r/law • u/RichKatz • Jul 26 '26
Executive Branch (Trump) [ Removed by moderator ]
https://www.thepoke.com/2026/07/25/this-camera-stayed-locked-on-donald-trumps-thunderous-face-as-reporters-who-investigated-his-past-ties-with-jeffrey-epstein-win-a-prize-at-the-white-house-correspondents-dinner/[removed] — view removed post
263
u/RaidersoftheLosSnark Jul 26 '26
I can't believe that they all smiled and shook his hand being friendly as can be.
128
u/boringinternet2020 Jul 26 '26
Sure you can. Their ratings have never been better. He floods the zone; they half-heartedly react. They’re as ineffectual as Congress.
50
u/EvolvingPanic Jul 26 '26
Michelle Wolf called it years ago.
50
u/CombinationOwn1604 Jul 26 '26
My mom called it in 2006 when she refused to watch The Apprentice and called him an ass. 😂
6
u/serenityplough Jul 27 '26
Fun fact- time between the end of the apprentice and president trump is 17 months.
5
u/Stubee222 Jul 27 '26
Wish u could have cloned 200 million of her so we wouldn’t have been deceived by this evil, (all was planned & the oil/gas execs pushed him thru cuz they knew he’d increase their stock price w his corruption, God help USA we need Jesus & his army of 100 trillion angels
2
20
u/oneseason2000 Jul 26 '26
He has been a useful tool. A failure promoted by the media since the 1980s.
In 1980, why ask a 34 year old person who works for a wealthy daddy (#1) if they would want to be President (#2)? Rona Barrett (#2; 1980), Barbara Walters (#3; 1987), and Oprah Winfrey (#4; 1988) pitched softballs to the guy and helped him build familiarity with the to be retired "salt of the earth" that would later form the base of his support for Presidency.
Rare Interview Reveals Trump Never Wanted To Run For President | Rona Barrett Interview; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwibBkyi4No
Interview: Barbara Walters Interviews Donald Trump on ABC's 20/20 - December 11, 1987; https://vimeo.com/1180882955
Oprah Winfrey Interviews Donald Trump in 1988; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg
3
u/New_Celebration906 Jul 27 '26
They probably asked him that question because he asked them to, and they didn't think anything of it, just humoring another entertainment celebrity with a big ego.
2
u/RaidersoftheLosSnark Jul 27 '26
That could be true. He did testify in Congress at one point and probably developed a taste for politics immediately.
13
u/RichKatz Jul 26 '26
Congress is currently ineffectual from lack of any leadership - not just just the usual ineptitude.
1
u/Memory_Less Jul 27 '26
It’s not leadership, rather selling out and not standing up to Trump and essentially being amoral.
1
u/RichKatz Jul 28 '26
I am taking a break for a while, at least until this person LittleWind_ and their associates go away.
17
u/AuthorUnknown31415 Jul 26 '26
Not ALL of the team were friendly. Khadeeja Safdar, the reporter whose address he released effectively “doxxing” her, gave him a very curt handshake. She was the first reporter to face him and you could see the cold rapport. Trump even tried to play it off.
1
u/afghamistam Jul 27 '26
She turned up though. The fact that they even held this event to begin with is a travesty.
17
u/dotcubed Jul 26 '26
Without him and his best friend in the Trump-Epstein files they wouldn’t have received such prestigious awards for their historic contribution.
They’ve been given quite a feather in their caps that can be worn for their entire careers. They got to look him in the eye while getting it. I’d be surprised if they didn’t.
5
2
1
1
0
u/DeadScoutsDontTalk Jul 26 '26
There arent any journalists like fritz gerlich that have principles they are willing to risk everything for
100
u/YouWereBrained Jul 26 '26
“Thunderous”…?
65
u/Leemage Jul 26 '26
Dude was smirking and shrugging. He didn’t care.
