Patterico's Pontifications

4/13/2016

Corey Lewandowski Apparently Will Not Be Prosecuted For Battery Charges Against Michelle Fields

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:41 pm



[guest post by Dana]

So, it looks like *Little Lyin’ Lewandowski will not be prosecuted for battery against reporter Michelle Fields:

The decision not to press charges against Corey Lewandowski is scheduled to be announced on Thursday afternoon by Palm Beach County State Attorney David Aronberg.

Fields may still pursue a defamation case against Lewandowski, a source said.

Further, this from Aronberg:

…[H]e pointed out that Jupiter police had a low “probable cause” standard to cite Lewandowski for battery. But the responsibility for moving forward with a full-blown prosecution rested with Aronberg’s office, which had to consider whether a crime occurred and whether they believed a jury of Floridians would prosecute.

“We have a higher standard to go forward with a prosecution,” he said.

Michelle Fields responded to the news:

Prosecutor’s office told me they would inform me of decision tomorrow. If reports true, guess they decided to leak to reporters first. Ugly.

And Katy Tur of NBCNews is reporting:

Inside source tells @nbcnews state attorney tried to cut deal where Lewandowski publicly apologized to Fields. Source says Fields agreed, but it’s unclear if Lewandowski did.

Fields just confirmed this:

For those asking, office of prosecutor asked 2 weeks ago if I’d be ok with an apology from Corey. I said ya but haven’t heard back about it

As of this writing, I cannot find a comment from either Lewandowski or Trump regarding the decision.

Also, as has been said: The exercise of prosecutorial discretion is not innocence

(*A mash-up of Trump’s nicknames for Cruz and Rubio, but it seems to be far more fitting when combined and referring to Lewandowski.)

–Dana

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: As I said a while back:

[I]f prosecutors decide not to file charges — and they may so decide — the same people saying that the prosecutors should exercise discretion will take the non-filing as TOTAL VINDICATION OF LEWANDOWSKI and PROOF THAT THE WHORE WAS LYING!!!!!11!1!!!

But you can’t stop stupidity.

You sure can’t.

188 Responses to “Corey Lewandowski Apparently Will Not Be Prosecuted For Battery Charges Against Michelle Fields”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (0ee61a)

  2. Prosecutor’s office told me they would inform me of decision tomorrow. If reports true, guess they decided to leak to reporters first. Ugly.

    is this poor little wretched thing never not a victim?

    happyfeet (831175)

  3. Somehow, I knew that happybully would be right there, Dana.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  4. i never gonna let you down Mr. Jester i’m never gonna run around and desert you

    happyfeet (831175)

  5. No, you are going to snuffle snuffle snuffle around an orange butt. Or is it his head? Difficult to say. The smell is the same: corruption and influence peddling and constant lying.

    You like bullies. And you don’t love freedom. You are supporting one of the least freedom-loving individuals to run for office in a long, long time. I think it’s because you enjoy zero sense word salad.

    And want to burn everything to the ground. Instead, you will get HRC elected.

    Not that you will vote.

    Instead, you are like some glue-huffing graffiti tagger, insisting you create art, while you stink up other people’s websites.

    It’s who you are. Sadly.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  6. you are so mean

    happyfeet (831175)

  7. Mr. Trump can break the establishment deathgrip on America

    goldy sacky harvardtrash can’t do that

    pee-stanky old women can’t do that

    it’s time to misbehave you see

    happyfeet (831175)

  8. This seems like an appropriate prosecutorial decision but if the rest of the report is true, it’s revealing that Lewandowski (like his employer, Trump) can never apologize.

    DRJ (15874d)

  9. why would he apologize when she (outlandishly) claimed he all but undid all her knittin on the hot georgia asphalt

    no

    you don’t indulge crazy people

    happyfeet (831175)

  10. Oh, I’m not mean…not compared to what you write. I’m sure you think you are swell.

    Yes you are trolling, as usual. But:

    1. You have utterly no evidence that Trump can beat HRC. None. Yet you prattle on with hypotheticals, even though you criticize others for being hopeful, with your usual hypocrisy.

    2. Trump is a thoroughly disgusting person, with an awful record of dishonesty and corruption. Look at his negatives. Me, I think you love you some HRC, and want to help her get elected. Not that you vote, anyway.

    Let me be clear. You are acting just like the guy. I mean, if you calmly and politely made your points, that would be different. Ditto with Trump. If he truly wanted to “make America great again,” he would not be acting like BIff Tannen—can you imagine how well he would be doing, if he didn’t drunk text at midnight and deal opponents nasty names? He isn’t serious, and neither are you. There is a lot of bully in you, as you have proven over and over again for several years. So Trump is tailor made for your mixture of laziness and reactive thinking.

    You just can’t help yourself.

    You keep posting the same kind of drivel. Why can’t I post mine?

    Go back to more #TrumpSnuffling. It’s a thing.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  11. We indulge you, hsppyfeet.

    DRJ (15874d)

  12. there was no deliberate action, there, unlike the crimethink imputed, now it did serve to sideline lewandowski, and bring the stone/manafort crew into management, that is better in your view,

    narciso (732bc0)

  13. Lewandowki’s a heel and Fields is a bit of an attention seeker. Enough.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  14. Mr. J the fact that Mr. Trump could beat extremely well-funded establishment trash like Jeb Bush implies he can beat establishment trash like the extremely well-funded pee-stanky old woman

    and yes yes yes Mr. Trump may be disgusting, but he’s not running for Pope

    the presidency of failmerica devolved into a sleaze magnet years and years ago – but Mr. Trump isn’t beholden to the courtiers and codswollops what orbit that sleazy office (and especially not beholden to failmerica’s propaganda slut media) – and there’s hope in that

    i choose to be hopeful

    and we never gonna survive

    unless

    happyfeet (831175)

  15. Irrespective of prosecutorial discretion, every criminal defendant enjoys a constitutional presumption of innocence. Lewandowski has always had that; he retains it. He is innocent in the eyes of the law, not just “not not-guilty.” I don’t second-guess the prosecutor’s decision.

    None of that changes a single one of my opinions and personal convictions regarding Corey Lewandowski and his behavior during and after this incident. He’s a lying thug.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  16. Sorry, I got one too many negatives in there (#15): Lewandowski is innocent in the eyes of the law, not just “not guilty.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  17. Agreed, Beldar. And Trump seems to be catnip for lying thugs. I know there are Trump supporters who aren’t like that, but the thugs drown them out. It’s a feature, I think.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  18. The thugs only drown them out because few as they are, the attract a slew of media attention.
    A guy gets sucker punched at, lets say a gathering of 10,000 people, some of whom disagree vehemently.
    That is a pretty low percentage of the total attendees, even if there are only 100 attendees.

    I guarantee I could get happyfeet punched at a union heavy Bernie rally, even odds on getting him punched by some pantsuit lady at a Hillary rally and probably never at a Kasich rally because hf would have to punch himself

    steveg (fed1c9)

  19. I’d be willing to punch myself in the face, to get out of the Kasich rally.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  20. Cruz & family are doing a town hall on CNN tonight — it’s in progress now, and will be rebroadcast at midnight Eastern.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  21. “I’d be willing to punch myself in the face, to get out of the Kasich rally.”

    Beldar (fa637a) — 4/13/2016 @ 6:42 pm

    Aye, laddie, I’d blacken both of my own eyes!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  22. Kasich: Can’t we all just get along?
    Trump: A long what? Is that some kind of a crack about the size of my hands?

    nk (dbc370)

  23. I say the threshold of tolerance for Kasich rallies has been established

    steveg (fed1c9)

  24. I hope Trump goes full on Anthony Weiner and starts to tweet out pictures of his member.
    That would be the highlight of any election I have ever participated in

    steveg (fed1c9)

  25. mailman’s son’s campaign, is a quixotic exercise, ‘what exactly do you do here’

    narciso (732bc0)

  26. Watching the Cruz family town hall. They are charming. His older daughter is smart and feisty and darling.

    Dana (0ee61a)

  27. you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows cause of now there’s an app for that

    teddy-pie should download it, heidi-cakes too

    then they would be more better informed about wind direction

    happyfeet (831175)

  28. Michelle Fields said on the Kelly File that she is pursuing a civil suit against Lewandowski for defamation.

    Dana (0ee61a)

  29. Mr happyfeet,

    If anyone wants to find out about wind or air, they should just contact The Mr Donald.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  30. this is her life now

    it’s who she is

    happyfeet (831175)

  31. she’s like the monica lewinski of downwards grabbing

    happyfeet (831175)

  32. So give her the $100 already.
    This is the biggest war on women since my dad bought my mom a vacuum cleaner for their anniversary

    steveg (fed1c9)

  33. i know right

    and tell tesla to stop bogarting the lithium

    happyfeet (831175)

  34. @ Dana (#29): That would be a very interesting and legally complicated defamation case, at the cutting edge of the law in two or three particulars that occur to me off the top of my head.

