Trump 'to review' Mathew Golsteyn Afghan murder case

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46587185

However, as Commander in Chief of the US armed forces, any intervention by Mr Trump could count as unlawful command influence, and might mean the case against Maj Golsteyn is thrown out.

A Pentagon spokesperson said on Sunday that the allegations against the major are "a law enforcement matter".

Just another example Trump thinking being POTUS has no limits...

if he thought being potus had
no limits, CNN and saturday night
live would be off.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if he thought being potus had
no limits, CNN and saturday night
live would be off.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny that you say that
Dec 16, 2018 08:58:54 AM A REAL scandal is the one sided coverage, hour by hour, of networks like NBC & Democrat spin machines like Saturday Night Live. It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in courts, can’t be legal? Only defame & belittle! Collusion? [Twitter for iPhone]
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Funny that you say that
Dec 16, 2018 08:58:54 AM A REAL scandal is the one sided coverage, hour by hour, of networks like NBC & Democrat spin machines like Saturday Night Live. It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in courts, can’t be legal? Only defame & belittle! Collusion? [Twitter for iPhone]
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How is this supposed to be an example or proof that Trump thinks the POTUS has no limits?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How is this supposed to be an example or proof that Trump thinks the POTUS has no limits?

His tweet certainly illustrates the point that he believes anything critical of him should be illegal and f... the first amendment.
As you have said before you can’t take him literally....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

His tweet certainly illustrates the point that he believes anything critical of him should be illegal and f... the first amendment.
As you have said before you can’t take him literally....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I reread his tweet again, and I didn't see anything in it that illustrates him believing anything critical of him should be illegal or against the First Amendment. You seem to be trying very hard to stretch what he said into something he didn't say. Maybe you shouldn't be taken literaly?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I reread his tweet again, and I didn't see anything in it that illustrates him believing anything critical of him should be illegal or against the First Amendment. You seem to be trying very hard to stretch what he said into something he didn't say. Maybe you shouldn't be taken literally?

I disagree, his tone and tenor continually illustrates his wish that all his detractors could and should be silenced.
Should I fear getting something wrong in a political argument on the internet?
Will alliances fail, people go bankrupt and lives be disrupted or end due to my badly informed statement?
Luckily I'm not president, my speech would be much more carefully considered if it had an impact beyond this small pond.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How is this supposed to be an example or proof that Trump thinks the POTUS has no limits?

because shut up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if he thought being potus had
no limits, CNN and saturday night
live would be off.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow another nice deflection Mr Objective

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Wow another nice deflection Mr Objective

it’s not a deflection. Trump hates CNN and SNL, but thanks to our laws, they can continue attacking the potus and never saying anything good about him. the ability of cnn and SNL to do what they do, is irrefutable
evidence of the limits in trumps authority. just because i proved that you’re wrong, doesn’t mean it was a deflection. you are embarrassing yourself here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it’s not a deflection. Trump hates CNN and SNL, but thanks to our laws, they can continue attacking the potus and never saying anything good about him. the ability of cnn and SNL to do what they do, is irrefutable
evidence of the limits in trumps authority. just because i proved that you’re wrong, doesn’t mean it was a deflection. you are embarrassing yourself here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

do you or do you not have thought on Trump influencing yet another criminal investigation? talking about cnn or SNL is a deflection.. so please your embarrassing yourself with your made up proof of your made up event...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

do you or do you not have thought on Trump influencing yet another criminal investigation? talking about cnn or SNL is a deflection.. so please your embarrassing yourself with your made up proof of your made up event...

"talking about cnn or SNL is a deflection"

I brought up CNN and SNL. And if some nut is making the claim that Trump sees no limits to his authority, then pointing to the continued ability of those outlets to attack him, is not only not a deflection, it makes the statement that Trump is a dictator, look like the nonsense that it is.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"talking about cnn or SNL is a deflection"

I brought up CNN and SNL. And if some nut is making the claim that Trump sees no limits to his authority, then pointing to the continued ability of those outlets to attack him, is not only not a deflection, it makes the statement that Trump is a dictator, look like the nonsense that it is.

"So why sweat it?

Because it's wrong — and anti-Constitutional — for a president to threaten to use government to punish protected speech. Period. Even if the president's threats amount to nothing, individuals and companies fear the government's awesome power enough that they might decide poking fun at the president isn't worth the risk: When a president threatens censorship — and that's precisely what Trump is doing — the chances of self-censorship go up. The president is trying to bully a notable critic into silence: NBC and Saturday Night Live can probably take the pressure, but what about an individual or a publication that doesn't have access to the same powerful lawyers and deep pockets?

