Friday I wrote about Anthony Weiner's federal plea to transferring obscene material to a person under 16, and offered some comments on how it was unusual and notable.
Since then, a site called "Who What Why" has published a story claiming that the minor in the case was 17, not 15, and that she initiated contact with Weiner, possibly as part of an anti-Clinton conspiracy. The Hill — a more mainstream publication — has picked up the story.
I'm very skeptical, based on my familiarity with federal criminal investigations and procedure.
Who What Why doesn't offer any evidence or documents supporting their claim — only an assertion that they used "sophisticated forensic techniques" to uncover her true identity and verified her age through court records and social media posts — which they don't display.
Who What Why's treatment of the relevant law is incorrect and, frankly, sloppy.
It should be noted that prosecutors, judges and juries view interactions with minors differently, based on the precise age of the minor: 15 is worse than 16, which is worse than 17, the real age of the girl for much of the period during which she interacted with Weiner, and her age when she approached the media.
Well, maybe, but that's not the point. It's the law — the written statutes — that treat different ages differently. That's the meaningful distinction. Here, the victim's age is meaningful because the statute under which Weiner entered a plea — Title 18, United States Code, section 1470 — expressly requires the victim to be under 16.
Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers obscene matter to another individual who has not attained the age of 16 years, knowing that such other individual has not attained the age of 16 years, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
So how could the government have charged Weiner under this statute, and how could Weiner have pled guilty, if the victim wasn't under 16? Who What Why offers a rather ambiguous handwave:
Under North Carolina law, at 16, she was in fact above the age of consent. Ultimately, this would not matter because Weiner pled guilty to being under the impression that she was only 15, and she was still below the federal age of consent — the standard applicable in the case. Regardless of what he stipulated as part of his plea agreement, among the trove of incriminating messages it published, the Daily Mail provided no evidence that the girl actually told Weiner she was 15, only that she was in high school.
This is shockingly badly researched nonsense. Weiner was charged and pled guilty explicitly on the theory that the girl was actually 15. To prosecute him on the theory "she was 17 but he thought she was 15," you'd have to prosecute him for an attempt or a conspiracy, not a substantive violation of the statute, which expressly requires the victim to be under 16. That's not what happened here. Who What Why's "federal age of consent" reference is gibberish — they are apparently referring to the restrictions of this particular statute governing sending obscene materials.
Plus, if this “lie,” misrepresentation of fact, or material inaccuracy found its way into a government pleading in what became the United States v. Weiner case, it would have legal consequences. But we may never know, because the way Anthony Weiner’s plea deal is structured inhibits further inquiry by dispensing with the matter while revealing no details about the underlying history.
This, too, is gibberish. Anthony Weiner's plea is structured like any other federal plea; it doesn't "inhibit further inquiry" in any way different than any plea, and further details will in fact be explored through the sentencing process.
The proposition that the government and Weiner proceeded knowing that she was actually 17 is therefore absolutely false. It is possible, in theory, that the victim and her family concocted a grand deception about her age, and fooled federal investigators, federal prosecutors, and Weiner's lawyers — thus committing multiple federal felonies. But it's extremely unlikely. The investigation would naturally involve confirming the victim's age through records, because her age would be an important element of proof. There would be multiple interviews with the victim and her parents. It's highly likely that the investigators and prosecutors would scour her social media presence to find anything that may blow up their case. God knows investigators and prosecutors are sloppy and rush to judgment some of the time, but in such a high-profile case, where they can expect extreme scrutiny, they would have done what they could to avoid embarrassment. Moreover, the probation officer writing Weiner's Presentence Report would typically communicate with the victim to add any information about victim impact, and it would be common for the prosecutors to seek an (anonymous to protect her identity) statement from her to support their sentencing arguments, so more scrutiny would be expected.
So. I'm deeply skeptical about a claim, based on undisclosed evidence, that Who What Why has proof that the victim was not under 16 and that the investigators, prosecutors, and Weiner's lawyers were all deceived throughout an intensive process. It's an extraordinary claim requiring some sort of evidence, and Who What Why is not inspiring confidence getting fairly simple legal issues badly wrong.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- CNN, Doxing, And A Few Ways In Which We Are Full of Shit As A Political Culture - July 5th, 2017
- How the Southern Poverty Law Center Enraged Nominal Conservatives Into Betraying Free Speech Values - June 29th, 2017
- Shock, Dismay In Academia At Scorpion Acting Like Scorpion - June 28th, 2017
- Free Speech Triumphant Or Free Speech In Retreat? - June 21st, 2017
- The Power To Generate Crimes Rather Than Merely Investigate Them - June 19th, 2017
David Mack, @davidmackau, wrote a short tweet string starting at 12:53 pm at 5/22/17 that addresses this story. According to Mack, he had spoken to the family and he says The Hill story is bogus. He says the family did not reach out to him and says, "one of the things this story gets wrong is so monumental it can only lead me to believe the author doe snot have the right family."
