August 13, 2019

WaPo's Fact Checker gives 4 Pinocchios to Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren for tweeting that Michael Brown was murdered.

"One can certainly raise questions about whether Wilson should have fired as many shots as he did or acted appropriately under the circumstances.... But Harris and Warren have ignored the findings of the Justice Department to accuse Wilson of murder, even though the Justice Department found no credible evidence to support that claim. Instead, the Justice Department found that the popular narrative was wrong, according to witnesses deemed to be credible, some of whom testified reluctantly because of fear of reprisal. The department produced a comprehensive report to determine what happened, making the senators’ dismissal of it even more galling. Harris and Warren both earn Four Pinocchios."

Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post.

We talked about this subject last night, here, where I accused Warren and Harris of "crudely, clumsily groping for black voters" and said it was "cynical, damaging, and patronizing."

141 comments:

AAT said...

I guess “Pants on fire” is reserved for Republicans.

Birkel said...

And actionable.
Knowingly false statements of fact.

And both of those people pretend to be attorneys?!?

Kevin said...

Great. Now do Russian collusion, obstruction of justice, and “fine people”.

Kevin said...

Maybe next week they can get to “everyone who votes for Trump is a racist”.

tim maguire said...

Harris is now a third-tier candidate. Assuming Warren gets the bulk of the Sanders voters after he drops out, she has to be considered the frontrunner.

Kevin said...

We talked about this subject last night, here, where I said where I accused Warren and Harris of "crudely, clumsily groping for black voters"

Some call those “mostly political statements”.

Others just do the thing with their hands to signal it’s raining money.

Grand Beagle Fen said...

One can certainly raise questions about whether Wilson should have fired as many shots as he did or acted appropriately under the circumstances

Oh yay. The fact checker gives us his opinion. How many shot should Wilson have fired? Because I really value the opinion of some journalist who found out just yesterday that "the shoulder thing that pops up to launch grenades" is really just a sling keeper.

Keep your ignorant arm-chair quarterbacking to yourself, jackass.

Kevin said...

I guess “Pants on fire” is reserved for Republicans.

You can’t use that phrase when talking about a woman.

I think Monistat can sue you for that.

AAT said...

Wasn’t it just “hyperbole” and so impervious to fact checking?

AAT said...

“Pantsuit on fire” would have worked.

rhhardin said...

One Pocahontas for Warren.

Darrell said...

Lies are their truth.
Herstory will bear that out.

Hey Skipper said...

Liawatha and Harris are getting hell ratioed right out of them.

(My spell checker does not approve of verbing a noun. Darnnit. Did it again.)

Meade said...

Pinocchahontas

Unknown said...

Lairs gotta lie.

David Begley said...

So when is WaPo going to call out the entire Dem field on the CAGW scam.

Sally327 said...

I think they're also counting on people only vaguely remembering this incident, I admit I had to stop and think about who Michael Brown was and only got it once I saw the word Ferguson, and maybe they're hoping people will assume this must be something that just happened and that it was Donald Trump's fault. Because he's a racist / white supremacist / killer. Speaking truth to power that's all. No justice no peace. Attica Attica.

Wilbur said...

Several years ago, I had an immigrant friend and coworker who daily would have a fit of anger mixed with despair over the slanting of the news and what he considered to the overwhelming bias of the media.

I explained to him that the Left and their enablers lie; they lie every day and they lie about almost everything. Accept this as reality, and deal with it. There will be a reckoning someday and we will be ready.

Fritz said...

One of the few cases where my system for evaluating Glenn Kessler fails. Normally, if he is evaluating a Republican statement, you can subtract two noses, because he finds some way to construe the context to their disadvantage, while in the case of a Democrat, you must add two because he searches for ameliorating circumstances to cite and discount.

Mike Sylwester said...

Neither the Missouri state government for the Federal government ever said how far Michael Brown ran toward police officer Darren Wilson, but I determined -- and illustrated -- the distance from witness statements.

My blog article determining the distance

One illustration

Another illustration

After Brown tried to grab Wilson's gun through the window of the police car, Brown ran away. Wilson got out of his car and followed Brown.

At some point, Brown turned around and charged at Wilson. The spot were Brown ultimately fell dead is a known location. However, the public never has been told where Brown turned around and began his charge toward Wilson.

However, three people -- African-Americans -- were standing on a balcony overlooking the scene, and they described the spot where Brown turned around and began his charge. They said that Brown turned around near the street sign that I have circled in the photograph at my above third link.

Those three eyewitnesses were telling the truth. Brown's charge was proved by blood drops along his charge.

------

The three other, lying witnesses -- Dorian Johnson, Piaget Crenshaw and Tiffany Mitchell -- claimed that Brown was standing still, raising his hands and trying to surrender at the spot where he fell -- marked by the candles and teddy bear in the photograph.

michaele said...

Harris and Warren were just following Biden's dictum that, as Democrats, "we choose truth over facts". And, as we all know, everyone has their own personal truth and story.

Jersey Fled said...

Sometimes even Glenn Kessler can't take the Democrats sh*t.

Bay Area Guy said...

Harris and Warren are shameless liars on toxic racial issues. They want to inflame blacks with total disregard on how negatively it impacts the country. That's how they roll. Fuck 'em.

Roy Jacobsen said...

"And the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, but not with any help from me.

"This opens a breach in the imaginary encirclement caused by our inaction. It is the easiest thing to do for us, but the most devastating for the lies. Because when people renounce lies it simply cuts short their existence. Like an infection, they can exist only in a living organism.

"We do not exhort ourselves. We have not sufficiently matured to march into the squares and shout the truth our loud or to express aloud what we think. It's not necessary.

"It's dangerous. But let us refuse to say that which we do not think.

"This is our path, the easiest and most accessible one, which takes into account out inherent cowardice, already well rooted. And it is much easier—it's dangerous even to say this—than the sort of civil disobedience which Gandhi advocated.

"Our path is to talk away fro the gangrenous boundary. If we did not paste together the dead bones and scales of ideology, if we did not sew together the rotting rags, we would be astonished how quickly the lies would be rendered helpless and subside.

"That which should be naked would then really appear naked before the whole world.

"So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: Whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood—of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one's family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies—or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect both by one's children and contemporaries."

From an essay that everybody should read: "Live not by lies," by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/SolhenitsynLies.php

Tank said...

Meade said...

Pinocchahontas


Winner.

iowan2 said...

Harris and Warren will never talk of this in a substantive manner. Explain how a person that has earned a law degree, can toss about the word murder, knowing, by training, education, and experience is an intentional lie, seeking to gain political advantage. This is a lie, for a reason. A risk they calculated would pay back greater than the damage done.
This exposes both the flawed political morals of the candidate, and the media. The media they understood, would ignore the lie, because shutup

AAT said...

The thing is that most black people understand what really happened as they are familiar with the types. It’s people purporting to speak for black people who distort the incident. Black people in certain parts of Chicago know it’s not the police shooting up their neighborhoods and killing so many of their children.

Most black people are very culturally conservative.

AAT said...

Isn’t “Pinocchio” and anti-Italian slur?

Ralph L said...

I guess "misinformed" isn't an option on this important an event? I'm trying to remember how much the DoJ finding permeated the media filter into the Left Bubble.

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

Good on the WaPo for that.

You're exactly right that Warren and Harris are "crudely, clumsily groping for black voters" in a "cynical, damaging, and patronizing" way.

It's embarrassingly crude stuff.

gilbar said...

this is silly!
In THIS Country, you are Guilty until Exonerated.
The Cop was NEVER Exonerated
Ergo: He IS GUILTY of Murder!

