Category Archives: Grey Lady

Debunking just one MAGA lie

As MAGA prepares to once again fight like hell (or they won’t have a country anymore) their lawyers have filed dozens of election challenge cases already [1]. As their ilk does for every other lost cause or lie, they have a simple (if false) answer about all those court cases they lost last time:

All MAGA election-related cases were dismissed not on the merits, but on procedural grounds, like lack of standing.

Even if this were true — it is not — lack of standing is a fatal flaw in a lawsuit, as is failure to state a legally coherent complaint (supported by evidence). In order to win a case a party must have standing — an actual provable injury the court can address — in order to proceed.

The scumbag Attorney General of Texas brought a case to the Supreme Court, signed on to by legal eagle MAGA Mike Johnson and more than a hundred MAGA legislators, seeking to overturn voting results in several states Trump lost in 2020. Even the MAGA Six had to acknowledge that Texas had no standing to bring this case limiting what other states could do. Nor did any of the loyal legislators, led by MAGA Mike Johnson, who signed on to the law suit to do their master’s bidding, have even the remotest theory of standing to act as “friends of the court”.

It is easy to forget the hundred plus lawsuits the RNC and Trump brought prior to the 2020 election, to try to suppress voting by Democrats. Take the sickening, desperate case of Trump v. Boockvar in Pennsylvania. In that case Trump 2020 and the RNC cited purely speculative harms they might have suffered if absentee voting was allowed to take place as planned during the peak of the pandemic. They laid out for the court the specter of theoretical, massive fraud never remotely seen in US elections.

They submitted no evidence to support their claim (there was none), yet the judge, a Trump appointee from the Federalist Society list, did not dismiss the case. He ordered them to produce evidence. They produced a big box of printouts and screen shots from Fox, Breitbart, Der Sturmer, Die Volkischer Beobachter, The New York Post, OANN, “evidence” the judge eventually detailed and dismissed. I followed the case on the electronic docket, one of more than 100 frivolous cases the litigious fucks filed before the 2020 election. Nobody was reporting on these cases and it was aggravating to me at the time.

In the end, I was relieved that the young federal judge, J. Nicholas Ranjan, not only dismissed the case in the end, but took an additional hundred pages to make his dismissal appeal proof. You can read about his dismissal of the case here.

It’s always war to the death with Nazi fucks like these. The SS continued fighting to the death while Hitler was in the bunker, raging and getting ready to shoot his beloved German Shepard. Let’s hope today’s fight to the death continues to remain more figurative than literal and that more Ranjan-like holdings are written by defenders of our constitutional democracy.

perfect shot ear, perfect!

[1]

The R.N.C. is leading a broad network of conservative legal groups in the effort. Mr. Trump’s allies, including his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, took over the committee last March, placing Ms. Bresso in charge of the legal operation and promising a more aggressive strategy. After the 2020 election, the party’s lawyers had at times refused to participate in Mr. Trump’s legal campaign, forcing him to rely on a collection of outsiders who filed cases rife with errors and false claims. Several Trump lawyers have since been criminally charged.

Among them is Christina Bobb, who is now senior counsel on the R.N.C.’s election integrity team. Ms. Bobb recently suggested that she was braced for more litigation after Election Day.

“I’m kind of holding my breath for that,” she said on a recent podcast. “I think we’re in probably, at least litigation-wise, as good of a place as we can be before the election.”

(NYT link above)

Brave stance by the Grey Lady!

Arguably, this NY Times editorial board piece savaging Trump’s unfitness for office, in the words of those who know him best (Bill Barr, Betsy DeVos, Sean Spicer, Mike Pompeo, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham and company), does not square with A.G. Sulzberger, the 44 year-old CEO of the family business’s idiotic formulation that “politics” and “objective reporting” do not mix, but it’s something, I suppose.

The Dangers of Donald Trump from those who know him

Here’s what Sulzberger, whose father passed the CEO crown to him a few years back, had to say about the insurmountable difficulty of a free press reporting honestly on “politics”:

In a recent guest essay for the rival Washington Post, Times CEO A.G. Sulzberger exemplified this stubborn tendency. After acknowledging the danger Trump poses to the nation and the media itself, Sulzberger straw-manned his critics with the following caricature. “As someone who strongly believes in the foundational importance of journalistic independence, I have no interest in wading into politics,” he wrote. “I disagree with those who have suggested that the risk Trump poses to the free press is so high that news organizations such as mine should cast aside neutrality and directly oppose his reelection.”

