Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[tehdang]

Karoline Leavitt, on FOX News, saids ABC is going to have to answer for what Terry tweeted. She siad they reached out to FOX. On no planet is that not a threat.

Go to 11:09 in this video from fox.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6374024562112

Absolutely amazing that a reporter lets loose on the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, and the White House Comms team fires back.

Also, isn't the entire video 11:09?

[Bodakane]

Absolutely amazing that a reporter lets loose on the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, and the White House Comms team fires back.

Also, isn't the entire video 11:09?

Oh for fuck's sake, i didn't paraphrase. She literally said, "ABC is going to have to answer for that". That's a threat and you're literally trying to justify it. I'm fairly certain you used to scream about "censorship" talking about "woke" stuff by businesses. Now here you are a "small government conservative", doing backbends to defend an admin forcing censorship and quite literally mobilizing a gestapo to illegally kidnap people without due process, warrants or even fucking badges.

You cannot defend this.

Yes, i got the timestamp wrong, its 9:00

[tehdang]

What part of Trump unilaterally federalizing the California National Guard on his own without the consent of the Governor do you not get? What part of the Insurrection Act or the Constitution do you not understand? Or are you just intentionally ignoring it when it doesn't suit you? Do you know what kind of people do that?

Fascist....

Politicians play a double game of complaining bitterly and then taking no useful action. Remember, criticizing Trump's intent to deploy the California National Guard is not a statement that the governor has ordered the California National Guard to stand down as part of his Title 10 authority.

Boy are you seriously un/misinformed...

https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/re...gration-crisis

See: Eisenhower's Executive Order #10730. You're at the bakery, and saying "No, he didn't order a chocolate mousse, he ordered a ice cream cake!" Actually, he ordered both the chocolate mousse and the ice cream cake. The presence of one does not imply the absence of the other.

Oh look, you've got your own reichstag fire. You are willing to deny the rights of 300 million Americans because of buildings being.....(looks at news).....protested in front of? I'm sorry do you have any proof of a Federal building being attacked?

Calling in the national guard is not denying the rights of 300 million Americans. Stop trolling, you aren't helping your case. Also, nice sneaky implication that these are undercover MAGA that brought out a bunch of Mexican flags and fireworks.

Pick your favorite video, but as an example, firing fireworks at the metropolitan detention center. Federal Bureau of Prisons-managed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fobc-4ZRlQ.

Are you talking about people physically stopping ICE or are you talking about the legal battles going on about their antics of denying the rights of people? Because I think we all know you mean the second one.

Blocking intersections, throwing themselves in front of federal vehicles and police vehicles. The stuff I watched live on TV literally yesterday. I live in California. I drive through LA regularly. This is my area of southern california.

Let's turn it on now ... oh, I see they're blocking the 101 freeway instead of shooting fireworks into a federal building. Good stuff.

And there it is. You are willing to misinterpret laws and damn the Constitution just so you can vicariously hit people with a stick.

Your ignorance of both the laws and the constitution culminates in your pearl-clutching on the deployment of the national guard. The left has this issue with illegal immigrants and violent rioters, and it's going to keep hurting that political side of the aisle so long as you continue.

[SAY HER NAME]

Its so fun that the Trump administration gets to threaten news networks bc of the the PERSONAL opinions of their reporters. Reporters cant have opinions under the Trump administration I guess.

Good stuff. Conservatives defending free speech nowhere to be found

[Endus]

Your ignorance of both the laws and the constitution culminates in your pearl-clutching on the deployment of the national guard. The left has this issue with illegal immigrants and violent rioters, and it's going to keep hurting that political side of the aisle so long as you continue.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/06/08/ic...al-guard-unit/

"No unmet law enforcement needs". This isn't about handling violent protestors, and there was no a significant issue with violence at the protests in the first place.

You're lying, to protect the lies of a corrupt regime.

If not falling for obvious bullshit is gonna "hurt that political side of the aisle", you're just confessing that using bullshit to try to justify authoritarian takeovers is SOP for the Trump regime.

[tehdang]

Oh for fuck's sake, i didn't paraphrase. She literally said, "ABC is going to have to answer for that". That's a threat and you're literally trying to justify it. I'm fairly certain you used to scream about "censorship" talking about "woke" stuff by businesses. Now here you are a "small government conservative", doing backbends to defend an admin forcing censorship and quite literally mobilizing a gestapo to illegally kidnap people without due process, warrants or even fucking badges.

