The Lies They Continue to Tell About Donald Trump

 

I knew instantly it was false when the news broke that a pro-life Catholic high school student from Kentucky had mistreated an elderly Native American veteran on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the March for Life a few years ago. I knew it instantly. It did not smell right.

Sad to say, many major pro-life leaders immediately attacked the kid. But I knew it was false, and it was.

In precisely the same way, I knew instantly it was false when Cassidy Hutchinson told the January 6th committee that Trump tried to hijack the presidential SUV and, in the process, choked a Secret Service agent.

Keep in mind, Trump is the man his haters said could not walk down a short ramp at a graduation ceremony. He is the man they said was so frail he could not drink from a cup except by using both hands.

When it is useful for them, this frail man becomes Jason Bourne—able to leap a great distance from a seated position and at the same time lay hands on the throat of a Secret Service agent.

Hutchinson also told the committee she heard the president say he didn’t care if armed men were trying to get through presidential security because they weren’t there to harm him. The implication of Hutchinson’s charge is that he allowed armed men past security all the better to invade the Capitol and kill Vice President Pence. Since Washington, D.C., has severe gun laws, one wonders why these armed men were not arrested instantly; unless they never existed except in certain fevered brains.

Hutchinson said under oath that White House Counsel Pat Cipollone confided to her that the president going up to the Capitol that day would have broken “any number of laws.” I have known Pat Cipollone for years. He is a very careful man. It does not pass the smell test that Cipollone would confide in the likes of Cassidy Hutchinson. What’s more, one wonders what laws Hutchinson thinks would be broken by the president going to an impromptu rally at the Capitol?

The usual suspects fell all over themselves praising the bravery of Hutchinson. Former Prosecutor Andy McCarthy, usually extremely careful, jumped with both feet onto the claim that Trump tried to overpower his security detail and hijack the presidential SUV. The next day, he backed off and settled on the possibility that the story may be false, but Hutchinson was not lying since she was merely repeating what she had heard someone say.

The goofballs over at The Bulwark did yet one more in a long line of tap dances on the grave of DJT’s presidency. Mona Charen said Hutchinson was a heroine and hoped her courage would be as courageous as most Republicans’ cowardice. Gay vulgarian Tim Miller said, “This afternoon a 26-year-old former assistant showed more courage and integrity than an entire administration full of grown-ass adults who were purportedly working in service to the American people but had long ago decided to serve only their ambition and grievance.”

This is a pattern among the Trump-haters, believing the most incredible things they hear.

Remember the pee-pee tape? They were told Trump hired prostitutes to urinate on the Moscow hotel bed where Barack Obama once slept. They really believed this.

Remember when he supposedly quoted Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini? Trump retweeted an old saying—“better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep.”

It was tweeted from a troll account @ilduce2016. Get it? Get it? Trump quoted Mussolini! Trump is a fascist! We have proof!!!

NBC newsman Chuck Todd said, “That’s a famous Mussolini quote. You retweeted it. Do you like the quote? Did you know it was Mussolini?” It turns out the quote is attributed by the Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs to the Sultan of Mysore circa 1799.

These guys will believe anything as long as it works against Trump.

Do you remember when Trump said he was “king”? In February 2020, Trump survived impeachment. The New York Times quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson, “When you strike at the king, you must kill him.” Trump retweeted this. The Executive Editor of Bloomberg opinion said, “When you say the thing out loud: I am a king.” Law professor and frequent MSNBC talking head Barb McQuade said, “This may be the most sinister tweet Trump has ever posted. He is comparing himself with the king and threatening to use his powers for revenge on those who questioned his abuse of power.” Even faded, nutball actress Mia Farrow joined the fun, “You are not a king.” This went on for days.

How about when Trump said he was “the chosen one”? In August 2019, as Trump walked toward the presidential chopper, he was asked about the impending trade war with China. He said no previous president had taken on China, then he glanced skyward, raised his arms, and said, “I am the chosen one. I am taking on China. I am taking on China on trade.” A writer at CNN said, “‘Chosen one,’ then, isn’t just rhetoric. It’s a deeply held part of who Trump is—and always has been.” Radical feminist Amanda Marcotte wrote at Salon, “Even for a bottomless pit of narcissism like Donald Trump, Wednesday was an exceptional day for self-aggrandizement.”

The very same day, a Christian radio host compared Trump to the King of Israel. The Daily Beast then wrote, “Trump Says He’s King of the Jews. The Bible Says Otherwise.”

One could go on and on about the lies they tell about Donald Trump. The Washington Post says Trump spouted more than 30,000 lies during his four years. Even that is a lie.

It is unfortunate that young Hutchinson has allowed herself to be used by the odious Liz Cheney and the unhinged folks on the J6 Committee. Maybe she didn’t lie, but the stories she told are false. In the end, she will probably become the conservative co-host on The View.

[Photo Credit: Getty Images]

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 481 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    What sworn evidence, if any, do you have for your argument?

    There’s more than one thing we do to secure higher probabilities that our conclusions are true. We have sworn testimony, we have proponents speaking for both sides, we have cross-examination, we have corroborating evidence, etc.

    You’re believing some sworn evidence in an investigative process that has no one speaking for the defense. The only corroborating evidence available has undermined the Hutchinson testimony.

    Those of us who doubt that the 2020 election was not legally won have settled on that view through a process of looking at the proponents speaking for both sides of the question. Even if there were a few Kraken sightings that didn’t pan out, we still have a whole bunch of corroborating evidence for our suspicions that massive illegalities including substantial fraud occurred. Sometimes–as with the outdoor dropboxes and Democracy in the Park being incompatible with Chapter 6, Section 855 of the laws of WI–we have no need for sworn testimony. Sometimes we do have sworn testimony.

    Who’s following the evidence?

    Gary Robbins will never respond honestly to any of your points. He never does. The man who puffs up about sworn testimony and posts other people’s stuff, never responds to anything that would undercut him.

    Thank you so much Bryan for your kind comments.

    See. Here we have it. You are not responding to any points. Just like always, Gary. People refute you, and you just ignore it. It is as predictable as the sunrise. All you have are snarky comments.

     

    • #91
  2. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    The source Drew cited is not credible.

    The source merely related the timeline. The timeline is your proof.

    If The Federalist claimed that the sun would rise tomorrow, would you call them liars because you hate the source?

    • #92
  3. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Austin Ruse (View Comment):

     

    The Three Alternatives

    .

    Conclusion

    I found the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson to be riveting and compelling. It is a pity that we didn’t have a “9/11 style independent commission.” It is a pity that Kevin McCarthy pulled all 5 Republicans from the Select Committee in a pique of anger.

    But it is what it is. There is an increasing mountain of compelling evidence from members of the Trump Administration as follows:

    1. Trump knew that he lost the 2020 election, but chose to follow the advice of a drunk Rudy Guilani to deny election results.
    2. Trump repeatedly promoted this “Big Lie” and whipped up all of his supporters.
    3. Trump implored his supporters to come to Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021.
    4. Trump knew that the crowd included people with body armor, brass knuckles, bear spray and firearms, but said that they weren’t after him.
    5. Trump and the other speakers whipped the mob into a frenzy.
    6. Trump told the mob to go to the Capitol and said that he would join them.
    7. Tony Ornato told Cassidy Hutchinson that Trump had lunged for the steering wheel of the GMC Suburban.
    8. Trump was aware that the crowd was chanting “Hang Mike Pence” and Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said that Trump agreed with the crowd.
    9. For 187 minutes, Trump refused to intervene and tell the mob to go home.

    Even if we discover that Tony Ornato lied to Cassidy Hutchinson in item 7, the other 8 points still remain, and not been sufficiently rebutted.

    What is wrong with getting his supporters to come to DC. Did you not know that such things are protected twice in the First Amendment?

    There is no right under the First Amendment to yell fire in a crowded theater.

    See points 4-9 which you are ignoring.

    Drew answered #9. Were you listening?

    The source Drew cited is not credible. Let’s see what the testimony says before the January 6th Committee.

    Neither is the committee, nor are you. 

    BTW, I’m not surprised by your response. 

    • #93
  4. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Respond to Drew in the 187 min lie.

    He simply rejects the source. I guess he thinks that time works differently depending on the time-keeper.

    Too much science fiction.

    • #94
  5. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I interrupt this discussion to tell you all that you need to hear the Victor Davis Hanson podcast from Tuesday the liberal world order. I’m 20 minutes in and it’s really good but he is destroying Lynne Cheney. 

    In my opinion Victor Davis Hanson and Stephen Miller @redsteeze are the best things the right and the libertarians have going for them in terms of opinion and mucking up the left and the rhinos.

    • #95
  6. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    There is no right under the First Amendment to yell fire in a crowded theater.

    There is, actually.

    Are you sure you’re a lawyer?

     

    I would hope that lawyers can’t get away, in a courtroom with a judge and opposing counsel, with the kind of unsupportable arguments @garyrobbins employs here. Gary treats this like a “Calvin and Hobbes” vacation where he can just make up whatever story suits him.

    • #96
  7. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Austin Ruse (View Comment):

     

    The Three Alternatives

    .

    Conclusion

    I found the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson to be riveting and compelling. It is a pity that we didn’t have a “9/11 style independent commission.” It is a pity that Kevin McCarthy pulled all 5 Republicans from the Select Committee in a pique of anger.

    But it is what it is. There is an increasing mountain of compelling evidence from members of the Trump Administration as follows:

    1. Trump knew that he lost the 2020 election, but chose to follow the advice of a drunk Rudy Guilani to deny election results.
    2. Trump repeatedly promoted this “Big Lie” and whipped up all of his supporters.
    3. Trump implored his supporters to come to Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021.
    4. Trump knew that the crowd included people with body armor, brass knuckles, bear spray and firearms, but said that they weren’t after him.
    5. Trump and the other speakers whipped the mob into a frenzy.
    6. Trump told the mob to go to the Capitol and said that he would join them.
    7. Tony Ornato told Cassidy Hutchinson that Trump had lunged for the steering wheel of the GMC Suburban.
    8. Trump was aware that the crowd was chanting “Hang Mike Pence” and Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said that Trump agreed with the crowd.
    9. For 187 minutes, Trump refused to intervene and tell the mob to go home.

    Even if we discover that Tony Ornato lied to Cassidy Hutchinson in item 7, the other 8 points still remain, and not been sufficiently rebutted.

    What is wrong with getting his supporters to come to DC. Did you not know that such things are protected twice in the First Amendment?

    There is no right under the First Amendment to yell fire in a crowded theater.

    See points 4-9 which you are ignoring.

    Drew answered #9. Were you listening?

    The source Drew cited is not credible. Let’s see what the testimony says before the January 6th Committee.

    You have absolutely no standing in determining what is or isn’t credible.

    At this point, your only standard is “I agree with it.”

    • #97
  8. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    The source Drew cited is not credible.

    The source merely related the timeline. The timeline is your proof.

    If The Federalist claimed that the sun would rise tomorrow, would you call them liars because you hate the source?

    Arizona Man is starting to remind me of the old saying common among the rednecks back in the Bluegrass: It’s the empty wagon that rattles the loudest. 

    Now, I think I’ll go do something useful. Carry on. 

    • #98
  9. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    I interrupt this discussion to tell you all that you need to hear the Victor Davis Hanson podcast from Tuesday the liberal world order. I’m 20 minutes in and it’s really good but he is destroying Lynne Cheney.

    In my opinion Victor Davis Hanson and Stephen Miller @ redsteeze are the best things the right and the libertarians have going for them in terms of opinion and mucking up the left and the rhinos.

    Stephen Miller redeemed himself for me since that time he let Professor Moobs get away with stupid, baseless comments about President Trump, like “He’s an existential threat to the Constitution!” and neither he nor his co-host asked him to explain exactly how.

