WSJ editorial board condemns Trump lawfare

[Anonymous]

Look we are going to need a lot less lawyers specially big law. Just not much to do if Trump only enforces the law for the people who pay him.

[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.

WSJ reporting is better than the NYTimes and WaPo in many respects. Even the editorial page. They are not big fans of Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah sure. Show is where either of those networks have had the same defense. Or the NYT. Or the Post. Or WSJ. (The defense of: don’t take us seriously, we’re not a news network—Fox’s own statement.) They’ve all been sued many times. Surely this will be easy for you.

I doubt you’ll be able to. So question why Fox is in the same category as those real news networks. Fox does not think of itself as news. Why do you? Why are you defending them and relying on them? They feel no responsibility whatsoever towards you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you unaware that Fox had to pay ~$800 million to Dominion Voting Systems for defaming them constantly for months? And it es any just the primetime opinion people, it was the “real news” people like Bret Baier whose emails were incriminating them. This was back in the news this week because Trump issued an executive order trying to exterminate the firm that represented Dominion.

[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.

WSJ reporting is better than the NYTimes and WaPo in many respects. Even the editorial page. They are not big fans of Trump.

It actually makes news when the Walk Street Journal’s editorial board disagrees with Trump.

[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.

WSJ reporting is better than the NYTimes and WaPo in many respects. Even the editorial page. They are not big fans of Trump.

Agreed. I’ve been telling people it’s amazing how much NPR and WSJ agree. Quality of WSJ reporting is first-rate, and the paper is written to a higher standard than the WP.

[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.

WSJ reporting is better than the NYTimes and WaPo in many respects. Even the editorial page. They are not big fans of Trump.

It actually makes news when the Walk Street Journal’s editorial board disagrees with Trump.

The WSJ has been extremely critical of Trump since he freed the J6 criminals. They are doing a great job; I’ve really been impressed.

[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

If such weaponization goes unchecked and nothing is done, such practice will occurr again in the future once Democrats regain control.

They have to know such behavior will not be tolerated or condoned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you unaware that Fox had to pay ~$800 million to Dominion Voting Systems for defaming them constantly for months? And it es any just the primetime opinion people, it was the “real news” people like Bret Baier whose emails were incriminating them. This was back in the news this week because Trump issued an executive order trying to exterminate the firm that represented Dominion.

Of course I am aware. And Fox did not claim during the course of that they are not a news network. They did not claim to be an ëntertainment venue" as they did with respect to Tucker.

If you want to correct me, fine. But stay on point and don't go traipsing off into irrelevacies.

[Anonymous]

The weaponization of the legal system by the Dems must be dealt with harshly and all those responsiblemust be held accountable to the maximum extent possible to minimize the chance of Dems becoming habitual offenders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The weaponization of the legal system by the Dems must be dealt with harshly and all those responsiblemust be held accountable to the maximum extent possible to minimize the chance of Dems becoming habitual offenders.

Dems becoming habitual offenders? Looks more like your president has become a habitual offender. He literally ran on “I am your retribution.” That is the theme of his presidency. If you think it’s wrong for one party to do it, then you should think it’s wrong for the other party to do so as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The weaponization of the legal system by the Dems must be dealt with harshly and all those responsiblemust be held accountable to the maximum extent possible to minimize the chance of Dems becoming habitual offenders.

Dems becoming habitual offenders? Looks more like your president has become a habitual offender. He literally ran on “I am your retribution.” That is the theme of his presidency. If you think it’s wrong for one party to do it, then you should think it’s wrong for the other party to do so as well.

We must have maximum "deterrence effect " to ensure Demcratrs do not become habitual offenders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The weaponization of the legal system by the Dems must be dealt with harshly and all those responsiblemust be held accountable to the maximum extent possible to minimize the chance of Dems becoming habitual offenders.

Dems becoming habitual offenders? Looks more like your president has become a habitual offender. He literally ran on “I am your retribution.” That is the theme of his presidency. If you think it’s wrong for one party to do it, then you should think it’s wrong for the other party to do so as well.

So Trump should let bygones be bygones? Cnservatives think there should be a price for those who broke the law for political purposes. Otherwise they will do it again to someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

He's not infallible. He is a very kind president who is now going to take revenge on his adversaries. I applaud him for the relaxed attitude and measured thought in doing so.

If the DNC had been opening 5 criminal suits against me, impeaching me, raiding my house with a SWAT team and arresting and fingerprinting me, and lawfared constantly, I would be disappearing enemies when I returned to power. I am not as relaxed as he is about being F over again and again by democrats.

Kudos to Trump for going about it methodically.

He should have broken the law if he didn’t want those things. Being a whiny little btch doesn’t make him a real victim.

So you agree with Trump's actions to investigate Democrats who broke the law and prosecute them.

[Anonymous]

They will have to distance themselves from maga or lose their readership.