Media Goes Off-Message on Donald Trump

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "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

    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.


    NY Times v. Sullivan (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 02:38:28 PM EST
    I've been recalling that case recently.  

    So when Mr. Trump (none / 0) (#40)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 04:17:24 PM EST
    ...Spouted birther nonsense and other lies in an effort to hinder Mr. Obama, it was not "malicious?"

    Could have fooled me.

    Also, in libel or slander cases, the truth is the ultimate defense.   If what you say is true, you can be as "malicious" as you want.


    He (none / 0) (#43)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 04:42:54 PM EST
    called Elizabeth Beck(of the breast pump incident) a vicious, horrible person." on nationwide tv. Would Ms. Beck have some kind of case here ? How far can a candidate go insulting a private citizen by name?

    On its face, clearly an expression of opinion (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Peter G on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 04:17:24 PM EST
    as opposed to a (false) assertion of fact, and thus outside the realm of defamation law.

    You're confusing the ability to sue, (none / 0) (#44)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 04:55:29 PM EST
    with the ability to win the suit.

    Someone with Trump's deep pockets can use lawsuits as a tool to harass, and worse, people or entities opposed to his plans...  


    Another New National Poll (none / 0) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 10:35:44 AM EST
    from Morning Consult.

    And it's still Trump on top at 24, with 13 for Bush, and 9 for Walker.

    Off topic slightly but still news is that FOX will now definitely have a 2nd tier debate earlier the same evening featuring all announced candidates not in the top ten. By the Consult poll only, that would be Santorum, Fiorina, Graham, Jindal, Pataki and Perry. Those 6 will try to out soundbite each other in what could be a "try and outdo each other" slugfest. Not sure if Gilmore gets an invite or not.

    Camille's take on the Donald (none / 0) (#34)
    by ragebot on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 10:36:49 AM EST
    is at the link.

    In the Salon article she also takes on several other topics.  But perhaps my favorite about Trump was that all pols are clowns and Trump is the best clown among them.  She even thinks Trump is a better clown than Jon Stewart who she bashes.  This is the first of a three part story about Camille who I admit is one of my favorite entertainers.  Well worth a click, and not only for her views on Trump.

    I love (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 10:56:07 AM EST
    how she accuses everybody else of self righteous sanctimony when she doles out a ton of it herself.

    Bahahahaha! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 12:52:33 PM EST
    According to her, she started "the fad" of saying I AM AN ATHEIST :)

    I was sort of surprised ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 11:22:53 PM EST
    ... to hear that she still had a column. I don't think I've read a word of her sanctimonious crap since the 2000 election.

    Donald (none / 0) (#55)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 06:46:35 AM EST
    As someone pointed out in the comments at Salon in response to a comment similar to yours Camille's article resulted in more comments than the rest of the Salon's articles.

    Let's remember the point of many on line posts by web site owners is to get as many clicks as possible and Camille certainly does that.  But Camille does not get as many clicks as the Donald does.


    Intresting (none / 0) (#39)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 04:05:56 PM EST
    article on Trump's team. This Roger Stone guy appears to be his top strategist
    Stone is an eccentric and a dandy who boasts a vast collection of pricey pocket squares, a Richard Nixon back tattoo, and an approach to politics that he describes as "performance art, sometimes for its own sake."
     I don't  know about the Eccentric dandy part but, he does seem quite a colorful character and that whole politics as performance art fits Trump to a tee.

    Trump (none / 0) (#41)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 04:29:17 PM EST
    ...and his hatchet-man seem to be cut from the same cloth.  They have been rich a$$holes their entire lives, and everyone who isn't rich is "the help."  They never had to be nice to anybody.

    Trump doesn't "negotiate" to arrive at a compromise.  For him everything is adversarial.  He wants to WIN and crush his opponent.

    The irony is that for The Donald everybody is an opponent except for the people on his payroll.

