Huckabee: Wilkinson Led Group Out Of Red Hen To Protest Sanders Eating At Another Restaurant

SarahHuckabeeSandersThere is an interesting account of the recent controversy at the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Va. from the father of White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders that has gone largely unreported.  Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has claimed that Stephanie Wilkinson “organized” a group to follow Sanders and her family to a nearby restaurant to scream at them.  That is strikingly different from Wilkinson’s account and the account being offered in the media that Wilkinson politely asked Sanders to leave and nothing more.  The many stories lionizing Wilkinson have cited her “passive” protest as proof of her “leadership.” If true, the account magnifies the rude and uncivil conduct of Wilkinson and it is clearly material to the story. Yet, only a few conservative sites have carried Huckabee’s account.

Huckabee stated on Fox:

“In fact, a little known part of this story, is that after Sarah and her husband left and the family relocated to a restaurant across the street, the owner of the Red Hen then organized an effort to go and scream at them from the sidewalk at the other restaurant,

Finally, one of Sarah’s in-laws, who happens to be very liberal, it’s her brother-in-law, went out in the street and said, ‘Look, Sarah’s already left. She didn’t stay for obvious reasons. She’s had all she needs tonight. The rest of us are trying to have dinner. I’m a liberal. I’m not a Trump supporter. But you guys aren’t helping our cause,’” Huckabee went on to say. “So, it wasn’t just what happened in the Little Red Hen restaurant, it’s what happened ongoing by the owner of that restaurant.”

Wilkinson previously told The Washington Post that “I’m not a huge fan of confrontation. I have a business, and I want the business to thrive.” The disconnect between these accounts is rather glaring.  Following Sanders and her family to another restaurant (and prompting the intervention of a self-described liberal) would paint a very different picture from past coverage on Wilkinson’s judgment and conduct.

The failure to add this critical information to coverage does raise a question of bias. It is a materially different story on the actions of this restaurant owner if she first told Sanders and her family to leave and then led a group to harass the family at someone else’s restaurant.

This story has (and continues to) captivate the country with coverage on all of the networks and cable news programs.  If Huckabee’s account is true it is news. If it is untrue it is news. So why has it received so little coverage?

338 thoughts on “Huckabee: Wilkinson Led Group Out Of Red Hen To Protest Sanders Eating At Another Restaurant”

  1. Wilkinson’s leaving out her behavior following Sanders to another restaurant and screaming at her shows that she knows it was bad. Otherwise she would have bragged about it, too.

    I am very sorry for the savage attacks that Sarah Sanders has suffered. I guess feminists only champion women at the highest echelon jobs when it suits them politically. Otherwise, they are at the vanguard throwing insults. Chelsea Handler even said she was a trollop for wearing makeup. If that was said about a female Liberal, heads would roll.

    This is so bad. Are we turning into France? Don’t like someone? Then guillotine them, and their kids, too?

    When businesses choose to enter the political fray, then they are sending the message that customers are not welcome if they have differing politics. The Red Hen has just posted a figurative sign: Liberals Only. Conservatives Will Not Be Served If We Identify You. That will either prove a great business model or a disastrous one. Customers need to vote with their wallets if they want to see restaurants segregate by politics.

    1. One should invite their friends to the Red Hen and order a very large meal. When everyone has eaten 90% of their food, they should don MAGA hats and get thrown out. Free dinner !!

      1. Turn the tables, so to speak. I like it!

        Mr. Smith, why are you flying the flag of Sierra Leone, or was siting that emblem proximate to your name an entirely random assignation?

          1. This “Doug” guy has a real problem if oil turns out to be abiotic and the world enters a mini ice age as some predict.

    2. This is so bad. Are we turning into France? Don’t like someone? Then guillotine them, and their kids, too?

      Karen, France has been a constitutional state since 1860 with two modest interruptions: the partial German occupation in 1870-71, the German occupation in 1940-45, and the inchoate period in 1945 and 1946. There’s been little political violence in France apart from those period and the Guillotine was used as a punishment for common crimes.

    3. OK, Honey, here’s how it is: under the Trump Administration, innocent children, and even infants at the breast, were taken away from their parents and put into internment camps. They are not free to leave. Their jailers are not permitted to touch them or comfort them in any way. Regardless of any politics, these are CHILDREN. They are not terrorists, they are not felons, they are not guilty of any crime. They are vulnerable. Sarah Sanders, when she’s not lying about something to defend her fat, lying boss, DEFENDS this monstrous behavior, which, if any other country did this, the US would loudly protest. It is her association with this behavior that makes her odious and why she is not welcome.

      You feel “very” sorry for that fat, slob, SHS, but not for little Jessica? Yeah, I know you don’t know who she is, but a former jail worker took footage of inconsolable Jessica sobbing for her mother, and smuggled out the video, which was shown on Rachel Maddow’s show last night. Empathy for children under emotional distress is not a conservative vs. liberal thing or even a political thing. It is a HUMAN thing. You could only look away from the suffering this Administration intentionally inflicted on these children if you are a racist–that is, if you view these children as different enough from you and your kids not to warrant your sympathy. If you don’t see that this is wrong, you should not be allowed to vote.

      1. OK, Honey, here’s how it is: under the Trump Administration, innocent children, and even infants at the breast, were taken away from their parents and put into internment camps. They are not free to leave. T

        Children are never at liberty, Natacha. Not in any society. They’re separated from their parents because the parents have priors or because they parents have applied for asylum.

      2. Natacha, I’ve gotta say that you show all the signs and symptoms of a really bad case of Rachel Madcow disease. The cure? Turn off MSNBC.

    4. “This is so bad. Are we turning into France? Don’t like someone? Then guillotine them, and their kids, too?”

      Karen, I often like to compare the French Revolution to the American Revolution as two opposites rather than the two being the same.

  2. Turley is actually citing an uncorroborated FOX news story??? Pathetic! Where’s the video of the people screaming at Sanders while she sits in the second restaurant? No one should believe Huckabee’s story without seeing a video.

    I believe that Sanders should have been served. I am in total opposition to denial of service as a form of protest. But this blog post is ridiculous.

    1. Uh … they are quoting Sanders’ father, who spoke on the record. You are showing your bias. You might just as well have said “no one should believe the Red Hen owner, or the MSM, because they are both heavily biased.”

      1. Uh … you provided no additional information. And as for bias, I said that I thought Sanders should have been served.

        1. YYY, the deplorables read what they want to read. If they think you’re a ‘liberal’, then you must subscribe to every ridiculous belief that Fox commentators attribute to liberals. And again, it doesn’t matter what you say or write. If you’re a liberal, you must support MS-13.

          1. I’m just worried about the other story JT has about the ticks in Texas. It’s only a matter of time before someone gets worried that Hillary put them there on purpose.

            1. We’ll know right here if it happens, because FOX will report it, and Turley will repeat it, even if they only have a single uncorroborated source.

              1. Not to defend Turley who is perfectly able to defend himself, but he qualified his statement as did Fox news. Both provided a real human being with a name making that statement. Those that accept the statement from anonymous sources made on the NYTimes should think twice about their comments especially since so many of these anonymous statements have been proven wrong.

