Thirty years after the late D.C. Mayor Marion Barry’s famous statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that a Salon owner set her up in an embarrassing incident where Pelosi was shown not just violating San Francisco’s pandemic laws in getting her hair done but not wearing a mask while doing it. Pelosi refused to take responsibility for the violation (including the failure to wear a mask) and, in the tape below, only took responsibility to “failing for a set up.” She added “I think that this salon owes me an apology, for setting me up.” The Salon owner, Erica Kious, has stated that she expects to close eSalon after receiving a torrent of death threats and hostile massages after Pelosi’s allegation. The question is whether she could actually sue for defamation.
Speaker Pelosi has previously used the eSalon, according to Kious, and was shown below on Monday getting her hair down despite a ban on salons for such appointments.
While not addressing her failure to wear a mask, Pelosi publicly attacked the Salon.
Pelosi’s lawyer Matthew Soleimanpour further made damaging statements about Kious: “The fact that Ms. Kious is now objecting to Speaker Pelosi’s presence at eSalon, and from a simple surface-level review of Ms. Kious’ political leanings, it appears Ms. Kious is furthering a set-up of Speaker Pelosi for her own vain aspirations.”
Carla Marinucci, a senior Politico reporter covering California, made her own veiled allegation in suggesting that the tape itself might be illegal: “Have to ask upon seeing this: Is it legal in CA — a ‘two party consent’ state — to videotape someone in a private home or business without their consent?” That reference to the politics of the owner further suggests an improper political hit job.
Marinucci’s question is not defamatory, though it is curious that the focus was on the legality of having the security camera footage as opposed to Pelosi’s conduct.
The incident was reminiscent of Chicago’s mayor, Lori Lightfoot, getting a haircut after warning Chicagoans that they cannot go to barbers or salons in a mocking tone. For Pelosi, the incident was particularly embarrassing after just blasting President Donald Trump for setting a “bad example”in allowing people to gather for his nomination acceptance speech without masks or social distancing. Pelosi was also previously criticized when the pandemic was unfolding for calling people to Chinatown in San Francisco to demonstrate.
In this case, Pelosi is suggesting that she might have been defamed or shown in a false light by being set up while Kious could claim to have been defamed due to the allegation of a politically motivate set up. In liberal San Francisco, such an allegation is particularly deadly for a business. A hair cut is certainly not in the league of using crack with Marion Barry. Yet, in San Francisco it may be worse to be accused of enabling a Republican attack on Nancy Pelosi than enabling a crack session with her.
Kious is likely a public figure under 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). Her status as a salon owner alone would not trigger this status but her releasing the video and doing an interview on Fox would make her a public figure of limited public figure.
Pelosi is obviously a public figure. Indeed, arguably the third highest public official in the United States as third in line for the presidency.
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 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. 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” by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures.
California recognizes categories of per se defamation including alleging (1) a criminal offense; (2) a loathsome disease; (3) matter incompatible with his or her business, trade, profession, or office; or (4) serious sexual misconduct. See Cal. Civ. Code § 45a; Yow v. National Enquirer, Inc. 550 F.Supp.2d 1179, 1183 (E.D. Cal. 2008).
In the very least, Kious has been accused of a matter “incompatible with business, trade, profession, or office. Pelosi has also been accused for such misconduct. (I am going leave the suggestion of criminality in one-party taping as meritless since this is a business where security cameras are usually posted and obvious).
For Kious, “truth is a defense.” While Pelosi said she was set up, she was in violation of San Francisco’s law and did fail to wear a mask.
For Pelosi, it gets tougher. Her comments allegedly triggered threats and contributed or caused the likely closure of the salon. The hair stylist Jonathan DeNardohas insisted that the owner knew about the appointment. Kious said that she learned about it after it was set up.
Truth again can be defense but, unlike the Pelosi allegation of violating local laws on getting an indoor haircut and not wearing a mark (which is clearly true), this would be a matter for a jury. It is ultimately a question of motivation.
The fact is that it could be presented as a viable defamation claim but, because of her status as a public figure, it would be difficult under the higher standard. Complication this more is the heavy layer of political opinion during an election season. Thus, my view is that a defamation claim is viable but challenging.
Could you imagine if Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi were married! Who’d wear the pants in that family?
Who’d wear the pants in that family?
*****
Jill Biden. It would be a throuple
I take it you’re speaking Bidenese.
I think so?????
Pelosi, twelve long years ago:
https://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/30/house_speaker_nancy_pelosi_defends_her
…with a transcript
“Speaker Pelosi Declares That There is No Evidence of Any Crime by President Bush”
https://jonathanturley.org/2008/07/31/speaker-pelosi-declares-that-there-is-no-evidence-of-any-crime-by-president-bush/
And this is why Pelosi’s hair do is a big deal.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/epic-kayleigh-mcenany-plays-security-video-maskless-pelosi-shuttered-salon-loop-rips-pelosi-holding-covid-relief-video/
Young you are knocking things out of the park today. However while reading your article one should also note the trending article at the Gateway Pundit.
—
Secret Service Inadvertently Confirms Gateway Pundit Story About Biden Sexually Assaulting Agent’s Girlfriend
In 2017, the Gateway Pundit exclusively reported that a Secret Service agent was suspended for a week in 2009 for shoving then-Vice President Joe Biden after he cupped his girlfriend’s breast while the couple was taking a photo with him.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/secret-service-inadvertently-confirms-gateway-pundit-story-biden-sexually-assaulting-agents-girlfriend/
Thanks Allan. Perhaps that should be put out again. Judicial Watch got the essential confirmation of Biden’s sexual misconduct. I hope this gets more attention. CNN will never ask about it though.
Black George Washington University Professor admits, after years, that she is really a white person.
https://nypost.com/2020/09/03/african-historian-jessica-krug-admits-shes-lied-about-being-black/
But if race is a social construct can’t she be black?
In fact, if race is a social construct can’t all the blacks just be white and bask in the white privilege?
The socially constructed black professor [actually white] only admitted the truth after getting caught.
https://nypost.com/2020/09/03/jessica-krug-admitted-she-lied-about-being-black-after-being-caught/
She ripped into white New Yorkers on at least one occasion.
https://nypost.com/2020/09/03/professor-who-lied-about-being-black-ripped-white-new-yorkers/
Here’s a how to story for committing mail-in voter fraud. At a minimum, this whistleblower’s story should be investigated. Offer him immunity and get the evidence to support his claim. Who would have an objection to that?
https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains-voter-fraud-with-mail-in-ballots/
Commit has asked for an indication that Commit has been less than honest in discussions. The below sections are in the post on “Does Mandatory Mask Enforcement Violate The American Disability Act?”
COMMIT on August 12, 11:41 pm
“Race is social construct, not a biological one.”
And for authority Commit cited:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/
“Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning.”
AND THEN:
COMMIT on August 21 at 12:39
“Young, no one here said “Race is a social construct and has no basis in biology.”
Commit is hanging on my saying ‘no basis in biology’ rather than exactly quoting Commit’s “not a biological one.” and Commit’s cite: “race is a social construct without biological meaning.”
This is the type of thing that led Allan and me to refer to Commit’s secretarial disposition in contrast to an ability to address ideas or facts.
I invited Commit to distinguish [in terms of actual ideas] the distinction between “Race is social construct and has no basis in biology.”” [which Commit denies saying] and Commit’s statement that “Race is social construct, not a biological one.” and, by citation, Commit’s “race is a social construct without biological meaning.”
Often when Commit denies having said something in a conversation Commit is referring to the exact wording rather than the exact idea. In this instance the wording of all three statements lead to the same idea. Commit’s statement of 21 Aug that “Young, no one here said “Race is a social construct and has no basis in biology.” is dishonest.
In this thread Commit exhibits similar peculiarities. In a previous thread Commit said that the Duke Lacrosse players were found not guilty and not declared innocent. Commit vanished from that argument when I pointed out that they were in fact declared innocent by the AG of the state when he dismissed the charges. Rather than simply acknowledge the error, and it was an error, not a lie, Commit now demands below that the wording of the error be repeated exactly before it will be admitted.
