in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| Gallup | Campaign 2012: Obama, Romney Each Has Economic Strengths With Americans |
0 |
| Chi. Sun Times | New Tone: Inside Sunday’s violent clash between ‘Black Bloc’ anarchists, cops |
0 |
| Power Line | Media Watch: “Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama?” |
0 |
| WaPo | Shock: White House visitor logs provide window into lobbying industry |
0 |
| Politico | Interesting: Obama super PAC slump continues |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
About Cindy’s arrest and the law she broke
(scroll down for updates)
The liberal blogs are abuzz this morning, screaming as loud as their keyboards will let them over the fact that – according to them – Cindy Sheehan was arrested last night for merely “dissenting.” First, a recap of the arrest from the AP:
Sheehan, who had been invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., was charged with demonstrating in the Capitol building, a misdemeanor, said Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. Sheehan was taken in handcuffs to police headquarters a few blocks away and her case was processed as Bush spoke.
Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to the speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.
John Cole at Balloon Juice, no fan of Cindy Sheehan but dismayed all the same at the idea of someone being arrested for merely wearing a T-shirt, posted an update written by one of his commenters as to what law Cindy Sheehan broke:
Sorry to disappoint the Bush haters, but any and all kinds of sloganeering or demonstrating is strictly forbidden in the Capitol. A few of my friends and I once tried to have take a group picture (after a rally that had a permit ended) with the building in the background and were shooed away by the Capital Police for violating the rule merely by havign signs in our possession on the steps. As that happened in 1988 (when the other party controlled the Congress), I doubt George W. Bush had anything to do with it.
This is a misdemeanor, according to Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider:
Sheehan, who had been invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., was charged with demonstrating in the Capitol building, a misdemeanor, said Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. Sheehan was taken in handcuffs to police headquarters a few blocks away and her case was processed as Bush spoke.
No doubt this is exactly what she hoped would happen. Afterall, it brings attention to her ’cause.’ (just like this arrest did).
The hype over this bogus ‘controversy’ is only heightened when you have MSM sites like MSNBC posting the following poll question:
Do you agree with the decision by Capitol Police to remove activist Cindy Sheehan from the gallery at the president’s State of the Union speech because she was wearing a T-shirt with an antiwar slogan?
Shouldn’t that have been more like “do you agree with the law that bans demonstrating in the Capitol building?” I guess it was just too much to ask for MSNBC to do a little research on the issue before posting their poll question. Contact MSNBC if you want to express your thoughts on that poll.
Last night I posted a call for people who were upset with the fact that stunt-happy Cindy Sheehan was invited to the SOTU by House Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-6th District-CA) to contact Rep. Woolsey’s office to let her know how they felt about Ms. Woolsey’s serious lack of good judgement with respect to inviting a rabid anti-war type and obvious symbol of the hate-Bush/anti-war movement to the SOTU. I see Michelle Malkin and Rob Port at Say Anything are not pleased with Rep. Woolsey, either.
I’d like to repeat my call for you to let Rep. Woolsey know how you feel. When members of Congress act irresponsibly, the citizens of this country need to do their part to keep them accountable and Rep. Woolsey is certainly no exception to that rule.
More: Jason at Generation Why? gives some background info on Rep. Woolsey. GOP and College notes differing media reports on Sheehan’s arrest.
Others blogging about this: The Jawa Report, Gateway Pundit, Oblogatory Anecdotes
Update I: Florida Rep.’s Wife Says She Was Ejected From State Of Union:
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — The wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores, told a newspaper that she was ejected during the State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt that says, “Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom.”
Beverly Young told the St. Petersburg Times that she was sitting in the front row of the House gallery Tuesday night when she was approached by someone who told her she needed to leave.
She said she reluctantly agreed, but argued with several officers in an outside hallway.
In a telephone interview with the newspaper, Young said she told them her shirt wasn’t a protest but a message of support.
Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said Young wasn’t ejected from the gallery and she left on her own. She couldn’t provide additional details.
(Hat tip: Blog For All – and Cam Edwards shares some thoughts on this as well)
Also, Newslinker in the comments section here points to a National Review Corner post written by Byron York that notes a similar incident that happened during the Clinton administration.