The First Amendment sometimes feels fragile because it's so often used to defend unpopular speech. Who really wants to be on the side of Larry Flynt or Fred Phelps? The administration went after Jim Acosta a few weeks ago not just because White House officials dislike the CNN correspondent, but because they knew Acosta's occasional grandstanding can make other journalists uncomfortable — the administration wanted to see if it could divide the press corps into journalists more and less deserving of First Amendment protections. That's why Trump targets SNL now: If you're not a fan, maybe you want to shrug and wait for a more noble cause to come along. By then, though, it might be too late. Better to push back now instead of waiting for real damage to be done.

So yes, the president's threat matters. It isn't the worst thing Trump tweeted this weekend: He also called his former lawyer a "rat" for cooperating with the government, and suggested he'd intervene in the case of a Green Beret accused of killing a prisoner suspected of terrorism. Taken together with the SNL threat, the tweets confirmed what we already know about Trump: He's lawless and petty, a narcissist with autocratic tendencies.

Which means, for now, Alec Baldwin's ridiculous Trump wig might as well be a banner for freedom. May it ever fly proud and high."
By Joel Mathis in the The Week

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So yes, the president's threat matters.

Can you please specifically point out what is the threat in this statement?:
"Dec 16, 2018 08:58:54 AM A REAL scandal is the one sided coverage, hour by hour, of networks like NBC & Democrat spin machines like Saturday Night Live. It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in courts, can’t be legal? Only defame & belittle! Collusion? "

It isn't the worst thing Trump tweeted this weekend: He also called his former lawyer a "rat" for cooperating with the government, and suggested he'd intervene in the case of a Green Beret accused of killing a prisoner suspected of terrorism.

Can you please specifically explain what is illegal or unconstitutional about calling Cohen a rat, or of suggesting he would get involved in some unspecified way with the Green Beret case?

Taken together with the SNL threat, the tweets confirmed what we already know about Trump: He's lawless and petty, a narcissist with autocratic tendencies.

Can you please specifically point out what was lawless about his SNL comments and his tweets?

What is so unusual about a President being a narcissist or having autocratic "tendencies"?

Which means, for now, Alec Baldwin's ridiculous Trump wig might as well be a banner for freedom. May it ever fly proud and high."
By Joel Mathis in the The Week

Wearing a ridiculous wig can be a banner for freedom, so can Trump's speaking his mind be an actual practice of it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

"So why sweat it?

Because it's wrong — and anti-Constitutional — for a president to threaten to use government to punish protected speech. Period. Even if the president's threats amount to nothing, individuals and companies fear the government's awesome power enough that they might decide poking fun at the president isn't worth the risk: When a president threatens censorship — and that's precisely what Trump is doing — the chances of self-censorship go up. The president is trying to bully a notable critic into silence: NBC and Saturday Night Live can probably take the pressure, but what about an individual or a publication that doesn't have access to the same powerful lawyers and deep pockets?

The First Amendment sometimes feels fragile because it's so often used to defend unpopular speech. Who really wants to be on the side of Larry Flynt or Fred Phelps? The administration went after Jim Acosta a few weeks ago not just because White House officials dislike the CNN correspondent, but because they knew Acosta's occasional grandstanding can make other journalists uncomfortable — the administration wanted to see if it could divide the press corps into journalists more and less deserving of First Amendment protections. That's why Trump targets SNL now: If you're not a fan, maybe you want to shrug and wait for a more noble cause to come along. By then, though, it might be too late. Better to push back now instead of waiting for real damage to be done.

So yes, the president's threat matters. It isn't the worst thing Trump tweeted this weekend: He also called his former lawyer a "rat" for cooperating with the government, and suggested he'd intervene in the case of a Green Beret accused of killing a prisoner suspected of terrorism. Taken together with the SNL threat, the tweets confirmed what we already know about Trump: He's lawless and petty, a narcissist with autocratic tendencies.

Which means, for now, Alec Baldwin's ridiculous Trump wig might as well be a banner for freedom. May it ever fly proud and high."
By Joel Mathis in the The Week

they went after acosta because he’s constantly combative and disruptive. he’s supposed to ask questions and record the answers, not argue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device