CNN reporter: Biden camp focusing on ‘crazy s‑‑‑ that Trump says’
thehill.com
A CNN reporter used profane language during a live report Tuesday about President Biden’s campaign strategy as his campaign looks ahead to a potential general election showdown with former Pr…

A CNN reporter used profane language during a live report Tuesday about President Biden’s campaign strategy as his campaign looks ahead to a potential general election showdown with former President Trump.

“President Biden himself personally instructed at some of his top campaign aides to be even more aggressive in highlighting some of President Trump‘s more inflammatory and wild comments,” CNN reporter MJ Lee said live on CNN. “We‘re told that the thrust of the president‘s direction was to significantly ramp up the campaign‘s efforts to highlight the crazy shit that Trump says in public.”

Lee noted what she said the Biden campaign sees as “the black and white contrast” between the president and Trump.

Her “crazy shit” language is attributable to the sources who spoke with CNN about Biden’s direction to his campaign, as highlighted in a story she published on CNN.com.

  • TechLich@lemmy.world
    71·
    9 months ago

    They’ve almost certainly considered doing that but I suspect it’s a legal thing. Saying “Trump is a rapist” can be seen as claiming that “Trump was convicted of rape” which is not true so it gives them space to sue over a knowingly false defamatory statement (whether he’d win or not, it would be expensive and might halt the ads while it was being litigated)

    Saying “Trump was found liable in a civil sexual assault case” doesn’t have as snappy a ring to it and leaves Republicans saying bullshit like “well if he was really a rapist he’d be in jail/it’s just corrupt civil court judges trying to make him look bad.”

    But saying “look at this silly footage showing that Trump is a numpty. What a silly crazy clown man” is depressingly more effective at making swing voters not want to vote for him. “Trump is evil” works for people who know he’s evil but “Trump is a fool” works better for people who are willing to believe that the “evil” stuff might be overblown lies from his opponents’ smear campaigns.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      5·
      9 months ago

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

      https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.212.0.pdf

      From the pen of the judge who handed down the verdict:

      “The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

      He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

      Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”

      The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”

      Kaplan also flatly rejected the Trump team’s suggestion that the conduct Trump was found liable for might have been as limited as groping of the breasts.

      The reason? Trump was not accused of that, so the only alleged offense that would have qualified as “sexual abuse” was forced digital penetration. Beyond that, Trump was accused of putting his mouth on Carroll’s mouth and pulling down her tights, which Kaplan noted were not treated as alleged sexual abuse at trial.

      • TechLich@lemmy.world
        3·
        9 months ago

        Yep, 100%. It’s probably safe to call it like it is and he doesn’t have a great track record with lawsuits at the moment. That said, they might still just not want to take the risk if their research is showing that painting him as a fool who you wouldn’t want in the job is more effective with people who might change their minds.

      • TechLich@lemmy.world
        3·
        9 months ago

        There absolutely isn’t a good case and he’d probably lose because he’s a rapist, but there’s potentially enough wiggle room there that such a lawsuit might not get thrown out immediately which is potentially expensive and could get ads taken down while it proceeds.

        I could be wrong, maybe they do run ads based on the rape but they might not think it’s worth the risk for the reward if ridicule is more effective in their research.