The Capitol police were just doing their jobs last night with both Sheehan and Rep. Young’s wife in enforcing the law against demonstrating in the Capitol. But don’t expect widespread acknowledgement from the usual suspects that the law was enforced on both sides of the aisle last night (as well as in prior admins), which means that Cindy wasn’t targeted just because she was – well – Cindy Sheehan.
Update II: Newsbusters reports on how CNN got a few of their facts wrong in their story on Sheehan’s arrest.
Update III: A commenter at Patterico’s has noted what looks like the law in question regarding demonstrations in the Capitol.
Update IV: Tammy Bruce weighs in. Heh.
Update V 12:46 PM: Via the SF Chronicle, we find both Woolsey and Rep. Pete Stark (D-Fremont) in support of Cindy and whining about her arrest:
“It stunned me because I didn’t know in America you could be arrested for wearing a T-shirt with a slogan on it,” Woolsey said. “That’s especially so in the Capitol and in the House of Representatives, which is the people’s House.”
Woolsey said she thought the shirt Sheehan was wearing was from Veterans for Peace. Referring to the number of Americans killed in Iraq, the shirt read, “2,245 and how many more?”
Some other members were upset about Sheehan’s arrest. “I’m still trying to find out why the president’s Gestapo had to arrest Cindy Sheehan in the gallery. … It shows he still has a thin skin,” said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont.
Here’s Rep. Stark’s contact info, in case you are interested.
(Hat tip: Rob Port at Say Anything)
Update VI 7:35 PM: The charges against Ms. Sheehan were dropped:
Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman’s wife from President Bush’s State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.
“The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol,” Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.
“The policy and procedures were too vague,” he added. “The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine.”
The extraordinary statement came a day after police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young, R-Fla., from the visitors gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Bush’s arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, Gainer said.
“Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T- shirts,” Gainer’s statement said.
(Thanks to Tom in the comments section for the heads up on this latest update)
Related Toldjah So posts:
- Cindy Sheehan to be in audience during the SOTU
- Run, Cindy, run!
- Cindy tells Spain: “Iraq is worse than Vietnam”
- ‘Supporting the troops’ – Sheehan style
- If You Write It They Will Come … (or not)
- The anti-war monument to Cindy Sheehan
- Sheehan plans to spread anti-war message overseas
- Smiling while being arrested
- Sheehan to hold meetings with Hillary, Kennedy, McCain, etc
- The latest Cindy Sheehan rant: “pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans”
- Pictures of counter-protest in Crawford
- Sheehan has two more “supporters”: Joe Wilson and Rev. Al Sharpton
- A word or two for the Sheehan hangers-on
RSS feed for comments on this post.
“I cited the relevant law that the Capitol police thought both Cindy Sheehan and Mrs. Young were breaking.”
And I cited the court case wherein the Capitol Police regulations expressly permit T-shirts. I eagerly await your response to this.
“And I cited the court case wherein the Capitol Police regulations expressly permit T-shirts. I eagerly await your response to this. ”
I have responded time and again that they acted towards both Ms. Sheehan and Mrs. Young based on the law as they interpreted it. What part of “take it up with the Capitol police” are you guys not getting exactly?
It’s an addition to the conversation…
My feeling? The Capitol Police were probably preemptive and asked a Bush supporter to leave to be equal in treatment. When Cindy was unresponsive she brought her own arrest on herself and when Democrats use this as a point of you can’t “dissent” it shows the level of their being “extreme”. The SOTU is not a forum for dissent and if Cindy planned on having attention brought on herself, I’m glad the Capitol Police acted responsibly.
Hip Hip Hooray for the Police !
Umm, what about all those purple fingers at Bush’s last state of the union? Wouldn’t that count as a “demonstration”? Why weren’t all of those senators arrested? Also, isn’t it interesting that the police are asking the attorney general to release Sheehan, because they can’t find any laws that she broke?
Oh look, the charges were dropped. Guess she really didn’t break the law after all huh?
