WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2023
Concerning last weekend's search: As of this morning, it seems to us that the New York Times has possibly settled the matter.
Of course, it always could be that the paper of record is simply extending its coverup. It's always possible that the Times is doing this in alignment with other Deep State news orgs.
But in a retrospective report, Lola Fadulu has re-described the interactions between E. Jean Carroll and Joe Tacopina in a New York City courtroom last Thursday. As she does, she reports none of the screaming and yelling for which we conducted a search.
As we've noted in the past two days, reports of the screaming and yelling had come from TV's Joe Scarborough. No stranger to screaming and yelling himself, he'd been working from the standard recipe which now prevails across our flailing nation's tribal "cable news" cookbook:
From the "cable news" cookbook:
Select a standard preferred Storyline. Then, embellish to taste.
For the record, the preferred Storyline may be largely accurate, though even that is not required under the standard arrangements of the past several decades.
By definition, though, the embellishments to taste will be bogus. They may even be inaccurate—false.
The embellishments will be designed to please the "cable news" audience—to keep profits and praise rolling in. That said, here are the question which drove our recent search:
The questions which drove our search:
Last Thursday, did defense attorney Joe Tacopina "scream and yell" at E. Jean Carroll "time and time again?"
Was he "berating her, yelling at her," with such frequency that "the judge repeatedly had to call him off?"
Starting at 6:02 A.M., Scarborough had made these (pleasing) claims in three separate bursts of assertion. Had the star been describing real events, or had he embellished to taste?
(Putting it another way: Was the corporate star describing real events? Or was he dumbing blue tribe viewers down?)
Below, we'll start to describe our search, the search on which we wasted a great deal of time last weekend. First, though, let's look at what Fadulu has said as she settles the question, or perhaps as she extends the coverup maintained by the Deep State press.
In print editions, Fadulu's report appears on page A14 of this morning's New York Times. In print editions, the headline on her report says this:
Carroll and Trump’s Lawyer Duel in Cross-Examination
Online, the headline says this:
In Trump Trial, a Lawyer Pushes, and E. Jean Carroll Pushes Right Back
There is no mention of any screaming and yelling on Tacopina's part in Fadulu's report. If he'd screamed and yelled "time and time again," you'd think it would have been mentioned.
In Fadulu's account, the defense attorney repeatedly pushed. The plaintiff, and her own attorneys, repeatedly pushed back.
As far as we know, the plaintiff's pushback was completely appropriate. Here's part of Fadulu's report:
FADULU (5/3/23): Mr. Tacopina used his cross-examination not only to ask Ms. Carroll about what she said happened, but to question her about what she did afterward. He repeatedly asked her why she hadn’t screamed and why she had called a friend instead of going to the police.
The veteran lawyer, 57, who on the first day of cross-examination wore a tapered navy suit, was an imposing courtroom presence. He rarely let go of the lectern from which he lobbed questions in a deep, booming voice, at times leaning forward, to the side and backward.
Ms. Carroll’s lawyers frequently objected, arguing that many questions were argumentative, repetitive and at times misrepresented their client’s testimony. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan sustained several of the objections.
The lawyer asked Ms. Carroll again and again whether she had screamed.
“I’m not a screamer,” Ms. Carroll, 79, yelled. “You can’t beat up on me for not screaming.”
In that last exchange, it's Carroll who is said to have yelled, though only on one occasion.
As far as we know, there's no reason why she shouldn't have done that. For what it's worth, the judge is said to have sustained her lawyer's objections only on "several" occasions.
Possibly doing the Deep State's work, Fadulu never mentions the way Tacopina screamed and yelled at Carroll "time and time again." By the end of her report, she almost seems to fashion the exchanges between Carroll and Tacopina as something resembling a draw:
FADULU: At some points, Ms. Carroll’s lengthy answers did not address the question that Mr. Tacopina had asked.
In response to a line of questioning about an excerpt from her 2019 memoir, in which she first publicly accused Mr. Trump of assault, Ms. Carroll instead told the jury a story about being hospitalized, and how she had been so ill that she had written a will.
As she spoke, Mr. Tacopina placed a hand on his hip and nearly turned his back on Ms. Carroll.
“OK,” Mr. Tacopina said once she finished. “My question was …”
At another point, Ms. Carroll wrapped up a lengthy response, and several seconds passed.
“Are you done?” Mr. Tacopina finally asked.
By the end of cross-examination on Monday, Judge Kaplan appeared frustrated by both parties.
“Look, Ms. Carroll, it would help if you would just answer the question, and, Mr. Tacopina, it would help if you were clear when your question was over and what it was asking,” Judge Kaplan said.
Many of the jurors seemed uncomfortable during the questioning, leaning toward Ms. Carroll, with their eyes fixed on her or down in their laps.
By the way: Given that this is a civil trial in federal court, will those (nine) jurors have to reach a unanimous verdict to settle the case in Carroll's favor?
We've seen no one address that question. As is the norm in the modern successor to news reporting, the focus has frequently been on the drama, not on such tedious facts, with embellishments to taste added in.
If Fadulu (and her editors) can be trusted, she seems to have settled at least one point. She mentions no screaming and yelling by Tacopina last Thursday—none at all. Beyond that, it sounds like the judge wasn't forced to "repeatedly call him off."
Over the weekend, we conducted our latest search concerning these latest claims. We've been conducting such searches for more than twenty-five years. It's amazing how much time gets thrown away in response to inaccurate claims by overpaid corporate actors.
"Embellish to taste," in service to Storyline, has been the rule for decades. As we've thought about our latest search, we've increasingly thought of the search conducted by Binx Bolling, protagonist of Walker Percy's debut novel, The Moviegoer.
The Moviegoer appeared in 1961. It won the National Book Award the following year. In the widely acclaimed novel, Bolling says he's conducting a "search"—a search for God, for redemption, for some sort of personal meaning.
(Bolling: "The search is what anyone would undertake if he were not sunk in the everydayness of his own life." For the record, one way to escape that perceived everydayness is to belong to a tribe.)
Over the weekend, we conducted a vastly simpler, time-wasting search. We conducted our latest search for elementary facts.
We searched through news reports by the New York Times, by the Washington Post and by the Associated Press—even by NBC News itself! We found no mention of the phenomena Scarborough had described as seven enablers looked on.
Elsewhere on cable, Storyline often seemed to prevail—and even, incredibly, personal friendships with one of the people being reported on.
It's true that nothing is going to turn on the pleasing claims Scarborough made. That said, this sort of thing has been going on for decades now, with massive consequences all around the world.
(We've also been thinking about the way Arianna sewed that disturbing fourth button on that presidential candidate's deeply disturbing suit coat. As that particular gong show went on and on, then on and on and on and on, our highly self-impressed blue tribe simply sat around and stared as the career crowd on whom we rely pushed their preferred standard claims.)
Tomorrow, we'll quote Katie Phang on Monday, then Joyce Vance on Tuesday, as they speak to Nicolle Wallace, acknowledging—though only when forced—that the plaintiff on whose case they've been "reporting" is their personal friend.
Their strange post-journalistic behavior isn't that plaintiff's fault. That said, it's another part of the way the clown car rolls as our nation gets dumbed to the ground.
Tomorrow: Even we were surprised by this! From Monday's Deadline: White House:
"Nicolle, I kind of wanted to start today by saying, apparently my name came up today during the trial. It was name-dropped by Joe Tacopina in an attempt, I think, to distract from the issues in this case..."
Even we were surprised by what came next! Simply put, there's nothing too dumb or too faux for cable news work under current arrangements.