No announcement yet.

WaPo Yellow Journalist Busted Misrepresenting Emoluments Ruling

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WaPo Yellow Journalist Busted Misrepresenting Emoluments Ruling

    Washington Post’s Rubin Misrepresents Emoluments Ruling In Latest Trump-Fueled Gaffe

    Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin is being ridiculed for a column in which she claims that the “walls are closing in” on President Donald Trump. Critics have noted that in May 2017 Rubin declared the “walls are closing in” on Trump due to his firing of FBI Director James Comey. Then last October, she declared the “walls are closing in” due to impeachment. Now the walls are back as if this is one long struggle of transferred claustrophobic anxiety.

    The more important aspect however is not the fear of moving walls but the misrepresentation of the recent ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. We previously discussed how some have misrepresented the ruling, but Rubin, again, appears entirely untethered by any editorial (or ethical) requirements of accuracy. Rubin’s column is based on another misrepresentation of the underlying facts.

    Rubin is marketed as the Post’s “conservative opinion writer” despite a long array of controversial statements about both conservatives and Republicans. Most recently, Rubin declared Trump supporters to be as a group “primarily motivated by racism. This is why Trump does this.” It is not however Rubin’s ideological tendencies but her aversion to facts that that has repeatedly unleashed criticism across the political spectrum.

    Rubin often appears to write on cases or testimony that she does not actually read. This is a case in point, literally. As I wrote earlier, the Fourth Circuit opinion
    “The 9-6 opinion, below, however has been misrepresented or misunderstood by some. It is not a ruling on the merits but rather the technical standard for what is called an interlocutory appeal. It essentially blocks a Hail Mary play to shutdown the lawsuit. Nevertheless, the dissenting judges denounced the lawsuit as based on a “wholly novel and nakedly political cause of action.”

    The appeal to the Fourth Circuit turned on the question of when a litigant can take an interlocutory appeal, or an appeal taken before the resolution of issues or the merits has been reached by the district court.

    …In reality, for those who are seeking an exciting decision on foreign influence, this opinion will be something of a disappointment.”

    Rubin however was not “disappointed.” She, again, simply said what she hoped the opinion said rather than what it actually said in the same breathless “Trump is a goner” language. Such erroneous legal accounts seem to be eagerly embraced by the Post and other media outlets with no apparent fact checking.

    In her latest Post column entitled “A sweeping setback for Trump’s foreign business dealings,” readers are told that the “The full 4th Circuit repudiates Trump’s receipt of foreign emoluments.” Literally everything is wrong with those statements. The ruling was not a sweeping setback but a technical ruling on the availability of an interlocutory appeal. Indeed, even the majority noted that “Respondents press novel legal claims. But reasonable jurists can disagree in good faith on the merits of these claims.” Moreover the “full 4th Circuit” did not repudiate the Trump’s receipt of foreign emoluments. It expressly declined to rule on the merits and even that decision was a 9-6 split. Six judges excoriated the majority because they believed that the underlying theory was so unsupportable that it warranted immediate appellate review.
    Click title above for full article.

  • #2


    • #3