 |
| J.D. Vance views Trump's media ban as "totally appropriate" (Getty) |
If you thought a significant number of Republicans in Congress would stand up to Donald Trump over his clearly unconstitutional media ban, we invite you to think again.
As Edith Olmsted, of The New Republic (TNR), was set to publish her post at 12:40 p.m. ET yesterday, only one Republican had shown enough backbone to publicly state that Trump's actions in banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico were wrong. As the day wore on, a few more names trickled in, but it hardly could be called a stampede of Republicans who were willing to stand up for the right to a free press -- a right many historians and legal scholars consider so foundational to democracy that it is enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But only a smattering of Republicans considered it important enough to voice their objection. That we still have MAGA types who seem to revel in their looniness -- and undoubtedly many conservatives who appear to be normal -- still supporting Trump now that we know he is a convicted felon, an adjudicated rapist, and a confessed sexual abuser (via his admission on Access Hollywood that he had made it a practice to grab women by the genitals) . . . well, that is a sign we have deep pockets of warped thinking throughout our society -- and unfortunately, those people vote. And we haven't even touched on credible accusations, via sworn statements to the FBI and court documents, that Trump engaged in rape (even murder) while attending a golf-course party that involved allies of the late sex trafficker and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Certain residents of the U.S. still support Trump. knowing all of this? Republicans still would protect an accused pedophile because they lack the guts to take a stand for law-abiding conduct? "Pitiful" is the only word I can think of to semi-adequately describe that situation.
What about the first Republican who did have the fortitude to stand up to Trump? That takes us back to The New Republic and Edith Olmsted, who writes under the headline "How many Republicans are brave enough to denounce Trump's media ban; Spoiler alert. It's not a lot." Olmsted writes:
So far, only one Republican lawmaker has publicly condemned President Donald Trump’s decision to ban three major news outlets from the White House.
Idaho Representative Mike Simpson told Punchbowl News Monday that restricting CNN, MS NOW, and Politico’s access to the White House was “wrong.”
“Just because you don’t like what the press is reporting or the fact that they wouldn’t call it the Gulf of America or something else like that, that’s not the reason to ban the press. You should never ban the press. The press is what keeps us honest,” Simpson said. “So I don’t like what they’re doing.”
Some Republicans, who opened their mouths regarding Trump's past abuses, kept them shut this time, Olmsted reports:
Republican lawmakers who have opposed Trump’s policies in the past, such as Senators John Cornyn, Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski, all remained silent. Republican lawmakers who like to pretend to be free-speech advocates, such as Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, also failed to respond to the president’s sudden crackdown on the press.
Representative Thomas Massie only receives partial credit for posting a quip about the ban that was mostly about his opposition to Trump’s fictional $5,000 checks.
What can a reasonable mind take from this? Here's what I take from it: The postmodern Republican Party does not support the First Amendment, but it's fine protecting pedophiles. Perhaps the new GOP motto should be "Pedophiles and murderers, come join us. You are safe in our big tent."
Would you like to read about a Republican "profile in courage" regarding Trump's media ban? I would, too, but I can't find one.
WPEC, CBS12.com in West Palm Beach, Florida, checked in with three Republicans, and all were too busy puckering up to Trump's doughy behind to consider substantive issues related to a free press. Based on original reporting from The National News Desk (TNND) in Washington, D.C., the report is filed under the headline "Vance, Scalise, others defend Trump over White House media ban: 'Totally Appropriate'. Natalia Middlestadt writes:
Vice President JD Vance, House Majority Leader Rep. Steve Scalise, and other Republicans are defending President Trump's ban of some media outlets from the White House, with Vance calling it "totally appropriate."
Trump on Friday said he was banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House over what he called their "constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS!" According to a Wall Street Journal report, the ban came after White House aide Natalie Harp showed Trump a clip of MS NOW bashing the administration.
Speaking to reporters at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, Vance said:
“If you’re going to engage in what is effectively far-left propaganda, why would a Republican White House give you special access?” he added.
When asked how Trump’s ban is not a violation of free speech, Vance said the outlets “could still report on the Trump White House.”
“They can still get the public reports. They can still, of course, talk to people inside the administration and outside of the administration,” he continued.
Vance compared Politico’s coverage with Breitbart's during the Obama and Biden administrations, claiming the former is as “anti-Trump as Breitbart was anti-Obama or anti-Biden.”
“Why on God’s green earth would Donald Trump be expected to give Politico special access when nobody in the media expected the Biden administration or the Obama administration to give Breitbart special access?” he asked.
Vance might want to take a look at the following from an account at The Hill:
Breitbart has previously complained that it was not given regular turns in the White House press pool, which is determined by the White House Correspondents’ Association. But the outlet was not barred from the White House during the Obama or Biden administrations.
Did other Republicans follow in Vance's squishy footsteps? Yep, pretty much. Here is more from the TNND report:
Scalise told ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday that he didn't know the "background" behind why Trump implemented the ban, but defended the president.
“I don't think we've had a president that's been more open to the press,” Scalise said. “Look, I've been at– you go to a bill signing with President Trump, and the first thing he does before he even signs the bill is he brings in the press, and everybody gets to not only take pictures but ask questions.”
Scalise does not grasp the issues at hand. Trump loves cameras, so he naturally likes to have the press around as long as reporters file their stories with a positive view of the administration. The real issue under Supreme Court precedent is "viewpoint discrimination, which happens when an official punishes a news organization for not presenting the news in the way that he likes it.
A number of political figures said Trump's ban is something you might expect to see from a fascist or communistic government From a report at Common Dreams:
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) responded to the news simply by posting the full text of the First Amendment on X.
“Fascist and communist governments limit press access to only favorable outlets, persecute journalists, and suppress truthful reporting,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) in a post to social media. “Trump’s administration is doing all of that.”
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) agreed the move was “straight out of the authoritarian playbook.”
Another Republican showed that his understanding of the issues matches that of Scalise -- and that is essentially no understanding at all. From the TNND report:
Mike Waltz, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, “The president is absolutely within his rights to limit journalists to government facilities, particularly when, in his opinion, they’re not behaving as good-faith journalists. And that’s just not his opinion. That’s the Supreme Court’s opinion.”
Waltz cited the Supreme Court's 1965 ruling, Zemel v. Rusk, in which Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that “the right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information.” That opinion, however, says nothing about "behaving as good-faith journalists," as Walz incorrectly asserts in the previous paragraph.
The current dispute centers on a separate First Amendment issue called viewpoint discrimination, since Trump has explained his reasons for banning certain outlets over coverage he deems “negative.”
Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso told NBC News’ “Meet the Press” on Sunday when asked whether Trump had violated the Constitution with the media ban, “No, I believe the press has an obligation to report fairly.”
It does not, however, have an obligation to please the president. And Trump's own words indicate that is what he's looking for -- to essentially be the nation's "news czar."
When asked if he agreed with Trump’s ban, Barrasso said, “We all respect and value the freedom of the press — it’s in the Constitution.”
Barrasso added that he does not believe Trump’s decision to bar those outlets from the White House would negatively affect Republicans in the November midterm elections.
“The bottom line on all of this is: This is not going to have an impact on an election 44 days from now,” he said. “People are going to go to the voting booth. They’re going to make a decision based on their life, their future, what they believe is best for them and their families.”
No comments:
Post a Comment