Reason Roundup

Kesha Defamed Former Producer in Private Text to Lady Gaga About Rape, Says Judge

Plus: Maybe Buttigieg didn't win Iowa? Vermont considers decriminalizing prostitution. Customs and Border Protection gets a status change. And more...

|

Judge rules pop star Kesha guilty of defamation for texting rape allegation about former producer. The pop star and the producer, Lukasz "Dr. Luke" Gottwald, have been in a long-running legal battle, with Gottwald suing Kesha for alleged defamation and breach of contract. On Thursday, New York State Supreme Court Justice Jennifer G. Schecter granted summary judgement to Gottwald on both claims.

Kesha "made a false statement to Lady Gaga about Gottwald and that was defamatory," Schecter wrote in the decision. In a private text message exchange, Kesha accused Gottwald of having raped singer Katy Perrya claim Perry later denied in court.

Kesha has also publicly accused her former producer of drugging and raping her. Gottwald alleges that she made up the story to get out of her recording contract with him.

What makes this case interesting, regardless of who you believe is telling the truth, is the circumstances of the ruling. Many people think of defamation as dealing only in public statements, but as the judge wrote:

Publication of a false statement to even one person, here Lady Gaga, is sufficient to impose liability.

Schecter also decided that although Gottwald is in the entertainment industry, he does not qualify as a public figure. If the subject of supposed defamation is a public figure, the statements about them must not only be false or harmful but also shown to have been spread maliciously or with "gross irresponsibility."

"Though Gottwald has sought publicity for his label, his music, and his artistsnone of which are the subject of the defamation herehe never injected himself into the public debate about sexual assault or abuse of artists in the entertainment industry," states Schecter's ruling. "The only reason Gottwald has any public connection to the issues raised in this lawsuit is because they were raised in this lawsuit."

Since Schecter determined that Gottwald didn't count as a public figure, his lawyers didn't have to prove that Kesha intended harm in her text about him.

The judge ordered Kesha to pay Gottwald $374,000 in interest on late royalty payments.

"We disagree with the Court's rulings. We plan to immediately appeal," said Kesha's lawyer in a statement.

The larger case is still ongoing.


FREE MINDS

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency is being reclassified as a "security agency." What does that mean? CNN explains:

One of the implications of the change is that information that might usually be made public could be redacted in Freedom of Information Act requests, sparking concerns among lawyers and advocates, who worry that it could shield personnel from being held accountable for wrongdoing.


FREE MARKETS

Bill to decriminalize prostitution introduced in Vermont. The measure, introduced by Burlington state Rep. Selene Colburn of the Progressive Party, heads to the Vermont House floor this week. "Right now sex workers really feel that they cannot access police protection," Colburn told the Associated Press. "There are tons of statistics about the violence, the high levels of violence, and sex assault that people who engage in sex work experience."


FOLLOWUP

Iowa update: 

"There is evidence the party has not accurately tabulated some of its results, including those released late Thursday that the party reported as complete," reports AP.

More on the errors in Iowa and the resulting confusion here.


QUICK HITS

Advertisement

NEXT: Elizabeth Warren Slanders AIPAC

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. First?

    1. Huh wow. First time I’ve been first on a roundup thread I think.
      Sorry Fist for stealing your spot today.

      1. At some point I am going to find a format of this response that Reason will let me post:

        https://youtu.be/3sFw5Mt70vY?t=100

        1. Man, I wish I could find that Hitler parody for when Robby forgot to post the PM links. That was some comedy gold.

    2. Hello.

      Fuck CNN.

      I’m 15 minutes into Trump’s ‘off script’ speech and I see Blue. It’s glorious.

      Why shouldn’t he let those liars, crooks, thieves and traitors who have it?

      It was evil because they knew they were lying all along.

      1. Right. As opposed to Trump, who never lies, and deserves heaps of praise for it.

    3. I make a big amount online work . How ??? Just u can done also with this site and u can do it Easily 2 step one is open link next is Click on Tech so u can done Easily now u can do it also here

      ………………. Read more

  2. Why the American Civil Liberties Union is running attack ads against Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar.

    They aren’t gun grabby enough?

    1. RAVE Act, maybe?

      War on Drugs?

  3. How Tulsi Gabbard is disrupting the traditional left-right divide.

    Just like Putin trained her to do.

    1. I would certainly disrupt her divide.

      1. That made me lol.

    2. Standing in for OBL today Fist?
      Good of you; guess he needed a day off.

      1. If enough people are saying it then it must be true.

  4. Senate gets documents for Hunter Biden investigation.

    Former Navy secretary endorses Bloomberg to spite someone….

    Federal government ends NY City preferred traveler status because its a sanctuary city.

    Airliner almost gets shot down over Syria during Israeli air raid.

    Andrew Yang fires staffers.

    US drones kill various terrorists in Yemen.

    Unemployment benefits lowest in over 50 years.

    1. Trump FY2021 slashed budget plan includes ending “year end spend or lose it “ spending, Increased oversight of duplicate spending, and end improper payments (payments to dead people).

      1. How much chance of those things being voted in by even Republicans if they held both houses? They never seem to actually do those things when they have power and offer only limited opposition to all the D’s bs when out of power

        1. Great question MasterThief, and I don’t respect thieves. The GOP is controlled by RINOs as GW Bush’s term showed when they controlled the House, Senate and White House. And they like more spending (see de Rugy’s articles on the subject).

          So the answer to your question depends on how much Trump is supported by voters, and how fighting Trump to increase spending (Trump again allowing his political opposition to reveal who they really are) will hurt their re-election chances. Trump forced them to vote on their promised repeal of Obamacare, and their promised tax cuts. Those votes showed the establishment RINOs like McCain really like big government. And the RINOs who go up against Trump have been losing.

          There’s really too many big government people in Congress (all the Democrats, and most of the GOP) for Trump to beat on this issue. I suspect it’s a battle he’s chose (so far) to not fight, because he knows he’d lose the battle. Seems he’s changed his mind.

          I’m glad to see Trump attacking the spending. It further buttresses the argument Trump is the most libertarian president in our lifetimes.

        2. More and more RINOs are leaving Congress, so you never can tell.

          The Senate also requires a 60 vote super majority to avoid fillibusters.

          Few Democrats will vote for any cuts to the budget.

      2. I’m not fond of his increased spending on NASA.

        NASA’s SLS rocket program is the most embarrassing piece of pork in the budget right now, and increasing their spending for a moon shot is . . . all about spectacle at taxpayer expense.

        Any liberal who thinks Trump’s border wall is a waste of money has no business signing off more money for NASA. Musk is already doing things NASA will never be able to do. Fuck the moon. Musk is going to Mars, and he’s saving the taxpayers’ money to do it.

        1. It is more embarrassing that we have to ask other countries for time on their rockets.

          1. Hardly.

            American entrepreneurs are hitting it out of the park, with these guys being the latest example.

            https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/at-astra-space-failure-is-an-option/

            1. Do US entrepreneurs get all their rocket parts from US manufacturers? If not then that is a security risk.

              I am all for free market launching everything we need into space, however, there is an actual military threat from Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea relating to nukes. Space is currently the only delivery system for effective mass nuke attack. Someone just mentioned the other day about Russians tailing our satellites with anti-satellite satellites.

              I think the USA should have some domestic ability to put rockets into space so we can replace any satellites blown out of orbit.

          2. Also, be clear on this . . .

            NASA’s SLS program started long before SpaceX’s heavy rocket program, and NASA’s SLS program has cost U.S. taxpayers $50 billion to develop–and it’s only made it to the ground test firing phase. There won’t be a launch until 2021 at the earliest, and when it launches, it will cost the taxpayers $2 billion per launch.

            https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-does-not-deny-the-over-2-billion-cost-of-a-single-sls-launch/

            SpaceX’s heavy rocket didn’t cost the taxpayers $50 billion to develop. It cost the taxpayer nothing to develop. It was financed by private investors. And when SpaceX launches its heavy rocket, it costs $150 million per launch instead of $2 billion. Every time, NASA launches something on SpaceX’s privately financed rockets, it saves the taxpayer $1,850,000,000.

            Foreigners wish they had access to American entrepreneurs who are launching satellites so badly, it’s an embarrassment to foreign governments that launch satellites for cash. The only thing more embarrassing is NASA burning the taxpayers money like it was fuel for their SLS rocket.

            1. I agree with you Ken. Still, that $50 billion development cost over several years is only 1.5% of the yearly budget.

              Given what Trump has revealed about how DC insiders are using US foreign aid (at about $50 billion/year) to fatten their wallets, seems to me if you’re going to pick a wasteful program, you should pick foreign aid first.

              1. Why not both?

                Besides SLS employing a lot of people in Alabama, Florida, and probably Texas. Republicans are just fine with Federal Jobs programs; you just have to call them something else first.

              2. How about both.

                1. I’m with you guys, both should be cut. But I’d rather start with cutting programs that breed corruption. I don’t see foreign aid helping the US at all, while the space program has had benefits. The US doesn’t get foreign aid, and we’re doing well enough without it.

                  In fact, I’d phase out Medicare, Social Security, and all the redistribution and welfare programs. In which case we’d be talking about sufficient funds to drastically slash the size and burden of government. Foreign aid and NASA are relatively small potatoes, and I’d eliminate them as well.

            2. SpaceX designs, manufactures and launches advanced rockets and spacecraft. The company was founded in 2002 to revolutionize space technology, with the ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets.

              This is an admirable goal and could be very profitable. Their are real possibilities of finding new things to be used by humans.

          3. Why?

            And we’re not ‘asking’ – we’re paying. And paying less than NASA would have spent.

            1. There are many things we send and do in space that are considered secret. We aren’t talking about just commercial launches here.

        2. If NASA should be doing anything, it is creating a market for orbital infrastructure. Take all that SLS money and say you will pay for the first orbital tether that can lift payloads from low earth orbit to Geo. Or say that you will pay to the first hydrogen fuel depot with X capacity.

          Or hell, say you will pay the entire 10 year budget of the SLS program to whichever company solves the space junk problem.

          1. It’s “stimulus”

            It’s a jobs program for engineers.

            Presidents like it for the propaganda value when they do something spectacular.

            Another moon shot doesn’t impress me. My phone has more processing power than what NASA used to put a man on the moon. You want to impress me? Start terraforming Mars.

            1. Musk will get right on that, Ken.
              Keep the faith

              1. Elon Musk is quite a few things but he does get people excited about solving problems.

                Better batteries
                Cheaper space flight

                1. Unfortunately, he’s also adept at sitting in a very large chair at the federal trough.

            2. From what I’ve read/seen (and I’m in no way a scientist, so I could be very wrong), terraforming mars would require at minimum over a century and the full support of the earth. The reason being its core is cold/dead, we’d need to either wake it back up or simulate artificially, this would be important for maintaining an atmosphere. Either of these would be massive undertakings building equipment that would be almost Star Wars-sized.