Marcus said...

Kessler is obviously sexist and is mansplaining this.

THEOLDMAN

The officer should sue.

BarrySanders20 said...

"We talked about this subject last night, here, where I said where I accused Warren and Harris of "crudely, clumsily groping for black voters" and said it was "cynical, damaging, and patronizing."

Didnt read last night's comments, so this might be re-hashing. The black vote is Biden's right now. Every candidate since Clinton who won the black vote won the D nomination. The others who still have a shot need to do something to attract the votes. AA's description is dead-on accurate.

"Most black people are very culturally conservative."

The honest gay candidate Buttitigeg, and the dishonest (closeted) gay candidate Booker poll at less than 1% of blacks currently. Cant see how they can win with those numbers. The only way blacks vote in large numbers for either one is if there is no other choice. So I have to think they are only in this for the VP slot. Trump could attract a greater share of the black men's vote than any R in the last 60 years if either gay D candidate is on the ballot. Of the two, Buttitgeg actually has talent. Booker is a fraud.

rehajm said...

They’re not going for the rational voter. They need a plurality.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

I doubt you'll hear a correction or an actual authentic apology from the D-hack Rachel sisters.

We might her a "yeah but" non-apology.
Some bullshit.

Mean time, Darren Wilson should sue them.

wildswan said...

Joe Biden is pulling away from all his competitors in the polls. But Biden made that incredible statement about meeting the Parkland kids when he was vice-president. He walked around the stage talking about how brave he was to meet with them while other legislators ducked out. I think he is impaired and the stress of a year long campaign will accelerate it; and he won't be a possible nominee; and other candidates think so too. So Warren is trying to position herself to be able to win the black vote and she thinks pandering and Al Sharptoning will do it. All the top Dems do. They all think that you will win the black vote by going Al Sharpton. But Al Sharpton is not mainstream black any more than AOC is mainstream Hispanic. The votes you might win by "the Sharpton pander" aren't black, they are Millennial and suburban, I think. And there, in those areas, if you ask me, there is immense lying going on. It isn't secret Trump supporters, it's terrorized careerists who won't openly challenge any nonsense. And, moreover, the demise of HRC as viable candidate and the end of the Clintons is a seismic shift for the Dems. It's as if the San Andreas fault has moved 12 feet and San Francisco is burning - only it's on time delay and you can't see it till three months from now. You just only hear these sudden unbelievable screams: "the voters suck," "the country sucks," "Vote Warren, Kamala, Bernie, they'll beat the sh*t out of racist patriot f*cks", meaning "God help us, we almost voted in the Clintons,"

Big Mike said...

One can certainly raise questions about whether Wilson should have fired as many shots as he did or acted appropriately under the circumstances

Both the police and civilians trained in defensive pistol shooting are taught to keep shooting until the threat ceases to be a threat. As long as Brown continues to advance, Officer Wilson is doing what he was trained to do.

Mike Sylwester said...

One can certainly raise questions about whether Wilson should have fired as many shots as he did

Three African-American eyewitnesses were standing on a balcony overlooking the scene, and they saw Michael Brown turn around and charge at police officer Darren Wilson.

Those three eyewitnesses thought that Wilson's shooting at Brown was excessive. Although Brown charged a long distance, he was obviously slowing, stumbling and faltering when Wilson fired the final, fatal shot.

On the first anniversary of the incident, The American Thinker published my article titled What Would Have Happened in a Trial of Officer Darren Wilson. There I explained that the government could have tried Wilson on the testimony of those three credible balcony eyewitnesses -- without any testimony of the three blatant liars -- Dorian Johnson, Piaget Crenshaw and Tiffany Mitchell.

One problem with such a trial would have been that the balcony eyewitnesses would have had to say where Brown turned around and began charging at Wilson. According to those eyewitnesses, Brown's charge toward Wilson was a remarkably long distance. Brown kept running at Wilson while Wilson was retreating, telling Brown to stop and shooting at Brown.

Another problem was that the defense would have called at least seven other African-American eyewitnesses who would have testified that Brown was charging at Wilson relentlessly.

The Obama Administration would have loved to put Wilson on trial, but US Attorney General Eric Holder foresaw that the trial would have been an epic disaster for the Administration. Wilson would have been acquitted, and the US Justice Department would have been humiliated before the entire public.

------

The photograph in the American Thinker article cannot be seen now, but it showed the balcony's location.

Ralph L said...

Al Sharpton is not mainstream black

They're going after Dem primary voters, who aren't mainstream black either.

Meade said...

“Winner”

Hey tanks, Tank!

Ralph L said...

It looks like the tree would have blocked much of their view, though I'm sure someone tested it.

Andrew said...

Serious question: What happened to Officer Wilson? Where is he, and what job does he have now?

I feel very bad for him (and officers in similar situations). His whole professional career is ruined by lies and demagoguery. And he probably is in danger for the rest of his life, just as much as if a fatwa was placed on his head.

I hope he can find peace and safety somewhere. And I agree that he should sue Warren and Harris for defamation (but that, of course, would bring him into the public eye again).

And for the commenters who say blacks are culturally conservative, I hear that all the time but don't see it on a large scale. When Ferguson or Trayvon Martin or some other case blows up, where are the reasonable blacks who stand up against the mob? Few and far between.

Bob Boyd said...

I can't read the whole article, but the excerpt seems to imply that ignoring the findings of the investigation is a legitimate position for the candidates to take.

Does the article make clear the investigation was done by the Obama Justice Dept?

Mike Sylwester said...

Two White workers became involved in the controversy. They never have been identified to the public, so I called them "Pipe Foreman" and "Pipe Laborer" in my blog.

In a video taken moments after the shooting, Pipe Foreman is seen yelling that Brown had his hands up when he was shot. Nevertheless, Eric Holder's federal prosecutors determined that Pipe Foreman was not credible and that his testimony would not support a prosecution of police officer Darren Wilson.

Although I studied the available information about Pipe Foreman and Pipe Laborer, I never got around to describing it in detail in my blog about the killing. However, I can summarize it here.

Pipe Foreman and Pipe Laborer were digging trenches for water pipes on that Saturday morning, because their project was behind schedule. Pipe Laborer was doing most of the work while Pipe Foreman was mostly goofing off.

In particular, Pipe Foreman became engaged in a long conversation with Michael Brown, who was living in a nearby apartment building. The conversation soon turned to the two men's favorite subject, which was drugs. They began to negotiate a deal in which Brown would sell some drugs to Pipe Foreman.

It was almost noon, so Pipe Foreman decided that he and Pipe Laborer would stop working at noon instead of continuing to work into the afternoon. It seems that Brown gave Pipe Foreman a sample of the drug and that Pipe Foreman gave Brown some money to go buy some lunch at a McDonald's restaurant.

Pipe Foreman told Pipe Laborer to finish his work by noon, and then Pipe Foreman got into his truck to try the drug sample he had received from Brown.

Meanwhile, Brown and Dorian Johnson walked away to buy the lunch at McDonald's. Before they entered the McDonald's, however, they went into the next-door store. There they got into a conflict with the store's clerk, who called the police. Fearing the police, Brown decided not to go into the McDonald's but instead to walk back, without any food, to the place where Pipe Foreman was waiting to conclude the drug deal.

(Continued in a following comment)

Sebastian said...

"I accused Warren and Harris of "crudely, clumsily groping for black voters" and said it was "cynical, damaging, and patronizing.""

