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

a reply to: eNumbra

Yup tabloids exist, and nobody considers them beacons of journalistic integrity.

Several news organizations with stellar reputations have been making the Enquirer look pretty good as of late.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.

Someone failed the sarcasm test and it wasn't me.

originally posted by: DAVID64
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 .

Was Obama just the pick of the hat, or was it because he was a Democrat...okay then, G.W. Bushe's reign had quite a few jailed, others before him.
Trump wants/wanted Comey to jail reporters under the same banner of publishing 'classified material' which would have probably included, ' telling on' of sources....really the main goal. The US media is somewhat lucky in that respect when they have a deal of clout and resources to fight back. Actually governments around the world treat their journalists very badly, the list is endless. Russia has around 21 murdered reporters, Thailand...s off, even in the EU, Hungary has put away a few...it goes on. Nobody should take sides when it comes to freedom of the press, every right minded person should shout out when they see something is going against the grain.

originally posted by: tadaman
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.

See. I knew you'd read what you wanted to read anyways. That's why I didn't waste my time going down offtopic lane with you with your silly partisan deflection from the OP topic. The fact you are inventing crimes to charge the media so you can defend this invasion of the free press is just sad.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: DAVID64
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 .

Was Obama just the pick of the hat, or was it because he was a Democrat...okay then, G.W. Bushe's reign had quite a few jailed, others before him.
Trump wants/wanted Comey to jail reporters under the same banner of publishing 'classified material' which would have probably included, ' telling on' of sources....really the main goal. The US media is somewhat lucky in that respect when they have a deal of clout and resources to fight back. Actually governments around the world treat their journalists very badly, the list is endless. Russia has around 21 murdered reporters, Thailand...s off, even in the EU, Hungary has put away a few...it goes on. Nobody should take sides when it comes to freedom of the press, every right minded person should shout out when they see something is going against the grain.

EXACTLY! Investigating the press because you don't like what is being reported is political suppression. It may not be illegal (yet), but it certainly is Constitutionally unethical.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

HOW

Again.

HOW is what you say true? Divine right?

HOW am I wrong. How did I "make up laws"?

Are you arguing that the Hatch act and the espionage act dont exist?

They do. You CAN argue that the parties I mentioned arent in violation of what I say.

You just cant ONLY say as much and NOT back it up.

You are free to go.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

HOW

By trying to charge them with the Hatch Act because of reporting that favors the DNC over GOP. That is silly partisanism. Like I said earlier in the thread, Trump has directly colluded with Fox News to report favorable coverage of him, but you aren't trying to charge them with the Hatch Act. it's how I know you are just being partisan. You are just mad the press is hounding your messiah.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Trump can HIRE anyone he want to do this; AS LONG AS IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
The 1st does not say "free from investigation" or "free from accountability" or am I mistaken?
Or is trump somehow not allowed to conduct commerce while he is POTUS?

Also what is your problem with accountability in journalism?
Real journalists have no problems with this as they actually do their job and vet their stories.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Lol. Denial wall is strong as ever I see. So you had no problems with Obama going after members of the conservative press then? Of course I'm sure, "that's different".

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.

Someone failed the sarcasm test and it wasn't me.

Doesn't change the fact that this isn't press suppression.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Did barak use the government to go after the press?
The op states republican operatives not the government.

a reply to: tadaman

No. I'm saying that there is no crime the liberal media has committed and you are trying to witch hunt them by trying to tie their activities to the Hatch Act all to validate why you think it is ok to suppress the liberal press. It's obvious. You aren't a criminal investigator and I've heard nothing about this legal violation so that means you are lying to me about crimes committed. It is partisan bs that is clearly only circulating on conservative media outlets trying to suppress liberal media.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nope

Not what I said

Can you read?

I said the DNC and HRC violated the Hatch act and in the process of enabling the crime, the media committed sedition,

Then after the election, to continue profiting from the benefit of the mentioned relationship with the DNC, components of the media colluded to run political opposition for the DNC against a democratically elected president. Riots, paying people with value for leaks even though these people are violating federal oaths to do so....voter intimidation, and on and on,

Mainly, trying to hurt the body of the executive branch of government by contributing to legal action against the president with unfounded frivolous charges.

In essence trying to interfere with his fulfillment of his obligations.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Please read the last post.

the one before.

any of them

I keep contesting your points with valid arguments proving you wrong.

All you do is say your opinion.

No one is after the LIBERAL media. You are the only person to make this partisan

I have twice mentioned holding the media accountable and elements of the GOP for selling illegal wars for profit /ratings under a similar model.

This is a systemic problem involving the media itself as an active PRIVATE entity NOT passive or PUBLIC agent in the public sphere.

Their owners are not free, the employees are not free. THe law is what grants releases from certain restrictions.

They lose the privilege when they violate the interest of the PEOPLE not the government.

THey did.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Did barak use the government to go after the press?
The op states republican operatives not the government.

Lol. Thanks for proving your bias to me. This is why I'm so antagonistic to you guys. No real patriotic backbone left in the lot of you. Just excuse after excuse why Trump is above accountability.

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 and the Whitehouse.

Thanks - yeah that figures. Just emphasises the obvious that the OP has no interest in the 1st amendment and we know what the real motivation for the thread is.

a reply to: shooterbrody

In La La Land it is bias to state the facts, while it isn't bias to accuse others of crimes they never committed for political reasons.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Please read the last post.

the one before.

any of them

I keep contesting your points with valid arguments proving you wrong.

All you do is say your opinion.

No. You haven't. You've posted your opinion to me and tried to tell me it was my opinion. Then you posted other people's opinions all of which aren't true because there is no criminal investigation into the liberal media over these things. It also proves you are trying to take this topic off topic because this investigation Trump is undertaking isn't even about uncovering criminal wrongdoing. It is literally JUST to find dirt on journalists so that Trump can discredit them.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What I posted wasnt even sourced by me. I added to it and used it to support my ARGUMENT.

I made my case with varying points you could contest, add to or question,

You have not addressed a single one.


EVERY post I made was on topic. Every single one of your deflections wasnt.


EDIT TO ADD:
What I posted was my post, I was not the author of supporting material as posted with external links and quotes.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: shooterbrody

In La La Land it is bias to state the facts, while it isn't bias to accuse others of crimes they never committed for political reasons.

Speaking of La La Land I haven't accused anyone of breaking a law. I've merely demanded that conservatives grow a back bone and question the Constitutional ethicacy of Trump's actions here (let's be real no one should buy your weak excuse that Trump isn't responsible for this after 8 years of being told that Obama is responsible for everything that happened under his watch).