I don't know Mack and this is obviously second hand but he makes many of the same points as this post.
Seems The Hill is not doing well with these stories lately.
"… 17, the real age of the girl for much of the period during which she interacted with Weiner"
Story says "for much of the period." So did Weiner engage in any unlawful acts when the girl was below the age of consent?
The statue text you quoted says an attempt is an offense under that statute. Why would you need conspiracy? (That seems like a terrible law for that reason, but also a clear one)
This isn't my area of law, but wouldn't it have been a significant failure on Weiner's attorney's part to not, as a basic part of their defense, investigate this issue? To the point where, assuming that he hired halfway competent counsel (as someone with his means and remaining connections would certainly have done), it's almost ridiculous to think that they didn't?
This would have, of course, been a good technical defense in court. Not sure how it would have played in the court of public opinion…
"Oh no, I didn't do anything ILLEGAL. I, a man married to the chief aid of the democratic candidate for president, having had to resign in disgrace already for a sexting scandal, ONLY got caught sending gross pictures to a barely-above-the-age-of-consent teenager."
Also – what's the setup? That he can be convinced to send dirty pictures at the drop of a hat? If he wasn't such a scumbag, there would have been nothing to set up.
I hate this f*king guy.
Sam, I'm pretty sure Weiner stopped caring about the court of public opinion and began focussing on how to limit his jail time a while back.
He *was* attempting a political comeback for a while, but I think/guess that's over for good at this point.
If you watch the documentary about him, which is strangely fascinating, it's all about his attempt at a comeback after the FIRST scandal. At which point he allows a documentary crew to follow him around while he's running for mayor.
In the middle of which the SECOND scandal blows up.
I mean, I liked his political views a lot more than the trumpenfuhrer, but on some level he's got the same type of narcissistic personality disorder/pathological need for attention (among other things). You would *think* that would lead to the making of better decisions, if only for political expediency, but…apparently not.
Did anyone see the interview, some years ago now, with Weiner where the host just ups and politely demands "What's wrong with you?" Whereupon Mr Weiner sat there, looking flabbergasted, lame and befuddled, but – to his credit – at least tried to answer the questions. I'm trying to track it down on Youtube.
The host's point was not that Weiner's crimes were particularly evil; the host actually said something about sexting being standard stuff for politicians(!). In any event, I'd disagree that the sexting is commonplace. That and Mr Weiner's other sins were if not stupid, at least so unthinking.
Rather, the interviewer was trying to understand Weiner's drive to be in the spotlight, politically. (One wonders what politics he will adopt in prison).
Found the interview.
The Roman church used to define "canonical" age as forty-plus, at which age a woman could safely be employed in a canon's household. We need a similar concept for men. But that Weiner person is about fifty-plus. For some men such an age of majority should be set at about forty. And it still wouldn't catch Trump, or Billy Bush. Nor MLK or JFK, to be fair.
is it perhaps possible that some of the confusion is because Mr. Weiner was chatting with several young women?
Teal Deer; they are either deliberately lying, or have been lied to.
I have an off-topic question, please.
From the NYT:
Is the last sentence true? I mean what would be the point of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination if contempt proceedings can be initiated for invoking said right?
Still say Putin hacked his phone as part of hacking the election. Why is The Hill not investigating?
If being held in contempt of congress was likely to lead to jail time these days Lois Lerner would still be in jail.
Dear Neoteny (that's one curious handle):
Contempt of Congress doesn't mean just refusal to comply with a subpoena; it's generally obstructing the work of Congress. Remember, Congress is sovereign, one of three co-equal branches of government. It's not a court but has something like an inherent jurisdiction nonetheless, to police its own procedures, so can issue a contempt order to anyone.
