White House press secretary grilled on tweet calling 2016 election 'stolen'
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 2 years ago • 239 commentsBy: Anders Hagstrom (Fox News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Fox News reporter Peter Doocy confronted White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre with her own past tweets denying election results Tuesday, asking her whether it was as "extreme" to do so in 2016 as it was in 2020.
Jean-Pierre claimed on Twitter that former President Donald Trump had stolen the election in 2016 and that Republican Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp had stolen his election in 2018. Doocy pressed the White House spokesperson to explain why "MAGA Republicans" were facing so much criticism for their claims that the 2020 election was stolen when she and other Democrats had cast doubt on other elections.
"You tweeted in 2016 that Trump stole an election," Doocy began.
"Oh, I knew this was coming," Jean-Pierre said, cutting him off. "I was waiting, Peter, for when you were going to ask me that question."
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre speaks during the daily briefing at the White House in Washington on Sept. 1, 2022. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
"Well, here we go," Doocy responded. "You tweeted Trump stole an election. You tweeted Brian Kemp stole an election. If denying election results is extreme now, why wasn't it then?"
"Let's be really clear: That comparison you just made is ridiculous," Jean-Pierre said, adding that she was speaking specifically about voting rights at the time.
"Governor Kemp won the election in Georgia. I have been clear about that," she continued. "I have said President Trump won the election in 2016, and I have been clear about that. What we are talking about right now is, let's not forget, what happened on Jan. 6th, 2021. We saw an insurrection, a mob, that was incited by the person who occupied [the White House]. … It was an attack on our democracy."
Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy speaks in front of the White House. (Fox News)
President Joe Biden had described "MAGA Republicans" as a threat to Democracy in a Philadelphia speech last week. The president has attempted to push Trump and the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol into center stage ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.
"MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards," Biden said. "Backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love."
"Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic," he continued. "MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of the law. They do not recognize the will of the people. They refuse to accept the results of a free election."
Tags
Who is online
420 visitors
It is important when someone who is challenged for what they have written or said in the past clears up their current views.
If a Trump supporter were to denounce the Big Lie campaign as wrong (in many dimensions), I would find that to be a good, healthy move. It would be something to applaud.
But it appears you no problem with all the lies and misinformation coming from the Biden administration
Where did Tig say that?
Intellectual dishonesty is wrong no matter who does it. Putting words in someone's mouth, by the way, is a form of intellectual dishonesty.
My opinion based on the gist of his comments...are we not allowed to critique others statements?
Claiming 'gist' is a feeble excuse. One could claim that you believe the 2020 election was stolen or that you believe Trump is the greatest PotUS of all time and say it came from the 'gist' of your comments.
If you find a comment from me where I excuse Biden for lying, then feel free to make your allegation. Good luck.
But he never brought up the Biden Administration, so how did you arrive at that?
examples ?
Ok. That's more like it!
Lets start with Biden saying inflation is Putin's fault.
What if they have been very clear on their views?
If a Trump supporter were to denounce the Big Lie
How many times would be enough?
Non-stop 24/7 wouldn't be enough for some folks.
If they held a view in the past and now hold a different view, it is important that they clearly show where they now stand.
Once, until they make statements that indicate a contradiction. At that point, their prior denouncing of the Big Lie comes into question. For example, if someone denounces the Big Lie campaign but then makes statements that they would actually vote for Trump in spite of his worldwide display of an abysmal character who would compromise the nation simply to spare his ego, then that is a contradiction. One cannot denounce the outrageous acts of Trump against the nation and then seek to make him PotUS again.
Absolutely not. He was a great President. I hope he either chooses not to run or is prevented from doing so, but if he gets the nomination I will absolutely vote for him and there is no contradiction in wanting the best man for the job and not believing the 2020 election was stolen. You know what? You may need to use a little logic before you call wrongly label something a contradiction.
And yet they do. How, I must admit is diffiCult to justify and or rationalize, because Trump never did ration out his lies, as he has a never ending supply and he seems to just to fly in the face of reason, and i'm sorry, but if you agreed Trump LIED, and he DID, THOUSANDS of times since running in 2015, and still would vote for him, i too, don't get it....
You severely downplayed what I wrote by phrasing it as "not believing the 2020 election was stolen". This is not merely about believing it was not stolen, it is about denouncing Trump's Big Lie con-job.
Saying that you denounce his Big Lie con-job and then saying you would actually vote to put such a character back in the presidency translates 'denounce' into mere disapproval. It ignores the severity of what took place in the Big Lie and reduces it to a mere mistake.
Taking the Big Lie con-job seriously would mean recognizing that Trump should never be provided any position of power much less the presidency.
So do you hold the view that Russia never interfered in the 2016 election, do you hold the view that the FBI made up the Russian collusion hoax, do you hold the view that the FBI lied about Hunter Biden's laptop as Russian disinformation,
I see insufficient evidence that Russia caused Hillary to lose; until I see otherwise my conclusion is that Russia did not materially affect the 2016 election. I think Hillary lost because she was a) an unappealing candidate and b) Comey's October surprise.
I do not engage in conspiracy theories so present evidence on what you specifically charge the FBI with making up and I will opine. Similarly, the Hunter Biden laptop saga is multidimensional. Pick something specific that you wish to allege and offer your evidence. I am not going to opine on vague generalities.