    Lewandowski’s best defense would be to insist that as a member of the national press — particularly one focused on this election — Fields deliberately injected herself into the public eye and the political arena, making her at least a “limited-purpose public figure.” If a court agreed — which is difficult to predict, because the law on this is developing in fits and starts and with lots of inconsistencies across the country — then Fields would have to meet the New York Times v. Sullivan standard of “actual malice,” which is defined in this context as proof that the defendant(s) published the defamatory statement with knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.

    But if Fields could get past that hurdle, I can see several other legal and factual particulars which suggest that she might have one of the spectacularly few potential defamation claims with some real hope of viability. They are rarer than hens’ teeth.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  35. She is most certainly a public figure for this purpose since she was the one who first published the affair and promoted its dissemination to the public. She may be a public figure for every purpose through her past media exposure, in print and on TV. Additionally, Lewandowski has the common law defense of self-defense. “She accused me of a crime, I called her a liar and delusional.” And there is always the defense of truth. “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, who, more likely than not, told the truth?” Ok, that last one is iffy.

    nk (dbc370)

  36. Fields deliberately injected herself into the public eye and the political arena,

    I’m unclear where the line between deliberately injecting and being compelled to as part of fulfilling job demands?

    Dana (0ee61a)

  37. cause i got a golden ticket i got a golden chance to make my way

    happyfeet (831175)

  38. so how long did the victim wait to file charges? why did she wait? why did she say she was pushed to the ground from behind when the video clearly shows that is not what happened?

    has far as people being mad at Trump, just remember it was the Cruz campaign which:

    1) Lied that Carson had dropped out of the race in Iowa.
    2) Did not speak out against attacks on candidates wives & children when Trump’s wife was attacked in Utah (even if it wasn’t a Cruz PAC that attacked Trumps wife, why not speak out against an attack against a candidate wife? why did Cruz ONLY speak out when his wife was attacked?
    3) Told the media that their candidate, Cruz, had met with Carson in a closet to make peace. when Carson explicitly said the meeting was meant to be private & not mentioned to the press.
    4) Promised to support the party nominee then said he wouldn’t. I thought it was Trump that everyone was worried about who would not support nominee?
    5) Never brought up illegal immigration or jobs going overseas until Trump did.
    6) Denies that wife was supportive of the CFR’s North American Union. She, in fact, SUPPORTS the North American “Community”/Union. Becoming a North American Union does not mean getting rid of private businesses – it means the free flow of people and goods across borders. That’s how it started in the European Union too and you see what free flowing borders and goods has done for them. That is what citizens do NOT want – they want to retain their Sovereignty and it doesn’t matter what the stated “intent” is – it matters how it actually ends up. THAT’s the point.
    7) “Forgot” to include two loans from Goldman Sachs on his FEC filing documents. The same Goldman Sachs that Cruz declared “Goldman is a member of the dastardly cartel that’s bilking the American people.” ????

    This is the guy who knows every detail and nook & cranny of the delegate process, who invests in creating “double-agent delegates” and yet he “forgets” to file two loans from a bank that he campaigns against as a leech on Americans. Yet there he is, in bed with them, by his wife working for them and his campaign receiving loans from them.

    why all the twisting & turning?

    yeah, Cruz sure is a solid moral & fiscal conservative.

    John (20e1e6)

  39. For those asking, office of prosecutor asked 2 weeks ago if I’d be ok with an apology from Corey. I said ya but haven’t heard back about it

    how does this not undermine the holy zagnuts out her silly defamation claim

    happyfeet (831175)

  40. #40 John,

    To quote Arnold Schwarzenegger, “try decaf.”

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  41. UPDATE BY PATTERICO: As I said a while back:

    [I]f prosecutors decide not to file charges — and they may so decide — the same people saying that the prosecutors should exercise discretion will take the non-filing as TOTAL VINDICATION OF LEWANDOWSKI and PROOF THAT THE WHORE WAS LYING!!!!!11!1!!!

    But you can’t stop stupidity.

    You sure can’t.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  42. how does this not undermine the holy zagnuts out her silly defamation claim

    How does it??

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  43. John,

    Lotta falsehoods in your comment.

    Just noting it for the record. I know better than to try to reason with someone who leaves a comment like that.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  44. #42 Lame Cruz Supporter

    Try a real response. Its a joy to see Cruz supporters who think they are smart just fall flat on their faces when the truth is all posted on their stellar candidate. Then they run scared & throw insults.

    I thought i was Trump supporters who answer with insults? I see you now act like the Bushes & Clintons. I guess since you are in bed with them you might as well act like them.

    cheers & try again.

    John (20e1e6)

  45. #40
    Cruz has no more control over his surrogates and hangers on than Trump does.
    Saying Cruz lied about Carson assumes Cruz personally knew about and endorsed the calls and maybe even made some personally

    steveg (fed1c9)

  46. Tonight I learned that Ted Cruz’ favorite movie is “The Princess Bride.” Inconceivable!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  47. Patterico, please list what is false with your “truth.” I can go around and not respond too. But what I posted are the words of Heidi Cruz, in her comments on the CFR North American Union, and the reported actions of Cruz which he has never denied. I was watching the whole night of the Iowa causus and his campaign played it dirty. CNN had their correction within minutes, more than enough time for Cruz Campaign to correct their messaging ands they didn’t. They lied to win Iowa.

    Same in Utah. All of us are against picking on candidates wives & kids but Cruz NEVER spoke out against what was done to Trump’s wife. Cruz let the anti-Trump PAC attack Trump’s wife. Why not speak out against it???

    Prove one thing i said was false. Cruz has done everything I posted. Its in all of the media sites, conservative, liberal and anything else. This is public record not false hood.

    Again prove whats false. Name something i said that false?

    Cruz did every single one of the examples I posted.

    John (20e1e6)

  48. #47

    All of us are against picking on candidates wives & kids but Cruz NEVER spoke out against what was done to Trump’s wife. Cruz let the anti-Trump PAC attack Trump’s wife. Why not speak out against it???

    Cruz acted as a coward. Every wife is deserving of defending not just Heidi.

    John (20e1e6)

  49. Oh, good Lord. Repeating lies does not become the truth. I understand what you want to believe. But please quit propagandizing. We have enough of that already.

    Simon Jester (c30bac)

  50. You know, if Trump wins and has his way, maybe happy-pie could get sued for defamation of various people.

    That would be hysterical.

    Simon Jester (c30bac)

  51. But I guess all his #TrumpSnuffling is it’s own reward.

    Simon Jester (c30bac)

  52. John,

    Channeling Arnold’s great line “try decaf” against Arianna Huffington in the 2003 recall debate is hardly an “insult” to get all excited about. So maybe it’s the…caffeine?

    Right now, I don’t have a half hour to un-pack your litany of complaints against the Cruz campaign. As Patterico has already remarked, there’s a lot of falsehoods there.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  53. #51

    please post the truth then? what is the lie?

    you guys trust throw insults but you don’t post “truth” or “facts” to show me where I am wrong,

    the total disregard for the truth has broken this election season.

    John (20e1e6)

  54. John, I’m always astonished that Trump supporters call Cruz a liar which lying so much about him. You have said nothing truthful to date in this thread.

    Well, that’s really a lie. I’m not.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  55. Lame Cruz Supporter

    You are a fraud and coward. What i posted i fact and in the public record. You can trespond, because any denying of the facts would be lying.

    so you simply post lame non-answers. Typical of what the Cruz campaign does.

    John (20e1e6)

  56. SPQR

    Post a rebuttal on what I said is a lie.

    what is your response? “oh thats a lie”.

    wrong. its the truth.

    Please do rebuttal. I am waiting for all of you to attempt to rebuttal one thing.

    Cruz has ran a dirty sleazy campaign along with his supporters .

    John (20e1e6)

  57. It’s despicable that Trump supporters lie so much about Cruz while supporting an actual con man in a combover.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  58. @ Dana (#38): If you take the job that requires being in the public eye, you impliedly consent — which means, the law pretends that you decided — to give up some reputational rights that purely private people enjoy. The inquiry focuses on the hypothetical reasonable expectations of a person who’s placed himself into the same position as the defamation plaintiff. The relevant time frame is the one just before the allegedly defamatory statement was published — a defendant can’t involuntarily convert someone into a “public figure” for defamation law purposes by making him or her famous without participation or consent.

    Her argument would be that she’s a merely a reporter, and that she hasn’t put her life on view in public even though she reports on very public people like Trump.

    The counterargument is: That may be true for your private life, and if Lewandowski had grabbed you at the grocery store on your day off and then tweeted that you were delusional, you might not be a “limited purpose public figure” in that lawsuit. But you’d put yourself not only at, but in, the political arena not only as a reporter, but as a TV and multimedia pundit, and this event arose out of that same employment.

