Brian Lehrer of WNYC worries that US Navy violated law. Federal judges do so day in and day out? Nothing to see there, folks!

By Lev Tsitrin

“Hypocrisy” is a rather harsh word. Let’s call it, for the sake of political correctness, “selectivity.” This morning offered as good an example of journalistic “selectivity” as any. Brian Lehrer — the host of the news show on my home public radio station, New York’s WNYC, was full of concern that law is not being followed by those in power: the full half of his two-hour show was given to discussing the recent plea by several congressmen and senators that members of the armed services should refuse to obey illegal orders. He played the relevant clips, he invited CNN journalist to discuss Trump’s reaction (Trump suggested that George Washington would have hanged those legislators for treason), though the just-surfaced news of September’s “double-strike” in the Caribbean in which two presumed drug-smugglers were killed after their boat went down, apparently proved Navy’s violation of the rules of engagement.

It seemed the very model of press’ “holding power to account” — but it wasn’t, for reasons known to both Brian, and myself. This is because the executive — to which the armed services belong — is not the only branch of government. There is also legislature (that is also adequately on the radar of the press) — and the federal judiciary whose modus operandi the press (Brian manifestly including) adamantly refuses to examine.

And yet, there is plenty of violations of law to see there, and to report: federal judges routinely replace in their decisions — in clear and brazen violation of the law called “due process” — the parties’ argument with the bogus argument of judge’s own concoction, naturally framed so as to give victory to the party the judge wants to win. The legal term for this, judicial, variety of “cooking the books” is “sua spontism” — and when I sued a bunch of federal judges for fraud, they defended the practice by claiming that what is illegal is in fact legal — i.e. that in Pierson v Ray federal judges gave themselves the “absolute immunity” for acting from the bench “maliciously and corruptly.” Hence, when a federal judge does it, what is against the law, is according to law!

One would think that, upon hearing this, Brian (to whom I talked about this in person — and sent multiple emails to which he did not reply, until finally WNYC put a block on my email addresses and phone numbers) would run to his mike and inform the public that the full third of US government — the federal judiciary — feels free to deal with “we the people” “maliciously and corruptly,” a practice that, clearly, is of concern and should be publicly discussed — and ended.

But Brian is being “selective.” If Pete Hegseth defended an order to “finish off” the presumed drug dealers on the grounds that it was given “maliciously and corruptly” and is, therefore, perfectly legal, the press (Brian including) would be all over him (as, in fact, it was all over Trump after the Supreme Court granted him immunity: “no one is above the law!!!,” you know) — though incidentally, such defense follows directly from co-equality of branches — the executive is a co-equal branch to federal judiciary, and if federal judges can act from the bench “maliciously and corruptly” with impunity while exercising their constitutional duties, so can the members of the executive branch in which the armed services belong.

But there is no rime or logic to American journalism. It is “selective” (or, let’s face it, hypocritical). Just the other day, I heard (incidentally, on the Brian Lehrer show) the half-quote from James Madison I read before, but long forgot: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” I sensed that the quote was incomplete, and googled it. It continues thusly: “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

In fact, it is press’ express function to inform the public of how the “non-angels” in our government perform their duties, so “we the people” could exercise the “external control” over government — via elections, or by demanding reforms. In the case of legislature and the executive, journalists do their job fairly adequately. But when it comes to federal judiciary, they apparently feel that this particular branch of government is maned by angels — and therefore, to apply Madison’s argument, “neither external nor internal controls on federal judges is necessary.” Most certainly, there aren’t any.

Federal judges may indeed be angels — but, per Pierson v Ray, they are angels of a “corrupt and malicious,” fallen kind. This, devilish detail of their otherwise angelic nature is being ignored by the many thousands of American journalists — Brian Lehred of WNYC including. Hence, MSM refuses to bring this, not insignificant fact to public view — professional integrity and obligations to the public be damned. And hence, MSM’s “selectivity.” Or rather, hypocrisy.