May 14, 2017

Press briefings are moralistic tribunal against Trump movement, end them

Trump should 100% go with his musing about canceling the daily press briefings.

They never yield anything newsworthy, but then again that's not the point of them. Everyone in that room understands that they aren't going to tease out an answer that the White House does not wish to already give, which can be done through talking points or read-outs.

The actual role of these "briefings" is what comes after the briefing -- the tribunal held by the assembled inquisitors sent by the media monopoly, forming a sort of shadow judiciary. The "reporters" act as lawyer-judges demanding to know the answers to a line of questioning -- not just disconnected questions, but a line or thread of questions that is "going somewhere" across the episode.

The over-arching theme of questioning is, "Has the defendant broken a norm of some kind?" Of course the norms under question are those upheld by the liberal elites from the corporate globalist Establishment. Not what ordinary Americans give a damn about.

They don't have to be violations of the US criminal code. Often the question is simply "Does it concern the White House that...?" -- meaning, we are concerned that you did something wrong, and are charging you here and now for that. But do you yourselves see that you have done something wrong, and are you sorry for committing that offense? It could help us toward administering a softer punishment during sentencing.

The defense attorney -- the Press Secretary -- is allowed some rights to refuse on certain limited grounds, but generally they will be held in contempt or otherwise punished if they do not give answers satisfactory to the inquisitors. The defendant (the President / White House / other government body) is never seen or heard from, angering the tribunal for having to always go through the defendant's lawyer, but enhancing their perceived authority for being able to try the defendant in absentia.

After the defense's case is given, the inquisitors write up their findings and deliver their decisions via their media channels to the audience seated on the other side of the bar, in the gallery. The end consumers of the news are not a jury because they don't get to provide their input to the process and affect the outcome. They're just spectators.

When the White House was on the same wavelength with the norms upheld by the globalist elite media, the inquisitors got along well with the defense attorney. They found few or no violations, and mostly sat in rapt attention to hear how wonderfully the defendant was adhering to the norms of the globalist elite. This circle-jerk is mind-numbingly boring to normal Americans, so it was relegated to C-SPAN.

Now that the President's goals are running mostly contrary to the globalist elite's norms, the inquisitors have turned the spectacle into a daily witch hunt, which gets much better ratings. Normal Americans hate the press' values and will gladly tune in to see the Press Secretary stand up to, ridicule, and humiliate these self-styled arbiters of all that is just and moral.

For that, though, Trump would need more of an attack dog than Sean Spicer, who usually comes off as a substitute teacher who bluffs about discipline but is openly more concerned with being accepted by the students, who he relates to as his own peers, and then gets eaten alive day after day because the students reject him as one of their own.

This kangaroo court atmosphere leads to the briefings being carried on the major networks, not just C-SPAN, but that means the media monopoly makes a fortune from orchestrating a daily witch hunt against the Trump movement.

The President, his administration, and his supporters are under no obligation to comply with the ridiculous demands of the media tribunal. They have no jurisdiction, and are just wannabe judges. It's time to cancel them altogether and prove that the Fourth Estate has no real power.

What are they going to do in retaliation -- give us bad press?! They've been doing that round the clock for two years now, and haven't put a dent in the movement. If bad press had any influence, it would have derailed us when we were weak and vulnerable -- before or during the primaries. And yet, we won one election after another. And now that we da White House now, they are even weaker in comparison, and hold even less leverage.

Tell them to go screw off, starve them of access, and only hand out bullet points and read-outs. They aren't the arbiters of jack shit, and we will let them know what's up on our own terms.


  1. It is gospel truth that the mainstream media hates Donald Trump's guts. He should not waste another minute trying to accommodate them.

    That is why they raked him over the coals when he made remarks about certain lewd acts, and totally looked the other way when their golden children, namely Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy, actually committed lewd acts.

    Trump should make it known that he will not accommodate the MSM until they act like adults.

  2. 100% agree.

    Lotta good stuff here from Roger Stone, including Trump using "establishment" figure Henry Kissinger to do his will. As far as I, me, and personally aware, Roger Stone is the first person to elaborate on Kissinger as more than a "huh, what about that, okay next" moment.

  3. Cable news is on the way out anyway, it's time to stop propping it up.

  4. This creature may be who Ag had in mind when he wrote his post:

    The contempt is borne of her ugliness married to a class that was supposed to afford her more privileges. But that ugly....

  5. "Low neuroticism to the point of bad hygiene"

    Not so much neurotic, which would imply defiance, which is not the case. More too abstract-oriented/"open to new experiences", don't pay enough attention, like to spend lots of time planning and daydreaming. Flouting social norms by accident rather than on purpose.

    Neuroticism is more a masculine/feminine thing, rather than conservative/liberal - and even then, liberals would probably be higher in neuroticism on average - which is why, relative to conservatives, they're less object-oriented and more likely to avoid technical work.

  6. Remember, when explaining abstract-oriented personalities, Agnostic made a distinction between a badboy rebel, who violates the rules intentionally and strategically; vs. an abstract-oriented daydreamer who violates the rules by accident because they're not paying enough attention.

  7. Ag, everyone, what are you thinking about the big news tonight? Trembling, though trying to tell self to wait and see though everything has been pointing in this direction: Seth Rich murdered for being a DNC leaker to Wikileaks.

    The local in DC says they have a follow-up tomorrow, in mean time, will be keeping an eye on Assange.

    P.S. missed the contretemps tonight, but wha...???

    What's going on in DC? Murder and hysteria it seems. Evil afoot...

  8. Trump knows it was Seth Rich who leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks and got murdered for it.

    That's why he has always been insistent on getting to the bottom of who really "hacked" the DNC's emails (leaked). He always says, Why didn't the DNC allow the FBI to inspect their servers? Why didn't the FBI insist on inspecting the DNC servers?

    Translation: the Democrats know that Russia did not hack their servers, and that the evidence will not just show otherwise -- it will show in a way damning to the Dems. I.e. an internal leak, not an external hack.

    Trump keeps saying he wants the investigation to play out fairly, and by the end, the whole Trump/Russia thing will be taken off the table by the final results. I.e. he doesn't have to prove it wasn't him or Russia -- the evidence will show it was definitively someone else.

    In his interview with Judge Jeanine, he added a phrase that he usually doesn't, when discussing who else might have hacked the servers. Normally he says, Sure it *could* have been Russia, but it could have also been China or North Korea or a 400-pound bed-ridden hacker. Mostly focusing on other nations or their intel agencies.

    In the interview, about having the investigation done properly rather than swiftly: "I don't want to be in a position where something took place having to do with Russia, or any other country, or any other *person* -- who knows? ..."

    He emphasized that it could be a person rather than a nation or agency or other collective entity.

    If he really thought it could be some random hacker, he wouldn't insist so much on letting the investigation play out. He would have to know specifically which "400-pound hacker" it was, and then rest assured that eventually the trail would lead to that hacker.

    He must have a definite person in mind, that lets him rest assured that that's the source of the DNC email hack/leak. The only person who fits the profile there is Seth Rich.

    He's probably emphasizing that it's not a collective entity right now because he got news that the Seth Rich family / PI are going public soon, and since Comey is gone, some actual progress can be made on that front.

    1. Sorry, Ag, I somehow missed this comment. Feel sheepish now... :/

      One never assumes, but I wrote what I did about the British CIA critics and friends/associates of Assange/wikileaks and their role with Seth Rich mainly for us; I expect everything is already known to the people who matter and are releasing it. I've asked myself often if Cernovich, mentioning Seth Rich now and then, was being a manipulative hack or just a confident man who *knows* he's got the answers and is reveling in that he can reveal the truth on his timetable. My intuition pointed to the latter. That coupled with finding Craig Murray and his account last December of personally receiving the hand-off of the DNC emails completely convincing. I read about him, followed him on twitter, and he's no quack.
      I remember being so frustrated that hardly anyone listened to him. Call him a quack and ignore him if you must, but the media it seems couldn't so they just pretended he didn't exist: If a tree falls down in the forest and nobody is there...

  9. Wikileaks in for a retweet of the story...
    Seth Rich leak alone?
    Who killed him?

  10. *Julian Assange has been a broken record saying Russians weren't involved in leaks

    *Julian Assange put out a reward for Seth Rich info, highlighted Podesta comment about making example of leakers. Lighting up neon arrows for people.

    *Based Embassy Man has never lied or misled us.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."