Patterico's Pontifications


Michael Avenatti Arrested On Suspicion Of Domestic Abuse

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:12 pm

[guest post by Dana]

I wish I were surprised by certain events instead of just cynically nodding my head as if this were business as usual…

It appears that Michael Avenatti, attorney for porn actress Stormy Daniels, is alleged to have been involved in a domestic violence incident in Los Angeles:

Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for porn actress Stormy Daniels, has been arrested in Los Angeles on suspicion of domestic violence, police said.

The celebrity attorney was arrested around 2 p.m. Wednesday in the 10000 block of Santa Monica Boulevard based on allegations stemming from an incident that took place in West L.A. on Tuesday, said Officer Jeff Lee, a Los Angeles Police Department spokesman.

The allegations were made by a woman who had “visible injuries,” including bruises, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Avenatti was released after posting $50,000 bond late Wednesday.

Avenatti, a self-described advocate for women, gave a statement to the press after his release:

“I wish to thank the hard working men and woman of the LAPD for their professionalism they were only doing their jobs in light of the completely bogus allegations against me,” a statement from his law office read. “I have never been physically abusive in my life nor was I last night. Any accusations to the contrary are fabricated and meant to do harm to my reputation. I look forward to being fully exonerated.”

“I have never struck a woman,” he said. “I will never strike a woman.”


Avenatti also spoke to reporters, saying he’s “not going to be intimidated from stopping what I am doing. I am a father to two beautiful, smart daughters. I would never disrespect them by touching a woman inappropriately or striking a woman.”

Avenatti is due in court on Dec. 5.

TMZ first reported the story, claiming that the alleged victim was the attorney’s estranged wife, Lisa Storie-Avenatti. However, Storie-Avenatti denies that it was her, and claims that she has never known Avenatti to be violent. The alleged victim has not been identified.

It’s tempting to joke about this because Avenatti. But there remains the possibility that a woman has been physically injured by him. (LAPD would not confirm if the woman suffered any injuries.) In the same way, a false allegation made against any man is no laughing matter.

A shrewd observation:

He can say he’s an advocate for women all he wants but the bottom line is that he’s saying the woman accusing him is not telling the truth and shouldn’t be believed. That’s a contradiction he should be asked about the next 12 times he’s on CNN.


Perpetrator of Deadly SWATting Call Enters Guilty Plea

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:50 pm

He is looking at a lot of time. Good.

A California man has admitted making a hoax call that ultimately led police to fatally shoot a Kansas man following a dispute between online gamers over $1.50 bet in a Call of Duty WWII video game.

Twenty-six-year-old Tyler R. Barriss pleaded guilty to making a false report resulting in a death, cyberstalking and conspiracy related to the deadly swatting case in the Kansas. The deal with prosecutors will send him to prison for at least 20 years, if the judge accepts it. He had previously pleaded not guilty in Kansas.

As part of the plea agreement, Barriss pleaded guilty to a total of 51 charges that included similar charges initially filed in California and the District of Columbia.

What a tragic case. It was, in truth, a murder. But this is at least some justice for Andrew Finch and his family.

If you’re new to this story, you can read my post about this deadly SWATting here, as well as my own account of having been a SWATting victim in the past. I published the audio of the SWATting call and the body cam footage of the shooting here. I posted about the arrest of the suspect here.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

FOX News Supports CNN In Lawsuit Against President Trump

Filed under: General — Dana @ 1:08 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Just days after CNN filed a lawsuit against President Trump and five aides, Fox News announced that it is backing CNN in the lawsuit. Reports say the organization filed an amicus brief, and will be joined by 12 other major media organizations, including the Washington Post and the New York Times.

From Fox News president, Jay Wallace:

“FOX News supports CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credential. We intend to file an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court. Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized. While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people.”

The statement is similar to a statement issued by CNN, which made clear that the suit is intended to provide protection for other journalists and reporters, many of whom President Trump considers enemies of the people:

“While the suit is specific to CNN and Acosta, this could have happened to anyone,” the [CNN] network said. “If left unchallenged, the actions of the White House would create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials.”

