On October 5, 2021, the site Above the Law ran a story by Senior editor Kathryn Rubino about what she described as a vehemently racist law student who was given a prestigious clerkship by William H. Pryor Jr., chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Above the Law has a long history of attacking conservatives, free speech advocates, and others deemed right of center. This story (which appeared earlier on sites like Mediaite) was perfect from that perspective and lit up the liberal media. That included a column by Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus asking “Why is a prominent federal judge hiring a law clerk who said she hates Black people?” The problem is that the Second Circuit found little evidence that it is true. The question is whether the accused student, Crystal Clanton, will now sue ATL, Mediaite, and other media outlets for defamation.
For some in the media, the ATL story was like manna from progressive heaven. Pryor was on the short list for the Supreme Court under President Donald Trump. Clanton worked for Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, and previously worked for the conservative group Turning Point USA. She later was accepted at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, a favorite target for ATL (and Rubino) and other sites for its conservative leanings. After she was subjected to attacks from Democratic members of Congress, judicial complaints, and a media firestorm, the Thomas family had the “distraught” student move into their home for a year.
THE CONTROVERSY
What is notable about these articles is that the story was presented as fact, even though Clanton said that she had no recollection of ever writing “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like f**k them all . . . I hate blacks. End of story.” However, Mediaite claimed to have sources that confirmed that this was one of many such racist statements by Clanton:
Numerous sources who worked with Clanton detailed how she would exchange racist remarks regularly with other TPUSA staffers — including Alana Mastrangelo, who currently works for the group, and Timox Prax, who was allegedly forced out of TPUSA this year over “bigoted” remarks — using Snapchat.
“One such message reviewed by Mediaite features a photo of a man who appears to be Arab and a caption written by Clanton that reads, ‘Just thinking about ways to do another 9/11.” (The source who provided Mediaite with the image requested it not be published to protect their anonymity.)’
That last line will be discussed shortly, but Mediaite (a site founded by ABC Chief Legal Analyst Dan Abrams) said that it had multiple sources on the story.
ATL (which has repeatedly run pieces slamming Clanton) also declared the story as true without even mentioning that Clanton denied the story. Instead, it went on the attack against conservatives everywhere:
So we are left to believe either Judge Pryor is incapable of either the most rudimentary Google search, or he just doesn’t care that he’s putting someone with a history of racist behavior further along on the path to power. Remember federal appellate clerkships are very competitive and serve in the legal industry as bona fides of excellence. It should be shocking that someone with as controversial (and hateful) a history as Clanton finds herself with this elite opportunity, but somehow it is not. The right wing, led by the Federalist Society, has a storied history of pushing true believers that will aggressively push their agenda into clerkship positions, which, in turn, set them for bigger and better jobs down the line. And the kind of controversy Clanton seems so good at attracting is far from a detriment; it proves how committed she is to the cause.
The Washington Post also stated the allegation as fact but did acknowledge that, in the first 2017 article in the New Yorker on this allegation, Clanton did deny any knowledge of the statement. Both the New Yorker and Post noted that denial but Above the Law did not in its October 2021 article.
After the furor raised by the coverage, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, Rep. Hank Johnson and other Democrats demanded an investigation into the hiring of this clerk from Chief Justice John Roberts. The letter stated “[t]hat these judges hired her therefore creates both the appearance of and risk of actual bias in their chambers and their decisions as well as other potential problems…”
THE SECOND CIRCUIT INVESTIGATION
Due to the conflict of interest involving its chief judge, the Eleventh Circuit asked for the Second Circuit to conduct the investigation under Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston. Bill Rankin of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported the results in a piece titled “Judge Pryor cleared of allegations involving hiring of controversial clerk.” The question, however, should be the treatment of that “controversial clerk” and whether she warranted being “controversial.”
I have no “sources” so I cannot speak to Clanton’s history. Those earlier sources relied upon by sites like Mediaite could find themselves the subject of discovery if this now goes to litigation.