You cannot defend this.

Yes, i got the timestamp wrong, its 9:00

Yes, answering for the actions of their employees on social media is done a dozen times a day by a million different corporations in America. Sorry, buddy. Just because it's the press secretary telling ABC News that they'll have to answer for the actions of their employees is not a threat of using government force against the news agency. You're playing this very dumb game where every vague statement is immediately interpreted into unconstitutional action. When you stop with the dumb games, let me know.

Nothing says "threat to the first amendment" like one sentence from an 11 minute segment done by a press secretary. Yes, give the reporter a suspension, and give Karoline Leavitt the middle finger, while giving the blandest statement of your corporate ideals.

[Edge-]

Yes, answering for the actions of their employees on social media is done a dozen times a day by a million different corporations in America.

"Hey, here are some potentially rule-breaking tweets. Handle them however you want." via private email- very bad coercion

"ABC is going to have to answer for that." in public - totally ok.

Even though she's speaking of ABC the corporate entity and not the employee facing disciplinary action. They have to "answer" nobody, much less the government as she not-so-subtly implies. The only one answering anyone is the reporter answering his employer regarding his companies social media policy.

You do choose the more curious framing and interpretation of things.

- - - Updated - - -

Just because it's the press secretary telling ABC News that they'll have to answer for the actions of their employees is not a threat of using government force against the news agency.

Answer to whom? Why? ELI5.

[SAY HER NAME]

Are we really saying that the Trump administration doesnt threaten news networks while there is an ongoing case regarding the AP being banned from attending Press meetings with the white house? Or after 60 minutes released a long statement about how they wanted to change the content if they didnt want to cause issues to the parent company?

I dont know the legality of that (bc its currently being litigated between the AP and the Trump admin) but these are actions that dont come from someone that is interested in the first amendment.

[tehdang]

"Hey, here are some potentially rule-breaking tweets. Handle them however you want." via private email- very bad coercion

Secret communication to social media companies urging bans does not occur in public and was being conducted by organizations like the fucking FBI. Let me know if the FBI texts ABC News employees within the organization urging nefarious actions.

"ABC is going to have to answer for that." in public - totally ok.

Vague, and like I said, ABC News should give Leavitt the finger and issue the blandest restatement of their corporate values.

Even though she's speaking of ABC the corporate entity and not the employee facing disciplinary action. They have to "answer" nobody, much less the government as she not-so-subtly implies. The only one answering anyone is the reporter answering his employer regarding his companies social media policy.

Almost like, and stay with me here, the threat is nonsense. They don't actually have to answer anybody, because this is America. When Leavitt says ABC News will have to answer for it, the best she could ever hope for is a corporate statement.

Answer to whom? Why?

Kind of the point of me calling it vague. Stephen Miller is full of hate, ABC news will have to answer for it. You sure they aren't trying to bore us to death (not a threat)?

[Bodakane]

Yes, answering for the actions of their employees on social media is done a dozen times a day by a million different corporations in America. Sorry, buddy. Just because it's the press secretary telling ABC News that they'll have to answer for the actions of their employees is not a threat of using government force against the news agency. You're playing this very dumb game where every vague statement is immediately interpreted into unconstitutional action. When you stop with the dumb games, let me know.

Nothing says "threat to the first amendment" like one sentence from an 11 minute segment done by a press secretary. Yes, give the reporter a suspension, and give Karoline Leavitt the middle finger, while giving the blandest statement of your corporate ideals.

Yes it does. The difference AGAIN, is that the government is forcing it. That is censorship.

It wasn't vague. She said that AND said they've contacted ABC directly. You say I'm playing dumb games but you literally just tried to argue censorship can't be 1 sentence. The cult is strong in this one.

[gondrin]

Yes, answering for the actions of their employees on social media is done a dozen times a day by a million different corporations in America. Sorry, buddy. Just because it's the press secretary telling ABC News that they'll have to answer for the actions of their employees is not a threat of using government force against the news agency. You're playing this very dumb game where every vague statement is immediately interpreted into unconstitutional action. When you stop with the dumb games, let me know.

Nothing says "threat to the first amendment" like one sentence from an 11 minute segment done by a press secretary. Yes, give the reporter a suspension, and give Karoline Leavitt the middle finger, while giving the blandest statement of your corporate ideals.

