It would seem to me that the case against Trump looks pretty bullet proof but I almost hope that a die hard Trump supporter has smuggled his/her way onto the jury and holds firm. That would mean a re-trial so Trump can enjoy himself in court for a second go round.
You mean his *election interference* trial. Please stop echoing Fox/MAGA propaganda.
This isn’t about some tawdry affair and his attempt to hide it from his family. It’s about him conspiring to hide information to swing the results of an election.
The piece explains in detail how the hush payments to the campaign. I am not echoing right-wing propaganda, just trying to keep things readable by using the most simple phrase to describe the charges.
That's an exceedingly weak excuse. In your reporting, do you strive to avoid explaining nuance just to keep things as simple as possible for your audience?
How insulting to your audience.
I prefer accurate over simple. Your readers don’t need things dumbed down.
Trump is on trial in this case for election interference. Journalists should refer to the trial as such.
It would seem to me that the case against Trump looks pretty bullet proof but I almost hope that a die hard Trump supporter has smuggled his/her way onto the jury and holds firm. That would mean a re-trial so Trump can enjoy himself in court for a second go round.
There is a lot of projection going on when the Trump team accuses the judge, prosecutor, or Democrats of lawfare.
Without exception every Republican accusation is a confession.
Every. Single. Time.
“his hush money trial”
You mean his *election interference* trial. Please stop echoing Fox/MAGA propaganda.
This isn’t about some tawdry affair and his attempt to hide it from his family. It’s about him conspiring to hide information to swing the results of an election.
The piece explains in detail how the hush payments to the campaign. I am not echoing right-wing propaganda, just trying to keep things readable by using the most simple phrase to describe the charges.
That's an exceedingly weak excuse. In your reporting, do you strive to avoid explaining nuance just to keep things as simple as possible for your audience?
How insulting to your audience.
I prefer accurate over simple. Your readers don’t need things dumbed down.
Trump is on trial in this case for election interference. Journalists should refer to the trial as such.
Thanks for your feedback. I think we have a pretty strong track record here of not insulting our audience.
Agreed. It’s a large part of why I enjoy reading the articles posted here.
And why I’m disappointed in this particular case and, honestly, surprised by your excuse for it.
“New York doesn’t allow cameras”
Yet the article starts with a photograph of Trump in the courtroom. How?
They allow photographers in for a brief pool spray at the beginning of the day's proceedings but then they must leave.
Thanks. Wondered if it was a “the days proceedings hadn’t actually begun” thing.
"when he is swarmed by media entering or exiting the courtroom"
This ticks me off no end. They need to stop swarming and stop giving him this forum.