10,000 on ignore, Book 164: The Days of Reckoning, Part 23.....

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Judge finds Derek Chauvin 'particularly cruel,' but what will that amount to in sentencing?
Lauren Floyd

The same Minnesota judge who presided over the trial finding former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin guilty of murder concluded in a court document filed Tuesday that there were "aggravated sentencing factors" to qualify a longer sentence for the ex-cop. Chauvin, who was convicted last month of murdering George Floyd when the officer kneeled on the Black father’s neck, is set to be sentenced on June 25. Judge Peter Cahill agreed with most of the prosecution’s claims in an order made public on Wednesday detailing how Chauvin "abused a position of trust and authority." He was fittingly found guilty on April 20 of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter.

Supported by the guilty verdict, the judge found that Chauvin "abused his position of authority by using force that the jury has determined in returning its guilty verdicts on all three counts was unreasonable and exceeded the authority granted peace officers by statute and other law."
The prosecution held as an example Cahill ultimately agreed with that Chauvin held a handcuffed Floyd in a prone position for more than nine minutes and 40 seconds, "a position that Defendant knew from his training and experience carried with it a danger of positional asphyxia." "The prolonged use of this technique was particularly egregious in that George Floyd made it clear he was unable to breathe and expressed the view that he was dying as a result of the officers' restraint," Cahill said in the order. "In addition, one of the other officers involved in the restraint twice checked Floyd's pulse after Floyd had been restrained in this position for more than six and one-half minutes and informed Defendant that he was unable to detect a pulse."

Cahill said other officers also asked twice about rolling Floyd onto his side in a "recovery position" and told Chauvin they believed Floyd had passed out. "When it became clear even to the bystanders that George Floyd was in medical distress, was no longer responsive, and had ceased breathing, Defendant further abused his position of trust and authority by not rendering aid, by declining two suggestions from one of his fellow officers to place George Floyd on his side, and by preventing bystanders, including an off-duty Minneapolis fire fighter, from assisting," Cahill wrote. "The failure to render aid became particularly abusive after Mr. Floyd had passed out, and was still being restrained in the prone position, with Defendant continuing to kneel on the back of Mr. Floyd's neck with one knee and on his back with another knee, for more than two and a half minutes after one of his fellow officers announced he was unable to detect a pulse."

Cahill agreed with the prosecution’s assessment that it was "particularly cruel" to kill Floyd "slowly by preventing his ability to breathe" as he was "begging for his life and obviously terrified" knowing he would likely die. The judge also agreed that the crime, committed “as a group” with officers Thomas Lane, Tou Thao, and Alex Kueng, happened in front of four children: three 17-year-olds and a 9-year-old.

All three officers have pleaded not guilty to charges of aiding and abetting second-degree murder and aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter, and prosecutors are trying to add third-degree murder to their charges as well, according to CNN. Cahill determined that although it's unclear whether Lane, Kueng, and Thao knowingly had the "intent and knowledge necessary to establish that they are 'offenders,'" they were "actively involved" in the encounter, Lane and Kueng by restraining Floyd and Thao by "keeping bystanders away."

The only element the prosecution laid out in its findings of fact on sentencing that Cahill didn't agree with was that Floyd was "particularly vulnerable" in comparison with other murder victims. "Although George Floyd was handcuffed, he had still been able to resist arrest and to prevent three police officers from seating him in a squad car before he was placed in the prone position, so that, by itself, did not create a particular vulnerability," Cahill wrote.

Experts told The Associated Press that although Minnesota statutes only hold Chauvin to sentencing for the most serious charge, second-degree murder, which carries a maximum sentence of 40 years, he likely won’t get that with no prior convictions. Mark Osler, a University of St. Thomas School of Law professor, told the AP the Minnesota Supreme Court standard set by the 1981 State v. Evans case allows sentencing to go beyond the maximum, which the Chauvin prosecution is pursuing. Osler said when that is justified, “the upper limit will be double the presumptive sentence length.” In Chauvin’s case, that would be about 30 years, not including any consideration of parole likely to reduce the time served to two-thirds of the sentence, the AP reported.


Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Immediately after White House meeting, McCarthy trashes president as 'Corrupt Joe Biden'
Kerry Eleveld

Well, that didn't take long.