My favorite quote :
“They were operating under the misguided impression that the T-shirt was not allowed,” Hanley said today. “The fact that she (Sheehan) was wearing a T-shirt is not enough reason to be asked to leave the gallery, or be removed from the gallery, or be arrested.”
Gee, you mean there actually wasn’t any conspiracy on the part of the Capitol police and the President to hold Cindy Sheehan? GASP!
And let’s see, what did I say earlier about the Capitol police’s interpretation of the law? Thank you very much.
Once again, I never claimed there was a grand conspiracy. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
The Capitol Police did not follow their own regulations in arresting these women, a fact they acknowledged before you would. How on earth you believe the fact that no charges were brought against Ms. Sheehan vindicates you I have no idea. It simply shows that the police were wrong to do what they did, something I’ve maintained since the start of our discussion.
The bigger issue here is the dissent-free bubble that Bush is constantly placed in by his handlers to protect him from hearing contrary opinions. This lack of contact with reality is precisely what led to many of his mistakes from Iraq to New Orleans.
Corrections: They arrested one woman, not two, and charges were brought against Sheehan and later dropped. All about accuracy, you know.
“Once again, I never claimed there was a grand conspiracy. Please stop putting words in my mouth.”
I didn’t put any words in your mouth. Take a look around you at a few liberal blogs who *have* in so many words claimed some grand conspiracy (as they so often have in the past) about the President and dissent. This issue isn’t just about your opinion, but the opinion of the majority of the people who protested what happened.
“The Capitol Police did not follow their own regulations in arresting these women, a fact they acknowledged before you would.”
Huh? Who was the one saying that they arrested her based on their interpretation of the law? Yes, that was me.
“How on earth you believe the fact that no charges were brought against Ms. Sheehan vindicates you I have no idea.”
It vindicates my position that the Capitol police arrested her based on their interpretation of the law in question. I’ve said that at least twice. Go back up and read for a recap.
“It simply shows that the police were wrong to do what they did, something I’ve maintained since the start of our discussion. ”
And I’m perfectly willing to go along with their statement on it, but I was no more willing to take your word on it anymore than you have been willing to take mine on anything I’ve said in this thread. It’s not really a crime to wait for a higher authority to confirm or deny something, last I checked.
“Corrections: They arrested one woman, not two, and charges were brought against Sheehan and later dropped. All about accuracy, you know. ”
Who are you correcting? Yourself?
DG: “The bigger issue here is the dissent-free bubble that Bush is constantly placed in by his handlers to protect him from hearing contrary opinions.”
ST: Thank you. I knew that’s what this was about, which was why none of the usual suspects seemed to be too uptight about Mrs. Young being asked to leave.
TiT wrote, “a fact they acknowledged before you would.
ST is not their spokepeople… There is something basic you are missing here. You seem to think that ST should explain herself or the Capitol Police’s actions…
What was being commented on mostly by ST and myself is what is EXEMPLIFIED by the next post here by DG… Shear extreme leftism making inaccurate accusations over and over. Why not comment against people here like DG and others? Why are you insisting on making those who support the Capitol Police explain themselves….
Bak: “My feeling? The Capitol Police were probably preemptive and asked a Bush supporter to leave to be equal in treatment. When Cindy was unresponsive she brought her own arrest on herself and when Democrats use this as a point of you can’t “dissent” it shows the level of their being “extreme”. The SOTU is not a forum for dissent and if Cindy planned on having attention brought on herself, I’m glad the Capitol Police acted responsibly.”
ST: Good point, especially considering the last time she was arrested.
Yes, sister, I realized upon rereading my post that I had misstated the facts, and since you’ve already accused me of liberalism by proxy for neglecting to post anything about Young, I thought I would make clear that this error was not intentional.
And you didn’t have to take my word for it that the Police were violating their regulations — it was in the court case I cited. You refused to discuss this and instead attacked me.
“Why are you insisting on making those who support the Capitol Police explain themselves”
Because those who support the Capitol Police here are ignoring posted case law which defended Sheehan and Young when I cited it.
