The headline literally says “told him not to testify”, not “threatens him to not testify”? Not sure what you’re referring to? What “stretch” are you pointing at?
No worries. I just prefer that news sources not exaggerate things too much, it reduces overall credibility when they do. That comment from Trump in the article is probably newsworthy on its own since it seems to violate the judge’s order not to post inflammatory nonsense about the case, just the title feels a little click-baity.
The title could probably be as big of a draw with something like “Trump discourages Georgia witness from testifying” or something like that.
The headline literally says “told him not to testify”, not “threatens him to not testify”? Not sure what you’re referring to? What “stretch” are you pointing at?
I think he’s just saying the headline is (potentially maliciously) ambiguous. I certainly assumed “told not to testify [or else]” when I read it.
yes, exactly what I was thinking
So you’re inferring something from a headline.
Any chance the target of these statements might infer the same?
That’s how wannabe mob bosses work.
well, he didn’t actually “tell” him not to testfiy. “He shouldn’t” isn’t the same as “don’t”
Fair enough, I can see the gap. It didn’t click for me this morning, apologies.
No worries. I just prefer that news sources not exaggerate things too much, it reduces overall credibility when they do. That comment from Trump in the article is probably newsworthy on its own since it seems to violate the judge’s order not to post inflammatory nonsense about the case, just the title feels a little click-baity.
The title could probably be as big of a draw with something like “Trump discourages Georgia witness from testifying” or something like that.