Below is my column in the Hill on the banning of disfavored news outlets from the White House. Putting the legal challenges ahead for the Administration, it is an action that runs against the grain of our values and traditions.
Here is the column:
This week, it became apparent that everyone believes in a free press, as long as it costs them nothing.
Politicians in both parties are now using their offices to insulate themselves from opposing coverage — all in the name of protecting the public or the press.
President Trump has ordered the banning of critical media companies from the White House. Meanwhile, Democrats are fighting to block a corporate media merger on equally raw political grounds.
At the White House this week, President Trump declared, “I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW … and Politico.” He then added that he did not understand why the courts allow the media to print “fake news,” raising the possible addition of censorship to banishment.
On Capitol Hill and across the country, Democrats were pursuing their own political litmus test for media. Twelve blue states are in court seeking to block the acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount Skydance. While framing their claims in dubious antitrust terms, many admit that they are trying to protect one of the very companies banned by Trump as a liberal platform: CNN.
Previously, Democrats shut down the government in part over a decision to withdraw government subsidies for another liberal news outlet, National Public Radio. Years ago, some Democrats even asked cable companies to consider dropping Fox News.
Both Trump and the Democrats are oblivious to the implications of their actions, blinded by the political costs of a free press and a free market.
There is little recognition, let alone remorse, among these politicians. For Trump, many in the public rallied to his side in condemnation of media bias during the last election. I have joined in the criticism of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico for their coverage. But this ban is a frontal assault on the free press itself, shattering long-standing principles maintained by past presidents.
Presidents have long condemned the media. George Washington referred to them as those “infamous scribblers.” Thomas Jefferson complained that “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.” Yet they recognized that their oath to uphold the Constitution included a sacred duty to preserve and protect the free press.
For the Democrats, the opposition to the merger is equally transparent. Figures such as former Obama administration official Norm Eisen have opposed the Warner Bros.-Paramount merger as an attack on democracy itself. Their aim is to prevent the conservative David Ellison, chairman of Paramount Skydance, from gaining control of CNN as well as existing media assets such as CBS. Despite using antitrust law, he and others have made it plain that their aim is to preserve CNN and other outlets as liberal allies.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) declared that it is a power grab by the “oligarchs,” and that Ellison gaining control of CNN is “not acceptable. This merger must be opposed.”
Former Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer called on Democrats to stop the merger to prevent an effort to “make CNN more MAGA-friendly.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) has warned that allowing the merger will “subvert CNN’s editorial independence.”
Notably, while MS NOW, CNN, and many of these individuals are condemning Trump’s announcement, they have eagerly joined the movement to block a lawful merger on political grounds. Others have pitched a deal where the merger can go through, but that they want CNN as “a strong consolation prize,” presumably to be sold to a liberal owner.
Again, there is little thought of the costs. There rarely is. When Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and others took credit for blocking the merger of Spirit Airlines with JetBlue, they declared it a victory for the Biden administration and the Democrats. Spirit Airlines then went bankrupt and all of its employees were fired.
In this case, CNN may be the Spirit Airlines of the media. It has been struggling with both revenues and ratings, despite occasional spikes. While the Democrats want to preserve the liberal platform that regularly features their interviews and narratives, CNN often operates dangerously close to the baseline on the key advertising demographic needed to keep the lights on.
Warner Bros. has lost billions. The merger would be good for both companies and their employees. Under the guise of opposing a monopoly, Democrats are opposing a deal that has been cleared by the European Commission and once-skeptical experts.
I have worked for four networks as a legal analyst for 30 years, and I want CNN to flourish. We need strong media companies. That means that we need to support both the free press and the free market in maintaining journalistically and financially strong media companies. That often means setting aside our personal disagreements with coverage to oppose political manipulation of the media by either party.
I previously have written about the media and free speech in an “age of rage.” Presidents and politicians have periodically allowed their anger or interests to overwhelm their judgment. President John Adams declared, “The liberty of the press is essential to the security of the state.” Yet, his administration targeted reporters and writers under the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts.
Politicians are again using their power to manipulate the press by limiting their exposure to media criticism. They are seeking to control what the public reads and watches to protect us from “fake news” or “corporate messaging.”
For centuries, politicians have played on our anger or partisanship to target the media. To defend the free press and the free market is not to agree with these companies or their coverage. It is to defend our right to make our own decisions on what news to read and whom to believe.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Well said professor.