                1. He did say “If true …” But later he said, “The failure to add this critical information to coverage does raise a question of bias.” That’s nonsense. Given the lack of (video) evidence or corroboration, there is no reason for other outlets to pick up the story. Turley is either being hopelessly naive, or biased himself.

                  1. yyy, I don’t know why you say that. The mainstream media has had blaring coverage on similar types of news based on anonymous sources and of course no video when the news looks bad for the administration. (Many of those anonymous sources have been proven wrong.)

                    This had a name attached to the source where other people were around. Of course, under these circumstances, Turley is correct in his accusation of bias.

                    1. But this was one source, and, if the event occurred, it was out in the open where it definitely would have been witnessed by any number of observers. Also, in this case, it was possible to pick up the phone and call the two restaurants and ask if anything actually happened. How can that not be part of the report? Sometimes maybe all you can get is a single (anonymous) source, but this is not one of those cases. Either there are more people who can testify that the event happened, or it did not happen.

                  2. yyy, it just so happens that when I checked my email I found this video. Listen to it. It is all about media bias that has been previously reported on video. I don’t get disturbed by opinions that differ from my own. That is normal and that is how we learn. What is difficult to tolerate is severe bias and an inattentive public. Let me know what you think of the video. It is short and the quotes are real. They even satisfy your criteria of video.



          2. “the deplorables read what… ”

            Peter Hill, what was the stupidest thing Hillary said? You follow well in her footsteps.

      2. Mike Huckabee is a birther. I am no fan of Obama, but give me a break. This hardly Huckabee’s first time being dishonest and grandstanding for political gain. He is the real reason (along with Trump, stirring up the furor of his mignons) that SHS now requires Secret Service protection.

        1. Mike Huckabee is a birther.

          citation needed tootsie.

  3. This is an asault on her civil rights because many gays work in the place; and they don’t like Sarah because she is a Christian and they assume that she does not like them because of her Christian belief.

    1. No, Jean, they don’t like her because she is a liar, she defends the indefensible conduct of Trump and is insensitive to the suffering of innocent children, which is contrary to Christian belief.

      1. ” which is contrary to Christian belief.”

        What do you know about the Christian belief? Apparently not much. Sanders was there with her children only to eat. Anyone that believed in anything good would have let her and children eat in peace.

        1. Allan,…
          We are fortunate to have people on these threads who
          “know”😒 what a “good Christian” is, and who qualifies for that passing grade.
          Additionally , there is guidance to be found here re who is “a good American”.
          Some can tell just by their political views and affiliations who meets the standards in both categories.😉

    2. It would surprise me if that were the case, but nothing in the news stories makes that plain. Wilkinson did try to fob it off on her staff’s preferences. Since the server who posted about it initially indicated that the Sanders party had only been there two minutes, It’s not terribly credible to claim your staff deliberated about it, then called you at home, then waited for you to arrive so you could talk to the patrons in question.

  4. What is unmentioned is that Wilkinson was trying to drive business away from the restaurant across the street from her own establishment. That goes well beyond her excuse that she felt compelled to uphold “morals” in her own restaurant. By interfering with the business of her competitor and its patrons, she has established that her actions were purely political and spiteful, and had nothing to do with her self-serving justification. I can’t imagine that the restaurant across the street wanted five paying customers harassed and driven away, and presumably doesn’t want to be associated with this controversy. Her actions in her own restaurant were rude and uncivil, but interfering with the business of another restaurant raises her conduct to a new level of concern.

    1. Tortious interference, Tin?

      Orally the Sanders family tried to make a contract to buy food from the other restaurant and Wilkinson interfered. I’m not sure if any economic harm was done and even if it was I doubt anyone would go to court over this unless there was another angle.

    2. This could have gotten so out of hand. What if this escalated, and the second restaurant participated? What if a mob grew as this family was chased down the street, and someone got violent?

      I am increasingly concerned how the Left supports forcing people to their way. Haven’t shaken off their roots, have they? If they don’t like a speaker, they will either threaten them and the entire university with violence to shut down the event, or they will heckle them throughout their talk so that no on can hear them. Anitfa rioted in the streets to bring awareness to fascism, when they themselves were behaving in many ways like fascists. Black Lives Matter got violent and in many ways called for violence. Liberals in general harass, threaten, and try to drive out of business conservatives. Chelsea Handler urged generals to take out the president.

      This is how banana republics rise. There is some coup, the country goes socialist or communist. Then the socialist privation begins. People realize they gave up their individual rights for utopia. They suffer. The government jails dissenters. And then they start escaping to migrate somewhere else…except there will be no more United States modern capitalist free land of opportunity to escape to.

      Geez, how many socialist nightmares have to drive global migration and starvation before Democrats will learn to abandon this model? They keep trying to drive our country into the same mess that billions of people around the globe want to get out of, and that includes total intolerance for opposing political opinions.

      1. This is how banana republics rise.

        No, it isn’t, Karen. Banana republics are poor and predominantly agricultural countries with largely illiterate populations. There aren’t any left in Latin America.

        A more real threat is one of ‘pillarization’ of the society as a whole as modes of human association grow correlated. It seems almost the stuff of comedy, but in post-war Austria you had Socialist birdwatchers’ clubs and Catholic birdwatchers’ clubs. A more remote, but much more severe, threat would be a recapitulation of what happened in Spain during the 1930s.

      2. “The “Left” supports forcing people to their way?” This is because they don’t like babies ripped from their mothers’ and fathers’ arms, to be used as political pawns and they vocally protest? Anyone who thinks this is wrong is a “Democrat”, a “socialist” or a “lefty”? Your nightly Fox News viewing habits are showing. Now, be sure to run to church on Sunday, Honey.

        1. The people using them as pawns are media whores and public interest shysters.

  5. Is anybody suing anybody else, yet? How about the owner of the unnamed restaurant across the street from The Red Hen suing the owner of The Red Hen? Oopsie Daisy. Has anyone checked to see if there actually is a restaurant across the street from The Red Hen? If so, then what’s the name of that restaurant? What if there’s more than one restaurant across the street from The Red Hen? This is beginning to look like another one of Professor Ivanathan “Pavlov” Turley’s psych experiments on blawg hounds.

      1. Do you remember the one about the old Chinese women throwing coins into jet engines for good luck? There was no follow report on that one.

        1. No, but I do remember JT posting anything and everything about how HRC was going down with countless investigations and Tray Gowdy and after 12 hours of TV lights, the next few days JT posted pictures of his Alaskan vacation. Still waiting for a follow-up on that one. That one story alone is why I read and write on this site.

          1. That must have been before my arrival on the blawg. Gowdy’s cross examination of HRC fell short of Turley’s mark and Turley changed the subject to his Alaskan vacation. That figures. Sorry I missed it, FishWings.

    1. “Is anybody suing anybody else, yet?”

      If you don’t understand the sophistry behind that question, I can’t help you.

      The fact that crooks get away with things without court action does not mean they’re not crooks.

