Media Goes Off-Message on Donald Trump

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2016
Posted on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:09:25 PM EST
Tags: Donald Trump (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Donald Trump has had an easy time of it in the media thus far. Yesterday, something he didn't expect popped up.

What actually happened is not up for discussion here. First, none of us were there, and more importantly, I have no interest in being sued by Donald Trump over readers' comments. (Be forewarned, comments opining on the substance of the allegation and personal attacks on either Trump or his ex-wife's character will be deleted as soon as I see them.)

What is of interest (at least at this site) is how he responds to this unexpected public relations mess, including his response to erroneous public comments by those who work for him. (His lawyer, who also serves as executive vice president at the Trump Organization) has acknowledged his erroneous statements about the law and apologized.

Many have said the test of leadership during a crisis is not the crisis itself, but one's behavior during it. How's Trump doing?

< John Oliver Takes on Mandatory Minimum Sentences | White House Rejects Pardon for Edward Snowden >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Media Goes Off-Message on Donald Trump | 63 comments (63 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

"Inarticulate"? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by oculus on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:13:30 PM EST

In my moment of shock and anger, I made an inarticulate comment--which I do not believe--and which I apologize for entirely,"

I thought it was quitre articulate (none / 0) (#3)
by Reconstructionist on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:17:12 PM EST

got the point across lucidly and with a great deal of flair.


Articulate yes, yet legally erroneous, (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by Peter G on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 04:43:47 PM EST

unprofessional, and unethical.


a law school (none / 0) (#23)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 12:39:58 AM EST

Is there a Vito Corleone school of law?

I have always been thinking of becoming a lawyer and I am wondering about where might be a good place to send an application . . . I see that Vito's negotiating skills are appreciated by at least some lawyers . . .


: Only if your name is (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Zorba on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 09:04:50 AM EST

Tom Hagen. ;-)

: I was joking (none / 0) (#59)
by Reconstructionist on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 09:01:43 AM EST

I don't appreciate let alone approve of such conduct.

Well (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:16:29 PM EST

I really don't know what to say about all this. It seems that an old allegation has come up, his lawyer made a stupid comment about it and it goes from there. I seriously doubt this is going to make one iota of difference with GOP primary voters.

I don't think this is gonna be that bad (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by CST on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:20:25 PM EST

Some portion of them probably agree with the statement.

Listen to the comments they make about rape and abortion. Or shoot, the rush to defend the Duggars. At least Trump presumably understands you can still get pregnant from rape.


: Yes (none / 0) (#6)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:54:43 PM EST

and after years of Limbaugh telling them there's no such thing as rape etc. etc.

I think you said it all (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by ruffian on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 03:23:46 PM EST

Duly noted Boss... (none / 0) (#5)
by kdog on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 02:44:45 PM EST

I had a joke related to Mexican exports all lined up too...but I shall behave.

Nothing about Trump surprises me any more. (none / 0) (#7)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 03:09:19 PM EST

That said, I believe this to be a matter between him and his ex-wife -- and I suppose now, his lawyer, too. Hardly anything good ever comes from speculation about the nature of other people's personal relationships, regardless of whether those are past or present. And so, I will consider it none of my business.

our next President . . . (none / 0) (#38)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 03:17:20 PM EST

Here is one beautiful photo of our esteemed leader . . .

I sometimes have trouble understanding why the media or certain persons in it think it is unlikely that Trump can be elected . . .


Because he's an insane and malevolent clown? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 11:19:36 PM EST

:-D


well . . . (none / 0) (#53)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 12:42:01 AM EST

Is that factor is being considered more influential than it really is ? . . .

though you might be right . . .


Unless Republicans have decided to ... (none / 0) (#54)
by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 03:50:16 AM EST

... forgo a long and lingering demise at the 2016 polls and instead prefer an instantaneous death by massive avalanche, Trump's candidacy will fade away by next winter, if not earlier once his crackpot act wears out its welcome.


: You keep saying that (none / 0) (#57)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 07:16:56 AM EST

a certain video (none / 0) (#58)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:21:25 AM EST

there is a certain music video out . . .

I wonder if ms martin has much to do with political campaigns?


Overall, I would say that (none / 0) (#8)
by KeysDan on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 03:22:44 PM EST

the crisis is the Republican party, and that Trump has tapped into and voiced its angst very well. In that sense, he is more their follower than their leader. However, he is a leader in that he offers no programs, which is just what the Republicans demand. And, repeal of those that are in place, except those that are not recognized as government programs.