As an aside… Wise ones know that a person who “name calls” loses the discussion.
Speaking of NPR losing funds, has anyone listened to that propaganda playground lately? Seems like NPR got even WORSE, most likely due to retaliation. Someone named Mary Louise Kelly should be their poster girl. I’m waiting for them to interview Charles Spencer (brother to Princess Diana) who waited until now to allege an improbable statement supposedly made by King Charles. Spencer is just like Diana: calculated timing and drawing attention to himself/herself. Spencer is the Meghan Markle of Britain, seeking attention media coverage. And boy does the media grab it!
So long as they are not receiving public funds – NPR is free to spew whatever they want – and people are free to tune them in or out as they wish.
that wasn’t the point.
#. Science was censored during covid. It’s a no lose to have scotus speak on free press. The lower courts may rule and it won’t get to scotus.
What’s actually needed is a population with a capacity to understand fact and opinion, reason and emotion, persuasion and advertisers, etc. Imo
“It’s the [electorate], stupid!”
– James Carville
___________________
America IS a restricted-vote republic as was Greece at the creation of democracy in 508 B.C.
One-man, one-vote mobocracy is the “dictatorship of the majority,” the “dictatorship of the poor,” the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
It is communism.
It is disaster.
^^^^ what’s muddied or unclear is “advocacy journalism” that may be a disguise and not expository or declarative reporting. It appears to an emotionally persuasive rant advertisement and not journalism as people expect. Imo
^^^ . Advocacy journalism is new as disguised as news reporting. It was known as advertising or political campaign rhetoric. It’s the disguise it wears that is thought deceitful. It takes the form of a rant, harangue, diatribe etc.
The conservatives might utilize the new form of advocacy journalism as a positive celebration of republican achievements embellished of course and extreme emotion of positivity. No campaign contributions to worry about.
Educate the people.
Turley: “Presidents have long condemned the media. George Washington referred to them as those “infamous scribblers.” Thomas Jefferson complained that “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.” Yet they recognized that their oath to uphold the Constitution included a sacred duty to preserve and protect the free press.”
BUt, did they believe their oath to protect and preserve a free press compelled them to allow the
” infamous scribblers” into their physical presence to question their policies, or was it only to allow them to publish whatever nonsense they wanted?
I think it was the latter. Today CNN and the rest are still free to say whatever they want.
Why do they think that have a right to limited space that is superior to other news organizations that want access?
Let him surround himself entirely with lapdog influencer dbags. Enough already. The media should grow a backbone and ignore him.
What are they going to miss exactly: he lied; golfed; slept; renamed another building or memorial or body of water, ironically after an immigrant (America); or destroyed more ecosystems for his minion swamp and the alleged jobs that will be eliminated by Ai anyway.
Let him barf-scream at his pretzel-brained Magats directly, I’m tired of his dumb face.
You are not “Everyone.” Don’t pollute this site with your dumb face.
Aside from the slurs hate and vitriol, I mostly agree with you.
While I would prefer a WH press corp that was chose to reflect those who americans actually listen to – which would put the outlets Trump has allegedly banned at the back of the room if not out the door.
Regardless, Trump has not silenced them, just taken away the priviledge of a front row seat at press breifings.
Beyond that – as you correctly note – who actually listens to WH Press briefings ? Whether you support Trump or hate his guts – do you actually watch WH press briefings ? Or even oval office speeches ?
I pay very little attention to what politicians say – LEFT OR RIGHT, and much more attention to what they DO.
Trump can not stop the press from reporting his actions.
The left wing nut press can not prevent people from knowing what the president has done and whether it has worked.
JS, you just bit yourself. slurs hate and vitriol
Why compliment the clown, whose entire post is “slurs hate and vitriol,” and say you “mostly agree with him.”
Then you write something totally different from what the clown said.
For those like me who only read the first sentence or so of a post, you have misled us into thinking you agree with the clown.
This post and the last one PROVE we can’t trust Turley anymore. He’s gone woke on us…..
This is not a Woke issue.
If Trump has banned these outlets because he does not like their coverage of him – that is a first amendment issue.
If he has banned them because they are “fake news” that is a first amendment issue.
If he has banned them because their ratings are in the toilet and they are no longer relevant – that is fully within his power as president.
Ya, they’re taking up space.
The moderators of these news organizations have blogs where comments are not wanted and thus deleted. So don’t let the door on your way out.