We have the results of the long investigation of the Second Circuit, below. Pryor previously said that he had investigated these allegations and found that Clanton could not speak publicly on the details because of a non-disclosure agreement signed with Turning Point. However, the Second Circuit confirmed that Turning Point USA’s executives refuted the allegations and said that Clanton treated everyone with “kindness, respect and fairness.” This person also said “the media reports are not accurate.”
More importantly, it quoted a Turning Point executive stating that the group did its own investigation and “determined that the source of the allegations against (Clanton) was a group of former employees.” It further recounted:
One of these people held a leadership role at the nonprofit organization. That individual stated, based on first-hand knowledge, that the candidate treated everyone with kindness, respect, and fairness while at the organization and that the media accounts are not accurate. The individual explained that the organization had determined that the source of the allegations against the candidate was a group of former employees. One of these employees was fired after the organization learned that this person had created fake text messages to be used against co-workers, to make it appear that those co-workers had engaged in misconduct when they had not.
Despite that finding, Rep. Johnson called the decision “nothing more than a rubber stamp that gives two influential federal judges cover for hiring a law clerk with a reported history of racist conduct. … This cannot be the end of this matter.”
LIBEL OR OPINION?
The question is whether the matter is ended for Clanton or whether she will sue Above the Law and other media sites for defamation. We often discuss such possible defamation lawsuits and this one could present some interesting issues.
Clanton was not a public figure when this controversy began. However, she later made a comment to media. It could be claimed that she became a limited public figure subject to the higher standard of proof in New York Times v. Sullivan. That standard, written for public officials, was later extended to public figures. 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).
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. As such, public officials and public figures must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.
This is a matter of public concern and political debate. Courts are understandably hesitant to delve into the super-hearted environment of political speech absent the clearest and rawest forms of defamation. 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).
Of course, simply saying that something is your “opinion” does not automatically shield you from defamation actions if you are asserting facts rather than opinion. In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990), 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 a 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.”
Courts have been highly protective over the expression of opinion in the interests of free speech. This issue was addressed in Ollman v. Evans 750 F.2d 970 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In that case, Novak and Evans wrote a scathing piece, including what Ollman stated were clear misrepresentations. The court acknowledges that “the most troublesome statement in the column . . . [is] an anonymous political science professor is quoted as saying: ‘Ollman has no status within the profession but is a pure and simple activist.’” Ollman sued but Judge Kenneth Starr wrote for the D.C. Circuit in finding no basis for defamation.
MALICE OR JUST A SIGNATURE STYLE?
ATL is an interesting subject for a possible defamation lawsuit. It is a site that often engages in gossip stories and does not hide its anti-conservative and ant-free speech bias. (It regularly attacks me and others who object to the erosion of free speech protections or espouse contrary views). That bias could become relevant in establishing the recklessness or malice behind the article.
The objection to the alleged statement by Clanton is notable given the racist diatribes by ATL writer and The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal who has lashed out at “white society” and how he strived to maintain a “whiteness free” life in the pandemic.
Notably, ATL continued attacks on figures like Nicholas Sandmann even after he was cleared of the false allegations of harassing a Native American activist in front of the Lincoln Memorial. We previously discussed one segment involving “Above the Law” editor Joe Patrice in his interview with The Nation’s Elie Mystal, In the interview, Mystal, the Executive Editor of “Above the Law”, attacked this 16 year old boy as a racist. Patrice agreed with Mystal’s objections to Sandmann wearing his “racist [MAGA] hat.” They also objected to Sandmann doing interviews trying to defend himself with Mystal deriding how this “17-year-old kid makes the George Zimmerman defense for why he was allowed to deny access to a person of color.”
Putting aside the fact that Sandmann was not denying “access to a person of color,” Mystal and Patrice were comparing this high school student to a man who was accused of murdering an unarmed African American kid and even assailing his effort to clear his name as the media continued to label him a racist. While ATL mocked the chance of recovering in the defamation actions, Sandmann has continued to secure settlements for the false statements.
WILL CLANTON SUE?