This is the type of nonsense that leads many here to re-name Commit as Needs to Be Committed. It’s the type of peculiar niggling familiar to those who manage patients in an asylum, patients who can stack block letters with precision but can’t grasp the ideas behind words.
“I invited Commit to distinguish [in terms of actual ideas] the distinction between “Race is social construct and has no basis in biology.” [which Commit denies saying] and Commit’s statement that “Race is social construct, not a biological one.” and, by citation, Commit’s “race is a social construct without biological meaning.””
a) I denied saying “Race is social construct and has no basis in biology” because that quote is not from me, and it’s also not implied by what I did say.
b) YOU were the one to introduce “Race is social construct and has no basis in biology.” You did it here: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/11/does-mandatory-mask-enforcement-violate-the-american-disability-act/comment-page-2/#comment-1992614, when you said “in discussions with some people we get expressions like this: ‘Race is a social construct and has no basis in biology.’” But you weren’t actually quoting anyone, so I pointed out to you (here: …does-mandatory-mask-enforcement-violate-the-american-disability-act/comment-page-2/#comment-1992626) that “Young, no one here [except you] said ‘Race is a social construct and has no basis in biology.’”
c) You didn’t invite me to “distinguish [in terms of actual ideas] the distinction” between “Race is social construct and has no basis in biology” (which YOU introduced) and “Race is social construct, not a biological one” (which I said). What you actually did was introduce the previous discussion into a totally unrelated discussion in a different column (here: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/22/court-orders-president-trump-to-pay-stormy-daniels-attorneys-fees/#comment-1993092), and then you said “I am looking forward to seeing her distinguish between ‘without biological meaning’ and ‘no basis in biology’. … She does not deserve trust in an open discussion,” when neither of the phrases you quoted came from me, and when you include the insult along with the request.
d) You’re also silent about the fact that I’d asked you repeatedly in the earlier discussion to you continue to identify the multiple human subspecies you insist exist. You say things like “race is a genuine way of sorting different biological varieties of people and that the concept of race is cognate with the more precise term ‘sub-species,’” and “We can classify humanity into four major races …, but it will not cover every contingency …” And I told you: go ahead, identify the four or more subspecies of H. sapiens corresponding to the races you “classify humanity into,” and explain why biologists say that all living humans belong to a single subspecies, H. sapiens sapiens. You’ve consistently refused to do this.
e) So you’re now introducing all of this into yet ANOTHER column for no reason, and you’re lying that you asked me to explain “the distinction between “Race is social construct and has no basis in biology.’ … [and] ‘Race is social construct, not a biological one.’” You can’t even keep track of three distinct statements and which two you actually asked me to distinguish between. And oh, look, you totally omitted the fact that you were insulting me at the time and that you were ALSO refusing to answer my questions to you.
So let me make this absolutely clear: I will not play a game where you refuse to answer my questions yet expect me to answer yours, and I will not play a game where you lie about me and insult me but expect me to treat you as a sincere discussant.
If you were sincerely trying to understand what I do/don’t agree with in the SciAm article, Young, you’d ask instead of assuming. It easy, you just quote part of the text and ask “do you agree with this?,” or you ask “is there anything in that article that you don’t agree with?,” or … But you’ve made it exceptionally clear that you’re not trying to have a sincere discussion — that you’re going to make false claims about me, project beliefs onto me that aren’t mine, run away from answering questions honestly, …
You claim, “In this instance the wording of all three statements lead to the same idea,” whereas I’d say that they’re related but distinct, and the differences are significant in terms of their meanings. And if you weren’t such a jerk, we actually could have discussed it at the time, and you’d have an explanation of how I see the differences. Unfortunately, as you’ve said, “Coomit– I already told you I am an ‘assh*le’. Why complain now.” (…does-mandatory-mask-enforcement-violate-the-american-disability-act/comment-page-2/#comment-1989765) I’m no longer complaining. I’m simply noting that you’re reaping what you’ve sown.
“Commit vanished from that argument when I pointed out that they were in fact declared innocent by the AG of the state when he dismissed the charges. … Commit now demands below that the wording of the error be repeated exactly before it will be admitted.”
Imagine that: I want to see what the actual exchange was instead of relying on you to accurately capture it, because you often twist things. As it turns out, the exchange was after 11pm, and you insulted me in the same comment where you made the claim, and you also provided no actual evidence (here: …cnn-analysts-unleash-personal-attacks-on-rnc-speakers-in-twitter-storm/comment-page-2/#comment-1994671), and I decided to go to sleep instead of continuing the exchange. Apparently I was wrong about the Duke lacrosse players. I have no problem admitting it. But if you think that I have to do it when you’re insulting me, then take all of your favorite insults towards others and imagine me saying them to you. Your ongoing abuse is not OK. Grow up.
I continue to find it amusing that you and Allan are ignorant enough to think that distinctions which are significant to researchers are “trivia” and “secretarial” and “nonsense.” It’s a lovely Dunning-Kruger example.
Commit– “distinguish between ‘without biological meaning’ and ‘no basis in biology’. … She does not deserve trust in an open discussion,” when neither of the phrases you quoted came from me, ”
*******
There you go again, Commit. The expression “without biological meaning” DOES come from you by way of the authority you cited. If you are going to back out your authorities then don’t use them. You commonly include many citations without warning that even you will not stand by them when it is inconvenient.
That, too, is dishonest.
As I already told you: “It seems you believe that if I link to something, it means that I have to agree with everything in it, down to the wording of every phrase. If that’s what you think, you’re nuts.”
When person A makes claim X and cites Y as evidence for claim X, that doesn’t imply that person A agrees with every word of Y. It only means that Y is evidence for X. Apparently you don’t understand how citations work. I’m surprised. I would have expected law school to help you understand this about citations. [shrug]
Yes, I get it. You cite things for authority but don’t necessarily believe what you cite for support. The proper practice is to identify what you believe in a source and to explain and distinguish what you do not believe. You seem to believe your citations until it is convenient not to believe in them. That is dishonest.
As for your citation to Sci Am that portion that you now seem to despise was close to your original statement so it seems that is what you were referring to. What in your cited article do you actually accept or do you believe you were only citing lots of bull s… of no value? Why cite b.s.?
By the way, I think the entire article you cited is rubbish, but you seemed to like it long enough to claim it for authority.
No, you don’t “get it.”
If you believed “The proper practice is to identify what you believe in a source and to explain and distinguish what you do not believe,” you’d do that yourself, which you don’t. Nor is that standard practice, whatever you personally believe about “proper” practice.
“You cite things for authority but don’t necessarily believe what you cite for support. … You seem to …”
You seem fond of pretending to read my mind. You’re extremely bad at it.
“As for your citation to Sci Am that portion that you now seem to despise was close to your original statement so it seems that is what you were referring to.”
On the contrary, I was referring to the entire article as a citation for my claim, nor do I despise the article. Again: you’re really bad at pretending to read my mind.
“What in your cited article do you actually accept or do you believe you were only citing lots of bull s… of no value?”
You should work on your reading comprehension. Let me repeat this for you:
I will not play a game where you refuse to answer my questions yet expect me to answer yours, and I will not play a game where you lie about me and insult me but expect me to treat you as a sincere discussant.
I am not going to answer any questions about that article while you continue to refuse answering the questions I asked you multiple times, and that you’ve consistently refused to answer:
“Biologists agree that there’s only 1 extant (i.e., still-surviving) human subspecies: H. sapiens sapiens. Why on earth do you think you understand this biological question better than biologists do? And — given that you *do* believe that there are multiple human subspecies currently living — why do you keep running away from listing them all? You rejected that there are 4 races. So how many are there, and what are they?”
“You say things like “race is a genuine way of sorting different biological varieties of people and that the concept of race is cognate with the more precise term ‘sub-species,’” and “We can classify humanity into four major races …, but it will not cover every contingency …” And I told you: go ahead, identify the four or more subspecies of H. sapiens corresponding to the races you “classify humanity into,” and explain why biologists say that all living humans belong to a single subspecies, H. sapiens sapiens.”
You haven’t done it. You cannot do it. And you don’t have the cojones to admit it.
