Reason Roundup

A Win for Devin Nunes in Lawsuit Over Journalist Ryan Lizza's Tweet

Plus: "The endless catastrophe of Rikers Island," studies link luxury rentals and affordable housing, and more...

|

Tweeting article after Nunes called it defamatory could count as "actual malice," court says. In a disturbing ruling for fans of free speech, a federal court has partially sided with Rep. Devin Nunes (R–Calif.) in his lawsuit against journalist Ryan Lizza. Nunes has accused Lizza and Hearst Magazine Media, which publishes Esquire, of defamation and conspiracy.

Back in 2018, Esquire published an article by Lizza headlined "Devin Nunes's Family Farm Is Hiding a Politically Explosive Secret." The article suggested that Nunes had hidden the fact that his family had moved their dairy farm from California to Iowa. It also accused the farm of relying on undocumented labor. In addition, the article accuses Nunes of improper political activities, saying he used his position as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence "to spin a baroque theory about alleged surveillance of the Trump campaign that began with a made-up Trump tweet" about former President Barack Obama tapping Trump Tower and "to discredit the Russia investigation and protect Donald Trump at all costs."

Nunes sued, but a federal district court granted Lizza and Hearst's motion to dismiss his claims. Among other things, it concluded that even if some information in the article was defamatory, it did not meet the standard required for a defamation claim against a public figure: actual malice. So Nunes appealed.

In its September 15 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit agreed that there was no actual malice involved in the original publication of the article.

"The Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment requires a public official to prove that defamatory statements or implications are made with 'actual malice,' meaning 'with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not,'" notes the court. "In this context, 'reckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published.' Instead, 'the defendant must have made the false publication with a high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity, or must have entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.'…We agree with the district court that the complaint is insufficient to state a claim of actual malice as to the original publication."

But a later Lizza tweet sharing the article could rise to that standard, the court said.

Tweeting a link to the article could be considered "republication," the court explained, noting that "there is a distinction in defamation law between an original publication and a republication." And republication could imply actual malice.

Lizza's tweet came on November 20, 2019, several weeks after Nunes initially filed his defamation claim. "I noticed that Devin Nunes is in the news. If you're interested in a strange tale about Nunes, small-town Iowa, the complexities of immigration policy, a few car chases, and lots of cows, I've got a story for you," tweeted Lizza.

"The complaint here adequately alleges that Lizza intended to reach and actually reached a new audience by publishing a tweet about Nunes and a link to the article," ruled the appeals court. "Although we agree that there are insufficient allegations of express defamation, we conclude that the complaint does state a claim for defamation by implication as to a republication of the article. We thus affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings."

Whether the republication here rises to the level of defamation will still have to be decided.

But under the appeals court's logic, a politician may declare something defamatory and sue in court and—whether there is merit to the original claim or not—the journalist or publication who so much as draws attention to the contested article could become guilty.

It could also have implications beyond a journalist or publication responsible for a piece accused of defamation. "One curious aspect of the ruling is that it appears to open the door to lawsuits against anyone who tweeted or retweeted the original story with knowledge of Nunes' lawsuit, and to similar claims over members of the public or those with significant social media followings tweeting or retweeting stories after learning that the subject of the story is disputing it in some way," notes Politico.


FREE MINDS


FREE MARKETS

Studies link luxury rentals and affordable housing. For a certain sort of misguided activist and policy wonk, new apartment buildings featuring fancy pads aren't just irrelevant to people who can't afford them, but actively harmful. Their theory is that it speeds up gentrification and causes rents to rise. But empirical research—including a new paper out of Finland—challenges this assumption. It suggests instead that expanding "luxury" rental housing stock actually helps create affordable housing, too, by creating "moving chains" and freeing up older places where lower-income renters can afford to live. "For each 100 new, centrally located market-rate units, roughly 60 units are created in the bottom half of neighborhood income distribution through vacancies," and 29 units in the bottom quintile, suggests the Finnish paper.

"What about in the United States?" asks Timothy B. Lee in the Full Stack Economics newsletter.

Over the last couple of years, Notre Dame economist Evan Mast has been doing similar research in American cities, and he published his latest results in July (his 2021 paper is paywalled; you can read a preliminary version from 2019 here).

Mast looked at housing markets in 12 of the largest American cities. The US doesn't have the kind of government population register they have in Finland, so instead Mast obtained data from a private marketing database called Infutor Data Solutions. But he used the same basic methodology as the Finnish economists and got similar—if a bit less dramatic—results. Thanks to moving chains, a new luxury apartment building created vacant units in a wide range of neighborhoods.

Mast found that 67 percent of people who moved into a new luxury apartment building came from another apartment in the same metropolitan area. Of these, only 20 percent of the people who moved into luxury apartment buildings came directly from neighborhoods with below-average incomes. But that set off a moving chain that was more likely to reach lower-income neighborhoods. By the sixth link in the chain, 40 percent of movers were coming from neighborhoods with below-average incomes.


QUICK HITS

• Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig are fighting for more information about American bank accounts.

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has "overturned a judge's order blocking the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from shifting its immigration enforcement priorities, delivering a significant victory for the Biden administration," reports The Hill. The court "unanimously ruled to stay a district court judge's injunction against DHS from enforcing a January policy memo that directed authorities to scale back the Trump-era crackdown on undocumented immigrants. The policy included an initial effort to enact a 100-day moratorium on deportations."

• In more good immigration news: "Senators introduced a bipartisan bill on Wednesday that would create a pathway to citizenship for some children and young adults who were raised in the United States but face deportation at age 21. "

• Los Angeles County will start requiring proof of vaccination for indoor bars, wineries, breweries, and clubs. "The mandate, which will be issued by Friday, will require patrons and employees to have at least one vaccine dose by Oct. 7 and be fully vaccinated by Nov. 4," according to the Los Angeles Times.

• L.A. isn't the only place to put new COVID-19 rules in place this week. Gov. Kathy Hochul yesterday announced new rules for New York schools and child care centers:

• Vape store owners aren't sure they can survive a new tax hike.

NEXT: America on the Dole

Reason Roundup Free Speech First Amendment Lawsuits Technology Social Media Journalism Federal Courts Media Defamation Twitter

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.

Please to post comments

342 responses to “A Win for Devin Nunes in Lawsuit Over Journalist Ryan Lizza's Tweet

  1. Florida mass murderer says: “God told me to kill everyone and to rescue Amber because she’s a victim of sex trafficking.”
    An incredibly grim story, but unfortunately it’s a perfect example of the very real dangers of spreading sensational myths and lies

    Even God fell for it.

    1. Still doesn’t beat March 2020 to the present as an example of those dangers, though.

      1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.RTf simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing. Try now………

        Click & Chang your Life …………… VISIT HERE

        1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet K access and you can have that at your home. HaZ Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

          Here is I started.…………… VISIT HERE

          1. Sarah getting Paid up to $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m full time Student. I shocked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do.QEd everybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……

            So I started……… READ MORE

    2. God as Qanon member actually makes a lot of sense.

      1. Only one of those is a myth to Buttplug.

        1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.FGb simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

          Try now………….. Pays24

      2. I am making a good salary online from home.I’ve made 97,999 dollar’s so for last 5 months working online and I’m a full time student.RFg I’m using an online business opportunity I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

        For more detail ……………. VISIT HERE

    3. If there weren’t sensational myths and lies about sex trafficking, the mass murderer would probably have spent his free time volunteering at a local charity instead of mass murdering.

      1. It’s everyone’s fault he is nuts.

        1. Blame it on the NRA.

      2. I still remember when we weren’t allowed to blame Bernie or Maddow over Hodgkinson.

    4. #FaithBasedInitiative
      #SincerelyHeldReligiousBelief
      #GodGivesLifeMeaning
      #YouWereSayingDostoevsky?
      #MysticalFeelzBeforeRealz
      #StillCannotTrustAtheists
      #SonOfSamAndJanetRenoMakeABaby
      #JesusLovesTheLittleChildren
      #WhenWeGoBatshitOnOneWeGoBatshitOnAll
      #Proverbs3:5-6

  2. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig are fighting for more information about American bank accounts.

    BIDEN NEEDS MONEY

  3. 84% of Groups Involved in Armed Demonstrations Are Right-Wing Actors Like the Proud Boys
    BY CAMMY PEDROJA ON 9/14/21 AT 3:36 PM EDT

    https://www.newsweek.com/proud-boys-other-right-wing-actors-responsible-84-armed-demonstrations-report-1629089

    1. Remember when protesting the government was cool?

      1. Like all last year in Portland?

        1. Still ongoing

    2. “A recent, first-of-its-kind report from independent researchers Everytown for Gun Safety”

      Jesus Christ, really? An Everytown study?

      HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

      1. What’s so funny? Mr. Buttplug is a left-libertarian. That means he agrees with progressives on just about every issue except the minimum wage. No surprise he’d promote Everytown talking points.

        1. Even if you assume independent as nonpartisan, it’s still questionable as to whether Everytown for Gun Safety objectively classifies smashing store windows with a brick or beating down people with a weighted umbrella as armed.

          1. As long as people cannot own assault umbrellas.

          2. The word demonstrations indicates only political violence is being discussed, and none of the violence involving broken windows last year was political.

            1. You had me for a miniute…

          3. I was being sarcastic. If this is the group I think it is, they aren’t independent.

      2. I’m eagerly awaiting the inevitable armed confrontation between Antifa and the Pro-Fascists.

        1. Yeah, I recall you praising Antifa when they were conducting peaceful protests that were unfortunately infiltrated by Pro-Fascists who caused 100% of the fires and looting.

          #LibertariansForAntifa

          1. OBL praising SPB is my favorite evolution of the character.

            1. The first libertarian board I frequented was the Liberty forum back in 2002-2009 and the infighting was viscous.

              It was us Cosmotarians vs the Paleos even back then.

              1. You’re not libertarian.

                What libertarian would drag a piece of agitprop from a gun-grabber group like “Everytown for Gun Safety” and post it here like you just did.

                1. You’re not libertarian. You’re a conservative.

                  I linked to a Newsweek article.

                  As an Open Society donor and advocate I am open to a discussion from any source.