              I understand the moon, it’s not just for the American people, it also would be a middle finger to the Chinese, who are trying to get there before 2030 if I remember correctly to plant their own flag. Is it the best use of money? Probably not. Is it better than spending the money on bombs and drones in the middle east? Yes.

              1. What’s the timeframe on atmosphere decay for Mars? If it’s something like on the order of millennia, who gives a shit? In millennia, we’ll have found something else to get to space with.

                I don’t want Mars. I want solar power sats, zero ger manufacturing plants, mongo mirrors for telescopes and concentrating solar energy, a means for avoiding Kessler Syndrome, and a way to divert Lucifer’s Hammer if it shows up.

                You want additional living space? Let’s try Antarctica, the subsea floor, L-5, and plenty of other places where we can practice before building an antimatter powered colony ship and really getting humanity’s expansion started.

                1. It would be necessary just to allow Mars to have an atmosphere in the first place. Add in the fact that soil is toxic to us due to high Chlorine levels, and Mars isn’t an easy choice for a colony, even if it’s better than most of the other options. It’s less about living space for me and more about making sure we don’t have all our eggs in a single basket.

              2. SpaceX’s global internet service is meant to start a steady stream of cash flow to fund the colonization of Mars. And I hope he’s spectacularly successful–especially since it doesn’t require any taxpayer funding like NASA does.

                All I was really trying to say is that repeating the successes of 1969 on the moon isn’t an impressive feat to my mind anyway. Yes, terraforming Mars is a multi-generational, possibly impossible project. It might be more practical to build an interstellar spaceship where life aboard was so much better than, say, living in Detroit, that people wouldn’t mind spending their lifetimes on board without ever seeing Alpha Centarui for themselves.

                So, listed from least impressive to most impressive feat

                Least: Landing on the moon like we did in 1969.
                Better: Colonizing Mars with private funds.
                Best: Slash government funding for NASA.

            3. The point of the program that eventually became SLS was to keep the Shuttle engineers employed, maintaining that expertise.

              Of course, the alternative explanation was to keep the pork flowing to all of those states – hence the “Senate Launch System” moniker.

              Either way, spaceX is building a rocket that should exceed all capabilities of the SLS system for a tiny fraction of the cost. Blue Origins is also building a rocket that will handle most SLS missions for a fraction of the cost.

              The dev costs are sunk – but just imagine if we had spent an extra couple of billion per year on space exploration instead of the SLS boondoggle.

          2. If NASA should be doing anything, it is creating a market for orbital infrastructure.

            I thought we were libertarians here.

            1. Some squanderings are better than others even if none of them are great.

        3. Fuck the moon. Musk is going to Mars, and he’s saving the taxpayers’ money to do it.

          I hope his rocket guidance system is better than a Tesla on self-driving mode.

          1. Some of those rockets have been reused three times already.

            1. So there were no parked firetrucks in the way. Good to know.

    2. “Senate gets documents for Hunter Biden investigation.”

      Like Hillary’s email server, it’s time for that story to die.

      No, the FBI still hasn’t been held accountable for not going after Biden and his son (for something) like they went after Trump and his son (over nothing), but as long as Biden is slipping in the polls, his goose is already as cooked as it needs to be.

      1. Maybe people actually care about corruption? Especially such shameless and obvious corruption.

      2. Okay, alright. Lets assume that Hunter Biden using his family name to get a cushy paycheck for not really working at a Ukranian energy company is corrupt (it is, but supposing that you don’t believe it is, assume that it is for the sake of this argument). Who would the FBI investigate in relation to that and what crimes would they investigate them for?

        Hunter Biden didn’t commit any American crimes and as far as I know the FBI isn’t in the business of busting shady dealings in other countries, especially when those countries haven’t asked them to. Joe Biden didn’t commit any crimes either since all he did was, on the direction of Obama and congress, pressure the Ukrainians to sack a prosecutor who was failing to investigate corruption at, among other places, Burisma. But instead of using his personal lawyer to circumvent the foreign relations process he had orders from congress to do what he did. So where’s the beef? Does the FBI investigate Hunter Biden for doing unseemly, but apparently legal, things in a foreign country despite having broken no US laws? Does it investigate Joe Biden for complying with congress and the president’s demand that he do something that might increase the chance of his son being investigated for corrupt activities?

        Contrast this with keeping an off-the-books email server in your bathroom where you conduct foreign policy using aliases and when caught manage to mysteriously misplace most of the contents of said server. It’s like walking into a gangster’s house and finding a room full of bullet holes and blood smeared all over the walls and the gangster smugly asks “Oh yeah, if I murdered people in here then where are the bodies?”

    3. Andrew Yang fires staffers.

      Underneath that affable-looking, pleasant, “aw shucks” demeanor lies the heart of a straight-up grifter. And the saddest part is that these young fools giving him his meager donations thinking they’re going to get free bags of cash in return are the ones who least afford to waste their limited funds giving it a con artist like this guy.

      I understand why he still wants to keep the con job going as long as he can; what I don’t get is why the DNC is still putting this puts up on the TV stage.

      1. Maybe it’s the memes? Which have been hilarious, but then I liked the Dada movement too.

  5. “It’s a physical impossibility to lift yourself up by a bootstrap, by your shoelaces? It’s physically impossible. The whole thing is a joke.” aoc

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/the-morning-briefing-its-starting-to-feel-like-aoc-is-a-republican-plant/

    1. It’s like, literally figurative language and stuff. I mean, for sure.

      but the treatment of AOC stands out because she is truly a remarkably stupid woman.
      I mean, a real paste-eater.

      I giggled.

      1. It’s more comforting to indulge this fantastical notion than it is to think that someone who is too stupid to be left alone near electrical outlets or sharp objects is a congressional juggernaut.

        This part got me particularly with regard to electrical outlets.

        1. Now that makes me wish that all the desks in the House have power outlets, like in middle school science lab. And we give AOC and the other dim bulbs some paper clips.

          1. someone needs to conduct a poll and see how many members of congress can explain why the electricity doesn’t come running out of the outlet and all over the floor when you pull the plug out.

    2. Next she should tackle “Hoisted on your own petard” or “The door is ajar”.

      1. Tow the Lion?

      2. I’m waiting for her to point out that person who cuts off their nose to spite their face should think twice about doing that, because her plan for Medicare For All does not cover cosmetic surgery (for now).

        1. Excellent. Hits the right mix of credulous, stupid, and earnest.

      3. “Flammable, or inflammable?”

      4. Drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?

        1. don’t *ever* introduce her to Steven Wright she’d totes explode-emoji. Literally

    3. She should talk to Justice Thomas some time. Or Oprah, if Thomas would be too triggering.

    4. Her being a thorn in the side of “Granny Boxwine” Pelosi.

    5. https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1225506336781357057

      “The whole thing is a joke.”

      This is actually an advanced form of meta-comedy.

    6. Someone told her that his was waiting for his ship to come in, she replied, “you aren’t even near a dock.”

    7. At the farmer’s market with my so called girlfriend
      She hands me her cell phone, says it’s my dad
      Man, this ain’t my dad!
      This is a cell phone!
      I threw it on the ground!
      What, you think I’m stupid?
      I’m not a part of your system
      My dad’s not a phone!
      DUH!

  6. As he ends his campaign, Walsh tells romney to hold his beer in race to max virtue signaling

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/joe-walsh-ends-campaign-for-white-house

    1. Walsh who?

      1. Didn’t he play with The Eagles?

        1. Coach with the 9ers, for pete’s sake.

        2. James Gang was better.

          1. ^ This.

          2. Just turn your pretty head and walk away from this argument.

      2. “Walsh who?”
        Your next Libertarian presidential candidate.

        1. Welsh, Walsh, whatever.

          1. Are we talking about Reason writer Matt Walsh?

            1. He’s a Welsher.

    2. Life’s been good to him so far…

      1. It’s hard to leave when you can’t find the door

        1. You can’t argue with a sick mind.

    3. To all the people who accuse all right-leaning individuals of being blind supporters of Republicans and to all the actual blind supporters of Republicans, a public service reminder from the Illinois Republican Party.

      1. There’s an Illinois Republican Party?

        1. Lincoln … and Hastert (ick!).

          1. Lincoln enslaved the slaves, right?

    4. You really would have no idea when someone is really being virtuous, do you? It’s such a foreign concept to you.

      1. LOL. What a pathetic response. Do you need me to link to all of Romney’s past “virtuousness?” How many times he has flip flopped for political expediency?

      2. It’s not our fault that you’re dumb.

  7. Judge rules pop star Kesha guilty of defamation for texting rape allegation about former producer.

    BELIEVE ALL WAHMUN.

    1. Damn, it took a while to get to a Kesha comment.

      I wouldn’t rape her.

    1. Putin hacked Krugman. It’s the only explanation.

    2. The Washington Examiner is not a legitimate source. They must have taken Krugman’s words out of context.

      #DrumpfRecession

    3. It may be time to sell.

      1. At least short the NY Times.

      2. You never really know if it’s Krugman the economist, or Krugman the political hack who is talking. Usually it’s the latter, but sometimes the former sneaks in a comment edgewise when the latter isn’t paying attention. I think that happened here.

  8. “Kesha “made a false statement to Lady Gaga about Gottwald and that was defamatory,” Schecter wrote in the decision. In a private text message exchange, Kesha accused Gottwald of having raped singer Katy Perry—a claim Perry later denied in court.”

    This comes across like a bad Saturday Night Live sketch. Hard to believe it’s reality.

    1. A Weekend News sketch covers this story with pictures of Adam Schiff, Trump, Zelensky, and Pelosi ‘mistakenly’ put up in place of Kesha, Gottwald, and Gaga and the words ‘rape’ and ‘impeach’ swapped, then covers the impeachment story to the same effect. Schiff alleges Trump raped Zelensky, Kesha plies Gaga to impeach Gottwald.

      Norm McDonald and Dennis Miller could both pull it off.

  9. Woods is back.

    https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2020/02/06/im-back-james-woods-returns-to-twitter-thanks-in-part-to-aocs-blazing-insight-and-hes-got-questions-about-mueller-impeachment-avenatti-and-epstein/

    “I was on vacation awhile, avoiding the news. How’d the #Mueller thing work out? The #impeachment scam? Who won the #Iowa caucuses? Is #MichaelAvenatti still a contender for the Democratic nomination for President? How’s #JeffreyEpstein doing?”

    1. Lefties cant handle James Woods or his small penis.

      1. But you can handle it?

        1. Handle what?

  10. On the impossibility of getting information about police surveillance technology.

    You don’t give the enemy access to your intelligence gathering.

  11. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $60.3 billion

    Drumpf’s disastrous high-tariff / low-immigration policies have caused Reason.com’s benefactor to lose $1.75 billion already this year.

    #HowLongMustCharlesKochSuffer?

