Harvard Rescinds Manning Fellowship Under Pressure

imagesThe only thing worse than Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government appointing Chelsea Manning as fellow was the school’s withdraw of the fellowship. The school today succeeded in demonstrating to the world that its fellowships have zero intellectual content by first appointing Manning without a clear explanation of her expected academic contributions and then terminating the appointment under pressure.  As academics, we are not supposed to remove academic appointments because individuals are controversial or unpopular.  If Harvard was sticking by its academic reasons for the appointment, it should stick by its appointee.

I have long been confused by the school’s choices for fellows for many years. It seems like an academic version of Keeping Up With The Karadasians. Notoriety alone seems the driving force for many of these selections rather than any real intellectual contribution.  I felt that way about Manning’s appointment.

However, the decision to withdraw its invitation raises the countervailing concern that the school is allowing public pressure to dictate appointments.  Dean Douglas W. Elmendorf insisted that Manning was invited to talk with students and then host a forum to answer “hard questions.” about her story. He then added “I apologize to her and to the many concerned people from whom I have heard … for not recognizing upfront the full implications of our original invitation.”

Everything about that statement is curious.  The School did not recognize the controversy that would erupt over such an appointment?  Moreover, Elmendorf explains the academic value of Manning’s participation but then abandons that purpose because people are upset.

My concerns are not really focused on Manning but the danger of universities tailoring its academic programs to public opinion.  I have written extensively about the hostile environment for conservative speakers on campus.  Invitations have been withdrawn due to opposition groups and protests.  This case is even more concerning because it was a formal invitation to join the program as a fellow.

The invitation and then the withdrawal leave total confusion as to the purpose and academic content of these fellowship positions.  Harvard appears to have carefully avoided any principled ground in both the appointment and the withdrawal.

What do you think?


208 thoughts on “Harvard Rescinds Manning Fellowship Under Pressure”

  1. Harvard Rescinds Manning Fellowship Under Pressure

    War criminals yes.

    Persons exposing malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance on part of the US government and it’s agents no.

    So much for Harvard University’s motto: Veritas (truth).


    1. “So much for Harvard University’s motto: Veritas (truth).” -PNG



      “This school’s motto is Veritas, and increasingly we find ourselves shrinking away from it into the comfort of our own worldviews and ideologies. We must gain the power to accept that others have viewpoints apart from our own. We must recognize that if the Republican establishment is slow to condemn neo-Nazis but quick to criticize Chelsea Manning, they do not believe in free speech. We must agree that if Charles Murray is allowed to speak at Harvard, Chelsea Manning should be allowed to be an IOP Fellow.

      “Otherwise, we have given up on Veritas.”

    1. Mr. Parry think it’s cowardice when bad feedback induces stupid administrators to come to their senses. Mr. Parry is not serious.

  2. Is it actually and physiologically Bradley or Chelsea Manning?

    Is “she” actually a “woman” or is “he” still the “man” he was born as after surgical removal of “his/her” genitals?

    1. Men get fat on the belly, women on the gluteus maximus and thighs.
    2. Men and women have different vision.
    3. Men are larger.
    4. Men are stronger.
    5. Girls mature more quickly.
    6. Men are much more prone to nearly every illness than women.
    7. Women live longer.
    8. Men’s and women’s vital organs differ in size and efficiency.
    9. Men’s fertility lasts longer.
    10. A woman’s index finger is longer than the finger next to her pinkie; with men, it’s the opposite.
    11. Men have more hair.
    12. Men burn calories faster than women do.
    13. Their bones are different.
    14. Women have more erogenous zones.
    15. Men have Adam’s Apples.
    16. Women have breasts.
    17 Men have testosterone.

    It may be that Manning will always be a man who has undergone surgery.

    1. George, it’s good to see you venturing into fields of inquiry other than The U. S. Constitution.

      However, you seem to be reducing a great deal of natural variation into those seventeen points of biometric comparison between men versus women. Did you know, George, that the species Homo sapiens sapiens has less dimorphism than any other primate species with the possible exception of Bonobos?

      P. S. I’ve seen a photo of Manning after the sexual reassignment surgery. She’s cute as a button and, were it not for the serious crimes she committed, even you might call her downright adorable.

      1. The sex-linked traits on the sex chromosomes furnish no less genetic variation than the non-sex-linked traits on any of the other chromosomes.

      2. Thank you. I agree.

        Bradley Manning has an Adam’s Apple.

        Women do not have Adam’s Apples.

        Bradley Manning is a man who has had his genitals surgically removed.

        We can exist in reality or an incoherent realm engendered by mental and emotional hysteria.

        The later has prevailed since the 19th Amendment.

        1. George, thank you for ignoring my misstatement of the case. Manning underwent gender transition therapy and hormone replacement. But there’s no report available yet about Manning undergoing any sexual reassignment surgery.

          I’m glad that you agree that she’s cute despite the size of her hyroid bone.

        1. DSS – I finally have to ask. You do ever expect to find Susan? And why are you so desperate to find her?

            1. DSS – well, I don’t get it, but as long as you do, that is the important thing. 🙂

                1. DSS – this has a 5.9 rating in IMdb. Unless there are a lot of nude scenes with Rosana, this movie does not seem worth watching. 😉

              1. Where have you been, PCS!

                It’s a reference to a lame 80’s movie starring Madonna (not The Madonna) and Rosanna Arquette. The movie’s title is DSS’s handle for reasons only DSS knows.

                Of course this is only after DSS gave up her toad based moniker, which actually suited her better.

                1. RT – I think DSS is a him and I already commented on the low quality of the film.

      1. @Louise

        Yep. (Though as David Benson has accurately noted and, given my own experiences — Quakers are a pretty good lot.)

    1. “China’s government hires people to distort web conversations”


      “The commentators are known as the 50-Cent Party, as they are said to be paid 50 cents for every post that steers a discussion away from anti-party content or that advances the Communist Party line.”

      Were there groups/contractors/others doing this in the us — and there probably (even likely) are — DSS (and a few others) would fit right in.

      (JT would never support or condone something like this, of course. Or Darren, either, I would guess.)

  3. That dean, having disgraced his office, ought to resign. But then again he doesn’t have the grace to do so.

    1. Mr. Benson, I’m very surprised at your comment about grace. Grace belongs to God to giveth or to taketh away as God sees fit. One can nor more award God’s grace to oneself than one can deprive one’s neighbor of the same.

    1. Bradley Manning is a felon. In the military, he was a disciplinary problem before he was a felon. In his father’s house, he was a chronic irritant to his father and his stepmother (in part because he was a bad earner into them for money). To his civilian employers, he was a disciplinary problem who slacked off on the job (ergo had to be canned). To his schoolmates, he was an obnoxious twit. He’s been teaching everyone for more than 15 years that he’s bad news. This is not difficult to figure about, but it has escaped this idiot non-profit functionary.

        1. How about Joe Arpaio? I’ll bet he was a paragon of virtue his whole life! Never once stepped out of line did the might Joe Arpaio.

      1. DSS wrote: “Jonathan Pollard spent 30 years in prison for passing information to a friendly country. Manning’s half-dozen years of imprisonment for a much grosser betrayal seems a trifle lax.”

        Presumably, she means Israel. And, of course, there’s more to the story:

        …U.S. intelligence officials maintain that Pollard sold documents to “Pakistan, South Africa and two other countries they declined to identify.” -from the following following linked article


        “”No other spy in the history of the United States stole so many secrets, so highly classified, in such a short period of time,” he said in a 2010 interview. He and other U.S. intelligence officials maintain that Pollard sold documents to “Pakistan, South Africa and two other countries they declined to identify,” Bowman said.

        “Charles S. Leeper, the assistant United States attorney who prosecuted Pollard, said money was a big motivation for the spy, who claimed he was only trying to help Israel, a U.S. ally, not not to betray his country, according to a 1999 account by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker. In his sentencing memorandum, Leeper pointed to Pollard’s annual cash contract with the Israelis, saying he “stood to receive an additional five hundred and forty thousand dollars ($540,000) over the expected life of the conspiracy,” Hersh reported.”

        1. Interesting, but we haven’t heard any proof that Pollard gave secrets to anyone, but Israel. There was only one charge against Pollard. Some people in US intelligence stated they thought Pollard sold information to Pakistan etc. Do we have evidence for that? No. But, what we do know is that many have openly felt that Jewish supporters of the State of Israel constitute a security threat. There is a bit of anti-Semitism ingrained in some of our institutions.

          Thus without evidence the claim is meaningless as one could probably have found many at the time that would have said negative things about American Jews. There could also be a shift in blame to pass responsibility for security leaks to another. We don’t know one way or the other though you seem to like to draw conclusion absent true evidence. Remember AIPAC and two of its officials was investigated for years by the FBI until the claims were found baseless. Also remember how frequently the term “Israeli Lobby” was used to connote some Jewish conspiracy to manipulate American policy.

          Anonymous, you have a bad habit of throwing around garbage claims absent sufficient evidence and then cowardly running away from the facts. To relieve you of your typical responses of attacking the messenger I will make it clear I am not justifying anything Pollard did.

        2. I don’t place much credibility in unnamed “U.S. intelligence officials.” I did read a paperback about Pollard many years ago, I believe the title was “Territory of Lies” and it was an excellent book. It was my impression that Pollard was initially motivated solely by ideology, but eventually was seduced by the money and the perks it brought. Whether he sold secrets to countries other than Israel is doubtful. If that is the case, he would have been charged with it. I do believe that Pollard deserved a harsh sentence. He was significantly older than Manning, was a career Intelligence Analyst who had many many years of security briefings, and most importantly, he didn’t have the emotional problems that Manning did. He was known to be arrogant and offensive, but was mentally stable. Manning had serious, deep seated emotional problems and should not have been in the military at all. He had continuous disciplinary problems and emotional meltdowns during his short military career that should have rendered him unfit to work in the laundry or drive a mail truck around the post, much less have access to classified documents.

          1. @TIN

            ‘I don’t place much credibility in unnamed “U.S. intelligence officials.”’

            Nor do I, but there are sometimes people who are willing to go on the record to back them up — people like this guy:

            M.E. Bowman — “a former deputy general counsel for national security law at the F.B.I. and a former deputy of the U.S. Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive”


            Thanks for your comment and the book recommendation. Time-permitting, I’ll check it out.

            1. “Nor do I, but there are sometimes people who are willing to go on the record to back them up — people like this guy:”

              Where did this guy say he had evidence that Pollard gave secrets to the Pakistani’s which is where I believe Tin and others would like to hear a name to back up the claim?

              Not much different than the lack of names in this part of your earlier quote: “…U.S. intelligence officials maintain that Pollard sold documents to “Pakistan, South Africa and two other countries they declined to identify.””

