W.H. on AP probe: Obama 'firm believer' in press freedom

President Obama is a "strong defender" of the First Amendment and a "firm believer" that the press should not be blocked in its reporting, White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday, but the Justice Department must also be able to investigate criminal activity.

www.politico.com...

Anyone really believe that nonsense?

Obama is a 'strong defender' of the first amendment, and a 'firm believer' that the press should not be blocked!!!!!!

He only believes in 'speech' that agrees with him or says like how 'totally awesome' he is.

You can take that to a fiat currency bank!!

I really don't think he has any clue of how not to lie.

Given other news(Benghazi,Fast, and Furious,IRS, and this AP story) anyone paying attention knows just how much of a lie that is.

If Obama is such a strong defender of the first amendment someone want to tell me why that guy who made a video is sitting in jail?

Yeah all the 'hope, and change' :

Hope you people will keep buying the lies coming from my administration, Obama says, and that ain't ever gonna change.

I knew what this thread would be before I clicked on it - I don't care to argue your points. The "Obama's a jerk", "No he's not" arguments tend to get old. But I'm just curious if you think Obama has done anything, just one thing, good in your eyes? Or if he did, would you admit it? You, and a select few others, seem to have a lot of negative emotion towards him, and I just wonder if he could ever do anything good in your eyes..

This is mostly a rhetorical post - you don't have to respond..

reply to post by redtic


So we have another one who doesn't believe in the first amendment

Which is par for the course, and made one of the points in the op:

Only suppose to make threads of how 'totally awesome Obama is'.

reply to post by neo96


There is going to come a time when even the most ardent Obama supporters are going to give up.

They will lay claim that those who continue to bring up the disgusting revelations about the Obama administration are doing so because Obama is hated.

It is so far from the truth, that it would have to be measured in parsecs.

We, who bring this to attention, are doing so because we are firm believers of the freedom of the press.

We, the new press, the fringe press, are doing so because the old press has failed in its job.

We are not haters.

We are the new vanguard.

We ARE the new press.

reply to post by neo96
If Obama is all in support of a free press then why as recently as this past year did the White House demand final editorial control of what gets printed?

Obama censors 'free' press: White House demands final editorial approval (Photos)

Say one thing and do something else....will we ever get a leader that actually means what he/she says or says what he/she means?

reply to post by beezzer


Less than 60 years our opposites use to shout 'fight the man' to become the man.

To 'speak truth to power', and now the only thing they do is make excuses for 'the man'.

4th branch of government use to be the press, we now know they are out on holiday, now it's up to us

because its looking for damn sure if we don't speak they sure as hell aren't..

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by redtic

 

So we have another one who doesn't believe in the first amendment

Which is par for the course, and made one of the points in the op:

Only suppose to make threads of how 'totally awesome Obama is'.

And you seem confused about the first amendment...par for the course...

See...you have a right to post pointless "I hate Obama" threads that lack substance for discussion...and folks have the right to point that out.

First amendment intact ...all the way around

reply to post by Indigo5

And you seem confused about the first amendment...par for the course...

So Obama can censor free speech, and threaten people to be silent, and go around telling his gestapo to wiretap their phones?

I agree Obama is confused.

See...you have a right to post pointless "I hate Obama" threads that lack substance for discussion...and folks have the right to point that out.

Yeah I do have the right to create a thread on here although some people don't like that too much which was the case:

Only say things nice about Obama.

First amendment intact ...all the way around

Hardly.

I don't believe that nonsense one bit, only thing Obama likes is media outlets like MSNBC and CNN that do everything they can to help his agenda.

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by neo96

 

If Obama is all in support of a free press then why as recently as this past year did the White House demand final editorial control of what gets printed?

Obama censors 'free' press: White House demands final editorial approval (Photos)

Say one thing and do something else....will we ever get a leader that actually means what he/she says or says what he/she means?

Well Because......

Obama believes in the First Amendment only as long as HE is "First"

Simple as that.

Originally posted by redtic
I knew what this thread would be before I clicked on it - I don't care to argue your points. The "Obama's a jerk", "No he's not" arguments tend to get old. But I'm just curious if you think Obama has done anything, just one thing, good in your eyes? Or if he did, would you admit it? You, and a select few others, seem to have a lot of negative emotion towards him, and I just wonder if he could ever do anything good in your eyes..

This is mostly a rhetorical post - you don't have to respond..

You KNEW what this thread was going to be before you clicked it, because you know exactly what Obama's administration is guilty of. You just gave yourself away.

It is not just a "select few" posters who have a severe disdain for this particular president...it's a lot of us. You are part of the select few who will defend the indefensible.

You don't care to argue the specifics because even you cannot point to anything good about the suppression of the press, and the way that they've been used as a mouthpiece for Obama and his policy of destruction of this country.

I thought nobody could be worse than George Bush...just goes to show ya, you never know.

Go ahead and pull the race card now as the supposed "root" of our hatred of the man....and ignore his crimes. It's the next move in the "defend Obama at all costs" playbook.

reply to post by neo96


There's an interesting angle on this that points to connections between the media and the Obama administration that you won't find mention of anywhere else...