      1. You’re still new here, Stevej. So I’ll put you on double-secret probation instead of the usual notice.

        FTR, Turley has an oft-stated test for he said she said dilemmas. Which ever one sues first is supposedly telling the truth. So, if you really think it’s sophistry, then please register your complaint with the proprietor of this here establishment.

        1. We don’t have a he said she said. Both the owner and Sanders agree that she was kicked out.

          1. Plus this happened in a public place. The group involved was, I think, 8 family members, but I don’t know how many were children. The harassment purportedly happened in the street.

            If the other restaurant did not appreciate the public scene harassing customers, then perhaps they will share security video from the front of the store. If they were besties with Wilkinson and thought this was fighting the good fight, then they might not get involved.

            In any case, people saw what happened that night and should come forward. But perhaps they are afraid to. You know what happens to everyday conservatives who go on TV.

            1. You asked if anybody was suing anybody. There’s no point to that question. The Red Hen owner does not contradict Sanders or Huckabee. There no he said she said. You could claim in the case of Huckabee that there’s a he said she didn’t deny. That’s about it.

              Also I’m not new to the blog. I just don’t have all day to spend here.

          2. Newbiej said, “We don’t have a he said she said. Both the owner and Sanders agree that she was kicked out.”

            Like I said, Newbiej, you’re still new here. So I suppose I’ll just have to walk you through it.

            Mike Huckabee said that “. . . the owner of the Red Hen [Stephanie Wilkinson] then organized an effort to go and scream at them [Sarah and her family] from the sidewalk at the other restaurant . . .”

            That’s either true or false. If it’s false, then Mike Huckabee may have defamed Stephanie Wilkinson. If it’s true, then in keeping with the aforementioned Turley test, Wilkinson will not sue Mike Huckabee for defamation.

            Meanwhile Turley said, “If Huckabee’s account is true it is news. If it is untrue it is news.”

            Admittedly, Turley did not broach the subject of defamation. Nevertheless, Turley framed the question as a he said she said dilemma. And until you get your blawg legs, you’ll just have to take L4D’s word for the existence and operation of The Turley Test.

            Turley also noted that, “Wilkinson previously told The Washington Post that ‘I’m not a huge fan of confrontation. I have a business, and I want the business to thrive.’ The disconnect between these accounts is rather glaring.”

            Well there’s your cue, Newbiej. When Turley says there’s a glaring disconnect between two accounts of an event, The Turley Test is on the menu, for sure. Just you wait and see.

            1. You asked if anybody was suing anybody. There’s no point to that question. The Red Hen owner does not contradict Sanders or Huckabee. There no he said she said. You could claim in the case of Huckabee that there’s a he said she didn’t deny. That’s about it.

              Also I’m not new to the blog. I just don’t have all day to spend here.

    2. There is a cluster of restaurants near the Red Hen, most of them are located the next corner over, on South Main. Everything from fast food to American/Southern dining, to Thai and pizza.

    3. Google is your friend… There are several restaurants across the street.

        1. L4D enables David Benson – you can on your computer with Dragon Speak. The command for your phone is OK, Google, which is the wake-up. Then give the command you want.

  6. I hope these fools continue on the current path of resistance and anger. They are outing themselves and the democrats. The Dums have no message for the working class American other then resist and anger over the American election rejection.
    Just check out the cast of characters that are lining up for a Presidential run.

    1. Over a period of more than 50 years, the Democratic Party has lost interest in wage-earners-in-general. They’re only interested in wage-earners who can be readily repurposed into the clientele of the public interest bar and the social work industry. They love people ‘at risk’ (even if the risks are largely fictional – see FishWings fever dreams about the lives of black Americans). Illegal aliens, refugees and ‘refugees’, blacks, Hispanics, trashy single mothers, criminals, head cases, young girls with chartreuse hair &c. Ordinary non-exotic wage earners they don’t give a rip about. A generation ago, they were tigers for old-age pensioners. The Democratic Party will still likely disrupt attempts to put such programs on an actuarially-sound footing, but now that they’ve discovered the old qua old tend to vote Republican, they’re notably less enthusiastic about defending them.

      1. Are the Republicans continually recruiting more senior voters from the ranks of the middle aged by promising to put their Social Security benefits on an actuarially sound basis?

  7. If this happened to me I would consider it harassment and stalking and would have called the police

    1. Not sure what Virginia law says. As far as I can tell as a layman, what they did to the elder Mr. and Mrs. Sanders does qualify as 2d degree harassment under New York law. That’s a submisdemeanor ‘violation’ not carrying much of a penalty, but they can arrest you or issue appearance tickets for that.

      1. In CA there is a misdemeanor offense of “interference with business relations.” It is most often used when aggressive panhandlers go into restaurants and coffee shops and harass customers for money. Offenders can be cited, or arrested and taken into custody, depending on the severity and frequency of their actions. I know of one case where an extremely aggressive panhandler was entering the Buttercup Bakery and threatening the patrons. The bakery is near a retirement home and its residents make up the majority of the customers. The panhandler scared the wits out of the elderly customers and the proprietor lost business, so she started having panhandlers arrested and taken to jail to send a message that she wasn’t going to tolerate people harassing her customers.

  8. A great deal of misinformation flows around, but Gov. Huckabee in his comments was quite specific that they were harassing the elder Mr. and Mrs. Sanders (SHS and her husband not being present at that point). Gov. Huckabee’s account is 3d hand, but given the close relationship between the parties in question, not so distant that it would get all that distorted.

    1. This is an interesting comment. If you feel the bakery behaved illegally, as I do, and this owner of the Red Hen behaved illegally, as I do, then you and I are on the same page.

      And I think you can come to this conclusion and still be a libertarian. It doesn’t require an awful lot of extrapolation with regard to the Equal Protection Clause combined with the Commerce Clause.

      But there are people on the Supreme Court who interpret the Constitution in certain ways when they find it convenient — not legal.

      1. And I think you can come to this conclusion and still be a libertarian.

        No, you can’t, unless you’re a poseur libertarian of the Mercatus Center variety. The ‘Equal Protection Clause’ cannot and does not apply to any party not an organ of government. Shizzy interpretations of the ‘Commerce Clause’ allow the federal government to regulate just about any activity through the expedient of declaring the distinction between ‘interstate commerce’ and other sorts of commerce to be factitious. Such interpretations allow Congress to enact public accommodations laws binding on local businesses (as the general police power allows state governments to enact such laws). No legislative body is required to do so.

        And, of course, in a free society such laws are unjust when applied to producers who do not have a functional monopoly.

        1. The ‘Equal Protection Clause’ cannot and does not apply to any party not an organ of government.

          That’s absurd — on it’s face. That’s a Goldwater complaint. Not a libertarian one.

          1. That’s absurd — on it’s face.

            Good grief, this is the text:

            “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ”

            The subject of the sentence is ‘State’.

              1. So what? The subject is ‘State’. Only states make and enforce laws. As for the commerce clause it reads:

                …”To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”

                That’s a delegation to Congress, not a binding obligation on a private party.

                Anyone can explain something to you. They cannot comprehend it for you.

                1. It’s pretty clear that you think the 1964 Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional. But it’s not a libertarian attitude. So get over it.

