Her referring to Citizens United in a "na-na-you-can't-get-me" way was astounding! It was one of the most revealing pieces of video I've seen in a long time. She was gloating over her ability to use Citizens to deprive the American people in favor of wealthy donors!! Wow!
She was nothing but a smirk at a conference table. Would you have sth more to say about her reference to C.U. in answer to "who/what funds you?" How exactly ... ?
It's just the obvious nature of it. That's what I think galls many Americans. It's this sort of, "Fuck you! We'll do whatver we damn please! And if you mess with us, we'll double down on you be even more cruel to you" behavior. I'm endeavoring to point out how they are like spoiled school-girls.
Yes, I believe she did. You got it, DarkSky. That is truly despicable. To say that CIA spooks were just exercising free speech? And she didn't even do it with a straight face, it was worse, she did it with a smirk.
How is it that those who see Nina Jankowicz’ claim of free speech by the 51 spooks as ridiculous don’t understand that’s the other side of the Islamist free speech hill they’ve chosen to die on?
Citizens United is legislation that I would actually call evil, and it's so ironic they gave it a name implying it's good for the average citizen. Simply put, Citizens allow Super PAC's to raise and throw as much money as they want at a candidate, mostly from wealthy donors, and they do not have to disclose where the money came from, or how much came from who. In a sense, it allows rich people to fix elections, or maybe it's more appropriate to say it allows them to put their thumb on the scale. However, it's quite a big thumb and it's also invisible.
Oh my! Speaking of evil, I just went to the American Sunlight Project's webpage. A giant face pic of Nina the Priss stared at me with "Hannibal Lecter" eyes!
EDIT: Paige, I came back to give you an example of the hidden nature. So, here it is in the form of a rhetortical question: How might it affect you to learn that a controversial wealthy donor gave 10 million dollars to both candidates (both sides of the race) in an important election? It's my opinion, that this is what they want to hide. They don't want the American people to see that they're basically "greasing the field", and it's not a dumb move.
I didn’t get that impression. It appeared to me that she does not like CU and does not like Congress’s refusal to overturn it. But as long as its there, she’s going to exercise it on behalf of her donors.
But doesn't that say something to you? To me, she's saying she sides with dark money over transparency. You know, JFK's Dad, Joe Kennedy, before stock market pump-and-dump was made illegal, was once quoted as saying that they had to make as much as they could using pump-and-dump, because it wasn't going to be legal for much longer. That didn't make it right.
She certainly sided with dark money in the hearing, chiding the Congress to change it, which as another commenter stated would be a good idea. I’d go one further: it’s a necessary idea if we hope to save our democracy.
Don’t get me wrong, I question J’s credibility but at the same time feel she was a tough witness. I’m speaking as an old trial lawyer trying to figure how I would have cross-examined her and what effect she would’ve had on an unbiased jury.
My legal sense is mostly what I've read over the years. I'm better with people sense, and my experience is that people like her are usually pretty easy to trap. They're so full of themselves and so cock-sure, yet they're not that bright, so I've found I can get them to "step in it" quite easily. However, as I've already described Jankowicz as a little girl probably being like the character Rhoda Penmark... I wouldn't mess with her. Seriously.
Not many, relatively speaking. But they are considered abundant. However, they are organism that hide from light and prefer low oxygen environments. The thrive in the darknesses devoid of air.
I am a pretty normal down the middle Connecticut liberal who grew up listening to NPR every day and for what it’s worth hearings like this have convinced me I can’t vote for Democrats anymore. (I don’t like the Republicans either. I’m homeless I guess)
For a political party whose new specialty is losing elections, smirking petty tyrant authoritarian bullshit is an interesting strategy from a coalition building perspective. I don’t really understand who these little tantrums are for. They’re losing voters like me, anyway.
That's where I am, and have been for a while. I've been sickened by the entire Democratic Party for years, but the way that Taibbi was treated at the very first of these "Weaponization of Government" hearings, coupled with the bizarre rants and lying from the Democrats, convinced me I could never vote for these people — this party — again, unless massive changes are made. Today, they threw the personal smears at Taibbi and Jankowicz proved that she has no idea what civil liberties mean, which means they aren't changing, but they haven't got close to the bottom.
Still don't like the Republicans either, but the Democrats have become even worse.
Even now, they’re hammering the Russiagate nonsense and calling Tulsi Gabbard a Russian
asset. Jim Himes knows these allegations are based on lies created by his own political party. Yet he uses them to claim that re-Tweeting info from a Russian proves Gabbard is a Kremlin stooge.
Some of the Dems are currently saying good things about free speech now that their pet Hamas supporters are being messed with, but I know from their actions up until now that they don't really believe it. At the same time the Trump admin may be rolling off the free expression high ground that the Dems ceded to them.
