web analytics

Tyranny

By Patrick Van Roy On January 22nd, 2020

In the wake of the Virginia gun rights rally on Monday, Democrats in the Capitol are not slowing down their push for tyranny. They are moving a bill through the legislature that would effectively criminalize dissent against Governor Blackface Northam and other state government officials.

House Bill 1627 was introduced by Delegate Jeffrey M. Bourne last week. The legislation “provides that certain crimes relating to threats and harassment may be prosecuted in the City of Richmond if the victim is the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.”

Language in the bill explicitly criminalizes free speech, in what would constitute a blatant attack on the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

“If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor,” the legislation reads.

First the Democrats of Virginia came for their Guns…… Why ? So they can now curtail their citizens Free Speech. Democrats and those that support them hate America and the Rights of it’s citizens…. and by gum they’re going to fix that !

109 Responses to “Tyranny”

  1. Threats are illegal now, as would be much harassment

    Criticism and mockery are legal free speech in the US. Any law that infringes on speech will be shut down right quick.

  2. not in Virginia

  3. Note that your president has made similar proposals, as president, to ” open up the libel laws ” or something to suppress speech critical of himself and other politicians.

    He has always, always, used lawsuits, including the most phony ones, as a weapon to attack people.

  4. He’s your President also….. or are you finally leaving ?

    Using Lawsuits is not the same as writing Laws against the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

    A President can not write Laws…. if you understood your own country you might know that, but as with so many things you know nothing.

  5. By Michael M. Grynbaum
    Jan. 10, 2018

    451
    President Trump on Wednesday repeated a pledge to make it easier for people to sue news organizations and publishers for defamation, denouncing the country’s libel laws as a “sham” a day after his personal lawyer filed a lawsuit against a major media outlet, BuzzFeed News.

    The salvo from Mr. Trump, who has long expressed hostility toward traditional press freedoms, followed a days-long effort by him and his team to undercut the unflattering portrayal of the White House in a new book by the writer Michael Wolff.

    “We are going to take a strong look at our country’s libel laws, so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts,” Mr. Trump said during a public portion of a cabinet meeting in the White House.

    The president added, “Our current libel laws are a sham and a disgrace and do not represent American values or American fairness.”

    NYT

    US politicians have long been subject to robust criticism by the press. Trump wishes to end that. He wants the US to be like Singapore, where all criticism is deemed ” false ” , leading to financial and criminal punishment by the state.

  6. What Laws can a President write Phantom ? NONE

    You keep reading your propaganda paper…..

  7. What he wants to do would be to repeal the First Amendment.

    No reporter would dare to criticize a rich and vindictive politician

    We would be in the exact same place re speech that Singapore is in now, with even worse libel laws than England has.

  8. AFAIK there aren’t even federal libel laws.

    It is a state matter.

    Your stable genius doesn’t know that. But he keeps muttering these threats.

  9. The President can’t repeal anything, and can’t write any Laws. Only Congress can.

    If you knew how this country worked you wouldn’t be so gullible.

  10. So then why does your president make such repeated threats

    Yes, it would require a constitutional amendment to repeal the First Amendment the way that he proposes to do

  11. The VA politicians, like Trump, don’t have the power to repeal the First Amendment, however much they may wish to get rid of it.

  12. The VA politicians, like Trump, don’t have the power to repeal the First Amendment, however much they may wish to get rid of it.

  13. It’s not stopping them. They have now written Laws against both the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

  14. Pat if you’re squealing now just wait till Trump is out and Dems have the treble .
    WH Senate House . Yo really gobna be crying .
    Basically we’ve had enough of your BS.
    Too many kids dying and massacres.
    We coming from 2 things
    1) your guns
    2) your lying bitch azzes

  15. They have not done anything against the second amendment

    That’s hogwash.

  16. If you knew how this country worked you wouldn’t be so gullible

    Perhaps it’s your guy in the WH who doesn’t know how the country works?

  17. Really ?

    So all those protesters that you call bums and terrorists were protesting nothing….. Oh ok skippy

  18. Trumps not going anywhere Kurt

  19. You’re fine with your boy attacking speech rights?

    No problem with him saying that

    You have no problem with anything that he says!

