Reince Priebus admits Trump administration has looked into changing the First Amendment

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - No, it doesn't scare anyone that isn't deliberately looking for a reason to be mad at the POTUS because they personally dislike the man himself. This was over a quick/uncensored tweet that was sparked over legitimate lies/misinformation that the New York Times and other publications owned and/or heavily funded by the Democrats continually publish attacking the President. No one who supports the President or who is apart of his Administration actually believes this unscripted/brief remark by the COS actually means there is some conspiracy that the POTUS is looking to eliminate the 1st Amendment. The very idea is ridiculous, and once again, coming entirely from the left. Further, these constant, left-wing propaganda posts by 1stSgt Nelson Kerr are always ridiculously stupid.

A tweet? Why are you call in Previous a tweet?

1stSgt Nelson Kerr - Read what you just wrote. It makes no sense, and therefore I cannot respond. Work on your grammar.

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - No he didn't that is a bold-faced lie. He simply said, "That is something we have looked at" and also added that "whether or not that goes anywhere is another story," further commenting on the fact that a constant series of lies/biased news stories are being published about the President by which if they were anyone else would be considered slander. You can try to twist this story all you want to try to convince people of these conspiracy theories, but its doesn't change anything, or the mind of those like myself who understand that the President's success is our own. Democrats/Liberal Progressive/Socialists will keep coming up with new ways to attack POTUS, however so far they have no basis in reality. We on the other side can actually recognize the difference between "Donald Trump, the guy who is not the type to sit back and let someone talk trash about him" (whether you agree with him or not), and the actions of the President of the United States. Tell you what, when the POTUS makes an *ACTUAL* move to try and eliminate the 1st Amendment (OR ANY AMENDMENT of the Bill of Rights for that matter), I will be happy to eat my words. In fact, I will personally write you a check for any amount of money you see fit if that were to happen (that's how confident I am that it won't). Until then, your words are nothing more than conspiracy theories conceived by the left, further aimed at discrediting the POTUS.

And before you reply back, know that I am not angry (I know I come off that way sometimes in writing). I am just protective of the POTUS, because in my opinion, whether you are left or right, Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative: If you are an American you should want the President to succeed--whomever he/she is. If he legitimately does something wrong then fine, hold him accountable. But don't reach for something that "just ain't there" simply because you don't like him as a person. So far, I have seen nothing in the President's "actions" that warrant any of these media attacks on him. Its clear to me (and many, many others) that these all stem from a simple dislike of him and/or the Republican Party/Conservative movement. His actions have not justified this at all--and no, I don't believe anything he tweets counts as a Presidential action.

Maj John Bell - I didn't vote for Trump either, but I support the POTUS and absolutely despise obviously bogus/biased opinion-based "hit pieces" being passed off as real news. Its a disgrace to real journalists everywhere.

CW3 (Join to see) - The "hit piece" was a video of him saying it, Please explain how that is is a "hit piece"

1stSgt Nelson Kerr - You focus is on the words of the interviewer, not the interviewee.

It is like the question, "Do you still beat your wife?" If you answer "no!" The interviewer's analysis is that you used to beat your wife. There is no room for the truth, which is that you never beat your wife.

Maj John Bell - Careful with that logic sir, 1stSgt Nelson Kerr doesn't understand logical arguments.