"I feel like it's bad because you're judging a book by its cover and you don't know anything about us," said Ms. Love, who is 20.Got that right. They saw your picture. That's all they needed to know.
Where are the photos with ID cards? The JS article says the DPW provided them, but why not show them and let viewers/readers decide? Media Trackers — here's some video evidence, we'll give you our opinion and even put a ? in the title to make it clear we're not making factual claims. JS — here's a claim the Democrats are making. We believe it, therefore, we don't have to show you the supposed "proof" the Democrats provided.Nice try, counselor, but your reckless desperation is showing.
That's former Mike Gableman clerk/current Rick Esenberg associate — at the latter's Bradley Foundation-funded Kulturkampf law boutique, incidentally — Tom Kamenick demanding the two young ladies relinquish their right to privacy and assume the burden of production. Seems to me the burden is on Charlie Sykes, Media Trackers, and their disciples and in that production they all of them failed rather spectacularly.
Full retraction and apology from Charlie Sykes in the morning, I'm sure.
Stellar work, you Bradley Foundation "intellectuals."
3 comments:
Given the harassment we know these women will bear by the people who wish to intimidate them, we have no interest-without their permission-of releasing the information to anyone outside of the press.
The original sin here was meant to intimidate a class of people and the burden of proof is not on honest actors exercising their rights. Their persecutors must face a different standard.
For those reasons alone Kamenick's demand is ludicrous.
> ...Kamenick demanding the two young ladies relinquish their right to privacy and assume the burden of production.
Got that right. It's birther tactics, which are completely contrary to the presumed-innocent standard of our justice system. Or, as the Red Queen would say: First the sentence, and then the evidence.
Post a Comment