After they drop COVID, what are they going to do with all of the DA’s who refuse to put people in jail? Seems like there is a lot of baggage on the dem mule train.
Trump couldn’t stop the DA’s from working their mischief while he was in office. And those DA’s had all “the media” behind them, then and now.The bottom line is that “the media” won’t turn on those DA’s a moment before the current administration in Washington does. And the administration won’t do it without clearing it with “the media.”
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 Nations (1776)“The media” is, simply, the Associated Press in particular and all the wire services in general. It takes a news Organization like FNC to stand up to the consensus which manufactures the propaganda to the effect that “the media” are public servants. They are not, they are instead “a conspiracy against the public.” Which is demonstrated by the systematic libeling of Kyle Rittenhouse - and Brett M. Kavanaugh, and . . . the name of the victims is legion.The reason this malfeasance is possible traces back to the Warren Court, and it’s unanimous (!) erroneous misreading of the First Amendment in the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision in 1964. Sullivan holds that 1A modifies libel law - a holding which was completely novel in 1964. 1A refers to “the” freedom . . . of the press. But it must be understood that the framers of the unamended constitution had no intention of modifying freedom of the press as it already existed and as it was already limited by libel and pornography legislation. 9A and 10A alone were more than enough - under the interpretation of the Federalists - to keep existing freedoms in place.
The fear of the framers was that, since rights as Americans understood them were matters of Common Law, those rights were nowhere codified completely anywhere at any time - and any attempt to synthesize such in a bill of rights inside the Constitution would have the tendency to put a ceiling over our rights, not a floor under them. And the right to sue for libel exactly fits that profile - Sullivan licensed the AP et. al. to run rampant over the rights of people to the reputation their own deeds entitled them.