"It's Kevin McCarthy," read a campaign text from the House GOP Minority Leader on Wednesday, immediately after he met with President Joe Biden in the Oval Office. "I just met with Corrupt Joe Biden and he's STILL planning to push his radical Socialist agenda onto the American people. I need EVERY single patriot to step up in the next six hours."

Shorter McCarthy: I went to the Oval Office so I could trash talk Biden and fundraise off it. Pure class.

Speaking at the White House after the meeting on Biden’s $2.3 trillion jobs proposal, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also extended his middle finger to the president’s outstretched hand in so many words.
"We had a good meeting with the president. Nearly all of it was about infrastructure," McConnell said, as he continued to obsess over what Republicans are willing to call infrastructure.

But here was the real kicker: "We are not interested in reopening the 2017 tax bill," McConnell added. "That's a red line."

Okay, so whatever their quibbles are about the size of the bill and what's included, Republicans still aren't going to sign on to any of the ways Biden has proposed to pay for it—and Biden has unequivocally pledged to find ways to pay for his proposed investments. Actually, Republicans are just into deficit spending these days.

McConnell's position about the size of the plan has shifted a bit over the past couple of weeks—he's clearly putting on a bit of a show. But the one thing McConnell has been rock solid on: He's intent on making sure Biden fails and is certain Biden won't muster a single GOP vote for his proposal to create jobs and invest in America's future.

Different White House, same GOP schtick—we're happy to sacrifice the nation at the altar of our political gain.

For its part, the White House released a read-out of the meeting with congressional leaders that used to be regarded as standard form.

“Today, President Biden hosted the bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Leadership for a productive meeting about how to further make government work for American families during this moment of crisis,” it read. “The President reiterated that he ran to be a leader for all Americans — regardless of who they voted for, that he believes there are many crucial areas where his administration and both parties in Congress can come together, and that in this unprecedented moment the American people expect us to put the interests of families above our disagreements.”

Well, it was worth a shot.

If there's a silver lining here, it's that the American public seems to be on to the Republican charade after they ran it for eight solid years during Barack Obama's presidency. An ABC News/Ipsos poll last week found that 67% of respondents say GOP leaders in Congress are doing too little to compromise with Biden, while just 22% called their approach about right. On the other hand, 60% of Americans said President Biden is either offering the right amount of bipartisanship or too much of it.

Bottom line: Americans are clear that it’s congressional Republicans who are killing any chance at bipartisanship, not President Biden.


Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Gallitzin State Forest, 5/12/21












Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014

Republicans double down on gaslighting narrative in House hearing: ‘It was not an insurrection’
David Neiwert

Republicans clearly have settled on their strategy for a post-Jan. 6 narrative about the Capitol insurrection: Gaslight, gaslight, and then gaslight some more. That was made crystal clear today in a House hearing on the insurrection, when a parade of GOP House members consistently tried to convince the public that what it witnessed that day wasn’t real.

One congressman tried to claim that “it was not an insurrection, and we cannot call it that and be truthful.” Another doubted that the mob was comprised entirely of Donald Trump supporters:” I don’t know who did the poll to say they were Trump supporters.” And their go-to white nationalist complained that “law-abiding citizens” were under attack from “the national security state” in the course of investigating and prosecuting the insurrectionists.

The hearing, titled “The Capitol Insurrection: Unexplained Delays and Unanswered Questions,” featured testimony from former Trump officials—then-acting Attorney General Phil Rosen, and then-acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller—involved in the slow response by security forces to intervene in the riot. Both men generally refused to directly answer any of the questions posed to them by Democrats, and mostly claimed they had done nothing wrong that day.

But the hearing was dominated by Republicans who insisted that Democrats were making much ado out of nothing, like Charles Boyer telling Ingrid Bergman that those gaslights weren’t flickering. The most audacious of the bunch was Congressman Andrew Clyde of Georgia, who opened the hearing’s second half with a straight shot of alternative-universe ether:

This hearing is called “The Capitol Insurrection.” Let’s be honest with the American people: It was not an insurrection, and we cannot call it that and be truthful. The Cambridge English dictionary defines an “insurrection” as, and I quote, “An organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence.” And then from the Century Dictionary, “The act of rising against civil authority, or governmental restraints, specifically the armed resistance of a number of persons against the power of the state.”
As one of the members who stayed in the Capitol and on the House floor, who with other Republican colleagues, helped to barricade the door until almost 3 p.m. that day from the mob who tried to enter. I can tell you, the House was never breached, and it was not an insurrection.
This is the truth: There was an undisciplined mob, there were some rioters and some who committed acts of vandalism, but let me be clear—there was no insurrection, and to call it an insurrection, in my opinion, is a boldfaced lie.
Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall, people in orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes taking videos and pictures—you know, if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January 6, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.

