The Associated Press is a household name in the information industry. It purports to be fact-based independent journalism. It put out an article about the verdict in the “hush money” trial of Donald Trump that took place in Manhattan, NY in early 2024.
This article is not a reliable source.
It is conflicted within its own column.
It took five reporters to write it, with nine contributing “pundits” total. It is no more reliable than any mainstream cable news talk show that has anchors and “pundits.” It is the same type of forum as CNN Talk or The Five, save for the fact that it’s written media. The authors are listed at the beginning and the contributors are all listed at the end. No mention of the words, editorial or opinion, by the way.
Just, “fact-based journalism.”
One can either knowingly and willingly choose to consider truthful aspects of this story that may go against political ideology, whether one is a Trump fan, or not. The article mentions that legal experts refute the validity of the conviction while the article also attempts to steer the reader away from paying any serious attention to such claims. Two of the prominent legal experts were even eyewitnesses to proceedings and are cited here.
Convictions by jury are supposed to be legitimate and follow a real process. It is not supposed to be political targeting. No 12 people should have the latitude to convict a person in the kangaroo court fashion that these people in Manhattan did.
Guilty: Trump becomes first former US president convicted of felony crimes
Quote:“Trump is expected to appeal the verdict and will face an awkward dynamic as he returns to the campaign trail tagged with convictions.”
Message:
This looks bad for Trump. No matter how you look at it, he’s got a conviction. He will be scrambling now to run for office. This should hurt any confidence or sense of security you might have in him holding office. Spread the buzzwords.
Quote:
“Even so, the verdict is likely to give President Joe Biden and fellow Democrats space to sharpen arguments that Trump is unfit for office, though the White House offered only a muted statement that it respected the rule of law.”
Message:
This looks good for Biden. And we don’t even have to wait to see. Simply sit back and enjoy the ride. We do have a slight disturbance in everything going our party’s way, but it’s only temporary and will come to pass. Biden holds most of the cards now. Vote Biden-Harris!
Quote:“Conversely, the decision will provide fodder for the presumptive Republican nominee to advance his unsupported claims that he is victimized by a criminal justice system he insists is politically motivated against him.”
“Fodder…”
“Unsupported,”
later says
“The case, though criticized by some legal experts who called it the weakest of the prosecutions against Trump, took on added importance not only because it proceeded to trial first but also because it could be the only one to reach a jury before the election.”
Messages:
To look like we’re being fair and giving you all the facts, we will attempt to insult your intelligence by saying his claims are unsupported while we also admit there are legal experts supporting his claims from the sidelines. Don’t pay any attention to those legal experts though. Get down from there, little Billy and Cindy! They’re just spreading “fodder.” This could be our only remote hope collectively to run our political adversary off the campaign and election trail. And it might work. Spread the buzz.
Quote:
“recording that captured him talking about grabbing women sexually without their permission”
Message:
This was an easy talking point to briefly reference to piggyback on our myriad of fake talking points against Trump. He simply said you can grab women sexually without their permission. Just take our word for it. ‘We got it on video’ and that fact should deter you from listening to it. Forget that we live in a world that has advanced in many cases beyond dissemination of events limited to the written word of newspapers. Forget pivotal broadcasts such as Kennedy debating Nixon that took place in 1960 over 60 years ago. Congressional oversight hearings. Floor proceedings. We can interpret events for you. Video is too much to handle anyway. There is no chance that ‘anyone’ is ‘ever’ attracted to money and fame or that Mr. Trump could ‘ever’ be referring to any intimate physical contact with women that is the least bit consensual. Consent is nowhere to be found in the statement: “When your a star, you can do it. They’ll let you do anything.” Even though in the exact same interaction on tape where he makes those comments, he even refers to a married woman who rejected him, and he makes no explicit mention of such contact occurring. We’re just going to assume for Mr. Trump that statements like “I moved on her heavily” and “I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there” can automatically be parsed out as an admission of touching that woman against her will. There is nothing but suspicious advances made towards women by Trump to infer from this audio recording. There is absolutely no suspicious touching of younger women by Joe Biden actually captured on video when he touches his face to their hair and whispers in their ears, and is met with being shied away from or otherwise resisted. It is an absolutely pleasant site to watch Biden engage in this creepy behavior and watch young girls resist him. Biden has all the legitimate business in the world whispering into into their ears.