So what? It is reasonable for sites to exclude comments from racist, Nazi MAGA nuts. Their lies are beyond pathetic, their hate off the charts.
Sally,
They delete marshmallows and Pease on earth and good will?
YOUR argument also makes it reasonable to exclude left wing racists, socialists, communists and fascists.
As YOU said – their lies are beyond pathetic and their hate is off the charts.
It is self evident that you are filled with hatred and rage. Why is your hatred so acceptable that you are completely ignorant of it, but that of others requires censorship ?
Do you have a view on any issue of rights, liberty, freedom, principles, or values that does not change based on the ideology of those involved ?
John Say,
YOUR argument also makes it reasonable to exclude left wing racists, socialists, communists and fascists.
As YOU said – their lies are beyond pathetic and their hate is off the charts.
It is self evident that you are filled with hatred and rage. Why is your hatred so acceptable that you are completely ignorant of it, but that of others requires censorship ?
So John Say says alot
“… And the beat goes on.”
What’s curious is that CNN et al., now function particularly on hate. This is new; even the Washington would be surprised. With Trump an official lame duck after the election, the big lotto contest is who will get the TDS treatment? Will it be VDS, RDS, or DDS, in honor of Vance, Rubio, or DeSantis? Hate must be laser-focused. Too broad an aperture won’t work.
There is not such thing as an “official lame duck” and Trump could still run for a third term.
A LIE AS USUAL FROM SALLY
BAN FOR LIFE!
No Sally he can not. Without a repeal of the 22nd amendment Trump can not run for president (or vice president) again.
What? Obama did.
HAHAHAHAH Turley trying to “both-sides” this so his followers won’t get big mad at him for bashing Trump for being the anti-free speech fascist that he knows he is…..Haven’t you figure it out, Professor. His rabid base will tolerate NO criticism of the Orange God-King!
Take the L, Barack.
You pulled the same Ban the Media stunt your’e now so fake outraged about.
So did Biden. And he went after citizens’ free speech by controlling Twitter before Elon bought it.
Your such phonies. all the time.
It blows over and they get back into the WH.
ATS – MAGA tolerates infinite criticism of Trump all the time. You are here doing just that. As is CNN and MSNOW – and they will be tomorrow.
People do judge you by what you say and do, and a large number judge YOU as a fool.
While Trump is often 2 steps ahead of his critics in this case I suspect Trump is just deliberately stirring things up just before the election to put the issue of fake news front and center of voters. It’s obvious that he will lose in the courts but by then the election may be over.
Otiose – While I suspect he will lose in court too. That depends on whether he is engaged in viewpoint discrimination or allocating a scarce resource based on relevance to the public.
Trump’s own rhetoric will likely bite him here. Trump can not deny any media WH access because they are “fake news” – even if that is correct. But he can deny them WH access if they have less public relevance than the rest of the WH press corp.
At some point most of legacy media is going to loose access because they are increasingly irrelevant.
The high bar set against penalizing journalists for libel was founded on an ideal that is contradicted in practice. Protection has made it possible for the 4th Estate to turn the safeguarding against “occasional factual errors” into into a lucrative business model and abandon its ethical duty to give the citizenry the accurate information required for self-government.
CNN, Newsweek, People, the Washington Times, and the Independent published their versions of the false story on Lauren Boebert.
They found a way to put lies in the public domain.
They are communist propaganda machines, in my opinion.
Banning certain press organizations from the White House triggers the political optics meter in a very bad way; however, on the other hand being allowed into the White House is a privilege not a right. I think it’s a reasonable fact that stopping an individual press organization from entering the White House doesn’t infringe on their freedom to publish whatever they want. So is the White House actually infringing on the rights of the press, I’m not so sure they are. I’m really interested in how this plays out in court, if it makes it that far.
SW – access to the WH is a priviledge – but that does not alter the fact that govenrment still can not engage in view point discrimination. Trump can Bar CNN etc because the public has lost interest in them. He can not merely because they are critical of him – even if that criticism is false.
WH actions are govenrment actions and the government can not engage in viewpoint discrimination.
What happened with the pentagon press issue?
John wrote, “WH actions are government actions and the government can not engage in viewpoint discrimination.”
I’ll sir the pot a little.
Since the 1st Amendment literally says…
I highlighted the relevant parts.
