WATCH: White House holds news conference

Follow us:

[jodydarby]

The ability to speak English might be important when KJP finally gets replaced.

[salvadordolly]

This seems 100% scripted questions and answers. What a joke

[johnlouis]

I had to just now stop watching it.
I just couldn't take anymore of these ongoing and extremely blatant lies and I also just cannot understand why anyone else would be doing the same.

[rightwinggo]

At this stage they may as well send Ronald McDonald out to the podium.

[eshort]

The awful things that she describes the Iranians doing sounds very much like our present administration

[charlesbrightman]

LEGAL QUESTION: As I currently understand it to be:
a. The President's Executive Order defines how classified documents are handled while the President is President. (Executive Orders tell the Executive Branch how to apply the already legal laws and do not make laws in and of themselves, or at least are not supposed to).

b. But then also, just because a US President issues an Executive Order does not remove the President's overall authority. Basically, the Executive Order is just to tell the Executive Branch of the US Government how things should 'normally' be done but it does not exclude the US President from disregarding the Executive Order as the Executive is of course the Executive and retains full rights and authorities to even disregard their own Executive Order, because they themselves are the Executive.

c. Now, I am not saying this is how it should be for the sake of America's and America's allies national securities, but wouldn't the above understanding be correct?

* If anybody disagrees with the above understanding, I welcome refutes that have a legal basis for refuting.

Basically, "IF" America wants better controls over classified documents, then revise the US Constitution to make it so, so that even a US President could not overrule, nor the military and other government employees who swear an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution could legally disobey.

But from an actual operative standpoint:
What US ally would ever trust the US Government with any classified information ever again 'if' a US President could just declassify anything at all, regardless of the level of classification and/or harm that it could do, with their thoughts alone?

And declassifying items with the President's thoughts alone: what about if a President has a mental issue due to age and/or other physical issues? They just declassify whatever they want to, all the secrets of the US Government even, just because their mentally deranged mind wants to?


But then also, if we want to go down this path:
The entire US Government, including the US President, get all their powers and authorities from 'We The People'. 'We The People' would have ultimate powers and authorities. Just because 'We The People' have a US Constitution and all the laws that stem from the Constitution, does not remove the powers and authorities that 'We The People' have, each and every 'We The People' individually and as a society have.

Basically, anything at all the entire US Government could do, so could each and every individual American citizen making up 'We The People', and 'We The People' could probably do even more than the Government is authorized to do.

Of which also, 'if' a US President can pardon themselves from all crimes, then "I", a member of 'We The People' do hereby on this public forum, pardon myself from any and all laws, rules, regulations that ever were, are or will be.

I say it, so therefore it is.


And I guess also, even 'if' a US President cannot pardon themselves, I do hereby pardon my self anyway from all laws, rules, regulations that ever were, are or will be. I am 'sinless'.

I say it, (not to mention all I had to do was think it and not even say it), therefore it is.


Because 'I' can.

[elizabethshevy]

Does she ever really directly answer the questions she is asked. All I ever hear is repeated pats on the back for this administrations bills they passed, Trump or the prior administration is to blame, or I don't have anything to preview at this time. No direct answer to the real inquiry.

[Go-Dawgs]

I honestly would continue to listen to and learn from My Favorite Newspaper on this and every piece of news information in the world. But I can no longer do this. For some strange reason you have taken issue with the channels of Commentators on YouTube. I have no clue why, maybe you are afraid of the viewers and money donated to them while they live streamed the Depp v Heard trial being so large? I don't know, but I admit I had no clue who the Attorneys who call themselves "law nerds" were prior to watching the trial. They were interesting, informative, and a great place for me and millions of others to watch live with a minute by minute commentary of the legal happenings. We like them, we appreciate their work in helping us to understand. Yes some people donated money, I did not as an elderly disabled woman on a budget I could not. But they didn't care, I got to watch them the same way anyone who donated did. Their subscribers multiplied by thousands because viewers appreciated their work or time in explaining to us for hours and days and weeks. They were good at this. They are independent so it was our choice to watch, why do you care so much that they gained a following and earned money? Your article insinuating they somehow did something wrong referring to Chris Boozey as an expert has upset me. These YouTube creators did nothing against you, but you jumped in on them with this article. You really have upset me so I have decided I can't trust your judgement any longer. You made something good and growing seem bad. These are people I have watched do nothing but give their opinions on a trial for the watching world. You did not give us a chance to find you when we wanted to watch Johnny Depp in court live everyday, but you want to find fault against those that did. Rediculious, it's just not fair. Get onboard the next trial happens. You didn't figure out a way to earn money from viewers, ok, sorry but they did. They filled a place the public was anxious to see and viewers rewarded them for that by watching, subscribing, and or donating to them. I can name 10 of them easily I watched, rewatched, or just went to for comments. I think you are envious or upset you did not figure out this market of viewers first. So go learn, start figuring this audience out instead of going after the ones who did. They never set out to take readers from you or anyone, they continued to do what they had been doing. Your paper decided to refer to and get quotes from someone who is going to now be sued by some of these Attorneys. This is getting out of hand and I feel you have disparaged good people doing good work explaining the law in trials. There was no reasonable reason for The Washington Post to start this. Therefore I will unsubscribe from you here and not trust your paper any longer. Very sorry to leave you.

[mayp]

We have been very don't know what we are doing so we will continue to lie to you all.

[BobBilly]

I TRULY FEEL BAD FOR HER!! One would hope that being able to speak reasonably proper would prevail over any other "Gold stars" on a resume.

Her grammar is just tragic

[washboardjim]

If they understand the Drug issue, CLOSE THE BORDERS THEN. YOU dont give a care at all. this white house is
very strange

[Drhostetler]

Wow. The high pitched whine is super annoying.

[mdpadillajr]

How about a repentance as a nation to save us from God's wrath

[etienne_laforet]

L’affirmation selon laquelle l’avortement est un droit repose sur le mensonge.
Il y a d’abord le mensonge suivant lequel l’avortement serait un « soin de santé », qu’il serait « sans risque », que sa légalisation réduirait la mortalité maternelle, ou encore que les femmes seraient victimes de « grossesses forcées », comme si la grossesse était une fatalité. Il y a aussi le mensonge suivant lequel il serait impossible de prévenir ni de réduire le recours à l’avortement, ou que l’avortement serait une condition de l’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes. Tous ces mensonges peuvent être aisément dénoncés.
Mais le plus gros mensonge sur l’avortement consiste à dénier jusqu’à l’existence de l’enfant victime de l’avortement. C’est sur ce mensonge que repose le prétendu droit à l’avortement.

[eddieheron]

Jenn Psaki was a hard act to follow, so it’s great to see Karine now having raised her performance to be on a par with her predecessor 😊 👍

[cynthiajones]

In the end times there will be a great falling away from truth, lawlessness will abound. If you confess Jesus is Lord, believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead you will be saved (fromhell) Romans10:9 Please repent/believe. Please think about it. Jesus died for you. Love Ya

[jnelletrim]

Remember God loves you♥️!
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Please repent, change your life around and live for Him🙏.
He is coming back soon🥳....

[kimsyracuse]

Well I didn't needed to be going mental health system to stop my my alcohol problem because I did it me myself and I it's just another bill on taxes paid people 🙂 that All dearly

[brendadrew]

What a difference between WH press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre who is both very smart and beautiful compared to Republican Sarah Huckabee Sanders! Sanders was also no Pierre Salinger either, the late great war hero President John F. Kennedy's brilliant press secretary who was also a brilliant concert pianist child prodigy at age six! Bravo~ ♥♥