If Trump collusion is proven, should "conservative" media be prosecuted?

a reply to: DJW001

If the government was for the people by the people, the government punishing the MSM for treason is reasonable. I question how much our govt is for the people by the people.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: butcherguy

Half an hour in and the usual suspects have turned up to deny that any collusion has taken place. That is not the subject of the OP; please read it all the way through. It is about the First Amendment and journalistic responsibility.

What?
My post doesn't touch on the fact that the MSM, including Fox, is running with the false narrative that there is a Comey memo?

I read your post entirely.

It is just partisan crap.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DJW001

For starters there was no collusion.

With that said point out the law Trump would have violated if he colluded with Russia. If you dont want to look I can help you out - there is no law for collusion.

I'm surprised that you do not seem to have read the OP all the way through. Hypothetically, if media are covering up what they know about a crime, or disseminate false or misleading information to assist in that crime, should they be charged with, say, conspiracy?

originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: DJW001

If the government was for the people by the people, the government punishing the MSM for treason is reasonable. I question how much our govt is for the people by the people.

So you believe in government censorship. Thank you.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Do you think that newspapers and other media should be punished by the government if they knowingly pass on false news?

Yes with a large large fine. If the media is going to "mind the people's business" then they damn well better get the information correct.

and for Gods sake no more anonymous sources / nameless officials.

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
Trump is going to demolish both sides anyways. The corruption runs very deep and he is sick of it. I'm all up for it though. D.C. needs a purge and i can't wait to watch the MSM squirm and try to apologize for all the anti-trump propaganda to avoid law suits.

Trump never colluded with Russia. Mark my words. It's gonna come out and a lot of people are going to feel really stupid.

Well that certainly explains why he admittedly committed obstruction of justice in an attempt to shut down the investigation.

I suspect that Donald will probably be the only one who hasn't personally colluded with the Russisns and that's because he's so stupid and unpredictable, the Russians insisted on dealing with anyone other than him in an attempt to maintain deniability.

Just the same, the fact that Trump appointed Michael Flynn to head up his national security council, knowing full well that he was working as a un-declared, paid agent of a foreign government, who was vulnerable to being bribed by the Russians and currently under investigation by the FBI, speaks volumes.

a reply to: butcherguy

What?
My post doesn't touch on the fact that the MSM, including Fox, is running with the false narrative that there is a Comey memo?

That is all your post touches on, and that is not the question posed in the OP. It is your response that is knee jerk partisanship.

a reply to: DJW001

1. You are operating off the premise that there is a memo and that it indicates exactly what you want it to - obstruction of justice.

2. You make a secondary premise that every so-called conservative outlet that questions its existence (and every conservative or skeptical poster, therefore) also knows it exists and simply is lying to collude to pass false information.

3. Your OP is constructed assuming the second premise is true based off the assumption that #1 is true.

You have built a mighty house of cards there.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Do you think that newspapers and other media should be punished by the government if they knowingly pass on false news?

Yes with a large large fine. If the media is going to "mind the people's business" then they damn well better get the information correct.

and for Gods sake no more anonymous sources / nameless officials.

Journalist depend on being able to defend the anonymity of sources. I have never seen anyone reject items on WikiLeaks because they are posted "anonymously." Although libel laws are necessary in a society that has banned dueling, it is simply not the place of the government to determine what is "true."

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: butcherguy

What?
My post doesn't touch on the fact that the MSM, including Fox, is running with the false narrative that there is a Comey memo?

That is all your post touches on, and that is not the question posed in the OP. It is your response that is knee jerk partisanship.

Is there a requirement that I answer your question?
Am I going to be banned now for failung to answer your question?
Will I have to start worshipping you also?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Do you think that newspapers and other media should be punished by the government if they knowingly pass on false news?

Yes, I thought I made that clear - 'knowingly' being the key because it implies intent.

a reply to: ketsuko

1. You are operating off the premise that there is a memo and that it indicates exactly what you want it to - obstruction of justice.

No, I am framing a hypothetical based on an evolving situation.

2. You make a secondary premise that every so-called conservative outlet that questions its existence (and every conservative or skeptical poster, therefore) also knows it exists and simply is lying to collude to pass false information.

No; the hypothetical is constructed to mirror the actual accusations made by "conservative" partisans.