  20. Since he’s powerless Phantom to do anything it doesn’t worry or bother me. If he had the power to do anything I’d be concerned.

  21. If he had the power to do anything I’d be concerned

    “We are going to take a strong look at our country’s libel laws, so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts,” Mr. Trump said during a public portion of a cabinet meeting in the White House.

    The president added, “Our current libel laws are a sham and a disgrace and do not represent American values or American fairness.”

    Then why does he make such statements? Does he not know the limits of his powers?

    Libel laws exist to protect the average Joe. Do you guys consider laws which make people amenable to the courts for defamation and untruth as an attack on speech rights?

  22. Libel laws should exist to protect everyone, including the rich and powerful.

    But never to shield the rich and powerful from robust criticism.

    You would think that someone who pretends to care about speech would have something to say about a president of the US who wants to repeal speech rights, but no. These guys won’t criticize Trump on anything in any serious way.

  23. I agree Phantom however that wasn’t the question.

    Do you consider libel laws an attack on speech rights and if so what do you think should be done to protect the ordinary Joe from libel?

  24. There are basically no unlimited rights, nor should they be

    Prohibitions on child porn, on inciteful threats, on false and defamatory statements are morally and legally correct.

    If I wish to say that Congressman Joe is a no good bum that’s my right.

    If I say that he stole a million dollars from the orphanage when he didn’t, I can be successfully sued.

  25. Prohibitions on child porn, on inciteful threats, on false and defamatory statements are morally and legally correct.

    I’ll take it by that you don’t then agree with the premise that libel laws an attack on speech rights then.

    If I say that he stole a million dollars from the orphanage when he didn’t, I can be successfully sued

    Isn’t that similar recourse to Irish / Brit libel laws?

  26. Apoligies. The first quote above should be blocked.

  27. British libel law is more speech threatening than US libel law

    Its a long discussion.

  28. I don’t know if that’s tha case as I’m unfamiliar with US libel law.

    Isn’t the suing, (so beloved in the US), for defamation avenue a similar recourse to libel law in Ireland / Britain?

  29. British libel law is a disgrace and has been a disgrace for a long time.

    This is one issue where Pete and I are I think in agreement

    This Sunday, HBO is airing the documentary Going Clear, about the Church of Scientology, to strong reviews. The nonfiction book on which the film is based was short-listed for the National Book Award.

    Yet there have been serious challenges to releasing the film and the book in the U.K. That’s because Britain does not have the same free speech protections as the United States.

    As with many other works of investigative journalism, publishing Going Clear in the U.K. could expose the authors to a much more serious risk of lawsuits than they face in the U.S.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways

    NPR
    2015

  30. The British law and custom is tilted towards the benefit of the powerful who do not want to be criticized.

    There is much extended commentary on this.

    British libel law is a disgrace.

    Barry McGuigan the boxer lost a costly libel lawsuit to his ex manager in British courts back in the day. In the US any judge would have thrown out the case in five minutes.

    Very different systems.

    On this one, US law and custom IMO is far superior than the British.

  31. It was broadcast in England & Scotland in June 2015:

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/scientology-documentary-going-clears-international-806731

  32. The British law and custom is tilted towards the benefit of the powerful who do not want to be criticized

    I think it’s absolutely the oppisite. Libel law exists so the ordinary man in the street has recourse to any untruths made by the rich and powerful.

    British libel law is a disgrace

    Your reasoning for this?

  33. Yes, but the issue exists in the UK, and it is a danger that every international publishing/media company keeps in mind at all times.

    The US had to pass laws against ” libel tourism ” where people would bring libel lawsuits in the UK and expect the verdicts to be enforced here.

  34. Paul

    This has been discussed at some length here before, with Pete and I in I think agreement.

    We can’t keep resurrecting complex issues as though they’d never come up before.

    Trump wants the bad British system here. Pat can’t bring himself to criticize that, I do criticize that.

  35. Nothing the Virginia Democrats have proposed has resulted in one gun being confiscated. Nothing in the proposed harassment law offends the First Amendment. No one has a Constitutional right to threaten or harass someone.