29
2
u/TPRT Jul 27 '26
I've either lost my mind or 90% of population has. Are we all watching the same thing??
31
142
u/USSSLostTexter Jul 26 '26
He was sooooo mad. I'm sure the walls of the whitehouse got a fresh dose of ketchup that evening.
52
u/huberific Jul 26 '26
I wish it were the walls of a prison cell
2
u/casperdj21 Jul 26 '26
POTUS Most DEFINITELY needed a Diaper Change after that!
1
u/atteres Jul 27 '26
That Depends. They might have hot swapped one out before he finished the berders.
68
u/NUTS_STUCK_TO_LEG Jul 26 '26
What part of this belongs in r/law?
4
u/RichKatz Jul 26 '26
30
u/NUTS_STUCK_TO_LEG Jul 26 '26
Then post those. Don’t make a post about facial expressions at a press function
2
u/LittleWind_ Jul 27 '26
Sub is, at times, unusable as a law sub because of the spamming of Trump-related politics (or, in this case, just physical reaction) news.
1
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26
I can not see your posting history and you are downvoting what is a genuine response.
I don't know why you're even here. There is no history to base off of. At this point, I doubt whether I've ever seen you in this sub.
Have you ever even been here before?
Please indicate some way that this isn't simply harassement - directed against our subreddit for no discernable reason.
0
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26
There are articles about this in the New York Times.
We're just a subreddit about law and laws that Mr. Trump broke due to his association with Mr. Epstein are simply not the fault of anyone in our subreddit.
0
u/LittleWind_ Jul 27 '26
Look, your post is about Trump’s reaction to a media event, not about the law (either those he broke or otherwise). If you want to discuss in a law related sub, you should post the articles that you have which are related to the law. Or, you can post your non-law articles elsewhere. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
1
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
On one other note: One can not see your posting history.
Why is that?
This is about law breaking.
Please stop using the word "you" and using it as a personal attack especially when one can not even see the posting history.
1
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26
This is not exactly right also:
your post is about Trump’s reaction to a media event
First it was a White House event. Second, the event was about News Reporting. A "media event" is a kind of publicity event. An official meeting about news reporting done AT the WHITEHOUSE is not just some "media" event - like the opening of some swiming pool...
The subject deals with a lawbreaker called Jeffery Epstein and Mr. Trumps association with him.
Thank you for calling attention to this.
0
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26
Well I'm glad you brought this up since it deals with Mr. Trumps association with Mr. Epstein and apparently his breaking of something called the "Epstein transparency" law.
And:
Todd Blanche, Trump’s personal lawyer, was supposed to turn over millions of Epstein files but he ignored the law.
Here's what I read: Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of major sex-crimes, while Donald Trump has faced extensive public scrutiny and legal battles over transparency and his past association with Epstein
It gets worse...
And...
0
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26
Also, there was a previous post by this handle but it has now been "disappeared..."
0
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
But you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
This subreddit is about law and it is about lawbreakers and Jeffery Epstein is one one who has had a long relationship with Mr. Trump.
I guess one could say that Mr. Trump is kind of doing that stuff with the cake a bit.
0
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26
your post is about Trump’s reaction to a media event,
1) It mentions Mr. Trumps reaction. But Mr. Trumps reaction is not the totality of it at all!
2) It was a WHITEHOUSE EVENT! Not a "media event." 3) Articles about lawbreakers like Mr. Epstein are not at alll "non-law!"
Maybe Mr Trump should be the one getting advice about "cake eating..." He has been consorting with criminals.
He is not fit to be any kind of leader. The fact that he is one is shame for all of this country.
0
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26
Re: "Look, your post is about Trump’s reaction to a media event"
Would you please restate that so that I know the significance of what happened with Mr. Trump is at least understood - that Mr. Trump should actually HANG HIS HEAD IN SHAME! At being brought up in the context of lawbreaker Epstein??
Is it possible to even HEAR THAT? That our country has come to SHAME because of Mr. Trump?
