Operation Deflect: White House/GOP Digging up Dirt on Journalists

a reply to: burdman30ott6

A long time ago, in the century previous, when I was in my 20s.....I took a job as a Census Worker. Then they had us take "The Oath". When I heard "I swear to uphold the Constitution and defend it against enemies, foriegn and dometic" I FREAKED OUT!

"I'm not the military, I can't "defend" the constitution!" I said.

"No, no", the guy said, you just have to make sure that the people you come in contact with answer the questions and truthfully. It's in the Constitution!"

"Look", I said, "I can't force people to answer these questions, and I'm in no position to question their truthfulness. I'm willing to go to the door, but if they turn me away, I'm not going back and forcing the issue." And, I walked out.

But now, I have no problem defending the Constitution, the 1st Amendment, against enemies foreign and domestic, with my old lady voice, on line, from behind an avatar! HAHA!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

I have no idea what you are trying to tell me here and why that means the press should be investigated and possibly silenced in direct violation of the 1st Amendment. Police your own camp first and do this # on Fox News then maybe I'll believe your sincerity here. Start with Sean Hannity.

lol
idiot on msnbc tells the world "it is Our job to control what people think"
Krazy..yeah but sean hannity

lol

What part of the 1st protects journalists from investigation and criticism?
That is what you are crying about here.
Are journalists now a protected class?
How will exposing bias and shoddy reporting infringe on their 1st rights?

The government investigating journalists REEKS of press suppression any way you slice it and you are being very disingenuous not to see it right now. And the reason I brought up Hannity is because he is the biggest pusher of opinions disguised as factual news on television right now. But I know you don't want to clean your closet and are only looking to attack liberals because you are a sycophant and not a real patriot.

Why is this bothering you so much, when it hasn't before?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontention (or resistance) to lawful authority

Google definition

The DNC and the HRC campaign violated the Hatch act.

Hatch act:
Provisions:

The 1939 Act forbids the intimidation or bribery of voters and restricts political campaign activities by federal employees. It prohibits using any public funds designated for relief or public works for electoral purposes. It forbids officials paid with federal funds from using promises of jobs, promotion, financial assistance, contracts, or any other benefit to coerce campaign contributions or political support.


The act also precludes federal employees from membership in "any political organization which advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government,"[8] a provision meant to prohibit membership in organizations on the far left and far right, such as the German-American Bund and the Communist Party USA.[9]

Wiki

The press is guilty of enabling this group to violate the law, knowingly against the best interest of the country weighed against the interests of the party.

This entire waste of resources is the product of a failed political campaign continuing past the election.

Paid opposition. Foreign investment in our legal system and government process.

The media has been complicit of the fraud carried out against the American people and was joint beneficiary in the rewards as a principle agent involved.

Ratings in persuit of the most willing and eager lowest common denominator in echange for a buck ......and the want of power that can be sold on the world market to the highest bidder for the right to enslave.

PRECEDENT:

Nashville now and then: You watch your mouth
AUTHORS E. Thomas Wood


This week in the Nashville of 1918, and also of 1835, saying things that most people disagreed with could get you into big trouble.

On August 8, 1918, Vincent H. Huck was convicted in Davidson County Criminal Court of "seditious utterances." He was sentenced to a fine of $500, as well as six months in the workhouse. Huck had been arrested in May by federal agents for violating the Sedition Act of 1918, signed earlier that month by President Woodrow Wilson.

As assistant district manager of a local threshing machine company — and the Wisconsin-born son of German immigrants — Huck was reported to have insulted a woman who came to the office soliciting funds for the American Red Cross. Employees told investigators that they considered Huck pro-German and that he had not allowed Liberty Loan and War Savings Stamp brochures to be posted in the workplace.

Huck was reportedly overheard saying that the U.S. was in the war just to save the British government and telling a businessman that his company's letterhead was "yellow just like your friend Wilson"

www.nashvillepost.com...

Its funny you rally behind the press and its right to unlimited defamation /harassment.

The press is the agent that rallied to expand on the espionage act and make the sedition act, the series of amendments that specify what limits should be set in the interest of objectivity and legal purpose to the provisions.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
It's ONE THING to make stupid TWEETS...

It's another thing entirely toHIRE PEOPLE to find "dirt" of the free press..

The stupid tweets did just fine...they were all you needed to know, regardless of how it all ends.
You don't suppose this wall will be built anytime soon, isn't it about time Trump started shovelling?

a reply to: UKTruth

Who are you to say what has and hasn't bothered me? You don't know me in the slightest, but in any case I'm tired of my freedoms being laughed away by a bunch of sycophants who haven't gotten it in their head that they are cheering for the State by inventing this "Deep State" bogeyman.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The White House isn't Congress and discrediting disreputable journalists isn't "making a law" so where's your beef?

a reply to: tadaman

I don't care what about whatever you are trying to distract me with here to validate why it is ok to witch hunt Democrats but not Trump. Don't care one iota.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The White House isn't Congress and discrediting disreputable journalists isn't "making a law" so where's your beef?