    In a war among oligarch-proxies fronting for rich political hobbyists, Trump is the real deal, an ACTUAL oligarch who doesn't need a front man to speak for him.  That gives him a power unavailable to any of his rivals.  Dude wants to hear the lamentations of their women, that's for sure, but not until after some torture and a nice Chianti.


    The Koch brothers (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 07:17:40 PM EST
    reportedly have set their sights on the Donald with the intent of taking him down.

    Talk about pass the popcorn.


    Politico (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 07:20:43 PM EST
    The Koch brothers are freezing out Donald Trump from their influential political operation -- denying him access to their state-of-the-art data and refusing to let him speak to their gatherings of grass-roots activists or major donors.
    Despite a long and cordial relationship between the real estate showman and David Koch, as well as a raft of former Koch operatives who are now running Trump's presidential campaign, the Koch political operation appears to have concluded that Trump is the wrong standard-bearer for the GOP. And the network of Koch-backed policy and political outfits is using behind-the-scenes influence to challenge Trump more forcefully than the Republican Party establishment -- by limiting his access to the support and data that would help him translate his lead in the polls into a sustainable White House campaign.



    I wonder (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 09:58:42 PM EST
    who they're going to take him down for? The idiot Scott Walker?

    Roger Stone (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 04:30:31 PM EST
    is a GOP smear agent bar none. If Trump has him on his team these other candidates need to watch their back and I'm seriously not kidding.

    Stone is another monster that the GOP has created that is probably going to completely destroy the GOP.


    He is (none / 0) (#45)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 05:11:12 PM EST
    more a creator then a creation, he is a skilled technician schooled in the laboratories of the GOP masters such as Nixon and Atwater. He knows how to bring some ugly creatures to life, thats for sure.

    Gee, I take a day off to play some poker (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 09:43:45 PM EST
    and you folks go bonkers over Trump.

    Look. Trump can do no wrong because he is doing what a large number of people would like to do/say. He is winning because of that.

    And don't get all wiffled up over that. I have been reading how many of you complaining about the politics and log rolling in DC for years. Joe and Jane are no different. They just like beer rather than wine.

    Are there enough people to get him nominated and win?? Don't know.

    But then I never thought a junior senator with no experience beyond community organizer could beat Hillary and then McCain.

    Jim (none / 0) (#56)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 06:52:47 AM EST
    One advantage Trump has is his ability to finance his own run.  Soros and the Kotch brothers are throwing around big bucks, but have to follow laws that Trump can ignore since he is spending his own money.

    A few threads (none / 0) (#60)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 10:28:47 AM EST
    back, I was joking about the GOP race being akin to WWE. I was closer to the truth then I expected. In this weeks "Battle of the Billionaires." It will be Donald "the Vulgarian" Trump against "the Oligarchs" aka The Brothers Koch.

    There is this (none / 0) (#61)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 10:29:56 AM EST
     Poll shows Sanders ahead of Trump

       Neither of them will be the nominee but it is grounds for the Trump hysteria to cool.

    I think you misunderstand (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 10:47:49 AM EST
    me at least.  Donald will not be president.

    For the record, once again-

    The Donald WILL NOT be president.

    He may be the republican nominee.

    Put your self in the place of the establishment.  Every person with 2 brain cells to rub together thinks there is about an 80% chance Hillary is going to be the next president.
    I believe that is true.  
    I have been saying for a year or more that Jeb would not be the one.  That if he was there would be a right wing third party candidate.  The establishment is beginning to agree with me.
    So, if you are them.
    Why not, in the cycle when we are almost certainly going to lose no matter who we nominate, why not let them have their way?
    They are not going away.  The only way to deal with and sideline them is to give them enough rope to hang themselves.
    Let them see what happens when they get their candidate.  
    The avalanche of a loss can be blamed on Trump.  The moon bats will be powerless.   And, as CST says, Jeb! Can run again when the dust settles and they have had 4years of president Hillary.