Politico

The Media’s Trump Outrage Has a Memory Problem

Published by Papa Giorgio

Government-media confrontations are not unique to the Trump era. The Obama administration’s Justice Department aggressively pursued journalists and their sources, including the seizure of AP phone records and the investigation of Fox News reporter James Rosen. The Trump administration is now engaged in a different kind of confrontation, restricting certain outlets’ White House workspace while arguing that they remain free to report and that the restrictions are justified by concerns over reporting practices and, according to administration officials, national security.

Whether the current restrictions are legally justified is a separate question from whether similar conflicts occurred under previous administrations. The historical record shows that the relationship between the White House, the DOJ and the press has been contentious under administrations of both parties.

The Obama-Era Press Battles—and the Current White House Fight

The controversy over the Obama administration and the press was not limited to rhetoric. During the Obama years, the Department of Justice pursued an aggressive series of leak investigations involving journalists, their sources, and major news organizations. At the same time, the current Trump administration is facing its own controversy over restricting certain news organizations’ access to the White House. The two situations are not identical, but the history is relevant when evaluating claims that government-media confrontations are uniquely a feature of one administration or political party.

The Obama-era record

In 2013, it became public that the Department of Justice had secretly obtained two months of telephone records involving the Associated Press, including records from 20 AP office lines as well as reporters’ home and cellphone numbers. The investigation concerned an AP story about a foiled al-Qaida terrorist plot in Yemen. The AP strongly objected to the seizure, arguing that it could compromise confidential sources and interfere with the organization’s newsgathering.

One important clarification is necessary: the DOJ obtained telephone records; it did not wiretap the AP reporters’ phones or listen to the contents of their calls. That distinction matters, even though the records seizure itself generated significant press-freedom concerns.

The DOJ’s actions also extended to Fox News reporter James Rosen. Investigators obtained his phone records, tracked his movements through State Department security-badge records, and obtained a warrant for his personal emails while investigating a classified-information leak. An FBI affidavit characterized Rosen as a possible criminal “co-conspirator” under the Espionage Act, although Rosen himself was never charged under the Espionage Act. The episode became one of the most controversial examples of the Obama DOJ’s treatment of journalists and their sources.

The Fox investigation also involved obtaining records associated with multiple Fox News telephone numbers, including a number reportedly connected to Rosen’s parents. Again, however, the government’s action involved obtaining telephone records, not wiretapping the phones. The U.S. Attorney’s Office denied that it had wiretapped reporters or news organizations or tracked the parents’ calls.

The broader issue went beyond the AP and Fox cases. The Obama administration made extensive use of the 1917 Espionage Act in leak cases involving government employees who provided information to journalists. The Freedom of the Press Foundation identifies eight people charged under the Espionage Act in connection with leaks to the media during the Obama administration, including Thomas Drake, Chelsea Manning, Jeffrey Sterling, John Kiriakou and Edward Snowden.

The Associated Press later reported on a Committee to Protect Journalists study that concluded the Obama administration’s aggressive prosecution of sources and seizure of journalists’ records had created a “chilling effect” on journalism. Reporters and editors interviewed for the study said potential government sources had become more reluctant to communicate with journalists. The Obama administration disputed the broader characterization and pointed to its own transparency and whistleblower initiatives.

An AP fact-check published during the Trump era also noted that Obama’s criticism of Trump’s treatment of the press overlooked some of the aggressive actions taken by his own Justice Department, including the AP records seizure and the investigation of Rosen.

What is happening with the Trump administration?

The current controversy is different in an important way.

The Trump administration has restricted CNN, MS NOW and Politico’s access to workspace inside the White House, while maintaining that these organizations remain free to report on the administration from outside that workspace. Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized this distinction:

“They can cover the White House — they just can’t have a desk there.” 

The administration’s stated rationale has several components.

Trump has accused the affected organizations of publishing what he describes as false or misleading reporting and has characterized the broader legacy-media environment as biased. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, while saying he did not know enough about the specific decision to comment on it directly, argued that the media’s coverage of the administration was badly out of balance and that Americans deserve better reporting.

Administration officials have also raised national-security concerns. In discussing the policy with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, Ambassador Mike Waltz pointed specifically to reporting based on anonymous sources concerning ammunition levels, military vulnerabilities and deployment orders during an ongoing conflict. Waltz argued that disclosure of genuinely classified operational information could constitute a national-security threat.

That is an important part of the administration’s argument—but it is also important to distinguish the administration’s stated justification from the factual and legal dispute surrounding the policy. Critics argue that restricting particular organizations because of their reporting raises serious First Amendment and viewpoint-discrimination concerns. The affected organizations have sued the administration, describing the restrictions as an unconstitutional assault on press freedom.

