ChrisWeigant.com

I Am Not An Enemy Of The People

[ Posted Thursday, August 16th, 2018 – 18:04 PDT ]

I am not an "enemy of the people." I am not an enemy of The People. Parse it or capitalize it however you like, I am still not an enemy of the people.

Today, over 350 newspaper editorial boards have published similar sentiments. While I've never been a part of the mainstream media, I had to join in this collective effort to push back against President Donald Trump's dangerous and Stalinesque rhetoric, because it is important to take a stand against such demonization. Call me small potatoes if you must, but these small potatoes are still not an enemy of the people.

I'd like to think I'm no one's enemy, if truth be told. I don't go out of my way to make enemies, although I'm certain that not everyone agrees with everything I say or write. But "enemy" is a pretty strong word, and I just don't see how I qualify in anyone's eyes. Maybe that's a subjective viewpoint, as enemies are usually declared by their foes, but that is indeed how I feel.

The truth that the media as a whole is not the enemy of the people used to be rather self-evident, at least in modern times. Previous presidents have railed against media they saw as unkind or even biased against them, but they usually did so in private, not in messages to the masses. With Trump, however, things are different. He has no qualms about riling his followers up against the media, which he does at every opportunity he gets (see: any Trump rally, anywhere). He does not see this as a dangerous thing -- but it is.

The phrase "enemy of the people," as previously noted, comes from Joseph Stalin's iron-fisted rule of the Soviet Union. It has been used countless times since by authoritarian governments worldwide, to identify an object for their subjects to hate. Think of the "Two Minutes' Hate" in Nineteen Eighty-Four -- that is the real objective of naming any person or class of persons "enemies of the people." Doing so is evil, at least when unwarranted (as, obviously, it is in this case).

In fact, the only time enemies of the people exist are when a country is at war (enemies of the country equate to enemies of the people, in other words), or when some subversive group is working towards the violent overthrow of an entire way of government. Al Qaeda terrorists were indeed enemies of the American people, to give the most recent clear example. But to equate anyone or any group with such terrorists or battlefield foes without cause is actually an affront to the American way of life.

There is only one profession mentioned by name in the United States Constitution. One. It didn't make the original cut, but the Antifederalists of the time insisted on including it in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall pass no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...." Journalism was seen as so important to the natural rights of Americans that it was expressly protected, right next to the freedom of speech. No other profession received such explicit treatment, because no other profession was seem as a bedrock to the freedom of the people. The press are not enemies of the people, they are at the vanguard of the freedom of the people, period.

All of our presidents have disagreed with the press, at times. Even George Washington, in one of the most famous speeches he ever gave (his Farewell Address) considered venting his hatred of a hostile press. In an early draft of the speech, Washington singles out "some of the gazettes," who:

...have teemed with all the invective that disappointment, ignorance of facts, and malicious falsehoods could invent, to misrepresent my politics and affections; to wound my reputation and feelings; and to weaken if not entirely destroy the confidence you had been pleased to repose in me; it might be expected at the parting scene of my public life, that I should take some notice of such virulent abuse. But, as heretofore, I shall pass them over in utter silence; never having myself, nor by any other with my participation or knowledge, written, or published a scrap in answer to any of them.

Perhaps reflecting on that "utter silence" line, Washington eventually cut this segment from his speech. But you can plainly see that newspapers have been publishing critical (and scathing) language about the president from the very beginning. Not every president who followed him had such reluctance about fighting back, though.

The high ideal of the freedom of the press enshrined in the Constitution has not always been completely upheld as the framers intended. Indeed, the freedom of the press was viciously attacked not too long after the ink on the Constitution was fully dry. The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed a decade after the Constitution's ratification, and were directly aimed at foreign-born newspaper editors of the day who were publishing negative articles about President John Adams. This is historical fact -- you can look it up.

Newspaper editors were viciously attacked in the streets by their political opponents, severely beaten, and at times saw either their typecases or their whole printing press violently relocated to the bottom of the nearest river or other body of water. Both sides of the political divide (the one that existed at the time) were guilty of such excesses, it also bears pointing out. Thomas Jefferson, elected in 1800 in a revolt against the ruling Federalists, began with noble intentions. Here's a Jefferson quote that newspaper editors still like to cite today:

The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

However, once he was in office, his lofty goals met the reality of being attacked daily in the opposition press. Jefferson wrote to a supporter (the governor of Pennsylvania): "I have therefore long thought that a few prosecutions of the most prominent offenders would have a wholesome effect in restoring the integrity of the press." He also later used language that echoes today in Trump's tweets:

Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put in that polluted vehicle.... I will add that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors.

That's a whole lot more erudite than yelling "Fake News!" but the sentiment has not changed one bit in the intervening two centuries.

Getting under the skin of members of the ruling government -- all the way up to the top -- is not some aberration of the media, it is in fact part of their job description. That's what "freedom of the press" is really all about, in the same way that freedom of speech most needs protecting when the speech contains things most people do not agree with. The government is expressly forbidden from trying to squash such criticism because it is necessary to protect everyone's freedom. Period.

I have long been critical of Fox News, for instance. At the moment, I consider them nothing short of state-run television, always hewing to the spin the president has preapproved. I do not as a rule watch their shows, but millions do. They are not my cup of tea, but I would be aghast if a Democratic president in any way tried to shut them down for their political stance, and I would defend their ability to criticize an administration I agreed with as strongly as I knew how -- because that is one of the foundations of our democracy. A robust opposition press is actually a healthy thing, even when I completely disagree with what they're saying. But I would never disagree that they had every right to say it, because the profession was seen as so important that it was the only one mentioned in our country's founding document.

Donald Trump's main problem (in this regard) is one that previous presidents have also (to their shame) shared -- he confuses his own personal and political enemies with enemies of the state. But "L'état c'est moi" has never actually been a part of American government, no matter how many times presidents slip into this way of thinking.

It has been a long time since riotous mobs of people violently attacked newspaper offices over political positions they didn't approve of, here in America. But it used to happen on a regular basis. It has also been a long time since any politician tried to rekindle this ugliness by whipping his followers up against the press in such a naked fashion. That is what is truly dangerous today, not editorials critical of Trump.

Although small in scale, because it involved just one deranged individual, we have already seen deadly violence at a newspaper office in the Trump era, when five people died at the Capitol Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland. The murderous individual who perpetrated this crime had his own longstanding hatred of the paper -- he didn't attack it in defense of Trump, in other words. But it is a dangerous precedent for the modern era nonetheless. People died for journalism, and not in some forgotten corner of American history, but less than two months ago.

This -- and not anything the paper published -- was a terrorist act. This murderer was an actual enemy of the people, and not the people doing their jobs at the newspaper. In fact, I would go further and say that anyone who condones or in any way incites such attacks on the press is equally an enemy of the people. It doesn't matter what a newspaper prints or any other media outlet disseminates, the answer to a critical press is not to demonize them and hold them up as less than human in any way, because that can lead to terrorist attacks against them. I find it astonishing that over 350 newspapers have to remind the people who the real enemy is, but in this day and age it has indeed sadly become necessary to do so.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

88 Comments on “I Am Not An Enemy Of The People”

  1. [1] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    There you go, Chris. Well said.