  36. Yes I know that it’s been discussed before and while you may disagree with them I think a ‘disgrace’ is somewhat extreme.

    The libel laws exist largely as a shield for the common man which I think generally in the main is a good thing.

    We can’t keep resurrecting complex issues as though they’d never come up before

    I’ll keep that in mind the next time immigration and Brexit are mentioned here.

  37. House Bill 1627 was introduced by Delegate Jeffrey M. Bourne last week. The legislation “provides that certain crimes relating to threats and harassment may be prosecuted in the City of Richmond if the victim is the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.”

    Threats have always been against the law in every state.

    Harassment has I think been illegal too.

    What is this law attempting to do that is new? Nothing? I don’t think so.

    Why do these named individuals get “protection” that others do not get?

  38. Paul

    You have no idea of the problems that people have with English libel law?

    Maybe you should read up on it.

    It’s hardly a secret.

    Why are you pretending not to know anything?

  39. Paul

    You have no idea of the problems that people have with English libel law?

    Maybe you should read up on it.

    It’s hardly a secret.

    Why are you pretending not to know anything?

  40. Phantom – I think others (you, me, the milk man) have protection under existing law, but the intent here is to specifically criminalize those who would harass officers of the State which would be an attack on the government or its representatives. Like having a stronger penalty for killing a cop for example. The crime is not merely against the individual.

  41. What is ” harassment “?

    Some Trumper type might think that harshly critical investigative press reports are harassment.

  42. What pattern of ” harassment ” has created the need for this law?

  43. On the face of the language it isn’t harshly critical but rather with intent to coerce.

  44. //Language in the bill explicitly criminalizes free speech, in what would constitute a blatant attack on the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

    “If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall …communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, , he is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor,”//

    Are coercion, intimidation and harrassment of an individual criminal acts in the US.

    If they are, then this law doesn’t criminalise free speech. There is no free speech when the speaker thereby commits a crime.

  45. with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass

    People will differ on what intimidation and harassment will mean

    Including those who don’t want to be criticized.

  46. Phantom – which is why we have courts which deal with interpretation of the law.

  47. Why exactly is the law needed

    We should not pass unneeded laws

  48. I imagine there was a significant increase in the behavior that the bill is intended to address and no adequate existing law.

  49. You have no idea of the problems that people have with English libel law?

    Maybe you should read up on it.

    It’s hardly a secret.

    Why are you pretending not to know anything?

    Phantom anything I say here is 100% honest. Unlike some around here I wouldn’t feign ignorance, resort to smartarse sophistry or opaque comments for some phyrric victory. I value my personal integrity too much.

    I’ve got a grounding in libel law but am certainly no expert. I’ve said above that IMO libel laws exist largely as a shield for the common man which I think generally in the main is a good thing. If you want to develop the discussion state what your objections to Irish / Brit libel laws are, or don’t.

  50. I had heard there was some reform to British libel which had been (may still be) very pro plaintiff.

  51. Possibly correct Mahons. I’m unaware of it.

  52. This I think is about right.

    But Mr. Trump admires Britain’s libel laws. In January, he spoke about his plans to examine and strengthen the libel laws in the United States. “You can’t say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account,” Mr. Trump told reporters after the publication of “Fire and Fury,” Michael Wolff’s controversial account of the Trump White House.

    For years, Mr. Trump claimed that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. He insisted, against all evidence, that his inauguration drew the largest crowds ever. One imagines such a man might know a thing or two about “saying things that are knowingly false, and being able to smile as money pours into your bank account.” In Mr. Trump’s view, however, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is too permissive, whereas “in England,” libel claimants “have a good chance of winning.”

    I live in London, a city that was once called the libel capital of the world. Oligarchs, despots and billionaires from across the world would regularly land in London to try to silence their critics. The Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky sued Forbes magazine in 2000 after it characterized him as a thug and a crook. He was unlikely to have won his case in the United States, where Forbes is published. He sued instead in London. British judges ruled that since the magazine was available on the internet and could be read by Britons, Mr. Berezovsky had the right to sue here.
    The Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz sued the American academic Rachel Ehrenfeld in British courts, too. Ms. Ehrenfeld wrote in her book “Funding Evil” that Mr. Mahfouz and members of his family had financially supported Al Qaeda before the Sept. 11 attacks.