Yes, but they did more than that: promoting the narrative that cops are killers, fomenting racial strife for political gain, and demeaning the country as inherently racist.

The real people being patronized are the nice white women like Althouse: sure, you may think you're smart, hint cynical progs, sure, you may think we're exaggerating, but what are you gonna do -- associate yourself with racist Trump, or with us anti-racists, who prove our anti-racism by standing up for Michael Brown? Stand with us, or declare yourself racist.

Until the Althouses of America turn away in disgust, and for good, progs will continue to play their "cynical" game.

Mike Sylwester said...

(Continuing my comment at 8:16 AM)

Fearing the police, Brown and Johnson decided not to go into the McDonald's but instead to walk back, without any food, to the place where Pipe Foreman was waiting to conclude the drug deal.

It was almost noon as Brown and Johnson approached the place where Pipe Foreman was waiting. Pipe Foreman was sitting in his pickup truck, getting high on Brown's drug sample.

Meanwhile, Pipe Laborer had just finished parking the excavating machine and putting away their tools, because Pipe Foreman had told him they would stop working at noon -- would not work into the afternoon -- on this Saturday.

Suddenly, Pipe Laborer hears yelling, and he looks toward the sounds. He sees just a glimpse of Michael Brown beginning to charge toward police officer Darren Wilson. Pipe Laborer does not seen any more than that glimpse, because Brown's further charge is blocked from Pipe Laborer's view by a building corner.

There is more yelling and then gunshots, and now Pipe Foreman gets out of his truck and asks Pipe Laborer what's going on. Apparently, Pipe Foreman understands from Pipe Laborer that Brown raised his hands briefly and started running.

Then Pipe Foreman and Pipe Laborer move to another position, from where they can see that Brown is lying dead on the street while Wilson is holding a gun and standing over him.

At this point, Pipe Foreman begins to yell that his drug buddy Brown had been raising his hands when he was shot. Pipe Foreman himself did not see Brown raising his hands, because Pipe Foreman was sitting in his truck getting high on Brown's drug sample. Rather, Pipe Foreman was yelling what he had understood Pipe Laborer to have said to him a few seconds ago.

(Continued in a following comment)

gilbar said...

Mike, did they find drugs on Brown's body ?

Bob Boyd said...

Was Pinocchio wood supremacist?

Chuck said...

Blogger Kevin said...
Great. Now do Russian collusion, obstruction of justice, and “fine people”.


Lol.

The Fine People Hoax Hoax has been exposed already:
https://thebulwark.com/the-charlottesville-hoax-hoax/

Trump really did call the white supremacists “fine people.” And then over the course of two more speeches he got around to condemning white supremacy.

If Harris and Warren each did two more speeches this week wherein they each said that the death of Michael Brown was not murder, and pretended that it was the fault of the press, or your own fault, that you mistakenly thought that the two Democrats were really talking about “murder,” would you let them off the hook for what they said? I wouldn’t.

They both need to own what they said. And so should Trump.

Mike Sylwester said...

(Continued from my comment at 8:35 AM)

That morning, Pipe Laborer had seen Pipe Foreman engaged in a long conversation with Michael Brown. Apparently based on that conversation, Pipe Foreman told Pipe Laborer that they would stop working at noon, instead of working into the afternoon.

Then Pipe Laborer saw Pipe Foreman get into his truck and begin smoking a drug.

Then Pipe Laborer parked the excavating machine and put away the tools, finishing exactly at noon. Pipe Laborer goes to the truck and sees Pipe Foreman getting high on the drug.

Then Pipe Laborer hears the yelling and sees Brown starting to run, and then he hears gunshots. Pipe Foreman hears the noise too, so he gets out of his truck and asks what is happening. Pipe Laborer tells Pipe Foreman that he saw Brown raising his hands and starting to run.

-----

That happened on Saturday. On Monday morning, Pipe Laborer went to his work office and quit his job. He said he was traumatized by the Saturday incident and intended to apply for Worker's Compensation.

The real reason why Pipe Laborer quit, obviously, was that he was afraid of Pipe Foreman. Pipe Laborer was afraid that the incident raised such a national scandal that the police eventually would question Pipe Laborer, who then would have to tell about Pipe Foreman's drug dealing.

Pipe Laborer was afraid that Pipe Foreman would retaliate severely if Pipe Laborer snitched to police investigators. Therefore, Pipe Laborer quit on Monday morning, so that he could stay away or even disappear from Pipe Foreman.

------

All this was figured out by the investigators.

If Wilson had been tried and if Pipe Foreman had been called to testify for the prosecution, then Pipe Laborer would have been called to testify by the defense.

On the witness stand, Pipe Laborer would have testified that Pipe Foreman seemed to be involved in a drug deal with Brown and that Pipe Foreman was intoxicated in his truck and did not see any of the shooting incident.

Eric Holder's Justice Department foresaw that a public trial using Pipe Foreman and Pipe Laborer as witnesses would have turned into a fiasco.

AAT said...

Chuck, how many times do we have to debunk that Bulwark article? I would do it again, but obviously either you are too dense to understand it, or simply don’t read it.

I know you disagree with Althouse on this, so why don’t you take her specific point you disagree with, and then explain to her why she was wrong, instead of just linking to an article where the guy who wrote it actually SAYS that he opposed the tearing down to the statues and he disowns white supremacy.

The nut of his case is that he is one of the very fine people on the other side, but he wasn’t there, therefore nobody who though like he did was there, therefore Trump couldn’t possibly have meant people like him!

If he wasn’t there, how could he know who was there? Oh yeah, and in the New York Times article cited, they inteviewed people who were there for the same reasons that the writer of the Bulwark piece cited, that they opposed the destruction of the beautiful monuments.

You explain to me how Trump was supposed to ignore the reporting that there were people who were only demonstrating against tearing down the statues on account of this never Trumper wasn’t at the demonstration.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Fredo Cuomo is a shitty fake then. He’s allowed guests on his show to call Trump Fredo and several called Don Jr. Fredo as well. Gee if it was really “like the n-word to Italians” like Fredo claims here then he would have stood up “like a man” when he was on camera instead of letting his network show be used to smear Trump family members with such racist talk. But he didn’t. He can pretend to be macho to some goofball on the street but keeps his lipstick-votes mouth SHUT when his friends are being racist (his term!) on CNN. How can you defend this assholery, Althouse?

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

What happened?

I swear I was on the Cuomo story.

Gahrie said...

We talked about this subject last night, here, where I said where I accused Warren and Harris of "crudely, clumsily groping for black voters" and said it was "cynical, damaging, and patronizing."

You keep forgetting: "But unfortunately, it works.".

Michael K said...

Mean time, Darren Wilson should sue them.

The problem would be the location of a trial and the jury.

Chuck is best ignored on anything to do with Trump and "The Bulwark" is the equivalent of Media Matters for NeverTrumpers, a diminishing audience. Eventually the left wing billionaire paying the rent will cut his losses.

Mike Sylwester said...

Mike, did they find drugs on Brown's body ?

Brown had $10 and a bag of marijuana in his pockets. He had drugs in his blood.

I think that he got the $10 from Pipe Foreman and was supposed to use it to buy some food at the McDonald's.

Brown could have used the $10 to buy the cigarillos in the liquor store, but he stole the cigarillos so that he still would have the entire $10 when he went into the next-door McDonald's.

Because the store clerk yelled that he was calling the police, Brown and Johnson did not go into the McDonald's, but rather walked back to their neighborhood. Therefore, Brown still had the $10 in his pocket.