As a reminder, during his campaign days, CNN gleefully gave then-candidate Trump oodles and oodles of free airtime to campaign. Theirs was a symbiotic relationship from which both entities richly benefited. The love-fest helped propel Trump to the White House. With that, we all know that Fox News has also had their own unique “special relationship” with both candidate-Trump and President Trump. At the end of the day, however, it appears that the the network has opted to play the long game here. Not surprising. After all, if Trump and the Republicans lose the White House in 2020, there is no guarantee that a President Harris or President Booker wouldn’t also start revoking the press pass of anyone daring to grandstand and advocate while while masquerading as a reporter.

Interesting to note that Fox News has recently made efforts to distance itself from any “closeness” to Trump:

The president has called into “Fox and Friends” several times, granting them at times nearly 40-minute interviews. The coziness between the president and the network was also underscored this summer when Trump hired former Fox News executive Bill Shine to lead his communications team. And Trump has given exclusive interviews to Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro, who joined him on stage at a rally leading up to the midterm elections.

But the network has made several moves in recent weeks to distance itself. Fox News was quick to condemn the two hosts for appearing to campaign with Trump, especially after Hannity had pledged to not take the stage with the president.

“FOX News does not condone any talent participating in campaign events,” a Fox News spokesperson said in a statement at the time. “This was an unfortunate distraction and has been addressed.”

And earlier this month, Fox News pulled an immigration ad put out by the White House, which other networks had labeled as racist.

In spite of all of this, one wonders whether the organization will find itself in the same fix as CNN and not be able to quit Trump:

“We’ve seen that anytime you break away from the Trump story and cover other events in this era, the audience goes away,” [CNN president Jeff Zucker] added. “So we know that, right now, Donald Trump dominates.”

I just checked President Trump’s Twitter feed, and so far he has not tweeted about the decision made by Fox News.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)


Alarmist Global Warming Study Turns Out to Have Been Flawed

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:52 am

Global Warming Earth

The #FAKENEWSBEZOSPOST has the story:

Scientists behind a major study that claimed the Earth’s oceans are warming faster than previously thought now say their work contained inadvertent errors that made their conclusions seem more certain than they actually are.

Two weeks after the high-profile study was published in the journal Nature, its authors have submitted corrections to the publication. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography, home to several of the researchers involved, also noted the problems in the scientists’ work and corrected a news release on its website, which previously had asserted that the study detailed how the Earth’s oceans “have absorbed 60 percent more heat than previously thought.”

“Unfortunately, we made mistakes here,” said Ralph Keeling, a climate scientist at Scripps, who was a co-author of the study. “I think the main lesson is that you work as fast as you can to fix mistakes when you find them.”

I’m not someone who believes climate change is a “hoax”; I call myself a “global warming skeptic skeptic.” (Yes, I meant to type that word twice.) My fuller thoughts on the topic are available here. For non-clickers, here’s the summary:

[I]t’s my belief that the planet is warming, and my best guess is that man contributes to that. I don’t know to what extent man’s contribution affects the rate of warming.

I think the idea that climate scientists are engaged in some kind of active “hoax” or “conspiracy” seems, um, conspiratorial. It does not strike me as likely. But, just as folks in Big Media tend to lean mostly one way politically, I can believe that climate scientists, by and large, have a herd-like mindset.

It doesn’t strike me like a hard science the way physics is. The models never seem to predict anything accurately. Predictions are commonly and provably exaggerated.

But, in the end, I am a lawyer by trade and a writer (and musician, and other things) by hobby. What I am not, is a scientist. And I recognize my limitations.

My concern with the Scripps study is the “herd-like mindset” of climate scientists, which causes them to be less critical of studies warning about dire consequences of climate change, and to unthinkingly reject as ignorant any criticism of such studies. I understand the mindset, since much criticism of climate science is indeed ignorant. But some of it is also appropriately skeptical about the limitation of what we can know, and this skepticism is far too often dismissed with an airy wave of the hand by Those Who Know Better.

Instructive in this regard is the way that the problems with the Scripps study were found: by an independent researcher who said the errors were … rather glaring.

However, not long after publication, an independent Britain-based researcher named Nicholas Lewis published a lengthy blog post saying he had found a “major problem” with the research.

