Priebus: White House Has 'Looked At' Changing Law To Let Trump Sue Press
Source: Talking Points Memo
By ESME CRIBB Published APRIL 30, 2017 10:49 AM
White House chief of staff Reince Priebus on Sunday said that President Donald Trumps administration has looked at changing the law so that Trump can sue the press, though Priebus offered few details.
ABC News Jon Karl questioned Priebus on This Week about Trumps suggestion in March that he might change libel laws in order to go after the New York Times.
That would require, as I understand it, a constitutional amendment, Karl said. Is he really going to pursue that?
I think its something that weve looked at, and how that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story, Priebus said.
Link to tweet
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/priebus-white-house-looked-at-changing-laws-trump-sue-press
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)we can say goodbye to a free press. I don't think it will be, but we need to be awake and aware.
RESIST!
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)I think they have winnable cases.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,002 posts)He's nuts.
He's ignorant of the mechanisms of a robust functioning society.
He's ignorant of history.
He's ignorant of judicial process, despite suing and being sued a lot.
He's thin-skinned.
He lies.
He hates the truth, especially when it is applied to him.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)We can NEVER underestimate these people.
They want to take it all down.
I just hope those going after him and them don't waste any time and wait until it is too late.
PatSeg
(47,496 posts)throughout his adult life to solve his problems. For someone who hates the courts so much, he certainly has used them to his advantage.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)They really need to take some middle school civics classes.
They would never get 2/3 of House or 2/3 of Senate and never ever get 3/4 of the states.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,742 posts)And then the law would apply to his successor and drumpf would be shit out of luck.
Vinca
(50,276 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)dragonlady
(3,577 posts)Solly Mack
(90,769 posts)It's OK to lie about Obama. But telling the truth about Trump is bad.
bucolic_frolic
(43,176 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)telling the truth.
Ligyron
(7,633 posts)They live in a fantasy world where they are all victims and every one their problems are the fault of libruls, brown people and women.
Oh, and Democrats.
FarPoint
(12,409 posts)Take him down now...Media do your job..
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)Such a law would be the death of Brietbart and the rest of the fake news outlets and even challenge Fox News.
JohnnyRingo
(18,636 posts)Sean Hannity alone would be sued into bankruptcy and take the network down with him.
Me.
(35,454 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)Like Nixon, he fantasizes himself as above the law an thinks he would not be subject to the same (unconstitutional) laws.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)They just want to be able to keep saying "lying press" every time something embarrassing is discovered, so they'll keep saying they need to be able to take the media to court.
briv1016
(1,570 posts)Of course it will be overturned by the courts, but what else is new.
elleng
(130,964 posts)Karl said. Is he really going to pursue that?
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)benpollard
(199 posts)The NY Times should sue Trump for libel and slander. Trump has accused the Times of lying, which is defamation and could hurt their reputation and business. The Times would win.
TomCADem
(17,387 posts)The NY Times is not the arbiter of truth. Rather, they push false equivalency as journalism.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/30/media/new-york-times-climate-change/
A new columnist at The New York Times and his views on climate change have prompted some readers to cancel their subscriptions in protest.
In his first column for the Times, Bret Stephens said advocates for climate policy can take a lesson from Hillary Clinton's failed presidential campaign and her reliance on data to predict the election.
"We live in a world in which data convey authority. But authority has a way of descending to certitude, and certitude begets hubris," Stephens wrote. "Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong."
* * *
Scientists also joined the fray. Stefan Rahmstorf, a climatologist and professor of physics at Potsdam University in Germany, posted a letter he wrote to the Times that said Stephens' views "run counter to all evidence." "He is simply repeating falsehoods spread by various 'think tanks' funded by the fossil fuel industry," Rahmstorf said.
benpollard
(199 posts)That's not the position of the NY Times. The Times itself supports the science. They did screw up by hiring a conservative who needs to misinform or twist the truth to make his point. They feel the need to balance the truth with a right-wing spin on the truth.
TomCADem
(17,387 posts)...while giving a platform to someone who pushes false science. This is not just spin. This is enabling quackery. I can understand having commentators disagree on their opinions, but giving a podium for folks to just make shit up?
paleotn
(17,930 posts)He can't even get legislation through Congress and they're looking into a constitutional amendment?!
Rinse, you're empty threats are just that....empty.....like your head.
Shoonra
(523 posts)Trump can stomp his little feet all he wants, but America's defamation laws are state laws, not federal laws. Although the defamation laws are virtually the same from state to state, they are entirely the product of state legislation, not federal legislation; Congress, however submissive to Trump it may be, cannot do much to change those laws to please him.
And getting some states - but not others - to change their laws, so that states have very different defamation laws is going to create serious problems for journalists, authors, and publishers - not just for critics of Trump but for anyone who says an unkind word about almost anything. The Church of Scientology, for example, makes a point of knowing the difference in the defamation laws among different countries - and suing critics where it's least hospitable.
Giving Trump what he wants would create problems for everyone else in the long run.
yuiyoshida
(41,831 posts)Like they do in Russia?