Here are a few examples of me calling you out on that previously:
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/11/does-mandatory-mask-enforcement-violate-the-american-disability-act/comment-page-2/#comment-1992938
…does-mandatory-mask-enforcement-violate-the-american-disability-act/comment-page-2/#comment-1989823
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/16/mueller-aide-weissmann-calls-on-doj-attorneys-not-to-help-on-investigations/comment-page-3/#comment-1990741
…mueller-aide-weissmann-calls-on-doj-attorneys-not-to-help-on-investigations/comment-page-3/#comment-1990678
“You cite things for authority but don’t necessarily believe what you cite for support. ”
Young a couple of others use citations to prove their cases and frequently the citation disproves them or is off point. That has never hindered them from doing the same thing over and over again not citing the portion of the paper that proves their case and not telling how it proves their case.
Of interest, Needs to be Committed and I parted ways after she, he, it kept referring me to FBI reports that she said ‘proved’ Flynn guilty of the initial claim against him. I asked her to point out where and to quote Flynns words that she said existed. Her replies were not polite and she continued to to state that the FBI had quotes from Flynn proving him guilty of the original offense. She never would copy those words but told all where the documents supposedly existed (at the time the newly released FBI reports). Of course those words never existed and whether she knew or not one can only guess at. All requests for proof went unheded.
The discussion then continued with a good number of others who then deflected to the latter admissions of Flynn.
We have a bunch of dishonest people. Some of them are sock puppets with a different name.
Allan– I think people just hand Commit things, some accurate and a lot of it crap, with the only common thread being that it is an attack on Trump and Republicans or a diversion from Democrat misconduct.
I think Commit is likely to be nothing more than a financed propaganda operation.
“I think people just hand [Young] things, some accurate and a lot of it crap, with the only common thread being that it is an attack on [Democrats] or a diversion from [Republican] misconduct.
“I think [Young] is likely to be nothing more than a financed propaganda operation.”
CTHD is troll, trolling you, wasting your time and space on this comments page, with inconsequential trivia
CTHD is troll, trolling you,
Kurtz,
That is inconsequential trivia.
No, Kurtz, I’m just pointing out to Young that he’s posting garbage by repeating it back to him, substituting his name for mine.
If Young thinks it’s OK to say that about me, and if you have no objection to him saying that about me, then don’t object to me mirroring it back. If you consider that comment trolling, then you’ll have to conclude that Young is a troll, since he’s the one who introduced it.
Kurtz, do you think btb is any different? There are a lot more similarities than differences.
Kurtz, you’re the troll in this. If you want to have a serious discussion with someone Commit will give it to you and you know it.
I am hard pressed to think of a single instance in which either you or CTDHD have engaged in serious discussion.
You are both mouthpeices for the left. You are incapable of critical thought.
You fawn over experts that agree with you ignoring the very existance of any who do not.
I have dealt with far more challenging advocates from the left. You do not know what critical thinking or valid argument are.
Neither of you.
When you cite something in the context of law, you must differentiate your case from what you cite for all aspects you disagree with,
And if you don’t the other guy will use it without the benefit of your explanation if he is any good.
Commit: “Apparently I was wrong about the Duke lacrosse players. I have no problem admitting it.”
*****
See.. That didn’t hurt too much. I said this one was an error rather than a lie on your part. But it was like extracting your toenails to get it from you.
Now…are you prepared to finally admit that MLK committed extensive plagiarism? I gave you citations.
We weren’t discussing whether “MLK committed extensive plagiarism.” We were discussing your assertion that Letter from a Birmingham Jail … was among the many things King plagiarized during his life” (https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/25/pelosi-accuses-trump-and-colleagues-of-defining-domestic-enemies/comment-page-1/#comment-1994002). It’s unsurprising that you’re again trying to move the goalposts.
“I gave you citations.” No, you didn’t.
And I’m not inclined to be drawn into rehashing more old discussions with you.
One of the citations on MLK’s plagiarism expressly spoke of the Letter From Birmingham jail. I can’t help that you didn’t read or remember it.
Again, you didn’t provide any citations. And that’s easy to see by clicking on the comment I linked to and then scanning the rest of the exchange. If you’d actually cited something, you’d be able to link to it, just like I did. Instead, you pretend.
Not only did you not provide any citations, you specifically refused, saying “I have no duty to educate you on such ordinary matters. Acquiring common knowledge is your responsibility to yourself,” and when I responded “If you believe ‘Acquiring common knowledge is your responsibility to yourself,’ then it’s truly strange that you persist in your belief that races are subspecies of H. sapiens. Why haven’t you acquired the common knowledge that there’s only one extant human subspecies? Or do you have double standards, where you argue ‘Acquiring common knowledge is your responsibility to yourself’ only when it’s convenient for you, while ignoring it when you find it inconvenient?,” you “vanished from that argument.”
CTDHD, Page after page, word after word all meant to protect dishonest statements about others or their actions. The amount of verbiage used is huge.
Suggestion: Decrease your dose of Metamucil.
BTW, why are you bringing these things up in an unrelated column?
Apparently it’s to cover for the fact that when I challenged you to provide evidence for your claim “Commit and Book quickly lie and distort,” you couldn’t do it.
You haven’t been able to quote even one lie from me. Out of all the comments I’ve made, all you’ve got is one mistaken statement that I failed to correct at the time. Shall we hold you to that standard too? Because it’s easy to come up with more than one example of mistaken claims you’ve failed to correct. And if you want me to provide evidence for that, I will. Right after you quote the many lies you assert I’m quick to post.
The example I provided above is more than adequate. Allan sees it and in the previous thread Jay read your responses and also concluded you are dishonest. I imagine those who identify you as ‘needs to be committed’ have long since come to the same conclusion. They were ahead of me in seeing your habits of being less than honest. I suppose it is also possible that you are simply incapable of seeing that an idea may be expressed in more than one way. Someone once said “A rose by any other name…” You should harken to the wisdom of The Bard and learn to see and smell the rose rather than tinker in circles with one of its names.
ROFL.
I don’t know who “Jay” is, but if you think I GAF about what you or Allan think of me, you’re even more ignorant than I’d have thought. Your (pl.) insults come across as an attempt to protect your bruised egos.
Allan’s clearly not a lawyer, but how on earth did you graduate from law school if you’re unable to understand the distinctions among those three statements? I’d have thought that a careful analysis of the wording of laws, rulings, testimony, … would require a more nuanced understanding of language. I guess I’m wrong about that. [shrug]
Allan is in business. That often takes more acumen than being a lawyer and commonly comes with greater risk.
If you don’t care what we think of you why do you rant so?
I engage in what you call “rant[ing]” because it can be satisfying to call out the garbage posted by people.
I assumed that you don’t care what I say about you either, but maybe I’m wrong and you’re projecting, and you rant because you care.
I, however, have reached the point where I find this exchange exceptionally boring, so I won’t respond further.
Ranting is a luxury granted to those with a record for honesty.
When we talk law and government and language one of the LAST things we want is nuance.
The precept that ignorance of the law is no excuse rests on the foundation that the concepts of right and wrong are near instinctual. That we all know them, and that we do not need nuance to understand right and wrong.
We have this issue with you all the time. You are constantly mangling language.
You are constantly playing word games to avoid the obvious.
Government is force – it is a blunt instrument – it is not capable of nuance.
Where nuance is necescary – government should not be.
We can not do by force what someone with an IQ of 80 can not grasp.
John said “You are constantly playing word games to avoid the obvious.”
Well said. That is exactly what Commit does. That little example above of wanting to argue about Karen’s statement when the issue was whether Pelosi violated the law is a good example.
I keep wondering if this is a tactic Commit consciously adopted or is it something mildly pathological. Could be both.
“I keep wondering if this is a tactic Commit consciously adopted or is it something mildly pathological. Could be both.”
Young, I think I provided an answer to that question when from almost the start I named her Needs to be Committed.
We have this issue with you all the time. You are constantly mangling language.
Thanks John. Your comment is spot on. I believe CTHD’s strategy is to tie up threads with her meticulous attention to detail on insignificant points of legal language, as a way to deflect attention away from the more important and significant violations of the law. She’s not stupid, she’s just lacking moral and legal principles. Non-lawyers like myself are disgusted by those engaging in that. Whether right or wrong, I perceive this as the eworst form of lawfare.