Actually, the Press Secretary stating that they will do anything to a news network because of a post IS literally threatening them if they don't silence the person. Hence it would become a First Amendment violation. Unless the person was actively threatening the President or any staff, calling Miller a "world class hater" is not that. And the Press Secretary stating that ABC will "have to answer for the actions of their employees" is literally the government threatening speech.

[tehdang]

Are we really saying that the Trump administration doesnt threaten news networks while there is an ongoing case regarding the AP being banned from attending Press meetings with the white house?

You of all people should know the difference between "this statement is barely a threat, and not bucking the first amendment" and "the Trump administration has never taken action against a press outfit."

Next I'll be hearing that a chair in the press briefing room is a core first amendment right.

Or after 60 minutes released a long statement about how they wanted to change the content if they didnt want to cause issues to the parent company?

I dont know the legality of that (bc its currently being litigated between the AP and the Trump admin) but these are actions that dont come from someone that is interested in the first amendment.

You don't know the legality, but you're very sure that a person interested in the first amendment is compelled to assert that the AP has a constitutional right to be in the White House and Air Force One? I'm afraid you're opening a big can of worms about the first amendment and rights vs privileges. You're also showing that the first amendment is a feeling to you---that you feel like nobody that loves it could ever distinguish between legal threats and verbal attacks made in public. "You'll answer for that" ... maybe there's going to be another run-on Truth Social post that's 200 words long.

[Templar 331]

Politicians play a double game of complaining bitterly and then taking no useful action. Remember, criticizing Trump's intent to deploy the California National Guard is not a statement that the governor has ordered the California National Guard to stand down as part of his Title 10 authority.

There's this thing called "chain of command." When someone of higher rank gives an order someone with a lesser rank can't contradict that order. And since the office of the President is the highest office in the nation no amount of complaining or refusal to act by Gavin Newsom will do anything. The California National Guard is being controlled by Trump without the consent of it's Governor.

See: Eisenhower's Executive Order #10730.

Funny how NO FUCKING WHERE IN THERE DOES IT SAY "INSURRECTION ACT!"

You're at the bakery, and saying "No, he didn't order a chocolate mousse, he ordered a ice cream cake!" Actually, he ordered both the chocolate mousse and the ice cream cake. The presence of one does not imply the absence of the other.

What in the absolute fuck is this shit?

Calling in the national guard is not denying the rights of 300 million Americans. Stop trolling, you aren't helping your case. Also, nice sneaky implication that these are undercover MAGA that brought out a bunch of Mexican flags and fireworks.

You accuse me of trolling, reporting this by the way, while also saying that I am posting a conspiracy? Since the reference went way over your head the implication was that these "fires" are your justification to use what ever force you deem needed. Not that there are MAGAs running around with Mexican flags.

Pick your favorite video, but as an example, firing fireworks at the metropolitan detention center. Federal Bureau of Prisons-managed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fobc-4ZRlQ.

Kind of hard to see any fireworks, lol, amid all that tear gas. And I'm not watching a 20 min video of a woman coughing up a lung. I asked you for a report of "attacks on Federal buildings" and what I got was a video of smoke you're blowing up my ass.

Blocking intersections, throwing themselves in front of federal vehicles and police vehicles. The stuff I watched live on TV literally yesterday. I live in California. I drive through LA regularly. This is my area of southern california.

Let's turn it on now ... oh, I see they're blocking the 101 freeway instead of shooting fireworks into a federal building. Good stuff.

Oh boy has those goal posts moved.....

Your ignorance of both the laws and the constitution culminates in your pearl-clutching on the deployment of the national guard. The left has this issue with illegal immigrants and violent rioters, and it's going to keep hurting that political side of the aisle so long as you continue.

"Pearl clutching" is when you make a fuss about imaginary problems. We literally have Trump taking control of a defensive force to subjugate the population. And here you are wishing it to happen.

[Gestopft]

Just because it's the press secretary telling ABC News that they'll have to answer for the actions of their employees is not a threat of using government force against the news agency.

The whole organization "will have to answer" for the actions of one employee.

Who are they going to have to answer to?

I mean, this is the administration that already banned AP from the Oval Office for not using "Gulf of America" and sued CBS over a 60 minutes interview, but nah...this couldn't be perceived as 'threatening' or anything...