“So far as I can see, their method vastly underestimates the uncertainty,” Lewis said in an interview Tuesday, “as well as biasing up significantly, nearly 30 percent, the central estimate.”

Lewis added that he tends “to read a large number of papers, and, having a mathematics as well as a physics background, I tend to look at them quite carefully, and see if they make sense. And where they don’t make sense — with this one, it’s fairly obvious it didn’t make sense — I look into them more deeply.”

Gee. How did “fairly obvious” deficiencies in a climate change study make it past the Hard Scrutiny of all of those scientists?

(He asked, with a wry smile, knowing that his audience recognizes the rhetorical nature of the question.)

The studies of climate scientists, endorsed by other climate scientists, are then amplified by Big Media, which is also largely populated by people who share the scientists’ political views as well as their views about climate change (and one’s views on the politics are, unfortunately, often closely linked with one’s views on the science — a problem evident on both sides of the political aisle). For example, the Washington Post, which is reporting the errors in the Scripps study today, was unsuspecting in October, when they called the study “startling.” (And as of the publication of this post, the October article has no addendum regarding the infirmities in the study — meaning that if you run across that article through Google, you wouldn’t know any better.)

This is a problem, whether you are a climate change believer or skeptic. Everyone should want science to be carefully examining evidence and questioning the soundness of conclusions — regardless of one’s politics, and regardless of the issue.

With climate change, one worries that this isn’t happening.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]


Our Adorable Congresswoman-Elect Niece Hits the Ground Running

Filed under: General — JVW @ 6:28 pm

[guest post by JVW]

After cakewalking to an Election Day victory with 78% of the vote (so much for all that talk that Joe Crowley’s jilted constituents would stage an insurrection and elect him on the Working Families Party ticket), everyone’s favorite daffy socialist niece, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of the Bronx by way of Long Island Westchester County, has embarked upon her own fun remake of Ms. Stalin Goes to Washington. Our favorite Lipstick Lenin, She Guevara (I’ve got a bunch of these), immediately instigated a brouhaha by announcing that she couldn’t immediately move to Washington, DC to start working on setting up her office, since she can’t afford rent there until her Congressional salary kicks in once she is sworn in. This has had the predictable effect of eliciting two rote responses: those of her supporters who argued that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s financial difficulties only burnish her credentials as an ordinary working-class New Yorker, and those of her critics who argued that she is a typical progressive millennial who despite having several months to plan ahead is incapable of caring for herself without relying upon handouts.

But more important than any housing intrigue, the funnest part of watching our Kewpie doll of a legislator take her first public steps outside of the cocoon of leftist adulation is to see her strike back against Democrats that she feels are insufficiently progressive. As noted in the NYT article linked in the previous paragraph, our Macy’s Marxist has riled up some fellow members of the new majority by suggesting that she will continue to support socialist challenges to entrenched Democrat incumbents during the 2020 election cycle, no matter if it endangers seats. She also played coy all summer on whether or not she would support Batty Aunt Nancy’s attempt to return to the Speaker’s Chair, and as of today will only say that they spoke on the phone but that the mama bear didn’t ask the cub for her endorsement. But Congresswoman-elect Ocasio-Cortez did pay a very special visit to former-and-maybe-future-Speaker Pelosi’s Washington office earlier today, joining a sit-in on the leader’s turf to protest what greenies think is inaction on climate change (the headline writer at Salon wants to give her credit for leading the protest). As they say in the old movies, that’s a fine how-do-you-do for the woman who expects you to soon be taking marching orders from her.

And I love it.

As much room as there is to criticize the dopiness and studied ignorance of her political beliefs, you have to hand it to Our Adorable (If Crazy) Niece for declining to play the cynical Washington game where the same old fossils return to their positions of power, the same key NGOs and lobbyists reclaim their positions in the hierarchy, and the same nanny-statism served with a dollop of crony capitalism is offered up as “progressive change.” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is here to remind Democrats that a whole lot of them campaigned on socialist policies, and that they will have to be dealt with. After watching eight years of the GOP House trying to navigate between the House Freedom Caucus, the incrementalists, and the time-servers there to feather their own nests, I’m looking forward to the Dems trying to placate all of the knotty branches of their coalition of crazies.

