February 16, 2017

"I see tone. You know the word 'tone'? The tone is such hatred."

Let's read the transcript of Trump's epic press conference. This went on for over an hour, with Trump picking up energy as he went, almost as if he absorbs energy from his antagonists in the room. I'll show you a few things that jumped out at me, including the places where he expresses his delight in bouncing off whatever they dish up for him.
The press has become so dishonest that if we don’t talk about [it], we are doing a tremendous disservice to the American people. Tremendous disservice. We have to talk to find out what’s going on, because the press honestly is out of control. The level of dishonesty is out of control....  I’m here... to take my message straight to the people...

The failing New York Times wrote a big, long front-page story yesterday. And it was very much discredited, as you know. It was — it’s a joke.... Wall Street Journal did a story today that was almost as disgraceful as the failing New York Time’s story.... And I’ll tell you something, I’ll be honest, because I sort of enjoy this back and forth that I guess I have all my life but I’ve never seen more dishonest media than frankly, the political media....

I don’t mind bad stories. I can handle a bad story better than anybody as long as it’s true and, you know, over a course of time, I’ll make mistakes and you’ll write badly and I’m OK with that. But I’m not OK when it is fake. I mean, I watch CNN, it’s so much anger and hatred and just the hatred....

Nobody mentions that Hillary received the questions to the debates. Can you imagine — seriously — can you imagine if I received the questions? It would be the electric chair. OK, he should be put in the electric — you would even call for the reinstitution of the death penalty, OK...

The public... they read newspapers, they see television, they watch. They don’t know if it’s true or false because they’re not involved. I’m involved. I’ve been involved with this stuff all my life. But I’m involved. So I know when you’re telling the truth or when you’re not. I just see many, many untruthful things.
And I’ll tell you what else I see. I see tone. You know the word “tone["?] The tone is such hatred. I’m really not a bad person, by the way. No, but the tone is such — I do get good ratings, you have to admit that — the tone is such hatred.....

Well, you look at your show that goes on at 10 o’clock in the evening [Don Lemon's "CNN Tonight]. You just take a look at that show. That is a constant hit. The panel is almost always exclusive anti-Trump. The good news is he doesn’t have good ratings. But the panel is almost exclusive anti-Trump. And the hatred and venom coming from his mouth; the hatred coming from other people on your network.

Now, I will say this. I watch it. I see it. I’m amazed by it. And I just think you’d be a lot better off, I honestly do. The public gets it, you know. Look, when I go to rallies, they turn around, they start screaming at CNN. They want to throw their placards at CNN. You know. I — I think you would do much better by being different....

Now, they’ll take this news conference — I’m actually having a very good time, OK? But they’ll take this news conference — don’t forget, that’s the way I won. Remember, I used to give you a news conference every time I made a speech, which was like every day. OK?... I won with news conferences and probably speeches. I certainly didn’t win by people listening to you people. That’s for sure. But I’m having a good time.

Tomorrow, they will say, “Donald Trump rants and raves at the press.” I’m not ranting and raving. I’m just telling you. You know, you’re dishonest people. But — but I’m not ranting and raving. I love this. I’m having a good time doing it. But tomorrow, the headlines are going to be, “Donald Trump rants and raves.” I’m not ranting and raving.
He just said "I’m not ranting and raving" 3 times in close succession. Does he want them to say he's ranting and raving? It would prove him right. His bet is hedged. He cannot lose.
QUESTION: If I may, just one more followup...

TRUMP: Should I let him have a little bit more? What do you think, Peter? Peter, should I have — let him have a little bit more?
Now, he's openly playing with them. He said he was having a good time, and he's not ranting and raving. So watch him having a good time, toying with the questioner. What? Do you like this? Do you like getting slapped around? He consults Peter: Hey, whaddya say, Peter, should I let him have some more?
QUESTION: Just because of the attack of fake news and attacking our network, I just want to ask you, sir...
Sir! By the way, this is Jim Acosta (of CNN), who just happens to have the same last name as the new nominee for Secretary of Labor. Trump is getting very loose at this point as the back and forth in the transcript shows:
TRUMP: I’m changing it from fake news, though.

QUESTION: Doesn’t that under...

TRUMP: Very fake news.

QUESTION: ... I know, but aren’t you...

(LAUGHTER)

TRUMP: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Real news, Mr. President, real news.

TRUMP: And you’re not related to our new...

QUESTION: I am not related, sir. No. I do like the sound of Secretary Acosta, I must say.

TRUMP: I looked — you know, I looked at that name. I said, wait a minute, is there any relation there? Alex Acosta.

QUESTION: I’m sure you checked that out, sir.

TRUMP: OK. Now I checked it — I said — they said, “No, sir.” I said, “Do me a favor, go back and check the family tree.”
Does this have any real effect softening Acosta up? It breaks up the rhythm of the question. It's disarming, I think. If you can go back and forth, on some level, you are (sort of like) friends.
QUESTION: But aren’t you — aren’t you concerned, sir, that you are undermining the people’s faith in the First Amendment, freedom of the press, the press in this country, when you call stories you don’t like “fake news”? Why not just say it’s a story I don’t like.

TRUMP: I do that.

QUESTION: When you call it “fake news,” you’re undermining confidence in our news media (inaudible) important.
If I were on the receiving end of that question, I'd say: Freedom of speech and the press is only a freedom to speak and to publish things, not an entitlement to be deferred to or shown respect. We all have freedom of speech, and if I criticize you — which I should do to defend myself, especially when you are distorting things — I'm exercising my freedom of speech. And I am speaking or writing to the people just as you are speaking and writing to the people, and the idea of the First Amendment is that the people get to hear and read it all, and they get to think for themselves and talk and write to each other, and we're all involved in figuring out what is true and what is right. You see, you in the professional mainstream press want to filter it all and serve the people what you say is the truth, all pre-digested and gooey. But the people don't want that sickly fast-food truth anymore. You can keep serving it, or you can figure out how to serve up something better, but you don't dominate the truth market anymore, and you shouldn't. And your effort to invoke law — the First Amendment?! Are you kidding?!! — to force all the other speakers and writers to stand down and let you have your old monopoly back? That's just plain ludicrous, and I'm embarrassed for you that you would try to palm off an interpretation of constitutional law that's so blatantly bankrupt. It's such a good thing that people don't rely on you anymore.

But here's what Trump said about why he says "fake news" and not just I don't like the story:
TRUMP: No, no. I do that. Here’s the thing. OK. I understand what you’re — and you’re right about that, except this. See, I know when I should get good and when I should get bad. And sometimes I’ll say, “Wow, that’s going to be a great story.” And I’ll get killed. I know what’s good and bad. I’d be a pretty good reporter, not as good as you. But I know what’s good. I know what’s bad. And when they change it and make it really bad, something that should be positive — sometimes something that should be very positive, they’ll make OK. They’ll even make it negative. So I understand it. So, because I’m there. I know what was said. I know who’s saying it. I’m there. So it’s very important to me.

Look, I want to see an honest press. When I started off today by saying that it’s so important to the public to get an honest press. The press — the public doesn’t believe you people anymore. Now, maybe I had something to do with that. I don’t know. But they don’t believe you. If you were straight and really told it like it is, as Howard Cosell used to say, right?

Of course, he had some questions also. 
Howard Cosell had some questions? That's a side issue not explored!
But if you were straight, I would be your biggest booster. I would be your biggest fan in the world, including bad stories about me. But if you go - as an example, you’re CNN, I mean it’s story after story after story is bad. I won. I won. And the other thing, chaos because zero chaos. 
He lapses into speaking in shorthand. If you like him, you can easily see what he means. He's referring to recent stories that pushed the meme that the White House is in chaos — I devoted Monday to blogging this theme. — and saying it's all fake because there is no chaos.
We are running - this is a fine-tuned machine and Reince happens to be doing a good job but half of his job is putting out lies by the press (ph)....
By "putting out lies" there, he doesn't mean Priebus is emitting the lies. He's visualizing the lies as fires that need to be put out. 
I would be your biggest fan in the world if you treated me right. 
Art of the deal, no? You give me that, and I'll give you this.
I sort of understand there’s a certain bias maybe by Jeff (ph) or somebody, you know - you know, whatever reason. But - and I understand that. But you’ve got to be at least a little bit fair and that’s why the public sees it. They see it. They see it’s not fair. You take a look at some of your shows and you see the bias and the hatred. And the public is smart, they understand it.
Notice that he never got to Acosta's invocation of the First Amendment. He used flattery — you're a better journalist than I would be, and I think I would be good — and set himself up as a friendly colleague. He empathized with journalists and presented himself as concerned that the public doesn't want to listen to the press. He offered ideas about how the press could build their relationship with the public. In this framework — which ignores the (nonexistent) legal requisites — there's really a shared self-interest, and everyone could be better off: Trump, the press, and the people. You should do what I want because it's what we all should want, and there's nothing I'm asking you to do that isn't what you, thinking clearly, will want to do. I want you to criticize me and say something is bad when it's bad. Just don't say it's bad when it's good or very, very bad when it's only a little bad. 
QUESTION: (inaudible) ...for those who believe that there is something to it, is there anything that you have learned over the last few weeks that you might be able to reveal that might ease their concerns that this isn’t fake news? And second...

TRUMP: ... I think they don’t believe it. I don’t think the public - that’s why the Rasmussen poll just has me through the roof. I don’t think they believe it. Well, I guess one of the reasons I’m here today is to tell you the whole Russian thing, that’s a ruse. That’s a ruse....
The play on words is disarming. And Trump veers into a discussion about how bad Hillary Clinton would have been at dealing with the Russians. There's not even a gesture at responding to the plea to take back the "fake news" insult. If anything, he piles on a new accusation that the media is impairing efforts to deal with Russia.

Soon, another reporter asks about Russia. And look at the byplay here. Trump controls the roll-out of the question and throws the reporter off his rhythm. He will not let the man set up the question his way:
QUESTION: You mentioned the vessel — the spy vessel off the coast of the United States.

TRUMP: Not good.

QUESTION: There was a ballistic missile test that many interpret as a violation of an agreement between the two countries; and a Russian plane buzzed a U.S. destroyer.

TRUMP: Not good.

QUESTION: I listened to you during the campaign ...

TRUMP: Excuse me, excuse me. When did it happen? It happened when, if you were Putin right now, you would say, “Hey, we’re back to the old games with the United States; there’s no way Trump can ever do a deal with us.” Because the — you have to understand. If I was just brutal on Russia right now, just brutal, people would say, you would say, “Oh, isn’t that wonderful.” But I know you well enough. Then you would say, “Oh, he was too tough; he shouldn’t have done that.” Look, all of the...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: I’m just trying to find out your orientation to those...

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Wait a minute. Wait, wait. Excuse me just one second.

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: All of those things that you mentioned are very recent, because probably Putin assumes that he’s not going to be able to make a deal with me because it’s politically not popular for me to make a deal. So Hillary Clinton tries a re-set. It failed. They all tried. But I’m different than those people....
He is different, in so many ways. But right there he means that it's virtually impossible now to make a deal — impossible because of the behavior of the press — but he is the great deal-maker. Imagine how he will preen when he gets something he can call a deal.
TRUMP: I think Putin probably assumes that he can’t make a deal with me anymore because politically it would be unpopular for a politician to make a deal. I can’t believe I’m saying I’m a politician, but I guess that’s what I am now. Because, look, it would be much easier for me to be tough on Russia, but then we’re not going to make a deal. Now, I don’t know that we’re going to make a deal. I don’t know. We might. We might not. But it would be much easier for me to be so tough — the tougher I am on Russia, the better. But you know what? I want to do the right thing for the American people. And to be honest, secondarily, I want to do the right thing for the world.
Cagey. Cute and cagey. He proceeds to remind us about nuclear war. You know what it would be like? He'll tell you: "like no other." And by the way: "Hillary Clinton gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States. She’s close to Russia." Meanwhile, you know what Trump gave Russia? "Nothing."

