Firebrand journalist and Starfish Media Group CEO Soledad O’Brien tore into the U.S. news media for allowing itself to get duped again and again by President Donald Trump and for making the metric of his performance whether or not he “sounds presidential.”
During a discussion of the fact that Trump never apologizes on Sunday’s edition of “The Point with Ari Melber,” O’Brien said it doesn’t matter that he never says he’s sorry because the news cycle moves so quickly that “if you can survive the original freakout that everybody has,” the news cycle will move on within two days and forget the incident ever happened.
Melber said that his question isn’t whether Trump can stay politically popular by never apologizing or admitting a mistake, but will it hinder his ability to effectively operate the machinery of government, pass legislation and function as a chief executive.
“It’s working,” O’Brien said. “It’s working, why would he change it?”
“I’m asking about governance,” Melber said. “Does it matter in his relationship to the intelligence community?”
“He only cares about, ‘Is it working,'” O’Brien said, seeming bemused that Melber still thinks Trump cares about getting job right. “I think it’s charming that you’re wondering if he’s going to transition into his responsibility as the leader of the free world.”
Donald Trump, she said, only thinks about apologizing “in terms of an optics question,” not about whether or not it makes him an effective leader.
Watch the video, embedded below:
Donald Trump sounds like a complete lunatic because he’s isolated himself in a far-right media bubble
Welcome to another edition of What Fresh Hell?, Raw Story’s roundup of news items that might have become controversies under another regime, but got buried – or were at least under-appreciated – due to the daily firehose of political pratfalls, unhinged tweet storms and other sundry embarrassments coming out of the current White House.
If you have an older relative who spends way too much time stewing in the conservative media, you may have experienced a moment when you not only disagreed with him, but you realized that you had no earthly clue what he was going on about. Perhaps it was when he started talking about the UN plot to eliminate golf courses and replace paved roads with bicycle paths. Maybe he stopped you in your tracks with a discourse on why flies were attracted to Barack Obama, or complained about the government insisting on referring to Christians as "Easter-worshippers" or expressed outrage over 9/11 hijackers being given leniency by Muslim jurists.
Trump’s claim impeachment ‘nullifies’ 2016 election blown up in new House Judiciary Committee report
On Saturday, the House Judiciary Committee released their report outlining the offenses committed by President Donald Trump, and the legal framework for impeachment — which clears the way for Congress to write and approve articles of impeachment against him.
One of the key issues examined by the report is the claim, repeatedly made by the president and his supporters, that impeachment would "nullify" the 2016 presidential election and the popular will — which is already a weak claim given that Trump never won the popular vote, and that impeaching Trump would still install Mike Pence as president. But the report more broadly rejects the entire claim that an election result immunizes a president from punishment for official misconduct.
READ IT: House Judiciary Committee releases report defining Trump impeachable offenses
On Saturday, the House Judiciary Committee released a report outlining the impeachable acts committed by President Donald Trump.
"Our President holds the ultimate public trust," said the report, titled "Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment," in its introduction. "A President faithful only to himself—who will sell out democracy and national security for his own personal advantage—is a danger to every American. Indeed, he threatens America itself."
The report clarifies the procedures for impeachment, analyzes whether president can be "impeached for abuse of executive powers," and "whether it is preferable to await the next election when a President has sought to corrupt that very same election."