That order might not be to compel a witness, I mean. as I understand this, it's like the power of Parliament to compel lawyers or indeed anyone to front up and justify their action. So that would be a more general power to compel removal of an obstruction to the work of Congress. This might involve testimony where s/he has to invoke the fifth, as did many before HUAC in the fifties. Real Americans should feel free to correct me if that's wrong.
From the Cornell web site:
Contempt of Congress
Definition
Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person's conduct or action obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress.
Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.
Before a Congressional witness may be convicted of contempt, it must be established that the matter under investigation is a subject which Congress has constitutional power to legislate.
Generally, the same Constitutional rights against self-incrimination that apply in a judicial setting apply when one is testifying before Congress.
Caselaw
Quinn v. U.S., 349 U.S. 155, 75 S. Ct. 668, 99 L. Ed. 964, 51 A.L.R.2d 1157 (1955).
Fields v. U.S., 164 F.2d 97 (App. D.C. 1947).
In short, the proverbial slap on the wrist. I can't find any recent examples of anyone having served any time at all for it – the dozen or so who have been recently held in contempt were either never prosecuted (or far more rarely) acquitted of the crime once it was turned over to a Federal prosecutor to bring to trial.
CarLitGuy: thanks.
""Who What Why doesn't offer any evidence or documents supporting their claim""
So? That's good enough for WaPo, NYT, CNN, et al.
No.
Completely off-topic, but I'm waiting with bated breath to see what – if anything – Popehat thinks of the SCOTUS decision (TC HEARTLAND LLC v. KRAFT FOODS GROUP BRANDS LLC) preventing Patent trolls from filing suit in any jurisdiction they please, like East Texas. That would be huge.
As Schwing says, whoever wrote that nonsense is doe snot.
Welllll, if the Feds cooperated with the victim and family to fool Weiner and his lawyers, it could happen. I'm not claiming it did happen, but it's an astronomically more plausible scenario than what you just said.
Federal investigations take time so my guess is WhoWhatWhy found something that shows she just turned 17 or is 16 and will soon be 17. If so she could certainly been 15 when the events occurred with Weiner.
As for the family's politics, it doesn't matter if it was a trap as long as it wasn't a government trap. But the teenager may have been aware of Weiner's story because her parents talked about him or because the family watched/read conservative news and she let her curiosity get the better of her. Even kids from conservative families can get in trouble on the internet.
Matthew Cline,
Given Weiner's plea, proclivities, and history, it's astonomically more plausible that Weiner did it.
This is typical for the Left. Muddy the waters with articles like this, without any substantial proof. The article gets promoted in various blogs, fed to the mainstream media and then eventually someone at a party or family gathering says "They say it was a set-up, the girl was really 17, look here's the proof on the internet", citing Who What Why's rationalizing argument.
Any attorney that would allow his client to sign a plea deal based on the girl being 15 when she was really 17 should be disbarred. The facts are not in evidence in Who What Why's article. The facts are in evidence in the federal court.
The Left muddies the waters like this on so many issues, one can walk across the waters and need to knock the dust off their shoes on the other side.
I read the original story and thought how convenient. According to that story the Republicans are the real bad guys. Seems perfectly planted to become the truth among lefty blogs regardless of the reality when the facts come out.
Let me just say that I expect the title of this post to feature heavily in the next "road to popehat."
Jesus Christ on a flaming pogo stick, why the hell would anyone be trying to defend Weiner at this late date? Personally, I think that the laws in question (like most of the laws involving sex issues) are a badly written mess. Doesn't change that Weiner is a creep, who has been given several chances to stop being a creep.
According to news reports, the sexting with the girl started in January of 2016 and continued until September, 2016, roughly 9 months. Thus, she could easily be 15 years-old when contact began, and generously speaking, nearly 17 when the sexting was exposed.
As an off-topic comment for those who are looking for a Prenda fix.. John Steele has been formally disbarred in Illinois.
One look at the list of political stories that WWW puts up tells you all you need to know about the site's objectivity.
https://whowhatwhy.org/category/politics/
When you look at the appearance of his wife, the body shape and face, he is just like sex offenders I have worked with who had sexual experiences with young teens while he (they) were still at a very young age, one at least pre-teen. One had married a younger wife and kept encouraging her to dress very young. They (the men) are stunted/fixated with that age and body type.
I find Anthony despicable as the others I knew were desperately trying to overcome it, not involving others in there fantasizing. Even to considering suicide a cure. (Which is where I became involved)
@Richard Smart,
Huge indeed! It's almost like an alternative universe in our own backyard.