Moving on:
QUESTION: Could I just ask you — thank you very much, Mr. President. The trouble...

TRUMP: Where are you from?

QUESTION: BBC.

TRUMP: Here’s another beauty.
He just right off insults BBC! He's very loose now.
QUESTION: That’s a good line. Impartial, free and fair.

TRUMP: Yeah. Sure.
Sarcasm! Yeah. Sure. The President just blurts out Yeah. Sure as if for his own amusement. (And yet, we here at home were laughing.)
QUESTION: Mr. President...

TRUMP: Just like CNN right?

QUESTION: On the travel ban — we could banter back and forth. On the travel ban would you accept that that was a good example of the smooth running of government...
We could banter back and forth but we'd end up with a transcript full of nothing. (Or you dancing on top of our heads.) Is that what you want?
TRUMP: Yeah, I do. I do. Let me tell you about this government...

QUESTION: Were there any mistakes...

TRUMP: Wait. Wait. I know who you are. Just wait. Let me tell you about the travel ban. We had a very smooth rollout of the travel ban. But we had a bad court. Got a bad decision. We had a court that’s been overturned. Again, may be wrong. But I think it’s 80 percent of the time, a lot.
Here's that shorthand speech again. He's saying the 9th Circuit has an unusually high proportion of its cases overturned in the Supreme Court. (And let me add: It's not that the 9th Circuit is wrong 80% of that time. Only a very small percentages of cases go on to be heard in the Supreme Court. A majority of the Supreme Court may disagree with 9th Circuit frequently because the leanings of the judges are different. I question whether "wrong" is the most accurate word for that disagreement between courts.)
We had a bad decision. We’re going to keep going with that decision. We’re going to put in a new executive order next week some time. But we had a bad decision....
Important news there. Trump is going to deal with the setback in court by writing a new order, not by fighting in court (even though Trump famously tweeted "See you in court").
We had a court that gave us what I consider to be, with great respect, a very bad decision. Very bad for the safety and security of our country. The rollout was perfect....
The rollout was not perfect. The order should have been clear that it didn't cover persons with a green card. It should have originally been written in the form that they're going to have for the new order. You know, "perfect" is such a strong word. Why say "perfect"?! It's as if he wants to get caught in inaccuracies. Maybe that's some art-of-the-deal trick. Say some things that are just plain wrong — a shiny object to distract the haters. For the Trumpsters, so what? It's not perfect, but it's still pretty good.

Another questioner gets back to a Russia question: "Can you say whether you are aware that anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with Russia during the course of the election?" Trump is brusque:
TRUMP: How many times do I have to answer this question?

QUESTION: Can you just say yes or no?

TRUMP: Russia is a ruse. I know you have to get up and ask a question. It’s so important. Russia is a ruse....
He used that "Russia is a ruse" joke 2 more times. And insulted the reporter as having asked a question just to "get up and ask a question." He's very loose at this point, as noted above, and he's gone on for over an hour. He asks them about the time (sort of implying that he could go on until they can't take it anymore (he's having fun, remember)):
TRUMP: How much longer should we stay here, folks?

QUESTION: Mr. President...

TRUMP: Five more minutes. Is that OK? Five?

QUESTION: Mr. President, on national...

TRUMP: Wait. Let’s see. Who’s — I want to find a friendly reporter.
Uh oh. If you're asking now, you're promising to be friendly, and he will be the judge.
QUESTION: Mr....

TRUMP: Are you a friendly reporter? Watch how friendly he is. Wait. Wait. Watch how friendly he is. Go ahead.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)...

TRUMP: Go ahead.

QUESTION: So first of all, my name is (Inaudible) from (Inaudible) Magazine. I (inaudible). I haven’t seen anybody in my community, including yourself or any of the — anyone on your staff of being (OFF-MIKE). Because (OFF-MIKE). However, what we’ve already heard about and what we (OFF-MIKE) is (OFF-MIKE) so you’re general forecast (ph) like 48 (OFF-MIKE). There are people who are everything (ph) happens through their packs (ph) is one of the (OFF-MIKE)...

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP:...he said he was gonna ask a very simple, easy question. And it’s not, its not, not — not a simple question, not a fair question. OK sit down, I understand the rest of your question. So here’s the story, folks. Number one, I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life. Number two, racism, the least racist person. In fact, we did very well relative to other people running as a Republican — quiet, quiet, quiet. See, he lied about — he was gonna get up and ask a very straight, simple question, so you know, welcome to the world of the media. But let me just tell you something, that I hate the charge, I find it repulsive.... See, it just shows you about the press, but that’s the way the press is.
Wow. But what was the question? We didn't hear. Apparently, it did not meet his standard of friendly.

He takes another question:
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Lisa [Desjardins] from the PBS News Hour. On national security and immigration, can you give us more details on the executive order you plan for next week?... And in addition, on the DACA program for immigration.... What is your plan, do you plan to continue that program or to end it?

TRUMP: We’re gonna show great heart, DACA is a very, very difficult subject for me, I will tell you. To me, it’s one of the most difficult subjects I have because you have these incredible kids. In many cases, not in all cases. And some of the cases, having DACA and they’re gang members and they’re drug dealers, too. But you have some absolutely, incredible kids, I would say mostly. They were brought here in such a way — it’s a very — it’s a very, very tough subject. We’re gonna deal with DACA with heart. I have to deal with a lot of politicians, don’t forget and I have to convince them that what I’m saying is — is right. And I appreciate your understanding on that. But the DACA situation is a very, very — it’s a very difficult thing for me because you know, I love these kids, I love kids, I have kids and grandkids. And I find it very, very hard doing what the law says exactly to do and you know, the law is rough. I’m not talking about new laws, I’m talking the existing law, is very rough, it’s very, very rough....
It's as if it's not his choice. He has to get the law — whatever's on the books — enforced. Obama didn't. But Trump is a law-enforcer. However much it may hurt his heart. But please know he's got a heart.

He gets a question he proclaims truly "nice." Talk about Melania. He asks the questioner "who are you with?" and says "Good, I’m gonna start watching, all right?" He talks about Melania for a while, and he could end there, on a cozy note, but he takes another question. It's about the inner cities:
QUESTION: Mr. President, I need to find out from you, you said something as it relates to inner cities. That was one of your platforms during your campaign. Now you’re —

TRUMP: Fix the inner cities.

QUESTION: — president. Fixing the inner cities.

TRUMP: Yep.

QUESTION: What will be that fix and your urban agenda as well as your HBCU Executive Order that’s coming out this afternoon? See, it wasn’t bad, was it?

TRUMP: That was very professional and very good.

QUESTION: I’m very professional.
He pats the reporter on the head and the reporter accepts it. See? Reporters can be tamed. He just tamed one. I won't copy all of what Trump said here, but here's some of it:
So, we are going to be working very hard on the inner cities, having to do with education, having to do with crime. We’re going to try and fix as quickly as possible — you know, it takes a long time. It’s taken more a hundred years and more for some of these places to evolve and they evolved, many of them, very badly.... You go to some of these inner city places and it’s so sad when you look at the crime. You have people — and I’ve seen this, and I’ve sort of witnessed it — in fact, in two cases I have actually witnessed it. They lock themselves into apartments, petrified to even leave, in the middle of the day. They’re living in hell. We can’t let that happen. So, we’re going to be very, very strong. That’s a great question and — and it’s a — it’s a very difficult situation because it’s been many, many years. It’s been festering for many, many years. But we have places in this country that we have to fix. We have to help African American people that, for the most part, are stuck there...
The questioner asked if he was going to include the Congressional Black Caucus, and Trump invited the questioner to set up the meeting, which seemed odd at first, but after some back and forth, he said:
TRUMP: I would love to meet with the Black Caucus. I think it’s great, the Congressional Black Caucus. I think it’s great. I actually thought I had a meeting with Congressman Cummings and he was all excited. And then he said, well, I can’t move, it might be bad for me politically. I can’t have that meeting. I was all set to have the meeting. You know, we called him and called him. And he was all set. I spoke to him on the phone, very nice guy.
Wow. That to me was the biggest news of the press conference. Cummings can't meet with the President? People are controlling him?
QUESTION: I hear he wanted that meeting with you as well.

TRUMP: He wanted it, but we called, called, called and can’t make a meeting with him. Every day I walk and say I would like to meet with him because I do want to solve the problem. But he probably was told by Schumer or somebody like that, some other lightweight. He was probably told - he was probably told “don’t meet with Trump. It’s bad politics.” And that’s part of the problem in this country. 
I'd like to hear what Schumer and Cummings have to say about that. Is the tone so hateful because those who want a friendlier tone are bullied?

There's another question, partly inaudible, that seems to be about some horrible racist things written or done "by supporters in your name." Trump jumps on a false flag interpretation:
TRUMP: ...And some of it - can I be honest with you? And this has to do with racism and horrible things that are put up. Some of it written by our opponents. You do know that. Do you understand that?...
The last question is: "You’re the president now. What are you going to do about it?" Clarification is sought and it seems to be about bringing the country together. Trump's answer is basically that the country was divided when he got here. It's "a divided nation." But: "I am going to try - I will do everything within my power to fix that." And on that note, he closed it down.

188 comments:

Bay Area Guy said...

Trump is better live, than via transcript.

He was like Muhammad Ali toying with these media chumps.

Big Mike said...

Just reading the transcript, I'd have to say Trump did a good job. Surely somewhere along the line the press is going to see that lots of people don't trust them anymore, that they've lost their credibility with vast swaths of the country. Even people who are on their side know that they're lying through their teeth! So how can they function as aggregators and filters of "news" if they can't be trusted?

WisRich said...

Althouse said:
Wow. That to me was the biggest news of the press conference. Cummings can't meet with the President? People are controlling him?
QUESTION: I hear he wanted that meeting with you as well.

TRUMP: He wanted it, but we called, called, called and can’t make a meeting with him. Every day I walk and say I would like to meet with him because I do want to solve the problem. But he probably was told by Schumer or somebody like that, some other lightweight. He was probably told - he was probably told “don’t meet with Trump. It’s bad politics.” And that’s part of the problem in this country.

--

I saw that and did a double take and asked myself if I had heard that correctly.

David Begley said...

Press has a favorability rating of about 10%. Trump is over 50% and he had over 300 Electoral College votes. With all of the obviously false press reports, Trump is winning. Big time.

Tank said...

He can say fake news a million times because he is right and everyone knows it. I love the shot he got in about Clinton not reporting CNN's cheating re: the debates.

cronus titan said...

Republicans have waited at leat two generations for a politician to go toe to toe with the press and let them know they are full of shit. The haughty and pampered national press are quite used to Republicans rolling over and begging for mercy at the feet of the media gods. One punches back twice as hard (to paraphrase Obama) and, like all bullies, they have no idea what to do except whine.

That press conference was awesome on so many levels it is ridiculous.

Ann Althouse said...

"Trump is better live, than via transcript."

I agree. The video is embedded in the previous post.

I need the transcript to insert my comments. I am remember how these things sounded as he spoke them, and I'm trying to be fair to the spoken word, which is what this is.

exhelodrvr1 said...