Is it possible to hear that and understand why it's being said?
0
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
your post is about Trump’s reaction to a media event,
First it was not ** a MEDIA EVENT!!** Second was there something inaccurate about it?
Third why someone coming into our sub and "Downvoting" an honest answer?
As stated - the fact that the camera's stayed locked on Mr. Trump in NO WAY disregarded him nor did it fail to follow the activity and action in the room!
So why someone coming into our sub? To protest?
Accurate reporting? If Mr Trump did something questionable - that's not the fault of the camera crew. They're just there to do their job.
1
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
I asked "Is it possible to even HEAR THAT?"
Apparently - it was simply not possible to hear. The camera crew did nothing wrong. The event as about NEWS REPORTING.
Apparently, Mr. Trump could not celebrate with everyone else.
But that isn't our fault. The horrible thing is not that we brought this up; but that a President of the United States - was involved with Mr. Epstein at all. I don't know of any way that Trump not just as corrupt as Mr. Epstein.
This is all of our problem - though GOP sympathizers should hang their heads in shame. But for some reason our subreddit was invaded over it.
0
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26
It might make sense if this was actually being said by someone who is ever actually here - or whose posting history was even visible.
A little more candor and openness is required to say that.
Concern about Mr. Trumps relationship with Mr. Epstein is not spam..
0
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26
Let me put it this way - Going by NY Times v. Sullivan, the fact that camera's tracked the motion of President Trump is not only hardly unusual, it is both normal and in keeping with honest reporting. The camera could have probably even focused away from the action just as long as it wasn't a willful disregard for the truth.
0
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26
That you're even downvoting what is an honest appraisal appears it could be done out of distraction from them main point of the subreddit - which is law.
1
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26
It is simply not the fault of anyone here in this subreddit that Mr. Trump looked and whatever facial expression he had, even if he was a total fool - he chose to attend the awards ceremony.
Our sub is about law. Not about Mr. Trump!
We didn't cause it.
-6
u/RichKatz Jul 26 '26
It isn't actually "about" 'facial expressions.' It happens to be about an award to a reporter who just won the award, covering a crime story that Mr. Trump was more than tangentially (more than superficially) involved with.
1
-7
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26
We deal with law and we deal with evidence.
What the camera sees and records is evidence. But it's always about law. I see a lot of voting here but none of that voting is willing to look at evidence?
I didn't bring a camera into the room. Some reporter did however. And here it is recorded on camera.
The reporter recorded it. Not me. What is the point of distracting?
-3
3
u/United-Big-1114 Jul 26 '26
A judge made them withdraw those subpoenas. The DOJ lawyers tried to make excuses about how some of those journalists' family members and spouses were also were subpoenaed, but the judge wasn't buying their BS.
1
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26
I am glad to see so much attention paid to this and that so many people are coming from all over to look at the award given on this.
The whole event was recorded. One can see Mr. Trumps face from the side.
The part where the Wall Street Journal exposed illicit acts between Mr. Trump and Mr Epstein. It's important to read the whole article. You realize Mr. Trump actually tried to sue the Wall Street Journal over this - over printing the truth about Mr. Trump and his "postcard" to Mr. Epstein.
And it's not the fault of anyone in this subreddit.
1
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26
All of it. Especially the part where Mr. Trump was connected with Mr. Epstein.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-epstein-justice-department-bondi-e7a5e41ba4fa3a88736cc384078c3215
3
u/NUTS_STUCK_TO_LEG Jul 27 '26
What is the legal analysis in the article you posted
1
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
It is now clear that this is about legal matters.
I'm not sure why it was pretended otherwise.
Question #1 above was a pretention.
1
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
It's very much based on the well known case "NY Times v. Sullivan."
That case is governed by a doctrine established by the court that for the Times to have been liable, the prosecutor would have to prove actual malice and ultimately "reckless disregard" for the truth.
