My impression of the Trump inauguration? According to Article Two, Section 1, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, before taking office the incoming President must recite the following Oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Though the oath is traditionally administered by a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, that is not necessary. Lyndon Johnson was sworn in by a federal district Judge in Dallas after the Kennedy assassination.
But the oath doesn’t have to be administered by a federal judge, or any judge for that matter. Anyone authorized to administer oaths can swear in the President. As a Notary in Florida, I could swear the President into office — as long as the swearing in occurred in Florida.
If you doubt that, I submit as evidence the oath of office by George Washington at the beginning of his first term. There were no federal judges, or federal magistrates, in existence to swear him in. None had been appointed – because the President appoints them!
Which brings me to the topic of this column. How the media covered the second Trump inauguration.
Other than the 30 seconds it took Trump to recite the Oath to Chief Justice Roberts in the Capitol rotunda, the rest was all for show.
For purposes of research for this column, I watched far more of the broadcast media circus than I cared to ever see. The media generally lived down to my low expectations.
I made it a point to watch different media outlets — Fox, CNN, MSNBC. Here’s my take on their coverage.
Full disclosure: I only occasionally watch television news — and rarely an entire show. When I do it’s usually on Fox. I do regularly watch the Gutfeld! late night comedy show on the Fox News Channel — for the comedy, not the news.
First, Fox. To hear the Fox talking heads during the all-day marathon of inaugural coverage, you’d think you were watching the second coming of Jesus.
As those of you who read my columns have no doubt figured out, I’m MAGA. But, damn… The constant tongue-bath praise of everything Trump by the FOX talking heads was too much even for me.
But what annoyed me most was when Trump was signing executive orders (and when what the orders were about were being announced) the Fox heads talked over the announcements so much I couldn’t hear what was being signed. That was just rude.
Worse, at one point the Fox heads called on a group of “experts” to run their mouths telling us what Trump was doing. How about just shut the hell up and let us listen to what was being said by those who were actually involved?
And that didn’t even include when the talking heads were telling us what we were seeing with our own eyes. I didn’t really need the heads to tell me Joe Biden and Kamela Harris were “sitting directly behind President Trump” as he was trashing their administration in his inaugural speech. I could see them right there on the TV screen.
Then there was the post-speech commentary by the talking heads. Right after hearing the speech, they came on and told us what he said – as if we didn’t just hear it ourselves. That seems to be a common thing (that has been going on for decades) for the talking heads across the media after any presidential speech. Why?
The same sort of nonsense happens with many lawyers when they argue before judges. A judge will hear evidence for an hour, taking notes the whole time — then when the lawyer argues based on those facts, he/she will spend the entire first part of their argument time retelling the facts the judge just heard!
I’ve gotten a lot of judges on my side by beginning my argument by saying I’m not going to waste the judge’s time by reciting the facts they just heard — and will just get right to the legal argument. Every time I’ve done that, the judge has commented on it being a refreshing change.
I’d suggest the TV talking heads do the same.
That was Fox. CNN and MSNBC have the same annoying habits. But they were far worse because of their anti-Trump editorializing, hyperbole about trivia, or outright nonsense. They seemed incapable of simply reporting the events.
For example, the talking heads on both those networks virtually hyperventilated over the fact Trump “did not place his hand on the bible” when he took the oath. As I explained, above, it’s not necessary, and has no legal significance.
More importantly, it was obvious to anyone watching that Chief Justice Roberts seemed to rush the proceeding before Melania (who was holding the bible, as is tradition for the First Lady) was even in place. But to hear the MSNBCNN cabal of talking heads comment on it, you’d think it invalidated the entire proceeding.
That sort of trivial silliness was typical of the MSNBCNN heads throughout the day. They repeatedly commented on the inauguration being held inside the Rotunda… speculating it was because Trump knew the crowds would be small. Apparently the fact it was so cold (that holding it outside could have been dangerous to spectators) never even crossed their minds?
As pro-Trump as the Fox talking heads were, the MSNBCNN heads were far more intensely anti-Trump. Some things the later group said were so detached from reality, it’s clear they’ve learned nothing from their ever-diminishing viewer ratings.
I’m not even getting into the commentary, by female talking heads from all the networks, about what Melania Trump was wearing. Perhaps I lack the necessary genetics to grasp the cosmic importance of her choice of wardrobe — but that seemed be the go-to topic when the heads ran out of anything else to talk about.
I will merely observe that the meowing from the MSNBCNN distaff talking heads about Melania clawed through my TV screen — whereas those from FOX were swooning.
But, for the record — I’d far rather look at Melania, regardless of what she’s wearing, than Kamala Harris, Jill Biden, or Hillary Clinton.
Does that make me sexist?