‘Trump inaccurately says Pelosi called for parties in SF’s Chinatown as coronavirus loomed’ (SF Chron tries to cover for Nancy)

President Trump took off Wednesday on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, inaccurately saying she invited people to “parties” in San Francisco’s Chinatown in late February after he had taken his first significant steps to try to limit the U.S. spread of the coronavirus.

Trump said at his daily White House news briefing that after he barred travelers from China on Feb. 2 and set up screening rules for U.S. citizens returning from the country, “Nancy Pelosi was trying to have in San Francisco parties in Chinatown because she thought it would be great.”

Trump was misleadingly describing a tour of Chinatown that Pelosi made Feb. 24 with local merchants, having lunch and visiting shops and businesses as customers vanished from the area.

“We should come to Chinatown,” she said outside the Dim Sum Corner Restaurant on Grant Avenue. “Precautions have been taken by our city. We know that there is concern surrounding tourism ... but we think it’s very safe to be in Chinatown and hope that others will come.”

The left have huge balls because nobody ever checks them. They lie to our faces, and half the dopes buy into it.

Journalism is about bad news, and journalism creates a political tailwind for “liberals.” The very word “liberal” is defined by journalists to mean “fellow traveller with the perspective of the 'objective journalism’ cartel.” Thus “liberals” never get libeled, thus never need to sue for libel, and are entirely unaffected by the limitations which the Warren Court unanimously imposed on public officials ability to sue for libel (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964).
Scalia noted that the reason the Bill of Rights is a set of amendments is that the Federalists thought that Both

Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

went without saying. And they actually thought that the first eight amendments were unnecessary in light of the Ninth Amendment. But the first eight amendments enumerate those rights which tyrants had historically abused, and they were politically necessary, even tho the ninth amendment would have been sufficient for legal purposes.
The point is that the first eight amendments do not pretend to create or modify rights. It would be ridiculous to propose that the RKBA in the second amendment prevents politicians from complaining if someone behaves recklessly with a firearm in a dangerous or damaging way. “The” (existing in 1788) RKBA did not include a right to commit reckless endangerment (let alone murder).
And in the same way, “the” (existing in 1788) freedom of the press did not include the right to commit libel. The Federalists and those who ratified the Bill of Rights had no intention to stir up controversy by denigrating anyone’s right to sue for libel. They simply wanted the issue of rights to go away, and to be free to do the work of building the new government.
And that was how the First Amendment was seen, in and out of court, until the Warren Court - fatuously claiming that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”
sank its teeth into it. Sullivan was a unanimous decision. Proving the Warren Court capable of being unanimously wrong.
Now that the Warren Court is fading into history, the Sullivan decision MUST be overturned.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.