In a RawStory piece on a recent The Wall Street Journal editorial, “Donald Trump has lost the confidence of both of the major newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation.” The RawStory piece is called “‘Incitement by silence’: Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers blister Trump after J6 hearings” and can be linked to below.
“Under the headline, “The President Who Stood Still on Jan. 6,” The Wall Street Journal editorial board harshly criticized the former president.
‘No matter your views of the Jan. 6 special committee, the facts it is laying out in hearings are sobering. The most horrifying to date came Thursday in a hearing on President Trump’s conduct as the riot raged and he sat watching TV, posting inflammatory tweets and refusing to send help,’ the editorial board wrote.
‘The committee’s critics are right that it lacks political balance,’ the newspaper wrote. ‘Still, the brute facts remain: Mr. Trump took an oath to defend the Constitution, and he had a duty as Commander in Chief to protect the Capitol from a mob attacking it in his name. He refused. He didn’t call the military to send help. He didn’t call Mr. Pence to check on the safety of his loyal VP. Instead he fed the mob’s anger and let the riot play out.’
The editorial concluded, ‘Character is revealed in a crisis, and Mr. Pence passed his Jan. 6 trial. Mr. Trump utterly failed his.'”
There is really not much more to say except this is the paragon of conservative leaning publications in America and many of the folks who have testified under oath are, in fact, Republicans. Now, why would these folks do that, especially knowing they would be vilified by the former president and his sycophants?
musingsofanoldfart 
Get rid of all of them. Anyone who is still defending Trump, who doesn’t condemn him for what happened Jan 6 (& honestly, for his entire time in the WH), there should be a general purge & then people appointed who can general appropriately. Maybe that sounds like the Soviets but we are in a crisis & it’s about time we stopped acting like everything is normal.
Purging might be a little extreme. I do think people need to defend their position under questioning. Help me understand why you continue to support…. Help me understand why are Republicans testifying under oath…..And so on. I understand why some folks voted for Trump the first time against HRC as too many had issues with her. I do not understand why people voted for Trump again having seen him in the White House. What stymies me is why would anyone want to vote for a person a third time who instigated, aided and abetted an insurrection against our government. Keith
I’ll never understand why anyone would vote for him. Just the fact that no American bank would lend him money should have given everyone pause. And that was revealed before the 2016 election. But pretty sure not everyone knew this because “we” were all too worried about Hillary’s emails. My boss at the time (who is Republican) was going to vote for him for his, ahem, business acumen. But after the Access Hollywood thing happened she changed course. I still can’t believe she thought he had any business acumen!
Toby, true on the US banks not wanting to lend him money. Financial reporters that covered Trump’s business universally noted how poor a manager he was and is. He is actually a worse manager than I thought he would be, especially on vetting decisions before executing them. The travel ban was so poorly done, it was yanked in two days. Keith
Note to Readers: Presidential historians have voted the former president in the bottom five of all presidents. Their primary reasons were his failure to address the pandemic with his hoax calling which still lingers today AND by his instigation and incitement of an insurrection on our Capitol. But, this latest condemnation says, setting aside the first part – the Big Lie and insurrection instigation, his doing nothing to stop the riot reveals a callousness that rivals his pandemic hoax calling. Rather than do anything presidential, he just sat there and let people be in harm’s way. Then, we can add the Big Lie and instigation back in the mix and the picture it paints is beyond unflattering. It is also unflattering to those who still are white washing what happened in defense of this seditious acting person.
Do you think this moved the needle any on public perception of the Republican party or on tRump? Yes the paper has changed positions but what about the public and the republican voters? The last polls I seen were before the last hearing but it was a minuscule movement at best. Yes the report said some republican voters wanted a trump like person but not trump, but the polling still suggests if he ran trump would be who they would vote for. Hugs
Scottie, it has moved it. Did it change the MAGA folks’ minds, likely not? But it did change many. There is more license to speak out against him, yet it needs to be more. I think he no longer has enough fingers to stop the dyke from breaking. Keith
When you’ve lost Rupert Murdoch………..um…..I think I agree with Liz Cheney that the dam is beginning to burst. More of this please!!
