Major papers are giving Trump’s Jan. 6 indictment dramatically less attention than they did Clinton’s server
Major papers are giving Trump’s Jan. 6 indictment dramatically less attention than they did Clinton’s server
As crazy as all of this is, what's even crazier is that the actual truth, which is the full unredacted truth of this, is probably orders of magnitude worse than what we as public citizens are aware of.
The fact that this is not disqualifying is insane to me.
We continue to find more drips of the truth that many of us expected all along each week, like Kavanaugh's obstructed FBI investigation for example.
History will not be kind to trump or his supporters and enablers. That is, if we're allowed to write the truth of history.
I'm sure no one here is on the fence about voting, but PLEASE don't be apathetic about it, even if you're in a solidly blue state. Vote like your life depends on it. It just may be that important.
btw if you're looking to have a more comprehensive coverage of jan 6th there are a couple of good resources out there.
If you're into the heavy reading, the jan 6th report is really comprehensive and detailed. (check this link for the document source.)
if you're more into long form run throughs (more of a podcast style) there's this and the accompanying second part of it these were originally part of a 6 hour long stream, which i do have archived, but i believe the archive is currently down.
if you prefer a more short form docu series type there's this though i haven't watched this one through yet so take it with a grain of salt lol. (edit: i've watched like half of it since posting, it's pretty much just a play by play of jan 6th as it happened, if you don't want any commentary or anything, it's a pretty good coverage of it.)
TL;DR nearly 900 page report, two indictments (one was post immunity ruling) a 6 hour panel over the facts of the j6 insurrection, broken into two parts, and a (probably) comprehensive documentary covering the events as well.
edit: added and cleaned up links.
Holy crap, what a based media outlet.
Media matters - I'll personally remember that name and you should to. Real journalism. Based.
They are great, and have been around for quite a while now. Stephen Colbert (O'Lielly used to rail against them all the time; and cons call them "hateful", lol):
But his documents.
It's not like anybody is going to peek in the bathroom. Clearly secure.
lock him up!
lock him up!
Fun fact. Jan 6 is the the biggest criminal investigation in US history by sheer number of defendants. You'd never know from the way the news covers it.
An investigation started under Trump, to seek out ANTIFA members who did it.... Only to eventually give up on that narrative when they remembered it was themselves all along, so now instead of prison sentences they are calling them by anything but criminals. You know, those pro military, pro police people... Campaigning under a person who shits on the military over and over, and supports the people who assualted the police on Jan 6.
News: "The little kerfuffle on Jan 6th. You probably never heard about it"
Not enough media covfefe.
That's cause Trump breaking the law isn't news
It's because they want him to win the election :-)
And... Trump may actually win this...
fook
Harris picked up a flagged campaign from Biden after he shit the bed in the first debate and made a big fanfare of diverging from the current administration. For a week or two, people got genuinely excited. They started talking about student loan forgiveness again. They started talking about Single Payer again. They started talking about changing the course on our sponsorship of genocide in Gaza and our brutal treatment of refugees on the southern border and our inability to hit climate goals. They started talking about reversing out the increasingly fascist SCOTUS and restoring civil rights to our police-state of a nation.
Then Harris began to campaign in earnest. She leaned more and more on the Techbros for fundraising. She brought more AIPAC lobbyists in as bundlers. She weedled and hedged on climate change, as guys like Eric Schmitt outright announced AI was more important than cutting carbon emissions. She began rolling out arch-conservatives from the Bush Era as her spokespeople and major sponsors. Jeff Flake was the featured speaker at the national convention. Dick and Liz Cheney started showing up at Harris campaign events. John fucking Negroponte endorsed her. Harris went on the view and outright stated she'd be in line with Biden, with the singular exception of including more Republicans in her cabinet.
What does anyone think this is doing to her enthusiasm among base voters? That critical block of Muslim refugees in the Midwest she needs to win in order to hold those states... how are they feeling right now? The college kids who had their campuses raided by police at the end of last semester, how excited are they feeling right now? Folks down in Florida who just got their state sliced in half by a hurricane, how excited are they to hear a candidate say we need more emissions-belching AI data centers?
We know Trump's ceiling from 2020. He pulled in 74M voters. He came within 40k votes across three swing states to beating Biden. And that was with a guy who was shoulder-to-shoulder with Bernie Sanders on election day.
Now Harris is playing footsy with the fucking Cheneys, Republicans so out of their element that they lost in Wyoming, as state that family practically owns wholesale. Absolutely clueless pack of fucking losers. If they cock this up, they have nobody to blame but themselves.
Endorsed by Negroponte? When actual evil people endorse Harris, I don't know what to think. I am in despair for America.