    I think Lewandowski’s argument on this particular issue is the better one, but it wouldn’t surprise me to find comparable cases both supporting and rebutting it. I wouldn’t take her case on a contingent fee, but surely there are lawyers who would.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  59. SPQR

    Here. which one of these didn’t happen or is a lie. Come on, please tell where is the supposed “lie”. I just can’t wait to see which one you choose & to know your reason why its a lie:

    it was the Cruz campaign which:

    1) Lied that Carson had dropped out of the race in Iowa.
    2) Did not speak out against attacks on candidates wives & children when Trump’s wife was attacked in Utah (even if it wasn’t a Cruz PAC that attacked Trumps wife, why not speak out against an attack against a candidate wife? why did Cruz ONLY speak out when his wife was attacked?
    3) Told the media that their candidate, Cruz, had met with Carson in a closet to make peace. when Carson explicitly said the meeting was meant to be private & not mentioned to the press.
    4) Promised to support the party nominee then said he wouldn’t. I thought it was Trump that everyone was worried about who would not support nominee?
    5) Never brought up illegal immigration or jobs going overseas until Trump did.
    6) Denies that wife was supportive of the CFR’s North American Union. She, in fact, SUPPORTS the North American “Community”/Union. Becoming a North American Union does not mean getting rid of private businesses – it means the free flow of people and goods across borders. That’s how it started in the European Union too and you see what free flowing borders and goods has done for them. That is what citizens do NOT want – they want to retain their Sovereignty and it doesn’t matter what the stated “intent” is – it matters how it actually ends up. THAT’s the point.
    7) “Forgot” to include two loans from Goldman Sachs on his FEC filing documents. The same Goldman Sachs that Cruz declared “Goldman is a member of the dastardly cartel that’s bilking the American people.” ????

    This is the guy who knows every detail and nook & cranny of the delegate process, who invests in creating “double-agent delegates” and yet he “forgets” to file two loans from a bank that he campaigns against as a leech on Americans. Yet there he is, in bed with them, by his wife working for them and his campaign receiving loans from them.

    John (20e1e6)

  60. How does one “trespond”?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  61. Never brought up illegal immigration or jobs going overseas until Trump did.

    False.

    I’m sticking with that one for now to see how you respond. Go ahead, shock me by a) conceding the point, or b) making a cogent argument in response.

    Or, conversely, c) wave your hands about, throw up dust, obfuscate, and focus on anything but the link.

    I’m betting big on c. But like I said: shock me.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  62. See, folks, the goal is for Lyin’ Trumpkins to repeat the same lies, demand responses—even if Patterico and others have already done so—over and over again.

    If you listen to the Orange Toupee talk, it’s pretty much like that. Repetition, accusation, lie, repeat.

    Simon Jester (c30bac)

  63. Beldar #62: I think it is portmanteau word linking trespassing and response. As in trespassing and demanding a response.

    I think.

    Simon Jester (c30bac)

  64. Beldar

    its easy you “trespond” by taking one fact such as “Lied that Carson had dropped out of the race in Iowa.” and prove he didn’t lie. You know that within minutes that CNN retracted their report, the Cruz campaign ALSO retracted their message that Carson had dropped out, instead of waiting until hours later.

    its easy. i am sure you know what I mean. come on, give a go like a good trooper.

    John (20e1e6)

  65. Simon Jester

    its easy you “trespond” by taking one fact such as “Lied that Carson had dropped out of the race in Iowa.” and prove he didn’t lie. You know that within minutes that CNN retracted their report, the Cruz campaign ALSO retracted their message that Carson had dropped out, instead of waiting until hours later.

    its easy. i am sure you know what I mean. come on, give a go like a good trooper.

    John (20e1e6)

  66. John,

    The comment from the blog proprietor is in yellow. That’s the one you don’t ignore.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  67. Simon Jester

    so than post the truth. where am i wrong or lying?

    John (20e1e6)

  68. John, your #1 was a lie. Cruz campaign interpreted a Carson announcement of “taking a break from campaign” as suspension of campaign. It wasn’t a lie, it was an interpretation of that announcement similar to speculation made at same time by others.

    And it’s despicable that Trump slime call Cruz sleasy while Trump and his supporters repeat unsubstantiated Natl Enquirer sleaze. Despicable is what we expect from you.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  69. The truth about Cruz, Carson and Iowa. Note that this link is to Breitbart.com, john, a website known for supporting Trump.

    DRJ (15874d)

  70. Hmmm…

    I smell boilerplate. This is what I meant, Patterico.

    http://blogcritics.org/anatomy-of-a-smear-heidi-cruz/

    Do a search within that post, and you will see some familiar verbiage.

    Do these folks get paid, or do they do it for the love of Orange Toupees?

    Simon Jester (c30bac)

  71. @ John:

    Hello, Trumpkin. You seem to be new here. Every topic in your rant — you don’t need to cut and paste it again, thank you, it just multiplies the spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors — has been discussed here repeatedly, in the past.

    You may choose to conclude that your brilliant rhetoric is irrefutable. Some of us, however, have concluded that you’re not worth our time to respond to in detail, because we’ve already dealt with these same Trumpkin fantasies in comments to many other posts going back months and months.

    May I respectfully suggest that if you’d like to participate more meaningfully in the discussions here, you first read more, and comment less, before beginning your insults? See that sidebar to the right with dates? See that google-search bar that lets you find these topics on Patterico.com? They are your friends.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  72. Patterico

    I am not ignoring it. I just wanted to know what I posted was not the truth. others simply post insults or say I am lying. I am saying to refute what I posted instead of insults. I am not lying or posting falsehoods.

    I have been wondering why the actions of the Cruz campaign were done. If there are other facts out there I am willing to hear or read about them. I am not afraid of the truth.

    But saying I am posting falsehood without showing me how is not a response that rebuts or counters what I posted.

    John (20e1e6)

  73. John, if you were interested in the truth, you could have learned the facts long ago.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  74. Prosecutor to Hold News Conference in Battery Case Against Corey Lewandowski

    happyfeet (831175)

  75. Beldar

    where did I insult anyone? I posted my points against Cruz, no insults towards anyone and then you and others were insulting. But I am not surprised because that is pretty much the mo of certain candidate supporters.

    go figure.

    John (20e1e6)

  76. I am not ignoring it. I just wanted to know what I posted was not the truth. others simply post insults or say I am lying. I am saying to refute what I posted instead of insults. I am not lying or posting falsehoods.

    I have been wondering why the actions of the Cruz campaign were done. If there are other facts out there I am willing to hear or read about them. I am not afraid of the truth.

    But saying I am posting falsehood without showing me how is not a response that rebuts or counters what I posted.

    I gave you a link. Kindly address it.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  77. SPQR

    again with an insult and no response.

    Cruz has ran a sleazy campaign. And it will get worse. Then he will wonder what happened and its everyone elses fault.

    I guess those who support him think the same or they wouldn’t support him.

    John (20e1e6)

  78. John:

    4) Promised to support the party nominee then said he wouldn’t. I thought it was Trump that everyone was worried about who would not support nominee?

    Trump pledged to support the GOP nominee on September 3, 2015, and he renounced his pledge on March 29, 2016.

    DRJ (15874d)

  79. DRJ, several folks in talk radio describe “seminar callers” who have a prepared script. This may be another example of the same sort of thing. The cutting and pasting from another website suggests so.

    Simon Jester (c30bac)

  80. #77 above reads:

    Lame Cruz Supporter

    You are a fraud and coward. What i posted i fact and in the public record. You can trespond, because any denying of the facts would be lying.

    so you simply post lame non-answers. Typical of what the Cruz campaign does.

    John (20e1e6) — 4/13/2016 @ 8:31 pm

    As I understand it, that identifier — “20e1e6″ — is generated uniquely from an IP address.

    #57 above reads:

    Lame Cruz Supporter

    You are a fraud and coward. What i posted i fact and in the public record. You can trespond, because any denying of the facts would be lying.

    so you simply post lame non-answers. Typical of what the Cruz campaign does.

    John (20e1e6) — 4/13/2016 @ 8:31 pm

    Do we have more than one John Trumpkin tonight? If so, they’re posting from the same IP address.

    In Texas, whence I hail, we consider “fraud and coward” to be an insult. Best be careful who you call that when you’re not hiding behind the internet.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  81. Patterico

    Thank you very much for posting a response. And I will concede on the wall. Cruz had that one. Its great to see someone posting a response instead of saying I am “lying”.

    Now for the other points I still stand my ground. If you can refute those as well then you will make me a Cruz supporter.

    I am very disturbed that Cruz has run the campaign the way he has with the examples of his dirty politics I posted, his FEC non-filing, and what his wife has said in the past on the North American Union.

    I await your response.

    cheers.

    John (20e1e6)

  82. John

    I think I made a legit easy point but you’ve argued with everyone else but me and my feelings are hurt

    steveg (fed1c9)

  83. Bah. Sorry, C&P failure; #77 above actually reads:

    Beldar

    where did I insult anyone? I posted my points against Cruz, no insults towards anyone and then you and others were insulting. But I am not surprised because that is pretty much the mo of certain candidate supporters.

    go figure.

    John (20e1e6) — 4/13/2016 @ 8:47 pm

    Beldar (fa637a)

  84. The whole CNN audience sang “Happy Birthday” to Caroline Cruz after the CNN town hall. That’s wonderful. She turns eight tomorrow, and she obviously does take after her daddy.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  85. DRJ

    and on March 29, 2016 Cruz and Kasich did them same, Cruz in fact did it before Trump.

    Jeb and others did it before March 29, 2016. Yet everyone was worried about Trump and when he was leading they started jumping ship. Romney was the first.

    Why was everyone such a coward?

