• @Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      278 months ago

      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.

  • Optional
    link
    fedilink
    708 months ago

    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.

    • @bitsplease@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      54
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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

    • @Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      228 months ago

      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?

    • @ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      38 months ago

      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?

  • @Custoslibera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    698 months ago

    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.

    • ma11en
      link
      fedilink
      348 months ago

      That’s because he would have sold the farm and it’s nuclear secrets for $100

    • squiblet
      link
      fedilink
      198 months ago

      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.

    • HuddaBudda
      link
      fedilink
      7
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      They couldn’t throw $10,000 between the all of them to make this argument look kind of legitimate?

    • Jaysyn
      link
      fedilink
      38 months ago

      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.

  • Nougat
    link
    fedilink
    25
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    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.”

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    158 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    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, violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

    After the trial kicked off Monday, Judge Sarah Wallace quickly rejected an effort from Trump’s legal team to have her recused from the case, the Associated Press reported.

    Trump’s attorneys had filed a motion calling for Wallace to recuse herself from the case due to an alleged $100 donation to the Colorado Turnout Project in October 2022.

    The PAC’s website reads that it is focused on defeating Trump ally Representative Lauren Boebert and “electing Democrats across Colorado.”

    “The Colorado Turnout Project aims to prevent violent insurrections by addressing this problem at its source– if we vote out pariahs like Representative Boebert, we can turn CO Blue once and for all,” the organization’s website reads.

    Trump’s legal team has argued the former president was exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech by saying the election was stolen via widespread voter fraud, a claim that has not been proven.


    The original article contains 480 words, the summary contains 183 words. Saved 62%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • @Dkarma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    58 months ago

    They’re asking her to recuse over one $100 donation. She said lol no Lmfao. Get fucked trump.

  • @Alfiegerner@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    38 months ago

    Does this have any chance of succeeding before the Georgia or Washington cases potentially pin a crime on Trump?