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

a reply to: Krazysh0t

HOW?

It could be the GOP, the DNC or the green party.

In this case its the DNC. I did mention media during Bush that sold an illegal war in the same capacity.

I say lets be fair and prosecute everyone who lies for money and affects the countries lives. GOP members involved in that.

Sucks, but yeah, life isnt perfect. Deal.

HOW AM I WRONG?

originally posted by: UKTruth
I don't think the WH should be doing this - if true.

I think and independent commission needs to be formed to set journalistic standards and root out people in the profession that are not fit to do their jobs. Outlets like CNN should certainly be closed down, or at least have their political operatives replaced with real journalists. The role of the 4th estate is too important for it to polluted with the Tappers or Maddows of this world. There should also be much more control on who owns media outlets and a guard against monopolies. Too few people are controlling the mainstream media right now.

It isn't the white house. The original Washington Post article used the phrase: "A handful of Republican operatives close to the White House", which in some polluted minds means Donald Trump and the Whitehouse.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

HOW?

Because it isn't true and is partisan BS. I don't feel like getting into why because I know you don't care about that. Plus it is irrelevant to the conversation. Nothing justifies investigating the press for printing stuff you don't want to hear. I didn't like it when Obama did it either.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: UKTruth
I don't think the WH should be doing this - if true.

I think and independent commission needs to be formed to set journalistic standards and root out people in the profession that are not fit to do their jobs. Outlets like CNN should certainly be closed down, or at least have their political operatives replaced with real journalists. The role of the 4th estate is too important for it to polluted with the Tappers or Maddows of this world. There should also be much more control on who owns media outlets and a guard against monopolies. Too few people are controlling the mainstream media right now.

It isn't the white house. The original Washington Post article used the phrase: "A handful of Republican operatives close to the White House", which in some polluted minds means Donald Trump.

Where does the buck stop again? You guys constantly told us this during the Obama years. What was the answer to that again? I'm sure you remember.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Where does the buck stop again? You guys constantly told us this during the Obama years. What was the answer to that again? I'm sure you remember.

Irrelevant.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

"It isnt true"

Is that a wish or a declaration? I cant tell over text.

Nothing justifies investigating the press for printing stuff you don't want to hear. I didn't like it when Obama did it either.

I actually argued against that point. Still waiting for you to respond in kind.

I said the DNC violated the Hatch act and the media covered it up and ran opposition for money.

Hence sedition by the DNC since the media were responsible for violating the provisions listed in the sedition act in completion of that contract between them. There are components of the media that are responsible for corrupting /enabling that violation of the Hatch act in exchange of ratings.

The media carried the DNC /campaign banner against all democratic opposition by average people. Opposition that amounts to intimidation past the election and in the process violated the sedition /anti espionage act again.

How legal do you think it is to spy on the government....even if you are a member of the press?

Were those leaks incentivized by money or favors? Value?

How legal is it to harrass someone or a whole institution with baseless legal action that is dismissed or prolonged until dismissal?

This is taking away public resources so a private group can check the government into a stale mate.

Thats a line crossed.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.

Except he wouldn't be..

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't see 'Congress' mentioned in any of those wide sweeping protections... yet Congress is specified in the First. Thoughts?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Where does the buck stop again? You guys constantly told us this during the Obama years. What was the answer to that again? I'm sure you remember.

Irrelevant.

Yeah. Naturally. That is only relevant when we are talking about liberals right?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah. Naturally. That is only relevant when we are talking about liberals right?

Or not, as you've suggested numerous times in this thread already. But I guess your own arguments only pertain to others, not yourself.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Where does the buck stop again? You guys constantly told us this during the Obama years. What was the answer to that again? I'm sure you remember.

Irrelevant.

Yeah. Naturally. That is only relevant when we are talking about liberals right?

Ironically when talking about irrelevant liberals, to boot. God bless the First Amendment.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you daft?
Where did the op say "the government" was doing this?
Republican operatives are supposedly doing this. How is that illegal?
Were congress trying to pass a law to do this I would agree it is unconstitutional. Congress is not.
Its cool keep on yelling about hannity....you know the guy that reminds you during his broadcasts that he is biased. Personally I think he is a jackass and I do not watch him.
How did I "attack liberals"? Because I quoted what Mika said live on the air about her job is to control what you think?

When this is actually a government issue let me know; all this appears to me is that shoddy journalists may have some explaining to do.
We used to be particular about that kind of thing here.
www.newsbusters.org...
www.nationalreview.com...
www.usatoday.com...

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"It isnt true"

Is that a wish or a declaration. I cant tell over text.

I actually argued against that point. Still waiting for you to respond in kind.

And you'll be waiting a long time because I'm not about to walk down that off-topic path for you. I am specifically talking about the ethicacy of this investigation. You can whine all day about DNC collusion with the press. I don't care about that. Trump clearly colludes with Fox News and I don't see you pitching a fit over that. Investigating the press reeks of press suppression. Explain why it is ok for Trump to do it, but not for Obama to do it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But "But Hillary," is relevant in any thread criticizing Trump?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Fine. Obama would have been able to force you to convert to being a Muslim and never let you practice Christianity again. How about that one?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

But "But Hillary," is relevant in any thread criticizing Trump?

You tell me.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And you ducked and dodged saying Obama had no control over "a few rogue IRS agents". You even had the bal...er.. nerve to say Fast and Furious was Bush's fault, when Obama and Holder made damn sure it continued.

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
Can you believe it's only been six months? Jesus, this train wreck is in super slow motion and the conductor is narrating the carnage 140 characters at a time.

Your avatar is appropriate for your post.

Just saying.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I like the way you guys try to distance this from Trump so you can defend it even though the article CLEARLY says Republican operatives close to the White House which implies they are working under the WH's purview. But hey anything to keep that denial wall up right?

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And you ducked and dodged saying Obama had no control over "a few rogue IRS agents". You even had the bal...er.. nerve to say Fast and Furious was Bush's fault, when Obama and Holder made damn sure it continued.

Yeah exactly! You remember those conversations too. So the buck stops with Trump here right?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you got nothing. What I said stands. You are wrong.

Ok. Cool.

No facts with much sass is not a pass. You fail.

I explained why its not a violation of the press' rights and is what I say: a cover up of a Hatch violation that enabled both the DNC and elements of the media to work together to benefit /hide the crime.

In the process they all committed acts of espionage and sedition.

All you have as a retort is: no, lalalalala,cant hear you.