Hey, maybe you all can lick each other’s wounds. Wear a mask.
If we are going to bless government giving orders.
I think that Progressive Oliver Wendel Holms had excellent advise for the left.
“Three generations of imbeciles is enough”
It is time to order the sterilization of all progressives.
Get a clue BTB – you have no right to give orders to others.
Olly– I agree with you but for seeing this “as the worst form of lawfare.” Maybe, but I wouldn’t dare try Commit’s crap with a judge or jury. Once they recognize what you are doing you lose all credibility and even your strong points go down the drain.
but I wouldn’t dare try Commit’s crap with a judge or jury. Once they recognize what you are doing you lose all credibility and even your strong points go down the drain.
Gen. Flynn would argue that her crap is quite effective. It’s not justice they’re after and they prove it by ducking and weaving their way down some legal path, when gross abuses of the law were committed by their side in the first place. CTHD, Book and the rest of their ilk have disgraced themselves on this blog.
Olly, Some people become skilled at decoding words and can provide paragraphs of information related to the topic but are frequently at least slightly off point because along with decoding one has to comprehend the words read. I think, though she can write reasonably well and decode, there is a significant lack in the ability to comprehend made more complex by her dishonesty and inability to recognize it.
CTHD’s comments remind of the ubiquitous legal disclaimers we all likely never read. She’s not concerned at all with the obvious crimes committed, she’s scrounging around for a defense.
There are times precision matters – When you are seeking to investigate, search, indict, prosecute, convict someone – precision is critical.
The law and all words must be read precisely and narrowly. Any other arrangement makes criminals of us all.
In most of the rest of the world words are used to communicate – and most of us also think using words. It is important there to use words to effectively communicate. That does not always require precision, but efforts to use words deceptively or to alter their commin meaning is a clear effort to distort communication and often thought.
When you are making accusations regarding others – such as “Trump lies” – it is also critical to construe the language of the purported lie in the manner most favorable to those being accused. We should not call people racists, haters, liars short of clear and compelling evidence – much more than political disagreement.
One of the problems with the lefts abuse of language is that they never consider that their tactics and techniques could be used against them,. Mich of what enrages the left about Trump is that he has used their tactics effectively against them.
“Much of what enrages the left about Trump is that he has used their tactics effectively against them.”
****
And it is about time. I yearned for someone who would stand up and fight back. Trump does it, and he does it like a master.
Trump was inevitable. So long as the left engages in Alynsky’s tactics, eventually Republicans would be forced to do the same.
The total hysteria by the left is counter effective.
Being called a nazi or a racist by a progressive is now a badge of honor.
The left is destroying the meaning of their own insults as well as their credibility.
” if you think I GAF”
It seems Needs to be Committed has the same vocabulary as btb and Bug.
Yes, I noticed that and generally ignored it. Commit does resort to rather crude attacks that add nothing to the credibility of the argument, if there even is an argument.
Funny in a way because denying that “I GAF” is a pretty good indicator that the person really does GAF.
Young, Needs to be Committed had a related fight with John as well and others on essentially the same things. She is completely dishonest and probably doesn’t recognize it. She has two sets of rules based on party affiliation. She is too ideological to mend her ways.
I had a fight almost day one with her, him or it thinking she was someone else’s sock puppet and am very lucky. She stopped responding to me almost immediately. Others have similar feelings. You have been polite, have demonstrated proof and tried to help her get straight. It is impossible or I should say she is impossible.
Allan:
“She stopped responding to me almost immediately. Others have similar feelings.”
Indeed
Shocking surprise.
Allan, Thanks. It is nearly impossible to get Commit away from parsing trivia and on to an actual discussion. Can you imagine someone’s taking that approach in a business negotiation? Rightly or wrongly it would immediately be seen as bad faith and I would get up from the table and leave. In fact that actually happened once during a divorce negotiation. Opposing counsel, his client and my client all went into this mode and it didn’t look as if it were going to stop. I packed up, stood up and said I would rather argue this in front of the judge. They all yelled “wait!” so I sat again and we wrapped it up in less than five minutes. Commit, however, seems unable to set trivia aside or suspend manipulation of ambiguities to identify the core issue and resolve it. Good example above when the question relates to Pelosi’s conduct in going to the salon. Commit wants us to ignore that and argue not whether it was illegal to go there but who had the authority to make it illegal. Not relevant. She broke the law and in doing it she ignored her own warnings to the rest of us. It was a trifling offense but in her case, to borrow from Fouche, it was worse than a crime; it was a mistake.
“Can you imagine someone’s taking that approach in a business negotiation?”
Young, it happens all the time. In an expensive and difficult negotiation that goes on forever but the deal is very much wanted by both parties especialy the opposition and mostly agreed to one can continue negotiating until one gets to a sticking point of little value to either party where one would be crazy to end the negotiations. It is at that point that one puts on his jacket, stands up and walks out saying ‘negotiations are over. the deal is off the table’.
They will yell and scream and call you crazy. Even your own attornies might add the same sentiments. You walk out ready to lose the deal. Since they want the deal they will call you back but now you know the deal will go through and all the other financial disputes will quickly disappear. They know that if you bolted on that crazy issue you will most definitely bolt on the financial issues that are soon to arise. Timing and understanding the others at the table is essential to what appears to be a risky move but it works.
It requires “balls” and that is why Trump was so successful. No matter what is thrown at him he continuses to move towards his objective noisily or quietly. I’m fine with that because his objective is success for the American people and not those that reside in Washington D.C. and the state capitals.
(PS if I miss replies it appears my email is totally screwed up and emails are jumping all over the place out of order and in different boxes. I hope I don’t have to do a complete wipeout of my computer and start all over.)
Allan– Thanks for the voice of experience. I have gone through that only a couple of times and when I stood up and went to the door I was surprised to be called back. I wasn’t bluffing. I didn’t realize others were bluffing. I was going. Probably I wouldn’t be the best person to have in some negotiations.
Young at least you were the lawyer. Imagine having the opposition and his lawyers calling you crazy and then your own lawyers chime in? Sometimes one has to tell their own lawyers to “shut up” and pay attention only to the legalities. That is why I never want to negotiate for someone else and I don’t want my side of the table filled with a lot of people though I don’t mind the other side adding more seats. More seats means more faces.
I also despise calculators on my side of the table. I prefer to figure out all the variables well in advance. I love when the other side uses them because they can make mistakes in the placement of decimal points and they don’t readilly understand the financial significance of minor changes in a contract.
I’ve always had a rule: don’t work with a&*holes. If someone got up and walked out of a negotiation I’d see it as a sure sign they are one and I’d know the whole partnership/arrangement/contract would be weighed down by personalities. So i suppose your walking would save the trouble of finding out later.
Walking out is totally old paradigm.
Bug, stick with being a lab tech or whatever. Because lawyers are working with aholes every day. Indeed we all have one, they are like opinions that way.
A lot of lawyers do this get up and walk out thing. I have had a lot of meditations and never done that. but i have seen it done. it’s not my style.
I like to get as close to an adversary as possible, like Chuikov at Stalingrad
But you are correct that the older generation of negotiators does this more than the newer one. the tactic came under shade decades ago when the book “getting to yes” swept management schools at university
here is a fictional depiction of a negotiation which had a predetermined outcome. and was concluded with a polite “get up and go.” it was going to be a no either way. but it was used by one side to seek information. one of team spoke up unwisely and it ended up revealing information, which was a miss-step, and setting up the drama that framed the rest of the film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkhxkcwf-_Q
some people may be interested to know that Tony Accardo, aka Joe Batters, the head of the Chicago “outfit” for decades, had a strict no narcotics policy, and more than one errant associate was executed over violating the rule.
Now that the Outfit is broken up about 20 years ago after a decade of vigorous prosecutions, Chicago is a safer place. …NOT !! HA ! Gotcha. No it isnt.
sometimes a situation only goes from bad to worse.