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The majority of the press more closely resembles an enema than an enemy.

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    While we are on the subject, how about providing some friendly information to citizens aboot One Demand and see if it can develop into a solid movement instead of just covering the watered down shit offered by the two party system?

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Call me small potatoes if you must, but these small potatoes are still not an enemy of the people.

    Au contraire, mon frere: It's Hair Dick-Tater who is feeling the noose tightening around his "small potatoes."

    I'd like to think I'm no one's enemy, if truth be told.

    If "truth be told." Hmmmm. So you're willing to testify under oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" regarding whether or not you pointed a Thompson submachine gun at point-blank range in the face of one Alphonse Capone, causing him to become scared stiff? ;)

    Donald Trump's main problem (in this regard) is one that previous presidents have also (to their shame) shared -- he confuses his own personal and political enemies with enemies of the state. But "L'état c'est moi" has never actually been a part of American government, no matter how many times presidents slip into this way of thinking.

    Si Trump était un État, il serait l'État du Déni.

    I love your history columns; very well done, sir! :)

  5. [5] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I second the first comment above. Or, as sometimes written on the Internet, +1 to [1].

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB

    Taking care of some old business...

    I honestly thought, "Oh, my God. The pressure on him is too much, and he's gone all Pizzagate."

    You people are the only one talking about Nader and Trump except for ya'all....

    But it IS funny to see ya'all tie yerself in knots, trying to link EVERY BAD THING to President Trump..

    As much as it pains me to do, I am gonna have to make you eat yer Pizzagate... :D

    I know YOU will have the integrity to apologize and admit you were wrong.. Just as I am sure that Victoria and Balthasar will not

    HOW DAVID ASIMOV, THE BIGGEST CHILD PORN PROCESSOR IN CALIFORNIA SKATED
    AWAY FROM FEDERAL PRISON WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM HIS FRIENDS by Kathryn Dixon

    David Asimov, of Living Oak Court, Bennett Ridge, Santa Rosa, the son of the late science fiction writer Isaac Asimov, was sentenced on March 28, 2001 to six months' home detention with electronic monitoring and three years federal probation for possessing child pornography. U.S. District Court Judge Maxine M. Chesney sentenced Asimov after reviewing a series of sealed psychiatric reports, one of which was ordered by the court. Asimov who was charged with four federal counts of possession of child pornography with each count carrying a five year sentence, pled guilty to two counts in a plea bargain deal. There was no forfeiture of any of Asimov's assets in this case, despite his owning a home in Santa Rosa purchased in 1996 for $375,000, and despite his receiving $3,000 per month from his father's estate. How did Asimov, who possessed one of the largest stashes of pornography in California, skate away from federal prison? A look at the players yields the answer.

    .....

    "There were thousands of disks, thousands of videos," said Sonoma County
    >Deputy District Attorney Gary Medvigy, who personally referred to Asimov's
    >home as a "processing center" for child pornography. "Anything imaginable
    >regarding sex between human beings and human beings, or human beings and
    >animals, was there. Whatever your imagination can conjure up, he had it. It
    >was like walking into a TV studio" Santa Rosa police seized scores of
    >computer disks and approximately 4,000 videocassettes from Asimov's home,
    and
    >approximately 1,000 of those videos contained child pornography.

    ...

    The Sonoma County District Attorney J. Michael Mullins covered up the case,
    >let the public believe the feds would prosecute it more thoroughly, and
    then
    >passed the cover up to U.S. Attorney Mueller.

    US Attorney Robert Mueller.. Child Pornographer Lover extraordinaire...

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just addressing the title...

    I Am Not An Enemy Of The People

    Anyone who advocates for the nullification of a free, fair and legal Presidential Election is, by definition, an enemy of the American people...

    And since ya'all have conceded, either by commission or omission, that ya'all advocate the nullification of a free, fair and legal election......

    Well.... Ya'all can do the math...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'd like to think I'm no one's enemy, if truth be told. I don't go out of my way to make enemies, although I'm certain that not everyone agrees with everything I say or write. But "enemy" is a pretty strong word, and I just don't see how I qualify in anyone's eyes. Maybe that's a subjective viewpoint, as enemies are usually declared by their foes, but that is indeed how I feel.

    Yea.. Was it a "strong word" when Hillary claimed that Republicans are the enemy she has that she is most proud of???

    Funny how no one here condemned the use of that "strong word", eh??

    “We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”
    -Barack Odumbo

    Obama was referring to his political opponents and supporters..

    Was "enemies" too strong a word then??? I didn't see anyone here condemn Odumbo's words as "dangerous and Stalinist rhetoric"... How come???

    Let's face facts here, people.. Ya'all are ONLY hysterical about President Trump's rhetoric because.. well, it's President Trump..

    As I have PROVEN, Democrats have used similar rhetoric and ya'all not only did not condemn it, ya'all agreed with it...

    So, let's can the "OH MY GAWD THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" hysterical theatrics and deal with facts and reality, eh?? :D

    "Thaaaat would be greeeaaatttt"
    -Gary Cole, OFFICE SPACE

    :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    You people are the only one talking about Nader and Trump except for ya'all....

    Wow! Talk about convoluted!! :D

    Have you ever started a sentence and then by the end of the sentence your saying it in a different way??? :D

    Anyways, that should read:

    No one is talking about Nader and Trump except for ya'all....

    My bust...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump was wrong to call reporters enemies. And yes, the demonization of those who disagree with us is a deep problem in U.S. politics. But it did not start with Trump. Perhaps it’s time for Trump’s critics — including those in the media — to take a good, hard look in the mirror and ask themselves how they are contributing to our growing culture of political contempt.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-lefts-hypocrisy-on-trumps-enemy-of-the-american-people-comment/2017/02/21/d2c81496-f83d-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html?utm_term=.e926f67df99c

    I whole-heartedly agree with that sentiment..

    Sadly, I am the only one here who does...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in other news...

    Well, gaawd damn!!!

    Youth Unemployment Hits 52-Year Low
    Data suggest more opportunities are available to some groups that historically struggled to find jobs

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/youth-unemployment-hits-52-year-low-1534455755

    President Donald Trump

    Making America Great Again!!!!

    "What magic wand is Trump going to use to bring back those jobs!??"
    -Barack Odumbo

    "Abra-cadabra, bitch!"
    -President Donald Trump

    :D

    Once again, I have to agree with Russ.. President Trump is going down!!

    Going down in history as the greatest US leader since Saint Ronald Reagan... :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, gaawwdd damn, Part 2

    Scott Mushkin, retail analyst at Wolfe Research, just said on #WDYM that based on his conversations, Walmart executives believe that right now is the best economy for their customers that they've seen in two decades.
    -Joe Weisenthal
    @TheStalwart

    Hurray For President Trump!! :D

    Doing something that Odumbo could never do..