                  1. That most certainly is a libertarian attitude. The Civil Rights Act runs contrary to freedom of contract.

                    You didn’t make assertions about obligations under statutory law. You asserted that two constitutional clauses imposed obligations on private parties. They don’t, and you only have to read them to see that they do not.

      2. Newbiej said, ” If you feel the bakery behaved illegally, as I do, and this owner of the Red Hen behaved illegally, as I do, then you and I are on the same page.”

        This is so fascinating. I fully support Jack Phillips’ petition in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case on the exact grounds of free exercise and free expression. And yet, I do not agree with Stephanie Wilkinson’s request of Sarah Huckabee Sanders to leave The Red Hen on the grounds that there were no grounds for asking Sanders to leave. Mind you, I’m not suggesting that Wilkinson’s action was illegal. Just unfounded in law.

        Now here’s the fascinating part (and Teaching Spastics to Dance could back me up on this), I once infamously attempted to combine The Commerce Clause and The Equal Protection Clause as well as a good many other snippets of text to argue in favor of public accommodation laws and Title 2 of The CRA. That led to an extended exchange between L4D and dhlii that Mr. Smith eventually derided as “Authentic Frontier Gibberish.” I haven’t backed off one jot nor tittle from that position and neither has dhlii.

        I mention this because I, too, was once a newbie on the blawg just like you, Stevej. and Teaching Spastics to Dance is an old blawg hand who neither ever dies nor ever fades away. Good luck, Newbiej.

        1. In my view, the Civil Rights Act reiterated what was already in the Constitution, and should not have been necessary. The Civil Rights Act reiterated rights and obligations that people and businesses already had respectively. The Civil Rights Act did not provide an all-encompassing list of ways businesses violate their interstate commerce responsibilities.

          1. “In my view, the Civil Rights Act reiterated what was already in the Constitution, and should not have been necessary.”

            Stevej, that is interesting and I believe the intelligent way of looking at things.

  9. Wilkinson: “I’m not a huge fan of confrontation” or stalker. That is the question.

  10. JT wrote if it’s true it’s news, and if untrue it’s news. In the age of Trump that kind of statement IS the problem. Reporting lie after lie HAS been the problem, because the liars are never held to account. Move on, nothing to see here.

    1. Looking to WHAT’S going on on our own freedom loving Country’s Soil than this said story and undoubtedly is absolutely nothing. at all.! Is our entire nation very well awares what’s happenings within our country NO NOT AT ALL. Oh yes this LAYMAN very much likely to bring to NOTICE of AMERICAN FELLOWS in general and in particular the Country’s TOP Court SUPREME COURT true facts of realities about this amazing and top most national matters.

  11. The question is what would happen if two black guys in MAGA hats showed up for a meal?

    1. What would happen to two black people wearing vote Democrat T-shirts at a Trump rally?

      1. Yet another piece of evidence that Fishwihngs is writing from a student hostel in Toronto.

        Trump supporters put up with the news media at rallies as a matter of course. Partisan Democrats cannot process opposition and project their dysfunction on others.

        1. If you really believe that Trump supporters put up with the news media at rallies as a matter of course, I have a bridge to sell you. Partisan Democrats cannot process opposition? Like when Trumpists freak out when told their business is not needed. Project their dysfunction on others like when Trumpists vote for a pathological liar and when the truth does come out, it’s FAKE NEWS? Are you writing from Moscow comrade?

          1. You’ve uttered not one true statement in your comment. I love the Democratic Party. It’s turned into a collecting pool of the world’s fantasists and sociopaths.

            1. Oh, the stocks on that bridge deal just went up. Ya know Teach, I drink too, but not this early. Put it down and get some covfefe.

          2. “If you really believe that Trump supporters put up with the news media at rallies as a matter of course, I have a bridge to sell you.”

            If you think Trump is throwing out the media from his rallies you are crazy. He actually points out the media to the crowds, but maybe that is not reported by the media you watch. Anyone can see CNN, CBS, etc. represented and can see their cameras.

            Put on some C-Span coverage so you can see an entire event. Trump is a master.

            1. Why do you put words in my statement that I did not say? Never said Trump is throwing them out. He does incite them, he calls them the enemy of the people. That in turn gets his supporters to yell and howl. And reporters have been escorted out by Secret Service and private security. You trying to put words that I did not say is wrong, hell you even printed out what I said, please read again.

              1. Thanks for a report on the voices in your head. It’s been an education.

                1. In the first place, it wasn’t FishWings’ statement; it was yours. In the second place, Allan put words in FishWings’ rebuttal to your statement which FishWings thereby doubly did not say. And that is not a voice in FishWings’ head. That’s Allan putting words in both your statement and FishWings rebuttal to your statement. Now how’s that for an education?

                  You know, Turley claims there’s been 35 million “views” of these school-yard playground taunts. One wonders how many pairs of eyes that entails. 350? 3,500? 35,000?

                  1. Diane, you are really confused and it seems you can’t seem to get the party’s straight.

              2. FishWings, I reread what you wrote. It was poorly written. In this situation of having to “put up with” most would assume that the answer would be to not let them in or throw them out much like what happened with another type of heckler who was thrown out.

                You should have realized your failings and blamed your poor writing skills rather than placing the blame on someone else.

                1. Teaching Spastics to Dance

                  June 26, 2018 at 9:21 AM

                  Yet another piece of evidence that Fishwihngs is writing from a student hostel in Toronto.

                  Trump supporters put up with the news media at rallies as a matter of course. Partisan Democrats cannot process opposition and project their dysfunction on others.


                  June 26, 2018 at 4:15 PM

                  FishWings, I reread what you wrote. It was poorly written.

                  Allan, you incomparable dolt, you; you just accused Teaching Spastics to Dance of poor writing. Learn how to follow a thread already, Allan.

                  1. Diane, you have now doubled down on your confusion. From time clock may be your best excuse is that at 2 AM in the morning your brain doesn’t work.

      2. Difference is one is a dining place and the other is a political event. Are you so blur-visioned to see that? @FishWings

        1. Tell that to a Gay or Black or Hispanic person that has been denied service.

          1. Again, FishWings, you might actually visit this country before offering your opinion on daily life here.

            1. My family goes back to this country from 1670’s knuckle head. And yes we fought for freedom in 1776 to 1861 to 1941.

                1. You don’t have too, that’s why my family fought, so everybody in this country would have a voice and how this country would be in freedom or tyranny.

                  1. P. S. They can’t deport FishWings for real. So they deport FishWings in their imaginations.

                  2. unless if they are black homersexuals wearing MAGA hats

                    yawn, you’re so predictable. When are you moving to Venezuela? You will have all the safe space you need there


    2. Wilkerson would lynch them, Maxine Waters would have justified it, Wa Putz would have portrayed the blacks as evil, amd so forth. But we already knew that

  12. What is true is that when President Trump Tweet that the restaurant’s outside windows and walls are dirty (suggesting to him that the inside is dirty also), cameras showed someone on the outside very quickly washing the windows.

    Perhaps the owner’s political mindset and actions indeed are dirty also.

