Trump's Anti-press Rhetoric Is Dangerous, But His Actions Are Worse
from the shall-make-no-law dept
In a coordinated response to Trump's incessant attacks on the press, more than 300 news organizations joined together last week and published editorials about the important role of a free press.
The effort is led by the Boston Globe, who called for editorial boards of publications across the country to publish their own editorials defending—in their own words—the importance of press freedom. Participating publications include outlets big and small, from the New York Times to small, local, and independent papers.
Trump has called the press "enemy of the American people," and said that journalists "don't like our country." He responded to the editorials in a predictably petty manner. He has also vowed to revoke broadcast licenses over coverage he didn't like, and has threatened to sue critical news organizations and journalists. And, of course, he engages in constant Twitter diatribes about "fake news."
The president's verbal attacks on the press are certainly appalling, but his rhetoric gets an outsized amount of attention, when his administration's actions against press are much worse. They deserve just as much condemnation as his tweets.
Here are four actions the Trump administration has taken that are more dangerous to media and the First Amendment than anything Trump has said:
1. Escalating the war on whistleblowers and spying on journalists
Trump inherited Obama's unprecedented prosecution of whistleblowers who give information to the media, and the Trump administration has escalated its investigations and prosecutions of leaks. Last year, the Daily Beast reported that leak investigations were up 800% under Trump's Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and in the first 18 months of his administration they've already brought four prosecutions. All leak investigations—whether they target whistleblowers to provided information to journalists or other entities—are a serious press freedom threat.
Reality Winner became the first whistleblower prosecuted by the Trump administration for leaking information to the press. She was charged with, and eventually plead guilty to, violation of the archaic Espionage Act for making Russian hacking attempts of U.S. election infrastructure public. For her act of public service, she was sentenced to 63 months in prison—the longest sentence a leaker has received in federal court.
Trump's Justice Department also secretly obtained a year's worth of phone and email records of New York Times reporter Ali Watkins as part of its investigation into her alleged source—in seeming direct violation of Justice Department guidelines. While this is the first publicly known instance of the Trump administration directly targeting a journalist with surveillance, there may be many others.
And beyond whistleblowers who leak information to the press, the Trump administration has cracked down on freedom of information. Trump has forced senior White House staff to sign non-disclosure agreements, and conducted unofficial leak investigations in the White House. While the NDAs are likely unenforceable, this could chill and intimidate government employees who may have blown the whistle into silence.
2. Potential prosecution of publishers
The New York Times reported in May 2017 that Trump began a conversation with then-FBI Director James Comey by "saying that Mr. Comey should consider putting reporters in prison for publishing classified information." While it's unclear if he has privately kept pushing the FBI and DOJ to take such actions, there's ample evidence that they might try to do just that with WikiLeaks.
Top Trump officials have vowed to prosecute WikiLeaks for publishing documents. If the Department of Justice brings charges against WikiLeaks or Julian Assange for their work, it would open any news organization that reports on or publishes classified information to prosecution, too. Attorney General Jeff Sessions even refused to rule out using the precedent of prosecuting WikiLeaks against other news organizations.
With reports indicating that Assange will soon be kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London, CNN has reported that "according to US officials, charges have been drawn up relating to previous WikiLeaks disclosures of classified US documents."
Regardless of what one thinks of Assange, everyone who cares about the press' ability to publish leaks should loudly condemn any attempt to prosecute WikiLeaks.
3. Targeting immigrant journalists with deportation threats
Last December, immigration officials arrested a Mexican journalist and his son who had sought asylum in the United States after being threatened by the Mexican military. He was detained for more than seven months. Internal ICE emails strongly suggest that Emilio Gutiérrez-Soto was targeted for arrest in retaliation for his criticism of United States immigration policy.
Gutiérrez-Soto isn't the only journalist targeted by ICE for his First Amendment protected speech. Manuel Duran, a reporter for a Spanish language paper in Memphis, was arrested while covering a protest. Although all charges against him were quickly dropped, he was transferred to ICE custody, where he has remained detained without charge and could be deported at any time. Duran's attorneys say it was his critical coverage of law enforcement that led the government to target him. ICE has also been accused of targeting activists who are accused of being publicly critical of Trump's immigration policies too.
Gutiérrez-Soto and Duran both came to the United States because they were threatened in their home countries. Their work, and criticism of cruel law enforcement agencies like ICE, is critical, and it's a huge press freedom threat that the United States government retaliates against their speech by detaining them.
4. Threatened journalists with decades in prison for covering protests
On Trump's Inauguration Day, over 200 people—including protesters, legal observers, medics, and journalists—were swept up in an indiscriminate arrest for being present at a protest. Among them were at least nine journalists doing their jobs. And while charges against seven were dropped quickly, Trump's Department of Justice targeted two— both independent journalists—with felony charges.
Alexei Wood and Aaron Cantú faced outrageous charges that carried the possibility of approximately 60 and 10 years in prison respectively. While charges against both were eventually dropped after the Justice Department's case seemed to fall apart, their cases are not clearly victories.
