Excellent analysis. The media is folding but even when it is not it seems to lack the tools to call out the fascist nature of these political persecutions (naked one might add). Worth noting that Linsey Haligan isn't just unqualified, she is after all a 36 year old with no prosecutorial experience, an insurance defense lawyer, 2013 grad of the University of Miami, beauty pageant contestant, who Trump met on a golf course, is the US Attorney charged with prosecuting Jim Comey. Fair to say she wasn't chosen for her brilliant legal mind.
In a far better, more honest world, reporting on Trump et al would be rich with cynicism, not giving one of these people (by which I mean something subhuman) the benefit of the doubt. For a few instances:
That UN speech was the ravings of a madman, someone literally insane.
Donny’s latest assessment re Ukraine was performative BS and nothing more. The tell is that he committed the US to providing exactly nothing to Ukraine.
And so on and so forth.
That’s how all of this should be reported by the major outlets. Their failure (willful long before Trump returned to office and started his thuggish, godfatherly shakedowns) is a huge factor on how Trump got reelected. Remember how they chose to fail the nation when anyone complains how said media are threatened.
A terribly corrupt president installed and enabled by an even more corrupt Supreme Court. Trump does it for money, the Imams do it because they believe.
I find it curious that you chose the photo you did at the top of this piece. Ah, yes, sex sells but is it necessary here? (Comment by an old feminist.)
I'm sensitive to that concern. In this instance, it is one of only two shots of her available in the (mainstream) subscription service we use, and we already used the other shot recently (taken at a slightly different angle, but at the same time and place, i.e., your complaint would likely apply to it too). The other thing I'm grappling with is that this is consistently her public look (part of the preferred Trump era aesthetic) so while I would prefer a different shot if I had one available, it's not like this is from her beauty pageant days. It was taken outside a courthouse where she was representing Trump.
Appreciate the discussion. I feel I'm the only one who looks at things this way anymore. Having a 16 year-old granddaughter enforces the sex in our society daily. Thanks to all of you who commented and agreed. AND I do see how if that's the only picture available then it must be used.
It’s how these MAGA women want to be seen—at all times, in all situations (except Noem, who sometimes likes to dress up like a rootin’ tootin’ puppy-shootin’ cowgirl or something). Somebody please tell me what’s wrong with these people!
Exactly, Halligan, Habba, et al weren't installed within tRump's circle for their legal nous, as tRump has historically surrounded himself with attractive women, as a integral part of his "brand", so let's place the sexism where it belongs - right at the swollen feet of the Orang Lech.
And with no caption; I wasn’t sure who this was exactly until reading into the story. I mean it was clear after a sentence or so but… accurate photo captions are always a better option. Speaking as a former reporter. Thanks.
Normally I would agree with you 100%. But given that we’re talking about Trump and that just about all of his female staff look like this, I think it’s not selling sex, it’s how she is playing the part in the predictably superficial way, ie low on actual credential, but looks rhetorical part.
Two lawyers working for Trump have been disbarred. One was a USA-SDNY, the other a former SC clerk. When has either happened before?
So with tongue only slightly in cheek, let me propose all interviews with administration officials include asking if they have retained counsel yet.
Media companies should designate a reporter who never relies on access—call it the I.F. Stone chair, in honor of the great and independent journalist who never attended press conferences or waited for his calls to be returned and instead devoted his time to the public record.
I appreciate you giving the idea more awareness, but without explaining how a journalist is to cover a legal case (the filings, the participants, and analysis) differently is basically to state the obvious and easy part. The point that needs to be made is that consumers of said journalism need to change the way we interpret the output. It is we that need to abandon the presumption of regularity.
Here is one more angle: continually ask legal ethics professors about each prosecutor action (signing indictment, statements at hearings, filings): if something is corrupt, they will tag the action as unethical. That will both emphasize the corruption and perhaps lead to bar ethics investigations, which in turn will deter additional corrupt prosecutions.
I'm not a fan of Bolton, at all, but I did see in (I think) the WaPo story that his defense is that the documents found (not many) were cleared for his possession by BUSH. It does seem to me to be important to note that a document "marked' classified may not still BE classified decades later. This was NOT the case with the docs trump took, but could easily be true of much older docs.
The key seems to be not to treat the demented social media posts as news themselves, but the fact that they ARE demented as the news--and then letting us see exactly how. Pretty much every story I've read about Elevator Gate cites the UN position that it was a WH photographer who accidentally caused the stop.
Nicely done
Same question to you Star...https://www.rawstory.com/raw-investigates/cancel-culture/.
Well said sir.
Thank you.
Thanks, let’s hope MSM pays attention.
Excellent analysis. The media is folding but even when it is not it seems to lack the tools to call out the fascist nature of these political persecutions (naked one might add). Worth noting that Linsey Haligan isn't just unqualified, she is after all a 36 year old with no prosecutorial experience, an insurance defense lawyer, 2013 grad of the University of Miami, beauty pageant contestant, who Trump met on a golf course, is the US Attorney charged with prosecuting Jim Comey. Fair to say she wasn't chosen for her brilliant legal mind.
Good article, thank you!
Thank you David. This is
one of the reasons why
I'm a member of and
support TPM. Excellent a
work.
In a far better, more honest world, reporting on Trump et al would be rich with cynicism, not giving one of these people (by which I mean something subhuman) the benefit of the doubt. For a few instances:
That UN speech was the ravings of a madman, someone literally insane.
Donny’s latest assessment re Ukraine was performative BS and nothing more. The tell is that he committed the US to providing exactly nothing to Ukraine.
And so on and so forth.
That’s how all of this should be reported by the major outlets. Their failure (willful long before Trump returned to office and started his thuggish, godfatherly shakedowns) is a huge factor on how Trump got reelected. Remember how they chose to fail the nation when anyone complains how said media are threatened.
Here they are wondering "how to do journalism now that things are crazy?"
I have an answer: CUT THE BULLSHIT AND TELL THE TRUTH.
A terribly corrupt president installed and enabled by an even more corrupt Supreme Court. Trump does it for money, the Imams do it because they believe.
I find it curious that you chose the photo you did at the top of this piece. Ah, yes, sex sells but is it necessary here? (Comment by an old feminist.)
I'm sensitive to that concern. In this instance, it is one of only two shots of her available in the (mainstream) subscription service we use, and we already used the other shot recently (taken at a slightly different angle, but at the same time and place, i.e., your complaint would likely apply to it too). The other thing I'm grappling with is that this is consistently her public look (part of the preferred Trump era aesthetic) so while I would prefer a different shot if I had one available, it's not like this is from her beauty pageant days. It was taken outside a courthouse where she was representing Trump.
Appreciate the discussion. I feel I'm the only one who looks at things this way anymore. Having a 16 year-old granddaughter enforces the sex in our society daily. Thanks to all of you who commented and agreed. AND I do see how if that's the only picture available then it must be used.
It’s how these MAGA women want to be seen—at all times, in all situations (except Noem, who sometimes likes to dress up like a rootin’ tootin’ puppy-shootin’ cowgirl or something). Somebody please tell me what’s wrong with these people!
Exactly, Halligan, Habba, et al weren't installed within tRump's circle for their legal nous, as tRump has historically surrounded himself with attractive women, as a integral part of his "brand", so let's place the sexism where it belongs - right at the swollen feet of the Orang Lech.
And with no caption; I wasn’t sure who this was exactly until reading into the story. I mean it was clear after a sentence or so but… accurate photo captions are always a better option. Speaking as a former reporter. Thanks.
Normally I would agree with you 100%. But given that we’re talking about Trump and that just about all of his female staff look like this, I think it’s not selling sex, it’s how she is playing the part in the predictably superficial way, ie low on actual credential, but looks rhetorical part.
My only comment is that hopefully this will tighten up the looseness with classified docs someday, probably not with this crew.
Two lawyers working for Trump have been disbarred. One was a USA-SDNY, the other a former SC clerk. When has either happened before?
So with tongue only slightly in cheek, let me propose all interviews with administration officials include asking if they have retained counsel yet.
Media companies should designate a reporter who never relies on access—call it the I.F. Stone chair, in honor of the great and independent journalist who never attended press conferences or waited for his calls to be returned and instead devoted his time to the public record.
I appreciate you giving the idea more awareness, but without explaining how a journalist is to cover a legal case (the filings, the participants, and analysis) differently is basically to state the obvious and easy part. The point that needs to be made is that consumers of said journalism need to change the way we interpret the output. It is we that need to abandon the presumption of regularity.
Here is one more angle: continually ask legal ethics professors about each prosecutor action (signing indictment, statements at hearings, filings): if something is corrupt, they will tag the action as unethical. That will both emphasize the corruption and perhaps lead to bar ethics investigations, which in turn will deter additional corrupt prosecutions.
Interesting twist on how to regard news from your sourses.
I'm not a fan of Bolton, at all, but I did see in (I think) the WaPo story that his defense is that the documents found (not many) were cleared for his possession by BUSH. It does seem to me to be important to note that a document "marked' classified may not still BE classified decades later. This was NOT the case with the docs trump took, but could easily be true of much older docs.
The key seems to be not to treat the demented social media posts as news themselves, but the fact that they ARE demented as the news--and then letting us see exactly how. Pretty much every story I've read about Elevator Gate cites the UN position that it was a WH photographer who accidentally caused the stop.