US attorney general argues that president was ‘sick and tired’ of inaccurate reporting by CNN, MS Now and Politico

Donald Trump’s attorney general Todd Blanche argued on Sunday that the administration was permitted to ban three news outlets from the White House because “it is a privilege and not a right to be there”.

Appearing on the ABC News program This Week during the second week of the White House’s dispute over press credentialing and access, Blanche also said that the administration took the decision to ban CNN, MS Now and Politico beginning on 19 September because the president was “sick and tired” of what he considered to be those media outlets’ inaccurate reporting.

Blanche offered no evidence for his claim that the outlets’ reporting was inaccurate, rather than simply unflattering to the president. Pressed by the interviewer, Martha Raddatz, to point to a report the administration objected to, Blanche seemed to suggest that any negative reporting about Trump must be inaccurate.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 35 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Fuck you Todd, you fascist piece of shit. You can get dragged straight hell by your lips, sealed around Donald Trump’s cock. This is our country, our White House, and our free press. YOU are the one here by privilege, and it’s obvious from your obsequious fear that you can see that privilege ending.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 days ago (2 children)

    I don't think that's why it was illegal, because trump isn't congress and he didn't pass a law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (1 child)

    Courts have applied the bill of rights to the executive branch and to the states as well, so that's established. It's the abridgement of the press that I don't see their argument for here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

    Would the argument then be that the Constitution doesn't explicitly state access to the white house? I feel like that's the shitty logic that would be used to defend this statement

    Edit: to clarify, I meant the statement by Blanche

  • source
  • parent