A Fabulous Fourth

To kick off a great Fourth of July Weekend we’ll need firecrackers, but, of course, only with adult supervision. For the former, we’ve got John Yoo filling in for Rob and Charles C.W. Cooke as our first guest – for the latter, Mr. Bill McGurn.

To start, Peter and James get to pick Yoo’s brain on a few of the recent Supreme Court decisions along with Bill Cosby’s release. Then Charlie gives an ode to the only country on Earth that lets you move here and consider yourself a full member. Lastly, Bill fills us in on his saintly godson, Jimmy Lai, and his concerns for the future of Hong Kong. A podcast for all lovers of freedom and justice!

Music from this week’s show: Saturday in the Park by Chicago.

And we’re off next week, but we’ll see you again on the 16th. Happy Independence Day to all!

Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsor!

ExpressVPN

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 107 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Taras (View Comment):
    I had to remind him what actually happened.

    Except you got it backwards. Once more: the extended video exposed the incorrect early print stories and the first version of the video that ran on CNN.

    But don’t worry, I have no expectation that you will revise your opinion. That’s against the rules now.  Once a narrative is set, it cannot be questioned.

    • #91
  2. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    Which is why I never mentioned anything other than the cell phone video taken by the protestors themselves. It’s the only thing that matters to me because again, it’s the video they wanted us to see.

    No. It’s only that portion of the video the NYT wanted us to see.

    Yawn.  Unless you are suggesting that the NYT staged the events on the video, everything on the video actually happened. Which is exactly why you won’t watch it.

    Where are all of the Gateway Pundits and Charlie Kirks of the world claiming it’s been selectively edited?  Again, if they could prove that the NYT faked/manipulated this thing, they’d be heroes and this site would be full of posts singing their praises and condemning the NYT .

    And yet……silence.  Maybe — just maybe ponder why that is.

    • #92
  3. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    I like videos of honey bagders.

    • #93
  4. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    I had to remind him what actually happened.

    Except you got it backwards. Once more: the extended video exposed the incorrect early print stories and the first version of the video that ran on CNN.

    But don’t worry, I have no expectation that you will revise your opinion. That’s against the rules now. Once a narrative is set, it cannot be questioned.

    I’ve already quoted the New York Post and CNN in support of my account of how the Sandmann affair began, and contradicting yours.

    Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia’s left-leaning but exhaustive account (“January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation”):

    News media started covering the story on the evening of January 18, 2019, in response to the viral spread of initial videos posted to social media. …The media were sharply criticized for basing their initial reporting on social media, particularly the user-generated short videos, that did not include the minutes before and after the incident.  (Emphases mine.)

    In other words, the misleading and out-of-context viral videos were the basis for the “incorrect early print stories”.  As additional videos emerged which revealed that he had lied about the confrontation, Nathan Phillips began changing his story and so, grudgingly, did the media.  (Well, most of the media.  See an “unreformed” account at   https://historica.fandom.com/wiki/Nick_Sandmann )  

    Obviously the viral videos had to come first:  without them, Nick Sandmann would never have been singled out.  Indeed, if a reporter, even a biased one, had witnessed the confrontation, he would have seen that Sandmann and the other boys were just little kids, no threat to Phillips and his goon squad.  In the video, Sandmann appears to tower over Phillips, because he is standing on a higher step.

     

    • #94
  5. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Taras (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):
    I had to remind him what actually happened.

    Except you got it backwards. Once more: the extended video exposed the incorrect early print stories and the first version of the video that ran on CNN.

    But don’t worry, I have no expectation that you will revise your opinion. That’s against the rules now. Once a narrative is set, it cannot be questioned.

    I’ve already quoted the New York Post and CNN in support of my account of how the Sandmann affair began, and contradicting yours.

    Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia’s left-leaning but exhaustive account (“January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation”):

    News media started covering the story on the evening of January 18, 2019, in response to the viral spread of initial videos posted to social media. …The media were sharply criticized for basing their initial reporting on social media, particularly the user-generated short videos, that did not include the minutes before and after the incident. (Emphases mine.)