    1. Actually you can blame it on low oil prices.

      1. If low oil prices are bad for our favorite billionaire, then Koch / Reason libertarians should want high oil prices.

        #60BillionIsntGoodEnough

  12. Kesha accused Gottwald of having raped singer Katy Perry—a claim Perry later denied in court.

    Falsely accusing someone of rape should cost more than $370,000. What’s the appeal going to be?? She didn’t mean it?

    1. Gottwald practically asked to be defamed, what with the clothes he was wearing at the time and such.

    2. The article doesn’t specify what the damages were for the defamation. If any. Seems likely she was “guilty” but the damages were zero. He’d have to prove harm in order to collect.

      The money was interest on a breach of contract claim.

      1. Pretty sure that falsely being called a rapist to the point where fans boycott labels that have him produce would be considered “harm” and the damages would not be hard to prove since he can just show jobs he didn’t get. That’s the guy that made every hit she had and she hasn’t had a hit without him. He is extremely valuable. In fact, he’s more valuable than Kesha. If he lost a single job due to this then he could claim it interfered with him making a substantial amount of money.

      2. Since rape is a crime, the allegation would be libel per se and he would not have to prove damages.

    3. It was a private statement?
      I’d like to know how it spread.

      But it’s interesting to see this be outrageous compared to other libel cases libertarians think nothing was wrong.

      Spreading rumor is wrong and libel laws exist to protect us from particularly damaging libel. But it seems culturally we are very much at odds with how to define that. And judges seem to be overall voting in inconsistently.

    4. The appeal will almost certainly be to challenge the finding in summary judgment, not anything substantive about the case.

      About how there should be material facts for a jury that shouldn’t be decided by a judge.

      At best, the case will be sent back to the lower court for trial, at which point she’ll have to put up a real defense.

  13. “Duh, I dunno, come up with an appealing agenda?”

    “We want to take your money and your guns, keep your kids in substandard schools and force you to join unions” is an awfully homely pig to be putting lipstick on, but hey- knock yourself out.

  14. An article that everyone here should read.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-2020-disinformation-war/605530/

    A good article, but this is a notable paragraph:

    One woman told me that, given the president’s accomplishments, she didn’t care if he “fabricates a little bit.” A man responded to my questions about Trump’s dishonest attacks on the press with a shrug and a suggestion that the media “ought to try telling the truth once in a while.” Tony Willnow, a 34-year-old maintenance worker who had an American flag wrapped around his head, observed that Trump had won because he said things no other politician would say. When I asked him if it mattered whether those things were true, he thought for a moment before answering. “He tells you what you want to hear,” Willnow said. “And I don’t know if it’s true or not—but it sounds good, so fuck it.”

    1. Poor jeffey.

      Trump, the best President in US History, thanks to Democrats.

      1. Hands Up, Dont shoot, Nick Sandmann has been colluding with White Hispanics in Trump Tower to commit hate crimes against Jussie Smollett and anyone wearing a hijab as part of the Muslim Ban.

        Our press is all over it

    2. Here’s an, “Open Letter to Trump” by the White House Press Corps, published by the Columbia Journalism Review. It was written just before President Trump’s inauguration. Among other things, they promise to go after Trump and put up a united front.

      Read it for yourself:

      “You and your staff sit in the White House, but the American government is a sprawling thing. We will fan reporters out across the government, embed them in your agencies, source up those bureaucrats. The result will be that while you may seek to control what comes out of the West Wing, we’ll have the upper hand”

      . . . .

      You’re going to face a unified front. We’ll work together on stories when it makes sense, and make sure the world hears when our colleagues write stories of importance.”

      https://www.cjr.org/politics/trump_white_house_press_corps.php

      I’ll hand it to the White House Press Corps on one thing: They did exactly what they said they were going to do.

      1. One of the things that’s most astounding about that piece is that it exposes their cavalier attitude towards covering the president.

        They make it plain that he’s their adversary, and they’re coming after him. Quibble about this or that–their bias is thick enough to cut with a knife.

        1. GOOD. The press SHOULD be the adversary towards those in positions of power. Right?

          The problem isn’t that the press is Trump’s adversary, the problem is that they aren’t more adversarial to ALL people in positions of power.

          Why are you criticizing the press when they actually do something right?

          1. “Why are you criticizing the press when they actually do something right?”

            Oh, perhaps their hypocrisy? Their obvious bias? Little things like, oh, a bit of honesty?
            Why are you such a fucking idiot?

            1. Yes, they are often hypocrites when holding accountable people in positions of power. I don’t think anyone really doubts this. But for heaven’s sake, when they are actually doing their jobs, why not praise them for it?

              1. But for heaven’s sake, when they are actually doing their jobs, why not praise them for it?

                Because if they were actually doing their job, they’d be holding everyone in positions of power accountable, not just the ones that have an (R) after their name. That’s the point.

                1. You mean like Hillary Clinton?

                  You do realize that it was the NY Times that broke Hillary’s email server story, right?

                  The media gets a lot wrong, but my goodness, they are a far cry from the propagandistic narrative being put forth here that they are just water-carriers for Team Blue.

                  And the point of this Atlantic article, is that this hatred of the media is being specifically weaponized by Trump and his campaign so that people like you will ignore items critical of Trump and only listen to the micro-targeted Trump Facebook ads pushing Trump’s propaganda instead.

                  Don’t you find this at least a little bit worrisome?

                  1. You do realize that it was the NY Times that broke Hillary’s email server story, right?

                    In what way was that “holding her accountable”? They were more than happy to swallow the narrative that Comey provided for not charging her. GTFO of here with that.

                    The media gets a lot wrong, but my goodness, they are a far cry from the propagandistic narrative being put forth here that they are just water-carriers for Team Blue.

                    No, that letter from CJR is probably the first time in 70 years that they’ve been honest about their bias.

                    And the point of this Atlantic article, is that this hatred of the media is being specifically weaponized by Trump and his campaign

                    You really think Trump isn’t going to take a letter from the press saying, “We’re going to resist you for as long as you’re in office,” and not push back at that? Just roll over like a bitch the way McCain or Romney did? Get real.

                    His “weaponizing hatred of the media” is the whole reason well over 90 percent of the Republican party supports him–because those voters already hated the media’s guts long before Trump came along (and let’s be honest, that hatred is entirely reciprocal), and are quite content having someone on their team who will shit all over these people for them.

                    1. This is where the projection comes in.
                      Jeff thinks what he’s told to think, thus jeff concludes that those he hates are the same way.
                      It is beyond his ability to comprehend that Trump is supported precisely because he reflects, rather than creates, the conclusions people have come to.
                      Jeff hates the caricature of “the right” he’s created out of himself and his own qualities

                    2. +100000

                      and Nardz too

                    3. It is beyond his ability to comprehend that Trump is supported precisely because he reflects, rather than creates, the conclusions people have come to.

                      He is manipulating your hatred of the media in order to achieve power for himself and his aims.

                      If you are okay with this, then carry on.

                  2. In what way was that “holding her accountable”?

                    Gee I don’t know, RRWP, I thought the New York Times was on Team Blue helping to try to get Hillary elected. Why did they choose to run a story that they knew would be very damaging towards her?

                    And you have to separate the news reporting from the opinion pages. Of course the opinion pages of places like the NY Times are going to support liberal candidates, they pretty much always have. It’s the news reporting that *I* am referring to. Are you upset that the New York Times Editorial Board isn’t endorsing Trump? Is that your critique?

                    You really think Trump isn’t going to take a letter from the press saying, “We’re going to resist you for as long as you’re in office,” and not push back at that?

                    Just read the article. Trump is doing more than just “push back” at it. He is manipulating and weaponizing the media in order to substitute HIS OWN propaganda for the news. If you have no problem with propaganda masquerading as news, then do carry on and pretend there’s nothing wrong.

                    1. Gee I don’t know, RRWP, I thought the New York Times was on Team Blue helping to try to get Hillary elected. Why did they choose to run a story that they knew would be very damaging towards her?

                      It was part of their coverage on Benghazi, you dolt. That was going to come out eventually because of that plus the FOIA requests on her emails, along with the fact that Guccifer had already released some of them over the web.

                    2. And you have to separate the news reporting from the opinion pages.

                      Oh, fuck off with this. I listen to NPR every day. They CONSTANTLY parrot the DNC party line, and they aren’t even subtle about it.

                      Just read the article. Trump is doing more than just “push back” at it. He is manipulating and weaponizing the media in order to substitute HIS OWN propaganda for the news

                      Well, when the media weaponized the bureaucrats in his administration to leak bullshit stories (“a Trump administration official” is practically a mantra at this point), I’ll repeat, what do you expect Trump to do, just sit back and take it? Don’t answer, we know that’s what you expect. The Democrats and the media expect him to do that too.

                      That’s the issue that you refuse to acknowledge–that letter was a declaration of war. And what do you do in a war? Use your combatants’ own weapons against them.

                      If you have no problem with propaganda masquerading as news, then do carry on and pretend there’s nothing wrong.

                      Take that up with your left-wing boos, bitch-boy.

            2. He’s just trying to find a way to be useful

            3. “Why are you criticizing the press when they actually do something right?”

              Sevo was right to zero in on this.

              It’s as if ChemJeff is saying that it’s okay to be lie through your teeth as long as you’re criticizing the president.

              How can you blame people for not believing in the news media when they’ve been lying through the teeth for at least four years?

              1. How can you blame people for not believing in the news media when they’ve been lying through the teeth for at least four years?

                “Lying through their teeth for four years” is far too strong of an indictment. They’ve been sensationalistic and clickbaity. They haven’t always exercised proper due diligence on some of their stories. Like all human beings, they make mistakes. But to claim that they misrepresent the truth *intentionally* and *repeatedly* and *purposefully* for four years straight in order to “get Trump” is just the right-wing propagandistic weaponization of media hatred in order to manipulate you into believing Team Trump over the facts.

                1. Fuck your thick headed. The media said they were gonna do anything they could to get Trump. Then they made a bunch of “mistakes”, or what honest people call lies, that all went in the same direction politically.

                  I think the real disconnect here is that you’re dishonest, and you think it’s ok for others to be dishonest if they agree with you politically.

                  1. Jeff is hilarious.
                    How is someone such a dolt that they can’t even succeed at being a useful idiot?

                2. How many of their ‘human mistakes’ have been mistakes that benefitted Trump?
                  And all this is in a response to a We are going to Get Him letter, yet you still insist that there is no bias in the news?

          2. “GOOD. The press SHOULD be the adversary towards those in positions of power. Right?”

            When they’re wrong and the facts are so.

            If they start crying wolf before he’s even inaugurated and continue to do so for so long that the townspeople won’t even bother coming to see whether there’s a wolf anymore, then that’s not just the fault of the townspeople. The people crying wolf are also to blame.

          3. “Why are you criticizing the press when they actually do something right?”