As we all know; the President is not Congress. The President is part of the executive branch and does not make law; therefore, since Congress has not made a law abridging the freedom of speech or the press the action taken by the President to selectively eliminate some members of the media from the White House is not unconstitutional. There are literally thousands of different media entities in the USA, is the White House expected to open their doors to absolutely every one of them, without exception, and make a room large enough to fit all of them?
Jonathan Turley could easily be considered a journalist of sorts, he reports on all kinds of issues related to the White House and the President, maybe he should apply for a press pass too.
What say you?
While you likely have an argument in that the first amendment says “Congress shall make no law”
I do not think that SCOTUS is going to consider the president engaging in viewpoint discrimination outside the constraints of the first amendment. Was Biden allowed to coerce social media into censoring Covid information merely because Congress had not instructed him to do so ?
I do not think the argument that this is presidential action and not law rather than congress passing laws is going to fly.
That said the president ABSOLUTELY has the power to be selective about who is in the WH press corp.
The WH can not accommodate every Wannabee Journalist in the country – despite the FACT that I will grant the free press protections of the constitution to anyone who even claims to be acting as a journalist.
But in acting selectively government can not engage in viewpoint discrimination.
Thanks for the reply.
I’ll stir the pot a little more.
John wrote, “…government can not engage in viewpoint discrimination.”
I don’t believe that is in the constitution. What is the specific law that makes “viewpoint discrimination” illegal?
Also; if I’m understand your comment they way I think you intended it, then you seem to be agreeing that what the President did wasn’t necessarily “unconstitutional”, as in doesn’t violate the 1st Amendment; however, what Trump did was open “viewpoint discrimination” and therefore wrong because of that, which I agree with. But let’s be clear, just because something is wrong, doesn’t make it unconstitutional or even illegal.
I think what President Trump did triggers the political optics meter in a very bad way (as I wrote above), but let me add that I think what he did was dead wrong, it sets a terrible precedence, it’s basically declaring political war on those media outlets (even though with their actions they had already declared war against Trump a long time ago), it’s Trump unethically punching down, etc, etc.
Conclusion
What President Trump did was wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong….. but not unconstitutional or illegal.
Again; I’m really interested in how this plays out in court, if it makes it that far.
Interesting point of view 🤔. It’s narrow, the venue.
Whoa 👍, wither…
Bingo
Screw the MSM, open up coverage to people like Nick Shirley and other podcasters, you might get more truth than fiction either way.
Amen
Turley says: “critical media companies”. CNN? Politico? For whom?
It perhaps would be safer for Trump and those doing his press conferences to simply not call on these reporters than for Trump to ban CNN, MS-NOW, and Politico reporters from the White House. Simply ignoring them would provide no basis for a First Amendment challenge but would allow their reporters and producers to continue to whine make fools of themselves.
How many legitimate news agencies are there, just within the United States, and how many precious seats are there within that press briefing room? Why should some big dogs feel that they have a righteous claim on some of those seats in perpetuity? I find nothing wrong with this move other than as a political statement of biased media. None of those banished have been censored, none are denied the ability to broadcast, none are denied the option to pursue FOIA requests from governments, none are prohibited from investigative journalism. The only thing damaged here is ego.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Free countries need a vigorous press. Trump and the GOP are making a very serious error in trying to shut out news organizations from the Whitehouse. Trump is making decisions which affect the lives of millions of people and we deserve the opportunity to hear from those who dig into that. This issue is similar to that of freedom of speech which is a crucial right which must be protected if a country is to remain free. And yes, the left wing is poisonous and voluntarily stupid, so their speech is somewhere between silly and outright vile and obnoxious and back again. But we must protect freedom and individual rights and in the case of banning news organizations from the White House, now it’s Trump (for whom I voted 3 times and for whom I would vote again against similar Democratic opponents) and the GOP who are attacking and attempting to degrade a fundamental freedom, a free press. To repeat, Trump and the GOP are absolutely wrong on this issue and we should call them on it. And if you disagree, you have to answer to the Founding Fathers who put freedom of the press into the Constitution for very good reasons.
How has he “shut out” these news entities from coverage any more than those smaller news establishments who rarelym, if ever, get a seat in that press room? This is just ego driven anger compounded with advanced TDS. There is no damage done to these 3 corporations, they are free as any other news agency that does not have access, to print, publish, investigate and obfuscate at will, where is there damage?
AND they do not serve the public interest being biased with our TV airwaves.
