Call Judge Jeanine Pirro

I’ve been getting a bit gloomy about the presidency of Donald Trump recently. The media coverage of him seems to be nothing but Russia, Russia, Russia, Impeach, Russia. And even people outside the MSM are saying that the presidency has been taken over by Goldman Sachs and the US General Staff. They say he’s become isolated in the White House, unable to do things the way he used to before he became president, and was now surrounded by aides who leaked everything to the media the minute he left the room. Trump had been completely neutralised. The Deep State was in command. Yes, Trump was still in the White House, and he still thought he was president, but really he had been pretty much reduced  to sitting on the floor playing with bricks while the adults got on with the job of screwing the American people and starting the next war.

The low point came when I read Ann Coulter, author of In Trump We Trust, in the Daily Mail:

Ann Coulter has admitted that, four months into the Trump presidency, she’s worried that her favorite candidate’s administration is a bust.

Coulter – who last year published the book In Trump We Trust – has told The Daily Caller that she is beginning to doubt Trump’s ability to pull off his promised changes.

Likening his presidency to a man who promised to drive to LA, but then started heading to New York, she says there is still a chance for him to ‘turn the car around’.

It had all looked so good for a month or two, but now it was over. And the same gloomy message was coming from Alex Jones and Michael Savage. Trump had set out to Drain The Swamp, but instead he’d been sucked into it.

But then last night I watched Judge Jeanine Pirro interviewing Trump in the White House about five days ago:

And a different picture emerged. Here was a president who looked and sounded assured, in command, presidential, talking face-to-face with someone who was clearly a personal friend of his.

They talked about Russia, and about Comey, and lots of other stuff, but two things stuck out for me.

Firstly, Trump is contemplating stopping having White House press conferences in which his press secretary Sean Spicer “gets beat up”, and which get high TV ratings. Instead he’s thinking of putting out a daily printed statement.

I’ve seen one or two of these press conferences, and it’s a bear pit, with almost all the questions being about Russia. I think it’s a great idea to simply stop having them, and take the ratings away from the TV channels, and control what comes out of the White House. So I hope he does that.

And secondly I heard (25:30 minutes in), for the very first time, that Trump had, “within one minute”, got Egypt’s general Al-Sisi to agree to release young Aya Hijazi (and 8 other prisoners) from 30 or 40 year prison sentences – something that Obama administration had been trying unsuccessfully to do for 3½ years. There was even footage of her (right) with Trump in the White house. I had heard of Aya on and off over the past few years, and now she’d been released, and I’d heard nothing about it. When did that happen? A bit of investigation told me that it happened on or about 16 Aprilover a month ago. Why hadn’t I heard? Because the media go on about Russia, Russia, Russia, the whole time, and don’t report these stories. How did Trump manage it? He probably managed it because he knows how to make deals, and make them very quickly. It’s what he’s been doing all his life, and what Obama has never done.

Anyway, I learned much more in the few minutes that Trump talked to Judge Jeanine Pirro than I had in the past month about what Trump had been doing. Because all I’ve been hearing is Russia, Russia, Russia. Not because I spend any time at all watching or reading the MSM, but because the alt-right online media that I do watch and read have spent their whole time responding to the MSM, so they didn’t report Aya either.

In the interview Judge Jeanine Pirro was asking Trump how they were going to get their message out in the face of a hostile media. But she was showing how to do it while she was asking the question. Because through her I’d learned about not just Aya, but also the natural gas and cattle deal that had been done with China, the visit of the Ukrainian foreign minister, price cuts on airplanes, the detention of “thousands” of MS-13 gangsters, and the signing of 32 Bills (all of it news to me).

So as far as I’m concerned, the very best thing Donald Trump could do would be to stop having MSM-dominated press conferences, and thereby crash the ratings of the hostile TV companies, and instead just call in Judge Jeanine Pirro every couple of weeks to talk face to face with him in the cabinet room of the White House.

And I’m feeling optimistic about Trump again.


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Call Judge Jeanine Pirro

  1. nisakiman says:

    The comment I left just a short while ago under your last post would have been more relevant under this one, really, since it was about how the MSM shape the narrative.

    I think you’re right. Trump should cut the press out of the loop. They are almost without exception antagonistic to his presidency, and will only report on what will be detrimental to him and his administration. Hence the tone and content of the questions from the press at the press conferences – like a pack of wolves baying for blood.

    Just as the MSM will only publish articles detrimental to smokers. Regardless of any new information that may come to light, it’s guaranteed that only that information that suits the Tobacco Control agenda will grace the pages of the MSM. Anything running counter to the decreed narrative will be suppressed.

