Headlines that signal that the story will be misleading and/or stupid

[Meadmaker]

Guess we'll see. Hmmm, is that the same source article you were complaining about?

No. Mine was from Salon.

The Forbes article headline was slightly sensational, with "bombshells", but it was mitigated by "could". Other than that, it was more or less accurate, saying that new stuff was coming.

The Salon headline had lots of hallmarks of an upcoming stupid or misleading article. It reference "legal experts". "Expert" in today's headlines almost always means some variation of "insignificant person who I'm throwing in to claim an air of authority". The headline also had the out of context "It will be powerful". It's all different ways of manipulation. The headline begs the question, asserting that this is very important before even saying what it is, but the article itself has nothing but bare assertion to back it up.

Despite what "could" happen, Smith's filing will be a yawner. Lengthy, repackaged, already known, material. It has to be filed because it's part of the criminal case, but I am very confident there won't be "bombshells".

[President Bush]

Despite what "could" happen, Smith's filing will be a yawner. Lengthy, repackaged, already known, material. It has to be filed because it's part of the criminal case, but I am very confident there won't be "bombshells".

I dunno... if Smith is able to show attempting to overturn the results of a presidential election is not an official act, and along the way the judge allows the evidence Smith's case shows to become available to the public - in other words if voters soon see that brief - Trump will lose the election.

That's the way it looks to me. Don't give a shit if somebody wants to call that a bombshell.

[Meadmaker]

Despite what "could" happen, Smith's filing will be a yawner. Lengthy, repackaged, already known, material. It has to be filed because it's part of the criminal case, but I am very confident there won't be "bombshells".

I dunno... if Smith is able to show attempting to overturn the results of a presidential election is not an official act, and along the way the judge allows the evidence Smith's case shows to become available to the public - in other words if voters soon see that brief - Trump will lose the election.

(Emphasis added)


I don't see it that way. I'm pretty sure there will be nothing new of any significance in that brief. I don't see why anyone would change their mind about him based on evidence of what happened, either on January 6, or in any of his post-election activities. Either they already know, or they don't care. Either way, it will change no minds.

In fact, if anything, I think it will be a bonus for Trump. Undecided voters are undecided precisely because they either do not think he committed any crime, or they think whatever crimes he may have committed were no more than technical violations that don't warrant prosecution. An attempt at prosecution will seem unjust to them, and will generate sympathy. It will be seen as a political stunt to generate votes, or as an attempt to silence an opponent with phony crimes. Of course, our team won't see it that way, but we aren't undecided voters.

If there were truly anything "bombshell" oriented in that brief, it would have been leaked by now.

At least, that's the way I see things. My prediction of what happens is that the brief either gets filed, or leaked. The voters see it, and there will be something that writers at Salon and MSNBC will look at that could have multiple interpretations, and they will insist that obviously this newly revealed conversation must have meant something very specific, which will prove Trump's guilt, and that only an idiot would ever think about voting him now that this has been released.

To which the undecided voters will respond, "Did you just call me an idiot?"

ETA: The only small sense of optimism I have related to this "bombshell evidence" is that there will be something in it that Trump feels compelled to respond to, and he'll say something stupid. That won't change a lot of minds, either, but we'll take what we can get.

[President Bush]

Either they already know, or they don't care. Either way, it will change no minds.

Already know what?

[stanky]

That he's a criminal and a jerk.
Got to agree with MM on this.
Trump's fans don't care about that stuff.
He could shoot someone in broad daylight and his base would love him more.
They want the apple-cart upset.
What they don't realize is that Trump is actually more of the same.
If he were an actual threat to deep power, he'd never have gotten this far.

Notice how the assassination attempts are already non-news, even though extremely 'fishy'.
And now he's selling $100,000 watches.
Fake Rolex's, i guess.

[Meadmaker]

Either they already know, or they don't care. Either way, it will change no minds.

Already know what?

They already know what he did in an effort to overturn the election results. If they don't know, it's because they have remained wilfully ignorant of the details. (i.e. They don't care.)

[President Bush]

Either they already know, or they don't care. Either way, it will change no minds.

Already know what?

They already know what he did in an effort to overturn the election results. If they don't know, it's because they have remained wilfully ignorant of the details. (i.e. They don't care.)

That is incorrect.

The only people who know what is in Smith's sealed brief are Smith/his team, the judge, and Trump/his team.

Remains to be seen how much of the evidence contained in that sealed brief will be revealed to the voting public in the coming few weeks.

That might help determine the election.

[Admin]

That might help determine the election.

Nope. Old news that will change nobody's mind.

[Meadmaker]

Already know what?

They already know what he did in an effort to overturn the election results. If they don't know, it's because they have remained wilfully ignorant of the details. (i.e. They don't care.)

That is incorrect.

The only people who know what is in Smith's sealed brief are Smith/his team, the judge, and Trump/his team.

Remains to be seen how much of the evidence contained in that sealed brief will be revealed to the voting public in the coming few weeks.

That might help determine the election.

Obviously, I cannot prove that there is nothing in that sealed brief that will change the election, because, well, it's sealed.

However, I'm extremely confident that there is nothing in that brief that will change the election.

I am almost as confident that we will see some or all of the contents at some point, probably before the election. When we do, left leaning journalists will trumpet that this spells the end of Trump's candidacy, or, if after the election, will say that it spells that he will be impeached for a third time, while the rest of the country yawns.

[President Bush]

They already know what he did in an effort to overturn the election results. If they don't know, it's because they have remained wilfully ignorant of the details. (i.e. They don't care.)

That is incorrect.

The only people who know what is in Smith's sealed brief are Smith/his team, the judge, and Trump/his team.

Remains to be seen how much of the evidence contained in that sealed brief will be revealed to the voting public in the coming few weeks.

That might help determine the election.

Obviously, I cannot prove that there is nothing in that sealed brief that will change the election, because, well, it's sealed.

However, I'm extremely confident that there is nothing in that brief that will change the election.

I am almost as confident that we will see some or all of the contents at some point, probably before the election.

Ask Hillary Clinton if she thinks James Comey’s bringing up Anthony Weiner’s laptop days before the 2016 election had any effect.

Prosecutors have said they intend to file a redacted version of the sealed brief and previously unseen allegations may well become very public in the final couple weeks before the election.

You have no idea what new evidence... such as from witnesses who refused to testify before any Congressional hearings, some citing executive privilege, who later did tesify before Smith’s grand jury or spoke with his investigators... yet you have a strong opinion that any new evidence from the sealed brief, won't amount to much.

Doesn't seem rational to me.