The presidents of ABC News and CBS News have siblings who work in the Obama administration and are involved with Benghazi. Political consultant Richard Grenell told "Fox News Watch" that the ties raise concerns as to why the mainstream media has not more aggressively pursued the story.
...
"I think the media's becoming the story, let's face it," Grenell said. "CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the (National Security Council) on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi. Let's call a spade a spade."
- Story Link

From my point of view, this cast a whole new light on this... beyond just nasty, dirty, filthy politics. This get's into a potential cesspool of worthy depth, lol.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5

 

And you seem confused about the first amendment...par for the course...

So Obama can censor free speech, and threaten people to be silent, and go around telling his gestapo to wiretap their phones?

I agree Obama is confused.

Your 1st Amendment is intact...thus you have the right to BS...

So...Pres. Obama has not censored free speech
Nor did he "wiretap phones"...


The FBI in trying to identify a leak at the CIA pulled the phone logs of the AP reporters involved in leaking the story.

They issued warrants to the telecom providers...not the AP..cuz they are not prosecuting the AP.

It is legal and protected for the AP to report leaked classified material from the CIA leaker...it is not legal for the CIA leaker to leak the material.

And the GOP last year were DEMANDING an investigation by the FBI to find out who leaked it.

The leaked material put both British and American undercover agents at risk and squashed and undercover operation inito AL-Qaida that foiled known attacks on Americans.

This kind of leak can and does cost lives...I hope they find the leak.

reply to post by Indigo5

Your 1st Amendment is intact...thus you have the right to BS

No apparently Obama is the only one that has the right to 'BS'.

So...Pres. Obama has not censored free speech

Sure he has as '12 revisions of White talking points' among many other instances.

Nor did he "wiretap phones"...

Yeah yeah just don't read this:www.weeklystandard.com...

The FBI in trying to identify a leak at the CIA pulled the phone logs of the AP reporters involved in leaking the story.

Oh so it's the FBI wonder why Holder recused himself.

This kind of leak can and does cost lives...I hope they find the leak.

Well others are more concerned with the incompetence of the current administration that has cost lives more than any 'leak' has.

Funny tho they didn't have too many problems with leaks 'blaming Isreal for Iranian cyber attacks' or when it favored the administration.

Only the leaks that show just how corrupt the current administration is.

The First Amendment is first for a reason,” added Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner. “If the Obama Administration is going after reporters’ phone records, they better have a damned good explanation.”

The explanation might be, in part, the angry cries from Republican members of Congress over the Associated Press reporting that appears to have triggered the Justice Department probe. In May 2012, the AP described how a double agent had infiltrated al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen and neutralized a plot to bomb an airliner. Multiple Republicans insisted at the time that the leak might constitute a criminal case and demanded a tough FBI investigation.

Their anger was largely directed at the alleged leakers, unlike the cries of “treason” directed at the New York Times when the paper published sensitive information about Bush-era anti-terror surveillance.

Read more: swampland.time.com...

Originally posted by beezzer
There is going to come a time when even the most ardent Obama supporters are going to give up.

Even GWB had a ~30% approval rating when he left office.

Originally posted by neo96

The FBI in trying to identify a leak at the CIA pulled the phone logs of the AP reporters involved in leaking the story.

Oh so it's the FBI wonder why Holder recused himself.

Because the FBI interviewed him about the leaks...?

Oh yeah guess some would like people to forget there is a Pakistani doctor sitting in prison because Team Obama wanted to tell everyone how awesome he is.

Then there is the fact that Seal team six was shot down out of the sky for the same reasons.

The cost of how like 'totally awesome Team Obama' is.

reply to post by links234


The FBI can't do nothing without DOJ/Holder approval, and we all know who gave Holder his job.

Originally posted by neo96

So...Pres. Obama has not censored free speech

Sure he has as '12 revisions of White talking points' among many other instances.

Wow...derailing your own thread on page 1? That seems kinda desperate...OK I'll play...how is an internal whitehouse memo constructed by CIA and State "free speech"??

Is "free speech" in the 1st amendment violated every time the gov edits an internal memo or speech?

Originally posted by neo96

Nor did he "wiretap phones"...

Yeah yeah just don't read this:www.weeklystandard.com...

What does the IRS targeting purported non-political/charitable organizations for closer scrutiny that chose to file with the brilliant "(T)axed (E)nough (A)lready Party" name have to do with your wire-taps claim?

Wow...looking to change the subject much?

reply to post by Indigo5

Wow...derailing your own thread on page 1

Hmmm

Given other news(Benghazi,Fast, and Furious,IRS, and this AP story) anyone paying attention knows just how much of a lie that is.

Want to try again?

What does the IRS targeting purported non-political/charitable organizations for closer scrutiny that chose to file with the brilliant "(T)axed (E)nough (A)lready Party" name have to do with your wire-taps claim?

Gee what does POLITiCAL organizations have to do with free speech?

Answer:

Everyone uses free speech to either report the news, and express their views thus it is a first amendment right.