That was about as far from "unhinged" as it's possible to be. He is still being underestimated - you would think the Demos and the press would have figured that out at this point.

Achilles said...

Waiting for apologies from all of you #nevertrumpers who are still wrong.

J. Farmer said...

I really hate when reporters or members of the media quote "freedom of the press" from the first amendment as if the amendment was referring to some protected professional class instead of the printing press (i.e. the freedom to publish written material). Does Jim Acosta actually believe that as a member of the "the press," the first amendment grants him certain rights not available to every other Tom, Dick, and Harry in the country?

Clyde said...

Althouse wrote:

"I'd like to hear what Schumer and Cummings have to say about that. Is the tone so hateful because those who want a friendlier tone are bullied?"

You'd better believe it! Anybody related or linked to Trump is a target for "progressive" bullying. For people who pride themselves on being tolerant, they are pretty damned intolerant of anyone who doesn't think like they do. Case in point: Trump's daughter Tiffany was at a fashion show, just in the audience watching. And the people who were supposed to sit next to her got up and moved to show their displeasure. Nasty, rude bullies.

Twelve Kanaw said...

Yes, Farmer. Yes he does.

Rich B said...

My wife and I watched the press conference after dinner. It was a tour de force and it was entertaining as well. Maybe it was 50 or 100 to one, but Trump was always in control and fluent. There is no other Republican or any other national politician who can do this.

Even if the press hated it, they have to admit it was exciting, not like the snoozefests that Obama conducted.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Wow, thanks for posting that excerpt, Professor--it makes Tapper/CNN's characterization of "unhinged" all the funnier. Trump called it--you're gonna say I'm ranting and raving!--and they go with "unhinged." That is funny.

He gets a question he proclaims truly "nice." Talk about Melania. He asks the questioner "who are you with?" and says "Good, I’m gonna start watching, all right?"

Cue the outrage! How dare Trump say he supports a particular news outlet--he's giving that outlet government support and will boost their earnings. Corruption! Call the ethics office, impanel the jury!

rhhardin said...

Remember the structural constant. News is a business with a paying audience of only soap opera women. It has to do soap opera every day or they're out of business.

Politicians are only free-riding on that constant in the media.

No change can happen that gets rid of soap opera.

David Begley said...

And who responds for the Dems? Warren? Booker? Schumer? They've got nobody.

AReasonableMan said...

David Begley said...
And who responds for the Dems?


Is a response really necessary?

Hagar said...

I just watched the CBS Evening News and Oh man! I have never seen anything like this from anything calling itself a news organization.
It was just straight campaign rhetoric directed at Donald J. Trump all the way without any attempt at even pretending to be a newscast!

Chuck said...

Thanks, Althouse, for including Trump's falsehood about the "reversal rate" of the Ninth Circuit. It was basically untrue, what Trump said.

It is yet another one of those things that seems to be something that Trump picks up on, while consuming the very large and perhaps very dubious pile of media that he consumes at great length.

There have been lots of stories about the alleged reversal rate of the Ninth. Many of them, from Trumpian right-wing media have headlined the fact the that Ninth is the most-reversed of all Circuit Courts of Appeal. Other stories -- apparently unseen by Trump -- explain that it is not as simple as a percentage number.

But the low grade Hannity-type stories stick with Trump, and then get blurted out at a press conference. Trump isn't getting information from any honest broker of legal information. Trump is watching whatever his short attention span can tolerate, and he remembers whatever he wants.

And what we get, on tv, is like a psychological MRI scan.

eddie willers said...

I need the transcript to insert my comments.

And you did a great job. Conveyed, dare I say, the tone of the live event.

Conserve Liberty said...

After decades of Harvard-speak, Stream of Consciousness is disconcerting. He has them focused on the shiny object ('travel ban', border wall) and right in front of their very eyes he's going to achieve his goal - make America better (jobs, inner cities, real immigration solution, DACA that works, infrastructure) and be re-elected going away.

They won't even know what happened.

J. Farmer said...

@Ann Althouse:

I question whether "wrong" is the most accurate word for that disagreement between courts.

I don't believe Trump was saying they were "wrong" in that sentence. He said, "maybe I'm wrong" prefacing the statement about the 80% reversal rate. That is, he was hedging about maybe not having the correct number.

His statement was: "We had a court that’s been overturned. Again, maybe I'm wrong. But I think it’s 80 percent of the time, a lot."

robother said...

Commings can't meet with the President.

They don't call it the Democrat Plantation for nothing. Great shot to call out "Schumer or some other light [skinned?] weight" as the Man pulling the strings.

Richard Dillman said...

Brilliant rhetorical analysis, very entertaining as well. His method relies on dialectic laced with humor, and it's fairly complex.

Sebastian said...

Here you were going great, doing a generously-interpretive fisking, aka Trumping (I hereby claim copyright and trademark on that), but then you remember your former profession and go, "I question whether "wrong" is the most accurate word for that disagreement between courts." Yeah, sure, it may not be "most" accurate," but it'll do.

And apropos of almost nothing, since CNN doesn't press anything and Trump is not Congress, I do not think it is protected against Trumpian wrath, or for that matter any other executive calumnies, by a constitutional provision that directs Congress not to abridge the freedom of the press.

Paddy O said...

Althouse, I'm curious of your perception of the press conference from your perspective as a teacher. I've not been in law school, but my impression is that the approach involves a lot of interactivity. In my own teaching, I've gotten better about using class time for engaged discussions, which is framed around content, but dances with student interaction as I get them involved, then actively redirect, deepen, sometimes disorient, get them to laugh all as a way of coming at the content from multiple directions that connects with their context. Really, it comes down to me having fun while in front and inviting students into enjoying the material.

From your description here it sounds like Trump was doing a similar task. Simply answering questions isn't actually teaching, but through controlling the context, the questions and answers become part of a bigger overall teaching, one that uses the method to convey the intended direction.

You have much more teaching experience than I do, so I'm curious if you picked up "Trump as teacher" in your watching. Obama, of course, was thought of as a law teacher, but he was much more of a lecturer who depended on reading a manuscript of notes, rather than truly a natural at the task.

holdfast said...

"This went on for over an hour, with Trump picking up energy as he went, almost as if he absorbs energy from his antagonists in the room."

OMFG - Trump is the villain Doomsday from Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Known Unknown said...

"And the public is smart, they understand it."

The ultimate marketer. I've been in advertising a long time. One of my biggest pet peeves is "we need to dumb it down." Never does anyone say "we need to smart it up." People, when making decisions that affect their lives, are mostly smart about it. Except for Florida Man. But I digress.

David Ogilvy once said "The consumer isn't a moron; she is your wife." Now, some may consider that sexist in some way (this was the 1960s) but it's true. Very true.

The progressives seem to be stuck on stupid, as in calling the people, the voters, who didn't vote for them stupid or racist or dumb hicks. That's not a winning strategy. Believing in your fellow American, as Trump seems to do here, is.

Seeing Red said...

I thought the 9th Circuit was the most-overturned circuit in the country.


True or false?

Pete said...

I remember Trump saying his campaign was a beautiful thing. I'd never heard a candidate refer to their campaign that way and I think that's the key to Trump: his campaign was something he created and it was beautiful and I think he sees his presidency as the same thing, something beautiful that he's created. (Certainly, we can agree, that both his campaign and his presidency, so far, is something like we've never seen before and totally original.) That's why Althouse finds Trump so fascinating: the artistic side of her admires his artistry. He's an artist.

And he's painting his masterpiece before our eyes.

David Begley said...

Seeing Red

"Eight of out of 10 cases from the 9th Circuit reviewed by the Supreme Court are overruled, according to a 2010 analysis published by the American Bar Association. The 9th Circuit, which is known for its liberal tendencies, has the second-highest reversal rate of the 13 appellate courts below the Supreme Court."

Source: Hot Air blog.

AReasonableMan said...

Pete said...
That's why Althouse finds Trump so fascinating: the artistic side of her admires his artistry.


I can see lyrical similarities with Bob Dylan.

Chuck said...

Conserve Liberty said...
After decades of Harvard-speak, Stream of Consciousness is disconcerting. He has them focused on the shiny object ('travel ban', border wall) and right in front of their very eyes he's going to achieve his goal - make America better (jobs, inner cities, real immigration solution, DACA that works, infrastructure) and be re-elected going away.

"...jobs..." I'd like to think that any Republican administration could do a lot to grow the economy, certainly with the help of bicameral Republican majorities.

"...inner cities..." This is not going to go well for Trump. I like the idea of "stop and frisk" and the careful promotion of that as policy. It need not be much of a federal issue. I don't think it really should be. Local politicians in Chicago are going to take Trump's words on the subject and fire right back at him; give us more federal money. More money for schools, for health care, for mental health, for jobs, for housing, for energy assistance, and on and on. Then what, from Trump? What the hell is he really going to do for cities? I'm not so sure I want him to do anything in that sphere.

"...real immigration solution...DACA that works..." It could be easy, with Republicans in the majority. Democrats made it hard, by insisting on a "pathway to citizenship" as a deal-breaker. And indeed, it broke the deal. Republicans -- forget Trump -- can legislate reasonable immigration limits, better border security, smart H1B visa rules, and can be compassionate with non-criminal alien workers who could be given work permits with no pathway to citizenship. That's not Trump. It's certainly not the crazed shit Trump campaigned on. Democrats won't be satisfied, for sure. I hope they aren't.

"...infrastructure..." I'll rely on Congress, and Mick Mulvaney at OMB, to make sure that Trump does not overspend his way to popularity. I don't expect Trump to pass a tax cut, and then also vastly expand federal infrastructure spending. Not sure what else there is to say.

There's nothing remarkable about any of this. Nothing particularly "Trump." Just standard Republican politics. Underneath the Trump Media Circus.


Crimso said...

Is this the longest post you've ever put up? It seems really long. Not bad, but long.

Michael said...

Anybody remember who Clyde Beatty was? In three months Trump will have the media crouching on their stools and jumping through hoops for him. And he won't need the whip or the pistol.

Jason said...

Not bad. But the transcript reads better if you plug the text into a StarWars scrolling text generator and crank up the speakers.

http://play.starwars.com/html5/starwars_crawlcreator/

Che Dolf said...

Achilles said... Waiting for apologies from all of you #nevertrumpers who are still wrong.

Will never happen because:

Scott Adams: "[L]ately I get the feeling that Trump’s critics have evolved from expecting Trump to be Hitler to preferring it. Obviously they don’t prefer it in a conscious way. But the alternative to Trump becoming Hitler is that they have to live out the rest of their lives as confirmed morons. No one wants to be a confirmed moron. And certainly not after announcing their Trump opinions in public and demonstrating in the streets. It would be a total embarrassment for the anti-Trumpers to learn that Trump is just trying to do a good job for America. It’s a threat to their egos. A big one."

AReasonableMan said...

Trump: 'I’m not ranting and raving. I love this."

Shakespeare: "One that loved not wisely but too well"

The Cracker Emcee said...

"I can see lyrical similarities with Bob Dylan."

Once in a very great while, ARM, you do find that acorn.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Or is it a truffle?

Cacimbo Cacimbo said...

Cummings comments were not surprising. On several different NPR shows organizers of "Indivisible," were interviewed. This is the left's newest attempt at a Tea Party. They bragged about targeting the private homes of politicians and claim their tactics are working. Even McConnell's wife got no Dem votes for a Transportation position - that was unprecedented.Trump is the opposite of Obama, he is begging Democrats to join him in crafting legislation. They do not have the political courage to even meet with the man.