The important distinction

This is where the Obama-era history becomes relevant—but not because the two situations are the same.

The Obama-era AP and Fox cases involved government investigations, obtaining journalists’ phone records and emails, tracking a reporter’s movements, and aggressive leak prosecutions. The present Trump controversy concerns access and workspace inside the White House for particular news organizations.

Those are materially different government actions.

At the same time, the historical record demonstrates that serious government-media conflicts did not begin with Trump. The Obama administration’s DOJ took actions against journalists and their sources that generated substantial criticism from press organizations and press-freedom advocates. The current Trump administration, meanwhile, is defending restrictions on particular outlets by arguing that White House workspace is not an inherent entitlement, that the outlets remain free to report, and that some of their reporting has raised concerns about accuracy, sourcing and national security.

AS A REMINDER OF JUST CNN HOAXES:

RUSSIA / 2016 ELECTION

  • Trump-Russia “Collusion” Narrative
  • Steele Dossier / “Pee Tape”
  • Alfa Bank Server
  • Trump Campaign–Russia Back Channel
  • Michael Cohen–Prague
  • WikiLeaks Email “Breaking News” Error
  • “Trump Was a Russian Asset”

2020 ELECTION / BIDEN

  • Hunter Biden Laptop = Russian Disinformation
  • 51 Intelligence Officials
  • Laptop Censorship / “Russian Influence” Narrative

TRUMP / RACE

  • Very Fine People
  • Covington Catholic
  • Rittenhouse
  • Jussie Smollett
  • Hands Up, Don’t Shoot
  • NASCAR Noose
  • Border Patrol “Whipping” Story
  • Georgia “Jim Crow 2.0”

TRUMP / JANUARY 6

  • Arlington Cemetery
  • “Mostly Peaceful” January 6
  • Trump/Secret Service “Beast” Story
  • Trump “Execute Liz Cheney” Claim

COVID

  • Lab-Leak Theory
  • “Lab Leak Is Racist”
  • Trump/Bleach
  • COVID Death-Count Reporting

CURRENT / SECOND TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

  • Tariffs
  • Gaza Baby/Starvation Reporting
  • Gaza Food-Distribution Claims
  • Hamas Hospital Reporting
  • Trump “Destroying the White House”
  • Trump “All-White Party”
  • Etc.

FOOTNOTE 565

Published by Papa Giorgio

FOOTNOTE 565

And HUGH HEWITT notes footnote 565 from Trump’s legal team’s legal briefing as evidence for Trump’s concern with Ukrainian interference with our 2016 election:

Video Description:

Hugh Hewitt reads footnote 565 from Trump’s legal team’s brief (PDF can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/rjh9dst). Hewitt then brings it up with Byron York when he was on to discuss his article: “As Trial Begins, the White House Strikes Back” (https://tinyurl.com/utv35mm). As an aside, here is the full extent of Russian interference with the 2016 election, and why (rightly or wrongly) Mueller indicted 13 Russians:

  • President Donald Trump rejects the narrative that Russia wanted him to win. USA Today examined each of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by the Russian-based Internet Research Agency, the company that employed 12 of the 13 Russians indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for interfering with the 2016 election. It turns out only about 100 of its ads explicitly endorsed Trump or opposed Hillary Clinton. Most of the fake ads focused on racial division, with many of the ads attempting to exploit what Russia perceives, or wants America to perceive, as severe racial tension between blacks and whites…. (must read the entire article at LARRY ELDER’s SITE | see my post as well: FIONA HILL’S FALSE DILEMMA)

(Click To Enlarge)

(Text with Links)

President Trump also raised concerns about corruption. He first raised these concerns in connection with reports of Ukrainian actions in the 2016 presidential election. Numerous media outlets have reported that Ukrainian officials took steps to influence and interfere in the 2016 election to undermine then-candidate Trump, and three Senate committee chairmen are currently investigating this interference.565

565 See, e.g., Sharyl Attkisson, Timeline of Alleged Ukrainian-Democrat Meddling in 2016 Presidential Election, Epoch Times (Nov. 27, 2019); Andrew E. Kramer, Ukraine Court Rules Manafort Disclosure Caused Meddling’ in U.S. Election, N.Y. Times (Dec. 12, 2018); Kenneth P. Vogel & David Stem, Ukrainian Efforts to Sabotage Trump Backfire, Politico (Jan. 11, 2017); Roman Olearchyk, Ukraine’s Leaders Campaign Against ‘Pro-Putin ‘ Trump, Financial Times (Aug. 28, 2016), [Editor’s Note: the FT article is behind a paywall… see STONE COLD TRUTH to see article]; Press Release, Senators Seek Interviews on Reported Coordination Between Ukrainian Officials, DNC Consultant to Aid Clinton in 2016 Elections (Dec. 6, 2019).