The J20 prosecutions will undoubtedly have chilling effects on press freedom as well as political speech and protest. Trump's Department of Justice has sent a disturbing precedent of targeting the press for reporting on a demonstration, and endangering its fundamental ability to make newsworthy political events public.
Trump's rhetoric and his administration's legal actions are both abuses of power and comprise assaults on press freedom. But beyond his tweets, vague libel threats, and baseless fake news accusations, the Trump administration poses a very real threat to press freedom, and has taken steps that have made critical reporting materially more dangerous in the United States. It's never been more important for news organizations to speak up in defense of their important work.
Reprinted from the Freedom of the Press Foundation
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: free speech, journalists, leaks, sources, whistleblowers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Somebody should inform Fox News.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trump is a mirror of our collective amorality, the classic "alpha male" we're told rules everyone and has power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Here is idea..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One example is a bill by Ron Wyden that Alex Jones mentions on his site where the government could force platforms to remove people like Alex Jones.
What Wyden does not realize is that platforms outside of the United States would not subject to that laws, if it passes. All Wyden's bill will do, ig it passes, is cause some platforms to pull up stakes and move out of the United States, and out of reach of U.S. laws
The story on this bill can be found here
https://www.infowars.com/senator-ron-wyden-demands-consequences-for-platforms-that-dont-remove-p eople-like-alex-jones/
Wyden's bill not unenforecable on platforms and publishers outside the United States, as that law would not apply to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Here is idea..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Here is idea..
Nope, stupid fucking knobs that believe them are the problem.
There is no possible way to remove all bias from the news, just the act of selecting what is newsworthy is an act of bias. Everyone has a right to their bias, the only rights they don't have are to physically harm you over their petty bias.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black
Not a true or correct statement, but had he said this instead...
"Only a free and unrestrained press has the best possible chance of exposing deception in government." - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black
Then he would be spot on. If a press is run by a True and Just government then it would expose MORE deception in government even a free one, but what are the "chances" of that happening compared to a "free press"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There will always be bias in journalism. Someone must decide what to publish, what to distill out of the mass of available data, and what facts to check.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Do not link to Infowars, as it is a site known for being bullshit layered on top of actual facts; instead, link to the site that gave Infowars the basis for that story: Recode.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Just yesterday, for example, CNN's headline article on the Mollie Tibbetts murder left out the illegal immigrant status of the killer. CNN's been anti-Trump, anti-ICE and supportive of illegal immigration for a while.
CNN did report on that, but not in the headline article. Rather it was posted in a separate article, with the link buried near the bottom of the headline article.
Most of the rest of the press reported it. After all, the fact was announced by the authorities after the arrest in the press meeting.
I am not implying that the immigration status makes any difference in the rest of the facts of this horrific murder. But there are many that feel that Mollie Tibbetts would still be alive today if immigration had been enforced, and they're probably right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No press outlet owned and operated by the government would ever directly expose deception and illegal acts carried out by that government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No matter what they do, it is always someone else's fault, mainly those rich republicans, never a rich democrat that plays them for idiots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
But that does not stop folks like you from visiting the exact same moronic logic through regulation. Tell me... how is it that you think they will regulate the internet just fine but not the press?
That is a hypocrisy! Though I am sure your dogma does not allow you to know that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What makes that fact important to a headline about that story, other than to create more furor over immigration both legal and illegal?
Yes, you are. By turning the suspect’s immigration status into the focal point of your complaint about news coverage of the murder and the arrested suspect, you are implying that the suspect’s immigration status is just as important, if not moreso, than the crime of which he is accused and the life of the woman that was ended by that crime.
It is impossible to know “what could have been”; at best, we can speculate, but we cannot ever know if we would be right. For all we know, she might have died in a car accident the next day if she had not died at the hands of a murderer. Hell, if he had been a legal immigrant at the time of her death, what kind of discussion would we be having right now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Because I do not want the government to regulate speech on the Internet. I want the government to regulate fair and equitable access to the Internet. If you cannot see the difference between the two, that is your problem, not mine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The predictable Obama id it first thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The problem is that you "think" there is a difference between the two. There is not one. Take the Fosta/Sesta laws. Take the "State Security" laws, take the "classified document" laws, take the copyright laws. I mean seriously? How blind can you be? Apparently a lot!
There is NOTHING the government touches that gives "fair and equitable" output. Maybe you forget but America is not against regulating the press. Just look at the fairness doctrine. It does not matter who benefits from it, someone has to unconstitutionally suffer. This is why I say it is okay for twitter to kick anyone they want off their platform, it is their platform and if they want to make a "no conservatives allowed" platform they have every single RIGHT!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That is pretty fucking bad, but I really cannot blame stupid fucking knobs like you for that, that is entirely a problem with the stupid fucking knobs that voted for Trump. I just see it as a sort of "ironic justice" when someone pulls the same fucking shit back onto you.
