WTF WHCA?

THIS JUST IN: DOJ withdraws subpoenas

The author of the quote is in dispute but there is no question that insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That makes the leadership of the White House Correspondents Association certifiable.

Or at the very least deaf and blind.

As the alleged crème de la crème of political journalism prepares to break bread with Donald Trump on Friday night a federal judge is weighing a request by the New York Times to quash a subpoena directing five reporters to testify before a grand jury about their sources for a story about the lack of adequate defenses on Qatari Force One.

Nevertheless, the WHCA is forging ahead with its rescheduled dinner that includes honoring one of those subpoenaed Times reporters with The Center For Integrity In News Reporting Award as part of its celebration of the First Amendment.

The circumstances surrounding the subpoenas and how they were served is something straight out of George Orwell’s 1984.

A traditional leak investigation — something favored by presidents of both political parties — usually starts near the bottom of the food chain.

While journalists do not have an exemption from testifying in front of state or federal grand juries, prosecutors have generally recognized they ought to exhaust other options first.

And they also recognize that if they wish to go that route, the traditional approach is to serve lawyers representing the news outlet rather than going directly at the reporter.

Not so the Trump regime — at least since Trump’s lawyer, er, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, took the reins from Pam Bondi.

FBI agents knocked on the doors of several reporters' homes on the night of Friday, July 10 — two days after a story ran documenting the real reason for Trump’s decision to ditch the Qatari jet for a fully equipped Air Force One.

Not only that, the Times’ lawyers asserted in court filings, the subpoenas involved the telephone records of the five reporters and also several family members. And the request included records dating back to January 1, seven months before the story was filed.

"When something like this happens, it's very frightening," says Katherine Marsh, the wife of Times reporter Julian E. Barnes. "You almost feel like you're being treated as an enemy of the state and we're just reporters and reporters' families."

Might as well have added a “gone fishin’” note, despite Blanche’s rather um, disingenuous insistence otherwise:

“We’re not targeting reporters — they’re material witnesses. Just like a reporter would be a material witness to a car crash.”

A statement Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson — subject to an FBI search of her home for electronic devices related to her reporting on the Trump regime’s efforts to shrink the federal work force and cut programs — might also find laughable for its reckless disregard of the truth.

The Times’ legal team offered a (somewhat) more tempered response:

“The Government's actions violate the most basic First Amendment protections for newsgathering activity. They represent the latest salvo in an escalating series of attacks on journalists to intimidate them from engaging in reporting that the Trump Administration openly detests."

At the same time this is playing out, House Republicans engaged in verbal gymnastics by referring former special counsel Jack Smith to Blanche’s “Justice” Department for possible prosecution. For not answering a question he was never asked.

At issue there is an accusation that Smith lied when he said a subpoena for the telephone “toll records” did not include the contents of the calls. Toll records list numbers dialed, call duration, and timestamps, the same information in effect as that sought of the Times reporters and their family members.

But Smith’s legal team said he was responding narrowly to the inquiry about the toll records, and not about a separate subpoena to the National Archives for text messages involving 40 Republicans and four Democrats. Smith is precluded from publicly discussing the investigation without approval from the Trump regime.

It was a distinction noted by Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

“Wishing that you had asked different questions while you had the opportunity to examine a witness is not a proper basis for a referral of a witness for criminal prosecution. Congressional Republicans never asked Jack Smith about presidential records. Not during his 9-hour closed-door testimony or his 4-hour public hearing.”

Details, details.

Which brings us back to the White House Correspondents Association and its insistence on allowing Trump to “grace” the dais. The regime’s attacks on the Times and Post —not to mention FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s threats to ABC for not airing Trump’s Thursday night prime time address alleging China’s interference in the 2020 election — make a mockery of the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press.

So why is the WHCA knowingly and repeatedly inviting a skunk to a garden party?