And to comment against DG — the problem with this case is that the Police violated their regulations. It is not a symptom of any insulkation on Bush’s part, since there is no evidence that Bush ignored others advice and listened only to his cabinet, ordered the police to violate their rules, or played any role whatsoever in this.
Tom: “And you didn’t have to take my word for it that the Police were violating their regulations — it was in the court case I cited.”
ST: Which doesn’t really matter, because neither you nor I are lawyers (or are you?) and I’ll take the word of someone with experience in law over a layman – no offense.
Tom: “You refused to discuss this”
ST: That’s not true – go back and read through my comments. I kept saying that the Capitol police were acting on their interpretation of the law. Again, I have said that at least twice.
Tom: “and instead attacked me.”
ST: What?? You considered the below (my initial post to you) an “attack”?
Sheesh. Talk about sensitive.
TiT, You had a different opinion. Is it often that you have to badger others to the point of agreement or do you allow disagreement in your world?
Being right can be an opportunity for being humble still or give you more opportunity to say, “see I told you so”, but if you were in ST’s shoes I’m sure you’d not be perfect and might actually have a reaction to the 10th moonbatter coming to this blog making the comments like DG and mkultra and Nostradamnthem. Why do you focus like a laser beam on ST’s when they are perfectly reasonable statements [by the way hooray Capitol Police] instead of those extremists I mentioned? They were part of the problem that led people to believe you were one of them [especially when you only mentioned Sheehan in your first post].
Take a time to reflect and be humble. Gear up and spend time helping conservatives try to cut government. This government has grown every year for over 6 decades and look at us…
I find it far more telling that the above was the only response you had to my original citation. It is a transparent attempt to go into attack mode rather than respond to the issue I raised. You only responded to it an hour and a half later in response to a different commentator.
To quote yourself: “Sheesh. Talk about sensitive.”
Tom: “I find it far more telling that the above was the only response you had to my original citation. It is a transparent attempt to go into attack mode rather than respond to the issue I raised. You only responded to it an hour and a half later in response to a different commentator.”
ST: LOL. So you’re admitting that it wasn’t true when you said to me “You refused to discuss this” – Thank you.
Tom: “To quote yourself: “Sheesh. Talk about sensitive.” ”
ST: No sensitivity at all on my part. Just very passionate about the issue.
Cut government? Conservatives? You must be kidding? The Defense budget has gone up 50% under bush. You conservatives have spent $340 billion on Iraq and you now have an $8 trillion debt and a $400 billion deficit for 2006. Conservative, you Republicans give the word a bad name. Peace
She’s shared the posts that are held back in the moderation queue and the emails she gets. You need to give ST a break until you walk in her shoes getting 100′s of this stuff to respond to daily. I ALSO thought “oh no not another lefty when I saw your post”. You only mentioned Sheehan and after getting 10′s of messages from lefty’s like DG thinking it was W’s inability to face dissent. SINCE that time it seems you were only interested in badgering someone to the point of agreement and then rubbing it in with a subsequent news story instead of just sharing it and being humble.
BTW, Hooray Capitol Police. It’d be an entirely different conversation had they not acted responsibly and preemptively.
Steve, Republicans in general are ALSO left of center. We have both parties to the left of center. Conservatives are not Republicans. We only vote for Republicans and try to share our message with Republicans.
Sorry to stray off topic ST.
Baklava sir I quite obviously allow disagreement into my world. I am doing so now, as you can see. I feel no need to attack or defend other commentators on this board, since I was attempting to stay on issue. If they comment upon something I said, I will respond, but I haven’t gone out of my way to attack anyone on this thread. I never called anyone a koolaid drinking wingnut or anything extreme, and I don’t condone anyone that does. The closest I’ve come to an attack is my comments regarding a deflection away from my original post. I felt that I was marginalized as a moonbat and sarcastically pointed this out.
Thanks for the updates on this throughout the day Sister…It is now 7:54 p.m. and I am still glad that they removed Cindy from the room! I tuned in to watch the POTUS, not Cindy! Have her handlers get her a spot on Al’s TV station….
