Spicer on Mueller Report: 'Dems Dug a Hole So Deep,' Now Don't Know How to Get Out

No, they don’t want the report released at a. They want it to remain classified so they can keep using it as a “tune in next week” lure to keep their base interested enough in the rambling, never-ending soap opera to tune in week after week in hopes of seeing the conclusion, and keep them buying advertised products.

Spicer is a lot smarter than he looked in the White House.

I wonder if Spicer could be Spicier after all...

The Media gleefully participated in the lies for TWO AND A HALF YEARS.

There is no solution for the scandal of Democrat lies which does not address “the media” (actually, wire service journalism).
And there is no solution for “the media” which does not address SCOTUS’s 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision. With all due respect to the fact that Sullivan was a unanimous decision with enthusiastic concurrences, the facts before the court were insufficient to allow them to make a ruling with the claimed value as precedent.
On a venal level, Mr. Sullivan was neither a Republican nor a Democrat - at least, not a Democrat in good standing with the Democratic Party as understood by the Warren Court. Mr. Sullivan was a Southern Democrat, whom SCOTUS felt free to abuse without blowback from the two major parties. So there’s that.
But on a legal level, the Sullivan decision enthusiastically defends a superficial interpretation of the First Amendment but tramples its underlying meaning. We are taught that 1A gave us freedom of the press, but a knowing reader can see that that is not true. Second Amendment proponents point, rightly, to the phrase “the right of the people to . . .” and say that the Second Amendment merely codifies preexisting rights, rather than creating them. The same rationale holds in interpreting the First Amendment. As Justice Scalia pointed out, 1A refers not simply to “freedom of speech, or of the press” but rather to "the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
Without that preceding “the,” the expression would codify absolute freedom of speech and press - and neither libel law nor pornography law could ever pass constitutional muster. But "the freedom . . . “ refers to freedom as it existed at the time of the ratification of the First Amendment. And there is no obvious reason to suppose that 1A would have been ratified if it had been understood to repeal laws (or prevent Congress from passing laws) against pornography or libel. Arguably, then, that the right to freedom of the press and the right to seek redress for libel both are entailed in the intent of the First Amendment.
On a philosophical level, the intent of protecting freedom of the press is to prevent the unification of press and state. Freedom of the press does not imply a responsibility to be objective; in fact it is a hindrance to any government effort to enforce such a responsibility on journalists. The intent of libel law is to prevent undisciplined publication of scurrilous and unverified rumor as fact. It is a check on the power of any given press.
But another factor, one AFAIK entirely absent from the considerations of the court in Sullivan, is antitrust considerations. Mr. Sullivan presumably said nothing about any other journal than The New York Times, but although “bias in the media” was not an expression in common use in 1964 - and the Accuracy In Media organization only dates to 1968, suspicions were expressed about that issue by Barry Goldwater in 1964, and by others during the conflict between the Democrat Party (and prominent reporters) and Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s (and years after it would have done Sen. McCarthy any good, the declassification of the Venona Papers validatedMcCarthy’s position).
In 1954 critic Leslie Fiedler captured the essence of “McCarthyism”: “From one end of the country to another rings the cry, ‘I am cowed! I am afraid to speak out!’, and the even louder response, ‘Look, he is cowed! He is afraid to speak out!’” - Ann Coulter, Treason
And as others have pointed out, although journalism widely proclaimed that “McCarthyism” compromised their freedom, any given journalistic institution would have been incensed if they had been accused of knuckling under to it - and would have been well able to defend themselves from the charge if pressed.
As Adam Smith said,
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. - Wealth of Nations (1776)
Wire services constitute virtual meetings of the journalists who participate in or read, wire service content, and there is therefore scant reason to assume that they do not “conspire against the public.” If they do, one would expect them to conspire to promote their own propaganda power, and to deploy it in ways congenial to themselves but detrimental to society. As noted above, journalists are within their rights to promote their own political opinions. But cooperation among journalists generally to unify the political implications of their publications - and then to propagandize to the effect that they are, all of them, "objective” - is illegitimate “conspiracy against the public.”
That would be true whatever the politics journalists conspired to promote. But it is worse than that. The particular politics settled on by the journalism monopoly promote big government at the expense of the founding principles of the American Revolution. Jefferson stated that “That government governs best, which governs least,” but the most famous declaration of the reasons for the Revolution (other than the DOI) was Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. The first two paragraphs of which develop the idea that government is at best a necessary evil.
Such declarations aside, to allow all, or most, presses to unite in heaping calumny on those who oppose the unlimited growth of government is to allow government and its promoters to unite press and state. The fact that it is done under the aegis of the press rather than that of the state (as in censorship) is a distinction with scant difference.
As a matter of right, a president or any other office holder, is entitled to seek damages in court if subjected to the sort of full court press Mr. Trump has endured. To deny the Republicans the right to sue for libel, when Democrats never are libeled, is to entitle Democrats not only to their own opinions but also to their own facts.

They got so much momentum going they can’t stop until they meet up with bedrock...

“Mueller couldn’t find it with this team of top-notch investigators and FBI agents.”

Even more stunning is that his team of “top-notch investigators” consisted of 100% Hillary-loving Trump-hating people. If THEY couldn’t find anything, there’s nothing. What gobsmacks me is that they didn’t make up sh!t to get Trump.

Excellent post.

I figured out for myself by the mid 1970s that McCarthy was basically right.

People here can hate Coulter all they like, but she has done a public service on issues such as Roe v. Wade and Joe McCarthy that few others have done.