Trump: New York Times Is “The Enemy of the People” and Should “Beg His Forgiveness”

President Donald Trump is again on Twitter attacking the media and frankly sounding strikingly authoritarian. On Tuesday, Trump said that the New York Times should “get down on their knees & beg for forgiveness” for its coverage of his presidency and again called the newspaper “the enemy of the people.” It is easy to dismiss such comments as Trump’s signature mantra but it is far more serious for a president to use such rhetoric to denounce journalists. As someone who has strongly criticized some coverage for biased reporting over the last two years, it is difficult to maintain a neutral viewpoint when the President is engaging in such hyperbolic and reckless comments. The President is justified in objecting to some of the coverage of the media, but he destroys any credibility in that position when he is tweeting diatribes of this kind.

Trump tweeted: “I wonder if the New York Times will apologize to me a second time, as they did after the 2016 Election. But this one will have to be a far bigger & better apology. On this one they will have to get down on their knees & beg for forgiveness—they are truly the Enemy of the People!” Trump tweeted.

No, American media does not get on its knees before any politician to beg forgiveness. That is something found in other countries like China and Iran. More importantly, the New York Times has time and time again disclosed stories that have revealed corruption and deception in our government at critical historical moments. From the Civil Rights Movement to the Pentagon Papers to Watergate, the New York Times have protected core rights and democratic values through its coverage. That does not mean that it has been correct in all of its coverage of Trump. However, even as someone who long questioned that the Mueller investigation would result in criminal findings, many of the key media accounts were reaffirmed by Mueller in his report.

Trump specifically attacked Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman, whose latest op-ed stated that “one of our two parties”—the Republican Party—“no longer believes in American values.” It further accuses Trump of willingly accepting the held of a “hostile foreign power” during the election: “Paul Krugman of the Fake News New York Times, has lost all credibility, as has the Times itself, with his false and highly inaccurate writings on me. He is obsessed with hatred, just as others are obsessed with how stupid he is. He said Market would crash, Only Record Highs!”

Krugman is a commentator expressing his opinion. I have no problem with Trump contesting that opinion but that does not make him or his paper an “enemy of the people.”

Trump also added “In the ‘old days’ if you were President and you had a good economy, you were basically immune from criticism. Remember, ‘It’s the economy stupid.’ Today I have, as President, perhaps the greatest economy in history… and to the Mainstream Media, it means NOTHING. But it will!”

I am not sure when those “old days” were but they were hardly good ole days. Just because an economy is doing well does not mean that president would not be criticized for alleged acts of obstruction or wrongdoing. Nixon was not facing impeachment because the economy was bad. We expect our presidents to conduct themselves with honor, integrity, and adherence to the law (both in letter and spirit). We do not apply a lower standard if our investment funds are up an added 10 percent.

What concerns me is the moral relativism in that last comment. Trump often seems to treat his conduct as immaterial if he is improving the economy. We do not even apply that standard to CEOs who have been sacked even when they produce good returns for their investors. Harvey Weinstein was incredibly successful as was Roger Ailes. It did not matter because conduct matters.

I realize that the President is unlikely to stop these reckless comments but that should not mean that we should simply go silent and shrug when he engages in such unhinged attacks. As discussed today, polls are showing that 57 percent of voters now disapprove of his performance. If anything, the fact that the economy is doing well should concentrate the President’s mind on his comments and conduct. If the President had adopted a more circumspect and presidential approach, he would likely be enjoying a far greater level of support. Indeed, given the many self-inflicted wounds in the Mueller report, much of the controversies over the last two years could have been avoided.

108 thoughts on “Trump: New York Times Is “The Enemy of the People” and Should “Beg His Forgiveness””

  1. Mr Turley, your assertion that an opinion writer’s views are only his own and not reflective of the NYT is hogwash. The NYT approved the opinion piece; they “employ” the writer. Krugman is not a randomly-selected writer, he’s a frequent writer with an anti-Trump agenda. The NYT’s opinion page is a proxy for the views of the NYT ownership; Krugman is a tool.

  2. While we’re at it, Trump’s right on the merits. The Sulzbergers and their salaried employees are enemies of the country. You’d be hard put to find an occasion where The Times advocated anything decent.

  3. Off topic: That Nazi from Vermont. He was on TV last night lambasting Netanyahu and calling for a Palestinian State inside Israel or in Gaza or West Bank or somesuch place. Bernie hails from NY and is a Jew, yet his lamb bast was Nazi.
    For any human to approve of that nut as a Senator or a candidate for President is insane. Berni is part of the German American Bund.

  4. I was with JT on the need for restraint on Trump’s part until I saw Paul Krugman’s name.
    That arrogant, obnoxious fraud has earned contempt by his stupid forecasts, his phony claims of political expertise, etc.
    That trinket he got from a group of old Swedes doesn’t mask the fact that the twerp Krugman is a jerk who claims to know much more that he actually does.
    So I give Trump a pass on virtually anything he has to say about Krugman.

  5. ” … it is difficult to maintain a neutral viewpoint when the President is engaging in such hyperbolic and reckless comments. ”

    And there is no reason to be neutral in this dust-up between democracy and its antagonist. The adjectives about the comments are right, it’s just the wrong comments being placed in the cross-hairs. One wonders what quantum of proof it would take to convince JT that the press are engaged in an all-out offensive against a democratically elected leader in an attempt to collapse his government which is, of course, the very definition of treason which is, in turn, tantamount to being an “enemy of the people.”

