By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Attorney General Merrick Garland directly countered Judge Cannon’s order preventing the release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on the 2020 election investigation. Garland argued that co-defendants Nauta and De Oliveira lacked standing to challenge the release of Volume One, which doesn’t name them. He further asserted that no legal basis exists for blocking its release. By limiting the release of Volume Two to Congress, Garland addressed the defendants’ claims of irreparable prejudice, undermining the core of their motion.
Read the original article here
A forthcoming book alleges that Fox News provided Donald Trump with advance access to questions before a pivotal town hall in March. This revelation isn’t particularly shocking given Trump’s history and the network’s perceived bias. It reinforces the pattern of Trump accusing his opponents of employing tactics he himself utilizes, a classic projection technique.
The claim that Trump received advance notice of the questions raises concerns about fairness and the integrity of the electoral process. However, many believe the impact is negligible given Trump’s generally unprepared and often incoherent responses, even when allegedly briefed. It’s argued that advance knowledge of the questions didn’t translate into better performance or more substantive answers.
The alleged collusion underscores the symbiotic relationship between Trump and Fox News. This relationship has been frequently criticized as one that often favors Trump and promotes his narrative, regardless of its accuracy or factual basis. The suggestion of providing questions beforehand further strengthens this perception of a close, potentially unethical partnership.
Many observers have pointed out the hypocrisy inherent in Trump’s accusations against his opponents. Whenever he has accused someone else – for example, Kamala Harris – of receiving questions in advance, it has been seen as a veiled confession of his own actions. This pattern is not isolated, and suggests a broader pattern of projection.
The assertion that Fox News provided Trump with the questions doesn’t appear to have substantially altered the outcome. Trump’s performance, even with allegedly pre-briefed answers, was considered unsatisfactory by many. This raises the question of the actual effectiveness of the supposed “advantage” granted to him.
The event has ignited a debate about the media’s role in shaping the political landscape and whether actions like allegedly leaking questions constitute undue influence. Some suggest that the consequences are minimal because Trump’s supporters were always likely to support him, regardless of the circumstances.
Others see this as yet another example of the blatant disregard for established norms and fair play, characterizing it as another instance of Trump’s long history of cheating and seeking unfair advantage. It feeds into the existing narrative of a media landscape in which some news outlets actively promote and defend a single political figure.
This incident further fuels the ongoing discussion about media bias and its effect on the electoral process. Concerns persist about the potential for manipulation and the erosion of public trust in news organizations. The question of whether any legal or ethical boundaries were crossed in providing Trump with advance knowledge of the questions remains unresolved.
The timing of the book’s release, after the election, has also been discussed, raising questions about potential motives beyond simple journalistic inquiry. Some suggest it’s a deliberate strategy to maximize impact without directly influencing the election results.
It’s important to note that accusations like these are always met with skepticism and demands for evidence. The veracity of the claim, as reported in the forthcoming book, will remain under scrutiny until further information becomes available. The public reaction and its long-term effects on the media’s credibility will be crucial factors in this developing narrative.
Ultimately, the revelations regarding the town hall, while not entirely unexpected, reinforce existing concerns about the symbiotic relationship between a powerful media outlet and a prominent political figure. This interaction calls into question journalistic ethics and the integrity of the electoral process, furthering the discussion on media responsibility and political accountability.