I worry that we will have rock solid proof of treason at the highest levels. Proof like “2+2=4”. Incontrovertible proof. And the media will say, “Nope. Trump is Hitler. Hey everybody! Pay no attention!”
I wonder if the First Amendment will survive.
The media will be implicated. Their opinions will be irrelevant.
The first amendment will survive, the media in its current form may not. We need a real media peopled with integrity and honor
Sedition, most certainly. Treason will be a bit harder. I do see rumblings saying Steele didn’t author the dossier and I have to wonder if they are tamping down ‘foreign connections’ to the document.
If it is 2 and 2 true, I expect justice will be done, one way or another.
I wonder if the First Amendment will survive.
The First Amendment is predicated on the assumption, not of a free press, but of free and independent presses. Plural. Nay, multiple. That is not what we have.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. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsThe Associated Press newswire is a virtual “meeting" of all major US news outlets. Not about “merriment and diversion,” either, but precisely about the content of their trade. It has been ongoing since before the Civil War, it doesn’t end. "A conspiracy against the public” is the only possible result.Note I did not say “a conspiracy against the government.” Society and government are two different things, which is the very first point Paine makes in Common Sense. In fact, society is a “blessing,” and government is a necessary evil. To the extent that the two are opposites, skepticism towards the one must recommend the other. The conspiracy against the public which the springs from the AP’s “meeting” is simply the conflation of the interests of the journalist with the public interest. Promoting bad news about society (emphatically including its leaders - e.g., businessmen - and its crucial business and religious institutions) while claiming to be objective directs actual cynicism towards society. Each instance of negativity towards society carries a “there oughta be a law” implication, and cynicism towards society corresponds to naiveté towards government.
In short, the very existence of (any and all) wire services tends inherently to synthesize socialist propaganda. It is that, and not the First Amendment, which must be called into question.
If the proof you mention is provided, and the media subverts it and the DOJ does not act to purge the corruption, my family and I will be at war. The time for talk is over.