            On the one hand, you’re criticizing average people for not believing or even listening to the press anymore, and on the other hand, you think the press is doing a good job of covering the president?

            Again, if people won’t listen to you anymore because of what you’re done and said in the past, it may not be all their fault. It may be your fault for what you’ve done and said in the past.

            1. At the very least, we should be able to agree that the press hasn’t done a very good job of informing the public.

              The Gallup poll on Trump’s approval rating has him higher now than he’s ever been before at any time during his presidency–and that poll was taken before the Iowa debacle, the State of the Union address, or his acquittal in the Senate. Chances are he’s doing even better with the general public now than he was a week or two ago.

              . . . and that is not because the press has been supportive of him. In fact, the reason Trump is suddenly so popular may be because the press is against him.

            2. I didn’t say “the press is doing a good job of covering the press”. Don’t put words in my mouth. I think they often do a poor job, as they tend to be motivated more by ratings and clicks and sensationalism rather than by slow methodical discovery of the facts and the truth. Too much of modern news is “infotainment”.

              I said that it is a GOOD THING when the press takes an adversarial position to those in positions of power, EVEN IF they do so in a flawed manner, and EVEN IF it is against someone that you or I might like. Agreed or no?

              For example, take Justin Amash. I like him and I hope he does well. However some of the more brain-dead people around here seem to think that the reason why he votes against Trump’s tariffs is because of some Chinese tool company he has an interest in. I think that is a ridiculous reason, but I am glad that Amash’s financial interests are now public knowledge, discovered by some reporter no doubt, so that we can all make better informed decisions, even if that information is being used against him.

              I criticize average people for turning off their brains and not thinking critically about issues and instead preferring to believe spoon-fed propaganda that makes them feel good. I criticize people like Willnow who says: “And I don’t know if it’s true or not—but it sounds good, so fuck it.” Millions of years of evolution gave us big brains for a reason, we should use them!

              1. er, that should be “covering the president”

              2. I said that it is a GOOD THING when the press takes an adversarial position to those in positions of power, EVEN IF they do so in a flawed manner, and EVEN IF it is against someone that you or I might like. Agreed or no?

                When they’re practicing a double standard, no, it’s not. You’re fetishizing press accountability as MUH PRINCIPULZ when it’s not actually being executed that way.

                This is what you keep missing–if the press actually practiced accountability across the spectrum, they’d actually be doing their job. The fact that they don’t means they’re not doing their job, nor living up to the principle. You’re literally arguing that we should have the same double standard as they do.

                1. Lying about the president loses the press its credibility–even if they’re criticizing the president.

                  They’re been off their rocker since before Michelle Fields and Pissgate, and they’re still going strong on the Ukraine.

                  Anybody who has any level of confidence in the press right now is delusional. If they say it’s raining outside, better look out your window before you grab that umbrella.

                  1. Okay, Ken.

                    Name an example of an actual *lie* – i.e., an intentional and purposeful misrepresentation of the truth – by a *news reporter*, not some opinion writer or some CNN celebrity with a show, in the recent past. I’d like to know exactly what you are talking about here.

                    1. The Mueller Investigation. Removing the MLK bust from Oval Office. Trump Tower pinging various Russian banks. Just yesterday CNN’s fact checker claimed Comey never leaked his manuscripts. The Intercept, which you have claimed to respect in the past, has a great article titled “Ten Most Embarrassing U.S. Media Failures on the Trump” If you cared to read it.

                      You’re just embarrassing yourself. Not only have they gotten countless stories wrong… they’ve pressed story after story based solely on anonymous sources that end up being wrong. The fact that you don’t know this is just pure proof you willingly choose ignorance.

                    2. It’s because he’s dishonest, so it’s ok if they are too.

                    3. Even the two most replayed clios of Trump are delubwrate lies

                      One, the “good people on both sides” Charlottsville comment is cut of literally as he begins to say ” Im not talking about the guys carrying tili torches, Im talking about the people who were there concerned that we are erasing history”. Most people have never even heard that, illustrating how dishonest the media is.
                      Two, in the recent Impeachment coverage, the ” Article II letsbme do whatever I want” was in response to a question about firing Comet and potentially firingbMueller, not about Ukraine.
                      Mick Mulvaney’s starement is also dishonestly edited and taken out of contextbas well.

                    4. Cheese and rice, how can we NOT have and Edit feature in the Smartphone era

                    5. The Mueller Report is a lie? What are you even talking about?

                      And here is part of the problem:

                      Trump Tower pinging various Russian banks.

                      I actually had never heard of this story. But I looked it up, and it turns out it originated from Slate. Which is obviously left-wing. OF COURSE they’re not going to be fair to Trump. Just like Breitbart isn’t fair to Democrats. When I’m talking about “the media”, I’m talking about the mainstream news media, not partisan outlets who are explicitly biased and don’t hide it. I haven’t been very precise, which is my fault. But it is ridiculous to complain that e.g. Rachel Maddow isn’t fair to Trump and therefore “the media lies”. Partisan biased media isn’t the entirety of “the media” and what partisan celebrity ‘journalists’ do on air is not the same as news reporting.

                      This is part of how the right-wing, and Trump, is weaponizing media bias into full-blown media hatred and inserting right-wing propaganda in place of the actual news. They’ll display some ridiculous quote that some obviously partisan person said and then blame “the media”, hoping you will turn away even from legitimate straight news stories if they are critical of the right. Don’t fall for this crapola and use your brain.

                    6. Just like Breitbart isn’t fair to Democrats.

                      Breitbart IS fair to Democrats, Jeff. It just doesn’t look like it because they print all the nasty shit the MSM covers up for them.

                      It’s a thing you seem to miss. The right doesn’t NEED to lie. The left does a fine job making itself look like nasty brainless idiots all on it’s own.

                      Does anyone remember the Newsweek Trump Pancake scandal?

                      It’s almost as good as icecreamgate.

              3. How Adversarial have they been to the congenital liar and serial fabricator Adam Schiff?

                1. His bullshit should be one of the most covered subjects in washington right now.

          4. Do something right?

            Unless you believe that a specific narrative, designed to promote a minority political bias, is right, then most of what passes for modern media is far from right. The no longer even pretend to report the news, which makes sense since they have little time to spare after preaching, signaling, and political posturing.

          5. No, the press should do the whole “who, what, where” thing and do it honestly (a concept you don’t understand, I know).

            If the facts are negative or positive towards anyone in particular shouldn’t be a factor.

            But they’re not journalists, they’re propagandists for a political party, and they don’t bother even pretending they’re not anymore.

          6. “GOOD. The press SHOULD be the adversary towards those in positions of power. Right?”

            Only as long as they’re Republicans, if you’re writing for Bloomberg News.

        2. It would be fine if they had not been boot licking toadies to Obama.

          1. That’s not all they wanted to lick.

          2. Oh good Lord. “Boot licking toadies”? That is a bit of revisionist history. It was the press that uncovered Fast & Furious, that uncovered the IRS scandal, that uncovered Hillary’s problematic email server, that dutifully reported on Comey closing and re-opening and then closing the investigation right before election day, etc. They were not as adversarial as they should have been, but “boot licking toadies” goes too far.

            Do you remember the Shirley Sherrod affair? In that case, the major media was literally repeating Breitbart propaganda. “Boot licking toadies” my ass.

            1. “Oh good Lord. “Boot licking toadies”? That is a bit of revisionist history….”

              You’re commonly dishonest, but not to this degree. The press had Obo walking on water.

            2. “…Conservatives were rightly upset when at the end of Barack Obama’s presidency, the USA Today editorial board parroted, almost verbatim, a claim of the then president’s that his administration had been scandal-free. While this was done by the editorial board of a major newspaper, the line was repeated by many journalists, including by NBC News’ Tom Brokaw, despite Republican investigations into the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, the investigation into the ATF’s Fast and Furious program and the investigation into the Obama Administration’s federal guarantees for Solyndra, among others…”
              https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/media-bias-against-conservatives-real-part-reason-no-one-trusts-ncna895471

              Are you lying or stupid?

              1. What a disgusting liar you are, Jeff. Obama wiretapped reporters to try an identify (unwanted) leaks, and the press didn’t say shit, other than to ask how they offended him, and to make sure that gadflies like Sharryl Atkinsson never worked for them again.

                The media doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt anymore. They’ve been shown—repeatedly—to collaborate and coordinate their stories to make left-wing figures look good, and right-wing figures look bad. If Joe and Jane Public don’t believe what the media tells them anymore, it’s not because of a fault with Joe and Jane.

                1. Obama wiretapped reporters to try an identify (unwanted) leaks, and the press didn’t say shit, other than to ask how they offended him, and to make sure that gadflies like Sharryl Atkinsson never worked for them again.

                  This is a lie. More importantly, this is the lie that right-wing media wants you to believe.

                  Here is the fkn New York Times complaining about Obama’s wiretapping of the AP:

                  https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/opinion/spying-on-the-associated-press.html

                  The Obama administration, which has a chilling zeal for investigating leaks and prosecuting leakers, has failed to offer a credible justification for secretly combing through the phone records of reporters and editors at The Associated Press in what looks like a fishing expedition for sources and an effort to frighten off whistle-blowers.

                  On Friday, Justice Department officials revealed that they had been going through The A.P.’s records for months. The dragnet covered work, home and cellphone records used by almost 100 people at one of the oldest and most reputable news organizations. James Cole, a deputy attorney general, offered no further explanation on Tuesday, saying only that it was part of a “criminal investigation involving highly classified material” from early 2012.

                  Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. said he could not comment on the details of the phone records seizure, which he said was an open investigation — although he was happy to comment on the open investigation into the tax audits of conservative groups, which he said might have been criminal and were “certainly outrageous and unacceptable.”

                  Both Mr. Holder and Mr. Cole declared their commitment — and that of President Obama — to press freedoms. Mr. Cole said the administration does not “take lightly” such secretive trolling through media records.

                  We are not convinced. For more than 30 years, the news media and the government have used a well-honed system to balance the government’s need to pursue criminals or national security breaches with the media’s constitutional right to inform the public. This action against The A.P., as the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press outlined in a letter to Mr. Holder, “calls into question the very integrity” of the administration’s policy toward the press.

            3. Yes. Bootlicking toadies.

              Go back and watch any of his press conferences – few in number as they were.

              Better yet, go to C-SPAN and look at the pre-conference preparations. They allowed themselves to be entirely scripted from start to finish. “OK, Chuck, you get the first question on healthcare and republican obstruction, Laura, you get the second question on Insurance plans and a follow-up on keeping your plan”

              The whole thing was a kabuki show. The only real question he got asked his entire time in politics was asked by Joe the Plumber. And we all saw how badly he fumbled that question.

            4. Remember the hard hitting questions like what has most enchanted you about the Oval Office. Yes they were boot locking toadies who only covered his wrongdoings to explain them away.