ADDENDUM: My Heavens, I must be going senile. I also meant to write about Our Adorable Temporarily Homeless Niece coming out strongly against the deal that her fellow Democrats, Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo, cut with Amazon in order to get one of the new massive distribution centers built in Queens, though typical of someone has unserious as de Blasio, he’s trying to have his cake and eat it too, lest his staunch leftist credentials be called into question. The Congresswoman-elect rightfully points out that the tax breaks that Cuomo and de Blasio have blessed to land the operation are awfully steep, and that this sort of dealmaking offered to the big guys but not smaller businesses is an ugly sort of crony capitalism regrettably popular with both parties. She also points out that the high-paying jobs coming into Queens and Long Island will further complicate the ability to find affordable housing in the metro area, thereby reminding us of the inevitable clash between economic progress and affordability. Democrats are going to have fun dealing with her over the next few years.


CNN and “Showboat Jimmy” Acosta Sue Trump Over Revocation of Press Credentials

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:02 am

Donald Trump has just been thrown into the briar patch:

CNN is filing a lawsuit against President Trump and several of his aides, seeking the immediate restoration of chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta’s access to the White House.

The lawsuit is a response to the White House’s suspension of Acosta’s press pass, known as a Secret Service “hard pass,” last week. The suit alleges that Acosta and CNN’s First and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated by the ban.

The suit is being filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday morning, a CNN spokeswoman confirmed.

Both CNN and Acosta are plaintiffs in the lawsuit. There are six defendants: Trump, chief of staff John Kelly, press secretary Sarah Sanders, deputy chief of staff for communications Bill Shine, Secret Service director Joseph Clancy, and the Secret Service officer who took Acosta’s hard pass away last Wednesday. The officer is identified as John Doe in the suit, pending his identification.

The legal grounds for the lawsuit?

In a statement on Tuesday morning, CNN said it is seeking a preliminary injunction as soon as possible so that Acosta can return to the White House right away, and a ruling from the court preventing the White House from revoking Acosta’s pass in the future.

“CNN filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration this morning in DC District Court,” the statement read. “It demands the return of the White House credentials of CNN’s Chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta. The wrongful revocation of these credentials violates CNN and Acosta’s First Amendment rights of freedom of the press, and their Fifth Amendment rights to due process. We have asked this court for an immediate restraining order requiring the pass be returned to Jim, and will seek permanent relief as part of this process.”

Here is the legal analysis I would like to be able to give:

LOL no.

Give up the mic next time you’ve asked your question, Jimmy.

They might have given the credentials back after a while before this. Now, I think Acosta is gone for good.

I’d probably be a more popular blogger if I left my analysis at that, but it looks like the actual analysis is, annoyingly, a little more complicated. Believe it or not, CNN and Acosta may have a case.

The following analysis is still brief and “blog-tentative” — meaning it’s worth what you’re paying. (Less than that, if you’re subscribing, which you can do by clicking the button on the sidebar.) The main case people seem to rely upon in these situations is Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124 (D.C. Cir. 1977). The court there rejected what you would naturally tend to think is the rule: that any denial of access is fine if it’s not done based on viewpoint. (Even with that rule, Trump’s big mouth would give the plaintiffs plenty of grist for a “he banned me because of my viewpoint” mill.) Here’s the court’s analysis on that issue:

Appellants argue that because the public has no right of access to the White House, and because the right of access due the press generally is no greater than that due the general public, denial of a White House press pass is violative of the first amendment only if it is based upon the content of the journalist’s speech or otherwise discriminates against a class of protected speech. While we agree with appellants that arbitrary or content-based criteria for press pass issuance are prohibited under the first amendment, there exist additional first amendment considerations ignored by appellants’ argument.

These considerations can perhaps be best understood by first recognizing what this case does not involve. It is not contended that standards relating to the security of the President are the sole basis upon which members of the general public may be refused entry to the White House, or that members of the public must be afforded notice and hearing concerning such refusal. The first amendment’s protection of a citizen’s right to obtain information concerning “the way the country is being run” does not extend to every conceivable avenue a citizen may wish to employ in pursuing this right. Nor is the discretion of the President to grant interviews or briefings with selected journalists challenged. It would certainly be unreasonable to suggest that because the President allows interviews with some bona fide journalists, he must give this opportunity to all. Finally, appellee’s first amendment claim is not premised upon the assertion that the White House must open its doors to the press, conduct press conferences, or operate press facilities.

