Why the politically connected media elite are immune from criminal prosecution in America

(NaturalNews) Many Americans have heard of the term "diplomatic immunity," a form of legal immunity that guarantees that foreign diplomats are given safe passage in our country and generally not susceptible to lawsuits or prosecution (although they can be expelled).

Also, under Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution, our own federally elected senators and representatives are "privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same, and for any speech or debate in either House," with exceptions made for "treason, felony and breach of the peace."

What about America's liberal media elite? Do they, too, have some sort of legal immunity? Not technically as there are no laws or constitutional provisions that specifically exempt progressive elitist members of the press from legal prosecution.

However, author Katie Pavlich, news editor of the conservative TownHall.com news and opinion web site, says they might as well have immunity because they get away with criminal behavior that would likely land ordinary citizens behind bars all too often.

No public interest served

In a recent column published by The Hill, Pavlich writes:

On Dec. 23, 2012, former NBC anchor David Gregory hosted an interview with National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre on "Meet the Press."

As expected, the interview was hostile, with Gregory repeatedly badgering LaPierre over his not supporting a federal high-capacity magazine ban. But instead of simply talking about 30-round magazines, Gregory brought one on set to wave in front of the cameras. The problem? The "Meet the Press" studio is located in Washington, D.C., where merely possessing an empty high-capacity magazine is illegal.

The language of the D.C. law states plainly: "No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term large capacity ammunition feeding device means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition."

The law notes that violations are punishable by up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Pavlich notes it wasn't as if Gregory's network wasn't trying to do the right thing. NBC news execs contacted D.C. police to ask for special permission to use the magazine on the air but were denied.

Gregory decided to use it anyway and summarily got away with it. No punishment was doled out by his network, and in January 2013, D.C. Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan dismissed any notion of charging Gregory, declaring, "Prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia, nor serve the best interests of the people." This begs the question: why have the law? And isn't AG Nathan's job to enforce D.C.'s laws?

While this Gregory gun magazine business might seem trivial, Pavlich provides some context. D.C. businessman Mark Witaschek had a single empty shotgun shell from a bird hunt, a spent brass casing and muzzleloader reloading supplies -- all of which are considered "ammunition" under the law -- in his home in Georgetown when it was raided by dozens of police. Nathan prosecuted Witaschek and had him convicted.

Where's the employer outrage?

Now, two years later, another member of the uber-liberal media elite is getting a free pass.

"This time, it's former Clinton White House communications hack and current ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos," Pavlich writes.

The host was exposed by the Washington Free Beacon recently for donating $75,000 over three years to the Clinton Family Foundation without telling his employer or his audience. The revelation came just one week after Stephanopoulos harshly grilled author Peter Schweizer of Clinton Cash, a book claiming that Hillary Clinton traded political favors for donations to the foundation when she was secretary of state.

As Pavlich notes, ABC has said the network has no plans to reprimand Stephanopoulos.

"Special treatment isn't just reserved for Washington's politicians, it's for the most liberal, elite anchors as well. As for the rest of us, there are consequences for breaking the law and for conflict of interest nondisclosure," she writes.

Sources:

http://thehill.com

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section6

http://www.washingtonpost.com