There were no firearms confiscated from anyone who breached the Capitol, so the only shot fired on January 6 was from a Capitol Police officer who killed an unarmed protester, Ashli Babbitt, in what will probably, eventually, be determined to be a needless display of lethal force.

Congressman Ralph Norman of South Carolina was similarly skeptical. All those Trump banners carried up the Capitol steps that day by people who got started at a Trump rally failed to persuade him that the crowd actually was comprised of Trump supporters:

When I read this sheet, and on the timeline, let’s see, at 2:07, “a mob of Trump supporters breached the steps”—I don’t know who did a poll that it was Trump supporters. You had the media saying the same thing, just like the media was saying Officer Sicknick was killed with a fire extinguisher, which he was not. But I don’t know who did the poll to say they were Trump supporters.

Clyde similarly displayed a kind of cognitive obtuseness—refusing the plain meaning of words, declining to see what’s plainly in view, while inverting reality and claiming it’s the opposite—while remaining somehow oblivious that his definitions of “insurrection” perfectly described the events of January 6, while an event he considers an “insurrection”—namely, the so-called “Russiagate” investigation—bears little to no resemblance to one:

You know, but the only insurrection I’ve witnessed in my lifetime was the one conducted by the FBI with participants from the DOJ and other agencies under the banner “Russia Russia Russia.” High-ranking employees from these federal agencies and members of an independent counsel coordinated and fed a false narrative for over two years that the 2016 election was stolen and illegitimate. Democrats were on the news almost every night saying the evidence is there, and the mainstream media amplified the fake news. This was indeed a very coordinated and well-funded effort by a determined group of people to overthrow the duly elected president, Donald J. Trump.

Georgia Congressman Jody Hice thought that Trump had established his innocence in inspiring the mob by having urged them at one point to march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically,” apparently magically overwhelming his exhortations that “if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore” and using the word “fight” some 20 times:

I would like to address how the media and the many Democrats have put forth a narrative that has been circulating around about how January 6, and has never been corrected. For example, the narrative that President Trump incited riots on January 6, I don’t know even understand, Madam Chair, why you yourself don’t speak the truth as to what President Trump actually stated. And what he said on the morning of January 6, he said that “I know every one of you will soon be marching over to the Capitol buildings to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today.” Madam Chair, why don’t you talk about how the president used those words, “peacefully and patriotically,” instead of cherry-picking words that you want to use to portray an image of something that did not happen.

Congressman Yvette Herrell of New Mexico also clearly was partaking of some of the same Trump-cult kool-aid, claiming that “fake news” had “poisoned the well”:

Do you feel like the well has been poisoned here? We’ve had so much fake news, cynical politicians, disinformation—far, far from the truth. I mean, we’ve heard that Officer Sicknick was killed by a fire extinguisher in the riot, but indeed he died by natural causes, a stroke. … How much of an impact do you think social media and other outlets had on an investigation?

Miller replied to her that “some people are using that against us very effectively”—to which Herrell quipped: “Yes, I think they call that ‘fake news’.”

Then, apparently keying off Clyde’s rant, she asked each of the witnesses: “Do you classify the events of January 6 as a riot or an insurrection? One or the other.”

Many of the Republicans wanted to talk about Black Lives Matter and antifascists in the context of last summer’s civil unrest over police brutality, reverting to their tried-and-true narrative about a “violent left” that “burned down cities” as being a kind of excuse for a Republican mob to attempt to stop the counting of Electoral College ballots.