[Edge-]

Secret communication to social media companies urging bans

oh good a thing that never happened glad we can put this behind us. no bans were ever urged

Vague, and like I said

I don't buy it. That's very specific, actually. It beggars belief one could honestly call it vague.

the threat is nonsense.

It's just made in public. From an administration with a history, including recently, of weaponizing the government against political opponents and the media including harassing them with pointless lawsuits.

They don't actually have to answer anybody, because this is America.

So why did she say it?

When Leavitt says ABC News will have to answer for it, the best she could ever hope for is a corporate statement.

That's not "ABC News is going to have to answer for this." That's not "answering". Do you not know what words mean?

Stephen Miller is full of hate, ABC news will have to answer for it.

answer to whom

you're still dodging, and you actually just said they don't have to answer to anyone because this is america? which is it?

Their reporter has to answer to them. They have to answer to nobody on this. The lengths you go to to defend gender-bent Goebbels is pretty stunning.

[tehdang]

Yes it does. The difference AGAIN, is that the government is forcing it. That is censorship.

It wasn't vague. She said that AND said they've contacted ABC directly. You say I'm playing dumb games but you literally just tried to argue censorship can't be 1 sentence. The cult is strong in this one.

How are they forcing it? What actions have been taken? What actions have been threatened? Why can't ABC News give her the finger, hang up on whatever comms staffer called them, and issue a bland statement of their corporate values?

You're reading into it in a totally arbitrary and capricious manner. It doesn't fly here.

Actually, the Press Secretary stating that they will do anything to a news network because of a post IS literally threatening them if they don't silence the person. Hence it would become a First Amendment violation. Unless the person was actively threatening the President or any staff, calling Miller a "world class hater" is not that. And the Press Secretary stating that ABC will "have to answer for the actions of their employees" is literally the government threatening speech.

What's the threat, again? I heard something so vague it was laughable. We have a vibrant democracy, and I hope ABC News fires back by mailing some bologna to the White House address as the entirety of their answer. It would be better than a bland statement of their corporate values, but that one works too.

Once you get a Republican in the White House, every sentence is a threat, and every threat promises real action.

Give the story some air, and give the Trump administration some rope to hang itself.

[Gestopft]

Almost like, and stay with me here, the threat is nonsense. They don't actually have to answer anybody, because this is America. When Leavitt says ABC News will have to answer for it, the best she could ever hope for is a corporate statement.

"You shouldn't take the White House seriously" really isn't the win you think it is. It's almost like, and stay with me here, this administration is utterly and completely unserious as a government.

[Edge-]

"You shouldn't take the White House seriously" really isn't the win you think it is. It's almost like, and stay with me here, this administration is utterly and completely unserious as a government.

"the press secretary is just yappin with vague threats it's no big deal, she's just the press secretary who speaks for the white house and president"

it's incredible how conservative reality works

[Captain N]

"the press secretary is just yappin with vague threats it's no big deal, she's just the press secretary who speaks for the white house and president"

it's incredible how conservative reality works

I mean "He's just talking out of his ass and this stuff would never really happen" was the defense they used before the 2nd Term started when it came to doing the horrible things he's doing.

[SAY HER NAME]

You of all people should know the difference between "this statement is barely a threat, and not bucking the first amendment" and "the Trump administration has never taken action against a press outfit."

Next I'll be hearing that a chair in the press briefing room is a core first amendment right.

You don't know the legality, but you're very sure that a person interested in the first amendment is compelled to assert that the AP has a constitutional right to be in the White House and Air Force One? I'm afraid you're opening a big can of worms about the first amendment and rights vs privileges. You're also showing that the first amendment is a feeling to you---that you feel like nobody that loves it could ever distinguish between legal threats and verbal attacks made in public. "You'll answer for that" ... maybe there's going to be another run-on Truth Social post that's 200 words long.

You will answer for that from an administration that has a pattern of behavior of punishing media orgs and law firms for first amendment protected actions does come off as a threat. If some random person approaches me and says Ill do X to you then I dont know if they are serious or not. If a person that is known to do X even implies hell do X to me then yeah that should be taken seriously and ABC did take it seriously.

Also I find it weird that we are arguing that things cant be feelings? Not everything is explicitly what it says in the constitution. If the president declares martial law and successfully manages to fight off the court battles are we supposed to say it doesn't go against the principles of democracy? The erosion of rights is rarely carried out illegally, its usually done legally. These are weird arguments coming from a conservative.