              U.S. Intelligence officials isn’t a name and neither is the accusation above that ends with “people like this guy:”

            2. From the NBC link (below, in a separate comment):

              Marion “Spike” Bowman, “Pentagon liaison officer to the FBI at the time of Pollard’s arrest and coordinated the investigation of the extent of Pollard’s spying”

              Pollard also decided to maximize his profit after he began feeding information to Israel in 1984, offering his services elsewhere, Bowman said. He contacted the intelligence services of three other nations: Pakistan, South Africa — then under apartheid rule — and even Australia, one of the U.S. closest allies, and offered classified documents he had access to through his job as an analyst for the Naval Intelligence Command, Bowman said.

              “He even disclosed classified information to a South African defense attaché,” though he didn’t get paid for it, said Bowman, who also served as deputy general counsel for national security law at the FBI and as deputy director of the U.S. Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive during a long career in government. He also handed over a classified document to the Australian he contacted, he said.

              Bowman also said that Pollard hoped to parlay his Israeli connections into a new career as an arms dealer.

              “Pollard alleged at sentencing that there really was no harm done to the U.S.,” recalled Bowman. “The judge interrupted and brought him up short, pointing specifically to disclosure of the RAISIN manual. He was silent after that.” -NBC

              1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1998/12/12/release-pollard-at-the-nations-peril/bdabd537-4d92-4cee-99ba-62f7fb230898/

                “The authors are retired Navy admirals, each of whom served as director of naval intelligence during the period between 1978 and 1991.” – the following article


                By W. O. Studeman; Sumner Shapiro; J. L. Butts; T. A. Brooks December 12, 1998

                “Pollard pleaded guilty and therefore never was publicly tried. Thus, the American people never came to know that he offered classified information to three other countries before working for the Israelis and that he offered his services to a fourth country while he was spying for Israel. They also never came to understand that he was being very highly paid for his services — including an impressive nest egg currently in foreign banks — and was negotiating with his Israeli handlers for a raise as he was caught.

                “The authors are retired Navy admirals, each of whom served as director of naval intelligence during the period between 1978 and 1991.”

                But clearly those who post comments, here, know more than the five named individuals: four Navy admirals (named above), and Marion “Spike” Bowman, “Pentagon liaison officer to the FBI at the time of Pollard’s arrest” and coordinator of “the investigation of the extent of Pollard’s spying.”

                And even if they’re all wrong — as Glenn Greenwald has said, “What Pollard did is actual espionage, spying: passing US secrets to a foreign nation for $$. It’s the *opposite of what Manning, Snowden did.”

                1. Did Bowman have first hand knowledge or did he have second hand “knowledge” from unnamed sources? That is the question and from the article it appears that we have no names to attach to first hand knowledge.

                  I’ll quote Tin because I agree with Tin: “I don’t place much credibility in unnamed “U.S. intelligence officials.”

                  But anonymous says: “But clearly those who post comments, here, know more than the five named individuals: four Navy admirals (named above)”

                  No one here claims Pollard wasn’t guilty of the charge he was incarcerated for. The only question has been whether or not you are able to provide the name of anyone with first hand infomation and what the information was with regard to the other guilt you seem to presume to exist. You quote a lot, anonymous, but you don’t provide the evidence and that is the problem with all too many of your quotes and responses. You are unreliable.

          2. Manning had serious, deep seated emotional problems and should not have been in the military at all.

            That he was a problem personality is not a reason to treat him at all leniently. A precis of his biography will persuade you that he was adept at making messes and making other people miserable. He’s a Loki like character who needs to be put away where he can only irritate people who are adepts of rough justice.

  4. Whistleblowers serve the public by exposing illegality, waste, fraud and abuse.

    There is no way, for a federal employee, or, other whistleblower, to accomplish this through organizational channels. Can they go to a superior, OPM, the agencies IG? Both in government, and in the private sector, this will inevitably lead to harassment, constructive termination, or wrongful termination.

    There should be a preemptive judicial channel for government and corporate whistleblowers. Why not have federal court jurisdiction? If the whistleblower demonstrates illegality, waste, fraud , or abuse, then a federal court should be able to issue an injunction, staying termination, and hearing the matter. A District court could issue a declaratory judgment, granting the plaintiff whistleblower status. The agency would be able to litigate their side of the issue, and it would be subject to Circuit court review for legal error.

  5. The university would be better served by establishing a new accolade wherein it could then honor persons of its own choosing. Overloading the title of Fellow with every flavor of honor diminishes the traditionally accepted expectation of what constitutes a Fellow.

    After publicly acclaiming then abandoning Ms. Manning Harvard showed everyone that it was mostly interested in using her. And when she became inconvenient, someone to be thrown aside. Yet, despite this insult, Harvard still wants her to perform for its own benefit–Chelsea being just another feather in Harvard’s plume of grandeur.

  6. Personally, I think Chelsea Manning would have made a great “Fellow.” Isn’t that rich! The little twerp goes thru all that crap to become a “woman”, and he ends up being a “Fellow.” For a brief moment, that is.

    But I digress. Yes, I think Chelsea would have fit right in at Harvard. A stupid little twink who goes around pretending that he is really a woman, and wearing dresses, and who knows if he has had his little tallywhacker whacked off yet. Yes, a perfect fit for Harvard! But since Chelsea has been kicked to the curb, might I be sooo bold as to offer up a new candidate for Fellowship? Another person who will fit right in! And provide Harvard a much needed perspective, and be more able than most to relate to all the sensitive little snowflakes on campus. Presenting:


    Yes, Baby Stanley Thornton! Similar to Chelsea Manning, Baby Stanley has been cleared of fraud charges relating to disability!


