>>188918, >>188919, >>188920, >>188921, >>188922, >>188923, >>188924, >>188925, >>188926, >>188927, >>188928, >>188929, >>188930
Dan Scavino Jr. @DanScavino - President Trump: “Tonight, we come back together to answer that heinous attack with unwavering resolve, and every one of us here this evening to show that in America, we do not yield to political violence…in this country, we believe in freedom of speech. We settle our differences not with bullets, but with open and vigorous debate…”
Quote:
Dan Scavino Jr. @DanScavino
There was nothing better for the President—and those of us who were with him in Butler, Pennsylvania—than to go back and finish what was started…
After the assassination attempt in Butler, many of us in attendance had to go through a healing process, just as many will have to do who attended the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. I can assure you, as someone who has sadly been through this more than once, that a significant part of the process is NOT LETTING THE LUNATIC WIN!
Finish what was started—there were awards to be given and speeches to be made. This is a time to UNIFY, come TOGETHER, and move FORWARD TOGETHER…
The President has made it clear that he is all-in. We live in the greatest country in the world and it is imperative to finish what was started, @WHCA. This is another defining moment—As President Trump has made clear, “I hope that we can have it within a short period of time... because we can't let these criminals, and these really bad people change the course of events in our country."
USA!!!!!❤️🙏🇺🇸🦅🚀
https://x.com/DanScavino/status/2080884421629018174

David Yannetti @BostonDefender - A primer on unethical reporting and the priorities of certain media:
Every publication prides itself on thorough, accurate and ethical reporting. A lot of work — and a system of checks and balances— is supposed to be put into place to hopefully ensure that a publisher will NEVER have to issue a correction. If someone takes issue with an article but the publisher has an out because there was some ambiguity, a publisher will take that “out” and do anything to avoid having to publish a correction.
Issuing a correction is a black eye to the reporter, certainly. It signals to future editors that she cannot be trusted. But it is also embarrassing to the editors and the publisher, who are forced to admit that they failed at their jobs as well.
So now we come to @GretchenVoss64’s agenda-driven hit piece in @BostonMagazine. People ask why someone would not grant an interview to a reporter like her. You don’t grant someone like that an interview because you would be giving an untrustworthy person control over your words. She’s not seeking the truth, she’s advancing her own narrative, irrespective of (and often contrary to) the truth. And given her lack of ethics, she will take a quote from you and publish it out of context to make it appear as though you said something that you didn’t. To try to make you look bad to advance her agenda.
As an aside, those dangers are exactly why any criminal defense attorney will advise a client never to speak to the police.
I chose not to speak with @GretchenVoss6 because I knew her to be untrustworthy. And sure enough, she was so blinded by her own bias that she took an old quote of mine out of context and made it appear as though I said something that I didn’t. In the process, of course, she unwittingly proved what her intentions would have been had I agreed to speak with her in the first place. And by doing so, she put her magazine in legal jeopardy. Shame on her.