  13. I think the reason Gov. Huckabee’s account has received so little coverage is because of media bias. His version has only been given coverage on friendly programming.

    If a story is going to be covered, it should be covered in full. Especially when the opposing sides have such radically different views of what happened. Whether Sarah Sanders is telling the story is a moot point; either the events happened one way, or the other. If the press can’t be trusted to tell the whole story, then why should they be trusted at all? This is why they are collectively referred to as “Fake News.” The press collectively is giving the people fewer and fewer reasons to trust what they say.

      1. The source is the father of Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Wilkinson has already admitted to insisting she and her party leave the Red Hen. It’s as credible as anything uttered by a public figure.

  14. What receives so little coverage on this increasingly pathetic blog are the important issues. Left wing extremists, that number far, far, far fewer than right wing extremists, seem to be the fodder served up to the Trump supporters that must make up the majority of participants here. Yeah, there are idiots on the left that erase history and refuse service to Trump’s hand puppets. How about some relevant statistics linking stupidity, extremism, etc with the left and the right; you know to compare.

    What about the effects of the ‘tariff war’? What about the increasing number of kids stranded in camps along the border while their parents arrive deported back home thousands of miles away? What about the nepotism and oligarchical deals going on at the expense of America and the ‘average Jack and Jill’? This blog is beginning to look like one of those rags one thumbs through at the check out counter, the ones with the ‘Aliens ate my husband’ on the front page.

    C’mon Turley, time to focus on more important stuff. If we want finger pointing and sensationalism, we can follow the idiot with whom we have been saddled for a President.

    1. issac – you are free to return to Canada, home of the Prime Minister with the wandering eyebrow or you could start your own blog.

      1. Paul, your comments represent what’s wrong with this country. Isolationism, xenophobia, my country right or wrong, love it or leave it, etc. You are the perfect Trump disciple. I believe that was all proved to be ‘not America’ some very few decades ago. Perhaps it’s the sun in those areas where they park the planes. Too bad the other things they park in the desert have no use anymore, even for spare parts. Too improve, one must critique. Too critique one must have an open mind. Evolution is god is evolution.

        1. issac – you have dual citizenship correct? I offered you the choice of returning to your homeland (home of the wandering eyebrow) or starting your own blog. I think that is a decent offer. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Don’t they teach you that in the home of the wandering eyebrow?

          1. You told Isaac to get out. And everybody knows it. Now you’re telling Isaac he’s either for us or against us. And everybody knows that as well.

            Start with fooling yourself, Paul. Then slowly work your way up to fooling other people. And maybe, just maybe, someday you might fool Isaac. But I doubt it.

            1. L4D enables David Benson – issac is complaining about a place where he is a guest. Should I be co-dependent to poor guests? I am here only at the suffrage of JT, it is his sandbox. You are the enabler, not me.

              1. Turley has not asked Mr. Basonkavich to go back to Canada nor to start his own blog. You did that. And everybody knows why you did that as well. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave The Red Hen because of her work for the Trump administration. Therefore, all the Trump supporters on the Turley blawg are “asking” Isaac and FishWings to leave the Turley blawg because they criticize Trump or Turley or both and all of the rest of you Trump supporters to boot. It’s called refutation by logical analogy. Remember?

                1. L4D enables David Benson – it took me awhile to find the original thread, however, I offered issac options, one of which was rather funny. At no time did I tell issac that he had to do anything.

        2. The irony of your remarks is just hysterical. I think the window however if you claiming that one must have an open mind, when yours is not only closed invited, but securely locked against any intelligent idea that doesn’t emanate from CNN or MSNBC.

          1. This blog truly needs an edit function… That or I need to stop using voice to text.

            For those completely confused by what I said above, what I meant to state was: I think the winner was…

            Closed and barred…

            1. Wally Moran, Are you also using text-to-voice? I ask because, if you’re using voice-to-text, and if you’re capable of using an edit function, then I might be wrong to presume that your eyesight is up to the task of using an edit function without text-to-voice.

      2. I have noted some severe limitations of speech in Canada, but I am not sure of their origins.

      3. Paul-Is there any proof Assic is not in Canada? I have noticed a number of contributors who criticize our nation are not Americans.

        1. The Great Zambini – according to issac, he has dual citizenship and is currently living in the US. However, that was the last I heard from him. I am sure he is jetting back and forth across the border.

        2. Is there any proof . . . [that] a number of contributors who criticize our nation are not Americans?

          Well . . . if they never criticize Canada . . . nor France, then . . . what would that prove?

      4. Indeed, or start your own blog. If you find this site or country not to your liking, you are welcome to go elsewhere. This is a legal blog, not a political blog, and yes, law encompasses politics, but it isn’t restricted to politics. If the subject of law is not in your wheelhouse or interest, political blogs are a dime a dozen. A big part of ‘lawyering’ is doing investigative research and peicing together information. Funny, but that was once true of journalism, too.

        1. You are welcome to go elsewhere or should try and change what you find reprehensible. Interesting to see all those whose option is to leave, or ask others to leave. That says a lot about the source of America’s woes, those who blindly accept the faults and get their knickers in a twist when attention is focused on said faults. It’s a forest and trees thing. I have the advantage of viewing this great country from both perspectives, unlike those who are so close, they get no sunlight or enlightenment.

          Again, with all the vastly more interesting and important stuff going on, this blog is deteriorating by constantly posting the idiocies of those that basically don’t matter, like the owner of a breakfast restaurant. It does not reflect well on Turley, his pandering to the tabloid readers.

          No comments by Turley as yet regarding Trump’s attacks on and threats to Harley Davidson. Somehow, I would think that there are a lot of good ole boys and gals on this blog that would see that as an impeachable offense, criticizing the great ‘merican icon, the chopper.

          And one more time, the battle cry of the loser, the anchor that holds this country back, the tail that simply won’t evolve away, is “If you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave.” That and those had nothing to do with making America great. If that’s all you got, then I hope there are few and ever fewer of ya’ll.

          1. Mr. Basonkavich, as I’m sure you know, the first thread Turley started on “The Red Hen” incident wracked up more than 500 comments in less than 24 hours. I have reason to believe that Turley selects topics based on the previous audience response that those topics have elicited. Hence a second “Red Hen” thread. Given the diminished audience response to this second Red Hen thread, there may not be a third Red Hen thread. Unless . . . Trump has another really bad day . . . or something.

            1. L4D enables David Benson – we are not going to get to 36 million comments if you and I do not do our parts. 😉

              1. Oily crepe. I thought the measurement was “views”–not “comments.” Do you mean to tell me there are 35 million things themselves that were spoken divided by however many speaking things themselves there might actually be?

                1. L4D enables David Benson – who cares, we still have our parts to play. You have an audience and I respond to you. 😉

    2. Start your own blog. You sound really smart. I’m sure you will have 10s of followers within years. Go for it.

      1. Since you’re all so keen on kicking Mr. Basonkavich out, it wouldn’t surprise me the least if you all followed him over onto his own blog.

        1. L4D enables David Benson – issac may be smart, however, he is ignorant in the areas most necessary to this blog. Law and civics.

          1. Asking someone to leave who has never asked, and who would never ask, you to leave is neither law nor civics. It’s Schmaw and inschmivility.

            1. L4D enables David Benson – when you get my age you do not put up with whiners. As my father used to say, “Shoot, shit, or get off the pot.”

    3. Isaac, you make a good point. Perhaps we should be paying more attention to the fact that under Trump:
      • Nearly 3 million jobs have been created, including:
      o 304,000 manufacturing jobs
      o 337,000 construction jobs
      • Unemployment rate has dropped to 3.8, the lowest rate since April 2000
      • Job openings have reached 6.6 million, the highest level recorded.
      • Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut taxes, including:
      o American families received $3.2 trillion in gross tax cuts and saw the child tax credit double.
      o Top corporate tax rate was lowered from 35 percent to 21.
      • Unnecessary job-killing regulations were rolled back.
      o Achieved 22 deregulatory actions for every new regulatory action.
      o Rolled back rules and regulations harming farmers and energy producers.
      o Regional and community banks and credit unions got relief.

      We also could talk about important stuff like the fact that 520 companies announced pay raises bonuses, 401K matches, and expansions since GOP Tax Reforms passed.

      OR we could become aware that the unemployment rate for blacks and Hispanics is the lowest ever recorded.

      1. Don, I think we have to thank Issac for bringing all this stuff up.😀

      2. donkerchoff

        This is precisely what we should be focusing upon, but not as simplistically selectively as you have outlined.

        Most of what has happened in this first year and a half of Trump’s tenure has been due to the momentum created by the past administration, or if you are that biased, due to the natural recovery from the Bush disaster. Either way, you omit some very relevant facts: jobs that are being created are low pay service industry jobs, the environment is taking a disastrous hit for no practical advantage, farmers have always been subsidized and unregulated will go back to poisoning the earth to make a buck, banks continue to get the relief that they have always received-think back to 2010, 90% of the benefits of the tax ‘reforms’ went to the 1% who parked the bucks offshore, American health care is still at the 25th place amongst developed nations, American public schools are still among the worst and falling, the corporate tax rate dropped but the loopholes remained=as Warren Buffett, etc, etc, etc.

        But that’s what this blog should be about, not tabloid fodder. By the way you are extremely lose with your numbers, just like the lying sack of sh*^ Trump. You must read that Moonie rag the Washington Times or that other rag the Fox News. Trump’s attack on Harley Davidson was omitted in one and buried in the other. I read the NYTimes, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, and Fox News. What I find to be the case, more often than not, is that the Washington Times and Fox News simply prints the stuff that makes Trump look neutral or good. There is scant stuff on his mistakes. The Washington Post and NYTimes prints everything, agreed with some bias but they print everything, and along with right wing opinions. But hey, if yo don’t read it then it can’t be there, right?

        1. Dozens of times, we have seen the Isaac Theory of Presidential History.
          It us simple, straightforward, and consistent.
          Every positive development for every GOP president was due to the suberb “yeomanship” of a Democratic predecessor.
          Every failure or difficulty of Democratic presidents can be blamed on the GOP president(s) who served before him.
          Jazz it up a little with inventive and patently false statements ( like there was a 7 year recession in the Reagan Administration) and you have a prepacked speil to repeatedly try to sell.

          1. Actually, Ptom, Bill Clinton’s early economic success in his first term of office was largely built on The Darman Plan that led George H. W. Bush to renege upon his infamous “read my lips; no new taxes” pledge. So don’t be surprised if Mr. Basonkavich ‘splains that one to you, too.

            Presidents in general have a rather limited effect upon the US economy. But when they do, it is always a delayed reaction. Think about Gerald Ford getting stuck with Tricky Dick’s economic mismanagement. It was not Ford’s fault. And, frankly, there was a lot of other stuff going on besides Nixon’s economic blunders as well. Remember OPEC?

            1. L4D,…
              I remember economic history under a number of different presidents.
              Some do come into office with favorable tailwinds…I think that’s what you were saying about the economy Clinton had when he followed Bush 41.
              Anyone who consistently says that “their party’s” president is the one who pulled the economy out of the dumps either knows nothing of history, or going into hyper-partisan spin mode.
              Ideally, I think a presidents reputation is enhanced when he takes office at the low point, just as ( or just before) the economy is recovering.
              There are a number of presidents that came in under those circumstances.
              Someone like Herbert Hoover had the opposite experience; be took office at the tail end of an unsustainable economic boom, and he was in office barely 6 months when things turned drastically South.
              I think just about any other candidate who might have been elected in 1928 would have encountered the same difficulties.
              Including FDR, had his administration started in 1929 rather than 1933.
              As it was, he took office at the very depths of the Great Depression and was not “blamed” for causing it.
              The 25% unemployment rate was not likely to double, but far more likely to be cut in half or more over time.

              1. PS…
                I noticed that you did not mention my objection to Isaac’scharacterization of “a 7 year recession” caused by Reagan.
                It’s probably not a good idea for everyone to make up their own wildly divergent definition of recessions.
                I don’t need anyone “splaining” how a claim like that is accurate.
                But if you concentrate, dustort what I have written, rinse and spin, it’s likely you’ll make a stab at it.

                1. Now you’re being didactic, Gnash. IIRC, a recession is two consecutive quarters without any economic growth or with negative growth. So a seven year recession would be 28 consecutive quarters without any economic growth or with negative economic growth. How’s that for “dustortion?” You want another rinse and spin? Or just another stab?

                  P. S. They say that being didactic was the original meaning of the words bombastic and bombast.

                  1. L4D,..
                    Making note of the difference between a two quarter recession, and a 28 quarter recession, is hardly “didactic”. Advising me that the person who made that ckaim could “splain” things to me is odd advice.
                    Your 2Q. of declining GOD definition of a recession is the standard, most common definition of a recession.
                    There is also a “council” or a “butrau” that uses somewhat different metrics.

                    1. GDP, not GOD.
                      Also should be “bureau….barely useable repluly box makes it difficult to see the letters and words until its posted.

                    2. L4D said, “Presidents in general have a rather limited effect upon the US economy. But when they do, it is always a delayed reaction. Think about Gerald Ford getting stuck with Tricky Dick’s economic mismanagement. It was not Ford’s fault.”

                      Tom Nash said, “Someone like Herbert Hoover had the opposite experience; be took office at the tail end of an unsustainable economic boom, and he was in office barely 6 months when things turned drastically South.”

                      I honestly can’t tell anymore whether this is an agreement or a disagreement. I’m not blaming Herbert Hoover for causing The Great Depression. I might blame him for insisting upon voluntary measures in response to it, though. Likewise, I don’t blame Ford for causing inflation. But I might find fault with Ford for trying to Whip Inflation Now with a public information campaign.

                      In any case, my positions remain that President’s have a limited effect upon the economy and that the effect at issue is always a delayed reaction. If I’m not entirely mistaken, that was Isaac’s original point about the recent economic upturn while Trump has been in office.