That's my speculation about the $10 in his pocket.

I think that Brown practically always had a bag of marijuana in his pocket. That bag was irrelevant to this incident.

------

When Brown engaged Pipe Foreman in the conversation about drugs, Brown (and/or Johnson) went to their supplier, who lived in a nearby apartment. The supplier gave a sample to Brown to give to Pipe Foreman. This sample was a much stronger drug than Brown's marijuana.

Pipe Foreman decided to try the sample. He told Pipe Laborer that they would quit working at noon. He gave $10 to Brown to buy some lunch at McDonald's and promised to discuss a drug deal with Brown at noon, when Pipe Laborer would leave for the day.

Brown and Johnson came back on their shopping trip at noon, but Brown was shot to death right before he re-joined Pipe Foreman.

MayBee said...

What was the price anyone paid (besides Darren Wilson) for spreading the lie that Michael Brown was shot with his hands in the air saying "hands up, don't shoot"? It was a huge thing! Then it wasn't true and.....crickets. That's why Harris and Warren feel free to spread the lie...for the bigger truth. That's why Gillibrand paid no price for boosting Mattress Girl Emma Sulkowicz.

Because they didn't punch down, I guess.

gilbar said...

Thanx Mike!

gilbar said...

I guess it's time to go back to ignoring Chuck; too bad, i Did want to know his opinion of Rose's Lime Juice

Mike Sylwester said...

The three liars were Dorian Johnson, Piaget Crenshaw and Tiffany Mitchell.

Johnson and Crenshaw lived in the same neighborhood and socialized with each other. Johnson had partied in Crenshaw's apartment.

Crenshaw and Mitchell were co-workers and commuted to work in Mitchell's car.

It seems that Johnson and Mitchell did not know each other before the incident, but they were introduced to each other by Crenshaw right after the incident.

------

Right before noon, Mitchell was driving toward Crenshaw's apartment in order to pick her up and drive her to work.

In her apartment, Crenshaw heard gunshots. She looked out her apartment window and saw her friend Johnson getting into a car that was stopped on the street. Crenshaw was puzzled by the sight of a policeman running on the street, but her attention remained focused mostly on Johnson, who was inside the car and ducking down.

Neither Johnson nor Crenshaw saw Wilson shooting Brown, because Johnson was ducking down inside the car and Crenshaw was watching Johnson ducking down inside the car.

Mitchell had intended to stop her car in front of the apartment building to pick up Crenshaw, but Crenshaw was not standing by the side of the street. There was some police commotion in the middle of the street. Therefore, Mitchell pulled into a nearby parking lot, got out of her car, and walked toward the front door of Crenshaw's apartment building

Mitchell -- like Johnson and Crenshaw -- did not see the shooting.

------

Mitchell walked up to Crenshaw's second-story apartment. There, they went out onto the balcony and watched and discussed the event.

Meanwhile, Johnson got out of the car, ran to his apartment, changed his shirt (which probably had blood on it) and then came to Crenshaw's apartment, which overlooked the scene.

There, Johnson was introduced to Mitchell, and those three discussed the event and decided that Brown must have been standing still and raising his hands when he was shot. These three were scatter-brain, lying trouble-makers and they agreed on a story that they would tell the public.

They were idiots, but they were good liars, and all three of them stuck to their story forever. They told their story on national television and to the investigators and to the grand jury.

Because of their story, many of the local businesses were destroyed, and dozens of cars were set on fire.

All over the USA, many liberals still believe that Brown was murdered by police officer Wilson.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

The Rachel Maddow Liar press told us that Brown was shot in the back.

Not true. But hey - It's Rachel "Russians are under every bed!" Maddow.

Char Char Binks said...

""One can certainly raise questions about whether Wilson should have fired as many shots as he did or acted appropriately under the circumstances"

Yes to both.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Harris and Warren probably watch Maddow every night, for their dose of feel good proggy bullshit.

Bob Boyd said...

Harris and Warren probably watch Maddow every night, for their dose of feel good proggy bullshit.

Be that as it may, this isn't an isolated incident. It's part of an overarching Democrat Party strategy. These two women aren't ignorant of the facts of the case. They're deliberately spreading hate and division just like Rachael Maddow and MSNBC.

Ray - SoCal said...

Thanks Mike Sylwester!

Great information.

Tragic the end results for Wilson.

Chuck said...

AAT said...
Chuck, how many times do we have to debunk that Bulwark article? I would do it again, but obviously either you are too dense to understand it, or simply don’t read it.

I know you disagree with Althouse on this, so why don’t you take her specific point you disagree with, and then explain to her why she was wrong, instead of just linking to an article where the guy who wrote it actually SAYS that he opposed the tearing down to the statues and he disowns white supremacy.

The nut of his case is that he is one of the very fine people on the other side, but he wasn’t there, therefore nobody who though like he did was there, therefore Trump couldn’t possibly have meant people like him!

If he wasn’t there, how could he know who was there? Oh yeah, and in the New York Times article cited, they inteviewed people who were there for the same reasons that the writer of the Bulwark piece cited, that they opposed the destruction of the beautiful monuments.

You explain to me how Trump was supposed to ignore the reporting that there were people who were only demonstrating against tearing down the statues on account of this never Trumper wasn’t at the demonstration.


I'm going to engage you on this, because of how deep my loathing is of Scott Adams, and because I have seen in the past that Althouse likes to buy into the stupid "Charlottesville Hoax" Hoax.

In his four (4) statements on Charlottesville in the immediate aftermath, Trump specifically referred to the people who were "protesting" (without a permit) on Friday night, and the people who "had a permit" on Saturday.

The people protesting on Friday night were the torch-wielders who were yelling "Jews will not replace us." And that night, there was NO reporting that, as you claim, "that there were people who were only demonstrating against tearing down the statues."

On Saturday, the permit for demonstration had been secured by a specific white supremacist group. Not The Federalist Society. Not the UVA Young Republicans. Not any serious group. It was a white supremacist group, and we know who it was because the permit was litigated, and the ACLU had to weigh in to say that even white supremacist speech is protected speech.

Tracinski clearly quoted Trump. The first Trump, the second Trump, the third Trump and the fourth Trump. All of which were evolving. The third Trump condemned white supremacy. The other three all excused or obviated the white supremacy.

And Tracinski -- like me -- never goes out of his way to say that Trump is an undeniable racist. Rather -- like me -- he says that Trump is stupid and clumsy and vague in such statements. With a notable lean toward a racist base. And that is enough. Enough for me at least.

gilbar said...

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
The Rachel Maddow Liar press told us that Brown was shot in the back.


I guess that's what Jo Biden meant by: We chose Truth over facts

Char Char Binks said...

Mike Slywester, I believe one of the pipe men was the first to put his hands up, according to a video. He saw whatever he saw, heard the shots, and put his hands up afterwards, not in a traditional hands-above-head-palms-forward gesture of surrender, but seemingly in an expression of "what just happened?". He then exchanged a glance, and probably a word or two with a passing black man who was walking toward the shooting scene who then also raised his hands in the same manner as the pipe man, similar to a cheerleader "giving a U", as he continued walking. Thus was born the lie that so many devoutly wished to believe.

Mike Sylwester said...

Now that I have thought about this some more, I think that Johnson, Crenshaw and Mitchell knew that their story about seeing the shooting was false.

I think that their self-justification for telling their false story was that their story would cause the Obama Administration to investigate the incident thoroughly.

gilbar said...

so, Chuck blows holes in his own case, saying...
Trump specifically referred to the people who were "protesting" (without a permit) on Friday night

the permit for demonstration had been secured by a specific white supremacist group. Not The Federalist Society. Not the UVA Young Republicans.


