Rich, White, Gay, Celebrity, Victim

https://x.com/jonahplatt/status/2099588604200948222?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

No, nothing racist here at all.  He’s clearly the victim. 

Animal Sacrifice?

 https://www.instagram.com/reel/Db79AG5ODpe/?stkn=a3Zsa2p6cDVjcHJu

Dan didn’t seem to offended by banning pride flags, let’s see if animal sacrifice gets his panties in a wad.  

Looking Bad

 https://www.instagram.com/p/DdPnT8nGsHd/?stkn=NGRnYzA3dzN0cTFy

This looks pretty bad, but it won’t matter.  

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdQA8q3zI7O/?stkn=MW44MGoxbDFoM2t2dA==

Omar lies. 

The Gift That Keeps On GIving

 https://x.com/themissylerch/status/2098931569482145845?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

" Kevin Reddington’s wife… By publicly branding the holdout juror a "criminal" over a dismissed charge, Debbie Reddington has escalated this situation from an ethical breach into defamation per se and potential malicious harassment. [1, 2] This exact conduct carries catastrophic legal and professional consequences: 1. Defamation "Per Se" Liability for the Spouse Calling someone a criminal when their charge was dismissed is one of the clearest examples of online defamation. •False Statements of Fact: Legally, an individual is innocent until proven guilty. Labeling someone a "criminal" based on a dismissed domestic incident is a false statement of fact.[1, 2] •Defamation Per Se: Under Massachusetts law, falsely accusing someone of a crime is automatically considered "defamation per se." This means the juror does not even have to prove financial loss to win a civil lawsuit against her; the harm to their reputation is legally presumed. 2. Escalation of the State Bar Investigation into Kevin Reddington Her tweet makes it incredibly difficult for defense attorney Kevin Reddington to distance himself from the public mob targeting this juror. [1, 2] •Did he provide the court records? The Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers will aggressively investigate how his wife obtained background or court details about an impounded juror. If Reddington pulled those records via his law office and handed them to his wife to fuel a public smear campaign, he faces immediate disciplinary suspension or disbarment. [1, 2] •Bypassing Restraint Guidelines: Legal scholars like Jonathan Turley have already publicly rebuked Reddington for fueling public rage against the juror. His wife's actions look like a coordinated effort to destroy the juror's life as retribution for blocking a "not guilty by reason of insanity" acquittal. [1, 2, 3] 3. Disastrous Legal Precedent for the Lindsay Clancy Case Because a mistrial was declared, the Lindsay Clancy case is currently in limbo while the judge considers post-trial motions. [1, 2] •Poisoning the Next Jury Pool: If the Plymouth County District Attorney decides to retry Clancy, the prosecution can present these tweets to Judge William Sullivan as evidence that the defense team is actively trying to poison future jury pools by intimidating anyone who dares to vote guilty. [1, 2] •Sanctions: The judge can issue severe sanctions against Kevin Reddington's defense, including gag orders, heavy fines, or even restricting how the defense selects jurors in the next round. [1]"

 https://x.com/ginamilan_/status/2098599402554228881?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "I’M SORRY, BUT WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE?! The wife of Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer is publicly going on social media and saying this kind of crap. SHE’S THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY’S WIFE. The judge should have put a GAG ORDER on every single person connected to this trial, including family members of anyone directly involved. There need to be boundaries, professionalism, and accountability when people connected to a criminal trial use social media to keep fueling the chaos. WHERE IS THE ETHICS IN ALL OF THIS?!"

 

 

 

 

  

 https://x.com/mike5627/status/2098845722233950374?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "Juror Kellie "True Crime" Farina: how the bleep did she get on that jury? How the bleep did the prosecution miss this in voir dire? Grok: on their dedicated Free Karen Read Facebook page "she (Farina) criticized investigators and prosecutors, and celebrated Read’s 2025 acquittal." The Mirror (below): "Farina's other social media activity shows that she had an interest in true crime and even joked about committing crimes that would land her on a television network specializing in true crime documentaries." This woman is disgusting. https://themirror.com/news/us-news/l"

indsay-clancy-juror-exposed-huge-2017533

 

   

 https://x.com/mrdennisbyron/status/2098783743494197365?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

" Looks like the NBC Boston reporter who thought it was a smart idea to dox the lone Black holdout juror may now have a legal problem of his own. Massachusetts law appears to raise serious questions about whether that conduct crossed the line. Maybe researching the statute should’ve come before digging into the juror’s personal life. I’d imagine a good civil attorney will be taking a very close look at this. "

 

 

 https://x.com/mabbe_8/status/2098504908316012669?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "We just learned something about the Lindsay Clancy jury that should make everyone reconsider the post-trial interviews. The lone holdout was a Black man in his 30s. In fact, he was the only Black juror in the room. Now go back and listen to how some of the other jurors have described him. He was “arrogant.” He wouldn't listen. He wouldn't accept what they were telling him. They questioned whether he understood the instructions and complained to the judge about him. There was ultimately an effort by the defense to have the lone dissenting juror removed. I'm not accusing these jurors of being overt racists. I'm asking a much more uncomfortable question: how much unconscious racial bias may have influenced the way an 11-person white majority perceived the one Black man who refused to agree with them? Would a white juror who stubbornly stood by his interpretation of the evidence have been described the same way? Would disagreement have been interpreted as an inability to understand? Would his unwillingness to be persuaded have been characterized as arrogance rather than conviction? And here's what makes this especially troubling: another juror has now said the holdout wasn't the only person unwilling to move and that there were “some big personalities” in that room. Yet after the mistrial, he became the villain of the story. Gayle King's reaction when she learned he was the only Black juror was immediate: she needed a moment to process it. So do I. For days we've heard that this man wouldn't listen to the other 11 jurors. Maybe we should also be asking whether the other 11 jurors were willing to listen to him."

 

Maybe the white women on the jury were unaware that black voices matter and should have listened to him.  

 https://x.com/richardgraziul/status/2098541722493919585?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

" Rights of a juror in Boston: Using a juror’s identity or personal information to intimidate, harass, threaten, mislead, or retaliate against the juror (or their family) is a felony under G.L. c. 268, § 13B (intimidation of a juror). This covers both during and after a trial if the intent is to interfere with or punish participation in the proceeding. Penalty (standard case): • Up to 10 years in state prison, or • Up to 2½ years in a house of correction, and/or • Fine of $1,000–$5,000. If the underlying case involved a crime punishable by life imprisonment, the maximum prison term rises to 20 years. I don’t know how ABC Boston or people on X posting about the juror isn’t violating the law?"

 

 

 

Journalists Love A Good Conspiracy Theory As Much As Left Wing Politicians

 https://x.com/amesstraight/status/2098766848229515634?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

"  Interesting headline choice, People. “Black Woman, 29, Is Found Hanging From Tree…” But the suspect is simply “Man Arrested.” The man arrested, 51-year-old Jarques Ratliff, is also Black. Tasia Fortune’s own mother has said she doesn’t believe her daughter’s killing was racially motivated. So why emphasize the victim’s race while leaving the suspect’s race completely out of the headline? Because “Black woman found hanging from a tree in Mississippi” certainly creates a very specific impression. If race matters enough to put it in the headline, tell the whole story. Context matters."

 

   

The "man"   who was "arrested".

 

 

 

 This is a follow up to my post last week where AOC and others have jumped on the conspiracy theory about a massive increase in lynchings of late. Not those revered "real journalists" are getting in on the conspiracy.

It's Bigger Than The Clancy Trial

 https://x.com/ChinaUncensored/status/2098739920097386687

" The whole Lindsay Clancy trial feels like some weird gnostic ritual. We aren’t supposed to judge people by their actions in this world but by some vague, ill defined inner world that’s the real truth. It’s the same kind of worldview that lead to the man who killed Iryna Zarutska getting put back on the street again and again."

 

 https://x.com/msmelchen/status/2098900619964690648?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

" What's happening here is that we have grown strangely uncomfortable with the idea that some people choose darkness. Think of the stories that dominate entertainment now - almost no one is allowed to be evil on their own terms. Every villain has a prequel and an origin story. Maleficent is no longer the fairy who curses a child out of wounded pride; she is a woman whose wings were stolen. The Wicked Witch of the West is not the terror of Oz; she is Elphaba, "othered" and failed by the system that raised her. Cruella is given a cruel mother. Even the Joker's brokenness and nihilism have become stylish and cool. Basically no one is the author of his/her own deeds. Every person is a passive buoy, haplessly floating on the water surface, swept by the tides of circumstance and the currents of history. Yeah of course it's true that all of us are shaped by forces larger than ourselves. But society is now over-indexing on those forces such that explaining how someone arrived at evil has turned into explaining the evil away. By insisting that wickedness is downstream of some prior injustice, we relocate responsibility outside of the self. Which is why so much energy is poured into what Lindsay Clancy's doctors missed, what medicines she was prescribed, her husband's failures, her postpartum chemistry, etc. So we're now left with a culture that can explain everything and confront almost nothing."

"the left"?

 https://x.com/liam_out_loud/status/2098850625442459737?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

" What you often think of as "the left" is really just an anti-life movement: 1. No God = no inherent value or meaning to life. 2. Cast the entire history that led to you and everything you have as illegitimate and oppressive (no history, no future). 3. Glorify fame, sex, money, and power, while denigrating virtues (increase entropy and decrease order). 4. Always increase taxation (theft of your energy). 5. Convinced women that marriage and motherhood is oppressive (no future life). 6. Cast men as toxic (no more providing). 7. Obstruct the formation of rational thought in children by getting them to accept contradictory ideology. 8. Promote sterile lifestyles (LGBT) 9. Constantly create new identity groups and pit them against each other (zero unity). 10. Claim national sovereignty is evil, importing millions from hostile populations. 11. Anytime someone feels discomfort or dismay medicate them into passivity. 12. Demonize energy (the lifeblood of civilization). 13. Argue abortion is inconsequential and a form of liberty. You could continue but the point is.... all of these positions we are supposed to view as independent of each other converge on one thing: the suppression of life itself."

 

My one quibble would be with point #1. There is clearly a subset of "the left" which does include (a) God or gods in their shtick.  Whether it's the progressive christian Talarico types who lump all gods together in the same pot, or the make god in my own image types we all know, there definitely are a few on "the left" that invoke god to bless their politics. I don't think that point 1 is wrong, per se, but that it could have been more accurately stated.