    Making a truly GREAT economy for Americans!! :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    The First Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall pass no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...." Journalism was seen as so important to the natural rights of Americans that it was expressly protected, right next to the freedom of speech. No other profession received such explicit treatment, because no other profession was seem as a bedrock to the freedom of the people. The press are not enemies of the people, they are at the vanguard of the freedom of the people, period.

    And with that comes responsibility to be fair and impartial..

    NO ONE here can make the claim that the MSM is that..

    Put it another way.. In times of war, civilians are afforded Geneva Convention Protections.. But the SECOND a civilian picks up a weapon and chooses a side, they become a combatant and are no longer afforded protection...

    So it is with the American press...

    They have picked up a weapon (bullshit and lies) and have chosen a side..

    Therefore, IMNSHO, they do not enjoy Constitutional protections...

    It's really that simple...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea.. Was it a "strong word" when Hillary claimed that Republicans are the enemy she has that she is most proud of???

    I am also constrained to point out that Hillary was talking about ACTUAL enemies, as she linked Republicans with the Iran Mullahs..

    “Which enemy am I most proud of? Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians? Probably the Republicans.”
    -Hillary Clinton

    Look how many FELLOW AMERICANS Hillary listed as "enemies"...

    It's funny... It wasn't a "strong" word back then around here???

    How come???

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in the OH MY LOOKIE AT THE HYPOCRISY Department..

    12 ex-intel officials slam Trump for 'ill-considered and unprecedented' action against Brennan
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/17/12-ex-intel-officials-slam-trump-for-ill-considered-and-unprecedented-action-against-brennan.html

    When the idea first hit the airwaves, that President Trump is considering pulling the security clearances of disloyal and treasonous former Odumbo officials, these officials went on the record as saying, "Eh? So what.. It means nothing"

    Now that President Trump made good on that, NOW they are squealing and whining like stuck pigs.. :D

    To them, I say:

    "Shove it up ya'all's asses, you treasonous scumbags... When you actively try to subvert democracy and try to nullify a free, fair and legal election because your luser of a candidate lost?? You deserve everything that happens to you.."

    "afw'ein Mnhei'sahe"
    -Romulan Proverb

    Roughly translated to the Latin term "sans humanite"

    "I will give them no pity, they deserve no mercy and it serves them right!"

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    I just want to mention one thing about the trial. The jury members may all have strictly adhered to the instructions to refrain from learning anything about the case from the outside.

    When juries start to zero in on "reasonable doubt", that's not a good sign for the prosecution...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liberals Attack ‘Queer Eye’ Star For Tweeting ‘Not All Republicans Are Racist’
    Leftist mob goes after gay man for promoting unity

    https://www.newswars.com/liberals-attack-queer-eye-star-for-tweeting-not-all-republicans-are-racist/

    See what happens to gay people who step out of line and says, "Why can't be be respectful of each other's ideas and beliefs" or words to that effect???

    They are attacked and demonized and vilified by the "tolerant" and "peaceful" Left Wingery... :^/

    No wonder the #WalkAway movement is such a success and gaining steam...

    Americans are finding that, for all their lip service to "tolerance" and "peace" and "respect", Democrats are as evil as hateful as intolerant as they accuse the Right of being...

    Once again, these are the facts and they will be ignored around here...

  18. [18] 
    John M wrote:

    [13] Michale

    "But the SECOND a civilian picks up a weapon and chooses a side, they become a combatant and are no longer afforded protection...

    So it is with the American press...

    They have picked up a weapon (bullshit and lies) and have chosen a side..

    Therefore, IMNSHO, they do not enjoy Constitutional protections...

    It's really that simple..."

    So in other words, you are ANT-Constitution and ANTI-American.... good to know.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    So in other words, you are ANT-Constitution and ANTI-American.... good to know.

    I won't bother to ask you to explain how you got there from my comment.. Because I know you can't..

    But the simple fact is with RIGHTS come RESPONSIBILITIES...

    If you forgo the RESPONSIBILITIES, then you don't have the RIGHT...

    Pointing this FACT out is NOT being Anti-Constitution or Anti-American...

    I mean, it's not as if I said, "America was NEVER that great"

    That's what YOU Democrats say....

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pro-Police Group Refuses to Partner With Jets Due to Anthem Protests

    Blue Lives Matter said the “issues” most players protest about are made up.

    Earlier this week, the New York Jets took a shot at partnering with a pro-police organization for the upcoming NFL season.

    It missed.

    In a response email that was obtained by The New York Post, Blue Lives Matter founder Joe Imperatrice roundly rejected the partnership offer from Jets partnership manager Anthony Bulak and insinuated that the NFL and its players do not respect the police.

    “Although I’d love to work with an NFL team right now I feel it is not the right time. All over the United States players feel entitled to disrespect our first responders, our military members both past and present and our flag. These players make more money in a season than some people make in a lifetime and their ‘Issues’ are made up, exaggerated, and more times than not false,” the email reads.

    Imperatrice went on to suggest any potential revenue that would be generated via a partnership like this would be better spent “on the families of officers killed in the line of duty protecting the ignorance of these individuals rather than contributing to their paycheck.”

    He also referenced that the Jets have a player on their roster, Isaiah Crowell, who once posted, and then apologized for, an image of a police officer having his throat slit.
    http://www.realclearlife.com/sports/pro-police-group-refuses-to-partner-with-jets-due-to-disrespectful-players/

    Until such time as the NFL sets things right, they can take their partnerships and shove them up their collective asses...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    But the simple fact is with RIGHTS come RESPONSIBILITIES...

    If you forgo the RESPONSIBILITIES, then you don't have the RIGHT...

    Allow me to re-phrase..

    If you can't be bothered with the RESPONSIBILITIES that the RIGHTS require, then you are undeserving of the protections of said RIGHTS...

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    While the media may not be the enemy, it certainly has not been behaving like a friend by doing it's job to inform citizens aboot anything from outside the approved narrative.

    "I had some friends but they're gone
    Something came and took them away
    And from the dusk 'til the dawn
    here is where I'll stay

    Standing at the end of the road, boys
    Waiting for my new friends to come
    I don't care if I'm hungry or cold
    I'm gonna get me some"
    -Friends
    Buzzy Linhart

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    While the media may not be the enemy,

    If the Media is a combatant in pushing one Party's agenda, an agenda that has PROVEN to be harmful to this country.....

    Then the media is, by definition, an enemy of the American people...

  24. [24] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    WhileI deplore damn near everything that comes out of the man's mouth, I'll go out on a limb here and point out that regardless of whether Dems/Libs are willing to admit it or not, it is still true, kinda like the laws of physics and other undeniable facts, that the news media are dominated by political liberals.

    That fact results from the very nature of political liberalism, and it is simply a manifestation of the fact that liberals are attracted to fields of endeavor where they can "make a difference", or "have an impact", (meaning change thigs for what they perceive as "the better") and those turn out to be journalism, education and the law.