    John (20e1e6)

  86. John, I gave a specific and you lie again.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  87. steveg

    I accused not just Cruz but Cruz camp. The Cruz camp & candidate have run a sleazy campaign.

    happy now?

    John (20e1e6)

  88. Just for the record, that “John” that’s doing all the lying about Ted in the service of the Lying Leftist Democrat Donald Trump, whom he worships, is not me. He’s just another dirtbag.

    John Hitchcock (f2b25c)

  89. SPQR

    and what was it? at least Patterico posted a link.

    CNN posted immediate retraction of any assumption that Carson was dropping out.

    So when did Cruz campaign post his retraction? all his campaign did was post that voters need to vote for him because Carson is gone.

    It didn’t take hours for CNN to report the truth. Why did the Cruz campaign not post CNN’s retraction immediately?

    When CNN called out the Cruz campaign that they, CNN, did not take along time to post a retraction/correction, Cruz campaign went silent.

    Sleaze.

    John (20e1e6)

  90. Tonight, after reading a headline about Shorty promising the return of the steel industry to Pittsburgh, it occurred to me that the Trump phenomenon is a modern-day version of the Ghost Dance. It is not a rational strategy to return to the old ways. That’s what Cruz offers. It is, instead, a quasi-religious movement born of desperation and a feeling of helplessness. There’s no arguing with Shorty, the mystical redeemer, or with his acolytes. He’s their Wovoka. Cruz promises deliverance through a rational, programmatic approach. Shorty promises deliverance through the transcendental magic of his own celebrity. No wonder Shorty has succeeded with Evangelicals, where Cruz, the man of reason, has failed.

    I keep returning to Cruz’ “New York Values” critique and I will again tonight. Cruz is a shrewd man. What was the target audience for his comments? Surely Cruz was well aware that his fellow Evangelicals were embracing the Trump cult of personality when he put forward his critique. Was it a way to shame otherwise devoutly Christian conservatives for their abandonment of reason and ostensibly shared values?

    ThOR (a52560)

  91. John Hitchcock

    post how I am lying then you have a point. I guess you haven’t followed all my posts and are shooting from he hip as usual.

    From one John to another, cheers John H.

    John (20e1e6)

  92. john,

    My understanding is that all the candidates pledged to support the eventual nominee, and everyone but Trump stood by that pledge — except when it came to supporting Trump. In other words, Trump is the only candidate who renounced his pledge completely. The rest only renounced their support for Trump.

    But if you believe all the candidates have renounced their pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee, why is this even an issue for you? If they all changed their minds, what is the problem?

    DRJ (15874d)

  93. No, dirtbag, I saw all your crap. And I also saw multiple people tell you all your lies have been debunked on the pages of Patterico’s Pontifications multiple times before you ever slimed your way in here. You’re just another Trump Idolator (which is a sinful act), busily spreading Trump’s lies.

    John Hitchcock (f2b25c)

  94. DRJ

    you are a lair.

    and you guys say Trump is the problem.

    Trumped signed the pledge and then the others said they would NOT support the nominee if Trump. Now Trump says screw you, takes back his pledge, and you say Trump is the problem? you guys do not speak double speak, you speak triple speak.

    You guys simply don’t care what the truth is.

    you will get the president you deserve.

    If you and other Cruz supporters or #neverTrumps want to go out that way, you will definitely get the president you deserve.

    John (20e1e6)

  95. It is very unwise to call DRJ a liar. She has very powerful friends on these pages, and a very strong and unblemished reputation here, as well. Your days here are numbered. Just on that basis alone.

    John Hitchcock (f2b25c)

  96. I think asserting untruthfully that she follows the Insane Clown Posse around with the rest of the juggalo naked groupies would be defamation,but obviously I’d need a judge to use very small words and maybe hire an artist to draw it out in cartoon form for me before I could decide if this rises to the level of defamation

    steveg (fed1c9)

  97. John Hitchcock

    again with the insults. Post a real rebuttal, not insults, then i will take you seriously. if not then dont post at all. watch your blood pressure sport.

    also i still dont see anything factual accept for Patterico’s rebuttal, which I accepted as the truth & gave Cruz credit. All the rest still stand. No one has posted a rebuttal to refute what i said on the other points.

    I think I am being very fair.

    maybe post like Patterico does, with a link, and you will get me to convert to Cruz, the anointed one.

    John (20e1e6)

  98. john:

    7) “Forgot” to include two loans from Goldman Sachs on his FEC filing documents.

    The loans were not included in the FEC filings and they should have been, but they were disclosed prior to the election in his personal financial disclosures.

    DRJ (15874d)

  99. Easy, John. DRJ, the way you stated it, how can Trump be blamed? Why should he support any candidate who has refused to support him?

    nk (dbc370)

  100. John sez:

    [Cruz] Did not speak out against attacks on candidates wives & children when Trump’s wife was attacked in Utah

    False. The quote from Cruz: “That ad was completely inappropriate, and we had nothing to do with it.”

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  101. You were told they were debunked multiple times on this site before you ever got here. If you were honest, you would take that information and do searches on this site to get the debunkings instead of DEMANDING that everyone become your own personal Bing. Do the work your own blasted self, Trump Idolator. And your lie that you could be a convert if only everyone kissed your feet doesn’t wash.

    John Hitchcock (f2b25c)

  102. I posted links in comments 71, 80, and 100. I did not lie that only Trump renounced his pledge completely — I think Cruz said he might not support Trump because he had insulted his wife — but I am open to reconsidering if you can provide a link showing I am wrong.

    DRJ (15874d)

  103. steveg

    Trumped signed the pledge and then the others said they would NOT support the nominee if Trump. Now Trump says screw you, takes back his pledge, and DRJ says/implies Trump is the problem?

    for DRJ to say or imply this is a lie or playing doublespeak. DRJ didn’t say what actually happened. She is saying because those who took back their pledge did so only if Trump is the nominee is not wrong to do. This not just double speak its triple speak. Its still those guys going against their pledge FIRST. And yet everyone was worried about Trump. Trump put up with a ton of crap, including smearing his wife in Utah, and Cruz not speaking out against the smear, then Cruz touchback his pledge,THEN TRUMP took back his pledge.

    Thats also why the delegate rules were changed in Colorado last August when Trump was surging. The establishment and Cruz are cowards and can only win by playing dirty.

    John (20e1e6)

  104. This illustrates an important dynamic that I expect to see prevailing between now and, at least, June 7th — but not necessarily all the way to the convention: Public scrutiny is making people in positions of authority very careful. This is a feature, not a bug:

    Don’t expect changes to the convention rules when the Republican National Committee holds its spring meeting next week in Hollywood, Florida, a party official said Wednesday.

    Members agreed in a recent conference call that changing the rules now with the looming possibility of a contested convention would give the impression that they were trying to rig the process, said Peter Feaman, a RNC committeeman from Florida and a member of the party’s rules committee.

    “The consensus was that the RNC rules committee is going to specifically steer clear of any proposed convention rules changes because we don’t want the RNC perceived as somehow wanting to manipulate the process one way or another,” he said.

    The quarterly meeting next week will be the last time RNC members get together before the Republican National Convention in July in Cleveland.

    But my understanding is that the Rules Committee proper — comprising one male and one female delegate designated by each state’s and territory’s convention delegation — meets during the week before the convention for the specific purpose of considering which of the interim rules, meaning the rules from the 2012 convention, as since amended in committee, are to be recommended by the Rules Committee to the full convention floor for majority-vote approval. That group of people — in contrast to the RNC — can be expected to include large contingents who are personally loyal to either Trump or Cruz.

    Publicity and controversy effectively combine to give the current version of the interim rules — which include both 40(b) (the eight-state rule) and 16(a) (the faithless delegate rule) — more political inertia than they’d otherwise have.

    The other interesting and related thing I read today was this, buried deep in a WaPo column:

    Cruz’s campaign is now pushing to use Roberts Rules of Order, instead of House rules, to govern a contested floor fight. Why? Because House rules would allow the convention’s Rules Committee to convene during the convention to change the rules of the game as it is being played. Cruz’s team fears this could be used to elevate an alternative from the establishment wing of the party on the third or fourth ballot.

    The “House rules” referenced are those of the United States House of Representatives, with which the Chair of the Republican Convention, Paul Ryan, already knows backwards and forwards as the Speaker of the House. But I haven’t studied, or seen a summary of, how they compare to Robert’s Rules — and specifically, whether either of them, or anything else, addresses the Rules Committee’s mid-convention powers. This continues to pique my curiosity, mostly because I sense that there are tactical dimensions to this which I’m not yet seeing or taking account of. Any ideas, y’all?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  105. John:

    Thank you for your forthright concession regarding the wall and immigrants.

    Comment 102. Response please.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  106. And please do not call DRJ a “liar” — or even a “lair.”

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  107. And John
    Yes thank you.
    Was feeling ignored.
    Did you catch any mention of how blaming Cruz or Trump for actions of surrogates and whomever else is an unending gotcha game?