  2. Emily Wieja says:

    Very interesting. I tend to basically ignore any stories about Trump in the MSM but your point that the alt-right has spent their time responding to the MSM, and thus also hasn’t reported any positive stories, is an interesting one and one we could learn from. We should spend more time touting the benefits and pleasure of smoking and less responding to tobacco control even in the face of overwhelming insanity and restrictions.

    • Vlad says:

      Very good point. We get so bogged down in the last TC insane measures or debating ‘dangers’ of SHS that all the BS regarding active smoking becomes a given and goes unchallenged.

  3. beobrigitte says:

    I’ve been getting a bit gloomy about the presidency of Donald Trump recently. The media coverage of him seems to be nothing but Russia, Russia, Russia, Impeach, Russia.
    Has there ever been non-gloomy media coverage about Donald Trump since he announced he was campaigning for replacing Obama?
    I can’t shed the feeling that I am looking at childish behaviour here. One child decides another is not wanted in the group and all gang up on the one until he/she admits defeat and leaves. Not very productive, is it?

    Am I sure of President Trump? I don’t know. But looking at the negative media cover he gets, he may be breaking a mold. Perhaps this is what needs to happen.

  4. waltc says:

    One problem is that Trump keeps feeding the snake with his tweets and his contradictory statements, often within hours. (The reason he fired Comey changed four times w/i 24.) Relatively pleased with what he’d been actually doing, not believing the Russia Russia stuff, and more than aware that tne long knives were out for him from every direction and to the point of insanity, I was staying calm. Then I read this verbatim interview with him in The Economist which seemed to justify David Brooks’ comment that Trump’s wandering and unfocussed thoughts had no more meaning than ” ‘six fruitflies randomly buzzing in a jar.” I still have hopes for what he might yet accomplish, but this gives me serious pause. See what you think:

    And btw, no word (yet?) that the federal housing dept is going to overturn the ban on smoking in federally-subsidized housing, and a bill to ban smoking, indoors and out, at all Veterans hospitals is moving apace through our congress

    • Frank Davis says:

      David Brooks’ comment that Trump’s wandering and unfocussed thoughts had no more meaning than ” ‘six fruitflies randomly buzzing in a jar.”

      That’s a pretty standard sort of shot that’s taken at Trump. Things like that have been being said ever since he announced his presidential candidacy. The same people were saying he’d never be nominated, and then that he’d never win. They were all wrong. He outsmarted them all.

      As for the Economist interview, I see that Mnuchin was agreeing with Trump throughout.

      The VA hospitals thing is more serious. And so is the federal housing smoking ban. If those both happen I’ll think less of Trump. But then, who in government anywhere in the world is against smoking bans? And who even in the alt-right is against smoking bans? It just tells me that we smokers are on our own. But I already knew that.

      • waltc says:

        Agree that Brooks’s snide comment is typical of the general media-academia-Hollywood barrage and that he might have, and likely did, say it from the moment Trump announced his candidacy. I never took it seriously but unfortunately, for me at least, reading the Economist piece gave it some credence. i guess it’s all in the ear of the beholder but to me Trump wanders all over the place just blatting words –or in that great turn of phrase, making word salad–, and Mnuchen seemed to be like Ed McMahon to Johnny Carson, a dutiful Yes man–in fact, all he ever seemed to say, when invited on cue, was “yes.” But then again may it’s an audio Rorschack.

        • Frank Davis says:

          to me Trump wanders all over the place just blatting words

          Like Cassius Clay wandered all over the place, punching. But other people might say that he actually “floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee”. And that’s why he’s the champ.

          Trump is a moving target. He’s always shifting his position. He’s highly mobile. But he can also land telling blows on the likes of “low energy” Jeb, “lying” Ted, and “crooked” Hillary.

  5. smokingscot says:

    This lot’s actually done a study on exactly this phenomenon – and display their findings in easy to understand graphs. Some German news agency gets the prize for total negativity. (Similar to their reporting on Brexit).

  6. Frank Davis says:

    This looks interesting. A discussion in which the sort of things that Facebook and Twitter and YouTube do to influence their users.

    Andre Torba from Gab Media which Roger Stone says is “an alternative conservative media organisation” with new TV and streaming features (from about 12:30 mins in).

    Torba: “We don’t want to act like Big Brother to decide what you as the user should and should not see.”

    • Clicky says:

      • Frank Davis says:

        Another good reason not to vote Conservative.

        Theresa May is planning to introduce huge regulations on the way the internet works, allowing the government to decide what is said online.

        Particular focus has been drawn to the end of the manifesto, which makes clear that the Tories want to introduce huge changes to the way the internet works.

        “Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet,” it states. “We disagree.”

        Also Breitbart:

        Conservative ‘Extremism’ Plan to Crack Down on Free Speech Both On and Offline

  7. I think that part of what’s happening with the reporting on Trump is the success of an antismoking-style campaign of flooding the media with so many varied ‘studies’ (i.e. attacks in this case) that the media begins reporting any new events as simply adding to the “mountain of existing evidence” (while forgetting that a lot of the building blocks in that ‘existing evidence’ may have been disputed or outright shown to be nonsense.) As Nisakiman noted above, the MSM shape the narrative.

