The Trump Card...

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
This is what happens when their is a show trial. This information isn’t presented. Just a one sided propaganda show.

Which of the mainstream media will be the first to significantly report this tidbit of truth, and when? Don't hold your breath waiting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Rupert Murdoch Dumps Trump

This is big. By losing Murdoch, Trump lost Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post.

New York Post: "Trump has proven himself unworthy to be this country’s chief executive again." (Source) (Emphasis mine)

Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Trump took an oath to defend the Constitution, and he had a duty as Commander in Chief to protect the Capitol from a mob attacking it in his name. He refused. He didn’t call the military to send help. He didn’t call [then-Vice President Mike Pence] to check on the safety of his loyal VP. Instead he fed the mob’s anger and let the riot play out.
“Character is revealed in a crisis, and Mr. Pence passed his Jan. 6 trial. Mr. Trump utterly failed his."
(Source) (Emphasis mine)

Murdoch is mincing no words. When we read Trump is "unworthy" and he "utterly failed," it's clear Trump will not receive the favorable coverage from WSJ, Fox and NY Post he did before. The conservatives who rely exclusively on these outlets for their news are about to hear a different side of the Trump story.

Separately, the Washington Examiner has also picked up this theme:

Washington Examiner: "Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s Tuesday testimony ought to ring the death knell for former President Donald Trump’s political career. Trump is unfit to be anywhere near power ever again." (Source) (Emphasis mine)

Unworthy, utterly failed, unfit.

Some in this forum have dismissed the Jan 6 hearings as a joke. It seems the conservative news outlets above are taking the committee findings seriously.
 
Last edited:

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
The Fake Electors KNEW They Were Fake

The case has been made that the so-called fake electors were actually alternate electors. Evidence has now surfaced in which the fake electors themselves identify their activity as "fake." The actual word they use is "fake."

Alternates? Not even close. Fake electors? In their own words, yes.

"“We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted,” Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Trump campaign adviser Boris Epshteyn." (
Source)
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Murdoch is mincing no words. When we read Trump is "unworthy" and he "utterly failed," it's clear Trump will not receive the favorable coverage from WSJ, Fox and NY Post he did before. The conservatives who rely exclusively on these outlets for their news are about to hear a different side of the Trump story.
Got it. So they’re going to purposely supply more unfavorable coverage instead? That worked so well for CNN. :tearsofjoy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: danthewolf00

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Murdoch is mincing no words.
I'm sorry, but I completely missed any quoted words from Murdoch.

The Editorial Boards of the WSJ and tihe NY POST have never been on the Trump Train. In fact, the WSJ is kinda famous for its Editorial Board and Journalism Department being the proverbial Left Hand and Right Hand not knowing what the other is doing. The WSJ Editorial Board slammed Trump routinely during his presidency. Same with the POST. The Washington Examiner "editorials" have always been nothing more than Op-ed pages, all over the place politically. One day someone will pen a piece slamming Trump, the next day someone else will slam Biden for trying to redefine "recession."
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Trump Running for President Will Not Slow DOJ Investigation of Him

News broke tonight that the Justice Dept. and at least one federal grand jury that are conducting a criminal investigation into the January 6 insurrection are now directly focused on Donald Trump himself. I'm not going to say much about that at this point because the Washington Post story relies on unnamed sources.

I will say this. One thing that is factually verifiable and crystal clear is US Attorney General Merrick Garland's statement about how the pace of the investigation would be affected if Trump once again became a formally announced candidate for president.

Garland's remarks surprised me. Until he spoke about this today, I believed that if Trump officially entered the race, the Justice Department would slow or back off any Trump-related investigations for fear of the Department being painted as too political or biased. Garland's remarks laid that view to rest. With conviction in his voice and clarity in his words, Garland made it clear that DOJ is focused on one thing; "... bring to justice everybody who is criminally responsible for interfering with the peaceful transfer of power … which is the fundamental element of our democracy”.

Excerpt from this report:

NBC News reporter Lester] Holt asked about the political sensitivities around potential charges for Trump.

Holt said: “You said in no uncertain terms the other day that no one is above the law. That said, the indictment of a former president, of perhaps a candidate for president, would arguably tear the country apart. Is that your concern as you make your decision down the road here? Do you have to think about things like that?”

Garland said: “We pursue justice without fear or favor. We intend to hold everyone, anyone who was criminally responsible for events surrounding January 6, or any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another, accountable. That’s what we do. We don’t pay any attention to other issues with respect to that.”

Trump has suggested he will soon announce a new run for president. He hinted at such a move again in his speech on Tuesday.

