All Things Trump: the story continues...

[pErvinalia]

He can hang out in Russia with Snowden.

[Cunt]

It's cute how much you guys miss him.

Third impeachment, coming up!

[L'Emmerdeur]

Why the fuck wouldn't you get your corrupt Attorney General to violate the privacy of a reporter? After all she's one of the Enemies of the People, isn't she? One of the disgusting liars from CNN at that. The 1st Amendment be damned. She's lucky she didn't end up in federal custody for treason. Nothing authoritarian about protecting the interests of the People, against the Enemy.

The 'free press' needs to be muzzled--dirty, lying sonsabitches. They're horrible people, believe me.

'CNN's Barbara Starr Targeted by Trump Administration in Secret Seizure of Email and Phone Records'

The Trump administration secretly sought and acquired the 2017 phone and email records of CNN reporter Barbara Starr.

UNC's denial of tenure to Nikole Hannah Jones sets off racial radicals
My wife and I defrauded the government by hiding income. Now we’re…

The Trump administration secretly sought and acquired the 2017 phone and email records of CNN reporter Barbara Starr.

In a May 13 letter, Justice Department informed Starr, a Pentagon correspondent, that prosecutors had obtained her phone and email records from June 1, 2017 to July 31, 2017. The letter listed phone numbers for Starr's Pentagon extension, the CNN Pentagon booth phone number and her home and cell phones, as well as Starr's work and personal email accounts.

"CNN strongly condemns the secret collection of any aspect of a journalist's correspondence, which is clearly protected by the First Amendment," CNN president Jeff Zucker said in a statement published by the network. "We are asking for an immediate meeting with the Justice Department for an explanation."

It is unclear when the investigation was opened and which attorney general it occurred under, Jeff Sessions or William Barr. What exactly the Trump administration was looking for in Starr's correspondence is also a mystery, although her reporting did include stories on Syria and Afghanistan and coverage of U.S. military options in North Korea that were being offered to President Donald Trump.

The Justice Department confirmed the records were formally sought through the courts last year but provided no further information.

Although the Obama administration has also faced criticism for its approach toward leak conversations, this is only the most recent instance of the Trump White House using its Justice Department to gain access to the communications of journalists and critics of the former president and his allies.

Three Washington Post reporters who covered the FBI's Russia investigation were notified earlier this month that the Justice Department had seized their own phone records from 2017. In 2018, the Justice Department disclosed that it had obtained the phone and email communications from a reporter who'd also written Russia-related stories in 2017.

"The records at issue relate to 2017 and the legal process to seek these records was approved in 2020," Justice Department spokesman Anthony Coley said in a statement. "Department leadership will soon meet with reporters to hear their concerns about recent notices and further convey Attorney General (Merrick) Garland's staunch support of and commitment to a free and independent press."

[Seabass]

I'm sure our resident Canadian free speech champion will denounce the Trump administration over this.

[Joe]

"Canadian free speech champion"

[Cunt]

You guys miss Trump SO much.

Is CNN a news agency? Or an activist arm of the Democratic Party?

[Joe]

Getting back to the topic, as the article mentioned the Obama administration also faced criticism for it's treatment of reporters, and there were cases in the Bush Administration as well. Judith Miller's stint in jail for refusing to name her source in the Plame affair is what sticks in my mind.

For Obama, the James Risen case was one that highlighted the continuity of attacking journalists between the Bush and Obama era's. Business Insider had an interesting take from an unnamed former Justice Department official.

One former Justice Department official told Business Insider the Obama administration's increased pursuance of leak cases was mostly a product of having so many new tools available at its disposal to track down the leakers.

It is also a product, the official said, of a more sensitive world post-Sept. 11, 2001. The official said it was likely to only escalate with future presidencies, as the U.S. continues to grapple with a copious number of global threats.

Leslie, the legal defense director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, also noted the government's capabilities to find out where leaks originate.