Congressman Clay Higgins of Louisiana seemed especially angry:

Nineteen people died during BLM riots last year. Hundreds and hundreds were injured. Teo thousand police officers were injured from BLM riots last year. And yet, we’re gonna discuss today, as if none of that happened, the events of January 6. The hypocrisy of this body is indeed disturbing to the scores of millions of Americans that supported President Trump and love this country, and have been denied access to their own Capitol for over a year!

Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar, who has become Republicans’ go-to white nationalist since the retirement of Iowa’s Steve King, tried to claim that the post-insurrection investigation and resulting indictments and arrests were all the work of the Deep State:

Outright propaganda and lies are being used to unleash the national security state against law-abiding citizens—especially Trump voters. The FBI is fishing through homes of veterans and citizens with no criminal records and restricting the liberties of individuals that have never been accused of a crime. Mr. Biden calls January 6 the worst attack since the Civil War. A president was impeached for his alleged role in that riot. It was reported early, completely unconfirmed, that an armed insurrection, quote, beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. The government has even enlisted Americans to turn in their own neighbors. Federal prosecutor Michael Sherwin on CBS News’ 60 Minutes continued the, quote, “Shock and Awe,” end of quote. Many of my Democratic colleagues opposed the “Shock and Awe” strategy in Iraq. We should similarly oppose its application against American citizens.

His Arizona colleague, Congressman Andy Biggs, also wanted to divert everyone’s attention to leftist protest violence, apparently on the grounds that it justified the insurrection, or at least made Democrats look hypocritical for trying to hold Republicans accountable for it:

Democrats have said that the events of January 6 were an assault on democracy, and if that’s true, if disorderly conduct in a restricted building is an assault on democracy, then what do we call setting fire to federal court in Portland, Oregon, with people inside—what do we call that? For years, we have watched riots in American cities while House Democrats remain silent or actually supported the violence. The federal courthouse in Portland came under attack every night and Democrats said nothing.

And then he played a video showing select scenes of nighttime protest violence in Portland. No one mentioned that the protests did not involve an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power in a national election.

Not a single Republican denounced Donald Trump’s role in the events or even managed to acknowledge that the insurrection was inspired by the broad dissemination of Trump’s claim that the election was stolen, and its broad support by a large number of congressional GOP members and right-wing pundits. That apparently didn’t fit into their cognitive bandwidth.

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Republican reps declare Jan.6 insurgency 'a normal tourist visit' from 'peaceful patriots'
Mark Sumner

On Wednesday morning, former acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller and former acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen appeared before the House Oversight Committee to discuss events connected to the Jan. 6 insurrection and assault on the Capitol. In terms of actual facts about the events of that day, the hearing generated little that wasn’t already known. But as a display of the willingness of Republicans to erase history that is only four months gone, it was a showcase.

Over the course of questioning, Republicans did their best not just to paper over obvious delays in response by Miller and others in authorizing the use of the D.C. National Guard, but also slapped coat after coat of happy paint onto the actual events of Jan. 6. What happened at the Capitol was absolutely not an insurrection, insisted Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, who said the only insurrection in America was “the Russia investigation” and said of the video of the insurrection, that if it hadn’t been labeled by the media, you "would actually think it was a normal tourist visit." Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs scoffed at the idea that anything out of the ordinary had occurred, saying the worst that happened was “disorderly conduct” in a federal building.

But none may have gone so far as Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar, who declared that not only was it ridiculous to call what happened on Jan. 6 an insurrection, just investigating the events constituted "harassing peaceful patriots." Gosar then went on to decry the “execution” of Q-Anon supporter Ashli Babbitt who, he declared, was unarmed and “wrapped in the American flag.” In this case, the American flag is apparently a blue banner bearing the word “Trump.”

Georgia Rep. Jody Hice backed up Gosar by saying, “It was Trump supporters who lost their lives that day, not Trump supporters who were taking the lives of others," though apparently Hice forgot that the death of 34-year-old Rosanne Boyland came when she was crushed under the feet of her fellow Trump supporters. None of them wanted to discuss the Capitol police who committed suicide two days after the event.

