A New York City education council meeting recent attracted national attention after one member of the council (and its past President), Robin Broshi, accused another member, Thomas Wrocklage, of racism after he was seen in a zoom meeting bouncing a black child on his lap. The video below is rather breathtaking but the incident has led to countervailing claims of racism and slander. As is often the case, we tend to jump on any novel torts claims and this is a good example of the tension between opinion and slander, particularly in such overheated (indeed radioactive) moments in public debates. It is unfortunately an increasingly common legal question in today’s rage-filled politics. The video of his meeting has now been shown throughout the world. However, it has some interesting elements as a pedagogical tool for understanding the underlying applicability of tort liability, or lack thereof.
THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The entire 4-hour council meeting is available but here are the highlights. It began with references to a prior “ugly” meeting and a call for more civil discourse by President Maud Maron who notes that “it is possible to condemn racism and at the same time to extend grace and compassion to the people who disappoint you.” That hope however is quickly dashed whenCouncil member Eric Goldberg denounces her “hollow” statement as “deny[ing her] culpability in creating an environment of division and divisiveness.”
That is when Broshi enters with a bang and refers to a letter campaign and adds:
“a member of this council was racist and I did nothing and I’m ashamed I did nothing and I can sit here during a public meeting and say I’m sorry, I made a mistake, I didn’t speak out verbally when multiple times during the meeting one of the members engaged in behavior that made me ache and hurt for the non-white people that were logged in.”
With that, the meeting was off to the races with allegations of racism and slander.
Ironically, it is Broshi who is then accused by Council Vice-President Edward Irizarry. Irizarry states:
“You, in your comfortable white world can tell us about how we ought to reach down and help the poor Latino, and help the poor black, condescendingly look at us as though we are inferior. Because never, do I see anyone, or any of these advocates, really in communion with these poor students that are not getting the education that they deserve… We don’t want handouts… Cosmetic diversity, that’s what you’re looking for, you’re not looking for true change. You’re not looking to really educate all of the people of this district.”
Broshi then denounces her own white supremacy:
“I want to apologize to you. I want to acknowledge that calling out the one vote was an example of white privilege and it was an example of trying to silence the legitimacy of your space on this council . . . . There’s work — everyone has work to do and I have work to do. I have 40 plus years of white supremacy I need to undo and that was unfair of me to make that point and I don’t want to silence your voice, and your voice has merit, Edward.”
It is then that it is clear that Wrocklage was being referenced as a racist earlier and denies the allegation but Broshi again refers to his “racist behavior” and his example of “white people exhibiting their power over people of color.” She further notes “if you won’t even read a book about white fragility . . . I can’t sit here in a working business meeting and educate you.” (This issue of the book was raised repeatedly: “Tom! I’ve explained it to you! You can Google, you could read a book!”. “Read Ibram X. Kendi! Read White Fragility! Read How to Talk to White People… It is not my job to educate you! You’re an educated white man! And you could read a book! And you can educate yourself!”).
Well you get the idea, but here is a clip:
This is the relevant transcript:
Morden: During our last meeting you were talking about someone’s friend on someone’s lap when there were actual kids who were saying there are racist acts in your school! Sad! You are sad! But today you want to talk about…
Broshi: Ben!…It hurts people when they see a white man bouncing a brown baby on their lap and they don’t know the context! That is harmful! It makes people cry! It makes people log out of our meeting! They don’t come here! They don’t come to our meetings! And they give me a hard time because I’m not vocal enough! And I’m not trying to be a martyr! I’m trying to illustrate to you that you think I’m a f**k–excuse me–you think I’m a social justice warrior! And you think I’m being patronizing and I’m getting pressure for not being enough of an advocate! And I take that to heart and that hurts me! And I have to learn to be a better white person!
Wrocklage: I would like to know before this meeting adjourns how having my friend’s nephew on my lap was hurtful to people and was racist. Can you please explain?
Broshi: Tom! I’ve explained it to you! You can Google–you can read a book! Read [inaudible]! Read White Fragility! Read How to Talk to White People! It’s not my job to educate you! You’re an educated white man! You could read a book and you could learn about it yourself!
Others then join in on attacking Wrocklage for having a black child on his lap. Emily Hellstrom joins in attacking Wrocklage and demands an apology:
“You had a smirk and a grin on your face when you pulled that child in… you in a joking tone, said ‘my living room is integrated right now’… as if, as if, the hundreds of years of first slavery and then segregation were nothing, would go poof, because you happened to have a black friend… So the fact that—and perhaps you didn’t intend it to be racist—and that does not matter, actually, was racist… You need to look deep inside and say ‘wow, I hurt a lot of people.’ Whether you intended to or not, you did.”
Wrocklage insisted “I was also laughing at the absurdity of the cognitive dissonance of people like you. People exactly like you, who are telling people of colour how they should feel. How absurd that is.”
However, Council member Shino Tanikawa also demanded an apology from Wrocklage:
“If you’re not willing to read then you’re not doing the work. And this is work we all have to do. And you can disagree with people but this is not an ideological difference. This is how black and indigenous people of color see the world. And it’s not for you and me—East Asian affluent person–to deny that reality. And we have to get on board, we have to understand what these people are telling us, we have to do the work, we have to get uncomfortable. But I don’t see some of you willing to do that uncomfortable work.
…When somebody tells you that you did something wrong, the first thing to do is reflect on that and then apologize, even if you don’t agree, you apologize… That is what grown-ups do.”
That is just a part of the meeting, but it raises a common question for meetings and protests where such allegations fly of racism and other forms of bias.
PRIVATE CITIZEN OR PUBLIC FIGURE?
The first step is to determine the status of these council members. Until this meeting became an international sensation, none of these individuals were high visibility individuals. However, they are council members who appear at public meetings, including current or former officers of the council. A claim could be made that they are all at least limited public figures, if not full public figures, due to their thrusting themselves into the public eye. There is however a claim to be made that participating in such public meetings should not cause a private citizen to trigger the higher burdens of being a public figure. This video has gone viral but, until it did so, this was a small educational council meeting with an open mike. That threshold issue could create some very interesting arguments over the tipping point for public figures.
This issue will turn on Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974) and its progeny of cases. The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” A limited-purpose public figure status applies if someone voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself” or allows himself to become part of a controversy “as a fulcrum to create public discussion.” Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979). Given the earlier controversy from the preceding meeting and the letter campaign referenced by Broshi, a court could find that Wrocklage is a limited public figure but there is a room for challenge on this point.
THE STANDARD
Under New York law, Wrocklage must show (1) a “defamatory statement of fact concerning the plaintiff; (2) publication to a third party; (3) fault [(actual malice for public figures)]; (4) falsity of the defamatory statement; and (5) special damages or per se accountability (defamatory on its face).” Biro v. Conde Nast, 883 F. Supp. 2d 441, 446 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Ironically, this is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written and he is precisely the type of plaintiff that the opinion was meant to deter. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, West must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.
THE ALLEGED DEFAMATION
At various points, it is clear that Wrocklage is being called an effective racist, which Wrocklage objects to as slander. There is no question that an allegation of racism is a serious matter but Broshi could challenge the basis for claiming a per se category of defamation. New York recognizes four categories: “statements (i) charging plaintiff with serious crime; (ii) that tend to injure another [plaintiff] in his . . . trade, business, or profession; (iii) that plaintiff has a loathsome disease; or (iv) imputing unchastity to a woman.” Liberman v. Gelstein, 605 N.E.2d 344, 347 (N.Y. 1992). This is not an allegation of a crime, but it certainly would injure the professional reputation of Wrocklage to be labeled a racist.
Yet, a defamatory statement “must do more than cause discomfort or affront”; it must lead “reasonable minds” to “think the speech attributes odious or despicable characterizations to its subject.” Chau v. Lewis, 771 F.3d 118, 127 (2d Cir. 2014). In this case there are countervailing statements that Wrocklage is being accused of acting like a racist rather than being a racist. For example, consider Broshi’s later comment:
“Integration is a system. Tom I don’t know what to tell you, I know you believe you did nothing wrong, but you have a 100 people that told you—I am not calling you racist… I’m saying that was racist behavior. . . We are all capable of racist behavior. I am capable of racist behavior… I owned up to it in this meeting! Right now, when I apologized to Edward… And we should apologize when we offend people of color! When they get upset. When they say this is a harmful space, when they log out of a meeting immediately because they see white people exhibiting their power over people of color… If you can’t even read a book about White Fragility or Ibrahim X. Kendi, I can’t sit here in a working business meeting and educate you about the distinction between interpersonal racism and systemic racism.”