In this controversy, I believe much of the reckless rhetoric of ATL will be treated as opinion and indicative of the trash talking style of the site. The Court has previously discussed the danger to both free speech and the free press is the imposition of tort liability for political or social commentary. That is why a mere negligence standard was rejected for public officials and public figures.
Yet, the column does not include Clanton’s denial in both prior and later coverage on other sites. Moreover, it is not stating opinion in asserting that Clanton has a racist history. That is a fact that could be subject to a lawsuit.
There are also questions about some of the other coverage. Mediaite cited numerous sources, which could be cited as due diligence rather than reckless disregard of the truth. However, that depends on the sources. The Second Circuit found that Turning Point identified a group of disgruntled former employees who made the allegedly false allegation (and may have fabricated text messages). Due diligence requires some inquiry into the motivations or relationship of such sources.
Clanton would face some challenges in pursuing any litigation. First, it is not clear that she asked for corrections under the common “retraction statutes” in various states. That can limit or bar some actions.
Second, the New Yorker article is outside of the statute of limitations absent some tolling argument. She notably did not sue the suspected former employees who may have fabricated the text. However, given the later references to sources, there is a good-faith belief that, if the text was fabricated, that individual (or others) may have repeated the false statements about her within the statute of limitations.
Third, statements by the members of Congress are generally protected under the Speech and Debate Clause. However, the privilege protects legislative proceedings and generally does not apply to news releases, speeches and other public comments. This was the holding in Hutchinson v. Proxmire, when Sen. Proxmire was found to be acting outside of the clause in making media comments regarding his golden fleece award.
It is not clear if Clanton is inclined to sue, as did Sandmann. Such lawsuits can expose every aspect of your life and prior statements. Even if the lawsuit is narrowly crafted to the specific text message that led to this coverage, the defendants would likely try to prove that Clanton has engaged in other racist statements.
Conversely, she could pursue these sources and any internal communications linked to the story. The identity of these other former employees is obviously known to Turning Point and others. They could be deposed on the basis for their disparaging accounts of Clanton.
In response to the Second Circuit report, Above the Law ran a second column by Rubino that may have made matters worse. The column titled, “Federal Judges That Hired The ‘I HATE BLACK PEOPLE’ Law School Student Cleared Of Misconduct,” is dripping with the signature sarcasm of the site. However, it effectively repeats the accusations against Clanton while casting doubt over the report, even though it was done by a different circuit.
ATL continues to refer to Clanton’s “rather notorious history” and said, as Rubino predicted, “not much has come of the investigation.” She simply dismisses the results of the investigation and adds “So, the federal judiciary has better investigative resources than the New Yorker now?”
Under that standard, no investigation or trial would seem sufficient to challenge the inviolate conclusions of a publication. (It also ignores that ATL was relying on facts from 2017 and raises the question of whether it sought confirmation or more recent information) Moreover, Rubino did not simply report “as alleged by the New Yorker” or other sites. She wrote that the allegation was fact — and that Clanton is a little more than a raging racist.
The column goes on to emphasize that “the language in the decision falls short of explicitly saying that Judges Pryor and Maze determined the allegations were based on falsified documents” and then adds gratuitously that
Perhaps what the judges feel comfortable saying is “not true” are the allegations Clanton is a racist. That whatever happened while she was at Turning Point USA, the most important thing is that she treats folks with respect now. Maybe they truly believe Clanton has done the soul searching needed to overcome even unconscious biases.
The column does not explicitly correct its earlier statements and effectively repeats the allegations against Clanton. In the very definition of yellow journalism, it simply refuses to accept that the failure to find that Clanton wrote the texts does not mean that she is not still guilty of something, including other snapchats referenced in the Mediaite article. The column showed the same refusal to accept an earlier error that was evident in the Patrice/Mystal discussion of Sandmann.
The Second Circuit report casts considerable doubt over the original reporting. It certainly shows that no responsible publication would have stated the alleged text message as a fact as opposed to an allegation denied by Clanton. Ironically, the greatest defense for ATL could prove its reputation for gossip and ad hominem attacks. However, that “no-one-takes-us-seriously” defense did not work out for Dominick Dunne.
