Great summary Dan. Jack Smith also clarified Trump’s first amendment rights to lie in public in first pages of indictment but put a fine point on what is Not covered under first amendment. Trump is now in a double bind. Judge Chutkan will not tolerate harassment of witnesses and prosecutors and herself. Trump is terrified of being locked up. And it will be humiliating and that is not his brand… to allow humiliation. But he will have to tame his rhetoric to stay out if jail. But what is he without provocative rhetoric. Will the fan base start walking away because it is less entertaining ? And… by his actions, he Acts like a guilty man.
This really clears up what's happening. I will say this - after spending some time with family in Eastern Washington, we need this kind of clear and concise messaging about what Biden IS doing. My sister is probably a good indicator (though small sample size) of a lot of folks. She expressed to me that she doesn't think Biden has done anything. After watching the local ABC affiliate, I understood why she felt that way. In a local conservative media market, there is no coverage of Bidenomics in any meaningful way, and the news was focused on crime, homelessness, and extreme weather.
Doesn't it feel like a Sisyphean task to get the basic truth out there up against the wall of right wing propaganda and, sadly, the news-apathy of so many Americans?
You forgot the most important part, Dan: Attack directly the credibility of those within the media who repeat the BS of the Right.
Everyone at CNN is automatically suspect theae days, thanks to their current owner. Make them prove they’re NOT shils for Trump or against Biden.
Many of those at the New York Times, The Washington Post, and throughout much of mainstream media are the same.
Have your facts & logic 100% straight - then, the moment they lean towards giving Trump & the Right creedence, punch them in the face (metaphorically) using any and all social media platforms. Whenever possible, loop in their bosses to their professional journalistic incompetence & lack of integrity.
As someone in the media, I’m not necessarily a fan of this tactic - but then again, I’ve been making sure my hosts can justify almost everything they say for the entire time I’ve been a producer (about 2/3 of my nearly 30 years in professiobal media). It means they are either constantly riding that thin line of as-closed-to-unbiased-as-possible, or they’re risking their careers — but at least they’re not pushing the balance of messaging towards the enemy.
Also, whenever possible, on all public TVs, block access to Fox, Newsmax, OAN, etc., if you know how.
Sure. CNN was taken over by a managemwnt group controlled by John Malone, a longtime cable media player, and Trump donor, about two years ago. Malone chose David Zaslav to run WBD (Warner Bros. Discovery), and both Malone & Zaslav picked the disastrous Chris Licht to run CNN. Licht has since been fired for his total incompetence. There are many pieces that were written about this. Here’s one from Vox, that’s not behind a paywall:
Long & short, Malone & Zaslav made it clear they wanted to push CNN to put ideology over facts - and they wanted that ideology to be Trump friendly.
And while Licht is gone, Zaslav & Malone still sign rveryone’s paychecks there. That said, CNN’s current managerial structure is somewhat amorphous - so some of CNN’s more experienced journalists feel a bit more emboldened to do the correct thing as opposed to the right-wing thing. So pushing them to have integrity in public communications not only makes them less likely to veer Right - it also helps them prove doing the correct thing ethically has public support.
Yes thanks much for this. I knew about LIcht but not the rest. I wondered how the journalists I trust more managed to want to stay after that. You have given us the details. Appreciate.
Also important to note - Malone & Zaslav were counting on people like you, who may not have been following that drama carefully, for their plan to work.
You’re welcome. Spread that info about CN. to other people you know. The more people who understand they cannot, by default, trust some persons at some of the traditional news sources, the better.
That said, there is a level of trust that mainstream news media does have over unproven sources, primarily because of libel & slander laws. People may not sue Joe Blow’s rumor website - but CNN etc. have big money. So if they’re slandered in their reporting, they’re more likely to sue.
As a news media professional myself, I recommend everyone adopt basic journalism 101 methodology: Double check all major news with at least one other unconmected legit news source, preferably two. See it on ABC News? Check NBC, CBS, CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post, AP, and/or Reuters.