SO, ACCORDING to CHUCK (a Life Long Liberal), Trump specifically referred to the people (Without a Permit). Chuck ALSO states that the permit people were NOT the Federalist
society , etc.
SO, ACCORDING to CHUCK, President Trump was referring to people on Friday, that were NOT Racists.
Now Chuck will say that ALL the people protesting on Saturday (INCLUDING the lady that was killed,) were ALL white supremacists?

rcocean said...

Great comments Mike. This whole Ferguson thing shows how the MSM can manipulate us. Why should 300 million Americans care that one man in Missouri got shot by a policeman? 12000-15000 people are murdered every year. How many justified homicides is unknown to me. But they pick this ONE incident, and blow it up into a National story and literally make a "federal case" out of it.

And we all have to end up hearing and talking about it. Even though its meaningless. Its like Charlottsville, or the obsession with the El Paso Shooter, or Trayon Martin. Its MANUFACTURED NEWS.

rcocean said...

Anyway, the Policeman had to keep firing because Brown kept charging. Why can't people ever understand that once you decided to shoot, you keep on shooting till the target is down. "Winging them" only happens on TV. People dropping from one bullet, almost never happens, except on TV.

AAT said...

"Trump specifically referred to the people who were "protesting" (without a permit) on Friday night, and the people who "had a permit" on Saturday.”

Can you give me his exact words that lead you to believe this? Or am I to accept your characterization of them? I have been through it all and I don’t see it, so help me out.

rcocean said...

When you've lost the WaPo - you've lost the Lying Left. So, even they won't defend your lie.

rcocean said...

IRC, Mike Brown was first portrayed as innocent young man out for a stroll. Then we got the footage of him robbing a small store and contemptuously pushing aside the clerk who asked him to pay. Then we learned he'd tried to take the Police Officers Gun. In fact, he almost did.

Basically, the guy was 300 lbs. dinosaur. Enormous size with a pea-brain.

AAT said...

The whole Bulwark article interprets Trump’s words through the lens of what the writer thinks that Trump must have known at the time in order to force their desired interpretation of his words.

"And that night, there was NO reporting that, as you claim...”

Really? You can prove a negative? I remember a lot of reporting leading up to the demonstration that there were people, including black people, who opposed tearing down these statues. But that’s pretty funny. Scott Adams points to a New York Times interview with a person who expressly disavowed and condemned white supremacy and who was actually at the demonstration and whose position lined up with the writer’s own.

Bulwark says that they weren’t there because Bulwark wasn’t there. Does that sound like logic to you Chuck?

Mike Sylwester said...

Char Char Binks at 10:40 AM

... I believe one of the pipe men ... saw whatever he saw, heard the shots, and put his hands up afterwards, not in a traditional hands-above-head-palms-forward gesture of surrender, but seemingly in an expression of "what just happened?".

He then exchanged a glance, and probably a word or two with a passing black man who was walking toward the shooting scene who then also raised his hands in the same manner ...


That explanation might be at least partly true.

I studied the pipe men's stories about four years ago but then did not write my own analysis. (I got too busy with other concerns in my life.) I would have to go back and re-read exactly what the pipe men said when they were questioned by the investigators.

------

In any case, it is obvious in the questioning of Pipe Foreman that the investigators knew he had been a drug dealer in the past and that he probably was involved in a drug deal with Michael Brown on that day.

People who think that Michael Brown was "murdered" think that Pipe Foreman's testimony would have contributed significantly to the conviction of police officer Darren Wilson. After all, Pipe Foreman is seen in a video, taken right after the shooting, holding his own hands up and yelling that Brown had been holding his hands up.

Eric Holder's Justice Department would have been happy to put Wilson on trial for violating Brown's civil rights. However, Pipe Foreman's testimony would have turned into an embarrassing fiasco. The Justice Department's published report about the incident summarized Pipe Foreman's possible testimony as follows:

... after a thorough review of all the evidence, federal prosecutors determined that this witness's accounts not to be credible and therefore do not support a prosecution of Darren Wilson.

AAT said...

If you are a “lawyer” Chuck, I hope you stick to real estate closings, because you don’t seem to have the acumen to dissect an argument if your emotions lead you the other way.

Char Char Binks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Char Char Binks said...

I believe Johnson was bullied into telling his lies.

Watch the first interview on the scene. Several black men are standing near, and slightly behind him. At least one even gives him a hug of solidarity, brother to brother, as the look of fear rises on his face.

Remember, Johnson, although he was with Brown, was not a close friend of his, nor did he actively participate in the robbery, or the attack on Wilson. He was a thin man who probably weighed half of Brown's 292 pounds, and was likely easily pushed around. Far from supporting or encouraging him, I believe his "brothers" on the scene, all of whom were taller and/or much heavier, were intimidating him, making sure he said the "right" things. Troof over facts.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Tom Steyer- Billionaire leftist running for Fuhrer, hath jumped on the Rachel-Maddow-Big-Lie Wagon.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Even the "news" reports attempting to weasel the liars out of their lie, are using BS to lead the reader to assume Brown was innocent-ish.

One detail left out by the D-hack liar press:
" Wilson was trapped his car by Brown and that Brown was punching Wilson in the face."

The Crack Emcee said...

The entire town was found to exist from illegal fines on it's black citizens for decades - a good reason for Michael Brown and others not to respect the law - but focus on "Hands up, don't shoot" to avoid grappling with that racist reality of American life.

Limiting the discussion to this makes that all go away...

TreeJoe said...

Rocean said, "Anyway, the Policeman had to keep firing because Brown kept charging. Why can't people ever understand that once you decided to shoot, you keep on shooting till the target is down. "Winging them" only happens on TV. People dropping from one bullet, almost never happens, except on TV."

I can't for the life of me find out the caliber used in the Brown shooting from like 10 minutes of google searches. I'm going to assume it was a 9mm and FMJ rounds. A fairly standard issue.

He was a 6'4 nearly 300 pound male. He had been shot once in the hand in the car apparently from reports, and 5 times in street.

I'm not surprised at all that an amped up 300 pound man charging an officer would not be hit with a significant, "stopping" shot with multiple 9mm rounds. Especially moments after the officer was attacked in his car.

My guess is he was shot once in his hand in the car, shot 4 times while charging with that causing enough for him to stumble or otherwise go head down, with the 6th shot entering his skull and killing him. But that's just a guess. Nonetheless, that would be 4 wounding shots in a charging large male before causing him to falter in that manner.

Anywho, considering my home is protected by 9mm (albeit hollow point rounds to ensure fragmentation upon wall contact), it's a fairly disturbing account.

Chuck said...

Fuck you, AAT!

If you had read Tracinski’s column, you would have found all of the complete, relevant quotes from Trump.

I am just repeating Tracinski’s arguments. Which you don’t understand, because you obviously didn’t carefully read them.

You little fucking pig; you are asking me to direct you to quotes that are plainly spelled out in the Tracinski piece.

narciso said...

from about seven years ago:

http://narcisoscorner.blogspot.com/2012/04/friday-night-shell-game.html?view=timeslide

the abc reporter has showed up in los angeles at the time of the san Bernardino incident,

Yancey Ward said...

"Assuming Warren gets the bulk of the Sanders voters after he drops out"

Sanders will run right to the end, regardless of how bad it is going- he has a base that are true believers. I think he can get 15% even at the end with no chance at all of getting the nomination.

