, please!
Posted on 11/29/2018 3:30:34 AM PST by RoosterRedux
Guys, the Revolutionary War took how many years? The Civil War? WWII? The Cold War? Either we trust the CinC, or we don’t. If we do, and I do, then patience is a virtue.
It’s time to be civil again.
Horse hockey. It’s time the frog marches begin. The rule of law is severly undermined in this country and a functioning society depends on the rule of law.
Assuming Trump has nothing hiding in the closet (and it’s a fair enough assumption given how many lawyers he’s used over the years to keep everything on the up-and-up, with all the scrutiny he got just as a businessman), threats of actual investigations into actual wrongdoing — this is Congress, we’re talking about, where folks have no problem looking the other way — should keep the worst of it in check.
Look for investigations into minor things, that will be annoyances at most, giving both sides a chance to claim a victory.
But as long as the GOP holds the Senate, I don’t think anyone on either side wants to start looking closely at people’s finances.
, please!
I admire your faith, mine has nearly run out. It started fading big time with Imran Awan. Slam dunk case and he was given a pass, DWS should be behind bars, not colluding with the vote counters in Palm Beach.
He is not going to release anything. Apparently Whitaker is going to sit the investigation of the coup and Clinton/Obama Crime, Inc. out. If Trump were going to do anything he would have by now. The only real investigation (Nunes’) dies in January. I have no idea what Trump thinks hes gaining going this route. With this attitude he is guaranteeing more election fraud and a total collapse of constitutional guarantees for conservatives when the Mob does regain power.
Another hannity tick tock.
Just do it
In the theater, as in life, TIMING is everything.
President Trump knows exactly what he is doing. He is a marvel to watch. He has exquisite timing.
It’s going to happen as soon as Mueller’s report is filed. It will kill the reports credibility, label Mueller a Clinton and Deep State sycophant and put Trump on the offensive going into the new session.
With that will come new Senate investigations and a call for a Special Counsel. Maybe Flake does have something going on here to protect the Special Counsel.
Did Trump ever made idle threats before we elected him?
Regarding the coup can you name one threat in two years that wasn’t idle?
Trump’s tax returns get audited EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
The tax returns that need scrutiny are Mad Maxine-—Pelosi—ALL of the Clintons, including Chelsea. Cuomo, Schumer, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and lots of other dems.
What will he use as ammunition when he needs it later on?
I would suggest 7.62mm, NATO.
Go ahead. Make my day.
Correct. Especially the gang of 8. They knew it all. I will not list them, but it is well known who they are.
The truth, and evidence that completely exonerates the President, his associates and people within his administration, and which also contains the damning evidence that convicts all of his accusers and attackers within the deep state swamp is all contained within the very documents that President Trump habitually refuses to release.
Every day that goes by his enemies continue to bludgeon him with lies, threaten him and his associates with impeachment and prison, and use this false narrative to undermine his presidency and put some of his associates in jail.
These nefarious people are out for blood, they want to DESTROY President Trump, his agenda, his administration, his associates, and PUT HIM IN PRISON, or kill him if that doesn't work.
Frankly, he had better act and release the UNREDACTED TRANSCRIPTS, IN THEIR ENTIRETY BEFORE THE NEW COMMUNIST DEMON-RAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS IS SEATED, OR THE DEEP STATE WILL DESTROY HIM AND HIS ADMINISTRATION.
All of our political problems are “enabled” by “the MSM.” Without it, Democrats would be toast. With it, it’s impossible to keep politics on an even keel. Because with the MSM facts don’t matter. They just change the subject when they get uncomfortable.The problem is how to sue the MSM to make them accountable to the truth. It’s so easy to say that the First Amendment gives them absolute protection - but actually that is not the case. The protection of the First Amendment is not absolute because - as Justice Scalia noted - it doesn’t grant “freedom of the press” but “the freedom of the press.” What’s the “the” about? Scalia explained that freedom of the press, but also laws against libel, preexisted the Constitution. So “the” freedom of the press is not blanket, absolute freedom, but freedom within traditional limits.