    C’mon Harvard! Pick Baby Stanley! As a bonus, he will go poo-poo in his diaper, sooo there won’t be any of those picky issues about which bathroom he should go to, like you might have with Chesea.. . .

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl reporter

    1. Squeek, LOL! You know Baby Stanley pulls the straight Dem lever every election..in diapers.

    2. I recommend you Squeeks. That would definitely “provide Harvard a much needed perspective, and be more able than most to relate to all the sensitive little snowflakes on campus.”

  7. It appears academia cares more about outrageous behavior then about scholarship. Chelsea Manning should likely be in jail instead of having his sentence commuted. Would he have been offered a fellowship if his sentence wasn’t commuted and he had not became a woman instead of a man?

    I have little respect for Harvard for giving him a fellowship and they didn’t improve the respect by dismissing him under pressure.

    1. The shots of Crazyhorse terminating those journalists with extreme prejudice is something that the world and especially US citizens needed to see, I can no way that Manning could have done this without breaking the law.

        1. Snowden was a whistleblower who did what he did w/ intelligence and prudence. Bradley Manning gave unfiltered raw intelligence to Putin via Wikileaks. He’s dumber than a bag o’ hammers and should still be in Leavenworth.

          1. Nick, why would a principled whistleblower seek asylum in The Russian Federation? Defection seems the more likely explanation. John R. Schindler at Observer has argued that Julian Assange arranged Snowden’s defection to Russia. If so, then the implication is that Assange has ties to Russia.

            P. S. When will Wikileaks publish on line the state secrets of The Russian Federation as purloined by principled Russian whistleblowers? Would Assange arrange the defection of those whistleblowers to The United States?

              1. I haven’t seen Citizenfour, Paul. The review made it seem favorable to Snowden. Maybe I should watch it, anyway. IMO, Snowden’s defection to Russia is sufficient proof that he’s a stooge.

                1. Diane – thanks for correcting me. Over the years I have seen so many movies that sometimes they mush into one. However, if you watch CitizenFour critically, you will notice that he has had a plan he is not giving away to the cameraman. Whether it is his plan A or his plan B, who knows? Still, he is not being honest with his audience or his cameraman. And you can see it is sitting there like a big elephant in the room.

                  Snowden got a heroes cut in CitizenFour, they made him look as good as they could. However, Snowden keeps giving himself away. It is worth watching as a propaganda film. 🙂

                  1. Okay, Paul. I’ll see if I can rent it. But my mind has been made up against Snowden ever since he turned up in Moscow. Before that I might have been willing to give him a fair hearing. It’s too late for that, now.

        2. No one is saying she didn’t break the law. The conviction is still on her record, But they can say that about Joe Arpaio, now that he’s been pardoned. It’s as if he never broke the law.

        1. Paul, Crazyhorse was the radio handle for two Apache helicopters that killed ten suspected enemy-combatants including two Iraqi journalists near Baghdad during the most recent Iraq War. Manning was initially arrested for leaking the videos of those airstrikes. Subsequent investigations uncovered the full extent of Manning’s espionage.

        2. Crazy Horse was the call sign of the Apache helicopter that murdered the Reuters journalists in Baghdad having mistaken telephoto lenses for weapons.

            1. You’re right, of course. But Assange posted the video of the airstrikes on Wikileaks under the title “Collateral Murder.”

                  1. Carlyle Moulton – reporters and cameramen getting too close to the action has been a problem since at least the beginning of the Gulf War. Who can not forget the reporters telling Saddam when the planes of the allied forces were taking off? And if I remember correctly, during that war, the hotel in Baghdad where the reporters were staying was hit by “collateral fire.” 25% of the injuries in Gulf War II were by collateral fire. In war it happens.

                    I am reading a book on Dec. 7, 1941, and the Americans set the range on the anti-aircraft shells too short causing several civilian deaths and major damage in Honolulu. Warfare is messy.

                  2. Carlyle, a fair number of people other than Julian Assange share your view on the subject. Daniel Ellsberg, for instance. The link I posted mentions several others who agree with you. As I’m sure you know, already, my opinion is nothing more than just another opinion.

      1. How is our civic life improved by red haze twits and palaeotwits making hay over these incidents?

      2. Carlyle, Therefore, what you are saying is that every person dealing with American intelligence has a right to reveal that intelligence based upon what they think. Is that true or am I misreading what you said?

        1. Allan, since Carlyle didn’t reply to your question, I’m guessing that Carlyle considers the July 12th Baghdad airstrikes to have been war crimes. If so, then I’m further guessing that Carlyle considers Manning to be whistleblower rather than a person who committed espionage (or worse, IMO).

          1. Diane, you are probably right about what Carlyle thinks. No big deal, for if that is what he is thinking he is totally wrong.

            1. Allan, Manning was acquitted of aiding an enemy at court martial. The fact that I disagree with that verdict will never change that verdict. Therefore I can only disagree with Carlyle Moulton’s take on Manning as a matter of personal opinion. The question as to whether the July 12th 2007 Baghdad airstrikes were war crimes has not yet been argued in a court of law and probably never will be. My personal opinion is that they were not war crimes. Carlyle Moulton presumably thinks that they were war crimes. Thankfully neither one of us gets to make an actual legal judgment on that question.

              1. Maybe Carlyle Moulton should be placed on trial for those thoughts. Thoughts of that nature has lead to the deaths of servicemen in their 20’s.

  8. First, what’s worse? Trump pardoning someone convicted of ignoring a court order or Obama pardoning a person convicted of performing an act of treason?

    I believe Harvard was playing to the politically correct crowd with this invitation. If she was not transgender, I don’t believe she would have been invited.

    I also believe that the dis-invitation had less to do with the objections of current and former CIA directors and more to do with the sound of alumni checkbooks slamming shut.

      1. Frankly,
        Not exactly fake news. Seems to be a case of mistaken terminology.

        Manning’s sentence was commuted only.

        Fake news would be an outright lie, and one especially designed to distort or obscure reality to prevent the truth from being known.

        The outcome either way for Manning is that the full, original sentence will not be served. Accuracy is absolutely important, and, the legal outcome between a pardon versus a commuted sentence is significant, but the general idea of not serving the whole original sentence remains.

        It would be unfortunate to lessen the seriousness of real fake news by attaching that term to every inaccuracy.

        1. It is FAKE NEWS because a pardon restores many rights such as the right to vote and the right to carry arms. A commutation does not. I think the statement by the poster was intentionally misleading and therefore, FAKE NEWS.

          1. I think the statement by the poster was intentionally misleading and therefore, FAKE NEWS.

            Correcting the record is absolutely the right thing to do, pretending to know the motivation behind someone getting the facts wrong is itself FAKE NEWS.

            Prairie Rose point is spot on.

            Nicely done!

            1. One can look at the content of the poster’s prior posts and hopefully get a read on the intentions. Still maintain it was intentionally FAKE NEWS.

              1. Of course, you do. I would expect no less from you than to “maintain” that it was fake news. The real question is, do you really “believe” it is fake news yourself, or do you only “maintain”, that is “adopt a position” or “assert a position” that it is fake news to “maintain” some sort of weird liberal narrative?

                I both “believe” and “maintain” that it is the latter.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. I think the poster hoped the readers would actually believe Obama pardoned Manning. He was intentionally distorting the facts. Seems to be today’s FAKE NEWS out n the inter webs.

                  1. You’ve ruined what little cred you had left using multiple aliases and besmirching a longtime, respected commenter. You would be smart just to let it go. We don’t expect an apology, leftists don’t apologize. But, just letting it go would be the SMART move. Of course, intellect is in short supply in the demented left wing.

              2. LOL! Would franklyAKA SWM, and lord knows who else, pass a background check. She continually posts links to left wing Fake News websites and is a Dem operative.

                1. You called me a low level lonely volunteer or something two weeks ago, Now I am back employed as an operative. You need to tell your bots to look up the difference between a pardon and a commutation. You bet I would pass a backround check. Maybe some of those dfl county attorneys need to look into your backround.

                  1. Is that a threat, frankly/SWM??? I use my REAL NAME so ANYONE could check me out. Don’t need some vegan, dull/normal, Dem operative “dfl[that’s MN Dem to those not in MN] county attorney” to check my background. You picked on the wrong woman this time, and if you want to threaten me, that is very stupid. VERY STUPID!

                    1. How woukd anyone know it’s your real name? Because there are people in the world named Nick Spinelli? There are probably hundreds of people legitimately named Nick Spinelli. Who’s to say you are one of them? Because you say so?

                    2. Louise, I have been “checked out” by people here. I have given out plenty if identifying info and I know for a fact someone checked me out @ a law firm where I worked in Chicago. And, I know people have checked my PI license. So, your question is ignorant, just like you, the baby Down’s Syndrome baby hater.

                    3. Someone checked out if the Nik Spinellimyiu are pretending to be is a real,Nick Spinelli. There iid no way anyone can check you put without your ID, witnesses, and DNA analysis, and it’s unnecessary anyway. The internet is anonymous. You can’t make it otherwise.

                    4. That proves your invalidity more than anything else you could have said here. Whether your actual name is Nick Spinelli or not, whether you are the Nick Spinelli you claim to be, is of no consequence. Whoever you are you are scurrilous, disparaging and insulting, fine characteristics for a man who tries to present himself as intelligent and respectful–whatever your name is.

                    5. Someone also checked out if I had a teaching license as well. SWM/frankly knows I’m legit. She just got pimp slapped by a few people here and is lashing out in anger.

              3. One can also look at his attempt at parallelism through sentence structure and word choice.

                He did not stick the landing, however, since it is not actually a parallel situation.

                Labeling every inaccuracy ‘fake news’ diminishes the seriousness of the real thing.

                1. It’s fake news if it’s never corrected and the person continues to spew the same error.over and over again. Trump is a champion of this.

                2. PR, They love to label everything “RACISM, SEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA, ET AL” so latching onto Trumps “fake news” term and beating it like a dead horse is classic, Dem stupidity. That’s why they are losing elections at a rapid pace coast to coast.

              4. I didn’t know whether it was a pardon or commutation. That’s not the point. I read the point made by RSA as how egregious it was to not make someone committing such a crime against this country serve their entire sentence. That RSA got pardon incorrect is only relevant if one has a knee jerk tendency to defend this ex-fellow or the interloper that insulted the American people by setting him free.

