To Be Fair, Sometimes Twitter Justifies Its Existence: The Hilarious Maria Shriver Takedown


Maria Shriver, once a Peabody and Emmy award-winning journalist for NBC News and now an occasional guest host, took to Twitter to post, “I’m trying to take a beat to digest the Rittenhouse verdict. My son just asked me how it’s possible that he didn’t get charged for anything. How is that possible? I don’t have an answer for him. The idea that someone could be out with a semi-automatic weapon, kill people, and walk is stunning. I look forward to hearing from the jury. This is a moment for them to explain how they came to their decision.”

Shriver’s brain fart is reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s fatal debate fantasy on 1980 when he claimed that had been discussing nuclear policy with his daughter Amy. If anything, Shriver’s tale is more unlikely: her sons are 24 and 28. Aren’t these products of the best private schools better educated than to be mystified by the basics of criminal law? And how could Shriver think that Rittenhouse wasn’t charged with any crimes?

Knowing a hanging curve right over the plate when he sees one, Ted Cruz, as they like to say of Republicans, “pounced.” He tweetstormed,

“Pretty stunning that she’s an @nbc anchor. She ‘doesn’t have an answer.’ Try this: (1) He WAS charged with six counts. That thing that just finished was his trial. (2) A jury of his peers found him not guilty. (3) Why? The defense argued he was engaged in self-defense. (4) What facts support self defense? – the three people shot all chased him, assaulted him and/or tried to grab his gun – ALL THREE were convicted felons (on served 15 years for child molesting) – the defense argued Rittenhouse feared for his life (5) You might personally disagree, but the jury heard evidence & presumably concluded he was acting to defend himself from what he reasonably perceived to be an imminent threat to his life. (6) Also, ALL THREE of the people shot were White (contrary to false media reports). (7) Generally ‘white supremacists’ don’t shoot White people. (8) Numerous Dem politicians & corporate media outlets (including your employer and especially @msnbc) recklessly alleged he was a white supremacist. (9) NO evidence was adduced at trial to support that claim. (10) A whole bunch of those corrupt media outlets are now retaining defamation lawyers, because they’re ALL about to get sued—and the liability could well be massive. @mariashriver hope that helps!”

But the best part of Maria’s humiliation was the cruel response of the Twitter wags. How could a member of the Kennedy family open up THAT topic? Thus…

  • Former Donald Trump advisor Boris Epshteyn: “Wait, aren’t you a Kennedy?”
  • Former Trump communication director Tim Murtaugh: “Yes, Ted Kennedy’s niece really tweeted this.”
  • Author Tony Shaffer: “I’m trying to take a beat to comprehend how a full grown man could drive off a bridge, leave a woman not his wife in the car, tell no one and let her drown…how is that possible? Why don’t we have an answer?”

Former Mets star Lenny Dykstra tweeted this:

Dykstra tweet

Twitter is still an unethical and vile force in our culture, but it embarrassed the Kennedys. Good.


Source: The Blaze

7 thoughts on “To Be Fair, Sometimes Twitter Justifies Its Existence: The Hilarious Maria Shriver Takedown

  1. Karma’s a bitch, ain’t it Maria. And what about the cousin who killed a young girl with a six iron? And that trial in Palm Beach? Was that the same Kennedy cousin or a different one? Hard to keep track. Michael Smith or something like that?

  2. What evidence do you have that even something like this could embarrass the Kennedys? And why does the spell check think that an apostrophe as well as an s should be added to form the plural of Kennedy, when if anything the grammatical-lexicographical rule is that -y endings become -ies endings in the plural? (It also doesn’t like Kennedies.)

    • 1. None. The Kennedys are quite likely to be immune to embarrassment as a genetic feature of the family.
      2. Somebody somewhere decided that “Kennedies” was wrong and I decided that Kennedy’s made no sense. Hence “Kennedys.” I share your dissatisfaction.

        • Sure, and that’s what I was aiming at. The “if anything” was my remark on what alteration made sense, if one were to make one at all. I was trying to remark on that in a way that acknowledged that it wasn’t what one ought to do after all (“ought” in the sense of a coherent and consistent approach to language usage, insofar as that ever is realistic).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.