WSJ editorial board condemns Trump lawfare

[Anonymous]

The WSJ editorial board points out that Trump is doing the very thing he accused Dems of doing: weaponizing the federal government against political enemies. Why is he doing it? To send a message to former and current advisors not to cross him. I’m happy to see that one part of Robert Murdoch‘s news empire occasionally tells the truth about Trump.

“President Trump campaigned on ending lawfare and the “weaponization” of the federal government, but he’s siccing it now on his perceived enemies by name, ordering federal investigations and potentially prosecutions. This is a broken promise, an abuse of power, and another twist down the spiral of politicized law enforcement.

In a pair of extraordinary executive memoranda Wednesday, Mr. Trump directed federal agencies to open inquiries into two former officials who worked in his first Administration. One of these men is sympathetic, and the other isn’t. But by picking targets first, publicly announcing them, and only then looking for misdeeds and evidence, Mr. Trump is doing precisely what Democrats did to him.”

The article ends with this:

“The message Mr. Trump is sending, to former and current advisers, is one of intimidation. Cross him, and you’ll get put into the wringer. And good luck finding a lawyer in D.C., given the President’s campaign against big firms that have employed his political opponents.

On Jan. 20, Mr. Trump signed an executive order to end the “weaponization” of government. At this point he should rescind it as false advertising.”


https://apple.news/AWYp4t9BaTsCcSOg4MMyWAA

[Anonymous]

WSJ has been overall critical of Trump's admin and their reporting coverage is generally of a higher quality than Fox News. The audience, judging from reader comments, is also better informed overall. In the end, it's the economy and business leaders who will lead the correction of Trump's utterly misguided leadership and, hopefully, shatter the cult.
Reading Fox News, I weep for our country. We have a horrifyingly under educated, easily duped populace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The WSJ editorial board points out that Trump is doing the very thing he accused Dems of doing: weaponizing the federal government against political enemies. Why is he doing it? To send a message to former and current advisors not to cross him. I’m happy to see that one part of Robert Murdoch‘s news empire occasionally tells the truth about Trump.

“President Trump campaigned on ending lawfare and the “weaponization” of the federal government, but he’s siccing it now on his perceived enemies by name, ordering federal investigations and potentially prosecutions. This is a broken promise, an abuse of power, and another twist down the spiral of politicized law enforcement.

In a pair of extraordinary executive memoranda Wednesday, Mr. Trump directed federal agencies to open inquiries into two former officials who worked in his first Administration. One of these men is sympathetic, and the other isn’t. But by picking targets first, publicly announcing them, and only then looking for misdeeds and evidence, Mr. Trump is doing precisely what Democrats did to him.”

The article ends with this:

“The message Mr. Trump is sending, to former and current advisers, is one of intimidation. Cross him, and you’ll get put into the wringer. And good luck finding a lawyer in D.C., given the President’s campaign against big firms that have employed his political opponents.

On Jan. 20, Mr. Trump signed an executive order to end the “weaponization” of government. At this point he should rescind it as false advertising.”


https://apple.news/AWYp4t9BaTsCcSOg4MMyWAA

Interesting that the Ed board needed to opine that one of them (presumably Miles Taylor) is less sympathetic than the other (I’m assuming Chris Krebs.) This behavior really needs an unmitigated slapdown.

Also, Democrats did NOT “do this to him.” At no time did President Biden or any other Democrat issue an executive order mandating that the Justice Department open investigations into people.

So, not even a golf clap for the ed board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WSJ editorial board points out that Trump is doing the very thing he accused Dems of doing: weaponizing the federal government against political enemies. Why is he doing it? To send a message to former and current advisors not to cross him. I’m happy to see that one part of Robert Murdoch‘s news empire occasionally tells the truth about Trump.

“President Trump campaigned on ending lawfare and the “weaponization” of the federal government, but he’s siccing it now on his perceived enemies by name, ordering federal investigations and potentially prosecutions. This is a broken promise, an abuse of power, and another twist down the spiral of politicized law enforcement.

