Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

eljefe444 said:

---

caryking said:

---

eljefe444 said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Bryan Boughton, who runs the Fox News Washington bureau and is the current TV pool chair, says in an email; ”This is to advise that, effective today, the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the President.”

“This follows the White House’s position…

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) September 21, 2026

Good on Fox. Right call. Well done.

I hope CNN does the same the next time there is a D president that bars Fox from the press pool for reporting facts inconvenient to the President.

Just kidding, we know it would never come to that because a Democrat president would never do that.

---

The same networks that refused to cover the President's address to the nation are now upset they can not cover the President's addresses to the nation?

---

Trump ain't special in that regard.

Major networks have long opted to not cover presidential addresses they considered to be thinly veiled political rallies or just not particularly newsworthy. They did that exact same thing to Obama and Biden too.

We all know that it's unconstitutional as hell for him to ban specific outlets because of their viewpoint, whether you're keen to admit it or not.

---

How did you feel about your President Trump being banned from Twitter, facebook and other social media platforms? I guessing you were fine and dandy with it?

---

Are any of those spaces new gathering organizations? Who was the Twitter and Facebook pool reporter?

---

Well, one could argue yes as many news organizations and commentators, journalists…etc. use these sites and more to get their information out.

You seem okay with one certain person being silenced but not others? Interesting this is.

---

You realize those are private companies that choose to ban his account for violation of terms? It's ok though, he just stated his own state run media that is sure to be fair and balanced. Must've had it in the works knowing this would be a possibility:

---

I haven't followed this very closely; however, not every news agency has always had White House press credentials. Being that CNN is a big news outlet per se, that doesn't mean they should be included. Let's be honest, many more outlets (new media) have far larger audiences than CNN. It was only since this Trump admin has new media been given access into the White House press corps. As usual, this just appears to be a bunch of butt hurt leftists or faux outrage.

---

That's ironic because Trump is the one butt hurt about their reporting, which he explicitly used as his reasoning for violating their first amendment right to freedom of press. Selectively choosing which entities are barred…

---

What violation? They can (and do) continue to print whatever the hell they want.

---

The violation where Trump removed their access because he's a big fat baby.

Him not liking their reporting is clearly arbitrary and won't stand up to even the slightest legal scrutiny.

It's an obvious violation of the First.

---

It's awesome to see democrats now care about the 1st amendment after what we have seen the last decade with cancel culture.

---

What does cancel culture have to do with the First Amendment?

Civilized said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

eljefe444 said:

---

caryking said:

---

eljefe444 said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Bryan Boughton, who runs the Fox News Washington bureau and is the current TV pool chair, says in an email; ”This is to advise that, effective today, the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the President.”

“This follows the White House’s position…

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) September 21, 2026

Good on Fox. Right call. Well done.

I hope CNN does the same the next time there is a D president that bars Fox from the press pool for reporting facts inconvenient to the President.

Just kidding, we know it would never come to that because a Democrat president would never do that.

---

The same networks that refused to cover the President's address to the nation are now upset they can not cover the President's addresses to the nation?

---

Trump ain't special in that regard.

Major networks have long opted to not cover presidential addresses they considered to be thinly veiled political rallies or just not particularly newsworthy. They did that exact same thing to Obama and Biden too.

We all know that it's unconstitutional as hell for him to ban specific outlets because of their viewpoint, whether you're keen to admit it or not.

---

How did you feel about your President Trump being banned from Twitter, facebook and other social media platforms? I guessing you were fine and dandy with it?

---

Are any of those spaces new gathering organizations? Who was the Twitter and Facebook pool reporter?

---

Well, one could argue yes as many news organizations and commentators, journalists…etc. use these sites and more to get their information out.

You seem okay with one certain person being silenced but not others? Interesting this is.

