What more is there to say? Not much:
- The motion was made by the indefensible former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who rigged the 2016 nomination process for Hillary Clinton, so the hypocrisy and stupidity here isn’t exactly surprising…
- As Red State notes, “Every Democrat on the committee voted to try to silence Kennedy for supposed antisemitism…in a hearing in which he is testifying on the federal government’s attempts to censor him. Did no one think through the optics of that?” No, this increasingly weird and ethics-challenged party is convinced that the public is too dim to detect even that level of blatant totalitarianism.
- The same party has stood by and allowed two members of “the Squad,” Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, to make multiple anti-Semitic assertions. RFK, Jr. is considered a threat to Biden’s re-election, so his garbled statement about ethnic targeting of biological weapons is being fashioned into a “gotcha!” There are so, so many legitimate reasons to criticize Little Bobby, but the party that warns of fascism defaults immediately to censorship. Wow.
Ethics Alarms 
Has the esteemed congresswoman from Fort Lauderdale ever heard of hair dryers? Has she ever uttered a word that wasn’t part of a 9preposterous) Dem talking point? She and Steve Cohen of Tennessee and Adam Schiff are all peas in a pod. If you look up “brazen” in the dictionary, their pictures are next to the definition.
The more I listen to him, the more I am seeing that everything I heard about him was not even accurate. Seems a lot of people have wanted him to stop… Had no idea he was so bright, and seems so unpolitical. Don’t agree with everything he says, and LOVE that he can talk to diverse people, and even get into arguments about their view, in a CIVIL way even! I love what he’s about. I know people in both parties who really are glad for how he is approaching things and his candor.
Before I heard him for myself, I realized I had innocently had an opinion of him based on guess what.. the NEWS and other people. I really like making up my own mind 🙂 and it’s chilling there’s people who don’t want us thinking for ourselves.
The left has become like the moral majority. Scary. So creepy.
And WordPress didn’t eat your comment! Yay!
Wow! yay!! 🙂
I think with Kennedy, at LEAST perhaps those willing to discuss from opposite sides of the issues, will join in… it’s quite interesting to see who IS willing to talk to him, and who’s not. The nots seem to be pretty revealing in their “why” they won’t debate any issues with him…. resorting to only discrediting him, rather than address the actually things he has said. (in my experience) I have now watched interviews of him by many diverse people.
I really like a person willing to speak to all kinds of people, and let the public make up their own minds rather than say the same partisan talking points and expecting people to think THAT was a real discussion.
When you look at this in light of the fact that the Biden justice department is probably only a week or two away from bringing criminal charges against the main political opponent, it really is pretty scary. The Democratic Party is at the point where the leadership wants everyone to fall into line, or else.
The scary part is that if you look at the commentary on a lot of the articles that are telling us this, you see endless comments about Biden being the last decent man in Washington, or how the walls are finally closing in on the biggest traitor ever to be in the White House and my favorite which was one about there are going to be a lot more progressive laws so everyone will flourish. Either these people are Democratic Party trolls who get paid a couple of dollars to make these posts, or substantial portion of this country has decided it does not want this country to be this country anymore. We do seem to have dodged another violent summer of “mostly peaceful” protest, but I think this is just the calm before the storm. I think we are really looking at a reckoning come next year. When a party in charge is putting its main political opponent in jail and silencing those who dare challenge the leadership, we’re looking at everything through a very red lens, and I don’t mean Republican red.
What crimes are they trying to put Trump in jail for?
Sealioning? Watch it! You can answer that yourself.
Sorry. You’re right, I know what crimes they’re trying to jail him for; my point was that Steve’s comment acts as if those crimes are irrelevant. Saying Democrats are trying to put their main political opponent in jail is a statement rhetorically designed to make the reader assume this is completely unfair and political, while glossing over the serious crimes of which he is credibly accused. My goal was to redirect attention back to those charges. I could have simply brought them up myself, but my style tends toward asking people critical thinking questions so that they don’t feel like they are being lectured. But I can see how that can come across as sealioning and sarcasm.