I would respectfully add c) hubris - she didn't take her opponent seriously and didn't campaign as hard as she should and d) a 30 year history of disdain for the working class.
Funny how Russian bots tend to leave out certain verbs.
Did you learn that in Moscow?
This is a terrible answer, followed by whataboutism. Her tweets weren't qualified in the manner of "I'm only talking about voting rights issues." She appears to have been one of the many on the bandwagon accusing Trump of somehow stealing the 2016 election from Clinton. And that nonsense in Georgia went on for a long time, too. Kamala Harris even campaigned on it.
The distinction between all this and what Trump and the MAGA folk have been doing is a matter of degree, not type. Each side has claimed elections were "stolen" without concrete evidence supporting the claim.
She started off by saying that she had expected that question for a long time. Why then was she so unprepared to answer it?
Unfortunately, I think she WAS prepared. She did the best she could, it was just weak.
Can you even begin to imagine the amount of stupid which would have flowed from her mouth had she NOT been anticipating the question?
No I can't. She is in way over her head and it shows.
heh, little peter douchebag couldn't grill a hotdog if he was standing in a bonfire. what a wimpy foxtard...
And yet, he continues to flummox the hand-picked mouthpiece for the current Administration.
Douchebag, an interesting use of the name of a container for giving a vaginal cleansing as a slur.
No no no. You see, I've been told by a leftist here that the press secretary does not speak for the president, as evidenced of a speech he gave a couple of weeks ago, and she had to backtrack from.
According to that person, the president speaks for himself. I guess the press secretary is not needed.
Would you like Biden to replace Karine Jean-Pierre with Allison Janney?
I don't get that one?
You never watched The West Wing TV series?
I believe I saw 5 minutes of it and had to turn it off.
I loved her as Tonya Harding's mother in I Tonya.
You turned it off? Why? Because it was about a liberal POTUS, a Democrat? I loved the series, watched every single episode over the years, it was my window into the workings of the American administration, and I'd watch the whole series again if I could. Allison Janney played the part of a consummate press secretary.
Yup.
Why?
I simply didn't like it. It wasn't for me.
Because it was about a liberal POTUS, a Democrat?
No, but hey, what else would Hollywood make it about?
I loved the series, watched every single episode over the years, it was my window into the workings of the American administration, and I'd watch the whole series again if I could.
You're really selling it to me. Maybe I'll find a way to watch it.
Allison Janney played the part of a consummate press secretary.
Now there is a position that has become precarious under the last two presidents.
How about All the King's Men?
I'm sure you'll find the series on YouTube.
A classic!
I'm sure you'll find the series on YouTube.
I shall look.
You did it again! You do get people thinking about entertainment.
It's a hell of a lot healthier than always thinking about politics.
I like to believe that....on the other hand I think Alexander Kerensky once said the same thing.
Are you aware that Ken Burns is working on something about the Holocaust?
Kerensky was a revolutionary, I'm not.
No, I'm not aware that Burns is working on something about the Holocaust, but what does that have to do with the price of butter?
There is that group for TV & Movies. Maybe when we learn more about it, we could place a little preview there.
I've seen an article about it. He points out the antisemitism of America during WW2, including FDR's refusal not only to not allow the refugee Jews on the S.S. St. Louis to enter the USA, but even disallowing them from disembarking to the Virgin Islands, causing them to be returned to Germany to be slaughtered in the concentration camps. Not a pretty picture for the USA.
At the time the New York Times turned a blind eye to all of it.
Perhaps bias in the media has been building for longer than I thought. But there were even Jews is high places who were anti-Semitic back than.
So I've heard.
Vic, although Americans should not be proud of how FDR dealt with the Jewish refugees, I'm not proud of how Canada dealt with them as well. It has been attributed to the Prime Minister at the time, Mackenzie King, that when asked how many Jewish refugees he would permit to come to Canada, the infamous reply was "None is too many" a line that became the title of a book about that issue and the times. China was a different story. No visa was required to immigrate to Shanghai, and thousands of Jews were saved and well treated who escaped to there. Another anomaly was the fact that Hitler told his allies, the Japanese who were unbelievably cruel conquerors, to kill the Shanghai Jews but the Japanese refused because they could not comprehend why anyone should be killed because of their religion.
There is a lot we didn't know. I think future generations need to know how the so-called educated people in advanced societies acted during one one of the darkest periods in world history. As you just pointed out the old China stood tall and even Imperial Japan rejected religious extermination.
Doocy made her look foolish.
It's ridiculous to compare my habit of calling elections stolen to Trump supporters!
What an answer. She said she was expecting it too.
But this is the party who calls people fascists at the same time it spends millions of dollars to give them a platform and help them win elections. Sincerity isn't on the table
This is exactly why I don't watch press briefings anymore. All a side show.
I'm not sure when I stopped. Many years ago, I know that.
So little of what they say actually matters in the end.
I think I stopped watching during Obama.
Or how about this. Hire the Cyber Ninjas to take a look at the 2016 vote again just like they were hired to do in the 2020 election. Could it be possible that there are some who are deathly afraid of what an audit might find? Just think of the ramifications if there was fraud, vote changing, thousands of 'dead' votes that were pushed into the Trump column in certain districts and states. If that were proven to be true then Donald J. Trump was never a legitimate president------------and the now deceased Rush Limbaugh would have to return his Medal of Freedom--not to mention everything else 'the Trump did, said, appointed, pardoned and signed while squatting in The White House. Oh my, talk about a Constitutional crises--HOLY effen CRACKERS!