    Maybe the Harvard study showing mainstream press including the NYT running 80% of their coverage against the President. (it was a cozy 93% for CNN and NBC). That compares to “[t]he numbers for previous presidents: Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive; George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.”

    How’s about the demonstrably false stories about Russian collusion and the smearing of Carter Page with articles filled with innuendo and anonymous sources. Or maybe it was the cartoon alleging none too subtly that Trump and Putin were gay lovers that was only corrected when an identity group the Left loves (LGTBQRSTU V …) raised a fuss.

    Or maybe the video of Project Veritas video showing NYT editor Nick Dudich bragging about the anti-Trump bias and saying the Times “always” slants news with an anti-Trump bias. Watch for yourself:

    Then there’s the gleeful NYT wondering if Michael Cohen’s testimony would “doom” Trump all the while maintaining the easily disprovable canard that Cohen traveled to Prague to do it. As if that double-down wasn’t enough there’s the recent editorial in the NY Slime that says the “Newspaper of Record” doesn’t need to read the Mueller report because they already know better. (3/22/2019). Maybe a little too much “Treasure of Sierra Madre” going on with the “Badges? We don’t need no stinking badges.”

    Oh there’s plenty more but it’s worth considering that if this campaign of lies were to have been perpetrated by Russia or China, we’d hear calls for massing troops at the their borders to put an end to this attack propaganda. But because these yellow-prosed, globalist media Trotsky-ites wrap themselves in the flag of the country they so obviously hate, we accord them infinitely more latitude than a similarly inclined and responsive foreign enemy. That oughta end and Trump knows it.

    This country is perilously close to breaking at the seams due, in large measure, to the radical rhetoric emanating from the Left and being bull-horned by willing apparatchiks like the NYT. When you foment civil discord and do so for profits as the NYT so clearly does, you deserve an apt epithet. “Enemy of the People,” doesn’t seem so reckless in that context.

      1. Mespo,
        One of the truly classic films. Bogart was terrific, and had a great script, supporting cast, and director ( John Huston) to work with.
        Huston hsd a cameo roll as the guy Bogart asked for a handout, twice.
        His father Walter was a major supporting actor in the film.
        Bogart was one of the best ever, IMO. He was especially good at playing characters who were unraveling, like in The Caine Mutiny or Treasure/ Sierra.
        Last time I checked, Herman Wouk was still alive and working at age 101 or 102.
        But the lazy guy has cut back on his writings.
        He actually served on a broken down minesweeper in WWII, which gave him a great background for the writing of The Caine Mutiny.

            1. Cindy B.,
              Yeah, but what has Wouk “done for us lately!?!”
              Speaking what Wouk consumes, my best guess would be Jim Beam.

        1. Tom:
          The camera loved Bogey and we loved him for it. A man’s man of ever there was one. Now we get wispy-bearded, latte drinking, turtleneck wearing beta males singing some horrid tune and trying to out-feminize the heroine. Pseudo-country stars Dan and Shay come immediately to mind. This isn’t an appeal for the “good old days;” it’s a prediction for the good days to come. Masculinity and strength never go out of style.

          1. Mespo,
            The fresh-faced young officer ( Robert Francis? I think) was being groomed for major stardom.
            He appeared in two other films about the same time as “Mutiny”.
            He got a pilot’s licence, and not long after that was killed when he crashed due to “pilot error”.
            The guy probably had a pretty good future in films, but he was about 25 when he died.

        2. Tom:
          Bogey was just he the best as you say and Wouk will ever be remembered for “Winds of War,” his best work imho. The camera loved Bogey and we loved the man’s man in front of it. Now we get wispy-bearded, turtleneck wearing, latte drinking beta males trying to out feminize the heroine. Strength and masculinity never really go out of style. Here’s to the return of that ethos. I think it’s just around the next bend.

    1. Turley seemed also to miss the points you make here & I don’t recall seeing anything from Turley that most of those old dying media outfits, Hollywood & academy have paid intel people on the inside, grants & direct payments for Propaganda.

      Even now against every American Citizen. That’s outrageous!!!

      Notice some of the recent media layoffs…. it’s believed it was because the US govt funding ran out.

      I have read the link below but know of the outfit’s past work.

      “Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act” ( Aimed by those in power & the old media at who they don’t like.)



    President Trump on Tuesday met privately with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, a huddle at the White House between one of the site’s most prolific users and an executive who’s faced criticism for the way Twitter has handled the president’s tweets.

    The meeting came as Trump continues to attack the tech industry, threatening to regulate Facebook, Google and Twitter out of concern that they censor conservatives online — an allegation those companies fiercely deny. The president’s latest salvo arrived just hours before he met with Dorsey: Trump accused Twitter of playing “political games” and tampering with his nearly 60 million followers.

    A significant portion of the meeting focused on Trump’s concerns that Twitter quietly, and deliberately, has limited or removed some of his followers, according to a person with direct knowledge of the conversation who requested anonymity because it was private. Trump said he had heard from fellow conservatives who had lost followers for unclear reasons as well.