ARTEM SYTNYK

This alongside this audio where you can hear former Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (put in place by Obama/Hillary State Department), Artem Sytnyk, admitting that he “helped” Hillary during the 2016 U.S. presidential election (see more at WAYNE DUPREE) — is devastating to the House Managers case!

Trump’s Legal Team, Day One (PLUS: Footnote 565)

Published by Papa Giorgio

What follows are some strong arguments (I think) against the Democrats case against Donald J. Trump’s impeachment. However, FIRST and FOREMOST, here is the Trump Legal Team’s first day in the Senate defending Trump and responding to the House Managers for impeachment of a sitting President:

PJ-MEDIA has a must read for those interested, they explain each one succinctly… which I merely:

10. Ambassador Volker testified there was no effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens
9. Ambassador Taylor testified there was ‘no linkage’ between military aid and investigations
8. Ambassador Taylor testified Ukraine was unaware the lethal aid was being withheld
7. Ambassador Sondland testified Trump didn’t want anything from Ukraine, no quid pro quo
6. Ambassador Sondland testified he had no evidence of a quid pro quo other than his ‘own presumption’
5. Lt. Col. Vindman admitted Hunter Biden wasn’t qualified to be on Burisma’s board
4. Lt. Col. Vindman and Jennifer Williams both agreed Hunter’s position at Burisma had the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest
3. Ambassador Taylor basically admitted Hunter Biden’s position at Burisma ‘raises questions’
2. Marie Yovanovitch confirmed that there was concern in the Obama State Department about Hunter Biden’s conflict of interest at Burisma
1. George Kent said there were legit concerns about Hunter Biden, and Burisma should be investigated

ARI MELBER

RIGHT SCOOP sets this clip with the followin: “This is pretty great. Ari Melber actually told the MSNBC panel and their audience that the Democrats did not prove their case that Trump committed obstruction of Congress, and everyone flipped out.” By “flipped out,” they mean Lefties responses to this commentary, which you should see on RS’s site:

JOHN BARRASSO

This, however, was great… via GATEWAY PUNDIT who said “Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura opened the White House defense of President Donald Trump with video of Adam Schiff’s fake call and transcript he read during the House impeachment proceedings. Mike Purpura played the video immediately after taking the podium on Saturday. And there Schiff was lying his face off for the whole world to see….”

PATRICK PHILBIN

LEGAL INSURRECTION discusses the first day of the Trump teams response to the House managers. In this first day they challenged the credibility of Schiff, which the above commentary shows as well. LI says this: “It seemed that almost every time I turned on the TV, he was talking and talking and talking. Schiff is the person most behind the impeachment push and the biased House proceedings. We all know that. But the Republican trial team, particularly Patrick Philbin, skewered Schiff today with Schiff’s own prior lies and deceptions. Philbin addressed Schiff’s prior claim to have knowledge of evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia, evidence that not even Mueller found, showing Schiff’s opinion’s and claims to have evidence to be unreliable…”

JONATHAN TURLEY

Professor Jonathan Turley notes WELL a major misstep by the House Managers accusing the Senate (among others) of a cover-up… bombastic presentations in the House may be the norm. But not in the Senate:

FOOTNOTE 565

And HUGH HEWITT notes footnote 565 from Trump’s legal team’s legal briefing as evidence for Trump’s concern with Ukrainian interference with our 2016 election:

Video Description:

Hugh Hewitt reads footnote 565 from Trump’s legal team’s brief (PDF can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/rjh9dst). Hewitt then brings it up with Byron York when he was on to discuss his article: “As Trial Begins, the White House Strikes Back” (https://tinyurl.com/utv35mm). As an aside, here is the full extent of Russian interference with the 2016 election, and why (rightly or wrongly) Mueller indicted 13 Russians:

  • President Donald Trump rejects the narrative that Russia wanted him to win. USA Today examined each of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by the Russian-based Internet Research Agency, the company that employed 12 of the 13 Russians indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for interfering with the 2016 election. It turns out only about 100 of its ads explicitly endorsed Trump or opposed Hillary Clinton. Most of the fake ads focused on racial division, with many of the ads attempting to exploit what Russia perceives, or wants America to perceive, as severe racial tension between blacks and whites…. (must read the entire article at LARRY ELDER’s SITE | see my post as well: FIONA HILL’S FALSE DILEMMA)

