The problem is Trump is too much of a bully boy, real estate developer, petulant adolescent to figure out how to behave respectfully (or at minimum not disrespectfully) toward other people and still get what he needs. I always love it when folks claim whataboutism to defend their own folly. Trump isn't smart enough to figure this out. Sadly, too many "fans" tolerate this stupidity.
You don't have to lie. The fact that the legacy media is horribly biased can't be the only reason you act. Among other reasons is to give non-legacy media a shot in the limited space available. There are lots of perfectly legitimate and legal reasons to yank credentials. If among the reasons are impermissible ones, fine, just so long as you don't act on that one. THAT IS NOT LYING.
That is the law and why should we tolerate allegedly conservative or at least not communist officials acting without respect for the law? Why? "Because the other side does it" or "because if we don't do it, the other side will get in power and then we are doomed" are NOT good reasons to tolerate Trump's idiocy.
It amazes me how folks close their eyes to the consequences of Trump's stupidity. Despite having lots of great ideas and having instituted many of them, this behavior is going to doom Republicans in the mid-terms.
Trump is hardly stupid. He is brash, blunt, intolernt and impatient. But that is what was needed to combat the truly stupid but craftily malevolent left. The consequences of socialism and repression are far darker and more dangerous than anything Trump could possibly do in your somewhat fevered imagination.
He attended UPenn, a purportedly Ivy League school. Because daddy got him in. He daily exhibits the lack of the nuance and sophistication in his brain that would suggest genuine intelligence. It is all knee jerk, learned from daddy and his dealings in real estate, a decidedly narrow version of the world. That lack of intelligence is why, come midterms, he will lose much power and possibly come 2029, we'll all be worse off for having him in the White House.
Yup, Zayphar. This is similar to college admissions. They got themselves in trouble for coming right out and saying, "We don't want white men, and don't particularly like white women, but we like black men and women and brown men and women, and there are entirely too many Asians here." So they don't say those things out loud anymore, but still do end runs to get the outcomes they want. Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
"All he has to do is lie about his reasons, and then it is legal?"
(1) There's some confusion in Matt's post mixing "[legally] can" with "should". The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".
(a) The president isn't Congress. And (b) he's not muzzling CNN et al from reporting, which would be asserting 'law' (where, appropriately, Congress doesn't attempt to do so), as opposed to merely White House regulations. The White House (and Congress and Supreme Court) of course don't allow press in all kinds of meetings, and no one cries foul. So it's the spirit of the thing here regarding public discourse.
(2) But then in Matt's quote of the Supreme Court, it seems either the Court or Matt's assumption goes outside its expected boundaries by asserting: "a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interest, especially his interest in freedom of speech."
I didn't know that American speech freedom is actually this giant legal umbrella that fully covers a cultural norm?
Matt's still missing the point - Trump wants the "who censored more and got censored more battle" to rage, not bubble, right into the mid-terms.
Matt had it right the first time - the issue is censorship. The mainstream media is currently killing a story that is all over the Polish press. Many may have noticed, btw, that the AfD soared in the weekend elections in Germany while the party of Germany's leader got less than 5 percent in one two state elections - the background issues - wasting money, de-industrialization, immigration, and high energy prices.
Poland' prime minister Tusk announced in the Polish parliament on September 17, that Ukrainian authorities shared the new monthly Ukrainian casualty numbers. These numbers 27,000 Ukrainian killed and wounded have not been disputed by Ukraine. The significance of a top European political leader and Ukraine war hawk releasing numbers that destroy Ukraine's public claims would be a significant stand-alone story. But that would complicate funding this four-year debacle into it's fifth year.
Via Grok - The main Polish media reports that cover Tusk’s 17 September Sejm remarks, including the 27,000 monthly figure and his citation of Ukrainian partners:
Let's reduce that to 15,000 x 50 months by next April - 750,000 killed and wounded just on the Ukraine side alone? How is this not a crisis? Knock a third off that number and we're still looking at half a million dead and wounded Ukrainians. WTF?
The Press censoring, or even lying, is not covered under the Constitution, although there are libel laws. It’s the government that’s not suppose to censor or otherwise infringe on freedom of the Press.
The Court of King Trump has ruled - all the Russia-Russia-Russia - Settled Science hoaxers have bee tried and found guilty of undermining the credibility of the press and propagating false information injurious to the people and government of the USA.
Don't know why it took me so long to get to this. Many have been screaming for prosecutions of the bad actors in the government, the FBI, the media, and academia.
Matt may be right and the "courts" may rule against Trump - but in the jurisdiction that counts - ordinary voters - Trump's making his case and exercised his authority, as he sees it. For that I'm grateful.
The closer we can the WH press pool to the public stocks the better. Ready the baskets of rotten vegetables (and I mean the kind that grow in the ground, too!)
That's been said since Shakespeare's day, and with reason.
Indeed, this is part of Trump's appeal - that he won't wrap his actions in the hypocrisy necessary, which does put him here and elsewhere on the wrong side of the law. And I am not more in favor of lawbreaking in the POTUS than in anyone.
But while we do need to call Trump on all his BS (and there is far more skirting of actual laws this time around than last, alas), we do need to keep perspective, and awareness of the overall context of politicians and bureaucrats skirting the spirit of laws by lying.
Not quite. If by “it” you mean single out a handful of news orgs. for exile from press briefings, no he can’t just do it by lying. If on the other hand he wanted to keep them out by ending WH press briefings for all, he could. Or if he wanted to give them the boot by revoking their press credentials on national security grounds he could try that, though that would be a loser when he doesn’t do it to Al Jazeera. Or he could make their lives difficult like Obama and Biden have done with problem journalists. But even lying would not get him passed the 1st Amendment protection against genuinely “abridging” the freedom of the press, especially on a selective, partisan basis.
"The issue is that a president can’t say, out loud, that he or she is denying a pass for speech reasons."
There is so damn much you can get away with in America as long as you're a good liar. If I could do a Liar Liar thing like the kid in the movie, snap my fingers and no American could tell a lie again, this country would collapse into a heap of burning rubble.
The US runs on lies. The foundation of our economy, our democracy, and our society is a huge and intricate web of lies. This worked reasonably well as long as most people believed the lies, but the internet changed all that. Leaders can no longer tell lies that'll last very long, and everyone is waking up to just how much is a lie.
Question: Is there such a thing as a good lie, or a "white" lie?
I don't believe so, because most white lies are self-serving. When a girls asks her guy, "Does this dress make me look fat?", he lies and says, "No, Baby! You look great in that dress". He lies for his own self-interest, not to make her feel better.
But this is how ObamaCare survived in the Supreme Court. Congress that it was a tax on loudspeaker and repeat. Then, once challenged, they claimed it was a tax. CJ Roberts was happy to accept this revision.
"All he has to do is lie about his reasons, and then it is legal?"
No that's not even close to the truth. That's not how the law or the constitution works.
Simple hypothetical, Matt owns a nurse staffing company. Ten thousand employees and everyone is a biological male. He has never employed a biological female ever.
Matt standing up and saying that his intentions are only good and that he loves women is not a get out of jail free card.
In this hypothetical he is losing this court case if his only argument is that 'If I say I am innocent, then the courts have to accept that I am innocent.'
I understand completely why Matt wants to make the argument that all the president has to do is lie and it's all good, because without that argument then every president previous to Trump was also violating the first amendment in the same situation, because restricting the press pool to employees of multinational media corporations is a restriction on content.
Going back to the previous hypothetical. Using a proxy for sexism is not a get out of jail free card. If Matt said his hiring decisions weren't sexist because all of his employees have to be able to bench press more than 300 pounds, and it's not his fault that chicks are weak. A nurses job doesn't require anyone to bench 300 pounds so that argument isn't going to cut it.
The court does not have to accept a defendants assertion that they are innocent.
Limiting the press pool to the employees of multinational media corporations is a content ban by proxy. The acceptable sphere of discourse within the population of the employees of multinational media corporations is so small and so inbred, and the job of journalism does not require the limiting of available candidates to such a small subset, that this act alone is a content ban by proxy.
Because multi-national corporation can and do fire employees all the time for their content or beliefs, then restricting the press pool to those employees of large multi-nationals is a content ban by proxy.
The government outsourcing their content restriction to multi-national media companies and then only allowing the employees of those multi-national corporations into the press pool is content ban by proxy.
You can't outsource your illegal or unconstitutional behavior and then throw up your hands and say you didn't do anything wrong.
Let's say that trump doesn't limit access to the press pool by content, but refuses to answer questions based on content.
Trump reply is, "That's the stupidest fucking question I have ever heard." And then moves on.
Is this a first amendment violation? If not, then how is limiting access to the press pool by content any different?
Let's say Trump refuses to listen to questions from specific reporters based on content they previously produced, and puts his hands over his ears and sings "La La La" the whole time until they stop talking and then then moves on to the next question without any reply at all.
Is this a first amendment violation? If not, then how is limiting access to the press pool by content any different?
So at this point the constitutional argument here has nothing to do with the president at all. The argument is that journalists (which constitutionally includes everyone) have a right to go into an empty room in the white house and give a speech.
I going to say that there is no constitutional right for anyone to give a speech in an empty room in the white house, and the argument that there is is ridiculously stupid and silly.
Turing that same argument into a moral argument is a cherry of shit stupid right on top.
Matt, lawyers will submit dozens of pages of facts and case discussion. The first amendment like other issues isn't always as simple as citing the leading case. Your view may ultimately be vindicated but factual distinctions matter. Maybe it's *that* obvious and you're right. But the law often does not see things this way.
What is the press? Is it only the corporate big guys? Isn’t Trump the first president to allow bloggers to ask questions. This isn’t a free press issue it’s a protected privilege issue that corporate pretty people are butt-hurt about.
Yeah, I don't have access to the White House either. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
The interesting thing to me in this case is how the media is completely silent about the Washington state government doing this exact same thing (denying press credentials) to disfavored reporters Ari Hoffman and Brandi Kruse.
It's ALMOST like everybody involved only cares when it hurts their team.
I wonder if it ever occurred to those who want him to act like every other president that they shouldn't have tried to overthrow him, bankrupt him, jail him and kill him? If he's a monster, they created that monster
Sorry but unless there are consequences for contanstly lying, the legacy press will just continue to lie. I saw that fat fool, Erin "Battleaxe" Burnett on CNN last night screeching about some illegal being shot by ICE. Guess what? I could care less if they shoot them all. They are in our country illegally thanks to Democrats. The party of lies and treason. So what if these liars are excluded from press conferences. They're a scourge and nobody with a firing neuron watches them anyway.
Not really. I don't love the look but their incessant lying had to lead to consequences. Plus they remain free to spew their garbage and lies completely unimpeded.
It’s been like that since the Founding. Often a candidate would buy a paper just to be an organ for his campaign. Bad, but the government controlling it is even worse. Hence the 1st Amendment.
The "it's always been this way" argument doesn't cut it. I assure you, that many citizens back then, just like now, did NOT know they were being lied to until it was too late.
Unlike 250 years ago, the internet gives us the ability to quickly, almost immediately, expose lies. We're informed of lies in real-time. While some asswipe politician, or corporate leader, stands at a podium telling lies, those in the crowd expose the lies almost immediately. We only need to choose to do something about it, instead of looking the other way. However, a nation of liars are unlikely to "out" the best among them.
Imo, the perpetual lying will eventually bring us all to our knees, but not because of the lying, that's not new, it'll be due to the knowledge of all the lies. This will lead to a complete loss of faith. Once we lose faith in our government, our economy, and our social structure, loss of faith in our currency won't be far behind.
What do you think will happen when the World loses faith in the US dollar?
😂. I mean honestly, he doesn't care. A family friend , anti trump, recently came back from France and said how much the French people don't like him. Lol. My response "He doesn't care". Then they went on to talk about his poor diet. 🙄
I think that's what makes them really steam the most - they do irrational things that are driven by a "we'll show him!" mentality, then he turns around and publicly humiliates them with a crude, rational, down-to-Earth dismissal that many Americans can relate to.
Where were all these free press warriors when Biden would hold a rare appearance and only allowed a handful of preselected questions to be asked by a preselected supporters? He was so brain dead he had to write down the names of the six people he was allowed to ask
You know, I hate the comparative argument. "Boy, if you think this is bad, you should have seen what so and so did." How about sticking to the topic at hand. Biden is gone; this is Trump's problem.
Comparative arguments represent precedents. And precedents have downstream importance.
To hold Biden’s administration not accountable but insist on accountability for the Trump administration is rank willful ignorance. Past actions do not cease to exist because they are inconvenient.
I'm with you there. What I don't understand is how every supposedly educated pundit, including Matt, keeps framing this as a freedom of speech issue. These TDS networks can say anything they freaking want to say. The issue is wherher or not a person can speak to who they want to or not. And every one of the people taking the President to task here surely does exactly the same thing. Does Matt Taiibbi give interviews or speak to the local Chapter of the KKK? No, he does not. He chooses the audiences he talks to. He may come back and point out that his substack is there for everybody to read but so is the daily White House briefing. This is not about limiting any speech except the performative grandstanding crap these people enjoy filming at a daily briefing. Let them write their fiction in solitude somewhere else.
Yes! He looks at a gang-bangin' drug dealer and says what he sees. His opponents look at the same thing and then say they see an aspiring Hip Hop artist, even though they know it's a gang-bangin' drug dealer. Yeah, it doesn't play well socially, and he should lie just like them, but he doesn't.
Edit: Did I date myself with my analogy? Does Hip Hop even still exist? lol! I don't know.
If you want to criticize Trump for doing something stupid, criticize him for meeting with Mamdani, instead of deporting his sorry little commie ass back to Kampala.
Perception is reality and no matter what, it's a bad look to deny a voice to anyone. That shows closed-mindedness, which too many people in this country suffer from.
Trump is only following all the administrations before him that he doesn't care about the rules or the Constitution. It's the "shystem" and Trump IS the deep state now.
And the founder who predicted it all was Brutus, who sadly got so memory-holed that no one has read his arguments about why creating a strong central government would become corrupt. Who was Brutus – other than that fellow who plotted against Julius Caesar?
And I understand why he was memory-holed bc being closed minded (or ignorant, as most Americans are) to his arguments is a form of cognitive dissonance. Our 2nd Constitution did create the mighty empire that created the American Dream. Immigrants from around the world can tell us their horror stories of life that doesn’t have a Constitution like ours. It was good until…1798 when Adams started locking up his opponents for sedition? (And what we actually cherish now is our Bill of Rights – and we have that only because of the Anti-Federalists like Brutus who would not back down.)
So, how are the balance of powers working out, now? We are not even free to decide to opt out of Social Security if we would rather use those funds to increase our own retirement fund (and doing the math for 40 years making 40K a year at 10%, we’d end up with 1.2 million dollars or 50K just in dividends) or free to decide that we do not want substandard medical care through Medicare. We are forced to pay up, or else…
Et tu Matt. Do not need to read you if all you are going to do is parrot legacy media. The banished "reporters" are nothing but part of the unofficial wing of the DNC and as such have no special privileges.
Wow, now "what happened to you Matt" is coming from conservatives too! Keep up the good work, Matt. Your consistency on free speech is a hobgoblin to unprincipled minds on every side.
Nice quotes but the first amendment applies to everyone. The government can't pick and choose who gets to speak/report. We will all await a court ruling.
Did you even read Matt's articles, you silly goose?
...it's always a private amusement when the left wants equal opportunity except in the White House press room ... I guess the argument would be proximity guarantees *free speech* ... personally, I see it as not 1A but with the added detail of national security ... due process ... the White House would have to show cause why these three represent some threat ...
I think Matt you can make an argument that he does have that right, and legally it would be up to interpretation. For instance if you interpretted it this way. By calling them fake news, he is removing their press passes not because of their speech but because they are in his mind not press? What is the qualifying determination of who is press? I assume I can not get a press badge. Is there a guild, a licensure of reporterness, did they take an exam, is there a requirement that you must meet to be press?
Yes, that's true, except when you single out specific parties based on content or political inclination. Then it becomes a constitutional issue. If he had closed the press office, no one could have said a word. But that's not what happened.
Your comment captures the entire issue. “News” organizations should NOT be associated with a political party. Even Fox News criticizes him and brings on voices from the left. As I said in another comment to Matt, these outlets continue to repeat already debunked “statements” from Trump as current fact. That’s a disturbing issue, and frankly, they’ve lost all legitimacy. That WH briefing room is small. Their seats should be reserved for actual, ethical journalists. This isn’t constitutional. It’s limiting dangerous propaganda, which is exactly what MSNOW, CNN, and Politico spread daily. I recognize it’s a slippery slope, but it should happen in this case. He’s not limiting what they can say, how they report, or anything remotely close to it. He’s just barring them from that room.
That said, he’ll likely lose in court, because it’s DC and those courts care about the Democrat narrative over adhering to the constitution (not that this issue is constitutional in any way, because their FOS is not being limited).
He will lose because he is an impulsive, petty, and vindictive ass. He could have just pulled their passes and not made a comment. The excuse that Trump should be excused from the ill results of his impetuous bloviating because that is just how he is has worn thin on me. The flailing has started.
“We are revoking the White House press credentials of MSNOW, CNN, and Politico because their organizations are run by lying sacks of sh*t, and here is a list of 70 examples of their lying. Per our Constitution these organizations are still free to report on this Administration, and lie about our work, but they are not allowed to do so from the White House. Thank you.”
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Seems to me that would be “abridging the press.” Constitution specifically avoids labeling any press entity as lying, etc. with an accompanying castigation.
So, he can do it, but he can't tell the truth about why he is doing it.
All he has to do is lie about his reasons, and then it is legal?
That may be the Law, but if so, then the law is an ass.
That would make him a Democrat.
The problem is Trump is too much of a bully boy, real estate developer, petulant adolescent to figure out how to behave respectfully (or at minimum not disrespectfully) toward other people and still get what he needs. I always love it when folks claim whataboutism to defend their own folly. Trump isn't smart enough to figure this out. Sadly, too many "fans" tolerate this stupidity.
You don't have to lie. The fact that the legacy media is horribly biased can't be the only reason you act. Among other reasons is to give non-legacy media a shot in the limited space available. There are lots of perfectly legitimate and legal reasons to yank credentials. If among the reasons are impermissible ones, fine, just so long as you don't act on that one. THAT IS NOT LYING.
That is the law and why should we tolerate allegedly conservative or at least not communist officials acting without respect for the law? Why? "Because the other side does it" or "because if we don't do it, the other side will get in power and then we are doomed" are NOT good reasons to tolerate Trump's idiocy.
It amazes me how folks close their eyes to the consequences of Trump's stupidity. Despite having lots of great ideas and having instituted many of them, this behavior is going to doom Republicans in the mid-terms.
No, it is not "Trump's behavior" that will doom the Repubs in the midterms, it is $6 a gal diesel and a war nobody asked for.
Nobody asks for war. But a nuclear armed lunactic state is a clear and present danger to all.
Welp, that, too, may be at play.
Trump is hardly stupid. He is brash, blunt, intolernt and impatient. But that is what was needed to combat the truly stupid but craftily malevolent left. The consequences of socialism and repression are far darker and more dangerous than anything Trump could possibly do in your somewhat fevered imagination.
He attended UPenn, a purportedly Ivy League school. Because daddy got him in. He daily exhibits the lack of the nuance and sophistication in his brain that would suggest genuine intelligence. It is all knee jerk, learned from daddy and his dealings in real estate, a decidedly narrow version of the world. That lack of intelligence is why, come midterms, he will lose much power and possibly come 2029, we'll all be worse off for having him in the White House.
No fever dreams, just reality.
Beyond biased. Bias isn't the issue really. It's falsehoods.
Yup, Zayphar. This is similar to college admissions. They got themselves in trouble for coming right out and saying, "We don't want white men, and don't particularly like white women, but we like black men and women and brown men and women, and there are entirely too many Asians here." So they don't say those things out loud anymore, but still do end runs to get the outcomes they want. Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
"All he has to do is lie about his reasons, and then it is legal?"
(1) There's some confusion in Matt's post mixing "[legally] can" with "should". The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".
(a) The president isn't Congress. And (b) he's not muzzling CNN et al from reporting, which would be asserting 'law' (where, appropriately, Congress doesn't attempt to do so), as opposed to merely White House regulations. The White House (and Congress and Supreme Court) of course don't allow press in all kinds of meetings, and no one cries foul. So it's the spirit of the thing here regarding public discourse.
(2) But then in Matt's quote of the Supreme Court, it seems either the Court or Matt's assumption goes outside its expected boundaries by asserting: "a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interest, especially his interest in freedom of speech."
I didn't know that American speech freedom is actually this giant legal umbrella that fully covers a cultural norm?
Don't get me wrong, I'm a free speech absolutist who thinks the First Amendment is too narrow.
The ruling to come will probably enjoin Trump, but that doesn’t make it correct.
Agreed
Matt's still missing the point - Trump wants the "who censored more and got censored more battle" to rage, not bubble, right into the mid-terms.
Matt had it right the first time - the issue is censorship. The mainstream media is currently killing a story that is all over the Polish press. Many may have noticed, btw, that the AfD soared in the weekend elections in Germany while the party of Germany's leader got less than 5 percent in one two state elections - the background issues - wasting money, de-industrialization, immigration, and high energy prices.
Poland' prime minister Tusk announced in the Polish parliament on September 17, that Ukrainian authorities shared the new monthly Ukrainian casualty numbers. These numbers 27,000 Ukrainian killed and wounded have not been disputed by Ukraine. The significance of a top European political leader and Ukraine war hawk releasing numbers that destroy Ukraine's public claims would be a significant stand-alone story. But that would complicate funding this four-year debacle into it's fifth year.
Via Grok - The main Polish media reports that cover Tusk’s 17 September Sejm remarks, including the 27,000 monthly figure and his citation of Ukrainian partners:
Polskie Radio: https://www.polskieradio.pl/399/7977/artykul/3732653,pilne-wystapienie-premiera-tuska-w-planie-rosji-hybrydowe-uderzenia-na-panstwa-wspierajace-ukraine
Gazeta.pl / Wiadomości: https://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/swiat/7,198077,33032522,tusk-z-sejmowej-mownicy-naglasnia-sekret-ukrainy-straty-w-ludziach.html
Interia Wydarzenia: https://wydarzenia.interia.pl/kraj/news-tusk-podal-najbardziej-prawdopodobny-scenariusz-hybrydowe-ud,nId,23545301
Dziennik Narodowy: https://dzienniknarodowy.pl/tusk-ukraina-traci-27-tys-zabitych-i-rannych-miesiecznie/
And in English - https://www.polskieradio.pl/395/7784/Artykul/3732674,polands-tusk-warns-of-possible-russian-strikes-on-ukraines-allies
Let's reduce that to 15,000 x 50 months by next April - 750,000 killed and wounded just on the Ukraine side alone? How is this not a crisis? Knock a third off that number and we're still looking at half a million dead and wounded Ukrainians. WTF?
The Press censoring, or even lying, is not covered under the Constitution, although there are libel laws. It’s the government that’s not suppose to censor or otherwise infringe on freedom of the Press.
The Court of King Trump has ruled - all the Russia-Russia-Russia - Settled Science hoaxers have bee tried and found guilty of undermining the credibility of the press and propagating false information injurious to the people and government of the USA.
Don't know why it took me so long to get to this. Many have been screaming for prosecutions of the bad actors in the government, the FBI, the media, and academia.
Matt may be right and the "courts" may rule against Trump - but in the jurisdiction that counts - ordinary voters - Trump's making his case and exercised his authority, as he sees it. For that I'm grateful.
The closer we can the WH press pool to the public stocks the better. Ready the baskets of rotten vegetables (and I mean the kind that grow in the ground, too!)
I agree with the sentiment—only that it’s not the government that puts them in the stocks.
That's been said since Shakespeare's day, and with reason.
Indeed, this is part of Trump's appeal - that he won't wrap his actions in the hypocrisy necessary, which does put him here and elsewhere on the wrong side of the law. And I am not more in favor of lawbreaking in the POTUS than in anyone.
But while we do need to call Trump on all his BS (and there is far more skirting of actual laws this time around than last, alas), we do need to keep perspective, and awareness of the overall context of politicians and bureaucrats skirting the spirit of laws by lying.
It's not the lying or not lying about his actions. It's about the actions.
Obama skirted pretty close to this kind of thing, and backed off when cooler heads prevailed.
Sleepy Joe and his handlers selectively ignored reporters and news outlets.
Trump explicitly announcing a ban of hostile networks is setting a precedent that will be utilized in the future.
Not quite. If by “it” you mean single out a handful of news orgs. for exile from press briefings, no he can’t just do it by lying. If on the other hand he wanted to keep them out by ending WH press briefings for all, he could. Or if he wanted to give them the boot by revoking their press credentials on national security grounds he could try that, though that would be a loser when he doesn’t do it to Al Jazeera. Or he could make their lives difficult like Obama and Biden have done with problem journalists. But even lying would not get him passed the 1st Amendment protection against genuinely “abridging” the freedom of the press, especially on a selective, partisan basis.
"The issue is that a president can’t say, out loud, that he or she is denying a pass for speech reasons."
There is so damn much you can get away with in America as long as you're a good liar. If I could do a Liar Liar thing like the kid in the movie, snap my fingers and no American could tell a lie again, this country would collapse into a heap of burning rubble.
The US runs on lies. The foundation of our economy, our democracy, and our society is a huge and intricate web of lies. This worked reasonably well as long as most people believed the lies, but the internet changed all that. Leaders can no longer tell lies that'll last very long, and everyone is waking up to just how much is a lie.
Question: Is there such a thing as a good lie, or a "white" lie?
I don't believe so, because most white lies are self-serving. When a girls asks her guy, "Does this dress make me look fat?", he lies and says, "No, Baby! You look great in that dress". He lies for his own self-interest, not to make her feel better.
Not just the USA, just sayin!
“The law is a ass
Mr, Bumble
But this is how ObamaCare survived in the Supreme Court. Congress that it was a tax on loudspeaker and repeat. Then, once challenged, they claimed it was a tax. CJ Roberts was happy to accept this revision.
https://rumble.com/v7fue74-0922-elon-kalshi.html
https://substack.com/@amuseonx/note/p-216985951?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=1h9y3r
"All he has to do is lie about his reasons, and then it is legal?"
No that's not even close to the truth. That's not how the law or the constitution works.
Simple hypothetical, Matt owns a nurse staffing company. Ten thousand employees and everyone is a biological male. He has never employed a biological female ever.
Matt standing up and saying that his intentions are only good and that he loves women is not a get out of jail free card.
In this hypothetical he is losing this court case if his only argument is that 'If I say I am innocent, then the courts have to accept that I am innocent.'
I understand completely why Matt wants to make the argument that all the president has to do is lie and it's all good, because without that argument then every president previous to Trump was also violating the first amendment in the same situation, because restricting the press pool to employees of multinational media corporations is a restriction on content.
Going back to the previous hypothetical. Using a proxy for sexism is not a get out of jail free card. If Matt said his hiring decisions weren't sexist because all of his employees have to be able to bench press more than 300 pounds, and it's not his fault that chicks are weak. A nurses job doesn't require anyone to bench 300 pounds so that argument isn't going to cut it.
The court does not have to accept a defendants assertion that they are innocent.
Limiting the press pool to the employees of multinational media corporations is a content ban by proxy. The acceptable sphere of discourse within the population of the employees of multinational media corporations is so small and so inbred, and the job of journalism does not require the limiting of available candidates to such a small subset, that this act alone is a content ban by proxy.
Because multi-national corporation can and do fire employees all the time for their content or beliefs, then restricting the press pool to those employees of large multi-nationals is a content ban by proxy.
The government outsourcing their content restriction to multi-national media companies and then only allowing the employees of those multi-national corporations into the press pool is content ban by proxy.
You can't outsource your illegal or unconstitutional behavior and then throw up your hands and say you didn't do anything wrong.
Coming at this again in a different way.
Let's say that trump doesn't limit access to the press pool by content, but refuses to answer questions based on content.
Trump reply is, "That's the stupidest fucking question I have ever heard." And then moves on.
Is this a first amendment violation? If not, then how is limiting access to the press pool by content any different?
Let's say Trump refuses to listen to questions from specific reporters based on content they previously produced, and puts his hands over his ears and sings "La La La" the whole time until they stop talking and then then moves on to the next question without any reply at all.
Is this a first amendment violation? If not, then how is limiting access to the press pool by content any different?
So at this point the constitutional argument here has nothing to do with the president at all. The argument is that journalists (which constitutionally includes everyone) have a right to go into an empty room in the white house and give a speech.
I going to say that there is no constitutional right for anyone to give a speech in an empty room in the white house, and the argument that there is is ridiculously stupid and silly.
Turing that same argument into a moral argument is a cherry of shit stupid right on top.
Matt, lawyers will submit dozens of pages of facts and case discussion. The first amendment like other issues isn't always as simple as citing the leading case. Your view may ultimately be vindicated but factual distinctions matter. Maybe it's *that* obvious and you're right. But the law often does not see things this way.
Can’t tell if you were replying to me. But. Don’t read much into my comment. Just my cynic side pointing out the flexibility of the truth and the law.
What is the press? Is it only the corporate big guys? Isn’t Trump the first president to allow bloggers to ask questions. This isn’t a free press issue it’s a protected privilege issue that corporate pretty people are butt-hurt about.
Yeah, I don't have access to the White House either. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
The interesting thing to me in this case is how the media is completely silent about the Washington state government doing this exact same thing (denying press credentials) to disfavored reporters Ari Hoffman and Brandi Kruse.
It's ALMOST like everybody involved only cares when it hurts their team.
I wonder if it ever occurred to those who want him to act like every other president that they shouldn't have tried to overthrow him, bankrupt him, jail him and kill him? If he's a monster, they created that monster
To quote Ben Shapiro, "Trump is a mud monster. He's made of mud. If you throw mud at him, he just gets bigger."
In other words, expect him to function within the boundaries of the law.
Sorry but unless there are consequences for contanstly lying, the legacy press will just continue to lie. I saw that fat fool, Erin "Battleaxe" Burnett on CNN last night screeching about some illegal being shot by ICE. Guess what? I could care less if they shoot them all. They are in our country illegally thanks to Democrats. The party of lies and treason. So what if these liars are excluded from press conferences. They're a scourge and nobody with a firing neuron watches them anyway.
All true, but besides the point.
Not really. I don't love the look but their incessant lying had to lead to consequences. Plus they remain free to spew their garbage and lies completely unimpeded.
It’s been like that since the Founding. Often a candidate would buy a paper just to be an organ for his campaign. Bad, but the government controlling it is even worse. Hence the 1st Amendment.
The "it's always been this way" argument doesn't cut it. I assure you, that many citizens back then, just like now, did NOT know they were being lied to until it was too late.
Unlike 250 years ago, the internet gives us the ability to quickly, almost immediately, expose lies. We're informed of lies in real-time. While some asswipe politician, or corporate leader, stands at a podium telling lies, those in the crowd expose the lies almost immediately. We only need to choose to do something about it, instead of looking the other way. However, a nation of liars are unlikely to "out" the best among them.
Imo, the perpetual lying will eventually bring us all to our knees, but not because of the lying, that's not new, it'll be due to the knowledge of all the lies. This will lead to a complete loss of faith. Once we lose faith in our government, our economy, and our social structure, loss of faith in our currency won't be far behind.
What do you think will happen when the World loses faith in the US dollar?
But barring them from pressers has nothing to do with A1. They can continue to fulminate all they like.
Welll, WaPo is boycotting the Whitehouse now. That will show Trump who's boss.
😂. I mean honestly, he doesn't care. A family friend , anti trump, recently came back from France and said how much the French people don't like him. Lol. My response "He doesn't care". Then they went on to talk about his poor diet. 🙄
I think that's what makes them really steam the most - they do irrational things that are driven by a "we'll show him!" mentality, then he turns around and publicly humiliates them with a crude, rational, down-to-Earth dismissal that many Americans can relate to.
😂🤣😆
Where were all these free press warriors when Biden would hold a rare appearance and only allowed a handful of preselected questions to be asked by a preselected supporters? He was so brain dead he had to write down the names of the six people he was allowed to ask
Don't forget those flash cards included a picture of the so called Journalist
You know, I hate the comparative argument. "Boy, if you think this is bad, you should have seen what so and so did." How about sticking to the topic at hand. Biden is gone; this is Trump's problem.
We compare because the MSM refused to report about the "bad" issues in a Dem administration, meaning they have zero case to complain and bitch
Spot on!! They need to step up, admit what they did, and take their licks! If they did that, I'd gain a modicum of respect for them.
The definition of hypocrisy?
Comparative arguments represent precedents. And precedents have downstream importance.
To hold Biden’s administration not accountable but insist on accountability for the Trump administration is rank willful ignorance. Past actions do not cease to exist because they are inconvenient.
We compare and contrast to point out the performative hypocrisy of the left. And he is sticking to the topic at hand.
I'm with you there. What I don't understand is how every supposedly educated pundit, including Matt, keeps framing this as a freedom of speech issue. These TDS networks can say anything they freaking want to say. The issue is wherher or not a person can speak to who they want to or not. And every one of the people taking the President to task here surely does exactly the same thing. Does Matt Taiibbi give interviews or speak to the local Chapter of the KKK? No, he does not. He chooses the audiences he talks to. He may come back and point out that his substack is there for everybody to read but so is the daily White House briefing. This is not about limiting any speech except the performative grandstanding crap these people enjoy filming at a daily briefing. Let them write their fiction in solitude somewhere else.
Ironically, his problem is that he doesn't lie enough
Yes! He looks at a gang-bangin' drug dealer and says what he sees. His opponents look at the same thing and then say they see an aspiring Hip Hop artist, even though they know it's a gang-bangin' drug dealer. Yeah, it doesn't play well socially, and he should lie just like them, but he doesn't.
Edit: Did I date myself with my analogy? Does Hip Hop even still exist? lol! I don't know.
🎯🎯🎯🎯
If you want to criticize Trump for doing something stupid, criticize him for meeting with Mamdani, instead of deporting his sorry little commie ass back to Kampala.
Perception is reality and no matter what, it's a bad look to deny a voice to anyone. That shows closed-mindedness, which too many people in this country suffer from.
Trump is only following all the administrations before him that he doesn't care about the rules or the Constitution. It's the "shystem" and Trump IS the deep state now.
And the founder who predicted it all was Brutus, who sadly got so memory-holed that no one has read his arguments about why creating a strong central government would become corrupt. Who was Brutus – other than that fellow who plotted against Julius Caesar?
And I understand why he was memory-holed bc being closed minded (or ignorant, as most Americans are) to his arguments is a form of cognitive dissonance. Our 2nd Constitution did create the mighty empire that created the American Dream. Immigrants from around the world can tell us their horror stories of life that doesn’t have a Constitution like ours. It was good until…1798 when Adams started locking up his opponents for sedition? (And what we actually cherish now is our Bill of Rights – and we have that only because of the Anti-Federalists like Brutus who would not back down.)
So, how are the balance of powers working out, now? We are not even free to decide to opt out of Social Security if we would rather use those funds to increase our own retirement fund (and doing the math for 40 years making 40K a year at 10%, we’d end up with 1.2 million dollars or 50K just in dividends) or free to decide that we do not want substandard medical care through Medicare. We are forced to pay up, or else…
Our current reality is proving that Brutus was right about everything: https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/brutus-was-right-about-everything?r=76q58
Patrick Henry, maybe?
Yes, can’t leave out Patrick Henry! And, if Melancton Smith is the real Brutus, he was called “the Patrick Henry of New York.” https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/will-the-real-brutus-please-stand?r=76q58
Now, about Sydney Sweeney ...
"No matter how hot she is, some guy out there somewhere is fed up with her shit."
Thank you for helping me hijack this "First Amendment" conversation.
I'm too obsessed with Sara Smith to care about Sydney Sweeney.
The Donald loves trolling. Especially the MSM. He knows this will get shot down. He just doesn’t gaf.
Et tu Matt. Do not need to read you if all you are going to do is parrot legacy media. The banished "reporters" are nothing but part of the unofficial wing of the DNC and as such have no special privileges.
Wow, now "what happened to you Matt" is coming from conservatives too! Keep up the good work, Matt. Your consistency on free speech is a hobgoblin to unprincipled minds on every side.
How did Trump infringe on these "reporters" free speech? I'll wait.
Nice quotes but the first amendment applies to everyone. The government can't pick and choose who gets to speak/report. We will all await a court ruling.
Did you even read Matt's articles, you silly goose?
So you cannot identify any way these reporters have been silenced as I suspected; however, love the silly goose reference!
...it's always a private amusement when the left wants equal opportunity except in the White House press room ... I guess the argument would be proximity guarantees *free speech* ... personally, I see it as not 1A but with the added detail of national security ... due process ... the White House would have to show cause why these three represent some threat ...
The Left, the Left, the Left, the Left...
The Right, the Right, the Right, the Right...
The Left, the Right, the Left, the Right...
Left, Right, Left, Right, Left, Right...
Is there any level criticism of Trump that wouldn't make you jump ship? Fucking grow a pair.
Since they publish whatever they want regardless of what’s said at the press conference, they don’t need to attend anyway. Just keep making shit up.
I think Matt you can make an argument that he does have that right, and legally it would be up to interpretation. For instance if you interpretted it this way. By calling them fake news, he is removing their press passes not because of their speech but because they are in his mind not press? What is the qualifying determination of who is press? I assume I can not get a press badge. Is there a guild, a licensure of reporterness, did they take an exam, is there a requirement that you must meet to be press?
Trump is a "free speech for me but not for thee" kind of guy. In the hot air he unleashes, he himself is a major cause of global warming.
B.....S
True, but it still was funny!
What happened to the president who signed an executive order protecting the First Amendment and Free Speech, within days of taking office?
WH access is a privilege not a right. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Yes, that's true, except when you single out specific parties based on content or political inclination. Then it becomes a constitutional issue. If he had closed the press office, no one could have said a word. But that's not what happened.
“ If he had closed the press office, no one could have said a word.”
Of course they would, genocide would be the cry.
Or racism.
Your comment captures the entire issue. “News” organizations should NOT be associated with a political party. Even Fox News criticizes him and brings on voices from the left. As I said in another comment to Matt, these outlets continue to repeat already debunked “statements” from Trump as current fact. That’s a disturbing issue, and frankly, they’ve lost all legitimacy. That WH briefing room is small. Their seats should be reserved for actual, ethical journalists. This isn’t constitutional. It’s limiting dangerous propaganda, which is exactly what MSNOW, CNN, and Politico spread daily. I recognize it’s a slippery slope, but it should happen in this case. He’s not limiting what they can say, how they report, or anything remotely close to it. He’s just barring them from that room.
That said, he’ll likely lose in court, because it’s DC and those courts care about the Democrat narrative over adhering to the constitution (not that this issue is constitutional in any way, because their FOS is not being limited).
He will lose because he is an impulsive, petty, and vindictive ass. He could have just pulled their passes and not made a comment. The excuse that Trump should be excused from the ill results of his impetuous bloviating because that is just how he is has worn thin on me. The flailing has started.
‘ “News” organizations should NOT be associated with a political party.’
So, how would a law prohibiting a news organization from aligning with a particular party not violate the First Amendment?
So if the President said via written statement:
“We are revoking the White House press credentials of MSNOW, CNN, and Politico because their organizations are run by lying sacks of sh*t, and here is a list of 70 examples of their lying. Per our Constitution these organizations are still free to report on this Administration, and lie about our work, but they are not allowed to do so from the White House. Thank you.”
Would that be “illegal”?
Let’s see:
AMENDMENT [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Seems to me that would be “abridging the press.” Constitution specifically avoids labeling any press entity as lying, etc. with an accompanying castigation.