                  1. As an Open Society donor and advocate

                    Did Buttplug just get hacked? I never expected him to voluntarily link himself to George Soros.

                  2. I’m definitely saving this post.

                    I thought Media Matters had hired Plug, but he seems to be indicating one of Soros’s projects.

                    1. Because nobody besides Soros donates to Open Society, but a hell of a lot of his pet projects, like fifty-centing, are funded by it.

                    2. See, that tells me you are fairly new here.

                      I used to have the Open Society link on my user name (shrike).

                      Karl Popper defined the open society as one “in which individual is confronted with personal decisions” as opposed to a “magical or tribal or collectivist society.”[15]

                      He considered that only democracy provides an institutional mechanism for reform and leadership change without the need for bloodshed, revolution or coup d’état.[16]

                      Modern advocates[by whom?] of the open society suggest that society would keep no secrets from itself in the public sense, as all are trusted with the knowledge of all. Political freedoms and human rights are claimed to be the foundation of an open society.[by

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_society

                    3. Sorry Buttplug, but I’m not buying it.

                      You clearly stated that you are a donor to the Open Society foundation. You can’t regularly donate to a wikipedia link about Karl Popper’s concept.

                  3. Also, that Newsweek article was based solely on the research of Open Society front group, Everytown Gun-Grabbing.

                    1. You clearly stated that you are a donor to the Open Society foundation. You can’t regularly donate to a wikipedia link about Karl Popper’s concept.

                      Yes, I donated to the Open Society Institute. Never claimed I didn’t.

                      Soros was a student of Popper and Hayek.

                    2. That’s perfect.
                      Thanks.

                2. It wasn’t until recently that I even realized dildo pretended to be libertarian.

        2. So, Antifa vs. the Democratic party? That’s who is cheering fascism and have been for 18 months now.

          1. All fascists/Neo Nazis gravitate to the Republican Party.

            ARYAN SUPREMACY is not a liberal/Dem thing. You should know something as basic as that.

            Now, progressives often defend Castro/Chavez – which is WORSE than the Neo-Nazi crowd that join the GOP.

            1. Now we know you’re full of shit, but then again it’s hard to type the truth with your buttplug in your mouth.

              Fuck off, non libertarian fascist.

            2. ARYAN SUPREMACY is not a liberal/Dem thing.

              The KKK, Woodrow Wilson and his segregation of the civil service, and all the Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights act would probably disagree.

              1. And I don’t think Mussolini was particularly concerned about Aryan supremacy.

              2. Senator Robert Byrd agrees.

            3. I’m talking about Fascism, not Aryan supremacy or neo-Nazis. If that’s what I meant, that’s what I would have said. Specifically the aspects of Fascism relating to how government and corporate interests interact and how mass media is used to manipulate public opinion.

              This is the problem with talking about Fascism. Everyone always goes straight to Nazis. I’m trying to talk about the economic and political system used by Mussolini. Which, I think, can be similar in many ways to American progressivism.

              1. Fascism (from the word fasces – a bundle of sticks tied together for strength) uses Militarism, Nationalism, Race, Religion, Corporatism, hatred of liberalism and intellectualism as “branches”.

                Those are the cornerstones of today’s conservatives.

                Show me a flag-waving, patriot-warrior, Bible-Beating, White Christian Supremacist in the USA and there is a 100% chance he is a Republican.

                1. Minus perhaps the Nationalism, those are all characteristics of progressives as well. I won’t deny that there are plenty of conservatives that share those traits too. But the progressives are a much greater danger at the moment, seems to me. Show me a free speech hating, public health totalitarian with an unhealthy obsession with race and who wants to enlist large media companies to control the information people are allowed to hear, and it’s almost certainly a prog.

                2. I would not expect a lefty to differentiate between voting for Republican candidates and advocating for the Republican party.

        3. I too would love to see Antifa vs Proudboys (not pro-facist) brought to you by Don King on Pay-Per-View. Hold the event on a dry lake bed (no property damage), line them up across from each other, then yell charge and watch the slaughter ensue. And no firearms, I want to see a medieval style battle between light infantries.

          Only in America!

          1. Hell yeah!

            $99.99 PPV.

            I’m in!

            1. I’m in, too. Or just blast the most extreme elements of the Left and Right into outer space, so we adults can live in an adult country.

              1. asshole nazi Mike wants more splinters in his butt from fence sitting.

                1. Mike Laursen thinks not getting vaccinated and then leaving your house, regardless of infection/health, constitutes active aggression.

                  1. We should needle Mike about this.

              2. Mike is asking for a Final Solution.

          2. It would be like those peak Tyson fights. Every time PB and the communazis have collided on ever terms without/prior to police intervention, PB has whooped their asses

        4. turd lies. It’s what turd does. turd never posts without lying; turd is a pathological liar.
          turd always lies.

        5. “I’m eagerly awaiting the inevitable armed confrontation between Antifa and the Pro-Fascists.”

          Wouldn’t that just be called infighting?

    3. My favorite from the “independent report”:

      “Armed demonstrations are “violent or destructive” roughly five times as often as unarmed demonstrations in the U.S., according to Wagner.”

      Must be referring to those mostly peaceful protests.

      1. no mention of the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED)?

        1. Tell us more about why you’re posting agitprop from Everytown for Gun Safety.

        2. When a “libertarian” has a problem with someone carrying a firearm.

    4. Government itself is an armed demonstration, and a government that uses violence against peaceful people should expect violence r in return.

      1. “a government that uses violence against peaceful people”

        Is this referring to any incident in particular?

        1. Are you having a hard time thinking of incidents in which the government uses violence against peaceful people?

          1. Kent State best example.

            1. Compared to the Whisky Rebellion?

              1. A good one too.

                Also Waco. As much as I hate religion/cults ATF had no business storming that compound.

                1. Liar you were pro ATF killing them.

          2. Just one specific case that he believes trespassing transcends to a capital offense for.

          3. Not at all, but my question was about what _you_ are referring to.

            1. Not really. You were ‘inferring’ again.

              1. OK, so a vague “government” engaging in violence against a vague “peaceful people”. We aren’t talking about any particular level or jurisdiction of government, we aren’t talking about a particular group of peaceful people, and we aren’t talking about a particular incident.

                So, you could have been talking about George Floyd or Ashli Babbit or Kent State or Ruby Ridge or the Cherokee Trail of Tears or…

                1. One of those does not fit.
                  If Obama had a drug-overdosing cousin, he would look a lot like Floyd.

                2. You really can’t help being a complete douche can you Dee?

                3. Yes.

                  If there’s a problem, I don’t see it.

                  1. No problem. It seems like you were getting at something in your original comment, but, apparently, you weren’t talking about anything in particular.

            2. For the benefit of the thread, arguing with Mike is arguing with someone who will never take responsibility for what he says. In fact, within days he will be acting as if he never said these things in the first place. He is a completely disingenuous adversary and you would do better arguing with the main character from Memento.

              https://reason.com/2021/09/09/california-is-set-to-outlaw-unannounced-condom-removal/#comment-9091773

              That is Mike insisting that he “would never look to Rolling Stone” for news, after spreading their bogus ivermectin story only days earlier. Consider that: He didn’t apologize. He didn’t even try to ignore his mistake. He brazenly tried to dunk on Rolling Stone to make himself look like an arbiter of truth.

              The pathological narcissism required to disrespect the truth and readers so heavily should make him ashamed. It won’t though, so I advise others in the thread to avoid engaging with someone that argues in such bad faith.

              1. Dee has been cawt many times arguing in bad faith.

        2. Everything the government does is backed by the threat of violence. And, with Biden, usually very incompetent violence.

          1. “a government that uses violence against peaceful people should expect violence in return.”

            Expand the meaning of ‘Peaceful’ to include Non-Criminal against others; and the comment is dead-on.

            The purpose of USA governing is to protect Individual Liberty and supply Justice – and the few required items of the U.S. Constitution like national defense. It was never granted any authority to commit acts of violence against it’s own ‘peaceful’ people — Of which it has been doing endlessly by theft, bans, mandates, regulation —- Anything UN-Constitutional.

        3. Advocating that people should be forcibly injected with drugs simply because they exist and you’re a totalitarian piece of shit who demands everyone else be as obedient to arbitrary and illogical edicts as you.

          If you reject live-and-let-live, as Mike Laursen consistently does, you’re an aggressor who is forcing everyone else into a kill-or-be-killed situation.

          1. Thing is, I’m fully vaccinated and I find this push so loathesome I’d recommend everybody else avoid it just out of spite unless, like me, you have a reason (i.e my wife is immuno compromised and my MiL has cancer, so I did it for them)

            1. I don’t care if anyone else chooses to get vaccinated or not, and that’s the point.
              You do you, I do me.
              Only fucking totalitarians can’t accept this. They insist you do as they prescribe.
              That is absolutely aggression upon you, and collectivist evil. It’s a clear and present threat to your life.

        4. Ruby Ridge. Murder by gov’t sniper, no accountability.

          1. Hell, sniper got promoted for it.

            But, unlike George Floyd, the Weavers were bad.

            …not saying they weren’t jerks, but being a jerk is not really a capital offense I do not think.

            1. The fact that a marshal was sitting in a ghillie suit on a rural Idahoan’s property is all you have to know about the fedgov. What could possibly go wrong?

          2. Sniper Lon was also shooting civilians at Waco.

    5. When the FBI infiltrates a group of course there is going to be more action. Just as in the Oath Keepers who has a leader that is a government operative they are protecting against charges for the Jan. 6th riot there are quite a few Proud Boys also being protected from prosecution.

  4. “It also accused the farm of relying on undocumented labor.”

    Like that’s a bad thing?

    #OpenTheBordersToKeepLaborCostsDown

    1. I think the defense would be that the allegation of undocumented labor is not defamatory.

    2. “Old McNunes had a farm…”

    3. ^THIS EXACTLY; It’s “bad” when it can *defame* a Republican

      … but bragging about it, encouraging it and actually supporting it by Democrat Politicians/Officials (i.e. Sanctuary Cities) is not just “good” but holier-than-thou totes great!!!