    • #99
  10. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Austin Ruse (View Comment):

     

    The Three Alternatives

    .

    Conclusion

    I found the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson to be riveting and compelling. It is a pity that we didn’t have a “9/11 style independent commission.” It is a pity that Kevin McCarthy pulled all 5 Republicans from the Select Committee in a pique of anger.

    But it is what it is. There is an increasing mountain of compelling evidence from members of the Trump Administration as follows:

    1. Trump knew that he lost the 2020 election, but chose to follow the advice of a drunk Rudy Guilani to deny election results.
    2. Trump repeatedly promoted this “Big Lie” and whipped up all of his supporters.
    3. Trump implored his supporters to come to Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021.
    4. Trump knew that the crowd included people with body armor, brass knuckles, bear spray and firearms, but said that they weren’t after him.
    5. Trump and the other speakers whipped the mob into a frenzy.
    6. Trump told the mob to go to the Capitol and said that he would join them.
    7. Tony Ornato told Cassidy Hutchinson that Trump had lunged for the steering wheel of the GMC Suburban.
    8. Trump was aware that the crowd was chanting “Hang Mike Pence” and Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said that Trump agreed with the crowd.
    9. For 187 minutes, Trump refused to intervene and tell the mob to go home.

    Even if we discover that Tony Ornato lied to Cassidy Hutchinson in item 7, the other 8 points still remain, and not been sufficiently rebutted.

    What is wrong with getting his supporters to come to DC. Did you not know that such things are protected twice in the First Amendment?

    There is no right under the First Amendment to yell fire in a crowded theater.

    See points 4-9 which you are ignoring.

    Drew answered #9. Were you listening?

    The source Drew cited is not credible. Let’s see what the testimony says before the January 6th Committee.

    oh, and the Jan 6 committee IS credible?  I’m sure glad someone thought up “beclowned.”  It’s very useful.

    • #100
  11. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    The timeline explained.

    Wyoming Republican Rep. Liz Cheney went after former President Donald Trump in her prime-time performance on Monday claiming that private messages of the president’s staff revealed an apathetic leader complicit in the riot at the Capitol as the attack unfolded.

    “The violence was evident to all — it was covered in real time by almost every news channel,” said Cheney, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s hand-picked vice chair of the Select Committee on January 6. “But, for 187 minutes, President Trump refused to act when action by our president was required, indeed essential, and compelled by his oath to our Constitution.”

    Trump’s 187-minute delay to action, she added, was a “supreme dereliction of duty.” An actual examination of the day’s events, however, highlighted by American Greatness Senior Contributor Julie Kelly, shows no such delay.

    According to a detailed timeline of the turmoil by The New York Times, the first building was not breached until about 2:13 p.m. The timeline was corroborated by The Washington Post, which stamped the first break-in at 2:15 p.m. Trump’s first tweet addressing the upheaval shortly followed at 2:38 p.m., when the president made a plea for peace, writing, “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”

    About 30 minutes later, Trump addressed the demonstrators again on Twitter.

    “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence!” the president wrote. “Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order — respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”

    • #101
  12. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    So, not only was there no “187 minute delay,” the President specifically called for peace TWICE within the first hour after the building was breached: first time at 25 minutes, and then again 30 minutes later.

    So Liz Cheney and the rest of the committee and all the media talking heads who are repeating this 187 minute figure that was apparently pulled out of the hindquarters of Lyin’ Adam Schiff (who craps out lies every 187 seconds) are liars.

    Now, that you know this, Gary, I’m sure you will stop repeating this lie.

    • #102
  13. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    So, not only was there no “187 minute delay,” the President specifically called for peace TWICE within the first hour after the building was breached: first time at 25 minutes, and then again 30 minutes later.

    So Liz Cheney and the rest of the committee and all the media talking heads who are repeating this 187 minute figure that was apparently pulled out of the hindquarters of Lyin’ Adam Schiff (who craps out lies every 187 seconds) are liars.

    Now, that you know this, Gary, I’m sure you will stop repeating this lie.

    No he won’t. He will ignore this post and forget it.