    I am not in the Cruz camp, but have to say that Cruz fired someone and Trump is holding onto Lewandowski.
    I don’t care much about someone grabbing a reporter. Here on equal pay day I think that guys get shoved, grabbed, pulled, bruised all the time, so put on your big girl pantsuit or get out, but if you are Lewandowski, don’t try to whitewash it.

    steveg (fed1c9)

  108. Man, I miss Stashio and Eric Blair.

    John Hitchcock (f2b25c)

  109. [Cruz] Did not speak out against attacks on candidates wives & children when Trump’s wife was attacked in Utah

    John, what’s worse: your dishonest statement that Cruz did not speak out re attack(s) on a candidate’s wife (which he did) or a candidate that intentionally attacked another candidate’s wife like Trump did with the Heidi Cruz tweet?

    Dana (0ee61a)

  110. Trump put up with a ton of crap, including smearing his wife in Utah, and Cruz not speaking out against the smear

    John:

    False. Comment 102. Your response please.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  111. @ John Hitchcock (#90): I think the likelihood of your being confused with John Trumpkin is actually quite low, just based obvious stylistic differences (you use capital letters and punctuation, for example), even without regard to your illustrious surname or your different opinions regarding the Donald. Fret not, friend. 😉

    DRJ, you’re from the same part of west Texas whence I hail. I’m pretty sure we don’t take kindly to being called lairs, although I can’t recall ever being called that exact thing before. I’m frankly not sure how to trespond to that. But I don’t much cotton to it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  112. John,

    1) Lied that Carson had dropped out of the race in Iowa.

    — Repeating what Carson said and CNN reported isn’t lying. And unlike Trump, Cruz at least apologized for his staffer’s tweet and the campaign’s email.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/03/ted-cruz-did-steal-ben-carsons-votes-but-he-did-it-in-november-not-on-monday/

    ————

    2) Did not speak out against attacks on candidates wives & children when Trump’s wife was attacked in Utah (even if it wasn’t a Cruz PAC that attacked Trumps wife, why not speak out against an attack against a candidate wife? why did Cruz ONLY speak out when his wife was attacked?

    — Cruz did respond, but Trump didn’t give him any time to address the attack on Melania as Trump’s tweet threatened Heidi Cruz. So, you’re faulting Cruz for not defending Trump’s wife after Trump falsely accuses Cruz of dirty tricks and threatening his wife.

    https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/712464268621385728?lang=en

    ————

    3) Told the media that their candidate, Cruz, had met with Carson in a closet to make peace. when Carson explicitly said the meeting was meant to be private & not mentioned to the press.

    — Interesting, since The Daily Beast was the organization that broke that story and their source was THE CARSON CAMPAIGN!

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/19/cruz-carson-held-secret-meeting-about-dirty-tricks.html

    ————

    4) Promised to support the party nominee then said he wouldn’t. I thought it was Trump that everyone was worried about who would not support nominee?

    — Trump blew that up first by attacking Heidi Cruz then publicly announcing he was pulling his support for “the pledge” with Anderson Cooper.

    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/29/donald-trump-says-he-no-longer-vows-to-support-the-republican-nominee/

    ————

    5) Never brought up illegal immigration or jobs going overseas until Trump did.

    — Here in Texas we’ve heard Cruz talk about building a wall and fighting illegal immigration since 2012… now find a video of Trump prior to 2015 showing the same thing.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEgJh-1i1Cw

    ————

    6) Denies that wife was supportive of the CFR’s North American Union. She, in fact, SUPPORTS the North American “Community”/Union. Becoming a North American Union does not mean getting rid of private businesses – it means the free flow of people and goods across borders. That’s how it started in the European Union too and you see what free flowing borders and goods has done for them. That is what citizens do NOT want – they want to retain their Sovereignty and it doesn’t matter what the stated “intent” is – it matters how it actually ends up. THAT’s the point.

    — Not even going to address this, Heidi Cruz isn’t running for dog catcher much less President. But, but now I’m sure you see a pattern developing…

    ————

    7) “Forgot” to include two loans from Goldman Sachs on his FEC filing documents. The same Goldman Sachs that Cruz declared “Goldman is a member of the dastardly cartel that’s bilking the American people.” ????

    — Cruz did not forget about the loans, he listed them on one form but forgot to also include them on a second, it’s not hiding if he already disclosed it, he just didn’t fill out all of the forms. Have you ever had to fill out an itemized tax return? That is child’s play next to an FEC filing for a Senate campaign.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/01/14/463093708/the-ted-cruz-goldman-sachs-loan-explained

    So, any other “lies” you want to list?

    Sean (221079)

  113. John,

    You’ve made some allegations about the Cruz campaign, but I don’t understand why you aren’t pointing out that Ted Cruz told a Rolling Stone reporter that Carly Fiorina is “too ugly” to be elected President? And why haven’t you mentioned that Ted Cruz attacked Megyn Kelly for “bleeding from her wherever”?
    And have you heard about the transcripts from Ted Cruz‘ long ago appearances on the Howard Stern Show when he talked about women’s anatomy?
    We know that you’d never support a candidate who engages in such public vulgarity and boorishness!

    And did you hear about Ted Cruz‘s four bankruptcies? And the civil litigation brought against Cruz University? Doesn’t that give you pause regarding his business acumen?

    The script just writes itself, doesn’t it? (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  114. happyfeet,

    Jeff Goldstein had quite a well-written message for his readers who support Trump. I recommend that you check it out.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  115. DRJ and Patterico.

    Thanks for your links. It is realty appreciated. sincerely.

    but I remain unconvinced even with those responses & links.

    Cruz said wives & kids are off the table once his wife was attacked. It was clear what meant.

    he said the ad against Trump’s wife was “inappropriate”. It wasn’t “inappropriate”. It was a personal “attack” against another man’s wife.

    Why couldn’t Cruz use the same forceful words he used against Trump: “Ted Cruz warned Donald Trump not to “attack women”. Melanie was “attacked.” I feel Cruz didn’t attack strong enough those who attacked Trump. He only got mad when his wife was attacked. As if Trump wasn’t just as mad when his wife was attacked. As everyone knows Trump has a temper. So everyone expects Trumps to have his wife “attacked” and for him not to do anything?

    I already responded to 80. Every one else said they would NOT support Trump of he was the nominee. So why should Trump support them? Really??? after he gets dumped on by everyone. They asked for it.

    FEC filing is what was needed running for the Senate. It is for running for office. Its no small coincidental “oops” when you rail against Goldman Sachs as a leech and then forget to mention you have 2 loans from them to support your campaign.

    Come on, Cruz doesn’t miss anything. He is a lawyer and his wife works for Goldman Sachs, knows finances and they blow such an easy requirement when running for the Senate. Can you imagine if this were Trump?

    Also, here is my breibart link:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/04/cruz-carson-email-trump-iowa-cnn/

    important sentence:

    “In fact, the Cruz campaign’s messages to activists were sent after the Carson campaign had already clarified that Carson was not dropping out.”

    I think the Cruz camp was very sleazy that night. I agree with Carson:

    “Also on Thursday, Carson said that the Cruz campaign never tried to verify the truth before sending false information to supporters.”

    ” ‘As a Christian man, I accept the apology he has since offered and I take him at his word that he didn’t know,’ Carson said. ‘But no actions have been taken to correct the problem. That I cannot accept.’ ”

    ‘One thing is now clear — while Senator Cruz may preach against the ‘Washington Cartel,’ he will still adopt, or at least not condemn, Cartel tactics for his own political gain,’ Carson wrote.

    Simon Jester, No i don’t get paid imbecile. I am a concerned American citizen and I research to stay informed.

    John (20e1e6)

  116. It’s not about blame, nk, and it’s not just about supporting the nominee. The pledge also included a promise not to run as an independent, write-in or a third-party candidate.

    If I’m correct that Trump is the only candidate who has completely renounced the pledge, and I think I am, then this part of the promise still applies to everyone but Trump.

    DRJ (15874d)

  117. 46. …Its a joy to see Cruz supporters who think they are smart just fall flat on their faces when the truth is all posted on their stellar candidate…

    John (20e1e6) — 4/13/2016 @ 8:17 pm

    You have the right number of letters, and the “r” is in the right place. Other than that you came no where near spelling “crazy” correctly.

    Steve57 (225587)

  118. John, you apparently cut and paste from the internet in a way that makes it appear you came up with the verbiage.

    Because a search function told me so. Anyone can do it.

    But I do find it amusing that you don’t care for insults by…insulting.

    What’s next?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6uxYjbF31k

    You are just another troll, dude.

    That Trump sure is mature.

    Simon Jester (c30bac)

  119. 83. …I am very disturbed…

    John (20e1e6) — 4/13/2016 @ 8:58 pm

    You could have just stopped there, John, and saved a lot of bandwidth.

    Steve57 (225587)

  120. Lame Cruz Supporter

    and your point? yes Trump said & did those things. And? Trump throws insults. And Cruz doesn’t? and Cruz’s campaign isn’t sleazy & dirty?

    but you still don’t want to respond to the points I made.

    I guess you accept Cruz did and said those thing too.

    cheers

    John (20e1e6)

  121. You are cherry-picking from my Breitbart link, john, and ignoring that the link concludes Cruz did nothing wrong in Iowa. People can disagree but acting like there is only one side to the story is not helpful.