If multiple unconmected sources are saying the same thing? You’re good to tell others - and in fact, in doing so, you’ll likely understand the news better yourself.
Checking any one story should only take a person 10-15 minutes, tops.
I think, oddly enough, the "free speech" defense feels the weakest because it is so clearly addressed in the indictment. I worry about the other two--although any potential juror would have to know that Trump knew the truth, he knew he had lost, and everyone with ANY credibility close to him told him so. Moreover, anyone who could possibly claim to not know the truth (sitting in Trump's position) is clearly too ignorant to be President of the United States. In fact, too ignorant to operate a conventional elevator, let alone too criminal. The claims of "criminalizing free speech" or "weaponizing the government" are cheap and vulgar, but they fall right in line with the kind of tropes we have endured from the right for the last 30 years and more. They are artful at the repetition of ludicrous talking points, lies, smears and racist dog whistles that we have been hearing since the Reagan era--and surely the Newt Gingrich era and thereafter. Remembering the vulgarity of the attacks on Obama makes this stuff now just par for the course. Even so, Dan is so right and very helpful. We need words to speak truth back properly.
One of the most important points which seems to be unfortunately constantly overlooked is Dan's statement that Trump went through the legal process to adjudicate his patently false claims of election fraud. He lost or had dismissed 59 court cases (several by Trump-appointed judges). When judges asked his lawyers in court if they were charging there was widespread fraud, they answered "no". Why everyone in the media doesn't constantly push on this is beyond me. It's one of the most pertinent facts in the whole "election steal" story. Furthermore, Trump has hired at least two firms to conduct their own audits/investigations, and neither found evidence of widespread fraud. This is another very salient fact that doesn't seem to get mentioned enough. Trump was afforded every opportunity for due process to address his grievances. They were resolved (59 times).
As a very relevant counterexample: Al Gore conceded the 2000 election on Dec 12, 2000-- 3 days after the US Supreme Court decided the FL recount was to be stopped. He went through his options through our legal system, and despite not agreeing with (hating) the outcome, he accepted it.
The media needs to get on its game, here. This is no time to be sloppy.
On Friday Morning Joe did a great piece showing the comparison between trump’s “non concession” and all the concession speeches back to 1960. The start of the piece begins with McCarthy’s truly pathetic speech trying to compare trump’s actions to Hillary and others who have lost their bids for the presidency.
Anyone have any informed idea where Trump would end up if imprisoned, and how long it would "stick?" I have done years of research on prisons. Am super curious.
Yes, we need to push back but the rub is that any pushback is only going to be encountered by those who use common media platforms. Does it matter that there is no way to reach Fox and Truth Central consumers. I guess the gutter press and disinformation has always existed but its sheer reach and power now seems to have reached a whole new level that's just not compatible with democracy.
Overblown, in my opinion. There are some great reporters and good reporting at CNN. Also some lazy or slanted journalism.
If the Malone influence rises to the level of a Murdoch, it’s more likely CNN vanishes from the air. Already, some episodes of PSA draw more audience than segments on CNN.
I don't even know what you mean by "overblown." One is just curious and ALWAYS wanting to learn which mainstream journalists one can trust and which we can't. At CNN, it has been clear there is a mix. I for one would just like to know in this case.
I didn’t mean your comment, so please excuse my ambiguity. I meant the very alarming and hyperbolic comment that you were referencing.
All the news networks have good reporters/interviewers/opinion folks as well as bad (I am excluding Fox, clearly). But why anyone would intentionally try to replicate Fox with CNN—in a dead-end medium—is beyond me. So two competing networks can chase a single geriatric audience of four million oldsters?
I have yet to see any clearly superior talent trimmed from CNN. If any do leave, it will probably be more because the network itself is moribund.
There is no conceivable reason, in my mind, that a crime committed in public, of which a public recording exists, should take 31 months to BEGIN to prosecute. Sure, I’m sure it’s more complicated, and it’s turned into a RICO case, but this amounts to either malpractice or lack of competence.
