JUST IN: Anti-Trump Media Elites Caught Red-Handed Coordinating On Legal Cases

A shocking revelation has surfaced, alleging that prominent anti-Trump media figures have been secretly coordinating their efforts on legal cases concerning former President Donald Trump. According to reports, these media personalities have been holding confidential weekly meetings to strategize and align their commentary and reporting regarding Trump’s legal troubles.

These coordinated efforts involve some of the most recognizable faces in the media who are known for their critical stances against Trump. Figures such as George Conway, William Kristol, and Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe, along with other left-leaning commentators from major networks, have reportedly participated in these sessions. These meetings are not just casual discussions but rather strategic sessions aimed at ensuring a cohesive anti-Trump narrative across various platforms.

The Western Journal described these meetings as a concerted attempt by a “rogue’s gallery” of media figures to shape public perception against Trump. According to the publication, these meetings are not just casual discussions but rather strategic sessions aimed at ensuring a cohesive anti-Trump narrative across various platforms.

The exposé published by Politico, detailed in over 2,700 words, attempts to downplay the significance of these meetings, suggesting that there is nothing untoward about them. However, the very existence of the coordinated efforts contradicts the traditional role of the media as independent and unbiased observers of political and legal processes. Politico’s report adds depth to the allegations by highlighting the routine nature of these meetings and the level of planning involved. The article mentions that these gatherings are meticulously organized, with participants sharing insights and legal opinions to craft a unified media response to Trump’s actions and legal developments.

“The meetings are off the record — a chance for the group’s members, many of whom are formally or loosely affiliated with different media outlets, to grapple with a seemingly endless array of novel legal issues before they hit the airwaves or take to print or digital outlets to weigh in with their thoughts,” Politico’s Ankush Khardori wrote.

“About a dozen or more people join any given call, though no one takes attendance. Some group members wouldn’t describe themselves with any partisan or ideological lean, but most are united by their dislike of Trump.

Khardori continued:

Trump’s claims of an organized conspiracy might be bunk, but there are other potential problems with the Friday Zooms: There is a risk, for instance, that the calls could breed groupthink or perhaps help dubious information spread, where it might then reach people watching the news.

A prominent legal commentator with a TV contract was surprised to learn about the existence of the calls when I approached them for the story. That person, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly, volunteered some reservations about the idea of hosting a standing, off-the-record call with people working across different television, print and digital outlets.

“It runs the risk of creating the impression that there is an agreement or cooperation or conspiracy across mainstream media entities,” this person told me. “And that could feed into some false and damaging perceptions, particularly on the right.”

Members of the group, though, brushed aside the notion that it’s intended to devise talking points or strategy to take down Trump as part of a bid to send him to prison or derail his presidential campaign…

The effort to disqualify Trump under the 14th Amendment never really had a chance, but many commentators — including some who participate in the calls — publicly argued otherwise. Far too many commentators have also tried to defend the Biden Justice Department’s gallingly slow approach to the criminal investigation into Trump’s efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election.

These insights could add fuel to the long-standing accusations of media bias and collusion among networks to influence public opinion and political outcomes. The reports suggest that these media figures are not merely independent commentators but are actively working together to foster a specific political narrative.