No, it is actually very Constitutional. Especially when the for mentioned reporters are libelists.
-
-
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Has he raided their places of work? Are they still able to broadcast?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@emma_59 doesn't matter, that crime will have to get in line with all the rest of the one's he's already violating...pic.twitter.com/pwqOx4HesP
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There's a reason the right to a free press was written as the First Amendment. Yeah. It's that important.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
...and nothing will be done because Republicans only care when a Democrat does something deemed unconstitutional
#hyprocitesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
.
@nytimes At what point does our POTUS realize that he works for US, and not the other way around? -
thats because he spells POTUS with the letters K I N and G...and that because he cant spell emperor!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"May be...." Nothing like reporting hard facts, eh?
-
did you read the article? It's what the judge said, so yes, reporting hard facts.
-
no, dippleshit. White House isn't discriminating by "viewpoint", but by professionalism.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
If the shoe does fit, You must not acquit. Banning incompetent or bad faith journalists is definitely legal.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
seems you didn't comprehend Carlos Slim's blog was citing a ruling on a different topic & then adding innuendo.
-
I read, I comprehended. You've come to a different conclusion... get over it
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Constitution? Ain't nobody got time for that. I'm Emperor...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.