How do these things happen?
. .. . .. — ….
@Sam,
Yes, it would be bizarre for the defense to have not verified the girl's age, being as the entire thing hangs on whether she was above or below a particular age. It's the height of arrogance to imagine that one has figured out he's innocent due to her age, and that his lawyers somehow missed that carefully-hidden tidbit of information.
It's sort of like the folks who want, desperately, to believe that global warming isn't happening, and bring up things like 'the sun' as sources that account for warming. As though the scientists who've spent decades looking into the topic, and studying it in minute detail, somehow missed the giant nuclear furnace in the sky.
@Czernobog:
I agree, and imagine what it would have been like if the title was this: The Dubious "Anthony Weiner Was Actually Over 16" Story", And Why I'm Very Skeptical".
@pursang/@Robert
Not saying that isn't the case here (though why anyone would waste this much time and effort trying to protect the reputation of an already used-up and discarded has-been like Weiner, I have no idea…), but…. pot… kettle… black?
"He *was* attempting a political comeback for a while, but I think/guess that's over for good at this point."
Why? Gerry Studds had no problems continuing in politics as Democrats. For a Democrat, underage sex is a resume enhancer.
@Josh C
Actually, it seems to me that there is perhaps some ambiguity as to whether it's "attempt to (sext someone underage)" or "attempt to sext (someone underage)". There's a difference between trying to sext a particular someone, where that someone is underage, versus making a general attempt to sext someone underage. If you find someone who you think is underage, but isn't, and try to sext them, then you are attempting to (sext someone underage), but you aren't (attempting to sext) someone underage.
@neoteny
If one asserts a Fifth Amendment right to not cooperate, and refuses to cooperate, then one can be held in contempt if the assertion that the Fifth Amendment applies is false. That is, one cannot be held in contempt (at least, not lawfully), if one's assertion of Fifth Amendment privileges is correct, but one can be held in contempt if the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply. So, for instance, if you witness your friend committing a crime, and you weren't involved in the crime, then testifying as to what you saw would not incriminate you, so the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply. If you don't want your friend to get in trouble, so you say "I'm not going to testify because Fifth Amendment", that's not a valid invocation of the Fifth Amendment, so you can be held in contempt.
That article on patent trolls says:
That's a really inaccurate definition of "patent troll". Demanding royalties and suing for damages for those who refuse IS using the patent, and is one of the main legitimate uses of patents.
Since the US Patent Office is in Alexandria, Virginia, I think the Supremes could have made an even more Solomonic decision and ruled all such cases must originate in the Eastern District of Virginia.
One could then arrange for dedicated special masters, etc., to be focused on this court.
@Encinal:
I think you're being a bit pedantic, here. While I agree that the Wikipedia definition is better than what I got from my first Google result (NPEs can be patent trolls, but not all patent trolls are NPEs), many people treat them as equivalent. To be equi-pedantic, I would argue that the article's definition is merely mildly inaccurate.
@Encinal, et al,
Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
. .. . .. — ….
To be equi-pedantic, Thoroughbreds and Standardbreds are not the same.
I don't see how it's pedantic. Getting a reasonably precise definition is central to the issue. There's no literal meaning of "use" as used by the NYT that makes sense. My best guess would be it would mean producing items themselves, rather than licensing. When you're labeling everyone who licenses their patent a "patent troll", you've clearly gone too far.
@pursang:
Speaking as a Lefty (and a delegate for Clinton at the state level), the notion that the girl was really 17 instead of 15 makes no difference to me – dude's still sending pictures of his dick to a teenager. It would mean a specific statute doesn't apply, but it's not like this exonerates him, or convinces anyone he's really a stand-up guy who was innocently caught in a web of lies and deceit.
Stand-up guys innocently caught in webs of lies and deceit don't send pictures of their dicks to random teenagers.
Weiner may geniunely be suffering from some kind of compulsive disorder, or he may be an old-school raincoat pervert who's working his way up to real assault; either way, he needs to be put away somewhere where he can't do any more harm.
Plenty of us on the Left do bang the drum on sourcing and corroboration and try to call out confirmation bias catnip like this for what it is.
Unfortunately, we're not in charge.
@SDN: I can immediately think of Dan Crane having sex with a minor. Democratic Underground also notes Buz Lukens. And Tennessee state rep Keith Westmoreland. And, I'm sure there's more.