Overall, Republicans made it clear they were there to show that Jan. 6 was simply a peaceful protest carried out by patriotic Americans who were hugging and kissing police, and also not inspired by the morning rally because people planned weeks in advance to bring guns and bombs to that event. But most importantly, none of it was influenced in any way by Donald Trump. Unless it was good. And then it was.
Republicans also spent some time claiming that the people who battered their way into the Capitol building were not really Trump supporters, and then made sure to get in claims that the rally and speeches that morning weren’t connected to the insurgency, because there was evidence that people had planned violent action weeks earlier. In other words, they brought in every excuse to show that Trump wasn’t to blame—even when those excuses were contradictory.

In the midst of all this, there actually was some testimony —of a sort—from Miller and Rosen. Though that testimony was often far from informative.

In the written version of his opening statement, Miller included this line to describe his beliefs about what happened on Jan. 6 which connected events in the Capitol building to the speech given that morning by Donald Trump.

"I stand by my prior observation that I personally believe his comments encouraged the protesters that day,”

However, when it came time for Miller to actually read the statement, he dropped any mention of Trump contributing to the action of the peaceful, patriotic Americans who smashed their way into the Capitol after battering police and spraying them with bear spray. When Miller was asked about it, it appeared that he had … reassessed his position. Since he turned in his statement. Last night.

This led to a frustrated exchange between Miller and Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch.

However, that’s not to say that Miller’s reassessment didn’t turn up a real villain behind the insurgency. According to Miller, he couldn’t do a thing to protect the Capitol because the media had made “irresponsible commentary” about a “military coup.” Except, what the media was actually reporting were the very real calls from Trump supporters like disgraced former Gen. Michael Flynn who, as reported in The Military Times, called on Trump to suspend the Constitution and call in the military to conduct a second election.

So, Miller couldn’t send the National Guard to protect the Capitol, because the media was accurately reporting a plan put forward by someone who had presented that plan to Trump, in the White House, in a meeting that included Trump attorney Sidney Powell.

In Miller terms, “irresponsible commentary” would be reporting the facts. But then … you could kind of get that from Miller’s testimony, which was filled with enough holes to start a Swiss cheese factory.

When Miller says that the media was generating fears that Trump would call for martial law, what he really means is that the media was accurately reporting on a scheme that was under consideration at the White House by Trump, his legal team, and his top advisers. If Miller wants to blame his inability to respond promptly on fears of martial law, that blame falls solidly on Trump.

Miller also tried to make a point of saying that Trump wasn’t responsible for the delays in deploying the National Guard on Jan. 6, because Trump never even called him on Jan. 6 … which may not quite be as exonerating as Miller believes. After all, Miller did talk to Pence. Why didn’t he talk to Trump that day?

As far as Rosen, there was an understandable interest in his connection to a scheme that would have seen Rosen replaced by DOJ attorney Jeffrey Clark, who had already met with Trump to ensure him that—as soon as Clark was installed as AG—he would halt the vote count, sue the states, and see that Trump remained on the throne. On this subject, Rosen would admit only that he had a White House meeting with Trump on Jan. 3, but would not give any details, or even the subject, of that meeting.

Asked if Trump urged him to reverse the election results, Rosen told the committee that he wouldn’t answer, and complained that he came there under an agreement to discuss only certain topics. Still, Democrats made multiple attempts to come at the questions from different angles that allowed chipping off a precious few facts. While Rosen claimed the Jan. 3 meeting “was not about Jan. 6,” he would not say if Jan. 6 was mentioned at the meeting, or if Trump had tried to replace him as attorney general.

Rosen would also not answer a direct question about whether Trump asked him to overturn the 2020 election. Or questions about whether Trump asked him to take any action that would advance claims of election fraud. In each case, Rosen retreated behind what he claimed were “ground rules” about the topics he was willing to discuss.

To say those moments led to considerable frustration is underselling it.

However, Rosen also refused to answer some Republican questions about Jan. 6 because he maintained that there were still DOJ investigations underway and arrests still coming. Which wasn’t what Republicans, and in particular Gosar, wanted to hear.

But if the questioning of Rosen was frustrating, dealing with Miller often became downright infuriating, especially as he threw up one excuse after another to dismiss an extended delay in actually deploying the Guard.

While Democrats tried to wrangle anything like a fact from Miller and Rosen, Republicans clearly had today down as the day when they would complete the turn from being embarrassed about Jan. 6, to being proud of those events.