---

You realize those are private companies that choose to ban his account for violation of terms? It's ok though, he just stated his own state run media that is sure to be fair and balanced. Must've had it in the works knowing this would be a possibility:

---

I haven't followed this very closely; however, not every news agency has always had White House press credentials. Being that CNN is a big news outlet per se, that doesn't mean they should be included. Let's be honest, many more outlets (new media) have far larger audiences than CNN. It was only since this Trump admin has new media been given access into the White House press corps. As usual, this just appears to be a bunch of butt hurt leftists or faux outrage.

---

That's ironic because Trump is the one butt hurt about their reporting, which he explicitly used as his reasoning for violating their first amendment right to freedom of press. Selectively choosing which entities are barred…

---

What violation? They can (and do) continue to print whatever the hell they want.

---

The violation where Trump removed their access because he's a big fat baby.

Him not liking their reporting is clearly arbitrary and won't stand up to even the slightest legal scrutiny.

It's an obvious violation of the First.

---

It's awesome to see democrats now care about the 1st amendment after what we have seen the last decade with cancel culture.

---

What does cancel culture have to do with the First Amendment?

---

If we stop and think about it, your great President Trump is an amazing person!

You now care about the economy, inflation and gas prices after four years of telling us it's worse in other countries so just deal with it.

You now care about the military after calling them war criminals, saying we should not be in other countries and getting 13 of them blown to pieces in the disasterious Afghanistan withdrawal.

You now care about the cost of a war after four years and at least $200 billion to Ukraine.

You now care about national monuments after a decade of tearing them down spray painting them and trashing them.

You now care about the 1st amendment after a decade of canceling and trying to silence anyone you considered not politically correct, including your great President Trump.

There is hope for you, my friend. You are sounding more and more conservative everyday.

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

eljefe444 said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Bryan Boughton, who runs the Fox News Washington bureau and is the current TV pool chair, says in an email; ”This is to advise that, effective today, the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the President.”

“This follows the White House’s position…

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) September 21, 2026

Good on Fox. Right call. Well done.

I hope CNN does the same the next time there is a D president that bars Fox from the press pool for reporting facts inconvenient to the President.

Just kidding, we know it would never come to that because a Democrat president would never do that.

---

The same networks that refused to cover the President's address to the nation are now upset they can not cover the President's addresses to the nation?

---

Trump ain't special in that regard.

Major networks have long opted to not cover presidential addresses they considered to be thinly veiled political rallies or just not particularly newsworthy. They did that exact same thing to Obama and Biden too.

We all know that it's unconstitutional as hell for him to ban specific outlets because of their viewpoint, whether you're keen to admit it or not.

---

How did you feel about your President Trump being banned from Twitter, facebook and other social media platforms? I guessing you were fine and dandy with it?

---

Are any of those spaces new gathering organizations? Who was the Twitter and Facebook pool reporter?

---

Well, one could argue yes as many news organizations and commentators, journalists…etc. use these sites and more to get their information out.

You seem okay with one certain person being silenced but not others? Interesting this is.

---

You realize those are private companies that choose to ban his account for violation of terms? It's ok though, he just stated his own state run media that is sure to be fair and balanced. Must've had it in the works knowing this would be a possibility:

---

I haven't followed this very closely; however, not every news agency has always had White House press credentials. Being that CNN is a big news outlet per se, that doesn't mean they should be included. Let's be honest, many more outlets (new media) have far larger audiences than CNN. It was only since this Trump admin has new media been given access into the White House press corps. As usual, this just appears to be a bunch of butt hurt leftists or faux outrage.

---

Negative.

He doesn't have to grant access to every outlet under the sun, but he also can't restrict access simply due to an outlet's viewpoint, and that's literally exactly what he said he was doing.

---

Civ, the Press Corp doesn't have a right to be in the White House briefing room. Agency's get a seat, if allowed. As I said previously, new media never had a seat, until this Administration.

BTW, every news agency has a closed circuit (I believe it's closed) access to the briefing room. What they don't have is their White House press credential to have a seat. I do believe that is the purview of the Admin.

Nothing is prohibiting them from reporting utilizing the 1st Amendment.