Whoever claimed that biased news that has an employee based of 95% leaning one ideological way served the greater good? Those entities such as CNN and FOX are known propaganda arms of certain political ideologies. We all know that and I would think that we would be hard pressed to find a totally neutral source for news today. Trump did nothing more than state that the left leaning media follows and agenda more than it follows truth. He did not limit their abilities to spread their propoganda/news, he just limited their access to that of any other news entity that has never or rarely been given access to the press briefings. There is only wounded egos here, no other damage to freedom of the press.
Whim, free press is a Constitutional principle.
“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Free countries need a vigorous press. ”
Absolutely. We have that in the US.
“Trump and the GOP are making a very serious error in trying to shut out news organizations from the Whitehouse. ”
Probably not. If this is being done purely based on viewpoint it will fail in court.
But the left has already normalized the desire for censorship – there is very little if any political price to this.
“Trump is making decisions which affect the lives of millions of people”
Mostly correct – though we greatly overstate right and left the significance of anything govenrment does.
“we deserve the opportunity to hear from those who dig into that.”
Correct, nothing is stopping that.
“This issue is similar to that of freedom of speech which is a crucial right which must be protected if a country is to remain free.”
No it is Identical to the issue of free speech. Government can make neutral rules and decisions regarding access to public forumns.
But it can not engage in viewpoint discriminiation.
” And yes, the left wing is poisonous and voluntarily stupid, so their speech is somewhere between silly and outright vile and obnoxious and back again.”
Correct, and not relevant. Trump is often correct when calling various outlets “fake news” but that does not alter whether he can ban or censor them. Whehter it is the left or right – whether it is free speech or free press disfavored points of view can not be infringed on by govenment.
“But we must protect freedom and individual rights and in the case of banning news organizations from the White House, now it’s Trump (for whom I voted 3 times and for whom I would vote again against similar Democratic opponents) and the GOP who are attacking and attempting to degrade a fundamental freedom, a free press.”
That may be the case – it appears to be the case based on Trump’s remarks.
If this is viewpoint discrimination – Trump will lose – likely very quickly.
But if it is restrictions of the access of an increasingly irrelevant legacy media – Trump will prevail.
Ultimately these outlets MUST regain relevance or they must have their access curtailed.
But in the end this is a tempest in a teapot. Trump is acting publicly. Unlike Biden and Obama this is not a secret programing funding NGO’s to censor the internet. Even if Wrong this is not a big deal.
” To repeat, Trump and the GOP are absolutely wrong on this issue and we should call them on it.”
Only if they are engaged in viewpoint discrimination.
” And if you disagree, you have to answer to the Founding Fathers who put freedom of the press into the Constitution for very good
reasons.”
No you must answer to the constitution they wrote. Our founding fathers themselves were pretty hypocritical regarding free speech.
Adam’s signed the Alien and Sedition act – one of the most anti free speech legislation in US history.
And that is just one example.
There has never been unbiased media (look at the 1800 election between Adams and Jefferson, for example). The problem today is the lack of alternatives. Most if not all major cities had at least 2 dailies in the 20th Century – typically one D and one R. Not any longer, due to costs/mergers/acquisitions. Where is the alternative to CNN and the legacy media?
“Where is the alternative to CNN and the legacy media?” Do you include Fox News as legacy? How do you take into account right will billionaires buying up a massive chunk of local newsroom? How many non “legacy” outfits can afford to have a reporter camp out the WH full time? Does a non-legacy news outlet need to have a pro-MAGA bent to qualify for you?
there are many non-biased framed media out there. They do not have the budgets of the big dogs, nor are they blaring in every airport lounge. You need to be inquisitive and diligent to find them.
I know reading is hard, but try harder.
And I am not maga
“Do you include Fox News as legacy?”
Absolutely – but Fox is so far successful legacy media. they have 13 of the top 15 news shows, and all the top 5.
Megyn Kelly has far more listeners to her daily podcast than CNN or MSNOW.
Access to the WH can not be denied based on view point.
It can not be denied based on claims of error – even real error.
But it is a limited sesource and access can be denied for viewpoint neutral reasons – such as lack of public relevance.
“How do you take into account right will billionaires buying up a massive chunk of local newsroom?”
You don’t.
Billionaries are billionaires because they know how to give people what they want.
Contra the left – you do not get to be a billionaire by cheating people. People catch on.
Whether it is Bezos or the Waltons they are billionaires because they figured out how to give hundreds of millions of people something they wanted badly enough to pay what was being asked.