Isn't the Interwebz fun?
@Encinal
I would propose that a literal meaning of "use" in this case which makes sense in the context of the NYT article is similar to how one "uses" a recipe, as in, to exercise the theoretical concepts contained within a document to create something tangible. (e.g. "This lasagna is amazing, where did you get it?" "Well, I used a recipe that my grandmother gave me.")
I get your point, and I'm agreeing that the NYT was painting with an overly broad brush, but I labelled your complaint pedantry because you seem to be willfully ignoring the significant connotative overlap of "patent troll" and "non-practicing entity" as well as an obvious, plain-language meaning of the word "use"; in this case, both you and the NYT are being too narrow in your intepretation of the word "use". ("but they did it first!" is not an acceptable defense)
Also, I don't think anyone is saying that all entities which license patents are trolls (no one in this thread, not Wikipedia, and certainly not the NYT). Everyone is in agreement that such an assertion would be taking things too far.
@jfb, you're not in charge, but those who are are like you. The left, by and large, is data driven. It's one of the main things that sets it as different from the right. "The left" did not muddy the waters with this article – some idiot did. "The left", by and large, isn't buying it. And even those who are seem to be coming to conclusions much as you suggest: so what if he's not guilty of this specific crime under this specific statue, he's still a pervy creep. He has some friends, sure, but it's a rapidly dwindling pool.
You might not be in charge. But those like you are in the vast majority, much as folks like pursang would like to pretend otherwise.
@pursang
Pizzagate? Hello? Shirley Sherrod? Seth Rich?
Dear Albert,
Very slowly, it seems, is how these things happen. Apparently the fifth circuit has been propagating the erroneous interpretation of corporate residence for twenty years, and the SCOTUS voice from the cave has only now pronounced doom.
As Ken so often reminds us though, the wheels of justice might grind slowly, but they do grind small.
@Pursang
Oh, sure. Very typical.
Swift-boating. Pizza-gate. The murder of Seth Rich. Whitewater! Hillary has Parkinson's. Trump-Russia is the work of angry ex-Obama administration officials and Democrats who can't get over the loss of the election. Voter fraud!
@GuestPoster
This, from someone who INSISTED that women make significantly less than men for the same, despite providing ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE. Posting study after study that don't actually support your conclusion isn't really "data driven".
@Ann
What's typical is you posting a logical fallacy. That there have been people on the Right promoting bullshit does absolutely nothing to rebut the claim that people on the Left do so.
@Encinal
In context your original comment strongly implies that promoting this kind of bullshit is rather more common on the left. So invoking the logical fallacy, when you get examples to illustrate that the behavior which you called typical of the left is far more often a standard feature on the right, is pretty disingenuous. Technically you are right but the context sure did not imply "everyone does it even the left, even though it is not as common as the right".
There's no topic on which Encinal cannot bring to bear his own particular hobby horses.
What's typical is this idiot posting his usual idiocy and missing the point. The point of the post wasn't to claim nobody on the left promotes bullshit…. it was to claim (quite effectively) that the original poster was a liar and a hypocrite for implying that promoting bullshit was solely the province of the left, particularly at a time when the President nominated by the part of the right has actually participated in the promotion of bullshit.
As a conservative, I reiterate my strong belief that Encinal is a liberal sock puppet played to make us look bad. Then again, I need a "conservative" to call out on blatant bullshit to develop my reputation as an even-handed critic, and Clark's gone.
That seems to me to indicate that unlike actual sexual contact, one would have to be aware of age to be in violation of the statute. Is that correct and this is a welcome break from the insanity of strict liability, and did she or did she not actually inform Weiner that she was 15?
With regards to documents, the 5th Amendment generally can not be (legally) invoked to refuse to disclose documents as they are not considered testimonial. The only time it is a legitimate invocation is where there requests are vague enough that there would be substantial decision making involved in identifying and choosing which documents are responsive such that any decisions made in that respect would be effectively testimonial. However if the subpoena is specific enough they are required to be turned over even if they include an admission of guilt since no one compelled them to create such a document. As such failure to turn over documents that are known to exist, even if the specific details of them are not known, is a refusal to accept the courts authority and thus opens them to contempt of court charges.
