Congress doesn't need any help making a mockery of itself.
Yesterday the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution honoring Charlie Kirk, describing him “as a model for young Americans across the political spectrum” who was known for “engaging in respectful, civil discourse across college campuses, media platforms, and national forums, always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic.”'
Of course, in any sane world, everyone would recognize that none of that is remotely true. The rush to lionize and sanctify this racist, misogynist provocateur whose entire career was based on divisiveness after his horrific murder is revolting.
Hakeem Jeffries and most Democratic leadership cowardly voted for this resolution, only fifty-eight Democrats opposed the resolution, while another 38 voted present and 22 didn’t vote at all.
Democrats once again show how spineless they are against the surge of historical revisionism and authoritarianism being brought by Trump and the GOP. At the same moment when journalists, TV personalities, teachers and so many others are being fired left and right for saying even the tiniest (and factual) criticisms of Kirk, the Democratic Party helps to throw them all under the bus.
How the Dems could vote for this resolution is beyond any understanding. 😡. Why not honour all the children that has been killed in gun violence or the Democrat couple that was brutally murdered a few months ago? Spineless Democrats!
It's an easy call to just vote present or skip voting but voting for the resolution is a choice and yet another stain on leadership. Completely warps what Kirk stood for and just how extreme he was.
Don't rush to judge too harshly. Don't rush to think that Democrats were lionizing Charlie Kirk. Democrats and Republicans just now expressly supported our freedom of speech, even to say hurtful, hateful things. That necessarily further emphasizes our right to say hateful, hurtful things about Kirk, himself.
Democrats and Republicans just publicly and expressly supported what SCOTUS supported in 303 Creative v. Elenis in 2023. Note the repeated use of "all," i.e., “all persons," "all, including” any speaker or writer “whose motives” someone considers “misinformed or offensive” (and even if the speech causes someone “anguish” or “incalculable grief”) are protected. “All manner of speech” and "all views" are protected.
“The First Amendment” means “all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.” It secures the “freedom to think as you will” and “speak as you think.” It “extends to all persons engaged in expressive conduct, including those who seek profit.” Its “protections belong to all, including” speakers or printers “whose motives” someone considers “misinformed or offensive.” It “protects” each person's “right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible” or “misguided,” even if it causes someone “anguish” or “incalculable grief.”
“All manner of speech” enjoys “First Amendment’s protections.” “A commitment to speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all.”
“The freedom of thought and speech” is “indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.” “[A]llowing all views to flourish” is necessary to “test and improve our own thinking” as “individuals and as a Nation,” so it is a “fixed star in our constitutional constellation” that “government may not interfere” with the “marketplace of ideas.”
The GOP has been attacking anyone who says the slightest criticism of Kirk, which includes just quoting him verbatim.
There is only one token line about rejecting violence and respecting each other at the end of the resolution, with a few other little snippets sprinkled over the document. ..the entire thing is pure hagiography and whitewashing of Kirk's actual legacy. The idea that the GOP is taking a stand for free speech while the exact same people are attacking people everywhere constantly for exercising that right is absurd.
Some choice lines:
The resolution 'honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty; '
'Charlie Kirk’s commitment to civil discussion and debate stood as a model for young Americans across the political spectrum, and he worked tirelessly to promote unity without compromising on conviction;'
Kirk was ' engaging in respectful, civil discourse across college campuses, media platforms, and national forums, always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic;'
This is all 100% nonsense and a complete revision of his actual actions.
It is telling that a disproportionate number of Dem representative of color either voted against or abstained. It is also many of the same reps that are brave enough to stand against Israel's genocide...not a coincidence.
It's also telling that the feckless minority leader Hakeem Jeffries voted to honor Kirk before he endorsed Zohran Mamdani, which he still hasn't done.
Jason, it's easy to rush at the most superficial view of something and fail to see the more fundamental principles at work. I understand what you think at least some Republicans were doing, but some Republicans and Democrats were and are thinking about our freedom of expression and communication. Kirk, himself, emphasized the same as SCOTUS, and Kirk's speech provides a strong argument against retaliation against such speech about Kirk.
"Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free."