For Wrocklage, the distinction between acting racist and being racist is a precious one. He is still being denounced as effectively or actually a racist.
That however leads to the next complication: opinion or hyperbole. The Supreme Court actually dealt with such an overheated council meeting in Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970), in which a newspaper was sued for using the word “blackmail” in connection to a real estate developer who was negotiating with the Greenbelt City Council to obtain zoning variances. The Court applied the actual malice standard and noted:
It is simply impossible to believe that a reader who reached the word “blackmail” in either article would not have understood exactly what was meant: It was Bresler’s public and wholly legal negotiating proposals that were being criticized. No reader could have thought that either the speakers at the meetings or the newspaper articles reporting their words were charging Bresler with the commission of a criminal offense. On the contrary, even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered Bresler’s negotiating position extremely unreasonable.
Of course, calling someone repeatedly a racist is more than simply “rhetorical hyperbole.” However, it is also part of a public debate that is heavily laden with protected political speech. If Broshi can be sued for defamation in making such an allegation, it could chill political speech at a time when the entire nation is focused on our continuing struggle with racism. This is her opinion of the actions of Wrocklage– an opinion that has been subjected to both worldwide criticism and support.
Yet, the Supreme Court has shown that there are limits to opinion as a defense as in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990). In that case, there was another inflammatory allegation stemming from a public meeting. An Ohio high school wrestling coach sued over an opinion column alleging that he had lied under oath at a public hearing, saying that it was tantamount to an allegation of perjury. The trial judge granted summary judgment on the ground that the assertion in the newspaper column was opinion. The Court however rejected the defense in the case in 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The Court noted that “expressions of ‘opinion’ may often imply an assertion of objective fact” and may inflict “as much damage to reputation” as factual claims. Moreover, some opinions are based on assertions that are “sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false.”
I would submit that calling someone a racist is not one of those facts easily “susceptible of being proved true or false.” Moreover, the risk to chilling political speech is too great, particularly when the meaning and systemic presence of racism is being debated throughout our society.
THE VERDICT
Thus, Wrocklage’s denouncing the slander is likely as rhetorical as the allegation of racism from a legal perspective. That does not excuse any of these attacks, but the recourse for Wrocklage is to engage his critics in the court of public opinion, as he has with a global audience.
Posting
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-neural-overlap-vision.html
so you can see the first pix.
Pelosi gets George Floyd’s name wrong…which democrat’s dementia is worse, Joke Biden, Nanny Peloosi, Pocahontas, Eccentric Emmet Sullivan or Obergruppenfuhrer Robert Mueller?
There’s a hole in your bucket, dear Lizza, dear Lizza…
There’s a hole in your bucket, dear Lizza, a hole.
Then fix it dear Georgie, dear Georgie, dear Georgie…
Then fix it you Commie, dear George fix it!
Is hydroxychloroquine beneficial for COVID-19 patients?
Does a bear sh!t in the woods?
Is Peter Shill batsh!t crazy?
😉
We have proposed that at the severe stage of SARS-CoV-2 infection, inflammation is critical and leads to tissue damage, especially in the lungs47. At this stage, suppressing inflammation is likely to have therapeutic benefits. We propose that the anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects of CQ and HCQ are the mechanisms of therapeutic effects that may be seen in COVID-19 patients at the severe stage. At this stage, through unknown mechanisms, large amount of cytokines are released and the patients develop cytokine release syndrome (CRS), or cytokine storm, an uncontrolled recruitment of immune cells and production of a unique combination of cytokines often in absence of T cells. These cytokines cause special type of ARDS within a very short period of time, requiring intubation and mechanical respiratory support47. This leads to severe damage to tissues of lungs, kidneys, and heart, and eventually results in a multiple organ dysfunction49. At this stage, CQ and HCQ treatment may be beneficial to reduce massive cytokine release by various immune cells through interfering with antigen processing and suppressing TLRs and cGAS-STING signaling. Such mechanisms provide support to the hypothesis that HCQ is likely to have the ability to control the CRS, by suppressing hyperactive immune responses and subsequently promoting tissue repair in COVID-19 patients (Fig. 1).
Li, X., Wang, Y., Agostinis, P. et al. Is hydroxychloroquine beneficial for COVID-19 patients?. Cell Death Dis 11, 512 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41419-020-2721-8
As above…..
….
Could HCQ and CQ have protective vascular effects in COVID-19 patients?
Vascular complications, including endothelium damage and vasculitis-like manifestations, are common traits in severe COVID-19 patients. In some patients vessel hyperplasia, vessel wall thickening, lumen stenosis accompanied by focal hemorrhage and thrombosis have been detected3. Conditions of severe vessel failure aggravate organ ischemia, tissue edema, and overall inflammation. This leads to the suggestion that SARS-CoV-2 may have a direct effect on endothelial cells (ECs), which also express ACE2 receptors. Such hypothesis is supported by findings showing that SARS-CoV-2 can indeed infect human blood vessel organoids50 and by post-mortem histological analysis of COVID-19 patient’s organs51 showing endothelitis and EC inflammatory cell death. These findings provide a strong rationale for the use of HCQ and CQ to alleviate these severe COVID-19 manifestations, since these drugs combine anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombosis21,52 and vascular protective effects21 (Fig. 2). We have previously shown that CQ has anti-angiogenic, tumor vessel normalizing properties in murine models of melanoma, without inducing EC death21. The EC effects induced by CQ included increased vessel barrier function, which alleviated tumor hypoxia. The vascular protective effects of HCQ and CQ, if validated, may be particularly relevant in patients with pre-existing diseases associated to vascular damage, like e.g. in diabetes, hypertension, and obesity.
Estovir, thanks for the nice article. I have been a supporter of HCQ and recognize the controvesy surrounding that treatment. This, however, is more of a review of what has already been studied with a recent date. Any new data coming out that adds promise to HCQ?
Allan, the review article is important for physicians in that it connects the possible utility of old drugs, more so CQ than HCQ, with endothelial cell damage, subsequent thrombosis and the role of the immune system (e.g. cytokine storm). Physicians don’t think in these terms because these ideas are fairly new. For example, atherosclerosis is still considered by most physicians as being caused by “bad cholesterol” / LDL. It is not. It is an inflammatory process. See: AHA article published in 2002:
Over the last dozen years, appreciation of the role of inflammation in atherosclerosis has burgeoned. Although it was formerly considered a bland lipid storage disease, substantial advances in basic and experimental science have illuminated the role of inflammation and the underlying cellular and molecular mechanisms that contribute to atherogenesis.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/hc0902.104353
The fact is we are only now understanding what occurs when it comes to stress (oxidative), injury, pathogen and toxin at the cellular level. We have a long ways to go before we understand what occurs at the molecular level. The article I provided is proposing HCQ/CQ for these mechanisms which is rather new.
To advance the science of understanding molecular mechanisms that cause disturbances at the cellular level which result in pathology require:
1. researchers / physicians who know the basic science which is continually evolving, e.g. immunology, cell biology, physiology, genetics, etc
2. researchers who have ongoing funding
3. researchers with physical labs that can conduct bench-top/pre-clinical research
4. researchers who are clinicians who can “translate” their bench-top science into clinical practice (aka translational medicine)
We returned from Mass a few hours ago and spoke to church friends who can not attend. Their daughter has Lupus who depends on HCQ. She has to be careful with her dosing but otherwise she is good to go because she knows how to take it. Same goes for physicians who have COVID-19 sick patients who are prescribed HCQ or CQ. The article furthers this important discussion.
if you are interested in understanding any of this and do more reading, search for the names Paul Ridker and Peter Libby with regard to atherosclerosis and inflammation. Their work has been pivotal and yet, there is still nothing we can give patients who have an inflammatory process at the cellular level that causes pathology like atherosclerosis. Throwing a lipid lowering agent doesn’t address the real issue….see
Antiinflammatory Therapy with Canakinumab for Atherosclerotic Disease
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1707914
Estovir, I understand review articles are important for physicians. Unfortunately politics has seeped into the prescribing habits of physicians so that the potential use of HCQ for Covid is reduced in physicians with a hatred of Trump and increased in those who love him. The news media hasn’t helped and wide swings in the medical literature that is released to the general public doesn’t help either.
I think on this subject a physician (medical personal) who is negative towards HCQ will lump any review into old data and completely reject it based on a prejudiced mindset.
I originally saw your blurb and thought I would send it to some in the medical field that had a leftist persuasion but as a review I felt it was not sufficient to carry any weight even though it is a good review to enhance understanding of some of the processes involved.
I fall in the more positive camp of those thinking about HCQ because of its history of use and a lack of adequate treatment.
Good for you Allan that you’re engaging this issue. I’m impressed you researched ApoB. The best patient is the informed patient and the hungry patient: one who wishes to learn
This sentence can be interpreted in different fashions
That sentence is also old. The article was published in 2002 and our understanding of the cellular and molecular mechanisms of atherosclerosis have thankfully evolved but we are not there yet. Refer to the CANTOS study (2017) to which I provided the link in my original response. Paradigms are shifting but they take time.
I don’t know what type of access you have to publications or online texts, but see if you can find videos geared towards physicians/medical students/residents/fellows in explaining this process in video. Stay away from instructional videos to other audiences like nurses and public health workers as they do not touch the nitty gritty science of this discussion. I find a great deal of beauty in medicine and enjoy this kind of discussion
My understanding is that originally high cholesterol was associated with cardiac risk. Therefore the treatment was to reduce total cholesterol with drugs that I think are now off the market.
cholesterol is associated with cardiac events, MI, stroke, ischemia, etc. Cholesterol has a role. Causation is not its place though. No drugs have been taken off of the market that reduce cholesterol. They are available: fibrates, niacin, resins, statins, derivations therein. However, statins are retained only because they appear to do more than just lower cholesterol particularly high intensity statins (Atorvastatin, Rosuvastatin, etc). Not all statins are alike. The other drugs lower cholesterol but there is no proof they lower mortality. So they are no longer used by knowledgeable physicians who keep up to date on these things as a mean to reduce mortality. Targeting cholesterol via statins is not enough though. Refer to the CANTOS study above.
Like the Catholic Church, thinking in medicine evolves slowly. The cholesterol hypothesis is very old, dating back to 1930s and not surprisingly finely tuned by Big Pharma so that they could push their statins. I was part of that movement in the 1990s. At the time we thought “bad cholesterol” was the causative agent to cardiac death. That was then, this is now. While cholesterol is still associated with atherosclerosis, it is far more complicated than the simplistic notion of “cholesterol causes heart attacks”. Cholesterol is synthesized by the liver. Statins inhibit that process. Thus lowering cholesterol via statins is actually inhibiting the cholesterol pathway that the liver must provide so that we can have cholesterol for endogenous physiological reasons. We need cholesterol to live. it is a precursor to Glucocorticoids, Mineralcorticoids and Sex Hormones. Cholesterol is also a key ingredient in cell membranes. Perhaps you have heard of the famous lipid bilayer discussion. Cholesterol is key in our tissues.
this article is fairly dense but it reviews our discussion
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK343489/
it has great images, it is recent (2019), it is free and goes into this discussion with exquisite detail. See what you think
Inflammation at the cellular level implicates many pathologies besides heart disease. COVID-19 we are learning also leads to mortality because of the molecular and cellular mechanisms involved in inflammation
Thanks for the chat.
ALL of us should have HOPED for good results from HCQ.
What kind of vile person would hope that we do NOT find something to save lives ?
The preliminary evidence requarding HCQ met the “first do no harm” standard.
It was cheap, plentiful, the risk profile was well known and the 1:1000 people at risk were easily identified.
HCQ use should have been widespread – until it was established that it was NOT beneficial.
One of the major problems with our response to C19 is that the left WANTED failure.
Their objective has been to destory as much and as many people as possible until someone can come up with a proven beyond a shadow of a doubt treatment.
John, please go FY. I have 2 dead relatives and a good friend in his 3rd week of it. Your s..t leader has completely failed his responsibilities, is causing deaths and the 2nd wave of closing the economy and all you can come up with is it is my fault for wishing it to happen.
“John, please go FY.”
Insults are not arguments.
“I have 2 dead relatives and a good friend in his 3rd week of it.”
And that is relevant how ?
“Your s..t leader has completely failed his responsibilities,”
I did not vote for him. Regardless, the federal government has a limited tole in public health. The president is not responsible.
“is causing deaths”
Thus far the only evidence of anyone “causing deaths” are blue state governors who have sent infected C19 patients into nursing homes.
To this moment there exists no evidence that any government policy choice of any government in the world has reduced the number of deaths.
“and the 2nd wave of closing the economy”
There is no 2nd wave. Hospitalizations have barely ticced up – which is to be expected as we reopen.
Deaths are not rising
“and all you can come up with is it is my fault for wishing it to happen.”
If you were among those ranting against HCQ – then yes you bear fault, and you are at the very least guilty of wishing things to get worse.
You are little different from the NYC women who said that she did not care if 2M died if that is what it took to get rid of Trump.
You have soiled yourself through the Trump presidency – you have latched onto the stupidest claims in the hopes of getting rid of Trump.
Your still arguing that Carter Page is a russian asset – after the FBI has confirmed he was a US asset working against the Russians.
As to HCQ – Dr. Diddier Roult had done decades of research on the combination of Chloroquines and antibiotics as a anti-virals.
There was good reason to try HCQ and Z against C19. It was safe except in rare and easily identifiable cases, it met the “do no harm” standard. If it was ineffective it would have cost us a pittance.
It should have been used heavily from the start based on the evidence available at the time.
Instead YOU engaged in a spitball contest over it, and its use was severely limited.
I do not know that the recent Ford study – or any of the several others supporting HCQ are correct. There are counter studies – though fewer.
It is still possible that HDQ + Z is ineffective. But what is absolutely clear today as well as 3 months ago, is there was good enough evidence to widely try it
If it is as effective as the Ford study claims – we would have saved about 30,000 lives.
This is one of very few examples of something that had a real possibility of working – and you fought it tooth and nail – all because Trump said something nice about it.
You have argued science and medicine – and it is clear you do not understand either.
You first problem is that you are completely clueless of the fact that we are each ultimately responsible for our own lifes.
And with few legitimate exceptions – government does nothing but interfere in that.
Why can’t you by HCQ OTC ? You can in most of the world ?
Why don’t I get to choose to use it and you get to choose not ?
Why must the decision be made by some government expert ?
If i am not infected – why can you restrict what I do ? Why can you close my job ? Require me to stay home, reuire me to wear a mask?
No one is preventing you from behaving as safely as you choose – why do you have the right to force your choices on others.
John, your accusing “Leftists” of wanting the virus to get worse – you understand that if true, wishing doesn’t actually impact events, right? – but now are insulted that I insulted you. GFY twice.
You ascribe many other positions to me in your typically diahhretic post which I have not taken, and then make your usual ideological arguments as controlling – no, crack pot libertarianism is not the law of the land, nor is it anywhere and never will be. We are social animals not a collection of unique individuals and as always throughout our long and successful history we act for and are protected by the group. If you don’t like it, GFY. The President, like all our elected officials, is primarily responsible for what he can do within the law to protect our safety and he has failed miserably and transparently by putting his ego before an intelligent response and in 4k color. If you missed it, he’ll do it again today, dollars to donuts.
PS Why would I take positions on the effectiveness of medicines – I am neither a doctor or pharmacist – because our ignoramus president chooses to? Only a fool would do that. Don;t take that the wrong way.
“John, your accusing “Leftists” of wanting the virus to get worse – you understand that if true, wishing doesn’t actually impact events, right? – but now are insulted that I insulted you. GFY twice.”
Correct – it does not influence events. But it does influence our judgment of their character.
Please explain the vitriole with which you and the rest of the left attacked HCQ ?
There were decade long efforts studying HCQ as an anti-viral with some success.
There was in vitro tests confirming HCQ would kill C19.
There was annecdotal evidence as well as published studies from China and South Korea.
While HCQ had not – and to my knowledge still has not met the gold standard – a large double blind clinical study,
they was plenty of SCIENTIFIC basis to conclude it was probably effective.
That is probably insufficient to justify using it absent a compelling need.
But it is more than sufficient to justify its use during an epodemic.
Yet democrats, the media and the left – instead of celebrating the possibiity that we might have something that was effective
Instead attacked it.
You claim to be – “scientific” – but you clearly are not.
You claim to rely on facts, logic, reason – but you clearly do not.
You shutdown the economy, and quarantined the country with no sound evidence of any benefit on the hope that it might help.
You deliberately did enormous amounts of foreseable damage in the HOPE of some possible good.
And at the same time you oppose a treatment that had very low and knowable risks and a reasonable probability of benefit.
You, the left, democrats are not rational, or scientific. You expect reality to bend to your ideology.
You engaged in a bunch of unproven efforts to fight HCQ that had no known effacacy but serious known harms and opposed those that actually had some probability of working and little risk.