[I wasn’t able to find where I originally clipped this from, most likely suspects Heather Cox Richardson or Allison Gil)

AG Sulzberger strongly disagrees with those who “suggest” an enraged, incurious maniac like Trump is intent on suppressing all dissent, including the independent press, even if Trump himself is the one “suggesting it” (when he’s back in power he’ll pull the license of those commies at NBC after he won the rigged debate and they kept calling him a liar).

All I can really say to this strawman punching, issue obfuscating, 200 front page articles calling Biden’s cognitive abilities into question publishing, “foundational importance of journalistic independence” spouting CEO gasbag, and his September 5 op ed in the Washington Post is, go take a flying fuck at a rolling, apolitical, donut, bro.

Don’t forget John Roberts

From Heather Cox Richardson yesterday, on the long judicial coup run by the cunning, privileged owners of the activist extremist party that is now calling itself MAGA (see, also John Birch Society):

In 1986, when it was clear that most Americans did not support the policies put in place by the Reagan Republicans, the Reagan appointees at the Justice Department broke tradition to ensure that candidates for judgeships shared their partisanship. Their goal, said the president’s attorney general, Ed Meese, was to “institutionalize the Reagan revolution so it can’t be set aside no matter what happens in future presidential elections.” 

That principle held going forward. Federal judgeships depend on Senate confirmation, and when McConnell became Senate minority leader in 2007, he worked to make sure Democrats could not put their own appointees onto the bench. He held up so many of President Barack Obama’s nominees for federal judgeships that in 2013 Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) prohibited filibusters on certain judicial nominees.

McConnell also made it clear that he would do everything he could to make sure that Democrats could not pass laws, weaponizing the filibuster so that nothing could become law without 60 votes in the Senate. . .

She then details McConnell’s right-wing judiciary appointment mission, and how he removed the filibuster for Supreme Court justices, when the time was right, to get a couple of 50% supported nominees on to the court, after denying Obama his constitutional right to nominate a replacement for Antonin Scalia eight months before the 2016 election.

. . . Throughout his tenure as Senate majority leader, McConnell made judicial confirmations a top priority, churning through nominations even when the coronavirus pandemic shut everything else down. Right-wing plaintiffs are now seeking out those judges, like Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas, to decide in their favor. Kacsmaryk challenged the FDA’s approval of the drug mifepristone, which can be used in abortions, thus threatening to ban it nationwide.

Meanwhile, at the Supreme Court, Trump appointees are joining with right-wing justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to overturn precedents established long ago, including the right to abortion. 

source

Don’t forget America’s most partisan balls and strikes umpire John “Corporations get to say ‘go fuck yourself'” Roberts. How does this smiling corporate shill, who schemes behind the scenes, votes in every key case with the right-wing fraternal order of the Federalist Society block, and has authored some of its most infamous decisions, get a pass from even someone as brilliant as Heather? How is he, the man who, although he didn’t vote with the other four to kill Roe v. Wade, gleefully signed on to nullify the power of federal regulators, keep an insurrectionist on the ballot in Colorado and immunize criminal acts committed by a criminal president, among other MAGA endorsed rulings, still seen as somehow “moderate” or an “institutionalist”?

Look no further than his infamous decision in Shelby County v. Holder when he ruled that enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, which he acknowledged righted a historical injustice, was no longer necessary. His argument is bland and pristine: Congress relied on forty year old data when they reauthorized it, so me and four Federalist Society diehards are undoing their uninformed, undemocratic activism. True, except that he was lying about the forty year old data, as it turns out. As I wrote when I read the decision:

Only when you read Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent (another magnificent piece of clear, precise legal and moral logic) do you realize the audacity of the Roberts majority’s legal sleight of hand. You learn that the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act was passed, after 21 hearings and 15,000 pages of evidence of ongoing discrimination in the states under preclearance, by a vote of 390-33 in the House and, after further debate, 98 to 0 in the Senate. Reading the John Roberts decision you’d have no reason to suspect that President George W. Bush signed the reauthorization into law a week later, as Ginsburg writes:

recognizing the need for “further work . . . in the fight against injustice,” and calling the reauthorization “an example of our continued commitment to a united America where every person is valued and treated with dignity and respect.” 