      A great example of the [WE] mob foundation mentality of democracy. Everything is ‘gangs of the hood’ and the only principle to live by is which ‘gang’ gets the most members to kill off the other ‘gang’ and steal all their stuff – to conquer and consume.

      The same mentality that kills more people hands-down than any other.

  5. Senators introduced a bipartisan bill on Wednesday that would create a pathway to citizenship for some children and young adults who were raised in the United States but face deportation at age 21.

    Effectively Americans already so I’m fine with this but do they know that their bodies will belong to society?

    1. Even of the “child” came here at age 17? I can also point to many cases of “children” in high schools who end up being mid 20s to avoid deportation.

      1. A main complaint with immigrants is a willful failure to assimilate. Personally I find that formative years spent in the country would be sufficient to satisfy any concerns on that front, and I’m willing to grant leeway. But then while I’m not an open borders advocate, I do think immigration should not be the expensive, bureaucratic shitshow it now is.

        1. > the expensive, bureaucratic shitshow it now is.

          Feature, not a bug.

          As are the bandaids that nobody has codified into real laws. Dreamers is a feel good thing, but it is 2 presidents old and still not an actual law, and that tells you something.

          To actually address issues like immigration removes things like the fact the illegal aliens can work for peanuts under the table and not complain or ask for raises for fear of the government. This is NOT about the immigrant, this is a giveaway to business willing to flout the law.

          Likewise, the nature of H1B visas and high tech immigration are the same. Big tech companies complain that they can’t get trained workers, get to import someone from India or Eastern Europe who desperately doesn’t want to have to go home, then keep them in indentured servitude.

          Both of these ends massively suppress the power of workers — legal workers — to demand increased wages or training from their employers or other things that might cost the businesses because they can just be replaced by powerless workers.

          You think REAL reform will get through with lobbies so against it? It’s meant to be a convoluted shitshow. The poor people at the border are just to hide the real damage done behind the scenes.

          OBL can tell you how great it is.

  6. Los Angeles County will start requiring proof of vaccination for indoor bars, wineries, breweries, and clubs.

    Californians should try to recall their leaders when they pull shit like this.

    1. Ironic since the state is claiming a decrease in covid cases, of course we always knew that if Newsom won the lockdowns would get worse while the cases decrease. it has nothing to do with health its all about power

      1. They were meant to get worse from the beginning.

        There’s a vaccine passport scheme statewide starting next week. Large gatherings — concerts, conventions etc… I don’t remember the number of attendees — are required to verifiy vaccination. This was announced in August to combat the surge, but, as I said, doesn’t go into effect until now, after the recall.

        It’s Kafkaesque. So blatant, but people in LA are so partisan you’ll never get anyone not D in office.

        1. I blame Australians, once they saw how much people were willing put up with there they are going to push for that here.

  7. Face coverings for kids age 2+, all staff & visitors, are now required…

    Display a clear visual signal of your obedience or GTFO.

    1. Unless they are guests at the Met Gala?

      1. Come on, man. Rules for thee but not for me.

      2. Turns out rich people and socialists are immune to COVID.

        1. They are too sophisticated for sickness.

        2. They’re smarter and better than we are. They know ways to protect themselves that the base canaille don’t.

        3. +1 Obama Birthday Party Tent.

        4. Delaying DC mandates until after the mayor has her birthday party.

    2. This should provide plenty of brickbats when the police are called and go full Australia on toddlers defying the mask order.

    3. one school district wants weekly testing for everyone, even the vaccinated

      1. That actually makes more sense than testing only the unvaccinated.

      2. Will Oregon public schools assign a “pass” result without conducting the testing?

  8. Fuck Joe Biden

    1. I’ll save sarcasmic some time and post his response to fuck Joe biden quotes.

      sarcasmic
      September.15.2021 at 5:51 pm
      Flag Comment Mute User
      He’s a bird, singing to his potential conservative mates. Give him a break. Saying “Fuck Joe Biden” on these comments is his only chance of getting laid.sarcasmic

      1. Fuck sarcasmic.

        1. Well, whatever you’re into, I guess. Ignoring him is probably better, though. Unlike Biden, nothing he says makes any difference to your life.

          1. I ignored Chipper. There was no reason to engage, much less argue with that retarded dothead.

      2. Fuck sarcasmic.

      3. Fuck sockasmic

  9. Vape store owners aren’t sure they can survive a new tax hike

    LEARN TO LOBBY.

  10. …spin a baroque theory about alleged surveillance of the Trump campaign that began with a made-up Trump tweet” about former President Barack Obama tapping Trump Tower and “to discredit the Russia investigation and protect Donald Trump at all costs.”

    The former president would never!

    1. I did enjoy the “baroque theory” line. Never heard “reality” described in such terms before.

      1. Yeah she should be arrested for bad writing. Replace that wit “17th century decorative art movement popular in Spain theory

        1. Except baroque art is rather nice and pleasant while ENB is not.

      2. You baroque it, you bought it.

        1. Leave the punning to chumby

          1. Want to take bets? I’m guessing something something baroque obama something…

          2. Stormy Daniels tapped Trump tower with no violation of the penal code.

        2. Not sure I can Handel anymore baroque puns.

    2. “Spin a baroque theory about alleged surveillance of the Trump campaign”

      When a President employs the Director of the FBI, the Deputy Director of the FBI, the Chief of the Counterespionage Section of the FBI, the Director of the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence, and members of the Justice Department and the State Department to gather dirt on members of the opposition political party in an effort to ensure his former Secretary of State wins the Presidency… It’s apparently a baroque theory folks.

      Chuck Colson of Watergate fame was sentenced to prison for possessing a single FBI file on a political rival baroque theory.

      1. It is sad that you were the only one to notice this.

        There is a bizarre rewriting of history underway, and it seems to be actually happening in the minds of our 4th estate.

    3. Two Hop warrants on Carter Page, Papadapolous, et al is much worse than tapping the building

      1. LOL

        Even the New York Times has to admit who the Democratic Party really serves!

        House Democrats’ Plan to Tax the Rich Leaves Vast Fortunes Unscathed

        “But the proposal, while substantial in scope, stopped well short of changes needed to dent the vast fortunes of tycoons like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, or to thoroughly close the most egregious loopholes exploited by high-flying captains of finance. It aimed to go after the merely rich more than the fabulously rich.”

        #VoteDemocratToHelpTheFabulouslyRich

        1. They are really gonna stick it to your local HVAC contractor

  11. … it concluded that even if some information in the article was defamatory, it did not meet the standard required for a defamation claim against a public figure: actual malice.

    Not good for press freedom if government dirtbags can sue about coverage but let’s not pretend that the entirely of journalists throughout the Trump presidency weren’t malice incarnate.

    1. If they can sue about knowingly false coverage, that would be a win for all of our freedom. Now if we could sue them for knowingly false rhetoric….

      1. Nick Sandmann thinks suing the lying fake news media is very profitable. I wonder why the lies and malice against him was worse then the lies and malice against Nunes? They knew they were lying when they published. Influencing elections by running propaganda for the left seems like malice.

  12. “In a disturbing ruling for fans of free speech…”

    I haven’t really come across many fans of free speech who object to the concept of defamation.

    1. She didn’t mean all defemation. Just defamation of conservatives. She hates defaming backpage owners and such.

      1. And she should. She just does not get the whole “consistent application of beliefs” thing with her preferred beliefs.

        If a woman is not being paid to fuck, then ENB is not terribly concerned.

        1. By definition, “beliefs” are not consistent (or logical).

          1. If you believe free speech is important, then supporting suppression of it, bare minimum, proves you do not support free speech.

          2. Definitely not correct. By definiton beliefs are something one holds true regardless of consistency or logic irrespective of how they came to hold them. Logic, consistency and belief are not mutually exclusive.
            If your definitiom were accurate nobody could believe anything that were consistent or logical. Which is… Not great critical thinking on your part. Ill assume youre an atheist fundamentalist that believes (illogically and inconsistently) that only religious beliefs are beliefs.

      2. I thought about pointing that out, but I figured she’d sue me for defamation.

    2. Except there was no finding of defamation. The court said it may or may not be defamatory but that doesn’t matter because there was no malice, Now they are saying that republishing an article that was never found to be malicious or defamatory now *is* malicious.

      This would mean that any deep-pocketed politician could sue journalists, and even if there was no merit to the suit it would still prevent the article from being published

      1. No. It says the standards requiring finding malice are lessened on the retweet so a finding of defamation can now occur. They didn’t reach that conclusion originally.

      2. It’s hilarious that you still have faith in the rule of law.

      3. Are you sure about that? To me it seems more like “Hey when you first published this stuff that may have been defamatory, obviously there was no malice. But even after being put on notice that it may be defamatory, you chose to publish it again.”

        For what it is worth, I am not crazy about the idea that you can tell lies without even basic fact checking in an obviously political attempt to target a politician you don’t like (c.f. Rathergate Docs). But for the sake of free speech, I can understand allowing it. But once you have been notified that your facts are in doubt, you have a responsibility to verify them, or you are speaking negligently.

        1. Are you sure about that? To me it seems more like “Hey when you first published this stuff that may have been defamatory, obviously there was no malice. But even after being put on notice that it may be defamatory, you chose to publish it again.”

          This is basically what ended up sinking Gawker, too. They were warned about putting that video of the Hulkster up, did it anyway, doubled down, and now they’re the Netscape of gossip blogs.

          1. Reason sided with Gawker there, mind you. Because the press should be immune from any punishment for misdeeds.

          2. Gawker should have known that Hogan has creative control and usually ends up winning.

            1. Oh, well done sir!

        2. I agree but alternatively I am not to comfortable having any negative pieces written about an elite getting “put on notice” to stop the spread of it. It could allow the Bidens to halt follow up pieces to the NY Posts work on the Hunter laptop to not only get blocked from Twitter but also stop the NY Post from publishing on their own website.

          1. “I am not to comfortable having any negative pieces written about an elite getting “put on notice” to stop the spread of it. ”

            Well, that is a pragmatic argument, but let’s start with the moral argument first. The question is what your moral responsibility is. If you knowingly lie about someone, you are morally culpable for libeling/slandering them, right? If you tell a lie thinking it is true, that culpability is gone. You acted in good faith. Further, if you have told a fact, and you are given reason to believe it isn’t accurate, it is wrong to repeat that fact. (This, for example, is why I no longer take anything that Gateway Pundit posts seriously any more- they shamelessly posted “fraud evidence” during the election, and continued to link to it and post it despite being corrected in their own comments.)

