The Florida Congressman has not been charged with any crimes. But the reaction to this case raises important questions of political, legal and cultural judgments.
I was heavily chewed out by some colleagues and friends this week for arguing this position (i.e., defense of civil liberties should be a solid liberal / left-wing principle) during an informal, after-work conversation. It was a harrowing and depressing experience, especially given that the ire was coming directly from the portion of my + my partner's social circle that are registered Democrats, and vocal about it. I've generally either strategically avoided or been consciously quiet about these political discussions (since when did due process become political?!?!), but I was stupid and spoke up this time. Of course, all the standard horrible, ill-thought out accusations were thrown at me (How dare you defend a pedophile and rapist? Why is he spending so much on a lawyer if he is innocent? [insert a bunch of other idiotic, reactionary arguments]). This weekend is probably one of the first times when I seriously felt alienated enough to probably stop going to certain social events in that milieu.
Or, maybe, I won't be invited anymore anyway since there are enough who can't seem to tell the difference between defending a rapist and defending an alleged rapist's right to defend himself; and I've likely been marked as the former. Just hope they don't think badly of my partner because of it – they're mostly his friends. Oh, well, time to get out the drinks!
I'm sorry you're going through this. As a former lawyer, I find the current zeitgeist of overzealous, partisan and puritanical trial-by-media viscerally offensive. It feels like the political parties are reaching new depths of depravity daily. Why bother even voting at this point?
I get the sentiment, I loathe both parties equally, but that's what they are counting on that we the people lack the will to actually hold them accountable & to demand competent governance.
I’ve been reading comments on GG’s page since he started it. And I continue to be amazed at how many self described “leftists” are confused by today’s left wing dismantling of enlightenment principles.
History is replete with leftist regimes who systematically eliminated individual liberty. Eventually, that’s what it comes to. Other than in very small numbers like communes or undeveloped indigenous peoples, there is no way to enslave people economically without enslaving them at every level.
Either you defend liberty of every kind, or you end up defending some but not others - you end up comically confused when your compadres turn authoritarian.
I'm not sure what your point is. Defense of civil liberties has always been a left-wing position (classical liberalism is left-wing from the historical perspective). Authoritarianism is not unique to one specific political leaning or party affiliation. Right now, it seems that modern liberalism wants to wear its hat. I'm disappointed, more than confused, that people who I know, who I thought where liberal are consumed by media insanity that they are unable to reason about properly – so that they abandon their principles.
Classic liberalism - and government instituted socialism and/or statist central planning/regulation are philosophical opposites. You cannot have the latter without destroying the former.
A government, “majority”, gang, whoever, cannot institute socialism without initiating force or the threat of force against others. Which could not be more opposite of classic liberalism.
I personally think we should stop arguing about labels. I just call all these evil authoritarian types “establishment cronies”. Classical liberals and populist right have a lot in common and the establishment cronies hate both of them.
Oh, my, thank you so much for this: "...there is no way to enslave people economically without enslaving them at every level." I want to add something her, to say it even better, but I can't.
So I used to be a libertarian, and now I’m not. The reason I’m no longer in that frame of mind is because the idea that coercion can only happen by threat of violence or the state is just false. If you are poor, and your entire city is owned by the rich, you have no possible way of getting anything for yourself, expect to enter into an employment contract with one of the rich. You have no bargaining power, so it’s all on their terms; it’s inherently coercive.
Now, you can look at history and see that large parts of this problem do stem from the state - but it is possible for this to happen by someone being a good businessman. We also see that in reality, companies don’t want to endlessly compete amongst themselves to lower prices. The way they generally act is to cartelize to maintain the power they do have, and that seems to happen with or without the help of the state. It’s hard to say for sure if this happens with no state, but you can’t rule it out as a possibility.
I see myself as generally left now, but not in any way because I don’t hold most the enlightenment values, especially those enshrined in the constitution and civil liberties - it’s because I want a society where everyone has the maximum liberty they can have. This requires a safety net and a referee in the market; from the comments I read this seems to be the position that most of the leftists posting here are taking as well. I’m not sure how this is inconsistent with individual liberties. Yes, the richest will lose some “liberty”, but is coercing people with no bargaining power to work for you at an unfair rate really consistent with liberty? I don’t think so.
Personally, I still don’t trust the state. I’d rather have stateless solutions and accomplish a safety net and more equal bargaining power through mutual aid, labor unions, and worker owned enterprises, but as long as the rich control the state and have most of the resources it’s pretty hard to meaningfully do any of those things.
I appreciate your comments but it’s repeatedly contradictory. Liberty only has one meaning and that is freedom from compulsion.
As you say, if the rich control the state, that’s a problem. Wait, control what? The state. As Milton Friedman noted, it’s when business and government form a coalition that we see major problems. This is why the government *has* to be constitutionally forbidden from being engaged in the economy for exactly the same reasons it should be forbidden from deciding who can say what, write what.
The only way to *enforce* socialism is direct force. Much as you might like to think you can have enlightenment principles and state run economies, it’s inherently contradictory and ultimately can only happen at the point of a gun.
And of course in reality, it gets worse, because those who seek power over others do so through the state.
The fact remains that an individual can and do choose not to work for someone, are free to leave a given area. Reality does not confer upon humans the natural state of abundance and freedom from the problem of survival. There is no centrally planned solution to such problem without engaging in the worst kind of evils that result in the opposite of the stated intentions. Plus an almost infinite list of slightly leas evil evils.
The whole “wage slavery” notion is straight out of Marx, perpetuated by disguised Marxists like Chomsky. It’s both philosophically and economically bankrupt.
I’ve got news for you: the rich control the state in socialist slave pens. It doesn’t change that. Fight for a total separation of state and economics to solve that, don’t fight for more government- it quite literally only makes it worse.
I expected this answer and don’t have much to say in response, except that we disagree on the possibility of wage slavery. Wage slavery is not inherent in the market as the marxists say, but it can happen. Unless you have some kind of homesteading or common land available it’s impossible to say it hasn’t happened and doesn’t happen. Maybe if the state never existed it wouldn’t be possible, but that’s not the world we live in.
I agree with you 100% on central planning; it is completely ridiculous. There is nothing centrally planned about mutual aid, labor unions, or worker cooperatives though, which are what I actually advocate for.
I also don’t consider Friedman a libertarian. His career accomplishments are ripe with all kinds of state intervention in markets and his monetarism is inherently based on it. Find me a quote from an Austrian that says the same thing and I’ll accept it haha
"I also don’t consider Friedman a libertarian." Which is to say, you disagree with Mr. Friedman, but I quibble.
Wage slavery (note the absence of scare quotes) is a problem in EVERY politico-economic system. In what systems is it ALWAYS much worse than in true Capitalism, or even in today's pseudo-Capitalism (the 50/50 mixed economy)?
My writing leaves something to be desired, but the jab at Friedman was meant to be annoyed sarcasm, hopefully it came across that way. Reading Misesabd Hayek has certainly enriched my life, but I can’t say the same for Friedman.
