45 thoughts on “Your Thread Here”

  2. the guardian: Reince Priebus says White House is looking into change to libel laws

    The president’s chief of staff renews Trump’s campaign promise to alter laws affecting news reporting, which would require a change to the US constitution

    A day after Watergate reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward issued a stirring call for the press to hold Donald Trump to account, the president’s chief of staff said the White House is actively considering a change to libel laws affecting news reporting.

    “I think it’s something that we’ve looked at,” said Reince Priebus, appearing on ABC’s This Week. “How that gets executed and whether that goes anywhere is a different story.”

    On the campaign trail last year, Trump responded to reporting on his policies and background by floating the possibility of a change to libel laws. Such a move would in reality require a change to the US constitution, which enshrines freedom of the press in the first amendment, the supreme court having ruled on the issue.

    Undaunted, the president returned to the theme on Thursday, writing on Twitter: “The failing [New York Times] has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?”

    On ABC, Priebus cited “articles out there that have no basis of fact and we’re sitting here and 24/7 cable companies writing stories about constant contacts with Russia and all these other matters”.

    [….]

    On ABC, Priebus was asked if the president should be able to sue news outlets over stories he didn’t like.

    “Here’s what I think,” he said. “I think that newspapers and news agencies need to be more responsible with how they report the news. I am so tired–”

    Interrupted, he said: “And I answered the question, I said this is something that is being looked at. It’s something that as far as how it gets executed, where we go with it, that’s another issue.

    “But I think this is a frustration of unnamed sources, of things the FBI have told me personally is complete BS, written in a newspaper article, in my office, one-on-one, this here is not true.

    “And guess what? But it’s sitting there on the front page. So how is it possible? And what do we have? Twenty-four seven cable about a story about intelligence that the actual intelligence agency says is not true. Yet we deal with it every day.”

    Priebus was also asked about Trump’s suggestion that people who burn the American flag should be jailed or have their citizenship revoked. The supreme court has said burning the flag is a form of free speech.

    “People need to stand up for our flag,” Priebus said, adding: “It’s something that, again, is probably going to get looked at.”

  3. excerpt from raw story: “Ivanka Trump hawks family’s new development in Philippines as dad invites strongman to White House”

    President Donald Trump’s seemingly off-the-cuff White House invitation to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has raised a lot of eyebrows.

    Officials with both the State Department and National Security Council were reportedly caught by surprise by Trump’s invitation, which he made during a “warm” and “very friendly” phone conversation with Duterte — who has overseen a vigilante “war on drugs” that has killed thousands.

    While the invitation surprised many, the real reason for the U.S. president’s friendliness toward the Philippine strongman might be looming over Manila — where a new Trump-branded residential development is set to open soon.

    Ivanka Trump — the president’s daughter and a White House official — appears in a billboard advertisement in Manila for Trump Century Tower, which is currently showing apartments starting at $160,000 ahead of its opening.

    The $150 million tower, which is nearly ready for occupancy, is a joint venture between the Trump Organization and Century Properties, which was founded by developer Jose Antonio — who Duterte tapped in October as the Philippines’ special envoy for business and trade to the U.S.

    [….]

    Trump who agreed to put his name on the Manila project in exchange for a multimillion-dollar payment up front, along with up to 25 percent of the developer’s revenue over a number of years.

    Those payments could violate the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause — which prohibits office holders from accepting gifts or payments from foreign states — and the project itself presents a terrorism risk.

    That high-profile target, in a country where the Islamic State-linked Abu Sayyaf militant group operates, potentially gives Duterte leverage over Trump.

    Duterte, who claimed Trump previously invited him to New York and Washington during a Dec. 2 phone call, has threatened to bar U.S. troops from his country.

  4. Priebus is an idiot.  While I’m sure there must be a federal defamation statute, there is also this little number called teh First Amendment – “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 …” Ummm, so Reince, please tell your boss, “Mr. So-called, it’s in the first two lines of the First Amendment – I guess you just haven’t read that far into the document…”

     

    And then there’s the master prevaricator’s near perfection of his trade.  As Glenn Kessler pointed out:

    “President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered. He earned 59 Four-Pinocchio ratings during his campaign as president. Since then, he’s earned 16 more Four-Pinocchio ratings.

    “But those numbers obscure the fact that the pace and volume of the president’s misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up. The president’s speeches and interviews are so chock full of false and misleading claims that The Fact Checker often must resort to roundups that offer a brief summary of the facts that the president has gotten wrong.”

    ***

    “So here are the numbers for the president’s first 100 days.

    488: The number of false or misleading claims made by the president. That’s an average of 4.9 claims a day.
    10:     Number of days without a single false claim. (On six of those days, the president golfed at a Trump property.)
    4: Number of days with 20 or more false claims. (Feb. 16, Feb. 28, March 20 and April 21.) He made 19 false claims on April 29, his 100th day, though we did not include his interview with “Face the Nation,” since that aired April 30.”

  5. btw, happy loyalty day!!!

    https://youtu.be/Rc39MSQkhm0
    Published on Apr 29, 2017

    Loyalty Day : The difference between Trump’s and Obama’s proclamations is stunning
    Loyalty Day was first observed in response to the First Red Scare and was originally called “Americanization Day,” the Los Angeles Times reported, adding that the day became a legally designated holiday in 1958 following an act of Congress. According to the U.S. Code, “Loyalty Day is a special day for the reaffirmation of loyalty to the United States and for the recognition of the heritage of American freedom.”
    But, what is unique to Trump is the tone he took while declaring National Loyalty Day compared to presidents before him.

  8. Look for the pattern of slop out of the throne room.  Restrict speech and action.  Make the Congress a tool of the king.  Change the third branch into a rubber stamp for the king.  Everything is all towards making him a dictator for life.  He sees himself the ruler and gets cramps because he keeps getting blocked by the Constitution.  There is a low level rumble about calling a constitutional convention to rewrite it.  Watch for that story growing.

  12. The master negotiator’s budget deal, deconstructed.   Maybe not so wonderful.

    Soon after the deal was reached last night, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi quickly put out celebratory statements. But McConnell and Paul Ryan did not.

    And claims the healthcare bill is read y to go to the House and he’s confident they have the votes to pass it. Based on what I read it sounds like a tweak and damn little more.

  13. Healthcare by states rights – if you live in the wrong place and have a pre-existing condition you are sh-t out of luck

  14. So-called historian president discusses Andrew Jackson with Salena Zito as reported by Aaron Blake in today’s WaPo:

    “TRUMP: I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn’t have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart. And he was really angry that — he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War. He said, “There’s no reason for this.” People don’t realize, you know, the Civil War — if you think about it, why? People don’t ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?”
     

    One glaring issue here: Jackson wasn’t really angry about what was happening with the Civil War, because he died more than a decade (1845) before it started (1861). 

     
    My god, what’s next?

  15. boss, I was so looking forward to a thread entitled MAYDAY! MAYDAY! MAYDAY!

    surely any one of a number of the crises in our midst would have sufficed for an sos to be shouted out today

  16. pogo, another prez walking the wh halls talking to ghosts again?

    btw, too bad schume and peloz  “ put out celebratory statements” …not good to poke the wasp nest. better to just sit back and smirk. however, they should be making hay and doing big releases on dems getting the coal miners health thingy made permanent.

  17. from reuters;
    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left intact California’s ban on “gay conversion” therapy aimed at turning youths under age 18 away from homosexuality, rejecting a Christian minister’s challenge to the law asserting it violates religious rights.
    The justices, turning away a challenge to the 2012 law for the second time in three years, let stand a lower court’s ruling that it was constitutional and neither impinged upon free exercise of religion nor impacted the activities of clergy members.
     

     

    and from ny times:

    The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Miami can sue two banks for predatory lending under the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
    The case arose from the 2008 financial crisis. Miami sued Bank of America and Wells Fargo, saying that their discriminatory mortgage lending practices had led to a disproportionate number of defaults by minority home buyers and, in turn, to financial harm to the city.
    Even as the majority of justices ruled that Miami was entitled to sue under the housing law, the court declined to decide whether the city had asserted a direct enough connection between the banks’ actions and the harm it claimed. The court sent the case back to the federal appeals court in Atlanta for further exploration of that question.
    When the case was argued in the Supreme Court in November, it seemed headed for a 4-4 tie. But the vote on the question of whether Miami could sue under the law was 5 to 3, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four-member liberal bloc to form a majority.

  18. I think Jason Chaffetz (besides having the moral stamina of a weather vane) is like the canary in the coal mine  or rose bushes in the vineyard — the first to go.

    He knows things and it must be bad if he can’t wait a year to get out of office. Alternatively someone knows something about him.
    If he does step down soon – and there is a special Evan McMullen would probably win – that would be a real fu to Trump

  20. patd, I agree that Chuck and Nancy should have kept their heads down.  I would have preferred resting on the media’s report of how drumpf capitulated to avoid the shutdown.

  21. pogo, wouldn’t it have been better coming from manchin?  they should let the various dem senators and reps do the celebrating and crowing  from the states where the goper concessions will make the most impact.

  23. I disagree – Democrats should be talking about winning because apparently, that is what voters care about

    Pogo says he would have preferred the story come from the media
    lmao

  25. kgc, yes democrats plural and spread out across the country.  not just drumpf’s 2 favorite whipping targets, chuck & nancy.  a thousand cuts make it harder for him.

  28. Guess I hear a lot about democrats oughta do this, and democrats oughta do that, and what the democrats need is this and that and whatnot-all.

    At’sa lotta hooey, all of it.

    democrats can policy yak from now till the cows are all tucked into bed and it just won’t sell.

    What wins elections for Democrats is: The Democrat Candidate. So far, men of great heart who will not be denied as the saying goes.

    you know….. FDR, JFK, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama.

    the most important thing the Democrats can do is find the next candidate………the sooner the better.

    let the candidate start the campaign now like Trump is.

    if the democrats want to win the next election…….let the candidate walk forward now, and take it to em, straight up no chaser.

    Wonder just who is this cat……..

  29. patd, “pogo, wouldn’t it have been better coming from manchin? ”  I wouldn’t hold my breath.  He’s a DINO anymore – and if it takes becoming a RINO to hold his seat, he’ll do that in a heart beat.

    I said I would have preferred that I would have preferred resting on the media’s report of how drumpf capitulated to avoid the shutdown – meant only to contrast that to Chuck and Nancy celebrating how easy it was to get those concessions.  I’m fine listening to them, but I tend to gloat when drumpf Fs up anyway.  While the media isn’t exactly a trusted source outside thinking people (aka democrats – and even then we have to be a bit selective), outside the dem base neither are Chuck and Nancy.  I do think the party should push the eight concessions made by drumpf out through the senators and house members and state party apparati (apparata?  apparatuses?).

  31. Craig….   you’ve been saying over and over again that the Democrats need new blood and fresh faces and now you want Joe Biden….   WTF?!

    Sturg…  I wonder that too…

  32. Wouldn’t hurt if this candidate was the kinda person could talk a dog down off a meat wagon……

     

  33. I left out Jimmy Carter……..when I saw that Hunter Thompson was on board, I went and registered as a democrat……..They had register busses which went around and I jumped on one and signed up…….almost as much fun as joining the musician’s union in Nashville.

  34. I know exactly who the kind of man Sturg is talking about: Eleanor Roosevelt. And I’m not trying to be cute or funny.

    We have women of her learning, determination, character, and fearlessness. I don’t think Warren is one of them; could be wrong.

    Age. between 50-60
    Race. Natural born American
    Sexuality. Any
    Marital status: Perhaps
    Smart: As a whip

     

     

  35. Yep, man or woman but it needs to be gotten on with…..someone needs to carry the fight to Lyin’ Trump, and toe to toe slug it out.    Relentlessly.

    damn the torpedoes till you see the whites of their eyes…….and then strike up the band while the iron is hot.

  37. The Dems need to start the beauty pageant for 2020.  Many candidates, young and old, gender all, sexuality any.  There needs to be a real show, not one of the choice one of these two entitled.  As much as I like Warren, she is too old.  Anyone my age should not be running for president.  I want to see people in their mid 50’s to early 60’s.

    There are many Dems out there who should be in the running.  Looking one way, the bench is thin.  Looking at the Dems I tend to think the bench is wide because we have tossed out the original Baby Boomers.

    We are now looking at the last of the Baby Boomers and the first of the Millennials.  The Dems need to start running a large field.  Let us meet many, rather than meet the chosen.

  38. Craig…  I ain’t buying it.  Biden has run twice…  in 1988 and 2008…  both times rejected as nominee.  IMO, he’s a good man but, as a presidential candidate, he’s yesterday’s leftovers.

  39. Craig – I thoroughly admire Biden and wish he would have ran in in 2016.  But he didn’t.  In 2020 he’ll be what, 77?  That means he’ll be going after a second term when he’s 81.  I think that’s too old – and if we get the WH back in 2020 – we’re going to need it for 8 years to undo the donald and his swamp.

  40. You go Sturge…the face, for now, doesn’t have to be the candidate of the future just someone the public finds credible and appealing …sort of a blue ribbon Democrat.

  41. Rising Democratic Star Says He Won’t Run Against Ted Cruz Next Year – BuzzFeed News

    https://apple.news/AiY9shlj7TCiEUbmQXc4h2g

     

    “It would be a big risk for [Joaquin] to run, and there are a lot of us who think, hey man, just wait,” Colin Strother, a Democratic strategist in Texas, told BuzzFeed News. “As Texas Democrats, we see so much hope and promise in the twins that we’d like for our brighter future to start now. But the reality is that it doesn’t appear yet that we’re ready.”

    Afraid to run against Cruz and risk losing the shine on his penny.   Wuss.

    If there were just one Castro, well, it’s starting to seem that “the twins” is just good marketing.  The Dem bench is not deep.

     

  42. So this picking the next candidate ain’t aseasy is it might seem, is it? When the best candidate is  20 years past his prime, makes it a whole hell of a lot more difficult. Goddamnit. I say screw it. Joaquin can always spin his decision not to run against Cruz as a conscious decision to run for president.  I’d support him.

Comments are closed.

Join the Trail Mix

Get an alert when Craig goes live, and the link when our Open Thread heats up.