"This problem of dutifully reporting “Trump says X” will become even more serious when Trump inevitably makes false assertions about the midterm voting and results. The press must not become accessories to election denial."
Exactly. Trump has not earned any benefit of the doubt. The presumption should always be that he is lying.
"No evidence for Trump's latest claim that..." or "Disproven claim repeated again by Trump that..." should be the rule of the day.
Better yet, just leave his name completely out of the headlines. Report the news: "Dems win big victory in midterm elections", then bury the "Trump whines that massive Republican losses were rigged" deep in the middle of the article.
The problem with being a journalist, as compared to an opinion writer, is that one cannot inject personal views into your reporting. If someone says something, you cannot change the quote. And an editor cannot create a news headline that offers analysis - only the facts of the matter.
It's perfectly fine to put a fact-check or such in a story, but no professional editor would put that in a primary headline. For instance, the Greenland thing could have been written "Trump Announces New Deal with Greenland" as the primary headline and, as a secondary headline would say "Pact Provides No More U.S. Permissions Than Have Existed Since 1951" and then get into the story body.
“ The press must not become accessories to election denial.”
That's a big ask of the media companies, whose reportage on and sane-washing of this president's antics since he ran in 2015 got them so many clicks and $$$$$$$.
I love your phrase "Trump's creepy sycophancy.' Might I suggest that we begin applying the word 'creepy' to everything Trump does, and is? My husband is (IMO) overly fond of those police procedural shows that lean heavily on catching 'psycho killers.' AKA malignant narcissists, AKA 'creepy guys.' Hmm. Maybe 'creepazoid' would be a better label, implying as it does that Trump might be in a category all his own.
Regarding the court decision about banning the media
I'm not a lawyer but I gather than when someone is admitted to the bar (particularly the Federal bar which is necessary to bring a case in Federal court) one must take an oath, which includes a statement that you will not bring a meritless/frivolous case before the court. It's time for the judges to hold the DOJ and Don the Con's personal lawyers to that oath by:
1. Making the DOJ or Don pay for the defendant's attorney fees
2. Reporting those attorneys to the disciplinary committee of the bars to which they are members.
I keep hoping there is a basis for seeking sanctions against DOJ officials who caused a win-able prosecution to be quashed because of affiliations of the prospective defendant.
Can we really do nothing with prosecutors who don't prosecute?
Joyce Vance is very good on the subject, she’s a really terrific lawyer and explains all these things very well. It’s very Difficult to get rid of prosecutors who don’t prosecute, because the standards are not clear cut. In most places, if they are elected, they should be voted out but of course in this instance it doesn’t work that way. Because we can never know everything a prosecutor knows, for the most part, outside of obvious corruption, it’s difficult to say that they should or shouldn’t have brought prosecution. But I’m not explaining it nearly as well as Joyce does
I see a difference between refusing to prosecute on one hand and prosecuting someone as a means of vengeance on the other. In the former case, it's often a prosecutorial judgement call on whether a grand jury would agree and whether a pettit jury would convict.
In the latter case, presumably the prosecutor puts the best evidence forward, and if a judge sees that the whole case is bullstuff intended to make a defendant's life miserable for a while, then it's easier to justify professional sanctions against the prosecutor. It seems to me that like doctors testifying in malpractice cases, lawyers take care of their own, and it's almost unheard of for a judge to sanction a prosecutor. That needs to change
it is tough. It probably falls into the same basket as judicial decisions that are correctly based on the pertinent facts and law but seem wrong based on other views but must still be repected. We had a classic case of refusal to prosecute in Miami years ago of local politiicans who had been buying stolen suits and not paying sales tax from a clandestine salesman/thief operating out of a motel room. They weren't prosecuted because the accessible facts were insufficient no matter how obvious it was to the rest of us.
And to the instant complaint, I cannot imagine that any damning documentation exists.
A stunning fall from MAGA grace. The threat to annihilate Iran makes me very nervous. I have this terrible feeling that his sick pea sized brain is telling him to launch nuclear weapons against Iran. It's the only way he could eliminate every person living in Iran. I sure hope that the military has changed the codes without him knowing. If not, someone needs to. His desperation is rolling off him in waves. Not a good sign. As more Republicans turn on him, his desperation will intensify.
I suspect the first threat was the real one, but then he was talked out of it, probably in terms of potential damage and fallout to ME neighbors. We dropped bombs on *islands* during WWII. Is a "contained" nuclear annihilation of a landmassed country of 90+ million people even possible?