Ok 1st things 1st. I have been thinking about Rep. Woolsey. This woman was fully aware of what Sheehan would do if she got an invite to this speech. All she did was set up Sheehan to do something she didn’t have the guts to do herself. It is amazing how Cindy is such a pawn of the fringe left like Woolsey. I don’t know how this woman keeps falling for this. I hope that Cindy wakes up one day to realize that she was being used in this fashion.
Now 2nd Steve. We were attacked, we presently have troops on the ground, not just in Iraq. OF COURSE the defense budget is going to increase. It is only common sense.
Lastly, I have to admit I have not read most of these posters, cause there seems to be a startling amount of repetition. It doesn’t seem like either side is getting thru to the other. As far as what Ms. Sheehan and Ms. Young were wearing. There is such a thing as decorum, and a T-Shirt is not the appropriate thing to wear at such an august gathering. – Lorica
Funny Steve should mention the defense budget, that, providing for the common defense, is just about the ONLY thing the government spends money on nowadays that it is constitutionally REQUIRED to spend money on.
Thank you, sister, for mentioning me in your update.
The title “About Cindy’s arrest and the law she broke” is factually wrong.
We now know that she didn’t break the law.
Maybe a more appropriate title would be “Cindy Sheehan wrongfully imprisoned”.
Somebody needs to tell this woman her 15 minutes are up.
How about an apology to Cindy Sheehan, ST?
I think it pretty well established now that she did no wrong. Nor does it seem that she had any expectation of being arrested (she certainly didnt do anything to provoke it), so the charges ST leveled against her were false. Perhaps a case of “trump[ing] up a phony issue in order to milk it for all its worth”?
How about one for Woolsey as well?
Have to side with you on this one. I am fed up with this lady. Check out my post regarding this http://snipurl.com/m5ko.
Observer: “How about an apology to Cindy Sheehan, ST?”
ST: It’ll be a cold day in hell before I do so.
Observer: “I think it pretty well established now that she did no wrong.”
ST: I don’t think it has been. But even if it had, I’m not apologizing for an opinion I have (and still have) on the matter. So save your bogus call for an apology, because I hardly think that the left – who tells us everyday how Tom DeLay (for example) is guilty before the guy has even stepped foot in a courtroom, has any room to talk in terms of asking someone to apologize for stating they thought someone was guilty before they really knew for sure if they were or weren’t.
Observer: “Nor does it seem that she had any expectation of being arrested (she certainly didnt do anything to provoke it),”
ST: LOL. Uh huh.
Observer: “so the charges ST leveled against her were false. Perhaps a case of “trump[ing] up a phony issue in order to milk it for all its worth”?”
ST: Yeah, Ms. Sheehan getting arrested was a “phony issue.” LOL.
Observer: “How about one for Woolsey as well? ”
ST: No. She should have never invited Cindy Sheehan to the SOTU. Why would you invite someone who’d already been arrested in DC once before to the SOTU? You may think it’s cute because you and the others like you seem to think Mother Sheehan is the patron saint of the anti-war movement who can do no wrong, but I think it was disgraceful of her to invite Ms. Sheehan, knowing the kind of publicity she attracts. So no, I won’t apologize to Rep. Woolsey, and no I won’t apologize to Ms. Sheehan, either. I will not apologize for my opinion.
RT: “Have to side with you on this one. I am fed up with this lady. Check out my post regarding this http://snipurl.com/m5ko. ”
ST: Good post. I had no idea Ms. Sheehan had been interviewed in Vanity Fair. There goes breakfast.
When are you going to retract the factually wrong and misleading title?
Everyone is still missing a primary point, that you shouldn’t wear a t-shirt, regardless of what is says, to an important government event like the SOTU address. For Pete’s sake, show some dignity and class. Sheehan’s lack of judgement is to be expected, she’s a nutcase, but I have even less sympathy for the wife of the congressman. A congressman’s wife should realize the position she is in, as part of the family of an elected representative of the people, and dress appropriately. This isn’t a tractor pull or anti-war coffee clutch, this is the only presentation the president gives that is mandated by the US Constitution.