    That is simply a fact of life, and Trump will have to live with it.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is simply a fact of life, and Trump will have to live with it.

    And Democrats will ALSO have to live with it as well...

    As long as the Main Stream Media is the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, then the MSM will continue to be held accountable for their acts and actions..

    The Leftist MSM is a combatant.. They have chosen a side and the side they chose is the enemy of the American people..

    Ergo, the MSM is an enemy of the American people..

    "Simply logic"
    -Admiral James T. Kirk

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Leftist MSM is a combatant..

    As much as Joseph Goebbels was a combatant...

  27. [27] 
    John M wrote:

    The SIMPLE FACTS Michale are:

    1) Journalists and the Press have taken sides since the very start, on a wide range of topics and people. It's called an EDITORIAL.

    2) Just because you take sides, you don't lose your right to FREE SPEECH.

    3) I said you were anti-constitution and anti-American because apparently you think it would be just fine to restrict free speech rights ONLY to those who agree with YOUR viewpoint. Or did I get your whole comment thread about combatants taking sides and the Geneva convention wrong???

    [23] Michale

    "If the Media is a combatant in pushing one Party's agenda, an agenda that has PROVEN to be harmful to this country.....

    Then the media is, by definition, an enemy of the American people..."

    And there's the PROOF right there. What part of having an editorial opinion and disagreeing with YOUR viewpoint and still be entitled to free speech do you NOT get?

    Just because someone vehemently disagrees with your opinion and position, you immediately label them an "enemy" of the people.

    That's what tinpot dictators do Michale, and that's what makes it UN-American.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    1) Journalists and the Press have taken sides since the very start, on a wide range of topics and people. It's called an EDITORIAL.

    But not to this extent..

    Over 92% of MSM reportage is attack President Trump reporting...

    Hell, even the press attacking President Bush didn't even come CLOSE to that that type of combative reporting..

    2) Just because you take sides, you don't lose your right to FREE SPEECH.

    And how is labeling the MSM honestly and accurately a violation of the press' free speech???

    3) I said you were anti-constitution and anti-American because apparently you think it would be just fine to restrict free speech rights ONLY to those who agree with YOUR viewpoint.

    If we were talking about Free Speech, you would have a point.

    But we're not, so you don't..

    We're talking about Freedom Of The Press...

    And there's the PROOF right there. What part of having an editorial opinion and disagreeing with YOUR viewpoint and still be entitled to free speech do you NOT get?

    If we were talking about editorializing and opinion writing, you would have a point. But we're not so you don't..

    We're talking about the MSM taking an active part in shaping the news, slant their reporting and NOT reporting based on pushing a Party agenda...

    Even CRS can see what I am saying..

    Just because someone vehemently disagrees with your opinion and position, you immediately label them an "enemy" of the people.

    I realize you have to move the goalposts to make your lame rebuttal work..

    We're not talking about opinions.

    We're talking about manipulating the news and the facts to further a Party agenda..

    And agenda that has been PROVEN to be detrimental to this country..

    I know, I know.. You can't concede you are wrong..

    It's just like when you tried to claim a link I posted said something it didn't say at all..

    You have to change the "FACTS" to make your argument give the APPEARANCE that it is rational and relevant..

    I understand and still like ya.. :D

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    kinda like the laws of physics and other undeniable facts, that the news media are dominated by political liberals.

    Newsrooms definitely lean left, as poll after poll shows. But that isn't the whole picture.

    Newsrooms need to make money, and they are owned by people who either lean right or don't care so long as profits are maximized.

    Fox News, Sinclair, WSJ and many other news outlets lean very right - the question should really be: "How on earth are there any left-leaning news rooms, let alone a plurality?".

    Given that nobody is forced to pay for their news in this country (unlike, say Britain, where the BBC is funded by non-market means), I'd say that the plurality of people who pay attention to reality lean left and thus the news media caters to the market.

  30. [30] 
    neilm wrote:

    Looks like the toddler isn't getting his military parade.

    I'm crying real tears.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Newsrooms definitely lean left, as poll after poll shows. But that isn't the whole picture.

    Yes it is.. Because EVERYTHING news flows from the newsrooms...

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yes it is.. Because EVERYTHING news flows from the newsrooms...

    Who hires the reporters?

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Irrelevant..

    When those hired reporters report the news, it flows from the newsrooms...

    I suppose you could say hiring leftist activists is relevant..

    But a leftist activist actions STILL flow from the newsrooms...

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can spin it all you want...

    But the SAD fact is, with very very few exceptions, our American MSM eats, sleeps, bleeds, spins and REPORTS Democrat Blue...

    No amount of ya'all's hysterical spin will change that one simple fact...

  35. [35] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale, you do know that FREEDOM OF THE PRESS means precisely that the Press HAS FREE SPEECH rights, correct?

    So your vain attempt to make a point by trying to split hairs is meaningless semantics.

    "I believe that you are punishing me because I do not think the way that you do. Because I am not becoming more like you. You claim to respect my individuality. But in fact, you are frightened by it. You will fail."

    - Seven Of Nine

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    Irrelevant.

    OK, say you won the lottery and decided to buy the Washington Post. Would you leave the current reporters in the newsroom, or would you fire them and hire new ones?

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    "We are not the Enemy" day is a great idea.

    Doesn't go far enough, though. Now what the press needs to do is take a week and not report anything that Trump says at all. Or simply not report anything that isn't an official statement of the White House.

    And not say a word about his tweets, ever again, unless he happens to tweet: I definitely conspired with Russia to win the election. Dems couldn't stop me because it was a GRU operation. SAD!

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, you do know that FREEDOM OF THE PRESS means precisely that the Press HAS FREE SPEECH rights, correct?

    They are two distinct freedoms..

    You trying to equate the 2 to make your argument sound reasonable is ridiculous...

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, say you won the lottery and decided to buy the Washington Post. Would you leave the current reporters in the newsroom, or would you fire them and hire new ones?

    I would change the environment in the newsroom to reflect a fair and balanced reporting..

    Those reporters who couldn't surpress their activism and do their JOBS would be fired...

  40. [40] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But the SAD fact is, with very very few exceptions, our American MSM eats, sleeps, bleeds, spins and REPORTS Democrat Blue...

    Ah, I see what you've done. You've separated out the vast network of right-leaning outlets (most owned by the same companies that own left-leaning media) and pretended that they exist on a different planet.

    It's the same old Republican game of "playing the Refs" that makes them look like thin-skinned crybabies. It's the equivalent of soccer players 'flopping' on the field to get a call against the opposing team.

    Trump, however, is playing by 'dictator rules', in which the press he disagrees with is forcibly suppressed, rather than simply opposed. He's too ignorant of the American system to know how the game is supposed to be played. He's dangerously stupid, that's a fact.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump, however, is playing by 'dictator rules', in which the press he disagrees with is forcibly suppressed,

    Yea?? How has President Trump done that???