    “I did not live in England, I do not live in England, the book was not published there, so why not come and sue me in the United States?” Ms. Ehrenfeld asked. But Mr. Mahfouz knew he would have lost there. A British court found Ms. Ehrenfeld guilty and awarded Mr. Mahfouz £130,000 in damages and costs.

    For figures like Mr. Berezovsky and Mr. Mahfouz, Britain’s libel laws provided the perfect shield against scrutiny. The defendants, rather than being presumed innocent until proved guilty, had to demonstrate their innocence. The plaintiffs merely needed to show that the statements hurt their reputation; they did not need to prove that they were false.

    The Ehrenfeld case caused outrage in the United States. The New York State Legislature took up Ms. Ehrenfeld’s cause, describing her conviction as “libel terrorism” and passing a law to “protect American authors and journalists from foreign lawsuits that infringe on their First Amendment rights.” In 2010, Congress passed the Speech Act, which made foreign libel rulings virtually unenforceable in American courts.

    While American lawmakers once sought to protect their citizens from the clutches of British libel law, Mr. Trump now wants British-style laws in the United States.
    After a long campaign by free-speech organizations, the British libel law was finally amended five years ago. The 2013 Defamation Act introduced a new defense of “honest opinion.” It insisted that a libel claimant had to show that he or she had suffered “serious harm” and required all claimants to demonstrate that Britain was the most appropriate place in which to bring the claim.

    It was an improvement on the previous law, but still hugely restrictive. The defendant, for instance, if using a defense of “truth,” is still required to prove that his or her statement was true.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/opinion/trump-britain-libel-laws.html

    By US standards, English libel law still inhibits robust criticism of public figures. The US has passed a law stating that the US will no longer enforce British libel verdicts in cases where the standards differ.

    The UK libel law ( esp before the recent reform ) was criticized by publishers, writers, the UN and by the British government itself.

  53. English libel law still inhibits robust criticism of public figures

    I don’t think that’s correct at all. The standard is if the reputation is damaged in the eyes of the plaintiff’s peers while the defences of public interest, fair comment, privilege and of course the full defence of truth exist.

  54. All western nations I believe have libel laws that protect the average man.

    Where the British law varies, is in how it continues to tilt the rules in favor of well funded and prominent plaintiffs when they attack writers or other critics.

  55. Examples?

  56. I think it is fairly common knowledge that the UK’s libel laws are plaintiff-friendly.

  57. Could you be bothered to read some of the feedback that you have requested a few minutes before?

    The Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz sued the American academic Rachel Ehrenfeld in British courts, too. Ms. Ehrenfeld wrote in her book “Funding Evil” that Mr. Mahfouz and members of his family had financially supported Al Qaeda before the Sept. 11 attacks.

    “I did not live in England, I do not live in England, the book was not published there, so why not come and sue me in the United States?” Ms. Ehrenfeld asked. But Mr. Mahfouz knew he would have lost there. A British court found Ms. Ehrenfeld guilty and awarded Mr. Mahfouz £130,000 in damages and costs.

  58. I’d prefer to have a look at some of the cases before forming an opinion.

  59. The British government itself has criticized these laws.

    But earnest Paul thinks that they’re wonderful. Because!

  60. You have an opinion on this.

  61. Could you be bothered to read some of the feedback that you have requested a few minutes before?

    Yes, I read about AFAIK that singular case of ‘libel tourism’ on NPR too.

  62. But earnest Paul thinks that they’re wonderful.

    I haven’t said any such thing. You’re making things up again:

    IMO libel laws exist largely as a shield for the common man which I think generally in the main is a good thing

    That’s what I said.

  63. Paul, Paul, Paul

    Noone is talking about there not being any libel laws.

    They are a good thing, like puppies, and lollypops.

  64. Mahons, on January 22nd, 2020 at 4:28 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Nothing the Virginia Democrats have proposed has resulted in one gun being confiscated. Nothing in the proposed harassment law offends the First Amendment. No one has a Constitutional right to threaten or harass someone.

    Bullshit on all 3 of your points.