Both parties have been working from the idea that free speech, due process, honesty, ethics, rules, laws, and the rest only go one way, and are only really interested when the shoe is on the other foot. The Dems have somehow become infinitely worse on this front, and they seem to be openly be willing to do absolutely anything to ensure single-party rule (or two-party rule, if the two parties totally agree on every big, status quo issue) under the guise of “democracy” in a way I haven’t seen from new right types. The new right does seem willing to step way outside the lines to get things done, in an often bullying manner, but I’m not seeing lust over creating a sort of inverted or managed totalitarianism — which appears to be the Dems’ big trick now — from them.
The more paranoid and uncontrolled conspiratorial portions of my brain look at the last decade or so of Dem behavior and wonder if it isn't a controlled plot to tip everything to the Republicans forever. As in, Big Banker: " You know, we could save 50% of our bribes and political contributions if there was only one political party to pay off instead of two. What if we just ask all the dems we have bought off to act in the most insuferable, useless, and obnoxious ways until they aren't a viably electable party for the forseable future?"
To me, they're both part of the same beast. Both of them do horrendous things on behalf of the capitalist owners of the country. That's the underlying consistency in their actions. Then, both sides say outrageous things to divert our attention from what they are really doing. They do have disagreements, but the disagreements are never about principles, though they portray them that way. Instead, the disagreements are about methods and which members of the plutocracy get to win.
I completely agree with your take. It’s enlightening, I suppose, to find out Orwell was correct. The Uni Party does not give a shit about the masses. You cannot look at all the facts and all the actions and conclude anything else. CJ Hopkins seems to sum it up well. The War on Whatever continues. Global Corporate control of all of it.
The intro with rep Kamlager-Dove reminds me of a serious issue I see in so many congressional hearings these days. She just starts off by accusing Mr. Tiabbi of things that have long been disproven as falacious with old articles that are completely untrue hit peices and enters them into the congressional record (i.e. a permanent public record) as if they were truth. The hearing isn't about Mr. Taibbi, so he will never have a right to defend himself or ever get those defamatory hit peices removed from a public record that is effectively stamped as "truth." I see this dispicable behavior from congress all the time using their powers to defame honest private citizens effortlessly and with no repurcussions.
There needs to be some sort of repurcussions for this. Like a post-hearing challange of the representitive by those slandered to decide two things independently: 1. If the defemation entered on the record should be striken from the record because it is untrue, and then 2. was this "untruth" known or really should have been known with even basic do-dilligence (to a reasonable doubt) to be untrue by the representitive when entered and therefore this is defimation and should be punished accordingly.
I mean, I agree with you, and more thoughtful people agree with you, but there are a lot of people who look at questionable 30 year old accusations about something not even relevent to any aspect of the hearing and actually go "well this is a bad person and thus not a credible person so I will asume everything they say is not merely a lie but the exact opposite of the truth." That may sound extreme, but that is litteraly much of my family and most of said family member's freinds. I can't send them vids like this to try and change their mind, because the second those accusations come up they assume lying from the accused individual. The very people who need to wake up to certain things in our unfortunate reality the most seem to be the very people suceptable to this type of ad hominum and thus it is devistatingly effective strategy as far as preventing change.
But even if that weren't true and everyone could see through this, its still a cruel defamatory attack and attempt to punish concerned private citizens who are just trying to speak truth to power. That alone should require there to be repercussions to this ugly tactic.
Right, I am not happy about that either. The Trump situation is at least rare enough, that while reprihensible, it isn't at all a standard and daily opperating practice. The trend I am talking about seems to happen in every hearing about anything with even a little importance these days, and often happens to private citizens who do not have the resources to fight back in any way like Trump does. Also while the Trump cases might be falacious and terrible, he is at least allowed to defend himself and fight back. People subjected to this congress smear tactic just have to sit there and take the slander done on taxpayer money as it is entered into a permanent public record that is supposed to be consideted "truth"-- there is no recourse or way to fight back even if one had resources.
Kamlager-Dove is on X bragging that Taibbi was given a chance to respond — which was erroneously given before opening statements, and Taibbi was cut off — but didn't, as being an admittance of his guilt. It's gross and unnecessary behavior, but is all they really have at this point, so they're certainly going to use it. (Brazen mock sexism and offensiveness in underground papers was pretty common as a way to upset the squares, and Taibbi has apologized for the writing — there were no actual acts of sex in question — and I wish he wouldn't have. Bernie Sanders and Cenk Uygur have had to apologize for similar old writings, and I also wish they wouldn't have. Bowing down to moralizing scolds for writing that was intentionally lampooning moralizing scolds is a net loss. Let the easily offended be easily offended. 2 Live Crew, GG Allin, Lenny Bruce, Andrew Dice Clay, Al Goldstein, Iceberg Slim and Camille Paglia never apologized, and neither should you.)
