Trump has a problem with “fake news,” a term that refers to articles that contain false or misleading information, as well as a common definition of fake news.
The Justice Department has argued that “fake” refers to anything that is not true or that could be interpreted in a misleading way.
In its opinion for the Trump administration, the DOJ argued that, in order to be considered fake news, it has to be a story that lacks factual content, is intended to deceive, and is false or distorted in a way that would be difficult for readers to discern from an unbiased source.
“False or misleading statements may also be a source of political bias,” the DOJ wrote.
“This includes false claims about election results, health care reform, climate change, and so on.”
The DOJ’s opinion, released in late July, also said that the word “fake,” in its definition, “does not include information that is inaccurate or that has been corrected.”
But the DOJ’s reasoning could not possibly apply to fake news that contains misleading information or is a source that is “highly biased or otherwise intentionally misleading.”
“The Government’s use of the word ‘fake’ is misleading,” the opinion continued.
“The phrase ‘fake story’ as used by the government in this opinion is not accurate.
It is a generic term that does not include the context of the article.”
In its ruling, the Department also cited two Supreme Court cases in support of its position.
The first case involved the 2008 case of the Associated Press, which had published a story alleging that Hillary Clinton had been using a private email server while secretary of state.
The AP’s then-editor, Gary Pruitt, was convicted of violating the Espionage Act and sentenced to prison.
Pruitt argued that the government was using the term “fake story” to describe the article and that it was misleading to describe it as “false.”
Pruitt appealed his conviction and his sentence to the Supreme Court.
Pruitt had been charged with violating the federal Espionage and Espionage of Information Act, the AP’s appeal argued, but the Supreme U.S. Court denied his appeal, finding Pruitt guilty under a statute that prohibits “false or misleading reporting.”
The Supreme Court’s decision was a blow to Pruitt, who was able to get his conviction vacated.
Pruitt was eventually sentenced to three years in prison and to pay a $100,000 fine.
But in a footnote, the Supreme court pointed to the 2010 decision in the case of Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission.
In that case, the Court held that the federal government has no business determining the accuracy of advertisements on the Internet.
In other words, the government is not the arbiter of truth and falsehood.
“There are no factual content standards in the First Amendment that constrain the government’s authority to determine whether a claim of fake is false,” the Supreme, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, wrote in the Citizens United ruling.
“Thus, the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not permit Congress to impose factual content requirements on the First or Fourteenth Amendment’s claim that the First amendment does not require the government to define what is ‘false’ or ‘falsely misleading.'”
The Supreme has long been skeptical of the idea that the Constitution guarantees “truth,” and in the Trump era, its views have increasingly been on display.
The Supreme is particularly concerned about the rise of “fake media” and how it could be used to discredit President Donald Trump, who has often used the term to describe his administration.
As recently as March, Justice Department lawyers argued that it could “be argued that there is no constitutional basis” for using the phrase “fake stories” to refer to news that is actually “false” or “falsely biased.”
“A person cannot be held liable for false or false statements if the statements are made in a manner that is likely to mislead the listener,” the attorneys wrote.
The court’s decision in Citizens United also came just days after Trump’s administration signed a sweeping executive order that would permit the Justice Department to enforce a federal rule against misleading advertising, including false claims that are not true.
The order will be enforced in a handful of states and localities across the country, and could be implemented in a variety of ways, including through legislation.
“We are very confident that the President will be able to take advantage of the courts’ decision,” the White House press secretary, Sarah Sanders, said in a statement after the ruling.