Donald
Trump
won
the
debate.
Just
ask
him,
he’ll
tell
you!
Or
don’t
ask
him,
he’ll
tell
you
anyway.
Here
on
Planet
Earth
…
not
so
much.
Trump
may
yet
win
the
election,
but
it
probably
won’t
be
because
67
million
people
watched
him
get
baited
into
shouting
racist
lies
about
immigrants
eating
cats
after
Vice
President
Harris
needled
him
about
crowd
size.
And
according
to
Republican
pollster
Frank
Luntz,
he
probably
lost
the
election
by
ranting
like
a
meme-addled
lunatic.
“I’m
trying
to
decide
if
I
want
to
go
on
record,
and
the
answer
is
yes,”
Luntz
admitted
dejectedly
to
Piers
Morgan.
“I
think
that
he
loses
because
of
this
debate
performance.”
The
once
and Godforbid
future
two-bit
fascist
responded
in
his
typical
fashion:
He
made
threats.
“ABC
took
a
big
hit
last
night.
I
mean,
to
be
honest,
they’re
a
news
organization,”
he
babbled
to
his
emotional
support
team
at
Fox
and
Friends.
“They
have
to
be
licensed
to
do
it.
They
ought
to
take
away
their
license
for
the
way
they
did
that.”
And
right
on
cue,
his
pals
at
The
Federalist
swoop
in
to
smear
lipstick
on
the
authoritarian
pig.
The
linked
article
is
by
the
outlet’s
election
correspondent
Beth
Brelje.
Brelje
is
not
a
lawyer,
but
she
did
spend
three
years
at
the
Epoch
Times,
so
she
knows
a
thing
or
two
about
pay-for-play
media.
In
Brelje’s
math,
if
you
value
each
30-second
segment
of
the
debate
as
an
ad
worth
$225,000,
then
the
90-minute
debate
was
worth
$40.5
million
to
the
Harris
campaign.
“The
Federal
Election
Commission
(FEC)
might
consider
it
an
‘in-kind
contribution,’
which
is
a
non-monetary
contribution
to
a
campaign,”
the
opinion
journalist
speculates,
without
any
apparent
irony.
“The
FEC
could
consider
the
debate
a
‘coordinated
communication,’
which
can
be
a
type
of
in-kind
donation
that
is
made
in
consultation
with
the
candidate,”
she
natters
on
conspiratorially.
“We
know
both
campaigns
spoke
with
ABC
to
arrange
the
debate,
so
the
communication
lines
were
open
for
such
an
arrangement.”
“Either
way,
$40.5
million
far
exceeds
contribution
limits.
Plus,
corporations
are
barred
from
making
such
contributions,”
she
asserts
confidently,
unburdened
by
what
has
been,
or
input
from
an
actual
election
lawyer
who
might
contradict
her
crackerjack
Google
skills.
She
also
taps
out
some
nonsense
about
the
FCC,
mischaracterizing
a
regulation
governing
ad
sales
and
local
media
providing
free
airtime
to
one
candidate,
so
that
she
can
pretend
ABC
is
in
violation
of
the
law.
Because
a
debate
where
one
candidate
speaks
for
43
minutes,
and
the
other
speaks
for
37
is
somehow
unfair
to
the
guy
who
talked
more.
“There
are
some
exceptions
for
certain
types
of
news
programming,
including
debates,”
she
concedes,
in
a
token
nod
to
reality,
before
reverting
to
her
preferred
fantasy
narrative.
“But
this
was
a
DINO
—
a
debate
in
name
only.”
Because
it’s
fun
to
say
stupid
things
on
the
internet.
As
of
today,
the
FEC
and
FCC
are
not
engaged
in
political
persecutions
because
journalists
factcheck
a
political
candidate
who
lies
about
Democrats
murdering
newborns
and
immigrants
eating
pets.
But
Trump
has
promised
to
do
exactly
that
if
he
gets
back
into
power,
so…
perhaps
Ms.
Brelje
will
one
day
get
her
wish.
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.