Trump's legal attack on a Free Press just happened
POSTED BY: captaincrunch
UPDATED: Saturday, March 23, 2019 05:37
VIEWED: 3370
PAGE 1 of 1
One of the major freedoms keeping the US from being Russia and Trump from being Putin, is our Free Press. In the lawsuit and subsequent defense that CNN filed against The White House, WH lawyers actually argued:
"In court on Wednesday, Justice Department lawyer James Burnham argued that the Trump White House has the legal right to kick out any reporter at any time for any reason -- a position that is a dramatic break from decades of tradition.
While responding to a hypothetical from (judge) Kelly, Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's press pass if it didn't agree with their reporting. "As a matter of law... yes," he said."
That way would lead to Dictator Donald.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/16/media/cnn-trump-lawsuit-hearing/index.h
tml
"Where were you when the White House tried to legally rip up the 1st amendment?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1) The WH press briefing room is small. I would imagine that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of news outlets that never get invited due to sheer space limitations.
2) Because of that, quite obviously, the WH has the authority to exclude or include ANY organization that it chooses. The inclusion of CNN and the "usual suspects" is based on TRADITION, not law.
3) Acosta behaved like an ass. He kept hold of the microphone just to badger Trump and wouldn't relinquish it for OTHER news outlets. Not only was he disrespecting the President, he was disrespecting the other reporters there. Acosta should have been tossed out on his ass at the time. So sure, let CNN back in, but keep Acosta out. The guy is a tool.
4) Or let Acosta in but don't call in him to ask any questions.
5) Or simply don't hold any press conferences. There's no law that says that President MUST have press conferences.
6) In any case, a judge has ruled that Acosta must be given "due process" - whatever that is- before he can be kicked out.
*****
Did you know that there was a huge kerfuffle between the press and Obama when Obama tried to make them use "official" WH photographs from WH events (What, the press can't take pictures?) Apparently with McClatchy and USA Today vowed to boycott the "official" photos while Associated Press, ABC News, the Washington Post and Reuters all signed a letter to White House press secretary Jay Carney, and CNN, NBC, CBS "supported" the letter.
“Journalists are routinely being denied the right to photograph or videotape the president while he is performing his official duties,” last week’s letter reads. “As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist’s camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the Executive Branch of government.”
So yeah ... "But Obama..."
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Now THIS is a much bigger deal:
Quote:
Copy-Paste Error Reveals Assange Already Facing US Indictment
Update: The ACLU has published a statement declaring the US's decision to prosecute Assange to be "unprecedented and unconstitutional".
* * *
Mere hours after the Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-is-optimistic-it-will-prosecute-assan
ge-1542376108?mod=hp_lead_pos2&tesla=y reported that the DOJ was preparing to indict Wikileaks' founder Julian Assange, the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-
has-been-charged-prosecutors-reveal-in-inadvertent-court-filing/2018/11/15/9902e6ba-98bd-48df-b447-3e2a4638f05a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ec98efd57803 discovered that Assange has already been charged under seal by the Eastern District of Virginia, which has been handling the yearslong probe into Wikileaks' disclosures of classified government information.
The revelation was apparently the result of a copy-and-paste error in another, unrelated, court filing, according to Seamus Hughes. That case involved Seitu Sulayman Kokayi, a 29-year-old who had been charged with both enticing a 15-year-old girl into sex by sending him pornographic i mages while also having "substantial interest in terrorist acts."
Assistant US Attorney Kellen S. Dwyer, urging a judge to keep the matter sealed, wrote that "due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged." Later in the filing, Dwyer wrote that the charges would "need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested."
That Kokayi case involved previously classified information and prosecutors were planning to use information obtained under the FISA act. Kokayi was indicted last week and is set to be arraigned on Friday. His case has been sealed since September.
Since the revelation was made in error, no other details about the charges against Assange were revealed.
Dwyer is also assigned to the WikiLeaks case. People familiar with the matter said what Dwyer was disclosing was true, but unintentional.
Joshua Stueve, a spokesman for EDVA, said "the court filing was made in error. That was not the intended name for this filing."
Assuming he is charged, it's still not clear whether Assange would wind up in a US courtroom to face trial. He has been living in the Ecuador embassy in London since 2012, fearing he would be arrested if he steps outside. While the relationship between Assange and his Ecuadorian hosts had deteriorated significantly this year - he sued the government in an Ecuadorian court after the embassy cut off his Internet access and took other punitive measures reportedly in response to his slovenly habits and penchant for food-mooching. But he lost the suit, and is now appealing.
Even if he is charged, Assange’s coming to the United States to face trial is no sure thing. Since June 2012, Assange has been living in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London, afraid that if he steps outside he will be arrested.
When he first sought asylum in the embassy, he was facing possible extradition to Sweden in a sex crimes case. He has argued that case was a pretext for what he predicted would be his arrest and extradition to the United States.
In the years since, the Swedish case has been closed, but Assange has said he cannot risk leaving the embassy because the United States would attempt to have him arrested and extradited for disclosures of U.S. government secrets. Throughout that time, the United States has refused to say whether there are any sealed charges against Assange.
If Assange were to leave the embassy and be arrested by British authorities, he would likely still fight extradition in the British courts.
The DOJ has for years refused to reveal whether charges have been pending against Assange under seal, though it was widely believed that they were. But. seeing as filinNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Big surprise - SIGHEIL arguing against the First Amendment.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
1) The WH press briefing room is small. I would imagine that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of news outlets that never get invited due to sheer space limitations.
Not the one this happened in - it's more like an auditorium. Or did you not know that?
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
2) Because of that, quite obviously, the WH has the authority to exclude or include ANY organization that it chooses. The inclusion of CNN and the "usual suspects" is based on TRADITION, not law.
I was talking about the 1st Amendment - it's the law in this country. If the WH lawyer says they should be able legally to ban any reporter who's reporting they don't like, that's an attack on the Free Press - it's not seat counts. Your arguments are weak and transparent as usual.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
3) Acosta behaved like an ass.
You're an ass, but we let you babble on and on.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
He kept hold of the microphone just to badger Trump and wouldn't relinquish it for OTHER news outlets. Not only was he disrespecting the President, he was disrespecting the other reporters there. Acosta should have been tossed out on his ass at the time. So sure, let CNN back in, but keep Acosta out. The guy is a tool.
So we should be able to ban reporters based on whether we like them or not? Like I said, you don't care about the Constitution or The First Amendment or a Free Press.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
5) Or simply don't hold any press conferences. There's no law that says that President MUST have press conferences.
No there isn't, but how long do you think he'd last if he stopped? Think it through one time.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
6) In any case, a judge has ruled that Acosta must be given "due process" - whatever that is..."
Funny quote of the month, that you don't what "due process" is.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Did you know that there was a huge kerfuffle between the press and Obama when Obama tried to make them use "official" WH photographs from WH events (What, the press can't take pictures?) Apparently with McClatchy and USA Today vowed to boycott the "official" photos while Associated Press, ABC News, the Washington Post and Reuters all signed a letter to White House press secretary Jay Carney, and CNN, NBC, CBS "supported" the letter.
Attacking the Free Press and the Constitution v. "Official" photos. That seems equal to you?
You're not at all obvious are you?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Press conferences are as much a dog-and-pony show as WH "events".
Attacking the Free Press and the Constitution v. "Official" photos. That seems equal to you?
In any case, I don't see that the WH attacked the "free press", it merely punished a rude and disrespectful reporter.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:(Lie) Not at all. I'm very much in favor of a free press. I noticed that you had nothing to say about Assange.
Big surprise - SIGHEIL arguing against the First Amendment.
Quote:
1) The WH press briefing room is small. I would imagine that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of news outlets that never get invited due to sheer space limitations.- SIGNY
Not the one this happened in - it's more like an auditorium. Or did you not know that?- GSTRING
If you do a head-count of the people in view, which may represent about 30% of attendees, I only see about 33 people, which means the capacity of the conference room is about 100 people. EVEN IF you double that number, to 200, are you saying that there are only 200 news outlets in the USA? In entire world? What about the Sacramento Bee? (an excellent newspaper plugged into California's capitol politics?) The Houston Chronicle? Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder? Al Jazeera? Financial Times? Straights Times?
Quote:How about banning rude people?
2) Because of that, quite obviously, the WH has the authority to exclude or include ANY organization that it chooses. The inclusion of CNN and the "usual suspects" is based on TRADITION, not law.- SIGNY
I was talking about the 1st Amendment - it's the law in this country. If the WH lawyer says they should be able legally to ban any reporter who's reporting they don't like, that's an attack on the Free Press - it's not seat counts. Your arguments are weak and transparent as usual.- GSTRING
Quote:But I'm not taking time away from other reporters either, am I?
3) Acosta behaved like an ass. - SIGNY
You're an ass, but we let you babble on and on.- GSTRING
Quote:No, but when a reporter is told th relinquish the microphone and give someone else a chance to ask a question, that's what they should do. Acosta wasn't even asking a question, he was badgering Trump. These press conferences are very competitive, to reporters. There's a limited amount of time, and everyone wants to be able to ask their question.
He kept hold of the microphone just to badger Trump and wouldn't relinquish it for OTHER news outlets. Not only was he disrespecting the President, he was disrespecting the other reporters there. Acosta should have been tossed out on his ass at the time. So sure, let CNN back in, but keep Acosta out. The guy is a tool.- SIGNY
So we should be able to ban reporters based on whether we like them or not? Like I said, you don't care about the Constitution or The First Amendment or a Free Press.- GSTRING
Quote:He would last "as long" with press conference as without. The M$M has been relentlessly hostile to Trump ever since he was elected. He's not getting any support from them so he can certainly do without them. In fact, I think the M$M needs Trump more than he needs them because, fortunately, there are other more direct lines of communication that Trump can use.
5) Or simply don't hold any press conferences. There's no law that says that President MUST have press conferences.- SIGNY
No there isn't, but how long do you think he'd last if he stopped? Think it through one time.- GSTTRING
I was merely pointing out the dog-and-pony-show nature of press conferences. There'a a whole hierarchy among the press corps that's been built up about who can sit where ... all for the privilege of acting like a WH stenographer!
Quote:No, I don't know what this SPECIFC "due process" is.
6) In any case, a judge has ruled that Acosta must be given "due process" - whatever that is..."- SIGNY
Funny quote of the month, that you don't what "due process" is.
Think it through: Since no laws were broken, there's no trial.
So, is it like an employee disciplinary hearing? Who holds the hearing? Who makes the decision? On what grounds? If Acosta disagrees with the outcome, who does he appeal to?
Not o
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Funny quote of the month. Sig knows what due process is.
T 
Hey, you guys know what white supremacist hate more than Jews, Polaks. Who here fits that description? kiki and sig to name two. Who loves the Polak hater Trump, kiki and sig to name two.
Fucking dummies
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CNN is free to send anybody else they want.
Acosta got spanked for being a bad doggie.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just got a seat-count on that room (which is way smaller than I guessed) from someone who was making the same point as I was ...
Quote:
How Can Press Room Access be a "Right" If Only Allowed to a Privileged Few?
It's difficult to see ... how something so limited and so unavailable to nearly everyone could be called a right. After all, not even all reporters can hope to secure a White House press pass. And non-reporters have even less chance of ever getting access. Access to White House media facilities and forums are a privilege reserved for a select few —and most of those few are wealthy operatives of extremely powerful media corporations. ...
The room, of course, is of a finite size — there are 49 seats — and access is limited. Only a select group of people is allowed in, and the credentialing process is controlled in part by the White House Correspondents' Association which hardly hands out credentials as if they were a human right.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Excuse me but, how can you indict a non-citizen with breaking OUR laws?
Greenwald: DOJ Prosecution Of Assange Poses "Grave Threats To Press Freedom"
The "accidental" disclosure that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been secretly charged by Department of Justice in the Eastern District of Virginia has ignited a firestorm over the freedom of the press, and protections offered to journalists under the First Amendment.
Beginning in 2010, the Department of Justice under Obama began to draw a distinction between WikiLeaks and other news organizations. Former Attorney General Eric Holder insisting that Assange's organization does not deserve the same first amendment protections during the Chelsea Manning case, in which the former Army intelligence analyst was found guilty at a court-martial of leaking thousands of classified Afghan War Reports.
Ultimately, the previous administration concluded that it could not criminally charge Assange and WikiLeaks due to First Amendment protections.
It appears, however, that the Trump Justice Department has now found a way, possibly under the Espionage Act
Quote:
to indict Assange - a move which would have wide-ranging implications for journalists and news outlets alike.
Opining on the Assange news is The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald - the journalist and author who published a series of reports while at The Guardian from whistleblower Edward Snowden, who leaked information on global surveillance programs based on classified documents.
***
Via The Intercept
Glenn Greenwald | November 16 2018
As the Obama DOJ Concluded, Prosecution of Julian Assange for Publishing Documents Poses Grave Threats to Press Freedom
THE TRUMP JUSTICE DEPARTMENT inadvertently revealedin a court filing that it has charged Julian Assange in a sealed indictment. The disclosure occurred through a remarkably amateurish cutting-and-pasting error in which prosecutors unintentionally used secret language from Assange’s sealed charges in a document filed in an unrelated case. Although the document does not specify which charges have been filed against Assange, the Wall Street Journal reported that “they may involve the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the disclosure of national defense-related information.”
Over the last two years, journalists and others have melodramatically claimed that press freedoms were being assaulted by the Trump administration due to trivial acts such as the President spouting adolescent insults on Twitter at Chuck Todd and Wolf Blitzer or banning Jim Acosta from White House press conferences due to his refusal to stop preening for a few minutes so as to allow other journalists to ask questions. Meanwhile, actual and real threats to press freedoms that began with the Obama DOJ and have escalated with the Trump DOJ – such as aggressive attempts to unearth and prosecute sources – have gone largely ignored if not applauded.
But prosecuting Assange and/or WikiLeaks for publishing classified documents would be in an entirely different universe of press freedom threats. Reporting on the secret acts of government officials or powerful financial actors – including by publishing documents taken without authorization – is at the core of investigative journalism. From the Pentagon Papers to the Panama Papers to the Snowden disclosures to publication of Trump’s tax returns to the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, some of the most important journalism over the last several decades has occurred because it is legal and constitutional to publish secret documents even if the sources of those documents obtained them through illicit or even illegal means.
The Obama DOJ – despite launching notoriously aggressive attacks on press freedoms – recognized this critical principle when it came to WikiLeaks. It spent years exploring whether it could criminally charge Assange and WikiLeaks for publishing classified information. It ultimately decided it would not do so, and could not do so, consistent with the press freedom guarantee of the FiNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Now, I have a strange idea that Trump wants to pressure Assange so that he can then "make a deal" with him to testify. That seems to be Trump's MO. But either way I find this a very problematic move, much more so than removing Acosta's press pass or calling CNN "fake news" (which it is).
*****
The other discussion that nobody has picked up on is whether or not the unsavory "leaks" to Assange of Podesta's emails were in the same category as the anti-Trump "leaks" coming from the FBI/bureaucracy.
Can one be in favor of one kind of leak and be against the other kind of leak, on a non-partisan basis? If so, how so you distinguish between one kind of leak and another?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm... can it be true that liberaloids are in favor of the "free press" for CNN, but not for Wikileaks? And that Pro-Trumpers are in favor of the "free press" for Infowars, but not MSNBC?
When does the First Amendment "free press" section apply, and to whom? And which "leaks" are legitimate and which ones aren't?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It seems GSTRING has run away from his OP.
This is just like the Dems crying about botched recounts destroying the "faith" that Americans have in their voting system, while conveniently forgetting that their wildly exaggerated claims of RUSSIA!!RUSSIA!!RUSSIA!! "hacking" did exactly the same thing, with even less evidence behind it.
Sheesh. Absolutely no objectivity or insight.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It seems GSTRING has run away from his OP.
This is just like the Dems crying about botched recounts destroying the "faith" that Americans have in their voting system, while conveniently forgetting that their wildly exaggerated claims of RUSSIA!!RUSSIA!!RUSSIA!! "hacking" did exactly the same thing, with even less evidence behind it.
Sheesh. Absolutely no objectivity or insight.
^I think you've banged your head too much.
How do you know what Mueller knows? You can't possibly, so you're an obvious liar.
Sheesh. Absolutely no shame or honesty.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It seems GSTRING has run away from his OP.
This is just like the Dems crying about botched recounts destroying the "faith" that Americans have in their voting system, while conveniently forgetting that their wildly exaggerated claims of RUSSIA!!RUSSIA!!RUSSIA!! "hacking" did exactly the same thing, with even less evidence behind it.
Sheesh. Absolutely no objectivity or insight.
^I think you've banged your head too much.
How do you know what Mueller knows? You can't possibly, so you're an obvious liar.
Sheesh. Absolutely no shame or honesty.
lol...
"But everybody should just look the other way when I've said with certainty for the last two years that Trump colluded with Russia even though I have no idea what Mueller knows either" ~Lefty Goons in the RWED
Hypocrites. Every last one of you.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Retired admiral who oversaw bin Laden raid doubles down on Trump criticism
Retired Adm. William McRaven, who oversaw the U.S. operation that killed Osama bin Laden, doubled down on Sunday on his criticism of President Trump's treatment of the press after the president went after McRaven in an interview with "Fox News Sunday."
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/417352-retired-admiral-wh
o-oversaw-bin-laden-raid-doubles-down-on-trump
T
Hey, you guys know what white supremacist hate more than Jews, Polaks. Who here fits that description? kiki and sig to name two. Who loves the Polak hater Trump, kiki and sig to name two.
Fucking dummies
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol...
"But everybody should just look the other way when I've said with certainty for the last two years that Trump colluded with Russia even though I have no idea what Mueller knows either" ~Lefty Goons in the RWED
Hypocrites. Every last one of you.
You can't resist bringing the Stupid, can you? I've actually said 'I have no idea what Mueller knows' when arguing with Kookie. You know why? Because I don't. Why is it so hard for you Trump types to be honest with the simpleest, most obvious things? What has Trump got that makes you so willing to lie in his favor? < / carefultrickquestion >
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So, since I tend to lump you in with all the other idiots here ...
I've actually said 'I have no idea what Mueller knows'
Have you promoted the "Russia hacked our election" and "Trump colluded with Russia" talking points based on 'I have no idea what Mueller knows'-amount of evidence? Or did you simply libel as a "Russian troll" anyone who pointed out that same admitted lack of evidence?
In other words, GSTRING, how culpable are you for promoting, forwarding, and defending a hysteria for which you admitted you have no evidence?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
White House correspondents' dinner ditches comedians for a history lesson
The White House correspondents’ dinner is abandoning comedy, instead hosting the historian Ron Chernow as its featured speaker at next year’s event.
The annual black tie dinner hosted by the White House Correspondents Association has traditionally featured a prominent comedian roasting the president, who in turn shares his own wisecracks with the assembled journalists and celebrities. But Donald Trump, who frequently attacks the press, has refused to attend the dinner.
The WHCA president, Oliver Knox, announced the more serious turn on Monday. Chernow, who has written biographies of founding fathers and American presidents, is expected to give a speech at the 27 April event on the importance of freedom of the press.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/19/white-house-correspond
ents-dinner-ditches-comedians-for-a-history-lesson
T
Hey, you guys know what white supremacist hate more than Jews, Polaks. Who here fits that description? kiki and sig to name two. Who loves the Polak hater Trump, kiki and sig to name two.
Fucking dummies
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
White House correspondents' dinner ditches comedians for a history lesson
The White House correspondents’ dinner is abandoning comedy, instead hosting the historian Ron Chernow as its featured speaker at next year’s event.
The annual black tie dinner hosted by the White House Correspondents Association has traditionally featured a prominent comedian roasting the president, who in turn shares his own wisecracks with the assembled journalists and celebrities. But Donald Trump, who frequently attacks the press, has refused to attend the dinner.
The WHCA president, Oliver Knox, announced the more serious turn on Monday. Chernow, who has written biographies of founding fathers and American presidents, is expected to give a speech at the 27 April event on the importance of freedom of the press.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/19/white-house-correspond
ents-dinner-ditches-comedians-for-a-history-lesson
T
Hey, you guys know what white supremacist hate more than Jews, Polaks. Who here fits that description? kiki and sig to name two. Who loves the Polak hater Trump, kiki and sig to name two.
Fucking dummies
Trump's a chicken sh*t in other words.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They're going to take advantage of the fact that Trump is going to be a no show, to highlight the best of what this country stands for in contrast to Trump.
T
Hey, you guys know what white supremacist hate more than Jews, Polaks. Who here fits that description? kiki and sig to name two. Who loves the Polak hater Trump, kiki and sig to name two.
Fucking dummies
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why would he waste his time having pink hat wearing idiots tell him that he's a Nazi?
He's already done a roast.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1865333/
He's the president now and doesn't have time for that shit. If you're really going to miss it, just watch any of the douchebag late night hosts any day of the week.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
GSTRING, ICYMI, this was for you
Quote:
Have you promoted the "Russia hacked our election" and "Trump colluded with Russia" talking points based on 'I have no idea what Mueller knows'-amount of evidence? Or did you simply libel as a "Russian troll" anyone who pointed out that same admitted lack of evidence?
In other words, GSTRING, how culpable are you for promoting, forwarding, and defending a hysteria for which you admitted you have no evidence?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Boo hoo.
Acosta is whining again.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/sarah-sanders-mocks-jim-acosta-cnn
-reporter-doesnt-get-called-president-trump-174610457.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:They've always whined about colleges being too liberal. Always.
Originally posted by second:
The right’s fixation on campus politics has never had much to do with realities on the ground, of course.
Now we've got groups like TPUSA who focus on and specialize in attacking professors they consider too liberal.
Professor Watchlist Is Seen as Threat to Academic Freedom
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/us/professor-watchlist-is-seen-as-t
hreat-to-academic-freedom.html
No Re-Turning Point, U.S.A.
From the “Professor Watchlist” to Tariq Khan, TPUSA’s campaign to silence opposition
https://thebaffler.com/the-poverty-of-theory/no-re-turning-point-u-s-a
I went inside a rightwing safe space to find out the truth about universities
With universities in an ‘existential crisis’, Turning Point USA sells a safe space for conservatives who have convinced themselves they are the embattled minority
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/07/charlie-kirk-tur
ning-point-usa-universities-free-speech-debate
Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
https://www.favreau.info/misc/14-points-fascism.php
Just more fascist creep from Trumpcorp.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The evidence has been handed in.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:So, since I tend to lump you in with all the other idiots here ...
I've actually said 'I have no idea what Mueller knows'
Have you promoted the "Russia hacked our election" and "Trump colluded with Russia" talking points based on 'I have no idea what Mueller knows'-amount of evidence? Or did you simply libel as a "Russian troll" anyone who pointed out that same admitted lack of evidence?
In other words, GSTRING, how culpable are you for promoting, forwarding, and defending a hysteria for which you admitted you have no evidence?
As a Russian troll, you've stuck to your masters' talking points to the letter.
Now you're projecting. Idiot. If I was your Russian troll boss, I'd fire you for being too obvious.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:Quote:The evidence has been handed in.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:So, since I tend to lump you in with all the other idiots here ...
I've actually said 'I have no idea what Mueller knows'
Have you promoted the "Russia hacked our election" and "Trump colluded with Russia" talking points based on 'I have no idea what Mueller knows'-amount of evidence? Or did you simply libel as a "Russian troll" anyone who pointed out that same admitted lack of evidence?
In other words, GSTRING, how culpable are you for promoting, forwarding, and defending a hysteria for which you admitted you have no evidence?
As a Russian troll, you've stuck to your masters' talking points to the letter.
Now you're projecting. Idiot. If I was your Russian troll boss, I'd fire you for being too obvious.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME