constitution. we are honored to educate and inspire somebody americans about the meaning and importance of the u.s. constitution, and it is because if you that this meeting can work. on behalf of jacky rosen and everyone at the constitution center, i want to thank all of you. our donors, partners, visitors, public officials, many of whom are in the audience tonight, our corporate leadership council, at our superb board of trustees for everything you do to help us bring at the u.s. constitution to life. i am sure many of you want to share our program tonight with your friends and family. when you do, we invite you to use the #liberty medal. so quietly.ou to do thank you in advance for silencing your mobile devices. there are friends of the constitution center whose dedicated support helps to make knights like tonight possible. please help me thank cynthia macleod, superintendent of independence national historical park. [applause] >> dog divorce, chairman of the national constitution center's execut

the constitution center we say is like working in constitutional heaven.back sitting here with both of you listening to your things that you've done. all that they have done to eliminate things with the constitution. please join me in thanking them. compact. [inaudible conversation] [background sounds] cspan2 campaign 2020 coverage continues. as president from post keep america great valley minneapolis, minnesota. like tonight, at 8:00 p.m. eastern on cspan2 watch anytime on cspan.org and listen wherever you know using the free cspan2 radio app. >> former acting fbi director andrew mccabe discussed his career. his firing from the fbi and the arrearages of the russian investigation. he was interviewed by investigative journalist carl bernstein at a conference hosted by the new school, in new york city. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> [applause] president trump: thank you thank you so much for that warm welcome. and good evening ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests students, and all members of the new school community. thanks so much for inviting me

a war that precipitated his constitutional brilliance. the war for independence did not progress swiftly. as england's oppressive course became national policy, for the colonies, mason met it with the resolution no less fixed and expressed in forceful language. he wrote that quote, though we are england's subjects, we would use every means which have been have given us to prevent our becoming enslaves. with mason's commanding strength and intellect he became aroused by the emotional appeal and vigor of words. all is at stake, he wrote to washington, and the little conveniences and comforts of life are set in competition with our liberty ought to be rejected, not with reluctance, but with pleasure. mason was not a bold commander like washington know a fiery war general like patrick henry, but gained his chief fame as the draftsman of the virginia declaration of rights. he rarely had a national audience outside of his country, virginia, and only slow passage of time reveal the full significance of his proposals. yet mason did not rest once

by contrast he has been brushed aside as an opponent of the constitution. he was a major intellectual contributor to the creation. no one contributed more to the actual document handed george mason. she deserves to be considered one of the fathers of the national government. indeed our greatest political documents the declaration of independence, the bill of rights to the constitution all form a series of circles leading back to george mason. in my view mason should emerge as one of the preeminent literary architects of the american revolution. most americans should read his declaration of rights and his later virginia constitution as a part of the common stock of political and journalistic discourse. mason had the sharp mind of jefferson, the determination of washington, the literary skills of medicine, and the personality and grumpy temperament of john adams. a man seemingly lost in the general public on his life is in the most tangled political period in u.s. history. why then is mason moss among the sacred gallery of the same? it is lamentable that most

it just makes such spectacular hash out of the constitution and constitutional history that it doesn't fly. in fact, there is a second possible meaning of inferior in the context of appointments that does make sense. right? yes. an officer who doesn't answer to anybody else in a hierarchy is by definition not an inferior officer. must be a superior officer that much is clear. so sometimes you can determine inphonor status simply by looking at an organizational hierarchy. but there's another understanding of inferiority, another path to superior officer status that can exist even if you answer to someone else in a hierarchy. in the late 18th century, a rather relevant time period for what i'm talking about, a court whose decisions were not subject to review by any other court issued final decisions, nobody to review it. could sometimes nonetheless be called an inferior court if it's geographical or subject matter jurisdiction was lower than or less than some other courts. and those courts with broader authority would be called supreme courts even if they had no decisional relationship t

problems with the office of special counsel are constitutional, as is appropriate for a belated constitution day event, but some of the most noted problems involve garden-variety, meaning i'm sorry to say deathly dull, statutory interpretation. because the statutory argument involves a close reading of some interconnected and cross-referencing texts, a visual aid proves helpful. if this was a classroom, i would use a hand out, or my old standby, chalk and a blackboard, but because we are here, i have to do something i have never before done at this school -- powerpoint. [laughter] [: [sighs]awson this could be a train wreck, so stand by. .et's start basic the statute authorizing robert mueller as special counsel. the problem.of that is, in fact, the statute authorizing robert mueller's office as special counsel. well, there is this thing. i'm actually going to come back to that thing, the thing that that does and off -- in fact authorized something called special attorneys. it's just not the kind of special attorneys that i'm going to be talking about today. as i said, i'm going to get back

the fact that this is what distinguishes a constitutional state.but then some people feel left in the lurch and say they need clear guidelines on how to act is kind of the lemmas it's a dilemma there can't be one solution to every problem and at the same time nobody can say that some people's lives are worth more than other people's. legislators also have to respect the principles laid down in the constitution the law protects against despotism nobody is above it in a rapidly changing world laws and even the constitution itself have to be adapted constantly the ongoing struggle over hell best to protect the freedoms of all the country's citizens is likely to continue for a long time to come. to god. happy days for parisians mentioned defending that position at the top of the bonus league win at home against i trust frank for. the mood is not so great that by and after an unconvincing win against underdogs in your own but is this true champions look like. double. your france and your antonio here's a see here this isn't obvious and as i'm sitting on

the fact that this is what distinguishes a constitutional state.but then some people feel left in the lurch and say they need clear guidelines on how to act it's kind of heat out of the limousine it's a dilemma there can't be one solution to every problem and at the same time nobody can say that some people's lives are worth more than other people's. legislators also have to respect the principles laid down in the constitution the law protects against despotism nobody is above it in a rapidly changing world laws and even the constitution itself have to be adapted constantly the ongoing struggle over help best to protect the freedoms of all the country's citizens is likely to continue for a long time to come. to go in the. front plastic waste. to include all it all. to you indian entrepreneurs have turned their countries face problem into lucrative businesses to their finances transformed into high cliffs and friendly feel. to the folks. next d.w. . in good shape if you're chronically ill you shouldn't work out but you should work on sundays hard pr

the genius of the constitution, a separation of powers. three co-equal branches of government to be a check and balance on each other. and it's that that we take the oath of office. we gather here on that opening day with our families gathered round to proudly raise our hands to protect and defend the constitution of the united states. that is exactly what we are doing today. sadly this is not any cause for any comfort. this is something that is very solemn, that is something prayerful. and that we had to gather so much information to take us to this next step. again, this is a solemn occasion. nobody, i doubt anybody in this place, or anybody that you know, comes to congress to take the oath of office, comes to congress to impeach the president of the united states. unless his actions are jeopardizing our honoring our oath of office. i'm grateful to our committee chairs for all the careful and thoughtful investigation they have been doing as this inquiry has proceeded. today the house takes the next step forward as we establish the proced

the constitution. here is the good news. when we ask people what right is guaranteed by the first amendment, an easy question for the people in this room, not so much for people around the country. 86% got that correct. pretty good. . and this was done in 2018. we asked about which party controlled the house and senate. about 80% knew the republican party controlled both houses. not a bad result, perhaps reflected that there was a midterm election coming in partisan control would be up for grabs, but still not bad. the electoral college, people know at least the basic function. and then you get a little less knowledge about procedures, say the vice president has the tie-breaking vote in the senate as opposed to the majority leader or somebody else. only about half know that. and for many years we have studied public knowledge of the filibuster, not so great. fewer than half know that 60 votes are needed to end the filibuster, an important marker in american politics. so here is really the story of who

constitution. of course that includes the president, all members members of the administration and all of us in congress. the constitution contains two clauses that are pertinent to our topics today. one prevents an elected official from receiving any present or monument from any king, prince without the consent of congress. congress has given this president no such consent. a second unrelated clause accepting any federal or state taxpayer dollars beyond this presidential salary. a lot of people may not be familiar with the term, but the founding fathers thought of it broadly as any payment or benefit. they included it in the constitution to prevent u.s. government officials from accepting bribes from foreign government or from parts of our own government that may be trying -- i think we can all agree that that is a pet practice that the public and the members of this coming congress do not abide. explicitly stating that the tenant may not use the premises to violate federal law. for any purpose or

first amendment to the constitution. everything is owed to us so we don't know how far apart those are. the declaration of independence is an amazing document love it and encourage everyone to think about it. i have been in the founding. as a justification, it was an announcement that severed our political connection to do two things in terms of laying out political philosophy. it's headfirst, cover comes from the people. and second that the declaration says that we have the right to rebel. of those authorities that exist have been instituted and whoever resists authority resists what god has appointed. they rely on that idea and it's not enough to show that they were all christian. the conversation i would love to have especially if you want to buy a glass of kentucky bourbon i would talk about that for hours he would still hav still o shows of religious belief influences the choice is for instance the constitutional convention. those religious beliefs must be examined compared against those in the constitutional design

have we conducted a trial that fails to meet the constitution? mr. stewart: those proceedings do not resemble an impeachment proceeding to the extent that they involve stripping an individual of rights. in that kind of case there is a statutory provision-- justice o'connor: oh, well, i think they could involve a great many rights -- water rights or one thing and another. that are terribly important. mr. stewart: --but there is no provision in the constitution that provides that the trial must be before this court in those cases. the only provision that would be applicable, i think, would be the seventh amendment which might well, when you had an individual present, provide a right to a jury, and indeed there is a statute that provides for a jury trial right in those circumstances in this court. of course, it hasn't been used for many years, but there is that right. justice kennedy what would you : do if the senate did not allow the accused official to face and confront the witnesses against him? mr. stewart your honor, i'm not : sure i completely und

we have a constitutional responsibility to follow the facts and apply the law, and be guided by the constitution and present the evidence of wrongdoing to the american corruption. it is about national security. it is about integrity and it is about defending the democracy for the people. with that, we have an opportunity to take handful of questions. first row. >> any chairman who would like to speak, in light of the information that you have gotten from the witnesses behind closed doors are you prepared to expand on the ukraine scandal and any witnesses that you would like to have publicly? >> the process set forth from speaker pelosi from the very beginning is that we are operating under an impeachment inquiry umbrella where there are six committees of relevant jurisdiction to explore the wrongdoing that is existing coming out of 1600 pennsylvania avenue and at the end of the process make recommendations to the chair and the judiciary committee with a continued focus on the trump ukraine scandal. the abuse of power. the solicitation of foreign interference in the 2020 election, and that inquir

it's about our constitution. it's about our country. so i urge my colleagues to not just think about the political pressures of the moment, these will pass. please consider the heavy responsibility you have today to this institution, the constitution, and to our country. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? mr. cole: madam speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: i want to begin by thanking my friend for his kind words and the professionalism with which he handled last night's hearing. before i begin, madam speaker, i would ask the chairman if he'd withdraw his resolution at which time i will ask unanimous consent for the house immediately proceed to the consideration of h.r. 668 instead. which provides for consideration of house resolution 660 under a rul

the fact that this is what distinguishes a constitutional state.but then some people feel left in the lurch and say they need clear guidelines on how to act as kind of heat out of the dilemma as if it's a dilemma there can't be one solution to every problem and at the same time nobody can say that some people's lives are worth more than other people's. legislators also have to respect the principles laid down in the constitution the law protects against despotism nobody is above it in a rapidly changing world laws and even the constitution itself have to be adapted constantly the ongoing struggle over health best to protect the freedoms of all the country's citizens is likely to continue for a long time to come. when she was 56 discovered a secret as. she was born after her mother was raped during the bosnian war people with such a past are often shocked. it was very painful to learn how she came to be but she's strong. enough fights for bosnia as children of shame. 90 minutes on d w. earth the home for saving global india's tell stories of creativ

and no to a 3rd term constitutional not. this 2nd and final term expires next year but he's refusing to rule out running again the 81 year old president has its government to draft a new constitution that could have the chance to seek a 3rd term security forces have stopped opposition leaders from leaving their homes civil society leaders where detained over the weekend and others are arrested while protesting they say the crackdown wants to target them that it is a great success a great success as you may have noticed never before has a demonstration paralyzed the capital city cannot create this much. and can actually remains paralyzed with the opposition promising that they want to keep their protests. now joined by. the chief of staff and spokesperson of the heat off again a in opposition and former prime minister. welcome to do every african d.s.o. you mobilize people to come out what is the way forward. the people of in a responded massively to the 2nd issue ricci's a national front for the defense of the constitution c

you never know what will be relevant in the constitution, and indeed, my whole approach to the constitution and the approach, really, of this book is to see the constitution as a whole as an integrated structure, not simply as a series of discrete points and powers and rights and responsibilities. that's why as we wrote about impeachment and studied it, we thought about how it would fit into the system of government, what might happen to make the presidency two-week -- too weak. for example, we followed the path some countries have followed of making anything that might be as vague as maladministration or misbehavior or misconduct the basis of removing a president -- actually, that was done by some american states as a way of removing their highest executive authority -- massachusetts, new jersey, pennsylvania -- and a smattering of countries abroad. we would have had a very different kind of system. it would have been almost like a vote of no-confidence. if on the other hand we approached rings the way argentina or germany or india or south africa or poland did, we would have been a very d

could lead to a constitutional constitutional crisis.itu. >> we are now in a partisan brawl that could lead to constitutional crisis. constitu. >> we are now in a partisan brawl that could lead to constitutional crisis. constitu. >> we are now in a partisan brawl that could lead to constitutional crisi constituti. >> we are now in a partisan brawl that could lead to constitutional crisis.constitut. >> we are now in a partisan brawl that could lead to constitutional crisis.o constit. >> we are now in a partisan brawl that could lead to constitutional crisis.f consti. >> we are now in a partisan brawl that could lead to constitutional crisis.a constit. >> we are now in a partisan brawl that could lead to constitutional crisis. >> i think they are happy to have a constitutional crisis. >> tucker: joe, a radio host, joins us. this doesn't mean that everybody has to use the exact phrase, does it? >> you would not think so. of all of the people you showed in that mont age. ask yourself this: how many are legal or constitutional scholars or cou

constitution. and of course that includes the president and all members of the administration and all of us in congress. second, the constitution clauses important to our topic today. one prevents an elected official from receiving and i quote any president or to mining key branch of our stay without the consent of congress and today, congress has given this resident of such consent and a second and related clause is accepting any federal or state dollars beyond its presidential salary. a lot of people may not be familiar with the term of emoluments, but our founding any payment,t is constitution,the to prevent officials from accepting bribes from foreign governments and from part of our own government that maybe trying to at least agree that this is the practiced from the public and members of this congress. third, and explicitly states that they may not use the premise to violate federal law or in any way and that concludes the constitution. moreover, the lease states that no elected official in

those constitutional principles. the title is a republic, if you can keep it. and that is how franklin answers citizens questions about the government the founders created at the constitutional convention. now vigilant they must be to preserve them. and freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. so tonight we look forward to what citizens can do with the constitutional freedoms of the next generation. please join me to welcome to the reagan library justice gorsuch. [applause] >> we are delighted to have you here on the day of publication of your book. >> i am so happy to be west of the mississippi. [laughter] thank you for having me. is something i have been looking forward to. it's a real treat. >> your book opens with an interesting series of events on the occasion of your announcement of your nomination to supreme court. in many ways it is like the screenplay of an action novel. >> to say it was unexpected doesn't begin to capture how it felt and i have a few stories to tell but i will share o

constitution day the day our constitution was adopted 1787 and found the president violated his oath of office to preserve the constitution of the united states to the best of his ability we are honoring our responsibilities we are honoring the constitution that is not what they are doing. >> are you concerned about the president. >> i'm not concerned about anything. they have no substance they cannot defend the president. >> are you proud of the opening statement he gave between the two presidents? between the two presidents? [inaudible conversations]

our founders decided on a written constitution. they put it down on paper, they sit down the rights and obligations on paper. they didn't choose to believe it. so, original as some honors the written constitution. they could have done it otherwise. what happens when judges ignore or override the original meaning of the words on the page instead of pursue something they like to call a living constitution? .. >> your rights diminished and sometimes you don't have a right to confront your confuse or - - accuser sometimes a piece of paper can be introduced as a key evidence against you enough to send a person a way for 20 years or more. these are the rights that are taken away one of the most infamous decisions the supreme court took a lot of rights away from a whole class of citizens. japanese-american citizens could be rounded up and detained during the duration of the second world war without any due process. without any recognition protection under the constitution. judges thought we were doing something important, vital, to help t