Agreed. I just used the term dyke bursting with Scottie, before I saw this comment. I fully agree with Liz Cheney. It is not a very flattering position to be in to say you support the former president. Keith
There is no doubt in my mind that tRump, in his demented and maniacal mind, was certain his “plan” was going to succeed … so why would he make any effort to stop it?
As to the Murdoch group … like Scottie says, tRump’s supporters could care less. They see a god with orange hair that speaks their language … and that’s all they really care about.
Nan, yet it has made an impact. A key factor is more people feel they can criticize the former president with impunity. Right now, being a Trump supporter is not a very flattering position. Of course, he does have his hard core base. Keith
Okay, Rupert Murdoch’s print newspapers have officially condemned Trump, but my question is: Will Fox ‘News’ follow suit? I’m not holding my breath. Sadly, Fox has a much longer reach into the heart of magaland than The Wall Street Journal does. If Fox were to say what the WSJ editorial board has said, it might actually open some eyes and make a difference.
Jill, we need to segregate the opinion entertainers from the news folks. The former still has plenty of buckets of white paint, while the latter will likely speak out. It is akin to supporting Nero while Rome burns. The other group who needs to speak out is all the Sinclair Broadcasting stations. People lose sight of their clout. Keith
You make a good point. And also about Sinclair! I did a post on them a few years ago and took their local channel off my viewing list, but I’ve not kept up … time to follow up on that.
Jill, they are more stealthy in their approach. They require all of their stations to read the same editorial each day. The dilemma is people trust their local stations more. Maybe you could update your post. Keith
Last November, all three Sinclair stations here in Cincinnati were hacked and were partly off the air for a few days. I wonder … maybe somebody with a conscience who doesn’t like their ways? I’ll see what I can do about an update … thanks for reminding me!
Thanks Jill. Sinclair has too much influence and people have no idea they are seeing a biased message. Keith
I hope the rejection by Murdoch’s papers spells the beginning of the end for his chances of being nominated for 2024, but the deaf ears still won’t be listening come the midterms, which could spell the end for the Committee if it hasn’t finished by then. It is disingenuous of the MAGA crowd to claim that the Committee is biased when they chose not to support it.
Clive, I hope the WSJ message carries the clout it deserves. Yet, while you are right about it not getting through the bubble wrap of MAGA fans, it will reach some. As I mentioned it is becoming more unflattering to say you support the former president. When more start to feel that sensation, the dam will have burst. Keith
We can but hope, Keith!
Note to Readers: It is interesting to me when editorial writers finally get around to saying what we have been discussing for many months. Eugene Robinson’s recent editorial that appeared in my newspaper today noted that the truth around Donald Trump and his role in the insurrection is far worse than we may thought. I fully agree with that, but I also feel more than a few Republican leaders knew that as well and stayed largely silent. Yes, some said a few things here and there, but outside of Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, only a very few called the former president on the carpet for his seditious actions to rev up the insurrection and leaving people at risk when it hit the fan. He painted a target on people’s backs and sat back and watched. That is not even in the bailiwick of the definition of leadership.
Note to Readers: Headline from Bret Baier of Fox News:
“Fox News anchor Bret Baier slams Trump, saying January 6 hearings made him look ‘horrific'”
Note to Readers: Yet one more “tourist” on January 6, per the messaging of the former president, has pleaded guilty to lesser charges. Here is an excerpt from a Politico article today:
“One of two men charged with a role in the chemical spraying of a U.S. Capitol Police officer on Jan. 6, 2021, pleaded guilty on Wednesday to illegally entering the restricted area of Capitol grounds.
George Tanios pleaded guilty to two counts: entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, and disorderly or disruptive conduct on restricted grounds. As part of Tanios’ deal with the government, prosecutors dropped a handful of other charges against him, including assaulting officers with a deadly weapon.”
Call me crazy Mr. Trump but most tourists do not chemically spray law enforcement officers nor plead guilty when they do. It is yet one more of many examples of untruthful statements uttered by the former president before, during and after the January 6 insurrection.