If Trump collusion is proven, should "conservative" media be prosecuted?

a reply to: DJW001

Conspiracy of what?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: DJW001

I have intentionally posted in this forum to encourage thoughtful responses.

You first would need a thoughtful post. Missed the mark...by quite a bit I might add.

Please explain. Hypothetically, if it turns out that Team Trump is proven to have been colluding with a foreign power, do you think "conservative" media should be held accountable?

for waiting for due process? there are actually laws that prevent many criminals from being prosecuted in the county or state that their crime took place in due to media bias convicting them via public opinion prior to the person getting their right to due process. so no they shouldnt be prosecuted for waiting for due process.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The 1st amendment guarantees a free media and with that comes the requirement of responsibility and common sense.

Agreed; but as Voltaire supposedly observed: common sense is not so common. This is where laws come in. My overarching question in the OP is: should media be treated differently under the law based on their politics? All too many members here implicitly believe they should-- and not just by those identifying with the right, but those identifying with the left as well.

a reply to: TheScale

so no they shouldnt be prosecuted for waiting for due process.

So the left of center media are blameless for not making unproven accusations about Hillary Clinton? Why do so many Trump supporters assume she is guilty and condemn the media for not saying she is? Or is due process only applicable when you are sympathetic to the victim/perp?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ketsuko

Since when is skepticism "fake news"?

Skepticism is the first line of defense against "fake news." All of the centerist media are being careful to report the second hand nature of their accounts. The hypothetical assumes that some media are downplaying what they know directly for political reasons, and that others may be generating disinformation to undercut what is actually known. To name names, globalresearch.ca is a known Russian disinformation organ. During the election, they published distorted accounts to skew opinion away from Clinton. If, hypothetically, members of Trump's team had been coordinating with them, could they be held accountable for conspiracy? Or are they protected by "editorial privilege?

You seem insistent that some law would be broken. There is no law a presidential candidate can discuss whatever they like with whoever they like. They can't be tried for collusion since this doesn't apply to US citizens. You cannot be tried for collusion. You can be tried for treason . Proving treason isn't easy you how to show intent on damaging the government. 6his is why we are waisting money on claims of crimes that cannot be proved.as a general rule it's very hard to charge a citizen with treason. It usually involves transferring secrets and even that usually doesn't rise to the point of treason .

a reply to: Xcathdra

Conspiracy of what?

Conspiracy to aid a foreign power in undermining the United States government. (Incidentally, I notice your tag links to a claim that someone on the investigating committee "hinted" that Comey said that Trump was not under investigation. This conclusion is an interpretation, not a "fact," and is an excellent example of a "conservative" news site doing exactly what the "liberal" ones are accused of doing!)

Fair enough.

a reply to: dragonridr

So you wouldn't mind if United States policy was determined by people who accept cash from a foreign government to steer it in a particular direction? (This would technically be emolument.)

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: TheScale

so no they shouldnt be prosecuted for waiting for due process.

So the left of center media are blameless for not making unproven accusations about Hillary Clinton? Why do so many Trump supporters assume she is guilty and condemn the media for not saying she is? Or is due process only applicable when you are sympathetic to the victim/perp?

i dont disagree with what your alluding to. thats a question youll have to ask the media and james comey. im not one of those people who believes the media should be prosecuted for such things on either side. people should understand themselves that not everything they read is the truth and most times its going to be spun one way or another. its just the way it is, has been, and always will be. its up to you the person to understand that and try and make your own conclusion.

a reply to: TheScale

people should understand themselves that not everything they read is the truth and most times its going to be spun one way or another. its just the way it is, has been, and always will be. its up to you the person to understand that and try and make your own conclusion.

Exactly. The First Amendment is based on the assumption that people will express themselves openly and evaluate what others say.

one thing i do believe that should take place with the media is when they have 100% got something wrong and need to make a retraction, is that the retraction should be on the same page the article in question was written and should cover the same amount of real estate. if it was on the internet then it should be placed accordingly aswell. i think this would help keep them abit more honest in those rare cases they do get something wrong.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: dragonridr

So you wouldn't mind if United States policy was determined by people who accept cash from a foreign government to steer it in a particular direction? (This would technically be emolument.)

