JoyV wrote:
A president who jail reporters, tap the phones of journalists and their employers, subpoena their emails, send threats of prison to news outlets; is definitely in violation of the 1st amendment. No I'm not referring to Trump but to Obama. Nor was his attacks just aimed at Fox News. He also repeatedly attacked AP and NYT.
Trying to change a law through legal means, whether you agree with it or not, or whether the law itself is in violation; is NOT violating the 1st amendment. It is a legal recourse.
You might see a great similarity between Trump and Nixon, but I assure you those of us closely following Watergate at the time don't see it. Even in the most basic characteristics. Nixon was secretive. Trump is outspoken. Now if you say there is a similarity to Teddy Roosevelt, I'd strongly concur. Blustering, outspoken, politically incorrect, outwardly crude, America first, generous and quick to help others on a personal level, he unabashedly pounded his policies and theories into his fellow countrymen, a good negotiator, his Big Stick policy of diplomacy backed by military might.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/05/20/shredding-the-constitution-obamas-attack-on-the-associated-press/?utm_term=.58f5b8616c4fA president who jail reporters, tap the phones of ... (
show quote)
The cases of which you speak, 7 in total, comes down to 2 that were NOT whistle blowers but merely individuals leaking classified information NOT related to any wrong doing, 2 carry overs from the previous bush administration which leave just 3 initiated during Obama's term that may have qualified as whistle blowing. There is also a difference between tapping a phone line and subpoenaing a phone's toll log, something that merely shows calls going in and/or out to/from what numbers the duration of the calls. Tapping a line let's you hear/record the conversation, toll logs don't. My research has yet to make clear what the extent of the last 3 cases were about or the final outcome of those investigations/court decisions were.
As for "Trying to change a law through legal means, whether you agree with it or not, or whether the law itself is in violation; is NOT violating the 1st amendment. It is a legal recourse.". it IS legal to alter/modify a law if one feels it needs altering/modifying, yes, just not ethical to do so for the reasons Trump had in mind, to make it easier to sue for libel when media reports the truth about him. As it sits, he can't sue successfully for libel if what they report is the truth, that has never sat well with him. He wants to be able to successfully sue whether or not what was said was the truth, to discourage negative coverage. Something that I believe Nixon considered as well.
As for the similarities between Trump and Nixon, sure, the specifics are quite different, but otherwise many similarities, including what he thought of the media. There are differences of course, the fact that Trump is the one attacking the media and not Pence, as Nixon had Agnew speak out against the press all the while playing the "victim of the press" role himself. Nixon cried about his own "witch hunt" just as Trump is crying about his proclaimed "witch hunt", both have done their best to obstruct justice. How can you NOT see the similarities? That previous question is rhetorical, no need for you to answer, I know the answer already.
Yes, on several occasions Trump has openly done things of questionable legality, but just as often he has attempted to hide his corrupt actions. Whether he does something out in the open or behind closed doors is irrelevant, the action alone is relevant. As he stated during his campaign and it is becoming painfully obvious since "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.". He was right, he could openly break the law and he won't lose his supporters. If he were to set out to prove what he said on the campaign trail and actually pick a random target in the middle of 5th Ave., that would be legal because he did it openly?
I do see some similarities between Trump and Roosevelt too. Blustering, yes, outspoken, yes, politically incorrect, definitely, outwardly crude, without a doubt, America first, obviously, "generous and quick to help others on a personal level", Roosevelt, yes, Trump, not so much. Most of Trump's policies are anti-individual but very much pro-corporate. I also wouldn't consider Trump a very good negotiator, I haven't seen him doing a very good job negotiating. Negotiations are about give and take, you try to give as little as possible while gaining as much as possible, but that only really works if you are open to some amount of compromise if needed. Trump tends to be fairly inflexible in negotiations, though he does seem more willing to give when dealing with hostile nations than when dealing domestically. The rest of the similarities you see between Roosevelt and Trump I see too.