I don’t have time to write up my entire reasoning as to why I have moved to a left-leaning position, but I will simply say it is largely my acknowledgement that wage slavery is a real phenomenon but also that in some cases, commonly held property performs excellently compared to private property and helps to reduce the problems of unequal bargaining power.
On the former, I want labor movements to have the ability to bargain for worker rights in any situation - with no state intervention. Frankly today with the leviathan of the state, it’s hard to see unions as anything other than a busy body collective. In the absence of state intervention this is a much different story. On the latter, I will simply suggest you read “Managing the Commons” by Elinor Ostrom. I would also suggest that there are many thousands of successful worker cooperatives, especially in Europe, that seem
to be more stable in the long run than standard privately held business are on
average - for example, mondragon in Spain or Emilia-romagna in Italy.
I find that current environment basically forces people prone not to let imposed on them assumed positions get by unchallenged to simply avoid any social events where such situation may arise.
While I am skeptical of applying civil liberties to the court of public opinion, I can about guarantee you that your goodthink liberal friends would be singing a different tune if it was happening to someone on Team D.
Witness the same liberals who insisted that any sexual contact between a male supervisor and female subordinate was prima face sexual harassment, if not outright rape, because power relations, suddenly started singing a different tune when the perpetrator was one W. Clinton.
Not to mention the tortured legal defenses they came up with in defending their beloved fat boy, how perjury isn't really perjury when the subject is sex, etc..
(I am commenting without reading the responses to this post.)
M. Rajeev Ram, you are very well-spoken here, but stand your ground! Do not " stop going to certain social events in that milieu." I think you could change some minds.
But mostly I want to respond to this: "...(since when did due process become political?!?!),..."
Dude! "Due process" could be the most important political issue of all time!!!
The trust I have for legacy media is so far in the negative at this point, my bias just jumped to the conclusion that Gaetz is probably just a threat they are neutralizing. It's so bad at this point I literally believe the opposite of what the narrative is. I probably need therapy due to trust issues and all the gaslighting from the media at this point.
From my own Substack, article entitled Ready, Shoot, Aim: "The Representative Matt Gaetz affair is troubling on every level. I am what Arabs call Abu Binat, Father of Daughters. Sexual predators have no place in society. If Matt Gaetz is a sexual predator, he needs to be removed from society. Following investigation, trial and conviction. Under the Doctrine of Ready, Shoot, Aim, he is presumed guilty based on rumors. That flies in the face of two centuries of US jurisprudence. Even Jeffrey Dahmer had to be afforded due process.
The New York Times cited anonymous sources in proclaiming that Gaetz was under Department of Justice investigation for possible violation of sex trafficking laws. It includes breath-taking statements, such as “It was not clear how Mr. Gaetz met the girl, believed to be 17 at the time of encounters about two years ago that investigators are scrutinizing, according to two of the people.” Bravo. The Times assumes that Gaetz met the girl; I don’t know why one wouldn’t lead that bit of rumor with “It was not clear whether Mr. Gaetz met the girl, whose identity is unknown, nor how he met her.” That narrative is more complete, which might be the problem. It doesn’t meet the standards for Ready, Shoot, Aim.
The Times goes on to cast guilt-by-association accusations of inviting a Holocaust denier to a State of the Union Speech, attending an event where security was provided by the Proud Boys, and “barging past Capitol Police into the secure rooms of the House Intelligence Committee to briefly break up the (impeachment) investigation of the President.” I’d like to address each of these in order.
Fifty-five years ago, in college, I invited a KKK member to an integrated social event. One attendee was even an admitted homosexual. I know no better way to deal with bigots than to force them to confront their bigotry. Is that what happened with the Holocaust denier? I don’t know. Neither does the Times.
In 2008, the New Black Panther Party (it and the Proud Boys are both led by African-Americans) provided polling place armed security in Philadelphia. That does not justify disapproval of Philadelphia voters. As for the hearings into impeachment of a President, those have always been conducted in public by the House Judiciary Committee. Secret hearings are the stuff of tyrants, and impeaching a president based on the accusation of someone not called to testify is simply unacceptable in a non-authoritarian regime. As distasteful as I found President Trump personally, I find it far more distasteful to compromise a solemn constitutional duty for partisan advantage. I’m only sorry I wasn’t there “barging by” with them.
The most bothersome accusation from the Times was 'Given Mr. Gaetz’s national profile, senior Justice Department officials in Washington — including some appointed by Mr. Trump — were notified of the investigation, the people said.' Imagine my horror at the idea of the Department of Justice investigator notifying an Assistant Attorney General - appointed by Trump!!!!! – that he was investigating a Member of Congress.
Later, the Times applied the coup de grace: “The Times has reviewed receipts from Cash App, a mobile payments app, and Apple Pay that show payments from Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Greenberg to one of the women, and a payment from Mr. Greenberg to a second woman. The women told their friends that the payments were for sex with the two men, according to two people familiar with the conversations.”
Yet again anonymously sourced. I’ll assume the receipts exist, I’ll assume that the unidentified women told their unidentified friends that the payments were for sex with the two men, according to two other unidentified sources. The idea that this evidence would be adjudicated admissible in a court, without the receipts themselves bearing the notation “Payment for sex with a minor” or something equivalent, is bizarre. The idea that a first-day prosecutor who barely passed the bar exam would consider prosecuting based on that evidence is delusional.
Yes, Mr. Gaetz is under investigation. If it is concluded that he violated any federal laws, or at any time engaged in predatory behavior with minors, then try him, convict him and jail him. Assuming his guilt from the accusation is a witch trial. Note that there is no input from anyone familiar with how investigations are begun and conducted. Let me provide the missing part:
The federal investigation was opened of a corrupt politician in Florida, an associate of Gaetz. Please spare me the pearl-clutching about associating with a corrupt politician. If you are in politics it is impossible to avoid. Any crime carrying a potential felony conviction, especially of a public official, triggers a look at the target’s close associates because they are first potential witnesses, and second potential accomplices. Thus, an investigation was opened into Gaetz. That is standard investigative procedure.
I've personally been the subject of two federal investigations, both for alleged felonies, both closed due to lack of evidence. I didn't mind. I trusted that due process would apply. Since November 2016 due process has been optional, based on the political affiliation of the accused.
Censorship is only one horror of authoritarianism. We have at least four years to go, more likely eight. With the filibuster gone and the Supreme Court packed with the "right" justices, I fear we are seeing the death of our country.
I am so grateful that we have one journalist to defend true liberality. Glenn, I followed you on Twitter until I canceled my account. Now I subscribe directly. Worth every penny.
At the moment the Gaetz thing smells like a Democrat hit job...we'll see what happens. That said, no one has investigated Democrat Swalwell who was keeping company with a Chinese spy AND who sits on the Intelligence Committee in Congress.
Not just a democrat but job. It smells like an establishment but job especially with Liz Cheney who hates Gaetz and Gaetz was travelling to her state to get her primaried. Gaetz is also anti war and supported tulsi on that.