    DRJ (15874d)

  122. Simon Jester

    so what do you disagree with that I posted or cut and pasted? Why should I not cut & paste? what is wrong with that? I also post links? and???

    just because you insult doesn’t mean you have posted a rebuttal. I also posted a lot in my own words.

    more than I can say about your posts.

    cheers

    John (20e1e6)

  123. Patterico, I read that PW link you provided, 2 minutes ago.
    And 1 minute ago, I lit up a cigarette.
    Thank you.

    John Hitchcock (f2b25c)

  124. And now the brigade of legal experts who insisted Fields was battered now insist she has a great defamation claim. Nevermind that she herself defamed Cory when she claimed he tried to pull and throw her to the ground and that she almost fell and was “shaken,” despite video evidence that disproves all of this. Nevermind that the location of the bruises do not match where we know Cory touched Fields (her upper arm was grabbed but the bruises are on the inside of her lower arm). Nevermind that Fields has a long history of making shaky, public accusations against police and other prominent men.

    As to some of the discussion of commenter John’s various claims. It surprises me most of you Cruz supporters are so blind to the facts. Cruz did falsely spread the rumor that Carson had backed out, whether he knew this was false is open to debate. Cruz did support amnesty, opposed the wall, and even went to the border to greet “dreamers” with teddy bears and soccer balls. Now he supports the wall, wants to permanently deport illegals, and end birth right citizenship. How can you honestly say Cruz hasn’t played catch up to Trump on immigration? The same goes for trade. Cruz publicly supported TPP, even coauthoring an editorial with Paul Ryan. Now he opposes. Trump has opposed free trade deals for decades. Finally, as to the timing of Cruz’s criticism of the Melania ad. In his initial tweet and several appearances afterward he never criticized the ad. Only when pressed did he do so. It should have been the first thing out of his mouth. That’s just the truth. Not that it’s a big deal–I’m sure he did not want to condemn the ad since Trump attacked his wife’s looks. That’s a natural reaction but let’s not lie about Cruz taking his time to condemn it.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  125. John,

    Your claim was:

    Trump put up with a ton of crap, including smearing his wife in Utah, and Cruz not speaking out against the smear

    I posted a link and a quote showing Cruz said the ad was inappropriate. That is speaking out against it. It might not be the words you would have liked to see used. But if you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you’ll admit that Cruz spoke out against it. Meaning what you said is false.

    a, b, or c? You’re going with c so far. Keep doing it and I’ll lose patience.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  126. Oh, John. If you are not a troll, just do a search on Patterico’s site. Lots of answers to your “burning questions” that have been discussed here many times.

    Google is also your friend. Sort of like when you cut and pasted from other people’s work when you posted here, instead of writing for yourself.

    But you are just a troll. Not a very good one.

    Happy evening.

    By the way: you started it.

    Annoying, isn’t it?

    Simon Jester (c30bac)

  127. DRJ

    no i didn’t cherry pick., That is what breibart wrote and what Carson said. I was VERY fair. I even said Cruz was not personally at fault BUT his camp is still sleazy. I can’t get much more clearer than that. Also from the breibart link:

    “CNN issued a statement Wednesday evening disputing Cruz’s claims to have relied on its reporting: “Senator Cruz’s claims about CNN are false. At no point did the network indicate Dr. Carson would suspend his campaign.”

    breibart does not exonerate the Cruz camp from these accusations. Maybe you should re-read your link. if breibart does please cut and past the sentence.

    I stand by my accusation.

    thanks again for the links.

    sincerely & respectfully.

    John (20e1e6)

  128. Patterico 102,

    Some of the Trump supporters here have complained that Cruz did not condemn the Melania ad fast enough. I tried to research it once, looking at things like how long it took for the existence of the ad to become known and where Cruz was on the campaign trail at the time.

    But then I realized that what probably made Trump and his supporters mad is that Cruz’s first response was to stand up to Donald, something they seem to hate.

    DRJ (15874d)

  129. “…I was VERY fair….”

    Oh, good Lord. That sounds like the Orange Toupee.

    Let me help you.

    “No one is fairer than me. Everybody says so. When you look up ‘fair’ in the dictionary, my picture is there. I’m all about fair. I’m so fair, it would make your head spin. I’ll be fair so much, you will get tired of me being fair. But I’ll still be fairer than anyone else. I just want to make America fair again.”

    Rinse and repeat.

    Simon Jester (c30bac)

  130. John,

    I should not have to keep repeating this. Your statement that Cruz did not speak out against the Melania ad was false. Please retract it.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  131. John,

    Donald Trump didn’t stand up for Megyn Kelly when she was accused of “bleeding from her wherever by Donald Trump. Doesn’t that make Donald Trump sleazy on two different counts….one; for saying she was “bleeding from her wherever,” and two; for not defending her?

    We’re just trying to line up to kick a field goal and we want to know where the goalposts are located. Please let us know when you intend to move them again. Thank you.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  132. DRJ, #117, I get it now. Thank you.

    nk (dbc370)

  133. Patterico

    I conceded the wall didn’t i? did you see where i retracted for the wall? Thats a clear “a”. Why dont you give me credit for that? come on be fair.

    Please do not say i only am going with “c”. That would not be very truthful when I already conceded.

    Do you want me to concede on everything? than post facts that allow to do that. Cruz’s response to Melania’s attack was weak. He did not state, as I stated, that wives and children are off limits for attacks. Trump’s wife was “attacked.” I do not agree with Cruz weak response. and that makes me “intellectually honesty”? please.

    Cruz didn’t even say attacks against wives & children were wrong until it was his wife. Which is what i said all along.

    How many people that disagree online concede a point like I did? I am am determined in my opinions but i am also fair and will concede and change my opinion if I am proven wrong. Which i did already.

    If you dont want to recognize that then thats a bit of a problem.

    John (20e1e6)

  134. 105. …Thats also why the delegate rules were changed in Colorado last August when Trump was surging. The establishment and Cruz are cowards and can only win by playing dirty.

    John (20e1e6) — 4/13/2016 @ 9:30 pm

    No one was “surging” in August 2015. The Iowa caucus didn’t kick off the primary season until 1 February 2016.

    And there was no change to the “delegate rules,” whatever you mean by that. I have no idea what you mean by that and, judging from your other comments demonstrating your tenuous grasp of reality, neither do you.

    I know people who have participated in the Colorado caucuses since 2008 and the process is exactly the same now as it was then. Actually it’s been the same since the Colorado legislature voted for the state to stop paying for primaries in 2002 and declared that if the parties wanted to hold primary elections they had to pay for those primaries themselves. Since the CO GOP could not afford that, they’ve been using this exact same delegate selection process of caucusing at the precinct then county/congressional district levels followed by a state convention ever since.

    You have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea what the state GOP voted to do last August. You have no idea what changes the state GOP made to their by-laws, which they posted to their website in September 2015. But then, you demonstrated you have no idea what you are talking about long before you got around to portraying poor, pitiful Donald Trump as the helpless victim of the Colorado Republican Committee @105.

    I’m very glad you’re commenting here. I despise Donald Trump and everyone knows it. So I can denigrate him all I want and it has limited impact. But with your active participation, John, it is so much more effective.

    Steve57 (225587)

  135. This is my Cruz-Carson-Iowa link. It’s different than your link. Here is the bottom line:

    ast Monday night, during the Iowa Caucus, I watched CNN live and saw the Carson segment in question that lit this political fire. At the time, there was no doubt in my mind that CNN, for whatever reason, wanted people to believe that Carson was dropping out of the race. Watch the segment with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash for yourself.
    ***

    DRJ (15874d)

  136. DRJ no one is running as an independent. Even Trump will not.

    but everyone has renounced the pledge to support the nominee. some have qualified if its only Trump. But they have all torn up the paper at this point. Though I dont think any would run as a third party.

    John (20e1e6)

  137. Why should have Cruz defended the Slovenian stripper at all? Is that the kind of “person” we want as First Lady?

    nk (dbc370)

  138. Bash even goes beyond reporting to ominously inform  viewers, “Look, if you want to be president of the United States, you don’t go home to Florida. That’s just the bottom line. That’s the end of the story.”

    Oh, okay.

    Here is the most important fact: In the segment above, Bash is referring to reporting from CNN’s Chris Moody. At the time, Moody’s reporting had been done only through his Twitter account, which has fewer than 31,000 followers. This is important, because through his Twitter account, Moody reported a crucially important fact that CNN held back both on its cable network and through the official CNN Twitter account.

    According to my colleague Joel Pollak’s timeline of events, Moody made clear in his Twitter-reporting that Ben Carson was not dropping out of the race. For whatever reason, the on-air reporting neglected to mention this clarifying bit of news.

    Now ask yourself this simple question: Why did CNN leave that out?

    sorry. I hit enter before completing the quote.

    DRJ (15874d)

  139. There are three sorts of “pledge” involved here. All involve a promise to support the Republican nominee, but beyond that, they’re different from one another.

    One kind of pledge was a publicity stunt done by each of the candidates for the RNC in writing — a one-page, two-sentences-in-big-font assurance that “I will support the GOP nominee,” with no more detail than that. That kind of pledge is not legally enforceable by or against anyone.