In a pair of extraordinary executive memoranda Wednesday, Mr. Trump directed federal agencies to open inquiries into two former officials who worked in his first Administration. One of these men is sympathetic, and the other isn’t. But by picking targets first, publicly announcing them, and only then looking for misdeeds and evidence, Mr. Trump is doing precisely what Democrats did to him.”

The article ends with this:

“The message Mr. Trump is sending, to former and current advisers, is one of intimidation. Cross him, and you’ll get put into the wringer. And good luck finding a lawyer in D.C., given the President’s campaign against big firms that have employed his political opponents.

On Jan. 20, Mr. Trump signed an executive order to end the “weaponization” of government. At this point he should rescind it as false advertising.”


https://apple.news/AWYp4t9BaTsCcSOg4MMyWAA

Interesting that the Ed board needed to opine that one of them (presumably Miles Taylor) is less sympathetic than the other (I’m assuming Chris Krebs.) This behavior really needs an unmitigated slapdown.

Also, Democrats did NOT “do this to him.” At no time did President Biden or any other Democrat issue an executive order mandating that the Justice Department open investigations into people.

So, not even a golf clap for the ed board.

True. Thanks for the balanced analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WSJ has been overall critical of Trump's admin and their reporting coverage is generally of a higher quality than Fox News. The audience, judging from reader comments, is also better informed overall. In the end, it's the economy and business leaders who will lead the correction of Trump's utterly misguided leadership and, hopefully, shatter the cult.
Reading Fox News, I weep for our country. We have a horrifyingly under educated, easily duped populace.

Perhaps. But people are entitled to both their own news sources and their own opinions. You may disagree with both, but you can't ban them based on vague allegations of misinformation or disinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WSJ has been overall critical of Trump's admin and their reporting coverage is generally of a higher quality than Fox News. The audience, judging from reader comments, is also better informed overall. In the end, it's the economy and business leaders who will lead the correction of Trump's utterly misguided leadership and, hopefully, shatter the cult.
Reading Fox News, I weep for our country. We have a horrifyingly under educated, easily duped populace.

National Review is a critical conservative publication and also has generally criticized Trump depending on the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WSJ has been overall critical of Trump's admin and their reporting coverage is generally of a higher quality than Fox News. The audience, judging from reader comments, is also better informed overall. In the end, it's the economy and business leaders who will lead the correction of Trump's utterly misguided leadership and, hopefully, shatter the cult.
Reading Fox News, I weep for our country. We have a horrifyingly under educated, easily duped populace.

Perhaps. But people are entitled to both their own news sources and their own opinions. You may disagree with both, but you can't ban them based on vague allegations of misinformation or disinformation.

I think the main problem is that Fox is not actually a news source but it is relied upon like one. In several defamation lawsuits, Fox’s defense has been that it is an entertainment network— not a news network— and that its reporting should not be relied upon for truth and accuracy. They’ve lost quite a few legal battles that way, tremendously expensive ones, but it gives an insight into how they see their own programming. They don’t insist on high journalism standards— why should they? They’re entertainment. But some people clearly use them as their primary or even sole news source, which is very troubling.

[Anonymous]

All MSM is entertainment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WSJ has been overall critical of Trump's admin and their reporting coverage is generally of a higher quality than Fox News. The audience, judging from reader comments, is also better informed overall. In the end, it's the economy and business leaders who will lead the correction of Trump's utterly misguided leadership and, hopefully, shatter the cult.
Reading Fox News, I weep for our country. We have a horrifyingly under educated, easily duped populace.

Perhaps. But people are entitled to both their own news sources and their own opinions. You may disagree with both, but you can't ban them based on vague allegations of misinformation or disinformation.