    • #103
  14. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Any rule can and must be broken to defeat Trump. Lying? Sure, it’s worth it to lie about him to defeat him. Compromise one’s personal integrity? What use is integrity when Trump is in power. Break the law? Laws are for little people and if they allow Trump to be in power then they are immoral anyway and can be ignored.

    What’s stealing an election when your opponent is literally Hitler?

    And in the next election, literally Hitler will be on the ballot again.

    We haven’t hit the midterms and the articles are already being written.

    Max Boot, LOL

    • #104
  15. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    There is no right under the First Amendment to yell fire in a crowded theater.

    There is, actually.

    Are you sure you’re a lawyer?

     

    The original quote was that you can’t falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater. If the theater is on fire, you probably should tell someone.

    • #105
  16. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Percival (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    There is no right under the First Amendment to yell fire in a crowded theater.

    There is, actually.

    Are you sure you’re a lawyer?

    The original quote was that you can’t falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater. If the theater is on fire, you probably should tell someone.

    It was merely an example given in a case that was subsequently overturned anyway.

    Those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they’d realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court’s history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

    First, it’s important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU’s Gabe Rottman explains, “It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience.”

    The Court’s description of the pamphlet proves it to be milder than any of the dozens of protests currently going on around this country every day:

    It said, “Do not submit to intimidation,” but in form, at least, confined itself to peaceful measures such as a petition for the repeal of the act. The other and later printed side of the sheet was headed “Assert Your Rights.”

    The crowded theater remark that everyone remembers was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court’s holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice’s ancillary opinion that doesn’t directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority. The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a “clear and present danger” to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison and continued to haunt the court for years to come.

    • #106
  17. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Two similar Supreme Court cases decided later the same year–Debs v. U.S. and Frohwerk v. U.S.–also sent peaceful anti-war activists to jail under the Espionage Act for the mildest of government criticism. (Read Ken White’s excellent, in-depth dissection of these cases.) Together, the trio of rulings did more damage to First Amendment as any other case in the 20th century.

    In 1969, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech–and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan–is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (emphasis mine).

    Today, despite the “crowded theater” quote’s legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it’s “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech.” Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, “the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.”

     

    • #107
  18. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Do you remember when they deleted Trump’s Twitter account so they could lie about and manufacture fake tweets for the sham impeachment?

    • #108
  19. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    There is no right under the First Amendment to yell fire in a crowded theater.

    There is, actually.

    Are you sure you’re a lawyer?

    The original quote was that you can’t falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater. If the theater is on fire, you probably should tell someone.

    It was merely an example given in a case that was subsequently overturned anyway.

    Those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they’d realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court’s history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

    First, it’s important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU’s Gabe Rottman explains, “It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience.”

    The Court’s description of the pamphlet proves it to be milder than any of the dozens of protests currently going on around this country every day:

    It said, “Do not submit to intimidation,” but in form, at least, confined itself to peaceful measures such as a petition for the repeal of the act. The other and later printed side of the sheet was headed “Assert Your Rights.”

    The crowded theater remark that everyone remembers was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court’s holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice’s ancillary opinion that doesn’t directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority. The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a “clear and present danger” to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison and continued to haunt the court for years to come.

    I know. Wilson really meant it when he said that the Constitution was preventing him from doing what he wanted to do, to which the response from this engineer is “working as intended.”

    • #109
  20. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    I interrupt this discussion to tell you all that you need to hear the Victor Davis Hanson podcast from Tuesday the liberal world order. I’m 20 minutes in and it’s really good but he is destroying Lynne Cheney.

    In my opinion Victor Davis Hanson and Stephen Miller @ redsteeze are the best things the right and the libertarians have going for them in terms of opinion and mucking up the left and the rhinos.

    I’m almost done. You don’t want to miss this. 

    • #110
  21. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    I interrupt this discussion to tell you all that you need to hear the Victor Davis Hanson podcast from Tuesday the liberal world order. I’m 20 minutes in and it’s really good but he is destroying Lynne Cheney.