Now, I do understand the outrage, by those outlets; however, the arguments made here are unfounded.

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

eljefe444 said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Bryan Boughton, who runs the Fox News Washington bureau and is the current TV pool chair, says in an email; ”This is to advise that, effective today, the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the President.”

“This follows the White House’s position…

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) September 21, 2026

Good on Fox. Right call. Well done.

I hope CNN does the same the next time there is a D president that bars Fox from the press pool for reporting facts inconvenient to the President.

Just kidding, we know it would never come to that because a Democrat president would never do that.

---

The same networks that refused to cover the President's address to the nation are now upset they can not cover the President's addresses to the nation?

---

Trump ain't special in that regard.

Major networks have long opted to not cover presidential addresses they considered to be thinly veiled political rallies or just not particularly newsworthy. They did that exact same thing to Obama and Biden too.

We all know that it's unconstitutional as hell for him to ban specific outlets because of their viewpoint, whether you're keen to admit it or not.

---

How did you feel about your President Trump being banned from Twitter, facebook and other social media platforms? I guessing you were fine and dandy with it?

---

Are any of those spaces new gathering organizations? Who was the Twitter and Facebook pool reporter?

---

Well, one could argue yes as many news organizations and commentators, journalists…etc. use these sites and more to get their information out.

You seem okay with one certain person being silenced but not others? Interesting this is.

---

You realize those are private companies that choose to ban his account for violation of terms? It's ok though, he just stated his own state run media that is sure to be fair and balanced. Must've had it in the works knowing this would be a possibility:

---

I haven't followed this very closely; however, not every news agency has always had White House press credentials. Being that CNN is a big news outlet per se, that doesn't mean they should be included. Let's be honest, many more outlets (new media) have far larger audiences than CNN. It was only since this Trump admin has new media been given access into the White House press corps. As usual, this just appears to be a bunch of butt hurt leftists or faux outrage.

---

Negative.

He doesn't have to grant access to every outlet under the sun, but he also can't restrict access simply due to an outlet's viewpoint, and that's literally exactly what he said he was doing.

---

Civ, the Press Corp doesn't have a right to be in the White House briefing room. Agency's get a seat, if allowed. As I said previously, new media never had a seat, until this Administration.

BTW, every news agency has a closed circuit (I believe it's closed) access to the briefing room. What they don't have is their White House press credential to have a seat. I do believe that is the purview of the Admin.

Nothing is prohibiting them from reporting utilizing the 1st Amendment.

Now, I do understand the outrage, by those outlets; however, the arguments made here are unfounded.

---

Unfounded? Trump tried this just last year and the courts overturned it. The White House is government property, not Trump's private workplace. He can restrict blanket access for credentials but not selectively.

https://www.ap.org/media-center/ap-in-the-news/2025/ap-wins-reinstatement-to-white-house-events-after-judge-rules-government-cant-bar-its-journalists/

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

eljefe444 said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Bryan Boughton, who runs the Fox News Washington bureau and is the current TV pool chair, says in an email; ”This is to advise that, effective today, the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the President.”

“This follows the White House’s position…

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) September 21, 2026

Good on Fox. Right call. Well done.

I hope CNN does the same the next time there is a D president that bars Fox from the press pool for reporting facts inconvenient to the President.

Just kidding, we know it would never come to that because a Democrat president would never do that.

---

The same networks that refused to cover the President's address to the nation are now upset they can not cover the President's addresses to the nation?

---

Trump ain't special in that regard.

Major networks have long opted to not cover presidential addresses they considered to be thinly veiled political rallies or just not particularly newsworthy. They did that exact same thing to Obama and Biden too.

We all know that it's unconstitutional as hell for him to ban specific outlets because of their viewpoint, whether you're keen to admit it or not.

---

How did you feel about your President Trump being banned from Twitter, facebook and other social media platforms? I guessing you were fine and dandy with it?

---

Are any of those spaces new gathering organizations? Who was the Twitter and Facebook pool reporter?