                1. Are you referring to the interloper who pardoned Arpaio before he was even sentenced or spent a day in jail? That interloper?

                  1. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

                    defend this ex-fellow or the interloper that insulted the American people by setting him free.

                    I’ll tutor you but you’ll not take priority over my 9 year old.

                    1. I feel agreat deal of pity for your 9-yeat- old if that’s the kind of crap you’re feeding him. You are doing him a great disservice. A boy deserves better than that.

                    2. Yes Louise. I’m teaching him how to break down a sentence to understand how words connect and make meaning. Obviously something you don’t understand. I’m not surprised you pity him. Based on your history in this blog, you give me great confidence to know my son will be just fine.

              1. Prairie Rose is historically one of the most even handed, straight shooter, no spin commenters here. For her integrity to have been besmirched by frankly/SWM is disgusting and hypocritical..classic left wing Dem operative hit job.

                1. Amen! Personally, I don’t believe SWM/frankly even believes half the stuff she posts. I think she somehow got snookered into picking up Inga/Annie’s fallen banner, and now runs to the barricades waving it about, trying to incite the masses. Then, at teatime, she puts it down, and sips a cup of Earl Gray, nibbles on a bisky, and reads the Wall Street Journal.

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

                  1. Earl Grey has caffeine so nope and I quit the subscription to the Journal a few years ago. lol

                    1. Silly Rabbit! You can buy decaf Earl Gray black tea. Bigelow even has an Earl Gray Green Tea, which I highly recommend. It is sinfully scrumptious, and you can order it on Amazon if your local Piggly Wiggly or Super Savers doesn’t carry it.

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl reporter

                2. II disagreed with her assessment of the post. Have an appointment so continue to besmirch my character. i will be disappointed if you do not continue to carry on

                  1. LOL! Michael Corleone whined to the Senate Committee about them “besmirching” his character. No, I know you’re not an Italian Mafia kingpin, but you didn’t use to whine. You know the rules, if you go after someone as even handed as Prairie Rose you are going to hear from me.

                    1. Nick,
                      I appreciate your desire to defend me. I sense she’s debating my point rather than me. That’s okay.

                3. You are right about Prairie Rose. I disagreed with her about the intent of RSA’s false statement. Maybe RSA should come back on and admit he did not know the difference between a pardon and a commutation if that is the case.

                  1. Maybe RSA should come back on and admit he did not know the difference between a pardon and a commutation if that is the case.

                    Why, to satisfy your ego? Think about this logically. You impugned the character of RSA without a shred of evidence, and now you’ll believe RSA’s admission again, without a shred of evidence. Your kangaroo court doesn’t pass the smell test.

                  2. Frankly,
                    I know you did not besmirch my character. It was a disagreement about the post.

                    I thank you for your kind words, too.

          2. A pardon wioes the crime from the person’s record altogether, as if ithe crime and conviction never happened. A commutation does not. A commutation is a get-out-of-jail-free card. A pardon is the same as if the person never committed the crime and was never convicted. Someone whose sentence was commuted is still a convicted criminal. Trump claimed Manning was pardoned by Obama. That was a lie. If he’d done the least bit of research or had one of his many henchmen do it, he would have known no pardon was issued. But, as usual, he doesn’t have even a nodding acquaintance with the truth and his bootlicking followers love him for it.

            1. “wioes” Take a red pill. How do you like nitpicking Louise/Annie/Inga/Ken et al?

              1. It’s only nitpicking when it’s something you disagree with. When it’s something you constantly exaggerate out of all proportion it’s never nitpicking.

              2. Nick, Louise correctly typed nitoiking twice in a row. Oops. Substitute “p” for “o” in nitoiking.

            2. That was a lie. If he’d done the least bit of research or had one of his many henchmen do it, he would have known no pardon was issued.

              You undermine your claim that it was a lie by implying he did not know what he was talking about. You don’t get to have it both ways. I’m going to go with the fact he did know. On this particular topic, I don’t care. We wouldn’t even be talking about this traitor had he committed his crimes 50 years ago. He’d know longer exist…period.

              1. He had to have known it was wrong soon after he said it. If he didn’t correct it immediately, and apologize for his error, it became an outright lie at that point.

                1. What is it with your egos that they so desperately need to be stroked. You’re not interested in an apology; you want a public shaming. If you wanted an apology for the lies uttered by the political class then clean your house first. The rest of us aren’t so shallow as to need validation that we proved fact from fiction. The truth speaks for itself; it’s lies that need support.

                  1. I hope you”re proud.

                    Unlike you I’m not concerned about my pride. I don’t support Trump or anyone in the political class. I support the office and institutions when they function within the limits of the constitution. That is something you obviously cannot or refuse to comprehend. Your willful ignorance of those principles is reflected in your egotistical adherence to politics at the expense of principled governance.

                  2. Louise,
                    How do you derive that Olly is a Trump supporter? Because he disagreed with you? That is not a fair assumption. Olly disagreed that RSA was intentionally promoting “fake news” by erroneously stating Manning was pardoned rather than commuted. This should not be conflated with support for Trump.

                    1. I would bet my last dollar that Olly is a Trump supporter, though he’d probably deny it because he would be afraid it would make him look like an idiot. I can smell a Trump supporter at 100 feet, even if he has sprayed himself with a gallon of perfume.

        2. When a decent person makes a mistake, he rescinds it and apologizes for it. It’s only fake news when the person refuses to admit it was a mistake. Trump almost never corrects his “errors,” most of them deliberate. He’s of the school, “Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it. Never apologize, never explain.” It’s common among Republicans.