it's not constitutional. why?he presidential qualification clause of the united states constitution. >> hold on, hold on. jay, jay, the court -- its major part of the holding was we don't like the slippery slope of states being able to create their own tailored qualifications for national office. >> because it violates the constitution. >> that may be appealed also. >> because it violates the constitution. >> no. actually, to be specific the court said the actual law itself was unconstitutional. >> right, they did say that. >> unconstitutional. it violated the constitution. we'll leave that in the 9th circuit. >> just for people at home, jay, you getting to appeal this decision is not a big win because when they appeal out there, does that mean they won? no. but the bigger issue for people at home is why not just turn over the taxes? why not just turn over the taxes? >> well, we're not required to. when the people elected the president to become the president, he had not issued his tax return. it's not required in

again, on that very day, september 17, that was constitution day. a tuesday. two tuesdays ago from yesterday. that was when that explosion hit of what possibly happened in that phone conversation which the president confirmed to me in our call. and that day was the day we observed the adoption of our constitution, september 17. on that day way back when, when benjamin franklin left independence hall, people said to him, what do we have, dr. franklin, a monarchy or a republic? he said a republic. if we can keep it. it is our responsibility to keep that republic with the genius of the separation of powers. three co-equal branches of government, each a check and ballot other. separation of power. a republic, if we can keep it. that's our responsibility. that's the oath of office that we take, and that is what is the -- one of the reasons why we just have to look at the facts and the constitution. any other objections people may have to the president have no place in this discussion in terms of is he too cowardly to protect children from gun violence, is he too cr

was the day we observed constitution. on that day way back then, when veg ben franklin left independence hall, people said what do we have, dr. franklin, a monarchy or a republic? he said a republic if we can keep it. it is our responsibility to keep that republic. that is one of the reasonsthat y we have to look at the facts and the constitution. any other objections people may have have no place in this discussion. is he too cowardly to protect children from gun violence, too in denial to understand climate change, the list goes on. save that for the election. this is about the facts relating to the constitution and that is how we will proceed, with dignity, with respect prayerfully. the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform who fight for our freedom and the aspirations of our children so they will live under future presidents who will honor the constitution of the united states. thank you all, very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning instit

we have to be worthy of the constitution as we go forward. we have to be fair to the president and this is why it is an inquiry and not an outright impeachment and we have to give the president his chance to exonerate himself why he thinks what he did was perfect. so we have that situation. colleagues,to my calmness, quiet so we can hear what is being said in this regard. again on that very day, , september 17, that was constitution day, a tuesday, two tuesdays ago from yesterday. that is when the explosion hit of what possibly happened. >> madame speaker? pelosi: that day was the day we observed the constitution. on that day way back then, when we observed the adoption of our constitution, september 17. on that day way back when, when benjamin franklin left independence hall, people said to him, what do we have, dr. franklin, a monarchy or a republic? he said, a republic if we can keep it. it is our responsibility to keep that republic. the genius with the separation of power. three co-equal branches of government, each a check and balanceon

impeachment, that's the constitution, issues like that about the election. have important work to do to honor our oath of office but also to fight the fight for the values that unify us pick sometimes. give me a lot of credit for unifying our caucus. i don't unify them. our values unify us. and our values are about america's working families being treated fairly with liberty and justice for all, which is another pledge that we take. so i thank you for knowing at the times have found you as well come for the role we all have to play. what is it, mr. chairman one year and two weeks? three weeks? [inaudible] 383 days. we will be clicking away. one could day in front of another, one could week in front of the another. one could month in front of another. as i said earlier, winning an election is a decision. it's a decision to do what you need to do to mobilize on the ground. to mobilize around a message that is unifying and not fighting on mainstream and then also about the money that it takes to organize and spread the message. but when you make the decision to

constitution.he text of the first amendment says nothing about what standards must be applied in a civil defamation, civil libel case. it merely says that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press to get doesn't talk to civil standards for what juries are supposed to find at all. what about the structure? is or anything in the structure of our constitution or in the bill of rights that suggest the actual malice standard is appropriate? no. there are other rights and freedoms that are recognized in our constitution. there's the freedom from religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to counsel in certain circumstances. but nobody is arguing and it would be silly to argue that the clergy or that gun owner or that lawyer could not be held civilly liable for the wrongful action absent a showing malicious content or recklessness. because these rights, the right for religion, the right to keep and bear arms, are so fundamental to our society and to our constitutional order.

