A number of press reports have picked up this exchange this morning between ABC’s Jonathan Karl and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. But people have missed the real significance. Priebus doesn’t discuss changing ‘press laws’ or ‘libel laws’. He specifically says that the White House has considered and continues to consider amending or even abolishing the 1st Amendment because of critical press coverage of President Trump.
frameborder="0">
Sound hyperbolic? Look at the actual exchange (emphasis added) …
KARL: I want to ask you about two things the President has said on related issues. First of all, there was what he said about opening up the libel laws. Tweeting “the failing New York Times has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change the libel laws?” That would require, as I understand it, a constitutional amendment. Is he really going to pursue that? Is that something he wants to pursue?
PRIEBUS: I think it’s something that we’ve looked at. How that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story. But when you have articles out there that have no basis or fact and we’re sitting here on 24/7 cable companies writing stories about constant contacts with Russia and all these other matters—
KARL: So you think the President should be able to sue the New York Times for stories he doesn’t like?
PRIEBUS: Here’s what I think. I think that newspapers and news agencies need to be more responsible with how they report the news. I am so tired.
KARL: I don’t think anybody would disagree with that. It’s about whether or not the President should have a right to sue them.
PRIEBUS: And I already answered the question. I said this is something that is being looked at. But it’s something that as far as how it gets executed, where we go with it, that’s another issue.
Karl says, accurately , that that kind of clampdown on 1st Amendment rights would require amending the Constitution. Is that what Priebus means, Karl asks? Yes, it is, says Priebus.
Now one might respond to this saying, ‘Okay, technically that’s what he said. But he probably doesn’t actually mean it.’
To which I think the answer is, sure maybe he doesn’t mean it but why would anyone assume that? He said it and repeated it . The changes President Trump wants are blocked by decades of decades of jurisprudence which is little contested, unlike other hot button points of constitutional law. If you want what Trump wants, you have to amend the constitution – and not the constitution in general but the 1st Amendment specifically. Amending the 1st Amendment to allow the head of state to sue people who say things he doesn’t like amounts to abolishing it.
None of these are tenuous connections. Each link in the chain of reasoning follows logically from the other.
This, needless to say, should set off everyone’s alarm bells. If this isn’t really what Priebus meant, he should be given the chance to categorically disavow it. The plain meaning of the words, on the record, is that abridging or abolishing the 1st Amendment is something the Trump White House is currently considering.
I feel sure that every president, including George Washington, has, at times, wished to abolish the press... I'd be willing to bet my cold, hard cash that poor Abraham Lincoln really wanted to!
But, I can't imagine it actually happening, as it would require a constitutional amendment, and everybody has to vote on it. At least, I sincerely hope that it is out of the realm of possibility.
Yet another example of Trump's silliness. I thought he took an oath to defend the constitution, not change it to suit his convenience...
I don't know whether the original article, posted here, is factual or not. It certainly seemed to have some liberal bias. But your article had a definite conservative bias-- liberals wanting to douse themselves in lighter fluid and set fire to their hair...
Why don't you leave off the conservative/liberal labels and just look for the truth?
Here are some articles that appear to be somewhat less biased:
"That’s just a classic case of reading the tea leaves in a muddled segment of a discussion and finding what you wanted to hear. First of all, just listening to Reince’s tone during that portion of the interview you could tell he was tired of the entire conversation and was tossing out a throwaway line. But the question Karl asks staggers a bit and takes in a couple of hypotheticals. He specifically asks the question of whether or not the President was serious about “changing the libel laws.” He follows that up with his own inserted supposition that it would require a constitutional amendment, something Trump didn’t mention in the tweet in question. Priebus, with the aforementioned exhausted tone in his voice says, “I think that’s something we’ve looked at.”
You think? And specifically what is it that you think you’ve looked at? The default answer, absent any further clarification from Priebus, was that they may have looked at changing the libel laws. Just for the record, Congress doesn’t require a constitutional amendment to change any laws. Granted, the change may be immediately challenged and subsequently shot down in the courts if it goes too far, but that doesn’t stop them from changing them initially. In fact, Reince’s next sentence goes on to say “how that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere” is up in the air. I’m pretty sure he knows how the Constitution is amended so it seems rather obvious that he was talking about the libel laws, not a constitutional amendment.
All of this leaves aside the fact that we’re talking about something so far off in fantasy land that neither Priebus nor Trump would be “seriously” talking about it anyway. (Which doesn’t preclude some early morning tweets on the subject, I’m sure.) Nobody is going to support gutting or eliminating the First Amendment. Suggesting that they are is just a sad form of hyperbole from the cheerleaders of a Democratic Party in disarray and flummoxed over what to do when fighting from the minority. I’m sure Josh can find plenty of other things that the President is actually doing or proposing to complain about until the cows come home. There’s no need to invent new bits of red meat out of thin air.
He does realize, doesn't he, that he is not a King or Dictator and does not have the power to abolish or amend any Amendments to the Constitution? Or was he absent that day(s) (years?) when that was taught in the schools his daddy bought grades for him in?
No one is going to get 2/3 of congress or the states to agree on any amendment to the bill of rights, much less getting 3/4 of the states to ratify such a change. Clearly they are talking about laws congress can change without affecting the constitution. Are you getting enough attention here with yet another months old seed?
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
I feel sure that every president, including George Washington, has, at times, wished to abolish the press... I'd be willing to bet my cold, hard cash that poor Abraham Lincoln really wanted to!
But, I can't imagine it actually happening, as it would require a constitutional amendment, and everybody has to vote on it. At least, I sincerely hope that it is out of the realm of possibility.
Yet another example of Trump's silliness. I thought he took an oath to defend the constitution, not change it to suit his convenience...
This a probably a better take on the story.
More fake news? Not unexpected.
I don't know whether the original article, posted here, is factual or not. It certainly seemed to have some liberal bias. But your article had a definite conservative bias-- liberals wanting to douse themselves in lighter fluid and set fire to their hair...
Why don't you leave off the conservative/liberal labels and just look for the truth?
Here are some articles that appear to be somewhat less biased:
PBS-
CNN-
ABC-
Newsweek-
I'm open to reading more articles...
You did a good job Dowser, but everyone knows Trump can't do this no matter what he or Priebus say.
"That’s just a classic case of reading the tea leaves in a muddled segment of a discussion and finding what you wanted to hear. First of all, just listening to Reince’s tone during that portion of the interview you could tell he was tired of the entire conversation and was tossing out a throwaway line. But the question Karl asks staggers a bit and takes in a couple of hypotheticals. He specifically asks the question of whether or not the President was serious about “changing the libel laws.” He follows that up with his own inserted supposition that it would require a constitutional amendment, something Trump didn’t mention in the tweet in question. Priebus, with the aforementioned exhausted tone in his voice says, “I think that’s something we’ve looked at.”
You think? And specifically what is it that you think you’ve looked at? The default answer, absent any further clarification from Priebus, was that they may have looked at changing the libel laws. Just for the record, Congress doesn’t require a constitutional amendment to change any laws. Granted, the change may be immediately challenged and subsequently shot down in the courts if it goes too far, but that doesn’t stop them from changing them initially. In fact, Reince’s next sentence goes on to say “how that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere” is up in the air. I’m pretty sure he knows how the Constitution is amended so it seems rather obvious that he was talking about the libel laws, not a constitutional amendment.
All of this leaves aside the fact that we’re talking about something so far off in fantasy land that neither Priebus nor Trump would be “seriously” talking about it anyway. (Which doesn’t preclude some early morning tweets on the subject, I’m sure.) Nobody is going to support gutting or eliminating the First Amendment. Suggesting that they are is just a sad form of hyperbole from the cheerleaders of a Democratic Party in disarray and flummoxed over what to do when fighting from the minority. I’m sure Josh can find plenty of other things that the President is actually doing or proposing to complain about until the cows come home. There’s no need to invent new bits of red meat out of thin air.
I found the recording as well Dowser. I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to actually say it...I was WRONG, they are that stupid..
Yes, they are. This president will say anything...
He does realize, doesn't he, that he is not a King or Dictator and does not have the power to abolish or amend any Amendments to the Constitution? Or was he absent that day(s) (years?) when that was taught in the schools his daddy bought grades for him in?
Fake news from April.
What a pathetic seed.
How sad you are. Spamming the site with click-bait from months ago in the desperate hope you'll get attention.
If my laughing at you provides you that much validation, you probably need professional help immediately.
No one is going to get 2/3 of congress or the states to agree on any amendment to the bill of rights, much less getting 3/4 of the states to ratify such a change. Clearly they are talking about laws congress can change without affecting the constitution. Are you getting enough attention here with yet another months old seed?