The man has a make believe friend called T-Bone, and he also wants to be Spartacus. What does he want to be when he grows up?
Democratic Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey said the attack against Empire actor Jussie Smollett was an attempt at “modern-day lynching.” Booker asked Congress to pass an Anti-Lynching bill, which would make lynching a federal hate crime. Both Smollett and his character from Empire identify as gay.
“The vicious attack on actor Jussie Smollett was an attempted modern-day lynching. I’m glad he’s safe,” Booker said. “To those in Congress who don’t feel the urgency to pass our Anti-Lynching bill designating lynching as a federal hate crime– I urge you to pay attention.”
Two men in ski masks reportedly attacked Smollett at 2 a.m. in Chicago on Tuesday. They were “yelling out racial and homophobic slurs” and “poured an unknown chemical substance on the victim” police said. The incident is being investigated as a possible hate crime.
Smollett, who was treated at Northwestern Memorial, told CNN that he tried to fight back against the attackers. He was “angry” that an attack of this caliber happened. He was discharged later in the day on Tuesday, TMZ reported.
This Negro is lying and all these fake news people and activist are going along with it.
Fox Entertainment and 20th Century Fox Television issued a statement after they learned about the attack. Smollett has worked on the Fox series since 2016 where he plays Jamal, a popular singer from the prominent Lyon family.
“We are deeply saddened and outraged to learn that a member of our Empire family, Jussie Smollett, was viciously attacked last night,” a statement said. “We send our love to Jussie, who is resilient and strong, and we will work with law enforcement to bring these perpetrators to justice. The entire studio, network and production stands united in the face of any despicable act of violence and hate—and especially against one of our own.”
Smollett received support from stars like Empire creator Lee Daniels, who was horrified by the attack.
Days before the incident, Smollett was reportedly sent a package to Fox Studios in Chicago. According to a photo posted by TMZ, it had cut out letters that spelled, “You will die black f**.”
There are rumors that Smollett was attacked by MAGA (Make America Great Again) supporters, though police have not confirmed it.
This idiot thinks he can impeach Trump for firing James Comey.
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) plans to introduce articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Thursday — the first day that Democrats control the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Sherman first filed such articles in 2017, though they had no chance of going anywhere in the Republican-controlled House. Other Democrats joined his effort over the months that followed, without much effect.
Sherman, who was until recently considered a “moderate,” is close to the Bill and Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. He backed Hillary Clinton over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in the Democratic presidential primary in 2016, and has adopted hawkish foreign policy positions in the past. But in the two years since Trump won the presidency, Sherman has — like some other “moderates” — become obsessed with removing Trump.
Rep. Brad Sherman plans to introduce articles of impeachment against President Trump on Thursday, the first day of Democratic control of the House.
Sherman (D-Northridge) is reintroducing a measure that he first rolled out in 2017. But this year it carries more political significance: The decision of whether to act on it rests with Democrats — not Trump’s Republican allies.
Sherman’s articles of impeachment accuse Trump of obstructing justice by firing former FBI Director James B. Comey, among other wrongdoing.
“There is no reason it shouldn’t be before the Congress,” Sherman said. “Every day, Donald Trump shows that leaving the White House would be good for our country.”
Incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has tried to keep impeachment at bay, knowing that it would provoke public opposition. However, left-wing Democrats like Tom Steyer — who may be running for president in 2020 — have insisted that impeachment should be the top priority of the new Democratic majority in the House.
Any impeachment would have to be confirmed by the Senate in a two-thirds majority to convict and remove Trump — something that is very unlikely to happen, given that Republicans increased their majority in the 2018 elections.
Update: Newly-elected Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) also endorsed impeaching Trump on her first day in office, according toThe Nation, which described Tlaib as calling for “immediate steps” to remove the president from the White House.
“Each passing day brings more pain for the people most directly hurt by this president, and these are days we simply cannot get back. The time for impeachment proceedings is now,” Rep. Tlaib declared.
Clinton also fired his FBI chief — but he wasn’t being investigated by the FBI at the time
James Comey has made history, but not in the way he would have wanted: In the 82-year history of the modern FBI, he’s only the second of the nation’s top law enforcement officials to be fired by a sitting president.
The first was FBI Director William Sessions, whom President Bill Clinton fired in 1993 amid allegations of ethics violations. Sessions (no relation to Trump’s embattled attorney general, Jeff Sessions) was just six years into his 10-year term, and the firing helped set the stage for what became years of tensions between Clinton and the FBI.
But Donald Trump isn’t Bill Clinton, and Jim Comey isn’t Bill Sessions. Clinton only fired the FBI chief after a several months-long investigation that concluded before Clinton even took office.That deep dive into Sessions’s actionsresulted in a 161-page report chronicling, in meticulous detail, a pattern of alleged ethical violations. More importantly, Clinton — unlikeTrump — wasn’t under active FBI investigation when he decided to oust Sessions.
