Hey, Journalists? Don't Ask the White House Whether Sh*t's Legal
So-called journalists are asking Trump loyalists whether Trump can do crimes
This guest column originally appeared at the Substack of journalist Jonathan Larsen, a veteran of ABC, CNN, and MSNBC, who served as executive producer of Up with Chris Hayes. You can check out and subscribe to Jonathan's Substack here
When alleged journalists for multi-million-dollar media outlets want to know whether something is legal, they have many resources.
The world’s best experts will take their calls and give them answers. For free!
Lawyers employed by said outlets will advise allegedly journalistic colleagues on legal matters. The alleged journalists can also deploy researchers and other staff to do research and other stuff to crack their legal nuts. The internet has law books and Constitutions.
What real journalists do not do is pose their legal puzzlers to the potential criminals fixin’ to break said laws. And yet, there was Fox’s Peter Doocy — alleged Journalist™ — asking the White House whether it’s legal for the United States government to kidnap American citizens and have them imprisoned outside their country, deprived of their constitutional rights.
Last week, on April 15, Doocy had this exchange with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt:
Doocy: [D]eporting American citizens to Central American prisons — Is it legal or do you need to change the law to do it?
Leavitt: Well, it's another question that the president has raised. It's a legal question that the president is looking into.
Innocuous as that exchange might seem, it’s actually occuous AF. Would one ask the White House whether crossing against the light is legal? One would fucking not. But let’s review why this is so much stupider and worser.
The White House cannot change laws without Congress.
As noted, Doocy has many resources for finding out whether it’s legal.
The White House is not an authority on the law.
Another reason that I’ll get to. #Tease #NoSpoilers
And finally, the White House had already been asked about this, which raises some questions so high up that they’re fucked up.
Independent Media For Just $1.50/Week!
Blue Amp just launched our weekly show, “Amped Up w/ Cliff Schecter!!” To celebrate, we’re offering paid subscriptions for only $1.50 per week! Amplify Good, become a paid subscriber!
On April 6, two weeks ago, another alleged journalist1 asked Trump himself about El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele’s offer to abet heinous crimes against the American people by imprisoning them in his prisons:
Q: …is that one of the ideas you're gonna be discussing?
Trump: Well, I love that… [inflammatory fear-mongering belied by America’s near-historically low crime rates] … I don't know what the law says on that, but I can't imagine the law would say anything different… I'd be very happy with it, but I have to see what the law says.
It’s a mystery! Even two days later, April 8, when Leavitt told alleged journalists — possibly even Doocy! — that the idea had been discussed privately, too.
Q from alleged journalist I didn’t recognize: …President Trump said that he would be willing to have US citizens deported to El Salvador with the cooperation of President Bukele. How would that work legally [sic] and how many people would potentially be available for that [illegal] operation?
Leavitt: So, the president has discussed this idea quite a few times publicly, he's also discussed it2 privately. You're referring to the president's idea for American citizens to potentially be deported.… [Inflammatory fear-mongering] The president has said if it's legal, right, if there is a legal pathway to do that. He's not sure, we are not sure if there is. It's an idea that he has simply floated and has discussed very publicly as — in the effort of transparency.
The effort may be of transparency but the effect — abetted by alleged journalists — is of not transparency. The transparent answer would be, “Of course it’s a crime for anyone to do that.”
On April 14, Trump said he’d discussed it with Attorney General Pam Bondi — who is the nation’s top law-enforcement official the way the top military official is Pete Hegseth. On the subject of — and TFN can’t stress this enough — exiling Americans, Trump said, “I said it to Pam. I don't know what the laws are.”
After discussing it with the attorney general, he still couldn’t pin down whether it’s a crime!
That night, on Fox — alleged journalist Doocy’s own alleged news outlet! — not-even-alleged-journalist Jesse Watters asked Bondi herself about exiling Americans to foreign prisons: “Is that legal to do? Is that something you’re allowed to do?”
Bondi made face noises, but no actual, responsive answer emerged, because that would mean saying, “Fuck no,” which would represent a real effort of transparency.
To recap, Bondi had no answer on April 14, more than a week after her boss said publicly that he’d like to know and almost a week after the White House press secretary said it had been discussed internally by the administration.
This is a presidential administration refusing to admit a clear, precedented, obvious-to-idiots limit on presidential power. Maybe that’s because they just don’t like admitting that. Or maybe it’s because Trump’s desire to do it is best served by pretending it’s an open question.
The point is, all of that had already transpired when Doocy raised the question yet again. And Leavitt would have us believe the U.S. government, which employs more than three lawyers, had still not been able to explain to the president — who swore to uphold the Constitution! — that he can’t uphold it outside U.S. borders.
Reason #4 for crapping on Doocy’s question is that asking questions at the White House briefing is not an innocent exercise. Most of those alleged journalists can ask questions off-camera by phone or email. Asking at the briefing is a choice about what to put on the national radar.