Thank you Glenn. But why talk about Matt Gaetz having inappropriate sex while Hunter Biden has documented inappropriate sex COULD WE PLEASE talk instead about the impending Biden (Soros dictated) financial crisis ahead of us and the Border crisis not to mention the Constitution being destroyed? This is just bullshit crap deflecting us from the real problems being created every day with Biden's Ex Orders. Why are you playing into this, Glenn?
Since you seem to care about "the Constitution being destroyed", then you should care very much about this story – in which the corporate-media complex is incentivizing people to culturally discard the cultural value of due process. That's as much a concern as any other when it comes to the problems of American society.
It is relevant, it's how they nullify a threat. That's kinda the point of you look at it. Gaetz was the resistance to exactly what you speak of. It's a targeted attack. They have actual data of illegal Hunter activity and he gets the nightshow circuit and book deal.
There will always be prune-lipped arbiters of morality in any crowd.
Very few people blankety support *consensual fucking with impunity*. With great fucking comes great responsibility. There is widespread support for consensual fucking with responsibility. Responsibilities include consideration of informed and aware and expressed and not-withdrawn consent, planned pregnancy or planned non-pregnancy, disease prevention. And some attention to current laws in the relevant jurisdiction. Wouldn’t you agree this is a common position for people on the left? I think it is.
If a Team D representative were alleged to have done the same thing, the same people who are howling with rage and accusation would be twisting themselves into knots trying to justify the accused, and vice versa.
Sex has always been a boggieman in American dating back to the white slave panic of the last century that's almost identical to the sex trafficking moral panic, particularly towards Asian women we are experiencing now. Since sex workers represent the most marginalized part of society, I don't think you can discuss this topic around the "morality police" without including them.
We rarely pass laws that specifically name their intended target, (the sodomy laws used exclusively against the gay community until recently) but we continually come up with new names to criminalize the same groups we always target.
One of the very first things suffragists did when they gained the vote in 1920 was criminalize alcohol and sex work. Similar to that movement, the current anti sex movement is largely led by privileged women of both parties targeting immigrant women. Also like the 1920, there was growing widespread xenophobia against all Asians, but especially Asian women:
The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers. Building on the earlier Page Act of 1875 which banned Chinese women from immigrating to the United States, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first, and remains the only law to have been implemented, to prevent all members of a specific ethnic or national group from immigrating to the United States.
On the morning of November 3 at 9:30 AM, 200 to 300 white citizens of Tacoma gathered on Pacific Avenue.[52] The mob had shortly thereafter grown to nearly 500 people.[53] The mob marched from Seventeenth Street to Old Tacoma, stopping at each Chinese residence and business to tell the people within to pack and be ready for a wagon to come at 1:30 PM that day to take them away.[54] They visited the homes and businesses of white citizens who had refused to fire their Chinese employees, delivering their message to them as well.[55] The mob acted methodically and militaristically in their action to expel the Chinese population of Tacoma, and many of the men were armed with either guns or clubs.[56]
-1884 A new ordinance bans “soliciting prostitution upon any of the public streets,” and the mere presence of “dissolute Indian women” after dark. Its effect is to favor the brothels and “box houses”—low-end theaters whose actresses hustle drinks and sexual services—staffed by white and Asian women.
- 1891 City Hall tries to clamp down by raiding Whitechapel, the Lava Bed’s French quarter. The raids spare white and target Asian women, who seem to have replaced Indians as targets of outrage.
-March 1903 U.S. and Japanese officials announce a campaign to break up the burgeoning trade in “white slaves”—young women imported for the sex trade by procurers posing as husbands with new brides—from Japan. They estimate that 500 are kept as sex slaves in Washington alone.
"The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers."
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll give it a shot. There was growing hostility in the West due to Chinese low wage labor brought in to work on and around the railroads in the late 1800's. There was also a "White Slave Panic" that started in England and moved to the US at the beginning of the 19th century.
Ostensibly the White Slave panic was about preventing dark skinned men from kidnapping young white women and selling them into sex slavery, but in practice it was a law used to go after interracial couples around the country using the White Slave Mann Act to arrest black men for dating white women and to harass, arrest and deport Asian women working out West in the brothels. It's exactly the same two groups our current sex trafficking panic is primarily targeting.
It was crazy. White women were told not to eat in Asian restaurants for fear they would be kidnapped and sold into sex slavery. Pretty much Ping Pong Pizza Gate with the same media, law enforcement and primarily middle class white women that are leading the current charge against all sex work in the name of fighting sex trafficking. We are literally using the same Memes of a dark hand over a young white girls mouth common in awareness raising "sex trafficking" that they used 100 years ago to fight white slavery.
Interesting side note. The FBI that got it's start under TR was primarily an East Coast group until the White Slave Panic. Then they were called on to set up shops all across the country to fight white slavery. It's how they went from a local to a national police force.
"Since sex workers represent the most marginalized part of society, I don't think you can discuss this topic around the "morality police" without including them."
And can someone please explain why Hunter Biden is getting away with lying on his gun application form abut his use of drugs (for which he was booted from the Navy), his drug use, his inability to pay federal taxes for long periods of time, etc, etc.....this dude has gotten a major pass because his dad is (trying to be) President.
Kamala Harris' office accused him of pimping, including some counts involving minors. The Texas state attorney general said he was "making money off...modern-day slavery."
Lacey and Larkin were also arrested and charged with "conspiracy to commit pimping." They spent four days jailed in Sacramento, California. Harris, who at the time was running for the U.S. Senate, called them "despicable" and labeled Backpage "the world's top online brothel."
News of the arrest was covered extensively in major media outlets, with Harris quoted prominently. Her complaint was that bad actors and teenagers sometimes used the site—and her evidence that Backpage "knew" this to be true was that it reported suspected underage ads to NCMEC and cooperated with police. Harris was using Backpage's history of working with law enforcement against it.
"Make no mistake," said Lacey and Larkin in statement that month. "Harris has won all that she was looking to win when she had us arrested. Like Sheriff Arpaio, she issued her sanctimonious public statement, controlled her media cycle and got her 'perp walk' on the evening news." While such targeting was not new to them, this was the first time a state had decided it was "okay to consider the First Amendment implications after, not before, hauling people off to jail."
In early December, a Sacramento Superior Court judge dismissed the case. On December 23, with just a few days left in office, Harris tried again, filing new conspiracy-to-commit-pimping charges against Lacey, Larkin, and Ferrer, along with allegations of money laundering. Ferrer also faced 12 counts of pimping. Again, all pimping and conspiracy charges were dismissed, though the judge allowed a money-laundering case to proceed.
"We've never, ever broken the law," Larkin says. "Never have, never wanted to. This isn't really—I know this is probably heresy—this isn't about sex work to me. This is about speech."
"This is the biggest speech battle in America right now," Lacey adds. "The First Amendment isn't about protecting the rights of the McLaughlin Group to speak their mind on television. This is specifically what the fuck it's about. Unpopular speech. Dangerous speech. Speech that threatens the norm. Not only do we have that right, our readers have that right. The [Backpage] posters have that right.
