Commercial Voice (14:34)
Well, sure. And also, Nicole, one of the most obviously blatantly authoritarian autocratic impulses or tactics that we've seen. It's like, you know, the, the attack on the public right to know. The attack on truth itself is essential to propping up dictatorial, authoritarian, autocratic regimes. I would, I would say, you know, a couple, a few quick things. There are a couple, like, kind of categorical dichotomies I'd like to talk about. One of them is the difference between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0 is something we talk about a lot on this show. Here's a really good example of it. Trump 1.0. Trump railed against the press all the time, attacked a variety of journalists, including Don Lemon, with great frequency, said things that really disturbed all of us when he said that the press were the enemy, the people declared us to be that. But what happened in Trump 2.0, as you've been talking about here, the systematization and the, the weaponization in a much more formal way, where the four years that he was out of office, as in so many other areas, gave them time to plan and to strategize and to operationalize. That's one big difference. The second thing is, relates to Georgia Ford and Don Lemon, who are both clearly people with journalistic credit credibility and, and with resumes that run back into legacy media now doing work in independent media. And, but, but it's an important distinction, right? Because it's, it's, it is what you hear from those pundits that you played. And what runs through a lot of this discourse is that everybody who's in independent media now is going to be attacked as being an activist. A lot of people in mainstream media are attacked as being activists, but they're going to. Part of what the legal reasoning here is is that these aren't reporters, these are participants, these are activists. These are not really people who deserve the protections of the First Amendment. And then the third thing I'd say, and it's just a very simple thing, but in all of the things that We've seen in Trump 2.0 where Trump has gone after the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CBS News, repeatedly, ABC News. It's always been with civil cases. He's, he's sued people in order to intimidate them. This is all working towards the same end, which is to silence and control information. But he stayed on the civil side. Why is he stayed on the civil side? Because there's nobody who really disputes that. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CBS News, ABC News, are, are, are traditionally seen as being part of the fourth estate. He has now moved into the criminal realm. Right. These two arrests are not what Trump has done before, where he's just sued people for outrageous sums, made them go through the motions. The New York Times stood up to him and he backed down. You know, the Wall Street Journal stood up to him. The ABC News and CBS News capitulated and wrote him checks. But all of those things were civil, were played out in the civil arena. The big Rubicon that's being crossed here. And I think it has a lot to do with the fact that these are independent journals without the kind of, of history or the kind of resources that those other big institutions. I named these, going after those people criminally. And I think that is what's so disconcerting about this, because you're not talking here about making people money. Is, is, is, is a big deal. Time is a big deal. Hassle is a big deal in the civil court. But criminal stakes, even if the cases are blatantly ridiculous, the stakes are so high because they are about the individual freedom of the, of the journalists who are working. And that takes this into a totally different place. And we must, we should be all the more disconcerted than we already are about what's going on because of that Rubicon being crossed.