Given its relentless attacks, ATL has shown that it will continue to hound Clanton in her career. The question is whether Clanton wants to sue and whether ATL and these other outlets could prove either truth or other defenses to libel.
Here is the report: Second Circuit Report
The burden of proof is on the accuser not on the accused. This is the very basis of the law. There are posters on this forum who say that she should be required to prove her innocence. She has been accused with no evidence of her guilt. If she initiates a GoFundMe page to raise the funds to sue these lying scoundrels let me be the first to contribute. They could not have picked a more appropriate name than AboveTheLaw. Shortening there name to an acronym cheapens the explanation of who they really are. I hope that like Sandman she will become a very rich person and the publishers of this rag will become impoverished. It could happen. One could hope that their pockets are not as deep as those of The Washington Post. Little rag or big rag it’s still a just a rag. People buy these rags everyday and they somehow think they are getting a pretty new dress.
“The individual explained that the organization had determined that the source of the allegations against the candidate was a group of former employees. One of these employees was fired after the organization learned that this person had created fake text messages to be used against co-workers, to make it appear that those co-workers had engaged in misconduct when they had not.”
Sounds like infiltration by leftists to undermine an organization from within. Anything goes these days.
Well, they do brand themselves as “Above the Law.” Isn’t that enough of a challenge for someone to test that claim? It would be hilarious if “Above the Law” was sued out of existence. They’re no CNN; they can’t survive getting the Sandman kicked out of them!
Clanton might not have sued the former employee for the fake text messages, because she thought firing them was sufficient. She might not have realized that the malicious falsehoods were being spread, and thus a threat to her future employment.
I hope she sues the former employee, and every publication that promoted that false story without doing their homework.
Clanton, you might want to ring Sandmann’s lawyer.
Read this line from Professor Turley’s article, and remember to question the next character assassination.
“The individual explained that the organization had determined that the source of the allegations against the candidate was a group of former employees. One of these employees was fired after the organization learned that this person had created fake text messages to be used against co-workers, to make it appear that those co-workers had engaged in misconduct when they had not.“
These people ruin lives.
They target someone, often a conservative, for destruction, and just make things up. This ginned up controversy will forever be associated with Clanton. It might affect her personal life, as well.
Journalistic integrity is dead in too many publications.
I hope she sues the snot out of them.
Ironically, the greatest defense for ATL could prove its reputation for gossip and ad hominem attacks.
Our Lefty contributors on this blog have a similar reputation.
Regardless of any chance of success – she needs to sue. IMO, actual malice is clearly shown here.
TRASH TALKIN’ – TRUTH TALKIN’
__________________________
“In this controversy, I believe much of the reckless rhetoric of ATL will be treated as opinion and indicative of the trash talking style of the site.”
– Professor Turley
______________
If we are to engage in “trash talking,” we might consider the fact that this entire subject is technically moot as blacks must have been deported in 1863 upon the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation which transformed the status of slaves from that of “property” to “illegal alien” under the Naturalization Act of 1802, which was in full force and effect and required citizens to be “…free white person(s)…,” the brutal and murderous “Reign of Terror,” including the coercive and forcible ramming-through of the unconstitutional and still illegitimate “Reconstruction Amendments” of Abraham Lincoln and his anti-Constitution successors notwithstanding.
To wit,
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 [four iterations – they meant it]
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
By 1863, only 1-2% of slaves were born outside the US — because importation of slaves was banned starting in 1808 per the 1789 Constitution. Your logic is therefore faulty that Immigration and Naturalization Law would have applied to the 98% of slaves born on US soil. There was no existing law pertaining to their new emancipated status. This omission was solved by the 14th Amendment in 1868.
I am citing the law, entirely bereft of consideration of your personal desires and whimsy.
“…any Alien being a free white person,…may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….”
Black people were prohibited from becoming citizens by the Naturalization Act of 1802 which was in full force and effect on January 1, 1863.
The status of black slaves was transformed from that of “property” to “illegal alien” upon the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.