"We spent 40 years doing journalism, groundbreaking journalism, and they want to take all that away," he says—because "they don't like who exercised their constitutional rights to use our advertising platform. And that has no goddamn bearing. The law doesn't say, 'You get to pick and choose who exercises their constitutional rights by whether or not you like their lifestyle.' It's just incredible."
Not at all ironically, the site Backpage and Craigslist personals that VP Harris shut down are proven to "REDUCE" violence to all women in states where they were used by sex workers.
Craigslist’s Sex Work Ads Saved 2,150 Women’s Lives. A Bill Could Make Such Posts Illegal.
I pretty much cant stand Matt Gaetz but this entire "story" seems like a witch hunt that showed up oddly right after he dared to challenge the same Liz Cheney.
Unfortunately the tiny, lizard-brains of blue anon cultists will, once again, take Glenn's defense of reason and the presumption of innocence as a defense of the politics of Matt Gaetz. They are mentally and psychologically incapable of understanding what acting on (and in defense of) principle is all about, because they have no principles of their own. To them, everything is about tribalism, all the time - that is the beginning and end of their capacity for "reason". Its what allows someone to completely dismiss the rape allegations against Joe Biden or the numerous credible sexual assault allegations against Cuomo while at the same time condemning the behavior of Matt Gaetz, who has not been publicly accused by any women (or by authorities) of wrongdoing. Objective reality and adherence to principle has absolutely no place in the "reasoning" process of Blue Anon cultists, who are much more likely to view these concepts as tenets of white supremacy. It is what allows someone to shed tears of joy while sitting on their couch wearing their pink pussy hat and watching Bill Clinton lead a forum about empowering women (with the lingering waft of vanilla from a Saint Mueller candle burning in the background). It is mental rot, from top to bottom.
I think you misunderstood. My take is that he’s using blue anon to describe those that are attempting to smear all conservatives as Q anon cultists. They are the ones that don’t get GG being principled rather than singing from their hymnal.
It should be clear to anyone with active brain cells that this is nothing more than (yet another example of) character assassination, for purely partisan purposes. Any entrenched Democrat or Rino who refuses to admit or acknowledge this has become an accomplice to libel and fraud. As far as NYT goes, I refer you to a judge's recent ruling concerning investigative journalist outlet Project Veritas vs. NYT: the evidence being so overwhelming that NYT deliberately published false information in a front page expose, then attempted to backtrack their editorial infraction as "opinion" - as if to say a reporter can make egregious statements, so long as they are presented as commentary.
Project Veritas now has a legal greenlight to sue NYT for their libelous reportage, and I will be watching that trial very closely. Meanwhile, part of the problem is that we live in an age where one is "accused" until judicially exonerated: case-in-point, the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings; a political smear campaign presented without a scintilla of credible, verifiable intel -just the word of a political operative with an agenda, abusing the power of the press to pile on the stench of scandal to a man who did nothing wrong. To (correctly) paraphrase Michelle Obama, the mission statement of the Democratic party has become, "when they go high, we stoop to unfathomable lows!"
"when they go high, we stoop to unfathomable lows"
They think they are objectively morally right; and because they are objectively right, their opponents are objectively morally wrong. Therefore any means to win are justified. Somehow they fail to see how this corrupts whatever moral rectitude they may have possessed in the first place.
While the prurient part of the Gaetz story has been garnering all the headlines and fierce debates, the deeper and more troubling details of this saga are being ignored/missed- including by Greenwald.
And it is this: that whatever the truth of Gaetz’s alleged crimes, it appears that Israeli connected officials
a) were aware of the case within the DOJ (how?);
b) attempted to exploit this by trying to essentially extort money from Gaetz to make it all go away (the extortion that Gaetz alleged is denied and instead it is claimed that it was a simple request. In any case, this part of Gaetz’s story has been confirmed)
c) desired the money was for an off-the-book scheme to allegedly free a CIA agent from within Iran using private mercenaries (the astonishing alleged reason for the request for the money was also confirmed);
d) offered that were Gaetz to cooperate, he’d be treated well by the DOJ up to and including a potential pardon by the POTUS (however credible this offer);
All this begs the question(s): how many politicians/elites - including judges/media etc - within the US establishment are being blackmailed in a similar manner with their alleged crimes as bargaining chips for their acquiescence to further covert plans of quasi-governmental orgs? At the least why is there not more coverage of this part of the Gaetz saga?
Contrast the narrative if it turned out that Russians were trying to blackmail Gaetz. The story would then be about how Russia had infiltrated the DOJ, and was trying to manipulate politicians.
All pood points Glenn. Please continue standing for sanity and decency in this insane and no longer decent world. The only defense against baseless smear campaigns is to make everyone understand why they should be ignored and the why the questions should be directed to the authors of such campaign rather than their targets.
I was heavily chewed out by some colleagues and friends this week for arguing this position (i.e., defense of civil liberties should be a solid liberal / left-wing principle) during an informal, after-work conversation. It was a harrowing and depressing experience, especially given that the ire was coming directly from the portion of my + my partner's social circle that are registered Democrats, and vocal about it. I've generally either strategically avoided or been consciously quiet about these political discussions (since when did due process become political?!?!), but I was stupid and spoke up this time. Of course, all the standard horrible, ill-thought out accusations were thrown at me (How dare you defend a pedophile and rapist? Why is he spending so much on a lawyer if he is innocent? [insert a bunch of other idiotic, reactionary arguments]). This weekend is probably one of the first times when I seriously felt alienated enough to probably stop going to certain social events in that milieu.
Or, maybe, I won't be invited anymore anyway since there are enough who can't seem to tell the difference between defending a rapist and defending an alleged rapist's right to defend himself; and I've likely been marked as the former. Just hope they don't think badly of my partner because of it – they're mostly his friends. Oh, well, time to get out the drinks!
I'm sorry you're going through this. As a former lawyer, I find the current zeitgeist of overzealous, partisan and puritanical trial-by-media viscerally offensive. It feels like the political parties are reaching new depths of depravity daily. Why bother even voting at this point?
I stopped voting over 25 years ago. Along with cancelling my cable TV, and driving a Toyota Corolla, it's one of the smartest things I ever did.
“If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, you will always have evil, and you will always have less.”
{attributed to Ralph Nader}
What’s up with the Corolla? Good car?
Yes, it is, actually, but I don't know of any political connection.
I get the sentiment, I loathe both parties equally, but that's what they are counting on that we the people lack the will to actually hold them accountable & to demand competent governance.
I’ve been reading comments on GG’s page since he started it. And I continue to be amazed at how many self described “leftists” are confused by today’s left wing dismantling of enlightenment principles.
History is replete with leftist regimes who systematically eliminated individual liberty. Eventually, that’s what it comes to. Other than in very small numbers like communes or undeveloped indigenous peoples, there is no way to enslave people economically without enslaving them at every level.
Either you defend liberty of every kind, or you end up defending some but not others - you end up comically confused when your compadres turn authoritarian.