Rather, we are presented with a situation where the White House has voluntarily decided to establish press facilities for correspondents who need to report therefrom. These press facilities are perceived as being open to all bona fide Washington-based journalists, whereas most of the White House itself, and press facilities in particular, have not been made available to the general public. White House press facilities having been made publicly available as a source of information for newsmen, the protection afforded newsgathering under the first amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, see Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681, 707, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 829-35, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974), requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.

I think that “controlling a disruptive reporter who won’t surrender the mic” would clearly qualify as a compelling governmental interest. Just like judges can control their courtrooms, and remove disruptive participants, the White House has the ability to make sure that reporters take turns and don’t refuse to give up the mic (and that they don’t stand up and shout over others, April Ryan).

That said, Acosta’s behavior, while not exemplary, was not really that over the top. No, he didn’t assault the woman. Yes, he refused to give up the mic, but only briefly. Yes, it’s part of a pattern. Enough of one to avoid the legal roadblocks? That’s not clear.

Even if the White House could be justified in their decision — and I think that’s a close call — they don’t seem to have complied with the necessary procedure spelled out by the court:

We think that notice to the unsuccessful applicant of the factual bases for denial with an opportunity to rebut is a minimum prerequisite for ensuring that the denial is indeed in furtherance of Presidential protection, rather than based on arbitrary or less than compelling reasons.

As I understand it, they gave Acosta no notice or chance to respond in a formal way before issuing the decision. They just revoked his credentials. I’m very dubious about calling access to the press room a personal right that deserves these sorts of protections before it can be withdrawn, but if this case is the relevant precedent (something I can’t establish with this bloggy level of analysis), the White House may not have complied.

Moreover, the lawsuit has not been uploaded to PACER yet, so I don’t know if they cite any of Trump’s numerous comments about Acosta in the past, and whether any of the comments they do cite (if they do) deal with Acosta’s viewpoint. Again, Trump’s mouth often causes him legal problems.

I find this personally annoying, but Showboat Jimmy may — may, I say — have a case.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]


Former Hillary Shills Now Resort to Mocking Her (I Mean They Can’t Be Serious, Can They?)

Filed under: General — JVW @ 10:36 am

[guest post by JVW]

The Wall Street Journal ran one of its more curious op-eds in recent memory, written by Mark Penn, former Clinton Crime Family pollster, advisor, fixer, sycophant, etc., and Andrew Stein, a seat occupier on the corrupt and ridiculous New York City Council.

Get ready for Hillary Clinton 4.0. More than 30 years in the making, this new version of Mrs. Clinton, when she runs for president in 2020, will come full circle—back to the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994. True to her name, Mrs. Clinton will fight this out until the last dog dies. She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way of her claim to the White House.

I’m not always 100% current on these sorts of things, but isn’t this sort of language — “Hillary Clinton 4.0,” “this new version of Mrs. Clinton,” “little thing like two stunning defeats” — indicative of mockery and what the hip youngsters who largely rejected her primary campaign last time around in favor of some crusty old socialist would call “snark”? For what it’s worth, Hillary fanbois like Philippe Reins claim that there is no chance she will run.

So this leaves me flummoxed as to what Penn and Stein are doing here. Are they such sad-sack Hillary worshippers that they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that her day is well behind her, and that once again trying to re-re-re-reintroduce herself to the American public will leave her looking desperate and pathetic? Or are they so disillusioned with Her Clintonic Majesty, the Past, Present, and Future Inevitable Next President of the United States that they are now openly mocking her in the opinion section of one of this country’s most conservative editorial pages? I can’t see it as funny; I can’t see it (yet) as sad. I just find it all bizarre.



Veterans Day and Armistice Day

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:00 am

It’s Veterans Day as well here in the United States, and it is appropriate to thank all veterans on this day. Thank you all.

But as the 100th anniversary of the armistice that ended World War I, it is also an appropriate time to join the rest of the world in commemorating the anniversary of that particular day. We need not celebrate the later Treaty of Versailles, which contributed to the atmosphere resulting in World War II and the Holocaust, to celebrate the end of such a brutal and pointless war.

On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in Paris (a time that passed hours ago), 100 years ago today, World War I ended. The war killed a minimum of 16 million people and contributed to the deaths of as many as 100 million. War is sometimes the answer to a set of problems, but rarely. More often, as the war in Yemen today, it leaves people blown to bits, or starving, and always miserable, for no good discernable purpose. Hopefully the message of the end of World War I can reverberate today and help put a stop to stupid and pointless conflicts of our modern day as well. And this day can be a day in which we think about peace, and thank our military members primarily for their efforts in helping to maintain peace.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

Sunday Music: Bach Cantata BWV 52

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:01 am

It is the twenty-fifth Sunday after Pentecost. The title of today’s Bach cantata is “Falsche Welt, dir trau ich nicht” (False world, I trust you not). It is a solo cantata for soprano, with the full choir appearing only in the final chorale.

Today’s Gospel reading is Mark 12:38-44:

Warning Against the Teachers of the Law

As he taught, Jesus said, “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”

The Widow’s Offering

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

The text of today’s piece is available here. It contains these words:

Honesty is banished from the world,
falsehood has driven it away,
now hypocrisy
remains in its place.
The best friend is unfaithful,
o miserable condition!

It’s all the same, it’s all the same,
even if I am repudiated!
If the false world is my enemy,
O then God will yet be my friend,
He who deals honestly with me.

Happy listening! Soli Deo gloria.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]


April Ryan: When You Tell Me to Sit Down When It’s Not My Turn, That’s RACIST!!!!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:11 am

April Ryan has a grievance, and her grievance is against Donald Trump. She expresses it in a piece titled: April Ryan: I’m a black woman. Trump loves insulting people like me:

Friday, when CNN’s Abby Phillip asked Trump if he wanted newly-designated acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker to “rein in” Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Trump tried to dismiss her by saying: “What a stupid question that is. What a stupid question. But I watch you a lot, you ask a lot of stupid questions.” Wednesday at the White House, he told me to “sit down.” In Friday’s press gaggle, he called me “nasty” and a “loser,” never mind my 21 years, covering four presidents as a reporter for American Urban Radio Networks.

It’s not hard to find the common denominator: Though there’s hardly anyone — from his predecessors to senators in his own party — he won’t try to shout down with ad hominem insults, Trump relishes, and injects venom into, verbal attacks against women of color.

She links to a Twitter video of her being asked to sit down:

Here’s an even better angle, in which you can see her repeatedly standing up and trying to hijack the press conference when it’s not her turn:

It’s her turn when she says it is. If you disagree, you’re racist.

The White House has had issues with me ever since January, when I asked, “Mr. President, are you a racist?” After his response to Charlottesville, after “s—hole countries,” after “get that son of a b— off the field” and “What the hell do you have to lose?” it’s more than a fair question, it’s necessary. As a black woman journalist, I’m going to keep asking it and continue seeking answers. That’s my job and I am up for it.

Here’s a video of that moment, asking that “necessary” question:

By the way, April Ryan’s bio for her grievance piece states:

April Ryan is White House correspondent and Washington bureau chief for American Urban Radio Networks. She is the author, most recently, of “Under Fire: Reporting from the Front Lines of the Trump White House.”

I cannot read that without hearing in my head one of those guys with the deep voices who does the movie trailers (you know, the cliche kind where, with “Solsbury Hill” playing in the background, the guy intones: IN A WORLD…) solemnly pronouncing the phrases:

APRIL RYAN is ON THE FRONT LINES and she is [dramatic pause] [one more dramatic pause, for feeling] UNDER FIRE

My, the BATTLE SCARS she must have from those SKIRMISHES, dodging the incoming ROCKET ATTACKS of people telling her to sit down when it’s not her turn!

Wait your turn, lady. Until then, sit down and shaddap. That’s not racism. That’s common courtesy.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2613 secs.