LA Times denies submitting questions to the White House ahead of press conference

Photos showed the president's note card, which listed a general summary of a reporter's question

The Los Angeles Times is denying submitting questions to the White House ahead of Wednesday's press conference after a photo of the president's cheat sheet showed a general summary of a question asked by the paper's reporter. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/la-times-d...conference

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

Of course he needs a chest sheet.. [BLEEP] doesn't even know where the hell he is more than half the time. How else is he supposed to know which reporters to call on and what answers to give. Going off script makes his brain explode.

---

I have no problem with this per se. Just requires us to pay more attention to, and know more about the motives of, the people writing these scripts.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I have no problem with this per se. Just requires us to pay more attention to, and know more about the motives of, the people writing these scripts.

No problem with the press reading the questions the Press Secretary hands them to ask? Really? You don't see anything statist about such a thing that would trouble you?

No problem with the press submitting their questions beforehand so that the President can have written responses to them prepared in advance? Really? You don't see anything statist about such a thing that would trouble you?

Damn you swallow the corruption whole hog dont'cha?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I have no problem with this per se. Just requires us to pay more attention to, and know more about the motives of, the people writing these scripts.

No problem with the press reading the questions the Press Secretary hands them to ask? Really? You don't see anything statist about such a thing that would trouble you?

No problem with the press submitting their questions beforehand so that the President can have written responses to them prepared in advance? Really? You don't see anything statist about such a thing that would trouble you?

Damn you swallow the corruption whole hog dont'cha?

It depends on the purpose of the press conference.  If it's to find out something about a particular thing, then pre-submitting a question will get you a better answer.  On the other hand, if it's some kind of test of the President's cognitive ability, then pre-submitting the questions is cheating.  That's just my opinion.

---

"Mr. President, why are we fighting a proxy war in the Ukraine?"

Answer:

"Fishunjubs, Jack!"

---

No problem with the press reading the questions the Press Secretary hands them to ask? Really? You don't see anything statist about such a thing that would trouble you?

No problem with the press submitting their questions beforehand so that the President can have written responses to them prepared in advance? Really? You don't see anything statist about such a thing that would trouble you?

Damn you swallow the corruption whole hog dont'cha?

It depends on the purpose of the press conference.  If it's to find out something about a particular thing, then pre-submitting a question will get you a better answer.  On the other hand, if it's some kind of test of the President's cognitive ability, then pre-submitting the questions is cheating.  That's just my opinion.

C'mon man, pre-submitting a question means the tough questions get screened out. The government controlling the Press in such a way is really not something anyone should be ok with.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It depends on the purpose of the press conference.  If it's to find out something about a particular thing, then pre-submitting a question will get you a better answer.  On the other hand, if it's some kind of test of the President's cognitive ability, then pre-submitting the questions is cheating.  That's just my opinion.

C'mon man, pre-submitting a question means the tough questions get screened out. The government controlling the Press in such a way is really not something anyone should be ok with.

If only pre-submitted questions are answered, that's bad.  But I would think that sometimes, pre-submitting a question will get you a better answer than just an off-the-cuff response.  But like I said, if the purpose of the question is to test the person answering the question, then pre-submitting defeats that purpose.  

And of course I don't think the press should only ask questions the press secretary hands out to them.  That's ridiculous.  

Are they only taking pre-submitted questions?

---

I have no problem with this per se. Just requires us to pay more attention to, and know more about the motives of, the people writing these scripts.

If there's no wrong here, then why is the LA Times so adamant in denying it? Why not come out and state their reasons for why they did it?

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

President Fishunjubs makes a statement related to this thread..

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/...cmWJQ&s=19

---

Gosh if a helpless member of the press was told that they would never get a particular question answered, however would they cope? To whom would they turn? Won't someone think of the helpless reporters?!

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Gosh if a helpless member of the press was told that they would never get a particular question answered, however would they cope? To whom would they turn? Won't someone think of the helpless reporters?!

The idiot is surrounded by controversy and its like his whole team gets upset when asked about it..

What the hell do ya expect? He's been a total flop and failure since day 1..

People want answers..

---

I have no problem with this per se. Just requires us to pay more attention to, and know more about the motives of, the people writing these scripts.

If there's no wrong here, then why is the LA Times so adamant in denying it?  Why not come out and state their reasons for why they did it?

I honestly don't know.  Seems the editor and the reporter are not on the same page, maybe, or they just think the public would misunderstand what they are doing.  Which they would.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

.

If there's no wrong here, then why is the LA Times so adamant in denying it?  Why not come out and state their reasons for why they did it?

I honestly don't know.  Seems the editor and the reporter are not on the same page, maybe, or they just think the public would misunderstand what they are doing.  Which they would.

Agreed regarding public misunderstanding.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

Lol. More hypocrisy.

---

"Mr. President, why are we fighting a proxy war in the Ukraine?"

Answer:

"Fishunjubs, Jack!"

Cornpop was a bad dude

---

I know those jokes are written, of course, for the president, but he was pretty funny at the White House correspondents dinner..

---