Replies

Trump Jr. also blasted the media for their coverage, stating, "They lied to the American public for two years. They did a terrible disservice to this country, to journalism as a profession. I think they've done irreparable damage to the faith that the average American is going to have in terms of mainstream journalism. I think it's a blight on our republic on democracy and on our Constitution — that's not going to come undone very quickly."

Don Jr is right on. WTF? It was tax payer money that paid for this crap. Our frickin money, hows that make you feel? PO is only a start for me.

True as far as it goes. But my take on it is that We-the-people need a lesson on having “faith . . . in terms of mainstream journalism.”
Granted that it’s an egregious, expensive lesson, but in reality freedom of the press is not predicated on the conceit of journalistic objectivity. Freedom of the press is predicated on the right of the people to speak, and print, their opinions and beliefs. Note well, I did not say that people are entitled to lie.
Remember, the Constitution - before and after the passage of the Bill of Rights - was not intended to change the rights of the people except as explicitly stated. Hence, the original absence of a bill of rights - and the inclusion in the Bill of Rights of the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Viewed in that way, we understand - and Scalia explicitly stated - that the right to sue for libel was not touched by the First Amendment - or any other part of the Constitution. When 1A speaks of ”the” freedom of the press it means the freedom - and limitations thereof - which existed when 1A was ratified. That’s why courts agonize over pornography definition - the Constitution did not touch the law against pornography.
OK, libel law still exists untouched by 1A - so what? So the Warren Court’s 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision - which abridges the right of public officials in general and judges in particular - is bad law. The decision was unanimous, yes - but then, Morrison v. Olson would have been unanimous, too, but for Justice Scalia - and Scalia wasn’t on the court in 1964. And nobody thinks that Morrison can be relied on as a precedent to argue stare decisis in court. Events proved Scalia was the only one who was right.
Germane facts not before the Court in 1964 include the fact that journalism is a cartel. There is even a 1945 SCOTUS decision to the effect that the AP violated Sherman AntiTrust Act. And journalism is an ideological - not just a business - cartel. Democrats go along and (famously) get along with the ideology of that cartel. The upshot of which fact is that Democrats don’t get libeled - and Republicans routinely do. That wasn’t obvious in 1964 because plaintiff Sullivan was a Southern Democrat - someone who today can best be compared with David Duke, the Democrats’ (and journalists’ - but I repeat myself) favorite “Republican.”
It is the fact that Republicans get libeled routinely - and that they accept that they do not have recourse in the courts - which produces the Political Correctness environment of today. De facto, it entitles the Democrats not only to their own opinions but to their own facts. And the upshot of that is a gunman shooting up the Republican Congressional baseball team, and the fascist organization which calls itself “antifa.”
Republicans must defy Sullivan and sue for libel. And SCOTUS must accept the case. Can anyone visualize Kavanaugh and Thomas agreeing not to hear it?