But rejoice, when it happens to you guys I will be calling those losers a bunch of fucking clueless morons too!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The predictable Obama id it first thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If people want to politicize immigration they have the right. If they want to politicize guns they have the right. I seem to notice both sides of this isle telling the other side they are bad for politicizing something they feel strongly about.
Why are their feelings about something supposed to be worthless compared to yours? What makes you a more qualified human being? What makes YOU SPECIAL?
Nothing... that's what! You are Trump/Obama, We are Trump/Obama, We are Human!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Ah, right, Ad hominem.
Take a chill pill bro, you're gonna drive yourself crazy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
"Trump inherited Obama's unprecedented prosecution of whistleblowers who give information to the media..."
Once again proving the small minded short sighted nature of the dumb mob. Left, Right, Center, doesn't matter...
When Obama, and his cronies, destroyed Journalistic freedom and integrity by schmoozing journalists who played ball, ostracizing, assassinating, or jailing those who did not, and creating a system by which his administrations scandals were sold to the highest bidder, for the small sum of not reporting on anything until such time as none of the crimes committed mattered.
A few examples:
1. Politico's article on the Obama administration allowing hezbollah to sell cocaine and destroying the DOJ investigation. Why didn't Politico print this story when it mattered, and not a year after Obama had left office?
2. Michael Hastings Assassination
With that said, just because that crook Obama did it, DOES NOT excuse Trump, however, nobody can blame Trump for his actions in regards to the media.
Which has been in a literal collective psychotic breakdown since he was elected.
Perhaps if the media wants to be treated honorably, they should endeavor to act honorably.
That means not hiring former CIA agents like MSNBC, and covering stories of actual political corruption, not Trumps romantic relations with some slut bag porn star.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The predictable Obama id it first thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It does not matter how I address the folks here, the moment I diverge from the authorize platform I am immediately an enemy.
And guess what else? They start using ad hominem attacks then as well.
Guess what else? Folks like you talking about people using ad hominem attacks are no where to be found.
Tell me, where were you all the times these guys have done the same? Missing? Convenient I would say.
I only use ad hominem attacks against those that have used them against me first. This includes Mike of TD itself.
to be honest, I really do not care about them, I think people that focus on them are intellectually dishonest. Calling someone a bad name is a pointless affair, I only engage in it because it drives them crazy because most of them know I am correct but they hate it and instead choose to attack my language instead.
I call these people "those that like to attack the messenger".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
Even when Obama was separating families at the Border Mike himself said it did not matter, but it does matters now.
Often times both R's and D's commit such horrid atrocities both both sides regularly give their side a pass or just a light dusting of hand slapping so they can claim that they "do say bad things about both sides". They don't they just run their mouths like everyone else does.
I even have quote from de Maistre I like... "Every Nation gets the Government it deserves." They all talked crap about that quote.
But they never talk Crap when I Quote Obama... "You get the Politicians, you Deserve" which means exactly the same thing as de Maistre's quote... just paraphrased.
These folks are not interested in truth, just perception!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the messenger attacks first then what can you reasonably expect?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vid card died and couldnt say this
STOMP IN, RAVE AND DEMAND..
REQUEST EVERYTHING THAT YOU CAN THINK OF..
Appear to be threatening..
Appear that you will NOT SETTLE for less..
DO NOT LET UP..
Those on the other side will Capitulate..They will TRY to balance what you and they want, BE THE BIG CHILD AND DEMAND WHAT YOU WANT..
And you wonder HOW he keeps the UNION out of his business's..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I don't see you taking personal responsibility either. If you claim to have none then what makes you think anyone here does?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
…fucking what
There is. In regulating content and speech on the Internet, the government could tell me certain kinds of otherwise-legal speech is now “off-limits” because it was deemed “embarassing to the government”. In regulating the companies that provide access to the Internet, the government could not stop me from seeing that content—but the government could stop my ISP from blocking that content or throttling my connection because I accessed that content, and it could do more to create actual competition in the market so that my current ISP could not charge me exorbitant rates that I would have to pay if they were the only ISP in my area.
That fact does not mean we cannot or should not try to aim for that outcome.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You can both disagree with people here and refuse to insult them as a pre-emptive defense mechanism. If you lash out with insults first, however, do not be surprised when we return the favor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Where did you find orange tinfoil?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"if they can't regulate fair and equitable news, then how are they going to regulate fair and equitable access?"
- This makes no sense, perhaps you would like to re-phrase?
"The problem is that you "think" there is a difference between the two. There is not one. Take the Fosta/Sesta laws. Take the "State Security" laws, take the "classified document" laws, take the copyright laws. I mean seriously? How blind can you be? Apparently a lot!"
Wow - that proves your point for sure. No wiggle room at all. Case closed.
"There is NOTHING the government touches that gives "fair and equitable" output"
- Ok - who said otherwise?
" Just look at the fairness doctrine."
- You mean the one revokes in August 1987?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I never said anything of the sort, and I would appreciate you not shoving words down my throat that did not first come from it.
When I criticize the whole “an illegal immigrant killed her!” slant of that story, I mean to point out how people doing that shit have given the immigration status of the suspect—and the immigration system in general—more priority than the fact that a woman was murdered. That woman’s dead body matters to such people only as a prop, as a tool to bash people who want to rip on Donald Trump for his ideas on immigration. The most important part of this story is not “the wall” or ICE or whether this guy was in the country illegally; the most important part of this story is that a woman is dead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You should have looked harder.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Says someone who claims “Obama does no wrong for these people” in spite of the evidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Like Sesta/Fosta?
Regulating behavior like this is regulating freedom of speech. People selling themselves, while morally wrong, is not the governments constitutional domain, same as with drugs, but we let those asshole regulate all of medicine do "keep you safe". There is no evidence that all the federal regulations have saved enough lives compared to the snake oil salesmen that are "still in medicine"!
"In regulating the companies that provide access to the Internet, the government could not stop me from seeing that content—but the government could stop my ISP from blocking that content or throttling my connection because I accessed that content, and it could do more to create actual competition in the market so that my current ISP could not charge me exorbitant rates that I would have to pay if they were the only ISP in my area."
How you do not see this as doing the SAME THING, just a different way?
How may ways can I stop you from listening to the speech of the person across the way without actual directly stopping your freedom of speech? Say you are no longer allowed outside of your home? How about you can't go into their home? How about we just say that moving your mouth is illegal while saying "you still have freedom of speech", you just better not wag that tongue or we cut it out! You can play coy all you want, I can come up with any number of ways to silence your speech without making any law that directly runs afoul of the 1st, but I can come up with a number of ways to "control" your rights to the press in all sorts of nebulous/indirect ways!
"That fact does not mean we cannot or should not try to aim for that outcome."
That is where we agree, we just disagree on the methods to accomplish this! We have to perform this through the lens of liberty where people have the choice, not through the lens of where a politician gets to make that choice for me through regulatory agency! That is the "illusion of choice" just like my choice of broadband ISP's... already picked out for me... I just get to pick from the list they authorized me to pick from!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Guess I missed the posts to which you refer where someone blamed rich repub and not rich dems ... oh well, guess I will take your word for it. You seem to be upset about this. People can be assholes - who knew?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It seems to me that you're the one showing bias -- by implying that illegal immigrants are likelier to commit violent crimes than other demographics, when the facts show exactly the opposite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You obviously knew, given your demonstrations of that fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Here is idea..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It brings out the yellow in the mellow.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Read it again until it sinks in.
"Wow - that proves your point for sure. No wiggle room at all. Case closed."
Go ahead, see how much freedom of the press you get if you publish a state secret or go against a judge's gag order. I want to see what your "wiggle room" looks like then. Though I am sure you will most definitely be squirming! Here is your 100% solid chance to prove someone on the internet wrong! Act Now... Don't Delay!
"- You mean the one revokes in August 1987?"
Yes, I put that there to prove that we Americans not against shitting on the Constitution when it serves our politics. We are just going down that road again, just a different way.
There is a reason the words "eternal vigilance" are uttered when it comes to people needing to watch for tyranny. There will never be a moment when liberty is safe, it must be defended at all times or people like you with fuzzy logic allow government to create unconstitutional laws and oppress people until enough happens that our grandchildren have to kill each other during a war to stop it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Call me what you like, I can handle it. In fact I love a good creative cut down. I follow this logic when it comes to insults.
Anyone insulted by something not intended to insult them are fools, and anyone insulted by something intended to insult them are even greater fools, for they have played it the hands of their enemies!
I cannot remember the proper person to attribute that paraphrased quote too.
The insulted only insult themselves!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
fyi - yellow journalism has it roots deep in the past, it probably started immediately after the first cave paintings.
"These folks are not interested in truth, just perception!"
Hahahaha ... our glorious leaders are telling us that truth is not truth, does that mean perception is not perception?
It is interesting to watch the puppets in office dance to their overlords whims while wailing at others for reporting on it .. and then there are the sad sad supporters - poor fools.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Neither you, nor Trump can claim anything resembling to taking personal respnsibility either. But then again, that may also be why we are both anonymous and incredibly cowardish on this side?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By the way, I cannot quantitatively prove that I was insulted first any more than you can quantitatively prove that I am the first to insult.
I have had many replies to Baron Von Robber in support and opposition to many things he has said over the years.
I really do not care, say that I insulted first, you may believe however you like! Whether I am right or wrong will not change things. I am going to be insulted whether I insult or not, and no one will ever come to my defense when I am insulted as I have yet to see it happen.
And yes, I know, its always because I say such stupid things too. It's okay to insult people who say stupid things... It's just not okay for ME to insult people when THEY say stupid things.
I feel ya!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I would be willing to bet good money right now that you actually thought that was really clever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
I heard asbestos water is the new thing for true patriots to drink!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So you words could not possibly imply that then? Not even a smidgen?
"When I criticize the whole “an illegal immigrant killed her!” slant of that story, I mean to point out how people doing that shit have given the immigration status of the suspect—and the immigration system in general—more priority than the fact that a woman was murdered."
Look, I can agree with that sentiment, it is the same thing as with the gun debate, both sides would rather politicize it rather than actually come a suitable solution. Of course what one considers a suitable solution is not the same as another's. But with that said, if another political issue is considered a part of that failure you will not be able to stop them from jumping on that wagon. I don't think anyone "intends" to minimize the death of someone. But they do intend to point out the problems that are occurring based on how they view certain policies.
"That woman’s dead body matters to such people only as a prop, as a tool to bash people who want to rip on Donald Trump for his ideas on immigration."
How do you feel when people said the same about David Hogg?
People ride to fame over all sorts of tragedy. In fact almost every famous figure is famous because they experienced or overcame a tragedy or great difficulty of some kind.
"the most important part of this story is that a woman is dead."
This is not true and you know it. Why she is dead is the most important part of the story. If I get murdered I won't care that people know I am dead, I want them to care about why someone killed me and how to take steps to prevent it from happening to someone else and to also hopefully nailing the bastard that murdered me to the fucking wall!
You may not like how these things do get politicized, but the conversation needs to happen. Same as with all politicized issues. Someone needs that conversation to happen, and because "vigilance is eternal" that conversation will never be finished!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
You're exactly right, except for the "when" Obama part. We have no proof at all that Obama ever separated children from their parents at the border or anywhere! If someone has proof, please by all means, post a photo or article from an approved activist or human rights group proving this allegation.
Now if Obama, I'm not saying he did, but theoretically and hypothetically, IF Obama had separated children from their parents, then it was probably for a good reason, we aren't aware of. Obama would never knowingly hurt a child or sexually molest women like Trump, so we must give him the benefit of the doubt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The first step to recovery is to realize that you are part of the problem. Every time you join the ranks of a political party you perpetuate the problem. Why else do you think people feel helpless and voiceless? They literally and willingly gave up their voices to a party platform... what right do they have to bitch about the "other" platform when they should clean up their own house first!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Go take it back, just know that you will have a hard time getting people to think and act for themselves rather than at someone else behest or orders!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Trump is more a reflection of you than me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
Does this fit in with the kill a couple of people and people call you murderer but kill thousands and they call you a Conqueror?
It's not the fact that families are separated, it is the purpose for their separation I am interested in. But because there are a lot of intellectually dishonest double standards around the real details are lost in the menage.
I am okay with both Trump and Obama separating families, as long as it was to verify that they are actually families and not just coyotes raping kids with the apparent "blessings of the left". I am sure that the left does not want them raped, but it is clear that these children's safety comes a very distant second to "party politics".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
At some point, someone is going to say, he wait a second, who gives a shit about Trump having consensual sex with a hot porn star and then paying her off, like half of Hollywood/D.C. has been doing for decades.
Or, maybe, and this is REALLY WEIRD WACKY OUT THERE STUFF, maybe the press could try asking important questions about important topics. Perhaps they could cover issues fairly without their overtly insane corporate liberal bias?
Perhaps then, they could be taken seriously, and people might defend them.
Right now, I'm being asked to defend a bunch of non-thinking CIA controlled zombies who don't seem to realize that people can watch Stormy Daniels on pornhub anytime they want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That depends on how many times you are willing and able to take a punch to the face.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Vid card died and couldnt say this
That's a good insight actually, although, your post written a bit cryptically...
The problem with the Socratic method, is that it assumes nobody is aware of it. Just like wave/particle duality, once someone knows about it, it tends to manipulate the result.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Satire is a nono here... me bad... me very bad!
Yes, we know that TD called out Obama. But the missing shrill in the TD's articles are shockingly missing compared to those written about Trump.
Maybe I am biased, but just know that I hate both Trump & Obama and would never vote for either even if a gun was held to my head. You folks love voting for scum, I think they are just scum.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
But I can accept that I have to clearly point out what is satire and what I am trying to get across as a literal fact if I can remember to do that for you next time!
Poe's Law and all!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You underestimate the average Trump supporter…and GOP lawmakers, for that matter.
Given how Michael Cohen confessed to making those payoffs at the direction of Donald Trump for the expressed purpose of keeping those stories under wraps until after the election…I’m gonna take a shot in the dark and say Robert Mueller has an interest in that particular sordid tale.
To the first part? Yes. To the second part? Perhaps we should ask the same of conservative news outlets—unless they get a pass because they are conservative.
…fucking what
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Satire is not bankruptcy; you cannot just declare it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
Perhaps because Techdirt, as a whole, has spent plenty of time discussing Obama's failures, and the 'token' statement is in fact a reference to history. If every time something happened we had to spend a few pages covering whether or not obama did it, we bury the lede.
As other commmentors noted, a quick search can bring up a ton of articles on the issue of obama and whistleblowers. Covering those issues again buries the current news, and undermines the ideas presented that Trumps actions are in fact worse.
Citation Needed
Its likely they didn't have all the background information until after he left office. This kind of investigative Expose takes time. And define "when it mattered". because I think if you go back to 2010-12 when this information could have mattered, Politico didn't have anything.
I actually had to look this one up. Nothing Hastings reported on is really any worse than any of the other high-profile leaks we have seen with known living and there is enough evidence from people close to him that this could be explained. As a sufferer of Mainc Depression, even excessive caffeine use can trigger the cycling behavior and make me Manic. I would say a threadbare cyber hack of his car isn't evidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nobody cares what you think.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's up to each generation to fight for those rights. One of the results of this insanity, is that we are still dealing with the same dumb issues we have been for 70 years now, while various crooks rob the country blind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
> 'Bizzare Critisim'
Wut?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don’t feel like dealing with your bullshit any more, so I’mma pick out this one thing to deal with and leave you to your bullshit:
Considering how he was in that school when that shooting occured, he has far more of a right to talk about gun control in re: school shootings than people who are unrelated to Mollie Tibbetts have to talk about how she might still be alive if it wasn’t for our immigration system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because the FBI doesn't bankrupt innocent people and force them into confessions against their will?
That NEVER happens. What was it that Mueller was investigating again? Oh right, Russian Collusion.
Look, Cohen is a scum bag, no doubt in my mind, but why couldn't the FBI or Justice Department just investigate him? Why did they need a special prosecutor?
OH RIGHT....now I remember, in order to paralyze or try to paralyze President Trump for as long as possible with Bullshit Media stories about topics most people barely understand or care about.
Trump paid a porn star to shut her filthy whore mouth. That payment is being sold as an "illegal campaign contribution"
You have got to fucking be kidding me? So quit quoting how many indictments of this or that Mueller did or did not get. It's just noise and propaganda.
Fact of the matter is, no matter how dirt and sleazy Trump may be, The Podesta Group, The DNC, and Hillary Clinton were NEVER EVEN HONESTLY INVESTIGATED.
The now defunct Podesta Group president, brother to John Podesta got an immunity deal? Really? Why?
Oh right, because WE GOTTA GET BAD TRUMP!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
Oh, okay, thanks for clearing that up! I knew that there was a rational explanation for Politico not running one of the biggest scandals since Iran/Contra. The story of why Obama let terrorist group Hezbollah deal Cocaine in order to make the Iranians happy enough to make a sham nuclear deal.
This seems super legit. I mean that fact that barely any of the "news" organization other than Politico covered the story at all, well that's just because it's not important. I mean Trump porking a Porn Star and RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA is a much much much more serious danger to our Republic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
You looked it up, in order to debunk it. Just think about that for a second. You don't have to reply, just go to your bathroom mirror and be honest with yourself.
Without even knowing what the story was or was not, you went to Internet and looked up information on a topic to fit a conclusion you had already made, based on zero evidence, so that you could post a 1-2 liner Dollar Store skeptical debunking.
Wow! Talk about Cognitive Bias....textbook.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It’s her worlds tiniest violin playing just for you.
I know it’s hard to hear up on that cross you’ve nailed yourself to. But rest assured it’s playing just for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
for example: x cannot ever be good, because the government created x, and the government is bad. this is an _argumentum ad hominem_, a logical fallacy. "ad hominem attack" is just a stupid phrase. maybe you are just parroting something used by stupid people, so you might not want to do that.
also, "attacking the messenger" means abusing a neutral party who is merely reporting facts beyond their control. it does not mean "disagreeing with the claims of a person who keeps repeating them".
you can call shit whatever you want, but it is either ignorant, or calculated rhetoric designed to win debate points outside any actual merit of your argument.
so beyond that, hey, i agree there are serious issues with government, but personal, unfettered liberty is no better. i would rather deal with some regulatory capture and bad laws than to deal with completely unrestrained corporations and neighbors. they don't give a fuck about the constitution or your rights when it suits them either, and they are way more proximal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"But there are many that feel that Mollie Tibbetts would still be alive today if immigration had been enforced, and they're probably right."
She was statistically more likely to be killed by a natural born citizen. One data point, or even dozens, does not prove anything when over over 15,000 people are murdered in the US each year.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Look Who's Doing the Collusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fact of the matter is, no matter how dirt and sleazy Trump may be, The Podesta Group, The DNC, and Hillary Clinton were NEVER EVEN HONESTLY INVESTIGATED.
And 2 years in, with a republican congress, executive branch, and justice department you guys still haven't done anything about it?
Man, talk about do-nothing impotent incompetents! When are the republicans going to actually do something? Please, tell me since there's so much to investigate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
In what way is it an attack?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
They called for others to 'in their own words' say something about the President calling for 1st Amendment illegal activity by the government, is collusion? Was there any violation of law in that? Was there any 1st Amendment violation in that? Did they do it to burn Trumps butt? Possibly, but so what? They are allowed to burn Trumps butt, whether he likes it or not.
Well, maybe it was collusion, but there is nothing illegal about that. I can collude with my neighbor to complain about our HMO's contention that our community owned pool should not be used in the summer. What is wrong with that? Nothing illegal about that.
Now, conspiracy to commit an illegal act is something different. What illegal acts have been committed by any Trump associates, whether employees of the White House or employed by Trump directly, via contract or company? Do any conspiracies exist there? Are any of those conspiratorial acts illegal? Some were, see Cohen and Manafort.
Both of those definitions make allusions to illegal activity. Illegal activity is not necessary to invoke either definition. Illegality is necessary for the activity to be illegal, under either condition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
A group of people can conspire to obstruct justice. Or, alternately, a person can obstruct justice in an investigation into a criminal conspiracy. In either of those examples, two crimes have occurred: a conspiracy, and an obstruction of justice.
And no other crime need be committed for obstruction of justice to occur. If you're innocent of a crime but you interfere with an investigation into that crime, then you've obstructed justice. Perhaps you're familiar with the expression "it's not the crime, it's the coverup"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The GOP is the Pope mobile. Trump is the Pope.
You wouldn't blame the Pope mobile for failing to adequately investigate Catholic priests would you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
Yes, but no other crime need actually be committed for criminal conspiracy to occur; merely planning to commit a crime is sufficient for criminal conspiracy.
If you plan to rob a bank and get arrested before you actually get to the bank, that's still conspiracy. And if you plan to conspire with a foreign power to covertly interfere with a US election, but when you get there they don't tell you anything useful, that's still conspiracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
You are correct in that for a conspiracy, no other crime need be committed. The fact remains that the administration has called both collusion and conspiracy as acts of their detractors. Short of defamation, detractors can say anything they want. That is, until the government intervenes, then it becomes expensive expression. Which to me would seem to be a 1st Amendment violation. Collecting from the government when they lose the suit is...well an exercise in futility. It might happen, but they have the long wallet, or erm, all the patience in the world. Takes us to court again, and again, and again. We pay for them procrastinating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Another question might be, what is the current editorial policy at the Washington Post? I don't have an answer to that, nor have I looked. At some point, someone might find that Bezos is imprinting his (whatever it is) ideology on that newspaper. On the other hand, he might have said, do what you do, and given them a free hand. Until we hear some analysis, we won't know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Vid card died and couldnt say this
Is WHO has the power..
Who has backing..
Its like how a person gets published..
The writer or the person with the printing press??
Musician or the Distributor..
Unless you can or are willing to do it yourself..THEY DO.
IF' there is competition...YOU DONT.
But you can SELF publish.(esp now days)
TRUMP THINKS he has power. And the CORPS say so..
And You and I are paying 25+25% import taxes, tariff
s..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
Politicians have dirty hands. It does not matter whether they are R's or D's or Other's. They all have dirty hands. They need to do so in order to be re-elected. That they desire to be re-elected is a big problem. That they need to listen to corpratocracy in order to get the money to be re-elected is also a problems. That they are R's or D's or Other's is an additional, and not irrelevant problem. Having an ideology that is not 'for the people' is a problem.
Denigrating an incumbent, whatever their position (and that means the President as well), for not being for the people is a good thing. Equal justice based on the facts needs to be upheld, is a true statement, so long as the facts are not manipulated...something that is at issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't seem to have prevented the Washington Post from criticizing Amazon.
Amazon employees demand company cut ties with ICE
Amazon continues to profit off the sale of white supremacist propaganda, report says
Amazon wants a key to your house. I did it. I regretted it.
Is Amazon Prime worth it?
How merchants secretly use Facebook to flood Amazon with fake reviews
Two senators want Amazon's Jeff Bezos to answer for Alexa's eavesdropping
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because Trump isn't a Republican.
Sure, he just has 87% of the party's support, that's all. Not republican one bit.
And again, since he hires the best people and all, I would hold his justice department (who he appointed) responsible since it's in their wheelhouse.
And frankly, he said he can take over the Russia investigation. So again, he says he can do it - if he can do that, why not investigate Hillary? What in the fuck is he waiting for?
Face it, you guys are so used to doing nothing, now that you've got the wheel, you can't drive. Tell the chimps to keep hoping for her to get locked up - it's really all you have left.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: tl;dr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I don't wonder much, I won't be looking to see. But it does relate to the original question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
btw - things do change, so don't be too despondent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and to what does this refer?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
thank - you
I'll be here all night
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Five of them are now convicted felons facing time in the big house.
Soryy - just had to blurt that out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
That is quite the stretch there - you should go get some spandex and join the neighborhood super hero club.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: tl;dr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
If 300 news organizations join together and that is not collusion, then members of the Trump team, assuming that they had Russian contacts, didn't collude with Russia.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
That there was some interference with the elections, and possibly by some Russians, is still under investigation. Guess who is causing the slowness of the investigation?
The question that I do not hear being addresses is; since the Electoral College, and not the popular vote, elected the president, whom did the interference effect?
Your point of view is that the problem lies with anyone not Republican. That is, if nothing, short sighted. That we have an Electoral College still, that we have soft money in politics, that we still have political parties, and others, are the problems.
Your point of view is seriously one sided, and I am having a hard time to figure out what side that actually is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The predictable Obama id it first thread
...Do you realize how little that narrows things down?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In every story
No, he called the fake news the enemy of the people. Even the link you gave corroborates he said, "fake news is the enemy of the people."
I'm sick of this shoddy, deliberate twisting to fit an agenda.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: In every story
Given how often and indiscriminately he throws the term 'fake news' around such that at this point it might as well translate to 'anything that makes me look bad and/or that I don't like' the two are basically indistinguishable, though if you've got a solid definition of the term that would include news critical of him and/or his policies/actions/statements and that he would agree with by all means present it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: In every story
Even when the Soviets controlled all the media and killed millions of Russians, the Russians still knew what was going on. They didn’t have a chance to cast a confidential vote, but the truth is even Soviet Russia did not fool many. It scared them into submission, for sure, but even the average Russian is smart enough to see propaganda for what it is.
Maybe all this propaganda, here and other places, will backfire again in a spectacular fashion, just as it did with the election of Trump.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trump is more a reflection of you than me.
...Yeah, no. I'm not the one screaming about how I'm mentally superior and everyone else who disagrees is an idiot.
Own that Trumpian resemblance, paint eater. You've earned it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Here is idea..
Why do people keep saying this a though they're making some kind of a valid point?
All journalists HAVE biases, if by biases we mean they're own personal opinions on matters of politics. Most journalists do not let those personal opinions govern how they report on current news. All of those reporters will certainly have their background stances shine through anyway.
Telling a reporter not to be "biased" is telling them not to have an honest opinion that viewers can see. You might as well ask them to stop breathing. Any why in the shit would we want news folk to mask their true selves when giving us the news? You're literally asking them to be fake to achieve credibility?
"Lie to me so that I trust you!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The predictable, but what about Obama's War on Journalism?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: In every story
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: In every story
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: In every story
That will bring out the conservative voters more than any logical argument you can apply. It may even make it obvious to left-leaning readers that their argument is completely ridiculous.
Reverse-Psychology, so to speak. Invented long ago, by one of my relatives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trump and the G-Spot and my 401k
Actually, it was a friend of my mother that invented the G-Spot, no kidding.
Has anyone checked their 401k lately? That’s Trump at work.
How dangerous is he? How much winning can you stand?
Personally, I love winning, especially with money. And the G-Spot, too. Good stuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Citation Needed]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is easy to explain with the right approach
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Sioux Center, Iowa (CNN)Donald Trump boasted Saturday that support for his presidential campaign would not decline even if he shot someone in the middle of a crowded street.
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally here.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot-somebody-support/index.html
If you don't like CNN, there are plenty of other sources that documented that statement at the time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I can go down 5th Ave and shoot somebody and nothing would happen to me." - said in front of thousands and video to show to millions.
Were you just rescued from a deserted island?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
- and yet in the next sentence you do exactly that.
"But there are many that feel that .."
It reminds me of the world famous .. I am not a racist but,
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: In every story
Me too!
The fact that Agent Orange Der Grabbinfuhrer keeps calling anything he does not like to be fake news while some of the worst yellow journalism in decades is proudly declared as official administration policy - is making a lot of people sick to their stomaches.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is easy to explain with the right approach
^^^ This is called projection
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: In every story
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: In every story
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look Who's Doing the Collusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This is easy to explain with the right approach
Project is a term used in the field of psychiatry which describes the denial of qualities within ones self while attributing or blaming them upon others.
Or it can refer to a display, usually via visible light, upon a large surface.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: This is easy to explain with the right approach
auto correct - Grrrrrrr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This is easy to explain with the right approach
He will die in prison.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's very hard to satirize Trump supporters (zealots) these days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Link to a REPUTABLE source and I will then take it seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
--------
And as even NYMag, certainly no Trump boosters, noted, this is a common New Yorkism. Calling it a threat is idiotic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://cis.org/Huennekens/DOJ-26-Federal-Prisoners-Are-Aliens
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://cis.org/Huennekens/DOJ-26-Federal-Prisoners-Are-Aliens
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: This is easy to explain with the right approach
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trump is not attacking the "press"
Trump can call journalists stupid and an enemy (Even if he did not say it, journalists are your enemy. Journalists are bad at math and have no concern for science. They reject everything we need for a better world.) Labeling "fake news" or even journalists as the enemy is fine and perfectly acceptable. Conflating journalists and the corporate press with protections of the "free press" is a much greater threat to actual press rights. That can and probably will lead to press rights that are only extended to a small number of politically connected moneyed individual and corporations. Journalists love it because they are stupid and hate being corrected for not understanding basics about math, science, and technology. They also want no competition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]