Here are some more choice quotes from this "courageous American patriot", courtesy of Zeteo:
Black people:
“Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.” (source)
Black pilots:
“If I see a Black pilot, I’m gonna be like, ’Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’” (source)
Black women:
“They're coming out, and they're saying, 'I'm only here because of affirmative action.' Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously." (source)
Civil rights:
“We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the mid-1960s.” (source)
The death penalty:
"[The death penalty] should be public, should be quick, should be televised… I think at a certain age, it’s an initiation… At what age should you start to see public executions?" (source)
Democrats:
“The Democrat Party supports everything that God hates.” (source)
Empathy:
"I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made up new age term that does a lot of damage." (source)
Feminism:
“Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You're not in charge." (source)
Gay people:
“You might want to crack open that Bible of yours. In a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture, is in Leviticus 18 is that, ‘thou shalt lay with another man shall be stoned to death.’ Just sayin’! So Miss Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19… the chapter before affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.” (source)
George Floyd:
“This guy was a scumbag.” (source)
Great Replacement Theory:
“It's not a Great Replacement Theory, it's a Great Replacement Reality. Just this year, 3.6 million foreigners will invade America. 10-15 million will enter by the end of Joe Biden's term. Each will probably have 3-5 kids on average while native born Americans have 1.5 per couple. You are being replaced, by design.” (source)
Guns:
“It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” (source)
Jews:
“Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open-border, neoliberal, quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions and nonprofits. This is a beast created by secular Jews and now it’s coming for Jews, and they're like, ‘What on Earth happened?’ And it's not just the colleges. It's the nonprofits, it's the movies, it's Hollywood, it's all of it.” (source)
Martin Luther King Jr.:
“MLK was awful. He's not a good person. He said one good thing he actually didn't believe.” (source)
Muslims:
“They aren’t even hiding their intentions. Muslims plan to conquer Europe by demographic replacement. Will Europe wake up in time?” (source)
Jason, you're making my point for me. Charlie Kirk said those things and HE insisted it all was protected expression. So everybody who cares (or pretends to care) about Kirk and what Kirk believed should stop retaliating against people for their speech about Kirk.
Jason, for some of the people who supported that resolution, I'm certain they really were actually calling for "commitment to civil discussion and debate" and working "tirelessly to promote unity without compromising on conviction."
They clearly were encouraging "engaging in respectful, civil discourse across college campuses, media platforms, and national forums, always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic."
Those are good things, and the audience for the resolution necessarily is especially all the people who purport to support or care about Charlie Kirk who are doing the opposite of what the resolution said Kirk did.
Again, really, you honestly believe that, after all that has happened in the past week? After all the firings and threats, after Trump and the GOP have vowed an all-out war on any non profit they deem politically incorrect, on the non-existent 'antifah' as a terrorist organization?
The resolution is top to bottom a lionizing of Kirk, elevating him to MLK-like status. It is gross and ridiculous His work was dedicated to all out racism, misogyny, transphobia, xenophobia and hatred..the exact opposite of the trite platitudes in that document. It's the same historical revisionism behind the resetting of Confederate monuments and renaming military bases after Confederate generals.
If this was at all sincere, they could have written an affirmation of free speech and civility that didn't mention Kirk at all.
The only reason those Democrats signed this garbage was out of fear and a woefully misplaced sense of 'bipartisanship' that has not existed for some time. Jeffries of course is a master in both of these practices.
The Democrats with any sense of bravery or even decency either voted against this, or at least abstained.
Isn't it obvious? All that happened in the past week is the point of praising (advocating) much more restraint and directing that message at those who care (or are at least pretending to care) about Kirk.
In Trump v US John Roberts and the Fash Five gave Trump the power to control prosecutions by DoJ. That weasel Patel knows he's safe from prosecution for lying to Congress as long as his lies protect Trump.
Great to see Aaron back behind the keyboard!. Has there ever been a more corrupt administration than this one? Any 90 year olds with good memory can help me out?
I remember hearing that 'Granny' Hayes was fairly filthy, but have never read a deep dive.
And for a solid overview, Wikipedia has a separate page for legal action against [members of] just about each and every modern administration.