The bigger issue with this hearing, and all of these hearings, and congressional hearings in general, is that there's no rules in place to keep the hearing on topic. The Democrats have brought in their own witnesses, and decided to not even talk about the issue at hand or even to the Republican witnesses at all, while making the hearings a referendum on a totally different topic, while shaming the Republicans and their witnesses for not talking about a host of other what they deem "more important" issues. Imagine a criminal trial where the defense decides to not even talk to the prosecution's witnesses, and only interviews their own witnesses about a totally different topic, and then the trial just ends that way. We shouldn't accept our government wasting their time, our time, and our money this way.
The end result of this for anyone who still has scruples and principles, and isn't poisoned by rank partisanship and negative polarization, is "how can I ever vote for these unserious imbeciles again?" I'm a lifelong Democrat, and I'm still registered as one (though I find that fact embarrassing) simply so I can vote in my state's closed primaries. I can't for the life of me ever imagine voting for the mainstream of this party ever again. Corey "No One Believes There's an Actual Soul in This Person" Booker filibustering absolutely nothing for 26 hours is maybe the ultimate symbol of a political party without meaning, without leadership and without brains, blowing vacant hot air into the ozone of humanity. (I'm reminded of that maxim "you really showed your ass last night.")
" Kamlager-Dove is on X bragging that Taibbi was given a chance to respond — which was erroneously given before opening statements, and Taibbi was cut off — but didn't, as being an admittance of his guilt. "
UGGGGHHHHHHhhhhh... is their a vid or transcript or something for that I can find somewhere? I probably won't want to see it, but morbid curiousity overwhelms me.
Of her bragging? It's a tweet. Aaron "Unflappable Idiot" Rupar tweeted:
"Damn. Ranking Member Kamlager-Dove calls GOP witness Matt Taibbi a 'serial sexual harasser' and enters articles into the congressional record about his history as a sex pest."
To which Kamlager-Dove replied:
"After this, Republicans gave Matt Taibbi time to defend himself.
It’s telling that he didn’t."
These people are literal human scum, and a great deal dumber than the normal scum you encounter dried up on walls and floors around NYC.
Oh, sorry. I meant more “does her tweet have anything verifiable like a vid or a transcrip that we can confirm it with, or is it just her unverifiable claim?”
Thanks for coming through with the tweet though! I do appreciate the effort on that, as that too was interesting (though dissapointing in nature.)
Yes, she re-posted the vid of her smear on several social sites and her website, and it appears Matt's suing her for it. Amazing. I can't stand these yellow tactics, and I hope he wins.
On an individual level sure, but that doesn't address the underlying problem in the bigger picture which is two fold:
1. Even though this cheap ad hominum attack system should have no bearing on the minds this hearing is trying to convince, sadly it does. I have many family members (as well as most of said family member's freinds) who instantly disbelieve all witness whom this is done to. These are the very people who need the most convincing for change to occur and there is more of them than you seem to think. As a result this cheap tactic ends up being a big impedament to societal change. Ignoring that (as you propose) won't help at all.
2. This is also about the comfortable audacity of suposedly public servants abusing their power to punish private citizens for just speaking truth to power in the face of abuse and corruption. Sure, in this case it is "just" defamation. But letting this slide normalizes the behavior and attitude of athoritarianism and viewing the public as their punishable surfs as opposed to their bosses. If such behavior isn't checked whenever it occurs it allows much more dangerous expressions of itself to take rout through normalization. Public servents go from feeling free to "just" defame people to deciding they need more tools to "punish the surfs to keep them in line."
In either case ignoring this won't help the bigger picture issues at hand and will instead be firmly in the category of "all that evil needs to triumph is for good people to do nothing."
My more violent side seems to be winning the continual battle with my “ chill” side. This obvious character assignation is outrageous. I would strangle both these bitches..
Nina's enthroatment of the establishment was borderline pornographic in its explicity. Whenever she talked, I couldn't help but envision an alternate historical timeline where Hitler was captured and forced to stand before an international court for his crimes against humanity, with Nina at his side providing snark-ridden pro-bono legal counsel in his defense, effortlessly denying this and minimizing that, eventually negotiating his sentence down to 6 months of community service. All while speaking through the fake HR smile of a passive aggressive woman who is just waiting for an opportunity to call you a misogynist for confronting her with a fact.
What is she doing in this space? She could be making millions working on the PR side of a private military corporation. Sir, excuse me sir, we were not displacing the natives to "steal" their oil reserves, we were demolishing dangerous buildings that would be considered condemned in a developed nation... to make things safer for the children! Our plan was to pave the roads, however, we could not do so without the oil. Their refusal to return to the rubble constitutes implicit consent for our operations.