    In my opinion Victor Davis Hanson and Stephen Miller @ redsteeze are the best things the right and the libertarians have going for them in terms of opinion and mucking up the left and the rhinos.

    Do you mean Liz Cheney?

    • #111
  22. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    kedavis (View Comment):
    I’m sure glad someone thought up “beclowned.”  It’s very useful

    Wait, David French is on the committee? He is the definition of beclowned. 

    • #112
  23. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    I’m sure glad someone thought up “beclowned.” It’s very useful

    Wait, David French is on the committee? He is the definition of beclowned.

    He may have been the original inspiration, although I don’t remember who started it or when.  But it sure applies to a lot of people these days!

    • #113
  24. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Two similar Supreme Court cases decided later the same year–Debs v. U.S. and Frohwerk v. U.S.–also sent peaceful anti-war activists to jail under the Espionage Act for the mildest of government criticism. (Read Ken White’s excellent, in-depth dissection of these cases.) Together, the trio of rulings did more damage to First Amendment as any other case in the 20th century.

    In 1969, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech–and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan–is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (emphasis mine).

    Today, despite the “crowded theater” quote’s legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it’s “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech.” Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, “the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.”

     

    I would recommend The Great Influenza as another fine book on the topic and Wilson used the organs of power to crush and dissent against WWI. This lead to the pandemic being worse because things like War Bond Rallies were not canceled even as some cities were in the worst of the pandemic. 

    • #114
  25. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    Stina (View Comment):

    Do you remember when they deleted Trump’s Twitter account so they could lie about and manufacture fake tweets for the sham impeachment?

    I was going to mention, why don’t we just pull the timestamp off of Trump’s tweets…oh yeah. 

    • #115
  26. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Sometimes–as with the outdoor dropboxes and Democracy in the Park being incompatible with Chapter 6, Section 855 of the laws of WI–we have no need for sworn testimony.

    It seems the Supreme Court of Wisconsin agrees.

    • #116
  27. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Sometimes–as with the outdoor dropboxes and Democracy in the Park being incompatible with Chapter 6, Section 855 of the laws of WI–we have no need for sworn testimony.

    It seems the Supreme Court of Wisconsin agrees.

    This actually makes it more likely I’ll vote this fall. I’m beginning to think my vote in this state might start to mean something.

    • #117
  28. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Sometimes–as with the outdoor dropboxes and Democracy in the Park being incompatible with Chapter 6, Section 855 of the laws of WI–we have no need for sworn testimony.

    It seems the Supreme Court of Wisconsin agrees.

    This actually makes it more likely I’ll vote this fall. I’m beginning to think my vote in this state might start to mean something.

    Unless they do all the drop boxes and stuff again, anyway, just because they can get away with it.

    • #118
  29. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Sometimes–as with the outdoor dropboxes and Democracy in the Park being incompatible with Chapter 6, Section 855 of the laws of WI–we have no need for sworn testimony.

    It seems the Supreme Court of Wisconsin agrees.

    This actually makes it more likely I’ll vote this fall. I’m beginning to think my vote in this state might start to mean something.

    You ought to vote. Even if they cheat in order to win, if enough people vote there’s a chance that they’ll end up with more votes than they have voters. It would seem that would be enough to convince even the slow lwarners that something fishy is going on.

    • #119
  30. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Percival (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Sometimes–as with the outdoor dropboxes and Democracy in the Park being incompatible with Chapter 6, Section 855 of the laws of WI–we have no need for sworn testimony.

    It seems the Supreme Court of Wisconsin agrees.

    This actually makes it more likely I’ll vote this fall. I’m beginning to think my vote in this state might start to mean something.

    You ought to vote. Even if they cheat in order to win, if enough people vote there’s a chance that they’ll end up with more votes than they have voters. It would seem that would be enough to convince even the slow lwarners that something fishy is going on.

    Except they’re unconvinced by having like 100 registered voters from one address etc, so I’m guessing they’re impervious to evidence.

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.