What happened to the media’s legal “experts” who said Colorado was right to kick Trump off the ballot? Remember them? I do. @FreeBeacon.
Quick trip down memory lane after even the liberal SCOTUS justices rejected Colorado’s claims. ⤵️ freebeacon.com/media/watch-su…
Here’s a link to the video which is incredible. Lot of media hosts and talking heads were convinced Trump was toast. (H/t @thaleigha_ for making this gem).
The “experts” said so!
Print reporting read the same way.
@nytimes cited an “expert” who said Colorado’s case was “legally sound” and that the only thing that could stop it was politics.
Why, then, did the 3 liberal justices also side against Colorado?
@washingtonpost repeated that “legally sound” narrative in a headline. Their “experts” also said “there’s a strong legal case” supporting Colorado.
If it’s so strong, why did a liberal Biden appointee reject it, exactly?
My favorite might be @ABC, who cited “experts” to claim both that Colorado was right to kick Trump off, and that Trump and co were wrong to object to it.
Interesting how these “experts” can reliably voice a uniform perspective when it suits a media narrative.
@CNN’s headline captures the liberal wishcasting perfectly. They swapped “scholars” in for experts.
There were some wild headlines on this one. @politico quoted an “expert” to say the case wasn’t just strong, but “unassailable”(!)
What happened to that?
It’s clear, the “experts” that @Salon rounded up said. Trump was already disqualified.
This one from @voxdotcom and @imillhiser just cracks me up.
Just brutal side by side. Was it a “fraught debate”? Or was it a foregone conclusion? Seems it can’t be both.
It’s in the video but this @MSNBC round table featuring @ElieNYC sounds even more deranged in the hindsight of the ruling.
The case was a “slam dunk” according to MSNBC and their resident “experts”
And of course, Twitter’s resident legal-expert-if-the-partisan-narrative-fits @tribelaw tweeted about it too.
But fear not, liberal media believers. As @AP assured readers, Trump’s problems are only just beginning.
I’m sure the legal “experts” think so.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
8 years after I said I would, 2 years after a brain tumor diagnosis, and 1 year after finishing chemo & radiation, I’m finally running the Army 10-miler in a couple weeks, and raising money for a good cause.
I hope you’ll check out the details in the 🧵thread🧵 below. 👇
The 10-miler is, as the name implies, a 10 mile road race in Washington, D.C. It’s October 13th, so, soon!
If you’d like to donate (100% of donations go to charity, more on that below). The link is here:
I’m running (okay, slowly jogging) it to raise money for Undue Medical Debt, a really good charity that helps people who’re saddled with debt from the medical care they need (or needed).
It’s genuinely unclear who is executing the responsibilities of the leader of the free world and the media — providers of transparency, beacons of integrity — couldn’t seem to care less.
That there could be any question more important for anyone in the media to ask than “who is in charge of the country, right now, at this moment?” defies all logic.
Look, I know there’s bigger news today, but with Biden’s “black jobs” quip on Friday, I’ve gotta revisit the media meltdown on the term, as stupid as it is.
Do you remember how insulted & offended the press were when Trump said “black jobs”?
I’ve got screenshots. ⤵️
Some quick context: Biden in a speech on Friday, referred to jobs as “black jobs,” as in held by black folks.
If that phrase sounds familiar, it’s because Trump said it at his debate with Biden a couple months ago.
The media went ballistic.
Just look at the indignation here from @axios when Trump used the phrase.
“Reality check.” I mean, cmon!
And so now what, Axios? Is Biden suddenly a monster, too?
I was struck by the number of dubious statements and flat-out lies at the DNC.
It appears the mainstream media isn’t much interested in them, amid their jubilant, joy-full coverage. So I decided to do some fact-checking, focused on Biden’s speech.
There’s a lot. ⤵️
1. The first thing that jumped out to me was Trump’s alleged “very fine people on both sides” description of Charlottesville.
Haven’t we been over this, time and again? The context makes clear Trump didn’t mean the neo-Nazis. Even @snopes admitted it!
Yet Biden trotted it out.
2. Biden claimed he and his admin “demonizes no one.”
What, then, about Biden’s remarks about Trump supporters? That they are “determined to destroy democracy,” practitioners of “semi-fascism,” and “a threat to the very soul of this nation.”
The media haven’t been interested in providing voters with much of a picture of Kamala Harris beyond “vibes.”
So I did the work for them and went back through what she’s actually said and done on policy and beyond.
It isn’t a pretty picture. Follow along ⤵️
There’s nowhere better to start than on immigration. Back in 2020, Harris was among the Dem candidates who supported decriminalizing illegal border crossings.
Now @politico claims she “promised to go tough on border security.”
Color me skeptical.
Especially considering she supported eliminating ICE, tried to stop production on the border wall, and otherwise unwind the Trump policies that actually reduced illegal immigration.