    They made guns and magazines in that are totally Legal and ALREADY owned by people ILLEGAL making Law Abiding Citizens Criminals.

    They are making Laws that specifically target Political Speech. Harassing Politicians is SPECIFICALLY Protected Speech.

  65. Things have been made illegal before ( alcohol, LSD, pot )

    If you owned the things about to be made illegal, you had the option of turning it in.

    So the only criminals would be those who chose to be criminals by not complying with the law.

  66. Threats have always been against the law in every state.

    Harassment has I think been illegal too.

    What is this law attempting to do that is new? Nothing? I don’t think so.

    Why do these named individuals get “protection” that others do not get?

    Because they are trying to destroy Free Speech in Politics….. it’s called the 2nd Amendment.

  67. The 1st Amendment you mean

  68. Noone is talking about there not being any libel laws

    Funnily enough I didn’t say that either, that’s another thing you’ve made up:

    I’ve said above that IMO libel laws exist largely as a shield for the common man which I think generally in the main is a good thing. If you want to develop the discussion state what your objections to Irish / Brit libel laws are, or don’t.

    I wonder if such inventions would be considered libelous in US law?

  69. You can send an article to a Spaniard, but you can’t make him read it.

  70. I’m not Spanish and I read it.

    English libel law still inhibits robust criticism of public figures

    I don’t think that’s correct at all. The standard is if the reputation is damaged in the eyes of the plaintiff’s peers while the defences of public interest, fair comment, privilege and of course the full defence of truth exist.

  71. Patrick – who has had his or her gun taken away?
    They have not targeted political speech. Reading any of Virginia’s newspapers, listening to any of its radio stations or watching any of its television programs demonstrates that.
    Harassment is not a protected class of speech.

  72. They made guns and magazines in that are totally Legal and ALREADY owned by people ILLEGAL making Law Abiding Citizens Criminals.

    As has been explained to you previously here law abiding citizens only become criminal when they break the law to a criminal standard.

  73. If you think harassment is protected speech kindly advise President Trump. He has signed at least 3 anti-harassment bills at least.

  74. What is harassment

    Not everyone will have the same definition

    I guarantee you the gentle flowers of academia will have different definitions than most will

  75. Thttps://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/

  76. The law will define the offense. The criminal justice system wasn’t invented yesterday.

  77. Yes, that’s my point.

    Why the need for yet more laws.

    Maybe all the states should outlaw the things that are already illegal.

    Because more laws are always good.

  78. Sometimes new laws are required to deal with new behavior. There may be harassment laws on the books but there may be a need for them to apply in cetain situations (computers for example, or specific targets). No one has said more laws are always good.

  79. The real tyranny begins when the Republican senators acquit Trump.

  80. Harassment verbally or by written word is speech, and all speech no matter how offensive must be protected.

    That is an absolute.

    You can not say you will physically harm someone nor incite physical violence. Short of those 2 things you can not censor speech especially political speech.

    period

  81. As for the gun laws this battle is far from over. Governor Blackface/KKK’s proposed Laws ban weapons that are legally owned.

    The question still remains, now that over 90% of the State have declared themselves Sanctuary Counties with the backing of the County Sheriffs and a 22,000 person demonstration will he and the democrats pass these Laws ?

  82. NYr when the inevitable happens and Trump is Acquitted Forever of this Sham Impeachment, the Tyranny of Obama’s Justice Department will be Prosecuted….. that’s what happens next.

  83. NYr when the inevitable happens and Trump is Acquitted Forever of this Sham Impeachment

    Trump has been impeached by the House. The phony hearing in the Senate won’t ‘acquit’ him of that.

    As some here predicted, the partisan Senate won’t find Trump guilty and this will be spun by the true believers as some kind of exculpation from everything.

  84. Patrick – let’s just say there is unsurprisingly another amendment you don’t understand and leave it at that.

  85. Phantom,

    The British law and custom is tilted towards the benefit of the powerful who do not want to be criticized.

    British libel law is a disgrace.

    I agree Phantom. British libal law is supposed to protect the common Man, but it seems to be used more and more to protect the rich and Powerful.