But Trump definitely noticed how he had the world on pins and needles on that occasion and now pulls out the threat for the thrill of it. But he's the little boy who cried wolf.
And I suspect Iran is even better prepared for such an attack now. Our recent wars haven't come home to our shores, but with cyber capabilities or even small drone attacks, can we continue to count on that? Especially with the level of incompetence in this administration tasked with protecting us.
Agree with your analysis but I don't think any country is prepared to withstand a nuclear assault. I don't think we can count on attacks not coming to our shores.
To quote from one of my favorite films, Trump can’t handle the truth. Never could. Everything is always a hoax, a witch hunt or fake news. But did you ever notice that no matter what is said or written about him, the most litigious man in history NEVER sues anyone? That’s because, one, he knows what he’s denouncing as fake news is accurate, and two he doesn’t want to get caught in court, where better lawyers than his will ask for documentation he knows will expose him as the inept thief he’s always been.
Actually, he does sue. The New York Times and the Des Moines State Register come to mind, along with several law firms and a university or two. There have been settlements in his favor in some, though the Iowa case was dismissed. It would appear that his cases show a preponderance of lack of evidence and justification.
One recalls our status at the end of WW II and during the 1950s. To have Trump take our country to the exact opposite pole is embarrassing, disgusting, shameful, and mostly, dispiriting. I remain unable to forgive Trump voters for doing this to us. No excuse or rationale redeems their lack of judgement and denial of reality. I understand the notion that they cannot be written off and that they need to be brought back, but still, they did this.
Sorry, Jen, but the world has already moved on. It WILL take decades for the United States to recover its international stature and reputation, and to rebuild frayed alliances. But it doesn't follow that the rest of the world will be "less stable, less free, and less prosperous" - the US will be. The rest of the world is already making new alliances and economic and defense partnerships.
We might have gotten a pass for electing him the first time, but after repeating, we've branded ourselves idiots probably for a generation. "Always within four years of bringing on a proto-despot"
Watch Trump blame this on Natalie Harp: it was her! She's the one who forced all the bad press stuff on me. I didn't want to, but she made me do it. Now I look foolish to the world like nobody's ever seen before.
Who is Michael Velchik? According to a social media post by Liz Oyer, his favorite book is Mein Kampf, and he wrote a paper praising Hitler while at Harvard. Why do we have nazi sympathizers in important positions in government? He also has a leadership position in the administration's actions against Harvard! What kind of slimeball would lead the attack on his alma mater?
Sad that the entire UN Assembly didn't walk out en masse. By staying silent while a madman rails about annihilating his foes and overtaking countries they give him oxygen. He does not deserve any.
"(H)e rejected Trump’s bogus national security excuse (Trump’s lawyers “offer little to back up their asserted national security interest,”
Trump has been using the term 'national security' as a wedge to get anything he wants across home plate. Thanks to Judge Timothy Kelly, this empty threat has met its challenge. Just because Trump says it does not mean that it's a reality. What is a reality is that his propensity to lie makes the assertion even more dubious. The use of the phrase is but one more example of the man's sinking. As Ms. Rubin documents, both internationally and domestically the man is a failure. If nothing else, a loss of affordability and trust at home, and an apparently unwinnable war abroad highlight this.
We most likely knew the felon president was not going to get away with banning the press from the WH. The press might as well have a dinner on their own without the president. This one defeat is unfortunately not going to stop him from trying other things that go against the 5th Amendment in this case or the 1st Amendment or any other constitutional amendment. This war is driving up fuel prices especially for truckers and we are going to feel the pain soon. It could not be coming at a worse time for him with the election around the corner. It’s a disaster for the Republicans.
If there is one thing Trump is right about, the rest of the world probably is laughing at America - at least now that Trump, as President, is failing so miserably. How could a proud and admirable nation fail so miserably to stand up to an authoritarian? Where are its Congressional leaders? Where is the voice of the people? Turmp has made us the laughing stock of the world!
I don't think they're laughing. Not because we don't deserve it, but because our military and economic power are so great that the echoes of our f**kups will reverberate around the entire world, and that's not funny.
Early voting starts today in Illinois!
I took my Mail in Ballot right to
Our Drop Box‼️‼️
Cathy, we do that too. It may bespeak concern about the integrity of the post office, but in our case, it's more "making sure"
“ The press must not become accessories to election denial.”
Exactly why I no longer pay to have access to the New York Times for the last two years. It’s not worth my money.