I read a great book by one of the US Attorneys who prosecuted Spiro Agnew. They knew that Nixon would resign or be removed in all likelihood as a result of Watergate, and if Agnew became president before they wrapped him up, that he would make the case disappear. So they pulled out all the stops and had an ironclad case in 11 months. And Jack Smith has done his work in about eight months.
Had Garland not frittered away 20 months before appointing Smith, and had Willis not moved at a snail’s pace, these prosecutions would have occurred in early-to-mid 2022. Over and done before they could be hyper-politicized.
I read a quote from a recent interview with Willis in which she said, “We have everything wrapped up. We will be issuing indictments at the end of August.”
What?!? I’m sorry, are the indictments at the calligraphers? Are they being aged? A final spellcheck?
I'm behind on my message boxes (after escaping to the Berkshires and an awesome Chicks concert) . . . I do have a question: I feel like Trump's lawyer isn't so much pushing the "he believed it was stolen" part of the bullshit, but more, "he trusted his counsel" from John Eastman that he could do what he did. But from what I gather, there's evidence both he and Eastman knew it was against the law, but would love to hear more about how to fight that particular angle.
Great summary Dan. Jack Smith also clarified Trump’s first amendment rights to lie in public in first pages of indictment but put a fine point on what is Not covered under first amendment. Trump is now in a double bind. Judge Chutkan will not tolerate harassment of witnesses and prosecutors and herself. Trump is terrified of being locked up. And it will be humiliating and that is not his brand… to allow humiliation. But he will have to tame his rhetoric to stay out if jail. But what is he without provocative rhetoric. Will the fan base start walking away because it is less entertaining ? And… by his actions, he Acts like a guilty man.
Thanks, Dan, you sum it up perfectly:
“Trump is being prosecuted not for what he said, but for what he did.”
This really clears up what's happening. I will say this - after spending some time with family in Eastern Washington, we need this kind of clear and concise messaging about what Biden IS doing. My sister is probably a good indicator (though small sample size) of a lot of folks. She expressed to me that she doesn't think Biden has done anything. After watching the local ABC affiliate, I understood why she felt that way. In a local conservative media market, there is no coverage of Bidenomics in any meaningful way, and the news was focused on crime, homelessness, and extreme weather.
Doesn't it feel like a Sisyphean task to get the basic truth out there up against the wall of right wing propaganda and, sadly, the news-apathy of so many Americans?
You forgot the most important part, Dan: Attack directly the credibility of those within the media who repeat the BS of the Right.
Everyone at CNN is automatically suspect theae days, thanks to their current owner. Make them prove they’re NOT shils for Trump or against Biden.
Many of those at the New York Times, The Washington Post, and throughout much of mainstream media are the same.
Have your facts & logic 100% straight - then, the moment they lean towards giving Trump & the Right creedence, punch them in the face (metaphorically) using any and all social media platforms. Whenever possible, loop in their bosses to their professional journalistic incompetence & lack of integrity.
As someone in the media, I’m not necessarily a fan of this tactic - but then again, I’ve been making sure my hosts can justify almost everything they say for the entire time I’ve been a producer (about 2/3 of my nearly 30 years in professiobal media). It means they are either constantly riding that thin line of as-closed-to-unbiased-as-possible, or they’re risking their careers — but at least they’re not pushing the balance of messaging towards the enemy.
Also, whenever possible, on all public TVs, block access to Fox, Newsmax, OAN, etc., if you know how.
Could you say more about cnn? I did not follow what you were saying there. Thanks.
Sure. CNN was taken over by a managemwnt group controlled by John Malone, a longtime cable media player, and Trump donor, about two years ago. Malone chose David Zaslav to run WBD (Warner Bros. Discovery), and both Malone & Zaslav picked the disastrous Chris Licht to run CNN. Licht has since been fired for his total incompetence. There are many pieces that were written about this. Here’s one from Vox, that’s not behind a paywall:
https://www.vox.com/2022/8/26/23322761/cnn-john-malone-david-zaslav-chris-licht-brian-stelter-fox-peter-kafka-column
Long & short, Malone & Zaslav made it clear they wanted to push CNN to put ideology over facts - and they wanted that ideology to be Trump friendly.