Some website somewhere posted something. The internet is full of garbage, and I'm surprised that Ken took the time to comment on this. From our perches out here in the hinterlands, it is empirically unknowable how old the girl was. All we have to go on is what the federal court did, after due research, briefing and argument from both sides. In the first instance, subject to refutation, we may trust that a formerly high-caliber guy like Carlos Danger retained a high-caliber lawyer. Federal courts get it right more than half of the time, otherwise we would have replaced them with something else by now. We do have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he's a pervert, and I'm ready to see the curtain rung down for the last time on this sordid little drama.
Can you clarify the reasoning you used to reach this conclusion? I don't really think this statement is axiomatic.
The problem with gauging whether we "get [prosecutions] right" is that it's actually pretty damn hard to gauge whether we get them right. Except under narrow circumstances, we're not allowed to appeal on the basis of "let's check to see whether we got the factual findings right." People tend to be pretty deferential to a guilty verdict as proof that the defendant was guilty. The only times the general public disagrees with a guilty verdict is when the defense and the prosecution both share the same general view of the facts, but the public disagrees with whether they add up to a crime, or when the defendant is popular, or the political climate engenders a lot of sympathy for the "not guilty" position. Otherwise, we try not to poke too hard at the comforting fiction of an infallible judiciary.
Just look at groups such as the Innocence Project. They examine the incredibly narrow range of cases–ones where DNA evidence was collected and well-preserved, but before the advent of DNA testing–where it's actually possible to either confirm or invalidate a conviction with a reasonable degree of certainty. For many of these cases, there was no risk to finding out the truth–many defendants had already been executed, while the judges, juries, prosecutors, and police were immune to any legal consequences for getting things wrong–and yet there was strong resistance to this work from numerous directions. People really didn't want to know whether the courts actually do get it right more than half the time because they were afraid they wouldn't like the answer.
I think it's more accurate to say that we keep the Federal courts, and the courts in general, because we, as individuals, tend not to question how often they get it right until we, personally, are confronted with a case where the courts get it horribly wrong. Fortunately for us, the number of people who have been screwed by the system remains too small to make a difference on their own, and unable to attract substantial support because, after all, they're convicts and thus presumed to be untrustworthy.
Maybe they are confused by at the time of the crime? After all, folks do continue to age as long as they remain alive.
Encinal & DanA: thanks.
@IForgetMyName
No, it was to distract from the left promoting bullshit with tu quoque.
You inferring something is not the same as someone implying it. If Ann had wanted to take the poster to task for implying that it was the sole province of the left, she could have asserted that that was the thrust of the post, and asserted her disagreement. Instead she made her own dishonest implication that the right is dishonest, therefore we should ignore the dishonesty of the left. You accuse me of missing the point, while being dishonest about what the point is. The point is, as many of Ann's post, to pile more shit into the thread.
Ann clearly said "Oh, sure. Very typical." Presumably, that was sarcasm. Ann clearly was disputing the assertion that this was typical on the left, not the alleged implication that it was unique to the left, and you're simply engaging in dishonest rewriting of the history of the thread to accuse me of dishonesty.
And given her previous behavior, for a lying piece of shit like Ann to accuse someone else of dishonesty and hypocrisy is itself dishonest and hypocritical.
That is a horrible mess of a sentence. And Obama participated in the promotion of bullshit, too. Since by your logic, I can accuse you of implying that only Trump participates in promoting bullshit, you are being dishonest.
You, Total, Ann, and GuestPoster are dishonest assholes who again and again have insulted me without offering anything resembling a valid counterargument. And you're claiming that *I* am the sock puppet trying to make liberals look bad?
Are you seriously going to claim that Ann, GuestPoster, and Total don't make the left look bad?
As I recall, you first made this accusation after I called Ann out for LYING about the banning of gender-neutral pronouns, and you offered no explanation whatsoever as to why calling people out for lying is a sign of sock puppetry, making absolutely no effort whatsoever to discuss the issue with me before simply jumping to personal attacks.
Why should anyone bother, given that you aren't participating in good faith?
@alc
It was not my post. But unlike certain other people, I will not characterize this mistake as "pouring sewage on your head".
There are thousands of examples on both sides. Posting a few on the right does nothing to establish that they are "more often a standard feature on the right".
@Total
I can back up my accusations. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly popped in with YOUR hobby horse of personal attacks against me, without having anything substantive to say.
The next time will be the first time.
You assert that I can't back up my assertions, without backing that up. How ironic.
So not the next time. Maybe the next time?