            If we are going to have freedom of speech, you also need to be accountable when your speech causes damages.

            Now what should the law do about that? I am willing to say that negligently reporting facts that you could have easily disproven shouldn’t bring the law down onto you, despite the fact that it is morally wrong. But once you have been informed which facts are in question, and seen even basic evidence suggesting it is doubtful, then you- as owner of your speech- are morally responsible for verifying the speech, as you can no longer claim that you had no reason to doubt it. I don’t see a problem with the law enforcing that.

          2. “and—whether there is merit to the original claim or not—the journalist or publication who so much as draws attention to the contested article could become guilty. ”

            This approaches being a lie about the ruling. There’s no “whether there is merit to the original claim or not” here; If the original claim turns out to be true, there’s no question: It’s not defamation.

            If they stood by the story despite being told it was a lie, and not actually having any basis for thinking it was true, well, screw it: They ARE guilty!

      4. I’m not defending the ruling, but there’s probably one more possibility: if a journalist (or anyone) re-tweets an article for which there is a current defamation lawsuit, they could probably sufficiently CYA by making a disclaimer comment, “This article is currently the subject of a defamation lawsuit.”

        Still, the ruling was wrong.

        1. For the benefit of the thread, arguing with Mike is arguing with someone who will never take responsibility for what he says. In fact, within days he will be acting as if he never said these things in the first place. He is a completely disingenuous adversary and you would do better arguing with the main character from Memento.

          https://reason.com/2021/09/09/california-is-set-to-outlaw-unannounced-condom-removal/#comment-9091773

          That is Mike insisting that he “would never look to Rolling Stone” for news, after spreading their bogus ivermectin story only days earlier. Consider that: He didn’t apologize. He didn’t even try to ignore his mistake. He brazenly tried to dunk on Rolling Stone to make himself look like an arbiter of truth.

          The pathological narcissism required to disrespect the truth and readers so heavily should make him ashamed. It won’t though, so I advise others in the thread to avoid engaging with someone that argues in such bad faith.

        2. I have Overt muted, but accidentally saw his comment below unmuted. Apparently, he is tracking my comments,m and I contradicted myself by quoting the Rolling Stone’s repeating the TV news story on the doctor saying a gunshot victim was rejected because hospitals were too full from ivermectin cases, and then I said I wouldn’t rely on Rolling Stone as a news source. I own the contradiction and I apologize for quoting from Rolling Stone — they are not a good news source.

          1. But we all know you quoted them because you wanted the story to be true.

          2. You are a liar and a gas lighter. And for the benefit of the threads, I am pointing this out. I find it hilarious that you have muted me, since I was one of the few people trying to engage your side in good faith discussions. And it is the fact that you clearly have no desire to engage in good faith discussions that I am posting this on each post I see from you.

    3. I don’t know how misinformation in the David Nunes article can possibly fail to rise to the level of actual malice. It was a fucking hit piece written by someone trying to discredit a political actor she doesn’t like. If she’d limited it to actual facts she could spin that’s still acceptable, but she included pure falsehoods in it, like claiming that Trump’s campaign was under surveillance was some “conspriacy theory,” when it was well-publicized by the time the article was published.

      That’s the big obvious one, and it’s clear that this author didn’t care too much about the truthfulness of any statement that made the target of her hit piece look bad.

      1. Now we have a President that was part of the administration guilty of weaponizing the FBI, DOJ and intelligence agencies against the opponent of the opposite party. Did 80 million people forgive or forget and now trust him?

  13. In a disturbing ruling for fans of free speech,

    Can’t have Nunes disrupting the Lizzard people’s narrative.

  14. Wait, stopping the press for true news like the hunter Biden laptop story is good, and journalists not being able to lie about things like saying Obama didn’t investigate political opponents (even Obama says he did this) is bad.
    ENB you are a progressive shill go work for the wapost or nyt or Twitter it’s where you spend all of your time anyway. Leave the libritarian news to libritarians

    1. “Leave the libritarian news to libritarians”

      Interesting fun fact: Google flags the misspelling of “libertarian”, but only suggests “librarian”, and “lubritoria” (?) as alternatives.
      No knowledge of the word “libertarian” is allowed by the mighty Google.

      1. You are probably on the Google watch list now.

        1. Nothing new there –
          As long as I click the occasional link or two, and turn on location services to get directions, they will happily sell me all over the web.

    2. If you think ENB is a progressive shill, why are you wasting your time here?

      1. If you are going to constantly dissemble, why are you wasting your time here?

        For the benefit of the thread, arguing with Mike is arguing with someone who will never take responsibility for what he says. In fact, within days he will be acting as if he never said these things in the first place. He is a completely disingenuous adversary and you would do better arguing with the main character from Memento.

        https://reason.com/2021/09/09/california-is-set-to-outlaw-unannounced-condom-removal/#comment-9091773

        That is Mike insisting that he “would never look to Rolling Stone” for news, after spreading their bogus ivermectin story only days earlier. Consider that: He didn’t apologize. He didn’t even try to ignore his mistake. He brazenly tried to dunk on Rolling Stone to make himself look like an arbiter of truth.

        The pathological narcissism required to disrespect the truth and readers so heavily should make him ashamed. It won’t though, so I advise others in the thread to avoid engaging with someone that argues in such bad faith.

      2. Many of the comments are libertarian. A dicawtomy.

  15. Rogan had Brett Weinstein on who talked about an evolutionary biologist/virology scientist on his Darkhorse podcast. Basically this scientist predicted the number of covid variants due to a few things.

    https://youtu.be/gmy8znrLPc0

    A) the vaccine does not produce sanitization.
    B) since it does not, injecting the vaccine into a current pandemic leads to evolutionary pressure for variants to be created and pass through the population.

    These are concepts discussed last year and through this year that the CDC does not recognize. It is very likely that the firm of vaccine taken is what is causing variant emergence. Ie the cure being worse than the sickness.

    Likewise he points out how much more firm natural response buildup to covid is as compared to the vaccine. Something else the CDC barely mentions.

    1. That’s why highly vaccinated areas like Israel have problems.

    2. Weinstein made baseless claims that Ivermectin can prevent or treat COVID-19,[5][46] claims for which there is no good evidence.[47][48][49] Weinstein hosted ivermectin advocate Pierre Kory on his DarkHorse podcast to discuss the drug,[50][7] and promoted ivermectin on other podcast and television news appearances.[51][52] Weinstein took ivermectin during a livestream video and said both he and his wife had not been vaccinated because of their fears concerning COVID-19 vaccines.[53] YouTube demonetized the couple’s channels in response to their claims about ivermectin. Afterward, Weinstein and Heying moved their subsequent broadcasts to the alternative/fringe video sharing platform Odysee.[50] In August of 2021, Weinstein said he had misstated that a study had shown a 100% effective ivermectin protocol for the prevention of COVID.[47][54] Weinstein considers himself a supporter of vaccines in general; he believes mRNA vaccines have promise despite what he claims are “some clear design flaws”.[38] Weinstein has falsely claimed that the spike protein produced by or contained within COVID-19 vaccines is “very dangerous” and “cytotoxic”.[55][56][57]

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein

      1. LOL. Sure buddy. Ivermectin is already well known to have an anti-viral component as it is used to help mitigate Yellow and Dengue fever.

        But keep trusting the narrative.

        By the way, Wiki isn’t the authoritative source you think it is. It is now just Democratic talking points for anything politically related.

        https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

        But you only care about the leftist narrative Sullum, so carry on. Ignore the 2 hour podcast discussing the actual issues and rely on Wiki summaries instead. LOL.

          1. Fact check: Did COVID vaccines cause the delta variant?

            In the UK, the number of coronavirus cases has recently been increasing rapidly.  Some 95% of the sequenced cases can be traced back to the delta variant. But two-thirds of the population there have already been vaccinated. For some, that doesn’t make sense: How can the mutation spread so quickly despite high vaccination rates?

            Opponents of vaccination use this scenario for their own purposes: The German micro-party “Die Basis” is one of many sources spreading speculations on social media that the delta mutation may have been caused by the coronavirus vaccines,  albeit without providing any evidence for this theory.

            How do mutations arise?

            Viruses smuggle their genetic information into a host cell in order to multiply. With every reproduction, there are small copying errors, and each of these errors also changes the genetic code of the virus. So it is constantly mutating, and that is quite normal.

            https://m.dw.com/en/fact-check-did-covid-vaccines-cause-the-delta-variant/a-58242263

            1. Fact check: No one is claiming vaccines caused the variant. Israel is suffering a spike in COVID despite its high vaccination numbers.

              Fact check: The vaccines aren’t actually vaccines, just a prophylaxis that’s useless after 8 months.

              1. omg dude it’s literally what Jesse and Weinstein are saying. you guys are so confused and misinformed. I’m not even sure you’re a bad dude. You’re just confused.

                1. Fact check: Omg dude your red herring isn’t working.

                2. What’s even funnier is that Jesse and Weinstein didn’t say that in the thread. All the stuff is about ivermectin.

                  If you’re going to lie, at least try to do so a couple days later like Lauren does.

                  1. Um, that is certainly the indication that I got from what Jesse said:

                    “It is very likely that the [form] of vaccine taken is what is causing variant emergence.”

                    While he doesn’t specifically mention Delta, that seems to be saying “this type of vaccine causes variants to emerge”.

                    I don’t think it is an unreasonable theory, by the way. It may not have caused Delta, but if people are able to get infected while vaccinated, that is the text book way that you breed vaccine-resistant strains. That has been a problem with Anti-Bacterials for the past 3 – 4 decades- if your antibacterial cannot kill off the bacteria completely, the bacteria that remain are more likely to be resistant to it, and will out-reproduce other bacteria that may have competed for food.

                    1. It actually is’nt me saying, although I have, here. It is the evolutionary scientist on Weinstein’s podcast that predicted the variants emergence based on theory of evolutionary pressure.

                      Why this science is dismissed out of hand immediately despite being well discussed and researched in that realm for decades at this point is akin to claiming cotton masks suddenly prevent viral infections in 2019 despite a century of research.

            2. Did you even bother to understand the actual argument presented? Or did you just rush to the next narrative?

            3. I like how they changed the premise of the issue in the fact check. The vaccines don’t cause the mutation. What the vaccines do is apply evolutionary pressure favoring virus mutations that successfully avoid the vaccines.

              You are too dumb to understand the nuance which is why that fact checker went the route they did.

              Stop and actually read what I wrote. Listen to the darkhorse podcast. Instead you blindly Google articles to say things that aren’t even contrary to the issue but simply reframe them like the idiot you are.

            4. Thank you. There was the nonsense posted a few weeks ago about “vaccine pressure”, with the only basis being one study of vaccination of chickens or something, with a much different set of circumstances than COVID-19 among humans.

              Mutations happen because of genetic copying errors or gamma rays, or other mechanisms. They are more likely to happen in the unvaccinated population, which has many, many more cases of COVID-19 than among the vaccinated.

              1. LOL. Mike makes the same argument switch to dismiss the science. hilarious.

              2. The only nonsense I remember being repeated, Mike, was your BS article from Rolling Stone claiming that people were dying outside ERs. Well, and then you spouting BS mere days later that you never have trusted Rolling Stone. Remember that? How you tried gaslighting everyone to deny how mendacious your arguments are? Remember that? I do.
                https://reason.com/2021/09/09/california-is-set-to-outlaw-unannounced-condom-removal/#comment-9091773

        1. Do vaccines cause virus mutations?

          Virologist Friedemann Weber from Justus Liebig University in the western German city of Giessen told DW that it was not the vaccinated who gave rise to new escape mutations and variants, but the unvaccinated: “It was infected people who provided a breeding ground for the new variant and immune escape of the virus.”

          A glance at India , Brazil , and South Africa shows this, he said. According to Weber, this is where the mutations that are now widespread arose and where the percentage of people vaccinated was very low.

          The claim that vaccines are responsible for mutations is shown to be at least misleading if you look at the countries with high ratios of vaccinated people: If vaccinations massively increased the likelihood of a virus mutating, then new virus mutations would already be appearing in countries like Israel or the UK,  where many people have already received their jabs, Peggy Riese says.

          “But this is not the case at all. The virus mutations occur precisely in those countries where there is not yet a high (vaccination) rate, and a large number of people are meeting together within a confined area,” she told DW.

          1. If these were actually vaccines, Weber might have a point.

            If vaccinations massively increased the likelihood of a virus mutating, then new virus mutations would already be appearing in countries like Israel or the UK, where many people have already received their jabs, Peggy Riese says.

            “Just ignore that their case numbers spiked despite their high vaccinations numbers, please fish for this tasty red herring instead.”

            1. Okay. They Covid vaccines are not even vaccines and no one is claiming “vaccines” were the primary drivers of the mutations.

              You are so twisted up. It’s amazing!

              1. Fact check: You’re desperately flailing here.

              2. Vaccines aren’t causing the mutations, they are causing the evolutionary pressure that allows the mutated viruses that successfully avoid the vaccines to propogate.

                What is difficult about this dummy?

          2. Fact Check: Do Giant Meteors cause dinosaur and mammal mutations?

            No. While there are probably rare elements and radioactive isotopes within some Giant Meteors that may have mutagenic properties with prolonged exposure, A Giant Meteor radically altering the climate and eliminating vast swaths of various food chains puts evolutionary pressure on all creatures, especially land based ones like most remaining mammals, giant reptiles, and proto-avians.

        2. RE: Wikipedia political rewrites. This deals with a court case involving John Casor, whom the courts of Virginia declared to be the slave of Anthony Johnson, a black (!) man. Oh by the way, in 1656.

          Interesting note concerning Wikipedia;
          This is the text I captured April 15th.
          At this time (1665), there were only about 300 people of African origin living in the Virginia Colony, about 1% of an estimated population of 30,000. The first group of 20 or so Africans were brought to Jamestown in 1619 as indentured servants. After working out their contracts for passage money to Virginia and completing their indenture, each was granted 50 acres (20 ha) of land (headrights). This enabled them to raise their own tobacco or other crops.
          This is how it now reads
          At this time, there were only about 300 people of African origin living in the Virginia Colony, about 1% of an estimated population of 30,000. The first group of 20 or so Africans were brought to Point Comfort in 1619 as enslaved Africans. After working between 15 and 30 years, most were granted their freedom to purchase land and start their own homestead.
          (this bit has been added)
          Although most historians believe slavery, as an institution, developed much later, they differ on the exact status of their servitude before slavery was established, as well as differing over the date when this took place. The colonial charter entitled English subjects and their children the rights of the common law, but people of other nations were considered foreigners or aliens outside the common law. At the time, the colony had no provision for naturalizing foreigners.
          Welcome to the revolution!

          A bit more – – – –
          The changes were made on October 29, 2020:
          Major restatements were from ‘indentured servant’ to ‘enslaved African’, from ‘Jamestown’ to ‘Point Comfort’ (perhaps to avoid searches including Jamestown? Point Comfort is 40 miles downriver from Jamestown), from ‘granted land’ to ‘granted their freedom to purchase land’ (after serving an indenture, they were free by law, and no granting of the freedom to purchase was needed).
          Here is the link to the edit page
          https://en.wikipedia.org/ w/index.php?title=John_Casor &diff=next&oldid=979332193

      2. Wikipedia. Sure.

        Didn’t the co-founder say wikipedia is a extremely biased and unreliable source for info?

        1. Yes he did, proving once again that progressives ruin everything

    3. I’m assuming he was banned for saying these things?

  16. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/14/biden-covid-antibody-treatments-511825

    After promising to INCREASE the availability of monoclonal antibody treatments…Biden had decided to DECREASE them…to Republican-led states. For “equity”.

    Just wondering what would have been the reaction if Trump did it.

    Or if Reason would have given a shit if it could have been tied to denying it to hookers.

    1. We already had that reaction when Trump denied Cuomo 80k ventilators. The media was outraged and called it politically motivated with trump wanting to kill democrats. Then Cuomo ended up needing 1k of the 10k actually given him. Some could argue Cuomo needed 0 as ventilators had an extremely high death rate.

      1. At what point should states decide to stop sending any monies to the Feds? If the Feds are specifically trying to kill citizens, then I do not think the agreement between the states establishing it should remain in existence.

        1. Now. Now would be a good time.

        2. States dont send money to the Feds

        3. When, in the course of human events, – – – – – – – –

    2. 20k dead floridians is worth it, if it hurts their enemies.

    3. How the fuck is any of this something Biden has any say in?

      1. “Fuck you, that’s why.”

        Anyway, if the blue administration is deliberately denying red states supplies of a legitimate medical treatment that Both Sides agree works, I’d say that’s legitimate grounds to simply tell the feds to fuck off.

      2. Because nobody knows SCIENCE~! like Biden.

        1. That’s very true! It changes exactly when he needs it to. Remember when Biden spouted that crazy lab leak theory that was going to get him thrown off social media, until The Science changed and suddenly talking about a lab leak was no longer a bannable offense.

      3. Reminds me of the feds adding poison to the liquor supply during prohibition, scare people into not drinking. Kill a few to try and force compliance.

      4. The EPA also denied Texas the ability to turn on emergency power plants during their freeze. The federal Gov is the enemy and will do everything they can to kill American people.

  17. Macron announced French forces killed high level terrorist. He did so quickly before Blinken and the state department could take credit first.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/emmanuel-macron-announces-french-forces-have-killed-isis-leader-in-africa-who-killed-u-s-troops-report

    1. By the way, anyone hear anything about that coup in guinea where US Green Berets took selfish of themselves participating in?

      Haven’t seen a thing on it.

      1. This is all I found. Seems like it should be a bigger deal that US special forces were training military units that undertook a couple in the middle of that training…

        https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-special-forces-military-assistance-guinea-coup/

        1. *undertook a coup

          1. Novel interpretation of foreign internal defense…

  18. The US soccer Federation offers the USWNT equal contracts to that of the men’s team after fighting fot equality for a decade…. and USWNT quickly reject it claiming it is a stunt.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/uswnt-players-association-calls-offer-of-identical-contracts-a-pr-stunt

    They still don’t understand how t.v. contracts and stadium revenue works.

    1. They still don’t understand how t.v. contracts and stadium revenue works.

      Or maybe, with Rappinoe as their spokesperson, they do.

      1. I mean, FFS, she’s terrible even in Subway commercials.

        1. I haven’t seen her in a subway commercial since all the franchises started noting how much their customers hated her.

          1. Her in the ads stopped me from EVER going to Subway again.

            If they feel she is worth paying to hock their wares, then they can go fuck themselves.

            Firehouse Subs are far better.

            1. If you were to spend some time fantasizing the least sympathetic person imaginable, she’d do until someone more horrible came along.

            2. Jersey Mike’s ftw.

            3. Buttplug stopped visiting Subway after they parted ways with his internet penpal Jared.

    2. As was pointed out before, the Women’s World Cup had record high viewership.

      If that same viewership watched the MEN’S World Cup, it’d be catastrophically terrible.

      USWNT should be grateful that they are the charity case they clearly are. If they did not play any international matches, 99% of the country would not care.

      1. “USWNT should be grateful that they are the charity case they clearly are. If they did not play any international matches, 99% of the country would not care.”

        This. The game is an excuse to get your USA! USA! USA! fix. And with the increase lately of “gamesmanship”, it’s not even fun to watch.

        1. I think Outkick the Coverage pointed out that it is funny that Rapinoe does her protest during the anthem and not, you know, AFTER SHE SCORES A GOAL.

          She WANTS her attention and will not forfeit HER attention for a cause she claims to stand for. It’d be far more impactful for her to take a knee after she scores a goal to remove the glory from her personally.

          I actively root against many of our international teams (both basketball squads, women’s soccer, etc)

          1. Honestly, I don’t even really follow sports much anymore. Enough to see that some of the women players have taken up the same bullshit foul simulation that the men do, but other than that…? Meh.