that we're only a constitutional confrontation. >> i would not call that a constitutional crisis yetave a mechanism for resolving these conflicts. ultimately, the courts are going to decide which subpoenas by congress are valid, which have to testify, which documents to be produced. as long as the white house complies with the orders of the court, as president nixon did doorg watergate, i would not call that a constitutional crisis. >> glenn, what's your take? are you confident the white house will comply with court orders? >> i'm with danny. we're not at a constitutional crisis. we're at a constitutional more ras although it's a cluster and breakdown. a true crisis is when two co-equal branches are butting heads and there's no tie-breaker. there's no constitutional mechanism to definitively break that loggerhead. here's what a constitutional crisis would be. in 1974 when the supreme court unanimously ruled that the subpoena for nixon's tapes was lawful and supportable and in substance they said nixon, turn over the tapes. that is a ruling from the highest court in the land concernin

that day was the day we observed the constitution. on that day way back then, when we observed the adoption of our constitution, september 17. on that day way back when, when benjamin franklin left independence hall, people said to him, what do we have, dr. franklin, a monarchy or a republic? he said, a republic if we can keep it. it is our responsibility to keep that republic. the genius with the separation of power. three co-equal branches of government. it is our responsibility to keep that republic. that is one of the reasons why we have to look at the facts and the constitution. any other objections people may have have no place in this discussion. is he too cowardly to protect children from gun violence, too in denial to understand climate change, the list goes on. save that for the election. this is about the facts relating to the constitution and that is how we will proceed, with dignity, with respect prayerfully. and, again, worthy the sacrifice of our founders, the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform who fight for our

constitution day. constitution day. the day our constitution was adopted in 1787. it broke that the president had violated his oath of office to protect and defend and preserve the constitution of the united states. to the best of his ability. so we are honoring our responsibilities, we are honoring the constitution. that's not what they're doing. reporter: are you concerned about them trying -- ms. pelosi: i'm not concerned about anything. oh, they can't -- they can't -- they have no substance. they can't defend the president. so they're going to process. we're not going there. thank you all very much. [talking simultaneously] reporter: are you proud of his opening statement that he gave where he fabricated the conversation between the two ? esidents [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions co

our national security, the rule of law, and the very foundations of our constitution. we all, democrats and republicans alike, have a duty to defend our democracy so when we are confronted with evidence that president donald trump abused his power and violated his oath of office and seeking foreign interference in our elections, and sought to cover it up, we have a constitutional obligation to investigate. the evidence we have already seems volume dates speaker pelosi's decision to open an impeachment inquiry and reento,s this to run unimpeded. indeed, donald trump himself confirmed key evidence. just look at what we know so far. we know that donald trump asked a foreign policy, ukraine, to investigate his political opponent, the president admitted it on live television and release add transcript showing it had happened just as a whistleblower alleged that it did. that is not in dispute. we also know that donald trump then doubled down subsequently admitting on camera that he wants foreign governments like ukraine and china to investigate his political opponents. that

now, this case law on what constitutes a what does not constitute actual malice and who must satisfy the actual malice standard has real consequences. the result, most people in this country are going to be considered a limited purpose public figure or a public of libel cases99% will fail to satisfy the actual malice standard. under existing law today, a huge swath of our citizenry has no remedy whatsoever if they are defamed, regardless of how catastrophic the defamation is or how much it hurts the reputation. this is near blanket immunity for the press. let's be clear. media defense lawyers like my friend lee rely on it daily in counseling their clients. my good friend kate bolger, to quote her, who's a lovely, lovely person and very talented and respected media defense lawyer, was recently quoted as saying that she relies on the sullivan standard quote, every day of her life as a first amendment litigator and how she advises her clients. it's not just in litigation that media defense lawyers rely on the actual malice standards. it's how they advise their clients on prepublication

they undermine the constitution.n borders, and they have gotten to be a party of the culture of death. they are extreme on all fronts, you have seen in the democratic debates, how radical they are. one trying to trump the other in terms of how extreme they are. thrienvironmental mania, proposl they put forth to implement those are unsustainable, you can't pa for them. in meantime they would tax the wealthy. and by the way, this ties to current situation, we don't just mean by deep state, the establishment politicians. we mean the entrenched administrative bureaucracy, which is en habited mostly by liberals, career bureaucrats to this day undermine trump and his administration, trying to keep him from implementing his agenda. across the board, whether the career bureaucrats insulated from accountability and the system of the administrative law undermines of constitution separation of powers, it consolidates in that one unelected branch. they would continue to thwart his agenda if they are alleged had. alleged. -- elec