Holt said: “So if Donald Trump were to become a candidate for president again, that would not change your schedule or how you move forward or don’t move forward?”

Garland said: “I’ll say again, that we will hold accountable anyone who was criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the transfer legitimate lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next.”
 
Last edited:

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
I'm sorry, but I completely missed any quoted words from Murdoch.

The Editorial Boards of the WSJ and tihe NY POST have never been on the Trump Train. In fact, the WSJ is kinda famous for its Editorial Board and Journalism Department being the proverbial Left Hand and Right Hand not knowing what the other is doing. The WSJ Editorial Board slammed Trump routinely during his presidency. Same with the POST. The Washington Examiner "editorials" have always been nothing more than Op-ed pages, all over the place politically. One day someone will pen a piece slamming Trump, the next day someone else will slam Biden for trying to redefine "recession."
Point taken. I'll modify my words to say Murdoch's publications minced no words." Your point about a variety of writers being featured on the editorial pages is also valid. But it's also important to note that the above mentioned opinions came from the papers themselves, not guest writers.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Offline
As WaPo's Erik Wemple notes, "when Hannity starts blasting away at Trump, we’ll know something’s up."
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
As WaPo's Erik Wemple notes, "when Hannity starts blasting away at Trump, we’ll know something’s up."
Watch that space. I think it more likely that Hannity and Carlson will simply stop saying anything at all about Trump.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Offline
But it's also important to note that the above mentioned opinions came from the papers themselves, not guest
Yeah, but like I said, it's nothing new. The same types of editorials be appeared in those publications before, several times. When Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham start slamming Trump, that will be news worthy of speculating about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pilgrim

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Watch that space. I think it more likely that Hannity and Carlson will simply stop saying anything at all about Trump.
Not if Trump has "lost Murdoch," as so many people have chosen to leap towards. They aren't likely to be told what to say on air by Murdoch, but simply remaining silent on Trump won't be an option for them, as the blowback from their viewers will demand.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
... the next day someone else will slam Biden for trying to redefine "recession."
I hope someone does. The standard definition of a recession has been in place and widely accepted for a long time. It is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. The Biden administration's attempt to soft-pedal that definition in favor of another, in the very week the numbers are due to be released signals to me that the recession criteria has likely been met. We'll know soon when the numbers come out.

It's not helpful to anyone to try to water down a long-standing definition.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Not if Trump has "lost Murdoch," as so many people have chosen to leap towards. They aren't likely to be told what to say on air by Murdoch, but simply remaining silent on Trump won't be an option for them, as the blowback from their viewers will demand.
We'll see. Again, watch that space.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
The Fake Electors KNEW They Were Fake

The case has been made that the so-called fake electors were actually alternate electors. Evidence has now surfaced in which the fake electors themselves identify their activity as "fake." The actual word they use is "fake."

Alternates? Not even close. Fake electors? In their own words, yes.

"“We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted,” Jack Wilenchik, a Phoenix-based lawyer who helped organize pro-Trump electors in Arizona, wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Trump campaign adviser Boris Epshteyn." (Source)
I see this wasn’t included. Just prior to the above quote. :tearsofjoy:
4E70D636-8786-4E8B-BFFF-7D01A3288F2C.jpeg
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Offline
I hope someone does. The standard definition of a recession has been in place and widely accepted for a long time. It is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. The Biden administration's attempt to soft-pedal that definition in favor of another, in the very week the numbers are due to be released signals to me that the recession criteria has likely been met. We'll know soon when the numbers come out.

It's not helpful to anyone to try to water down a long-standing definition.
Yellen Meet the Press clip on Dave Ruben

Short 4 minute video. Even Chuck Todd wasn't buying this from her. Then a shorter clip of Biden gaslighting America. It's so blatant that it's just laugh out loud funny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
Yeah, but like I said, it's nothing new. The same types of editorials be appeared in those publications before, several times. When Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham start slamming Trump, that will be news worthy of speculating about.
We're not likely to hear any Trump slamming from the above three unless someone has proven Trump actually committed a crime while in office. So far, that's not the case.

The Jan 6th production is just that - a carefully staged performance by extremely biased Democrats allowing only the prosecutorial viewpoint to be presented. No Trump advocates or defenders were allowed to participate, either within the committee or among the "witnesses". No hearing can be legitimate without allowing both sides to be fairly represented, present their cases and cross examine witnesses. These made for TV episodes have been nothing more than a witch hunt in its purest form - an effort to provide red meat for the Democrat base.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turtle
Top