First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams makes a good point when he says that the issue is not really CNN v. Trump, it is First Amendment v. Trump, and somebody is going to have to bring the suit, sooner or later. CNN: Floyd Abrams, a constitutional law expert who has appeared frequently before the Supreme Court, told CNN’s Brian Stelter on “Reliable Sources” Sunday that CNN has a case. — “I think it’s a really strong lawsuit,” Abrams said. “I can understand CNN being reluctant to sue because the president keeps saying CNN is the enemy of me, and CNN might have reluctance to have a lawsuit titled ‘CNN vs. Donald Trump.’ That said, yes, I think they should sue.” Abrams said. — “This is going to happen again,” he said. “It’s likely to happen again. So whether it’s CNN suing or the next company suing, someone is going to have to bring a lawsuit. And whoever does is going to win unless there’s some sort of reason.” __ Former ABC White House reporter Sam Donaldson, who said he’s been asked to prepare an affidavit to support CNN’s case, said Trump’s decision to revoke Acosta’s credentials “is not only wrong and unfair, it’s dangerous for the press as a whole.” In addition to the incident with Acosta, on Friday as Trump was leaving town for Paris, he reviled black journalist April Ryan, calling her “nasty” and a “loser” who “doesn’t know what the hell she’s doing.” There’s that pot calling kettle thing again, which is the hallmark of Donald Trump. Ryan says it’s simple, Trump sees black women as his inferiors. Washington Post: It’s not hard to find the common denominator: Though there’s hardly anyone — from his predecessors to senators in his own party — he won’t try to shout down with ad hominem insults, Trump relishes, and injects venom into, verbal attacks against women of color. Correspondents don’t go to the White House every day to make friends. We do our jobs courteously, but also thoroughly and assertively, to get answers for our viewers, listeners and readers about the statements and actions that affect all Americans’ lives. Sometimes that means having a quiet sidebar with a member of the White House communications staff. Sometimes that means meeting with first son-in-law and presidential adviser Jared Kushner to discuss the administration’s approach to criminal justice reform. Sometimes that means shouting a question at the president as he crosses the White House lawn on the way to boarding Marine One. You can tell, though, by the way Trump has responded in recent days to more than one black female journalist that he sees our presence there as illegitimate. If he didn’t, he’d either answer our questions or simply ignore them, not berate us. But when Trump denigrates black women, he’s sending the message that he doesn’t see us equally. Trump sees everybody as his inferiors, except for tyrants and dictators, whom he lionizes. That’s who he is. April Ryan had the hubris to ask Trump if he was a racist and oh, no little lady, you don’t go there — most especially if you’re a woman of color. Trump should enjoy the new crop of Representatives in the House. We’re in for some very interesting sailing just ahead. As the line from […]
If the White House was a restaurant, “lies du jour” and “gaffes extraordinaire” would be the two dishes it would be known for. That being said, the performances by Mick Mulvaney and Kellyanne Conway on Sunday, were two for the books. Mulvaney was on ABC and Conway on Fox and they both stumbled over exactly the same material, to wit, they could not keep the words of Robert Mueller and William Barr straight, as they desperately tried to gaslight everybody that Trump had indeed been fully exonerated from any claim of obstruction of justice by the Mueller report. Take a look at the transcripts, courtesy of PoliticusUSA. First Mulvaney: These types of investigations are not designed to exonerate people. So what you’ve saw here is simply Mueller saying you know what? I’m going to let Barr call this one. He had plenty of evidence to say on collusion absolutely not and he [Mueller?]actually punted over to Barr. Again, that’s the way the system can and does work. Barr, if you go elsewhere in the letter, lower down again I don’t have a copy sitting in front of me, it says that he and Rod Rosenstein, who up until last week was a darling of the left, found not a single – not a single piece of conduct, not a single act that constituted obstruction. So that’s why we are absolutely comfortable saying that the president has been fully exonerated. Yes, Barr – excuse me – Mueller does use those words, but again, those are words you would typically find in this type of investigation. Then we have Kellyanne Conway over at Fox News, getting pushed into a corner by Chris Wallace, who, admirably, was relentless and made her stick to the point. It’s always amazing when a Fox host commits a random act of journalism and gets the facts. Kind of like a full blood moon, it doesn’t occur all that often, you want to catch it when you can. WALLACE: …so when the president says that its total exoneration on obstruction, Kellyanne, that’s just not true. CONWAY: Well, the president is probably comparing that report and the ultimate conclusions of no conspiracy, no collusion, no contact with any Russian at a campaign that I managed into its final successful phases and have always been offended than anybody would think that we would cheat, lie, steal or talk to any Russians. That’s ridiculous and always was. We wasted a lot of money and a lot of time in people’s anxiety over it. WALLACE: Look — take yes for an answer, I’m agreeing with you on collusion. I’m asking you CONWAY: I’m always going to take yes for an answer on the Barr report. WALLACE: I’m asking about obstruction, though. CONWAY: We will see with the full report says but there’s nowhere in the Barr report that says the president obstructed justice. There’s nowhere in the Barr memo that says you or I (ph) obstructed justice. And remember, we — WALLACE: Well, there was no Barr report. Barr is simply summarizing — CONWAY: The Barr memo summarizing, but I think — WALLACE: Mueller. And Mueller says it did not exonerate him. Now, what is ludicrous, is that this is plain English being discussed. These are not abstract legal concepts, which might be […]
You may remember Brian Karem from his emotional clash with Sarah Huckabee Sanders over the administration’s family-separation policy. (“You’re a parent,” he famously noted at the time. “Don’t you have any empathy? Come on, Sarah,...
Every year, there is outrage when a famous comedian invited to host the self-gratifying political orgy known as the White House Correspondents Dinner uses the opportunity to crack jokes about the participants. As is the custom. Every year, the...
“Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.” — Dostoyevsky Sarah Huckabee Sanders is to Pinocchio what an F-22 is to “Flyer,” which is what the Wright brothers called their first bi-plane, back in the days of Kitty Hawk. She is the liar ne plus ultra, the high priestess, nay, the supreme goddess of lies. Her most recent contribution to lying, which she has modeled into a veritable art-form, in her time as White House press secretary, is to claim that Donald Trump does nothing but condemn violence — she assures us that he is the first person to do so — and that any misunderstanding on that topic is due to mis-reporting and not to anything Trump ever said. Friday a reporter asked Sanders to comment on the topic of the Coast Guard lieutenant armed with guns and a hit list, which included Democrats and journalists. Here was her response in the Washington Post: Sanders: “I certainly don’t think that the president at any point has done anything but condemn violence — against journalists or anyone else. In fact, every single time something like this happens, the president is typically one of the first people to condemn the violence and the media is the first people to blame the president.” There are white lies and then there are giant bold faced whoppers, and this last one was a doozy. And bear in mind, it’s not an original lie. She said the same thing, in so many words, in June, 2017, when she claimed Trump, “in no way, form or fashion has ever promoted or encouraged violence. If anything quite the contrary.” Apparently, the Washington Post couldn’t stand it, and so they sent Sanders an email Friday afternoon containing these facts. And bear in mind, that the Washington Post interactive fact checker has over 8,000 lies on record since Trump took office. But the Post only asked Sanders to comment on a few short squibs. If Sanders had been unaware at that her categorical words amounted to a continuation of Spicerism from the briefing room lectern, PolitiFact, The Post and others highlighted the several occasions on which Trump, often at rallies, either smiled on violent acts. Just one example, from a February 2016 rally in Iowa: “So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell . . . I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise.” There are several others along those lines. The president has encouraged violence through body language as well. At a rally before last year’s midterms, Trump praised Rep. Greg Gianforte, the Montana Republican who’d body-slammed a reporter for the Guardian during his 2017 campaign. “Never wrestle him. You understand that? Never. Any guy who can do a body-slam. He’s my kind of . . .,” said Trump last October. “He’s my guy. . . . So I was in Rome with a lot of the leaders from other countries . . . And I heard about it. And we endorsed Greg very early, but I had heard that he body-slammed a reporter.” Amid those […]
Isn’t it interesting that Donald Trump, so famous for the return punch, has neglected to counter punch the biggest nemesis on his radar right now, namely Michael Avenatti? Where is the oppositional digging? Where is the push back? “No one seems to understand why the RNC, America Rising and other GOP groups aren’t doing even […]
The love affair between Donald Trump and Fox News has sailed through some choppy water in recent months and this morning, it hit the rocks — although just why, is not clear. Democratic National Committee communications director Xochitl Hinojosa appeared on Fox, and it was a run of the mill, benign appearance. She was asked who the Democratic candidate would be, she said she didn’t know, but that any one of them “would be a better president than Donald Trump.” This is a new observation? She also stated that, “If you’re looking at recent polling, most of the top polling candidates in a head to head would beat Donald Trump, and especially in those battleground states.” Nothing to see here, folks, business as usual in the run up to the primaries. But not for Donald Trump. He went bat-guano bonkers over this interview, and broke up with Fox, right there on Twitter, in front of Gawd and everybody. ….are all in for the Open Border Socialists (or beyond). Fox hires “give Hillary the questions” @donnabrazile, Juan Williams and low ratings Shep Smith. HOPELESS & CLUELESS! They should go all the way LEFT and I will still find a way to Win – That’s what I do, Win. Too Bad!…. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 28, 2019 ….I don’t want to Win for myself, I only want to Win for the people. The New @FoxNews is letting millions of GREAT people down! We have to start looking for a new News Outlet. Fox isn’t working for us anymore! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 28, 2019 “Spewing out whatever she wanted, with zero push back by anchor.” Apparently that translates as “Fox anchors are supposed to crush anybody who says that I am less than perfect and going to win in 2020” — or something. Here’s a link, if you want to listen to the interview. Standard operating procedure stuff, the word pedestrian comes to mind, but it hit Trump where he lives. Man, if he’s this rice paper-thin skinned now, the next fourteen months are going to be something. Trump without Fox News should be interesting, sort of like a Happy Meal without fries. Wonder if anybody’s told Sean Hannity?
Two masters of fiction are putting Stephanie Grisham in a corner and it will be interesting to see what her particular character dictates that she do. I’ll match that, making $150,000. But full press corps. https://t.co/ToewY1Qr5J — Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 8, 2020 This is delicious. How can she refuse? And it’s high time that this issue be confronted. The Trump administration’s watch word is “none of your business.” We’re not supposed to hear from witnesses at the impeachment trial, we’re not supposed to know how foreign policy is being conducted, we’re just supposed to sit in the dark, in what amounts to a press blackout. Good for King and Winslow calling bullshit. My prediction? I don’t think Grisham will take the money, because her position is indefensible, like that of her boss. You may recall that Mark Cuban offered Donald Trump $10 Million to the charity of his choice if he would debate him for two hours, on the issues alone. Trump never took his offer. The people in this White House are cowards.
In case you missed it, Rudy had some choice words about his lack of respect for Stormy Daniels due to her profession. “A woman who sells her body for sexual exploitation, for money, I have no respect for.” If you just winced, given the identity of the prostitute that uttered the lines, and what he’s […]
The unspeakable Sarah Huckabee Sanders doubled down on her Monday accusations of the entire media deliberately planning to publish falsehoods and deceive the American people by threatening CNN’s Jim Acosta,...