    Has he arrested media leaders?? Has he thrown reporters in jail like Odumbo tried to do??

    No, he has just made his case to the American people and the American people, those that are patriotic agree with President Trump..

    "Forcibly surpressed??"

    Yer so full of shit yer eyes are brown. :D

  42. [42] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yer right. That should've read:

    Trump, however, believes that he is playing by 'dictator rules', in which the press he disagrees with is forcibly suppressed, rather than simply opposed.

    The difference between what he can do (politically) and what he wants to do is what has everyone worried. Left to his own devices, I'm sure he'd start jailing reporters, or sic his mindless rally followers on them. More than a few reporters have reported feeling threatened at Trump rallies. Some have used armed escorts.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump, however, believes that he is playing by 'dictator rules', in which the press he disagrees with is forcibly suppressed, rather than simply opposed.

    Still gotta call bullshit..

    For your claim to be factually accurate you would have to be capable of mind-reading...

    The difference between what he can do (politically) and what he wants to do is what has everyone worried.

    The difference between what he can do (politically) and what YOU CLAIM he wants to do is what has everyone worried.

    There.. Fixed it for you...

    Left to his own devices, I'm sure he'd start jailing reporters,

    You mean, like Odumbo tried to do??

    But again, you are mind-reading and that is simply not possible..

    More than a few reporters have reported feeling threatened at Trump rallies. Some have used armed escorts.

    As did (and does) many Fox News reporters during violent Left Wing/Antifa rallies..

    I also will point out that CNN was attacked by antifa, not Right Wingers in the latest rally...

    So your claims are BS and not supported by facts..

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:
  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Amazing that no one wants to talk about the Manafort trial...

    "Gee! I wonder why that is!!?"
    -Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

    :D

    The witch hunt is going to take a HUGE... a YYYUUUGGGGEEEEEE credibility hit when Manafort walks or the jury hangs...

    Mueller and his posse will be toast...

    :D

    You heard it here first...

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller and his posse will be toast...

    :D

    "I'll stay here and hook up with the posse. Because, you know me.. I'm a posse magnet. I mean.. I love posse. Gonna make that into a T-shirt."
    -Dean Winchester

    :D

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, the media is "the enemy" to Oscasio-Cortez..

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Bans Media From Campaign Town Halls
    https://freebeacon.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-bans-media-campaign-town-halls/

    Oooooofffff

    Kinda takes the wind out of ya'all's TRUMP VS THE MEDIA
    sails, eh??

    What shitty inconvenient FACTS eh? :D

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    42

    Yer so full of shit yer eyes are brown. :D ~ Michale

    I have never instigated anything.. ~ Michale

    So how's that no "personal attacks" thing working out for you so far, Balthy?

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    CNN, NYT AND OTHER NEWS OUTLETS ASK MANAFORT JUDGE TO RELEASE JURORS’ NAMES, ADDRESSES
    http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/17/cnn-nyt-manafort-jury-names-addresses/

    Yea.. Leftist MSM wants to harass and hound and demonize the jurors when they set Manafort free...

    Thereby proving once again that the Leftist MSM is, indeed, the enemy of the American people...

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    So how's that no "personal attacks" thing working out for you so far, Balthy?

    It wasn't a personal attack.. It was joshing amongst friends.. Hence the " :D "

    If Balthy had a problem with it, HE can say something..

    He doesn't need you to tell him anything....

    Chill out...

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    "I believe that you are punishing me because I do not think the way that you do. Because I am not becoming more like you. You claim to respect my individuality. But in fact, you are frightened by it. You will fail."

    - Seven Of Nine

    I missed that before.. Excellent use of a Trek quote..

    Kudos...

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    50

    It wasn't a personal attack.. It was joshing amongst friends.. Hence the " :D "

    Your head is so high up Benedict Donald's ass that you can't see anything anyway. :D

    If Balthy had a problem with it, HE can say something..

    No shit, Sherlock, but if you're going to whine incessantly about personal attacks on the board yet continue to do them yourself, people will naturally question the double standard.

    He doesn't need you to tell him anything....

    I didn't tell him anything, shit for brains, I asked him a question. :D

    Chill out...

    Eat shit. :D

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    No shit, Sherlock, but if you're going to whine incessantly about personal attacks on the board yet continue to do them yourself, people will naturally question the double standard.

    And yet, it's ONLY you that is doing it...

    Just like it's YOU who always try to start something.. Just like you are now..

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay...

    Balthy... If you were offended and felt attacking by my full of shit/eyes are brown joshin' you have me deepest and sincerest apologies...

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oops...

    Balthasar..

    If you were offended and felt attacked by my referring to you as Balthy, you have my deepest and sincerest apologies...

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Eat shit. :D

    Blow me.. :D

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    53

    And yet, it's ONLY you that is doing it...

    And yet, if you're going to claim that somebody is so full of shit that their eyes are brown and then also make the ridiculous claim in italics directly above, then I'd say: You are so full of shit your eyes are brown because it's not ONLY me. :D

    Just like it's YOU who always try to start something.. Just like you are now..

    And yet, I asked Balthasar a question, and you're not Balthasar, are you? :D

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    The judge in Paul Manafort’s fraud trial said Friday he has received threats over the case.

    U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III made the comments as the jury deliberated for the second day, and as he rejected a motion to release information about the jurors. He said he's confident the jurors would be threatened as well if their information was public.

    Ellis said that because of the threats against him, he travels with U.S. Marshals.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/17/judge-in-manafort-trial-says-hes-been-threatened-over-case.html

    Yep.. The Leftist MSM is definitely an enemy of the American people...

    The Leftist MSM wanted the jurors private info so they could harass, intimidate and demonize the jurors after the jurors let Manafort walk..

    There can be no doubt that the Leftist MSM is, indeed, the enemy of patriotic Americans..

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that the fact that the jurors are taking so long and the questions they are asking prove that this case isn't the open/shut case some here have claimed it was.. :D

    Manafort will walk.. One way or another..

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are so full of shit your eyes are brown because it's not ONLY me. :D

    You are so intent on starting something..

    But I am not going to play your game.. It's going to be obvious to all who always starts the shit... :D

    You have a lovely evening, Victoria.. :D

  61. [61] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    Look, Michale, it's as simple as this: If you are going to whine incessantly about personal attacks up to and including the point where you promulgate rules for the entire board and then try to get other posters to agree to your "no personal attacks" rules, then you just might want to "clue in" to the fact that it appears personal attacks aren't really a problem with you at all. You're quite content to hurl out all manner of insults in all manner of ways. What really seems to bother you is when anyone else does it back in your direction.

    It's obvious to anyone with a simple reading comprehension ability that you want a board atmosphere where you are free to hurl all manner of insults using the qualifier "ya'all" or claiming it's friendly "joshing."