  86. Acquittal by a sham trial conducted by his buddies won’t be vindication.

    It will be seen as the opposite by all fair minded Americans.

  87. It will be seen as the opposite by all fair minded Americans

    I hope you’re right and I hope there are still some sizeable quantities left.

  88. The majority support a trial with witnesses speaking, which McConnnell has blocked.

    A small majority actually supports Trump’s removal

    Don’t believe any of the hype from the local Trump cultists.

    Trump has significant support among the public but it is not a majority, not even close to a majority.

  89. Mahons, on January 23rd, 2020 at 10:17 AM Said: Edit Comment
    Patrick – let’s just say there is unsurprisingly another amendment you don’t understand and leave it at that.

    No Mahons lets not leave it at that…… You’re wrong and you haven’t made the case why you’re right, let alone why I’m wrong.

    Why not grow a set and debate it with me?

  90. Paul he’s not Impeached until the Hearing in the Senate is over, and when he wins he will be acquitted forever.

    Before Trump there were 2 Presidents that were Impeached Johnson and Clinton…. that’s what it says in the History. Funny how the House has drawn Impeachment Articles on every Republican President since Eisenhower was President yet not one is considered “Impeached”. I know, I know FACTS mean nothing…..

  91. Paul he’s not Impeached until the Hearing in the Senate is over

    No, I’m afraid he is Pat:

    President Donald Trump was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, becoming only the third American chief executive to be formally charged under the Constitution’s ultimate remedy for high crimes and misdemeanors […[

    If Trump is acquitted by the Republican-led chamber, as expected, he still would have to run for reelection carrying the enduring stain of impeachment on his purposely disruptive presidency.

    https://apnews.com/0756fda2b5143891c5da1c6897001cee

    That’s the facts of it.

  92. Reality Distortion Field has been enacted.

    They laugh at the stinking facts.

  93. you wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you in the ass

  94. Pat, please reference a third party factual item which is the source of your ‘Trump wasn’t impeached’ claim.

  95. Patrick – you don’t debate. You just say things, the accuracy of which is often dubious.

  96. He wrote the Constitution.

    Why should he need to quote anyone else’s interpretation of it.

  97. its part of the historical record now
    Trump has been impeached
    acquittal will be seen as a cover

  98. Of course he has been impeached. Saying he hasn’t been is the equivalent of arguing the sun sets in the East.
    The aquittal will no doubt go down as a cover up given the announced intentions of various Republicans.

  99. Yes.

    No vindication.

    Coverup and whitewash.

  100. Mahons,

    Patrick – you don’t debate. You just say things, the accuracy of which is often dubious.

    Absolutely true.

    I’m still waiting for Patrick’s evidence that the earth has frozen over thousands of times in the past. A claim he’s made on multiple occasions.

    And I’ll add to that, how about some credible evidence that John McCain started the fire on the USS forrestal? Another claim that Patrick repeatedly says is true.

  101. McCain helped the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor also.

  102. Yeah! The nazi bastard.

  103. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI

  104. Great clip from one of my favourite movies.

  105. Mahons, on January 23rd, 2020 at 3:10 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Patrick – you don’t debate. You just say things, the accuracy of which is often dubious.

    Nonsense…….

    I can present fact, reason, and logic to every position I hold. I will on any subject at anytime go point by point with the facts, yours and mine.

    You may not like or agree with my positions but I can and will gladly defend them with the FACTS of why I am right willingly lying out those facts and the reasoning.

    This is something you have never accepted the challenge to do Mahons.

    I can debate and provide Law and Precident for every position I hold on this sham Impeachment, can you ? And if you can why don’t you ?

    You’ve passed the Bar, I haven’t. I ask you to explain and provide the Law and or Precedents that allowed President Trump to be Denied the Right of Representation, denied the Right to Cross Examine Witnesses, and Denied the Right to Present Evidence in the House Impeachment Proceedings.

    There is my challenge to you.

    If you want another subject pick it.

  106. Remember at the End of that movie he became Senator Blutarsky……

  107. Was “willingly lying” a Freudian slip?

  108. nice…… lmao

    willingly LAYING…. 😉

  109. so is that all you have Mahons….. a deflection ?

    Huurrruummpphhh thought so.