But because it is my earliest memory of any commentary that specific, this is what instantly leapt to mind when I read your question — note the extended similarities wirh today's monster-clown-car-shitshow:
I frequently condemn the junior senator from my state of Louisiana for his hayseed, faux-folksy comments that are an embarrassment. His comments to the dishonorable FBI director about the Epstein files were somewhat surprising. Regarding the director's interactions with the House committee, do yourself a favor and watch the brilliant Jamie Raskin's interaction with the director 09/17/2025. He is without a doubt the most eloquent person in Congress.
(just reads title, because royal-we already sat through the videos) Sure, they hadn't already done that to themselves from the Rubio confirmation on down.
My first thought was that the Dems played into Patel's and Trump's tiny hands. The unhinged shouting matches showed the MAGA mob how much Patel was sticking it to the Dems, and saved him from actually answering anything.
I am shocked - shocked! - that someone in the Trump Administration lied to Congress. Unthinkable! Apparently reality is too mundane for Republicans … and Trump needs a world that revolves around him.
As soon as it has any results that make them look bad they'll punt to the science (that polygrraph tests are a shitty way to confirm much of anything).
Question: "Have you fired people because they voted for [Kamala Harris]?"
Patel: "I don't ask people who they vote for and neither does the FBI."
Firing people because of who they voted for is different from asking who they voted for.
Question: “Have you asked, under the polygraph tests, about individuals’ loyalty, or their voting records, or any kind of past statements?” Blumenthal asked.
Patel: “I don’t tell the professionals how to conduct polygraphs or what questions to ask.”
But Patel might ask someone else to tell someone what to ask. He certainly might suggest directly to a polygrapher that he or she ask questions about how to ascertain willingness to cater to Trump, Bondi or Patel.
Patel's deception and deceit (including by not directly answering the question he was asked (and required) to answer) remind me of a rule of evidence about silence and the failure to provide information or produce evidence when it is required.
“Silence” can be “most convincing” as “evidence” that conduct was illegal. Interstate Circuit v. United States, 306 U.S. 208, 226 (1939). Unexplained failures to provide information or produce “strong” evidence that “is available can lead only to the conclusion that it would have been adverse.” Id.
“Conduct which forms a basis for inference is evidence. Silence is often” the “most persuasive” “evidence” of deceit. U.S. ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-54 (1923).
“There is” even “a presumption in the law that, if a litigant have facts within his knowledge and refuses to reveal them, it is presumed that if revealed they would be against him.” United States v. Mammoth Oil Co., 14 F.2d 705, 730 (8th Cir. 1926), aff'd, 275 U.S. 13 (1927).
Once again Dem leadership, in the interest of ‘bipartisanship’ (lol) has failed to call out the rapidly escalating fascist takeover of our democracy. Jeffries/Schumer are grifting tools of AIPAC/corporate donors, timid and complicit. That ANY Dems voted for this ridiculous partisan measure ‘honoring’ Kirk is outrageous. Yes, the murder of Kirk was a horrific tragedy and any political violence is unacceptable. But to lionize and whitewash Kirk who made no secret of his racism, misogyny and support for an authoritarian white supremacist US and endorse the firing of nurses, teachers, and other citizens who accurately spoke up about Kirk’s toxic beliefs is also unacceptable. Will Dems back down again on shut down vote? Not hopeful about this. Their approval rating is already in the toilet. Caving to the Republicans AGAIN would be another big mistake, but it appears they don’t GAF, don’t want to piss off their donor handlers.
Patel’s appointment was a foregone conclusion, but those voting for him were duly warned. And with Act II, by not accepting the ugly truth and reality about this guy the Senators who allowed this behavior should be targeted in their campaigns for reelection for dereliction of duty.
Congress doesn't need any help making a mockery of itself.
Yesterday the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution honoring Charlie Kirk, describing him “as a model for young Americans across the political spectrum” who was known for “engaging in respectful, civil discourse across college campuses, media platforms, and national forums, always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic.”'
Of course, in any sane world, everyone would recognize that none of that is remotely true. The rush to lionize and sanctify this racist, misogynist provocateur whose entire career was based on divisiveness after his horrific murder is revolting.
Hakeem Jeffries and most Democratic leadership cowardly voted for this resolution, only fifty-eight Democrats opposed the resolution, while another 38 voted present and 22 didn’t vote at all.
Democrats once again show how spineless they are against the surge of historical revisionism and authoritarianism being brought by Trump and the GOP. At the same moment when journalists, TV personalities, teachers and so many others are being fired left and right for saying even the tiniest (and factual) criticisms of Kirk, the Democratic Party helps to throw them all under the bus.
