have their supporters essentially turn on a dissenting voice simply in retaliation for peacefully protesting, that s unprecedented. and so we think that the court s decision reflects the idea that the first amendment doesn t tolerate that kind of behavior, and that we as a society are not going to tolerate it. so you said you mentioned peacefully protesting, daniel. you said you were looking for trouble because you did go to a rally to protest a candidate, and you were aapparently holding a sign depicting the president s head on a pig s body. sure. just like his supporters had a right to be there to show their support, i had every right to be there to show that i m opposed to the trump administration or at the time the trump campaign and everything they set forth. so dan wrl, according to the
amendment. that s never been contemplated by any of our free speech jurisprudence and there s a reason those cases don t make it to the supreme court. it s because they rarely happen. as i look at the history of political campaigns, to have somebody in the position where they re asking people to vote them in as the leader of the free world and to have their supporters essentially turn on a descenting voice, simply in retaliation for peacefully protesting is unprecedented. we think the court s decision reflects the idea that first amendment doesn t tolerate that kind of behavior and we as a society aren t going to tolerate that. you said you went there to peacefully protest. what do you say to those who say you were looking for trouble because you did go to a rally to protest a candidate and you were holding a sign depicting the president s head on a pig s
munich, talking to our colleague chuck todd on meet the press. this tweet from president trump set it off labeling the press as the enemy of the american people. joining me two enemies, ruth marcus and new york times political reporter yamichel cinder. welcome both. he s criticized the press before but this was a step beyond and some said crossing the line because it s rhetoric that is ridolent of dictators past. past and present and it crosses the line because the constitution tells us it crosses the line. the first amendment doesn t say just freedom of speech. it says, and of the press. and that is in there for exactly the reason that senator mccain so perfectly explained. we are a thorn in the side of lots of politicians and lots of presidents, that s our job, the founding fathers understood that. we re going to continue to do it
what trump is essentially saying is don t trust the press, only trust me. and that s not a sustainable argument. oh, i disagree, brian. because the press is there as a watchdog and, you know, there s polling out there to suggest the american people accept the premise that the press sharder on president trump than it is on obama. that they are adversarial to him and i think fighting back is his right just as it is the media s right to press him and the first amendment doesn t protect the fres criticism, the president has a first amendment right to go after stories that he feels are inaccurate or unfair just as much as anybody else. you know what? it works for him on a political level. i want to interject with one other thing. yesterday the president said in that rally, he talked about sweden, just a bit of departure from press talk. he talked about sweden and underscored that there was an incident in friday. now an official statement coming from the deputy press secretary,
the nominee for secretary of education doesn t know some of the most basic facts about education policy. this nomination is dead even right now. we need just one more republican to join us. this is deeply personal, it s personal for me. my first job out of college was as a teacher. live pictures of the senate floor making a desperate vote against betsy devos. we would be heading to 50/50