I think the main problem is that Fox is not actually a news source but it is relied upon like one. In several defamation lawsuits, Fox’s defense has been that it is an entertainment network— not a news network— and that its reporting should not be relied upon for truth and accuracy. They’ve lost quite a few legal battles that way, tremendously expensive ones, but it gives an insight into how they see their own programming. They don’t insist on high journalism standards— why should they? They’re entertainment. But some people clearly use them as their primary or even sole news source, which is very troubling.

This. No one should take that network seriously.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that the Ed board needed to opine that one of them (presumably Miles Taylor) is less sympathetic than the other (I’m assuming Chris Krebs.) This behavior really needs an unmitigated slapdown.

Also, Democrats did NOT “do this to him.” At no time did President Biden or any other Democrat issue an executive order mandating that the Justice Department open investigations into people.

So, not even a golf clap for the ed board.

And this. It's gaslighting, "both-sides" nonsense to suggest the previous administration did ANYTHING like what Trump is doing with the DOJ.

[Anonymous]

They should go back to reporting business news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WSJ has been overall critical of Trump's admin and their reporting coverage is generally of a higher quality than Fox News. The audience, judging from reader comments, is also better informed overall. In the end, it's the economy and business leaders who will lead the correction of Trump's utterly misguided leadership and, hopefully, shatter the cult.
Reading Fox News, I weep for our country. We have a horrifyingly under educated, easily duped populace.

Perhaps. But people are entitled to both their own news sources and their own opinions. You may disagree with both, but you can't ban them based on vague allegations of misinformation or disinformation.

I think the main problem is that Fox is not actually a news source but it is relied upon like one. In several defamation lawsuits, Fox’s defense has been that it is an entertainment network— not a news network— and that its reporting should not be relied upon for truth and accuracy. They’ve lost quite a few legal battles that way, tremendously expensive ones, but it gives an insight into how they see their own programming. They don’t insist on high journalism standards— why should they? They’re entertainment. But some people clearly use them as their primary or even sole news source, which is very troubling.

The same could be said about MSNBC and CNN.

[Anonymous]

Whenever anyone in a position of authority questioned, investigated, or even discussed Trump's actions, it was automatically a "witch hunt" that was "weaponization of" their power. In his mind, everything he does is perfect. The people he surrounds himself with support the crazy notion that he is infallible.
Now he consistently breaks laws and is absolutely weaponizing his power, attacking people in very real ways, and too many people look the other way. It Is Not The Same! It's not even close. The level of narcissism and abuse of power is positively disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should go back to reporting business news

They are—taking Trump over the coals for his tariffs and lack of any economic plan. That also engendered a late night weekend editorial from the board.

[Anonymous]

Raking, obvs ^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WSJ has been overall critical of Trump's admin and their reporting coverage is generally of a higher quality than Fox News. The audience, judging from reader comments, is also better informed overall. In the end, it's the economy and business leaders who will lead the correction of Trump's utterly misguided leadership and, hopefully, shatter the cult.
Reading Fox News, I weep for our country. We have a horrifyingly under educated, easily duped populace.

Perhaps. But people are entitled to both their own news sources and their own opinions. You may disagree with both, but you can't ban them based on vague allegations of misinformation or disinformation.

I think the main problem is that Fox is not actually a news source but it is relied upon like one. In several defamation lawsuits, Fox’s defense has been that it is an entertainment network— not a news network— and that its reporting should not be relied upon for truth and accuracy. They’ve lost quite a few legal battles that way, tremendously expensive ones, but it gives an insight into how they see their own programming. They don’t insist on high journalism standards— why should they? They’re entertainment. But some people clearly use them as their primary or even sole news source, which is very troubling.

I am aware that during the course of a suit related to Tucker Carlson the defense was that his show was entertainment and opinion, not news. I don't think that is the case in any other case, though happy to learn that I am wrong. So any help with those "several defamation lawsuits" where this was raised as a defense and the "quite a few legal battles" would be appreciated.