---

Well, one could argue yes as many news organizations and commentators, journalists…etc. use these sites and more to get their information out.

You seem okay with one certain person being silenced but not others? Interesting this is.

---

You realize those are private companies that choose to ban his account for violation of terms? It's ok though, he just stated his own state run media that is sure to be fair and balanced. Must've had it in the works knowing this would be a possibility:

---

I haven't followed this very closely; however, not every news agency has always had White House press credentials. Being that CNN is a big news outlet per se, that doesn't mean they should be included. Let's be honest, many more outlets (new media) have far larger audiences than CNN. It was only since this Trump admin has new media been given access into the White House press corps. As usual, this just appears to be a bunch of butt hurt leftists or faux outrage.

---

Negative.

He doesn't have to grant access to every outlet under the sun, but he also can't restrict access simply due to an outlet's viewpoint, and that's literally exactly what he said he was doing.

---

Civ, the Press Corp doesn't have a right to be in the White House briefing room. Agency's get a seat, if allowed. As I said previously, new media never had a seat, until this Administration.

BTW, every news agency has a closed circuit (I believe it's closed) access to the briefing room. What they don't have is their White House press credential to have a seat. I do believe that is the purview of the Admin.

Nothing is prohibiting them from reporting utilizing the 1st Amendment.

Now, I do understand the outrage, by those outlets; however, the arguments made here are unfounded.

---

The courts are going to disagree with you.

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

eljefe444 said:

---

caryking said:

---

eljefe444 said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Gulfstream4 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Bryan Boughton, who runs the Fox News Washington bureau and is the current TV pool chair, says in an email; ”This is to advise that, effective today, the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the President.”

“This follows the White House’s position…

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) September 21, 2026

Good on Fox. Right call. Well done.

I hope CNN does the same the next time there is a D president that bars Fox from the press pool for reporting facts inconvenient to the President.

Just kidding, we know it would never come to that because a Democrat president would never do that.

---

The same networks that refused to cover the President's address to the nation are now upset they can not cover the President's addresses to the nation?

---

Trump ain't special in that regard.

Major networks have long opted to not cover presidential addresses they considered to be thinly veiled political rallies or just not particularly newsworthy. They did that exact same thing to Obama and Biden too.

We all know that it's unconstitutional as hell for him to ban specific outlets because of their viewpoint, whether you're keen to admit it or not.

---

How did you feel about your President Trump being banned from Twitter, facebook and other social media platforms? I guessing you were fine and dandy with it?

---

Are any of those spaces new gathering organizations? Who was the Twitter and Facebook pool reporter?

---

Well, one could argue yes as many news organizations and commentators, journalists…etc. use these sites and more to get their information out.

You seem okay with one certain person being silenced but not others? Interesting this is.

---

You realize those are private companies that choose to ban his account for violation of terms? It's ok though, he just stated his own state run media that is sure to be fair and balanced. Must've had it in the works knowing this would be a possibility:

---

I haven't followed this very closely; however, not every news agency has always had White House press credentials. Being that CNN is a big news outlet per se, that doesn't mean they should be included. Let's be honest, many more outlets (new media) have far larger audiences than CNN. It was only since this Trump admin has new media been given access into the White House press corps. As usual, this just appears to be a bunch of butt hurt leftists or faux outrage.

---

That's ironic because Trump is the one butt hurt about their reporting, which he explicitly used as his reasoning for violating their first amendment right to freedom of press. Selectively choosing which entities are barred…

---

What violation? They can (and do) continue to print whatever the hell they want.

---

The violation where Trump removed their access because he's a big fat baby.

Him not liking their reporting is clearly arbitrary and won't stand up to even the slightest legal scrutiny.

It's an obvious violation of the First.

---

It's awesome to see democrats now care about the 1st amendment after what we have seen the last decade with cancel culture.

---

What does cancel culture have to do with the First Amendment?

---

If we stop and think about it, your great President Trump is an amazing person!