I'm not sure what your point is. Defense of civil liberties has always been a left-wing position (classical liberalism is left-wing from the historical perspective). Authoritarianism is not unique to one specific political leaning or party affiliation. Right now, it seems that modern liberalism wants to wear its hat. I'm disappointed, more than confused, that people who I know, who I thought where liberal are consumed by media insanity that they are unable to reason about properly – so that they abandon their principles.
Classic liberalism - and government instituted socialism and/or statist central planning/regulation are philosophical opposites. You cannot have the latter without destroying the former.
To be clear, M. Givemeliberty, here are the two "philosophical opposites":
1) Classical Liberalism
2) Govt. instituted Socialism and/or Statist central planning/regulation
(Is that right?)
Yes
A government, “majority”, gang, whoever, cannot institute socialism without initiating force or the threat of force against others. Which could not be more opposite of classic liberalism.
Thanks. That's what I thought you meant, and I agree with you so much, that I could not possibly agree more!
I personally think we should stop arguing about labels. I just call all these evil authoritarian types “establishment cronies”. Classical liberals and populist right have a lot in common and the establishment cronies hate both of them.
I think labels are important. How is communication possible without common definition?
Fair point and that’s why I refer to them all as establishment cronies.
Ah, and I think I know exactly what you mean!
Oh, my, thank you so much for this: "...there is no way to enslave people economically without enslaving them at every level." I want to add something her, to say it even better, but I can't.
*here, not her
So I used to be a libertarian, and now I’m not. The reason I’m no longer in that frame of mind is because the idea that coercion can only happen by threat of violence or the state is just false. If you are poor, and your entire city is owned by the rich, you have no possible way of getting anything for yourself, expect to enter into an employment contract with one of the rich. You have no bargaining power, so it’s all on their terms; it’s inherently coercive.
Now, you can look at history and see that large parts of this problem do stem from the state - but it is possible for this to happen by someone being a good businessman. We also see that in reality, companies don’t want to endlessly compete amongst themselves to lower prices. The way they generally act is to cartelize to maintain the power they do have, and that seems to happen with or without the help of the state. It’s hard to say for sure if this happens with no state, but you can’t rule it out as a possibility.
I see myself as generally left now, but not in any way because I don’t hold most the enlightenment values, especially those enshrined in the constitution and civil liberties - it’s because I want a society where everyone has the maximum liberty they can have. This requires a safety net and a referee in the market; from the comments I read this seems to be the position that most of the leftists posting here are taking as well. I’m not sure how this is inconsistent with individual liberties. Yes, the richest will lose some “liberty”, but is coercing people with no bargaining power to work for you at an unfair rate really consistent with liberty? I don’t think so.
Personally, I still don’t trust the state. I’d rather have stateless solutions and accomplish a safety net and more equal bargaining power through mutual aid, labor unions, and worker owned enterprises, but as long as the rich control the state and have most of the resources it’s pretty hard to meaningfully do any of those things.
I appreciate your comments but it’s repeatedly contradictory. Liberty only has one meaning and that is freedom from compulsion.
As you say, if the rich control the state, that’s a problem. Wait, control what? The state. As Milton Friedman noted, it’s when business and government form a coalition that we see major problems. This is why the government *has* to be constitutionally forbidden from being engaged in the economy for exactly the same reasons it should be forbidden from deciding who can say what, write what.
The only way to *enforce* socialism is direct force. Much as you might like to think you can have enlightenment principles and state run economies, it’s inherently contradictory and ultimately can only happen at the point of a gun.
And of course in reality, it gets worse, because those who seek power over others do so through the state.
The fact remains that an individual can and do choose not to work for someone, are free to leave a given area. Reality does not confer upon humans the natural state of abundance and freedom from the problem of survival. There is no centrally planned solution to such problem without engaging in the worst kind of evils that result in the opposite of the stated intentions. Plus an almost infinite list of slightly leas evil evils.
The whole “wage slavery” notion is straight out of Marx, perpetuated by disguised Marxists like Chomsky. It’s both philosophically and economically bankrupt.
I’ve got news for you: the rich control the state in socialist slave pens. It doesn’t change that. Fight for a total separation of state and economics to solve that, don’t fight for more government- it quite literally only makes it worse.
I expected this answer and don’t have much to say in response, except that we disagree on the possibility of wage slavery. Wage slavery is not inherent in the market as the marxists say, but it can happen. Unless you have some kind of homesteading or common land available it’s impossible to say it hasn’t happened and doesn’t happen. Maybe if the state never existed it wouldn’t be possible, but that’s not the world we live in.
I agree with you 100% on central planning; it is completely ridiculous. There is nothing centrally planned about mutual aid, labor unions, or worker cooperatives though, which are what I actually advocate for.
I also don’t consider Friedman a libertarian. His career accomplishments are ripe with all kinds of state intervention in markets and his monetarism is inherently based on it. Find me a quote from an Austrian that says the same thing and I’ll accept it haha
"I also don’t consider Friedman a libertarian." Which is to say, you disagree with Mr. Friedman, but I quibble.
Wage slavery (note the absence of scare quotes) is a problem in EVERY politico-economic system. In what systems is it ALWAYS much worse than in true Capitalism, or even in today's pseudo-Capitalism (the 50/50 mixed economy)?
My writing leaves something to be desired, but the jab at Friedman was meant to be annoyed sarcasm, hopefully it came across that way. Reading Misesabd Hayek has certainly enriched my life, but I can’t say the same for Friedman.
I don’t have time to write up my entire reasoning as to why I have moved to a left-leaning position, but I will simply say it is largely my acknowledgement that wage slavery is a real phenomenon but also that in some cases, commonly held property performs excellently compared to private property and helps to reduce the problems of unequal bargaining power.
On the former, I want labor movements to have the ability to bargain for worker rights in any situation - with no state intervention. Frankly today with the leviathan of the state, it’s hard to see unions as anything other than a busy body collective. In the absence of state intervention this is a much different story. On the latter, I will simply suggest you read “Managing the Commons” by Elinor Ostrom. I would also suggest that there are many thousands of successful worker cooperatives, especially in Europe, that seem
to be more stable in the long run than standard privately held business are on
average - for example, mondragon in Spain or Emilia-romagna in Italy.
But even the poor can build capital. (Over generations, that eliminates pverty status. How do you think the lucky wealthy exist?)
*poverty
I find that current environment basically forces people prone not to let imposed on them assumed positions get by unchallenged to simply avoid any social events where such situation may arise.
While I am skeptical of applying civil liberties to the court of public opinion, I can about guarantee you that your goodthink liberal friends would be singing a different tune if it was happening to someone on Team D.
Witness the same liberals who insisted that any sexual contact between a male supervisor and female subordinate was prima face sexual harassment, if not outright rape, because power relations, suddenly started singing a different tune when the perpetrator was one W. Clinton.
Not to mention the tortured legal defenses they came up with in defending their beloved fat boy, how perjury isn't really perjury when the subject is sex, etc..
Exhibit A: I think Cuomo is on accuser #9. After some noise it's near radio silence now.
"It's just about SEX, you dirty Republicans."