Kurtz– Good clip. I think I will watch the movie again. I have gained information from a couple of no go discussions, but when I have gotten up and walked it was because I decided one of my alternatives was more attractive. I wasn’t using a bargaining trick; I was leaving for real. But nothing is in stone. Like everyone else here I have shifted to meet circumstances.
I know Kurtz. Maybe you should stick with being a lawyer.
Lab tech. Ha. i worked in a lab when I was 18. Since have done a bunch more.
Hey, I’m getting jealous with you old biddies gossiping and obsessing across the fence about Commit so much.
What can I do to annoy and befuddle you more? I’m feeling left out.
Don’t worry what goes for her goes for you and has gone for you since you were known as Jan F. You may create a lot of aliases but they don’t make you any brighter.
CTHD is a troll and by trolling people she nails them down so they can’t discuss something of substance. I realize book likes it when she does this. i am not going to get tangled up in it for my own part. lets have a meaningful conversations and not slice and dice trivia
this whole story about Pelosi’s hairdo is trivial, she’s a hypocrite but it’s a trivial matter
there are 100 stories worth more attention than this, from both sides.
Complex issues can be highly important but too arcane to resonate with the public. I imagine you encounter this with expert witnesses. If they are too expert they bore or alienate juries but if they can make things easy to understand and persuasive they are better for the purpose than the king of experts.
This thing with Pelosi is short, easy and understood immediately. It pi**es people off. Even Don Lemon, a CNN dimwit, thought it was bad. Republicans should remind people of it to the election.
Kurtz, glad we can agree that there are more important issues to discuss.
I tried introducing a couple of them:
* the Atlantic article about Trump’s denigration of the military — https://jonathanturley.org/2020/09/03/set-up-or-slander-did-pelosi-defame-a-salon-owner/comment-page-4/#comment-1996751
* “A former top Department of Homeland Security official who resigned in April says the Trump administration is creating the conditions for domestic extremism to flourish in the United States. …” — https://jonathanturley.org/2020/09/03/set-up-or-slander-did-pelosi-defame-a-salon-owner/comment-page-1/#comment-1996487
your first thing is an obvious fiction. the fake news story is based on anonymous sources who are liars that hide under the pretense of anonymity. le them step forward and identify themselves and then I will take it seriously. for now it is nonsense
the second thing is an even bigger lie. your link is wrong if that was your subject, anyhow. find something with substance and I may reply. if it’s just another rehashed gob of phlegm pulled off the SPLC talking points script of the past 30 years I wont bother
The atlantic story was debunked some time ago.
Even the rest of the media has distanced itself.
Trump has disparaged McCain – his attack on his time as a prisoner is vile.
I have problems with some of McCain’s actions as a politician – but he was an actual war hero.
But being a war hero does not protect you from criticism – ask Dan Krenshaw or Kolfage.
It’s not an “obvious fiction.” That the sources aren’t named doesn’t make it fictional. The WH requires reporters to leave sources unnamed all the time. (Let me know if you want an example.)
Trump, tweeting last night: “…I never called John [McCain] a loser and swear on whatever, or whoever, I was asked to swear on, that I never called our great fallen soldiers anything other than HEROES. …”
Kaitlan Collins (CNN): “Trump rarely speaks to press upon returning to DC. Can’t recall when he ever has. But he did tonight in the dark to vigorously deny the Atlantic story. ‘I would be willing to swear on anything that I never said that about our fallen heroes…What animal would say such a thing?’”
@nycsouthpaw, in response: “The idea is to swear on something specific that everyone knows you consider sacred—a holy book, the memory of a saint, the graves of your ancestors, etc. There’s nothing that fits the bill for Trump, so you get absurd constructions like ‘I would … swear on anything.’”
I think Biden should challenge Trump to be questioned about it under oath.
We know that Trump was lying last night, because there’s video of him calling McCain a “loser” and saying “He’s not a war hero”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNugcPeCZZE
Trump says whatever he finds convenient in the moment. He lies all the time. He’s lied about McCain and the Veterans Choice Act. A few examples:
— “McCain didn’t get the job done for our great vets and the VA, and they knew it … The vets were on my side because I got the job done. I got Choice and I got accountability. … And Choice — for years and years, decades, they wanted to get Choice. … For many decades, they couldn’t get it done. It was never done. I got it five months ago.” (3/21/19)
— “I disagree with John McCain on the way he handled the vets, because I said you got get to Choice. He was never able to get Choice. I got Choice.” (5/30/19)
— “And, by the way, for the veterans, 45 years they’ve been trying to get it. As you know, just recently, I signed Veterans Choice” (4/24/19)
He’s said some version of this particular lie over 150 times. Not only was the Veterans Choice Act signed by Obama (not Trump), McCain was a co-sponsor of the bill. Trump did sign the VA MISSION Act of 2018, which extends Choice, but he continues to lie that he was the one who got Choice passed (he wasn’t), that he signed the Choice Act (he didn’t), that others had tried and failed to pass the Choice Act (not true: it was passed under Obama with McCain as a cosponsor).
Trump pardoned a war criminal, he mistreated Lt. Col. Vindman, he’s called TBIs “not serious” and compared them to “headaches,” he refused to confront Putin about Russia paying bounties for killing US troops, … He is not a patriot.
“It’s not an “obvious fiction.””
Actually it is. This story has been debunked. Only the Atlantic is sticking to it – and you.
The WH does not require reporters to leave sources unnames – the SOURCE requires that the are not named.
Sometimes that is a WH source.
SCOTUS properly fond that the first ammendment includes the right to anonymous speech.
Wise people judge the credibility of something by the willingness of those speaking to put their own name and reputation to what they are saying.
But you still do not grasp credibility – probably because you have torched yours.
“I think Biden should challenge Trump to be questioned about it under oath.”
Ordinary people should challenge Biden to be questioned – by anyone on anything publicly.
“We know that Trump was lying last night:”
Back to the nonsense again. You are correct that Trump has said some very nasty things about McCain. Though your specific examples are distortions.
You are incorrect that Trump is lying. If making a generalization that has exceptions is a lie – then you almost never tell the truth.
You the left and the media have trivialized the meaning of lie in your constant attacks on Trump. In doing so you have made EVERYONE and especially yourself – constant liars.
“I did not have sex with that woman” – that is a lie.
Benghazi was a spontaneous response to an internet video – that was a lie.
Learn what is a lie and what is not.
” because there’s video of him calling McCain a “loser” and saying “He’s not a war hero””
How is that relevant ? The first statement is true – McCain lost what should have been an easily winnable election in 2008.
The second statement is an opinion – one that I disagree with. McCain was a poor Senator, but he was a war Hero.
Regardless, you are completely off.
The entire premise of the Atlantic article and your defense of it is totally off.
There is no entitlement of those who have served in the military to our blind permanent respect.
We DO as a rule of thumb START from a position of respect. Military service – particularly combat EARNS our respect.
And John McCain earned more respect than Trump gave him
So have Dan Krenshaw and Rick Scott and Brian Kolfage – and yet neither you nor the left nor the media give them the respect they are due.
But that starting premise is not permanent.
Charlie Wrangle has my respect as a veteran of the Battle of Chosen in Korea.
He does not have my respect as a politician.
Duke Cunningham has my respect as a vietnam Combat Ace.
He does not have my respect as a politician.
John McCain has my respect as a tortured vietnam prisoner who could have returned home at anytime merely by accepting the North Vietnamese offer to send him home.
He does not have my respect as a politician,
Military service is commendable. It earns one respect.
But even earned respect must be maintained.
It is not a permanent right.
If you are going to call something a lie you need to be accurate. The Bill Obama signed is Veterans’ Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014,
Trump’s 2018 bill REPLACED the 2014 Act.
To many the 2018 bill is what the 2014 bill should have been REAL CHOICE.
Both have been called the veterans choice act.
If this is your definition of lying 150 times – the problem is with you.
“Trump pardoned a war criminal,”
False. Even the military did not beleive that.
Trump ended a tracesty.
“he mistreated Lt. Col. Vindman”
Vindman deserved exactly the treatment Trump gave him.
Hopefully he has been drummed out of the service.
Most TBI’s are “not serious” – look it up.