But to state my opinion directly, I think the charges against Trump are serious, and that since no one should be above the law in the United States, he should have his day in court after a fair trial. That these charges are being brought by the DOJ under his political opponent is unfortunate, but also inevitable; the alternative, from my perspective, is to let him get away with serious crimes. From my point of view, appointing a special counsel minimizes the appearance of political persecution, but nothing can eliminate it. It’s an ethical clusterf*ck, but if the choice is between looking like you’re going too hard on someone for their political position, and actually going way easier on him than you would to any normal citizen, I would have to choose the latter. Reality is more important than appearance.
I don’t disagree with your last paragraph. It’s still a disastrous precedent, and ethics zugzswang.
Yup, and if it leads to the person being unable to get a fair trial we have to lean toward fairness. I don’t think being prosecuted by your main political opponent, special prosecutor or not, is a fair trial.
Why not? (Serious question, not sealioning.) Prosecutors are always biased against their targets. The fairness of the judge and members of the jury is typically more important to the fairness of a trial than anything the prosecutor does (barring actual prosecutorial misconduct, of which we have no evidence). In the Florida case, we have a judge who has shown great deference to Trump in a previous case, and the Florida jury pool is hardly a bastion of liberals and NeverTrumpers. So I don’t see how you can declare this trial unfair based on the lack of impartiality of the prosecution, something that has never been expected in any trial.
In addition, your complaint raises the question: if not now, when? Would it be fair to wait until the next Republican is elected, and then for them to prosecute? That’s not going to happen; they’d lose too much support. What if that next Republican is Donald Trump, and he pardons himself? Your standard stacks the deck so that he can never be prosecuted, period.
Finally, the Biden DOJ—through a special prosecutor appointed by Trump, and kept on by Biden—recently and successfully brought charges against Biden’s own son, which would seem to be a kink in the argument that the Biden DOJ is hopelessly corrupt and will only go after its enemies. I have heard some critics argue that Hunter’s plea deal was too generous, but it the Biden DOJ were as corrupt as many of those same critics argue, it wouldn’t have even come to that point.
Of course it’s a disastrous precedent. So would essentially declaring that presidents, former presidents, and potential future presidents are above the law. Ultimately, I think the choice that makes powerful people more accountable is better than the one that makes them less.
What is a disastrous precedent?
Sitting administrations and parties in power using the criminal justice system to harass, discredit or remove a significant political adversary, whether or not the eventual charges are legitimate. This is routine in second rate fake democracies. Beria said, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” As with impeachment, the Democrats didn’t start with an act, they started with the objective. Dangerous, disastrous, and unethical. And there is no possible good result.
“ discredit or remove a significant political adversary”
Good thing that isn’t happening then!
That is both the intended result and the long term effort. Whether it occurs or not is irrelevant to wht it is unethical and dangerous.
Are you miffed that Hilary Clinton was not indicted for her serious crimes. Somehow I doubt it. Hilary is clearly above the law as that is exactly what Comey said publicly. Trump’s “serious crimes” certainly appear to be ginned up by political prosecutors, and may likely be dropped, thrown out or acquitted. If so, then the ghost of Harry Reid can say “it worked didn’t’t it.
“My goal was to redirect attention back to those charges. I could have simply brought them up myself, but my style tends toward asking people critical thinking questions so that they don’t feel like they are being lectured.” Wow, pompous anyone?
Comey did not say Hillary was above the law, or anything like it. He said there was not enough evidence to indict her. You are free to disagree with that, but don’t make up strawmen.
If she had been prosecuted by a special counsel under the Trump administration, the best argument against such a prosecution would need to address the specific charges and explain why the evidence didn’t merit them, not merely declare the charges politically motivated without evidence, as you did here in Trump’s case.