“How many non “legacy” outfits can afford to have a reporter camp out the WH full time?”
Not your problem.
Those of you on the left seem to beleive that everything on the planet you think is a problem You have the right to dictate the solution.
Legacy or otherwise access to the WH press room is a privilege not a right.
The only restriction being that privilege can not be denied based on viewpoint.
Personally I do not see this as iof the tiniest importance.
What is said by the president or in the WH press room or elsewhere through out govenrment is not of much consequence.
It is what is DONE that matters.
Even if Trump is engaged in brutally obvious viewpoint discrimination – this is of negligable consequence compared to the role the Biden Administration played in coercing social media to control speech on social media during Covid.
That was actually silencing Millions of people. Worse still it was silencing the truth – and those doing it likely knew that.
No one is being silenced here.
CNN and MSNOW will with certainty report as visciously on Trump as before.
They will be no less likely to echo falsehoods.
And even if you beleive they are an important contribution to the public debate – no one has silenced them.
Respect you – admire even – but here you are full of it –
DA
Why ?
Trump has a better claim then democrats – but if he fixates on “why would the courts keep allowing “fake news” – then he will lose badly. Whether it is the left’s efforts to censor social media or Trump’s efforts to censor often completely bogus media criticism of him – the first amendment includes the right to say things that are wrong, or hurtful, or against your wishes.
Whether it is the democrats or republicans if the issue is censoring a viewpoint – even a viewpoint you beleive to be wrong, even a viewpoint that IS actually wrong then you run afoul of the first amendment – and rightly so.
Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill – you can not know whether you are right in your views without first hearing the best arguments of those who think you are wrong presented by those who initiated those arguments.
Supress disent and leaders nations and their people run off a cliff like lemmings.
There is a separate argument – which Trump is not making regarding the priviledge of being in the WH press corp and that is that those he is removing have ever diminishing and consequential audiences.
Being in the WH press court is a priviledge not a right. Criticising the president is a right not a priviledge.
There is limited space in the oval office, on AF1 ion the WH press room. The WH has the legitimate power to allocate that space, but it can not do so based on viewpoint.
It can do so based on audience. The legacy media is dying slowly and Trump is entitled to replace the poorest performers with new media that garner a larger audience.
But he is not able entitled to make media choices based on viewpoint.
The only claim Trump has over Ds is admittance to a geriatric psychiatric hospital?
Having won the 2024 election is a HUGE claim. It is why he is president.
Despite the most egerious lawfare any political party has ever engaged in – or possibly because of it – Trump won the popular vote and obliterated Harris in the electoral college.
There are no consequential or credible claims that Trump engaged in fraud – in FACT Trump and the GOP heavily engaged in PRIVATE antifraud and election monitoring efforts that were the actual responsibility of government – not the GOP.
Those efforts – what the left calls voter supression – but what is really FRAUD PREVENTION – making sure that everyone knows that the election is being watched carefully and that any significant fraud if caught will result in both public political embarrassment as well as likely criminal prosecution.
Democrats dropped almost 10M votes from 2020. Trump gained only about 3-4M. Just based on that alone there is excellent reason to wonder how many of those 10M votes that democrats lost were fraudulent.
Regardless, you rant and rant and rant about Trump – to no effect.
The “No Kings” marches – faded and gone. Trump is doing what he did before and more.
The massive ICE protests and riots – for the most part gone. But ICE is still on track to deport 1M illegals this year too.
The lawfare against Trump as president – mostly resolved and mostly Trump has won.
There are still some issues being litigated, and there are still far too many wing nut judges willing to act stupidly.
But Trump will win most of those cases.
This case ? Trump will likely lose quickly. He has said far too much that looks like viewpoint discrimination.
That said it is time to reduce the access of legacy media – they are increasingly NOT where people get their news,
Their priviledged access should be reduced consistent with their ratings.
MSNOW, CBS, CNN, FAX are not entitled to seats in the WH press room.
They must earn them by gaining the trust of the people as measured by ratings.
For NOW Fox should maintain access based on ratings.
But like EVERY outlet in the WH press corp, they must earn that access by maintining the trust of the american people.
Finally this is still just a tempest in a teapot.
The american people are not being harmed.
No one is actually being censored.
Nor even really banned.
They are having covetted access to something that is really mostly irrelevant restricted.
What is said in the WH press room mostly does not matter.
What matters is the ACTS of the president, not his or his press secretary’s words.