WHAAAAT? Are you implying that the liberal media is not interested in doing anything to save democracy? Even if it means they, as the liberal media, will be among the very first ones targeted?
This is my shocked face.
The only thing liberal about corporate media is how liberal they are being with the definition of "liberal" when it's applied to them as an adjective.
not to shit on you here, but the classical defintion of liberal is extremely broad and not specific at all.
Technically speaking, the classical western concept of liberalism is basically shortened to "live and let live" so.
What? Are you saying that the liberal media's own "everybody is sayin'" cover about how, they, the liberal media, are so very, very liberal (the Second Coming of Marx, even) is nothing but a total and complete sham?
You guys it's almost like the media wants him back in office or something.
Endless daily headlines, stupid shit said hourly, think of all the coverage, all the outrage, all the clicks! Who needs democracy anyways if we've got ad revenue?
Democrats have heard Republicans whining about the "liberal media" for so long, they've accepted it as fact.
The third estate is not inherently benevolent or even benign. It is not your friend.
to be clear, the media isn't the thing we should be mad at here, it's the government and the political system that has allowed this bullshit thus far.
Media outlets are never going to be "unbiased" it's impossible, as demonstrated by conservatives being stupid as of late surrounding any number of events, including the recent debate. HOWEVER, we can simply report things ourselves, perhaps we should be moving towards a highly decentralized and vetted news system, rather than a more monolithic approach. Something that actually informs people on the important details, rather than being a "trust me bro" reporting system.
Putin's not paying minions for true stories about Jan 6th. (just sparkly embellished lies, laced with truth bits! About nothings other than the failed coup).
Propaganda first!
Nah, Jan 6 2.0 is just around the corner. They're waiting for that.
How many papers are owned by left wing billionaires Alexa
Fake news from July. Removed for misinformation.
Fact check here:
There are no records that any of the executives referred to in the post donated directly to Trump’s presidential campaigns.
Are there records that all of the executives referred to in the post donated to a PAC or a SuperPAC that funnels millions to trump?
No. There aren’t any PAC donation records because SCROTUS legalized dark money. Of course we could argue about it, OR just look at the editorial slants and take this obvious fact at face value. Or assume the opposite in the ironic attempt to fight misinformation.
In 2016 CBS Chairman Les Moonvees, before being removed for sexual harassment, said, “trump may not be good for America, but he’s great for CBS!” - and that was to a crowded room of employees and investors. Did he donate the maximum $2500 to trump as well? I say it’s a moot point.
I actually did lookups for the CEOs of a couple of these on opensecrets.org and couldn't find any monetary donations for the current NYT CEO or CNN CEO. Doesn't mean they're not trying to get Trump elected, but it's not by donating to his campaign.
They sell what they think we want to buy. Nothing more and nothing less.
Let us not forget Clinton's cigar.
OK, but these two things aren't the same. This indictment came out in August or 2023, then was thrown out almost a year later due to the immunity ruling, but the prosecutor immediately vowed to refile, which he did in late August, and now he's released a bunch of Grand Jury documents that flesh out the case he's been working on for 14 months.
It's damning stuff, but not shocking, given that this story has been developing for over a year. It's certainly not as shocking as the FBI director announcing that in investigation into a presidential candidate, which everyone thought had been concluded 2 months prior, has been reopened 11 days before an election.
The news media chases clicks. It's bullshit, but that's what happens when advertising revenue dictates the media's interests. Knowing that, it makes a lot of sense that the story, "Documents released regarding last months refiled Trump indictment," got less coverage than, "FBI director suddenly announced Clinton probe reopened! What are in the mysterious new emails?"
Maybe because it's not as big of a story. J6 has been in the papers every other week since it occured.
It's the biggest story in America's political history since the civil war. Enemies of the nation struck at its heart and tried to kill it, and the lead traitor's head is still attached to his body.
It should be. But it's not. Dems needed to follow the Nixon playbook and have a long drawn out impeachment hearing. They punted on that and let him walk.
Trump already beat the charges.
LOL, not as big of a story?
Yes. As much as I hate it. It's not that big of a story. Either you know and realize Trump tried to commit a coup or you've bought the lie.
Until Dems start running on, "He he committed a coup" which they gave up on when they punted on his impeachment; it's not a story.
The conflict makes it a story.
Major media are oligarchs. Oligarchs are fascists. Fascists follow Trump. Plain and simple
That's what I came here to say. Who do you think owns the media???
"Yeah, but something something the news readers are registered Democrats, argle bargle" - the qons, not realizing the difference between the HELP and not the OWNERS. The help don't call the shots.