    So your double standard ain't going to fly. If you're going to hurl out personal insults, then be prepared to receive them without whining incessantly like a freaking toddler. :D

    It's not all that complicated. :D

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    59

    I am also constrained to point out that the fact that the jurors are taking so long and the questions they are asking prove that this case isn't the open/shut case some here have claimed it was.. :D

    There are 18 counts, Michale. The jury is considering 18 counts. It's not a simple "let him walk." Several of these charges are proven with documentary evidence alone and some of them are more difficult. The jury could be hung up on simply 1 charge while having spent all of half an hour or so deciding the easy ones. :)

    Manafort will walk.. One way or another..

    There are 18 counts. The probability that Manafort walks on all them is practically nil, but obviously it wouldn't be impossible. :)

  63. [63] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [6] - As much as it pains me to do, I am gonna have to make you eat yer Pizzagate... :D

    I don't think so. A couple lines into your pasting, it was clear to me this was fever swamp stuff. So I searched, and there were plenty of re-links to it, albeit none with primary source attribution.

    But there was one posting ( http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1203422/pg1 ) in the first ten search hits with headline:

    Mueller - Helped Isaac Asimov's Son Escape Pizza Charges?

    I still don't believe you've gone all pizzagate on us, but the people you lifted that from sure have.

    One thing that makes this particular meme kind of puzzling is that is counter to one of the main themes pushed by Q. That is, that Mueller is secretly working with Trump to create cover while the FBI rolls up the Clinton-Soros-Rockefeller-Rothschild-Illuminati...hell, -Everybody global pedophile ring.

    You know, the one where there are now over 4000 sealed Federal indictments ready to go any day, presumably on 3-D chess master Trump's signal.

    I wish that you were referring to Nader. He's a real current day pedophile, even if he's also a CIA asset. To the extent that the Special Council has to work with him, his hands are dirty. But so they were when he had to deal with the flipped Sammy the Bull in the Gotti roll up.

    Sometimes, when you're after an organized crime Don, you have to deal with criminals.

  64. [64] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [56]: Eat shit. :D

    Blow me.. :D

    All right, let's settle this the way these things should be settled on this playground.

    Michale and whoever else, I double-dog dare both of you to touch your tongues to this frozen flag pole *

    *[REDACTED movie reference]

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    60

    You are so intent on starting something..

    No, sir. I am not the one who promulgated rules regarding personal attacks that I expected everyone to follow while I continued to hurl them out as I pleased.

    But I am not going to play your game.. It's going to be obvious to all who always starts the shit... :D

    Particularly if they read your comment at [7] where you accuse everyone on the board of being an "enemy of the people." I stopped reading right there and skipped over what looks like a dozen other posts by you where who knows what other insults you hurled at everyone collectively as if that qualifier "ya'all" magically makes all your name calling nonexistent. Hint: It doesn't.

    You have a lovely evening, Victoria.. :D

    I always do. :)

  66. [66] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    The jury's going home for the weekend. That's good news.

    Judge Ellis said something interesting in denying the request to release the juror's names. When the attorney making the request claimed there had not been any specific threats against jurors, J. Ellis replied "I can tell you there have."

    The Judge himself is traveling with a US Marshal because of credible threats against him.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    I don't think so. A couple lines into your pasting, it was clear to me this was fever swamp stuff. So I searched, and there were plenty of re-links to it, albeit none with primary source attribution.

    Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't..

    But that is not what you were wrong about...

    You were wrong when you claimed it was all about Nader and Trump.. :D

    It's OK.. I like you so I won't push it.. :D

    Michale and whoever else, I double-dog dare both of you to touch your tongues to this frozen flag pole *

    http://www.ranthollywood.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/dumb-et-dumber-1994-02-g.jpg

    Oh don't retract it!! It's funny!! And oh so apropos.. :D

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Judge Ellis said something interesting in denying the request to release the juror's names. When the attorney making the request claimed there had not been any specific threats against jurors, J. Ellis replied "I can tell you there have."

    The Judge himself is traveling with a US Marshal because of credible threats against him.

    Exactly..

    The Leftist MSM having that private information is a threat to the safety of the jurors...

    Can there be any doubt that the Leftist MSM is an enemy of the American people...

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB

    Sometimes, when you're after an organized crime Don, you have to deal with criminals.

    But we're talking about Mueller and how he let a child pornographer walk..

    I know, I know.. You want to make it all about President Trump...

    But it's not...

  70. [70] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [69] - I'm confused. Are you talking about Nader, or this 20-years-ago Asimov scumbag case? I've yet to see anything credible about that, but I agree is Nader is a scumbag.

    Just because he's a scumbag doesn't mean he isn't a damned useful scumbag.

    Comes with the territory. If we don't want to have to deal with scumbags, I guess we should go into the clergy. Oh, wait...

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    [69] - I'm confused.

    Yes, you are confused..

    It's only been you, Balthy and Victoria who has been talking about Nader...

    I've yet to see anything credible about that

    Really??

    You think it's perfectly appropriate for a guy to have tens of thousands of videos and pictures of child pornography, to have basically a film studio and processing lab to facilitate the creation and dissemination of child pornography and ONLY be given a house arrest sentence by US Attorney Robert Mueller???

    You REALLY think that is appropriate???

    REALLY???

  72. [72] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [71] - No, I don't think that would be appropriate. I also don't believe it's true. This slander is simply not within my understanding of a man who is a bronze star combat hero, a blueblood, and a lawman of unimpeachable integrity.

    You're always the one who insists on absolute facts. I respect that, and it's the reason I don't post what I really suspect about the President's past and his current situation.

    Thus, I insist on absolute fact here. The posting you made and believe, the one I found verbatim under a pizzagate headline, doesn't cut it any more than you would allow a scoop by Rachael Maddow to go unchallenged.

    You can take your time; I have to go now.

  73. [73] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    PS. I don't want to leave the impression I'm leaving in a huff or in pique. I just have to go.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    [71] - No, I don't think that would be appropriate.

    Whew... I was getting worried for a moment there..

    I also don't believe it's true. This slander is simply not within my understanding of a man who is a bronze star combat hero, a blueblood, and a lawman of unimpeachable integrity.

    It is factually accurate...

    Maybe yer pure as the driven snow lawman has a few tire tracks thru him..

    We DO know how bad he fraked up the Anthrax investigation.. Mueller's incompetence is well documented..

    We also know that Mueller is a lawyer, not a cop...

    You're always the one who insists on absolute facts. I respect that,

    Thank you.. And, like the Anthrax fiasco, Mueller's dealings with the child pornographer David Asimov is well documented.. Including the sentence of House Arrest put in place by US Attorney Robert Mueller..

    Thus, I insist on absolute fact here. The posting you made and believe, the one I found verbatim under a pizzagate headline, doesn't cut it

    What facts from that posting do you dispute???

    You can take your time; I have to go now.

    I need no time.. The facts are clear...

    If you dispute any, feel free to do so...

    Take your time.. :D

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    PS. I don't want to leave the impression I'm leaving in a huff or in pique. I just have to go.