Was the 2016 election stolen?
Nope. Was the 2020 election stolen?
Do not know. But The Cyber Ninjas did an audit in Arizona and concluded that Biden won with over 500 more votes than were originally tallied if that means anything.
No.
I guess that's better than you claiming it was stolen. How many years till you admit Trump was a legitimately elected President?
Of course not.
No, but that doesn't mean an attempt wasn't made. In 2016 the election in Michigan was almost stolen and it was close, if it weren't for the proxy of Hillary's that demanded a recount it may have went unnoticed, in and around Detroit precincts were showing more votes than people who voted.
I'm still on the fence with that one, when I found out how easy it was to open the ballot envelopes and reseal them without evidence of tampering I had to question the outcome of the election. It has been pointed out that there "may" not have been enough tampering with the ballots in the way to change the outcome, granted that "may" be true. But "may" isn't absolute.
Now the thing is, now that you know of the problem, will you, like me, contact your congress rep. and let them know to do something about it?
So far my rep. just sends me the talking points of the democrats, which I inform him does nothing to solve the problem.
Zero to full blown conspiracy theory batshit in one post. That accelerated faster than Max Verstappen.
You don't recognize sarcasm ?
The idea that Karine Jean-Pierre , or any Democrat, made claims about a "stolen" election comparable in severity, length , or breadth, to what Trump and his minions have done for the past 2 years is laughable. For one thing, until a few months ago no one knew who Karine Jean Pierre was.
How many years are you able to lie about an election being stolen? Are you saying more than two is bad?
What on Earth are you talking about?
What I am saying is that there is no comparison between what you say Democrats have done in claiming a "stolen" election and what Trump and his MAGA have done for two years. The comparison is laughable.
Democrats have been claiming elections have been stolen the last 20 years. Some of the election deniers have been rewarded with seats on the J6 committee.
Are you okay with that?
What the Democrats did and said was an ant turd compared to the mountain of trumpian denial. Its that simple.
So you are ok with election denial, just not from Trump.
You're evading the issue
Let's be clear now so that we can all interpret your comments properly.
And the third is where I expect the problem ...
Does that surprise you ?
Don't tell us you're surprised.
Really? She's been very well-known and held key positions for nearly two decades. Here's a partial list.
Prior to her current position, she was:
During the Obama/Biden Administration:
"Nov. 9, 2016 -- Thousands of people across the country marched, shut down highways, burned effigies and shouted angry slogans on Wednesday night to protest the election of Donald J. Trump as president.
The demonstrations, fueled by social media, continued into the early hours of Thursday. The crowds swelled as the night went on but remained mostly peaceful."
The stark contrast between liberals and MAGA is that liberals attack the civil population but MAGA attacks government. The contrast between MAGA storming the Capitol and Joe Biden declaring that the electorate is an enemy of the state cannot be more stark.
MAGA political violence means the government is not safe. Liberal political violence means people on the street are not safe. So, which is really the bigger threat to democracy? Which is the bigger threat to civil society?
They also attacked the government too.
Burning down police offices, attacking courthouses, attacking the White House, attacking federal government buildings...
Nailed it.
No.
Yeah, partisans hate to lose and will seek to win at all costs. This has been true for as long as I have been aware but the intensity (and depth of dishonesty) seems to be increasing over time.
... as is the willful ignorance on display by some trump supporters.
And?
Agreed.
More than half of the voters did not want Trump. Of course there will be protests. When Biden was elected there were protests and quite a bit beyond (see Jan 6th).
Greg, we know there were a lot of unhappy customers the night that Trump won the presidency. I'm not sure what your point is.
My guess is that he is trying to claim that the Clinton and supporters response to 2016 and the Trump and supporters response to 2020 are equivalent in depth of dishonesty and level of effort (time and resources).
I don't know what Greg is saying, but the violence we saw from the left in 2020 far surpassed Jan 6h. As a matter of fact the left has gotten away with it my entire lifetime: starting with the college kids losing their military deferment, then the weathermen, the Black Panthers to the Chicago convention riots to the aforementioned Trump Inauguration riots, the antifa riots, the BLM inspired riots, right up to the deadly summer of 2020.
And you for one have been totally silent on it.
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the left, Vic.
No way one spontaneous protest gone bad on January 6 equates with all the riots planned and perpetuated by the radical leftists and their Democrat supporters in government over the years.
I agree 100%
I am totally silent on a number of issues; I do not weigh in on many things. Do not presume. Go by what I write, not your imagination.
The insurrection is not simply a function of violence. It is about a sitting PotUS encouraging his supporters to go against the workings of the US government because his ego cannot take losing the election. It is about a PotUS who, after months of spreading lies about the integrity of the US electoral process and convincing his supporters that their votes have been disenfranchised, refused to act to stop his supporters from breaking and entering the Capitol to disrupt a function of government.
Sort of like a president demonizing half the country?
I think we got it.