Nah, says John Roberts, we’re going back to that golden time when the wealthy land owners, the ancestors of our greatest billionaire donors and close friends, made all the decisions for the USA.  Dignity and respect, after all, are just words, and ridiculous ones when applied to those who deserve neither. Strike three, bitches.

I began writing this yesterday, and today the Gray Lady herself chimes in on Roberts. Here’s how he teed up the question posed by the Roberts court in Trump v. US:

The justices instructed lawyers from both sides to address a broad question: “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure.”. . .

. . . On April 25, the justices and the lawyers in the case gathered for oral arguments in the courtroom, across the street from where the Jan. 6 rioting had taken place three years earlier. The clamor from the Capitol attack had been audible from inside the court building, former employees recalled in interviews, and afterward, security sharply increased and fences shielded the building.

During the arguments, however, several conservative justices said that they wanted to focus not on what had happened that day, but on broader legal questions.

“I’m not discussing the particular facts of this case,” Justice Alito told the courtroom.

“I’m not focused on the here and now of this case,” Justice Kavanaugh said. “I’m very concerned about the future.”

“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Gorsuch said.

For the Thousand Year Reich, no doubt.

Here’s a bit about Roberts’s fundamental dishonesty:

One footnote left scholars wondering whether former presidents could ever be prosecuted for taking bribes. An N.Y.U. professor was startled to discover that the opinion, which leaned heavily on Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a 1982 case on presidential immunity, truncated a quote from that decision, changing its meaning.

Verdict: Federalist Society stalwart and Nazi fuck.

In an otherwise fair account of takeaways from the recent presidential debate about pet eating

Among a panel of fourteen writers assembled by the Times to opine about who won the debate thirteen of them call it clearly for Harris. The following throw away line was embedded in another headline article, their six takeaways from the debate:

In her response, Ms. Harris bored into Mr. Trump’s agenda rather than her own. It was typical of a debate in which she appeared most at ease talking about Mr. Trump rather than fleshing out her own plans for the presidency.

In other words, from the Grey Lady’s perspective, Harris, in her two minute answers, during which her main job was driving home the contrast between herself and the insane idiot behind the other podium, an idiot with a detailed plan, written for him, for unaccountable oligarchs to take over our government forever, kept focusing on the psychopathy and danger Mr. Trump displayed in his lying non-answers rather than giving wonkish details of her own policies. Fair enough. . .

Corporate media truly, truly can’t help themselves. Heaven help us all.

NY Times “sane washing” Trump

For the Times writing “what Trump seems to be saying….”, after giving an extended section of an incoherent statement by the Orange Polyp, is not a problem. The New York Times always exerts itself to interpret and explain the nonsensical non-answers that Trump always gets a pass for. Lawrence O’Donnell’s analysis of the media “sane washing” Trump’s raging incoherence is precise and brilliant.

O’Donnell applauds the New York Times for trying, for the first time, to stop sane washing Trump’s dangerous blathering. Then he points out that they just can’t help themselves, reading this section of the paper’s lead article focusing on concerns about Trump’s age and cognitive abilities (the article, which I saw online in the wee hours this morning, was gone from the homepage when I woke up, maybe somebody at the Times is watching O’Donnell’s show):

Mr. Trump’s response to the child care question in New York on Thursday underscored the concerns. Often his mangled statements are summarized in news accounts in ways that do not give the full picture of how baffling they can be. Quoting them at length, though, can provide additional context. Here is a more extended account of his reply on affordable child care:

“It’s a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about that — because the child care is, child care, it’s, couldn’t, you know, there’s something, you have to have it. In this country, you have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly — and it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us, but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care, that it’s going to take care.”

“What he seemed to be saying was that he would raise so much money by imposing tariffs on imported goods that the country could use the proceeds to pay for child care. In itself, that would be a disputable policy assumption.”

source

In spite of reflexively “sane washing” Trump’s incomprehensible word salads and most dangerous threats in headlines and news articles every day, the New York Times editors do actually know the truth, as they point out with great clarity in today’s editorial:

Some of Mr. Trump’s other promises are even more vague. Mr. Trump was asked after a speech last week if he would act to make child care more affordable. He said he would, but in the following two minutes, he didn’t manage to say anything coherent about how.

In other areas Mr. Trump has been more specific, but his plans would be disastrous.