    I had no thought, belief or idea you were leaving in a huff.. :D

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    U.S. National News

    INVESTIGATION: WHY DID ROBERT MUELLER ALLOW THE BIGGEST CHILD PORN PROCESSOR IN CALIFORNIA TO STAY **OUT** OF PRISON?

    David Asimov, of Living Oak Court, Bennett Ridge, Santa Rosa, CA, the son of the late science fiction writer Isaac Asimov, was sentenced on March 28, 2001 to six months' home detention with electronic monitoring and three years federal probation for possessing child pornography.

    The US Attorney who made that deal with Asimov? Robert S. Mueller III, who is currently Special Counsel of the United States, investigating President Trump on (phony) allegations of "Russia Collusion."

    Why would Robert Mueller give such a sweetheart plea deal to one of the biggest child porn producers in California? One wonders if Mueller was a customer? Or did Mueller KNOW many of the customers on Asimov's distribution lists to be high-powered bigshots over whom he could use this info as leverage to further his own career? Is that how he went from US Attorney to FBI Director?

    U.S. District Court Judge Maxine M. Chesney sentenced Asimov after reviewing a series of sealed psychiatric reports, one of which was ordered by the court. Asimov was charged with four federal counts of possession of child pornography with each count carrying a five year sentence,
    pleaded guilty to two counts in a plea bargain deal.

    There was no forfeiture of any of Asimov's assets in this case, despite his owning a home in Santa Rosa purchased in 1996 for $375,000, and despite his receiving $3,000 per month from his father's estate.

    How did Asimov, who possessed one of the largest stashes of pornography in California, skate away from federal prison? A look at the players yields the answer.
    http://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/news/u-s-national-news/2929-investigation-why-did-robert-mueller-allow-the-biggest-child-porn-processor-in-california-to-stay-out-of-prison

    Granted, this link has a lot of unfounded conclusions as to WHY Mueller granted such a sweethart deal to a prolific child pornographer...

    All of that can be easily discounted..

    But the link is pretty clear on the FACTS..

    David Asimov was a prolific child pornographer who got a mere slap on the wrist, 6 months house arrest and the US Attorney who agreed to that sweethart deal was Robert Mueller...

    Just the facts...

  77. [77] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    The Sonoma County District Attorney J. Michael Mullins covered up the case,
    >let the public believe the feds would prosecute it more thoroughly, and
    then
    >passed the cover up to U.S. Attorney Mueller.
    US Attorney Robert Mueller.. Child Pornographer Lover extraordinaire...

    Assuming the information you posted is accurate, and setting aside that the object of the exercise is to deflect from Mueller's current investigation of Benedict Donald and to demonize Mueller, the fact is: United States Attorneys do not pass sentencing. Plea deals happen every day all across America whereby judges pass sentences that are more lenient in exchange for multiple things: not having to burden the system with a trial, accused persons agreeing to seek mental treatment, all manner of things. So how exactly is this nearly 2 decades old case supposed to reflect negatively on Mueller?

    Anyone who wants to read a longer version of the story, a very quick search locates an archive from Conspiracy Theory Research List.

    https://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg69057.html

    It appears to have been an effort to discredit Mueller to serve as FBI Director, which efforts ultimately failed when Robert S. Mueller III, Republican, was appointed to the position by President George W. Bush. President Barack Obama extended his original 10-year appointment with a 2-year extension and thus made Mueller the longest-serving FBI Director since J. Edgar Hoover.

    Case closed. :)

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    the fact is: United States Attorneys do not pass sentencing.

    REALLY!!!!! OH MY GODS!!!!!! SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!

    Of COURSE Attorneys don't pass sentencing!!

    Duh.... :^/

    But prosecuting attorneys sign off on plea deals and sentencing...

    And US Attorney Robert Mueller signed off on a plea deal that gave a voracious child pornographer a sentence that BARELY qualifies as a slap on the wrist..

    So your "fact" that prosecutors don't pass sentences is completely irrelevant and is a lame attempt to deflect from the facts...

    US Attorney Robert Mueller signed off on a plea deal that gave a voracious child pornographer a sentence that BARELY qualifies as a slap on the wrist..

    This is FACT...

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    78

    Of COURSE Attorneys don't pass sentencing!!
    Duh.... :^/

    Dude, your outrage about a near 2-decades old Mueller plea deal is duly noted 10-times over. We understand that the Trump ilk are outraged... I tell you... OUTRAGED... about Mueller.

    It's not rocket science that some lefties back in the early 2000s tried to impede Mueller's appointment as Director of the FBI using the very emotionally charged issue of pornography because it has that "outrage" quality to it, and it's not the least bit surprising that the Trump cultists and Republicans who likely brushed it off as a bunch of "bleeding heart liberals" whining "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN" in order to block the appointment of a Republican to head the FBI would yank it back out of the cobwebs now in order to demonize Mueller and protect Cult45. Same spit... different decade... only now those who defended Mueller and sung his praises and brushed it off are arguing the opposite side because "hypocrisy knows no bounds."

    And US Attorney Robert Mueller signed off on a plea deal that gave a voracious child pornographer a sentence that BARELY qualifies as a slap on the wrist..

    And assuming the blog post is even factual, you don't know the factors that went into the decision regarding the plea deal, and I would wager that you don't really care. You just want to use the "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN" angle to demonize Mueller in the same way that the liberals used it in the early 2000s to disqualify him to serve as Director of the FBI.

    So your "fact" that prosecutors don't pass sentences is completely irrelevant and is a lame attempt to deflect from the facts...

    Deflection? Do you really want to go there? Mueller went on to become the Director of the FBI and served for 12 years under two different presidents and is now serving as Special Counsel, and Paul Manafort is currently on trial. While I realize that there is a current campaign to gin up outrage and attempt to assassinate Mueller's character because of it, good luck with that deflection.

    You're trying so hard to demonize Mueller that you're beginning to sound like one of those "bleeding heart" liberals you frequently complain about; however, the longest serving director of the FBI except for J. Edgar Hoover is NOT on trial. Deal with it. :)

  80. [80] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    David Asimov was a prolific child pornographer who got a mere slap on the wrist, 6 months house arrest and the US Attorney who agreed to that sweethart deal was Robert Mueller...

    Just the facts...

    Why is it when you use the word “facts”, you can almost guarantee that what you are claiming is anything but factual!?!

    From the charges listed, Asimov was not responsible for creating any child pornography; he possessed a large amount of it. To refer to him as a “child pornographer” would be wrong and suggests a crime that is much more horrendous. It also sounds like he did not distribute any child porn, as those charges are not listed from what I saw.

    You also ignore the fact that you have no idea what role the information from the psychiatric evaluations played in the sentencing decision. Where they are mentioned in the articles would seem to signal that they played a significant role.

    What is clear is that you are desperate to throw shade at Mueller in an obvious attempt to taint the outcome of his investigation out of fear for what it will reveal about your glorious leader! The guy who committed treason labeling the press, “the enemy of the people” — how perfect!

    Pathetic.

