Cars 3 Races into Theaters with a Buffalo Connection

Former President Donald Trump's biggest risk in the Manhattan hush money trial could be what he himself says if he takes the witness stand, former Trump administration White House lawyer Jim Schultz argued on CNN Monday.

This came as the trial's first day opened with the jury selection process, with Trump sitting at the defense table and some experts remarking that he appeared diminished.

"Does today matter?" asked anchor Phil Mattingly. "Does what they see from these potential jurors matter in that kind of strategy process?"

"Look, I think all of it's going to matter, right?" said Schultz, a longtime defender of the former president who has nevertheless admitted the recent string of civil and criminal trials has been rough for him.

"How he interacts, how they interact with him, how they feel — how the lawyers feel that the jurors are, how much appeal there is from the jurors as to whether they're going to put him on the stand. But I think at this — at this stage in the game, I think they're probably leaning towards putting him on the stand."

Anchor Erin Burnett then chimed in. "And what would you do?" she asked. "You know him. You've worked with him. You think that's a gamble you'd take, to put him on the stand?"

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist explains how Trump is using existential fear to win the election

Schultz replied, "I think again ... in this particular case, hearing from him is likely going to matter. I think he'd want to testify in this case. I think he's going to push his lawyers to testify in this case. And quite frankly, the problem with putting Donald Trump on the stand is that you never know what Donald Trump's gonna say, whether he could say something that's completely irrelevant to the case, he could say something that damages the case just by making a flippant remark.

"So there is a huge danger of putting him on the stand, but I think he's going to be pressing to do it."

Watch the video below or at the link here.

Jim Schultz says Trump is a "huge danger" to himself on the stand www.youtube.com

In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, a slew of far-right websites popped up and cashed in on content propping up then-candidate Donald Trump. And those sites continued to rake in millions of dollars during Trump's time in the White House. But since 2020, the right-wing media cash spigot has effectively slowed to a trickle.

A new report in the Atlantic found that since the 2020 election cycle, the most prominent pro-Trump websites have seen their once robust traffic dry up. Writer Paul Farhi analyzed data from media analysis website The Righting, which focuses on conservative publishers, and reported that of the 10 most popular right-wing websites, traffic was down by an average of roughly 40%.

"The flow of traffic to Donald Trump’s most loyal digital-media boosters isn’t just slowing, as in the rest of the industry; it’s utterly collapsing," Farhi wrote. "Some of the bigger names in the field have been pummeled the hardest: The Daily Caller lost 57 percent of its audience; Drudge Report, the granddaddy of conservative aggregation, was down 81 percent; and The Federalist, founded just over a decade ago, lost a staggering 91 percent."

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist explains how Trump is using existential fear to win the election

"FoxNews.com, by far the most popular conservative-news site, has fared better, losing 'only' 22 percent of traffic, which translates to 23 million fewer monthly site visitors compared with four years ago," he added.

According to Farhi's research, the primary reason for the precipitous drop in clicks for far-right websites is ultimately due to Facebook. Conservative publishers were for years dependent on Facebook engagement as a primary source of traffic. The social media platform's algorithm (the complex code that determines what content shows up in a user's feed) had predominantly favored outrage, as content that provokes a negative reaction is more likely to get a user to click, like, comment or share a post.

In 2020, Vox reported that the Facebook algorithm was overwhelmingly favorable to conservatives, with far-right pundits like Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino bringing in tens of millions of clicks per month from Facebook engagement. Progressive media analysis group Media Matter for America found that anti-transgender content in particular generated a disproportionate amount of clicks for conservative websites. New York Times columnist Kevin Roose found that "conservative pages were beating out liberals’ [pages] in making it into the day’s top 10 Facebook posts with links in the United States, based on engagement, like the number of reactions, comments, and shares the posts receive."

Amid a wave of criticism from Congress and international bodies over Facebook being exploited by bad actors to influence elections, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced changes to the algorithm in 2018 aimed at promoting content from friends and family over news publishers. He further tweaked it in 2021 to further deprioritize content from publishers, which has, over time, resulted in far fewer clicks for the conservative publishers that used to dominate the platform.

"All of this monkeying with the internet’s plumbing drastically reduced the referral traffic flowing to news and commentary sites," Farhi wrote. "The changes have affected everyone involved in digital media, including some liberal-leaning sites—such as Slate (which saw a 42 percent traffic drop), the Daily Beast (41 percent), and Vox (62 percent, after losing its two most prominent writers)—but the impact appears to have been the worst, on average, for conservative media."

According to Farhi, conservatives are now retreating from websites depending on clicks to other forms of media entirely, like podcasts, Substack newsletters, YouTube channels and videos on the far-right broadcasting platform Rumble.

"There’s a lot of choice," said The Righting owner Howard Polskin. "Even if [the big] sites went out of business tomorrow, there are a lot of voices still out there."

Click here to read Farhi's Atlantic article in full.