            5. No, it wasnt. It was Congress who uncovered the email server and Fast and Furious

    3. Awwww, not going to invite us to come discuss it with you on Quora cytotoxic?

    4. Tell us about how the Russkis helped get Trump elected, Jeff. Idiotic claims from TDS victims are soooo amusing.

    5. Jesus, I don’t think I’ve read a more paranoid and rambling article in my life. This man is actually terrified that listening to his politic opponents made him actually think about what his fellow reporters where blaring in headlines instead of just swallowing it down without any critical thought.

      1. It’s so much easier when you understand the truth first.

        The facts don’t really make any sense unless you first understand the truth.

        The truth is whatever the media says about Trump, see. And these poor little people are getting distracted by facts. It even happened to the reporter himself, I gather? Even he is susceptible to being distracted by facts!

        1. Oh good heavens.

          No, the truth is not whatever the press says about Trump. Yes the press sometimes gets it wrong, like all human beings do from time to time.

          But Trump and his campaign have taken this distrust of the press to new levels and have weaponized it to such a degree that literally the truth no longer matters. Trump’s core supporters aren’t going to listen to the major media, they are going to listen only to right-wing sources and to their Facebook feeds (with micro-targeted Trump ads) and so they will only get the narrative that are spoon fed directly to them by Trump and his allies.

          Take the whole Ukraine scandal. It literally does not matter what Biden did or didn’t do during his trip. To the right, the narrative has become the “truth”: Biden got the prosecutor fired in order to protect his son, Democrats got mad at Trump for uncovering Biden’s obvious corruption and because they haven’t gotten over 2016, and anyone who challenges this “truth” is a part of the “fake news enemy of the people lying media”. This is pure propaganda. This is something that ought to concern every thinking person who believes that facts and truth ought to matter over partisan narratives. This happens *not just* on the right, but at least from where I’m sitting, it is far more of a problem on the right, as they have more or less rejected mainstream media entirely, while the left has not (yet).

          1. You’re such a great example of what you bitch about.
            Keep it coming, jeff!

          2. it is far more of a problem on the right, as they have more or less rejected mainstream media entirely, while the left has not (yet).

            Why would the left reject the mainstream media? The vast majority of them are literally on the same team, and if you think that’s bullshit, take some time and look up how many current MSM TV figures and executives are former staffers for Democratic politicians, are married to Democratic politicians or their staffers, and are verified donors to the Democratic party.

            1. College graduates in white collar jobs tend to be Democrats, yes. Is that a problem? If so, maybe Republicans should consider making more of a play for college-educated white-collar professionals.

              And it’s important to distinguish between the TV talking head personalities, vs. the in-the-trenches reporters. Yeah, people like Anderson Cooper or Don Lemon are just TV celebrities really, not much different from actors in Hollywood. I don’t consider them to be “journalists” in the same sense as I consider your typical Congressional beat reporter.

              1. College graduates in white collar jobs tend to be Democrats, yes. Is that a problem? If so, maybe Republicans should consider making more of a play for college-educated white-collar professionals.

                Hey dumbass, white-collar college graduates only started trending Democrat in the last four years. They’d been a reliable Republican constituency for decades. And, not surprisingly, you deliberately dodged the point because you can’t refute it–that the MSM is incestuous with former Democrat politicians, staffers, and lobbyists.

                And it’s important to distinguish between the TV talking head personalities, vs. the in-the-trenches reporters

                They’re employed by established news organizations to deliver spin on current events. You’re just playing the “No True Scotsman” defense here.

                1. So your complaint is that Rachel Maddow isn’t fair to Republicans? LOL

                  We’re talking about news reporting here, not the celebrity types like Sean Hannity.

                  1. Rachel Maddow is now a debste moderstor on NBC.

                    Further illustrating the point

                    1. And she also covers elections

                      Fox doesnt let Hannity or Ingraham or OReilly before them anywhere near the News Desk or Debates

                  2. And still you’re deflecting. You really want me to list the people who’ve migrated back and forth between the news media, lobbies, and the Democratic party? Let’s start:
                    -Jay Carney
                    -Shailagh Murray
                    -Linda Douglass
                    -Jill Zuckman
                    -Douglas France
                    -Stephen Barr

                    That’s just the Obama administration. Let’s not forget George Stephanopolous and Donna Brazille. You have to keep deflecting here because you know I’m right.

                    We’re talking about news reporting here, not the celebrity types like Sean Hannity.

                    Stop with the No True Scotsman shit.

              2. Lol. Here you admit that if Republicans want fair media coverage they need to convince people in the media to be Republicans.

          3. “This happens *not just* on the right, but at least from where I’m sitting, it is far more of a problem on the right, as they have more or less rejected mainstream media entirely, while the left has not (yet).”

            This looks like circular reasoning to me.

            Average voters are wrong to ignore or disregard the news media, and that fact is proven because they ignore or disregard the news media?

          4. that literally the truth no longer matters

            The truth never mattered. We’d live in a vastly different country today if it had.

          5. The NYT newsroom editors openly stated that the first 2.5 years of Trump’s presidency they had been actively seeking to use the Russia “scandal” to “get Trump”. They said that this effort had failed after the Meuller report, and were seeking another angle to attack the President.

            The result of this “soul-searching” was a new focus on Racism and the 1619 project. All with the expressed intention of harming Trump. (regardless of what it might do to the country to gin up a false racism narrative)

            Stop pretending that the press has been acting as a 4th estate. They are the propaganda wing of the progressive movement. It isn’t really arguable. When a flagship outlet like the NYT openly states that their objective is to remove the republican and get democrats elected, you can’t really claim otherwise.

            And we also have the testimonials of CNN employees about directives from the top to find ways to get Trump.

            We need to stop with the “bias” stuff – it isn’t nearly strong enough of a word. It also doesn’t explain their actions fully… not like the term propagandist does.

            But “holding the powerful accountable?” Come on. That isn’t even arguable any more.

            1. Neutral Jeff will never acknowledge these facts because, you know, Breitbart exists … so, it’s all the same. Totally neutral. Totally down the middle. Neutral Jeff.

          6. //Take the whole Ukraine scandal. It literally does not matter what Biden did or didn’t do during his trip. To the right, the narrative has become the “truth”: Biden got the prosecutor fired in order to protect his son, Democrats got mad at Trump for uncovering Biden’s obvious corruption and because they haven’t gotten over 2016, and anyone who challenges this “truth” is a part of the “fake news enemy of the people lying media”. This is pure propaganda.//

            It sure as fuck makes a lot more sense than “Biden did absolutely nothing wrong and, as a matter of fact, didn’t even know his crackhead son was making millions twiddling his thumbs as a board member for one of the most corrupt corporations in the world.”

            No?

            “The whole Biden thing is a complete conspiracy THEORY perpetuated by RIGHT WINGERS!”

            1. “The whole Biden thing is a complete conspiracy THEORY perpetuated by RIGHT WINGERS!”

              And if you don’t believe that–regardless of the facts that are laid out before you–then you’re an uneducated yokel!

            2. P.S. “I know we Democrats hate them and treat them like they’re stupid, but, other than that, why won’t the blue collar middle class vote for us?

      2. Hey now… Jeffrey said the article was good. We have to take him at his word. He isn’t a leftist. He would never fall for leftist propaganda.

    6. P.S. Quoting The Atlantic being condescending towards average people to demonstrate the press’ lack of bias is rich.

      Someone who wanted to demonstrate that the press is biased against average people and elitist might have quoted the same thing.

    7. The way you dems are going you may end up getting the 22nd amendment repealed.

      1. HAHAHA. That would make Lefties heads explode!

        Lefties have to deal with Trump for 9 more years! hahaha.

    8. BTW, this is in your pull quote, and ‘the press’ simply ignores it:

      “…A man responded to my questions about Trump’s dishonest attacks on the press with a shrug and a suggestion that the media “ought to try telling the truth once in a while.”…”

      Seems he knows more about the media than he media does about ‘the people’ or Trump.

    9. A man responded to my questions about Trump’s dishonest attacks on the press with a shrug and a suggestion that the media “ought to try telling the truth once in a while.” Tony Willnow, a 34-year-old maintenance worker who had an American flag wrapped around his head

      Did he have an actual American Flag wrapped around his head (like a hijab?) or was he just wearing a stars-and-stripes bandana?

      Seriously, the lying and two-faced nuanced injection of meaning and dog whistling is so rampant I don’t know.

      1. Yeah this. There’s definitely a ‘this fool’ vibe to the description here.
        And the funniest part is they think they are being subtle.

    10. A man responded to my questions about Trump’s dishonest attacks on the press with a shrug and a suggestion that the media “ought to try telling the truth once in a while.”

      This presumes Trumps attacks are dishonest. I don’t much listen to Trump, but the media has been utterly flayed open over the last couple of years, and until the establishment media industry does some real soul searching they’re going to continue to lose the public’s confidence.

      As for this:

      Willnow said. “And I don’t know if it’s true or not—but it sounds good, so fuck it.”

      Welcome to democracy…

      1. I think he meant to say ‘fuck you’ but was just being polite.

    11. The Atlantic is now deeply concerned about whether what a President says on the campaign trail is true? Whoa. This really is an entertaining timeline.

      I missed that concern during my earlier subscription to that magazine (it was free, except for the later spamming) during the Obama Administrations.

      I eagerly await their follow up articles urging Internet and social media censorship of ‘unproven facts’ or ‘political hate speech’.

    12. And for many, since Trump is pro-life, any personal behavior can be overlooked. He is King Cyrus reincarnate. (Even though, if he were honest, he probably doesn’t give two shits about unborn children.)

  15. 14 men answered online ads from undercover cops posing as adult sex workers.

    They were posing as johns to catch adult sex workers. It’s trafficking all the way down.

    1. Did ENB show up?

  16. Duh, I dunno, come up with an appealing agenda?

    Or, alternately, to defeat Trump the Dems could lurch even more to the insane left.

  17. Re-post, but worth it:

    ““Pelosi for Prison” Banner Flies Over San Francisco for Hours”
    […]
    “The residents of San Francisco are waking up this morning to find an enormous banner being pulled by a plane that reads “PELOSI FOR PRISON: Sign the Petition.”…”
    https://www.dcpresswire.com/2020/02/06/pelosi-for-prison-banner-flies-over-san-francisco-for-hours/

    1. It should fly on her government owned Gulfstream.

  18. “WUHAN, China—A Chinese doctor who became a folk hero after he was arrested for warning about the dangers of the deadly new virus now spreading around the world died on Friday after becoming infected with it.

    . . . .

    After initial reports of Dr. Li’s death began circulating online late Thursday in China, including from the official social-media accounts of Communist Party publications, he was mourned and celebrated as a symbol of the public’s determination to find answers to still-unanswered questions about how officials first responded to the outbreak.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-doctor-who-issued-early-warning-on-virus-dies-11581019816

    Looks like the Chinese government has become social media savvy. If oppressing this guy made him a hero who stands up for the little people, don’t fight against that when it’s trending–get behind it!