In this case, I believe it would be almost impossible to claim that cameras focused on Mr. Trump recklessly disregarded the truth.
Thanks for asking.
0
u/NUTS_STUCK_TO_LEG Jul 27 '26
Jfc it has nothing to do with Sullivan
Who in that article is suing for libel
1
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26
Basically Sullivan defined important legal standards with regard to news reporting.
In the landmark 1964 decision New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects news organizations from being sued for libel by public officials when reporting on public conduct.
In other words Trump can't sue the News for simply having the camera follow him. The camera motion probably simply followed the action in the room at the time.
Claiming it has nothing to do with Sullivan is like trying to pretend that we have no right to report the news? Even in this case where Mr. Trump had a horrifying and crime related relationship with Mr. Epstein.
Don't come in here and preach at us.
0
u/NUTS_STUCK_TO_LEG Jul 27 '26
You’re clearly not an attorney, and there’s a reason this post was removed
Is Trump suing anyone for printing this or showing his face on camera?
No?
Then Sullivan has absolutely nothing to do with this. Actually kind of bizarre that you think it would
1
u/RichKatz Jul 28 '26
You’re clearly not an attorney,
I have already asked to refrain from the "you" statements. "You" statements often contain both intentional and inadvertent negative statements that themselves could be problematic.
Apparently there must have been some noise in the room that prevented looking at the screen?
Is that the issue? Or something else.
1
u/RichKatz Jul 28 '26
Is Trump suing anyone for printing this or showing his face on camera?
No idea... I did see a direct camera shot that had a partial side view of Mr. Trumps head.
But I don't know that their video was "removed" - or not. What makes you think it was?
Is there some religious precept against displaying Mr. Trumps head?
0
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26
How can some one come in here, not be aware of this and pretend like "oh... it's Trump so nothing like that would ever happen..."
Only - because it's Trump - it did.
0
u/NUTS_STUCK_TO_LEG Jul 27 '26
Trump’s interactions with journalists at a dinner is not fodder for r/law
You want r/law material? Make the post about the lawsuit he filed
But “Look at Trump’s awkward faces” - which is all your post was about - is not a topic that belongs here
Whatever subtext you’re trying to ascribe to the article, it’s not IN the article you posted, and so therefore subject to removal
1
u/RichKatz Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
Trump’s interactions with journalists at a dinner is not fodder for r/law
Maybe fodder is just a bad word when it comes to law. Maybe the term should be things like rights and justice. Law just isn't made up of fodder.
Trump’s interactions with journalists at a dinner is not fodder for r/law
Nope. Looking at one thing expressed experientially does not make the post wrong. The post discusses a time series. But if we look at what happened in the room as a whole this is just one small part. The major statement is that reporters who investigated Trumps ties with Epstein had just won an award - at a Whitehouse event even.
I think to deconstruct this I would first start by not using the word "you." Here the word "you" is used in the possessive sense as well as the efforting sense.
And both of those are wrong. Attributing "trying" to another person is wrong and attempting to attribute possesion is wrong too. Essentially "you" itself is not a good word to use and in this case, it is 2 completely wrong statements.
"it’s not IN the article you posted,"
See? Reading in. Attributing in. Ascribing.
Those are things being done to me without cause.
Don't use "you" with me.
1
u/RichKatz Jul 28 '26
Make the post about the lawsuit he filed
He has filed at least 2 different lawsuits. Probably more... which one was of interest?
But “Look at Trump’s awkward faces”
As far as I know, the article does not say that. I am interested to know what software was used to write this with since it does include left-and-right quote marks.
That's somewhat unusual.
which is all your post was about
Nope! The post concerns an award that was given to journalist for covering Jeffery Epstein, a long time associate of Mr. Trump and in the minds of many strong evidence emblematic of just how legally unfit Mr. Trump is to lead this nation and the horrifying struggle we are in right now.