    But Twitter long has explained that follower figures fluctuate as the company takes action to remove fraudulent spam accounts. In the meeting, Dorsey stressed that point, noting even he had lost followers as part of Twitter’s work to enforce its policies, according to the source, who described the meeting as cordial.

    Dorsey long has faced pressure to curtail Trump’s tweets, as critics contend that the president regularly violates the site’s policies against harassment and abuse. Twitter has long maintained that it applies a different standard to prominent public figures, given that their comments — even offensive ones — remain in the public interest. But the company in March said it soon would adopt a new approach, labeling offensive tweets so users know why such content hasn’t been removed.

    “How can we put some context around it so people are aware that that content is actually a violation of our rules and it is serving a particular purpose in remaining on the platform,” Vijaya Gadde, the company’s head of legal, policy, and trust and safety, said at an event hosted by the Post.

    Edited from: “Trump Met With Twitter CEO And Complained About His Followers’ Account”

    This evening’s WASHINGTON POST

  7. The question is “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

    If no crime is committed, can a person be blamed for the crime that was not committed? If a person cannot be blamed for a crime that was not committed, can the person that cannot be blamed for the crime that was not committed be found guilty of obstruction of justice in an investigation of a crime that was not committed by the person who did not commit it?

  8. Congress has an approval rating of – 43%



    The Most Telling Impeachment Poll

    Among 2020 presidential candidates, only Trump and Warren seem eager to talk about it.

    Then this morning, Mr. Trump took to his favorite social media platform again to say:

    Only high crimes and misdemeanors can lead to impeachment. There were no crimes by me (No Collusion, No Obstruction), so you can’t impeach. It was the Democrats that committed the crimes, not your Republican President! Tables are finally turning on the Witch Hunt!

    His potential 2020 rivals, meanwhile, aren’t necessarily warming to the topic. Joshua Jamerson and Ken Thomas write in the Journal that a number of candidates have been cautious in addressing the issue and add:

    Asked if impeachment should be on the table at this point, Mr. Booker of New Jersey told reporters: “No.” Like other candidates skeptical of impeachment, Mr. Booker, who spent several days in the early-voting state of Nevada after the report dropped, called on [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller to testify and for congressional probes to continue.
    Sen. Kamala Harris of California called for the same in an appearance in South Carolina over the weekend.
    Former Vice President Joe Biden, who is expected to announce his candidacy for President this week, has certainly had time to become familiar with Mr. Mueller’s findings. Not only has he not embraced the impeachment idea. Mr. Biden hasn’t commented at all.

    Glenn Greenwald

    Here’s Joe Biden heaping praise on William Barr, when he presided over the Senate Committee that unanimously voted to confirm Barr in 1991 as Bush 41’s Attorney General:

    1:04 PM – Apr 21, 2019

    The reporting from Messrs. Jamerson and Thomas suggests that most voters aren’t looking for commentary on the topic:

    “I’ve only been asked four questions about the Mueller report and I’ve been asked over 100 questions about health care,” Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar said in New Hampshire on Friday.
    Matt Flegenheimer and Jonathan Martin of the New York Times find a similar story and note an exception to the general reluctance to address the issue:

    Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has worked for months to find traction in a crowded Democratic presidential primary, stepped forward on Friday with a call to arms: President Trump must be impeached.

    What followed, generally, was conspicuous silence — and not just from her colleagues in Congress.

    After sidestepping the explosive issue of impeachment for months by citing the inquiry by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, most of the other 17 Democratic presidential candidates have responded to the special counsel’s report with tentative remarks about impeaching Mr. Trump, demands for the unredacted Mueller findings, calls for further hearings or attempts to simply change the subject.

    Now this is odd. News consumers have been repeatedly instructed by much of the media that it’s an appalling offense for the President to threaten to fire people who work for him. Yet neither Democratic voters nor Democratic presidential candidates seem to have much interest in the topic. What kind of a scandal is it when the subject of the scandal wants to address the issue but his leading political rivals don’t?

    As mentioned, there is that one notable exception. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) has decided to back impeachment after working “for months to find traction” in the crowded field. Two polls out today underline her campaign’s urgent need for traction.

    The latest University of New Hampshire Granite State poll finds that when likely Democratic voters in the state are asked an open-ended question about whom they will vote for in the 2020 primary, 40% can not name a candidate. The winner of the 2016 primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is the choice of 18% of respondents, Mr. Biden is the choice of 12%, South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg receives 11%, Sen. Kamala Harris of California enjoys 4% support, and Sen. Warren from neighboring Massachusetts is tied with two other candidates at 3%.

    When given a list of the major declared candidates, here’s how likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters express their preferences:

    Sanders 30%

    Biden 18%

    Buttigieg 15%

    Warren 5%

    In February of 2018, the same poll had Sen. Warren at 15%.

    Meanwhile a new Gravis Marketing poll of registered Iowa Democratic voters breaks down this way:

    Sanders 19%

    Biden 19%

    Uncertain 16%

    Buttigieg 14%

    Harris 6%

    Warren 6%

    It makes sense that Sen. Warren is now especially eager to chart a different course than her rivals for the nomination.