"This problem of dutifully reporting “Trump says X” will become even more serious when Trump inevitably makes false assertions about the midterm voting and results. The press must not become accessories to election denial."
Exactly. Trump has not earned any benefit of the doubt. The presumption should always be that he is lying.
"No evidence for Trump's latest claim that..." or "Disproven claim repeated again by Trump that..." should be the rule of the day.
Better yet, just leave his name completely out of the headlines. Report the news: "Dems win big victory in midterm elections", then bury the "Trump whines that massive Republican losses were rigged" deep in the middle of the article.
I'm pretty sure that's called a Truth Sandwich.
The problem with being a journalist, as compared to an opinion writer, is that one cannot inject personal views into your reporting. If someone says something, you cannot change the quote. And an editor cannot create a news headline that offers analysis - only the facts of the matter.
How is calling a lie a lie injecting personal views?
I think some journalists have lost the ability to distinguish between objectivity and neutrality.
It's perfectly fine to put a fact-check or such in a story, but no professional editor would put that in a primary headline. For instance, the Greenland thing could have been written "Trump Announces New Deal with Greenland" as the primary headline and, as a secondary headline would say "Pact Provides No More U.S. Permissions Than Have Existed Since 1951" and then get into the story body.
“ The press must not become accessories to election denial.”
That's a big ask of the media companies, whose reportage on and sane-washing of this president's antics since he ran in 2015 got them so many clicks and $$$$$$$.
I love your phrase "Trump's creepy sycophancy.' Might I suggest that we begin applying the word 'creepy' to everything Trump does, and is? My husband is (IMO) overly fond of those police procedural shows that lean heavily on catching 'psycho killers.' AKA malignant narcissists, AKA 'creepy guys.' Hmm. Maybe 'creepazoid' would be a better label, implying as it does that Trump might be in a category all his own.
It is America that needs fixing.
Regarding the court decision about banning the media
I'm not a lawyer but I gather than when someone is admitted to the bar (particularly the Federal bar which is necessary to bring a case in Federal court) one must take an oath, which includes a statement that you will not bring a meritless/frivolous case before the court. It's time for the judges to hold the DOJ and Don the Con's personal lawyers to that oath by:
1. Making the DOJ or Don pay for the defendant's attorney fees
2. Reporting those attorneys to the disciplinary committee of the bars to which they are members.
Yes, I’m hoping as a lawyer to start to see the Bar Association’s handing out notices of hearings about disbarments.
I keep hoping there is a basis for seeking sanctions against DOJ officials who caused a win-able prosecution to be quashed because of affiliations of the prospective defendant.
Can we really do nothing with prosecutors who don't prosecute?
Joyce Vance is very good on the subject, she’s a really terrific lawyer and explains all these things very well. It’s very Difficult to get rid of prosecutors who don’t prosecute, because the standards are not clear cut. In most places, if they are elected, they should be voted out but of course in this instance it doesn’t work that way. Because we can never know everything a prosecutor knows, for the most part, outside of obvious corruption, it’s difficult to say that they should or shouldn’t have brought prosecution. But I’m not explaining it nearly as well as Joyce does
I see a difference between refusing to prosecute on one hand and prosecuting someone as a means of vengeance on the other. In the former case, it's often a prosecutorial judgement call on whether a grand jury would agree and whether a pettit jury would convict.
In the latter case, presumably the prosecutor puts the best evidence forward, and if a judge sees that the whole case is bullstuff intended to make a defendant's life miserable for a while, then it's easier to justify professional sanctions against the prosecutor. It seems to me that like doctors testifying in malpractice cases, lawyers take care of their own, and it's almost unheard of for a judge to sanction a prosecutor. That needs to change
it is tough. It probably falls into the same basket as judicial decisions that are correctly based on the pertinent facts and law but seem wrong based on other views but must still be repected. We had a classic case of refusal to prosecute in Miami years ago of local politiicans who had been buying stolen suits and not paying sales tax from a clandestine salesman/thief operating out of a motel room. They weren't prosecuted because the accessible facts were insufficient no matter how obvious it was to the rest of us.
And to the instant complaint, I cannot imagine that any damning documentation exists.
A stunning fall from MAGA grace. The threat to annihilate Iran makes me very nervous. I have this terrible feeling that his sick pea sized brain is telling him to launch nuclear weapons against Iran. It's the only way he could eliminate every person living in Iran. I sure hope that the military has changed the codes without him knowing. If not, someone needs to. His desperation is rolling off him in waves. Not a good sign. As more Republicans turn on him, his desperation will intensify.