The suggestion that Trump has had an easy time of it, is likely to result in him having an even easier time of it, if questioners and commenters are intimidated and self-censored. Certainly, charges of a crime or libelous claims would not find their way into TL, but clarifications of comments about public figures, especially anyone who is a candidate for president of the US, not to mention a front-runner, would be helpful.

: What Trump offers? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by christinep on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 05:57:06 PM EST

Amid the almost curious reports that a number of people who reply that they don't particularly like Donald Trump, nonetheless, list him as first choice ... today. While we don't know about tomorrow, maybe there is one obvious motive guess now: The movie from some years back titled "Network."
I may have mentioned that possibility earlier; but, a series of Trump postures in recent days has almost convinced me that the Trump approach to campaigning has the earmarks of the aging newsman character (portrayed by Peter Finch) in "Network." Scowling, constantly angry and ready to erupt, and telling all the viewers to open their windows in protest against all manner of things and yell "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore." At first, it became a power TV-inspired phenomenon--and, along with it, the newsman became the big anti-hero--which, inevitably, gave way to boredom and moving on by the audience when the trick grew stale.
While I do think that Trump is definitely more focused than the "Network" character, the use of anger and outrage and fulminating face started long before him this latest go-round. Start with Joe Wilson's uncivil (and unwarranted) shout of "You Lie" at the President during the formal State of the Union address; look next at Ted Cruz, particularly, as a recent model of demagoguery; and, consider the active and/or passive acceptance of no-holds-barred and repulsive statements as part of the common parlance. Verbal vomit ... and, when that becomes quite normal, it may be a good time to reconsider why civil discourse and limits have a bearing on democracy.
For now, it is fashionable still to be angry, to be disgusted, to grouse, to accuse everyone but the speaker, to yell at anyone who doesn't agree up & down the line. That behavior loop is reinforced daily by major media ... and, maybe a lot of people want a part of that action. Small wonder that the scowling Donald strides in--accidentally or strategically--at the top of this smoldering heap. My question: Is he smarter, more strategic in the use of this persona to con a lot longer than viewers realize. 'Could be. Whatever it is, the amusement for those like myself is better than an old-fashioned amusement park funhouse.

I (none / 0) (#11)
by FlJoe on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 05:03:25 PM EST

saw Cohen on CNN a couple of times, a political pro he was not, he came off as a smarmy hatchet man.

This whole amounts to a "gotcha" hit job on the amateur spokesman that Trump "hired". The guy obviously did not belong in the big leagues. His melt down became news, allowing the Ivana saga to creep back in.

The Donald needs to hire some pros quickly, I foresee plenty of oppo smart-bombs coming his way, not to mention the hordes of savage journalists looking for his scalp. I know it's not like bagging a Clinton, but you would still have the eternal gratitude of the GOP.

Too bad (none / 0) (#12)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 05:21:12 PM EST

they don't treat everyone as bad.


Meet your next Supreme Court nominee (none / 0) (#13)
by ruffian on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 06:17:52 PM EST

Hey, the Very Serious People tell me Trump has a real chance at being elected.


: Actually (none / 0) (#16)
by Politalkix on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 07:44:55 PM EST

The Donald's support may be wider than some people are imagining. Someone I know that serves as a tea party barometer for me (he is inclined to vote for Walker at this moment) informed me cheerily today that "Trump is shooting from the hips but is hitting all the right targets". Even some people that do not have Trump listed as their first choice may have him as the second or third choice in a crowded field. The polls are not even capturing this information at this moment.

Speaking of off msg. (none / 0) (#14)
by FlJoe on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 07:25:26 PM EST

"If you're getting high in Colorado today, enjoy it," Christie, a Republican campaigning for the 2016 presidential nomination, said Tuesday during a town-hall meeting at the Salt Hill Pub in Newport, New Hampshire. "As of January 2017, I will enforce the federal laws."

WTF, is there that many hippie punching votes out there? He never appealed to the evangelicals or other moral scolds before. Dude they just got their ass whipped over Gay Marriage and you hope to gain respect by going all law and over weed? States Rights anybody?

Poor Chris, mean ole Donald has already bullied everybody in the park, except for a couple of stoners burning one in the bushes. Bizarre.

It's looking (none / 0) (#15)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 07:28:20 PM EST

like Rand Paul might be the first causality. Christie might be the next one.


Proof positive Christie (none / 0) (#17)
by Chuck0 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 08:54:56 PM EST

doesn't really want the job. Exactly how many votes does this guy think that tack is going to land him? More Americans are for the decriminalization or legalization of marijuana. Or at a minimum, are ambivalent. Other than a handful of dyed in the wool drug warriors, there is no voting bloc looking for more jail time for marijuana. This stance is just plain stupid in today's America.