I thought that a fascinating point. You’re welcome.
The only question is, what lawsuit could bring the MSM to heel? My answer is, a lawsuit which simultaneously furthers the goal of the First Amendment and punishes deceit by journalists. The explicit stricture of the First Amendment is against limitation of public access to information and opinion by the government. The goal of the First Amendment is prevention of limitation of public access to information and opinion by anyone. And that must include, ironically, by journalists. It isn’t the fault of the authors of the First Amendment that they could not foresee the telegraph, the wire service, and the effect of the wire services on accessibility of information.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)The Associated Press “wire” is a virtual meeting of all major US journalism - one which has been in continuous effect since before the Civil War. It constitutes incredible naiveté, therefore, to assume that journalists have not, in over a century and a half, found occasion to practice on the trust of the public.Journalists are motivated to attract attention, and to persuade. Whatever helps them to do those things - whether in the public interest, or contrary to it - is what you can expect journalists to incline to do. Following the rule “If it bleeds, it leads” helps journalists attract attention - so they do it. Claiming that “journalists are objective” helps journalists persuade - so they do it. And neither of those things is necessarily in the public interest.
Strict adherence to “If it bleeds, it leads” makes journalism tend strongly negative. For example, society might be in the process of creating a large city - while the newspapers mention only the repeated instances of houses burning down. And claiming that “journalists are objective” is simply false because nobody is objective. Least of all, someone who claims to be objective while knowing that they are negative. “Negativity is objectivity” only according to the cynic. And the claim that journalists are objective is easy for journalists to make when they are conspiring against the pubic. That wouldn’t be happening if they were competing ideologically, as the First Amendment contemplates - and as NY Times v. Sullivan falsely assumed.
So there is a case that the AP in particular, and wire services in general, tend to define “objectivity” as political conformity - and to gull the public into unthinking acceptance of that canard. If it does not actually restrict access to uncongenial politics, it certainly tries to overwhelm such perspectives by a tidal wave of group-think. Before the advent of the telegraph, geography had the effect of a “gate” controlling access in one place to information from another. The wire service changed the situation to one in which preferential transmission of information based on political implications is used by the wire services and its member outlets to be the gatekeeping function. Now, with the technologies which enable the internet, neither distance nor the wire services reliably acts as information gates. The wire services (and the members of the AP collectively) have the effect of trying to keep the public in the dark and feeding it BS. Their virtue was an important one - transmitting news widely at minimum cost in telegraphy bandwidth - but telegraphy bandwidth has gotten dirt cheap.
The wire services deserve to be sued into oblivion. No matter how many journalists don’t like it. Because “the” freedom of the press would actually be promoted. The Sherman AntiTrust Act should apply, and the First Amendment does not actually constitute a defense against it.
The 1964 NY Times v. Sullivan decision of SCOTUS was based on the idea that the First Amendment was succeeding in its goal of insuring ideological diversity in journalism. All experience shows that instead we have a singular “MSM” where that does not apply. Sullivan makes it hard for Democrat or Republican politicians to sue for libel - a situation which is “fair” in exactly the sense that a law against sleeping under bridges applies to rich and poor alike. Republicans get libeled continually, and Democrats don’t get libeled. The Sullivan precedent must be overruled, and journalists on the make for Republican scalps put on notice that the laws of libel are more than a mere rumor.
The suit should also call for an injunction forcing the FCC to end the practice of putting the imprimatur of the government on the broadcasting of news. The planted axiom of the “objectivity” of journalism must be rooted out. The FEC should simply close up shop, because the “objectivity” of journalism is a planted axiom within its enabling legislation. And stipulating that any “press” is objective is actually a violation of 1A.
The one thing missing from this analysis is, “Who is the plaintiff?” THE REPUBLICAN PARTY MUST MAN UP AND FILE THAT SUIT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.