And while Licht is gone, Zaslav & Malone still sign rveryone’s paychecks there. That said, CNN’s current managerial structure is somewhat amorphous - so some of CNN’s more experienced journalists feel a bit more emboldened to do the correct thing as opposed to the right-wing thing. So pushing them to have integrity in public communications not only makes them less likely to veer Right - it also helps them prove doing the correct thing ethically has public support.
Make sense now?
Yes thanks much for this. I knew about LIcht but not the rest. I wondered how the journalists I trust more managed to want to stay after that. You have given us the details. Appreciate.
Glad to help.
Also important to note - Malone & Zaslav were counting on people like you, who may not have been following that drama carefully, for their plan to work.
Thankfully, you’re now informed. Tell others.
Exactly.
Like, Amy G, I knew about Licht but had never heard the “rest of the story” as Paul Harvey used to say. Thanks very much! Greatly appreciated!
You’re welcome. Spread that info about CN. to other people you know. The more people who understand they cannot, by default, trust some persons at some of the traditional news sources, the better.
That said, there is a level of trust that mainstream news media does have over unproven sources, primarily because of libel & slander laws. People may not sue Joe Blow’s rumor website - but CNN etc. have big money. So if they’re slandered in their reporting, they’re more likely to sue.
As a news media professional myself, I recommend everyone adopt basic journalism 101 methodology: Double check all major news with at least one other unconmected legit news source, preferably two. See it on ABC News? Check NBC, CBS, CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post, AP, and/or Reuters.
If multiple unconmected sources are saying the same thing? You’re good to tell others - and in fact, in doing so, you’ll likely understand the news better yourself.
Checking any one story should only take a person 10-15 minutes, tops.
I think, oddly enough, the "free speech" defense feels the weakest because it is so clearly addressed in the indictment. I worry about the other two--although any potential juror would have to know that Trump knew the truth, he knew he had lost, and everyone with ANY credibility close to him told him so. Moreover, anyone who could possibly claim to not know the truth (sitting in Trump's position) is clearly too ignorant to be President of the United States. In fact, too ignorant to operate a conventional elevator, let alone too criminal. The claims of "criminalizing free speech" or "weaponizing the government" are cheap and vulgar, but they fall right in line with the kind of tropes we have endured from the right for the last 30 years and more. They are artful at the repetition of ludicrous talking points, lies, smears and racist dog whistles that we have been hearing since the Reagan era--and surely the Newt Gingrich era and thereafter. Remembering the vulgarity of the attacks on Obama makes this stuff now just par for the course. Even so, Dan is so right and very helpful. We need words to speak truth back properly.
One of the most important points which seems to be unfortunately constantly overlooked is Dan's statement that Trump went through the legal process to adjudicate his patently false claims of election fraud. He lost or had dismissed 59 court cases (several by Trump-appointed judges). When judges asked his lawyers in court if they were charging there was widespread fraud, they answered "no". Why everyone in the media doesn't constantly push on this is beyond me. It's one of the most pertinent facts in the whole "election steal" story. Furthermore, Trump has hired at least two firms to conduct their own audits/investigations, and neither found evidence of widespread fraud. This is another very salient fact that doesn't seem to get mentioned enough. Trump was afforded every opportunity for due process to address his grievances. They were resolved (59 times).
As a very relevant counterexample: Al Gore conceded the 2000 election on Dec 12, 2000-- 3 days after the US Supreme Court decided the FL recount was to be stopped. He went through his options through our legal system, and despite not agreeing with (hating) the outcome, he accepted it.
The media needs to get on its game, here. This is no time to be sloppy.