    In other words, the misleading and out-of-context viral videos were the basis for the “incorrect early print stories”. As additional videos emerged which revealed that he had lied about the confrontation, Nathan Phillips began changing his story and so, grudgingly, did the media. (Well, most of the media. See an “unreformed” account at https://historica.fandom.com/wiki/Nick_Sandmann )

    Obviously the viral videos had to come first: without them, Nick Sandmann would never have been singled out. Indeed, if a reporter, even a biased one, had witnessed the confrontation, he would have seen that Sandmann and the other boys were just little kids, no threat to Phillips and his goon squad. In the video, Sandmann appears to tower over Phillips, because he is standing on a higher step.

     

    If it weren’t for the videos, it never would have been a story.

     

    • #95
  6. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    BY’s point may be that while video started the problem, video also ended it.  What he may be discounting is that we may still not have enough video from 1/6 to put together a full account, and that it seems…  rather silly, really… to rely on people like the NYT to provide full, honest video, especially if they’re going to call it “How Trump Supporters Took the U.S. Capitol.”  We seem to be quite a ways yet from full disclosure.  And even once – if ever – ALL of the video is made available, we can still count on people/places like the NYT to edit together something that suits their purpose, which then has to be countered.

    • #96
  7. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    Which is why I never mentioned anything other than the cell phone video taken by the protestors themselves. It’s the only thing that matters to me because again, it’s the video they wanted us to see.

    No. It’s only that portion of the video the NYT wanted us to see.

    Yawn. Unless you are suggesting that the NYT staged the events on the video, everything on the video actually happened. Which is exactly why you won’t watch it.

    Where are all of the Gateway Pundits and Charlie Kirks of the world claiming it’s been selectively edited? Again, if they could prove that the NYT faked/manipulated this thing, they’d be heroes and this site would be full of posts singing their praises and condemning the NYT .

    And yet……silence. Maybe — just maybe ponder why that is.

    I think you said the video is 40 minutes long — extracted from, what, 400 hours of cellcam footage? Of course “it’s been selectively edited”!  

    If a handful of cretins spout violent rhetoric while hundreds express peaceful intent, you can be pretty sure it is the latter group that will end up on the cutting room floor.

    • #97
  8. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Taras (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    Which is why I never mentioned anything other than the cell phone video taken by the protestors themselves. It’s the only thing that matters to me because again, it’s the video they wanted us to see.

    No. It’s only that portion of the video the NYT wanted us to see.

    Yawn. Unless you are suggesting that the NYT staged the events on the video, everything on the video actually happened. Which is exactly why you won’t watch it.

    Where are all of the Gateway Pundits and Charlie Kirks of the world claiming it’s been selectively edited? Again, if they could prove that the NYT faked/manipulated this thing, they’d be heroes and this site would be full of posts singing their praises and condemning the NYT .

    And yet……silence. Maybe — just maybe ponder why that is.

    I think you said the video is 40 minutes long — extracted from, what, 400 hours of cellcam footage? Of course “it’s been selectively edited”!

    If a handful of cretins spout violent rhetoric while hundreds express peaceful intent, you can be pretty sure it is the latter group that will end up on the cutting room floor.

    This is not nearly the clever point you think it is.  

    So what if the video only shows the worst part of the attack? Isn’t it enough to see people breaking the windows and doors of the Capital and rushing security? Or breaking into the House and rifling through the desk in the Senate? Or the offices of Senators and Representatives? Because all of that happened, it’s in the video and it’s not “selectively edited.” What a huge, smelly pile of BS.

    Watching the video makes me furious and angry and depressed that you all deny it, minimize it, or obfuscate with BS like the Sandmann video.

    On that topic and for third and final time: my point is that it was the longer videos that corrected the initial short videos and the news stories that were written based on the short videos.  Get it?

    Deny it all you want. But you’re wrong.  But of course, that’s the entire point of the Trump Nation: never, ever admit you’re wrong even if there’s actual video demonstrating you’re wrong. Facts don’t matter.  And we’re probably doomed. 

     

    • #98
  9. Headedwest Coolidge
    Headedwest
    @Headedwest

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    Which is why I never mentioned anything other than the cell phone video taken by the protestors themselves. It’s the only thing that matters to me because again, it’s the video they wanted us to see.

    No. It’s only that portion of the video the NYT wanted us to see.

    Yawn. Unless you are suggesting that the NYT staged the events on the video, everything on the video actually happened. Which is exactly why you won’t watch it.

    Where are all of the Gateway Pundits and Charlie Kirks of the world claiming it’s been selectively edited? Again, if they could prove that the NYT faked/manipulated this thing, they’d be heroes and this site would be full of posts singing their praises and condemning the NYT .

    And yet……silence. Maybe — just maybe ponder why that is.

    I think you said the video is 40 minutes long — extracted from, what, 400 hours of cellcam footage? Of course “it’s been selectively edited”!

    If a handful of cretins spout violent rhetoric while hundreds express peaceful intent, you can be pretty sure it is the latter group that will end up on the cutting room floor.

    This is not nearly the clever point you think it is.

    So what if the video only shows the worst part of the attack? Isn’t it enough to see people breaking the windows and doors of the Capital and rushing security? Or breaking into the House and rifling through the desk in the Senate? Or the offices of Senators and Representatives? Because all of that happened, it’s in the video and it’s not “selectively edited.” What a huge, smelly pile of BS.

    Watching the video makes me furious and angry and depressed that you all deny it, minimize it, or obfuscate with BS like the Sandmann video.

    On that topic and for third and final time: my point is that it was the longer videos that corrected the initial short videos and the news stories that were written based on the short videos. Get it?

    Deny it all you want. But you’re wrong. But of course, that’s the entire point of the Trump Nation: never, ever admit you’re wrong even if there’s actual video demonstrating you’re wrong. Facts don’t matter. And we’re probably doomed.

     

     

    You really have a winning online personality. 

    • #99
  10. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Watching the video makes me furious and angry and depressed that you all deny it, minimize it, or obfuscate with BS like the Sandmann video.

    On that topic and for third and final time: my point is that it was the longer videos that corrected the initial short videos and the news stories that were written based on the short videos.  Get it?

    So the short videos of 1/6 are the ones included by the NYT and the longer videos correcting the short videos are the ones the NYT didn’t publish?

    • #100
  11. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    Which is why I never mentioned anything other than the cell phone video taken by the protestors themselves. It’s the only thing that matters to me because again, it’s the video they wanted us to see.

    No. It’s only that portion of the video the NYT wanted us to see.

    Yawn. Unless you are suggesting that the NYT staged the events on the video, everything on the video actually happened. Which is exactly why you won’t watch it.

    Where are all of the Gateway Pundits and Charlie Kirks of the world claiming it’s been selectively edited? Again, if they could prove that the NYT faked/manipulated this thing, they’d be heroes and this site would be full of posts singing their praises and condemning the NYT .

    And yet……silence. Maybe — just maybe ponder why that is.

    I think you said the video is 40 minutes long — extracted from, what, 400 hours of cellcam footage? Of course “it’s been selectively edited”!

    If a handful of cretins spout violent rhetoric while hundreds express peaceful intent, you can be pretty sure it is the latter group that will end up on the cutting room floor.

    This is not nearly the clever point you think it is.

    So what if the video only shows the worst part of the attack? Isn’t it enough to see people breaking the windows and doors of the Capital and rushing security? Or breaking into the House and rifling through the desk in the Senate? Or the offices of Senators and Representatives? Because all of that happened, it’s in the video and it’s not “selectively edited.” What a huge, smelly pile of BS.

    Watching the video makes me furious and angry and depressed that you all deny it, minimize it, or obfuscate with BS like the Sandmann video.

    On that topic and for third and final time: my point is that it was the longer videos that corrected the initial short videos and the news stories that were written based on the short videos. Get it?

    Deny it all you want. But you’re wrong. But of course, that’s the entire point of the Trump Nation: never, ever admit you’re wrong even if there’s actual video demonstrating you’re wrong. Facts don’t matter. And we’re probably doomed.

     

     

    You really have a winning online personality.

    Prove me wrong and I’ll quit.  That’s a promise.

    • #101
  12. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Watching the video makes me furious and angry and depressed that you all deny it, minimize it, or obfuscate with BS like the Sandmann video.