Chuck said...

Mythbusting the notion that the Ninth Circuit is the most-reversed of all of the Courts of Appeal:

Snopes.com:
http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/

Politifact:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10/sean-hannity/no-9th-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/

HotAir (written by Ed Morrissey, a solid legal expert and journalist):
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/10/does-the-9th-circuit-really-have-an-80-reversal-rate/

Daily Caller:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/12/the-9th-circuits-reversal-rate-has-nothing-to-do-with-liberal-judges/

Now the Ninth's reversal rate has been of a minor personal interest to me, since I am admitted to the Sixth Circuit, and the Sixth Circuit has gone through periods where legal sportsfans were calling my Sixth Circuit the "most reversed." I knew better then, how misleading that was. As was noted in an ABA Journal article:
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_sixth_sense_6th_circuit_has_surpassed_the_9th_as_the_most_reversed_appeal/

Trump can say whatever he wants. To a lot of stupid people, he probably sounds wonderful. After years of developing a reality television show, Trump is probably well-tuned to that kind of an audience. To educated people and lawyers, Trump sounds like an idiot.

traditionalguy said...

Lawyers are told to go into their line of work because someone notices that they can think on their feet. That mind can be both a skill and a curse, because 90% of the people dislike losing to them in a battle of wits, and usually find ways to get them back. So we learn to Act Humble.

The eminemt Mr.Pence does that, and he is every bit as sharp as The Donald. But he choses that tool and wins with it in most cases.

But every now and then the group needs a staunch fighter in the lead who can emit a needed tone that the Humble Man has not got in his attitude and tone of voice. IIR Patton, both Jacksons, and Halsey are examples. They were far from humble men, but they were valuable in a fight.

Drago said...

J Farmer nailed it at 6:46.

Drago said...

Vichy Chuck: "There's nothing remarkable about any of this. Nothing particularly "Trump." Just standard Republican politics. Underneath the Trump Media Circus."

LOL

dreams said...

I watched it live and I've noticed that Trump ultimately gets to the right answer, in my opinion. Trump has good instincts. Another lie that the corrupt media is constantly pushing is that Trump is angry, that angry face they say and write but I don't see that, maybe a little in the debates but I see a man who pushing back against their attacks and is mostly charming and likable while doing it.

Drago said...

Again, how is it that "lifelong republican" Chuck has not been begged, begged(!), to lead the republican effort in Michigan?

Astonishing oversight on the part of the MI republican apparatus.

Bob Loblaw said...

But the alternative to Trump becoming Hitler is that they have to live out the rest of their lives as confirmed morons. No one wants to be a confirmed moron.

That's it exactly. They're invested in the Hitler narrative, which never made a lick of sense if you spent ten minutes or so looking into the man. So they're going to keep pounding at that square peg trying to get it to fit.

Big Mike said...

@Chuck, why do you think anyone cares?

Brent said...

Chuck said. . .

Many of them, from Trumpian right-wing media have headlined the fact the that Ninth is the most-reversed of all Circuit Courts of Appeal. Other stories -- apparently unseen by Trump -- explain that it is not as simple as a percentage number.

Actually, it is simple. The only point that matters in the discussion is that the 9th Circuit is arguably more the most liberal in its decisions that are moved up, and arguably more of it's cases that reach the Supreme Court are overturned than the cases of any other Circuit Court.

That's all that matters when the 9th Circuit is up against SCOTUS review. That's all that anyone cares about that is concerned with a 9th decision going up. Will it be safe or will it be out? Everything else is personal pet peeve, or the spin of the moment by someone that fears it will be overturned again,

HT said...

A lot is lost in the interpretation.

buwaya said...

He is unique, and unimaginable.
What writer of fiction could have dreamed up Trump, and made his creation speak like Trump? He is such a unique American thing, that perhaps only Mark Twain might have, if given something to boost the imagination.

Good job Anne, well done. His style is dense, rapid and calculated, yet artfully natural. I have a hard time extracting his verbal tics, assuming what he says, his interjections, and repetitions, as a sort of "umm". But you make it clear that it isnt.

Paddy O said...

"This is the left's newest attempt at a Tea Party."

Which shows they still don't quite get what the Tea Party was about.

The moment they start targeting politicians for corruption is the moment they both get it and start having a chance to rebuild the party's chances. That's the crazy thing about Progressives to me, is that they are willing to fold themselves into knots over all sorts of accusations about Republican tactics and the American people's racism/sexism/etc. But Americans tend to be very anti-corruption, and if Democrats purged blatant corruption their messages would resonate deeply and broadly. But of course those shepherding and funding and inflaming progressives are particularly profiting from the corruption, leaving the actual sincere idealists easily manipulated to focus on the established "enemy." So ideological purity becomes central all while overlooking and dismissing deeply embedded corruption. It's the fundamental cause of the Tea Party, to weed that out of conservative ranks, and is the fundamental reason why Hillary lost.

Rick said...

That was about as far from "unhinged" as it's possible to be. He is still being underestimated - you would think the Demos and the press would have figured that out at this point.

The problem isn't that they underestimate him, it's that they only have one weapon so they're going to use it. They're used to their narrative overwhelming any feeble opposition like they overwhelmed the Tea Party. But it won't work against Trump because they have to put him on the air.

HT said...

I have just one question:

WHERE IS MICK ?

Drago said...

"This is the left's newest attempt at a Tea Party."

The lefties start a new astroturfed "organic tea party-like organization" every 2 years, whether they need it or not.

Bob Loblaw said...

Heh heh. A yes, the venerable, many times restarted and reinvigorated with Soros cash Coffee Party.

Paul Ciotti said...

If anyone has any doubts about media partisanship, all they need to do is re-watch the election night returns on YouTube. None of the big networks or cable channels (NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC) could bring themselves to announce a Trump victory till their on-scene correspondent at Trump election headquarters breathlessly announced that Hillary had called Trump to concede. Even then, some of the outlets refused to call the election for Trump, pointing to as yet uncounted ballots in big urban centers (something they did all night when Trump seemed ahead). And they did this despite the NY Times website probability meter calculating a 93% likelihood of a Trump victory for most of the night. Even when they knew Trump had won, they couldn't admit it to themselves or announce it to the world.

khesanh0802 said...

Another piece of the Chuck puzzle falls in place. He IS a lawyer. I was pretty sure he was because of the way he takes such pleasure in arguing both sides of any comments. For a while I enjoyed his misdirected zeal. Now I realize that he comments only for his own entertainment and to enhance his self-worth. He really is not so much participating in the discussion as briefing us on his side of the case - whatever it is today. It does get quite tiring.

Drago said...

Paul, "lifelong republican" Chuck was hardest hit.

Drago said...

khesan: "Now I realize that he comments only for his own entertainment and to enhance his self-worth. He really is not so much participating in the discussion as briefing us on his side of the case - whatever it is today. It does get quite tiring"

"lifelong republican" Chuck is trapped in a Sisyphus-like nightmare where every fake misstep of Trump is taken to "11" on the Lefty Watergate-Scale yet is destined to collapse of its own weight with that weight falling squarely on Vichy Chucks Keds.

AReasonableMan said...

I don't have any problems believing that Trump enjoys being the center of a shit storm. I am sure he enjoyed playing chicken with Manhattan bankers when his real estate business was cratering. In his way he is an adrenaline junkie. I am unconvinced that this plays well in upper west Podunk despite the enthusiastic reaction amongst this particular crowd.

Hagar said...

Remember the Tea Party rally on the Mall where the most memorable comment was that these folks did everything but bring lawnmovers to trim the grass to clean up after themseves before leaving?

MaxedOutMama said...

Tone IS very important. Trump appeared very candid and did seem to enjoy himself somewhat. Far more than most presidents. I think Melania has been taking him to task for seeming so grim - this was a return of the campaign Trump. He exuded calm and confidence.

This whole thing (which I watched ONLY because Ann put up the link) reminded me very much of the infomercial press conference during the campaign. I watched that one three times because I found it so funny. I still start laughing whenever I think about it. I felt sure that he would win after that.

I found it very interesting that he used the press conference to declare to Putin and the whole world that he would like to come to terms with Russia if he could, and that the press yammer was not going to affect his decision. I think that may have been one of his goals for this occasion.

Much of that was masterful. His ability to control a room is quite something. He is able to hurl chaos bolts worthy of Jupiter at reporters that utterly disrupt their agenda, and he can do it continuously while seeming very relaxed.

When I watch Donald Trump, I always ask myself "What is he selling today?" Today I think his purpose was to convey being in control and plowing ahead with his program. A rebuttal of the "chaos, on the run" thing the press has been pushing as a result of the Flynn resignation.

Trump is no fool - he's always talking to the voters.

MaxedOutMama said...

ARM - it plays fantastically in upper west Podunk. They got it. They get it.

Believe me, I know Podunk.

Chuck said...

What is this monolithic "media"?

There is a general attitude, to be sure, at NPR, the NYT, NBC, ABC, CBS and NBC. MSNBC is nothing short of ideological. Which is of extra concern because of the overlap with NBC.

But there is also the Fox News Channel, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, and the radio programs of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Michael Savage and Hugh Hewitt. There is a whole genre of conservative media, featuring The Weekly Standard, the National Review, the American Spectator, Newsbusters, RedState, Powerline, the Blaze and Twitchy.

I saw Trumpkin-extraordinaire Eric Bolling today, whining about "the media," and how cool it was for Trump to be taking on "the media." What the fuck are you, Eric Bolling? You've got a mysteriously undeserved spot on the highest-rated cable news channel.

MikeR said...

'A majority of the Supreme Court may disagree with 9th Circuit frequently because the leanings of the judges are different. I question whether "wrong" is the most accurate word for that disagreement between courts.)' I guess it depends on the case? The Supreme Court is supposed to be, well, supreme. So is it wrong for a Circuit Court to make a decision if they know that the Supreme Court will disagree, given that - as you said - they have different leanings?

Laslo Spatula said...

Tales of a Real Republican….

I was in the restroom of my Gentlemen’s Club, taking my ‘wide stance’ after the champagne and lobster, when I heard someone call my name.

“Ch**k?” they asked.

“Yes,” I answered, leaving the stall after two flushes. It still didn’t quite get all of it down, but that is why they hire Mexicans…

“I’m Steve.”

“And I give a fuck about you why?” I said. I admit it — I was frustrated: he saw me leave the stall after taking a shit, and so now I HAD to wash my hands. Appearances…

“I just want to say that I overheard you at your table, and I have the greatest respect for you. You are a REAL Republican.”

“Well, thank you,” I replied, drying my hands. “It can be lonely, you know — being a Real Republican nowadays.”

“I can only imagine,” he said, hanging on to my every word.

“Is there something I can do for you?” I asked, putting just the right edge of studied impatience on my voice: Tone is everything in conveying your proper place in Society.

“I don’t want to be a bother…”

“Just spit it out,” I said. Christ! I had people waiting on me: I left in the middle of telling the table my theory of the Secret White Guy who actually writes Clarence Thomas’ opinions for him…

“I just was wondering…” this Steve stammered. “Would you — a Real Republican — be willing to fuck me in the ass?”

Well: as a Real Republican you don’t have to ask ME twice!

“On one condition, Steve.”

“Sure! What is it?”

“From this point on you will no longer make ANY eye contact with me. Ever.”

“That’s funny!”

“Funny? What is funny about it?”

“It’s just that John Boehner said those exact same words to me before I sucked his cock.”

“It’s a ‘Real Republican’ thing,” I said, before fucking him in the ass, Real Republican-style. Meaning I kept my hands on my hips and my back straight so my tie wouldn't accidentally brush against his asshole....

After I shot my load up his ass I wiped my dick off on his shirt-tail and then went back to my table, just in time for sorbet.Sorbet after blowing my load in some bootlicker's ass: NOW I was ready to set some people straight...

I am Laslo.

AReasonableMan said...

Chuck said...
What is this monolithic "media"?

There is a general attitude, to be sure, at NPR, the NYT, NBC, ABC, CBS and NBC. MSNBC is nothing short of ideological. Which is of extra concern because of the overlap with NBC.

But there is also the Fox News Channel, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, and the radio programs of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Michael Savage and Hugh Hewitt. There is a whole genre of conservative media, featuring The Weekly Standard, the National Review, the American Spectator, Newsbusters, RedState, Powerline, the Blaze and Twitchy.

I saw Trumpkin-extraordinaire Eric Bolling today, whining about "the media," and how cool it was for Trump to be taking on "the media." What the fuck are you, Eric Bolling? You've got a mysteriously undeserved spot on the highest-rated cable news channel.


Chuck finally hits a reasonable line of argument. I doubt it will gain much traction here, since a large fraction of Althouse's schtick is devoted to attacking a 1970's version of the 'media'.

Earnest Prole said...

Are American reporters really so daft as to think the First Amendment is synonymous with “the President is Constitutionally prohibited from criticizing us”?

Bob Loblaw said...

ARM, you're not taking into account just how low regard conservatives have for the press, particularly legacy electronic media. You haven't noticed the bias all these years because you weren't on the receiving end, but for decades we've been grinding enamel as we're subjected to Peter Arnett walking through airports and rolling our eyes at Terry Gross's hit jobs which, incidentally, we're paying for.

Imagine how you would have felt if only Breitbart got to ask Obama questions in his press conferences.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

"Other stories -- apparently unseen by Trump -- explain that it is not as simple as a percentage number."

Of course lifelong republican Chuck has an explanation and excuse for the 9th circuit and it's abysmal reversal rate. It is not that simple you see. Of course it's not Chuck.

If you were really a conservative or republican this press conference would be energizing to you. But magically you find a way to bash Trump. Of course you do.

Richard Dillman said...

Look at his rhetorical strategies. There are many -- colloquial diction and phrasing, careful control of his personas, artistically organic form, a dialectic method that thrives on give and take, ingratiation with specific audience members, riffing, wit, control of his own tone,
awareness of multiple audiences simultaneously, setting the agenda through his pauses, shaping the rhythm of the conference,
and maintaining a useful degree of low key humor. There are obviously many more.

AReasonableMan said...

Bob Loblaw said...
ARM, you're not taking into account just how low regard conservatives have for the press, particularly legacy electronic media. You haven't noticed the bias all these years because you weren't on the receiving end, but for decades we've been grinding enamel as we're subjected to Peter Arnett walking through airports and rolling our eyes at Terry Gross's hit jobs which, incidentally, we're paying for.


But, these are very old grievances. I never watch TV, which may account for some of my bafflement, but on the web and on radio it is pretty hard to find a legitimate grievance. The only paper I read everyday is the WSJ (not Sundays). There is no shortage of right leaning news sources.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Chuck said...
What is this monolithic "media"?

There is a general attitude, to be sure, at NPR, the NYT, NBC, ABC, CBS and NBC. MSNBC is nothing short of ideological. Which is of extra concern because of the overlap with NBC.

But there is also the Fox News Channel, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, and the radio programs of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Michael Savage and Hugh Hewitt.


The difference between the media outlets mentioned in the second paragraph and the media outlets mentioned in the third paragraph is that the media outlets in the second paragraph admit to no partisan or ideological bias. They believe that they do not provide opinion or analysis from a liberal perspective, they believe that they are delivering the TRUTH. Just try to get any journalists or editors from NPR, the NYT, NBC, ABC, CBS or NBC to admit that they are biased news sources.
The conservative news outlets Chuck names are all either openly partisan or claim to be 'fair and balanced," but none of them claim to be objective, unbiased sources of "news."
IIRC, the old NY Times editor, Howell Raines, once admitted, grudgingly, that his paper had an 'urban' viewpoint. This was close enough to the old identification of Jews as being metropolitans that this comment should have received far more attention and criticism.

Chuck said...

Achilles said...
Chuck said...

"Other stories -- apparently unseen by Trump -- explain that it is not as simple as a percentage number."

Of course lifelong republican Chuck has an explanation and excuse for the 9th circuit and it's abysmal reversal rate. It is not that simple you see. Of course it's not Chuck.

If you were really a conservative or republican this press conference would be energizing to you. But magically you find a way to bash Trump. Of course you do.


Are you going to stop whining about the Ninth now that Trump is rescinding that EO? He's giving up. He's getting better advice now, and taking the advice of conservatives that a better-crafted EO would be better.

Trump will be okay. He just needed one good legal bitch-slap.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445000/

Michael K said...

Laslo, that was monumental.

narciso said...

What is striking there is no news in any of the stories, no allusions to png'd Russian operatives, no suggestion of any price of intelligence denied trump, this suggests there is no pony under the manure pile

Chuck said...

Lewis Wetzel said...
...
...Just try to get any journalists or editors from NPR, the NYT, NBC, ABC, CBS or NBC to admit that they are biased news sources.

Just try to get Bill O'Reilly to give you that admission.

narciso said...

Despite the sea spinet motion, there is little sign of intelligent life in the 9th circuit, so lets craft another order and see what new level of category error, they can wrangle from the judge shopping.

ceowens said...


@ 2/16/17, 7:35 PM

Chuck said:

"To educated people and lawyers, Trump sounds like an idiot."

Is he making a distinction between educated people and lawyers?

Lewis Wetzel said...

The one time CEO of NPR, Ken Stern, writes the occasional article for the Atlantic from a Left liberal perspective, and of course Stern thinks that Trump is Hitler. Wikipedia says that in Stern's last year at NPR, 2008, he was paid a salary of 1.3 million $.

Che Dolf said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Original Mike said...

"Is he making a distinction between educated people and lawyers?"

That's the way I read it.

AReasonableMan said...

Even back in the 50-70's it wasn't a monolithic media. That was the heyday of William F. Buckley Jr. and National Review.

Roughcoat said...

Surely there is a place for Laslo in Trump's administration.

Che Dolf said...

Disgruntled eGOP lawyer sez... But there is also the Fox News Channel, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, and the radio programs of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Michael Savage and Hugh Hewitt. There is a whole genre of conservative media, featuring The Weekly Standard, the National Review, the American Spectator, Newsbusters, RedState, Powerline, the Blaze and Twitchy.

The Wall Street Journal's news pages tilt (or tilted) left, according to a media bias study that judged this by the frequency with which left- and right-wing think tanks and "experts" were cited, and how often left/right authorities were described as neutral. Sorry, can't find the link right now, and maybe the Murdoch WSJ is different.

The Washington Times has a circulation of 59k. New York Times sales fluctuate more than that every day.

Fox News isn't conservative, it's establishment Republican. It was, on balance, trying to sink the anti-establishment candidate leading the GOP primary field until he beat the network into submission.

Yes, conservatives own talk radio and they have some popular websites.

It's cretinous to pretend there's nothing like a monolithic "media" because some contrary voices exist. The overwhelming majority of people get their "news" from TV, and the broadcast outlets, all left, dwarf Fox's ratings.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"Just try to get Bill O'Reilly to give you that admission."
You are nitpicking to avoid admitting the truth of what I have written, Chuck.
Bill O'Reilly is a current affairs talk show host. He isn't even pretending to deliver "news".
I haven't watched O'Reilly in years, but his politics seem to be pre-60s working class Catholic Democrat, not Republican or even conservative. Doesn't he want to ban SUV's and break up big corporations?

stever said...

Even back in the 50-70's it wasn't a monolithic media. That was the heyday of William F. Buckley Jr. and National Review.

I remember those days, you obviously do not.

Che Dolf said...

AReasonableMan said... Even back in the 50-70's it wasn't a monolithic media. That was the heyday of William F. Buckley Jr. and National Review.

[Autistic literalism mode activated] Beep boop your accurate generalization is invalid because it somewhat overstates the truth as measured with a micrometer.

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

I'm sensing that some here are starting to subconsciously understand who it is that has been suckered by DJT's art of the deal. It's not our enemies who are enthusiastically shitting on DJT (Iran, Russia, China, North Korea), and it's not folks who don't fall for DJT's flim flam.

Who does that leave out?



Carry on.

grimson said...

He just right off insults BBC!

My favorite moment.

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

Are we a month in yet?

Hopefully we made it a month before Iran, China, Russia and North Korea all successfully called DJT's bluff, and he scampered away.


Sheesh.

Mark said...

Typically, when you get sucker punched, you stand there for a few moments wondering what the hell happened and why. Meanwhile you are getting pummeled. That has been the Republicans and Republican presidents for the last five decades.

Trump is different. He has wised up. And so have we all. The sucker punches happen, but now they are laughed off. And the counterpunch is swift and hard.

George W. before him was able to absorb the sucker punch and didn't care if his enemies didn't like him, just as Trump doesn't (meanwhile Nixon was desperate for people to like him), but W. did not fight back. He turned the other cheek.

Trump doesn't turn the other cheek, he will punch back hard. But he will also call out his opposition and tell them, rightly so, that they have instigated this, THEY are the assholes and he is simply responding in kind. And he is right to tell them that all the irrational hate and animus they spew is corrosive, first of them and then all of society.

AReasonableMan said...

stever said...
I remember those days, you obviously do not.


But, if there had been a larger market for Buckley's views his magazine would presumably have been less of a niche publication. If there is a conflict between your understanding of how the market works, what you wanted to happen and what actually happened aren't your misreading the market?

narciso said...

Except Obama get putin take Ukraine like candy from a baby, north Korea got the bomb in part because of Wendy sherman's great deal, she managed the one withnthe mullahs which will turnout just as successful

roesch/voltaire said...

Finds Trump charming and bashing the media as fake from the posters on this site reminds me of what Charlie Sykes right wing talk host who made his living bashing the mainstream media wrote: We destroyed our own immunity to fake news, while empowering the worst and most reckless voices on the right.

This was not mere naïveté. It was also a moral failure, one that now lies at the heart of the conservative movement even in its moment of apparent electoral triumph."

exiledonmainstreet said...

AReasonableMan said...
Even back in the 50-70's it wasn't a monolithic media. That was the heyday of William F. Buckley Jr. and National Review."

Now, flip that - imagine that the media was almost uniformly conservative during the 50's-70's and I said, "But it wasn't monolithic. There was the Nation."

Would you say, "oh, OK, the Nation, you're right?"

It's true that NR and Buckley were better known than the Nation, but still, jeez, you're still talking about one publication in a sea of liberalism.

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

Narc,

Grasping at straws can't be too comforting or ya re DJT's bluff-obliteration re Iran, Russia, China and North Korea.

I guess you can say that there's still time for him to make NATO and our trading partners and allies succumb to his deal making.

Maybe that stuff will work out better. Or, the F-up streak may continue re our allies, just as it has w/ our adversaries.

Sad!

exiledonmainstreet said...

Great job, Laslo!

readering said...

Well, the press conference was obviously a big hit with Robert Harward . . . .

narciso said...

We cagave iruusia 20% of our nuclear stockpile, cut our forces to the smallest point since pre we 2, gave 159 million toniran in frozen assets,

roesch/voltaire said...

