Holy clickbait batman, you can say the judge didn’t recuse in the headline.
If you don’t pay for online news then you’re the product, and they’re going to be incentived to say whatever for clicks. I agree though, what a terrible and deliberately misleading headline. It got my hopes up and then immediately smashed them back down.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the plaintiff in the case, is arguing Trump, by allegedly motivating Jan. 6 protesters with his election fraud claims,. . .
“Allegedly motivating J6 protestors”?! Really, Newsweek? That’s where you are, huh?
FFS. THIS - this weak-ass corporate news slurry of rightish goo they’re barfing up - is why American democracy is under serious threat. It’s pathetic.
Tbf - they do this because of a rule that is actually very important. Basically news media can’t say that a person did a crime until they’re convicted of that crime - otherwise it’s libel (or slander, I can never remember which is which)
That’s important because otherwise the media can basically just have unilateral control over the court of public opinion. People already rarely read past headlines, imagine if news headlines could just declare someone guilty with impunity.
It always seems silly in these cases - and in similar cases where the defendant has basically already admitted to doing it - but it’s actually an important rule in my eyes
otherwise it’s libel (or slander, I can never remember which is which)
No, you’re right. Libel is written, slander is verbal. Thanks J Jonah Jamison.
just remember “libel” starts like “library”
How I always remember
From one J. Jonah Jameson
Newsweek is a right-wing rag that pretends to be centrist. They unironically published an opinion piece last week entitled something like, “The World Needs President Trump Now More Than Ever.”
It’s owned by a Trump supporter, so what should anyone really expect?
Corporate media is who gets the money when all those campaigns are bidding for ad space with PAC money. Which dragon are we slaying first?
It’s pretty insidious to claim the judge is biased because of a $100 donation.
When he is likely found guilty he will just delegitimise the verdict and his base will eat it up.
That’s because he would have sold the farm and it’s nuclear secrets for $100
Would have? Probably did.
They will anyway. It doesn’t really matter what happened or what any facts are, if it doesn’t go his way, they will say it was fake blah blah blah and so will he.
They couldn’t throw $10,000 between the all of them to make this argument look kind of legitimate?
This case isn’t civil. If he’s found guilty in this case he’ll be making that claim to himself from inside a prison cell.
This is only the trial in Colorado to disqualify him from the ballot.
THIS case would just kick him off the ballot in Colorado.
And remove 10 electoral college votes. If this sets a big enough precedence to block him from getting 270, he’s done.
And the “loss” was the defense wanting the judge to recuse herself based on a $100 donation to a Democratic PAC in the state., and the judge saying “no.”
Breaking and setting records
Is he tired of winning yet? 🤔
Maybe soon he’ll be living rent free in a jail cell
Many (shithole) states have started charging prisoners for their incarceration.
Well yeah, you think for-profit structures are gonna make enough money off of legal slave labor? Infinite growth demands it eventually.
They’re asking her to recuse over one $100 donation. She said lol no Lmfao. Get fucked trump.
Does this have any chance of succeeding before the Georgia or Washington cases potentially pin a crime on Trump?
hate/love to see it