Freed slaves must have been immediately and compassionately repatriated, aka deported, on January 1, 1863.
President Abraham Lincoln was egregiously negligent and derelict as he committed a crime of high office and failed to faithfully execute his duties as President in charge of the executive branch.
America must resolve the 159 year-old “cold case” of Lincoln’s crime of failure to lawfully dispose of illegal aliens, which, incidentally, Lincoln himself understood well.*
That Abraham Lincoln ignored, subverted and nullified the Constitution, unconstitutionally seized power and imposed a criminal dictatorship is not in question, and is not the question here.
To wit,
“Lincoln and Taney’s great writ showdown”
“…[Unconstitutional Lincoln] a force too strong for me to overcome…”
…
“On May 26, Taney issued a writ of habeas corpus and ordered General George Cadwalader, Fort McHenry’s commander, to appear in the circuit courtroom along with Merryman and to explain his reasons for detaining Merryman.”
“Cadwalader didn’t comply with the writ and instead sent a letter back to Taney on May 27 explaining that Lincoln had authorized military officers to suspend the writ when they felt there were public safety concerns. Taney then tried to notify Cadwalader that he was in contempt of court, but soldiers at Fort McHenry refused the notice.
“On May 28, Taney issued an oral opinion, which was followed by a written opinion a few days later. He stated that the Constitution clearly intended for Congress, and not the President, to have to power to suspend the writ during emergencies.
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department,” Taney argued. “I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power,” Taney concluded.
“However, Taney noted that he didn’t have the physical power to enforce the writ in this case because of the nature of the conflict at hand. “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome,” he said. But Taney did order that a copy of his opinion be sent directly to President Lincoln.”
…
– National Constitution Center
________________________
*
“Abraham Lincoln’s Program of Black Resettlement”
“…send them to Liberia…their…own native land.”
“If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” “…he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”5
– Robert Morgan
Blah, blah, blah. This piece boils down to: 1. a genuine dispute about what Clanton said–ATL said that she made racist comments; she denies it. Turley produced no proof either way, BUT 2. Turley is really pissed at ATL and its criticism of him, so he’s using this platform vindictively, musing about defamation liability, while grudgingly admitting that ATL probably can’t be successfully sued for defamation. First, he went after Joe Patrice, and now, he’s going after Kathryn Rubino. What’s really, really funny for those of us who regularly read “Above the Law” is the fact that Turley altered the order of the title of “Antonin Scalia School of Law” (“ASS” for short–something ATL pointed out, and very apropos) to “Antonin Scalia Law School”, to avoid the amusing abbreviation. Speaking for myself, Turley has already lost most credibility with me, but this is just further proof of his right-wing bent and penchant for vindictiveness.
1. a genuine dispute about what Clanton said–
You have to lie to even get going.
No evidence exist any racist remarks were ever uttered. There is no disagreement. Name one person that heard these remarks. This is not a he said, she said, because there is no accuser.
No evidence exists that the remarks were NOT uttered. Turley produced NO proof–just a statement that there was denial. Denying something is NOT the same as refuting it, which would be a recanting of testimony or a statement, which Turley doesn’t have. So, you have no grounds to call me a liar. Once people start threatening litigation, everyone clams up to keep sources from being intimidated and threatened. ATL does NOT make things up–in fact, they go to great lengths to ask for documentation from sources, and tell contributors that they won’t publish without documentation. Turley doesn’t know what they have, and neither do you. The point of my criticism is that Turley is getting back at ATL for criticizing him by musing about liability over a disputed claim, and that, because he is pro-Scalia, he altered the name of “ASS Law” to “Antonin Scalia Law School”.
No evidence exists that the remarks were NOT uttered.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Cant prove a negative.
No named person claims to have heard any racial comments.
My posts on this are short. The fact set is extremely small.
Yes, you can prove a negative!
Stop making the stupid claim that you can’t. People prove negatives all the time. Someone says “there is no pepper in the kitchen cabinet.” How do you prove it? You look in the kitchen cabinet. There’s no pepper there. Voila, you’ve proved a negative.