How the Dems could vote for this resolution is beyond any understanding. 😡. Why not honour all the children that has been killed in gun violence or the Democrat couple that was brutally murdered a few months ago? Spineless Democrats!
It is just revolting.
I hope that Aaron Rupar and his team say something about this.
I just read a comment, that Hakeem Jeffries has now voted to honor Charlie Kirk before he could bring himself to endorse Zohran Mamdani.
...and the Democrats wonder why they are even less popular that Trump.....
Helen, please see my reply below.
It's an easy call to just vote present or skip voting but voting for the resolution is a choice and yet another stain on leadership. Completely warps what Kirk stood for and just how extreme he was.
Yeah, at least abstain for chrissakes.
Don't rush to judge too harshly. Don't rush to think that Democrats were lionizing Charlie Kirk. Democrats and Republicans just now expressly supported our freedom of speech, even to say hurtful, hateful things. That necessarily further emphasizes our right to say hateful, hurtful things about Kirk, himself.
Democrats and Republicans just publicly and expressly supported what SCOTUS supported in 303 Creative v. Elenis in 2023. Note the repeated use of "all," i.e., “all persons," "all, including” any speaker or writer “whose motives” someone considers “misinformed or offensive” (and even if the speech causes someone “anguish” or “incalculable grief”) are protected. “All manner of speech” and "all views" are protected.
“The First Amendment” means “all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.” It secures the “freedom to think as you will” and “speak as you think.” It “extends to all persons engaged in expressive conduct, including those who seek profit.” Its “protections belong to all, including” speakers or printers “whose motives” someone considers “misinformed or offensive.” It “protects” each person's “right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible” or “misguided,” even if it causes someone “anguish” or “incalculable grief.”
“All manner of speech” enjoys “First Amendment’s protections.” “A commitment to speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all.”
“The freedom of thought and speech” is “indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.” “[A]llowing all views to flourish” is necessary to “test and improve our own thinking” as “individuals and as a Nation,” so it is a “fixed star in our constitutional constellation” that “government may not interfere” with the “marketplace of ideas.”
Gimme a break.
The GOP has been attacking anyone who says the slightest criticism of Kirk, which includes just quoting him verbatim.
There is only one token line about rejecting violence and respecting each other at the end of the resolution, with a few other little snippets sprinkled over the document. ..the entire thing is pure hagiography and whitewashing of Kirk's actual legacy. The idea that the GOP is taking a stand for free speech while the exact same people are attacking people everywhere constantly for exercising that right is absurd.
Some choice lines:
The resolution 'honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty; '
'Charlie Kirk’s commitment to civil discussion and debate stood as a model for young Americans across the political spectrum, and he worked tirelessly to promote unity without compromising on conviction;'
Kirk was ' engaging in respectful, civil discourse across college campuses, media platforms, and national forums, always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic;'
This is all 100% nonsense and a complete revision of his actual actions.
It is telling that a disproportionate number of Dem representative of color either voted against or abstained. It is also many of the same reps that are brave enough to stand against Israel's genocide...not a coincidence.
It's also telling that the feckless minority leader Hakeem Jeffries voted to honor Kirk before he endorsed Zohran Mamdani, which he still hasn't done.
Jason, it's easy to rush at the most superficial view of something and fail to see the more fundamental principles at work. I understand what you think at least some Republicans were doing, but some Republicans and Democrats were and are thinking about our freedom of expression and communication. Kirk, himself, emphasized the same as SCOTUS, and Kirk's speech provides a strong argument against retaliation against such speech about Kirk.
"Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/charlie-kirks-own-words-on-hate-speech-used-against-pam-bondi/ar-AA1MFNzj?ocid=BingNewsVerp
Really? Now with the wise words of Charlie Kirk?