You now care about the economy, inflation and gas prices after four years of telling us it's worse in other countries so just deal with it.

You now care about the military after calling them war criminals, saying we should not be in other countries and getting 13 of them blown to pieces in the disasterious Afghanistan withdrawal.

You now care about the cost of a war after four years and at least $200 billion to Ukraine.

You now care about national monuments after a decade of tearing them down spray painting them and trashing them.

You now care about the 1st amendment after a decade of canceling and trying to silence anyone you considered not politically correct, including your great President Trump.

There is hope for you, my friend. You are sounding more and more conservative everyday.

---

Trump is like a 50 megaton flaming car wreck that has everyone suddenly eager to build guardrails everywhere. Truly amazing!

Nodding

A toaster is a wedding gift. A private-island party paid for by a Putin-connected oligarch is something else. Republicans nearly wore out the subpoena machine investigating Hunter Biden’s foreign relationships. We should not unplug it now. ‘Trust us’ was not enough then, and it… pic.twitter.com/dcWqUO6e2X

— Senator John Curtis (@SenJohnCurtis) September 22, 2026

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civ, the Press Corp doesn't have a right to be in the White House briefing room. Agency's get a seat, if allowed. As I said previously, new media never had a seat, until this Administration.

BTW, every news agency has a closed circuit (I believe it's closed) access to the briefing room. What they don't have is their White House press credential to have a seat. I do believe that is the purview of the Admin.

Nothing is prohibiting them from reporting utilizing the 1st Amendment.

Now, I do understand the outrage, by those outlets; however, the arguments made here are unfounded.

---

This right here. There is no violation. The Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, meaning they can say or print anything they want. It does not guarantee them access to the White House. Now will the Supreme Court follow the Constitution? Probably not because they haven't followed it correctly in a long time.

---

Nice try. Unfortunately for y'all you aren't victims of the stacked court.

And also, more importantly, there's lots of judicial precedent on this, both recently and dating back decades.

Trump's actions probably violate both the First and the Fifth, so the hearings may not even get to both if they rule on one first.

The constitutional problems, again, are multiple since the question isn't just "can he..." it's also "why is he..."

And that's where being an impulsive crybaby will bite him, since he's said publicly he's pulling their credentials because their reporting hurts his feels.

Press credential revocation can't be retaliatory in response to press viewpoints. He's clearly discriminating on the grounds of their protected speech, which is a violation of the First.

Press credential revocation also can't be arbitrary (i.e. has to follow some reasonable due process) and him being a petulant, impulsive toddler isn't sufficient grounds.

So yeah, good luck in court. I bet it takes them all of about three seconds to get their credentials restored.

Can you imagine this level of professionalism and decorum back in the WH?

Seems like an alternative universe compared to the current circus.

Hopefully we find this again no matter which party is in power.

Barack Obama at his last press briefing with reporters, 2017:

"I have enjoyed working with all of you. That does not, of course, mean that I've enjoyed every story that you have filed, but that's the point of this relationship. You're not supposed to be sycophants. You're… pic.twitter.com/rNmdFz4GSz

— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) September 22, 2026

Civilized said:

---

Can you imagine this level of professionalism and decorum back in the WH?

Seems like an alternative universe compared to the current circus.

Hopefully we find this again no matter which party is in power.

Barack Obama at his last press briefing with reporters, 2017:

"I have enjoyed working with all of you. That does not, of course, mean that I've enjoyed every story that you have filed, but that's the point of this relationship. You're not supposed to be sycophants. You're… pic.twitter.com/rNmdFz4GSz

— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) September 22, 2026

---

Can you imagine if reporters called him a Nazi, fascist compared him to the man responsible for the deaths of 8 million people, mocked him daily, made up fake stories of being a Russian agent, taken his words out of context, used "anonymous sources" and "someone familiar with the situation" as the gospel, made fun of his family and friends and the millions who voted for him how differently he would feel?

Obama was treated with kid gloves and is still treated with kid gloves to this day.