          1. Louise,
            “It’s only fake news when the person refuses to admit it was a mistake.”

            I, too, am very concerned about “fake news”–no matter who does it. If this was a fair discussion about such a thing, the same outrage should be directed at Obama and Hillary, too, over the real fake news that Benghazi was because of a YouTube video ticking off the local Muslims and causing a riot. I do not recall either one apologizing and admitting they had lied to the citizenry the are supposed to serve.

            Yes, Trump is in the White House now, but where were Liberals decrying these two liars? People are tired of the political class’ lies that obfuscate the issues, manipulate us, etc. Hope and Change was supposed to work, but it didn’t. Now is the time to fairly hold the entire political class’ feet to the fire.

            1. Brava, Prairie Rose. Unfortunately you directed your substantive comment @ someone unworthy and incapable of substance.

              1. You have proven a poit I have made often about Republicans, especially Trump supporters. Criticize Trump and the next words out of their mouths will ne “Obama” and/or “Clinton” Never fails. It’s like clockwork.

                1. Criticize Trump and the next words out of their mouths will ne “Obama” and/or “Clinton” Never fails. It’s like clockwork.

                  LOL! And why do you think they do that, huh? They are pointing out the hypocrisy of your criticism and until you recognize that, it will, like clockwork, continue. Wow, you remind me of John Candy and Steve Martin in the following clip. LOL!


                  1. You remind me of someone who is deliberately blind to his side’s failings. The best defense is attack, isn’t it?

                    1. You remind me of someone who…

                      Of course I do.

                      The best defense is attack, isn’t it?

                      I don’t believe so. After reading your posts, you should rethink that strategy.

            2. Yessirree, you’ve proven my point about what the next words will be out of a Trump supporter’s mouth when anyone criticizes his lord and savior. I forgot about one more–“liberal”,spat out like bitter bile. It never fails. If Democrats made a charge and it was shown to be unequivocally wrong and no correction and apology ensued, it would be fake news, too. I’ll bet it has not been a fraction of the times Republicans did it. It’s a Republican game and they appear to be champions at it, at least if you don’t dig too deep.

              1. I am no Trump supporter. I did not vote for him.

                Why try to pigeon-hole me and anyone else who disagrees with you?

                This should not be a Dems versus Repubs discussion anymore. It should be an us versus the political class discussion. Liars on the Hill (or any other office) should be held to account. Let’s hold people from the past to account, too–which would include not only Obama and Hillary, but also Bush and Cheney.

                Fair is fair. Why should anybody listen to your cries to hold Trump to account when you gave a blind eye to Obama and Hillary’s wrongdoing?

                They should all be held to account.

          2. Louise – Have you seen Hillary, Schumer or Pelosi apologize for a mistake they made?

        3. It can be legitimately attached to every iaccuracy that is never corrected and apologized for. If you use that standard, Trump creates fake news almost exclusively. He has no respect for the truth.

          Try listing the times Trump has ever admitted he was wrong and apologized for misleading people. Then take out the times he tried to blame it on Obama or Clinton or the “mainstream press.” See what you come up with.

          1. Louise – a study of press reports on Trump has found 91% of them to be negative. And you wouldn’t blame the press if you were Trump?

        4. I attach it only to inaccuracies that are never corrected by the person making them, even when it’s pointed out as inaccurate.

      2. Doesn’t matter. Trump supporters keep telling the same lies over and over again. They are mirroring their fake god in the White House.

        1. Louise, you are seriously beyond disgusting. The legal niceties between “pardon” and “commute” are irrelevant to the original point RSA was making. Most normal people don’t sit around and gaze at their navels pondering the differences between those two concepts. I bet a survey would reveal >50% of the US would not notice the difference in a discussion regarding Manning. Because the point is – HE IS A TRAITOR TO HIS COUNTRY. That’s what matters.

          1. FFS, Manning was charged with aiding an enemy, but acquitted at trial on that charge. Thus the fact that I agree with you and Olly, and even Trump, that Manning committed treason is now a matter of personal opinion, only.

            When he commuted Manning’s 35-year sentence on the remaining 17 counts, Obama claimed only that the sentence was excessive in comparison to those imposed on other “leakers;” and that the greater bulk of the information that Manning disclosed was far less sensitive than the airstrike videos.

            FTR, I disagree with Obama on the commutation of Manning’s sentence.

    1. “…Trump pardoning someone convicted of ignoring a court order…”

      What’s worse, the political prosecution of an officer of the law doing his state and federal duty subsequent to the unconstitutional voiding by courts of a legitimate vote of the People with dominion (SB 1070), or a corrupt and ideological court and judicial branch acting subjectively; “legislating from the bench” as a particular political party.

    2. As frankly rightly noted, Manning wasn’t pardoned. Manning’s sentence was commuted.

      1. And as most of us rightly noted, Obama let a convicted traitor out of prison

        1. Don’t forget that Obama secured the release of a deserter in exchange for 5 Taliban militants. His sense of justice is quite impeccable; if your the enemy.

          1. Many convicted traitors are let out of prison. Some traitors never get charged. Nixon was one. Jonathan Pollard is another. He’s out on parole. Earl Pitts was sentenced to 27 years in prison in 1997. He will have completed his sentence in 2024 at which time he will be a free man.

