Failing Trump administration. Sad!


#3551

They can’t even figure out how to write non-arbitrary rules when told by a judge what’s required. There’s no due process when the Press Secretary has sole discretion about giving you a second question and you won’t know if you are denied permission until you’re told you’re losing your press pass.

This would not stand up to judicial scrutiny, again.


#3552

The press corps needs to coordinate amongst themselves, and just have a communal set of questions and follow ups. The initial answers are entirely predicable.


#3553

I don’t know enough Constitutional law in theory or in practice to know exactly what the best response to this is, but I feel pretty hesitant about just letting the “new rules” and attendant/implicit threats by the White House stand unopposed. I don’t know if this is the kind of thing the WHCA could seek a preliminary injunction on, but if possible I think they really need to push hard on this. It seems to me the one big win from a standpoint of legal precedent is that this case establishes (reinforces) the rule that the courts can intervene in this type of situation. Just taking that win and sitting quietly seems to me to just invite a massive chilling effect. My non-expert thoughts on this are it makes sense for the media to push just as hard as they can, forcing more litigation, seeking injunctions, etc, with two goals in mind: 1)the substantive goal of protecting first amendment access and opposing the petty tyranny of the Donald, plus 2)the legal/tactical goal of keeping the courts involvement in these issues active, and also serving as a “shot across the bow” of further efforts at Trump’s Mini-Me style of dictatorship.

I fear that despite the solid Constitutional win, allowing the Donald to get away with the ridiculous intimidation tactics implicit in this “new rules we can revoke your pass ANY TIME” BS would result in a death by a thousand cuts to press access.

I defer to folks with more knowledge of Con Law, First Amendment litigation, etc., but those are my thoughts.


#3554

Aren’t all press conferences voluntary? Are there any other required events besides the State of the Union?


#3555

Geez, what would even happen if he blew that off? The ghost of Jeff Flake would say he was concerned. But there’s no law requiring it so far as I know, and indeed it wasn’t even given in person by the president during the 19th century since Jefferson decided it was too monarchical,


#3556

Hmmm… before the caravan has arrived?


#3557

There’s no requirement that the President address Congress for the SotU. For many years, the President used to just send them a report. No reason he couldn’t go back to that. There have only been 83 in-person addresses.


#3558

Never mind that ‘letting nature take its course’ in western wildfire-adapted forests is to just let them burn.


#3559

#3560

There is a joke or two here, somewhere.


#3561

Not if you want to host the WHCA dinner there isn’t.


#3562

Pretty sure the WHCA dinner is a joke no matter who hosts it.


#3563

#3564

He can prosecute his dumbass daughter then too since she too used private email for government business.


#3565

imshockedschocked_well_notthatshocked.gif


#3566

#3567

Five Alarm Fire. LOL. Trump could strangle a child on live TV and keep the support of his base and, therefore, the entire GOP establishment.


#3568

Well, yeah, but his base is a totally lost cause. They are basically Jonestown residents.


#3569

Sure…but in fact he wasn’t able to order the investigation. Not that it’s not scary, but so far at least the institutions are holding.


#3570

I agree. But as long as their support keeps the entire GOP glued to Trump, that’s quite a lot of lost-causers.

I don’t think trying to jail Clinton will drive any more of them away.

Yep! But McGahn is leaving, and Whitaker exists.