    Now Emperor Xi is also against the horrible local bureaucrats who silenced this brave man, who was only trying to warn the people of danger. Xi will punish or execute some local officials for this in the name of justice. Then Emperor Xi will name a hospital after Dr. Li, a true hero!

    . . . and then he’ll go back to the official policy of crushing anyone who tries to embarrass the government with their traitorous leaks under his boot.

    1. How do we know the Doctor died from the virus? Usually questioning the party gets you a one way ticket to a human organ farm.

      1. It was reported by the government!

        That’s what I’m saying. Initially, the government arrested him and forced him to sign a public confession to spreading rumors and lies.

        He became a folk hero after the virus broke out–and people remembered that he was the one who tried to warn them.

        Once he became a folk hero, the government got behind him and started covering him. Jedi mind tricks! Emperor XI was behind you the whole time, Dr. Li!

        . . . We were always at war with Eastasia.

        Now, the government position isn’t that this was a horrible man spreading dangerous rumors. Now, he’s a hero and an example, and Emperor Xi is going to punish the local bureaucrats who tried to silence him!

        1. “Why do you hate the party?”

          (Chinese student studying at US college)

        2. See! Comrade Stalin does listen!

    2. Did Li die before Jack Dorsey’s banned his twitter account?

      1. Lol

        Thread winner

      2. Is this a joke or was his account actually banned? Tell me this is just a funny quip.

        1. I meant it as a joke, but you never know.

    3. I can’t figure out why Western media has been skeptical of information coming out suggesting this situation is worse than what the WHO keeps peddling.

      1. A saving grace is that, if this bug were as nasty as we were fearing, we’d see a lot of cases in the West now, and more than a few deaths. Their absence gives me hope that this will remain a regional epidemic.

      2. Because the WHO is filled with ‘Top Men’ (not The Who who are entirely different) and you can’t do anything to be seen to attack ‘Top Men’ lest people start to think ‘Top Men’ might not be the infallible experts that ‘Top Men’ have been made to seem.

        If that were to happen then people might think ‘Top Men’ don’t really know much more about what they’re doing that anyone else. And then a whole industry of advisors to the government collapses and there’s mass unemployment.

  19. The Lady Gaga thing is really stupid and should be called out by Reason. If none of the lies put out in media about the Covington kid is defamation to them then a private message surely isn’t. If this judgement holds, then it is a HUGE infringement on free speech. I don’t like lying or anyone involved in this, but this literally makes unproven gossip illegal

    1. No, it makes telling deliberate lies that cause damages illegal. Or, you know, exactly how the fucking law has been for 2 and a half centuries. Braindead fucking prick. Eat shit and die.

      1. Remember that when you’re in front of the court explaining how you ‘were mistaken’ when got caught gossiping.

      2. Your Piece of My Heart cover is pretty good, if you like shouting, but my version is better. That is all.

    2. Within the context of #MeToo, I’m not sure that’s the case.

      If you tell a potential client that so and so is a #MeToo PR disaster waiting to happen–because he raped Katy Perry–so you don’t want to go under contract with him, that’s not idle gossip.

      That passes the malice test, and the damages are quantifiable.

      1. Fair enough. I’ll still say it’s hypocrisy when compared to coverage of the Covington thing. I’m still skeptical of how broadly this ruling could be applied. What is the rationale that telling a lie (or merely unproven allegations) about someone isn’t defamation in any context? I expect to see a massive wave of #metoo hoaxers put in jail if this is the standard

        1. Well, one of the things that makes defamation different in the U.S. is that our laws needed to conform to the First Amendment, and one of the ways it does that is by making something of an exception in civil law by requiring a malice standard. In criminal law, there’s usually mens rea, which to my mind means that the accused did what they did on purpose–and suggesting malicious intent. Even in cases of negligence, if I’m on the jury, I want to see the criminal prosecutor prove that the accused disregarded someone’s safety on purpose. Yeah, if I leave it that way, someone will die, but what do I care if it saves me a few bucks?

          That’s the standard in defamation civil cases. You knew what you were saying was false, and you said it on purpose in order to deprive that person of some money, property, etc. In other words, you violated that person’s rights–and you did it on purpose.

          Incidentally, this is the crux of why Section 230 is only protecting publishers from necessarily frivolous lawsuits. The New York Times website cannot have malice behind comments in its comments section that it didn’t write. If you want to go after someone for writing a bad comment on Twitter, you need to go after the person who wrote the comment–not the company that owns the webpage it was written on. If I spray paint a lie about someone on the side of your house, you aren’t responsible for defamation because you didn’t write the message.

          You can’t have malice (or mens rea) for messages that you didn’t write.

          P.S. All of these things have gray areas that require someone to make a judgement cal.

          1. It might be added that in countries that evolved from English common law–without the First Amendment–the malice standard doesn’t apply.

            It is so much easier to win a defamation case in the Australia, Canada, or the UK for that reason, and if you go to news websites in those countries, you may find that the comments are pre-moderated for that reason.

            “We moderate all comments before they appear on the article and do not publicise comments that are in poor-taste, prejudicial or profane. Readers who attempt to post inappropriate comments can be suspended and banned from commenting. Please read our Commenting Guidelines.”

            When they say “prejudicial”, it means that if there’s a criminal case ongoing and not verdict has been published yet, you are not allowed to say that you think they’re guilty–because the newspaper is afraid they’ll get sued and lose. After all, there is no malice standard.

            “If your comments that has been reviewed by our moderators and approved to published, all readers will see it. You do not need to register to read comments.”

            “Some articles are subject to legal constraints so comments will not be opened in case the comment may jeopardise court action or result in vilification.”

            “We moderate all comments before they appear on articles as a legal requirement to comply with Australian Law and to maintain appropriate community standards. We do our best not to publish comments that are in poor-taste, prejudicial or profane. We hold the right not to publish any posted comment if the comment does not comply with the Commenting Guidelines.

            “After a comment has been posted, moderators and Editorial teams will review comments before they appear on article pages. We do our best not to publish comments that are in poor-taste, prejudicial or profane.”

            https://www.newscorpaustralia.com/commenting-faqs/

            If you want to see what the U.S. would look like without Section 230, that’s it.

            News Corp Australia is Fox.

            They can operate comment sections because they’re a huge company. Those who can’t afford to hire people to read comments and approve them typically don’t have comment sections. The reason Facebook wants the government to regulate this kind of regulation is because it’s rent seeking behavior–it would discourage new competitors from coming into the market unless they had big money to pay moderators.

            1. If you want to see what the U.S. would look like without Section 230, that’s it.

              Bull-fucking-shit. The rape allegation came in a text conversation via phone. Once a-fucking-gain, the 1A applies the malice/truth standard and has for more than a century. Section 230 has fuck all to do with it.

              Moreover, Section 230 is/was nominally *supposed* to grant hosts providers immunity. Instead, it’s an abridging to the 1A that allows Congress to pass FOSTA/SESTA because nowhere does section 230 say “Congress shall make no law…”.

              Seriously, this continued stupidity is getting more aggravating and corrosive to freedom the longer you idiots pedal it.

              1. “Bull-fucking-shit. The rape allegation came in a text conversation via phone. Once a-fucking-gain, the 1A applies the malice/truth standard and has for more than a century. Section 230 has fuck all to do with it.”

                Not sure you’re following.

                I wasn’t saying that without Section 230, we’ll all be sued like Kesha for our texts.

                I was saying that if you like the way they moderate comments at the link I gave you (and quoted) above, then that’s what we would see without Section 230. The reason their comment policy is the way it is largely because they don’t have Section 230.

                1. I was saying that if you like the way they moderate comments at the link I gave you (and quoted) above, then that’s what we would see without Section 230. The reason their comment policy is the way it is largely because they don’t have Section 230.

                  Not sure you’re following. You’re falsely conflating section 230 with the 1A. Malice in defamation predates section 230 by more than a century *in the US* for Kesha, Gottwold, *or* a web service provider *equally*. Reason just did a video on this with regard to Hamilton.

                  So, where’s the distinction between the Australian company’s policy and Facebook/Twitter’s or even Reason’s? The FAQ would seem to suggest that any post they accept would be OK on Facebook. Not breathing a word about the letter of the law and looking near purely empirically/behaviorally, this would seem to suggest that they’re exceedingly confident that either section 230 shields them or that any distinction is essentially meaningless.

                  Now, in light of the above, considering the actual text of section 230, precisely *none* of what you describe is outlined in it. No mention of mens rea, malice, pending litigation, defamation, none of it. Not one word of it. The closest you get is ‘good faith’ action against ‘otherwise objectionable’ material. The reason it’s not there is because it was already hashed out well before section 230 was penned. And, IMO, most importantly, Congress is the ultimate arbiter of what ‘otherwise objectionable’ means.

                  And, ultimately, your assertion that Facebook wants to remove section 230 so that it can force smaller entities like News Corp Australia to moderate it’s comments before posting and/or passing them on to it’s platform is exceedingly tortured.

                  At best, your comment is a non-sequitur. At worst, it’s yet another cry for Congress to spell out whimsically wink-wink, nudge-nudge everyone on how free speech works for any given medium.

                  1. “You’re falsely conflating section 230 with the 1A. Malice in defamation predates section 230 by more than a century *in the US* for Kesha, Gottwold, *or* a web service provider *equally*. Reason just did a video on this with regard to Hamilton.”

                    What I said was that the malice standard is a function of the First Amendment. Our defamation laws evolved to accommodate the First Amendment. Other countries–that evolved form English law–that don’t have the First Amendment also don’t have the malice standard. It doesn’t matter if the person said it without malice in those countries. If the defendant said it thinking it was true, that may not make any difference in a defamation case–because there is no malice standard.

                    The only “connection” I’m alleging between the First Amendment and Section 230 is that the malice standard (which we get by way of the First Amendment) would/should protect third parties from comments made by others on their websites anyway. The important thing Section 230 does is protect websites from frivolous lawsuits–that don’t and shouldn’t have a legitimate basis anyway because the website cannot have malice for comments that it did not write.

                    If mad.casual defames Ken on Reason.com, Ken cannot and should not be able to collect damages from Reason.com because Reason.com cannot have had malice–because it wasn’t the author of the defamation. That is because of the malice standard that evolved under the influence of the First Amendment.

                    People who hate libertarians, on the other hand, may decide they want to sue Reason.com for the things mad.casual said about them on Reason.com–in a flurry of baseless lawsuits. And it might be prohibitively expensive for Reason.com to defend themselves against these frivolous lawsuits. The important part of Section 230 protects Reason.com from a blizzard of baseless lawsuits–that are baseless because the First Amendment means that we’ve evolved a malice standard. And those lawsuits cannot have any merit–because Reason.com cannot have possessed malice when it was writing comments that it never wrote.