You are religious zealots looking to impose your beliefs on other by force.
John – you mind if I call you Dufus? – I have never opposed HCQ or whatever it is. As I tried to explain to you once already, only a fool would get in an argument about medicines because our ignoramus president chose to. Why would I do that? I leave that to doctors, researchers, and pharmacists and neither you or I are one of those.
Carry on.
BTB your way of not opposing HCQ sure made it sound like you opposed it big time. Having trouble dealing with your contradictions?
“John – you mind if I call you Dufus?”
Do you mind if I call you Dingbat ?
“I As I tried to explain to you once already, only a fool would get in an argument about medicines”
Why would that be true ? I am very interested in my own health and the medicines I take.
If I get a recomendation for a doctor – I expect them to justiffy that recomendation, and i check it out myself.
To a large extent I am on my own determining what otc medicines I take. I am certainly on my own regarding vitamins and nutrition.
HCQ is OTC in most of the world. Even in the US it is sold as pool cleaner withous a perscription so you can certainly get it on your own.
So why exactly wouldn’t I be interested in information on medicines ? Why is it that I would be a “fool” to have a discussion about medicines with other people ? Possibly even an argument – where people disagree.
You are constantly spraying out pablum like this that sounds good on the surface – but clearly you have not thought through.
As to Trump – the left has claimed that Trump has failed to lead – and yet telling people that their might be some hope is precisely that – leading.
All your complaints about Trump are a self contradictory mess. Look at the attacks on his mt rushmore speach.
Absolutely it was dark and divisive – if you are a communist, or socialist. If you are in the mainstream of 75% of this country it was a pretty good speech. Maybe not the gettysburg address but certainly up to the standards of presidential 4th of july addresses.
But that is not what the left is saying.
As is typical – most of your criticism of Trump as self contradictory. The Mt. Rushmore speech was a celebration of this country. It was a call to americans to be proud of their country. It was an act of leadership into a better future. It was an effort to unify us behind our shared values.
Are those things you do not want ?
Arn’t those the very things you claim he does not do.
You claim Trump is divisive – by what ? Alienating communists ? And those who seek to tear the country down ?
What is it you think Trump should do ? Roll over to the far left ? To antifa ? to throw law enforcement under the bus ?
To throw the values of most americans out the window ? to celebrate looting and arson as peaceful protest ?
“because our ignoramus president chose to.”
Because you say so ?
“Why would I do that?”
Because whether you like it or not, you are ultimately responsible for your own life.
“I leave that to doctors, researchers, and pharmacists and neither you or I are one of those.”
And yet democratic politicians are dispensing medical advice all the time.
Seems like you have a double standard.
Regardless, I take responsibility for my own heath, and I am interested in information from whatever sources might interest me – including Trump. Your personal desire to remain ignorant and to abdicate responsibility to doctors and pharmacists gives you no right to limit the knowledge of the rest of us. Further should your reliance on them result either through action or inaction in harm to you – YOU are the one who will pay the price – not your doctor or pharmacist. You do not seem to grasp that it is completely impossible to escape the consequences in your on life of your decisions – including the decision to defer to others.
Another poorly thought out argument by BTB
Thwarting the wide spread use of HCQ based on the current start of evidence regarding its effectiveness likely cost 10’s of thousands of lives – so yes, there were real world consequences of your conduct.
I have pointed out repeatedly – that insult is not an argument.
That remains true.
But there are two problems with your idiotic efforts to “turn that arround”.
The first is that “feeling” insulted is not the same as using insults as argument.
Logical fallacies are not subjective.
An argument is not a fallacy because you FEEL insulted.
It is a fallacy because there is nothing to the argument EXCEPT insult.
If I say you are a pig – that is ad hominem.
If I say there is sufficient quality information to warrant voluntarily using HCQ and those that thwarted doing so may have killed tens of thousands of people – that is a valid argument. The fact that you are insulted is irrelevant.
If you are on the wrong side of the truth and the truth insults you and hurts your feelings – that does not make the truth fallacious.
Ad Hominem is not a valid argument that hurts your feelings.
It is the substitution of attack on the person for valid argument.
Your emotional response to a valid argument is your problem.
Your emotional response to a valid argument is your problem.
It is from their gospel by their leader Saul Alinsky. Surely you know this
Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals
“Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. ‘Have-Nots’ must build power from flesh and blood.”
“Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
“Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.”
“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
“Keep the pressure on.”
“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.”
“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
“If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside. Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.”
“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
And the reason that the left is thoroughly wigged out over Trump is that he is very effectively using Alinsky against them.
Never heard of Alinsky except by similar right wing “truisms” like John is here parroting. Never read a sentence he wrote, or know who he is, and I’ve been politically aware for 50+ years, at one time active in the CR movement.
John imagines another characteristic of those he wants to argue with and is wrong. Why not stick to the issue?
“Never heard of Alinsky”
Ever hear of wikipedia ?
You can get a copy on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Practical-Primer-Realistic/dp/0679721134
“except by similar right wing “truisms” like John is here parroting. Never read a sentence he wrote, or know who he is,”
I am absolutely certain that Obama not only knows who he is but has known for many decades
Hillary Clinton wrote a college Thesis on Alinsky.
Obama wrote an essay in a memorial for Alinsky
“and I’ve been politically aware for 50+ years,”
But aparently clueless.
As I have noted – Alunsky is primarily about political tactics. Though Alinsky and most who use his tactics are on the left.
The tactics are politically agnostic.
Part of what pisses the left off about Trump is that he very effectively uses many of alinsky’s tactics.
Alinsky’s rules do not tell you the principles of government. rules for radicals is not about ideology – it is about winning a political fight – by any means necescary.
Alinsky’s rules presume you are prepared to abandon morality so long as you can win. That the ends justify the means.
One of the problems with Alinsky’s rules is that while they are very effective if only one side follows than. If both sides do – we have the chaos we have today – that is because there is no moral foundations in Alinsky’s rules.
“John imagines another characteristic of those he wants to argue with and is wrong. Why not stick to the issue?”
I get to pick my own issues. Especially given that you have not actually raised any.
“Never heard of Alinsky except by similar right wing “truisms” like John is here parroting. Never read a sentence he wrote, or know who he is, and I’ve been politically aware for 50+ years,”
Nobody outside the right wing bubble has heard of Alinsky
Michelle Obama quoted him in one of her speeches. Barack Obama wrote an Essay about him for a memorial, Hillary Clinton wrote a thesis on him. Democratic underground recently praised Sanders for incorporating Alunsky’s tactics. One of Beto’s political advisors Slammed Alinsky as a moderate.
Are they part of the right wing bubble ?
Regardless you are correct that thanks to Trump Republicans are discovering and using Alinsky effectively against democrats.
Ignorance is supreme on the left.
I guess I’ll have to feel bad for the master of using Alinsky against people when he’s indicted on tax and insurance fraud charges then.
Watching you argue is fascinating, John. Whether it be blaming climate change on cosmic rays discovered in the early 1900’s but leaving alone entirely the issue of carbon released from combustion of fossil fuels, or stating flatly that the only factors that have any effect over CV 19 are diet and demographics…it’s really fun watching you argue internal causatives when that aligns with the political lens you frame your arguments, and then switching over to external causatives when that’s expedient to the type of political point you wish to make. What’s usually lacking in a big way is any sort of synthesis of belief…, maybe because that would be close to the ‘3rd way’ thinking made most popular by Bill Clinton?
And it’s really interesting watching the right trot out the old school ‘commie’ rhetoric when backing Trump speak (as if Trump wasn’t the most in the pocket Russian asset ever loosed on American politics).
Let me guess, you’re just a riot at a cocktail party, ay?
“I guess I’ll have to feel bad for the master of using Alinsky against people when he’s indicted on tax and insurance fraud charges then.”
Why should I beleive those who have been telling me that Trump is a Russian Asset ? Why should I beleive those who are afflicted with the collusion delusion ? We have heard all of this rot before.
You have been after Trump for 4 years. Thus far he looks less like a crook than when you started.
Meanwhile Biden looks more like one.
“Whether it be blaming climate change on cosmic rays discovered in the early 1900’s”
Where to begin ? The role of Cosmic rays in Cloud formation was not understood at all until the late 80’s and it was not confirmed by CERN until a few years ago.
There is no “blaming” here. do we “blame” gravity for tides ?
More warmist claptrap. Whatever the cause the earth has been warming for about 250 years. Climate has changed – often radically throughout the earth’s history.
“leaving alone entirely the issue of carbon released from combustion of fossil fuels”
Human releases of CO2 are a tiny fraction of the releases and absorbtions of the ocean.
US and EU emissions are dropping China’s emissions are greater than the EU and US combined – and then there is india’s.
Both india and China’s emissions are rising exponentially.
And yet atmostpheric CO2 as measured at Mona Loa have increased linearly at about 1.2ppm per year – without correlation to human CO2 emissions.
“stating flatly that the only factors that have any effect over CV 19 are diet and demographics”
The results of a study in europe.
Regardless if you can demonstrate evidence of some government policy effect – the entire world would love to see that evidence.
We are all looking for something that demonstrably works.
“really fun watching you argue internal causatives when that aligns with the political lens you frame your arguments, and then switching over to external causatives when that’s expedient to the type of political point you wish to make.”
Nope – just arguing the facts.
“What’s usually lacking in a big way is any sort of synthesis of belief”
I am libertarian – there is no ideology in existance with a proven track record of correlation with reality superior to libertarian or classical liberalism. As to synthesis – there is no ideology in the world as internally consistent either.
Internally and externally consistent – that is the gold standard.
Progressivism is both externally and internally inconsistent – and also fundimentally nihlistic.
“And it’s really interesting watching the right trot out the old school ‘commie’ rhetoric”
Well if the left was not trying so hard to revive marxism and socialism that would not be necescary.
Any pretense of the morality of socialism died in the 60’s as we got a glimpse of the evils of the USSR and PRC and others.
The 20th century should have put the concept of state egalitarianism to rest as a bloody bad idea permanently.
Or you could read the Gulag archepelego.
Do not try to revive is and there will be no need for “commie rhetoric”.
“when backing Trump speak”
The attacks on cultural marxism started long before Trump.
The marxist destruction of the academy was well understood almost a decade ago.
The evils of any form of marxism were understood 60 years ago.
First time I ever heard of Saul Alinsky was watching one of Dinesh D’Souza’s rabid documentaries by mistake. Soon after that he got indicted on campaign contribution violations I believe. Then he did some jail time i think.
“First time I ever heard of Saul Alinsky ”
Why would you confess to ignorance ?
Both Barack and Michelle Obama are familiar with him as is Sanders, Beto, and Clinton.
Trump is certainly familiar with him and using his tactics effectively – the same ones democrats use all the time.
Turn about is fair play.
“It is the substitution of attack on the person for valid argument.”
It’s the “comments” section of a blog, John.
If you don’t like personal attacks, then don’t be such a jerk.
This is not about what I like.
Lobbing personal insults IS being a jerk.
Pointing out that lobbing insults is not an argument is NOT being a jerk.
No one is stopping you from hurling insults – from being a jerk.
But you are not entitled to the respect or others, to be treated as if you have integrity is your comments are nothing more than unsupported insults.
HCQ w/Zinc, best I recall from late last week Rick of Pawn Stars show was on Mark Levin & they posted on Levin’s site a discarded prescription bottle of a type of HCQ that Obama was taking in 2008.
Rick bought the bottle from a cleaning lady that brought it into his store.
If HQC was widely available – I would be taking the appropriate prophylactic dose – which is quite low and safe.
The prophylactic dose is likely safe even in the 1:1000 that are at risk for problems.
If I had symptoms I would be taking the higher appropriate dose.
HCQ is routinely taken by people who travel to tropical countries.
I would not be surprised if Obama was being given it just as a result of his travels.
Despite the fact that there is evidence that many of the CDC and other recomendations may be innefective at preventing HCQ
if they are otherwise relatively safe – I am doing them anyway.
I am taking Vitamin D, and wearing a mask and sanitizing my hands.
I am not doing these because they are KNOWN effective, but because they have little cost and cause little harm and MIGHT reduce my risks.
I am doing so BY CHOICE.
I am taking Vitamin D, and wearing a mask and sanitizing my hands.
I am not doing these because they are KNOWN effective, but because they have little cost and cause little harm and MIGHT reduce my risks.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You should wear a mask to protect others, in case you become infected but don’t know it. Masks are effective if everybody wears one. Its a concept that Americans uniquely can’t grasp and as a result Americans have the worst outcomes from covid.
Do you believe that standard fencing will stop mosquitos coming in from your neighbors yard or do you think they will fly through the large spaces?
Americans don’t have the worst outcomes though Democratically run NYState and NYC are in the running.
“You should wear a mask to protect others, in case you become infected but don’t know it.”
There is no evidence that those who are infected by do not have symptoms spread C19.
“Masks are effective if everybody wears one.”
There is lots of conflicting evidence on Masks.
There are many actual studies that say their effects are minimal.
Further they are ineffective unless used properly and few people do.
And masks have health hazards of their own.
Regardless, masks are merely a delaying action – even doctors in hospitals with the best PPE with eventually get infected if they treat C19 patients long enough. Even a 95% effective rate means a 100% chance you get C19 eventually.
There is no cure for C19. There is no vaccine.
If you are not naturally immune or resistant, you have about an 80% chance of getting C19 eventually,
Engaging in myriads of protective measures only improves you long run odds if most other people DO NOT protect themselves.
If we were not brain dead we would want as many people under 45 to get this as possible – this is less dangerous for them than the flu,
We need to protect those about 45 even more so as age rises or as they have more health complications.
NOT everyone else.
“Its a concept that Americans uniquely can’t grasp”
Yes americans uniquely understand the concept of individual liberty.
“as a result Americans have the worst outcomes from covid.”
And yet they do not. Belgium, France, the UK, Spain and italy all have more deaths per million population.
Anon – your governor and friends are responsible for their health, not the President. BTW, if you really want someone to blame, blame the CCP, they are still hiding their vital statistics on the CCP Virus.
Paul, I eagerly await the President’s campaign ads denying his responsibility for our health. Perhaps you have missed his claims of great success in that “effort”.
BTB American Hating Commie, Ck with your Stats Guy! Last I seen a few days ago was around 42% of all the USA death claims of the Chicom Bio-Weapon, Covid 19, happened in only 3 states, MA, NJ, NY.
Why the outliers? Murder or Manslaughter Charges????
And the word is Bill Gate & his puppet Dr Fauci are now having trouble covering their Chicom C19 Bio-Weapon azzes. Their Sh*t pile is to big to cover.
The America Haters I see here are Oky. Mespo, Honest, and Kurtz. All ready to take up arms if the majority of Americans regain control of our country.
Why are you supporting people like Mr Nipple rings, Gov Como the Homo killing all those elderly people in nursing homes with Chicom C19?
Anon – I am offended that you left me off the list. Just to remind you, Hillary did not get a majority of eligible voters to vote for her. She got a majority of a minority. I am happy to fight against those odds
“The America Haters I see here are Oky. Mespo, Honest, and Kurtz. All ready to take up arms if the majority of Americans regain control of our country.”
Why is someone a “hater” just because you call them that ?
I am not very familiar with Oky, Mespo and Honest. I disagree with Kurtz on many things. He is wrong, not a hater.
All the hate i see here – comes from you. You almost never make valid arguments, your posts are solid ad hominem.
You are still clinging to the thoroughly debunked collusion delusion, you would rather see people die than see the possibility that something Trump suggests proves true.
As to the american people – on issue after issue – Trump is most closely aligned with their views.
62% of americans do not even want confederate statues torn down.
Support for a dreamers/wall deal is over 80% – only democrats are in the way of that.
Most americans want an end to endless wars.
Most americans want an end to the Obama american appology tour.
Most americans accept this country is exceptional.
Most black americans want more not less polifce.
Most americans are sympathetic to minorities and poor – but do not see evidence of systemic racism.
I can go on and on.
Most americans oppose the platform of the left and support what Trump has done.
I’m sure you could go on and on. You imagine the positions of your opponents – including their wishes – then make up arguments you want them to have made – I have never argued pro or con on HCQ. What would be the point of that since I am neither a doctor or pharmacist?
Have a good time, but maybe clean up and wash your hands when you’re done.
I”’m sure you could go on and on. You imagine the positions of your opponents – including their wishes – then make up arguments you want them to have made – ”
You replied to a post that asked a question – why are people haters just because you say they are ?
You have not addressed that. Regardless, it is clear that you are the one sure you know what your opponents think.
“I have never argued pro or con on HCQ.”
To use a leftist tactic against you – it you did not come out supporting it – then you must have opposed and therefore you are responsible for the deaths because we did not use it earily.
“What would be the point of that since I am neither a doctor or pharmacist?”
The point would be that you not your doctor or pharmacist are responsible for your life.
You do not seem to get this fundimentally – you seem to think it is perfectly fine for purported experts to make choices for you – with no input from you that will have life of death impact on you.
Whatever bro. I was busy all day but Im back for a few simple messages
a) forget about all this political debate aka trolling. waste of time
b) get fit, plant a garden, trim debt, organize the neighborhood watch. the chaos is 2 months into it almost and we are entering a ‘failed state” phase where law enforcement collapses
c) come end of july when the unemployment bonuses run out, prolly the bankruptcies will start choking the system, it will all get worse
d) Democrat National leadership & Biden team wants this campaign of national chaos, economic ruin, iconoclasm and anarchy, to harass and intimidate Trump voters.
What a hateful, awful, destructive cynical lot they are. They deserve retribution for what they’re doing to trash our home.
e) COVID is spiking in big cities because the 100% Democrat mayors all FAILED to restrict illegal protests by BLM which should never have happened but they let them rip
now they blame Trump as if he was out there looting, burning, and terrorizing law abiding citizens, and personally spreading the COVID himself!
SO yeah I hate the people ruining my home.
“America” is the name of my home where I was born. But it is NOT an “IDEOLOGICAL CONSTRUCT” it is a place where people live.,
it is home for people of living flesh and bone.
Folks, get organized fast, make sure you have a team because only people will save your life in the end not any phony “ideals”
I fully expect Trump to run campaign adds claiming to have been a great leader fighting C19.
Just as I expect Cuomo to do the same, and Biden to claim he would have done better.
Politicians are narcissists and lie – what is new.
Two things actually matter:
What is true – Trump was ineffective, all world leaders were ineffective, there was very little Trump could have done. Trump errored in passing a stupid aid bill that will burden us for decades.
Cuomo is morally responsible for the death of many thousands of people in nursing homes. Bidden would have done worse than Trump but it would not matter because the virus would not have cared. As many people would have gotten sick and died, And the economic harm would have been larger.
The other thing that matters is what voters believe. Just short of 90% of republicans are going to support Trump. One of the reasons they are going to do so is that the left and the media and democrats have lied about Trump so much, they no longer listen to them.
Trump could be caught diddling a 13yr old in the oval office by Barr and Trump voters would beleive it was a plot by the deep state.
While they would be wrong, they would almost be justified – because we really do have a broad conspiracy by the “deep state” to get Trump, as well as an insane media and wacky left.
About 50% of the left is going to vote against Trump – because “orange man bad”. They are immune to rationality. These are people who still beleive that Carter Page was a russian agent, and that if only they could get Trump’s taxes or whatever the current shiny thing being waived in their face that they would have enough proof that everyone would have to beleive their hairbrained theories.
Regardless, no one is disuading those voters.
Yes and yes!
Criminal U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan is doing his best to protect the criminal Obama.
“Obama’s henchmen knew there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and, under oath, behind closed doors, they told the House Intelligence Committee so, yet the lie they let loose kept running. Flynn was a marked man from the moment Obama fired him as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014, ostensibly for “insubordination.” Really, it was because Flynn, the most effective intelligence officer of his generation, had embarrassed Obama by refusing to go along with the “big lie” that the Islamist enemy was defeated. In 2014, after Obama dismissed ISIS as a terrorist “JV team,” Flynn warned the Senate Armed Services Committee that the jihadist group was a growing threat. He was fired soon afterward. “Frankly, at the White House, it didn’t meet the narrative,” he later told the New York Times. Obama held onto his grudge against Flynn, a war hero in Iraq and Afghanistan, the man who, with another heroic general fired by Obama, Stan McChrystal, is credited with saving America from half a dozen terrorist attacks. After Trump won the 2016 election, Obama went to the trouble repeatedly of warning him not to hire Flynn as his national security adviser.”
– New York Post
_____________
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious criminal act in American political history.
The co-conspirators are:
Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann, Comey,
Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr,
Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele, Simpson,
Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry,
Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,
Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
James E. Boasberg et al.
George – as Sidney Powell says, the longer this takes, the more Brady material they owe me.
Important findings though predictable.
Being pleasantly plump looks cute in Rembrandt paintings but there are many costs to pay for being obese. Now there is one more:
Clinical epidemiological analyses of overweight/obesity and abnormal liver function contributing to prolonged hospitalization in patients infected with COVID-19
The expression of ACE2 is enriched in adipocyte and cholangiocytes. With large amounts of ACE2-expressing cells, people with overweight/obesity will be more vulnerable to COVID-19 and more of its pathogen, and thus they might be easy to spread the disease and hard to recover.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-020-0634-3
I hope PCSchulteacher reads this.
Professor Turley Quoted In Story About Bannon’s Testimony On Stone
Former White House strategist Steve Bannon gave sharply contradictory accounts under oath of his discussions with convicted felon Roger Stone about WikiLeaks, a review of official records by The Post shows.
On Jan 16, 2018 — roughly five months after he left the White House – Bannon told members of the House Intelligence Committee repeatedly that he and political operative Stone had never discussed WikiLeaks or its boss Julian Assange at any time during their relationship. The testimony, part of Rep. Adam Schiff’s Russia Investigation, was declassified and made public on May 7.
Bannon, 66, the former chairman of Breitbart News and CEO of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, said exactly the opposite on Nov 8, 2019.
He was called as a witness for the prosecution in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s case against Roger Stone, who was charged with lying to Congress about his role in the WikiLeaks scandal, in which Democratic party emails hacked by the Russians and harmful to Hillary Clinton’s campaign were published. Stone has always denied involvement.
Under questioning from Department of Justice prosecutor Michael Marando, Bannon bluntly said that Stone had in fact discussed Assange and WikiLeaks with him before Bannon took over Trump’s campaign in August 2016, according to a transcript of Bannon’s trial testimony.
“There does appear a glaring and irreconcilable conflict in what Bannon stated in testimony before Congress and the court. What is striking is that this was not a peripheral point but one of the main areas of inquiry,” said Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School who testified during President Trump’s impeachment hearings.
“He has two diametrically opposite sworn statements in a high-profile controversy with dozens of attorneys in attendance,” Turley told The Post.
Edited from: “Steve Bannon Flip-Flopped On Roger Stone’s Wikileaks Connection Under Oath
The New Yorl Post, 5/16/20
This is an accurate account of Roger Stone’s “importance.”
The entire DNC email thing has collapsed.
Mueller as well as the house and senate intel committees dug into this.
CrowdStrike TESTIFIED that:
It had no idea who actually hacked the DNC.
It could not even say that the DNC emails were acquired as a result of hacking.
Mueller beat the crap out of Stone Credico, Corsi.
What he found was that Stone had no actually knowledge of anything related to wikileaks
That his “Back Channel” Credico was not forwarding Assange requests to Wikileaks nor Telling Stone anything about Wikileaks,
and that nobody had any actual forekinowledge of anything from wikileaks.
Stone is a BS artist. There are myriads of them right and left. Most of us find them unappealing if not reprehensible.
But stone committed no crimes.
Minor innaccuracies in testimony are irrelevant.
Finally the really big lesson from this entire fiasco is that we should not criminalize politics.
Clinton’s games with Steele and Fusion GPS and the Russians are despicable, but they are not criminal.
They are politics.
Trump’s hopes that Natalia might provide useful dirt on Clinton are no different.
Nothing Stone did was a crime.
Hacking the DNC was a crime – but we do not know who actualy did that. And we do not know that the DNC emails were hacked rather than leaked. The left and press have made a big deal of this – because conspiracy to hack the DNC is a crime.
But leaking DNC emails is merely a firing offense.
Regardless the emails were damning to clinton and the DNC.
They were damning because the DNC and the press conspired to screw sanders and they were caught.
The way to not be embarrassed by leaked emails is to not conspire to screw Sanders.
If you do your job ethically and morally you have little to fear from hackers.
““The Committee found that specific intelligence as well as open source assessments support the assessment that President Putin approved and directed aspects of this influence campaign.”
Ignorant and laughable.
That Putin approved of influence is no proof that the DNC computers were hacked or weren’t hacked. The writer of the article was the company that needed to be looked into, Crowdstrike, but they wouldn’t let the FBI investigate.
This wouldn’t pass for 6th grade analysis.
The GOP majority Committee is who is being quoted. I suppose they were part of the Deep State too.
Being a cult follower while pretending to still have a brain can be tricky Allan and you’re not doing well with it.
Republicans and myself say Putin has tried to involve Russia in American politics. That doesn’t mean that Russia hacked the DNC files. Only stupid people can’t recognize that there are no direct facts linking Russia to a DNC hack. It is not even known if the theDNC files were hacked and IMO the most likely probability is that they were leaked by DNC employees.