No, you clearly refuse to 'get it'. You compare the Big Lie con job and all that Trump did therein to Biden demonizing those who still support Trump. There is no comparison between misguided political rhetoric and wrong (and arguably criminal) actions taken against the USA by the sitting PotUS. Further, do you actually believe that Trump's rhetoric was and is not divisive? If so, that is some mighty powerful confirmation bias going on.
The actions of some rogue protestors was spontaneous and, and did not involve the vast majority of the crowd. Trump at no time told them to storm and enter the Capitol. Prove otherwise.
Demonizing? You're being too kind. If Biden and others keep fueling the flames of division as they've been doing for years, they'll start another civil war.
I have not suggested that Trump told them to storm the Capitol building. Go by what I write rather than invent words for me.
What Trump did was plant a false reality into the minds of his supporters. It was Trump who made them believe that our electoral system was rigged and that their votes were disenfranchised. It was Trump, and his cronies like Guiluiani, who agitated the supporters with lies and it was Trump who, in spite of the breaking and entering, did not intervene for 3 hours (and, on top of that, while the insurrection was at hand Trump tweeted that Pence betrayed them).
Not the news.
Nation’s Armed Insurrectionists Say Biden’s Speech Hurt Their Feelings
“Insurrectionists felt that Biden was really singling them out and bullying them,” a spokesperson said.
By Andy Borowitz
Was it Trump that did that or was he led to believe that? The thing that bugs me the most about the J6 commission is how they quickly moved to make it about Trump alone and nothing else. I would think they would be interested and try to get to the bottom of how the election fraud theories came about, namely Qanon, where did they get their "inside" information and who was actually behind it. Remember I have actually talked to a Qanon believer and what he told me about how he knew everything about election fraud was true and what he revealed to me sounded really fishy as if he was being used.
Are you serious? You do know that Trump is still claiming he won the election. After all this time, if Trump is too stupid to understand that he did not win the election then he clearly does not have the mental capacity to hold political office.
The focus was intentionally on Trump. Just like the focus for Nixon was on Nixon and the focus for Clinton was on Clinton. Trump was the head guy so of course they will be concerned with his actions. We are talking about the actions of a sitting PotUS ... of course the focus will be on the PotUS.
The actions of 'henchmen' are second tier but of course should also be dealt with. Giuliani, for example, has and will continue to see activity in response to his actions. But Giuliani's impact on the nation is nothing compared to that of Trump.
Why? Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen. There is no comparison to conspiracy theories in general to the specific actions I enumerated taken by the then sitting PotUS.
And they'll blame the middle class.
We have waited for 6 years for Trump to be found guilty and are still waiting.
Correct, no trial has taken place so no legal verdict of guilt has been determined.
But a determination of right vs. wrong does not require a court of law.
Was it wrong for Trump to try to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution? Was it wrong for Trump to:
On the question of right vs. wrong , was Trump wrong in these actions?
My comment was in response to Greg 11.1.7.
Your questions are nothing more than a deflection of that.
Your continued refusal to answer the questions illustrates the inexplicable drive to defend Trump no matter how indefensible.
Your comments portray Trump as having done no wrong with his Big Lie con-job and his holding of TS/SCI classified documents yet never do you address direct questions that show that this position is irrational.
Running from the questions at every turn is not an impressive argument.
I have said that Trump as well as everyone else has done wrong in their lives. Your questions are what is irrational.
Water is wet. The wind blows. Death is inevitable.
A trivial platitude such as "everyone has done wrong" does not answer any question and does not add any value. I did not ask you if Trump has done wrong in his life; I asked you very clear and very specific questions @11.1.15.
... I asked you very clear and very specific questions ...
Instead of responding you categorically deem the questions 'irrational' (look up the word next time before you use it) and run away.
Running from probative questions at every turn is not an impressive argument. It just shows that you know Trump has done wrong and cannot bring yourself to acknowledge same.
Your questions have nothing to do with my response to Greg, yet you continue to ask them.
You sound like a lawyer by asking what you call "probative questions" falls in the category of asking someone if they are still beating their wife.
Not taking the bait.
He asked a pretty cut and dry question about Trumps actions that you, for some reason or another, are frightened to answer, and that is quite telling, but don't worry, i won't tell anyone, as you already did, but, why ?
What exactly has Trump done for U, to continue to support that should have been a Republican Abort, besides not retort or answer as if you were defending your Liter in a Quart as you accuse of being asked "probative questions" that like an argument straw man about to snort, from the would be laughable attempts to defend if not so serious, a former potUS quite delirious, as he is mentally infearious yet somehow keeps supporters, that like a jock, support a man with little hands and a little mock, for Trumps' bullship has sailed, time to Doc, cause Holiday Inn over his head, drowning with the sailors who swim in denial, watch out B for that crocodile tears your tears right out of your eyes, cause sooner or later, you are gonna have to admit, and realize, so manmy of the YTrump LIES
Funny how your ability to defend Trump crumbles when faced with specific questions.
It appears that the only comments you ever have are deflections.
Are you a mindreader who thinks he knows what my reasons are?
If so you might do well as a fortune teller at a carnival.
The rest of your comment is irrevelant.
Your imagination is working overtime.
Placing you on ignore for adding nothing, as usual.
[Deleted]
[deleted]
Lo and behold...
We are in the presence of a very special person.
No, i'm a mindreader that doesn't think, twice, cause i have ESP N Too
Likewise
Deflection as expected.