                    If Ken wants to be compensated for damages perpetrated against him by way of a mad.casual, then Ken needs to sue mad.casual–not Reason. Section 230, in this regard, simply protects third parties from being sued for defamatory statements that they never made! If Section 230 were repealed, I’d be mighty surprised if a site like Reason kept comments open. There would be a tremendous chilling effect. If you think content is too closely monitored now, go over to that site I linked you to, make a comment (that is in no way offensive), and see how long it takes for your comment to appear.

                    Is that the world you want?

                    1. P.S. To the charge that a site like News Corp’s is only afraid of defamation lawsuits because they don’t have the First Amendment and, hence, no malice standard, I assure you that they’re just as worried about being hit with frivolous lawsuits as we are here in the U.S. Frivolous lawsuits are a time intensive and expensive pain in the ass with our without the First Amendment and the malice standard.

                    2. Is that the world you want?

                      The world you propose didn’t exist before section 230 and isn’t prevented by section 230.

                      You’re using an imaginary counterfactual as justification for your interpretation of the law that doesn’t nominally or textually support your interpretation or prevent the issue you’re (falsely) asserting happens.

                      News Corp doesn’t enjoy section 230 *or* 1A benefits and still publishes user comments but, for some reason, Reason without section 230 (but still protected by the 1A) would stop? Bullshit. Moreover, Reason (or just their staff) who has *both* 1A and section 230 protections *still* has to be choosy about who’s name it prints in factual representations for fear of lawsuits. Worse still is that *on top of that* Reason openly laments both the proliferation of fake news *and* the crushing imposition of libel and defamation.

                      There was no wave of frivolous lawsuits. Even if there were, frivolous lawsuits are a part of freedom and aren’t barred elsewhere and/or for everyone. Even if there were frivolous lawsuits and section 230 did away with them, Reason would still be crowing about how onerous it is for reporters and the media to tell the truth and incredulous when the public consistently told them all to fuck off at the polls. See IP law.

                      The stance on section 230 is becoming like the stance or (false) juxtaposition in favor of late-term abortion and the right to privacy. Even if you believe in an absolute right to privacy it doesn’t stack up against killing a viable, full-term baby and if you really did believe in an absolute right to privacy as derived from personal sovereignty, you’d recognize the retarded juxtaposition you were making and instead be arguing about the sovereignty of a lump of cells and not a late-term fetus. As AI becomes more capable of eliminating the “burden of moderating” it becomes more obvious that section 230 is a sham by which Congress determines what gets moderated and by whom.

      2. These cases take a while to go through the courts, but I think people are going to start to realize what happens when you claim someone raped you and you have no evidence.

        If you’ve been paying attention to the Harvey trial you’ll see that he’s on trial, but those that made the claims are the ones having to prove. They are being forced to explain why they did things because the defense presented evidence that disputes their claims. You’re left with having experts testify why you did these things that make it look like you totally were not raped and it was 100% consensual. Not a good position to be in.

  20. “Governors Warn Trump Rule Could Lead to Big Medicaid Cuts”
    […]
    “…The arcane fiscal accountability rule proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, would tighten federal oversight and approval over complex financing strategies states have long used to help pay for their share of the $600 billion program…”
    https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2020-02-05/trump-rule-could-lead-to-big-medicaid-cuts-governors-warn

    Not easy to parse, but it looks as if the ‘rule’ eliminates some loopholes the states have been using to grab extra dough.

  21. Many people think of defamation as dealing only in public statements

    Nah, that was just you because you’re a hopelessly ignorant cunt.

  22. …the tight margin between Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders.

    Oh, come on!

    1. It may be an opportunity for Weiner to re-emerge.

      1. Thank you both.

    2. I hope Pete wins. I want to be able to make butt sex jokes for four years and have them be relevant to the matter at hand.

  23. Schecter also decided that although Gottwald is in the entertainment industry, he does not qualify as a public figure. If the subject of supposed defamation is a public figure, the statements about them must not only be false or harmful but also shown to have been spread maliciously or with “gross irresponsibility.”

    *** scratches head ***

    Then isn’t not qualifying someone as a public figure a HATE CRIME?

    1. She threw him into “public.”

    2. I find that definition of public figure hilarious after Zimmwrman’s libel case was tossed out on a far more ridiculous definition of “public person”.

  24. All candidates and officials lie, or stretch the truth, about how wonderful things are under their regimes or how horrible their opponent’s plans are. After several LP campaigns, I advised other LP candidates to cite where the stats or quotes or whatever being cited came from. Maybe even understate it a bit. And when the opponent pounced and questioned the info, they were questioning, say, the Wall Street Journal or a Harvard professor writing in Newsweek or the Congressional Budget Office and not you. At least one incumbent congressman was redfaced when he denied how he voted when the Congressional Record said otherwise.

    1. Good for you. Which campaigns did you work on, if you don’t mind me asking?

      1. Several of my own and various others in Penna. in the 1980s.

  25. If Kesha hadn’t already removed the dollar sign from her name, she’d have to do so now.

    1. It will be removed for her.

  26. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency is being reclassified as a “security agency.” What does that mean?

    It means in a police state everyone’s a security agent. Check an see if your kids have badges yet?

  27. Are we going to start at the impeachment process for the Congressmen who voted to impeach the president purely for political reasons?

  28. >>Publication of a false statement to even one person

    if to *only* one person it would still be a secret. who did Gaga spill to?

  29. Kesha accused Gottwald of having raped singer Katy Perry—a claim Perry later denied in court.

    Kesha has also publicly accused her former producer of drugging and raping her. Gottwald alleges that she made up the story to get out of her recording contract with him.

    Which reminds me kids (and Reason culture editors)… has anyone been following the Johnny Depp saga? #MeToo in-fucking-deed.

    1. He kind of, well ‘deserved’ is the wrong word for it, call it willfully ignored the situation going in. Anyone who didn’t realize that Amber Heard was completely bonkers before getting in a relationship with her, let alone marrying her, wasn’t paying attention.

      That said, anything that brings back a healthy skepticism to claims of victimization is a good thing.

      1. He kind of, well ‘deserved’ is the wrong word for it, call it willfully ignored the situation going in.

        As an outside observer, he’s still pretty willfully ignoring things. In his defense, if I had his amount of money and Amber Heard I’d probably willfully ignore a lot of things too.

        1. I know this is a taste thing, so take it with a grain of salt, but I’m not sure I’d risk losing my entire fortune and being blackballed by Hollywood over a false #MeToo accusation from someone like Amber Heard. There are plenty of other young actresses in Hollywood I would do that for.

          1. I think you’re mis-reading context in a couple ways.
            1) As you likely well know, nobody goes in to get robbed and blackballed by a 33 yr. old Amber Heard. You go in for a 25 yr. old Amber Heard and wind up getting blackballed and robbed.

            2) This is admittedly a mixed bag of context but was the thrust of my comment, I’m not 50 yet and I don’t look like Johnny Depp or have whatever mojo he’s got. At the same time, I’ll never look like a guy who women would think it’s a good idea to assault.

            Yeah, if you showed up at my house and offered me Depp’s money and Amber Heard, I’d start horse-trading with you. If I’d grown up closer to Johnny Depp in appearance and earned a fortune the way he has, I wouldn’t kick Heard out of bed. I certainly know guys who look more like me who lost a larger percentage of their “fortune” and/or life to all-around less reputable women.

            1. To your point 2 and last paragraph, if I looked like Johnny Depp and earned a fortune the way he has, I’d think that he’d have a line of Amber Heards around the block waiting to take their turn.

              Which admittedly, might be the problem. From what I can tell of Depp in his ‘real life’ persona, he’s more like a rock star than an actor. Hell, he even talks like the front man for [insert random 1970s rock band here]. I suspect that attracts the craziest of the crazy. But my point is, for me, if I’m going to be stuck with the crazy, I’m going as hot as I can.

  30. “Right now sex workers really feel that they cannot access police protection,” Colburn told the Associated Press. “There are tons of statistics about the violence, the high levels of violence, and sex assault that people who engage in sex work experience.”

    He forgot ‘trafficking’.

  31. How Trump Wins Again

    First, President Trump’s job approval numbers are rising. When the impeachment inquiry got rolling in October his Gallup approval rating was 39. Now it’s 49. If he can hold this level, he’ll probably be re-elected.

    Second, impeachment never became a topic of conversation among rank-and-file Democrats, let alone independents and Republicans, so it was easily defeated in the Senate.

    To the extent that it was noticed, impeachment worked for Republicans and against Democrats. Approval of the Republican Party is now at 51 percent, its highest since 2005. More Americans now identify as Republicans than as Democrats.

    1. What does he mean when he says that impeachment never became a topic of conversation among the rank and file? I spent most of this summer on the road for work, and I heard it discussed everywhere I went

      1. What does he mean when he says that impeachment never became a topic of conversation among the rank and file?

        “I couldn’t find any Republicans to dress down about it and all my co-workers, who are all politically aligned, were all too busy to talk about it so… it never really came up.”

      2. Sounds like an excuse why the Impeachment failed since “Republicans bad” is not working.

        If this was just some rogue Democrats pushing this Impeachment that backfired, then this shouldn’t negatively reflect on the rest of the Democrat party.

        Same logic behind the Democrat Party being the actual Party of slavery that fought for slavery in the Civil War, started the KKK, implemented Segregation, and Jim Crowe Laws. These things should not reflect negatively on the rest of the Democrat Party.

    2. If he can hold this level, he’ll probably be re-elected.

      Right, but if it dips to 47%, get thee ready for Biden/Harris/Kobuchar/Walsh/Yang Bloomberg.

  32. a href=”https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-appeals-court-dismisses-trump-emoluments-case-n1132441″>Appeals court rules Democrats lack legal standing to sue Trump over alleged emoluments violations

    I’m sure unreason will discuss all the wins that Trump has now.

  33. Ex-GOP Rep. Joe Walsh ends primary bid against Trump after poor Iowa showing

    “I’m suspending my campaign, but our fight against the Cult of Trump is just getting started. I’m committed to doing everything I can to defeat Trump and his enablers this November,” Walsh said in a tweet.

    He told CNN on Friday morning that the Republican party is “Trump’s party … it’s not a party. It’s a cult. He can’t be beat in the Republican primary, so there’s no reason for me, or any candidate really, to be in there. The party has become a cult.”

    See ya, you fucking Democrat from Illinois who got booted because you couldn’t suck Hillary’s dick enough for the crazy Lefties to accept you as an ex-Republican.

  34. Global Entry suspension to affect 800K New Yorkers over 5 years, 86K immediately, CBP official says

    HAHAHA. Poor New York City ass clowns. There are consequences for your illegal behavior.

    I do think that every American should go through the same security screening procedure. Otherwise scale back the intense security kabuki theater for all Americans.