Here are some more choice quotes from this "courageous American patriot", courtesy of Zeteo:
Black people:
“Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.” (source)
Black pilots:
“If I see a Black pilot, I’m gonna be like, ’Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’” (source)
Black women:
“They're coming out, and they're saying, 'I'm only here because of affirmative action.' Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously." (source)
Civil rights:
“We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the mid-1960s.” (source)
The death penalty:
"[The death penalty] should be public, should be quick, should be televised… I think at a certain age, it’s an initiation… At what age should you start to see public executions?" (source)
Democrats:
“The Democrat Party supports everything that God hates.” (source)
Empathy:
"I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made up new age term that does a lot of damage." (source)
Feminism:
“Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You're not in charge." (source)
Gay people:
“You might want to crack open that Bible of yours. In a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture, is in Leviticus 18 is that, ‘thou shalt lay with another man shall be stoned to death.’ Just sayin’! So Miss Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19… the chapter before affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.” (source)
George Floyd:
“This guy was a scumbag.” (source)
Great Replacement Theory:
“It's not a Great Replacement Theory, it's a Great Replacement Reality. Just this year, 3.6 million foreigners will invade America. 10-15 million will enter by the end of Joe Biden's term. Each will probably have 3-5 kids on average while native born Americans have 1.5 per couple. You are being replaced, by design.” (source)
Guns:
“It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” (source)
Jews:
“Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open-border, neoliberal, quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions and nonprofits. This is a beast created by secular Jews and now it’s coming for Jews, and they're like, ‘What on Earth happened?’ And it's not just the colleges. It's the nonprofits, it's the movies, it's Hollywood, it's all of it.” (source)
Martin Luther King Jr.:
“MLK was awful. He's not a good person. He said one good thing he actually didn't believe.” (source)
Muslims:
“They aren’t even hiding their intentions. Muslims plan to conquer Europe by demographic replacement. Will Europe wake up in time?” (source)
Palestine:
“I don’t think the place exists.” (source)
Transgender people:
“You’re an abomination to God.” (source)
Jason, you're making my point for me. Charlie Kirk said those things and HE insisted it all was protected expression. So everybody who cares (or pretends to care) about Kirk and what Kirk believed should stop retaliating against people for their speech about Kirk.
You are beyond gullible if you think there was a smidgen of good faith in that resolution.
Jason, for some of the people who supported that resolution, I'm certain they really were actually calling for "commitment to civil discussion and debate" and working "tirelessly to promote unity without compromising on conviction."
They clearly were encouraging "engaging in respectful, civil discourse across college campuses, media platforms, and national forums, always seeking to elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic."
Those are good things, and the audience for the resolution necessarily is especially all the people who purport to support or care about Charlie Kirk who are doing the opposite of what the resolution said Kirk did.
Again, really, you honestly believe that, after all that has happened in the past week? After all the firings and threats, after Trump and the GOP have vowed an all-out war on any non profit they deem politically incorrect, on the non-existent 'antifah' as a terrorist organization?
The resolution is top to bottom a lionizing of Kirk, elevating him to MLK-like status. It is gross and ridiculous His work was dedicated to all out racism, misogyny, transphobia, xenophobia and hatred..the exact opposite of the trite platitudes in that document. It's the same historical revisionism behind the resetting of Confederate monuments and renaming military bases after Confederate generals.
If this was at all sincere, they could have written an affirmation of free speech and civility that didn't mention Kirk at all.
The only reason those Democrats signed this garbage was out of fear and a woefully misplaced sense of 'bipartisanship' that has not existed for some time. Jeffries of course is a master in both of these practices.
The Democrats with any sense of bravery or even decency either voted against this, or at least abstained.
Isn't it obvious? All that happened in the past week is the point of praising (advocating) much more restraint and directing that message at those who care (or are at least pretending to care) about Kirk.
In Trump v US John Roberts and the Fash Five gave Trump the power to control prosecutions by DoJ. That weasel Patel knows he's safe from prosecution for lying to Congress as long as his lies protect Trump.
And he doesn’t care - he being Patel OR Trump - as shame is just too DEI.
Great to see Aaron back behind the keyboard!. Has there ever been a more corrupt administration than this one? Any 90 year olds with good memory can help me out?
I remember hearing that 'Granny' Hayes was fairly filthy, but have never read a deep dive.
And for a solid overview, Wikipedia has a separate page for legal action against [members of] just about each and every modern administration.
But because it is my earliest memory of any commentary that specific, this is what instantly leapt to mind when I read your question — note the extended similarities wirh today's monster-clown-car-shitshow:
https://youtu.be/CCvV1HMcESw?si=eCkkCdAin1WuDm9g
Perfect clip thank you.