Sorry for the long bullshit comment but god damn do I dislike people like her. A foul person playing a foul game, and knowingly so.
I'd say I wish we had someone like that on our side, but A) it isn't lucrative so it won't happen, and B) a person like her on our side, if they had the same affect and vigor, would have been noticed, labeled, censored, debanked and silenced early on in their ascent. Most likely by the handiwork of someone exactly like her.
Nina doesn’t understand the 1st amendment ffs. Gov’t has a right to free speech? Gov’t has the power of the National guard - to shoot Ohio student protesters for example on May 4,1970. Nine dead. Nina gtfo you hack.
I don’t watch many of these, but Witness Ms. J had to have set some new records for being an insufferable —— snob/twit? The way she addressed the members was patronizing; they are so fortunate she was willing to share her wisdom and expertise about matters which should be so obvious.
And paranoid. She believes that all disagreement with US policy is the result of evil mind lasers weilded by roach-like swarms of Chinese and Russian bots on Twitter. I think that's what allows her to believe her own lies.
Jankowicz. How dare you mis-ethnify her as a Slav not a Pole. Don't give these peope any more outrage fuel.
Yeah, she's bad. BUT, advice to Matt, pull your mic closer. Nina was much louder and *sounded* more persuasive, while you sounded vague and non-committal, with your qualifications and concern for "facts". Also half the volume of Witchy Poppins.
My bad for not proofreading the name. I use dictation to type, so I can always blame that for the ethnic slur.
Her loud assertive volume actually rubbed me the wrong way. Possibly because I already thought she was lying. It's true, though, Matt always sounds like he's on the verge of tears.
Of course you know I am making a joke about the OUTRAGE that a leftist would spin-up based on a simple typo or mistake in a name.
Matt does need to be more assertive in these things. Probably all that being married and raising kids and running a business doesn't leave him much time for curating his mic persona. But Nina J. came prepared to broadcast bullsh!t, had her micophone skilz honed like Rakim. Easy to counter. Matt, wanna level U up.
Good Lord, this was bad. Who was the CongressWoman entering into the record that Matt Taibbi is a serial sex abuser?
Nina J. is an impressive piece of work. Disney missed on not casting her as the Evil Queen. Matt, did she get a straw and shoot spitballs at you during the hearing? Was there an evil and ice-cold vibe? Was it uncomfortable sitting 5' away from a person who visibly HATES you?
"Ranking Member Kamlager-Dove calls GOP witness Matt Taibbi a "serial sexual harasser" and enters articles into the congressional record about his history as a sex pest."
Nina Jankowicz? American Sunlight Project??? Bwaahahhahahaha!!!!
Give it all you’ve got, Matt!
Her referring to Citizens United in a "na-na-you-can't-get-me" way was astounding! It was one of the most revealing pieces of video I've seen in a long time. She was gloating over her ability to use Citizens to deprive the American people in favor of wealthy donors!! Wow!
She was nothing but a smirk at a conference table. Would you have sth more to say about her reference to C.U. in answer to "who/what funds you?" How exactly ... ?
It's just the obvious nature of it. That's what I think galls many Americans. It's this sort of, "Fuck you! We'll do whatver we damn please! And if you mess with us, we'll double down on you be even more cruel to you" behavior. I'm endeavoring to point out how they are like spoiled school-girls.
Did she say the 51 spooks labeling Hunter’s laptop as Russian disinformation were just exercising their 1A rights? She truly is despicable.
Yes, I believe she did. You got it, DarkSky. That is truly despicable. To say that CIA spooks were just exercising free speech? And she didn't even do it with a straight face, it was worse, she did it with a smirk.
How is it that those who see Nina Jankowicz’ claim of free speech by the 51 spooks as ridiculous don’t understand that’s the other side of the Islamist free speech hill they’ve chosen to die on?
Olio, if you're in the mood, what is it about Citizens United that would allow ... what? obfuscation? ... of "Sunshine's" funding?
Citizens United is legislation that I would actually call evil, and it's so ironic they gave it a name implying it's good for the average citizen. Simply put, Citizens allow Super PAC's to raise and throw as much money as they want at a candidate, mostly from wealthy donors, and they do not have to disclose where the money came from, or how much came from who. In a sense, it allows rich people to fix elections, or maybe it's more appropriate to say it allows them to put their thumb on the scale. However, it's quite a big thumb and it's also invisible.
Oh my! Speaking of evil, I just went to the American Sunlight Project's webpage. A giant face pic of Nina the Priss stared at me with "Hannibal Lecter" eyes!