            It’s kind of liberating. Haven’t listened to sports talk or read team-related discussion in awhile now. I’ll look at clips of golfers, but mainly to try and see if I can incorporate a tiny bit of what they do, into what I do. But to notice who wins what? I don’t.

            It’s a bummer. I used to love watching the Olympics. I think I saw maybe 10 minutes total of video clips this Tokyo go-round. The TKD (or was it kumite?) fighter taking a dive to win Gold. “He hit me too hard, so I win.”

            Yeah, fuck all that.

      2. They can be beaten by a decent boys U15 team.

    3. Hey, equality is not equity!

      The world, and associated entertainment enterprises, must simply acknowledge (and reward) the moral superiority of the USWNT.

    4. “…They still don’t understand how t.v. contracts and stadium revenue works…”

      They do not understand that they are entertainers and get paid only by asses in the seats and eyes on the tube.
      Aside from that, they could go play in the corner lot.

      1. What Sevo said. And the players & owners act like they’re completely ignorant of that principle.

    5. You don’t get it. The USWNT wants more than the men, not equality, despite the fact that a decent high school boy’s team would wipe the field with them.

      1. Thing is, in the last contract, they DID get paid more.

  19. With all due respect to the great thinker, Mistress Matisse, if God is the one telling someone to do something, I don’t think us mortals spreading myths or lies is going to matter much.

    1. All information must be filtered through our true god, the government.

  20. An incredibly grim story, but unfortunately it’s a perfect example of the very real dangers of spreading sensational myths and lies

    Does this include 4 year russia based investigations?

  21. Just wondering what would have been the reaction if Trump did it.

    I’m sure that no one would point out that three of the seven ‘restricted’ states are the three blackest states in the Union and five are in the top 10.

    1. Whoops, meant in reply to damikesc above.

  22. “A forthcoming book by journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa alleges that Gen. Milley called China’s top military commander shortly before the November election and said, “If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.” After the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and a call with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gen. Milley tried to increase his control over nuclear launch procedures out of fear of what Mr. Trump might do . . . .

    The statement from Gen. Milley’s spokesman released Wednesday contains no denials.

    —-Wall Street Journal

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/waiting-for-general-mark-milley-china-bob-woodward-report-11631744398?

    I maintain that the most significant event on January 6, 2021 was not the Capitol riot. The most significant event was that the results of the runoff elections in Georgia had been released in the wee hours of January 6. It was the fact that the Democratic party and the U.S. government were to be one in the same thing. To whatever extent Gen. Milley was doing the bidding of Nancy Pelosi, he was doing it under the guidance of the new one-party government.

    There’s no question that what Gen Milley did is outrageous–if he did what Woodward is reporting. If our outrage is to result in meaningful action, however, it shouldn’t be focused exclusively at Gen. Milley. It should also be directed at Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi was actively seeking to overthrow a sitting president of the United States. She wanted him declared insane and replaced with Pence. And she appears to have been seeking the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for what amounts to a coup.

    The Democrats in the House are presently squabbling among themselves over the fate of Biden’s $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill, which is nothing but a fat down payment o the Green New Deal and a deluge of funding for socialist entitlement programs, some of them brand new. If Pelosi can’t get to the finish line before September 27th, when the infrastructure deal is due for a vote, then the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill may not pass at all. If wait 11 days to bring America’s attention to Pelosi’s part in this fiasco, it will be too late.

    1. It was reported yesterday that Miller had 20 conversations with Russia and China without knowledge of acting def sec Miller. The story expanded quite a bit.

      1. Milley had 20*

    2. “…There’s no question that what Gen Milley did is outrageous–…”

      A court martial to determine if he did, and immediate retirement minus benefits if so; the man acted as the DoD were in charge of international relations.

      1. It’s not just Milley I’m concerned about. What about Pelosi?

        1. Protected by Biden and Garland.

          Man we dodged a bullet with Garland to the Supreme Court.

          1. If the only victory we can have against them at the moment is plunging support among moderate Democrats, that will be a punishment of sorts–and of great benefit to the American people. They need to know that the House is being led by someone who would go so far as to seek the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a coup.

            There are nine moderate Democrats in the House and Joe Manchin in the Senate who have already voiced their extreme reluctance to vote for the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill, and their willingness to buck the party line has been directly related to the popularity of the Democrats’ leadership. Having this kind of storm directed against her is the last thing Pelosi needs right now, which is exactly why she should get a hurricane.

            As Biden’s approval dropped to 42%, as of the day before yesterday, the moderate Democrats became increasingly vocal about refusing to do what Pelosi wants them to do with this budget reconciliation bill. Heaping scorn on Pelosi can and will help break this bill. Prison time and true accountability are probably out of reach, but suffering the ill effects of public opinion are not out of reach at all.

            1. I think California/newsome showed the plunging support of moderate democrats is a pipe dream at this point. You’re better off focusing on the independents.

              1. Since when does California speak for moderate Democrats in red and purple districts?

                When I see Manchin and nine House Democrats say they won’t support the bill, am I supposed to not believe my own lying eyes–because Newsom won in California?!

                They’re afraid they’ll lose in upcoming elections if they vote for the bill–because they know they’re in red and purple districts. The people of San Francisco and Los Angeles turning out big for Newsom is no indication of what people in red and purple districts in Ohio and West Virginia will do.

                1. What Jesse may be also talking about, are hilarious voting returns from the California recall election. (Here’s a good source: https://calmatters.org/politics/2021/09/california-recall-election-results/)

                  Case in fucking point: Orange County voted 52.6% to keep Newsom. Does that sound credible to you? Does that give you more or less faith that Democrats in D.C., care about the upcoming midterms?

                  1. That 48% of people in Orange County supported getting rid of Newsom sounds very credible to me.

                    I think the elderly were highly in favor of the lockdowns. Factor in the elderly, who normally go Republican, and, yeah, that makes sense.

                    They didn’t need to vote for a Democrat. They just needed to vote no on the recall.

                  2. Plus OC is not as heavily republican as it used to be.

                  3. I live in Orange County. I have staff members in Los Angeles who spent all summer down here canvasing and getting people in Santa Anna and Orange registered.

                    There is nothing at all surprising about Orange County voting against the recall at 53%. There are more blue voters all over this state than red voters. They have just never bothered to vote. But the new election laws have made it SO easy to vote that they are now likely to do so.

            2. And I again keep telling you that Manchin has a long history of tough talk and then capitulating at a 1% loss for the progressives. He is not going to hold firm if history is any indication. He will agree to a 3.5T dropping to a 3ish T with slightly lowered taxes then claim compromise. That’s his entire history in the Senate. He pretends to act tough for political ads, and then gives 99% of what Pelosi wants at the end.

              1. I’m not believing what Manchin is saying because he’s saying it. I’m inclined to believe what he’s saying because the Green New Deal is massively unpopular in West Virginia, because the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill is a fat down payment on the Green New Deal, and because Trump beat Biden by 39 points in West Virginia less than a year ago. To the extent that what Manchin says is consistent with those facts, I’m inclined to believe him when he says he’d rather not vote for the $3.5 trillion bill. And what he’s saying he’ll do is consistent with those facts.

                P.S. His whisper number is $1.5 trillion sans Green New Deal spending. Other moderate Democrats in the House have other objections driven by local politics.

                1. Manchin is looking to cash out because he will not win re-election. Biden already gave his wife a plum job.

                  1. I didn’t know about his wife. That’s interesting.

                    1. Yup, Federal co-chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission ($160,000 a year)

      2. Even if he resigns, he STILL has to be court martialed. He STILL has to be punished.

        It is impossible to maintain integrity and conformity in the military when the rules only apply to low level people while the top people can do, in this case literally, anything they want.

        1. When I argued that we should focus on Pelosi’s contribution to this outrage, I meant NANCY PELOSI.

          1. We definitely should.

            But military leadership going rogue and not being penalized for it, to me, is a more pressing concern. What is to stop Milley from doing it again? I mean, Trump the “Warmonger” only sought to end the wars we were part of and not start new ones. Totes makes sense he’d attack China.

            I want to see Congresspeople sued for not being required to abide by the laws they pass. Titles of Nobility are certainly not legal here.

            1. “Military leadership going rogue and not being penalized for it, to me, is a more pressing concern.”

              It’s a more important long term problem that absolutely needs to be addressed. Ultimately, we probably can’t hold him accountable until either Biden, Pelosi, or Schumer are no longer in power. The Biden Justice Department isn’t about to launch a criminal investigation into this while the Democrats are in power. Pelosi isn’t about to hold hearings in the House on her own behavior. Schumer isn’t about to launch Senate hearings into this if it might hurt the Democrats either. If your primary concern is holding the military responsible for their outrageous behavior, the best means to that is probably undermining the legitimacy of the House leadership. Nancy Pelosi has no business being the Speaker until she’s answered questions under oath–be it in front of a congressional committee or in front of a jury.

            2. The key takeaway is that walking around the capitol is insurrection, while a general makes plans with an advisary is not

              1. If you are referring to the events of January 6th, the MAGA mob were engaging in much more violent acts than merely “walking around the Capitol”.

                1. Name 1

                  1. https://www.nj.com/news/2021/08/nj-woman-pleads-guilty-for-her-role-in-capitol-riot.html

                    “Scott Fairlamb, of Sussex County, pleaded guilty earlier this month to assault and obstruction after he was seen on video entering the Capitol and later punching a law enforcement officer outside.”

                2. They were cawt trespassing. And cawing for change. There should be no cawnfusion regarding this. Nothing else to cawnsider. You are trying to caw attention away from Milley’s treason.

      3. It’s clear that Milley was a delusional man run amok.
        He had convinced himself he was standing against a coming revolution when all he was really doing was violating the constitutional order to feed his own ego.

        Further, it’s fairly obvious that his talks with Nancy Pelosi were to ingratiate himself so he could keep his job in the next administration.

        There’s a reason Milley is pushing critical race theory in the military. He’s a political actor concerned with staying in power, not with actually helping keep the military in a condition where it can perform its legal role.