[deleted.]
[Deleted]
[deleted]
IMO those who bitch the most about the moderation are those who deserve the penalties they receive the most. I think that the moderators on both sides of the aisle are absolutely fair and unbiased.
Dennis, NT offers a place to discuss such issues. If you decide to go there, let me know.
Those who bitch the most? Think of what you are saying, Buzz.
There is only one important point (the one you didn't mention): management does try to be fair.
[deleted]
What places on NT allows discussion on such issues?
META and Heated Discussions...
The group called: Metafield.
Go there and post it as you would a story that you are telling. Don't call anyone out. The Code of conduct still applies. Be polite and make your case.
Thanks
Don't bother with Heated Discussions, it's nothing but a hate fest.
"Placing you on ignore for adding nothing, as usual."
Then why did you send me a friend request?
Also, your usual projection and adding nothing, as usual.
And is based on individual beliefs. In essence - that "determination" is merely opinion.
Yes, Jeremy, it is opinion. I was asking you to offer your opinion. You could not bring yourself to answer those specific questions about Trump's behavior even with your own opinion. You are the total authority on your opinion, you need not consult a court of law or do research. You could simply weigh in on whether you thought those items listed were wrong.
You clearly and repeatedly refused to do so. That repeated refusal implicitly expresses that you know Trump was wrong on those points but for some reason just cannot acknowledge same.
Amazing.
You didn't ask me a goddamn thing. Not like you are in any position of importance to demand people answer your petty deflective questions in the first place.
You seem to want to deny everything.
Here is the full content of my comment to you @11.1.15:
Surely you can identify the questions. (Hint: look for the question marks.)
Funny how you project deflection onto me.
I notice you omitted who the questions were directed to:
So, once again, you didn't ask me a goddamn thing. Care to try a second time to be wrong?
Was it wrong for Trump to try to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution? Was it wrong for Trump to:
On the question of right vs. wrong , was Trump wrong in these actions?
Oh. So NOW you expect me to play your game. Sorry. Not going to happen.
And out of curiosity, What does your "question" have to do with the seeded article?
Jeremy, honestly, how can you possibly think that your continued deflections are of value to you? I have asked these same basic questions to you across multiple articles and you always run away.
It is obvious, I think, to everyone reading that you refuse to answer these questions because there is no way you could possibly state that Trump was right to do these things.
I second Thomas' reaction @11.1.52
Your responses are too ridiculous for words.
What does your "question" have to do with the seeded article? You accuse me of deflection while you aren't even on topic. So, if you want me to play your game, at least get on topic.
You keep replying to me Jeremy. Each time you do so you illustrate that you cannot bring yourself to be honest about Trump. You know he was wrong but you cannot even acknowledge blatant wrongdoing. Instead you engage in feeble deflection.
If you are going to reply to me, then offer something of value.
The questions are most recently @11.1.50
Did you not fully understand what I said in 11.1.54? Maybe you should find somebody to explain it to you.
I was unhappy when Biden won. I didn't riot in DC.
I'm glad you're back!
I won't speak for Greg, but there is certainly a point to be made that people who rioted consistently for years look positively idiotic complaining about rioting.
The double standard is simultaneously staggering and comical.
And just who might you be talking about? If you say"black people" that statement alone is racist because not all black people rioted. If you say the "press secretary", then you have to prove that she was indeed rioting, and rioting for years.
People who rioted or supported rioting and are now complaining/hysterical about a riot at the Capitol. This would include but not be limited to people who enabled and encouraged rioters, either through direct exhortation or lack of intervention.
What the actual fuck?
Dude. Seriously. Before you accuse somebody of being a racist, you might want to at least try to follow the conversation.
He even included photos for people who don't read.
Can you point out anyone in the photos who you know to be a rioter in 2020?
You said:
So, you have to prove that the people who "rioted consistently " are the same people who are "look[ing] positively idiotic complaining about rioting," are one and the same. Can you do this?
Furthermore, the article is about the press secretary and her response to Doocy(SP?), who are we supposed to think you are talking about? Marie Annetionette?
I didn't call you a racist. I called your comment racist. Dude.
You just include everyone who in any way supports BLM and say that they are "complaining " now of the 1/6 riot and insurrection at the Capitol.
You said it. It is time for you to own what you say.
It's merely another deflection of his.
#45 could never, ever do wrong, ever.
That will never happen.
You'll just get endless deflections, projection, and denial.
All some have.
I've never heard of any responsible liberal "supporting" rioting. In any case, protests over policing inequities where the protests become too extreme is not the same as invading the nation's legislative chambers to try and overthrow a presidential election. It is amazing how conservatives are so willing and even eager to downplay Jan 6.
Kamala Harris is not a responsible liberal?
Kamala Harris does not support "rioting".
"A charitable bail organization talked up by Kamala Harris is drawing scrutiny amid increased rioting and violence in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and Portland, Oregon.
In addition to Harris, Joe Biden's running mate on the Democratic ticket and a California senator, Minnesota Freedom Fund has attracted celebrity donors such as Steve Carell, Seth Rogen, Rob Delaney, Cynthia Nixon, and Don Cheadle. The group aims to steer donations to demonstrators arrested in Minneapolis during May riots following the death of George Floyd, a black man who died during his arrest by the Minneapolis Police Department."