    On that topic and for third and final time: my point is that it was the longer videos that corrected the initial short videos and the news stories that were written based on the short videos. Get it?

    So the short videos of 1/6 are the ones included by the NYT and the longer videos correcting the short videos are the ones the NYT didn’t publish?

    So brave and clever of you to make light of video you’re too scared to watch. Also, see my previous comment.  

    • #102
  13. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Watching the video makes me furious and angry and depressed that you all deny it, minimize it, or obfuscate with BS like the Sandmann video.

    On that topic and for third and final time: my point is that it was the longer videos that corrected the initial short videos and the news stories that were written based on the short videos. Get it?

    So the short videos of 1/6 are the ones included by the NYT and the longer videos correcting the short videos are the ones the NYT didn’t publish?

    So brave and clever of you to make light of video you’re too scared to watch. Also, see my previous comment.

    Blue Yeti are you OK. Everyone seems really upset and angry at everybody on Ricochet right now. It bothers me. I mildly like all of you.

    • #103
  14. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Watching the video makes me furious and angry and depressed that you all deny it, minimize it, or obfuscate with BS like the Sandmann video.

    On that topic and for third and final time: my point is that it was the longer videos that corrected the initial short videos and the news stories that were written based on the short videos. Get it?

    So the short videos of 1/6 are the ones included by the NYT and the longer videos correcting the short videos are the ones the NYT didn’t publish?

    So brave and clever of you to make light of video you’re too scared to watch. Also, see my previous comment.

    “[M]y point is that it was the longer videos that corrected the initial short videos and the news stories that were written based on the short videos.”

    Maybe that’s your point now; but that isn’t what you said originally (July 6):

    By the way, in the Sandmann case, video was used to expose inaccuracies in written stories that did not capture the entirety of what happened that day.  So in other words, the video provided proof of what actually occurred. Somehow, I don’t think that was the point you were trying to make. Because you just asserted that video is more accurate than written accounts of events.

    No mention of those “initial short videos” that, we have since established, falsified events and resulted in false “written stories” based on the videos.  Because you were trying to make the absurd and untenable argument that videos = truth; while I was merely making the obvious point that videos do not always equal truth.  

    Especially when the videos are selected and edited by people with an ax to grind; and by now it borders on insanity to claim that the staff of the New York Times does not have an ax to grind, where Donald Trump and his supporters are concerned.

    By the way, if you post a link, I will endeavor to watch the Times propaganda video, though I doubt it will tell me anything I don’t know already.
         

    • #104
  15. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Taras (View Comment):
    By the way, if you post a link, I will endeavor to watch the Times propaganda video, though I doubt it will tell me anything I don’t know already.

    Comment #8.

    • #105
  16. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    @blueyeti — “So what if the video only shows the worst part of the attack? Isn’t it enough to see people breaking the windows and doors of the Capital and rushing security? Or breaking into the House and rifling through the desk in the Senate? Or the offices of Senators and Representatives? Because all of that happened, it’s in the video and it’s not ‘selectively edited.’ What a huge, smelly pile of BS.”

    You sound like a host on MSNBC.  Vandalism in the Capitol is indeed repugnant.  But to me, not being a Democratic hack, industrial lasers fired at the eyes of Federal officers and policeman is a lot more repugnant. The deaths of two dozen or more people in BLM/Antifa riots are a lot more repugnant.  (Not to mention the execution of Ashli Babbitt for the crime of trespassing.)  The Democrats’ lack of interest in investigating these greater crimes is pretty repugnant, too.

     

    • #106
  17. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    Watching the video makes me furious and angry and depressed that you all deny it, minimize it, or obfuscate with BS like the Sandmann video.

    On that topic and for third and final time: my point is that it was the longer videos that corrected the initial short videos and the news stories that were written based on the short videos. Get it?

    So the short videos of 1/6 are the ones included by the NYT and the longer videos correcting the short videos are the ones the NYT didn’t publish?

    So brave and clever of you to make light of video you’re too scared to watch. Also, see my previous comment.

    I might respond to a double-dog dare to watch the NYT video, but only if you assure me you watched all the unedited video clips the NYT decided not to include.

    • #107
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.