        1. He was a pants-shitting TDS victim.

          1. Ken sometimes drops the verbose ruse, and shows he is a loyal member of Camp Trump.

    3. “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the top U.S. Army general that then-President Donald Trump was a “dictator” who “should have been arrested on the spot” after what she called his coup attempt to remain in the White House by inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, a new book reveals . . . .

      “And he’s still sitting there. He should have been arrested. He should have been arrested on the spot,” said Pelosi, who is second in line in the order of presidential succession.

      “He had a coup d’etat against us so he can stay in office. There should be some way to remove him,” said the speaker, who at the time was trying to pursue the suspension of Trump’s power as president by getting then-Vice President Mike Pence and the Trump Cabinet to trigger the constitution’s 25th Amendment.

      —-CNBC

      https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/14/trump-should-have-been-arrested-for-capitol-riot-pelosi-told-milley.html

      Why aren’t we having hearings about Pelosi seeking the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a coup? As Speaker of the House, Pelosi had the authority to introduce articles of impeachment. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Pelosi has the right to conspire with the military in a coup. Because her attempt to seek the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a coup was unsuccessful, doesn’t mean she didn’t conspire to overthrow a duly elected president of the United States. She needs to be held accountable.

      1. She is untouchable.

        1. Not from the effects of public opinion, she isn’t.

          Pelosi promised the progressive wing of the House Democrats that she would not hold a vote on the infrastructure bill until the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill had cleared both chambers. She reneged on that promise and promised the nine House moderates she would hold a vote on the infrastructure bill on September 27th–regardless of whether the budget reconciliation bill was ready for a vote or whether it passed. The reason the nine House moderates insisted on holding a vote for the infrastructure bill first is because they want to vote against the $3.5 budget reconciliation bill, and the reason they want to vote against it is because they’re afraid of what will happen to them in the red and purple districts they represent if they vote for it.

          Moral of the story, the more unpopular the House leadership becomes, the less likely Pelosi is to be able to get controversial bills passed in the House. Here’s an excellent opportunity to focus the public’s attention on Pelosi’s outrageous and controversial behavior. The more we do so, the harder it gets for Pelosi to enact her and Biden’s evil anti-libertarian, anti-capitalist agenda. And that’s what we want–for Pelosi to fail. There’s no good reason to focus on the diversion of General Milley, and there are excellent reasons to focus on Pelosi’s behavior.

          Don’t be surprised if the media focuses on Gen. Milley to the exclusion of Pelosi’s contribution to this for that reason–at least until September 27.

          1. Pelosi is in deep deep blue San Francisco. She is untouchable from public opinion. especially as she only cares about her election and her millionaire donors.

            1. Do you really not understand that Pelosi’s ability to lead is a function of the extent to which moderate Democrats in red and purple districts are willing to follow her? Pelosi’s ability to lead the Democrats in the House is a function of the outrage swing voters in swing states feel towards her, Biden, and the Democrats generally. She also needs to balance the outrage of hardcore progressives, but we can’t influence them. We can influence swing voters in swing districts–by focusing their attention on Pelosi’s outrageous behavior.

              1. Do you want me to show you the House voting records? Those red state dems you keep discussing fall in one quickly.

                1. It’s a question of how likely they think they are to be held accountable for backing the Democrats on that issue.

                  The reason Mitt Romney felt free to go after Trump was because he didn’t fear losing his seat in Utah. The reason Susan Collins went against Trump on repealing the mandate was because she feared what the voters in Maine would do to her if she did. The reason Liz Cheney and Justin Amash have the political future of a snowball in hell is because they did things that made their constituents mad.

                  I’m not saying the $3.5 trillion Green New Deal + Socialist Entitlement Program bill won’t pass. I’m saying that the more people who live in those moderate Democrats’ districts come to despise a Democrat agenda and the Democrats’ leadership, the less likely the moderate Democrats who represent them are to stick their necks out and go against the wishes of the voters in their districts.

                  Some politicians, like Manchin and Collins, are smarter about it, and others, like Liz Cheney and Amash, are really stupid about it. Regardless, the more of a separation we create between voters in these districts and the Democratic leadership, the less likely those moderate Democrats are to do what the leadership tells them.

      2. And just like Milley, if she leaves office before anything can be done, investigate her anyway. Punish her anyway.

        The ONLY insurrection occurring on 1/6 involved Pelosi and Milley. The people in jail are very much political prisoners.

        1. POWs.

          At some point, the rest of you are going to realize the left is waging literal war on everyone else in this country.

        2. The damage we can do to Pelosi is the damage we can do to her right now–and her ability to govern.

          We need to share this with friends and family for starters.

          Dictators everywhere obsess over what people are saying to their friends and family–because they’re smart.

          1. Just like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi will never be tried for her crime. But she doesn’t have to be. The worst punishment for people like them is to have their legacies destroyed, make them toxic, and force them to fade into obscurity. It’ll kill Pelosi like it’s killing Clinton.

            Side note, maybe Hillary has been deemed no longer politically useful? NYT says Durham is seeking an indictment of her campaign lawyer. I’m not holding my breath that the indictment will happen, but the NYT story is starting to unravel the Russia hoax, and seems to be at least implying that the Clinton campaign was responsible for the whole thing.

            1. That Yagoda eventually ended up in a show trial, didn’t mean that the process was healthy and working.

              1. No, she’s being purged. She’s no longer needed. She also failed the Party in 2016 by losing to Trump, and she needs to be punished for that.

                1. I’m interested to see how much party support the Clinton’s bagman Terry McAuliffe gets for his upcoming election. I believe he is the last Clintonista in power, and if his support from the party is middling at best, that will be the canary in the coalmine for the Clintons.

            2. Hillary Clinton was ultimately denied the presidency because her reputation was so bad with swing voters.

              1. That’s why we ended up with fortified elections. They didn’t think they needed to worry about actual voters in 2016. By 2020, they realized they had to make sure that the voters themselves weren’t allowed to decide the election.

            3. Holy shit, I was unaware of what that scumbag did.

              The ENTIRE claim that Trump had some secret server to communicate with Alfa Bank…was made up. Out of literally nothing. AND THE MEDIA PARROTED IT ANYWAY.

              Fucking Hell, there are still idiots on the Left who swear Trump was owned by Putin when the precise opposite is the case.

      3. “He had a coup d’etat against us so he can stay in office. There should be some way to (have a coup d’etat against) him.”

        FTFY

    4. This was something that I was mulling over yesterday.

      Knowing what we now know about Milley, it really puts Pelosi’s January 8, 2021, telephone call with Milley as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, into perspective.

      “This morning, I spoke to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike. The situation of this unhinged President could not be more dangerous, and we must do everything that we can to protect the American people from his unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy.”

      With what we now know, there seems to be pretty strong evidence that the establishment had been laying the groundwork for a hot coup, if the election fortification failed and the Supreme Court had agreed to look at the evidence.

      1. As we know NOW from the Democrat’s Russia lies, its takes time to expose Democrat treason. Non-Lefties tend to work on facts and not conjecture, and building evidence takes time. Democrats know this which is why they operate without evidence and use propaganda to attack their political enemies.

        Not sure why anyone thinks there is hope to reconcile with Democrats and “work things out”. Democrats started Civil War 2.0 and wont stop until there is bloodshed and/or slavery. Just like with Civil War 1.0 that Democrats started, you had to defeat them to get them to stop.

      2. They had been laying that groundwork from the second the Ukraine bullshit failed. They started early, talking about having to have the military to remove Trump. They had former generals writing OpEds months in advance about Trump attempting to use the military to circumvent the election results. They published stories about “extremists” and “white supremacists” in the ranks, so they could dismiss anyone who wouldn’t participate in a hot coup as an extremist QAnon terrorist.

        The entire goal of that was to prep public opinion against any contestation of the election results, portray Trump as a lunatic, and erode trust in the integrity of the military. Then they posted 25,000 National Guard troops in the capital for months, to show you they can.

        This was all planned. They knew they were going to cheat, and they had contingencies on contingencies for it.

        1. “This was all planned. They knew they were going to cheat, and they had contingencies on contingencies for it.”

          But why? Why go to all of that trouble, make all of those preparations, when if they push too far these first two years, the elections next year will undo most of the damage? Surely those can’t be cheated too?

          1. Sure, why not? Experience helps.

          2. My hunch is, they were counting on winning a bigger majority in congress. I don’t think anyone really anticipated republicans picking up as many seats as they did. I think they anticipated a big enough majority that they could push through things like HR1, which would all but ensure that republicans could never win again. I don’t think they were counting on Manchin and Sinema being hold outs on things like court packing.

            I also don’t think they anticipated the endless parade of failures that has happened since day one. They can’t get people to take the covid vaccine, Afghanistan was a disaster, inflation and cost of living is spiraling out of control. Gas costs a ton, and groceries are ridiculous. They’re both taking a big bite out of middle class wallets. There is a massive shortage of workers, to the extent that it’s impacting quality of life for people. The entire country has bus driver shortage, and it’s screwing up people’s lives.

            They used the radical left as their storm troopers, and now they can’t put that genie back in the bottle. They’re stuck with two choices: betray their antifa Army, or do increasingly insano shit to pacify them. The radical left knows they’re owed, and they won’t tolerate being betrayed.

            They’ve been relying on a compliant media to cover for them, but the situation is so bad, even the media knows they can’t put enough lipstick on this pig.

      3. My biggest criticism of trump is how he was unable to fire people like Milli. Draining the swamp was more responsible for his surprise win than the stupid wall or forever war bullshit. If the president that was elected to eliminate the deep state cant fire one of his subordinates that violated federal law, there is no hope left for America.

        1. Thats my biggest complaint about Trump. He knew who these people were and did nothing substantial about them. He’s the President, he can fire anyone in the executive departments, including FBI directors, generals, etc. And he didn’t.

          1. He worked with Putin to destroy ISIS in Syria–without a U.S. invasion–and that ruined both the Pentagon’s and our intelligence services’ plans to invade Syria. They responded by getting Trump impeached for working with Putin. Trump was only one man, and the swamp is deep, and vast, and it has entrenched interests, and it knows how to fight back. And the American people failed to give him another four years to work at it–mostly because of the pandemic, the lockdowns, and its effect on the economy.

