Trump Walks Out of Piers Morgan Interview

Piers is up to his usual bullshit.

I don't have a problem with the questioning. This is going to be standard questioning from the left. Trump has made the fraudulence of the 2020 election a centerpiece of his campaign for 2024 (re) election. I wouldn't have done that, but he did. He has to defend that.

And he has to expect to defend that from an extremely hostile propagandistic media.

But the framing around these clips, the dramatic voice-over of "A FORMER PRESIDENT IN DENIAL" is, well, pure Piers Morgan -- dishonest, carnival-barker-y, hyped-up tabloid lies.

Based on the hype, I was expecting Trump to look really bad. And then he looks... not bad at all. The "bad" thing he does is walk out, but that's not really bad. He gets up calmly and says "turn the cameras off" calmly, which is his right.

And he says Piers Morgan is dishonest, which we already knew -- he did invade people's privacy by listening to their answering machine messages -- and he's just generally a scumbag.

I think what happened here is that Piers made specific promises to Trump about the interview, based upon their prior history and "friendship" (a TV "friendship"), and then just completely showed that he was lying about that.

Eh.

I don't think this is a win for Trump because I don't think Trump can really win on this issue. He's constantly going to have to be talking about the past, which means he's not going to be talking about stuff most voters -- normies, I mean, not really invested people like us -- care about.

This is a deep, sticky mud issue. Little progress will ever be made on it. Even where there is progress, the media will not credit him for it.

In all honesty, I don't even cover stories where I see there are rulings that help Trump because I'm not sure what the point is -- I agree with the general idea that the election was unfair and "rigged" in a general way.

In no possible world is a court going to step in and call a do-over and install Trump.

Maybe Trump just needs a three minute answer that sums up the rigging in a general way, his five most unassailable points (citing that Time Magazine "fortify the election" admission), and then moves on?

"Take it up with Time Magazine," he can say to further questions.

But I do think this is a loss for Piers Morgan. Just more proof, as if it was needed, that he's a clown and a monkey and an attention whore of a very low quality.

But enough of me telling you what I think -- it's time for you to tell me what I think.

Oh, you might wonder who would give this scumbag huckster a show:

Fox News, of course.

Who else would give cellar-dwelling lefty hucksters and carnival-barkers their own show?

By the way, has Hillary Clinton ever been challenged on her Russia Collusion lies?

Has she ever been challenged on her claim that Russia actually changed vote tallies in voting machines, ever?

Oh: Here's something I can fault Trump for: His frequent fault of putting trust in all the wrong people. Especially people he just knows from TV.

Piers Morgan is an opportunistic scumbag. I guess you have to give interviews to some people.

But... Why him again? He has no credibility. What's the upside of giving an interview to him?

posted by Ace at 04:49 PM

| Access Comments