This just in and it says so much about the Trump bunch at the White House:Several White House staffers were dismissed Thursday morning after failing FBI background checks, according to sources familiar with the matter.No wonder he was riffing about the media to cover up the chaos.

dhagood said...

@cronus titan 6:40pm Republicans have waited at leat two generations for a politician to go toe to toe with the press and let them know they are full of shit. The haughty and pampered national press are quite used to Republicans rolling over and begging for mercy at the feet of the media gods. One punches back twice as hard (to paraphrase Obama) and, like all bullies, they have no idea what to do except whine.

precisely.

AReasonableMan said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
It's true that NR and Buckley were better known than the Nation, but still, jeez, you're still talking about one publication in a sea of liberalism.


But it wasn't a shutout and that is the point. The market preferred the bland stylings of Time magazine over the more hard edged Buckley. There was nothing stopping Buckley from being as big as Time other than market preferences.

narciso said...

That was the entire Obama cabinet, nit just hillary, Robert gates was a party to that as well

harryo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
narciso said...

Yes leaking sf 86's is a criminal offense as well. The other instances were just lying about material matters

Jupiter said...

Chuck said...
'What is this monolithic "media"?'

It's a bunch of assholes who think that having a college degree in telling lies makes them smarter than real people. Kind of like you, Chuckles.

Sebastian said...

"To educated people and lawyers, Trump sounds like an idiot." Jeez, give it up, Chuck. In this press conference, he did not sound like an idiot. As a certified egghead, I knew exactly what he was saying and why he was saying it. If so-called lawyers like you can't grasp what Althouse is trying to teach you, it's a bit, umm, odd to call Trump an idiot.

Fabi said...

Hall of Fame material, Laslo - bravo!

exiledonmainstreet said...

Richard Dillman said...
Look at his rhetorical strategies. There are many -- colloquial diction and phrasing, careful control of his personas, artistically organic form, a dialectic method that thrives on give and take, ingratiation with specific audience members, riffing, wit, control of his own tone,
awareness of multiple audiences simultaneously, setting the agenda through his pauses, shaping the rhythm of the conference,
and maintaining a useful degree of low key humor. There are obviously many more.

2/16/17, 8:38 PM

Yes, his verbal style is far more sophisticated than I initially gave him credit for. It took me a long time to warm up to it - during the primaries, I found it massively irritating and was puzzled as to why so many in the heartland enjoyed what stuck me as a very New Yorkerish style. And by "New Yorkish" I mean the cabbie who is arguing that you owe him $35 for a suspiciously short ride. Now I've become accustomed to the verbal tics and appreciate what he's doing, which Richard Dillman and Althouse have analyzed very well. But then I approve of his aims. If you can't stand the man,though, and don't agree with his agenda, all you'll hear is the "biglys" and the braggadocio.

narciso said...

I'm guessing the proposed ban on the ilkwan, thefountainhead if nearly all salafi activity was one major deal breaker with Harward.

Che Dolf said...

roesch/voltaire said... This just in and it says so much about the Trump bunch at the White House:Several White House staffers were dismissed Thursday morning after failing FBI background checks...

Obama kicked off his political career at a fundraiser hosted by unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and they maintained a personal and professional relationship for years. None of you cared.

Obama commuted the sentence of Puerto Rican terrorist Oscar López Rivera, one of the leaders of the FALN. "Irony Alert: Lin-Manuel Miranda to Return to 'Hamilton' to Honor Pardoned PR Bomber in a Theater That the Terrorist's FALN Bombed."

This is why you got Trump, who in any other context would have been laughed out of the race. The political establishment and bien pensants had to become so deranged and corrupt that even he looked good in comparison.

Bob Loblaw said...

To educated people and lawyers, Trump sounds like an idiot.

I have no doubt Trump sounds like an idiot to people who are well educated but lacking in real world experience.

Jupiter said...

AReasonableMan said...

"If there is a conflict between your understanding of how the market works, what you wanted to happen and what actually happened aren't your misreading the market?"

Good point. How does that apply to your theory about who was going to win the last Presidential election?

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Several White House staffers were dismissed Thursday morning after failing FBI background checks..."

Bill Clinton would have failed an FBI background check in 1992.

narciso said...

Credentialed, does check Todd know anything more than what his stint in Haskins office twenty years ahpgo taught him, Jim acista, can't ask a proper question, if his life was in the line.

Known Unknown said...

"To educated people and lawyers, Trump sounds like an idiot."

So?

"I don't know the rules of grammar... If you're trying to persuade people to do something, or buy something, it seems to me you should use their language, the language they use every day, the language in which they think. We try to write in the vernacular."

-David Ogilvy, Master Persuader

Jupiter said...

I like the way the President told those shit-heads from NYT and WAPO that they may happen to work for a couple of failing corporation that would be defunct if they hadn't been bought for salvage at fire sale prices by some billionaire hobbyist with an axe to grind, but that does not mean that he has to answer their questions. Get in line, flunkies. He knows a bit about billionaire hobbyists.

narciso said...

Ben rhodes failed his initial security clearance yet he was given access to tsi info first as general Jones minder, then later negotiating the Iran and Cuba deals

The Cracker Emcee said...

"This just in and it says so much about the Trump bunch at the White House:Several White House staffers were dismissed Thursday morning after failing FBI background checks, according to sources familiar with the matter.No wonder he was riffing about the media to cover up the chaos."

Kitchen staffers or housekeeping staffers? Chaos!

Chuck said...

More, from the Althouse-supplied NYT transcript...

This was from the part, pre-questions, where Trump was talking about the Washington litigation over the immigration EO:

I will not back down from defending our country. I got elected on defense of our country. I keep my campaign promises, and our citizens will be very happy when they see the result. They already are, I can tell you that. Extreme vetting will be put in place and it already is in place in many places.

In fact, we had to go quicker than we thought because of the bad decision we received from a circuit that has been overturned at a record number. I have heard 80 percent, I find that hard to believe, that is just a number I heard, that they are overturned 80 percent of the time. I think that circuit is — that circuit is in chaos and that circuit is frankly in turmoil. But we are appealing that, and we are going further.

We’re issuing a new executive action next week that will comprehensively protect our country. So we’ll be going along the one path and hopefully winning that, at the same time we will be issuing a new and very comprehensive order to protect our people. That will be done sometime next week, toward the beginning or middle at the latest part.


That's just not true. It wasn't true as Trump was saying it. And it wasn't even a good, or a clear, lie. As Trump was saying that his administration would be pursuing the appeal of his original EO, he mentioned a new EO. And I have no doubt he was right about that. But Trump seemed oblivious to the fact that his DoJ was then going back to the Ninth Circuit to say that the original order would soon be "rescinded." So no further hearing was needed.

All that trash talk about the Ninth Circuit. The blabber about how "easily" the Ninth would be overturned (either en banc or on appeal to SCOTUS, we can only presume). It ain't happening. Not anymore. I'm not saying it's a dumb move, to rescind the original EO and create a better order. It's not dumb; it's smart. It's just a sign of chaos in the administration that as of this afternoon, Trump couldn't recite the basic strategy correctly.

Chuck said...

btw, a tip of the hat to MSNBC on the idea for my previous post. I can never watch FNC at 10, with Trump Toady Sean Hannity. I often turn to MSNBC or something else. And I picked this problematic part of the Trump transcript at MSNBC.

Seeing Red said...

Should Huma even have had any clearance?

narciso said...

Lol, so you're Larry o'donnell's viewer, that explains a great deal, I imagine o'donnell's like Robert deniro in king of comedy, pretending he has a real show on the air.

Seeing Red said...

Credentialed people Chuck.


I finally heard Caro Kennedy speak when she wanted that Senate seat appointed to her.

I lmao at her ummms.


With her background and education, at her age?

I expected more polish.

Comanche Voter said...

Chuck you really are on the jihad today aen't you? I get it-- you don't like Trump.

Original Mike said...

"This just in and it says so much about the Trump bunch at the White House: Several White House staffers were dismissed Thursday morning after failing FBI background checks, according to sources familiar with the matter."

Yes, it does say a lot. It's nice to have a White House that takes security seriously again.

Original Mike said...

"Should Huma even have had any clearance?"

Hell, we all know Hillary should not have had clearance.

Fabi said...

Chuck just happens to inject a comment inspired by an MSNBC story.

Unexpectedly

Jon Ericson said...

Chuck, the armless, legless, Black Knight. I'll bite yer legs off!

narciso said...

And in the end its not about trump, its about unnamed (although Adam credo has a clue) intelligence officers spreading disinformation, this is the way things are done in the third world, where some of these people operate.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"He just right off insults BBC!"
The BBC is another news outfit who editors and managers will insist to their dying breath that it is an unbiased news organization when it is about as far Left as MSNBC in America.

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

"Hell, we all know Hillary should not have had clearance."

Sure, receiving (i.e. not sending anything marked classified) three documents w/ markings (i.e. a hand written "C" next to particular subsections marked Confidential, the lowest of three levels of classification), where the State Department later said two of the three were mistakenly labeled "C," is really bad.



Carry on.

Seeing Red said...

I didn't know The National Review did the 6 PM news.

Seeing Red said...

He should insult the Beeb.


After the shit they've pulled.

Chuck said...

narciso said...
Lol, so you're Larry o'donnell's viewer, that explains a great deal, I imagine o'donnell's like Robert deniro in king of comedy, pretending he has a real show on the air.


Nope. Lawrence O'Donnell is away, and Ari Melber, a lawyer, (Michigan/Cornell, and once part of the legendary Cahill Gordon & Reindell media law group) was subbing for him.
You managed to be wrong, even on a triviality.

Oh, and Fabi; Michigan thumped the Wisconsin Badgers tonight, to power their way back into NCAA Tourney contention.

sunsong said...

Trump is a congenital liar! Unless you acknowledge that, you have no credibility writing about him. Trump has NO BUSINESS asking anyone to be honest. Period!

exiledonmainstreet said...

Fabi said...
Chuck just happens to inject a comment inspired by an MSNBC story."

Yeah, "life long Republicans" always get their news from MSNBC.

BJM said...

I don't think Schumer is running the Dem shit show, it has anti-Midas fingerprints all over it.

Yeah, yeah, I know I said I was out, but Trump just dragged me back in.

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

"Yeah, "life long Republicans" always get their news from MSNBC."

I guess they like knowing what folks are saying to try and punch holes in "their" side's story. Life Long Republicans aren't into echo chambers that, if untested/questioned, could be counterproductive.

Smart.

David said...

"To educated people and lawyers, Trump sounds like an idiot."

Good to see you can distinguish between the two groups.

Chuck said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
Fabi said...
Chuck just happens to inject a comment inspired by an MSNBC story."

Yeah, "life long Republicans" always get their news from MSNBC.

I'm the guy who made it a point to tell you what my inspiration was for that comment. I wanted to make that attribution. I wanted it to be clear!

I'm not going to worry about justifying changing the channel when Hannity comes on. I actually turned back later, because I wanted to see what Netanyahu had to say. The difference between Hannity and Netanyahu is like the difference between Colin Kaepernick and Tom Brady.

Hannity spends as much of his on-air time these days bashing Republicans as they do on MSNBC, anyway! Has Sean Hannity ever been a Republican? He's pointedly claimed to NOT be a Republican for years.

Original Mike said...

"Sure, receiving (i.e. not sending anything marked classified) three documents w/ markings (i.e. a hand written "C" next to particular subsections marked Confidential, the lowest of three levels of classification), where the State Department later said two of the three were mistakenly labeled "C," is really bad."