“he refused to confront Putin about Russia paying bounties for killing US troops”
So your bent because Trump has refused to address a unsubstantiated claim that has no evidence that purportedly took place during a period in which no american soldiers had died ?
“He is not a patriot.”
That is an oppinion you are entitled to.
Just as in my oppinion YOU are not a patriot.
Allan– BTB might have a point about Commit being a straight shooter.
It all depends on what Commit is shooting.
I vote for Thorazine.
Commit will tangle you in details – you know, where the devil is – and facts Kurtz, which different is different from things “of no substance”. She typically addresses whatever everyone else is with an occasional post of something of interest outside it, just like you and I do. Too bad you’re not up to it, but you should cut the insults. She’s a straight shooter.
“She’s a straight shooter.”
Btb, you have no credibility so your statement is meaningless.
CTDHD is certainly a tangled mess.
But CTDHD is nearly always wrong about the details.
And like you can not tell opinions from facts,
errors from lies,
and her own viewpoint from truth.
She is a religious zealot buying on faith everything she utters.
It is self evident that on any given issue she would take the opposite side – if the president was Obama or Biden.
That is called hypocrisy
Here is an excellent peice by the intercept on this Trump disparaged the Troops nonsense.
You have to read a bit because Greenwald starts with one of the other great press debacles of the past 4 years – the Trump Jr. Wikileaks email that ultimately proved false in every detail.
But note that those present at the meeting in which Trump purportedly disparaged troops has ALL denied the story – and this included John Bolton.
https://theintercept.com/2020/09/05/journalisms-new-propaganda-tool-using-confirmed-to-mean-its-opposite/.
Just to be clear – this is called LYING.
This is the real meaning of lying – when you claim to have 4 anonymous sources to something – and yet you can get those actually present to say the opposite, and you run the story using the anonymous sources who were not present.
That is LYING.
Nancy darling, you look mahvelous!
Interesting video on Chauvin’s Motion to Dismiss.
The panel is no friend of the defense but they have been pushed by the evidence to admit that this is not really a good index case for the Black Lives Matter issue. It is flawed. That means they suspect a conviction may not be possible.
I don’t admire Ashleigh Banfield but I think she is correct in saying that the motion to dismiss will not be granted because of politics and fear of the mob. Pretty much every lawyer posting on this site has come to the same conclusion.
Note, however, the prosecution will likely continue despite the evidence pointing to innocence.
https://youtu.be/_w9GA1RBQ0o
Different link:
Note, however, the prosecution will likely continue despite the evidence pointing to innocence.
I don’t admire Ashleigh Banfield but I think she is correct in saying that the motion to dismiss will not be granted because of politics and fear of the mob. Pretty much every lawyer posting on this site has come to the same conclusion.
I think prosecutors (in Democratic jurisdictions) stink worse than judges. My wager would be they fear the mob less than they fear shunning in their social circle.
Absurd– You know something? I think you are right. Their miserable little cocktail circle counts for more than the actual law. I am pleased with this though. Even though they are likely to lose this motion it looks as if the defense attorney is doing a good job. I wish him well. He is going to get threats from the lizard people for standing up and trying to protect his client, but it has to be done. If the lot in this video is suddenly having doubts then he is doing well.
old fashioned Democrat prosecutors were not the problem. out here in flyover we have had many many fine Democrat prosecutors who were very much law and order meat and potatoes guys.
even within recent memory. the older version of the Democrat party drew a lot of fine talent and produced countless worthy public servants
rather, the newer generation like the worthless one now in Chicago — :”Kim Fox”
of the same vintage as the worthless mayor “lori lightfoot.”
Chicago Prosecutor Kim Fox, is one of the worst around today. And who gave her $2 million to get reelected?
Geo Soros of course.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2020/2/20/21146269/george-soros-kim-foxx-bill-conway-states-attorney
The new Democrat party that has “taken the soup” from this toxic scoundrel and international financial parasite, has sold its soul to the Devil
I do not care who paid for your election.
The job of prosecutors is to prosecute those who commit ACTUAL crimes.
Not to use the law creatively to manufacture crimes.
Not to protect friends and political compatriots.
Not to use the law to advance a political agenda.
Pelosi is not above being a part of shady deals. Fixing her property tax to a much lower amount, Using US government funds to pay for that Napa Valley vineyard, Selling seats on the various committees with prices going up for the committee chairs, part of the pay for play gang with the Clintons, Rigging and fixing a number of things and don’t tell me she wasn’t inii on the Comey getting Clinton off the hook deal. or using the Attorney General and her airplane. Getting the 18 year tax layoff bill of Clintons passed which the NY Times AND President Trumps CPAs and Tax attorneys also used… but why not it was legal. We wouldn’t be far off to refer to Nancy as the Shady Speaker of the Left by any means. Not to mention deals with Schumer and NOT legally seating four Representatives.who have never taken the Oath of Office. Not that it means anything to the DNC cauus
Nancy Pelosi = Marie Antoinette
The best setup for assuring democracy and freedom for all Americans
President Trump on voting by mass mail in ballots not absentee ballots. His point in valid, is the system in North Carolina really as good as they say? Testing the system (how is there a way to test) other than voting both ways. Yes it’s illegal to vote twice, three or more times, but, and this is a big but, how else do voters know the system works. Trust us it works they say, sure it does, just look at FISA debasement. Pure mockery by the President as I see it.
The 21st century version of ballot box stuffing.
The issue is not that the salon may have been seeing people on the sly. The issue is that the restriction was in place and Pelosi Galore violated the restriction. Any argument to the contrary is just a “what about-ism.”
another black punk violated common sense, acted stupidly, got shot dead.
If they don’t cooperate, they are shot dead. Thank Obama for fomenting hatred against cops….even black cops
https://youtu.be/XNsAa9lCicU?t=129
Mofi– You will notice that the leftists here are frantically trying to distract from you well stated fact.
Jonathan: Donald Trump and his allies in the legal community are trying to give Speaker Pelosi their version of a “haircut”. After Pelosi’s visit to a hair salon in SF Trump gleefully crowed: “Crazy Nancy Pelosi is being decimated for having a beauty salon opened, when all others are closed, and for not wearing a face mask”. Trump is hardly the person to point the finger of blame–especially after his nominating speech at the White House where neither he nor his 1500 guests wore face masks.
While all the facts are not entirely clear it appears Pelosi was filmed not wearing a face masked after having her hair washed. Not wearing a mask when your hair is being washed seems the prudent thing to do–especially since to do otherwise might invite the claim that your hairdresser is trying to water board you! It appears hair salons were closed at the time of Pelos’s visit, although local pandemic ordinances keep changing from week to week. The hairdresser says he told Erica Kious, the owner of the salon, the day before about Pelosi’s appointment and she approved. Apparently, Kious was desperate for business so she allowed in-person visits for selected clientele. The hairdresser also says Kious had been violating local pandemic ordinances since April. It was the duty of the salon owner, not Speaker Pelosi, to know the current regulations.
The more interesting part of the story is Pelosi’s claim she was “set up” and your tortured theory that Kious might have a cause of action for defamation. Actually, Pelosi didn’t raise the issue. The hairdresser says in his statement: “…it appears Ms. Kious is furthering a set-up of Speaker Pelosi for her own vain aspirations”. Those “vain aspirations” might include the fact that Kious turned over the video of Pelosi’s visit to Fox News and gave them a extensive interview in which she expressed her dislike for the Speaker. Fox, knowing how much Trump hates Pelosi, ran the story as an “EXCLUSIVE”. “Set up” or not the whole incident doesn’t pass the smell test!
Dennis McIntyre FYI I personally have been to the salon twice since my state reopened them with restrictions. I knew exactly the rules patrons must observe which included wearing a mask at all times. I did so even while being shampooed both times. The same is true for all other customers. If I knew the requirements, then surely the representative of my district should likewise. I see no excuse for Pelosi for being unaware that indoor service was still banned.
Shut up Dennis & be a good girl & take the fresh cooked up mRNA Dr Fauci/Bill Gates/UN mandatory vaccine for their Commie Flu.