The evidence seems indisputable that Trump took classified information that did not belong to him, and refused to return it, arguing that it was his personal property; no serious legal scholar agrees takes that argument seriously. He was given multiple opportunities to return the documents. This type of blatant legal defiance would get anyone indicted. Whether prosecutors can convince a jury to find him guilty of a crime, which will involve proving the president’s intent, is another story.
Ark. Ark ark. Ark ark ark. Rello. 🦭
I hate to keep doing this, but I have to admit I’m confused again.
Of Ilhan Omar, you said that her putting forward a controversial scientific conclusion that has received significant mainstream media attention as fact, makes her incompetent, and embarrassment to Congress, and not to be trusted with legislation.
But RFK, who has made far more embarrassing statements regarding science and other topics—including his recent claim that Covid was bioengineered to spare Chinese and Jewish people—should still be given a platform to speak to Congress?
Of course there should be a higher standard for being a member of Congress than simply speaking to them, but at the same time, no one has a right to speak in front of a congressional hearing, and there should be standards for whom Congress chooses to invite to such serious proceedings. RFK, IMO, falls far below that standard, and it isn’t “censorship” to have standards in such a venue.
Actually, no. He didn’t say anything about any scientific statements Omar might have made. He referred to repeated antisemitic statements by her that ought to have embarrassed her party. Would that they were able to criticize a real antisemite.
Actually, yes. This article is about a scientific claim forewarded by Ilhan Omar, not an anti-Semitic statement.
Why were you so certain Jack hadn’t said anything about this, without checking?
Omar has received criticism from her party for anti-Semitic dogwhistles, and she has apologized for them. I would argue that a conspiracy theory asserting that Covid was designed to pass over Jews goes much, much further than anything she said.
I would argue that a conspiracy theory asserting that Covid was designed to pass over Jews goes much, much further than anything she said.
And you’d be rationalizing. She’s an elected official and a member of Congress. What a member of Congress says is not comparable to the statements of a private citizen, and is held to a far, far, higher standard.
Agreed. That of course does not mean there should be no standards for who gets to speak to a congressional hearing. And that does not mean that implementing those standards is “censorship.” No one who has said the things RFK Jr. has said should be given time in a congressional hearing. It’s wasteful. But our taxpayer dollars are now going to hearings where members of Congress whip out revenge porn to humiliate their enemies instead of actually getting to the bottom of legitimate investigations or solving America’s problems, so maybe the standards just don’t exist anymore and we should all just enjoy the show.
“No one who has said the things RFK Jr. has said should be given time in a congressional hearing.”
There is no such standard, nor should there be, nor has there ever been. Kennedy was testifying about government censorship, and he has unquestionably been the victim of it. A hearing has similar legal status to a court hearing or trial (Lawyers are required to treat them the same). Witnesses aren’t barred according to their past comments, public or otherwise. If a Rep. wants to impeach his credibility with bast comments, she had more latitude than a lawyer would, but that’s all she can do even quasi-ethically.
“ Kennedy was testifying about government censorship, and he has unquestionably been the victim of it.”
Not unquestionably. I’ll question it right now. What is the evidence for this claim? I am aware he was banned from certain social media websites, but not by the government. This seems like another one of RFK Jr.’s conspiracy theories to me.
Looking further into this story, it looks like DWS’s failed motion was about going into executive session. This wouldn’t actually stop RFK Jr from speaking, it would just move the testimony behind closed doors. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure lawyers have a right to make this request in most trials. The guy is an attention whore who constantly pushes dangerous misinformation to the public. He should be free to do so on his own time, but I can see the ethical argument for attempting to refuse to give him the platform of a public congressional hearing, which are already used too often by shameless self-promoters to spout bullshit for attention from their followers. You may disagree with this ethical argument, but why not engage with it? That would be more interesting than asserting that there is only one ethical way to look at this. Aren’t ethics complicated sometimes? Isn’t there sometimes a reasonable conflict between giving everyone a platform and ensuring an informed public?
