Discussion for article #244286
Kinda thinking she didnât know the answer.
It doesnât have an answer.
âYou know the argument on the other side, which is, these ranchers â whom you support but are not directly involved â had their day in court. And they were found guilty, and it went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied their appeal. Isnât that the way itâs supposed to work in our country when it comes to the rule of law?â she asked. (Megyn Kelly)
Kelly is smart ⌠and shows it once in awhile. I wish sheâd do this all the time â I might consider tuning in.
Jail the seditious asshats. All of them.
âIf Iâve lost Cronkite, Iâve lost Middle America.â Lyndon Johnson, February 27, 1968.
Typical Megyn interview. Ask the obvious question most people are thinking about to appear tough ⌠then, let the subject ramble on with their bullshit talking points, unchallenged. TPM and other media wet themselves because Megyn asked an obvious question and consequently gives Megyn and her guest more exposure to spout off with their BS by embedding the clip. Foxâs true target listens to the guestâs talking points while most progressives gush over Megynâs toughness and ignore that the talking points are smoothly delivered, unchallenged.
#Megyn Kelly: âSo, you have taken over a bird sanctuary. Youâre camping outâŚessentially.â
Itâs FOX Noise that is promoting a lot of this crap, most notably with their coverage using Rightie loon Pete Santilli as the go to spokesman for the âmilitiaâ woowoos. SoâŚto hell with FOX and news reader Kelly.
Which is exactly why I wonât tune in â I know her game, and find it nauseating. Donât ever want to give these idiots more ratings. Great GIF, btw.
Why are camera crews allowed into this âoccupiedâ space? This is ridiculous, they should have the electricity cut off and their phones as well. I canât believe that these criminals are allowed to get interviews on TV!
Maybe if we heard the POV of those still at Gitmo the whole world would see what they were fighting for too.
So if the plantiff is the government itâs not a legitimate lawsuit? Huh.
Whole subject in itself, and intriguing. BBC had an interesting report from the site. Purely guessing it seems like the plan is to be minimally invasive, as medical folks say, not even seal the site up, just let them sit there until they start to feel silly enough to trail off home. Then the county or whoever can send the summonses at their leisure.
'Course; now; legitimately; it can be considered a âTurd Sanctuaryâ.
No, it has an answer. Its the Federal Government acting on behalf of the American people, as it is in all federal crimes.
He is trying to make some argument that nobody was hurt, that there is nobody that can âsueâ because the land belongs to âthemâ. But this isnât a civil case, its a criminal caseâŚthat is why they are going to jail.
The proper redress is to present a defense for their actions, which they did. If they feel they werenât given the opportunity to do that in the trial case, they can appeal, which they did.
And I am pretty sure Kelly knows this, she did attend and graduate law schoolâŚeven worked for a law firm briefly upon graduation. She simply doesnât want to engage him in his argument,because it makes it appear he actually has a valid argument. And he doesnât.
The irony is, he is doing the same thing that Fox does day in, day out, for yearsâŚessentially. Present a bizarre, nutso theory and claim âits valid!â because its opposite.
I fer one am pleased a peacock in a peahen den that this fine upstandinâ fellerâs given his word that there ainât nobody gonna git kilt er laid up in no way during this here gubâmint invasion of Orygone. âCause yâknow if the word ainât bond with these Bundy-folk then ahâm a tick on the hairy rump of an olâ heffer. Theyâs good God fearinâ folk. Jesâ trying to take whatâs thars.
The answer? There is not a plaintiff in a criminal matter. Thereâs a prosecutor who is always the government. Thereâs nothing worse than morons who think they are being clever. If, as an attorney, Megyn didnât know the answer to that question, sheâs even dumber than I thought. My suspicion? She knew the answer, but wanted to make sure she didnât make one of the mouth breather Bundys look like the complete inbred idiots they are. Better question: why are you defending the Hammonds, who by the way donât actually want your support, arsonists that started a fire on Federal land to cover up their other crime of poaching? Further, did you know that one of the Hammonds is also a child abuser? Do you support child abuse, Mr. Bundy? Not in any way shape or form a noble cause or noble people to be supporting.
This interview shows the Catch-22 Fox has gotten itself into. Theyâve been praising anti-government violence in the abstract for years, but when someone engages in specific anti-government violence they have to be âtoughâ on them because otherwise theyâd lose market share.
Theyâll chalk that up as another victory, just like the standoff at the Bundy ranch, and then it will keep happening until there are serious consequences. Iâm not sure a summons from the county is enough to compel anything out of these lawless assholes. But I do get that the feds really donât want to turn this into a bloodbath. I honestly think starving them out is the way to go.
Whatâs the matter with TPM? This silly woman simply didnât know the answer to the guyâs question. She was stuck. Confused. She didnât shut anyone down; she was hoping the guy would clarify the point he was trying to make. In TPMâs rush to dump on this yahoo, it incorrectly enlisted Ms. Kelly. A suggestion for the New Year: Hire an adult.
How do you take âhis brother Ryan Bundy said that he was willing to kill or be killed at the wildlife refuge in OregonââŚwhich the idiot did sayâŚâout of contextâ? What context do you wrap that in to make it a benign statement? Perhaps Ms. Kelly could have asked the asshole that?