President Trump thinks some journalists should be executed, according to John Bolton’s upcoming book

President Donald Trump on Wednesday. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
“These people should be executed.”
Who said that? President Donald Trump. And who was he talking about? Journalists.
This is according to an upcoming book set to be released next week by former national security adviser John Bolton. The Washington Post obtained an advance copy of the 592-page book titled, “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir.”
There are many stunning claims in the book, most notably that Trump asked Chinese President Xi Jinping to help him win the 2020 election; that Trump told Xi that building concentration camps for Muslims was “exactly the right thing to do” and that Bolton portrays Trump as “erratic” and “stunningly uninformed.”
Then came Trump’s remarks about the media. Bolton described a summer 2019 meeting in New Jersey when Trump said journalists should be jailed so they have to divulge their sources.
“These people should be executed,” Trump said, according to Bolton. “They are scumbags.”
Executed? It’s stunning that an American president would actually say such a thing. But the thought that this particular American president would say it should come as no surprise. He has spent the past three-plus years calling the media the “enemy of the people” and using the kind of rhetoric that dictators use in places where journalists actually are murdered.
This kind of talk not only goes against everything a democracy should stand for, but continues to potentially put journalists at risk from those who view Trump’s words as more than a catchphrase at a rally or remark in administration meetings.
His words are dangerous. But, sadly, not that surprising.
Reviewing the book

Former national security advisor John Bolton. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey, File)
The New York Times’ Jennifer Szalai reviewed Bolton’s book. Szalai listed many of the incidents Bolton recounts in his book, such as asking China’s help in winning the 2020 election. She writes, “In another book by another writer, such anecdotes might land with a stunning force, but Bolton fails to present them that way, leaving them to swim in a stew of superfluous detail.”
She closes with, “It’s a strange experience reading a book that begins with repeated salvos about ‘the intellectually lazy’ by an author who refuses to think through anything very hard himself.
Talking to Bolton
ABC will air a primetime special Sunday night at 9 p.m. Eastern with ABC News chief global affairs correspondent Martha Raddatz interviewing Bolton about his new book. In the first clip, seen on “World News Tonight,” Bolton talked about Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying, “I think Putin thinks he can play (Trump) like a fiddle.”
Clips of the interview also will be shown on other ABC News shows, such as “Good Morning America,” “Nightline” and “This Week.”
So why are we watching?
If you watch Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News, you shouldn’t expect to get the facts. That’s not me saying that (although, truth be told, I think that).
That Carlson doesn’t have an obligation to find out the truth and that his viewers don’t expect facts is the jaw-dropping assertion made by, of all people, a Fox News lawyer defending the network in a lawsuit. Fox News is being sued for slander by former Playboy model Karen McDougal after Carlson claimed, on air, that McDougal extorted and threatened the president following their alleged affair.
Fox News lawyer Erin Murphy argued that Carlson did nothing wrong for a variety of reasons, including that Carlson consistently said he was speaking in hypotheticals. Then she said, “What we’re talking about here, it’s not the front page of The New York Times. It’s ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight,’ which is a commentary show.”
But even if it is a commentary show, shouldn't viewers have an expectation of truth? Especially if the show appears on something called Fox News?
Carlson isn’t John Oliver. This is not “The Daily Show,” which is clearly understood to be an entertainment show. Fox News promotes Carlson as a legitimate news person and for an attorney representing the network to say that there should be no expectation of facts is an amazing admission. Do Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham also fall under these loose rules?
The Hollywood Reporter’s Ashley Cullins wrote:
“While discussing what constitutes reckless disregard for the truth in regard to the actual malice standard, (U.S. District Court Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil) asked Murphy, ‘Does somebody in Mr. Carlson’s position have the duty of inquiry?’
“Murphy replied, ‘Not as to an actual malice standard. The Supreme Court could not be clearer.’ She argued malice isn’t a negligence standard and ‘failure to investigate’ the truth of a statement doesn’t suffice.”
Legally, perhaps Murphy is right. Ethically? That’s another story.
|