3. Your OP is constructed assuming the second premise is true based off the assumption that #1 is true.

What part of "hypothetical" are you having trouble with. The first word in the title itself is "if," which signifies a hypothetical.

You have built a mighty house of cards there.

Thank you; that is what a hypothetical is. Now, hypothetically, if media are actually quashing evidence of wrongdoing, as "conservatives" accused them of doing for Clinton, should they be punished?

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, they have been trying to find collusion for months now and nothing out of the ordinary other than normal business transactions of a businessman has shown up. I would say more that if it is found he is not colluding, the news media that is spreading misappropriate information to try to get him impeached should be disbanded. Just because most of MSM is doing it does not mean it is right. This twisting of things by the Media has to stop. On both sides.

Just remember, the media didn't start any of this. It all got started when the intelligence community detected Trump campaign personnel repeatedly conferring with Russian agents.

That's why Sally Yates warned Trump early on about Flynn's vulnerability to being bribed by the Russians.

By and large, the media is just reporting the events as they occur and just because you may not like their headlines, doesn't mean they're corrupt.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Do you think that newspapers and other media should be punished by the government if they knowingly pass on false news?

Yes, I thought I made that clear - 'knowingly' being the key because it implies intent.

Then you favor government censorship?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DJW001

1. You are operating off the premise that there is a memo and that it indicates exactly what you want it to - obstruction of justice.

2. You make a secondary premise that every so-called conservative outlet that questions its existence (and every conservative or skeptical poster, therefore) also knows it exists and simply is lying to collude to pass false information.

3. Your OP is constructed assuming the second premise is true based off the assumption that #1 is true.

You have built a mighty house of cards there.

Don't forget the "journalist" who broke the memo story admitted:
A - that he never saw it and
B - had it read to him over the phone.

The FBI has a few days left to produce said memo before they get a subpoena by one of the oversight committees. I am not sure why it would take so long to produce a memo that was leaked. The fact it was leaked means someone in the FBI at the upper levels knows right where its at. I say higher ups because I doubt a rank and file FBI agent could rifle through the Directors personal notes / memo's.

As a side note Newt Gingrich was on Fox News discussing Seth Rich, the fact he turned over 40-50 thousand emails to wikileaks and how that destroys the DNC hacked by Russia bs. Its becoming very clear as to why the DNC has refused to allow the FBI access to the server to forensically examine it.

Me thinks if they were allowed to examine it they would discover it was not hacked by the russians or anyone else. This is also another example of Democrats pushing an agenda without anything to back it up.

a reply to: butcherguy

Is there a requirement that I answer your question?

No. But if you are not interested in answering the question, why are you here?

Am I going to be banned now for failung to answer your question?

No, but since this is not the Mud Pit you might want to avoid being rude...

Will I have to start worshipping you also?

... like that.

a reply to: DJW001

" For the record, I believe strongly in the First Amendment. As a "liberal," I believe that the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even America's enemies. "

This is hard for me to get past and contradicts itself. If you believe strongly in the 1st amendment, then you sound like you believe all of it, especially that it pertains to CITIZENS. then is when you mention that all of the bill of rights should be for all. Sorry I just really have a tough time with this.

Being a citizen is not something to take for granted, otherwise we don't have people becoming as such and joining our great nation.

But to answer your question... If anyone breaks the law, laws that are not draconian and need to be abolished, then yes, they should be charged. Honestly it is a stupid question, posed in the OP. That is what court is for.

Don't you think it's a shame you have to ask this question today just because it is targeted towards another political party now?

This entire thread is partisan. Yuck!

a reply to: DJW001

LOL

You let your bitterness get to you.

You didn't list any real sources !!!

a reply to: DJW001

The issue is how anonymous sources are being used. There are so many stories using anonymous sources with absolutely nothing to support it that it becomes difficult to find the real needle in the fake hay stack.

The media has abused the anonymous source card.

ETA -
* - wikileaks is not a media outlet.
* - Our constitution (1st amendment) does not apply outside US borders.

a reply to: Xcathdra

My point is that if you are going to leak what is in a memo, why read selected portions over the phone? I can think of two reasons:

1. The "memo" doesn't exist, or doesn't exist as James Comey's memo meaning Comey didn't write it.

2. The memo exists, but it only looks bad if it's selectively edited meaning the full text is innocuous.