And both of you look stupid discussing “uttered” statements when the allegation is about **written** statements. Copies of written statements were produced. The issue is whether they were accurate copies or photoshopped copies, and whether Turning Point USA’s executives were honest when they claimed the allegations were false. Unless their statements were made under penalty of perjury, nothing prevents them from lying about it.
Unless their statements were made under penalty of perjury, nothing prevents them from lying about it.
Got any evidence for that?
Didn’t think so.
Of course you are not calling the TUSA a liar. You are calling the 2cnd circuit court a liar. They found no evidence the messages originated from Clanton
If there is no original digital data, there is no evidence. No racists comments.
There’s no pepper there. Voila, you’ve proved a negative.
I prove the affirmative. The absence of pepper. If I said there has never been pepper in that cabinet. that would require the proving of a negative.
It impossible to prove a person never made a comment. ONLY proof of past comments exist. Proof doesn’t exist that specific comments were never made.
“Yes, you can prove a negative!”
Not in this context.
“No evidence exists that the remarks were NOT uttered.”
What would such “evidence” look like?
Should read “ASS Law”, and still apropos to its namesake.
AWFL AWFL AWFL
Look, we know what you’re told to think, no need to further waste our time. KTHXBYE.
YAWN.
NUTCHACHA,
Is it unconstitutional to make “racist comments” cuz I’m not seeing that in the 1st Amendment freedom of speech, thought, opinion, discrimination, etc., etc., etc.?
You don’t like freedom much, huh?
That you don’t like someone or something makes them illegal and it unconstitutional?
Geez, is there anything else ya’all gonna order us to do and not do?
You’re worse than Ole “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, the Great American Traitor.
Just imagine, the slaves said all we wants is freedom, Massa!
Now they want to amend the Constitution outside of the constitutional amendment process and provide themselves title to the entire country and its treasure.
Dang, those idiotic pusillanimous milquetoasts in D.C. have bought that rubbish since Comrade General Secretary Lincoln and have given the entire nation away, huh, why stop now?
You go, Girl!
For the Democrat Party, the incidents of hate crimes and racists attacks far exceed the Democrats demand. the need, to continue feeding the narrative. So the Democrat Party just makes them up to fill the void.
The also know 99.6% of the population is wholly ignorant of almost all news, especially National, and even less inside the beltway blather.
So in 6 months The original ATL stories will hit twitter, and facebook, google, yahoo, etal like its old news, well vetted, never denied. Maybe 1% see this story but never the followup, but it validates the lie that conservatives are racists, jsut in time for mid term voting. Its a data point. A lie. But still a data point, because everybody is too busy living life to pay attention to things that don’t affect them.
ATL is not responsible for consumers to stay in business, so they have no need for Reputational honesty. Dem Donors keep the bucks rolling in to ATL who will spread the barnyard waste, without getting any on there $1800 shoes of Soros and his peers.
I was thinking of Rush Limbaugh. The left always called him a racists, they never were able to come up with any evidence, but is stuck enough to effect him. He was denied an opportunity to buy into an NFL franchise. It doesnt have to true for the Democrats to succeed in the smear. Waiting to see if the NBA owner who said the quiet part out loud. Not giving two shakes about China’s on going genocide. But I’m sure he’s a good leftist, he gets a pass. Just like Mark Cuban, never has to justify his support of the Chinese genocide.
We keep coming back to the simple fact the Left cares less about the truth or facts and sullies the good name and character of anyone they resent for having a differing view from theirs.
The point the Professor makes once again about how the person attacked mystically becomes a public figure or limited public figure by responding to an attack by the media or other entity or person….and thus suffer some loss of protection as a result is mystifying to me.
If you spit in my face and I respond by slapping you out of your loafers…..I am not guilty of assault…..you are.
Seems that is the same for verbal assaults….you attack me I should have the absolute right and protection of the Law to offer a defense against the attack in exactly the same venue and manner.
Turn the other cheek is a religious tenet…..and this is not religion under discussion here.