(I am commenting without reading the responses to this post.)
M. Rajeev Ram, you are very well-spoken here, but stand your ground! Do not " stop going to certain social events in that milieu." I think you could change some minds.
But mostly I want to respond to this: "...(since when did due process become political?!?!),..."
Dude! "Due process" could be the most important political issue of all time!!!
Saying the right thing is never stupid.
It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever. David St. Hubbins
The trust I have for legacy media is so far in the negative at this point, my bias just jumped to the conclusion that Gaetz is probably just a threat they are neutralizing. It's so bad at this point I literally believe the opposite of what the narrative is. I probably need therapy due to trust issues and all the gaslighting from the media at this point.
So true. Anything they assert I doubt. Very sad.
Keep throwing poxes at all their houses. Its well deserved...
But if Liz Cheney defends him I don’t trust him
It DOES work both ways. But that, in and of itself, does not indicate who is closer to the truth.
From my own Substack, article entitled Ready, Shoot, Aim: "The Representative Matt Gaetz affair is troubling on every level. I am what Arabs call Abu Binat, Father of Daughters. Sexual predators have no place in society. If Matt Gaetz is a sexual predator, he needs to be removed from society. Following investigation, trial and conviction. Under the Doctrine of Ready, Shoot, Aim, he is presumed guilty based on rumors. That flies in the face of two centuries of US jurisprudence. Even Jeffrey Dahmer had to be afforded due process.
The New York Times cited anonymous sources in proclaiming that Gaetz was under Department of Justice investigation for possible violation of sex trafficking laws. It includes breath-taking statements, such as “It was not clear how Mr. Gaetz met the girl, believed to be 17 at the time of encounters about two years ago that investigators are scrutinizing, according to two of the people.” Bravo. The Times assumes that Gaetz met the girl; I don’t know why one wouldn’t lead that bit of rumor with “It was not clear whether Mr. Gaetz met the girl, whose identity is unknown, nor how he met her.” That narrative is more complete, which might be the problem. It doesn’t meet the standards for Ready, Shoot, Aim.
The Times goes on to cast guilt-by-association accusations of inviting a Holocaust denier to a State of the Union Speech, attending an event where security was provided by the Proud Boys, and “barging past Capitol Police into the secure rooms of the House Intelligence Committee to briefly break up the (impeachment) investigation of the President.” I’d like to address each of these in order.
Fifty-five years ago, in college, I invited a KKK member to an integrated social event. One attendee was even an admitted homosexual. I know no better way to deal with bigots than to force them to confront their bigotry. Is that what happened with the Holocaust denier? I don’t know. Neither does the Times.
In 2008, the New Black Panther Party (it and the Proud Boys are both led by African-Americans) provided polling place armed security in Philadelphia. That does not justify disapproval of Philadelphia voters. As for the hearings into impeachment of a President, those have always been conducted in public by the House Judiciary Committee. Secret hearings are the stuff of tyrants, and impeaching a president based on the accusation of someone not called to testify is simply unacceptable in a non-authoritarian regime. As distasteful as I found President Trump personally, I find it far more distasteful to compromise a solemn constitutional duty for partisan advantage. I’m only sorry I wasn’t there “barging by” with them.
The most bothersome accusation from the Times was 'Given Mr. Gaetz’s national profile, senior Justice Department officials in Washington — including some appointed by Mr. Trump — were notified of the investigation, the people said.' Imagine my horror at the idea of the Department of Justice investigator notifying an Assistant Attorney General - appointed by Trump!!!!! – that he was investigating a Member of Congress.
Later, the Times applied the coup de grace: “The Times has reviewed receipts from Cash App, a mobile payments app, and Apple Pay that show payments from Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Greenberg to one of the women, and a payment from Mr. Greenberg to a second woman. The women told their friends that the payments were for sex with the two men, according to two people familiar with the conversations.”
Yet again anonymously sourced. I’ll assume the receipts exist, I’ll assume that the unidentified women told their unidentified friends that the payments were for sex with the two men, according to two other unidentified sources. The idea that this evidence would be adjudicated admissible in a court, without the receipts themselves bearing the notation “Payment for sex with a minor” or something equivalent, is bizarre. The idea that a first-day prosecutor who barely passed the bar exam would consider prosecuting based on that evidence is delusional.
Yes, Mr. Gaetz is under investigation. If it is concluded that he violated any federal laws, or at any time engaged in predatory behavior with minors, then try him, convict him and jail him. Assuming his guilt from the accusation is a witch trial. Note that there is no input from anyone familiar with how investigations are begun and conducted. Let me provide the missing part:
The federal investigation was opened of a corrupt politician in Florida, an associate of Gaetz. Please spare me the pearl-clutching about associating with a corrupt politician. If you are in politics it is impossible to avoid. Any crime carrying a potential felony conviction, especially of a public official, triggers a look at the target’s close associates because they are first potential witnesses, and second potential accomplices. Thus, an investigation was opened into Gaetz. That is standard investigative procedure.
I've personally been the subject of two federal investigations, both for alleged felonies, both closed due to lack of evidence. I didn't mind. I trusted that due process would apply. Since November 2016 due process has been optional, based on the political affiliation of the accused.
Censorship is only one horror of authoritarianism. We have at least four years to go, more likely eight. With the filibuster gone and the Supreme Court packed with the "right" justices, I fear we are seeing the death of our country.
The media misspelled “Hunter Biden”
I am so grateful that we have one journalist to defend true liberality. Glenn, I followed you on Twitter until I canceled my account. Now I subscribe directly. Worth every penny.
At the moment the Gaetz thing smells like a Democrat hit job...we'll see what happens. That said, no one has investigated Democrat Swalwell who was keeping company with a Chinese spy AND who sits on the Intelligence Committee in Congress.
The FBI took the unusual step of warning Swalwell who then informed his honeypot and she fled the country in response.
That should have resulted in multiple dismissals at the FBI.
Nah. They knew they could get a copy of the video from Swallwell.
*Swalwell. Sorry, Swalwell!
I sent a letter to my rep...wtf else can I do, the Swallwell shit is embarrassing as a CA resident.
Not just a democrat but job. It smells like an establishment but job especially with Liz Cheney who hates Gaetz and Gaetz was travelling to her state to get her primaried. Gaetz is also anti war and supported tulsi on that.
If you hadn't said it, I would have! Sure havent seen the GOP coming to his defense.
Uniparty always wins.
Thank you Glenn. But why talk about Matt Gaetz having inappropriate sex while Hunter Biden has documented inappropriate sex COULD WE PLEASE talk instead about the impending Biden (Soros dictated) financial crisis ahead of us and the Border crisis not to mention the Constitution being destroyed? This is just bullshit crap deflecting us from the real problems being created every day with Biden's Ex Orders. Why are you playing into this, Glenn?
Since you seem to care about "the Constitution being destroyed", then you should care very much about this story – in which the corporate-media complex is incentivizing people to culturally discard the cultural value of due process. That's as much a concern as any other when it comes to the problems of American society.
Thank you. This was my thought as well, but you expressed it more eloquently.