    As for Mr. Trump, perhaps he is hoping that an impeachment effort in the House would allow him to essentially run against an institution certain to be less popular than the eventual Democratic nominee for President. The latest RealClearPolitics polling average pegs the approval rating of Congress at -43.


    1. Trump voters should hope Bernie gets screwed again. Bernie can deliver working class white voters and men. Biden can deliver whites too but he has a womyn problem. Creepy stuff. I like him in spite of it.

      Kamala is the annointed. P. Butt is a novelty.

      I like the lovely Tulsi Gabbard and Chairman Yang for their thought provoking ideas and positive tone, but they will be carefully ignored by the Democrat Plutocrat Mass Media.

      I predict a second term for Trump. The Democrats are in the usual disarray. Organization is important. Pelosi God bless her, is mostly just organizing her own immediate power-position. She sees a majority no matter who wins POTUS. I can see that in her heart which beats strongly between her ample bosoms.

      1. Mr Kurtz,

        Bernie has a big problem, he’s a Racist! 😉 He’s on tape last week basically calling, throwing all of us whites, blacks, hispanic, chinese, Russian, (LOL), etc., Trump supporters as being KKK/Nazis.

        There might be a lawsuit over those comments?

          1. Infowars had it last week, it was Bernie speech at a public event as best I recall.

            Bernie attempting to get us all attacked like the Commi8e/Nazis like to do, even today.

      2. Pelosi God bless her, is mostly just organizing her own immediate power-position

        The stress that she is experiencing, coupled with her age, makes her ripe for a stroke, an infarct, or any number of cerebral / cardiac events and I suspect she knows it. Had it not been for her 3 wayward newbie Lefty Representatives, she could have steam rolled Trump and the Senate. Pelosi has more political cunning instinct than Mitchell, plus she has lying programmed in her genome.

        Pelosi will either have a serious medical crisis or sudden death before her term expires. If she makes it for her full two years, she will disappear from active life because her age, disposition and colossal amount of chaos and dysfunction in her will be the end of her, sadly.

        As for Trump he doesn’t have to discipline hundreds of members in his caucus, unlike Pelosi. He is a maverick, and as Turley shows us regularly to his consternation, Trump is beholden to no one in Washington. He has an innate talent to sense the temperature of a crowd and play to them. The Democrats are literally apoplectic as a caucus and that plays to Trump’s favor

        If only Mitchell grew a pair


    2. Estovir, your posts are so long and trite that it’s difficult to discern where one ends and the next begins.

      1. it’s difficult to discern

        Peter Shill has just confirmed to us as to his intellectual deficiencies.

        Peter Shill doesn’t have a single neuronal synapse that fires in synch with his cerebral cortex. He is all Amygdala

        1. Smart, Estovir, smart. Yeah, let’s have an image of some scary guy pointing a gun at the viewer. That way any random visitor thinking this blog belongs to a law professor will know at once it’s really the domain of idiot right-wing losers.

  9. NY Times: Enema of the people. Who Flung Foo? The NY Times flings foo. Three spots on the wall– after the enema.


    NYT: Not crazy, just two years late

    We’ve been saying for the past two years or so that the Steele Dossier, on which so much of the Russia hoax was predicated, is Russian disinformation — if it is what it purports to be. You only have to read it and exercise your common sense to figure this out. This was an exercise, however, that would have belied the hysteria foisted on us by the Democratic Party and its media allies, perhaps preeminently the New York Times.

    The Times, incidentally, pioneered a new form of journalism in shoving the hoax down our throats over the past two years. In the new new journalism practiced by the Times, one reports stories based on secondary and tertiary sources whose identities must be protected based on the sensitivity of their information or the like. How sensitive can you get and still win a Pulitzer Prize?

    Scott Shane, Adam Goldman, Matthew Rosenberg are three such Times reporters. In the story with the incredibly anodyne headline “Mueller Report Likely to Renew Scrutiny of Steele Dossier,” Shane et al. throw shade on the Steele Dossier, describing it in the lead paragraph in terms that highlight its improbability:

    The 35-page dossier, spiced up with tales of prostitutes and spies, sketched out a hair-raising story more than two years ago. Russian intelligence had used bribery and blackmail to try to turn Donald J. Trump into a source and ally, it said, and the Kremlin was running some Trump campaign aides practically as agents.


    Taking a walk down memory lane, the Times trio draws on sources with secondary or tertiary knowledge of the subject:

    Interviews with people familiar with Mr. Steele’s work on the dossier and the F.B.I.’s scramble to vet its claims suggest that misgivings about its reliability arose not long after the document became public — and a preoccupation of Trump opponents — in early 2017. Mr. Steele has made clear to associates that he always considered the dossier to be raw intelligence — not established facts, but a starting point for further investigation.

    Now they tell us. Tell it to the FISA court, you tools.

    Just about every paragraph presents a howler in one way or another. For example: “How the dossier ended up loaded with dubious or exaggerated details remains uncertain, but the document may be the result of a high-stakes game of telephone, in which rumors and hearsay were passed from source to source.”

    Around about the ninth paragraph they give us this: “Another possibility — one that Mr. Steele has not ruled out — could be Russian disinformation.”

    Gee, that’s big of Mr. Steele. Are you sure he didn’t make it up?

    Don’t they teach you to put the highlight of your story at the top?