: Yes (none / 0) (#18)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:04:43 PM EST

but Christie is trying to win the GOP primary where that thing probably plays well. Whatever is deadly in the general election will get you votes in the GOP primary these days.

: I hate to tell you this (none / 0) (#19)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:12:03 PM EST

but my 2nd reaction after Christie's comments
were to check the Donald Trump position on mj legalization . . . and he is actually at least somewhat sensible . . .
and my first reaction was to conclude that Christie is destroying his own ability to run and win, with comments such as he'll make sure to enforce federal law on mj . . .
Oh boy, what do we have here . . . civil war II on Washington, Colorado and maybe California?

off message (none / 0) (#20)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 09:14:06 PM EST

comments need to go in an open thread. Please stay on topic, which is Donald Trump.


Donald and Sarah (none / 0) (#21)
by Politalkix on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 11:35:34 PM EST

Says he would love to pick her brains and have her in his cabinet. The dynamic duo! :-).

I just can't even process that. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Anne on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 07:57:30 AM EST

Although I have to say that in listening to him these last couple weeks, I have no idea why no one in the media - or anywhere - had gotten around to asking who he envisions in a Trump administration.

That the first name Trump's put out there is Palin's just boggles the mind.


: The reason (none / 0) (#28)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 09:08:50 AM EST

why they don't ask him anything is because the beltway pearl clutchers have decided that he's going to implode any day now. However they have been saying that for quite a while and he's said a bunch of nonsense and he keeps on going.

rachel maddow program on Tuesday (none / 0) (#22)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 11:52:39 PM EST

I am deviating from my usual exemplary conservative libertarian principles and watching the arch-heretic of America Rachel Maddow this evening . . . somehow my TV has got to msnbc . . . I can't imagine what has gotten into it . . . some demonic insanity, I see . . .

there is something here about Donald Trump or someone on his behalf going off on an angry tirade agaist someone, with a bunch of profanity . . .

about how bad the lawsuits will be and how disgusting the process will be . . .

and there is something by someone about case law claiming that you can't rape your wife . . . maybe I should remember that one . . .

Vote for Trump . . . and my TV may continue to have these segments from the arch-heretic Maddow with her smile and these nice bits about case law and whether or not you can rape your wife . . .

: The comments to which Maddow referred (none / 0) (#29)
by Peter G on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 09:24:35 AM EST

are the subject of Comment No. 1 to this post.

: Rachel Maddow (none / 0) (#30)
by Repack Rider on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 09:45:19 AM EST

...is a national treasure. If you only got to watch ONE political commenter, she is the one.
She is smart, funny, and unflaggingly polite to guests, even those with whom she disagrees violently, like Rick Santorum, who was on last week.
Maddow did a segment on the Trump lawyer's amazing screed and his non-apology apology, and it was a thing of beauty.
Bless you for discovering her! You will learn a lot if you keep watching.

one thing that came up last night . . (none / 0) (#25)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 08:43:22 AM EST

One thing that came up last night . . .

Fearless leader Trump was on Fox News, our great source of truth, and Trump was saying that American libel laws are so bad and weak, it is hard to sue the people who need to be sued . . .

I have just searched for Trump libel and I see that a few years ago, one author estimated Trump's net worth at 150 to 250 million and who therefore called him a millionaire, rather than a billionaire.

Trump sued, alleging that his net worth has been conclusively proven to be more than $7 billion . . . but the dumb dumb court did not agree with him . . .

One nugget from the discussion . . .
. . . during a deposition, Trump admitted that his sense of financial worth depends on his feelings day-to-day.

"The libel laws in this country have never been fair,"

oh, to be clear (none / 0) (#26)
by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 08:44:26 AM EST

the court did not agree that the statements of the author were libel . . . I don't think the court made certain conclusions about how much is the Don's net worth . . .


As a public figure (none / 0) (#31)
by Repack Rider on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 09:51:00 AM EST

...and as a political figure by his own choosing, Mr. Trump has surrendered any opportunity to sue for libel or slander.

Think of the case Mr. Obama would have against The Donald if it were possible for the president to sue a citizen for the lies and smears delivered by Mr. Trump.


not precisely (none / 0) (#33)
by Reconstructionist on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 10:36:13 AM EST

a public figure faces a very hard row to hoe in establishing the legal elements of defamation but has not surrendered the right to sue and theoretically could prevail.

Public figures must prove "actual malice" on the part of the defendant in addition to the other elements of the cause. That means essentially that defamatory content was published intentionally knowing it was falss or that the publishing defendant acted with "reckless disregard" for the truth.