    Another type was the multiple verbal and hand-raising pledges given by the candidates during one or another televised debates. Those were pledges made not to the RNC but rather to the GOP voting public. Again, it’s not legally enforceable.

    Whether these two types of pledges have been breached, or may be breached; whether (as in law) the first renouncement of the pledge by one of them released any, or all, of the others — these are matters capable of adjudication only in the court of public opinion. Eventually, however, public opinion drives election returns, nominations, and presidencies. But I doubt there will be much, if any, net gain or loss to Trump, Cruz, or Kasich based on voter perceptions related to these two types of pledges. Everyone may have an impression, but few will make a decision that gives much weight to “did he keep this pledge?” Or “has he already broken this pledge?” Or “who broke the pledge first?” Meh.

    A third type of pledge is very different indeed. It wasn’t made to the public, or even in public — not in any detail. It’s the IP data sharing agreements by which each of the candidates has agreed to share information with and through the RNC. It doubtless includes enforcement mechanisms that might well indeed stand up in court. That’s the only type of pledge that interests me much, because IP documents like this typically are incredibly lopsided in favor of the IP owners’ exclusivity and enforcement rights. If the Trump campaign has already received access to this information from the RNC, then regardless of how much they’ve actually used it, they could find themselves badly outmaneuvered. Again.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  140. Patterico,

    You’re right, he said it was inappropriate (and earlier than I had recalled). But he did wait. He did not condemn the ad when he responded on twitter or in any of the discussions about the ad (and Trump’s response) that preceded the video at the link you provided. I can’t say I blame Cruz for waiting given the nastiness Trump displayed. But he didn’t exactly jump to the condemn the ad, either. I notice you’re jumping on John over this “lie,” even though most of his original post is true–whether it is flip flops on trade, immigration, or that Cruz eagerly spread the false rumor about Carson. I can see why you’d support Cruz but Ann Coulter is right–you Cruzbots are cult-like in that you can never concede fault on the part of your candidate. It’s inexplicable and does your side no favors.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  141. Do you promise Trump won’t run as an Independent, john? Really?

    DRJ (15874d)

  142. If the Trump campaign has already received access to this information from the RNC, then regardless of how much they’ve actually used it, they could find themselves badly outmaneuvered

    .

    How so? Because Priebus is going to sue Trump for breach of contract? They certainly can’t stop him for running third party. That much is obvious.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  143. Is there a full moon tonight? Moonbats, howling very loud they are! Refugees from the short bus!

    Yoda (feee21)

  144. John,

    Do you not hear yourself? First, you accuse Cruz of not responding quickly enough to your liking in condemning attacks on wives/ children, yet you do not condemn Trump for having ACTUALLY ATTACKED A CANDIDATE’S WIFE! Then you decide Cruz Cruz’s response to Melania’s attack was “weak,: and yet you still did not condemn Trump for having ACTUALLY ATTACKED A CANDIDATE’S WIFE!

    Again, what is worse: a candidate who condemns an attack on another candidate’s wife, or a candidate who ACTUALLY ATTACKED ANOTHER CANDIDATE’S WIFE?

    Dana (0ee61a)

  145. Refugees or escapees?

    Yoda (feee21)

  146. As so often happens, as I was writing my last (#140), I saw that in the meantime DRJ had already linked (#117) that to which I was less precisely adverting.

    She’s just awesome. 😀

    Anyway, from the CNN link she gave earlier, here’s the exact wording of the first kind of pledge I was recalling:

    The pledge, circulated by GOP officials, stated: “I, ________, affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for President of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is.”

    The pledge continues: “I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party.”

    Photo of Trump holding up his signed pledge: here.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  147. Beldar, you really think a court would enforce this through specific performance? Why do you think Trump has been outmaneuvered? It’s like you have an uncanny ability to be wrong on any legal issue.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  148. John,

    Oh, stop with the fake outrage about the Melania in Utah stuff. First, Melania got paid to pose for the photos, which she did by her own volition. Secondly, Liz Mair has nothing to do with the Cruz campaign.
    Thirdly, after all of the attacks that The Mr Donald Trump had already made upon various women, including another candidate (Carly Fiorina), it comes across as a little goofy to pretend that sort of stuff bothers you.
    At least if you’re not bothered by Trump’s sleazy attacks upon women, aren’t you the least bit bothered by the fact he contributed to Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign, and contributed to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuckie Schumer in recent years?
    I think you Trumpkins sense that Trump won’t earn the requisite delegates prior to Cleveland, and so you guys are feeling a little on edge.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  149. Old Reader:

     I can see why you’d support Cruz but Ann Coulter is right–you Cruzbots are cult-like in that you can never concede fault on the part of your candidate. It’s inexplicable and does your side no favors.

    You are wrong and wrong.

    DRJ (15874d)

  150. DRJ

    Thanks that better. I see that was dated after mine so that is more accurate. and breibart gives Cruz a pass. I still can’t believe with his incredible ground game Cruz camp missed the twitter feed. so I am “b” on that. I partially concede but am suspicious.

    Dana, Patterico,

    nowhere did Cruz “condemn” the “attack” on Melania. And i stand by what I said. Cruz did not speak out against wives & kids being attacked when Trumps wife was attacked. I said that from the beginning and still stand by it.

    Patterico,

    I conceded on the wall. You dont seem to want to say that. Strange on your part.

    The rest of my comments I still stand by,

    cheers and good night. I have to get up early for work.

    Thank you all for your tolerance. Its still great to live in a country like ours where we can passionately disagree but not kill each other.

    and for all you #neverTrumpers, you gotta luv I showed up.

    It gave you all a chance to not get rusty in your “healthy debate” brain functions. Though it did take several of you to take on little ol’ moi ;

    cheers folks and at least be safe in the thought that I will vote for Cruz if he gets the nomination because I know he is much better than Clinton…..but i will keep my good eye on him to keep him honest!!!

    seriously folks: cheers, God bless & good night.

    with much respect & begging your forgiveness,

    John

    John (20e1e6)

  151. I have the same problem arguing with my liberal friends. The underlying “truth” of their views validates any “facts” they assemble in defense of their godless faith, which masquerades as informed opinion. If it’s not polar bears and icecaps, it is the alarming gender pay gap or some other fraudulent allegation that demonstrates the predatory nature of the patriarchy. I have more luck arguing the heresies of Pope Pancho with my Catholic friends who come by their faith honestly.

    If the insight the 2008 campaign provided about the gullibility of the Republican middle wasn’t bad enough, now we get to learn a similar lesson about the silent plurality of Trump voters. And I used to think the “big tent” was a good thing.

    For so many, democracy seems to mean that you are entitled to not only your own opinions, but, also, your own facts. It would be so much easier if they would just concede that their belief in Global Warming or Donald Trump was an article of faith, period. That I could respect.

    By the bye, that Slovenian stripper is the one thing I’m looking forward to in a Trump presidency.

    ThOR (a52560)

  152. Hey, I can list a large handful of policy disagreements I have with Ted Cruz off the top of my head. Some of them are important issues to some voters, including many single-issue voters.

    I also disagree with him that Godfather Part 3 is worthy of inclusion in the same breath with the first two parts.

    But he and I agree entirely on most of my most important issues, and substantially on many other issues that are important to me, and I have confidence in his values, intellect, judgment, and temperament. I admire and respect him.

    In this regard I’m typical of the one million-plus Texans who turned out to give him a record-setting sixteen point margin over Trump in Texas in what was then still a seven-candidate race.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  153. Melania cannot compare with Huma.

    nk (dbc370)

  154. Beldar,
    Did he really say Godfather Part III was a worthy successor to the first two? Yikes! Fortunately, this is not an election for guest host at Turner Classic Movies!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  155. Who would you invite to dinner at the White House if you’d just moved in? Taylor Swift seems like a pretty good idea to me, too.

    If you wonder whether Caroline Cruz takes after her daddy, though, watch this video clip, in which you can watch her mentally review the answer she’d just given, and then decide to extend and revise her remarks with a succinct, three-point response that was directly relevant and on point.

    They don’t fall far from the tree, do they?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  156. Watch out, C.S., you’re gonna get us drummed out of the cult with that talk!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  157. Thanks for the link, Beldar. That was charming.

    I’m also a Godfather 3 fan. I particularly enjoyed Sofia Coppola’s . . . character development.

    ThOR (a52560)

  158. We’ve LOST our COLLECTIVE MIND. Do any of you REALLY….really believe, that LEWANDOWSKI was GUILTY of a CRIME???? WTF has happened to us?????

    GUS (30b6bd)

  159. DRJ,

    Thanks for sharing the links, though a couple examples from this blog hardly disproves the point. But I actually have sympathy for Cruz on the marriage license issue, though I question if that is the right case where we need to take a stand. Oh, yes, I know, the rule of law! Which means whatever 5 old farts say is the law of the land, right? The founders viewed the judiciary as the least dangerous branch because they had faith the other branches would ignore lawless decisions. If SCOTUS really is the least dangerous branch than we need to ignore their more groundless decisions. If we always just accept whatever they say as valid, then we get garbage like Roe, Gay Marriage, etc. The “least dangerous branch” needs a reality check–stop playing politics with the Constitution. There is something profoundly troubling that the 5 old life-tenured geezers can dictate social policy.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  160. We’ve LOST our COLLECTIVE MIND. Do any of you REALLY….really believe, that LEWANDOWSKI was GUILTY of a CRIME???? WTF has happened to us?????