He has proposed a tariff, or tax, of up to 20 percent on imports from foreign countries, along with an even higher tariff on imports from China. That bill would be paid by American consumers, in the form of higher prices, no matter how many times or how loudly Mr. Trump says otherwise.

He has proposed rounding up and deporting millions of undocumented immigrants. Beyond the enormity of the impact on the lives of immigrants, their families and communities and the expense of the plan itself, mass deportations would blast a hole in the American economy, depriving employers of labor and retailers of consumers.

He has proposed extending tax cuts for the wealthy and for large corporations. Repeated experiments over the past half-century have made clear that the benefits of such tax cuts do not trickle down, do not generate economic growth and do not pay for themselves. They just make the rich richer.

I don’t have any insight into the Grey Lady’s reflex to reframe and normalize the Nazi point of view expressed by American fascists who are vying to take permanent control of the nation they claim is a smoking ruin of wokeness and colored criminals. Beyond that, all I can really say is fuck those putos.

Here’s Seth Meyers, making the same point, but with a great dollop of humor:

[1] The headline and article have been replaced at the top of the mobile app by this exercise in obfuscation and both-sides to every story syndrome, which buries the obvious fact, expressed plainly in today’s editorial, that tariffs are paid by the consumers of the nation that imposes them. Mexico didn’t, according to some experts, pay to build Trump’s fucking wall, Grey Lady:

For Trump, Tariffs Are the Solution to Almost Any Problem

The former president has proposed using tariffs to fund child care, boost manufacturing, quell immigration and encourage use of the dollar. Economists are skeptical.

So are high school graduates who paid attention in class…

Sly handmaiden of fascism

The Grey Lady, inscrutably, specializes in inventive headlines that frame issues to favor an increasingly deranged and desperate American Nazi’s candidacy. Look at the big challenge facing Kamala Harris at the upcoming debate with Donald, as framed by the NY Times. Oh, my!

As the Times idiotically frames it, Harris seemingly has to distance herself from the “unpopular” Biden while seeming to support the remarkable range of good policies she and the shockingly successful Joe Biden administration put into law during three short years.

You see, the headline suggests, if she criticizes the unpopular Biden — she takes a grave political risk. At the same time, if she supports him and their record of achievement 100% — apparently that’s an equally perilous position.

She’s on a greasy tightrope, suggests the NY Times, with a highly motivated Trump, jaws open, sharp teeth glistening, well-honed playbook in his back pocket, poised for a fatal pounce if she takes one misstep in this supremely delicate balancing act.

For a much smarter take on the upcoming “debate”, here’s my mother’s favorite, Frank Bruni. The sections below his fine opinion piece are like a cool drink on a hot day.

Rhetorical question: when did the NY Times become the fucking Völkischer Beobachter?

Grey Lady on left-wing disinformation

Suggestions that there was something suspicious about the way the attempted assassination of Trump went down, including Trump’s striking a heroic fundraising pose with bloody face seconds after shots were fired, the blackout on medical details at the hospital, the miraculous healing of his shot ear, the perfect timing of the shooting for campaign purposes right before the RNC, that it had the smell of yet another Trump-concocted lie, are cited by the New York Times as being conspiracy theories advanced by the left “without proof.”   Hmmmm.   So both sides do it, Grey Lady?  Buried in the article is this:

“There’s just a world of difference between what you’re hearing episodically out of the left and the systemic production of pretty vile and dangerous stuff that we have seen now for years coming out of that right-wing ecosystem,” said Steven Livingston, the founding director of the Institute for Data, Democracy and Politics at George Washington University.

According to the Times article they are suggesting, “without proof”, that their paper is taking a bold stand here in calling out occasional misinformation on the left. Consider the final paragraphs of the story:

Articles debunking left-wing misinformation have faced pushback online from critics and journalism watchdogs, who have claimed that the traditional fact-checking process is not suited to tackling falsehoods from the left. The Associated Press was roundly mocked online for trying to debunk the joke by writing a staid fact check that was soon deleted. The news agency said that the fact check had not gone through its “standard editing process.”

“Since most of what Democrats are saying is provably — or at least arguably — true, fact-checkers have descended to hairsplitting at best and worst,” wrote Dan Froomkin, the founder of Press Watch, a nonprofit website covering political journalism.

Snopes, the fact-checking website, is used to seeing pushback over its frequent debunking of right-wing disinformation. But since the war started between Israel and Gaza — and through this year’s presidential election — the website has also faced scrutiny after running fact-check articles about left-wing falsehoods, according to Doreen Marchionni, the executive and managing editor for the site.