                    3. L4D,…
                      Every GOP president has had to clean up the mess created by the Democratic president they follow.
                      If I made a statement like that, I would expect to challenged.
                      And I have challenged Isaac’s “flip-side” version of that, wherein the Democratic president is dealt a weak hand, turns things around, and pass the good economy he left office with.
                      My original comment/ reply to Isaac mentions that as a consistent claim by Isaac.
                      I’m not sure if you read his comment and my reply.
                      When you posted a comment on my reply, you addressed very little of the content of Isaac’s post and my original reply.
                      You went off on a tangent that had little to do with Isaac’s post and my first reply.
                      As with many of the JT columns and a number of comments, you deflect away from the actual topic after distorting the actual content that you’re ostensibly replying to.
                      It seems that you have a lot of time on your hands to spin, distort, deflect, and lie.
                      I don’t have enough spare time to untangle what you write, as that often involves having to accurately review the content you’ve distorted.

    4. Issac:

      “…this increasingly pathetic blog…”

      You know that you are free to leave; you don’t have to cast the pearls of your opinion before these swine.

      We will really miss you; sayonara.

      1. Hey, Fleischer! Amscray to you, too, buddy.

        P. S. Isaac would never post that message.

        But Fleischer would.

  15. enigma – would it be true if we interviewed the liberal brother-in-law? 😉

    1. He would hardly be an independent source, or more specifically, a non-interested party, would he?

      1. L2 – since he is the one who purportedly defended the family, wouldn’t he be the perfect subject to interview?

        1. No, because he is Sarah’s close relative. That is similar to having an alibi from your mother in court –it is hard to make it past the straight faced test. There had to be other witnesses, if the event really took place. It was a restaurant open to the public for God’s sake. Ask the employees or other patrons. It cannot be that difficult.

          1. This whole business is a sh!t sandwich. Why not learn to pick your battles, Little Miss Faux-Lawyer?

            1. If I wanted foul mouthed individuals like you to know my identity, I could readily prove it to you. Alas, you are all tiresome enough on the page, and some of you are crazy enough to show up at my door. What do you expect me to do, recite the Rule Against Perpetuities? Why you would believe that I care about whether or not you believe I have a law degree? I have absolutely no respect for those who are incapable of commenting without insulting those with different views. Also, I have never revealed my gender, so kindly go back under a rock.

              1. I expect you to make substantive arguments, make ’em well, and to be less inclined than the rest of us to get wrapped up in your feelz. You’re a lawyer, right? Jousting with people is all in a day’s work, no? We have about five people who’ve claimed to be lawyers making regular posts on this site in recent months. Two of them post under their actual name and you can locate their practice with a mouse click. Funny how the other three have nothing of the vibe of those two in their remarks.

                1. L2 said, “He [Sarah’s reportedly “liberal” brother-in-law] would hardly be an independent source, or more specifically, a non-interested party, would he?”

                  That was a substantive argument. And you know it. And you don’t care about knowingly claiming the contrary simply for the sake of thumbing your nose In somebody else’s face. Nyah! Nyah!

          2. L2 – he is a first-hand witness. He engaged. Who could be better?

            1. The other patrons at the second restaurant, or the waitstaff/manager. But ask the brother-in-law, then he can be impeached with other accounts. Somehow I doubt he will go on record.

          3. “No, because he is Sarah’s close relative.”

            Ms. lawyer, credibility counts.
            Other family members accompanied that relative.
            Other people were in the other restaurant.

            If the Alibi was from one’s mother and other family members accompanied that relative and others were in the restaurant then the mother as an alibi might be quite good.

            Listening to your legal arguments make it “hard to make it past the straight faced test.”

            You better run now. I understand a gerbil is looking for an attorney.

            1. Your analysis is wrong. A relative’s testimony always has at least a hint of bias. Also, please engage like a reasonable adult. Your chronic insults are quite childish.

              1. Ms lawyer, carefully read what I said above. I didn’t say a relatives testimony didn’t have a bias. In fact, one can assume a bias in almost anyone’s testimony.

                Here is what I said about the witness:

                “Ms. lawyer, credibility counts.
                Other family members accompanied that relative.
                Other people were in the other restaurant.”

                If the witness was the only witness then there is less restraint on what the witness says but when other witnesses exist people have a tendency to stay honest and not stray far from the truth.

                I hope with your representation the gerbil doesn’t get the death penalty for jaywalking.

                1. Assumed facts not in evidence. The testimony of the supposedly “liberal” brother-in-law is actually hearsay from Mike Huckabee.

  16. “If true?” Maybe even the conservative news outlets wanted to verify whether or not it was true before spreading rumors. Mr. Turley may be protecting himself legally by saying, “If true.” But does nothing to keep from being a rumormonger.

    1. I second that. IF TRUE, is a big if. I can see where SHSanders gets her paltering skills. Mike Huckabee was on Fox News right after the incident, and neatly sidestepped the hypocrisy of SHS and Trump calling for civility when Trump routinely humiliates his political opponents with offensive name-calling and personal disparagement. (In example, Trump’s recent tweet calling Maxine Waters is “a very low IQ individual.”)

      Interestingly, Mr. Huckabee did not mention Wilkinson following the Sanders party across the street, and Fox news is practically state tv under Trump. Therefore, I will consider this claim false unless independently verified.

      1. Interestingly, Mr. Huckabee did not mention Wilkinson following the Sanders party across the street,

        Gov. Huckabee did discuss it in a radio interview. His daughter is Mrs. Sanders. She’s limited her remarks to a tweet, which puts a crimp on the details you can offer.

        1. Not right after the incident, he didn’t. This appears to be a detail added later to pour more salt in the wound. Sarah Huckabee Sanders did not mention Ms. Wilkinson following her party across the street in her tweet, nor did Trump mention it in his tweet about the dirty awnings at the restaurant. And if you believe he would not have incorporated this alleged further indignity to the Sanders party you must be joking.

          1. It’s a Tweet, knucklehead. No space for that. That aside, her in-laws might not have told her about the 2d incident until after her initial tweet.

            1. There is no need for name calling. POTUS has shown us he is very willing to write a chain of tweets on any number of subjects. Just find some proof while you are searching for that civility Mr. Huckabee would like Democrats to offer his daughter, but you and he refuse to offer to those with differing political views. Civility — what a concept.

                1. Professor Turley,

                  You have several regular blog participants who continue to refuse to follow your rules of civility. ‘Teaching Spastics to Dance’ is one such individual.

                  Please censure these participants, whose only purpose is to intimidate others into silence and chill free speech. It seems to be lost on people like this that when one resorts to using insults as argument, any substantive point they may have made is severely undermined.

                  Thank you,

                  1. L2 – commentators who do not use their real names get any respect.

                  2. L2, I was with you all the way right up until you jawboned the ref.

                    The blawg is just not the same without Teaching Spastics to Dance.

                    Please don’t take my dark cloud away.

          2. You need to take a reading comprehension class. The article clearly states that SHS was not with her family when this happened. Also, I think she’s trying to stay above this crap by not commenting further on it.