“but not by the government.” You’re assuming the issue being examined. The issue is illicit and abusive government influence over social media censorship.
An issue that has been litigated over and over again, with, to my knowledge, no significant evidence of the conclusion you declared “unquestionable.”
Willful ignorance. The Twitter files are clear. The Biden administration’s opposition to the judge blocking it’s censorship by proxy efforts are clear. The practice has always been unconstitutional, but never this brazen and shameless.
Defending it is a tell, and a damning one. Disappointing.
The Twitter files focus on a time period when the president was Donald Trump, not Joe Biden. RFK Jr. was also not banned from any social media platforms during that time period. So they may be clear, but they can’t possibly be clear that RFK Jr. was “unquestionably” a victim of government censorship.
The Twitter files also show that the Trump administration made the same types of requests for taking down content as the Biden campaign; was that unconstitutional? I don’t think so. But if so, why is all the attention on requests made by the Biden campaign, which had no governmental power, rather than the Trump administration, which did?
Wrong. “Twitter files” showed that the Biden administration worked with Twitter to control the public conversation about the Wuhan virus, which included censoring tweets skeptical of the vaccine.
It is proxy First Amendment breach when done by the government, regardless of party, and unethical journalism and public service when a news organization or social media platform allows a campaign to have any influence.
Since the FBI and other anti-Trump deep state agencies were alos exposed in the Twitter Files, using the Trump deflection is particularly disingenuous.
Also—and I can’t believe I just thought of this—RFK Jr. was never banned from Twitter! Only Instagram and YouTube. So how on earth could the Twitter files prove that he was “unquestionably” the victim of government censorship?
My mistake. Of course, the issue is that he was banned from two platforms, and because of government pressure, allegedly. Your big revelation changes nothing.
Again, the Twitter files didn’t and couldn’t show anything about the Biden administration, because the documents cover a period of time when there was no such thing as the Biden administration. It didn’t exist yet. The requests it documents come from the Biden campaign. They also show requests coming from the Trump administration—a fact Matt Taibbi chose to bury dozens of tweets in after focusing on the behavior of the Biden campaign. I would find the complaints about “government interference” a lot more credible if critics weren’t so focused on actions of a non-governmental body while saying almost nothing about a governmental one.
You say “allegedly” now but earlier it was “unequestionably.” So apparently my “big revelation” (which was really just basic background knowledge needed to have any informed conversation on this topic) change a lot.
I don’t question it, but some do.
You apparently ignore reports that don’t fit your partisan narrative, just like the left-biased media. https://nypost.com/2022/12/26/biden-admin-pushed-to-ban-twitter-users-for-covid-disinformation/
My mistake. Most of the Twitter files covered a period before the Biden administration was in power, but I had forgotten that there were others released later that cover the Biden administration.
Still, the NY Post article shows government officials asking questions and, in some cases, being told by Twitter that the tweets the government is complaining about don’t violate their policies. That all seems well within the bounds of the first amendment to me. Government officials can and do flag posts, just like any citizen can, and Twitter can and did say yes or no of their own volition. Absent any type of threat or quid pro quo, such requests from government officials may be inappropriate, but they aren’t “censorship” in my view, and there remains little evidence that RFK Jr. was censored by the government.
No, this post is about censoring RFK Jr and the comparison between what the party has and hasn’t done regarding statements its other members have made in the past. We don’t need to drag in a separate statement by Omar that is addressed in a separate post.
On a related issue, I got a text a couple days ago (meant, I think, for my sister) begging me to sign a petition to ban RFK Jr. from the ballot. Do you feel that’s an appropriate thing to do? If so, why?
So you can bring in separate but related issues, and I can’t?
No, that’s not appropriate. He is constitutionally eligible for the job, and the petition is meaningless except as an expression of stupidity. He also has zero chance of winning, and from where I’m sitting, is more likely to pull votes away from Trump than from Biden. Let him run.