(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
 . . . . . . . . . .



I reeeeeally hate it when networks use their reporters and anchors as experts [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags']

Date: 2023-04-06  

Today, the day after #45 was indicted, I figured I'd tune in good old MSNBC to see what they were reporting about the indictment of our disgraced former president. Turns out, it was time for the Chris Jansing "show."

I tuned in just in time to hear Jansing bring on "senior legal correspondent” Laura Jarrett, who came over from CNN several months ago to replace longtime MSNBC Washington guy Pete Williams. I groaned. Another example of one of my least favorite things about the news these days—using reporters and anchors as "ëxperts," which all too often they are not. Sometimes they have a good grasp of their subject matter, sometimes not. Today, ms Jarrett's offerings fell into the "not" category.

Jarrett offered legal analysis as though she herself knew the law thoroughly, citing no expert sources who have educated her—at least she didn't give any attribution for her conclusions. She simply offered what I see as her ill-taken opinions about the case brought by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. It seemed she was parroting the serious doubts about the case espoused by Joe Tacopina and a whole slew of media pundits and Republican politicians.

After saying the case has tons of facts and evidence of the financial shenanigans of #45, Jarrett went on to assert that “the issue is not evidence, the issue is the law.” I tend to agree with that. She also spoke about how what starts as 34 misdemeanor charges of records falsification have been “upgraded” to felony status. She pointed to the Bragg’s citation of tax issues as one crime that #45’s actions were trying to cover up. NY Penal code sec 175.10 says that in the case of the misdemeanor A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree (a felony) when he (sic) commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his (sic) intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission. Jarrett then offers the legal analysis that “the problem for him (Bragg) there is that the Trump Organization never took a tax deduction for the phony invoices.” Interesting theory.

Here is where I think we see the problem of using network correspondents as experts in areas that they cover. Regardless of her law degree from Harvard, it seems that she offered a pretty thin assertion of the only way "tax issues” could suffice as an underlying crime. It's hardly certain that the only ”tax crime” that will suffice to justify felony charges is for #45 to take an illegal tax deduction for the payments he made.

However, there seems to be at least some evidence suggesting that #45 was planning to do just that as a part of his plan to cover things up, but was later persuaded (by his accountants) NOT to take that deduction because it wasn't kosher. According to my own admittedly non-lawyer thinking, a crime probably occurred at the time the hush money deal was worked out--and tax manipulation by #45 was actually part of the plan-- they all agreed to a scheme which contemplated at least making false statements on tax returns. That's one possible "tax issue.”

Furthermore, the deal had #45 paying Michael Cohen waaaay more than the shady lawyer paid out to Stormy, with the idea that the extra $$$ would sweeten the pot for Cohen AND give him the funds to cover the taxes he would owe on the phony retainer—including a $60,000 bonus. In my book (income taxes used to be my profession), that's another "tax issue." I bet there's more.

Jarrett went on to describe that "local DA Bragg isn't the one who's authorized to enforce federal election laws” gambit so favored by Joe Tacopina. But apparently Bragg isn't prosecuting anyone here for election crimes. I have heard no one (who's not defending #45), including Andrew Weissman, or former federal prosecutor Paul Butler (who joined Jarrett on the Jansing show), suggest that covering up such a Federal crime does NOT meet the upgrade to felony requirements of NY's sec 175.10. Just after the arraignment, Bragg was asked by reporters why he hadn't charged those crimes—his response was rather coy. He suggested he wasn't going to reveal (at this time anyway) how they came to their decisions about which crimes to charge the disgraced (my word) former president with.

Paul Butler suggested the idea of using a Federal crime, or even a NY election law crime, for the State enhancement is a theory untested by the Courts and that Judge Merchan (or courts of appeal) would have to rule on it--and Jarrett was quick to agree. But the tenor of Jarrett's whole presentation seemed to be one of extreme dubiosity (what a terrible word!) about Bragg's case, not especially even-handed (something perhaps a journalist might be) and to me, borders on "both-siderism.”

Fan those flames! Raise those ratings!

Bragg's charging documents don't specify what actual criminal activity or concealment he would use at trial to justify charging #45 with all those felonies. That's likely because he doesn't have to do that yet--and convincing the media and/or the public that the felony charges are solid seems not to be at the top of his priority list. I'm gonna wait and see, because I believe Bragg knows what he's doing.

IMHO, MSNBC should stop or cut waaaay back on using reporters as experts, especially on tricky subjects in which they are clearly NOT expert. Blurring the lines between reporters and the expert or reliable sources they use just contributes to views that the media can be unreliable. IMHO.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/4/6/2162249/-I-reeeeeally-hate-it-when-networks-use-their-reporters-and-anchors-as-experts

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/