Trump's White House "Looked into" the gutting of the First Amendment.

[Rev. Rye]

I understand this may seem like I'm exaggerating, but here's a video of Jonathan Karl interviewing Trump's Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, and start at 12:40 at this video, Priebus says something disturbing (yeah, I know, how shocking that the Trump team says something disturbing):





Transcription of the relevant section:

KARL: So I want to move on, before you go, we have a segment coming up with Ann Coulter and Robert Reich. Of course, there's a big controversy at Berkeley over freedom of speech. I want to ask you about two things the president has said on related issues. First of all, there was what he said about opening up the libel laws, Tweeting, "The failing "New York Times" has disgraced the media world, gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change the libel laws." That would require, as I understand it, a constitutional amendment. Is he really going to pursue that? Is that something he wants to pursue?
PRIEBUS: I think it's something that we've looked at and how that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story. But when you have articles out there that have no basis or fact and we're sitting here on 24-7 cable companies writing stories about constant contacts with Russia and all these other matters that (INAUDIBLE)...
KARL: Do you think the president should be...
PRIEBUS: -- no basis at all...
KARL: -- to sue "The New York Times."..
PRIEBUS: I think that...
KARL: -- for stories he doesn't like?
PRIEBUS: Here's what I think. I think that newspapers and news agencies need to be more responsible with how they report the news. I am so tired...
KARL: I don't think anybody would disagree with that. It's about...
PRIEBUS: But everyone...
KARL: -- whether or not the president should have a right to sue them.
PRIEBUS: And I already answered the question. I said this is something that is being looked at. But it's something that as far as how it gets executed, where we go with it, that's another issue.

Any thoughts?

[Chad32]

He did talk about doing this before. Sure it's wrong, but he either doesn't care, or is too stupid to know you shouldn't restrict free speech. As long as people aren't making direct threats of violence, or encouraging others to do so, they should be able to say what they want.

[vorlon13]

WoW !!!


More concordance with the SJW and center/left Dems !!!



Absolute hurricane of bipartisan COMITY !!!


yea TEAM USA !!!!

[Whateverist]

I hated the hissy fit thrown by students at Berkeley about Ann Coulter's talk - and that of other controversial speakers. These -whatever they are- need to grow a skin and get over the fact that some speakers have things to say they disagree with. Maybe as a species we just aren't and never will be as bright as we'd like us to be?

[Tiberius]

Any constitutional amendment would require 2/3 "yea" votes in both the house and the senate, and that isn't a quorum requirement that can be changed except by another constitutional amendment.

So I'd put the chances of Trump being able to pass such an amendment at 0%.

[Rev. Rye]

Any constitutional amendment would require 2/3 "yea" votes in both the house and the senate, and that isn't a quorum requirement that can be changed except by another constitutional amendment.

So I'd put the chances of Trump being able to pass such an amendment at 0%.

I reckon so, but it's still fucking terrifying that someone this high up in the White House hierarchy would admit he was working on something this reprehensible this openly, even if there was little chance of it working.

[vorlon13]

I note Hustler v. Falwell was decided 8-0.

[Tiberius]

I note Hustler v. Falwell was decided 8-0.

Yeah but the supreme court can be overruled by a constitutional amendment.

[Thumpalumpacus]

WoW !!!

More concordance with the SJW and center/left Dems !!!

Absolute hurricane of bipartisan COMITY !!!

yea TEAM USA !!!!

The point ...
























































... you.

[Jackalope]

I note Hustler v. Falwell was decided 8-0.

Yeah but the supreme court can be overruled by a constitutional amendment.

Correct, but as you yourself mentioned - the chances of getting that sort of amendment through the process is zero, particularly in the extremely divisive environment of today's politics. Hell, *anything* controversial in the slightest ain't happening.

The only other option would be a Constitutional Convention, and I think nobody wants to see that happen.

P.S. Congratulations, Tibs - a lot of Americans don't know those details of checks and balances. You been studying for the citizenship exam?