If you love the spin, lies and outrageous statements from the WH Press Secretary, then you should definitely vote for Hillary, or stay home on Election Day… or vote for a “Third-Party Candidate” –
Because you’ll definitely get four more years of this garbage.
Via Free Beacon.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest chastised a New York Times media columnist in a letter Tuesday for not acknowledging “the important and unprecedented steps the Obama administration has taken” to be the most transparent White House in history.
In his “Mediator” column on Aug. 28, Jim Rutenberg took presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to task for their respective antagonistic relationships with the press. Rutenberg wrote of Clinton, who has gone more than eight months without giving a press conference, that her potential administration could be even more secretive than the Obama administration, “with its abysmal record on fulfilling Freedom of Information Act requests and its record of prosecuting whistle-blowers who have shared national security information with the press.”
Earnest took exception and fired back in a Letter to the Editor posted Tuesday, boasting about Obama’s availability to the media and fretting that if journalists did not praise his transparency, no one would:
President Obama, as a matter of policy, invites White House journalists to cover his formal remarks at fund-raisers, even when they are held in a private home. Previous presidents have granted, at best, intermittent access to such events….
The New York Times is not the only outlet to criticize Obama’s poor record on transparency, however, in spite of the president’s claim that he is running the “most transparent administration in history.” CNN’s Jake Tapper ran a segment in June slamming the White House for showing “disdain for the public” over an announcement of not releasing Clinton emails about the Trans-Pacific Partnership….
Related:
Pro Publica: Trying (and Trying) to Get Records From the ‘Most Transparent Administration’ Ever
****************************************************
In conjunction with White House Executive order #2,524,321 Merriam-Webster Dictionary has complied and changed the definition of transparent. From this day forward the word will be defined as follows:
Transparent
Adjective
1. not translucent; impenetrable to light; not allowing light to pass through.
2. not transmitting radiation, sound, heat, etc.
3. not shining or bright; dark; dull.
4. hard to understand; not clear or lucid; obscure:
The problem remains opaque despite explanations.
5. dull, stupid, or unintelligent.
Noun
6. something that is opaque.
7. Photography. a coloring matter, usually black or red, used to render part of a negative opaque.
Verb (used with object), opaqued, opaquing.
8. Photography. to cover up blemishes on (a negative), especially for making a printing plate.
9. to cause to become opaque.
Surprised that Earnest didn’t meet with NYT reporter face to face at the Starbucks across the street. #Transparency
Jack Trapper asked Ron Fournier about the kind of presidency to expect from Clinton and from Trump. His response reflects the dismal choice we have.
Ron Fournier RIPS future Hillary presidency as ‘dishonest’ and ‘secretive’
He wonders want Hillary can accomplish with such low trust from the American people.
So what about a Trump presidency if a campaign is a test of a presidency?
As Fournier says, we have two bad candidates.
I think it is four and out for either one.
I know the possibility of losing the Supreme Court for a generation is a motivation—and for some the only motivation— to vote for Trump. Consider in 2020, after a disastrous Trump term, a demolished GOP, a discredited conservative movement, President Elizabeth Warren, and the loss of the House and the Senate for a generation.
The only one that is transparent here is Josh. We can see right through you, Spokeshole.