    What a complete and utter farce.


    NYT: “Ha ha, funny story, you’ll never believe it. That dossier we spent years defending as legitimate and a worthy basis for FISA wiretaps on citizens is so unfounded it might actually be Russian disinformation, just like the collusion skeptics warned.”

  11. Meanwhile, other news that depicts the Left as unhinged as ever and eating their own….

    Brothers Who Helped Carry Out Alleged ‘Hate Hoax’ SUE Jussie Smollett’s Attorneys For Defamation

    The two Nigerian-American brothers who helped “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett carry out his alleged “hate hoax” attack have sued Smollett’s Hollywood-based attorneys in federal court alleging defamation.

    CWB Chicago reports that “[t]he complaint filed this morning in Chicago’s federal courthouse seeks more than $75,000 each for Olabinjo ‘Ola’ Osundairo and Abimbola ‘Bola’ Osundairo from attorneys Mark Geragos and Tina Glandian as well as the Geragos & Geragos Law Firm.”

    The lawsuit not only accuses Smollett’s attorneys of making defamatory claims that they believe went above and beyond merely advocating for their client in the public square, but outlines, in a signed and sworn document, how they helped Smollett carry out the alleged “hate hoax,” which, they say, was entirely orchestrated by Smollett himself.

    The two brothers allege that Smollett paid them “a sum of money to stage the attack to benefit himself” and then “directed every aspect of the attack, including the location and the noose.”

    The pair of brothers, who work as amateur personal trainers and nutritionists in Chicago, and took bit parts in local television shows, including “Empire,” where they first connected with Smollett, contend they were cowed into the deal: “Mr. Smollett used his clout as a wealthy actor to influence Plaintiffs, who were in a subordinate relationship to him and were aspiring to ‘make it’ in Hollywood.”

    “Mr. Smollett’s motivation was simple. He wanted his employer and the public to notice and appreciate him as a successful black, openly gay actor. So, Mr. Smollett directed every aspect of the attack, including the location and the noose,” the lawsuit says.

    After weeks of a Chicago Police Department investigation into what Smollett said was racist and homophobic attack, that took place outside of his apartment building in the tony downtown Chicago neighborhood of Streeterville, detectives determined that Smollett himself was responsible for orchestrating the attack. The actor was arrested and charged with 17 criminal counts, most relating to filing a false police report with CPD.

    In a controversial move, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office dropped the charges against Smollett in exchange for $10,000 and 16 hours of community service, but no admission of guilt on Smollett’s part. The brothers say that Smollett took that deal as evidence of his innocence, but that Smollett’s lawyers “continued to maintain in media appearances that the brothers were responsible for the attack, with [Smollett attorney Tina] Glandian going so far to suggest the two men may have been wearing ‘whiteface’ to disguise their identities during the attack.”

    In a press conference held Tuesday, the brothers’ attorney, Gloria Schmidt, said the continued attention has hurt the brothers’ respective businesses, and caused them untold emotional pain.

    “Attorneys Mark Geragos and Tina Glandian, through their continued false statements and hateful rhetoric, have only deepened the damage that was cause by the very first out of 16 counts of lies that were told to the police that started this whole situation,” Glandian said. “They were asked to do something by a friend whom they trusted and at the end of the day that trust was betrayed.”

    In their own statement, the two brothers justified their lawsuit: “We have sat back and watched lie after lie being fabricated about us in the media only so one big lie can continue to have light. These lies are destroying our character and reputation and personal life…Those who know us personally know we don’t have hate for anyone. That is not who we are. We try to spread love and positivity. We will no longer sit back and allow these lies to continue.”

    The lawsuit also lists a handful of other, secondary statements the Osundairo brothers say contributed to their problems. The two allege that Smollett attorney Mark Geragos accused the pair of criminally battering Smollett, that Glandin accused the pair of engaging in an illegal Nigerian drug trafficking scam, and that Glandian suggested one of the brothers had been in a homosexual relationship with Smollett. That brother says he is straight and in a relationship with a woman.

    “The Plaintiffs feel unsafe and alienated in their local Chicago community. This is because Mr. Geragos, a very famous attorney, falsely & publicly stated they have committed a heinous, racially, and homophobically motivated hate crime, that they lied under oath, and that lied to the Chicago Police Department.”

    The two brothers have asked for a jury trial. No date has yet been set.

  12. As someone who has strongly criticized some coverage for biased reporting over the last two years, it is difficult to maintain a neutral viewpoint when the President is engaging in such hyperbolic and reckless comments. The President is justified in objecting to some of the coverage of the media, but he destroys any credibility in that position when he is tweeting diatribes of this kind.

    This is classic Turleyism: He’s criticized the coverage, but the President shouldn’t. The President is justified in objecting, but not in the way he does it. For all of Turley’s free speech advocacy, he’s a hypocrite when it comes to the political class. No, apparently he prefers politicians to speak like the used car salesman in the classic Twilight Zone episode titled The Whole Truth. That is until the salesman ends up having to tell the truth.

    IIRC, Turley thought highly of Obama’s oratory, but not his uber-ness. I’ll take sounding strikingly authoritarian over being an authoritarian, every day.