Your comments are ignorant and laughable.
It is possible that Russia hacked the DNC.
But it is far from established.
But the problem here is bigger than that.
The collusion delusion requires ever one of several dependent assumptions to be true.
If the DNC hack was not russia – there can be no improper collusion with Russia.
If there was no foreknowledge of the Wikileaks email releases – no collusion
If Carter page was not a russian agent – no collusion.
If there are no direct ties between the Trump campaign and Russia – no collsion.
If Russia did not favor Trump – no collusion.
Knock one leg out and the whole mess collapses.
The claim that Russia hacked the DNC is the STRONGEST leg – and it is unable to bear the weight of the collusion delusion.
At what point do those on the left finally give up and admit – this was a fraud from the start, and they were duped.
The conclusion you quote does NOT assert what you claim.
It makes the OBVIOUS finding that Russia tried to influence the election – as they have for 50 years.
As the US has other elections.
It did NOT find that Russia favored Trump.
It did NOT find that Russia hacked the DNC.
Regardless – had it done so – like the Faux IC committee – it would have been wrong.
You seem to think that those who disagree with you think Republicans can never be wrong.
That is nonsense.
I oppose the crapulous – that both parties bought into. I opposed the Iraq war at the time – because you can not engage in preemptive war.
And I am still not a republican. or a conservative, or a trump supporter.
I am just not a delusional trump hater as you are.
Not a single shred of hard verifiable data has been presented to back up the CIA/NSA claims that Russians hacked the DNC servers.
Mueller’s prosecutors have been unable to provide any evidence to the Court in the pre-trial proceedings against the 13 Russians, and they had to drop the FB allegations because FB clearly stated that the ads were bought after the election.
Instead of Parroting DNC talking points, you should actually do a little research.
The entire Russiagate fiasco was nothing more than a Snipe hunt, and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker..
Amen
L.A. TIMES COVERAGE OF BANNON’S TESTIMONY AT STONE TRIAL
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-11-08/steve-bannon-roger-stone-trump-campaign-wikileaks
Pelosi gets George Floyd’s name wrong…which democrat’s dementia is worse, Joke Biden, Nanny Pelosi, Pocahontas, Eccentric Emmet Sullivan or Obergruppenfuhrer Robert Mueller?
Idiot Trump says shoot up Lysol, the virus will go away-it will be a miracle, take your pick; a slip of the tongue Pelosi or Blithering Idiot Trump.
A first decisive attack on the Double Standard.
Everyone around Hillary was immunized.
Everyone around Trump was persecuted &/or prosecuted.
Hillary was guilty. Trump was innocent.
The commutation was justice. @RudyGiuliani
Truth, brother.
Joe Demented Biden is the “Blithering Idiot”
Trump 2020 ALL THE WAY, baby. And when Trump wins (again) Pelosi retires.
Pelosi gets George Floyd’s name wrong…which democrat’s dementia is worse, Joke Biden, Nanny Pelosi, Pocahontas, Eccentric Emmet Sullivan or Obergruppenfuhrer Robert Mueller?
When one talks about corruption one is talking about the democrat party, Clinton, Obama etc. Lawfare doesn’t bother with the details. It appeals to minds that need to be told what to think.
Roger Stone????
Trump gladly welcomes anything not related to Covid-19 or the protests — particularly if it’s the Russia Hoax — which caused increases in his approval rating. Just saying.
Steve, really?? What’s Trump’s approval rating ‘now’?? 38% was the last number I heard.
July 10 2020 Trump approval 45%
July 10 2012 Obama approval 45%
Rasmussen
The embedded video of the Council is tour de force of sorts. In my 50+ years as a labor and employment attorney I have been in intense negotiations with many unions as the principal spokesman for F.W. Woolworth, including the Teamsters both in NYC and Chicago, the Longshoremen in SFO, and others all throughout the nation. In those situations the employee bargaining committees were diverse in composition, all races and sexes, with a wide span of degrees of education and experience, and feelings often ran very high. There were strikes in some, one Teamster strike that lasted six weeks, and there was violence on picket lines, but not at the bargaining table. In the hundreds of meetings in which I participated I never once faced conduct even approaching that shown by some Council members, persons I presume to be “educated” individuals. They were, simply put, unhinged. The video clip depicts the polar opposite of reasoned discourse, and the offending council members’ conduct is inexcusable. They are probably too obtuse to recognize the error of their ways, an inbred condition probably caused by the lack of diversity of ideologies in their learning process.
Legal issues aside, the Council members should be made to wear dunce caps as they write on blackboards, in cursive of course, “I will comport myself in a reasonable manner at all future Council meetings.”
Union threats and strikes are an unacceptable abomination in a society of laws and in America under the Constitution. The only negotiation with labor would be to require members to perform assigned duties or vacate the premises. Labor law is unconstitutional. Congress can only modify the right to private property through the amendment process. The “help” cannot “claim or exercise dominion over” the private property of the owner. All workers enjoy a right to strike. All owners of private property enjoy a right to fire strikers and hire replacement workers. Unions have no authority over private property, the right to which is unqualified by the Constitution and, therefore, absolute. Union violence, whether at the “negotiating table” or elsewhere, constitutes criminal acts and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
You arrive at “agreements” based on criminal violence…and you keep a straight face. Are sane and rational Americans, existing under the dominion of the Constitution, supposed to take your words seriously? The only actual negotiation which could possibly be estimated to be legitimate in the aforementioned scenario would resolve merely the prison where the union thugs would prefer incarceration. Can you name one American Founder who was a “union” advocate, leader, activist or zealot? For substantial remuneration, you negotiate with criminals who are violent communists and subvert and effectively nullify the U.S. Constitution. You enable. Congratulations, comrade.
__________________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
You had serious objects in those labor negotiations. This woman had no serious objects. To meltdown is the whole point.
Do you mind if I steal your dunce cap idea for the next meeting? I guess I’ll have to figure out how to do it virtually.
Payoffs are rarely this obvious.
Political vendettas on the part of Justice Department personnel have been obvious throughout. You’ve defended every one. Because dishonorable.
I have watched the Tucker Carlson program. The segments on the protests have been clueless. Along that note……..
Forbes — 1 hour ago — “Tucker Carlson’s Top Writer Resigned Over Secretive Racist Remarks. Here’s How He Was Exposed.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/07/11/tucker-carlsons-top-writer-resigned-over-secretive-racist-remarks-heres-how-he-was-exposed/#738e461861b3
SteveJ, Carlson is the a..hole who helped sell the Iraq War for W and now is questioning the patriotism of a woman who left 2 legs there serving in the military. What else would we expect from dirt like this?
I heard about Duckworth. That was pretty recent. On the Iraq war, Carlson said it was a major mistake.
Carlson supported the war for over a year on national TV. His later admitting this was a mistake is irrelevant to the fact that he was a cause of the war which ended up costing Duckworth her legs. He’s an a..hole who should STFU about the patriotism of others.
“he was a cause of the war”
Laughable and ignorant.
Supporting the war on national TV for over a year as it was being debated ranks as causing the war. Dollars to donuts, most of you righties here supported it too, if not on national TV. In 10 years you’ll be pretending you didn’t support Trump either.
Just because you are a hypocrite doesn’t mean everyone else is. Your use of multiple aliases along document your hypocricy even if you choose not to remember all of your conflicts. I respect people that are able to change their minds with sincerity.
You are laughable and ignorant.
“Supporting the war on national TV for over a year as it was being debated ranks as causing the war.”
No, VOTING for the war ranks as causing the war. 3/4 of the senate including 1/2 of democrats voted for it.
2/3 of the house including a large number of democrats voted for it.
I have heard none of those admit error as Carson has.
At the time I did NOT support the war against Iraq (I did support the war against Afghanistan), Bush’s premptive war doctrine was WRONG.
I absolutely and fully supported getting rid of Sadam Husean – but not by invading a country that had not committed an act of war against the US.
When we voted to go to war – as any patriotic american I supported our troops and hoped for the best.
“Dollars to donuts, most of you righties here supported it too, if not on national TV.”
I am sure many “righties” did – as did many lefties. if support for the Iraq war is the test – the overwhelming majority of americans on both sides FAILED. Only most libertarains consistently opposed the war in Iraq.
Democratic support for Iraq did not melt away until it was clearly going badly.
“In 10 years you’ll be pretending you didn’t support Trump either.”
What does this even mean ? I do not support Trump now. I did not vote for him.
But Just like when Obama was elected – I want to see him succeed as president – because I want to see the country succeed.
