it to that pesky democratic process.
Or the demos.
That’s the way the left operates and has done for decades. The courts are one of the many tools they are willing to use, and given the pipeline of left wing indoctrinated lawyers and judges that our universities are churning out, the strategy should be a very effective one.
Did you miss the court packing that went on 2016-2020?
Court packing?? Those words don’t mean what you think they do. Appointing judges you don’t like doesn’t mean it’s court packing. And remember who changed the rules on filibuster of judicial nominees? You guys love to accuse the other side of the very things you do.
I think you’re missing my point. Are you familiar with the Federalist Society?
Yes. How did I miss your point?
Federalist society is a right wing pipeline, and was used to fill tons of vacancies from 2016-2020
"...People often use "court packing" to describe changes to the size of the Supreme Court, but it's better understood as any effort to manipulate the Court's membership for partisan ends. A political party that's engaged in court packing will usually violate norms that govern who is appointed (e.g., only appoint jurists who respect precedent) and how the appointment process works (e.g., no appointments during a presidential election)."
https://www.rutgers.edu/news/what-court-packing#:~:text=People%20often%20use%20%22court%20packing%22%20to%20describe%20changes,to%20manipulate%20the%20Court%27s%20membership%20for%20partisan%20ends.
Yes, it reflects the ideology of the party in power. It’s exactly what each party does when they’re in power. To suggest that the left is somehow behind in that game is laughable. The amazing thing is how in the Democrats’ view, unless it’s their politics being advanced by any given political act, it somehow becomes illegitimate. If Obama or Biden had three Supreme Court vacancies, it would have been a watershed moment for democracy. Anytime it’s a Republican, it’s an ill gotten gain that must be reversed.
"...If Obama or Biden had three Supreme Court vacancies, it would have been a watershed moment for democracy. Anytime it’s a Republican, it’s an ill gotten gain that must be reversed."
A bit hyperbolic, but you're close.
To make my own position clear, I am sympathetic to many of the causes that progressives are seeking to advance judicially, but I have concerns from about the democratic ethics and the strategic sustainability of excessive reliance on this method.
I would like to see Trump defeated politically because a better candidate is able to convince more US people to vote for them in this year's election. I have a problem with using judicial methods (which may themselves entail violations of due process) to deny people the option of voting for Trump or somebody else.
Not sure what you're saying. South Africa's case is not about "trying to win political campaigns by judicial means." It's a criminal case.
Tee-Jae, the thing is that people are constructing it as something else and/or something more. This morning I have come across a meme saying that the case is really "Mandela vs Balfour". Now that may be a completely fanciful construction of what the case is about and what it could actually achieve, but it shows the way some people are thinking about it.
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.
Great comment. Even Matt does this when he reports on Trump. There always has to be caveats when something good or even neutral is said about Trump. That all wears thin. Imagine if every story about Biden started, "The dementia addled Biden is trying to save democracy. After getting his shot of uppers and anti-psychotic drugs, he stumbles out to the stage under the expert guidance of elder abuser Dr Jill. He announces he has saved America and, of course he has because he is the most perfect president in the history of the world. Corn Pop says so."
Comment of the day!
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.
remember when we thought that movie was not a documentary?
People thought it was silly so it wasn't that popular. Same with Demolition Man. It was made in 1993 when Wokeness was confined to a few enclaves like Hollywood. The general public couldn't imagine it going mainstream.
It was always one of my family's favs, but then we are a little off :)
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 :)
And they shot their last wad trying to stop Gorsuch, who was just maintaining the balance of a court which had given them some huge wins, and in fact was way better for them than Scalia as they should’ve been able to see. They likely could’ve torpedoed Kavanaugh if the filibuster were still in place, had they kept it in their pants for Gorsuch.
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.
My God we learned this in grade school! The remedy for “high crimes and misdemeanors” by a president is one thing spelled out with total clarity in the Constitution. There’s no “but what if it it’s really really bad?” exception. The process is impeachment and Senate trial and just like a regular trial, the possibility of acquittal exists. Pan’s hypothetical, unlike Trump’s J6 escapades, would clearly be an official act and clearly would be dealt with by impeachment. You’re all acting like this doesn’t qualify as a legal consequence.
Pan's hypothetical suggests she might want to lay off of the Action Adventure/Commando Movie subsection of Netflix for awhile.
Thanks, Matt., and that has been my argument. Anyone who took civics much less went to law school knows this.
Sounds right to me, too. Any order given to the armed forces by the commander-in-chief is an official act. Whether such an order is legal or correct is the reason we have the impeachment process.
Furthermore, if the President was convicted, that would not only throw him out of office, but invalidate his order as an official act, opening him up to legal prosecution for it. Anything else, we’d have continuous “lawfare”.
' It was a brilliant move on the judge's part.'
True, if the judge's motivation was to provide sensationalist headlines for the anti-Trumpers.
Hmmm, ordering the assassination of a major political rival would be an official act? I beg to differ. If done covertly it would certainly not be official. If done openly then said rival's supporters could block it via an injunction or something like that.
Sounds like the assassination topic is loosening people up to the idea that the JFK assassination was Ok. Seems the official record is on it's way out to the public. 2024, the year of clarity.
How do I get my renewed in late Sept subscription canceled & refunded?
Some of u personally know Matt. Pls ask. Cld use the $$ & sanity. You changed course again & have zero interest in elections esp this level with media whore Kirn (he changed)
*They* are all complicit in the death of several friends from warp speed. Sickening last night listening to podcast esp with all going on in world plus my sis still wasting away in nursing home post booster.
https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/360037489252-How-do-I-cancel-my-paid-subscription-on-Substack-
Doesn't look like any refunds are possible, however.
I'm sorry about your sister. My brother died a year ago of turbo cancer.
Thanks. Unaware of “pause.” Truly hoping someone whom knows him would pass on. He can initiate refund. We can’t.
Guess that’s how frustrated I’ve been with Matt. He was more than slow during Covid; he mocked some of the dissidents.
Likewise re your brother....
I wrote in a comment way back, asking him to do something on Covid. It may have been at the very beginning of the Twitter files. He actually replied, and said he'd been focusing on other things, but it looked like investigations were heading in that direction, IIRC.
Lucky you. A response :)
His wife an MD of some kind. When I was on twitter I had a high positive response tweet in response to an article Matt wrote re Dr Kory’s censorship issues (including Congress). He felt Kory was exaggerating the power of IVM. In 2021 he was part of every podcast that in a chorus ended “get vaccinated.
Just listening to Ed Dowd on Sarah Westall (Rumble) & he’s correlated how each time deaths/incidents were becoming too obvious to ignore. The first was Ukraine war in 2021 then…constant distractions from an event as bad if not worse than any war. Deaths continue esp in the young. 10% monthly excess deaths currently & crickets.
Clarity. That’s why I subscribed.
Even after the second try, you still manage to miss the point of the article.
🤬
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."
In one of the better cosmic jokes, the actions of the Democrat party, in trying to remove Trump and any other challengers they find "icky", are proving showing WHY Trump was elected the first time.
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.
HAHAHA.
"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