    We’ve seen this problem here in our own political arena as secondhand smoke’s “reality” as being “more dangerous than smoking itself” has pretty much been set in today’s news stories as a scientific “given” simply to be mentioned as background. Same deal with the “400,000 deaths from smoking each year” and the “50,000 deaths from secondhand smoke.” New stories, as they come up, are simply set upon those foundational stones and thus seem to have actual power behind them… even to the point perhaps of slipping by the journalistic defenses of people like Coulter/Savage/Whoever that might normally be skeptical.

    Re cancelling press conferences. I can’t pin down the precise memory, but I’m fairly certain that a US President in the not too-far past pretty much did something like that. I’m not sure it was a cancellation of all press conferences though: it might have just been ones where the Prez himself got up to the podium.

    – MJM

    • Frank Davis says:

      I think that if the established “mainstream” media are more or less a monopoly, then they can define “the message” to be whatever they like. And right now it just happens to be simultaneously antismoking and anti-Trump. I think it’s interesting that Trump seems to be having the same problems we are in getting heard.

      • Not so much a monopoly in the classic sense of the word, i.e. a force acting together under a director or directorate. In the opening to “Brains” I talked about the difference between a “Conspiracy” and a “Perfect Storm” and, as outlined at I characterized the Antismokers as acting in the latter sense: different people and groups with different motivations and goals, all of which, inconveniently for us, all happened to be moving in the same direction.

        The members of the MSM have two main goals and a smaller third goal.
        The first main goal of course is ratings — which equate to advertising dollars which in turn equate to salaries and benefits for their staffers.
        The second main goal is prestige — to be seen as “the best, the first, the most interesting, and the most accurate” — with the “accurate” part sadly at the tail end most of the time.
        The third goal is actually an extension of the second: the accuracy. I believe that *most* members of the media actually have at least *some* commitment to the idea of reporting “the truth”… i.e. reporting the news accurately. This parallels a fair segment (unfortunately small) of the scientific research segment of the antismoking community: accuracy and truth are seen as desirable — but not if they get in the way of the all-important goal, “saving millions of lives” by eradicating smoking through the proper creation, positioning, and interpretation of their research results.

        If antismoking research results turn out to be ones that might encourage people to smoke or, in parallel and just as bad, encourage the reduction of the taxes that fund the grants that antismoking researchers have built their reputations, careers, and lives around… well, at that point the results need to be changed, either statistically, or by changing the sampling parameters, or by outright manipulating an entire study design from the ground up until it produces something that will be within the overall goal structure and pleasing to the grant-givers. It’s not all that different from the days when Big Tobacco handed out multi-millions to researchers, except that in today’s case there’s a strong extra incentive involved since the researchers can absolve themselves of any guilt associated with results-fiddling: after all, “It’s For The Greater Good.”

        And if a news story is boring or is one that flies in the face of what most folks seem to currently believe, it’s time to go back over that story, liven it up, bring it more into line with something that the other media outlets won’t ridicule, and salve their consciences by telling themselves they’re engaging in “responsible reporting.”

        It actually works BETTER than a Conspiracy or even a Monopoly… because it’s the political media equivalent of Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” guiding what directions the media will take at any given time on any given major story. Like a flock of birds they’ll all tend to turn almost simultaneously in the same direction… both because that’s the way the wind is blowing and also because they want to stay safely within the flock. Yeah, they’d like to be the FRONT bird in the flock, but it’s rare that any of them are going to be brave enough to break from the pattern while hoping the rest of the birds follow them: too much chance of getting separated entirely and dying alone.

        – MJM

        • Tony says:

          “It’s not all that different from the days when Big Tobacco handed out multi-millions to researchers”
          Serious question: Do you know of any published research, funded by so called “Big Tobacco”, that turned out to be biased, defective, false or fake?

        • nisakiman says:

          A good question, Tony, and one I would be interested to know the answer to.

          We all know the old advertisements about ‘Doctors recommend such and such brand because they’re milder on the throat’ or whatever, and the antis love to jump on those as ‘examples of the tobacco companies peddling lies’; but at the time those advertisements were being rolled out, there wasn’t, to my knowledge, any research results saying that tobacco is harmful; only the shrill admonitions of the antis of the day.

        • Rose says:

          I asked Doctor Siegel that same question, Tony. He had said that the tobacco companies were despicable and I asked for an example, no answer, so I think it’s an article of faith.
          I have read antismokers point to their despicable actions, but when you check the industry documents of the time.there is no scandal to be found.
          Perhaps the “despicable” action of the tobacco companies was repeatedly disagreeing with Anti-tobacco’s hysterical pronouncements.

