Posted on 12/18/2020 6:04:30 PM PST by Rummyfan
For a damaging story about a Republican to be true, nothing has to be true at all. Third-hand hearsay about hookers and pee, a smile on a face, or a sarcastic tweet or phrase taken out of context can make even the most absurd conclusion be portrayed as fact and conveyed as truth in perpetuity. If the bad guy is a Republican, no proof is needed.
Hunter Biden, the China-compromised (to the tune of a request of 10 million smackers), Russian oligarch–payoff taking, crack pipe–smoking, naked-picture havin’ Democrat has been given every benefit of the doubt. The media and technology companies forbade mentioning the story before the election. No one who watched CNN or NBC or MSNBC or read the New York Times or the Washington Post knew about the story. Those on Twitter whose tweets weren’t throttled or blocked outright were called names by the media. The story, which had witnesses, corroboration, and evidence, was deemed a conspiracy theory.
It’s all true. The DOJ and FBI knew it was all true, and, shockingly, the intelligence agencies that leaked like 30-year-old sieves throughout the Trump administration miraculously learned how to keep a secret for over a year. They stayed mum through the primaries. They were quiet through the presidential election while sitting on a laptop full of emails, images, and texts of Biden corruption.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
For repubs, dmes have just used the accusation/allegation as enough.
If this election was reversed, imagine the speeches and vocalizations from the left that would be going on.
We know, in the past we’ve got them on tape reacting to mere allegations and heresay on repubs. We know it would be true.
Make it up. You can’t make it up.
Hillary Clinton knew a meal ticket when she had one, and like all good feminists attached herself to Bill like a fungus. She would not let go no matter the stories. They had an understanding. Feminists loved Bill Clinton. They defended him.
speaking of the “Blue Dress”...Does anyone remember what non-MSM Tabloid newspaper broke the story???..........and the MSM HAD to confirm it too!
And that is the reason why, Fellow Freepers, they have worked ceaselessly for four years to destroy him.
Didnt Isikoff bring it to Newsweak and they spiked it but Drudge got word of the spike and ran with it? Don't remember who first broke the news of the blue dress, maybe Lucianne?
This was the time period that I found FR, it was the only place where honest, up to the minute news on this scandal could be found.
1st time I ever bought one...It said it was an “Exclusive”...lol
.
Or as I observed in recent years: not even that Weiner could get a Clinton in trouble.
I do not like the stories of National Enquirer, they are mostly useless, sensational stories.
But, frankly, I trust them more than I trust NY Times and all the News of record.
Actually, that’s so sad!
Well written article.
Juicy Smooellet Syndrome
/yeah its a french thing
This is true for two reasons:
- The defining characteristic of journalism is negativity to the point of cynicism about society, and the defining characteristic of the Democrat Party is that it has no other principle conflicting with its determination to go along - and thus get along - with the journalism cartel. Thus, journalists have no inclination to libel Democrats, and plenty of inclination to libel Republicans.
- Under the Warren Court’s fraudulent New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision, officials - Republicans or (as if) Democrats - are strongly inhibited from attempting to sue for libel.
In Sullivan, the Court claimed that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”The fallacy in that claim is that - as all courts prior to 1964 had held - the intention of the framers and ratifiers of the First Amendment understood and intended that the (existing, state) laws against libel would not be affected by 1A.Under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, individual or state rights not explicitly affected by the Constitution are not modified by the Constitution. Libel is not mentioned in 1A, and libel is not affected by 1A. It is no more complicated than that.
1A no more gives a printer the right to deny a politician the reputation their behavior has earned than 2A gives a gun owner the right to shoot Steve Scalise.
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.