Overall, not only did Miller and Rosen refuse to answer enough questions to warrant further action to collect their full and truthful testimony, Miller made multiple statements that directly contradicted those of D.C. National Guard commander Major General William Walker. Getting Walker and Miller on the same stage on the same day to thrash out the actual timeline of events seems mandatory.

Somewhere in there, Miller stated that there was no evidence of widespread election fraud. Not that anyone was listening.

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Michigan lawmaker and 'Big Lie' adherent introduces bill to register and punish ... fact checkers?
Aldous J Pennyfarthing


Meet Michigan House member Matt Maddock. He’s a Republican who bought into the fiction that a gurgling bucket of Twinkie filling and circus peanut goo couldn’t have possibly lost to that nice man with the infectious smile and conspicuous lack of boat parades. He also thinks fact checkers need to be brought to heel. Because if there’s one thing the disordered unraveling of longstanding democratic norms can’t abide, it’s the checking of facts.

Feelings about facts aside, Republicans love the First Amendment. Just ask them. Unfortunately, they don't understand what it is or what it does. On that score, it’s kind of like falling in love with a president who’s actually a chaos agent sent by the Kremlin. That’s a completely hypothetical scenario, of course. Nothing like that would ever happen in America. We’d be the laughingstock of the universe.

Republicans think the First Amendment allows them to write or say anything they want without facing consequences from anyone. Unfortunately, the terms of service (ToS) for major social media platforms—like Twitter and Facebook—don’t say “write or say whatever you want.” They have rules. Just like I can’t go to church and secretly replace the communion wafers with Corn Nuts and the sacramental wine with Folgers Crystals. I could do those things, but they’d likely excommunicate me at last, after all these years of personally lobbying the Vatican MySpace page.

Of course, there are oodles of things Republicans don’t understand these days. Like how elections work. No, one of the candidates can’t just declare that he won after he actually lost by more than 7 million votes. And people are not obliged to believe him, which is, of course, where Maddock comes in.

The Detroit News:

A Michigan lawmaker who's been at the center of efforts to question the 2020 election introduced a bill Tuesday that would require "fact checkers" to register with the state.
Rep. Matt Maddock, R-Milford, wrote the legislation, which was co-sponsored by eight other Republican House members, about five months after Maddock floated the idea of licensing fact checkers on Twitter.

Now, normally I’d say this crosses a line that few other Republicans would ever dare cross, but look around you. They just ousted one of the few GOPsters who still hews to consensus reality. Her unforgivable sin? Fact checking the growing legion of GOP liars.

Maddock’s Fact Checker Registration Act (the very name sounds ominous) describes a fact checker as someone who publishes any material—including online material—in Michigan, is a member of the International Fact-Checking Network, and receives payment from a fact-checking organization. I guess Tucker Carlson can still use his highly rated cable show to baselessly assert that vaccines are suspect; since he’s not being paid by an organization that checks facts (like, ever), it’s just fine.

The bill also requires fact checkers to provide proof of a $1 million fidelity bond with the Michigan secretary of state’s office. This provision would allow an “affected person” to assert a claim for “any wrongful conduct that is a violation of the laws of this state.” In addition, fact checkers who violate the registry terms could be fined up to $1,000
per day.

In a recent Facebook post, Maddock tried to explain his absurd overreach: "Social media companies de-platform people, politicians, and businesses on the basis of 'fact checkers' who relish their roles punishing those whom they deem 'false' … Many believe this enormous economic and social power is being abused … My legislation will put fact checkers on notice: Don't be wrong, don't be sloppy, and you better be right.”

Okay, I know what you’re thinking. You can already sue people for libel if they defame you. If, for instance, I wrote that Donald Trump lost the election because his STDs are competing to see which one can goad him into biting a dingo’s head off at a rally (for the record, I am not asserting this, but many people are saying it), he could probably sue me. But I welcome the discovery process.

Of course, not everyone is on board with this.

The nation’s founders established protections for the press so it can operate without government intrusion, said Sen. Jeremy Moss, D-Southfield, who studied journalism at Michigan State University.
“This is an affront to the First Amendment,” Moss said of the proposal.

No duh.

By the way (don’t be too shocked now), Maddock is a full-bore MAGA “Stop the Steal” Republican. Also known as a “Republican.”

