6 Likes
As he just imploded any defence his lawyers thought up?
2 Likes
If this is Kristen Welker’s Meet the Press Trump interview we’re talking about, I have to tip my hat to her. Yeah, the whole thing came off as chaotic as F, but there were these moments when Welker seemed as if she was intentionally tossing in “trigger” words and phrases to get Trump to blab.
Consider this: If you suspect the person sitting across from you is an egotistical pathological liar, but you want to see if you can get them to blurt the truth, maybe flinging questions built like a burning bag of dog poop is the best way to go about it.
Truth be told, Trump was locked into this reactive mode of answering questions. If a question of responsibility was raised, he would dodge. If it was suggested he was lame or lacking control, he would pivot to defend himself. Given that reactive nature, it’s a safe bet Trump is more likely to stomp on a burning paper bag on his door step than just dump water on it.
13 Likes
If the goal of the interview was to get Trump to blurt out statements that might hurt his legal strategy then she succeeded. If the goal of the interview was conducting actual journalism or leaving her audience better informed than they were before then she failed badly.
8 Likes
I think they were going for “torpedoes.”
@Brainspore I suspect at this point he could get these comments declared inadmissable on the grounds that no one can believe anything he says anywhere ever. The sounds he makes mimic sentences, but are not truth apt.
1 Like
And that is the thin-line argument that his attorneys can use in Trump’s defense.
1 Like
He’s an Orange Meanie!
2 Likes
“… Your Honor, no one as incoherent as my client could possibly be competent to stand trial” 
6 Likes
And they (attorneys, supporters, fans, etc.) will ignore it altogether when considering whether such a person ought to be (or have been) POTUS. “Well he’s not guilty, that’s good enough for me!”
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