Further – if you put a gun to my head and said I must pick Trump, Obama, Biden, or Clinton.
There is only one possible outcome – Trump. He is the least bad choice of the 4.
Finally, I do not expect perfection in our political leaders – whether I voted for them or not.
Trump is not perfect. He has done many things wrong.
But most of those he has been LESS wrong than Biden or Obama or Clinton.
He has also gotten many things right.
Absent a change 10 years from now I expect that those supporting Trump will be marched through town squares with signs arround there necks saying Capitalist roader and racist. while forced to make public confessions, before being marched to the gulags to die.
I expect mt rushmore to be wiped clean, and all traces of the american revolution to be obliterated.
As we sing the anthem of the people’s republic of Wakanda.
And I expect you will be caring the pitch forks.
The AUMF passed 296-133 in the house and 77-23 in the senate.
Anon – Duckworth was a member of the IL National Guard (Sleep Well Tonight, We Sure Will) and her unit was deployed. It happens.
The vast majority of this country supported the war at the time.
The vast majority of people now claiming the war was wrong, have never admitted to being mistaken,
The left pretends that they were lied to about the Nigerian yellow cake.
But we all understood that was a pretext.
I opposed invading Iraq at the time – whether they were building WMD’s or not – just as I would oppose invaliding Iran or NK just because they are building WMD’s.
The Bush concept of preemptive war is immoral. Yet the majority of this country endorsed it 0 democrats and republicans alike.
The war with afghanistan was justified – the Taliban provided protection and material assistance to Al Queda. We should have destroyed the Taliban and left. Nation building was something Bush ran AGAINST. It is not the role of the US.
Iraq under Sadam was evil, But absent an act of war we were not justified in invading.
What is right and what is wrong is not determined by our personal feelings about people.
Bush – and those in congress who authorized the invasion of Iraq were morally wrong. That Sadam was a bad man is irrelevant. That they were “wink, wink, nod, nod” lied to is irelevant. Sadam had not committed an act of war.
This is no different from the presumption by those on the left that Trump is a criminal because they do not like him or his policies.
The collusion delusion has proven a FRAUD. It there was any justification of investigations into Trump at all, those justifications did not survive a cursory investigation – yet the investigations continued after the justifications were found fraudulent. ‘
That is an actual crime, and actual abuse of power. Our government may not investigate people because it wants to.
The problem with those on the left is they have no moral foundations.
Just because someone lost two legs in a war doesn’t make them “patriotic.” They get no free pass to be a traitor to their country, for example, or to commit crime. Not saying Duckworth did either thing, but the idea that someone can’t be questioned at all (regarding patriotism or anything else) because of a disability is no different than saying they can’t be questioned because of race or anything else.
DV, just because someone presumes to be a judge of the patriotism of others doesn’t make them so or even patriotic themselves, especially when they were responsible for a war which cost the legs of the person he now says was not. I think we can see that in this case frat boy Carlson has inappropriate respect for our military members who don’t agree with him.
He’s a douche bag.
Ignorant and laughable.
Carlson is a leading voice trying to stop US involvement using troops as a form of foreign policy. He admits to a mistake which is understandable but you have advocated placing or keeping troops where Americans get killed and where such involvement can lead to greater involvement even where there was no existential threat to the US.
Duckworth’s legs were lost but you don’t care about the legs of others as long as you can bash Donald J. Trump who will be reelected in 2020.
You are a hypocrite
Carlson has admitted his mistake on the War,
Very few people especially on the left admit they supported the war.
Even when there is plenty of public evidence.
As do Duckworth – I can respect her past and still grasp that her criticism of Trump’s mt. Rushmore speech is bat $h!t crazy.
Rep. Rangle was a genuine US war hero in Korea. He was part of the Battle of Chosen, and I beleive on the east side.
Those fighting on the east of Chosen had a 100% casualty rate – everyone was killed or wounded. They were outnumbered more than 10:1, they were overrun multiple times, and yet they still managed an organized retreat. The wounded fighting against overwhelming odds to bring even more badly wounded home.
That does not alter the fact that Rangle as a congressmen was corrupt.
Duke Cunningham was also an american hero, and also a corrupt congressmen.
We should give those who have sacrificed for the country the benefit of the doubt – not willful blindness.
Which section of the Constitution was violated? Was it the one granting freedom of speech or the one which assured that “…the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people?” Please cite the constitutional section wherein opinions are proscribed. Where in the Constitution are superior rights and privileges granted to hyphenates?
I don’t see that there was any Constitutional violation — by anybody. He’s certainly free to resign if he wants to. I doubt Carlson had to ask for it.
Remarks are free speech. “Racism” is a contrived and false accusation against free speech. If speech is free, who gives a —- what he said?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc8hLVTqtOU
And then there are Bill and Hillary Clinton:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bill+clinton+uses+n+word&docid=608036471290003982&mid=9C9C549DE025465DD08D9C9C549DE025465DD08D&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
And DeSean Jackson with Minister Louie Louie Farrakhan:
I don’t think this guy was censored from any of the blogs he was posting on. And he’s free to say whatever he wants without getting arrested by the government.
Yes, yes, free speech is a wonderful mechanism. Same with the disinfecting power of light and transparency. We all know hatred when we see it, it’s tiresome to keep being asked to believe that’s it’s hatred done in love.
I was blocked on Twitter – which I would argue is now a public forum – by elected officials so that they could slander me with impunity. Does that work?
What was the Twit that caused you to be blocked?
A brilliant comment/question by Allan. /sarc
lol
Take some time, buddy. Step away from your keyboard. Leave the blog for a few days. Detox. You need help.
Should have said tweet because the tweets were likely outside of whatever immunity the state offers these groups.
I said Twit because you have littered the net with your Stupid comments, Brainless. You sound like the woman in the video yelling at Wrocklage. She didn’t seem to make any sense. Is she related to you?
Probably best to contact Professor Turley and stop commenting…
There were a lot of cites in that article. Read the case law.
“The segments on the protests have been clueless.”
IOW, they were dead on.
You gave that away by your complete inability to clearly explain why in your opinion they were “clueless”.
Which makes you the one who is completely clueless, or a propagandist spreading falsehoods.
You were looking for a clue and came up empty. That is itself a clue and one you are never going to understand.
REGARDING ABOVE:
I find it highly significant that Professor Turley didn’t address this topic today. He apparently doesn’t want to go on record expressing his opinion.
JT addressed it in a column in The Hill today – his twitter page links it. Predictably he minimizes Trump’s sleazy corruptness and pretends many presidents have done the same. He ignores the fact that Stone was convicted of lying to Congress about Trump’s knowledge of Wikileaks through him, something Trump almost certainly lied to Mueller about and thus directly protecting the guy protecting him. That has not happened before, but of course JT is only a law professor and not expected to grasp these subtle points.
Anyone else have the feeling that in drag Robin Broshi is btb?
something Trump almost certainly lied to Mueller
Thanks for the issue of your imagination. Always an education.
It’s bad, It’s terrible. But they never leave.
They never leave.
They keep on comin’.
They never leave.
https://twitter.com/Doranimated/status/1281625111834107904
Did the young lady’s vocalization in the link include Feminazi White Shirts?
A public demonstration like this meeting should clarify to reasonable men, why people of color are disgusted by having any of their affairs in the hands of liberal whites. Malcolm X knew it and Conservative and rational people know the same frustration and disgust..they insist on holding power and are peculiarly unfit to have it. They really need to stop electing these shallow morons to rule over them.
Your use of the phrase “people of color” is an acknowledgement that colored people can never assimilate in America. Moses had the Israelite slaves out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers. Oil and water cannot mix and require emulsifiers to force temporary and false commingling. In America the political emulsifiers are wholly unconstitutional generational welfare, affirmative action privilege, forced busing, quotas, unfair Fair Housing, discriminatory Non-Discrimination, social services, minimum wage, public housing, TANF, WIC, HAMP, HARP, Obamacare, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
The profound irony is that “Crazy Abe” Lincoln told us so:
“One of Lincoln’s most representative public statements on the question of racial relations was given in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857.6 In this address, he explained why he opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would have admitted Kansas into the Union as a slave state:
‘There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas …’
“Racial separation, Lincoln went on to say, “must be effected by colonization” of the country’s Blacks to a foreign land. “The enterprise is a difficult one,” he acknowledged,
‘but “where there is a will there is a way,” and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.'”
It’s not just “liberal whites”…just check out the Asian lady with short white hair. The madness on display is epic. We should all wake up to the danger, myself included.
Agreed.