Char Char Binks said...

"The entire town was found to exist from illegal fines on it's black citizens for decades"

Now their entire economy is based on weave shops, bail bonds, and EBT.

Yancey Ward said...

Let's ask Fredo Cuomo if Pinocchio is like the n-word for Italians.

AAT said...

"Fuck you, AAT!”

I read them, I just don’t thing they mean what you think they mean, so I am asking you to lay them out here and explain to me why I am wrong. I already told you that Tracinski pretends complete knowledge of what Trump knew and didn’t know at the time to try to force his words mean something that I don’t think that they mean at all. And all you can come up with is “Fuck you”?

I am curious as to how you can interpret his words to mean what you say they mean, because I can’t figure it out, unless I accept the idea that Bulwark boy knew the complete contents of Trump’s mind when he said the words? Why is it so important to insist that you know what Trump knew unless you know that’t the only way to twist his words to mean what you want them to mean.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Officer Darren Wilson should have let Michael Brown continue punching him and he should have let Brown take his gun and then he should have let Brown shoot him like any good officer of the law would do.
Because systematic racism for years and "unfair fines."

Got it.

Yancey Ward said...

What Tracinski is doing in that article Chuck linked to is the classic "Begging the Question" fallacy. It doesn't surprise me to find Chuck linking to it and believing it.

AAT said...

You have some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group—excuse me, excuse me—I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

Sounds fine to me

"I live in the Charlottesville area, and I know very fine people who oppose the removal of the monuments based on high-minded notions about preserving history. I’m one of them. So I know that we weren’t there that night. Only the white nationalists were there.” - Tracinski

Ha ha ha ha! What kind of logic is that? Can you draw me a Venn diagram to show that if one member of a group is not at a gathering, than no member of that group was there? This is known as declaring a negative and we all know that the easiest way to disprove a negative is to provide a counterexample. which is exactly what Scot Adams does. Scott Adams links to a New York Times interview with a member of that very group that Tracinski claims was not there. I will happily find you the link to it if you want to call bullshit.

Your whole argument depends not on the facts on the ground there, but on your position as to what Trump could have known at the time. I am being charitable here, assuming that you are not a complete idiot. If you are a complete idiot, I have no idea how you could have come to the conclusion you have.

Your Bulwark article disproves exactly what it claims to prove.

Yancey Ward said...

The simple incontravertible fact about the Charlottesville march is this- a lot of the protesters were only protesting the potential removal of Civil War statues and monuments honoring the people who fought on the side of the confederacy. You can only determine that Trump was praising racists, Nazis, and white supremecists if you can assume that all of the protesters could be painted as such. This is what Tracinski attempted to do. The result is so laughable, I find it difficult to believe anyone is Fredo-like enough to offer it up in rebuttal.

Right Man said...

Was this truth or facts?

n.n said...

They were speaking truth to facts. Very PC.

Chuck said...

No; with regard to Charlottesville, the problems in describing it were all of Trump’s making. Trump said he was talking about the people who were marching on Friday night. But the Friday night protesters were chanting “blood and soil,” and “Jews will not replace us.”

And Trump said that he was talking about marchers on Saturday who had a permit. But again we know who applied for, and fought for, that permit. It was the tiny handful of avowedly white supremacist groups who were the original rally organizers.

The point that you guys want to make; that in the larger issue of Civil War and antebellum Southern memorials and monuments, a thoughtful, nuanced case can be made for preservation of them. With great care and consideration, such an argument can be made. But of course Trump would never be up to that task under easy, general circumstances. And in the shadow of the Charlottesville riot, Trump couldn’t possibly do it. Not without about a half dozen flailing, butchered attempts.

Mike Sylwester said...

Char Char Binks at 11:11 AM
I believe Johnson was bullied into telling his lies. ... Several black men are standing near, and slightly behind him. ...

Remember, Johnson, although he was with Brown, was not a close friend of his, nor did he actively participate in the robbery, or the attack on Wilson. ... Far from supporting or encouraging him, I believe his "brothers" on the scene, all of whom were taller and/or much heavier, were intimidating him, making sure he said the "right" things. ...


That's an interesting speculation.

The neighborhood's ordinary residents were intimidated by thugs who earned their living from drug dealing and other petty crimes. The thugs were trying to intimidate also the police.

This situation was sure to bring many police investigators into the neighborhood, a development that would worry the drug dealers.

So this was a situation that intimidated many local people.

-----

Johnson was dealing drugs, and I think that Brown was his informal apprentice. Neither of them had achieved much success in that business, however. In particular, Brown was generally incapable in whatever he tried to do. Brown was a dumb guy.

On that day, however, Brown seemed to have found a prospect, Pipe Foreman, who might buy some special drugs from Brown. Johnson was guiding Brown through this deal.

Johnson was surprised when, in the store, Brown grabbed some cigarillos and then assaulted the clerk. A short time later, Johnson was surprised again when, on the street, Brown attacked Wilson through the police-car window.

Perhaps Brown thought he was on the verge of a drug-sale success that suddenly was being spoiled by this cop who was watching him.

Brown was a dumb guy who was suffering a lot of stress. He had been kicked out of his mother's home and then had been kicked out of his grandmother's home. He was living now in the apartment of a friend's sister, and he was about to be kicked out of that home too.

He did not have a job or any money. He dreamed of becoming a rap star. He was high on marijuana all the time. He was doomed to failure and to an early death.

Perhaps Brown committed "suicide by cop".

CWJ said...

MayBee wrote -

"What was the price anyone paid (besides Darren Wilson) for spreading the lie that Michael Brown was shot with his hands in the air saying "hands up, don't shoot"?"

There were also those whose businesses and property were looted and torched in the aftermath.

Jim at said...

The entire town was found to exist from illegal fines on it's black citizens for decades - a good reason for Michael Brown and others not to respect the law ...

Oh, I see. We get to pick and choose which laws to follow based upon some manufactured righteous cause?

Works for me.

Char Char Binks said...

Don't get me wrong. I don't think Dorian Johnson was an honest, upstanding citizen, but the fact is he participated in neither the robbery nor the attack on Wilson. He's a drug dealer and a felon, for sure.

Also, Brown was not only dumb, as you say, but psychotic, apparently. His father said he called him late one night to tell him about seeing devils and angels, and he didn't just mean a nightmare. He was having a mental breakdown, drug-induced or not.

Mike Sylwester said...

Chuck at 1:06 PM
... with regard to Charlottesville, the problems in describing it were all of Trump’s making.

Trump was shooting off his mouth in a situation where he was poorly informed, and he was talking sloppy. He does this all the time.

Yes, his statements in that situation can be interpreted reasonably as defending the racists who were protesting in Charlottesville.

Nevertheless, I don't think that was Trump's intention. I think his intention was to say that the controversy about the statues should be decided civilly, but there were trouble-makers on both sides. That is not what he said, but I think that's what he meant.

Accusing Trump of racism is not civil discussion. Anybody should be allowed to clarify his statements. Trump should be allowed to clarify his statements about the Charlottesville protests, and his clarifications should be accepted.

Michael K said...

Accusing Trump of racism is not civil discussion. Anybody should be allowed to clarify his statements. Trump should be allowed to clarify his statements about the Charlottesville protests, and his clarifications should be accepted.

You simply don't understand Chuck. He lives for this stuff.

Mike Sylwester said...

Char Char Binks at 1:24 PM
His father said he called him late one night to tell him about seeing devils and angels, and he didn't just mean a nightmare. He was having a mental breakdown, drug-induced or not.