Hell, take 3 or 4 doses of those vaccines, wearing their worthless mask & be a good lil Guinea Pig & take one for Team Commie.
Or you could go to banned.video & overcome your ignorance. It’s up to you.
Yeah, it was an EXCLUSIVE because CNN filed to find anything about it worthy of reporting. I did a search that day on CNN.com and came up with thousands of “pelosi” citations, but not one about this story. After the video, now everyone is reporting it. I’ve always thought Pelosi was a skank but this shows how “in her pocket” the media is…no one reporting it until they can’t ignore it. As for the salon owner being responsible to know the laws but not Pelosi, what an infantile, asinine comment, Dennis. No one will take your comments seriously from this point on.
“No one will take your comments seriously from this point on.”
Dennis does a bang up job as a contortionist.
“Dennis does a bang up job as a contortionist.
****
Yes. That explains how he got his head so far stuck up it.
Bob,
If one wishes to find out what’s going on with CNN you need to check with the govts of Qatar, Saudi Arabia & China as that where they get they get their talking points.
About CNN’s mission statement, 2;38 min:
https://banned.video/watch?id=5f5116b9af4ce8069e62e39c
Mr. Turley, based upon your paper thin public figure analysis, Nicholas Sandman is a public figure and could not sue for defamation or slander. Oh, that’s right, he already has won two settlements.
Roy — You could be right, or…you could live in the world of facts. Mr. Sandman was thrust unto the public stage through no actions of his own. The kid was simply waiting for a bus. Any public figure status of his was unsought, unwanted, unwarranted, unnecessary, and–ultimately–unmoored from facts. That is why he is becoming wealthy from the settlements, and rightly so. If that was your best effort, you should stop while you’re behind.
An additional fact in Mrs. Pelosi’s Hair Gate is that there can be debate about whether her appointment was within the bounds of the city’s and the state’s ban, having the stylist blow dry her hair was explicitly disallowed. I can understand the leftist’s instinctual rush to defend their champion, but this seems like a very shallow hill upon which to die (figuratively, of course).
She screwed up on a relatively small matter and got caught. Her deflection and defiance for a small misstep give insight into her handling of matters of larger import. I suggest we all point and laugh, then move on. This isn’t anything more than an embarrassing gaff exposing hypocrisy. Heck, at this point, it’s almost expected.
Why were Salons & other businesses forced to close in the 1st place by Color Of Law Edicts?
WalMart/HomeDepot/Amazon/etc., stayed open, but by illegal Edict all these other businesses were forced close by govts & many still are based on False Info related to the Commie Flu Covid BS.
All these other businesses should all a once reopen if they can, sue the govts…. I think Barnes already has some of these suits going on.
And the businesses need to at once demand the FEC look into their forced closings as Election Interference as it caused them to lose funds/resources they could have used to support candidates for public office.
“mespo727272 says:
September 3, 2020 at 8:35 AM
Who cares about defamation? She’s revealed herself as Nancy Antoinette! Paging Dr. Guillotine.”
“Hostile massages.” “Not wearing a mark.” There is a point at which form starts to achieve ascendancy over substance.
Sue her!
(What a tempest in a blo-dryer…)
👀
The problem with a blow dryer is that if someone is covid positive the dryer can blow virus throughout the room. Similar to singing in a closed room or using a nebulizer in a hospital.
Stylist Supports Pelosi; Hair Had Just Been Washed. Salon Has Been Secretly Taking Customers Since April
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday she was set up by a San Francisco salon where she was videotaped not wearing a face mask after getting her hair washed, in violation of the city’s coronavirus restrictions.
“This salon owes me an apology,” Pelosi said in response to questions from reporters at the end of a news conference on the Democrats’ proposed coronavirus relief act that is stalled in the Senate.
“It was clearly a setup,” Pelosi said. “I take responsibility for falling for a setup by a neighborhood salon I’ve gone to for many years.”
The eSalon’s owner, Erica Kious, denied Pelosi’s claim. She said that her salon had been closed for months because of the pandemic and that she found Pelosi’s remarks “hurtful.”
“I just thought about, you know, my staff and people not being able to work and make money and provide for their families. And if she’s in there comfortably, without a mask and feeling safe, then why are we shut down?” Kious told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson on Wednesday evening.
Less than two hours later, Jonathan DeNardo, the stylist who blew out Pelosi’s hair, released a statement through an attorney contradicting Kious.
The statement says the law firm is in possession of photographs and videotape that show that Kious has been operating her salon in violation of state and local restrictions since April. The statement also says that Kious authorized Pelosi coming to the salon for her blow-out, and that she was critical of the House speaker because she erroneously believed Pelosi was behind the restrictions that shut down her salon. (The rules were put in place by Gov. Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Mayor London Breed.)
“Ms. Kious has also been actively encouraging and almost forcing stylists who operate at eSalon to violate such orders for her own financial benefit in the form of receiving lease payments,” the statement says. “The fact that Ms. Kious is now objecting to Speaker Pelosi’s presence at eSalon, and from a simple surface-level review of Ms. Kious’ political leanings, it appears Ms. Kious is furthering a set-up of Speaker Pelosi for her own vain aspirations.”
The brouhaha began on Monday, when security camera footage at the eSalon showed Pelosi inside, passing by with wet hair and a mask wrapped around her neck and being trailed by a hair stylist who was wearing a mask. Kious gave the footage to Fox News, which first reported the story Tuesday.
Pelosi said someone at the salon told her they were allowed to accommodate one customer at a time, and that she wore a mask except for when her hair was being washed.
“I just had my hair washed. I don’t wear a mask when I’m washing my hair. Do you wear a mask when you’re washing your hair?” Pelosi said. “And that picture is when I just came out of the bowl.”
A spokesman for Pelosi said that, normally, the House speaker had a stylist come to her house to do her hair, but she wasn’t available on Monday. So the stylist suggested Pelosi’s team contact one of her former colleagues, DeNardo, who rents a chair at eSalon. An assistant to Pelosi called DeNardo on Sunday and asked him if he could come to Pelosi’s house. He said he could but also said the salon was allowed to have customers inside one at a time, so the speaker could come there.
Edited from: “Nancy Pelosi Says Her Visit To A Hair Salon Was A ‘Setup’. Stylist Backs Her Up”
The Los Angeles Times, 9/2/20
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Pelosi and her stylist contend she had just come from the hair-washing bowl. And the video still pictures Pelosi with wet hair. Would Pelosi logically put her mask back on with hair dripping wet..??? It sounds like it was a ‘set-up’ indeed. Obviously the salon owner had some hidden agenda for editing out that very brief clip and releasing it to Fox News.
Shouldn’t Pelosi know the local covid mandates and rules put in place for her district? And then follow them? Instead Pelosi shouts: “B*tch set me up!”
It sure looks like Pelosi was set-up. Only fire-breathing Trumpers would think otherwise.
Yes, I remember the video of her being dragged down the street by two masked men wearing MAGA hats and carrying a noose to secure her in the chair while her hair was trimmed as she screamed, NO, NO, I can’t break my nephew’s laws!”
Yes, I remember the video of her being dragged down the street byNail Salon owners from West Hollywood insisting they paint her claws Fuchsia
FTFY
Yes, Pelosi on another day.
lol. why can’t you wear a mask while having your hair washed? she isn’t in the shower. i guess ear straps getting wet is more important than the terminal safety of fellow people. what slap in the face of science
Anonymous, how do you feel about Trump telling North Carolina Republicans to vote twice??? In term of hypocritical gestures, that one dwarfs Pelosi’s ‘mask scandal’.
Who are you Anonyous!!!??? You look like a sucky puppet one that my enemies use against me in trying to bump me from this blog as the Queen Beach Suck Puppet! Unless if you’re doing your nails at my nail salon, have money to pay me to twirl or you’re going to bank roll my drag queen shows at the corner of Butch & Hung in West Hollywood, you need to bolt, get out of here, go butch it up somewhere else. This is my turf, you wanna me Troll. I’m the Troliest of all Trolls on here and everyone knows that.
now scram!
You look a lot like Young. Just sayin’.
Turley doesn’t attract many grown-ups.