    1. Olly, theoretically presidents should be seen as a ‘statesmen’. And rhetoric is a big component to ‘statesman-like conduct’. For that reason presidents have generally used measured, diplomatic language to convey a sense of wisdom and maturity.

      Trump, by comparison, has been the ‘anti-statesmen’. His language, on any given day, is angry, rash, irrational, paranoid, immature and generally over-the-top. No wonder he gets bad coverage! That’s Trump’s fault, not the media’s.

      1. For that reason presidents have generally used measured, diplomatic language to convey a sense of wisdom and maturity.

        And for that, what have we gotten in return? Less or more war? Less or more debt? Less or more freedom? Less or more government? Less or more security?

        The last thing this civically ignorant country needs is more politicians speaking as if they had a sense of wisdom and maturity. I’d rather they speak plainly and actually be wise and mature.

        1. Olly, when I first wrote the comment above, I had a lurking suspicion that you would answer as you did. In Trumpworld and FoxNewsLand, the problem is never, ever Trump. There’s always an excuse for the inexcusable.

          So here you present the very broadest of arguments: ‘Every problem plaguing America is due to.. politeness, of all things’! Like somehow we’ve reached a point where boorish immaturity is not only acceptable but the only logical recourse.

          Only years of right-wing media exposure could lead anyone to make an argument so insane.

          1. There’s always an excuse for the inexcusable.

            No, once again you’ve completely missed the point. What’s inexcusable is the gullibility of the average voter. They reason that eloquence equals competence. They fawn over these used car salesmen like they’ve won the lottery. You are part of that problem.

                1. Olly fails to dispute that Trump is orangutan. But he argues that an orangutan is just what the country needs.

        2. Olly,
          A relative is a software expert with a manufacturing company.
          I haven’t heard the term CAD/CAM for a long time, but that’s his area.
          Next time I see him (or his college-age kids,who are also computer wonks), I will see if he can develop a software program that scans the archives here.
          Specifically, the software would tally up the number of times that “Fox News, right wing media, Hannity”, or closely related variations are used in these devasting “debating” ploys by empty-headed parrots .
          The parrots know how “effective”
          those phrases are, and that using them hundreds of thousands of time will crush any opponent in any exchange.
          It would be a monumental task to try to comb the archives and counting the tally up without specialized software, so I don’t think it’s practical to for anyone to try this own their own.

          1. Tom, almost every conservative argument on this thread is inspired by right-wing media. And a good example would be that debate two weeks ago when the professor wrote about that Black judge in Mississippi who compared Trump era politics to the KKK.

            Almost every conservative regular responded with revisionist history about the ‘Democratic plantation’ and this preposterous argument that Blacks don’t know they’re being duped by Democrats. Like Blacks are too slow to realize Republicans are really their ‘natural allies’.

            For hours the Trumper’s on this thread kept posting that nonsense. As if repeating it over and over would somehow make it true. It was the most pathetic thread in the history of this blog. Just aging, conservative Whites yelling into an echo chamber while having no clue it is, indeed, an echo chamber.

            That thread illustrated, beyond any doubt, that the conservative regulars on this blog are heavily, heavily influenced by Fox News. And Trump himself, by his own admission, is heavily influenced by Fox. It’s what’s known as a ‘closed information loop’.

            1. Stay with that tired meme, Hollywood Hill. When you mention “Fox News” or “right-wing media” in every other comment, those who disagree with you are rendered powerless.
              You have “discovered’ an awesome weapon, properly feared🙄😳🤪😲. anyone who tries to debate or have a rational debate with you..
              It’s like kryptonic to any who dare to debate Hollywood Hill. Stick with what you “know”, Hollywood Hiil; you’ve got a sure winner in reciting “Fox News” or “right wing media” hundreds of time.

            2. BINGO! ….Hollywood Hill, Ace Correspondent, worked in “Fox News, KKK, Right-wing media, and Fox into one relatively brief comment!
              The only defect was that he did not have a long headline or “statement” in all CAPITAL LETTERS, but it was still a very power “response”.

              1. Tom, I can tell you this: that Trump era revisionist history about the Democratic plantation is ‘not’ a mainstream narrative.

                I cover mainstream sources thoroughly every day. No reputable paper or magazine has ever presented that Democratic plantation crap. It’s a history I have only heard from Trumpers here and on Facebook.

                So it doesn’t take a genius to guess where that ‘history’ is coming from.

                1. I just skimmed that comment from Hollywood Hill, our man on the ground from Hollywood, America’s Heartland.
                  I didn’t find “Fox News”, “Right-wing media”, or “Fox’ worked into his comment.
                  So it fell far short of his usual high ,-power posts here.
                  Also, I don’t see a lengthy, ALL CAP blaring headline.
                  My, that’s disappointing😕😩

                2. I know that HH follows “mainstream media news ever day,”
                  And that he faithfully and objectively tells us what the objective😃😋😀😂🤣 daily news is, with his HHHNN.

      2. In America Trump is in the vein of populists of the past such as George Wallace or Huey Long. The funny thing is that we have a billionaire who talks like a construction worker. Maybe that is because he genuinely is a man of the people and he proves it every time he opens his big yap. I find this aspect of Trump refreshing in a world saturated with double talking phony sycophants.