That phone conversation with his father is news to me. It's plausible.

I agree that Brown was suffering a nervous breakdown.

Michael K said...

There were also those whose businesses and property were looted and torched in the aftermath.

Lots of them black. Once more the lawless benefit while the law abiding are fucked.

Obama was cheering the mob on.

Chuck said...

Mike Sylvester;

Respectfully (and you are one of the earnest commenters here deserving of respect), I would just like to say that I am not in the habit of calling Trump a racist. I may have some time in the past but if so I don’t recall it.

I agree that it is a very bad habit on the part of some Trump detractors to habitually call him a racist. I don’t think our country’s main problem is Trump racism. Our problems are Trump stupidity; Trump psychopathology; Trump incompetence; Trump narcissism.

Mike Sylwester said...

Michael K
You simply don't understand Chuck. He lives for this stuff.

I agree with many of Chuck's criticisms of Trump. Yes, Trump is a sloppy thinker and sloppy talker who causes a lot of trouble for himself unnecessarily.

Yes, Trump is a narcissistic buffoon. And so forth and so on.

However, I don't think Trump is any more "racist" than ordinary people are. I think the arguments that he is a remarkable racist are absurd.

Despite all his faults, I am happy that Trump is the President.

Mike Sylwester said...

Chuck at 1:43 PM
Our problems are Trump stupidity; Trump psychopathology; Trump incompetence; Trump narcissism.

I agree with many of the criticisms of Trump that you write in this blog.

In the 2016 New Jersey primary election, I voted for Ted Cruz, even though he had dropped out of the race against Trump.

I am a free-trader, and I did not and do not like Trump's policies on international trade. However, those policies were a big reason why Trump won the Republican nomination and then the general election.

So, I am letting Trump do it his way for these four years. I have found myself enjoying the ride.

Maybe Trump is driving us all over a cliff. We will see.

bagoh20 said...

"One can certainly raise questions about whether Wilson should have fired as many shots as he did or acted appropriately under the circumstances..."

Don't ruin what was a rare bout of honesty and fact by throwing in some lame uniformed qualification to your facts. Tell the truth, tell it straight, and try not to fuck it up. Is that so hard? Tell the truth and then shut up. Less is more.

bagoh20 said...

"Maybe Trump is driving us all over a cliff. We will see."

Remember when Republicans drove the car into a ditch and then drank Slurpees while Obama pulled it out. It was the slowest tow since the 1940's, but he had to pull it all by himself, and he didn't have any tools.

Mike Sylwester said...

Remember when Republicans drove the car into a ditch and then drank Slurpees while Obama pulled it out.

LOL

Well, it was easy to blame that economic crash on the Republicans. I thought that blame was unfair, but it was politically effective. The Democrats were able to impose a lot of regulation on the economy.

I hope we don't suffer another economic crash between now and November 2020.

Trump's international trade policies are taking us on a wild ride.

n.n said...

Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae
H.R. 2575—THE SECONDARY
MORTGAGE MARKET ENTERPRISES
REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT ACT
Thursday, September 25, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Financial Services


Beware overlapping and converging interests.

n.n said...

Charlottesville saw the rise of the far-left, Antifa, fascism, and civil violence, in the wake of people who, perhaps mistakenly, separated southern history from redistributive change (slavery) and rabid diversity (racism).

Bob Boyd said...

If there's so much racism in America, why do Dems have to lie?
Why do they have to make shit up?

Leland said...

That took awhile; I'm glad I don't wait for the WaPo to tell me how to think.

AAT said...

Mike, your “There are very fine people on both sides of the Charlottesville hoax” just gave Chuck the fig leaf he needed to cut and run. That’s not Chuck’s position, that there are very fine people on both sides of this debate. Chuck’s position is that there is only one way to look at Trump’s words, and that is that Trump was praising White Supremacists. He doesn’t agree with you at all, he doesn’t believe that any “reasonable” person, after looking at all of the facts, could conclude otherwise.

The Bulwark argument is a house of cards built on sloppy logic. Lawyers should know about proving negatives like there was nobody there but white nationalists. I wanted to see Chuck defend this one sentence from it, but now you let him run home to mommy.

"I live in the Charlottesville area, and I know very fine people who oppose the removal of the monuments based on high-minded notions about preserving history. I’m one of them. So I know that we weren’t there that night. Only the white nationalists were there.” - Tracinski

AAT said...

"Trump's international trade policies are taking us on a wild ride.”

Well the steady transfer of good paying jobs for people without elite educations over to China wasn’t such a great ride either. American auto manufacturers dominate in only one area, light trucks. Those trucks have been protected by tariffs. Ford is now leaving the business of building cars. Not everybody is going to be able to go into software. There need to be good paying jobs in the Midwest and the South too.

I used to believe in free trade, but it simply hasn’t worked out for us. God forbid if we should ever need our steel and heaving manufacturing again in a hurry the way we needed them in the 1940s. It takes two to tango.

Mike Sylwester said...

AAT at 3:39 PM
... Chuck’s position is that there is only one way to look at Trump’s words, and that is that Trump was praising White Supremacists.

I don't think that President Trump is a racist or that he intended to communicate approval of the racists who demonstrated in Charlottesville.

I do think, though, that Trump was shooting his mouth off about a situation where he was poorly informed and that his talk was sloppy. I agree with Chuck about that.

Trump's statements can be interpreted reasonably as supporting the racists, but I think that interpretation is tendentious and wrong.

Trump has clarified his statement many times. His clarification should be accepted by his critics. He did not intend to express any approval of any racism. That should be the end of that discussion.

gerry said...

We talked about this subject last night, here, where I said where I accused Warren and Harris of "crudely, clumsily groping for black voters" and said it was "cynical, damaging, and patronizing."

And it's also inflammatory, divisive, hateful, and a typical Democrat tactic.

Mike Sylwester said...

AAT at 3:46 PM
I used to believe in free trade, but it simply hasn’t worked out for us.

Trump won the election with this issue, so I am keeping an open mind and watching him do it his way. Maybe he will succeed.

Even though I generally favor free trade, I will live and learn.

Jon Ericson said...

Send more gin!

n.n said...

The problem for "free trade" is the inclusion of states that force market distortions through environmental and labor arbitrage, undermining the organic balance in a free market system, and, of course, climate change and human rights violations.

AAT said...

"Trump's statements can be interpreted reasonably as supporting the racists, but I think that interpretation is tendentious and wrong.”

Maybe I don’t understand the definition of “reasonable” in use here. The only way you can get to racist is if you assume that he is one before you start your analysis and disallow certain documented facts from consideration. My personal opinion of Chuck’s opinion, and those who continue on with this hoax is that they assume what they are trying to prove. I think you are doing that a little bit yourself. Which pains me to say, because I was really proud of my "Lizzie Warren” poem and appreciated your praise of it.

I don’t think that Trump is the most precise speaker, and certainly his enemies like Chuck use that to come up with the most bizarre interpretations of his words, but iin this case, I think that it is not reasonable at all to take Trump’s statements on Charlottesville as praise for white supremacists.

AAT said...

One wonders why Europe is so zealous about protecting their auto industry when we allow their cars to be freely sold here if those jobs making automobiles are so worthless.

Average IQ is 100, what kinds of jobs are there for guys with IQs like that in industries that deal with the manipulation of abstractions, where the money is in a “free trade” economy?

n.n said...