I frequently condemn the junior senator from my state of Louisiana for his hayseed, faux-folksy comments that are an embarrassment. His comments to the dishonorable FBI director about the Epstein files were somewhat surprising. Regarding the director's interactions with the House committee, do yourself a favor and watch the brilliant Jamie Raskin's interaction with the director 09/17/2025. He is without a doubt the most eloquent person in Congress.
(just reads title, because royal-we already sat through the videos) Sure, they hadn't already done that to themselves from the Rubio confirmation on down.
Kash Patel, and really all the members of the regime, are psychopaths.
Here is the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, a psychological assessment tool designed to assess the presence of psychopathy:
https://psychology-tools.com/test/pcl-22
My first thought was that the Dems played into Patel's and Trump's tiny hands. The unhinged shouting matches showed the MAGA mob how much Patel was sticking it to the Dems, and saved him from actually answering anything.
I am shocked - shocked! - that someone in the Trump Administration lied to Congress. Unthinkable! Apparently reality is too mundane for Republicans … and Trump needs a world that revolves around him.
Simple solution. Interview the fired. Give them the same lie detector test they used to smoke them out. Easy peasy.
As soon as it has any results that make them look bad they'll punt to the science (that polygrraph tests are a shitty way to confirm much of anything).
Question: "Have you fired people because they voted for [Kamala Harris]?"
Patel: "I don't ask people who they vote for and neither does the FBI."
Firing people because of who they voted for is different from asking who they voted for.
Question: “Have you asked, under the polygraph tests, about individuals’ loyalty, or their voting records, or any kind of past statements?” Blumenthal asked.
Patel: “I don’t tell the professionals how to conduct polygraphs or what questions to ask.”
But Patel might ask someone else to tell someone what to ask. He certainly might suggest directly to a polygrapher that he or she ask questions about how to ascertain willingness to cater to Trump, Bondi or Patel.
Patel's deception and deceit (including by not directly answering the question he was asked (and required) to answer) remind me of a rule of evidence about silence and the failure to provide information or produce evidence when it is required.
“Silence” can be “most convincing” as “evidence” that conduct was illegal. Interstate Circuit v. United States, 306 U.S. 208, 226 (1939). Unexplained failures to provide information or produce “strong” evidence that “is available can lead only to the conclusion that it would have been adverse.” Id.
“Conduct which forms a basis for inference is evidence. Silence is often” the “most persuasive” “evidence” of deceit. U.S. ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-54 (1923).
“There is” even “a presumption in the law that, if a litigant have facts within his knowledge and refuses to reveal them, it is presumed that if revealed they would be against him.” United States v. Mammoth Oil Co., 14 F.2d 705, 730 (8th Cir. 1926), aff'd, 275 U.S. 13 (1927).
Once again Dem leadership, in the interest of ‘bipartisanship’ (lol) has failed to call out the rapidly escalating fascist takeover of our democracy. Jeffries/Schumer are grifting tools of AIPAC/corporate donors, timid and complicit. That ANY Dems voted for this ridiculous partisan measure ‘honoring’ Kirk is outrageous. Yes, the murder of Kirk was a horrific tragedy and any political violence is unacceptable. But to lionize and whitewash Kirk who made no secret of his racism, misogyny and support for an authoritarian white supremacist US and endorse the firing of nurses, teachers, and other citizens who accurately spoke up about Kirk’s toxic beliefs is also unacceptable. Will Dems back down again on shut down vote? Not hopeful about this. Their approval rating is already in the toilet. Caving to the Republicans AGAIN would be another big mistake, but it appears they don’t GAF, don’t want to piss off their donor handlers.
To be fair, about half of Congress has been pretty busy making a mockery of itself though
Weird headline, Aaron. I’d read your posts on BlueSky on how some questioners missed the boat, but — to my surprise — this was the good side. Thanks.
Patel’s appointment was a foregone conclusion, but those voting for him were duly warned. And with Act II, by not accepting the ugly truth and reality about this guy the Senators who allowed this behavior should be targeted in their campaigns for reelection for dereliction of duty.
thank you, Aaron. manifest incompetence and ruthless corruption and abuse, the peculiar one-two punch of Trumpism.