On Friday Morning Joe did a great piece showing the comparison between trump’s “non concession” and all the concession speeches back to 1960. The start of the piece begins with McCarthy’s truly pathetic speech trying to compare trump’s actions to Hillary and others who have lost their bids for the presidency.
Great analysis. What we need are pithy talking points to quickly turn the tables on these.
Agree with Steve U: great summary. I may have to "change my spots" and go on social media to try to reach enough voters.
Anyone have any informed idea where Trump would end up if imprisoned, and how long it would "stick?" I have done years of research on prisons. Am super curious.
Interesting question. You have inspired my imagination this morning.
Thanks Tony. We are pals.
The natural place would be the SuperMax facility in Colorado, assuming he would be imprisoned in a traditional facility.
I tend to think they’ll have to construct a specialized facility, similar to what other nationa have done in similar corcumstances.
Yes, we need to push back but the rub is that any pushback is only going to be encountered by those who use common media platforms. Does it matter that there is no way to reach Fox and Truth Central consumers. I guess the gutter press and disinformation has always existed but its sheer reach and power now seems to have reached a whole new level that's just not compatible with democracy.
I think this stuff about behind the scenes at CNN would be a great PSA episode w Dan, Dan.
Overblown, in my opinion. There are some great reporters and good reporting at CNN. Also some lazy or slanted journalism.
If the Malone influence rises to the level of a Murdoch, it’s more likely CNN vanishes from the air. Already, some episodes of PSA draw more audience than segments on CNN.
I don't even know what you mean by "overblown." One is just curious and ALWAYS wanting to learn which mainstream journalists one can trust and which we can't. At CNN, it has been clear there is a mix. I for one would just like to know in this case.
I didn’t mean your comment, so please excuse my ambiguity. I meant the very alarming and hyperbolic comment that you were referencing.
All the news networks have good reporters/interviewers/opinion folks as well as bad (I am excluding Fox, clearly). But why anyone would intentionally try to replicate Fox with CNN—in a dead-end medium—is beyond me. So two competing networks can chase a single geriatric audience of four million oldsters?
I have yet to see any clearly superior talent trimmed from CNN. If any do leave, it will probably be more because the network itself is moribund.
I'm on it!
Does anyone have any thoughts on the reason for this endless preamble to the Georgia indictment? Is there something Fani Willis is waiting for?
There is no conceivable reason, in my mind, that a crime committed in public, of which a public recording exists, should take 31 months to BEGIN to prosecute. Sure, I’m sure it’s more complicated, and it’s turned into a RICO case, but this amounts to either malpractice or lack of competence.
I read a great book by one of the US Attorneys who prosecuted Spiro Agnew. They knew that Nixon would resign or be removed in all likelihood as a result of Watergate, and if Agnew became president before they wrapped him up, that he would make the case disappear. So they pulled out all the stops and had an ironclad case in 11 months. And Jack Smith has done his work in about eight months.
Had Garland not frittered away 20 months before appointing Smith, and had Willis not moved at a snail’s pace, these prosecutions would have occurred in early-to-mid 2022. Over and done before they could be hyper-politicized.
I read a quote from a recent interview with Willis in which she said, “We have everything wrapped up. We will be issuing indictments at the end of August.”
What?!? I’m sorry, are the indictments at the calligraphers? Are they being aged? A final spellcheck?
Sometimes, speed itself can be a weapon.
We are smart people. Maybe we form our own group (of what exactly I am not sure.) Dan’s Dashers or such. An action group.
I'm behind on my message boxes (after escaping to the Berkshires and an awesome Chicks concert) . . . I do have a question: I feel like Trump's lawyer isn't so much pushing the "he believed it was stolen" part of the bullshit, but more, "he trusted his counsel" from John Eastman that he could do what he did. But from what I gather, there's evidence both he and Eastman knew it was against the law, but would love to hear more about how to fight that particular angle.
Why does the MSM continue to characterize false statemements as "falsehoods" instead of "lies", particularly when it's a Republican saying the lie?
Great stuff Dan.