You're still deluding yourself, I see.

Richard Dillman said...

Kenneth Burke, master rhetorical critic, pointed out in the 1920's that the hallmark of modern persuasive rhetoric is identification, which
he defines thusly. You persuade a reader or listener if you speak their language in diction, style, tone, voice, rhythm, and images, and/or
theme. To what extent does trump identify with his audience? Who is his ideal audience? Can his colloquial, informal, dialectical
style expand his appeal and his audience. I think Trump intuitively understands and uses Burke's concept of identification.

Blue@9 said...

because probably Putin assumes that he’s not going to be able to make a deal with me because it’s politically not popular for me

This is true. The press and the Democrats have made it very difficult for Trump to deal with the Russians. Any attempt to deal with them over Ukraine and Syria will be sold as collaboration with Putin. The only political space left to him is to take an aggressive position. This leads Putin to assume that another Cold War is inevitable.

That's why Trump is asking "when did this happen?" He's saying that Putin is reacting specifically to the way the American media is constricting Trump's ability to negotiate.

mockturtle said...

Is he making a distinction between educated people and lawyers?

There really is a distinction between:
Credentials and Education
Education and Intelligence

While it is probable that more smart people are educated, the education is not what makes them smart.

Jack Tors said...

I wasn't able to watch the press conference but after reading the Althousetated transcript, I feel like I did. Professor, this is perhaps your best exegesis of Trumpspeak to date. Bravo!

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger Richard Dillman said...
Kenneth Burke, master rhetorical critic, pointed out in the 1920's that the hallmark of modern persuasive rhetoric is identification, which he defines thusly. You persuade a reader or listener if you speak their language in diction, style, tone, voice, rhythm, and images, and/or theme.

This is just another way of saying that you tend to be persuaded by people you identify with. There are some hard boundaries on this. It all depends on context; if you are selling someone a vacuum cleaner, you probably want the customer to identify with you. If you are selling the customer encyclopedias, it's probably best to sound better educated than the customer.

Chuck said...

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...
"Yeah, "life long Republicans" always get their news from MSNBC."

I guess they like knowing what folks are saying to try and punch holes in "their" side's story. Life Long Republicans aren't into echo chambers that, if untested/questioned, could be counterproductive.

Smart.

Thank you. I'm a sometime-at-most MSNBC watcher. I admire much of their writing and presentation. I don't like a lot of the preaching. I don't agree with any of their hosts.

I listen to NPR, a lot. I listen to Rush Limbaugh, less often. I subscribe to the New Yorker, and the Wall Street Journal. I look at Drudge (it used to be constantly, no more) and NRO and WeeklyStandard.com, and of course I read the Althouse blog. I'm a member of the Federalist Society, the Republican National Lawyers Association, and Heritage. And 80% of the time, my tv would ordinarily be on Fox News or the Golf Channel. I want information; I think I know how to sort it all out.

Blue@9 said...

I think Trump intuitively understands and uses Burke's concept of identification.

I would say so.

Remember that no one claimed he was inarticulate before he ran for president. Watch the old interview of him on Oprah in 1988. The guy understands his audience.

He wasn't talking to the media today -- like he said, he was talking to the American people, and he was speaking in the vernacular.

Listen to how he repeats himself and lays down rhetorical anchors. Then he just hammers away in a NYC-style stream-of-consciousness. He compliments at the same time he criticizes-- this is messaging to his audience that this isn't personal. You're not a bad person, you're just doing a bad job. Do better!

As for not speaking in complete sentences or in "thought fragments," who cares? I'm a poet. Do you think I give a flying fuck about fragments or run-ons? The purpose of language is to communicate first and foremost. If he is communicating effectively, it doesn't fucking matter how he does it. Trump is tearing down the highway at 100mph and people are complaining that his car is too ugly to go that fast.

narciso said...

You find strikingly little news in the times, the post and increasingly the journal there was one interesting piece about aissami the crazy future heir to Hugo Chavez, because it all sounds like Edward munch's the scream. All anonymous sources citing anonymous conversations,

eddie willers said...

Laslo has written many sentences that have made me laugh out loud, but he'll be hard pressed to top this one:

Meaning I kept my hands on my hips and my back straight so my tie wouldn't accidentally brush against his asshole....

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

"he was talking to the American people, and he was speaking in the vernacular."

Exactly.

It's taking y'all a long time to catch up to me.

But, it's good to see that you're realizing that the counterparties who DJT is getting the best of in his deal making is you folks.

Unfortunately your persuadableness/manipulatableness is costing our country a lot.

Sad!

Birkel said...

The press will dig thru the whole pile of shit to find that PURPLE ELEPHANT. They are told time and again not to think of it. But they are weak.

So called Chuck is weak too. He argues numbers nobody else does or will consider. He wanted the status quo. Not President Jeb is available for consultation, Chuck, so called.

Keep digging.

Unknown said...

Deflection, deflection, deflection on Russia, Russia, Russia.

Media will continue digging into Russia, Russia, Russia.

Trump is going down.

Kremlingate.

Unknown said...

With Trump "The Buck Stops There".

Not his fault. Blame the dishonest media.

I did not fire Flynn, the media did.

I did not sign the travel ban, the media did.

Trump in a nutshell, "The Buck Does Not Stop Here But There"

As the dishonest Jake Tapper from the dishonest CNN said, "Stop whining Mr President".

Trump is a pathetic human being.

Lewis Wetzel said...

You are gibbering, "Unknown."
Perhaps you should spend some time sitting in a comfortable chair, drinking hot chocolate (with marshmallows!), and thinking happy thoughts.

M15ery said...

Have you all stopped to consider that none of us knows shit about what's really happening? All anonymous sourcing saying it's a dumpster fire vs Trump saying it's a well-oiled machine. Who is being (more) truthful? How do we judge? Behind all the salacious headlines, I found out that the FBI actually cleared Flynn and found his testimony to be truthful. But wait, how do I trust that? We're swimming in a sea of uncertainly, just grabbing on to whatever bits and pieces best keep our narratives afloat.

It's a helluva time to be alive. An interesting time.

Consider that we really are two different countries right now, not just in opinion and belief, but in terms of perceived reality. Our reality is not objective, nor is it a neutral rendering of outside stimuli. We apply a narrative to everything we perceive. We all saw the same press conference today... but not really. One country saw a crass, deranged, narcissistic maniac struggling to form a coherent sentence. The other country saw a refreshing non-politician finally speak plainly about the media and its agenda-driven lies. Neither is really wrong. This is some fucking real-time Rashomon-level shit happening right in front of us.

MayBee said...

The more I think about it, the more frustrated I am with coverage of the Flynn affair.

Trump talked about the leaks being real, but the stories being fake. All of media (at least CNN) had to pretend that just didn't make any sense.
You know what they could have done? They could have reported on Flynn like Glenn Greenwald, Michael Tracey, or Michael B Dougherty have. Instead of, as Jake Tapper has done, focusing on re-tweeting Flynn's son's tweets, talk about how Flynn was right about ISIS when it was inconvenient for Obama's 2012 re-election campaign. That for all of his other faults and weirdnesses, he saw the threat coming and was ignored and pushed out. That's why Trump wanted him, not because he sat at some dinner in Russia near Putin.

At least they could provide more facts about why someone like Brennan might try to hurt Flynn on his way out the door.

That's the thing I started to hate about Washington and political media during this campaign. They know all the secret dealings and relationships going on behind the scenes, but then they act like the surface-level stuff they shovel at us is all we can deserve to know, all our little heads could possibly understand, and all that is going on.

MayBee said...

Trump is a congenital liar! Unless you acknowledge that, you have no credibility writing about him. Trump has NO BUSINESS asking anyone to be honest. Period!

What politician is not?
As I said in another thread, if you didn't find Obama to be a congenital liar, it's just because you liked his lies.
Trump is a different kind of liar- he isn't a pretty liar like most politicians. He isn't a smooth liar.

Unknown said...

Give us a break Trumpies.

All the information and evidence about KremlinGate will come out during the public investigation when people and organizations will be subpoened.

It took 2 years from the break-in at Watergate to Nixon's impeachment and resignation. We are less than a week since Flynn was fired which was the starting gun.

Swede said...

Chuck speaks for educated people and lawyers everywhere.

Which explains why DJT is the CIC with a Republican controlled congress behind him.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"To educated people and lawyers, Trump sounds like an idiot."

But not to smart people with common sense.

Qwinn said...

Lefties spent 80 years bashing conservatives who were in any way suspicious of Russia. "The '80's called, they want their foreign policy back." That was Obama, 4 years ago, and lefties everywhere called it a masterstroke and, obviously Obama won that debate.

Now they think they have complete credibility trying to cast Russia as the Evil Empire.

They are lunatics.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Most of these media outlets have ignored the shutting down of free speech on campus. They blame Milo for being provocative rather than the goons who rioted in order to keep him from speaking. But we're supposed to think the lst Amendment is somehow at stake when Trump calls them out due to their shoddy reporting? Give me a break. They think the 1st Amendment is for them and nobody else.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger Unknown said...

Give us a break Trumpies.

All the information and evidence about KremlinGate will come out during the public investigation when people and organizations will be subpoened.

It took 2 years from the break-in at Watergate to Nixon's impeachment and resignation. We are less than a week since Flynn was fired which was the starting gun.


Y'know what? I bet Trump and Putin had a deal to split Ukraine in half! Just like the Hitler-Stalin pact & Poland! FLYNN WAS TRUMP'S VON RIBBENTROP!!
It's all so clear to me now that Blogger Unknown has pulled the wool from my eyes!

Kevin said...

Maverick: "I Got Tone. Firing!"

GRW3 said...

Too bad that that when the reporter scolded him on the electoral college facts Trump didn't say "Look there, they can do research on the facts. Probably used Google on his phone. Maybe a little more effort like that would pay off for your honesty."

exiledonmainstreet said...

Heh, heh, Andrew Solomon at American Thinker has Lefty Unknown, Inga's and sunsong's numbers:

"Some things you just need to accept your leftist friends are already gone. No, I don't mean the Rapture or dead. I mean mentally. Gone. Vacant stares. They are out-of-their-minds lost already, as if they were getting ready to castrate themselves to catch a ride on the Hale-Bopp comet. They shout low-information clichés like "impeach" and "treason." They are the smelly trolls on social media and dumb as doorstops.

They don't even realize how insanely difficult it is to prove treason. The bar is so high that it is nearly impossible. But the left are worse drama queens than barstool drunks drooling into their bloody Marys.

And impeachment? Big deal. You're not going to get the two-thirds majority required from the Senate. Not gonna happen. Don't let that stop the left's precious fantasy, however. "



Matthew Sablan said...

"They blame Milo for being provocative rather than the goons who rioted in order to keep him from speaking."

-- I remember when being provocative, like putting an image of Christ in urine, was a good thing.

Rusty said...


Chuck said:

"To educated people and lawyers, Trump sounds like an idiot."

Oh the irony.

David Hampton said...

Note to Chuck and a few others; you still don't get it. From your comfy little "hidey holes" you live in an echo chamber that reflects your ideology and preconceived ideas that ignores life outside your bubble. Spend some time in the proverbial "flyover states" where the objects of your disdain; Bible thumpers, gun toters, and other assorted folks you characterize as rubes reside. Nice folks especially along the interstate where you can enjoy good food and pleasant conversation from a coffee pouring waitress that is much wiser than you. You spend too much time impressing your peers and yourself. Most jurors I have been privileged to serve with would consider the validity of your arguments based on questions you didn't ask, points you didn't pursue and generally treating the jury like a bunch of uneducated, easily manipulated in Voir dire by condescending elites such as yourself. You seem to be not good at what you do given the amount of time you spend talking down to less educated folks. As a Jury foreman I have a chat with my fellow jurors with the understanding that they are wiser than most smooth talking, desperate lawyers.