Those are the facts.
Have a good day.
Has Kamala Harris said she was offering bail money to rioters, yes or no? , the Washington Examiner's description not withstanding.
There's more!
And last but not least:
She sure as hell does. Raising money to bail rioters out of jail so these same people can go right back out and riot again certainly shows support for rioting.
Sorry, Vic. Try again. She said about halfway through that she supports peaceful protest.
In Trumpland, that means that no matter how violent things become, no matter how many times he and his supporters say that their supporters need to fight to keep the lie alive, it is all rendered moot by the single utterance of "peaceful " ....
Or, really, if you listen to the whole interview, you can hear that she does not support violence or rioting at all. So, posting this video in no way helps with your conflation that BLM protests and the Riots were all carried out by the exact same group of people. Surely some were, but your argument is following the logical fallacy of generalizing from the few to the many. And you do this quite a bit.
No thoughts on her encouraging people to donate to the Minnesota Freedom Fund.
JR thinks its ok as long as she doesn't donate. What say you?
I agree with donating to the fund. It's mission is to help out the people who have bail set that they cannot pay. They started before the George Floyd murder and continue to this day. The recidivism is lower for for those individuals who post bail, along with a whole slew of other stuff that is supposed to be good for society.
I don't think that we can arrest our way out of times of crisis. Certainly, people who break the law should be held accountable, but the incarceration rate of the different, diverse communities that make up this country shows that the system is still rigged for "the man" and that man is white.
Many of the 2020 rioters were "white."
Somewhere in there you had to acknowledged that Harris encouraged people to donate.
Good night.
I am so sorry my pawn ran into your king.
Oh! My? Is that your way of declaring "victory?" LOLOLOLOL
What is wrong with acknowledging that she wanted people to give money to the Minnesota Freedom Fund? How, exactly, does the encouragement of support for the MFF equal condoning rioting?
Yes, because they were opportunistic. Bad people do bad things, every day.
Many of the protesters were white, also. These good people, along with millions of other good Americans and countless others from other countries, joined together in solidarity, not just because of George Floyd, but the many other victims of crimes peretratrated on them because they were black or brown or queer,, and their families' ran into the thick blue line.
It doesn't matter if they were selling cigarettes on the street, or sleeping in their cars, or even passing a fake twenty: The penalty for these crimes is not death by arresting officer. "He was running away" is not a good enough reason to shoot someone, especially when you have all of their information.
So I have no problem whatsoever in supporting the ideas behind the BLM protests and protesters. I commend anyone who marched in solidarity with them.
To all of you out there who cannot see the good of the protests and the bad that they were protesting against: I am truly sorry for you.
Many of them were in jail for rioting and acts of violence. Leftist protestors don't go to jail for entering a building. In the link I provided there is the Tweet she made endorsing the fund to get them out of jail. Three times is enough for the normal mind?
These good people,
They are not good people if they riot, loot and murder. Their cause may have been special for you, but it is irrelevant.
So I have no problem whatsoever in supporting the ideas behind the BLM protests and protesters.
We are talking about springing violent rioters out of jail. That is what Harris supported.
That's pretty ironic coming from someone who insists that all of the rioters on Jan. 6 are 'political prisoners' and should be released.
Oh no Dulay. All I ever advocated for regarding them, were the rights to a fair and speedy trial guaranteed to them under the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments of the Constitution.
You are familiar with those Amendments?
Funny, she was saying protests and the crawler was indicating riots... Oh, that's because it is from Tucker Carlson, the lying scumbag who couldn't tell the truth if it was written on his teleprompter.
Are you seriously trying to claim that you never characterized them as 'political prisoners' Vic?
Familiar enough to know that only the 6th Amendment mandates the right to a 'fair and speedy trial'.
BTFW, you don't seem to advocate for those arrested in Minnesota to enjoy those same rights.
There is a joke there about the incredibly small population of "responsible" liberals.
Riiiight. So burning, looting, beating, and general mayhem worth $2billion, coupled with actually declaring independence from the United States and holding US territory for a month is somehow insignificant.
It is amazing how far liberals will go do defend indefensible behavior.
So.... when somebody you like says "peaceful" it counts....
But when somebody you don't like says "peaceful", they don't really mean it?
How incredibly convenient for you.
Are we talking about my characterization of them or your false claim that I demanded that they all be released?
BTFW, you don't seem to advocate for those arrested in Minnesota to enjoy those same rights.
What happened to those arrested in Minnesota?
I'll wait for the answer.
She said it numerous times throughout the summer, consistently, and the video was one of those times. She was not condoning rioting. There are many more that you can look up.
DJT said it very few times during the two month runup to Jan 6, and said it once in the hours long psyche up for battle that consisted of lies and more lies about the election mixed with refrains of " trial by combat " from Rudy and " And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. " from daffy Donald, even mentioning that the people whom he knew were armed should be let in. He mentioned peace one single time. Once. So, you can stop your sophomoric comparison. Look at the totality of the evidence, not just one bit in isolation.
He did get one thing right in his speech, though:
I know that I won't forget.
It is amazing how far some people will go to distort the truth and defend that distortion. See it in color.
No, she was just raising bail money for rioters.
I'm sure you're desperate to think that. The truth doesn't work out the way you want it to.