“Couldn’t get there” refers to what boundary line with the married woman exactly?
Conclusion
The article contains many claims and “facts” that are debatable or false depending on who you’re talking to. The reporters tell the never Trumper what he/she wants to hear. The guilty verdict highlights the worsening of political party warfare. It’s like a vindictive divorce court, only it’s on the level of a nation.
Slam dunk? The judge and the prosecutor, among other things that should be of grave constitutional concern, gave a jury broad latitude:
- To believe there was ‘some federal election law violation’ without being allowed to consider all the aspects of what the FECA law actually states, or that federal authorities said or that expert witness, Brad Smith, would have said there was no federal violation.
- To convict Trump for merely being guilty of using ‘some unlawful means’ to commit ‘some’ secondary crime and, not having to agree on what that means or secondary crime was.
- Accept as fact unsubstantiated claims made by prosecution in closing arguments that were instructed against and yet unreprimanded by the judge.
- Accept testimony by serial perjurer, Michael Cohen, as it was echoed by prosecution in closing arguments as established facts, contrary to prior instructions from the judge.
- Make chain conclusions that if one crime was committed or document was falsified then one can automatically conclude that it benefitted any other of the alleged “crimes” or falsifications of documents.
Like many other attempts to incriminate the 45th president, this is a fabrication and stretch of the law and events of this man’s life. What was the secondary crime that turned this alleged and unprosecutable violation of rule 17.05 into a supposed violation of rule 17.10 or 17-152. Prosecution offered three “theories” to choose from. Was it a tax law violation? Was it an election violation? Was it a duplicate of a falsification violation? Was it some other violation? Jurors could decide at whim. This case, the latest in attempts to avenge the 2016 election and run Trump off any second presidential trail, sets a bad precedent and must be overturned on appeal. Mr. Dershowitz and Mr. Turley are more reliable sources than all the reporters involved in the AP article combined. The judge has conflict of interest because his daughter does business with Democrats. If one feels so strongly that the conviction was legitimate, the nicest words you’re going to get here are that’s debatable. Frankly, it’s just another phony hit job by Democrats to accumulate talking points so they can play a numbers game and hold onto power.
Sources
-The AP article:
-A couple of the legal experts, who the Associated Press did not reference in the article by name, were actual eyewitnesses to court proceedings of the trial as well:
Jonathan Turley Twitter(X) Post
A Manhattan Canned Hunt: The Trump Jury is Out But is the Case in the Bag?
Yes, the Dershowitz article is listed as an opinion article, but he is a law professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and the article is his eyewitness account from inside the courtroom. According to Dershowitz, the conviction could be considered invalid and reversible on appeal. This article doesn’t even touch on further potential developments on jury misconduct.
-Very shallow fact check by AP
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-trial-jury-unanimous-verdict-679053515836
-Government Press Releases and Statutes:
D.A. Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Trial Conviction of Donald J. Trump
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.05https://
www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10https://
www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/GoingToCourt/SOLchart.shtml
-National Review Article
Alan Dershowitz Again:
https://youtu.be/uajn7Xq7oac?si=4KPUgzJZlFsgrBl_
https://youtu.be/q6dW97wR-78?feature=shared
-A Compilation of Biden’s Advances Towards Younger Women
https://youtu.be/V4PLSPvJ9BY?feature=shared
-Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche, comments on verdict. He states that the prosecution never specified what the crime being charged was before trial. Hannity misstated by accident that the defense was given wide latitude to make unsubstantiated claims in closing arguments.