        There are class differences in every society, it’s a natural part of human organization. In America it exists too. But we are uncomfortable with talking about it, or thinking about it. Many people who are over-educated and yet under-funded have deep anxieties about being associated with someone like Trump who may betray a humble background. Lace curtain Irish types. I don’t worry about that for my part.

        I am just a humble midwestern cracker through and through regardless of my other social attainments so I find his argot congenial. Snooty folks probably don’t feel that way about him.

        All that said, diplomacy and careful language is generally desirable in a head of state. I think he is careful how he speaks when he is in an official meeting and when he is not on tweeter. Maybe this opens positive possibilities for frankness among other heads of state as well?

        1. Kurtz, you lost me by describing Trump as a ‘man of the people’.

          Trump’s father was one of New York’s richest citizens. Trump himself has lived for years in a gold-trimmed penthouse. ‘Man of the people’..?? Trump is anything but.

          1. i know, paradoxical. in some ways like FDR a traitor to other billionaires; but in some ways he should be a hero.

            He may have introduced many socialistic measures but in some ways he saved capitalism from itself. Without FDR the US might have had a class based civil war soon enough.

            Likewise, Trump may act as a pressure safety vale for pent up rage among some sectors.

        2. Yeah, real man of the people. Are you f… kidding?

          This is the rich client who won’t pay the sheetrock hangers and makes the painter take 50 cents on the dollar, then makes people who can’t afford it go without a paycheck for 6 weeks while he throws a temper tantrum every one knows but him that he can’t win. Don’t make me puke over this Daddy’s boy narcissist who was born rounding third while he yells “loser” at the suckers who actually work hard – they’re gonna’ pay for his wall, not the Mexicans and for the tax cut for him and Ivanka and Jared – and at the “guys who got caught” in VN, otherwise known as MIA. Man of the people my a.s.

  13. And Abraham Lincoln summarily threw journalists in jail without even an appearance before a judge in a court of law.

    How would democrats react if that were done by President Trump?

    Abraham Lincoln illicitly denied constitutional secession, suspended Habeas Corpus, illegally confiscated private property, issued illegal proclamations and illicitly began a war undeclared by Congress, induced his equally illegitimate successors to corruptly and improperly ratify injurious and unconstitutional amendments, killed one million Americans, etc.

    President Trump is enduring the direct subversion and insurrection of an ongoing unconstitutional coup d’etat in America.

    To save the Republic, President Trump is most certainly justified in arbitrarily taking the very same steps taken by Abraham Lincoln.


    “During his terms as president, he (Abraham Lincoln) suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and upheld the Declaration of Independence above the Constitution.
    The writ of Habeas Corpus protects Americans from being unjustly imprisoned. Without it, law is a sham. The writ creates the gap between freedom and despotism. Its origin dates back to the formation of our country, and the tenet that all men have equality under the law. The writ ensures that no on can be unjustly imprisoned. Any prisoner feeling this right is being abused has the ability to petition to be seen before a judge, who can declare his arrest unlawful and have him released. Yet, during the initial year of the American Civil War, Lincoln used his power and removed that right, first in Baltimore, New York, and eventually the entire union. He authorized military officers to suspend the writ before he made an official proclamation. Joshua Kleinfeld, an author who has researched this issue, wrote that “when Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, he clothed himself with more power then any individual had possessed in America before, or since.
    Lincoln contended that he removed the Writ in order to ensure victory and preserve the union. In fact he preserved more power for himself and removed a great deal from the United States legislative and judicial branches. The first proclamation to remove the Writ of Habeas Corpus was made in September of 1862. Not only did this proclamation, which had no scheduled end, remove the writ, it also established Marshall law. It gave full power to close down “hostile, anti war newspapers,” and to arrest individuals for protesting the war.
    Lincoln removed a great deal of power from the legislative branch with this proclamation. He was not empowered under the Constitution to make such a declaration. In fact, that right belonged to Congress alone. Roger Taney, Supreme Court Chief Justice, contended that Article I of the Constitution declares: “a state of rebellion is the only time when Congress could declare the writ removed.” He also believed: “This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive branch..”
    The Supreme Court went on to order Lincoln to bring prisoners who had been arrested without reason before the court. He refused on the notion that the writ’s suspension gave him that right to do so. Lincoln contended that, “It was not believed that any law was violated”. The fact that he got away with suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus gave more power to the presidency during a time of war than ever before. Nearly 100 years later, Franklin D. Roosevelt, would once again abolish the writ in order to imprison Japanese Americans during the Second World War. Lincoln set a precedent which F.D.R later used to justify his own wartime actions.
    By ignoring the rights of the judicial and legislative branches of the government, Lincoln abused the power of the presidency by giving it more power than it was allowed by the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is simply a document, not a tool–a paper that declared this country’s intentions and justification for separation from a hostile tyrant, England. The founding fathers of our country never intended for it to be held above the Constitution. During his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln tried to justify the emancipation of slaves, which until that time had been considered unconstitutional, by upholding the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration states “all men are created equal,” while the Constitution is very selective in its wording of which men are in fact considered to be equal.
    Lincoln used the Gettysburg Address to tell Americans just where he stood on the issue of slavery. This changed the war from a battle to reunite the union into an ideological fight for the rights of the people specifically slaves. Gary Wills believes that Lincoln used the Gettysburg Address to “reshape the republic.” It makes reference to the fact that, “America is dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”. Until that time, the United States had not been dedicated to that proposition at all. In fact, the United States Constitution was dedicated to the proposition that only white males were equal. To a more rudimentary degree, the founding fathers believed that only white property owning men were free. Wills contended that there was no paper Lincoln loved as much as the Declaration of Independence believing, “It would be hard to find any other text, except the Declaration of Independence, which Lincoln used with such familiarity and respect.” There is even more proof to this assertion when one compares Lincoln’s first and second inaugural addresses. In the first, he spoke of ensuring the existence of slavery where it currently abided:

    “I declare that I have no purpose directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

    It appears after his first inaugural speech Lincoln found a “loophole” in American law which would allow him to justify the freedom of slaves. To Lincoln, the Constitution of the United States was the lawgiver which prevented this freedom. The loophole he found was the in United States Declaration of Independence, which would allow the freedom of slaves by stating that: “All men are created equal.”
    The mood and tone of his second Inaugural address would change greatly. Shorter, and more romantic, it would talk of, “God’s will” to remove slavery contending:

    “If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him?”

    – Brian Pulito

    1. “And Abraham Lincoln summarily threw journalists in jail . . . ”

      Thank you for your tedious and highly relevant post.



    Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 9h9 hours ago

    In the “old days” if you were President and you had a good economy, you were basically immune from criticism. Remember, “It’s the economy stupid.” Today I have, as President, perhaps the greatest economy in history…and to the Mainstream Media, it means NOTHING. But it will!

    25,174 replies 23,579 retweets 108,331 likes

    Edited from ‘The Real Donald Trump’, Twitter

    Trump forgets that the Clinton impeachment drive came about during a very strong economy in 1998. Yet one should note that when Congress held its first hearings on Watergate, in the summer of 1973, that economy was also quite strong. That economy, however, dipped into recession the following autumn.

    Aside from economic history, Trump’s tweet implies that presidents presiding over strong economies should be immune from criticism; a highly dubious premise. Like presidents should face no scrutiny amid economic growth?? ..How bizarre..!!

    If Trump really knows economic history he should realize this current expansion is one of the oldest on record. No expansion can last forever and this one surely won’t.

      1. Ivan, what are ‘you’ talking about?????

        Do you think that Facebook ads were the full extent of interference? If so, you made every effort ‘not’ to read The Mueller Report or any good summaries of its contents.

    1. It is naive to think that Clinton’s impeachment precipitated the recession, as opposed to little things like OPEC oil crisis, Vietnam War spending and the impact of stagflation. During the rest of Trump’s remaining 6 or so years a recession is no doubt in the cards in accordance with economic cycles.

  15. Is it inconceivable to denounce journalists?

    The same journalists who claimed they had evidence of collusion they never ponied up? The same ones who refused to wait for the investigation to complete before they convinced naive voters that Trump colluded with Russia, thereby poisoning the voting pool?

    If this were a trial, the jury pool is tainted.

    The media has become weaponized against conservatives. Luckily, there has become a proliferation of grassroots conservative journalism, as well as the popular Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to combat the propaganda tide.

    I absolutely wish that Trump would be more effective in his scathing rebuke of journalists actively working to defraud voters and influence the result of an election. I wish he would comment about the total lack of straight news, with op ed taking its place. However, he will speak as he always has, like a sledgehammer.

    The NYT et al has rightfully earned a sharp rebuke. It will not be delivered in the manner that I long for.

    If Republicans do not counteract the poisonous propaganda being disseminated by academia, the public education system, and the mainstream media, then they leave it up to Democrats to communicate what Republicans stand for.

    1. We knew almost every detail of the Trump campaign collusion, as well as many of his attempts at obstruction a year or more ago due to the excellent reporting at the NYTs, WSJ, and WaPO.. Anyone who doesn’t know that has been watching nothing but Fox and reading the Daily Caller.

      1. @Anon Anyone who believes anything you just wrote, has been watching nothing but the MSM all out propaganda, lies,and smear campaigns from authoritarian elites. Tell us, what does Orwellian Kool-Aid taste like?

  16. The blind Professor can’t address the fact that we have seen a failed coup. Then he does his best pearl clutching at Trump’s response. Don’t worry dear Professor, what’s coming are endless revelations about that failed coup, indictments for those who illegally abused their power, and pardons for those who were illegally targeted in the first place.

    This illegal attempt to over-rule our Democracy by Obama and his acolytes was always blazingly obvious- all you need are eyes to see. This includes Hillary’s gross violation of the law where she moved hundreds(if not thousands) of secret documents from a secure location to an un-secure location and caused great harm in the process- a crime for which many Americans have served years in jail for the smallest of violations.

    The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, etc have all promoted the propaganda that Trump is a traitor who made a deal with the devil (while covering for Hillary and Obama). Well, that was quite the claim and now we know after three years that it was all a pack of lies. They will pay the price in declining viewership, not at the hands of Trump.

    And all who have supported the accusations that Trump was a traitor will have to face their own personal dilemma of having been on the side of evil…that’s all. You are the authoritarian, racist Nazi’s you have been looking for.

Comments are closed.