The constitution has no authority
It is relevant, it's how they nullify a threat. That's kinda the point of you look at it. Gaetz was the resistance to exactly what you speak of. It's a targeted attack. They have actual data of illegal Hunter activity and he gets the nightshow circuit and book deal.
Think about it.
Agree. Much bigger fish to fry.
Presumed innocent humans should be defended. There is time for both offense AND defense.
How did our right to consensually fuck with impunity lose ground to the prune lipped arbiters of morality?
Good question for the left.
There will always be prune-lipped arbiters of morality in any crowd.
Very few people blankety support *consensual fucking with impunity*. With great fucking comes great responsibility. There is widespread support for consensual fucking with responsibility. Responsibilities include consideration of informed and aware and expressed and not-withdrawn consent, planned pregnancy or planned non-pregnancy, disease prevention. And some attention to current laws in the relevant jurisdiction. Wouldn’t you agree this is a common position for people on the left? I think it is.
You seem to forget that Roman Polanski got a standing ovation at the Oscars not too long ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnNOBj26lk
Oh, no! Now we "need' a 'prune lipped arbiter of morality" axis. :(
Because the alleged perp is Team R.
If a Team D representative were alleged to have done the same thing, the same people who are howling with rage and accusation would be twisting themselves into knots trying to justify the accused, and vice versa.
That's close. .. it's because T.r.u.m.p.
*ie. by all accounts Trump is a consensual fucker, therefore from now on all fucking is bad. .. too.
Dang it, that's true.
Sex has always been a boggieman in American dating back to the white slave panic of the last century that's almost identical to the sex trafficking moral panic, particularly towards Asian women we are experiencing now. Since sex workers represent the most marginalized part of society, I don't think you can discuss this topic around the "morality police" without including them.
We rarely pass laws that specifically name their intended target, (the sodomy laws used exclusively against the gay community until recently) but we continually come up with new names to criminalize the same groups we always target.
One of the very first things suffragists did when they gained the vote in 1920 was criminalize alcohol and sex work. Similar to that movement, the current anti sex movement is largely led by privileged women of both parties targeting immigrant women. Also like the 1920, there was growing widespread xenophobia against all Asians, but especially Asian women:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
-Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers. Building on the earlier Page Act of 1875 which banned Chinese women from immigrating to the United States, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first, and remains the only law to have been implemented, to prevent all members of a specific ethnic or national group from immigrating to the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_riot_of_1885
Tacoma riot of 1885
Expulsion and destruction of Chinese community
On the morning of November 3 at 9:30 AM, 200 to 300 white citizens of Tacoma gathered on Pacific Avenue.[52] The mob had shortly thereafter grown to nearly 500 people.[53] The mob marched from Seventeenth Street to Old Tacoma, stopping at each Chinese residence and business to tell the people within to pack and be ready for a wagon to come at 1:30 PM that day to take them away.[54] They visited the homes and businesses of white citizens who had refused to fire their Chinese employees, delivering their message to them as well.[55] The mob acted methodically and militaristically in their action to expel the Chinese population of Tacoma, and many of the men were armed with either guns or clubs.[56]
https://www.seattlemet.com/web-exclusives/2010/01/red-light-history-0210
-1884 A new ordinance bans “soliciting prostitution upon any of the public streets,” and the mere presence of “dissolute Indian women” after dark. Its effect is to favor the brothels and “box houses”—low-end theaters whose actresses hustle drinks and sexual services—staffed by white and Asian women.
- 1891 City Hall tries to clamp down by raiding Whitechapel, the Lava Bed’s French quarter. The raids spare white and target Asian women, who seem to have replaced Indians as targets of outrage.
-March 1903 U.S. and Japanese officials announce a campaign to break up the burgeoning trade in “white slaves”—young women imported for the sex trade by procurers posing as husbands with new brides—from Japan. They estimate that 500 are kept as sex slaves in Washington alone.
"The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers."
Was it because of over-whelming numbers? Partly?
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll give it a shot. There was growing hostility in the West due to Chinese low wage labor brought in to work on and around the railroads in the late 1800's. There was also a "White Slave Panic" that started in England and moved to the US at the beginning of the 19th century.
Ostensibly the White Slave panic was about preventing dark skinned men from kidnapping young white women and selling them into sex slavery, but in practice it was a law used to go after interracial couples around the country using the White Slave Mann Act to arrest black men for dating white women and to harass, arrest and deport Asian women working out West in the brothels. It's exactly the same two groups our current sex trafficking panic is primarily targeting.
https://reason.com/2008/03/13/the-white-slavery-panic/
It was crazy. White women were told not to eat in Asian restaurants for fear they would be kidnapped and sold into sex slavery. Pretty much Ping Pong Pizza Gate with the same media, law enforcement and primarily middle class white women that are leading the current charge against all sex work in the name of fighting sex trafficking. We are literally using the same Memes of a dark hand over a young white girls mouth common in awareness raising "sex trafficking" that they used 100 years ago to fight white slavery.
Interesting side note. The FBI that got it's start under TR was primarily an East Coast group until the White Slave Panic. Then they were called on to set up shops all across the country to fight white slavery. It's how they went from a local to a national police force.
"Since sex workers represent the most marginalized part of society, I don't think you can discuss this topic around the "morality police" without including them."
Wish I'd said that!
Their constant clutching of their pearls has perhaps resulted in brain damage?
And can someone please explain why Hunter Biden is getting away with lying on his gun application form abut his use of drugs (for which he was booted from the Navy), his drug use, his inability to pay federal taxes for long periods of time, etc, etc.....this dude has gotten a major pass because his dad is (trying to be) President.
Concisely and well said. The blatant double standard is utterly mind blowing.
Thank you very much. The astonishing and criminal behavior of Kamala Harris, detailed in below link, hugely increased risks to sex workers in the US:
http://reason.com/archives/2018/08/21/backpage-founders-larkin-and-lacey-speak
Kamala Harris' office accused him of pimping, including some counts involving minors. The Texas state attorney general said he was "making money off...modern-day slavery."
Lacey and Larkin were also arrested and charged with "conspiracy to commit pimping." They spent four days jailed in Sacramento, California. Harris, who at the time was running for the U.S. Senate, called them "despicable" and labeled Backpage "the world's top online brothel."
News of the arrest was covered extensively in major media outlets, with Harris quoted prominently. Her complaint was that bad actors and teenagers sometimes used the site—and her evidence that Backpage "knew" this to be true was that it reported suspected underage ads to NCMEC and cooperated with police. Harris was using Backpage's history of working with law enforcement against it.
"Make no mistake," said Lacey and Larkin in statement that month. "Harris has won all that she was looking to win when she had us arrested. Like Sheriff Arpaio, she issued her sanctimonious public statement, controlled her media cycle and got her 'perp walk' on the evening news." While such targeting was not new to them, this was the first time a state had decided it was "okay to consider the First Amendment implications after, not before, hauling people off to jail."