"The point I always make is that I'm not sure it's the Obama administration alone, but rather the institutional government that's going to be here no matter which party is in control of the White House," he said.

"They've got new, invasive, and incredibly advanced tools for discovering information. And they're going to exploit those as much as they can. I don't see much animus on the part of the administration or from Obama himself. It's more that the post-9/11 reality seems that they are going to relentlessly pursue every leaks case."

He added: "I say that not to give Obama an excuse but to say that, no matter who's elected next, it's going to continue — unless something is done about it."

Not knowing the particular's of Starr's case, it's hard to say if it's a continuation of prior administration's policies, but the tactics sure look familiar.

[Cunt]

I think part of the problem is the definition of 'reporter' or 'journalist'. Anyone has the right to be one, and can be one in an instant (in my opinion)

It might be better if there were a way to earn a 'right to report', which could limit special protections to 'proven' journalists or such. For example, if one regularly responds satisfyingly to fact-checks, or such...

Of course, it would probably end up like Canada, who fund the CBC. It looks fairly objective to many people.

[Hermit]

Is CNN a news agency? Or an activist arm of the Democratic Party?

Do you regard CNN as an activist arm of the Democratic Party?

[Cunt]

Is CNN a news agency? Or an activist arm of the Democratic Party?

Do you regard CNN as an activist arm of the Democratic Party?

Sometimes.

It's pretty broad. Have they ever had Cuomo covered by his brother?

[Hermit]

Have they ever had Cuomo covered by his brother?

Didn't CNN ban Chris Cuomo since 2013 from interviewing or even commenting on Andrew Cuomo on the grounds that neither could possibly be objective? Is that supposed to be proof that CNN is an activist arm of the Democratic Party?

[Tero]

CNN: story, some facts
Fox: spin, false narrative, make fun of so and so

[JimC]

You guys miss Trump SO much.

No we don't...

Hoping he gets his just deserts for illegal dealings is not missing him...

[Brian Peacock]

Nobody would deny that alt-media like Brietbart, mainstream broadcasters like FOX and cable and print outlets under the News International banner, and a plethora of talk radio hosts in the Limbaugh mould etc are right-wing and focus on right-wing issues and talking points. For the conservative-minded that's fine - they're just having their views, opinions and values reflected and represented by organisations and people they identify with. However, it appears that a problem for the conservative-minded arises when their views, opinions and values are publicly challenged or criticised. Rather than allowing a plurality of views to coexist and be represented in the media the conservative decry challenge and criticism as undue or unfair, the work of malign or corrupted individuals or corporations, deliberate falsehood of the lowest type originating in the viler, baser impulses of humans: dishonesty, hatefulness, self-serving hypocrisy, bigotry. In short: bias.

This presents a problem on two fronts. Firstly, for those whose job it is to speak truth to power, and secondly for those who are fine with the existence of a range of views , opinions and values being represented through popular media. On both counts the ardent right-wing conservative presumes that any and all challenge or criticism is the product of partisan deceit, which makes it an illegitimate attempt to mislead or conceal the truth for political advantage. This forecloses on the possibility that there may be real and actual grounds for criticism or challenge - public interest, constitutional, legal, economic, national security, social, moral and ethical etc. Another consequence is that those of us who are ok with a diverse media, who are quite happy to consume media in context, consider truthful accounts and factual evidence more important than dogmatic affiliations, are happy to have our views questioned and willing to cast around a range of sources for a range of views before we form judgements, still get vilified for supposedly siding with the Evil One if/when we criticise or challenge conservative thinking - even when we're pretty conservative ourselves.

This is how we end up with right-wingers on internet forums, Twitter, Facebook etc thinking that FOX isn't biased for supporting and propagandising for Trump but CNN are for criticising him - and for showing images of Biden in aviators of course.

[Tero]

Postal director

...who can't be fired by Biden, only by an overseeing board....still trying to ruin US Mail. DeJoy is slowing drug delivery to people who cannot easily get them.

It started with destroying mail ballot delivery.