And doing that gets your issue — or in this case a fake debate — in other media. And they, too, will treat your question as if it is a question. And that’s what’s happening here.
For instance, some people only saw Bloomberg’s headline, “Can Trump Really Deport US Citizens to El Salvador?” They might not have made it to the last sentence in paragraph seven: “Many legal experts already have an answer: No.”
That was your headline, Bloomberg kids!
And almost immediately after the exchange with Doocy, Leavitt’s answer response was a CNBC headline:
It’s neurally impossible to read that headline and not infer that the legality of this crime is a legitimate question. Which it’s not.
And CNBC would know that if CNBC could see NBC. That’s because, the day before CNBC’s questionable headline, NBC headlined the fucking answer:
But some people won’t C NBC’s headline, they’ll only C CNBC’s headline.
And in the process, non-journalists, alleged journalists, and even ostensibly real journalists will be complicit in creating — already have fucking created — muddiness around this issue. And it’s the muddiness that creates the political space to commit this crime and defend it as not-a-crime.
This was a crystal-clear answer and non-existent debate in America last month and in the country’s preceding 2,817 months: No, you can’t kidnap American citizens and send them to foreign countries.
That shouldn’t be news. But now it’d really help if it were.
Independent Media For Just $1.50/Week!
Blue Amp just launched our weekly show, “Amped Up w/ Cliff Schecter.” To celebrate, we’re offering paid subscriptions for only $1.50 per week! Amplify Good, become a paid subscriber!
Since you stuck around, a quick historical footnote because I always try to flag when things did not start with Trump, because he is not the wellspring from which all evil hath sprung.
There is, sadly, a bipartisan history of even legitimate journalists asking administrations of both parties to decide legal questions despite the proven existence of judges and law books.
Pres. Bush
Dec. 16, 2005: Alleged journalist asks the White House, “Is it legal to spy on Americans?” (In fairness, this was part of an exchange in which the intent seemed to be pressing the White House to assert that its unknown spying was legal.)
Dec. 9, 2008: Fox’s Chris Wallace asks Vice President Dick Cheney, “If the President, during war, decides to do something to protect the country, is it legal?” (Cheney unsurprisingly this this sounds like an okay idea and enhanced interrogates tortures the oath of office to interpret swearing to protect the Constitution as swearing to protect the country despite those being two different things.)
Pres. Obama
May 21, 2009: Alleged journalist asks the White House, “[I]s it legal to put people who the President might put in indefinite detention in any facility in the United States?” Presidents, legal scholars tell us, should not be in the practice of putting people in anything.
April 23, 2015: Alleged journalist asks whether Pres. Barack Obama can straight-up kill U.S. citizens, because it’s a mystery: “[I]s it legal to kill American citizens who do not represent an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States?
Nov. 19, 2015: Alleged journalist asks Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes about the U.S. being at war with ISIL (aka ISIS): “Is that legal if Congress doesn’t have a say in this?” (The Constitution requires congressional authorization for waging war with the standing army the founders didn’t want us to have.)
Pres. Trump (Take One)
Sept. 16, 2019: In this exchange, Trump gives the best answer of any president or executive-branch official I found:
Q: Mr. President, is it legal for the New York attorney general to subpoena your accountant?
Trump: I don’t know anything about it.
Pres. Biden
Sept. 3, 2021: In regard to federal actions to help women get abortions, an alleged journalist asks, “Does that mean providing transportation for people? What does it — I still don’t understand. Is it legal? Is it just — do we know the law?” It’s not clear who “we” was or why “they” didn’t look it up beforehand.
Oct. 7, 2021: Alleged journalist committed to protecting the downtrodden asks future alleged journalist Jen Psaki about the uptrodden: “Is the White House confident that a billionaires’ tax would withstand legal challenges? Which, I guess, is another way of asking, is it legal?”
In fairness, some of these examples are really shorthand for, “Do you honestly think you can do that?” But more than most alleged journalists, alleged White House correspondents have an obligation not to muddy the waters with on-camera questions.
They also have an obligation to know the facts before they get on camera. Because the legal question about kidnapping and exiling U.S. citizens ought not be whether it’s legal, but whether officials who authorize it are prepared to go to prison themselves someday, right here at home.
Blue Amp’s a simple idea: Insiders turned fearless outsiders telling you what others won’t. We’re un-bought; We Need Your Support. Please become a paid subscriber!
MAINSTREAM MEDIA / F- Grade
The mainstream media was the watchdog protecting the public. Today the media protects big business and parent company profits. No more hard news putting people’s feet to the fire. Now they just give them the mic to spew alt-facts with little push-back.
Hey mainstream media, STOP being part of the problem. Ask the hard questions and if they side-step not answering the question, answer it for them referring to their past comments and make them refute with facts or agree. JOURNALISTS DO YOUR JOB...be the public watchdog again!
You can ask, because it’s interesting to hear the answer, but don’t report it as the truth. Everybody on the planet knows truth does not come out of that White House.