READ my question again. If you still don't understand it after that, I can't help you.
Since YOU are the one that brought up those arrested in Minnesota, you tell me Vic.
You've made that claim before with a picture from Capitol Hill in Seattle. I asked you to explain your claim that picture proved that Democrats declared independence from the United States.
You failed to answer.
Have you come up with more cogent argument for your claim?
I declined to get involved in your standard bullshit practice.
Still do.
Wrong.
It seems that you would like to think that simplistically, it fits better with the false equality "BLM=BAD."
Millions of wonderful people are tarred by the brush, carelessly wielded, to paint the whole of the protests as evil. But what of it? Think well on that. What does it say of one's own character to make false assertions like "No, she was just raising bail money for rioters." ?
Hahahahaha. I am not desperate to do much of anything, much less so when the irony dripping from that statement tastes so sweet.
What you declined to do was back up your own bullshit comment Jack.
You got caught making a bullshit claim and misrepresenting an image, then you bailed.
Of course, that didn't keep you from making the same bullshit claim today, sans the image.
I think you'll find she did.
Why would you equate "BLM" to "people arrested during riots"? That seems a bit harsh.
A brush wielded by you, who apparently miss the fact that peaceful protesters don't need bail money.
That's a naive statement. Hundreds of arrests were of peaceful protesters, hence the fact that hundreds were released without prosecution because LEOs lacked evidence of a crime. That's what happens when LEOs practice 'tactics' like kettling, innocent people get arrested. A documented example of that is the 215 arrested and charged federally in DC. 6 were acquitted and 129 had their charges dismissed for lack of direct evidence that they actually committed a crime.
Typical MO.
Project, deflect, deny.
Wash, rinse, repeat
Now you accept nuance? But, wait, no. According to your words, you don't. I equated BLM to millions of good people around the country and around the world protesting an obviously skewed system. You are the one in the conversation who tries to make it look like I did.
Peaceful protesters are arrested all of the time.
Lol. You could drive a truck through the gaps in that argument.
Yet instead of doing so, you merely CLAIM you can.
So when are the lawsuits coming for false arrest?
They were doing something deemed illegal at the time or they wouldn't have been arrested and then subsequently set free.
ACLU of DC Sues D.C. Police for False Arrests, Free Speech Violations, Police Abuse at Inauguration Day Protests | American Civil Liberties Union
Two NYPD Officers Lied In Court About Their Arrest Of A Black Lives Matter Protester. The Manhattan D.A. Cleared Them. - Gothamist
Two black students dragged from their car by cops in BLM protests sue Atlanta police and city | Daily Mail Online
JSO sued for alleged misconduct during BLM protest | firstcoastnews.com
There are many more. Get educated.
I believe we were discussing hundreds............................and about that set free thingy..............seems to be the case.
Jim, you've been here giving a thumbs up to a plethora of posts whining about protesters on the left not being prosecuted while the J6 protesters are being held as 'political prisoners'. One would think that you would have done a little research of your own before supporting all that bullshit.
For your edification:
Remember Those Trump Inauguration Rioters? Here’s What’s Happening To Them Now. | The Daily Wire
That link alone proves that 129 were arrested then dismissed for lack of evidence.
Again, there are MANY more articles in the same vein from all over the country. [ deleted ]
Judge denies Oath Keepers leader’s request for special master ahead of seditious conspiracy trial
A federal judge on Tuesday denied Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes’s requests to appoint a special master in his Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy case and delay the trial.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta’s brief order came hours after Rhodes’s attorney had requested the special master appointment to assist in discovery, saying it spanned more than 10 terabytes of data. The Justice Department objected to the motion.
If you are protesting, and that protest is declared unlawful, and you don't leave immediately, you are committing a crime.
The thing most people don't want to admit is.... that's true no matter which political chant you're shouting at the sky.
There are lots of people who think Heather Heyer was a peacefully protesting innocent victim. In fact, she was an active participant in an unlawful riot.
As for the idea that dropped charges indicates no crime was committed.... what were you saying about "naive"?
“Heather Heyer was a peacefully protesting innocent victim…”
…who was murdered by being run over by a car driven by an avowed white nationalist.
You sir, have lost all credibility.
Jack, they kettled groups of people and then arrested them for not dispersing. People can't fucking teleport or suddenly disappear. This isn't a new complaint. As I said, there are articles about it from all over the country.
Prove that Jack. Post a reliable source please.
Actually, that isn't naiveté, it's logic. If they lack the evidence to prove a crime, there was no crime.
This spaghetti at the wall bullshit is getting old.
She was actively engaged in an unlawful riot. That's a fact. I realize it's inconvenient to the desire to hyper-romantacize protesting and rioting, but that doesn't make it any less true.
Another proclamation.
PROVE IT Jack.
Yeah, I know.
[deleted] If I supplied notarized court documents, you'd pretend that the absence of Tom Brady's DNA or some other preposterous nonsense was somehow material.
Hours after that thing was declared an unlawful riot, she was still there screaming at the other set of assholes. Look it up.
I'm sure you will have the proof. Who defined this unlawful riot? What does the witness testimony have to say about this alleged riot?
Translation: You have no fucking proof and are just spewing fabricated bullshit.
You are either clueless or gaslighting and posting intentional slanderous lies.