          When you have to resort to trace elements in fertilizer like cadmium,or the arsenic used in apple orchards and tobacco crops as recommended by the US Department of Agriculture as a pesticide in 1923,you really have lost the argument against the plant.

        • Vlad says:

          Those ads from the ’30 and ’40 came from the advertising departments of tobacco companies, not from the scientifc ones(which were non existent). Nonetheless, they still contain more truth than the anti smoking ads of the CDC.

  8. Rose says:

    Oh how funny!
    Did you know that the black market was just a fiction cooked up by the tobacco companies?

    Debate re-emerges over cost as quit-smoking factor
    May 21, 2017
    “She was also sceptical of the theory tobacco was being stolen and traded on a black market.
    In a survey of 30 low-income smokers she had conducted last year, only one person had said they had ever bought or been offered illicit tobacco. (well they are hardly going to tell you,dear, are they?)

    “The people who are putting out the black market [theory] are tobacco companies.”

    I caught Hazel Cheesman saying something similar last night.

    I wonder what they were planning to do with these then

    Police seize 257,000 counterfeit cigarettes on M6 near Keele Services
    May 19, 2017

    Masked gang steal cigarettes after smashing through Co-op window in Earls Colne High Street
    http: //

    Hair-raising haul of counterfeit cigarettes up in smoke
    https: //

    Man held after 55,000 cigarettes seized
    http: //,man-held-after-55000-cigarettes-seized_22631.htm

    Every day it’s the same and these are only the ones who got caught.

    Prohibition by price will always create a black market, it always has before.

    A Smuggler’s Song

    IF you wake at midnight, and hear a horse’s feet,
    Don’t go drawing back the blind, or looking in the street,
    Them that ask no questions isn’t told a lie.
    Watch the wall my darling while the Gentlemen go by.

    Five and twenty ponies,
    Trotting through the dark –
    Brandy for the Parson, ‘Baccy for the Clerk.
    Laces for a lady; letters for a spy,
    Watch the wall my darling while the Gentlemen go by!

    Running round the woodlump if you chance to find
    Little barrels, roped and tarred, all full of brandy-wine,
    Don’t you shout to come and look, nor use ’em for your play.
    Put the brishwood back again – and they’ll be gone next day !

    If you see the stable-door setting open wide;
    If you see a tired horse lying down inside;
    If your mother mends a coat cut about and tore;
    If the lining’s wet and warm – don’t you ask no more !

    If you meet King George’s men, dressed in blue and red,
    You be careful what you say, and mindful what is said.
    If they call you ” pretty maid,” and chuck you ‘neath the chin,
    Don’t you tell where no one is, nor yet where no one’s been !

    Knocks and footsteps round the house – whistles after dark –
    You’ve no call for running out till the house-dogs bark.
    Trusty’s here, and Pincher’s here, and see how dumb they lie
    They don’t fret to follow when the Gentlemen go by !

    ‘If You do as you’ve been told, ‘likely there’s a chance,
    You’ll be give a dainty doll, all the way from France,
    With a cap of Valenciennes, and a velvet hood –
    A present from the Gentlemen, along ‘o being good !

    Five and twenty ponies,
    Trotting through the dark –
    Brandy for the Parson, ‘Baccy for the Clerk.
    Them that asks no questions isn’t told a lie –
    Watch the wall my darling while the Gentlemen go by !

    • Frank Davis says:

      “She was also sceptical of the theory tobacco was being stolen and traded on a black market.”

      Stands to reason, doesn’t it. Given that 70% of smokers are trying desperately to quit smoking, how could there possibly be a black market for tobacco? If you have an upsidedown view of the world, you have to turn facts on their head to fit them into your scheme of things.

      • Rose says:

        It’s hightime tht they were taken to task for lying to Parliament.
        Every stupid scheme they come up with goes wrong and costs the country money. Look at the pubs and hospitality generally.
        Social engineers of all types are a luxury we can no longer afford.

    • beobrigitte says:

      “The people who are putting out the black market [theory] are tobacco companies.”
      That leads people to come to the conclusion that headlines, such as
      “Police seize 257,000 counterfeit cigarettes on M6 near Keele Services
      May 19, 2017”.

      “Masked gang steal cigarettes after smashing through Co-op window in Earls Colne High Street”

      “Hair-raising haul of counterfeit cigarettes up in smoke”

      “Man held after 55,000 cigarettes seized”

      have been put out by tobacco companies as well? REALLY????

      It’s rather amusing to discover that the anti-smokers’ frenzy appears to have led them to completely lose oversight in what they are doing.
      Given that 70% of smokers are trying desperately to quit smoking, how could there possibly be a black market for tobacco?
      I am very much looking forward to an explanation!

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.