Can it be class action?
I can use the $$
AND THIS: Schiff admits he should have been ‘much more clear’ about contact with whistleblower
Fox News ^ | 13 October 2019 | Andrew O’Reilly
Posted on 10/13/2019, 1:19:58 PM by E. Pluribus Unum
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., admitted on Sunday that he should have been clearer about his contact with the whistleblower who filed a complaint about President Trump’s July phone call with the Ukrainian president.
“I should have been much more clear,” Schiff said during an interview on CBS’ “Face The Nation.”
Fox News reported earlier this month that the intelligence community whistleblower did not disclose contact with Schiff’s staff to the intelligence committee inspector general (ICIG).
The sources said ICIG Michael Atkinson told lawmakers in a closed session that the whistleblower did not disclose the contact with the California Democrat’s committee and that Atkinson didn’t investigate that contact as he had no knowledge of it.
Sources also told Fox News that Atkinson also revealed that the whistleblower volunteered he or she was a registered Democrat and that they had a prior working relationship with a prominent Democratic politician.
Schiff’s office acknowledged earlier this month that the whistleblower had reached out to them before filing a complaint in mid-August, giving Democrats advance warning of the accusations that would lead them to launch an impeachment inquiry days later.
The source said Atkinson told lawmakers he did not know how a Schiff tweet in August and other statements about Ukraine appeared to reflect the substance of the whistleblower complaint, which was not declassified and not shared with Congress until the end of September.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Ha ha ha! I'm in!
I can use the $$
Count me out.
- Article 1 Section 6
- They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
There actually is a problem, but it’s esoteric: C-Span makes speeches “in the House” virtually occur in my living room via TV.
But actually I do advocate lawsuits against the Democrats known as “objective journalists.” Because, IMHO, the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision is wrong/not broadly applicable.
Scalia made a shocking statement which, on examination, turns out to be obviously true: The First Amendment did not create freedom of the press. That is true because “the freedom of the press” (as 1A refers to it) was already in being when the Constitution, and later the Bill of Rights, were adopted. 2A famously refers to “the right” of the people to keep and bear arms; it means that the right does not depend on the existence of 2A. In the same way, “the freedom . . . of the press” refers to freedom of the press as it existed before the adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
That is relevant to the Sullivan decision because Sullivan affects to be required by the First Amendment - but that is impossible. 1A does not say explicitly that it compromises the right to sue for libel, and therefore (under the Ninth Amendment) the right to sue for libel was not impinged upon by 1A.
That is, if public figures had the right to sue for libel in 1787, they have the right to sue for libel now.
Because of the wire services, journalism is a cartel. Because journalism is about bad news about society - and thus naiveté towards government, journalism is inherently slanted towards socialism. And thus - as we all know - “liberals” are never libeled. Whereas conservatives routinely are. Abolition of the right of public figures - conservative public figures - to sue for libel is the font of political correctness - “liberals” are entitled not only to their own opinions but to their own facts.
If anyone launches a massive libel suit against the journalism cartel, I’m in. I’d want to invest serious money. Might lose, but could win big for American society.
A month or more ago I suggested the possibility of creating a Class Lawsuit on behalf of citizens against the Democrat lawmakers in Congress. It was poo-pooed here as being impossible or at least because mere citizens would have no standing.
I would support it even if I got nothing out of it. It would be worth it just to bankrupt the Dems.named in the suite