EDIT: Paige, I came back to give you an example of the hidden nature. So, here it is in the form of a rhetortical question: How might it affect you to learn that a controversial wealthy donor gave 10 million dollars to both candidates (both sides of the race) in an important election? It's my opinion, that this is what they want to hide. They don't want the American people to see that they're basically "greasing the field", and it's not a dumb move.
Thank you (and I caught the edit!). Now I can cube my Rubik.
I didn’t get that impression. It appeared to me that she does not like CU and does not like Congress’s refusal to overturn it. But as long as its there, she’s going to exercise it on behalf of her donors.
But doesn't that say something to you? To me, she's saying she sides with dark money over transparency. You know, JFK's Dad, Joe Kennedy, before stock market pump-and-dump was made illegal, was once quoted as saying that they had to make as much as they could using pump-and-dump, because it wasn't going to be legal for much longer. That didn't make it right.
She certainly sided with dark money in the hearing, chiding the Congress to change it, which as another commenter stated would be a good idea. I’d go one further: it’s a necessary idea if we hope to save our democracy.
Don’t get me wrong, I question J’s credibility but at the same time feel she was a tough witness. I’m speaking as an old trial lawyer trying to figure how I would have cross-examined her and what effect she would’ve had on an unbiased jury.
My legal sense is mostly what I've read over the years. I'm better with people sense, and my experience is that people like her are usually pretty easy to trap. They're so full of themselves and so cock-sure, yet they're not that bright, so I've found I can get them to "step in it" quite easily. However, as I've already described Jankowicz as a little girl probably being like the character Rhoda Penmark... I wouldn't mess with her. Seriously.
April Fools?
Jankowicz was seriously painful to watch.
Someone needs to call bullshit on this goddamn Brandeis quote. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" my ass.
Sunlight literally creates all life on earth. Sunlight, water, and oxygen allow life. That's literally how it all works.
I take it metaphorically.
If you want to be literal, direct sunlight *does* disinfect by killing some microbes, in addition to the effect you mentioned.
Yep. Sunlight makes things grow. It doesn't discriminate.
Well, UV light does antagonize some organisms.
Not many, relatively speaking. But they are considered abundant. However, they are organism that hide from light and prefer low oxygen environments. The thrive in the darknesses devoid of air.
I am a pretty normal down the middle Connecticut liberal who grew up listening to NPR every day and for what it’s worth hearings like this have convinced me I can’t vote for Democrats anymore. (I don’t like the Republicans either. I’m homeless I guess)
For a political party whose new specialty is losing elections, smirking petty tyrant authoritarian bullshit is an interesting strategy from a coalition building perspective. I don’t really understand who these little tantrums are for. They’re losing voters like me, anyway.
That's where I am, and have been for a while. I've been sickened by the entire Democratic Party for years, but the way that Taibbi was treated at the very first of these "Weaponization of Government" hearings, coupled with the bizarre rants and lying from the Democrats, convinced me I could never vote for these people — this party — again, unless massive changes are made. Today, they threw the personal smears at Taibbi and Jankowicz proved that she has no idea what civil liberties mean, which means they aren't changing, but they haven't got close to the bottom.
Still don't like the Republicans either, but the Democrats have become even worse.
Even now, they’re hammering the Russiagate nonsense and calling Tulsi Gabbard a Russian
asset. Jim Himes knows these allegations are based on lies created by his own political party. Yet he uses them to claim that re-Tweeting info from a Russian proves Gabbard is a Kremlin stooge.
Some of the Dems are currently saying good things about free speech now that their pet Hamas supporters are being messed with, but I know from their actions up until now that they don't really believe it. At the same time the Trump admin may be rolling off the free expression high ground that the Dems ceded to them.
Both parties have been working from the idea that free speech, due process, honesty, ethics, rules, laws, and the rest only go one way, and are only really interested when the shoe is on the other foot. The Dems have somehow become infinitely worse on this front, and they seem to be openly be willing to do absolutely anything to ensure single-party rule (or two-party rule, if the two parties totally agree on every big, status quo issue) under the guise of “democracy” in a way I haven’t seen from new right types. The new right does seem willing to step way outside the lines to get things done, in an often bullying manner, but I’m not seeing lust over creating a sort of inverted or managed totalitarianism — which appears to be the Dems’ big trick now — from them.
well, if you vote, where do you go?
for me, very simple to vote conservative and today that is Trump and Republicans.
You're not homeless, you're an independent - the biggest growing faction in America right now. Welcome!
The homeless encampment is about 50% of the country. Welcome in!