            1. Ah, the ol’ Donald Trump, who was the freegin’ President of the United States, was a victim of “the swamp” narrative.

              1. Because that’s exactly what happened.

              2. Those fascists were fighting for their real lives.

            2. Bullshit. He’s the President. With the stroke of a pen he can fire anyone in the executive department. Doesn’t even need a reason. Had he been re-elected I doubt anything would have been different; the people who needed to be fired still wouldn’t be fired. He let Barr continue in his job loooooong after he showed himself to be a hack.

    5. Yup. The alleged transcript of the conversation between Pelosi and Milley is the key. Milley has stated that Pelosi initiated the call, and that he “answered her questions” about nuclear launch protocols. Milley’s statement contains no denials, but it certainly suggests that Pelosi was the main mover. Milley is certainly not innocent. He considered his political future and participated in a conspiracy to usurp an elected President’s constitutional authority.

      The article 25 attempts were also not new. The DOJ also floated it a few years ago. Pelosi just took the January 6th ball and ran with it. She’s completely psychotic.

      If that transcript exists, Pelosi has it and Milley probably has it too. Swamp creatures don’t conspire without making sure they have the goods on everyone else involved. I’m guessing the only reason it hasn’t been leaked yet is because it implicates them both. If it showed Milley was clean, it would have been put by now.

      1. I want to see them testify in front of a committee–and speak against each other. He said/she said.

        Let’s see who the court of public opinion convicts.

        1. It would be fun to watch them start rolling on each other. If anyone is put before a committee over this, that’s exactly what will happen.

        2. Help me, parliamentarians: who gets to determine whether or not Congress calls a committee to investigate XYZ, and holds hearings, with attendance compelled by subpoena?

          Do we think that’s likely here, for Milley and Pelosi?

          1. It won’t happen while Pelosi and Schumer are in charge.

            All the committees are headed by Democrats.

            All of them.

            If it were just in the House or just in the Senate, the Republicans could hold a hearing in whatever chamber they control, or they could form a joint-committee.

        3. It’ll get covered like the obama spying scandal or the hunter laptop story, the public will know nothing.

    6. Kenny, is this more satire?

      ‘Cause I don’t remember you posting here – greatly concerned – after Woodward’s nasty books about Trump. Could it be that Woodward is trustworthy only when he vilifies your political opponents?

      I’m no editor, but a few notes on your wandering standards for lousy journalism would be a GREAT addition to your satire blog. It would really humanize you for the folk who merely think of you as a Scion of Libertarianism. Also, if you’re still hunting for site names, I recommend “Barking at Traffic”.

      Finally, I know you hate to blog-whore, but you should really let us know when that satire site is live.

      1. Piss off, sarcasmic.
        I know you’re trying to evade Ken’s mute, but you aren’t actually fooling anyone.

      2. Chinny Chin Chin
        commie shit adopts new sock!
        Fuck off and die, asshole.

      3. Another secretly wishing they could apply even half pf Ken’s logic to their flawed emotional desires.
        Ken Shultz 2024

    7. if he did what Woodward is reporting

      The reason I’m withholding my outrage over this story until we get some sort of verification that the conversation took place (although the non-denial and the speed with which the media has defended Milley with the claim that this was a perfectly cromulent conversation raise some suspicions) is because I trust Woodward to tell the truth about as much as I trust Joe Biden to tell the truth.

      1. He just issued a non-denial denial:

        “The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs regularly communicates with Chiefs of Defense across the world, including with China and Russia. These conversations remain vital to improving mutual understanding of U.S. national security interests, reducing tensions, providing clarity and avoiding unintended consequences or conflict.

        His calls with the Chinese and others in October and January were in keeping with these duties and responsibilities conveying reassurance in order to maintain strategic stability. All calls from the Chairman to his counterparts, including those reported, are staffed, coordinated and communicated with the Department of Defense and the interagency.

        Also in keeping with his responsibilities as senior military advisor to the President and Secretary of Defense, General Milley frequently conducts meetings with uniformed leaders across the Services to ensure all leaders are aware of current issues.
        The meeting regarding nuclear weapons protocols was to remind uniformed leaders in the Pentagon of the long-established and robust procedures in light of media reporting on the subject.

        General Milley continues to act and advise within his authority in the lawful tradition of civilian control of the military and his oath to the Constitution.”

        Here’s the thing with denials. It’s typically useful when giving one to actually deny the activity you are being accused of. Instead of Milley doing that in this statement, we see a flurry of qualifiers and weasel language.

        Notice that Milley claims that he was assuring the Chinese understood American national security interests. But those are not Milley’s interests to dictate.

  23. “The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment requires a public official to prove that defamatory statements or implications are made with ‘actual malice”

    “But a later Lizza tweet sharing the article could rise to that standard, the court said.”

    Now it is official (and soon t be a federal crime): NO MEAN TWEETS!

  24. In case any further evidence were required:

    “Republican-Led States Limit Power To Enact COVID Safety Protocols, Says New Report”
    […]
    “Republican lawmakers in 26 states have passed legislation to permanently limit the power of state and local officials to enact COVID-19 safety protocols like mask and vaccine mandates, according to a review released Wednesday from Kaiser Health News…”
    https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2371937057617/republican-led-states-limit-power-to-enact-covid-safety-protocols-says-

    Imagine a legislator sufficiently brazen to tell some bureaucrat she hasn’t the power to tell you what to wear or what shots you must take!
    And the legislator is GOP, besides!

    1. JFree, White Mike hardest hit.

    2. The horror

  25. “In a disturbing ruling for fans of free speech, a federal court has partially sided with Rep. Devin Nunes (R–Calif.) in his lawsuit against journalist Ryan Lizza.”

    Finally, (R)eason Magazine notices a distu(R)bing assault on f(R)ee speech. I wonde(R) how this particula(R) incident finally caught thei(R) attention?

  26. “The US doesn’t have the kind of government population register they have in Finland”

    Do Finns include (illegal) immigrants in their register?

  27. California Recall Election Results

    Its funny that the Commies in MSM are declaring a landslide for Newsome. He probably won and we expected Democrats to make sure their Commie leader for Commifornia won.

    Theyre still counting votes and only some 10M votes came in so far out of ~22M registered voters. The longer they count, the closer to yes for recall they get. They are at 63.8% to 36.2%.

    Newsome is only 13.8% from being recalled. I would call that a win but not a landslide.

    1. Were you expecting Kim Il-Sung kind of numbers? A win’s a win. Orange County is voting to keep in the greasy sonofabitch. Seem legit to you? Think anything’ll be done about it?

      1. Seem legit to you?

        Dominion laughs heartily.

  28. But under the appeals court’s logic, a politician may declare something defamatory and sue in court and—whether there is merit to the original claim or not—the journalist or publication who so much as draws attention to the contested article could become guilty.

    Yes, I understand why journalists would want the right to spread sensational myths and lies with impunity, dear, but this is a pretty lousy spin effort to defend that position.

    Since truth is an absolute defense to defamation, the only case where someone “could become guilty” of defamation by republication is in cases where the “contested article” is false, which is to say, the “original claim” of defamation had merit.

    And it’s obvious that even if someone could plausibly claim that they were reasonably ignorant of the falsity when they originally published, republishing a specific falsehood after personally being sued for defamation for spreading that specific falsehood would count as “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”; that is, with “actual malice”.

    So, for purposes of an attempt at getting a dismissal of a case, where the factual claims of the plaintiff have to be assumed to be true, someone republishing something they are already being sued over is obviously sufficient to show actual malice.

    Lizza, of course, will still have his day in court, where he’ll only actually be held liable if it turns out he was spreading lies.

  29. Sometimes we want to post a beautiful image on Facebook, Instagram, or another social network but do not know precisely what. We joined the useful to the pleasant and selected beautiful images with phrases of various kinds for you to share on your networks. Check it out!
    https://bit.ly/3ApHRkY

  30. “Studies link luxury rentals and affordable housing. For a certain sort of misguided activist and policy wonk, new apartment buildings featuring fancy pads aren’t just irrelevant to people who can’t afford them, but actively harmful. Their theory is that it speeds up gentrification and causes rents to rise.”

    These would be the same people who think M/W laws and rent control actually help people.
    The fact is additional supply lowers prices and in any case the seller, not the buyer establishes the selling cost.
    Always and everywhere *EXCEPT* where the government has fucked with the market.

  31. Fuck journolists and Fuck Joe Biden.

  32. Face coverings for kids age 2+, all staff & visitors, are now required at @NYSOCFS-licensed/registered child care centers, home-based group family & family child care programs, after-school child care programs, and enrolled legally exempt group programs during operational hours.

    Get out of cities.

  33. Who in the hell reads Esquire for political opinions.

    Anyway fuck Joe Biden and his bootlicking journos

    1. The bigger question is why are the left and democrats such a cult of death, can they be reformed and reeducated, and how to go about that. How do we remove the neo marxists in schools and universities, and the proto fasicsts in government and military. They’ve all bent the knee to authoritarian rule and should not be in positions of power and influence. Or must we start over again. Tricky questions for the future.

      1. You can’t, buckleup. Not without killing the patient.

        The CJCS colluded with his opposite number in a hostile country, to reassure them that we weren’t going to do anything against them, and colluded with major combatant force commanders—not in his chain of command—to agree to not follow the lawful orders of the President. Not only is the CJCS not denying it, greater D.C. sounds pleased about it. (With some notable WTF?!s from some in media)

        How are you going to re-educate that away? Especially when it looks like D.C. isn’t even going to pull the guy’s clearance. Forget about meaningfully firing him (i.e., barring him from jumping to the Board of Directors at LockMart), or—LOL!—-doing anything like indicting him.

    2. As a former subscriber, a decade ago, the problem was that Esquire couldn’t keep the political opinions out of their content. Everything got viewed through the lens of equity good, Republicans bad, and ignore any unintended consequences. It got old.

      Plus, there was a healthy amount of Gell-Mann amnesia I became aware of, where they butchered enough topics on the areas of culture, art, and hobbies I actually know a little about, that I finally called all of their opinions into question.

      I imagine it’s about unreadable now. Thank god for wireless connections in doctors offices.

Comments are closed.