Thursday, June 30, 2022

Fox lapdog Hannity: What we witnessed was blatantly dishonest


  1. Thank you Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn for posting this. This post moves this blog back towards being a place to fairly assess news.

  2. And here's the part that to me really doesn't seem to add up:

    In her testimony, Hutchinson also said that Trump was aware that some in the crowd at his “Stop the Steal” rally at the Ellipse were armed with AR-15-style assault rifles and firearms — but told Secret Service agents to remove the metal detectors to increase the size of the crowd in camera shots.

    Carrying any kind firearm in DC is generally illegal. Furthermore, a rifle is not easily concealable. How is it possible the Secret Service knew about people carrying guns and word of it didn't get to the police? I'm not aware of even one photo from January 6th of anyone in DC armed with an assault rife. It seems virtually certain nobody entered the Capitol with one. Hundreds have been charged with regard to January 6 -- how many have been charged with carrying assault rifles into the Capitol?

    Even Ashli Babbitt who was gunned down by a security agent as she attempted to enter a hallway leading to a chamber with members of Congress only had a backpack on her.

  3. Torah thought daf hayomi Yevamot 116a
    “DISCORD BETWEEN HIM AND HER etc. What is to be understood by DISCORD BETWEEN HIM AND HER? Rab Judah replied in the name of Samuel: When [a wife] says to her husband. Divorce me! Do not all women [lit. all of them also] say this [When they are angry. They do not mean it seriously. Why, then, should a woman, because of a momentary outburst, be suspected of inventing a tale about her husband's death?]? Rather [this is the meaning]: When she says to her husband. You have divorced me! Then let her be believed on the strength of R. Hamnuna's ruling; for R. Hamnuna ruled: If a woman said to her husband, You have divorced me. she is believed, for it is an established principle that no woman would dare [to make such a false assertion] in the presence of her husband! [Here it is a case] where she said. You have divorced me in the presence Of So-and-so and So-and-so, who. when asked, stated that this had never happened [ לא היו דברים מעולם (abr. להד"מ), lit.. the things never were]”



please use either your real name or a pseudonym.