    It’s sad so many of our “conservative” brethren have thrown in with the social justice warriors. I think they’ll come around. I hope.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  161. Actually, Old Reader, providing two examples showing the blog hosts disagreeing with Cruz does disprove your point that we are Cruz cultists who can “never concede fault on the part of [our] candidate.”

    DRJ (15874d)

  162. Two whole examples! Color me impressed.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  163. John Trumpkin wrote (#152):

    [N]owhere did Cruz “condemn” the “attack” on Melania. And i stand by what I said. Cruz did not speak out against wives & kids being attacked when Trumps wife was attacked. I said that from the beginning and still stand by it.

    Headline on FoxNews.com on March 28, 2016:

    Cruz on Nat’l Enquirer Story: ‘Wives and Kids Should Be Off-Limits’.

    The headline is a quote from Cruz, appearing on Trumpkin Hannity’s program. Didn’t you have your DVR set?

    Oh wait — maybe Google.com doesn’t work from your browser? You probably should consult an information technology specialist about that.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  164. I don’t think Cruz is experienced enough yet(several tactical errors including the climate change committee meeting} and I am also not ready for someone younger than me to be President, but that one isn’t his fault. I will and have supported him since he had that short run at AG.

    Good enough for you Old Reader?

    BradnSA (2312b5)

  165. For Trumpkins, “never” is an integer greater than zero and, apparently, greater than two.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  166. For Trumpkins, “never” is an integer greater than zero and, apparently, greater than two.

    Cute. Sorry I thought I was speaking with adults. Of course, I did not actually mean no Cruz supporter has ever disagreed with him. It’s almost like the Cruzbots don’t understand hyperbole (or dishonestly pretend not to understand it in order to score cheap debate points that impress no one). OK, OK, perhaps I should have said “almost never.” Happy now, you pedantic old coot? =)

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  167. The climate change meeting? Where he called out the head of NASA in embarrassing fashion? That was actually one of his finest moments.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  168. If the insight the 2008 campaign provided about the gullibility of the Republican middle wasn’t bad enough, now we get to learn a similar lesson about the silent plurality of Trump voters.

    Please. While it’s true that’s Trump’s support is often strongest among the least educated, he often wins across the board, among every income and education group. Many of us support Trump–even those of us who are Ivy educated and successful–because we believe he is right on trade and immigration and has the best chance to turn swing states to win the electoral college. He lacks polish, he has bluster, he lacks policy depth, but he is also a fighter that is right on the most important issues facing this country.

    He is no dream candidate, that is true, but he has shown moments of political brilliance. But it’s also true that Cruz is an unattractive candidate that will be pilloried if he actually wins the nomination. If you believe the current polls, you are a fool. The press is treating him with kid gloves to damage Trump. In contrast, they’ve already thrown everything they can at Trump and as long as he ups his game and refuses to give them ammo, his numbers will rise. In crucial swing states, like PA, he is within the margin of error, even after all the bluster and blunders. You’re blind if you don’t see how Trump can wins this as long as he softens his image and demonstrates minimal prep during debates.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  169. Shockingly, Old Liar agrees with New Liar.

    Are they really complaining about flip flops on an issue? Really? While shilling for Short Fingers?!?!

    JD (c3dfde)

  170. what was Mr. Cruz’s tactical error with the climate change committee meeting?

    happyfeet (831175)

  171. John,

    Sean left a comment that has a number of links so I think it initually went into the filter, but it was subsequently released as comment 114. I urge you to scroll up and read it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  172. I conceded the wall didn’t i? did you see where i retracted for the wall? Thats a clear “a”. Why dont you give me credit for that? come on be fair.

    False. Comment 107: “Thank you for your forthright concession regarding the wall and immigrants.”

    Cruz’s response to Melania’s attack was weak. He did not state, as I stated, that wives and children are off limits for attacks.

    Yes he did. That is exactly what he said. And you are exactly what I thought you were once I realized you were a Trump supporter: a troll. I am done interacting with you. Have a nice life.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  173. We’ve LOST our COLLECTIVE MIND. Do any of you REALLY….really believe, that LEWANDOWSKI was GUILTY of a CRIME???? WTF has happened to us?????

    GUS (30b6bd) — 4/13/2016 @ 11:11 pm

    Yes, we believe injuring an innocent person is a crime.

    Next question.

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd (ddead1)

  174. Thank you for a good indication of why you support Trump. It fascinates me how anybody can actually support him, so I’m always interested in why they do.

    Many of us support Trump–even those of us who are Ivy educated and successful–because we believe he is right on trade and immigration and has the best chance to turn swing states to win the electoral college. He lacks polish, he has bluster, he lacks policy depth, but he is also a fighter that is right on the most important issues facing this country.

    What is he right on trade?

    As for immigration, its okay that he has flipped back and forth, and pretty much only supports immigration restrictions in speeches, but the actual policy will be wide open immigration?

    How does he have the best chance to turn swing states when he can’t even win a majority of republicans in heavy republican states?

    He seems like a fighter, but how can he fight for things without having any sort of policy depth? Isn’t he also a deal maker? Wouldn’t he more likely deal than fight?

    He is no dream candidate, that is true, but he has shown moments of political brilliance. But it’s also true that Cruz is an unattractive candidate that will be pilloried if he actually wins the nomination. If you believe the current polls, you are a fool. The press is treating him with kid gloves to damage Trump. In contrast, they’ve already thrown everything they can at Trump and as long as he ups his game and refuses to give them ammo, his numbers will rise. In crucial swing states, like PA, he is within the margin of error, even after all the bluster and blunders. You’re blind if you don’t see how Trump can wins this as long as he softens his image and demonstrates minimal prep during debates.

    Old Reader (08f24c) — 4/14/2016 @ 12:25 am

    I know Cruz isn’t well liked either, but Trump is worse. I think you confuse what the media has done now to what will happen if he is the nominee. They have gone light on him for now. They will dig up everything he has said and air it over and over again. He will be accused of hating women and of a racist. And I don’t think he will be able to soften his image.

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd (ddead1)

  175. And now, a message for Michelle Fields from world famous actor Shia Labeouf.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  176. Yes, we believe injuring an innocent person is a crime.

    Next question.

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd (ddead1) — 4/14/2016 @ 7:41 am

    If being herded out of an unauthorized area is defined as injury now, I want to file a complaint against the rope line at BofA.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  177. How dare you assault me with your closed door policy.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  178. The loans were not included in the FEC filings and they should have been, but they were disclosed prior to the election in his personal financial disclosures.

    The loan was declared on his personal filing, which went in the same day as the campaign filing. There was never a time when it was covered up. The only difference is which form it was on. It was a personal loan to him and his wife; who would have guessed it should be reported on the campaign’s form?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  179. The most interesting thing in the prosecutors’ press conference today was the chief prosecutor’s revelation that he was a Harvard Law School suitemate of Ted Cruz, meaning they shared a bathroom.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  180. Papertiger – that is one of the most dishonest analogies I have seen in regards to this topic. Congrats.

    JD (34f761)

  181. The pledge continues: “I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party.”

    I assume that’s to be read as also subject to the previous paragraph’s qualification “I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination”. Because one would expect whoever wins the nomination to seek or accept the nomination of whichever other parties are willing to give it. I certainly expect Cruz, if he wins the R nomination, to be offered and accept the nomination of NY’s C party.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  182. If being herded out of an unauthorized area is defined as injury now, I want to file a complaint against the rope line at BofA.

    Is anyone laying hands on you? No. Did Lewandowski lay hands on Fields? Yes. Is laying hands on someone a crime? Yes.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  183. nowhere did Cruz “condemn” the “attack” on Melania.

    Sure he did. He said it was inappropriate. What more do you want? But more to the point, he had no reason to condemn it at all. Why the *** should he? Is it his job to condemn everything that happens in the world that he doesn’t agree with?! Does he also have to condemn honor killings in Jordan and mean landlords in Ghana and people who are cruel to puppies in China? What did that ad have to do with him that he should condemn it? But Trump personally attacked Heidi Cruz, not once but twice, and then had his henchman Roger Stone (who is very much part of his campaign despite the pretense otherwise) and National Enquirer (which is likewise an integral part of his campaign) make up that ridiculous story about Cruz’s mistresses. I have no doubt that that came directly from Trump himself, because it’s exactly his style.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  184. Cruz didn’t get enough Republicans at the climate hearing, so the dems were able to take over and bogart all the time. That’s the meeting were Steyn tore that Mass senator up.

    Bradoplata (@bradoplata) (acdac8)

  185. Standing in violation of the BofA rope line led to them denying me my God Given Right to an interview with the bank teller, and a verbal assault and battery by the bank security.

    The rope line is a universal symbol of the violence inherent in the system. First cousin to the nightstick shampoo.

    papertiger (c2d6da)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5570 secs.