Until the Law protects the victim….and puts the aggressor at risk of repercussions…..it has it exactly backwards.
We keep coming back tTo the simple fact the Left cares less about the truth or facts and sullies the good name and character of anyone they resent for having a differing view from theirs.
That’s because it is impossible to get elected on their stated agenda. In order to stay in front they have to lie and import illegal alien voters. The will have well over 1 million new voters, voting for the free stuff Dems are promising, by November.
A judge hires a marshal for $250/month plus expenses to cover 70,000 square miles.
Now pick up the badge. If you find those men, they are to be brought before me alive to be judged and hanged.
All’s fair in lust and abortion? Diversity (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry) breeds adversity. Falsely attributed allegations of diversity should be treated as statements of diversity (e.g. speak truth through projection). That said, diversity of individuals, minority of one. #HateLovesAbortion
When I grew up in Eastern Kentucky, “fightin’ words” would get you a bloody nose. The leftist media has been continually given a pass on using such language. Unfortunately, Clanton can’t literally bloody their nose, but she should a page from Nick Sandman’s sojourn and sue the hell out of them!
Any white person who liberal groups do not like is subject to villification as a racist. It’s time to sue and stop this nonsense
I am just done with these people. They know perfectly well the letter of the law and they flout it blatantly in the open at this point. There is no such thing anymore as an ‘American Democratic Party’, just a totalitarian tide that seeks ever more power and control. Nobody born in the 70s or prior thought we would ever see this in our country, it was unthinkable. So is the fact that people continue to blindly vote for it.
James, an astute observation, that I believe more and more Americans are beginning to see. I used to be a Democrat and never foresaw they would turn to authoritarianism. But looking back, I can see the path to authoritarianism began most likely with identity politics.
“But looking back, I can see the path to authoritarianism began most likely with identity politics.”
Absolutely.
Political correctness came in waves starting in the late 80’s from what I remember. Those waves always crashed into nothingness, but then there would be another wave and that would rapidly disappear. Then came the tsunami around 2012 and the rest is history. What has happened in the hearts and minds of the modern left is a tragedy.
But looking back, I can see the [Democrat’s] path to authoritarianism began most likely with identity politics. — Mary Ann Caton
Which is to say, with the Clintons…
“Nobody born in the 70s or prior thought we would ever see this in our country…”
Us old-school lefties worried it would be the Republicans going full on totalitarian…turns out it was our fellow lefties we should have been frightened of.
Ivan,
Same goes for those of us who were born in the Forties….baby boomers mostly…..and raised in the South as Democrats.
We were Democrats but were taught to believe in manners, respect for others, the value of education and hard work, went to Church on Wednesday evenings and Sunday, joined the Scouts, played in the School Band, recited the Pledge of Allegiance every morning at School and stood for the National Anthem when it played.
We have to question how we went from then to now philosophically and politically…..and wonder what went wrong…..and it most certainly has gone wrong.
The Leftists are attacking the very foundations of our system of government and forget they do so at their peril.
The Constitution is something that shall be defended by a huge number of Americans.
The Leftists should remember it is the United States of America…..not just the United States (meaning the Federal Government).
Sovereignty. remains with the Fifty States and the People of those Fifty States….per the Constitution.
That is where the Leftist Agenda shall run up on the hard rocks of reality.
Ivan: Same here. Decades ago, I predicted that the Right would be the greatest threat to free speech. (Boy, was I wrong.) Then I saw the Left pushing “speech codes” on college campuses. The “old Left” has been replaced by the new fascists.
Wait for it…ENIGMA and Anonymous will weigh in soon and tell us how rotten Turley is and how enlightened they are. I didn’t even read the article. Just here to check out the Village Idiots I just mentioned.
Mendacity is the bread and butter of today’s Lefties. They eat this kind of attack up.
Purpose is to frighten conservatives into silence.
Ugly people.
Ugly people can still engender compassion. This is something else entirely.
The article is too long.
You have entirely too much time on your hands. You are one of my daily scroll throughs.