The more paranoid and uncontrolled conspiratorial portions of my brain look at the last decade or so of Dem behavior and wonder if it isn't a controlled plot to tip everything to the Republicans forever. As in, Big Banker: " You know, we could save 50% of our bribes and political contributions if there was only one political party to pay off instead of two. What if we just ask all the dems we have bought off to act in the most insuferable, useless, and obnoxious ways until they aren't a viably electable party for the forseable future?"
That’s really the only plausible scenario that I see. Nailed it!
To me, they're both part of the same beast. Both of them do horrendous things on behalf of the capitalist owners of the country. That's the underlying consistency in their actions. Then, both sides say outrageous things to divert our attention from what they are really doing. They do have disagreements, but the disagreements are never about principles, though they portray them that way. Instead, the disagreements are about methods and which members of the plutocracy get to win.
I completely agree with your take. It’s enlightening, I suppose, to find out Orwell was correct. The Uni Party does not give a shit about the masses. You cannot look at all the facts and all the actions and conclude anything else. CJ Hopkins seems to sum it up well. The War on Whatever continues. Global Corporate control of all of it.
John, you sound a lot like my upbringing, not Connecticut (OH & PA), but you speak for me, and many others I'm sure.
I don't consider myself homeless. I feel more anti-tribal.
The intro with rep Kamlager-Dove reminds me of a serious issue I see in so many congressional hearings these days. She just starts off by accusing Mr. Tiabbi of things that have long been disproven as falacious with old articles that are completely untrue hit peices and enters them into the congressional record (i.e. a permanent public record) as if they were truth. The hearing isn't about Mr. Taibbi, so he will never have a right to defend himself or ever get those defamatory hit peices removed from a public record that is effectively stamped as "truth." I see this dispicable behavior from congress all the time using their powers to defame honest private citizens effortlessly and with no repurcussions.
There needs to be some sort of repurcussions for this. Like a post-hearing challange of the representitive by those slandered to decide two things independently: 1. If the defemation entered on the record should be striken from the record because it is untrue, and then 2. was this "untruth" known or really should have been known with even basic do-dilligence (to a reasonable doubt) to be untrue by the representitive when entered and therefore this is defimation and should be punished accordingly.
Exactly! They know what they are doing and should be held accountable. Totally unacceptable.
I agree that it's pretty lousy behavior.
On the other hand, if all they got against Taibbi is some 30-year-old accusations from when he was young and dumb, that sort of speaks volumes.
I mean, I agree with you, and more thoughtful people agree with you, but there are a lot of people who look at questionable 30 year old accusations about something not even relevent to any aspect of the hearing and actually go "well this is a bad person and thus not a credible person so I will asume everything they say is not merely a lie but the exact opposite of the truth." That may sound extreme, but that is litteraly much of my family and most of said family member's freinds. I can't send them vids like this to try and change their mind, because the second those accusations come up they assume lying from the accused individual. The very people who need to wake up to certain things in our unfortunate reality the most seem to be the very people suceptable to this type of ad hominum and thus it is devistatingly effective strategy as far as preventing change.
But even if that weren't true and everyone could see through this, its still a cruel defamatory attack and attempt to punish concerned private citizens who are just trying to speak truth to power. That alone should require there to be repercussions to this ugly tactic.
I agree it's an ugly tactic. Everything you say is true.
They dragged down Trump with a 30-year-old accusation. They just had more money and the judicial system behind it.
Right, I am not happy about that either. The Trump situation is at least rare enough, that while reprihensible, it isn't at all a standard and daily opperating practice. The trend I am talking about seems to happen in every hearing about anything with even a little importance these days, and often happens to private citizens who do not have the resources to fight back in any way like Trump does. Also while the Trump cases might be falacious and terrible, he is at least allowed to defend himself and fight back. People subjected to this congress smear tactic just have to sit there and take the slander done on taxpayer money as it is entered into a permanent public record that is supposed to be consideted "truth"-- there is no recourse or way to fight back even if one had resources.
Kamlager-Dove is on X bragging that Taibbi was given a chance to respond — which was erroneously given before opening statements, and Taibbi was cut off — but didn't, as being an admittance of his guilt. It's gross and unnecessary behavior, but is all they really have at this point, so they're certainly going to use it. (Brazen mock sexism and offensiveness in underground papers was pretty common as a way to upset the squares, and Taibbi has apologized for the writing — there were no actual acts of sex in question — and I wish he wouldn't have. Bernie Sanders and Cenk Uygur have had to apologize for similar old writings, and I also wish they wouldn't have. Bowing down to moralizing scolds for writing that was intentionally lampooning moralizing scolds is a net loss. Let the easily offended be easily offended. 2 Live Crew, GG Allin, Lenny Bruce, Andrew Dice Clay, Al Goldstein, Iceberg Slim and Camille Paglia never apologized, and neither should you.)
The bigger issue with this hearing, and all of these hearings, and congressional hearings in general, is that there's no rules in place to keep the hearing on topic. The Democrats have brought in their own witnesses, and decided to not even talk about the issue at hand or even to the Republican witnesses at all, while making the hearings a referendum on a totally different topic, while shaming the Republicans and their witnesses for not talking about a host of other what they deem "more important" issues. Imagine a criminal trial where the defense decides to not even talk to the prosecution's witnesses, and only interviews their own witnesses about a totally different topic, and then the trial just ends that way. We shouldn't accept our government wasting their time, our time, and our money this way.
The end result of this for anyone who still has scruples and principles, and isn't poisoned by rank partisanship and negative polarization, is "how can I ever vote for these unserious imbeciles again?" I'm a lifelong Democrat, and I'm still registered as one (though I find that fact embarrassing) simply so I can vote in my state's closed primaries. I can't for the life of me ever imagine voting for the mainstream of this party ever again. Corey "No One Believes There's an Actual Soul in This Person" Booker filibustering absolutely nothing for 26 hours is maybe the ultimate symbol of a political party without meaning, without leadership and without brains, blowing vacant hot air into the ozone of humanity. (I'm reminded of that maxim "you really showed your ass last night.")
" Kamlager-Dove is on X bragging that Taibbi was given a chance to respond — which was erroneously given before opening statements, and Taibbi was cut off — but didn't, as being an admittance of his guilt. "
UGGGGHHHHHHhhhhh... is their a vid or transcript or something for that I can find somewhere? I probably won't want to see it, but morbid curiousity overwhelms me.
Of her bragging? It's a tweet. Aaron "Unflappable Idiot" Rupar tweeted:
"Damn. Ranking Member Kamlager-Dove calls GOP witness Matt Taibbi a 'serial sexual harasser' and enters articles into the congressional record about his history as a sex pest."
To which Kamlager-Dove replied:
"After this, Republicans gave Matt Taibbi time to defend himself.
It’s telling that he didn’t."
These people are literal human scum, and a great deal dumber than the normal scum you encounter dried up on walls and floors around NYC.
“Of her bragging? It's a tweet.”
Oh, sorry. I meant more “does her tweet have anything verifiable like a vid or a transcrip that we can confirm it with, or is it just her unverifiable claim?”
Thanks for coming through with the tweet though! I do appreciate the effort on that, as that too was interesting (though dissapointing in nature.)
Yes, she re-posted the vid of her smear on several social sites and her website, and it appears Matt's suing her for it. Amazing. I can't stand these yellow tactics, and I hope he wins.
Oh I have seen the smear, I mean is there a way to check her claim that time was given to Matt to exonerate himself and he didn't take it.
The proper response is to ignore it.
On an individual level sure, but that doesn't address the underlying problem in the bigger picture which is two fold:
1. Even though this cheap ad hominum attack system should have no bearing on the minds this hearing is trying to convince, sadly it does. I have many family members (as well as most of said family member's freinds) who instantly disbelieve all witness whom this is done to. These are the very people who need the most convincing for change to occur and there is more of them than you seem to think. As a result this cheap tactic ends up being a big impedament to societal change. Ignoring that (as you propose) won't help at all.
2. This is also about the comfortable audacity of suposedly public servants abusing their power to punish private citizens for just speaking truth to power in the face of abuse and corruption. Sure, in this case it is "just" defamation. But letting this slide normalizes the behavior and attitude of athoritarianism and viewing the public as their punishable surfs as opposed to their bosses. If such behavior isn't checked whenever it occurs it allows much more dangerous expressions of itself to take rout through normalization. Public servents go from feeling free to "just" defame people to deciding they need more tools to "punish the surfs to keep them in line."
In either case ignoring this won't help the bigger picture issues at hand and will instead be firmly in the category of "all that evil needs to triumph is for good people to do nothing."
I meant ignore it in the context of the discussion. As to the larger question of resistance to evil, that's more complicated.
My more violent side seems to be winning the continual battle with my “ chill” side. This obvious character assignation is outrageous. I would strangle both these bitches..
Nina's enthroatment of the establishment was borderline pornographic in its explicity. Whenever she talked, I couldn't help but envision an alternate historical timeline where Hitler was captured and forced to stand before an international court for his crimes against humanity, with Nina at his side providing snark-ridden pro-bono legal counsel in his defense, effortlessly denying this and minimizing that, eventually negotiating his sentence down to 6 months of community service. All while speaking through the fake HR smile of a passive aggressive woman who is just waiting for an opportunity to call you a misogynist for confronting her with a fact.
What is she doing in this space? She could be making millions working on the PR side of a private military corporation. Sir, excuse me sir, we were not displacing the natives to "steal" their oil reserves, we were demolishing dangerous buildings that would be considered condemned in a developed nation... to make things safer for the children! Our plan was to pave the roads, however, we could not do so without the oil. Their refusal to return to the rubble constitutes implicit consent for our operations.