That is a violation of campaign finance laws. The only person that came close to that would be Hillary's campaign with donations to the Clinton foundation. Even India admitted they were forced to donate by Hillary

originally posted by: TheScale
one thing i do believe that should take place with the media is when they have 100% got something wrong and need to make a retraction, is that the retraction should be on the same page the article in question was written and should cover the same amount of real estate. if it was on the internet then it should be placed accordingly aswell. i think this would help keep them abit more honest in those rare cases they do get something wrong.

I agree but it's up to the people to hold them responsible. Problem is just like here we have people that are so partisan they are willing to overlook facts.

a reply to: DJW001
It won't be proven so obviously it won't happen. The flip side has essentially been proven already, so those prosecutions need to start yesterday. And just for what if's sake, if the prosecutions finally go under way within the leftist media for their crimes, then I would agree to the same for other parties if in some fantasy world such accusations are proven true.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, they have been trying to find collusion for months now and nothing out of the ordinary other than normal business transactions of a businessman has shown up. I would say more that if it is found he is not colluding, the news media that is spreading misappropriate information to try to get him impeached should be disbanded. Just because most of MSM is doing it does not mean it is right. This twisting of things by the Media has to stop. On both sides.

Just remember, the media didn't start any of this. It all got started when the intelligence community detected Trump campaign personnel repeatedly conferring with Russian agents.

That's why Sally Yates warned Trump early on about Flynn's vulnerability to being bribed by the Russians.

By and large, the media is just reporting the events as they occur and just because you may not like their headlines, doesn't mean they're corrupt.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

Don't just read the headline and the first few paragraphs, read the whole article with an open mind. The title and first few paragraphs are sensationalized yet if you have not formed an opinion yet, the information later in the article says it is only an opinion or may not apply. Keep that open mind when reading the articles, I am complaining about the sensationalization of the article that makes it appear to say something it DOES NOT REALLY SAY

This is a tactic that has been used for many decades. Look at the sources, is the source just an article in another newspaper that is called reputable because the newspaper has a decent reputation over the years as considered by a poll?

First problem is the term collusion. Collusion is in no way illegal. Find me any law that uses the term collusion as evidence of illegal activity.

Second, it is more than likely that the reality is that someone inside of the DNC released the emails to wikileaks. The reason for that is that the DNC "colluded" to place Hillary above Bernie.

Third, the whole "russia thang" was began by DNC peops as a rationale to explain Hillary's loss. Instead of just being honest with themselves that Hillary was the worst candidate possible.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: dragonridr

So you wouldn't mind if United States policy was determined by people who accept cash from a foreign government to steer it in a particular direction? (This would technically be emolument.)

That is a violation of campaign finance laws. The only person that came close to that would be Hillary's campaign with donations to the Clinton foundation. Even India admitted they were forced to donate by Hillary

i dont think they are exactly saying just for campaigns. many of our politicians receive money from foreign govts to promote lobbying for things that can help a foreign govt out.

Foreign Agents Registration Act

No. Definitely not. That is the mentality of a Trumptard, one I'm not interested in applying to them anymore than I am them applying it to others.

The "right wing" pro trump media, regardless of how you feel, still should have the freedom to spew their crap without fear of prosecution. The media is not part of the government.

That's the difference between me and Trump supporters. I actually believe in free speech, no matter the source. If they ae to be punished, it will be by the loss of viewers and supporters.

a reply to: Fools

Collusion is in no way illegal. Find me any law that uses the term collusion as evidence of illegal activity.

The media are being polite. What is being called "collusion" could result in a charge of conspiracy if it is founded. If a conspiracy can be proved, should the charges be extended to the media that supported it, if only through silence?

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: DJW001
It won't be proven so obviously it won't happen. The flip side has essentially been proven already, so those prosecutions need to start yesterday. And just for what if's sake, if the prosecutions finally go under way within the leftist media for their crimes, then I would agree to the same for other parties if in some fantasy world such accusations are proven true.

So you think the government should only prosecute the "leftist media?" Or do you think media of any political bias should be prosecuted? And what, exactly, do you consider the media's "crimes" to be?