“We kind of get hit by all sides whenever what we report doesn’t conform to certain left or right talking points,” she said.

That famous NY Times nuance: Tucker and “Holocaust Revisionists”

Because “Holocaust Denier” sounds so unfairly judgmental for this kind of calm reasonable-sounding Hitler-defending “revisionist”:

. . . Cooper proceeded, in a soft-spoken, faux-reasonable way, to lay out an alternative history in which Hitler tried mightily to avoid war with Western Europe, Churchill was a “psychopath” propped up by Zionist interests, and millions of people in concentration camps “ended up dead” because the overwhelmed Nazis didn’t have the resources to care for them. Elon Musk promoted the conversation as “very interesting” on his platform X, though he later deleted the tweet.

From great op-ed by Michelle Goldberg

Got to feel bad for those overwhelmed Nazis, right? They didn’t want the war, did their best to avoid it, then they had to fight everyone and wind up vilified by billionaire Zionists for not protecting their Jews better while under attack…

See, not denial at all, simple revisionism [1], an honest disagreement about allegedly disputed historical facts. The ever fair and dazzlingly nuanced NY Times editorial board rests its case.

I truly don’t get the motives of the New York Times, but the Grey Lady certainly cuts a piss-poor figure representing a free press during the frantic gallop of American fascism.

His shot ear has healed miraculously in a very short time, as this recent photo shows. More proof to faithful Evangelicals of how much God loves this flawed vessel.

[1] In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of a historical account.[1] It usually involves challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) scholarly views or narratives regarding a historical event, timespan, or phenomenon by introducing contrary evidence or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved. Revision of the historical record can reflect new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation as they come to light. The process of historical revision is a common, necessary, and usually uncontroversial process which develops and refines the historical record in order to make it more complete and accurate.

One form of historical revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments. Revision in this fashion is a more controversial topic, and can include denial or distortion of the historical record yielding an illegitimate form of historical revisionism known as historical negationism (involving, for example, distrust of genuine documents or records or deliberate manipulation of statistical data to draw predetermined conclusions). This type of historical revisionism can present a re-interpretation of the moral meaning of the historical record.[2] 

Negationists use the term revisionism to portray their efforts as legitimate historical inquiry; this is especially the case when revisionism relates to Holocaust denial.

source

Free Speech, Nazi style

Free speech is crucial to informed debate in a democracy. Without the right to freely exchange ideas, to speak and write freely without government prosecution, we’re pretty much done as a democracy.

Totally free speech is a double edged sword, of course, since Nazis and Klansmen are as free as anyone else to speak publicly as they see fit. Our First Amendment prevents the government from making any law infringing our right to say or write pretty much anything we want (unless we are actively causing violence). It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

They do this in a manner that is much clearer and more unmistakable than, say, in the Second Amendment which reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Aside from the use of the passive voice, and the context of a well regulated militia (conveniently omitted by most gun lovers), the gun amendment is much more squishy and subject to interpretation as to regulation than the freedom of religion, speech, the press and our right to peacefully assemble amendment.

Tech giant Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who famously told his executives that “you go to the mat” if the government tries to regulate Facebook in any way, spoke out recently (in a letter to pugnacious dickhead Jim Jordan, no less) against pressure he claims to have received from the Biden administration to monitor and flag pernicious lies that spread virally on Facebook.  Zuckerberg’s position is the same as virtually any working billionaire’s — you do whatever is necessary to prevent any government action that can lessen your profits, even by a penny.

Note the elegance of that Fox headline: Zuckerberg “admits” Biden is persecuting him and trying to force him to censor Americans.

Biden responded that he was asking all social media giants to behave as responsible citizens by flagging harmful lies that kill people. Facebook was among tech giants that allowed, among other things, countless viral videos touting the alleged harmfulness of the Covid vaccine that Trump fast-tracked with Operation Warp Speed. Biden pointed out that the deadly Covid pandemic is now only killing the unvaccinated. How much money would it cost Zuckerberg to post warnings on deadly lies embraced by millions because they show up over and over in a social media feed?

Who gives a fuck?

Free speech isn’t free, of course. It has to be fought for, against a formidable enemy — the brutal, incendiary, viral lie — as powerful as free speech itself.