Ima go hang a blow dryer from the tree in front of Nancy Pelosi’s house. Why? Because “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” –not even for oh-so-white-privileged Nancy Pelosi. Let them eat cake! I have a $20k freezer full of gourmet ice cream. You deserve to lose the House Nancy Pelosi. Time to retire in shame.
“Let them eat cake! I have a $20k freezer full of gourmet ice cream.” (meant to put in quotes as Nancy said it on TV in a tone deaf comedy segment in the midst of a pandemic where the little people were losing their jobs, incomes, homes, all sense of security….and Nancy P goes on late show TV (where else do Dems go?) to show us her $20k freezer full of freakin’ gourmet ice cream that she and her fam are enjoying while staying home. Tone deaf? Uh…yeah. And guess what? Pelosi and the Dems are STILL on vacation!!! How in the hell are they all still on freakin’ vacation???!!!!
Fire Nancy Pelosi and take the House back!!! They are despicable.
There’s only one way Nancy could be set-up, and that is by her agreeing to illegally enter the salon to have her hair done to begin with.
End of story.
She got busted by her own vanity, arrogance, and extreme sense of entitlement.
I hope that the owner did set Nasty Nancy up. I hope she did fall for it. Here’s an important point: it makes no difference if she was set up or not, because the salon didn’t contact her for an appointment, she or her staff contacted them. Your argument that the salon owner was a fault is faulty. If I run an illegal poker game and you come to it, even if I invite you, if we’re found out, we both go to jail. Not just me running the game. And your excuse of “I didn’t know gambling was illegal” won’t hold any more water than Nancy’s protestations that she was set up. Just give it a rest and let common sense win for a change, OK? You make me sick.
Here he goes again: Turley’s shorts are in a twist and he is discussing the potential for a defamation lawsuit because Nancy Pelosi removed her mask to get her hair done in a salon where she was the only customer, she was taped and the stupid bottle blondie who owns the salon got the video tape to Fox. where she got to perform as the outraged business owner complaining that Pelosi is a hypocrite. Pelosi usually gets her hair done at home, but the stylist wasn’t available. Pelosi, who says she relied on the representation of the salon that it was OK to have one customer at a time, says it was a set up. it clearly was. How else could security footage from inside a neighborhood salon get into the Fox newsroom? As for not wearing her mask, Pelosi’s masks are the type that go completely around the neck, including the back. She removed hers to get her hair washed. And, if it was wrong (i.e., a violation of San Francisco City regulations) for Pelosi to get her hair done, why did they set the appointment in the first place? Pelosi didn’t break into the place or force the stylist to wash her hair at gunpoint. How could any reasonable person view this as anything other than what it was–a political hit job.
And now, bottle blondie is complaining because her business will have to close due to the uproar her conduct caused. Turley tries to make the case that it is because of Pelosi’s allegations. How about this, Turley: maybe it’s because San Franciscans didn’t like this political hit job pulled by the bottle blondie. Pelosi is very popular in her home town, unlike Trump. All of this is to feed into the narrative that Democrats are preventing businesses, churches and schools from re-opening when they don’t follow the rules themselves, instead of Trump’s mishandling of the pandemic. The sad, pathetic Republican refrain is that people can’t go to church, but you can go to a bar, and it’s all the fault of those hypocrite Democrats because they will do anything to try to defeat the all-powerful and wonderful Trump, including needlessly shutting down the economy. Democrats accept the recommendations of scientists, which are solely based on what is best to prevent unnecessary death and suffering. Trump doesn’t care, and he has declared war on science because it gets in the way of his agenda, which is to bask in the glory of cheering crowds applauding the historic economy he claims to have created, which is, of course, a lie. He cannot deny that the economy is in the toilet, and the reason is because the pandemic is still not under control due to his lack of leadership, but he still is trying to blame China, the Democrats, anyone other than himself. There has been no consistent national agenda or message, other than force children to go to school and businesses to re-open. He does everything possible to undermine sound scientific principles, beginning with downplaying the risk, lying about testing being available to anyone who wants it, recommending an unsafe and unproven medication, ingesting bleach or disinfectants, sidelining physicians like Dr. Fauci who tell Americans the truth, and now, pushing to the FDA to allow Phase 3 clinical trials to be cut short so that a vaccine will miraculously be available just in time for the election. He bullied the CDC into no longer recommending testing for asymptomatic people, even those who have been exposed to known coronavirus cases, and the asymptomatic make up 40% of all positive cases. They are the ones spreading the disease. Not testing means we cannot identify positive cases, much less do contact tracing or quarantining. This means that the virus will continue unabated, and more Americans will needlessly die. Now, he’s got some Fox News doctor pundit with no experience in public health or epidemiology, recommending the approach of Sweden: herd immunity (other than for the elderly). No testing to identify contacts, no closures of businesses or schools, no quarantining–just let people get sick, and those who aren’t lucky will die. No other industrialized country agrees with this approach. Sweden has one of the highest infection and death rates as a result.
It is huge that Americans are now in the position that they cannot trust either the FDA or the CDC to protect their health, because a malignant narcissist who is losing the polls is able to bully scientists and physicians into ignoring valid scientific principles because they get in the way of his political agenda. That’s where we are, folks, but the good news is that most Americans see this for what it is, and no longer trust their federal government to protect their health. A very substantial percentage will not accept any vaccine until Trump is out of office because we know he is controlling the message about safety and efficacy, and we also know he doesn’t care about us at all. Most physicians do not agree with the CDC amending guidelines that no longer recommend testing for asymptomatic people who have been exposed.
How about this, Turley, for a more-relevant topic for a law expert: In North Carolina yesterday, Trump actually told his disciples to vote twice for him: first, by mail, and then, show up at the polls and vote again in person. It is not only illegal to vote twice in North Carolina, as well as most states, but it is illegal to advise someone else to do so. Now, when is he going to get prosecuted for this felony? Never, of course, but the purpose behind doing this is to cast doubt on the election he is about to lose.
Will the real Nancy Pelosi, petty, cruel, narcissistic, stupid and the epitomy of hypocrisy, please stand up. Oh wait, she is and has the nerve to claim she acts in the best interests of the country. That she is the leader of the leftist socialist party and has such power is terriifying. This poor salon owner will be only one of her victims should her party come to power.
No, Cindy, what is truly terrifying is stupid Fox disciples like you who watch, starry eyed, while Tucker, Hannity, and Laura tell you what to think, because all the mean mainstream media keep telling lies (so they say) like Trump is losing in the polls, it’s illegal to tell people to vote twice, it’s illegal to use the White House and federal property for campaigning, Russians are paying bounties to kill American troops and Trump does nothing. The list goes on and on. They have so gotten people like you to buy into the pivot (perfected by Kellyanne–where undeniably bad things and traits exhibited by Trump are projected onto Barak Obama, Democrats or the media), that now it’s Pelosi who is the narcissist. who is cruel (isn’t she the one who puts little brown children in cages?), and she’s the hypocrite. Now, it’s the sneaky salon owner who allowed Pelosi into the salon and taped her and then sent the tape to Fox who is somehow a victim. Victim of what, exactly? If San Francisco local ordinances did not allow one customer at a time to be serviced in the salon (which Pelosi was told), then how did Pelosi wind up getting her hair washed and blown out? It was a set-up.
Wow! What a lot of words you can type: And all in a row, too. I’m glad the blog puts the username at the front of the posts, so I can tell which ones to skip right over. I wonder if you glossed right over the blow dryer portion. Maybe another reader will weed through your tripe and summarize it beyond, “Orange Man Bad.”
I didn’t see any photos of Pelosi getting blow-dried, just walking from the shampoo bowl. How easy it is for Trump disciples to refuse to look at facts and plug their ears and say “Orange Man Bad”. He IS bad, and now he’s desperate, so scared of losing power that he’s telling disciples to commit a felony by voting for him twice.
Oh, wow: another instance of Natacha posting out of her…without knowing all the facts. Color me shocked!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54007103
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-takes-heat-over-visit-to-california-hair-salon/2020/09/01/f3ee2790-eca5-11ea-bd08-1b10132b458f_story.html
Kydave, Yeah, I am skipping her vomited comments too. She’s nuts.