Sorry for the long bullshit comment but god damn do I dislike people like her. A foul person playing a foul game, and knowingly so.
Wow. You paint the most accurate picture of a condescending, self centered shill of the first magnitude. Excellent
I'd say I wish we had someone like that on our side, but A) it isn't lucrative so it won't happen, and B) a person like her on our side, if they had the same affect and vigor, would have been noticed, labeled, censored, debanked and silenced early on in their ascent. Most likely by the handiwork of someone exactly like her.
Our new press secretary would a formidable challenger.
Her comment about the new McCarthyism propagated by the likes of Taibbi was priceless!
Nina doesn’t understand the 1st amendment ffs. Gov’t has a right to free speech? Gov’t has the power of the National guard - to shoot Ohio student protesters for example on May 4,1970. Nine dead. Nina gtfo you hack.
Just a suggestion: a higher-res version of that graphic would be nice. There's a ton of info and the finer print is not very legible.
I don’t watch many of these, but Witness Ms. J had to have set some new records for being an insufferable —— snob/twit? The way she addressed the members was patronizing; they are so fortunate she was willing to share her wisdom and expertise about matters which should be so obvious.
Smug, smirky, and self righteous. Insufferably so, as you point out.
She's paranoid and thinks she's defending the country somehow.
This Jankoffwitch cannot be real. How has simple organic shame not shaped her to any degree? I don’t see how she made it through grade school intact.
They have 'special' schools.
Grade schools don’t have the paddle any more.
I was hoping this would be your April Fools Day piece?
Nope, serious as a heart attack so far.
Irony seems to be the dominant theme these days. Democrats are blatantly anti-Democratic.
Blatant McCarthyites are anti McCarthy?
Nina Jankovic is the personification of what's left of the Democratic Party: smirking, smug, and self-righteous.
And paranoid. She believes that all disagreement with US policy is the result of evil mind lasers weilded by roach-like swarms of Chinese and Russian bots on Twitter. I think that's what allows her to believe her own lies.
Jankowicz. How dare you mis-ethnify her as a Slav not a Pole. Don't give these peope any more outrage fuel.
Yeah, she's bad. BUT, advice to Matt, pull your mic closer. Nina was much louder and *sounded* more persuasive, while you sounded vague and non-committal, with your qualifications and concern for "facts". Also half the volume of Witchy Poppins.
My bad for not proofreading the name. I use dictation to type, so I can always blame that for the ethnic slur.
Her loud assertive volume actually rubbed me the wrong way. Possibly because I already thought she was lying. It's true, though, Matt always sounds like he's on the verge of tears.
Of course you know I am making a joke about the OUTRAGE that a leftist would spin-up based on a simple typo or mistake in a name.
Matt does need to be more assertive in these things. Probably all that being married and raising kids and running a business doesn't leave him much time for curating his mic persona. But Nina J. came prepared to broadcast bullsh!t, had her micophone skilz honed like Rakim. Easy to counter. Matt, wanna level U up.
Well, I *hope* you were joking, but sometimes it's hard to tell. My response was, of course, also meant jokingly.
Janckowicz? Should be entertaining to read Matt's thoughts tomorrow!
Yeah, I want to see if he talks about what it was like to sit right next to her.
Kudos on the self restraint to keep from braining the idiot sitting next to you.
Nina Jankowicz??? Wasn't that the ridiculous warbling "Disinfo Czarina? " What useful point on free speech and expression could she possibly add?
It’s Mary Poppins herself yes
Good Lord, this was bad. Who was the CongressWoman entering into the record that Matt Taibbi is a serial sex abuser?
Nina J. is an impressive piece of work. Disney missed on not casting her as the Evil Queen. Matt, did she get a straw and shoot spitballs at you during the hearing? Was there an evil and ice-cold vibe? Was it uncomfortable sitting 5' away from a person who visibly HATES you?
"Ranking Member Kamlager-Dove calls GOP witness Matt Taibbi a "serial sexual harasser" and enters articles into the congressional record about his history as a sex pest."
A "sex pest?'
Matt, ya randy old tax dodging Putinist you.
Who did you piss off this time?
At the first weaponization hearing, MT was labeled an “alleged journalist?” New hearing, new label. That’s what they have.
It's just the phrase "sex pest."
Never heard that one before.
I think that every horny teenage boy who ever lived could be characterized as a "sex pest."
Ha! Wasn’t Sid Vicious one of those?
She was pretty gross and shameful. Joe McCarthy couldn’t have topped her. Oh well, that’s why the Democrats have let everybody down.