The problem at Charlottesville was Antifa-induced violence, including setting up an abortion zone for national attention, that concluded with abortion of one of their own. The label "white supremacist", or color supremacist generally, is a diversitist statement based on the conflation of interests and people that propelled people to defend Confederate memories and artificts, which included the minority leaders' practice of redistributive change, involuntary exploitation, and diversity. This progressed as witch hunts by neo-fascist activists, and warlock trials prosecuted by the media, with liberal license to judge and label for political persecution.

n.n said...

it is not reasonable at all to take Trump’s statements on Charlottesville as praise for white supremacists.

It's not. His point is that we should avoid indulging diversitist thought and practice, and recognize a separation of interests, which did not converge to the popular, and, apparently, progressive misjudgment and labels fueled by color judgments, political leverage, media trials, and secular incentives.

Mike Sylwester said...

AAT at 4:25 AM
Maybe I don’t understand the definition of “reasonable” in use here. The only way you can get to racist is if you assume that he is one before you start your analysis and disallow certain documented facts from consideration.

People quote Trump's words, which supposedly say that racists are fine people.

That argument is "reasonable" in that it is based on reasoning about facts.

Trump is an impulsive, sloppy talker. His words often can be interpreted by tendentious critics differently than he intended them to mean.

In this particular case, he did not intend to communicate that racists are fine people, but the Trump-haters will show you -- using his own words -- that he said so.

The lack of civility in our country's political discussion is abysmal and is becoming worse. Our Democracy is in a downward spiral.

AAT said...

"but the Trump-haters will show you -- using his own words -- that he said so.”

As long as they leave out a lot of stuff and start with the assumption that Trump is a racist. If you don’t start with that assumption, you can’t get there. That’s unreasonable.

gilbar said...

i still find it hilarious noticing that when a Life Long Liberal runs out of arguments (or argues himself into a corner).... Out comes the potty mouth

Must be a drag to have, as your goto argument: Saying F You! to people.

Still want to know your opinion on Rose's Lime juice (WITH the fresh lemons)?

gilbar said...

But let's get to Brass Tacks....
I'm not surprised at all that an amped up 300 pound man charging an officer would not be hit with a significant, "stopping" shot with multiple 9mm rounds. Especially moments after the officer was attacked in his car.

how does This effect people's plan for Bears? Sounds like a clip of 9mm full metal jacket rounds would just be extra weight to carry around??

AAT said...

The Bulwark argument doesn’t focus on Trump’s words. It is built on “context” that is dubious, to put it charitably. Once he builds this argument about context, based on a lot of highly questionable assumptions, he then uses that context to twist Trump’s words. That’s not a “reasonable” argument, since his conclusion, like Chuck’s, is that there is no other possible way to read Trump’s words. Assuming that Trump was only exposed to the video that he chooses to admit to, and the press that he chooses to admit to, and that the President of the United States had no other sources of information of which the Bulwark was not aware, and EVEN THOUGH the fucking NEW YORK TIMES showed that these assumptions are wrong, assuming that the New York Times incorrectly reported about who was in attendance, sure, assuming all of those things you can “prove” that Trump could only have meant one thing.

Mike Sylwester said...

AAT at 5:30 PM
The Bulwark argument doesn’t focus on Trump’s words. It is built on “context” that is dubious, to put it charitably. Once he builds this argument about context, based on a lot of highly questionable assumptions, he then uses that context to twist Trump’s words.

I call such arguments tendentious, defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as follows:

Tendentious is one of several words English speakers can choose when they want to suggest that someone has made up his or her mind in advance.

DanTheMan said...

I see our two resident racists** are here to lecture us about racism.

I guess they'd know...



** Chuck, of "Department of Black People" fame, and Crack, who openly advocated the murder of white police officers by black people

Chuck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chuck said...

AAT said...
The Bulwark argument doesn’t focus on Trump’s words...
...


Read it. Paragraph after paragraph of the several Trump statements on Charlottesville. All quoted in full and in context. TrumpWorld wants there to be only a discussion of one part of one of several statements. Tracinski went through all of them, including the ones you'd apparently like to ignore.

And of course that is one of the infuriating things about Trump. Trump will say four different things at four different times.

Again, I am not interested in fighting about Trump's alleged racism. Others might be; I am not. I am not claiming that Trump is a racist. I am claiming that Trump is stupid and inept. Proof of his stupidity and ineptness is that four statements later, nobody is quite sure what Trump meant.

gilbar said...

four statements later, nobody is quite sure Chuck DOES have a point
"Black kids are just as bright as white kids "
"those kids in Parkland came up to see me when I was vice president"
the “tragic events in Houston” and “also in Michigan.”
“We choose truth over facts.”

Chuck said...

gilbar;
If you are trying to make the point that Trump is a gaffe machine on a par with Joe Biden, I agree.

CWJ said...

Chuck yanks the thread 500 miles east from Missouri to Virginia and all of you let him do it. He's laughing at you all. He craves attention more than anything. And you're giving it to him in spades.

I get it. You're trying to hold him to account. But he's beyond shame much less reason. Just as his first instinct was to write "Fuck you" to AAT, responding in kind to him is equally appropriate. And move on.

JAORE said...

Back to the topic....

Calling someone a murderer. That's a big deal.
Calling someone a murderer AFTER an intense investigation at all levels finds the shooting justified. That's a very big deal.
Calling that exonerated individual a murderer to pander to racial division to gain votes. well, to quote Joe Biden,"That's a big fucking deal".

So,what to do with this BFD?

Obviously reporters will quiz Warren or Harris about the allegation of murder in light of the DOJ findings. Right?

If they do, the MSM will make it front and center of the election coverage. Right?

Chuck said...

CWJ said...
Chuck yanks the thread 500 miles east from Missouri to Virginia and all of you let him do it. He's laughing at you all. He craves attention more than anything. And you're giving it to him in spades.

I get it. You're trying to hold him to account. But he's beyond shame much less reason. Just as his first instinct was to write "Fuck you" to AAT, responding in kind to him is equally appropriate. And move on.


Well, I am laughing at many of the commenters here, but not because I tricked them or threw them off.

Read this page. Read my first comment. I was responding to Kevin, who at 6:06 am yesterday brought up the "fine people" mess. Scroll up. Look at it. I didn't bring up Charlottesville; Kevin did. Of course the mere appearance of my name, no matter what the literal terms of any debate are, sets off a fair number of Althouse commenters. I should be wearing a trigger warning around my neck for some of them. And they will want to have at me.

I will confess to one thing. That is, that I don't let any mention of The Charlottesville Hoax Hoax go easily. And that is because I hate Scott Adams so much, and because my feelings for Steve Cortes are much the same, and because Althouse has made the point on her own account, of siding with them on the Charlottesville Hoax Hoax.

I know that without violating any rule or policy of Althouse's comments pages, it is my mere presence that throws things off sometimes. Not because of what I've written but now because of who I am. And let's all be honest that that is what really bothers Althouse, and thereby Meade. Because the Trumpkins' deranged responses to me, take attention away from the blog hostess.

It isn't what I want. I'd much prefer that commenters didn't make any personal attacks. At least not beyond the confines of the blog-post subject at hand. Everyone should keep their comments short and on-point. And accurate. Stick to the facts. I'd love some strict enforcement of those rules by a blog moderator.

Char Char Binks said...

I don't get why defamation law protects celebrities, but doesn't protect an ordinary Joe Schmoe who has been involuntarily made a public figure. How can Hulk Hogan win, and Zimmerman, Sandmann, and Wilson can be defamed without consequence by any lefty pol, journo or drug store Injun who wants to make political hay.