Wearing a t-shirt to such an event just shows your mama didn’t raise you properly. Perhaps that’s just my old school Southern upbringing showing, but there’s a reason for decorum, and such events deserve some attempt at dignity.
“When are you going to retract the factually wrong and misleading title?”
Read this post.
There’s nothing “misleading” about my title. At the time Ms. Sheehan was arrested it was presumed she was arrested because she broke the law. In fact, I cited the relevant law the Capitol police thought she broke. End of story.
I’ll retract my “misleading” title when you start demanding your pals on the left start retracting titles that truly are misleading en masse, ok?
Great points, Severian – I’ve read quite a few stories in the last couple of days of people who were told they couldn’t wear certain things in the Capitol. It makes you wonder now that the Capitol police have reversed on this what they’ll allow in the future.
I have a sneaky suspicion this had to do with the Republican Congressman making a stink about it, more than anything else.
I don’t care if you leave the title up. I was just trying to help you keep your credibility.
“Somebody needs to tell this woman her 15 minutes are up. ”
Nobody told the blogs that.
AkaDad: “I don’t care if you leave the title up. I was just trying to help you keep your credibility.
”
ST: Thanks, but I really don’t need your ‘help’ in that regard.
andrew: “Nobody told the blogs that. ”
ST: Nor the media, for that matter.
AkaDad,
Uh, worry about your own credibility. Lefties have little credibility because they play Chicken Little too much and cry wolf too much.
Cindy Sheehan confirms Woolsley invited her purely as a publicity stunt:
Woolsley is co-chairwoman of the Progressive Caucus, founded in 1991 by socialist Bernie Sanders.
She once intervened in the murder trial of a man accused of “soak[ing] a rag in toilet bowl cleanser and Ajax and us[ing] it to smother 17-year-old Tina Phan while she was sleeping” and “rap[ing] and brutaliz[ing] her” and said of the perpetrator:
It just so happens Pearson is the son of one of Woolsey’s aides and had worked on her political campaign as well.
Her anti-war stance is in line with Sheehan as well. In August, 2005, she actually said Saddam Hussein was better for Iraqi women than the new Consitution, ratified by Iraqis themselves.
This information brought to you by the letter S and by Generation Why?
Sister, have you had as much comments on any other posting? This is a lot!
Just reading the back-and-forth is taxing, much less trying to think of anything relevant to say.
Anybody who would wear – and unveil, as Mama Sheehan did – a T-shirt in the Capital building, needs to be disciplined by a real adult. Children shouldn’t be allowed into adult proceedings if they aren’t prepared to behave.
ack!
Sorry ST didn’t see a post containing the link I reposted here…lol
My Bad.
Well ST, you certainly do need to do something to maintain whatever credibility that you might have.
Your response to my suggestion about an apology tells me that you have no integrity whatsoever – that although you would be among the first to demand accountability from the left or from the MSM, you have no intention of holding yourself accountable for your screw-ups.
We all get to define ourselves in this world – this was an opportunity for you to “lead by example”, and you flunk.
*Yawn.* As if I give a hoot what you think – I’ll take advice about leading from a real leader and advice about integrity from people who actually have it, and certainly not from the likes of you. Buh bye. –ST
so the Sista’s apparently wrong
LINK
And the cops have apologized to Cindy Sheehan
I don’t have a dog in this race; just sayin’
And? I still believe Clinton was guilty of any number of things in addition to perjury that he got off on (no pun intended) and don’t intend on apologizing for my opinion on that, either.
It’s absolutely hilarious to see the lefto blogosphere calling for ‘apologies’ when they routinely each and everyday declare that the President, DeLay, etc guilty of any number of things when they haven’t even set foot in a courtroom in front of a jury of their peers in order to determine that ‘guilt.’ So forgive me if I’m not rushing to post any ‘apology’ on something I still believe to be true.
And?
Well, as I said earlier:
I doubt most sensible on the left or the right were surprised that she was asked to leave the proceedings. It’s mostly fringe dwellers on both sides who are squabbling over this: Kos meet Michelle Malkin. Sister Toljah meet Atrios.
Two sides of the same coin.