Taking the interpretation of Hamilton's idea of energetic/unity, to assume criminal immunity, as a necessity, in Fed 70, as CJ John Roberts did, incorrectly, maliciously, and intentionally in granting Trump immunity, it should be in the same energetic reasoning, but legal, framework to protect the press from Trump, as POTUS, especially a…
Taking the interpretation of Hamilton's idea of energetic/unity, to assume criminal immunity, as a necessity, in Fed 70, as CJ John Roberts did, incorrectly, maliciously, and intentionally in granting Trump immunity, it should be in the same energetic reasoning, but legal, framework to protect the press from Trump, as POTUS, especially as things relate to past issues when not POTUS.
When he becomes "the Executive", the press may need immunity to energetically have debate on public issues that are Uninhibited, Robust and Wide Open so We The People know without censorship for something not protected, such as one's ego, before the escalation continues. The threats continue, to many more than just then just the press, and as such may need preemptive decisions, in this novel time, to avoid what we know is coming.
This should apply for those in pressrooms, also, being told to censor negative items as this is workplace restrictions/censorship, if speaking to, about, opinion content, for any protected class, of employee or item to be censored, as discriminatory, if applicable. It's not insanity it is pathology.
This said, is he establishing the intimidation, as a citizen, in advance, due to now being in Vought's "post-constitutional era" before he takes the Executive, or when he is the Executive? The "press", even those who refuse truth and transparency, mere indecency, should look to define this type of intimidation/suppression, in some legalese of Prior Restraint, on perceived unfairness, which I do not believe is constitutionally protected or a class to which should be facing fraud, malice, or some BS, for pissing off dear child leader, to spell out immunity. It should be absolute or with definitions/limitations for these attacks and suits baselessly brought, frivolously, so they be contained, regardless of what Disney just did.
Taking the interpretation of Hamilton's idea of energetic/unity, to assume criminal immunity, as a necessity, in Fed 70, as CJ John Roberts did, incorrectly, maliciously, and intentionally in granting Trump immunity, it should be in the same energetic reasoning, but legal, framework to protect the press from Trump, as POTUS, especially as things relate to past issues when not POTUS.
When he becomes "the Executive", the press may need immunity to energetically have debate on public issues that are Uninhibited, Robust and Wide Open so We The People know without censorship for something not protected, such as one's ego, before the escalation continues. The threats continue, to many more than just then just the press, and as such may need preemptive decisions, in this novel time, to avoid what we know is coming.
This should apply for those in pressrooms, also, being told to censor negative items as this is workplace restrictions/censorship, if speaking to, about, opinion content, for any protected class, of employee or item to be censored, as discriminatory, if applicable. It's not insanity it is pathology.
This said, is he establishing the intimidation, as a citizen, in advance, due to now being in Vought's "post-constitutional era" before he takes the Executive, or when he is the Executive? The "press", even those who refuse truth and transparency, mere indecency, should look to define this type of intimidation/suppression, in some legalese of Prior Restraint, on perceived unfairness, which I do not believe is constitutionally protected or a class to which should be facing fraud, malice, or some BS, for pissing off dear child leader, to spell out immunity. It should be absolute or with definitions/limitations for these attacks and suits baselessly brought, frivolously, so they be contained, regardless of what Disney just did.