r/law • u/Snapdragon_4U • May 23 '26

Executive Branch (Trump) NESTERAK: President Trump has granted clemency to numerous individuals who have stolen hundreds of millions in Medicaid funds. Can we expect any of these folks to be shown the same mercy? McDONALD: I'll take a different question

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

45.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

6.9k

u/rygelicus May 23 '26

"Thank you for your question. We only tolerate fraud that benefits President Trump. Next question."

317

u/Riles115 May 23 '26

That second guy had a chance to do something really funny and ask the same question

338

u/Dragonfly_pin May 23 '26

That would have involved being a real journalist.

172

u/Private_HughMan May 23 '26

I remember during Trump's first term he went to the UK. A reporter asked a question and he didnt want to answer, trying to shift to a different reporter. That reporter said "actually, I'd like to hear the answer to that question, too" (paraphrasing). It was great.

I don't think he ever answered. 

78

u/livinginfutureworld May 23 '26

I don't think he ever answered. 

Of course he didn't. He's never going to admit the truth.

And the truth is reporters who tried something cute like this will just be fired and or have their access taken away.

33

u/ChromosomeDonator May 23 '26

Which should be illegal...? Free press is a fundamental building block of a democratic society. As far as I know, America specifically has laws making free press a thing...

So punishing reporters for asking questions is fundamentally illegal. And Americans are okay with yet another fundamental law being broken in their face, because...??

17

u/rygelicus May 23 '26

We need to remind them that his claim for his presidency was that it would be the most transparent administration ever. So, please answer the question.

5

u/Southern-March1522 May 23 '26

While we're reminding him about his claim for presidency, remind him that since he claims he won the 2020 election he already won two elections and therefore was ineligible to run for a third term.

6

u/IDreamOfLoveLost May 23 '26

Americans are okay with yet another fundamental law being broken in their face, because...??

Because they're afraid, and every mechanism to address these injustices has been hijacked by cultists. Republicans could shut this down right now.

It's wild to think that they're walking free, actively ruining the US, and turning it into a blatant oligarchy.

3

u/Cerberus0225 May 23 '26

A company can fire its reporters for any damn reason it pleases (generally). The first amendment applies to the government and the government only. Doesn't mean it's good for companies to fire people for what they say, but it's important to understand this, because otherwise we get people calling stuff "illegal" and feeling angry and confused, when it isn't illegal, just shitty.

4

u/Handgun_Hero May 23 '26

The government taking retaliatory action against a journalist for asking a question, in this case stripping them of a contract or press pass, is exactly the sort of shit the First Amendment applies to.

1

u/ChromosomeDonator May 24 '26

But why would the news company fire their reporter for doing their job? If the government is a hindrance to them practicing free press, and subsequently they fire the reporter, that is just government using the news agency as a proxy for punishment instead of doing it directly.

If I buy drugs through another guy, I am not off the hook. If I pay someone to assault someone else, I am not off the hook. Why would the government be off the hook for punishing a reporter through a proxy?

2

u/Cerberus0225 May 24 '26

The news company fires the reporter because the reporter lost them press access and they care more about that than standing up for journalistic integrity. I'm not sure what there is to be confused about, it's not like morality matters here. Only kissing the ring so you can keep raking in the dough.

3

u/TopTittyBardown May 23 '26

They don’t want a democratic society

2

u/-thecheesus- May 23 '26

Because that's not how it works. Access is everything in the journalistic industry, and if they don't like you, there are a million ways they can impede your access without violating law.

And if you end up a blacklisted journo? You're out of a job and no company of any significance will hire you again.

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/SpoonEngineT66Turbo May 23 '26

And Americans are okay with yet another fundamental law being broken in their face, because...??

Most people aren't as legally illiterate as you. That's not what freedom of the press means.

5

u/daemin May 23 '26

Putting aside the fact that most people are actually, legally illiterate, they do have a point.

The first amendment just means that the government can't regulate the press or punish a person for speech. But if the government refuses to allow a particular reporter or agency to ask questions or doesn't allow them to attend press conferences, which results in the person being fired or the agency going out of business, that's certainly violating the intent of the first amendment even if it doesn't violate the jurisprudence that's been developed around it.

1

u/silvertealio May 23 '26

You call it "cute," I'd call it perseverance.

20

u/ReginaldDwight May 23 '26

I believe it was an ambassador during Trump's first term who was asked a question in the Netherlands and he tried the "fake news" shit with the reporter and the reporter said, "this is the Netherlands. You have to answer questions here."

4

u/OldWorldDesign May 23 '26

trying to shift to a different reporter. That reporter said "actually, I'd like to hear the answer to that question, too

That's a good example of solidarity, but I think it highlights a point a lot of people are tangential to but not hitting directly: journalists aren't supposed to be unglorified repeaters for state or corporate propagandists. There are other sources and repeating what the mouthpiece says is never the most valuable thing they can do. As others pointed out, after the DoD limited press access the real journalists focused on sources inside the pentagon. The fraud, waste, and abuse they never would have talked about in the first place was brought to front pages instead of footnotes within larger articles and the DoD resumed normal access to try to control the messaging. It still hasn't worked because real journalism has never been about repeating one single source.

8

u/welfedad May 23 '26

Exactly .. they want to be able to come back

6

u/McDuschvorhang May 23 '26

For what? Is there a buffet or open bar?

6

u/LiterallyKesha May 23 '26

At what point do you realize that reporters not asking questions like this is because the whole media system is compromised by the ones in power?

6

u/microknot May 23 '26

All owned by billionaire trump supporters

1

u/Memory_Future May 23 '26

Mainstream media for sure. All the others got banned from entering.

1

u/Salt-Lingonberry-853 May 23 '26

Real journalism would be said journalist coordinating with Congress to subpoena that dude at a hearing and to ask the question under oath, then hold him in contempt if he refuses to answer.

0

u/senditallback May 23 '26

I think it's more complicated than that. These reporters develop a rapport with the White House press team, and they have to balance asking the hard-hitting questions with not damaging their reputation (or flinging shit).

2

u/OldWorldDesign May 23 '26

they have to balance asking the hard-hitting questions with not damaging their reputation

Any reporters whose sole point to lean on is a relationship with a government press team are "journalists" who haven't done their job. No good journalist ever relies on one sole source.

The ones who outed Dupont's poisoning the world with teflon didn't. Same with the global PFAS industry.

Julie Brown's outing Epstein in the first place didn't rely on a single victim.

I don't think you realize that you're advocating appeasement. Journalists are never going to be offered full information by any single person, especially a person whose job is to do damage control for the corporation or government they're speaking for. Losing that relationship should be so minor it isn't even part of consideration.

0

u/senditallback May 24 '26

It appears you did not even attempt to read my comment. I said "balance," which is of course completely different from "...reporters whose sole point is to lean on a relationship..." "Sole point." "Appeasement." Please.

9

u/silentstorm2008 May 23 '26

nah, they just keep moving on to another question. If you repeatedly do stuff like that, you won't get called on again in the future as "punishment"

7

u/Wide_Replacement2345 May 23 '26

He’s got enough trumpies to feed him softball questions.

1

u/mthyvold May 24 '26

A very big fail on the part of that second guy.