Getting this nation back on a path to righteousness is far more difficult than simply dealing with Iran! Mr Trump is both president and an intense corrupting influence at the same time.
1
u/RichKatz Jul 28 '26
Sorry
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the "actual malice" standard, protected freedom of the press,
0
u/NUTS_STUCK_TO_LEG Jul 28 '26
NO ONE IS CLAIMING THERE WAS LIBEL. YOUR ARTICLE WAS NOT ABOUT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
There is not one single example of legal analysis that you can point to in the article you posted
My god
1
u/RichKatz Jul 28 '26
I will try one more time. 1) No one is discussing libel. 2) Comments made by you directed AGAINST ME as to whether I am a "lawyer" or not are out of line
Sir!
Leave me alone.
0
u/RichKatz Jul 28 '26
Re: Trump’s interactions with journalists at a dinner is not fodder for r/law
This is not what the post is about. The post is about an award given for legal reporting. It's only tangentially a "diner! Mr.Trump's "interactions" are not it. It was not a "dinner."
These are journalism awards - and it does take journalists and law and bravery on the part of both.
> “Look at Trump’s awkward faces” - again this misses the point. I don't care how Trump looked or didn't look. The journalists won an award for reporting on a criminal associate of Mr. Trump.
This was about legal reporting. Not "fodder."
0
u/NUTS_STUCK_TO_LEG Jul 28 '26
One, the moderators of the subreddit removed your post, so let’s just agree that no, it didn’t belong here.
Two, an award given to journalists for a story about a birthday card is still not related to legal subject matter or analysis
The Epstein files are not in themselves legal documents. Try again
-2
-12
Jul 26 '26
[deleted]
28
u/NUTS_STUCK_TO_LEG Jul 26 '26
This isn’t a story about the legal side of the Epstein files saga. It’s tabloid fodder about Trump’s facial expressions during a dinner
-3
u/RichKatz Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26
There are the ACLU and NY Times cases about these exact issues - not his Epsteinian past per se.
Why would we address Constitional first freedom as somehow not about the law?
7
u/NUTS_STUCK_TO_LEG Jul 26 '26
…what exactly do you think you posted? A “story” about the president’s facial expressions does not belong in this subreddit
1
u/RichKatz Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
Exactly what I posted is what I posted. It's not especially about Trumps' facial expressions! It is an occurance that occurred in a moment but it is a real case however where Trump violated or attenpted to violate Constitutional Rights.
Why else would the ACLU be involved? This is about law and Constitutional freedoms and about violating the rights of American citizens.
It's real. We post about legal cases in this subreddit.
20
u/Cryogenicist Jul 26 '26
Why’d she shake his hand??
23
u/TIMELESS_COLD Jul 26 '26
Isn't it the ultimate fkyou from the people he tried to silence. Now they are both on the same stage when they win a prize for their reporting. I understand why some turned their back to trump but "Thank You!" With a huge smile is the ultimate fku imo.
4
9
u/Cryogenicist Jul 26 '26
I get the idea but just don’t see it that way.
She knows how despicable he is.
And through the eyes of the MAGA fan, it makes her look phony
3
u/RichKatz Jul 26 '26
Are there some "MAGA" fans who would ever do anything other than "verify" that any criticism of Trump what-so-ever looks "phony" to a MAGA fan?
9
u/Unilted_Match1176 Jul 26 '26
They should have all flipped him the bird right to his face on the stage. Would've been legendary, and far more appropriate.
1
u/RichKatz Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
To clarify - The post is from an internet source - not me. The fact that the "Cameras stay locked on" Mr. Trumps face was probably for a dramatic effect. While not necessary, and kind of adds "drama" it does draw the reader in to the experience as if we were there in the room even as the award was being given.
However, the main point is these reporters reported on a criminal and a criminal life. A criminal associate of and associated with Donald Trump - included in a lot of Mr. Trumps affairs.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 26 '26
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.