He first broached this fact checker registry idea in a December tweet that also advocated for the burning of all Dominion voting machines. Maddock also was among a coterie of Republicans who attempted to enter the Michigan Capitol on Dec. 14 to cast electoral votes for Donald Trump, in a state Trump lost. Because why the **** not?

Oh, and he was at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Because of course he was.

Again, normally I’d think, “Well, this guy is nuts, and no one is going to listen to him.” But insanity is increasingly a prerequisite for membership in today’s Republican Party.

Despite GOP majorities in both houses of Michigan’s state legislature (and the state Senate majority leader being a Jan. 6 denier), I doubt this bill will pass. It’s just too un-American. Then again, it could—and that’s about as frightening as it gets.

At least we know Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer won’t sign it into law.

Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014

FLAGRANT FOWL: QAnon Rep Blames 'Biden's America' for Chick-fil-A Sauce Shortage / Update w/Ted Cruz
News Corpse

On a day when there was no shortage of newsworthy subjects to focus on - Liz Cheney's ouster from her House Republican leadership post, conflict in the Middle East, congressional hearings on the Capitol insurrection - Colorado's own QAnon congresswoman, Lauren Boebert, managed to detour into a deep ravine of ridiculousness - an area with which she is intimately familiar.

The Hill published a story Wednesday morning with breaking news coverage of a critical matter facing the American people...

"'Due to industry-wide supply chain disruptions, some Chick-fil-A restaurants are experiencing a shortage of select items, like sauces. We are actively working to make adjustments to solve this issue quickly and apologize to our Guests for any inconvenience,' a Chick-fil-A spokesperson said."

Holy Shitake Mushrooms! First a deadly pandemic, and now this? Haven't we suffered enough? Well, according to QAnon Rep. Lauren Boebert our tribulations have been thrust upon us by the singular cause of every problem known to mankind for the past four months: President Joe Biden. Or so says Boebert...

That's right! Somehow Biden is responsible for the Chick-fil-A sauce shortage that is devastating the nation. Boebert doesn't say exactly how Biden screwed this up, but she's certain that he's the one who did it. Just as certain as she is that Biden’s climate plan includes cutting 90% of red meat from our diets. It's a coordinated plot to hit the beef industry first, and then - BAM - go after poultry when people try to adjust. It's downright diabolical.

Some folks are saying that Boebert herself is a double agent, carrying out her own role in this dastardly scheme. Last year it was reported that
"her pork sliders allegedly poisoned dozens of people at a local rodeo, making them nauseous and sending some home with bloody diarrhea."
So there goes pork products.

Before long the Democrats (or is it socialists?) will force us all to become - GASP - vegetarians. Or worse, we will all simply be starved to make the planet more hospitable to the non-human species from whom it was stolen. Boebert's comrade, Tomi Lahren, may have already caught on to that conspiracy:

Never mind that the sauce shortages were caused by interruptions in distribution due to gas shortages caused by the Russian-affiliated cyber-ransom attack on Colonial Pipeline. See how the dots are connecting? Then Fox News played its part by frightening their viewers into believing that the supply of gas would soon dwindle, so they had better stock up.

In the meantime, you may want to to start hoarding condiments from your favorite fast food restaurants before they have all disappeared. There may not be much time left. And if we aren't careful, the only source of nutrition left will be from Del Taco. And if you don't know what that means, ask Tucker Carlson who has uncovered the "white replacement theory," a plot by Democrats to flood the electorate with non-white voters. There are dark days ahead folks.
Naturally, Fox News was all over this frightful story, shouting that "Chick-fil-A sauce shortage blamed on 'Joe Biden's America'" And they featured tweets by numerous worried and sauce-less patriots such as Josh Mandel, Clay Travis, and Ted Cruz:


Ten Thousan Marbles

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2014
Former Seminole County Tax Collector Joel Greenberg, a key figure in the accusations surrounding U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, is expected to plead guilty Monday to a slew of federal charges against him.

A change of plea hearing has been set in Greenberg's case for Monday in an Orlando federal court, an indication that prosecutors and Greenberg have reached a plea deal in his case.

Greenberg is facing 33 federal charges, including sex trafficking, paying for sex with a 17-year-old girl, embezzlement of taxpayer money, identity theft and using his office to create fake IDs......