            1. Many convicted traitors are let out of prison.

              Who? Morton Sobell was convicted of espionage, not treason, and his crimes were penny ante compared to Manning. John Anthony Walker died in prison and his accomplice Jerry Whitworth is still there at age 77. Aldrich Ames is still in prison. Robert Hanssen is still in prison.

              Christopher Boyce and Daulton Lee were released. The two were, by the purveyors of mass entertainment and the legal system, coddled. Daniel Patrick Moynihan though Boyce evil, but Boyce managed to con the parole board and the people who harbored him.

              1. By the way, Sobell served a sentence 3x that of Manning. Boyce and Lee also served much longer sentences.

              2. DSS wrote: “Morton Sobell was convicted of espionage, not treason, and his crimes were penny ante compared to Manning.”

                A Rosenberg Co-Conspirator Reveals More About His Role

                By SAM ROBERTS MARCH 20, 2011


                According to an article by two cold war historians, Ronald Radosh and Steven T. Usdin, in The Weekly Standard, Mr. Sobell, who is 93, said in an interview last December that he, Julius Rosenberg, William Perl and an unidentified fourth man spent a weekend, probably Independence Day, frantically copying the classified documents in a Greenwich Village apartment before they were missed.

                That Monday, Mr. Sobell is quoted as saying, he and Mr. Rosenberg filled a box with canisters of 35-millimeter film and delivered it to Soviet agents on a Long Island Rail Road platform.

                In addition to elaborating on Mr. Sobell’s admission in a 2008 interview with The New York Times that he had stolen military radar and artillery secrets, the December interview appears to stoke the smoldering embers of the case on several other counts.

                Mr. Sobell’s comments, according to the authors, identify Mr. Perl not as an innocent aeronautical engineer who was entitled to inspect the secret papers and was implicated in the espionage conspiracy only by circumstantial evidence, but as a conspirator against his mentor, Theodore von Karman. -Sam Roberts, NY Times

                (More BS comments by old DSS.)

            2. In general DSS doesn’t really care about facts — at least not the ones that she doesn’t like, or finds inconvenient.

              “Manning, 25, was acquitted last month of the most serious charge he faced — aiding the enemy…”

              “Manning will receive 3 (and) 1 / 2 years of credit for time served in pretrial confinement and for the abusive treatment he endured in a Marine brig at Quantico, making him eligible for parole in seven years. He will serve his sentence at the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.”


              Excerpts, with some repetition:

              Manning, 25, was acquitted last month of the most serious charge he faced — aiding the enemy — but was convicted of multiple other counts, including violations of the Espionage Act, for copying and disseminating classified military field reports, State Department cables, and assessments of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

              “When a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system,” said Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. “This is a sad day for Bradley Manning, but it’s also a sad day for all Americans who depend on brave whistleblowers and a free press for a fully informed public debate.”

              Manning will receive 3 (and) 1 / 2 years of credit for time served in pretrial confinement and for the abusive treatment he endured in a Marine brig at Quantico, making him eligible for parole in seven years. He will serve his sentence at the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

              Coombs said the prosecution had offered Manning a plea deal before trial in order to get him to testify against WikiLeaks in an ongoing investigation in the Eastern District of Virginia. Coombs said the government offer was “a length of sentence that exceeded what Manning received today,” and was rejected.

        2. Meanwhile Trunp not only let a convicted pig out of prison, he wiped his record clean. At least Obama didn’t pardon Chelsea Manning. She’s still a convicted felon.

          1. Louise – if you are referring to Sheriff Joe as the pig that Trump let out of prison, a couple of things. 1) He was not in prison. 2) He had not been sentenced yet.

          1. @ FFS

            As noted above, Manning was almost eligible for parole when his sentence was commuted. The minimum sentence was 5.2 years.


            “…the well-known whistleblower Bradley Manning has been ordered by a military court in Maryland to spend a minimum of 5.2 years in prison with a 32 year maximum (including time already spent in detention), for revealing information about US government behaviour to the public.

            “This hard-won minimum term represents a significant tactical victory for Bradley Manning’s defense, campaign team and supporters. At the start of these proceedings, the United States government had charged Bradley Manning with a capital offence and other charges carrying over 135 years of incarceration. His defense team is now appealing to the US Army Court of Criminal Appeals in relation to this sentence and also for due process violations during the trial.

            “While the defense should be proud of their tactical victory, it should be remembered that Mr Manning’s trial and conviction is an affront to basic concepts of Western justice. On Mr Manning’s arrest in May 2010, he was immediately subjected to punitive incarceration by the US government, which was found to be “cruel, inhumane and degrading” by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez, and even found to be unlawful by US military courts. […]”

          2. Just as Trump let a person convicted of criminal contempt of court completely off the hook, even pardoning him altogether. Of you don’t like the power of the president to pardon criminals and commute sentences, complain about the law that allows it, not the presidents who use it. Anyone can be pardoned or have his sentence commuted by a president. You don’t have any control over it. You have to accept the law as it stands. Fight the law if you don’t like it, but all presidents can pardon or commute sentences to their heart’s content even if their motives are suspect. Your opinion means nothing.

        3. FFS, Manning was acquitted on the charge of aiding an enemy, but convicted on a lesser charge of knowingly publishing sensitive and damaging information that would become available to the enemy. Manning was convicted on 16 other charges in addition to the foregoing lesser charge.

          I don’t disagree with your position, FFS. The court martial of Manning disagreed with that position.

Comments are closed.