“You, and I mean specifically YOU, the press, you cheer against Trump so hard, it's in your DNA and in your blood to cheer against Trump, because you want him not to be successful so bad, you have to cheer against the efficacy of these strikes. You have to hope maybe they weren't effective."
"Maybe the way the Trump administration is representative isn't true. So let's take half truths, spun information, leaked information, and then spin it, spin it in every way we can to try to cause doubt and manipulate the mind, the public mind, over whether or not our brave pilots were successful."
"How many stories have been written about how hard it is to, I don't know, fly a plane for 36 hours? Has MSNBC done that story? Has Fox? Have we done the story how hard that is?"
"There are so many aspects of what our brave men and women did that because of the hatred of this press corps are undermined because people are trying to leak and spin that it wasn't successful. It's irresponsible."
"You're undermining the success of incredible B-2 pilots and incredible F-35 pilots and incredible refuelers and incredible air defenders who accomplished their mission."
"How about we talk about how special America is, that only we have these capabilities? I think it's too much to ask, unfortunately, for the fake news. So we're used to that."
Alas, that would conflict with the First Amendment. But it might be more to the point, and more effective, to make suits against fraud (false representation) with serious financial punishment. Enough of this and the publisher will get tired (and peeved) at writing checks against the company account.
I also think that the refuge of "unnamed sources" should be burned to the ground. If they are citing "unnamed sources" as leakers of classified or official-use-only information, then they should cough up the identity of the law-breaking leakers or be charged as accomplices to sabotage under the Espionage Act, or seditious propaganda under the sedition statute. Somebody needs to be hung out to dry and it will be either them or their source, they get to pick. If they have no source (flat out lie), too bad for them. The chain of implication should extend up to the publisher, or at least the editor (approve final content of publication).
I've worked in the classified world for 40 years and it totally gets my goat that the administrations have never taken this seriously enough. I hope Trump will do better. But too many opening acts, not enough curtain closures.
“You, and I mean specifically YOU, the press, you cheer against Trump so hard, it's in your DNA and in your blood to cheer against Trump, because you want him not to be successful so bad, you have to cheer against the efficacy of these strikes. You have to hope maybe they weren't effective."
"Maybe the way the Trump administration is representative isn't true. So let's take half truths, spun information, leaked information, and then spin it, spin it in every way we can to try to cause doubt and manipulate the mind, the public mind, over whether or not our brave pilots were successful."
"How many stories have been written about how hard it is to, I don't know, fly a plane for 36 hours? Has MSNBC done that story? Has Fox? Have we done the story how hard that is?"
"There are so many aspects of what our brave men and women did that because of the hatred of this press corps are undermined because people are trying to leak and spin that it wasn't successful. It's irresponsible."
"You're undermining the success of incredible B-2 pilots and incredible F-35 pilots and incredible refuelers and incredible air defenders who accomplished their mission."
"How about we talk about how special America is, that only we have these capabilities? I think it's too much to ask, unfortunately, for the fake news. So we're used to that."
The press doesn’t want to lose their CIA secondary payments.
There has to be all law or US Code that makes it illegal for a coordinated effort to undermine the succes of or country and/or govrtnment.
Alas, that would conflict with the First Amendment. But it might be more to the point, and more effective, to make suits against fraud (false representation) with serious financial punishment. Enough of this and the publisher will get tired (and peeved) at writing checks against the company account.
I also think that the refuge of "unnamed sources" should be burned to the ground. If they are citing "unnamed sources" as leakers of classified or official-use-only information, then they should cough up the identity of the law-breaking leakers or be charged as accomplices to sabotage under the Espionage Act, or seditious propaganda under the sedition statute. Somebody needs to be hung out to dry and it will be either them or their source, they get to pick. If they have no source (flat out lie), too bad for them. The chain of implication should extend up to the publisher, or at least the editor (approve final content of publication).
I've worked in the classified world for 40 years and it totally gets my goat that the administrations have never taken this seriously enough. I hope Trump will do better. But too many opening acts, not enough curtain closures.
I'm really pleased with Hegseth lately.