While President Joe Biden has portrayed anyone supporting the filibuster as a virtual confederate sympathizer and Bull Connor wannabe, the attacks did not sway senators like Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. who defiantly went to the floor to deliver a speech calling for the end of the politics of division. She, and her colleague Sen. Joe Machin, D-W.V., stood firm in support of the filibuster. The response from the commentators on the left was pure unadulterated rage. Many like MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell cruelly mocked her for appearing emotional. However, one of most chilling attacks came from a reported staff member at the ACLU, Sarah Michelsen, who encouraged people to keep up the pressure to “break” Sinema. The senator has been continually harassed by activists, who even followed her into a bathroom to berate her.
Michelsen, a former state director for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, is a “senior strategist” at the ACLU. Like many, Michelsen seemed thrilled that Sinema seemed emotional in her speech and encouraged activists to “keep going” with the attacks because they are “breaking her.”
Michelsen seemed to be following the lead of President Biden, who was widely criticized for his Atlanta speech declaring that anyone supporting the filibuster was attacking democracy and supporting autocracy. He continued the attacks yesterday on the Hill despite the fact that he was clearly not intimidating either senator into changing their positions.
It did not matter that Biden showed equal passion as a senator to denounce those who would find excuses for abandoning the filibuster rule. He called such efforts “disastrous” and proclaimed: “God save us from that fate … [it] would change this fundamental understanding and unbroken practice of what the Senate is all about.”
After six months of uncomfortable silence as president, Biden later said that, as president, he continued to support the rule. Putting aside certain factual and historical errors, Biden declared that killing the rule would “throw the entire Congress into chaos and nothing will get done. Nothing at all will get done.”
Despite the support of the rule by figures from Barack Obama to Chuck Schumer, it is now officially a “relic of Jim Crow” and open season on anyone standing with the senate tradition.
The tweet from Michelsen was particularly disconcerting coming from someone associated with the ACLU. We previously discussed the disgraceful attack on Nicholas Sandmann by ACLU lawyer Samuel Crankshaw, who opposed his being accepted into college. This was after Sandmann was shown to have been falsely accused of harassing a Native American activist in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Nevertheless, even as media companies settled lawsuits with Sandmann for defamation, figures like Crankshaw and writers like Above the Law’s editor Joe Patrice continued to attack him.
For those of us who have long supported the ACLU, the organization has changed dramatically in the last ten years to a more political organization. It now opposes due process rights when they support the wrong people — a striking departure from the traditional apolitical stance of the group. At points, it has become a parody of its own self like celebrating the legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg by editing her words as offensive.
It is not clear what Michelsen did or does at the ACLU. Her Twitter account was taken private after her attack on Sinema. The account calls for defunding police and “chaos.” (Sinema has opposed the defund police movement).
What is most notable about Michelsen’s attack (like the diatribes of President Biden) is that they are clearly not working to intimidate these senators. Yet, activists still want to continue against them because they can. The age of rage gives them license to hate and harass. That is enough to “keep it up” in harassing those who hold opposing views.
139 thoughts on ““We’re Breaking Her, Keep Going”: ACLU Strategist Issues Chilling Tweet Against Sinema”
Americans can’t seem to utter the name of America’s true enemy. Voltaire was right.
The Propaganda Media and Government officials are Hitler all over again, while I like Turley and other like him, lets just go ahead and admit he’s like they were in the 30s, he refuses to call a spade a spade In some instances, There is not one chance in hell he doesn’t know the left stole the Election from us and Trump in 2020. NO INTELLECTUAL really thinks Trump git 9 million more votes and still lost, they know they truth, and now they wonder why these clowns keep pushing liens, its because people like you Mr. Turley refused to call out their theft of an Election, that YOU KNOW they stole. Thats why Hitler keep pushing to the edge.
the aclu is NOT NEEDED ANYMORE as it is now a racist group of people tring to force people to be the way they want…
Not just “on paper” but the voter should have the option to take a printed “receipt” with him when he leaves the booth. When I voted (electionic, touch screen) I was *shown* part of a paper strip confirming my vote, but what assurance do I have that my vote as printed in that strip is what was offocially archived? I know that the equivalent was never done when voting was entirely paper-based, but the effort threshold for manipulation and fraud is so much lower with electronic voting methods.
The election must occur within the 24 hours of Tuesday – not one day before, not one day after, not through the mail.
Voters must be restricted by rational criteria – all citizens who receive any type of check from the government must never be allowed to vote – criminals, the “poor” and foreigners must never be allowed to vote.
Voters must present at a polling place, be certified and execute their vote within the 24 hours of Tuesday.
People who do not consider voting important enough to present themselves at a polling place have no reason to vote – no waivers or excuses accepted.
Authorities must accomplish a hand count by each of two or three major political parties with opposing party observers in attendance; totals must be kept and escalated for final count within each party.
No, you should never receive any kind of “record” of how you voted. That’s how you build a system where politicians buy votes. Now, I can tell 5 different politicians I voted for them, when I, in fact voted for #6. That’s why there’s no economics in favour of direct vote buying. A receipt would change that.
There is a trade-off of anonymity for the voter and open records for the public at large.
The powers-that-be have weaponized the anonymous aspect of the system so as to make it impossible to verify votes, of who by and who for. Thus providing fertile ground to game or defraud the system without proof or repercussions.
If a voter wants to share his choice of vote after the fact, then that should be his/her choice to do so; if they want to keep it anonymous, then that too should be their choice.
What should be effected, is a paper receipt given to a voter after s/he votes, that is an encrypted rendition of his/her vote. This code should then be also a key for the voter to lookup online, with proper identification verification, as to how the election system actually registered their vote.
So what would being able to take a “receipt” with you accomplish? No one has any idea which ballot was yours…supposedly…
Did the ACLU once fight against the Patriot Act? If so, why not come to Carter Page’s defense?
Turley fails to mention one of the vilest, most telling, hypocrises involving the Democrats and their new-found fear and loathing of the Senate filibuster. On THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 2022 in the midst of all of this phony villification of Sinema, DEMOCRAT SENATE MAJORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER EMPLOYED THE FILIBUSTER to prevent a vote on Ted Cruz’ bill to sanction Russia (mainly via the Nordstream 2 pipeline) for Putin’s intrusion into the affairs of Ukraine and Kazikstan. Cruz’ bill apparently had 53 votes, enough to pass had a vote been taken (apparently there was some modest party line crossing on both sides). Fair attribtution: Glenn Greenwald brought that to my attention on his substack blog.
While the substance is similar (60 votes needed), as technical matter, I don’t think Democrats filibustered the Cruz bill and the vote was to end debate, but rather there was a vote on the Cruz bill itself but there was an agreement that the vote needed 60 votes to be adopted. This often happens with agreements on amendment votes to bills as well.
Comments are closed.