    1. Oh, you should read the butthurt on twitter from media workers who live in the NYC area. You thought they hated Trump before…

      1. It’s like equal application of all the laws we have on the books.

        Apply all these ridiculous laws to everyone. Fastest way to get a law repealed.

  35. I would certainly disrupt her divide.

    Fun fact: die Scheide, the German word for “vagina,” quite literally means “divide.” And scheiden means “to divorce,” which is just a little too on the nose for comfort.

    1. A bit like putine and putain.

      Nothing like going to a cafe’ and inadvertently ordering yourself a plate o’ pussy.

      1. That’s more likely to happen in a Chinese restaurant.

      2. I have a Mexican restaurant where bearded or shaved tacos are their specialty.

  36. Man trying to save neighbor in dog attack accidentally kills him with crossbow

    If only residents of Massachusetts could have guns that could have been used at close range and accurately only kill the dog rather than innocents.

    Oh well, chock this up to call for “reasonable crossbow controls”.

  37. White House Says Al-Qaida Leader Qassim Al-Rimi Killed In U.S. Operation

    Qassim al-Rimi, the leader of a Yemen-based al-Qaida affiliate who claimed responsibility for last year’s deadly shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida.

    What no Americans and their American kids?

  38. January adds a much stronger-than-expected 225,000 jobs, with a boost from warm weather

    A more encompassing labor market indicator that includes discouraged workers and those holding part-time positions for economic reasons also moved higher, rising 0.2 percentage points to 6.9%. The so-called real unemployment rate previously had been at its lowest level in the history of the data series.

    However, the employment-to-population ratio in the household survey rose to 61.2%, its highest since November 2008 and 0.5 percentage points higher than a year ago.

    EMPLOYMENT IMPLODING, Boehm!!

    1. with a boost from warm weather – – – –

      So Trump causing global warming climate change has caused more jobs?

  39. The company announced the leadership shakeup as it continues CEO Jim Hackett’s $11 billion global restructuring, which some analysts have criticized for moving too slow.

    You wanna know how to get Ford back on track?

    1. Stop building vehicles that have mechanical problems.
    2. Build only vehicles that Americans and foreign buyers want.
    3. Get rid of as many pension liabilities as possible.

    1. they put a 4-cylinder engine in a Mustang and still called it a Mustang wtf.

      1. Ironically – a 4-cylinder Mustang with an automatic transmission *is* the sort of vehicle American buyers want.

        1. Nation of young Incel pussys is why.

          A Mustang better have an engine that gets chicks wet enough to fuck in the front seat!

          1. Why would the engine be in the front seat?

            1. Because the driver got distracted?

            2. Have you seen a Hemi?

        2. i drove it and fell asleep. i’ll stick w/the 302s

    2. Get rid of as many pension liabilities as possible.

      More Fentanyl?

    3. None of those things can be done without basically firing all the management from line foremen up.

      You don’t just turn around a company culture – which is the root cause of all the issues you’ve listed – you have to kill it and transplant a new one.

  40. BREAKING: The Associated Press is unable to declare a winner of Iowa’s Democratic caucuses because of irregularities in this year’s process and the tight margin between Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders.

    So “nobody” won in Iowa; move along now, nothing to see here…

    1. Buttigieg won.
      Not technically, but he enjoyed the bump from press covering his “win”
      Up 12 points in NH since Tuesday

    2. Probably because there were no recorded votes for Hillary – – – – – –

  41. Justice for Harvey Weinstein?

    At any rate, the essential claim is that Weinstein forcibly assaulted his victims. But the evidence plainly shows that his supposed victims continued to seek him out, were seen convivially together with him in public during and after the time of the alleged assault, sent him friendly and affectionate emails, and failed to come forward until many years had passed.

    Moreover, of the hundred or so women he is said to have molested, only two are at present facing him, both of whom had persisted in meeting, wishing to meet, and appealing to Weinstein in many different ways[…]
    This is perfectly circular feminist logic. If a woman avoids her rapist, that makes sense. If a woman pursues her rapist, that also makes sense. If a victim persistently lies, then she will tell the truth. Win-win for the plaintiff. As Janice Fiamengo points out in a corrosive video on the Weinstein travesty….

    1. So he had to power, and they of their own volition went along to secure the benefits.

      There is a difference between a whore and a rape victim, is there not?

    2. I blame the Christian Conservatives and their ongoing cultural, but occasionally legal, war on porn. If they weren’t so in bed with libertine Hollywood culture, Harvey Weinstein would’ve been rooted out long ago and feminists would have no platform for their war on sex. That Christians are even considering siding with women who support women explicitly not as sex objects for purchase and trade and on an (equal) moral ground is something we should all be concerned about.

      1. That last sentence is unintelligible.

        1. That last sentence is unintelligible.

          Now imagine ENB turned it into an article.

          1. “Should a church/brothel combo be considered a tax shelter?”

            What do you think? 2 years from now?

            1. Funny thing. You can’t be sure on the timeline but the fact that Reason’s stance will be, “granting women tax breaks is insulting to women’s autonomy” and “the GOP and their retarded views about deficits and taxation” will almost certainly be the narrative.

    3. The shitty part about all of this is if #metoo weren’t a thing he would have a harder case to defend. The large number of women and only 2 going after him makes jurors think something is up. That Farrow book that detailed all the NDA’s? That can moreso show consent than anything nefarious. Is having sex in exchange for movie roles unethical and unprofessional? One could argue that for sure. Is it rape? No. Legally it is not.

      They may have sunk their own ship.

  42. Trump’s former Navy secretary endorses Mike Bloomberg

    The more these upset bureaucrats lash out, the more sure I am of trump making the correct choice to fire these fucking people.

    President Trump’s former Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, who was fired for his handling of the Eddie Gallagher case, announced Friday that he would endorse Mike Bloomberg for president in 2020.

    Spencer said that he has the “utmost confidence” in Bloomberg’s ability to lead as commander in chief.
    “He will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and uphold the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Mike will honor the service and ensure the equal treatment of all women and men in uniform. He also will respect the advice of military advisers.”

    1. OK, that is fine for the navy; but how will the Army and Marines fight without guns?

  43. Exclusive: Indicted Russian describes “troll farm” work

    Uh-oh, unreason is going to have to find a new group to do their sock trolling.

  44. Trump’s New War On Wasteful Spending — An Advance Draft Of The President’s Budget To Congress (FY2021)

    I look forward to another federal government shutdown over Trump desire to cut the federal budget.

  45. Trump Impeachment Fury Sows Fear of Payback Among Diplomats

    As we found out from the USSR archives, our State Department was full of Commie spies and sympathizers.

    These bureaucratic traitors to the US Constitution and their oaths of office should be fearful.

  46. Bernie Sanders Builds Big Primary Machine to Win Prized California

    I laugh that Berie as an (I) Independent is kicking all the Democrat presidential candidate’s asses.

  47. Qassim al-Rimi, the leader of a Yemen-based al-Qaida affiliate who claimed responsibility for last year’s deadly shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida. For More info …Click Here

  48. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot…Start here>→ Read more

  49. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do. Follow details on this web page……. Read more

  50. ★I get paid over $90 every hour telecommuting with 2 children at home. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however my closest companion gains over 10k a month doing this and she persuaded me to attempt. The potential with this is unending. Heres what I’ve been doing……. Read MoRe

  51. I am a huge fan of K3$ha. What’s happening around the globe.
    TechPrevue

  52. I for one, am happy to see at least one person bearing false witness against others, falsely trashing their reputations and careers, suffering some of the consequences of their hateful actions.

    There’s been far too much of it, especially in the political world regarding the politics of personal destruction. In fact, it’s been the Democrats MO for decades. They’ve borked Bork, Clarence Thomas, Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broderick, Paula Willey, Brent Kavanaugh, and attempted to do it to Trump. Meanwhile they’ve provided cover for Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein, John Conyers, and more than I can remember, by attacking their accusers. And they still worship the Clintons, because they know any deviation from that support will result in their destruction.

    That’s abusing government power against innocent individuals and harming them for the benefit of politicians.

  53. More leftist tyranny. If this is allowed to stand, kiss the First Amendment goodbye. You will no longer be allowed to express your opinion to a single person lest that person turn out to be a government informer.

    Nor Stalin is smiling on this New York “judge.”

  54. I ᴊᴜsᴛ ɢᴏᴛ ᴀ ɢʀᴇᴀᴛ Jᴀɢᴜᴀʀ XJ ᴀғᴛᴇʀ ʜᴀᴠɪɴɢ ᴍᴀᴅᴇ $9180 ᴛʜɪs-ᴘᴀsᴛ/ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ᴀɴᴅ-ᴇᴠᴇɴ ᴍᴏʀᴇ ᴛʜᴀɴ, 10/ᴋ ᴛʜɪs ᴘᴀsᴛ-ᴍᴜɴᴛʜ . ᴛʜɪs ɪs ᴄᴇʀᴛᴀɪɴʟʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴍᴏsᴛ-ᴄᴏᴍғᴏʀᴛᴀʙʟᴇ ᴡᴏʀᴋ Iᴠᴇ ʜᴀᴅ . I ʙᴇɢᴀɴ ᴛʜɪs 5 ᴍᴏɴᴛʜs ᴀɢᴏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴘʀᴀᴄᴛɪᴄᴀʟʟʏ sᴛʀᴀɪɢʜᴛ ᴀᴡᴀʏ ʙᴇɢᴀɴ ᴛᴏ ʙʀɪɴɢ ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍɪɴɪᴍᴜᴍ $83 ᴘ/ʜ .M#4. >>>>>>. Read more

  55. ★I get paid over $90 every hour telecommuting with 2 children at home. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however my closest companion gains over 10k a month doing this and she persuaded me to attempt. The potential with this is unending. Heres what I’ve been doing…….Read MoRe

  56. Google paid for every week online work from home 8000 to 10000 dollars.i have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it..go to this site for more details…

    So I started….>>>>>>>> Read More

  57. ★Makes $140 to $180 every day online work and I got $16894 in one month web based acting from home.I am a day by day understudy and work basically one to a couple of hours in my extra time.Everybody will carry out that responsibility and monline akes additional money by just open this link……Read MoRe

  58. I ve made USD66,000 so far this year w0rking 0nline and I’m a fulltime student. I’m using an 0nline business opportunity I heard about and I’vemade such great m0ney. It’s really user friendly AKe and I’m just so happy thatI found out about it. Here’s what I’ve been doing….. Click it here  

  59. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot…Start here>→→ Click it here  

  60. Want To Work From Home Without Selling Anything? No Experience Needed, Weekly Payments… Join Exclusive Group Of People That Cracked The Code Of Financial Freedom! Learn More details Good luck…… Read more  

  61. I have been a huge fan of Kesha. Just, have not been in touch with her performances lately. Thanks!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.