When the government attempts to curb lies, powerful liars are outraged. They cite their right to say whatever they please, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Unfettered free speech, particularly when it goes viral, is supremely useful for climbing to power. Once in power, Nazi free speech is famously whatever the fucking Fuhrer, and his handlers, say it is.

In late April [2022], the Department of Homeland Security announced the creation of the Disinformation Governance Board, whose mission would be recommending best practices to counter disinformation related to homeland security. The head of this board, Nina Jankowicz [1], was cyberbullied until she resigned. Operations of the board were promptly “suspended”. As far as I’m aware, the cyberbullies prevailed.

Biden subsequently opened an office, the White House Task Force to Address Online Harassment and Abuse, to combat the pernicious threat of vicious “social media” and specifically to police cyberbullies who make gender-based attacks. Not much has been reported about the task force since it was launched with some fanfare in June of 2022.

Now Zuckerberg is bitching again about his right to be the number one richest man in history, which, weighed against the health of our Nazi besieged democracy, is the only thing that counts to a billionaire who, by definition, can never have enough.

I’ll leave you with an example of free speech from the New York Times. See if you can spot the difference in these two paragraphs, the lead paragraph in a recent article about “MAGA jurisprudence” (an oxymoron if there ever was one).

As for freedom of the press, so necessary to protect democracy that the founders chose to protect the press in the First Amendment, they have a right to publish any opinion they choose, even in news articles. I’ve tweaked one sentence in this New York Times first paragraph to make it more accurate. See if you can spot the sentence I fixed:

The Supreme Court term that ended this summer delivered a number of big wins for traditional conservative causes. The court made it easier to challenge federal regulations. It made it harder to prosecute former presidents who commit crimes while in office. And it delivered another decision that expanded the rights of gun enthusiasts.

The original:

The Supreme Court term that ended this summer delivered a number of big wins for traditional conservative causes. The court made it easier to challenge federal regulations. It made it harder to prosecute former presidents. And it delivered another decision that expanded the rights of gun enthusiasts. 

Let’s leave aside that the editorial frame of “traditional conservative causes” is a poor description of these truly radical, reactionary decisions.

“It made it harder to prosecute former presidents” is a true statement, as far as it goes. A more accurate statement, one that better informs and underscores the revolutionary nature of the Supreme Court’s radical rightwing decision in Trump v. United States is: “It made it harder to prosecute former presidents who commit crimes in office.”

Freedom of fucking speech, sisters and brothers, mind that shit carefully.

[1] She gives examples of free speech she was treated to while heading the Disinformation Governing Board:

And then beyond that, there were calls to create deepfake pornography of me and then the violent threats, which were numerous. And I was reporting at least one a day to the department for the three weeks that this campaign was going on before I resigned – things like, go hang yourself, you leftist, C-word. You’re the new Goebbels; will you meet the same end? Of course, Goebbels killed himself. One person said, this is a hill to die on; get ready – we will not tolerate this. And this, to me, seems to have come directly from a tweet that Representative Lauren Boebert sent out saying that this was Stalinist or Mao level, and this was a hill to die on, so directly echoing her language and the threat. People saying, you will regret this. Kill yourself, you subhuman sack of S-word. You and your F-ing family should be sent to Russia to be killed. Hey – I don’t know how to describe this word, a pejorative for a woman – quit And then beyond that, there were calls to create deepfake pornography of me and then the violent threats, which were numerous. And I was reporting at least one a day to the department for the three weeks that this campaign was going on before I resigned – things like, go hang yourself, you leftist, C-word. You’re the new Goebbels; will you meet the same end? Of course, Goebbels killed himself. One person said, this is a hill to die on; get ready – we will not tolerate this. And this, to me, seems to have come directly from a tweet that Representative Lauren Boebert sent out saying that this was Stalinist or Mao level, and this was a hill to die on, so directly echoing her language and the threat. People saying, you will regret this. Kill yourself, you subhuman sack of S-word. You and your F-ing family should be sent to Russia to be killed. Hey – I don’t know how to describe this word, a pejorative for a woman – quit your job before we destroy your life. Everything you’ve ever cared about will be taken from you. And you’re nothing but a freaking liar. And you’re going to pay for it with a heavy price, you stupid B-word, before we destroy your life. Everything you’ve ever cared about will be taken from you. And you’re nothing but a freaking liar. And you’re going to pay for it with a heavy price, you stupid B-word. That’s just a few of them. (source)