• criss_cross@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I know that media quality has gone down recently but this isn’t WSJ’s first rodeo. Even with conflicting interests from their boss Murdoch. I’m hoping they wouldn’t go with this story if there wasn’t more fuel to add to the fire.

    • KnitWit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      15 hours ago

      You don’t print that unless you’ve at least seen a copy, probably not without being able to show it as well. If somehow Murdoch has turned on him, he now can access discovery, which would be wild.

      • wheezy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        I don’t think it’s a turn. I think it’s like you said. They have hard evidence and even Murdock knows it’s better to keep that shit in house. Whoever the source is would have gone elsewhere. That’s not something that gets pushed under the rug.

        The source for this clearly can’t be paid off to stay quiet. Going to the WSJ first is absolutely on purpose.

        If I had to make a wild guess. Maxwell. Only person that would have a bombshell like this with hard evidence. I think it’s a warning shot too. I really doubt there isn’t more.

      • wheezy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Really? I thought it was weak for Trump. He usually is a lot better at forming a bit of a narrative around his lie. He seems a little scared and off to be honest.

        • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

          I just meant that the libel suit was predictable. Trump does seem shaken. I suppose that’s because this time the most fanatical of his followers are the outraged ones.