28 Comments
Jun 1Liked by Asha Rangappa

It is readily apparent that pundits, lawyer or not, who weathervane at every new development are retained by corporate media entities for the purpose of selling rage. Not all pundits do it, and some fall in the middle. Those that fully embrace the performative rage role have a specific task, or goal, of stoking the emotions of the audience. Reasoned assessment is at best a byproduct in that environment. Even though right wing sources are significantly more detached from reality, this occurs regardless of political perspective. We are left to our own critical thinking skills, and reading (not watching) as many sources as possible is essential to identify and understand the factual elements of each issue. I’m thankful that Asha consistently provides straightforward information and context, not just sound bites to drive engagement.

Expand full comment

Agree with "reading, not watching." In fact, I don't think you can think critically while watching cable news. It's much easier to stoke emotions with images than it is with text. With text, it's just you and the author. Her words create your images. Their yours. And you can stop processing the text at any time to reflect, think, notate, question, etc. With moving images and constant sound, it's you and a whole host of others on the screen, including graphic designers, makeup artists, and lighting and audio engineers. They are making the images for you. You're passively receiving what they're forcefully sending and you can't stop receiving to reflect.

Jon Stewart captured this beautifully here: https://www.cc.com/video/533imz/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-fear-watch

Expand full comment

Word!

Expand full comment

Oh yeah. I love " . . . even though we're using the fear music with the fear voice, and the fear font!"

Expand full comment

Anyone with a marketing background would agree with all of this. So called “News Organizations” especially television, became “profit centers” after the Kennedy assassination. Since the 1970’s the news departments of US television stations have typically produced 70% of a local station’s profits, and of course 100% of cable “news” channel profits. “Morning Joe” exists to sell pharmaceutical advertising, not to inform the public. And holding the audience through a program that is 30% news and opinion content and 70% ad content requires drama.

Expand full comment
Jun 1Liked by Asha Rangappa

What she said (regarding Trump's indictment, trial and conviction)! Trump: "It's not fair that they applied those laws to my crimes! Those were intended for low level criminals! How would you feel if you were the only ex-president ever to be caught--charged under these statutes!? Outrageous!

Expand full comment
founding

George Conway named at least one name on CNN - Scott Jennings…

Expand full comment

Can’t stand that tRump sycophant, almost as bad as Jeffrey Lord!

Expand full comment

Take a look at attorney, author, and educator Teri Kanefield's piece on lawyer punditry, specifically Elie Honig's bit on blaming Merrick Garland for delaying the investigation of Trump (Lawrence Tribe too): https://terikanefield.com/can-democracy-work-in-america-part-iii-an-msnbc-cnn-conspiracy-theory-and-the-perils-of-legal-punditry/.

Expand full comment

CNNs Elie Honig is another who is saying the case shouldn't have been brought. 🙄

Expand full comment

He needs to apologize to the nation

Expand full comment

Excellent analysis of the foundation of the trial and outcomes. This case in context to the other cases was seen as “minor” but I see this as a “major” step toward accountability. Thank you for your incredible podcasts and letters!

Expand full comment

Unprecedented?! EVERYTHING about Trump is unprecedented. A semi-literate ignoramus with former-president status is unprecedented; a child in an adult body, a pathological narcissist and braggart, a compulsive, outrageous liar who tried to overthrow the government, a transparent sociopath, etc., etc., as a former president. It's ALL unprecedented.

Expand full comment

The party of "law and order" is now led by a 34-time felon.

Trump has the Midas touch alright, but everything he touches doesn't turn to gold.

Expand full comment

Asha Rangappa

Expand full comment

There has never been a president convicted of crimes before.! We can prevent this horror, of course. Just elect presidents who don't DO crimes.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Asha, for being able to tell us all this without your head exploding. So glad you have some clout to call out the reprehensible “experts” who are trying to explain it away. I can still hear the late great Barbara Jordan in the Watergate hearings talking about the “diminution of the Constitution” and wish she were here to straighten out this mess.

Expand full comment
founding

I’m a huge Barbara Jordan fan too so thanks for the reminder😎

Expand full comment

Logic is so darn sexy!

Expand full comment

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that a payment ($130,000) for not publicizing the truth about sexual favors granted to a Presidential candidate is not a legitimate business expense, even if it is classified as a legal expense. I would guess that the deduction for those monies was taken on the tax return? If so, then they need to file an amended return.

Expand full comment

There is a statute of limitations on that. Considering that most of the “Trump Organization” was reportedly pass-through entities on his personal 1040 the year in question is probably no longer available to amend.

Expand full comment

👍

Expand full comment

Is the guy who fled to Russia that you referenced the same one who is now facing criminal charges in Russia? That’s KARMA!

Expand full comment
founding

Thoughtful and cogent analysis, as usual.

Expand full comment
Jun 2·edited Jun 2

I agree 1000%, Asha (not a typo)!

Totally disingenuous narratives out there. Ruth Ben-Ghiat commented after the verdict that numerous democracies (France, Israel, Perú, Italy, Brazil) have removed, censured, barred etc. previous leaders. This is not some radical, shameful path we're taking, as a relatively young country. Next these people will be seeking damages for Nixon smh.... We can be thankful that Trump was not seen as above the law, but we still have to worry about SCOTUS and Florida. The documents case won't be under a jury, will it?

Expand full comment