The liberal media loves to incessantly cover former and potentially future President Donald Trump's legal battles, namely the New York trial over hush money payments. For some, that even means going for a dishonest take to make those who dare to point out the many criticisms of DA Alvin Bragg's case against Trump. In Aaron Rupar's case, he posted an edited clip of Fox News legal editor Kerri Kupec Urbahn to make it seem as if she was questioning why the payments to Stormy Daniels were problematic.
In sharing the 45-second-long clip, Rupar refers to Urbahn as "this woman," claiming "here she is hopelessly confused about why using hush payments for election interference is problematic." The clip ends with Urbahn pointing out: "So again, this just leaves us with, what is the problem exactly?"
this woman, who worked for Bill Barr's DOJ, is Fox News's staff legal expert, but here she is hopelessly confused about why using hush payments for election interference is problematic pic.twitter.com/AeLL1NAlvE
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 23, 2024
In reality, the full clip of the exchange with John Roberts on "America Reports" is close to five minutes long. Rupar's clip leaves out a key instrumental point, which is Urbahn's more thorough argument beforehand focusing on the criminal aspect, or lack thereof.
"What is the crime? I sat there thinking I don’t know what the crime is," Urbahn said, even after she herself had sat in the courtroom. "The former number three from DOJ was presenting opening arguments on behalf of the state--which was also very surprising by the way--he was saying this is election fraud pure and simple. I sat there thinking, 'Well, what is election fraud exactly?' Because one, entering into a nondisclosure agreement is not illegal. It’s not," Urbahn said. "Whether it was a porn star, anyone else--maybe it is seedy, maybe it's unseemly. But it’s not. Secondly, catch-and-kill schemes, which people in the media do, which is to buy the rights to the story and then choose not to publish it, they are also not illegal--so those are the kinds of things we are talking about in this case. I don't understand what the problem is," she continued.
The context of what's included in Rupar's clip then makes that much more sense.
Delving further into the legal aspect, including about payments Michael Cohen made, Urbahn pointed out that "now the state would say that was part of their elaborate cover-up. Again, what's the cover-up? Because paying someone in return for an NDA is not illegal and then labeling it in a ledger as a legal expense, well, isn't it a legal expense? What else would you say it is--other than the state I guess wants him to say 'reimbursement for X, Y, and Z.' But it’s also unclear and I think the defense team is arguing this, that Trump even knew how it was labeled in the book. Apparently, it was made by someone else--a lower-level associate at Trump Tower who was told to do so by her boss, so again this just leaves us with what is the problem exactly?"
This is hardly the first time that Rupar has turned to such deceptive tricks. As we covered in February, he edited a response from now-Republican Senate nominee Bernie Moreno on the pro-life issue so that it came off as significantly less substantive than it actually was.
In less than 24 hours, Rupar's post has been viewed approximately 357,000 times. There have been 3,400 likes of people approving of Rupar's take on Urbahn's analysis, and as many of the 235 replies show, all too happy to think of her as just some dumb conservative woman brought on for her looks rather than area of expertise. Fox News is also an easy target, though it's a lazy move that Rupar went for her.
Average Male Fox "News" viewer: "Who cares Aaron! She is young and blonde. We think she's a Professor of Criminal Law"🤔
— Jürgen .. 🌎❤️ (@Jurgen80048425) April 23, 2024
Team Trump logic: if a lawyer goes and buys drugs for me, I cam break up those repayments and call them “legal expenses” because … he’s a lawyer and what else would you call it? 🙄
— If Biden Posted Like Trump (@RyanPruittNYC) April 23, 2024
Yeah, but she has nice hair.
— Save Democracy (@StopPeterThiel) April 23, 2024
That’s all that matters really.
I doubt she was hired for her legal expertise, more like about how she looks.
— Sterling (@GreenShades9) April 23, 2024
Join the conversation as a VIP Member