  81. [81] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    80

    What is clear is that you are desperate to throw shade at Mueller in an obvious attempt to taint the outcome of his investigation out of fear for what it will reveal about your glorious leader! The guy who committed treason labeling the press, “the enemy of the people” — how perfect!

    This! Plus all your other great points.

    Pathetic.

    Isn't it just? :)

    He's doing exactly what he whines about all the time trying to gin up outrage about the "children"... from two decades ago... like he gives a shit.

    The only infant he's likely worried about just went on live television and spoke about an ongoing trial, praising his friend Paul Manafort for being a "great man."

    Pathetic.

  82. [82] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It’s not just the “liberal” MSM that are speaking out against Trump, journalists that have long championed conservative politics are as well : George Will, Jennifer Ruben, Max Boot, Bill Kristol, and the late Charles Krauthammer (just to name a few).

    It isn’t that all of MSM are unfairly reporting on Trump’s actions in office — it’s that they are reporting accurately what he is doing!

    Most journalism sources simply report when Trump makes comments that are untrue, but rarely do they call him out for what it is that is behind his lies. They refuse to call a liar a liar! The NYT is one of Trumps favorite targets to attack, but it’s also where he runs to get his side of the story printed time and time again.

    Even the news department at FoxNews calls him out on his constant lies! It’s the propaganda (opinion) branch of FoxNews that is quick to promote all things Trump as being glorious!

    Trump is a living and breathing example of “deflection”! Want to know what Trump is guilty of, look no further than what he claims others are guilty of:

    The Democrats were rigging the elections against him!

    Hillary was colluding with the Russians against him!

    Hillary gave our enemies access to top secret information!

    The Clinton’s have personally financially benefitted from donations made to the Clinton Foundation!

    You cannot believe what you see or hear on the news reports about me!

    Fake News is lying about what I have said. I cannot point to what they have claimed that I said that I didn’t actually say, but they are lying...trust me!

  83. [83] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    I would have thought Trump would have feigned ignorance to all of Manafort’s illegal financial activities, that would have been the smart thing to do — nevermind, I just answered my own question on this one!

    Instead, the Treasonous Tard bashes his own DOJ and federal agencies that investigated Manafort by supporting the accused! This is why law enforcement personnel are dropping their support for Trump in large numbers daily!

    Trump’s removing the security clearance of former CIA Director Brennan was a classic ManBaby move! Does it not seem odd that a man like Brennan - who has made a career out of staying clear of the partisan politics playing out - would suddenly choose to speak out so forcefully against a politician for no reason? Surely he didn’t speak out of concern for our democracy because of all of the intel he reviewed that led him to order investigations into the politician prior to his leaving the CIA!

    I mean, unless the politician was clearly a foreign asset, what would motivate someone like Brennan to jump into the fray of public opinion at this point of his career and life?

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    78

    One more thing that needs mentioning regarding a statement of yours:

    But prosecuting attorneys sign off on plea deals and sentencing... ~ Michale

    "Sign off on"? Prosecutors negotiate plea deals with Defense attorneys based on a myriad of factors and present their recommendations to the Court who makes sentencing decisions. Saying that "prosecuting attorneys sign off on sentencing" is a mischaracterization of the process nine ways to Sunday.

    You're making it sound so juvenile and seem to be suggesting that prosecutors just act as judge and/or jury and make a quick decision, sign a paper and let people "walk" from their crimes. Now juxtapose this language with the fact that you keep insisting over and over ad nauseam that Manafort will "walk"... Manafort will "walk"... Manafort will "walk."

    You're insisting that Mueller is a demon who let a criminal "walk," and you're all outraged, but you're hysterically hoping over and over that a jury will allow Manafort to "walk."

    Dude, do you care about the rule of law or not?

    Do you seriously want Paul Manafort to "walk" if he's guilty as charged [he is] or are you too bent out of shape about the children from the Y2K case a couple decades ago to think rationally today?

    It's comical to watch you go back and forth between outrage that someone "walked" and hysteria that you want Manafort to "walk." Get hold of yourself, please. :)

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    82

    It’s not just the “liberal” MSM that are speaking out against Trump, journalists that have long championed conservative politics are as well : George Will, Jennifer Ruben, Max Boot, Bill Kristol, and the late Charles Krauthammer (just to name a few).

    Rick Wilson! My personal favorite because that guy has a way with words like no other. I highly recommend his new book: Everything Trump Touches Dies: A Republican Strategist Gets Real About the Worst President Ever. I've only listened to 1 chapter, but it's great so far. I think it went straight to the NYT Bestseller List. I got the audiobook this time because it's Rick himself.

    Even the news department at FoxNews calls him out on his constant lies! It’s the propaganda (opinion) branch of FoxNews that is quick to promote all things Trump as being glorious!

    I know, right!? Hannity. That guy is under investigation. True fact. :)

    And I love your "Trump projection" list. Trump is like a roadmap for a reporter. *laughs* Trump's propensity at projection is exactly why David Fahrenthold started looking into his Trump Foundation and won his 2017 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting.

  86. [86] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    83

    I would have thought Trump would have feigned ignorance to all of Manafort’s illegal financial activities, that would have been the smart thing to do — nevermind, I just answered my own question on this one!

    *laughs* Trump is so screwed, and he knows it. He has to convince the gullible that the news is fake because he knows what the news about him is, and it ain't exactly "good news." Maybe he can work out a plea deal with Prosecutors, but they will be coming for him from all directions when he is no longer under the cloak of the office. I will say I have no pity whatsoever for a criminal who's been working with rossiyskaya mafiya since about 1984. None.

    Instead, the Treasonous Tard bashes his own DOJ and federal agencies that investigated Manafort by supporting the accused! This is why law enforcement personnel are dropping their support for Trump in large numbers daily!

    Good to hear. I can tell you I'm watching him lose the military too, ever slowly. I know he thought he was being funny at Fort Drum the other day when he asked the soldiers to raise their hands if they'd give up their pay raise, but the stupid things he says are starting to accumulate and have an effect.

    I mean, unless the politician was clearly a foreign asset, what would motivate someone like Brennan to jump into the fray of public opinion at this point of his career and life?

    Easy answer: Nothing. :)

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    From the charges listed, Asimov was not responsible for creating any child pornography; he possessed a large amount of it.

    oh... So that makes the slap on the wrist OK... :^/

    Once again, I wish you could take a step back from your Party bias and see how you sound..

    You can hem and haw all you want..

    But the FACT is your GOP hero gave a child pornographer a slap on the wrist..

  88. [88] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    oh... So that makes the slap on the wrist OK... :^/

    Well, it was enough for the judge who could have overridden the sentencing request and handed down a much harsher penalty if they believed it was warranted. But hey, we all can see how incredibly desperate you’ve become knowing that Trump’s days are numbered, so rant all you want if it makes you feel better!

    Once again, I wish you could take a step back from your Party bias and see how you sound..

    You can hem and haw all you want..

    Bless your heart! Trump might only be the second best deflector after all!

Comments for this article are closed.