In early December, a Sacramento Superior Court judge dismissed the case. On December 23, with just a few days left in office, Harris tried again, filing new conspiracy-to-commit-pimping charges against Lacey, Larkin, and Ferrer, along with allegations of money laundering. Ferrer also faced 12 counts of pimping. Again, all pimping and conspiracy charges were dismissed, though the judge allowed a money-laundering case to proceed.
"We've never, ever broken the law," Larkin says. "Never have, never wanted to. This isn't really—I know this is probably heresy—this isn't about sex work to me. This is about speech."
"This is the biggest speech battle in America right now," Lacey adds. "The First Amendment isn't about protecting the rights of the McLaughlin Group to speak their mind on television. This is specifically what the fuck it's about. Unpopular speech. Dangerous speech. Speech that threatens the norm. Not only do we have that right, our readers have that right. The [Backpage] posters have that right.
"We spent 40 years doing journalism, groundbreaking journalism, and they want to take all that away," he says—because "they don't like who exercised their constitutional rights to use our advertising platform. And that has no goddamn bearing. The law doesn't say, 'You get to pick and choose who exercises their constitutional rights by whether or not you like their lifestyle.' It's just incredible."
PS: When I posted the same on a Glenn's YouTube video -- the post was - what else -- nearly instantly deleted.
Censoring the astonishing behavior and crime of current US VP at display -- although she hugely increased risks to US sex workers.
Great post BP, you summed things up nicely here.
A great article on how secret memos found during discovery prove that they government was lying about children on Backpage all along:
https://reason.com/2019/08/26/secret-memos-show-the-government-has-been-lying-about-backpage/
Not at all ironically, the site Backpage and Craigslist personals that VP Harris shut down are proven to "REDUCE" violence to all women in states where they were used by sex workers.
Craigslist’s Sex Work Ads Saved 2,150 Women’s Lives. A Bill Could Make Such Posts Illegal.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/online-ads-keep-sex-workers-safer-this-bill-could-make-those-ads-illegal_n_5ab16105e4b0decad044d0c0
Kamala Harris also went on to sponsor SESTA/FOSTA that also placed sex workers at greater risk by taking down all their online advertising.
I'm not sure why Kamala Harris hates sex workers so much, but I wish she would stop trying to kill them.
Thank you -- we need to push the truth out in the light - light that disinfect the "US Justice"
I pretty much cant stand Matt Gaetz but this entire "story" seems like a witch hunt that showed up oddly right after he dared to challenge the same Liz Cheney.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gaetz-traveling-to-wyoming-to-take-aim-at-cheney-amid-uproar-over-her-trump-impeachment-vote
Unfortunately the tiny, lizard-brains of blue anon cultists will, once again, take Glenn's defense of reason and the presumption of innocence as a defense of the politics of Matt Gaetz. They are mentally and psychologically incapable of understanding what acting on (and in defense of) principle is all about, because they have no principles of their own. To them, everything is about tribalism, all the time - that is the beginning and end of their capacity for "reason". Its what allows someone to completely dismiss the rape allegations against Joe Biden or the numerous credible sexual assault allegations against Cuomo while at the same time condemning the behavior of Matt Gaetz, who has not been publicly accused by any women (or by authorities) of wrongdoing. Objective reality and adherence to principle has absolutely no place in the "reasoning" process of Blue Anon cultists, who are much more likely to view these concepts as tenets of white supremacy. It is what allows someone to shed tears of joy while sitting on their couch wearing their pink pussy hat and watching Bill Clinton lead a forum about empowering women (with the lingering waft of vanilla from a Saint Mueller candle burning in the background). It is mental rot, from top to bottom.
I think you misunderstood. My take is that he’s using blue anon to describe those that are attempting to smear all conservatives as Q anon cultists. They are the ones that don’t get GG being principled rather than singing from their hymnal.
Just someone with an agenda dripping poison into a reporter's ear. That's all it took for this to snowball. Reporters are such easy marks.
It should be clear to anyone with active brain cells that this is nothing more than (yet another example of) character assassination, for purely partisan purposes. Any entrenched Democrat or Rino who refuses to admit or acknowledge this has become an accomplice to libel and fraud. As far as NYT goes, I refer you to a judge's recent ruling concerning investigative journalist outlet Project Veritas vs. NYT: the evidence being so overwhelming that NYT deliberately published false information in a front page expose, then attempted to backtrack their editorial infraction as "opinion" - as if to say a reporter can make egregious statements, so long as they are presented as commentary.
Project Veritas now has a legal greenlight to sue NYT for their libelous reportage, and I will be watching that trial very closely. Meanwhile, part of the problem is that we live in an age where one is "accused" until judicially exonerated: case-in-point, the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings; a political smear campaign presented without a scintilla of credible, verifiable intel -just the word of a political operative with an agenda, abusing the power of the press to pile on the stench of scandal to a man who did nothing wrong. To (correctly) paraphrase Michelle Obama, the mission statement of the Democratic party has become, "when they go high, we stoop to unfathomable lows!"
I hope project Veritas wins the entire suit! They have a record of never losing if I remember right?
That's correct - because sometimes, the truth is a powerful disinfectant.
"when they go high, we stoop to unfathomable lows"
They think they are objectively morally right; and because they are objectively right, their opponents are objectively morally wrong. Therefore any means to win are justified. Somehow they fail to see how this corrupts whatever moral rectitude they may have possessed in the first place.
I too hope Veritas sues them into oblivion.
While the prurient part of the Gaetz story has been garnering all the headlines and fierce debates, the deeper and more troubling details of this saga are being ignored/missed- including by Greenwald.
And it is this: that whatever the truth of Gaetz’s alleged crimes, it appears that Israeli connected officials
a) were aware of the case within the DOJ (how?);
b) attempted to exploit this by trying to essentially extort money from Gaetz to make it all go away (the extortion that Gaetz alleged is denied and instead it is claimed that it was a simple request. In any case, this part of Gaetz’s story has been confirmed)
c) desired the money was for an off-the-book scheme to allegedly free a CIA agent from within Iran using private mercenaries (the astonishing alleged reason for the request for the money was also confirmed);
d) offered that were Gaetz to cooperate, he’d be treated well by the DOJ up to and including a potential pardon by the POTUS (however credible this offer);
All this begs the question(s): how many politicians/elites - including judges/media etc - within the US establishment are being blackmailed in a similar manner with their alleged crimes as bargaining chips for their acquiescence to further covert plans of quasi-governmental orgs? At the least why is there not more coverage of this part of the Gaetz saga?
Contrast the narrative if it turned out that Russians were trying to blackmail Gaetz. The story would then be about how Russia had infiltrated the DOJ, and was trying to manipulate politicians.
Well we know Biden has been bought more times than a Vegas hooker so...there’s that
"The story would then be about how Russia had infiltrated the DOJ..."
No, the story would be how Russia had infiltrated the Republican Party.
All pood points Glenn. Please continue standing for sanity and decency in this insane and no longer decent world. The only defense against baseless smear campaigns is to make everyone understand why they should be ignored and the why the questions should be directed to the authors of such campaign rather than their targets.