BUWHAHAHAHAHA Are you SERIOUSLY trying that defense? Are you that desperate for a defense? We all know that Congress in those Amendments reference all of Government. Otherwise President Obama would have been in his rights to kick your door down, quarter troops in your house, and confiscate all your guns.

a reply to: DanteGaland

Because as we all know... ATTACKING the press and intelligence community has "like, totally worked out great!" Fight BIAS by introducing bias of your own! What a brilliant idea!

Attacking liars and showing them for what they are, inconsistencies and all, seems like it is the agenda in America right now.

Why would you be against the opposition doing the same, is it because it is the opposition?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So the hatch is down and the lights are off.

Copy.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So the hatch is down and the lights are off.

Copy.

No. More like there is no defense for what Trump is doing and trying to validate it by demonizing liberals or the liberal press with your partisan bs isn't going to change that. I stand by the first Amendment which protects free speech and press from government encroachment even when the message is something you don't like. Clearly. You don't.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Who are you to say what has and hasn't bothered me? You don't know me in the slightest, but in any case I'm tired of my freedoms being laughed away by a bunch of sycophants who haven't gotten it in their head that they are cheering for the State by inventing this "Deep State" bogeyman.

I checked and you made no threads or offered any criticism of journalists being spied on by Obama and indeed had no criticism for Hillary either when she went after Brietbart claiming they had no 1st amendment rights (amongst others).
Just found that interesting as it suggests it is not really an attack on the 1st amendment that is your real beef.

originally posted by: Arnie123
Something is wrong with you in how you post your threads.

It is incorrect on so many fronts, is your goal to provide emphasis on target words and illicit a reaction? Curious because in all honesty and with respect, its ridiculous and a bit dumb.

Do you not understand netiquette?

Reason being, it ties directly into your OP, adding an addiional layer of nonsense, aimed at "trying" to persaude the reader into thinking something is seriously wrong with the world. As always, you make the mistake of attribution error, assuming the world is correct in your eyes and that something nefarious and wrong is unfolding put there and somehow you have the good senses to see it and stop it, course you're the only one.

It's the OP's opinion, or is that not allowed either. If I am correct ATS encourages people to have their own input as well as any linked story in a thread, take it or leave, agree or disagree. There are too many guys going round telling people how to think...especially if they don't agree.

a reply to: DanteGaland

When the Executive branch of OUR government attacks the free press openly -- You HAVE to wonder...

You really want to stick by that statement?
Obama went after AP, New York Times and FOX reporters, monitoring their phone calls and tried to make them reveal their sources. He had them labeled co conspirators in criminal cases and he did all this by using the Espionage Act [ eyeroll ] and archaic laws from WW1. He went after reporters that he think leaked information against his administration.
And exactly WHERE were the Liberals when he did this? Hmm? Quiet as a mouse apparently, but boy you sure want to start the "End Of Freedom" when Trump does it.

Read the whole article and take the time to look up the sh** Obama pulled and tell me you still stand by that statement.


www.nytimes.com...

Criticism of Mr. Obama’s stance on press freedom, government transparency and secrecy is hotly disputed by the White House, but many journalism groups say the record is clear.
Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.nytimes.com...

Phone Records of Journalists Seized by U.S.

www.theguardian.com...

Fox News reporter targeted as 'co- conspirator' in spying case

Damn. Some of you just embody the word Hypocrite.

a reply to: Skywatcher2011

Fox News sued, and won, the right to lie to us therefore all the other news outlets, MSM being the main culprits, have the right to lie to us.

Question is, what can The Pres do about this?

Not a partisan question as I dislike both sides. Honest answer, really, what can he do and is what he is doing now helping or hurting us lowly peons?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is nothing being done. LOL

What blocking twits or not giving likes to social leftist posts?

The blinders are on. We all know you see the illegality of what IS BEING DONE TO our government and this administration by the DNC and co. THROUGH the media.

I personally want to hold responsible those who willingly SOLD an illegal war. But I digress.

Thats why you cry foul before the matches are lit over the cannons.

Screw that.

I have 4 years of crow I was going to throw away.

Lets just turn the stove on and bake a pie.

I hope all these emotional and illogical political distractions serve you as well as the recounts did.

a reply to: UKTruth

Believe what you want non-American. I don't have to answer to you anyways. I know what I stand for.

a reply to: tadaman

There you go again. Blah blah blahing about partisan BS to defend Trump investigating and possibly even suppressing news he doesn't like. I guess I'll just repost it since you need to read it too:

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.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What of what I said was partisan?

Lol

You are running on empty. You are making things up and avoiding a subject I supplied many points to contest or add to.

You are acting childish.

If you dont want to talk say so. The lack of substance your argument has isnt masked by plenty of empty words.

You actually dont have one. Thats the best part!

Do you have ANYTHING factual to add?

Do you ever?

a reply to: tadaman

This:

The blinders are on. We all know you see the illegality of what IS BEING DONE TO our government and this administration by the DNC and co. THROUGH the media.

You are projecting your partisan gullibility onto me who doesn't believe that for a second.

If you dont want to talk say so. The lack of substance you have isnt masked by plenty of empty words.

The 1st Amendment isn't a "lack of substance", buddy.