The testimony isn't even the top story at the NYT. Israel is the top story....
Thanksgiving food is getting more promotion — not to mention home elevators and a "male-killing virus" in insects.
If I go to the next screenful of NYT homepage, there is some Trump, but it's not about his trial testimony. It's about the election:
Oh, no. Wait. There is one, but the headline is written to withhold the information that it's about the trial. It's a click-bait teaser — "The One Audience Trump Can’t Hoodwink" — that suggests the Times has decided it needs to trick readers into looking at something about the trial. If they could say Trump did badly, don't you think they'd have a headline that made readers want to find out how awful he was? And in fact, this "One Audience" column just tells us that Trump talked a lot and the judge kept telling him to keep it short.
There's more coverage of the trial, in the third screenful, but it doesn't even hint that Trump did badly:
I'll click through to the "5 Things We Learned."
The 5 things are:
Trump Treads Carefully...
A Witness Box Can’t Contain Him...
Mr. Trump is voluble, even explosive, in his off-the-cuff speech, and Justice Engoron had difficulty controlling the former president on the witness stand....
James Is Trump’s Chief Target...
Walking into the courtroom Monday, Mr. Trump called Ms. James “racist,” and he continued to lash out at her from the witness stand. He labeled Ms. James, who was sitting in the first row of the audience, “a political hack” who had used this case in her effort to run for governor....
Lawyers Take Gag Orders Seriously...
When Will It End?
In short, Trump did well or the NYT has decided to let it look that way.
I can't review all the mainstream news in that depth, but I'll also take a look at The Washington Post.
There, the first screenful has nothing about Trump, and in the second screenful, there's "4 things we learned from Trump’s testimony in the New York fraud trial" — neutral, similar to the NYT. There's also "Trump as Jesus? Why he casts himself as a martyr, and why fans go along," but that's not really about the trial testimony, just about an analogy that's a little bit too apt for Trump haters to truly enjoy.
पोस्ट्स
५२ टिप्पण्या:
The hive mind is pivoting to Get Biden. Suddenly, coverage of a doddering and diminished president who has been lying to us about hunter and cashing in on his name for years. Who knew?
Any reports in the NYT about the Nashville Trans Manifesto?
Didn't think so.
I admire that Trump, from his rallies to the witness box, is the same person. Most people put on a mask that suits different occasions. Trump's showmanship is authentic, something we'd usually consider an oxymoron.
I detest the way these people have turned all our institutions into bad high school dramas. It's like watching the cliquish vindictive mean girls version of Saved by the Bell, and every episode is a neverending variation of sticking it to the BMOC.
All leftists peak in high school. Everything makes sense after realizing that.
I think Benchley had a fantasy piece of being the witness who took on the court's pretense of dignity. Trump did it.
I guess there are some depths that even the lefties at the NYT will not sink to. I guess there are some lies that would be too distasteful even for them.
What does it matter if his testimony was a success, or a failure, when his conviction is already guaranteed? Let's think big picture here!
I'm still waiting for the corrupt left to tell us who was defrauded.
We know Biden is a fraud and a crook. and above the law...
If they quote him at length, or show video, this probably pleases his loyalists. He fights. How does it affect independents? Make them think he violates norms, whatever they may be?
The MSM has to suppress this trial because the stories all show Judge Looney Tunes ‘ stupid grin. And that shames the stupid-crats. ergo: no coverage.
I detest the way these people have turned all our institutions into bad high school dramas. It's like watching the cliquish vindictive mean girls version of Saved by the Bell, and every episode is a neverending variation of sticking it to the BMOC.
All leftists peak in high school. Everything makes sense after realizing that.
Blame Aaron Sorkin. Every leftwinger likes to pretend that this is an episode of The West Wing.
The democrat judge and jury will find Trump guilty.
Harry Reid and his family laugh.
The idiot judge and DA are reconsidering their strategy. The one they have is not working.
"Things not said because they are inconvenient."
For most Of my politically aware life, the things not said, the omissions, the disappearing stories, have been where the useful information is.
The difference now, since about 2005, is how much easier it is to find or recover those pieces.
Anti-Trumps: oh, no, deja vu. Diversity, phobia, ethics... morality... religion, climate change... baby... fetus. A handmade tale. Stat!
Judge Engoron: "I am the trier of fact in this case."
Also Judge Engoron: "I'm not here to hear what he [the defendant] has to say."
Jim Crow Democrats are back in charge of many civil institutions. They used to openly discriminate against black Republicans. Now they openly discriminate against MAGA Republicans.
I believe the play by play isn’t important to them. All that matters is the verdict. Trump’s a convicted felon!!! (or…convicted something) The trial is Dossier 2.0 which they will add to the trial and conviction in the heat of the election season next year to justify keeping Trump off the ballot in key states. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s my working theory..
Shorter version of Judge Engoron: "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've made up my mind!"
teh Idiocrats
mad mongrels in the making
fuck you Tish go fish
"I feel rather sure that headlines like that would be everywhere if it was at all possible to spin it that way, so I'm going to assume he did — at least — reasonably well."
You forgot the lying part, and the fact that the papers you read don't have to have a reason to spin anything.
They probably had bigger fish to fry...
The MSM has to suppress this trial because the stories all show Judge Looney Tunes‘ stupid grin
Yes. I was drawn to the incredibly Gilligan-like visage on the TV yesterday. And then I realized it was this judge, not an aged and addled and overly hairy Bob Denver at all. If you prefer, think of him as a superannuated Dobie Gillis. It's also striking how that stupid grin is the face they show when by all accounts he is scowling, banging the desk in anger and making intemperate remarks that have got to be accompanied by a crazy-looking face.
Especially satisfying is his petulant, "I don't want to hear what the witness says" outburst. Dude! You are the ONE PERSON in the room who is supposed to be listening to the witness. What an inarticulate doofus. But then it must be hard to find a judge stupid enough to take up this kangaroo case in the first place.
Judge Engomoron
dimestore austin pendleton
how far we’ve fallen
Jim Crow Democrats are back in charge of many civil institutions. They used to openly discriminate against black Republicans. Now they openly discriminate against MAGA Republicans.
Nicely said. 100% true.
I guess there are some depths that even the lefties at the NYT will not sink to. I guess there are some lies that would be too distasteful even for them.
I wonder if they have enough awareness to realize that New York is trying Trump for explicitly political reasons under the most novel and flimsy legal theories ever seen in an American court of law (which is saying something), and could do the same to any property owner in the state who ever applied for a mortgage loan with an estimated property value differing from the tax assessor's valuation by even a penny. Including the New York Times itself.
Of course these lice are all for Stalinist show trials for people they don't like, but perhaps there is just a glimmer of foresight in their leadership that permits them to imagine a time when their paper pisses off some powerful politician who decides to wreak vengeance on them in the same manner.
The difference now, since about 2005, is how much easier it is to find or recover those pieces.
For me it dates from 2004, when Buckhead and the other pajama-clad nobodies posting on Internet blogs and bulletin boards thoroughly dismantled Dan Rather's despicably dishonest report on George Bush's National Guard service. Rather's reputation was forever destroyed when the obvious forgeries were exposed, CBS got a black eye it will carry until the end of time, and the entire journalistic establishment will never regain the trust they lost in that fiasco.
The the outcome of case is predetermined. Prosecutor is corrupt. The judge is corrupt.
I'm glad Trump and his smokin' hot attorney went after both of them. You can call in contempt of court, but this court deserves contempt.
Trump made the judge lose his cool. Wanted yes or no answers only on open ended questions. Now only is the judge a NY asshole, he's also a wierdo.
some powerful politician who decides to wreak vengeance on them in the same manner
OMG that is hilarious, although I'm torn about which is funnier: imagining a republican party with that much power or one republican pol with a working spinal column. These are democrat party proceedings, nominally administered by alleged officers of the court. Their power comes from their ability to effect collective action and mete out collective punishment.
If you don't access the more rapid distributors of the narrative, you're a slow reader.
https://imgur.com/gallery/FQwIhnQ Trump is being ridiculed for his testimony, in a strict adherence to Alinsky. On social media.
I was hoping that our President Emeritus would go all Hank Reardon in the court. I was not really expecting it but do think it would have been cool if he had.
Perhaps he is saving it for one of the other trials:
One of the judges, acting as prosecutor, had read the charges.
"You may now offer whatever plea you wish to make in your own defence," he announced.
Facing the platform, his voice inflectionless and peculiarly clear, Hank Rearden answered:
"I have no defence."
"Do you --" The judge stumbled; he had not expected it to be that easy. "Do you throw yourself upon the mercy of this court?"
"I do not recognise this court's right to try me."
"What?"
"I do not recognise this court's right to try me."
"But, Mr. Rearden, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime."
"I do not recognise my action as a crime."
"But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your Metal."
"I do not recognise your right to control the sale of my Metal."
"Is it necessary for me to point out that your recognition was not required?"
"No. I am fully aware of it and I am acting accordingly."
He noted the stillness of the room. By the rules of the complicated pretence which all those people played for one another's benefit, they should have considered his stand as incomprehensible folly; there should have been rustles of astonishment and derision; there were none; they sat still; they understood.
"Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?" asked the judge.
"No. I am complying with the law - to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no defence is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice."
"But, Mr. Rearden, the law provides specifically that you are to be given an opportunity to present your side of the case and to defend yourself."
"A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognised by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well. Do it."
"Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle - the principle of the public good."
"Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to e their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act."
I have not read the book since I was teaching it 20 years back. I had almost forgotten how predictive it is.
Let me download a kindle copy via Ann's portal.
The 3 part movie was not bad, either.
John Henry
This testimony was always going to be a bust for the Left- Trump was not hands-on running the organization. Corporate forms of this size are run by dedicated management and contractors, not the owners because the legal regulations are simply too complicated for them to be run any other way. Loan documentation is prepared by a team of lawyers and accountants, and an owner like Trump will have, at best, only a limited knowledge of the details, and pretty much no input whatsoever.
This entire case is a joke- no one was defrauded, and having a different opinion about the market value of assets isn't even a lie. The judge, of course, has already decided what he was going to do before the case even started- it is why he lied to make sure he was the trier of fact and not a jury. Trump's lawyers didn't fight on this issue for two reasons- first, they knew a jury would be just as biased and sure to find for the plaintiff, the State of New York- second, it is a sure-fire court "error" to get any decision overturned at the appellate level. In any case, Trump will eventually get this all tossed out at the federal court level as clear violation of due process and fundamental prosecutorial over-reach of making up the law as she went along- it is just that it will come 5 years from now.
Gusty winds said: "...this court deserves contempt."
Which reminds me of a story that has circulated in the Georgia Bar for ages.
Judge: Counselor, are you trying to exhibit contempt for this
court?
Lawyer: On the contrary, your honor. I'm doing my best to
conceal it.
To their credit, neither Trump nor his lawyer are making any attempt to conceal it.
One of the main reasons I will vote for Trump is because of this corrupt lawfare election interference. The verdict will not change anything. They still did it. It's profoundly undemocratic, un-American, and unforgivable. How can I not vote against such blatant corruption where one party can deny the American people their right to vote for who they prefer, just because he might win? We all know that's what this is about. As much as I hate the modern Democratic party, I would vote for their guy if the parties were reversed.
Alan Dershowitz said Trump seemed to be taking the Chicago 7 tactic. The verdict is a foregone conclusion with this biased judge, so use the proceeding for political advantage and to provoke the judge into reversible error.
I hold this court in contempt.
It's been 7 years of the same type of Trump articles and framing - look at his outlandish behavior. It really is a derangement syndrome.
Mae West in the movie "My little chickadee":
Judge: "Young lady, are you trying to show contempt for this court?"
West: "No. I'm doing my best to hide it."
https://youtu.be/k_04OLU1Gog?si=RYVbFqB8DH3UnkOl
John Henry
OMG that is hilarious, although I'm torn about which is funnier: imagining a republican party with that much power or one republican pol with a working spinal column. These are democrat party proceedings, nominally administered by alleged officers of the court.
Who said anything about Republicans? There are always factions in a one-party polity. The closer New York edges to unopposed dictatorship, the greater the risks to choosing the side of the losing faction.
"I admire that Trump, from his rallies to the witness box, is the same person."
Assholes always gonna be assholes!
For all who have bought the line that no one was defrauded, I refer you to this document from the NY AG:
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=ug5960XEpNMksGWCbGdRDA==&system=prod
The numbers start on page 70. If you can't refute the numbers, and I'd say they're not even trying, then it's fraud.
Fair point, Hassayamper. And it has the virtue of being possible in the known universe.
“Assholes always gonna be assholes!”
And when they’ve been in short supply, Cook has never been one to let a crisis go to waste, it’s his opportunity to shine.
“What does it matter if his testimony was a success, or a failure, when his conviction is already guaranteed? Let's think big picture here!”
Two reasons. First to just nail down the reversible error. It was plain error for the court to accept assessed valuations. Everyone knows that they aren’t reflective of actual value of a property, except, sometimes right after a sale. Part of the error was to determine question of fact without having a fact finding hearing. The judge and prosecution just bypassed that required technicality. And likely imputing fraud from that. What Trump did was get into the record the absurdity of those valuations, as well as their lack of scienter of actually committing fraud. They have no real evidence that any of the Trumps actually understood that they had undervalued the properties (because, of course, they probably hadn’t). And the repeated testimony that they just trusted the attorneys and accountants also goes to lack of intent to defraud. It’s all in the record now.
The other thing though that he accomplished was political. His base, of course, is energized. But he is also reaching out to typical Dem constituencies, esp Blacks, and to a lesser extent, Hispanics. Many Blacks view our legal system as a kangaroo court system, protecting those in power, at the expense of the less well connected. He spoke Truth to Power. Why do you think that he was hitting the unfairness and corruption so hard? If you see what I have seen, esp here in Las Vegas, I think it likely that his percentage of the Black vote will be notably higher this time around. Maybe not the 30% that they want, but higher than the 20% or so he got last time. We shall see.
"Trump as Jesus? Why he casts himself as a martyr"
"avid fans pictured him sitting alongside the archetypal martyr, Jesus."
Marc Fisher
Washington, D.C.
Senior editor reporting on a wide range of topics
Education: Princeton University, AB in history, 1980
Jesus wasn't a martyr. Sure as hell not archetypal. Double wrong with a cherry on top. Misunderstanding Jesus, misunderstanding martyr, while being an arrogant prick about it.
At least he had the courtesy to put it in the first sentence. Right up front where it belongs. Saves time.
Robert Cook said...
"I admire that Trump, from his rallies to the witness box, is the same person."
"Assholes always gonna be assholes!"
And you ought to know, Bob.
Pillage Idiot said...
Judge Engoron: "I am the trier of fact in this case."
Also Judge Engoron: "I'm not here to hear what he [the defendant] has to say."
Right there are all the reasons any appeals court needs to reverse the case- and dismiss with prejudice.
NY courts, will, of course, slow walk the appeal process.
Yancey Ward said...
... In any case, Trump will eventually get this all tossed out at the federal court level as clear violation of due process and fundamental prosecutorial over-reach of making up the law as she went along- it is just that it will come 5 years from now.
I think federal courts ought toss the entire law as being unconstitutionally vague. If there is a criminal charge- there's needs to be a crime. There is no crime underlying this law- the state gets to say that a law was broken. And breaking this law is a crime. But only after the fact- no one can possibly know ahead of time that they are committing a crime because the state doesn't audit business deals before they're made.
Blogger I stand w Isreal. Leftists, Mullahs, Hamas-Palistinian terrorists can suck it said...
"The democrat judge and jury will find Trump guilty."
No jury-Trump forgot to ask for one.
..Jim....
"..For all who have bought the line that no one was defrauded, I refer you to this document from the NY AG"...:
Document actually show how much one persons view of value can differ from another persons view of value.
Key question is:
Who was defrauded? How much did they "lose"?? I have read nothing on this point.
Also, where are the governments witnesses from the lenders telling us how much they lost?? (And why they didnt do their own analysis and valuation.)
..Jim....
"..For all who have bought the line that no one was defrauded, I refer you to this document from the NY AG"...:
Document actually show how much one persons view of value can differ from another persons view of value.
Key question is:
Who was defrauded? How much did they "lose"?? I have read nothing on this point.
Also, where are the governments witnesses from the lenders telling us how much they lost?? (And why they didnt do their own analysis and valuation.)
If you look at the details at all you see some wild differences, and you see Trump's valuations bouncing around from year to year. I think the judge said 10% is a difference of opinion. These differences are often 100% or more. I suppose 1 or 2 descrpancoes like that would make sense, but this is everywhere.
There were bank witnesses in early October who testified that they accepted Trump's valuations. This was Deutsche Bank's private wealth division making a personal loan, not the commerical real estate division.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the 40 Wall St loan has now been transferred to a special servicer, i.e. Trump wants to renegotiate that $160M loan.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा