Priebus: Trump Considering Amending or Abolishing 1st Amendment

[Deleted]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...-1st-amendment

A number of press reports have picked up this exchange this morning between ABC’s Jonathan Karl and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. But people have missed the real significance. Priebus doesn’t discuss changing ‘press laws’ or ‘libel laws’. He specifically says that the White House has considered and continues to consider amending or even abolishing the 1st Amendment because of critical press coverage of President Trump.

Sound hyperbolic? Look at the actual exchange (emphasis added) …

KARL: I want to ask you about two things the President has said on related issues. First of all, there was what he said about opening up the libel laws. Tweeting “the failing New York Times has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change the libel laws?” That would require, as I understand it, a constitutional amendment. Is he really going to pursue that? Is that something he wants to pursue?

PRIEBUS: I think it’s something that we’ve looked at. How that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story. But when you have articles out there that have no basis or fact and we’re sitting here on 24/7 cable companies writing stories about constant contacts with Russia and all these other matters—

KARL: So you think the President should be able to sue the New York Times for stories he doesn’t like?

PRIEBUS: Here’s what I think. I think that newspapers and news agencies need to be more responsible with how they report the news. I am so tired.

KARL: I don’t think anybody would disagree with that. It’s about whether or not the President should have a right to sue them.

PRIEBUS: And I already answered the question. I said this is something that is being looked at. But it’s something that as far as how it gets executed, where we go with it, that’s another issue.



Karl says, accurately, that that kind of clampdown on 1st Amendment rights would require amending the Constitution. Is that what Priebus means, Karl asks? Yes, it is, says Priebus.

Now one might respond to this saying, ‘Okay, technically that’s what he said. But he probably doesn’t actually mean it.’

To which I think the answer is, sure maybe he doesn’t mean but why would anyone assume that? He said it and repeated it. The changes President Trump wants are blocked by decades of decades of jurisprudence which is little contested, unlike other hot button points of constitutional law. If you want what Trump wants, you have to amend the constitution – and not the constitution in general but the 1st Amendment specifically. Amending the 1st Amendment to allow the head of state to sue people who say things he doesn’t like amounts to abolishing it.

None of these are tenuous connections. Each link in the chain of reasoning follows logically from the other.

This, needless to say, should set off everyone’s alarm bells. If this isn’t really what Priebus meant, he should be given the chance to categorically disavow it. The plain meaning of the words, on the record, is that abridging or abolishing the 1st Amendment is something the Trump White House is currently considering.

Big deal.

What do you guys think? Is this desirable? Is the reporter pulling what is said out of context? How would this law benefit the US?

[Garnier Fructis]

Snowflake in Chief.

[Alvito]

Funny how a person in Trump and his entire staff entourage that lie far more then the tell the truth bitch so much about falsehoods. It is even worse their foolish zealot supporters that follow him and buy into this bull shit. All you have to do is listen to anything he talks about more then once and compare the 2 they wont match up. If you don't want to do that fact check anything he talks about and it is going to be almost complete fantasy and exaggerations.

[PACOX]

Please let him campaign to change the 1st Amendment so that we can see him fall flat on his face.

[Cosmic Janitor]

I would actually love to see him try.. just to see him fail once again in the most spectacular way.

[ranzino]

There is an approximately 0% chance of Trump doing either of those things, largely because it's not his decision to make, so I'm not even going to worry about it.

But fair guess he will rant about the press again and again and wished he could do so.
Any chance he tries weird stuff in a court to test how far he could go without interfering with 1st amendment ?

[Ghostpanther]

No. The first amendment is fine the way it is. The chances of this happening is like, zero. It is ridiculous to assume he would even attempt to abolish it however.

[Deleted]

There is an approximately 0% chance of Trump doing either of those things, largely because it's not his decision to make, so I'm not even going to worry about it.

I somewhat disagree, usually Trump is the blabbermouth who talks before he thinks, Priebus is the career politician that knows when to shut up. Trump has been railing about this for quite a while and probably asked some aides to look into it. The fact that Priebus is actually talking about it means that it has left the ''dumb trump ideas'' pile into the ''dumb stuff they are actually considering'' pile.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I somewhat disagree, usually Trump is the blabbermouth who talks before he thinks, Pence is the career politician that knows when to shut up. Trump has been railing about this for quite a while and probably asked some aides to look into it. The fact that Pence is actually talking about it means that it has left the ''dumb trump ideas'' pile into the ''dumb stuff they are actually considering'' pile.

It wasn't Pence...It was Preibus

[Deleted]

It wasn't Pence...It was Preibus

im retarded, fixed

[Kaleredar]

But her emails

[KrazyK923]

So...literally like a dictator. He's trying to go after free speech now.

Dictator.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

im retarded, fixed

But, in regards to your statement..All Preibus said is "It's something that is being looked at"...I imagine he tells Donny-Boy the very same thing whenever he asks

"We're looking into it, Mr. President".

Preibus' entire role in the administration seems to be to just keep Donny Placated with the GOP

[Kujako]

But, in regards to your statement..All Preibus said is "It's something that is being looked at"...I imagine he tells Donny-Boy the very same thing whenever he asks

"We're looking into it, Mr. President".

Preibus' entire role in the administration seems to be to just keep Donny Placated with the GOP

"What would it take for NASA to get me some of that moon cheese?".
"We're looking into it, Mr. President".

Yeah, I can see a lot of conversations with Donny going that way.

[cubby]

Snowflake in Chief.

This. Precisely. Petulant-10-year-old-in-Chief works too.

Abolishing or amending the 1st amendment has zero chance of happening. This is more than likely another head-fake to get us away from keeping track of the important issues - Russia and Trump's continued emolument violations.

This issue is a non-starter.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Anyone in the White House seriously considering this is a moron.

[stabetha]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...-1st-amendment




What do you guys think? Is this desirable? Is the reporter pulling what is said out of context? How would this law benefit the US?

perfect example of "the media" (lol a blog) taking someones words and twisting them around to fit their narrative. At no time did he say "Trump Considering Amending or Abolishing 1st Amendment", he said they looked into changing libel laws, "looked in to", Holding the press accountable for this kind of nonsense is something that should be looked into.

[masterhorus8]

This is reminding me of this thread from a month and a half ago.
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...ative-coverage

[Zeek Daniels]

I think the media has a huge problem in that it likes to report things that it either doesnt need to report nationwide or it likes to report things without telling the full story. I dont think the media is interested in the full story nor do i believe they want to hear any other side of the story other than what they want to give.
I think the rampant reporting of police shootings of african americans that threw this country into a fit of rage was done to try and win hillary the election. Notice how its not getting reported these days? Bet its still happening tho.

[Garnier Fructis]

I think the rampant reporting of police shootings of african americans that threw this country into a fit of rage was done to try and win hillary the election. Notice how its not getting reported these days? Bet its still happening tho.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/02/us/bet...her-interview/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/terence-...ng-60-minutes/
We had a story just this month.

Straight from the school of 'if I cover my eyes, it's not there!'