(Click To Enlarge)

(Text with Links)

President Trump also raised concerns about corruption. He first raised these concerns in connection with reports of Ukrainian actions in the 2016 presidential election. Numerous media outlets have reported that Ukrainian officials took steps to influence and interfere in the 2016 election to undermine then-candidate Trump, and three Senate committee chairmen are currently investigating this interference.565

565 See, e.g., Sharyl Attkisson, Timeline of Alleged Ukrainian-Democrat Meddling in 2016 Presidential Election, Epoch Times (Nov. 27, 2019); Andrew E. Kramer, Ukraine Court Rules Manafort Disclosure Caused Meddling’ in U.S. Election, N.Y. Times (Dec. 12, 2018); Kenneth P. Vogel & David Stem, Ukrainian Efforts to Sabotage Trump Backfire, Politico (Jan. 11, 2017); Roman Olearchyk, Ukraine’s Leaders Campaign Against ‘Pro-Putin ‘ Trump, Financial Times (Aug. 28, 2016), [Editor’s Note: the FT article is behind a paywall… see STONE COLD TRUTH to see article]; Press Release, Senators Seek Interviews on Reported Coordination Between Ukrainian Officials, DNC Consultant to Aid Clinton in 2016 Elections (Dec. 6, 2019).

ARTEM SYTNYK

This alongside this audio where you can hear former Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (put in place by Obama/Hillary State Department), Artem Sytnyk, admitting that he “helped” Hillary during the 2016 U.S. presidential election (see more at WAYNE DUPREE) — is devastating to the House Managers case!

Behind The Crazy Headlines Trump Is Winning!

Published by Papa Giorgio

We’re back to the media cycle of a Trump

“bombshell” every 2-3 days to create a permanent

crisis news effect. But it’s all noise.

– L E G A L  I N S U R R E C T I O N –

All the fervor of hatred — really just people emoting on Trumps personality and how they don’t like it — is helping the conservative agenda win, in bigger leaps and bounds since Reagan. Keep it up Dems, you are helping us! Everyone will be talking about Steve Bannon. Good.

Rush Limbaugh reads some points made in this article by a left leaning columnist at Politico, warning his compatriots that the MSM and comedy shows railing on Trump’s buttons, hair, and other Tweets and misspoken points… much is being passed. Here is the article headline and link:

  • 55 Ways Donald Trump Structurally Changed America in 2017: These are the concrete actions his administration has taken to alter how the country works. (NEW YORK MAGAZINE)
  • 138 Things Trump Did This Year While You Weren’t Looking: Behind the crazy headlines, more conservative priorities got pushed through than most people realize. An exhaustive list of what really happened to the government in 2017. (POLITICO)

Unanimity: `Media Leans Left,` Journalists from the NYT’s, NBC News, and CNN Agree

Published by Papa Giorgio

NewsBusters reports on unanimity of viewpoint that the unanimity of viewpoints are liberal:

“Top journalists from The New York Times, NBC News and CNN acknowledged Wednesday that, generally speaking, the national media has a liberal bias,” Politico’s media reporter Dylan Byers noted in a December 18 post recapping a Politico Playbook breakfast discussion held earlier on Wednesday morning.

More than one panelist opined that it’s not just that journalists tend to be liberal on policy questions but that they live and work in environments which are socially liberal. “I live in northwest Washington, none of my neighbors are evangelical Christians [and] I don’t know a lot of people in my kid’s preschool who are pro-life,” New York Times writer Mark Leibovich noted. Fellow Washington, D.C.-based journalist Jake Tapper picked up on that thread:

A certain type of person becomes a reporter, and generally speaking… the kind of person who is a reporter in Washington, D.C., or New York City has never worked a minimum-wage job outside of high-school… has never experienced poverty, is not an evangelical Christian, like much of the country is.

There are a lot of experiences that the kinds of people who are reporters, editors, producers, etc., in Washington, D.C., and New York City have not had.

…read more…

Politico Co-Founder: Most Journalists I’ve Known Are Democrats

Published by Papa Giorgio

Via NewsBusters:

In one of the more honest admissions of the obvious, Politico co-founder Jim VandeHei has admitted that the majority of the journalists that he’s known in his career at a variety of publications “vote Democratic.”

“If I had to guess, if you put all of the reporters that I’ve ever worked with on truth serum, most of them vote Democratic,” VandeHei said during the March 13th edition of C-SPAN’s “Road to the White House” program. Video follows.