I suspect the first threat was the real one, but then he was talked out of it, probably in terms of potential damage and fallout to ME neighbors. We dropped bombs on *islands* during WWII. Is a "contained" nuclear annihilation of a landmassed country of 90+ million people even possible?
But Trump definitely noticed how he had the world on pins and needles on that occasion and now pulls out the threat for the thrill of it. But he's the little boy who cried wolf.
And I suspect Iran is even better prepared for such an attack now. Our recent wars haven't come home to our shores, but with cyber capabilities or even small drone attacks, can we continue to count on that? Especially with the level of incompetence in this administration tasked with protecting us.
Agree with your analysis but I don't think any country is prepared to withstand a nuclear assault. I don't think we can count on attacks not coming to our shores.
To quote from one of my favorite films, Trump can’t handle the truth. Never could. Everything is always a hoax, a witch hunt or fake news. But did you ever notice that no matter what is said or written about him, the most litigious man in history NEVER sues anyone? That’s because, one, he knows what he’s denouncing as fake news is accurate, and two he doesn’t want to get caught in court, where better lawyers than his will ask for documentation he knows will expose him as the inept thief he’s always been.
Actually, he does sue. The New York Times and the Des Moines State Register come to mind, along with several law firms and a university or two. There have been settlements in his favor in some, though the Iowa case was dismissed. It would appear that his cases show a preponderance of lack of evidence and justification.
One recalls our status at the end of WW II and during the 1950s. To have Trump take our country to the exact opposite pole is embarrassing, disgusting, shameful, and mostly, dispiriting. I remain unable to forgive Trump voters for doing this to us. No excuse or rationale redeems their lack of judgement and denial of reality. I understand the notion that they cannot be written off and that they need to be brought back, but still, they did this.
Sorry, Jen, but the world has already moved on. It WILL take decades for the United States to recover its international stature and reputation, and to rebuild frayed alliances. But it doesn't follow that the rest of the world will be "less stable, less free, and less prosperous" - the US will be. The rest of the world is already making new alliances and economic and defense partnerships.
We might have gotten a pass for electing him the first time, but after repeating, we've branded ourselves idiots probably for a generation. "Always within four years of bringing on a proto-despot"
Watch Trump blame this on Natalie Harp: it was her! She's the one who forced all the bad press stuff on me. I didn't want to, but she made me do it. Now I look foolish to the world like nobody's ever seen before.
Trump would never admit to looking foolish, though he does, and much more.
Who is Michael Velchik? According to a social media post by Liz Oyer, his favorite book is Mein Kampf, and he wrote a paper praising Hitler while at Harvard. Why do we have nazi sympathizers in important positions in government? He also has a leadership position in the administration's actions against Harvard! What kind of slimeball would lead the attack on his alma mater?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Velchik
The fish rots from the head down…
Sad that the entire UN Assembly didn't walk out en masse. By staying silent while a madman rails about annihilating his foes and overtaking countries they give him oxygen. He does not deserve any.
"(H)e rejected Trump’s bogus national security excuse (Trump’s lawyers “offer little to back up their asserted national security interest,”
Trump has been using the term 'national security' as a wedge to get anything he wants across home plate. Thanks to Judge Timothy Kelly, this empty threat has met its challenge. Just because Trump says it does not mean that it's a reality. What is a reality is that his propensity to lie makes the assertion even more dubious. The use of the phrase is but one more example of the man's sinking. As Ms. Rubin documents, both internationally and domestically the man is a failure. If nothing else, a loss of affordability and trust at home, and an apparently unwinnable war abroad highlight this.
We most likely knew the felon president was not going to get away with banning the press from the WH. The press might as well have a dinner on their own without the president. This one defeat is unfortunately not going to stop him from trying other things that go against the 5th Amendment in this case or the 1st Amendment or any other constitutional amendment. This war is driving up fuel prices especially for truckers and we are going to feel the pain soon. It could not be coming at a worse time for him with the election around the corner. It’s a disaster for the Republicans.
If there is one thing Trump is right about, the rest of the world probably is laughing at America - at least now that Trump, as President, is failing so miserably. How could a proud and admirable nation fail so miserably to stand up to an authoritarian? Where are its Congressional leaders? Where is the voice of the people? Turmp has made us the laughing stock of the world!
We have made ourselves the laughingstock of the world. South Korea did the correct thing when their President tried a coup.
I don't think they're laughing. Not because we don't deserve it, but because our military and economic power are so great that the echoes of our f**kups will reverberate around the entire world, and that's not funny.