            1. Oh, yet another one of you thoroughly uncivil Trump supporters. I guess that you are implying that SHS’ family kept her utterly in the dark about this alleged unpleasant exchange w/ the restaurant owner. That is patently ridiculous.

              1. You get cordial treatment until you start behaving badly, L2. Then you get what you get.

                1. And I behaved badly by…daring to disagree with you? What a megalomaniac you appear to be.

                  1. 1. Introducing red herrings

                    2. Gratuitously accusing a third party of lying.

                    3. Impersonating a lawyer.

                    1. Strike your listed 1, 2 & 3 and substitute:

                      1. Jawboning the ref.

                      And only 1. Jawboning the ref.

            2. She’s a public relations professional. Her client is supposed to be the story. She’s not supposed to be the story. Minimalism on her part makes perfect sense.

      2. L2,…
        – Trump’s comment(s) about Rep. Maxine Waters followed Ms. Waters’ call to confront and harass members of the Trump administration.
        Under the circumstances, Trump’s response was not inappropriate.
        That kind of incitment in this kind of ( heated) political environment is stupid and unhinged.
        Calling Rep. “low IQ” would never meet the threshold of libel, because it was not an inaccurate observation.
        Rep. Waters keeps providing plenty of evidence to support the “low IQ” conclusion.
        She also seems to be slipping deeper into dementia. I’ve watched her interviews and statements over a period over 25 years….she seems determined to solidify her image as a person who is not exactly on an even keel.
        I know that some will claim that Trump’s comments were inappropriate, and there are previous comments he’s made that I considered inappropriate.
        But not in this particular case; Trump’s comments did not “come out of the blue”; there is a context, a background, and a clear provocation that prompted those comments.

    2. I have failed to see the byline anywhere that this claims to be a news site. I thought it was a legal blog, and gathering and weighing evidence is an integral part of that profession. That’s the mindset I bring here when I read Jon’s articles. Once more: there are a million ‘gotcha’ political sites, I have never confused this site for one of them.

      1. Maybe you should consider it a site that will throw out any hypothesis or conspiracy designed to rile up the base. Also, consider the major legal news of the last weeks which Turley hasn’t considered worthy. He’s said nothing about separating children from parents although the elimination of due process entirely was enough to get a tepid rise. See this site as purely partisan and less legal and you’ll be closer to the truth.

        1. Enigma, you lean far left so to you anyone that leans left of center becomes a right-winger. We discussed gerrymandering earlier and to you, anyone with a different opinion than yours must be a racist? I don’t know if that statement is completely true, but it frequently sounds that way. I am going to provide today’s editorial from the WSJ on this subject. The takeaway statement (for the lazy) is:

          “The four liberals who rejected North Carolina’s maps in Cooper dissented. Their opinion in effect is that racial gerrymandering is constitutional as long as liberals are doing it. ”


          Racial Gerrymanders Rebuked

          The Supreme Court calls foul on a voting-rights gambit in Texas.

          The Editorial BoardJune 25, 2018 7:09 p.m. ET
          But lo, liberal plaintiffs contended the new maps were still “tainted” by bias, and a three-judge panel last summer gave the state what amounted to an ultimatum: Redo the maps or we will. Texas sought relief from the High Court, which showed sympathy to most of the state’s claims.
          Writing for the majority, Samuel Alito explains that the Court has held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act commands states to provide minorities equal opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice. But the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also “forbids ‘racial gerrymandering,’” and prohibits “intentional ‘vote dilution.’” In other words, legislatures must consider race, but not too much.

          Texas hoped to satisfy this difficult balance by approving the lower court’s maps, which had substantially altered eight of Texas’s 36 Congressional districts and 21 state House districts. At that point, Justice Alito notes, the plaintiffs bore the burden of proof to demonstrate the legislature acted with discriminatory intent, which they could not.

          Shirley Connuck, of Falls Church, Va., holds up a sign representing a district in Texas, as the Supreme Court hears a case on possible partisan gerrymandering by state legislatures in Washington, D.C., on October 3, 2017. Photo: Tom Williams/Congressional Quarterly/Newscom via ZUMA Press
          Plaintiffs instead relied on a paint-by-numbers analysis to show that the maps packed in too many Latinos in some districts while diluting their votes in others. But redrawing the districts to comply with the plaintiffs’ demands could violate the Equal Protection Clause and Texas Constitution’s redistricting rules.

          Case in point was House District 90. The legislature at first tried to increase its Latino population by moving the predominantly black city Como out of the district. But after Como residents objected, the legislature reversed course, only to move more Latinos into the district after Latinos howled. While rejecting the plaintiffs’ other arguments, the majority invalidated this district because the legislature had used race as the predominant factor in its design.

          “A group that wants a State to create a district with a particular design may come to have an overly expansive understanding of what [Section 2] demands,” Justice Alito notes. But as the Court held last year in Cooper v. Harris, a “State may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless it has a compelling reason.”

          Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch would have gone further by holding that Section 2 does not apply to redistricting. The four liberals who rejected North Carolina’s maps in Cooper dissented. Their opinion in effect is that racial gerrymandering is constitutional as long as liberals are doing it. “

          1. “Their opinion in effect is that racial gerrymandering is constitutional as long as liberals are doing it.”

            This would be the WSJ Editorial Board’s opinion of SCOTUS opinion which is not necessarily the same thing. So lets look at what Scotus has done this week, they said the racial gerrymandering is illegal (don’t necessarily disagree) but allows partisan gerrymandering which is the same thing in reverse by looking the other way? Win Win for a partisan SCOTUS and Republicans. You must be proud.

            1. Enigma, I was pointing out that there are various opinions regarding gerrymandering and that not every opinion that deviates from yours is racist by definition which seems to be what you believe. I do agree with that sentence from the WSJ and I think that point was made by several of the Supreme Court Justices.

              No. The conservatives on the court didn’t think that partisan gerrymandering was good. The Liberal justices did. Why don’t you read the entire article instead of the lazy man’s version provided in one sentence before the article?

              A good thing about gerrymandering is that it can provide representation to groups like farmers. A bad thing is it can be used in a political nature.

              I am still waiting for you to tell us your ideas about how to protect the voting process. So far you have been mute only stating how racist everything is. The way to change things is not to bitch and moan about things that existed before but to provide sensible solutions so that bad things don’t happen again.

              1. You are conflating two (actually three) different decisions. Actually, none of the justices say “partisan gerrymandering is good” they didn’t say a damn thing about it voting 9-0 in two cases not to address it, letting lower court opinions stand. They were cowardly in my opinion to take no stand as Democracy itself is undermined. They voted 5-4 to turn down what they called racial gerrymandering in a complete reversal of the previous two decisions. I could agree with the third decisions if they had the balls to say the same thing in the first two.
                As far as what I would see changed, I would eliminate step by step the racial policies still in force. Until they are gone it will never be fair. You barely acknowledge that what is in place is unfair so seeking your agreement is a waste of time. Eliminate all gerrymandering, provide equal voting access, eliminate the electoral college and go with popular vote. Make limited SCOTUS terms, not lifetime. Televise all SCOTUS testimony and have them face the public and give press conferences and answer questions when rendering decisions.

Comments are closed.