I don't need to, I have READ many articles about the event AND watched videos.
Post a link that proves your claim about Heather Heyer Jack.
When you can't, I'll be back to call you out for slandering an innocent person who was merely practicing her 1st Amendment rights.
Didn't look it up, did you?
Warning, you won't like what you find.
As every member here can see for themselves, all I asked from you is to PROVE your fucking claim about Heather Heyer.
Since you can't because it is utterly FALSE, you instead attacked ME.
Well done Jack, the credibility of your comments is at an all-time low and instead of making a cogent argument, all you've done is lash out with kneejerk bullshit.
What part of "I don't need to, I have READ many articles about the event AND watched videos." don't you understand Jack?
Post a fucking link to this revelatory shit you pretend exists. The clock is ticking.
Please don't hold your breath for it my friend.
Anybody remotely familiar with events that day knows that she was actively engaged in "counter-protesting" when the car hit her and that the entire shitshow had been declared an unlawful riot hours before.
Now, we all know that's not what you want to hear, so we all know you're going to pretend it's not true. As I said before, you won't like what you find when you look it up.
That's 4 strikes Jack. I have asked you 4 times to post PROOF of your claim Jack.
You haven't because you can't.
'WE' all know that all your deflection and pontificating can't overcome that FACT.
Your claim about Heather Heyer is bullshit Jack. Prove me wrong if you can.
Suuuure you did.
Prove it. Post links.
So, you've had plenty of time to prove your slanderous claim about Heather Heyer.
Members can all see for themselves that you failed to do so and instead chose to post flippant deflection.
Your future comments here should rightly be judged to lack credibility.
To the contrary, only a counter protestor would put themselves at such a dangerous location. You have failed to defend the paralegal protestor.
BTW, Jack is not currently logged in.
I am not the one that made an allegation, Jack did. Jack has the burden of proof. That's how this shit works.
Point?
Never had any credibility to begin with.
Some scumbag plows through the crowd and kills her and no problem because she was a counter-protester and it was an unlawful riot? By the counter-protestors? Wow. How utterly fucking deplorable.
Victim blaming Heather Heyer. What a shock./s
All of the above - just rotates the play list.
But, but, but - she was a counter-protester.
The hate and ignorance is so deplorable.
You act like you've won something here.
You always fail.
"That's another one in the books, Della. Now where would you like to eat?"
So you see failure as a win?
A lot like your failed hero.
Link Showing that at or around 11:22AM the City of Charlottesville declared an "unlawful assembly" at Emancipation Park. Not the "entire shitshow " you claim. She was 4 blocks away at Fourth St.
From a local news channel
That doesn't sound like she was screaming and rioting to me.
Oh FFS. Moving your unlawful assembly down the street does not make it lawful.
For a person who claims to have "read many articles and watched videos", you seem remarkably ill-informed about even the most basic factual information of the day. It's like claiming to be a football fan and not knowing how many minutes are in a game. It's laughable.
So these "articles" you've supposedly read... was this some collection of haiku poetry? Sonnets? Was the video of the Brooklyn Hippie Festival presenting "An Expression of Outrage Through Interpretive Dance"? Was Heather shown as a third-year Hufflepuff at Hogwarts?
Were any of these supposed "articles" written by an actual reporter or did you just believe whatever you saw on Alternet, DailyKos or some other batshit angry leftist blog?
It appears no many how times your ass is handed to you, you keep on digging.
It's so hateful to call this murdered young woman a 'counter protestor engaged in a riot'. It's a fucking hateful ignorant lie.
That comment was nothing except you dogging Dulay!
The illegal assembly was at Emancipation Park. They left Emancipation park. She wasn't rioting, your initial claim in your response to Afrayedknot in 11.3.52
She wasn't screaming, as you claimed in post 11.3.55 " she was still there screaming at the other set of assholes " . .
As a matter of fact, they were leaving, celebrating ,
Any more distortions you want to try and spread?
Excusing a murderous white supremacist, what do you expect? And victim blaming the young woman he murdered, what do you expect?
So she knew her partisan bullshit would be called out. Not like she provided anything that resembled a comprehendible answer anyway.
Another failed attempt to look good. Kind of hard to do that with inflation where it is, fuel prices and the rest of the items the Democrats have ignored in the past 2 years.
Who remembers Trump's charming press secretary?
Hey, GREAT post--------IF THE TOPIC WAS WHAT YOU WANT TO YAK ABOUT.
But--and correct me if I am wrong------the article was NOT about all that shit now was it?
And here you attempted to chastise me on another seed falsely accusing me of doing EXACTLY what you did here.
[deleted]
In what universe is my comment about Trump's White House Press Secretary off topic yet yours and Jeremy's comments about me are on topic?
That's elementary.
Your comments about Trump's WH Press Secretary are off topic on a seed about Biden's WH Press Secretary.
See how that works yet?
Here is another example:
If you made a Trump comment on a seed about current Administration policies, THAT would be off topic, too!
Did you learn nothing about subject matter while in grade school?
A universe where people stick to the topic and not try the usual deflection bullshit you and many others on the left do on a daily basis. You know, like you did in 13.
In a real one where many of us reside daily.
Come join us, won't you?
Exactly, whatabout...
KJP: We Have Created Nearly Ten Thousand Million Jobs
Math is hard.