Mrs Whatsit said...

Blue@9 said: "Trump is tearing down the highway at 100mph and people are complaining that his car is too ugly to go that fast."

Absolutely brilliant.

viator said...

Bingo! Che Dolf

Scott Adams: "[L]ately I get the feeling that Trump’s critics have evolved from expecting Trump to be Hitler to preferring it. Obviously they don’t prefer it in a conscious way. But the alternative to Trump becoming Hitler is that they have to live out the rest of their lives as confirmed morons. No one wants to be a confirmed moron. And certainly not after announcing their Trump opinions in public and demonstrating in the streets. It would be a total embarrassment for the anti-Trumpers to learn that Trump is just trying to do a good job for America. It’s a threat to their egos. A big one."

viator said...

They will never be like the Tea Party

Dakota Pipeline

Women's March

Bruce Hayden said...

This is actually in somewhat response to the previous thread, but...

Know someone who was talking to the intelligence community, and they are apparently in some disarray with this. His comment to us was that the Flynn stuff was protected by FISA, (and that should have been that). It wasn't, which bothers a lot of people. If there is a deep state in the intelligence community, a lot of the people there apparently don't know about it.

FISA (50 USC 1801, et seq) came out of recommendations from the Church Commission. It provides a legal mechanism for tapping phones, and the like, for collecting "Foreign intelligence information". FISA warrants, issued by a special FISA court, replace normal Wiretap Act warrants. I got my head into FISA during the discussions of how far the Bush (43) Administration could go, in tracking and tapping cell phone networks, in their War on Terror, in the wake of 9/11/01. FISA had been written in an era of land lines, when it was a simple matter to get FISA warrants for the Soviet embassy, its ambassador, etc. The numbers and lines were pretty fixed, and the procedures cumbersome. The original framework didn't work well, at all, when tracking terrorists around the world using burner cell phones. No doubt, there is a standing FISA warrant for the Russian ambassador's cell phone. And, for any other Russian (Chinese, etc.) employees and agents who can be identified. Esp. easy to get are those of the official employees, because they are identified "agents of a foreign power" (b).

FISA isn't on the books to protect the Russian ambassador, but rather, an "US Person" (i) with whom he talks. Which is why it requires "minimization procedures" (h) to protect such. You can peruse 1801(h) at your leisure, but the important thing to note is that the identity of any US Persons (such as Flynn here) must be protected, and the contents of any surveillance be deleted within 72 hours, unless the information discloses a threat of death or great bodily injury to someone. Of course, the list of who the NSA has FISA warrants for is highly classified, and, this release essentially exposed both that the Russian ambassador was on the list, and that our (classified) capabilities allowed them to routinely tap his phone (which also implicates the Espionage Act).

One possible answer to the question of who leaked what is that FISA information also goes to the Justice Dept. The AG has to sign warrants, and (I think) certify compliance. Anything actionable against a US Person has to be approved by them. This is esp. worrisome to me, because the Obama people spent 8 years vetting DoJ career attys on the basis of politics, and embedding as many fellow travelers in their ranks as possible. So, just dumping the political appointees there is unlikely to be enough to cleanse the Dept. Which is why, I think, that the investigation into the leaks has swept in the DoJ.

But, possibly making things worse, right before the Obama Admin left office, DNI Clapper and AG Lynch signed a memo (or some such) expanding the number of agencies that could access raw NSA intel (titled "Procedures for the Availability or Dissemination of Raw Signals Intelligence Information by the National Security Agency under Section 2.3 of Executive Order 1233") As I read the document, it seems to require that the other agencies have to conform to NSA Minimization procedures in order to get raw intel. Still, some have suggested that this is another of those ticking time bombs left by the Obama Admin (if it were truly that urgent, then why wait until Jan 3 of this year to implement?) And, I think that giving the timing, that it wasn't implicated in the Flynn matter.

David Hampton said...

Chuck, without appropriate clearance they would not have access to anything above their job description/clearance level. Any exceptions granted on a "need to know" basis would require a paper trail subject to FOIA requests from Judicial Watch as an example. The information coming in from the field would not be sent to them but through established channels. Follow the trail like the Intel community did before the battle of Midway in WWII. Flushing out the moles is something Trump is good at as are his Lieutenants in the chain-of-command.

Chuck said...

David Hampton said...
Note to Chuck and a few others; you still don't get it. From your comfy little "hidey holes" you live in an echo chamber that reflects your ideology and preconceived ideas that ignores life outside your bubble. Spend some time in the proverbial "flyover states" where the objects of your disdain; Bible thumpers, gun toters, and other assorted folks you characterize as rubes reside.

Hmmm. I live in Michigan, and am a gun owner. If it matters, I am a United Methodist (same as Laura Bush, and Hillary Clinton, and Rush Limbaugh, and George McGovern and Dick Cheney and Jeff Sessions). I have already explained what a diverse and non-echo chamber of media I consume. What someone might say to me is that while politically diverse, my media choices are not diverse in terms of class. I don't watch the kinds of reality television shows that Donald Trump starred in. And that is true. I regard much of that as a waste of my time. I want to have better, sharper, more factual arguments than people who devote themselves to that kind of culture.

Nice folks especially along the interstate where you can enjoy good food and pleasant conversation from a coffee pouring waitress that is much wiser than you.

One of the things I presume about those people is that they don't always want to talk about contentious politics. They might want to talk about human stories, music, literature, art, etc. Which is why I listen to NPR and read the New Yorker.

You spend too much time impressing your peers and yourself. Most jurors I have been privileged to serve with would consider the validity of your arguments based on questions you didn't ask, points you didn't pursue and generally treating the jury like a bunch of uneducated, easily manipulated in Voir dire by condescending elites such as yourself. You seem to be not good at what you do given the amount of time you spend talking down to less educated folks. As a Jury foreman I have a chat with my fellow jurors with the understanding that they are wiser than most smooth talking, desperate lawyers.

I've actually conducted voir dire. I've chosen juries, and spoken to them later. And, I've been a juror. What I have learned is that jurors, like other small groups do develop a kind of a hive mind, wherein they regard the judge and the lawyers and both/all sides as the "others" to them. And they think that much of what is going on is nonsensical and foreign and silly. They would know better, and would do a better job if they could run the trial. Talking to jurors, I have often been surprised at the way that they were able to focus on the smallest details (sometimes so small as to be functionally irrelevant) and came up with their own wholly irrelevant theories. The jurors were not smarter than the lawyers. The jurors were being managed by the lawyers, sometimes successfully and sometimes not so successfully. The best lawyers, of course, pay attention to those jurors. And cater to them. But all the while, the jurors are being managed.

Barbara Chance said...

Your comment on what the President should have said with regard to undermining the First Amendment and freedom of the press (and speech) was brilliant. I read it on Jim Geraghty's column in National Review and then found your blog. Bravo for a cogent statement.

gerry said...

Ninth circuit reversal rate is consistently high, and if considered by annual totals, frequently is the most reversed.

But in 2010, perhaps seeking to reclaim its position at the top of the heap, the Ninth Circuit was reversed a startling 19 times (79 percent), three times as many reversals as most circuits had cases before the Supreme Court. The same pattern continued in the 2011 (71 percent) and 2012 terms (86 percent), when the Ninth Circuit was reversed more than twice as many times as most circuits had cases before the Court.

Angel-Dyne said...

M15ery: One country saw a crass, deranged, narcissistic maniac struggling to form a coherent sentence. The other country saw a refreshing non-politician finally speak plainly about the media and its agenda-driven lies. Neither is really wrong. This is some fucking real-time Rashomon-level shit happening right in front of us.

That's very funny, but alas, a thing can be funny or a nice turn of phrase and not true. One side here is not just as right or wrong in their perceptions as the other.

I did not see the glorious, masterful press smack-down for-the-ages that some Trump enthusiasts saw. (I was kinda bored; public political speaking mostly bores me.) I know from glorious smack-downs for-the-ages, and this wasn't it. I did, however, see calm-voiced, plain-speech slaps at the press. So I'd say that what the enthusiasts were seeing had some tethering to what was actually going on.

On the other side? I'll give them "rambling", but it was hardly incoherent. (If there's such a thing as not-a-word-wasted, incisive, to the point, just the facts ma'am political speech out there, I've never heard it). But as for the rest: "wild", "unhinged", "extreme invective", "deranged"? Just wasn't there, dude. Complete projection or fabrication.

So no, there is no symmetrical misperception here.

Darcy said...

Drago said...Vichy Chuck: "There's nothing remarkable about any of this. Nothing particularly "Trump." Just standard Republican politics. Underneath the Trump Media Circus."

LOL


I laughed too. As a former liberal, I can spot them a mile away.

Anyway, as I said on Twitter, Trump is making press conferences great again!

Angel-Dyne said...

MayBee:

What politician is not [a liar]?
As I said in another thread, if you didn't find Obama to be a congenital liar, it's just because you liked his lies.
Trump is a different kind of liar- he isn't a pretty liar like most politicians. He isn't a smooth liar.


"Educated" people have better taste in lies. Flatter their status anxieties with suave lies, don't insult their status pretensions with those tasteless carnival-barker lies.*

Birkel is correct about the "purple elephant". It's remarkable watching people expending enormous amounts of emotion and time on "fact checking" irrelevant braggadocio like My Yuuuuge Electoral Win. (Not just Our Chuck, either. I'm seeing this all over the place.) And then doubling down on their silliness and ovine susceptibility by wasting even more time and emotion explaining why this is a really really important measure of honesty and integrity blah blah blah. This from Obama and Hillary supporters. Who then complain that it's Trump here deflecting public discourse from Important Things (like the Russkies-under-the-bed).

*N.B., suave and tasteful (in presentation) is not mutually exclusive with crude and obvious (in content). This subject reminds me of Martin Gardner, whose books and columns older posters around here may remember with fondness. He wrote a great deal about professional flim-flammery, scientific and otherwise. A common theme of his was how easy it was to flim-flam "educated", sophisticated people, even scientifically-educated people, with quite simple, time-tested scams and hoaxes.

Mac McConnell said...

Angel-Dyne said...

"A common theme of his was how easy it was to flim-flam "educated", sophisticated people, even scientifically-educated people, with quite simple, time-tested scams and hoaxes."

Successful car salesmen call these people "Mary Janes". "Mary Janes" always assume they are way smarter than the uneducated salesman, which is a benefit to the salesman.

William Chadwick said...

Wasn't a Trump fan, although I was glad he defeated "Crazy Eye Killa" Clinton; and every day I turn on the tv set and do NOT hear the phrase "President Hillary Clinton" s a day to give thanks. The Enemy of my Enemy, etc, etc. But one thing I definitely enjoy about his presidency is the Moonbat Meltdown, and Trump's very New York-y "punch back twice as hard" treatment of the Hive's "journalism" division.

viejo loco said...

Chuck - Laslo's tale about you in the bathroom was spot on. How did he get a tape of the event?
As for "educated/lawyers", I know a lawyer who was in the Army in Europe in WW2; How did we ever win with that kind of help? Most lawyers, when not chasing ambulances, are severely ignorant of the of real world working people. Your anti's are typical of the East Coast snottiness, even though you aren't there.