Yes there IS a constitutional crisis. It emanates from the House but is everywhere in DC thanks to the 5th columnists in the media.
The solution is to arrest those who are defiling the constitution start with Nan in the house and all those little Muslim/communists who ply their conspiracy for a coup, there. Next those in the media who purposely are slandering the President with made up bullcrap.
If we get to November 2020....with no impeachment, then what was this all about for four years? I think they need to proceed, with a marginalized charge or two....let the Senate tell them there’s no cause for this, and just let it end. The fact that they talk about this, but there is still not yet a single charge....means at least six more months of soap opera left to this.
It’s time someone dig up one charge on Pelosi, and attempt to remove her from office.
The solution is to arrest those who are defiling the constitution start with Nan in the house and all those little Muslim/communists who ply their conspiracy for a coup, there. Next those in the media who purposely are slandering the President with made up bullcrap.
The solution is to recognize, and act on, the facts thatThe solution is therefore for Republicans to sue for libel and for violation of the antitrust laws - and take down “the media” with massive damages.
- Major journalism - wire service journalism - is a monopoly. There are multiple wire services, but only one effect of any wire service. Namely, to create virtual meetings among journalists. And “People of the same trade,” as Adam Smith put it, “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.”
- The "conspiracy against the public” produced by those virtual meetings is a powerful propaganda campaign to the effect that journalists (only those in good standing within the cabal, that is) are “objective.” That is a fatuous claim, and would be for anyone - since objectivity is a goal, not a state of being.
- Journalists know perfectly well that journalism is negative - that “If it bleeds, it leads.” This means that their claim of objectivity is actually a claim that "negativity is objectivity.” And that is the claim of the cynic. Journalism is, for commercial reasons, cynical about society (and, it follows, naive about government).
- The unanimous 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision purports to "enforce the First Amendment" by making it impractical for Republicans to sue for libel. The decision doesn’t put it that way, of course. But since Democrats systematically go along and get along with journalism, Democrats don’t get libeled - and Republicans routinely do. So discouraging public officials from suing is discouraging Republican public officials from suing.
- The First Amendment did not establish freedom of the press - it preserved the preexisting right, along with preexisting limitations to it. “The” freedom of the press existed before the First Amendment - and so did laws against libel and pornography. The right to sue for libel, therefore, is a natural right embedded in the Bill of Rights (see the Ninth Amendment), if not explicitly articulated in it. People who become public figures do not forfeit that right.