4 ms·
I actually disagree, I don't think he does have "every right" to have the microphone. He had his interaction with the president and someone else was being call
by 64738 8y ago
I actually disagree, I don't think he does have "every right" to have the microphone. He had his interaction with the president and someone else was being called on. He's being rude by preventing other members of the press from getting their chance to ask a question. I don't see a Constitutional issue here.
I haven't seen Sarah Sanders' take on it, but I did a cursory review of the "doctoring", and I'm not convinced of any deliberate changes to the video, apart from format conversions (source -> gif -> mt2 -> mp4).
- 64738 8y agoTo the downvoters: what do you disagree with? Let's converse, maybe you'll change my mind...
- iscrewyou 8y agoThe constitutional issue is that the president lied about some caravan overtaking the US. Once the elections were over, he was asked about his chosen words. He didn’t like it and made it personal. He clearly walks away from the podium if you watch the interaction. Now the administration is using their position to ban a journalist from the White House. That’s not free speech. That’s a constitutionally crisis. And they are lying about it by pushing a manipulated video.
- krapp 8y agoIt's not a constitutional crisis. The constitution doesn't prevent the president from lying when not under oath, refusing to retract a statement, or banning journalists for petty personal reasons.
- iscrewyou 8y agoWHAT??? You changed the subject after I confronted you. "The constitution doesn't prevent the president from lying when not under oath" "Let's converse, maybe you'll change my mind..." You've made up your mind.
- krapp 8y agoUmm... I posted my comment three hours ago, and I edited it not long after that, adding "when not under oath" because I knew some pedant would probably bring that up. However, my edit didn't change the context of my comment at all. You apparently "confronted me" here, so I don't know what "changing the subject after you confronted me" even refers to, and I don't know who you're quoting at the end of your comment. But I stand by my statement. Your claim that "The constitutional issue is that the president lied about some caravan overtaking the US" is false, that's not a "constitutional" issue.
- 64738 8y agoI'm the one you thought you were replying to, but krapp's not wrong. There is no constitutional issue here. He still has freedom of speech, as he can still say whatever he wants. He still has freedom of the press, as his employer (CNN) can still publish anything he submits, if they so wish. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee a platform, and freedom of the press doesn't guarantee unlimited access. The behavior of the parties involved could be argued separately, but I still don't see any "constitutional crisis." You have not changed my mind.
- iron0013 8y ago"Let's converse, maybe I'll be able to make you waste your time..."
- 64738 8y agoSuch as your's? j/k, no maliciousness intended, though I admit I was slow coming back to the thread.