By contrast, Trump has fired the man leading a criminal investigation into the president’s own campaign. The allegations — that the Trump team actively colluded with Russia to help Trump win the White House — couldn’t be weightier. Trump’s move could impede the FBI probe in the short term, but it’s almost certain to accelerate a process that could prematurely end his presidency.
“The FBI has gone after presidents before,” says Tim Weiner, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and historian, pointing to the bureau’s probes of Richard Nixon during Watergate and Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal. “But never … has a president dismissed an FBI director when members of the president’s administration and members of the president’s campaign team were under investigation for colluding with a foreign power.”
Understanding why Trump’s move has sparked such an uproar means taking a closer look at the Sessions firing and its similarities to the Comey ouster — and, more importantly, its differences.
Donald Trump isn’t the first president to fire an FBI director
The year was 1993; the newly minted president was William Jefferson Clinton. (The country was months, even years, away from when Clinton himself would be under investigation for a real estate scandal in Arkansas and, later, lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.)
The FBI director was William Sessions, a federal judge put in charge of the FBI by Ronald Reagan. Sessions was six years into his 10-year term, and he was a thorn in the side of at least two of the presidents he served — not because he was investigating them but because of his poor performance.
On January 19, 1993, the last day of the George H.W. Bush administration, the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) released a massive documentdetailing allegations of significant ethical lapses and questionable practices that were undermining Sessions’s ability to lead the FBI. There were so many examples of problematic, fireable behavior in the report that calls immediately came for Sessions to resign or be fired.
The report found that Mr. Sessions had taken numerous free trips aboard F.B.I. aircraft to visits friends and relatives, often taking along his wife, Alice. The report, which was endorsed officially by Attorney General William P. Barr on his last day in office, detailed a litany of abuses. It is a lacerating portrayal of the director as an official who was in charge of enforcing the law but who seemed blasé about perceptions of his own conduct.
There was more: The report indicated Sessions had improperly given rides to non-official passengers in his government-funded vehicle — a punishable violation under FBI rules; that he had thwarted FBI efforts to look into allegations; that he had received a mortgage from a bank under what the investigators called a “sweet-heart deal”; and that he had “abused his security detail for personal purposes.”
The report concluded: “Our findings raise serious issues that only the President can resolve regarding whether Director Sessions can continue to enjoy the President’s full faith and confidence in his ability to properly conduct his office.”
As Clinton explained at the time of Sessions’s firing, under normal circumstances, a new Democratic president would want to avoid summarily firing an FBI chief selected by a Republican predecessor.
Indeed, Tim Naftali, a professor of history and public policy at New York University, told me Clinton later revealed in his memoir that he hoped Sessions would step down of his own volition.
That didn’t happen. Sessions called the report’s allegations “scurrilous attacks” and told the press he had “refused to voluntarily resign.” Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, by then, had told the president there was no option but dismissal.
Reno was scathing in her assessment of Sessions in the letter she wrote to Clinton recommending Sessions be relieved of his duties. The FBI chief, she wrote, “had exhibited a serious deficiency in judgment involving matters contained in the [OPR] report and that he does not command the respect and confidence needed to lead the bureau and the law enforcement community in addressing the many issues facing law enforcement today.”
Current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein used similar language in his memo on Tuesday recommending that Trump fire Comey, stating, “Over the past year … the F.B.l.’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice.”
Still, there is an enormous difference between these two stories: Bill Sessions, in Naftali’s words, “was not in the midst of a major investigation of the Clinton campaign and a foreign power.”
The Sessions dismissal, he says, “didn’t smack of a potential obstruction of justice.” The Comey one does.
Clinton might have wanted to fire the next FBI chief, but he couldn’t
With Sessions out, Clinton installed Louis Freeh as the director of the FBI. He surely came to regret that.
Freeh, very early on, set his sights on investigating the Clintons — again and again.
He turned first to a morass of a story back in Arkansas, known as the Whitewater real estate scandal, which focused on whether then-Gov. Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary illegally benefited from personal investments, and dug into the origins of money used for Bill’s 1994 governor’s campaign. He also investigated alleged Chinese financial interference in the 1996 election campaign. Later the FBI also became tangled up in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
“Clinton couldn’t fire Louis Freeh — even though he wanted to — because Louis Freeh was investigating him,” Weiner says. “It would have been seen as an obstruction of justice.”
Both historians return again and again to that phrase: obstruction of justice. In 1993, there was no implication that the firing of William Sessions was improper. Firing him did not raise the specter that firing James Comey has raised today: the obstruction of an ongoing judicial investigation.
Some senators and Congress members did object at the time: Bob Dole, then the Senate minorityleader (and later a GOP presidential candidate), worried it would set a bad precedent and potentially compromise the FBI.
This, however, was the minority opinion. Charles Schumer, then a member of the House, pointed out that Sessions had lost respect in the FBI, which “compromised” his leadership.
“In the case of William Sessions, you had a case of [misconduct] in office,” Wiener says. Comey, by contrast, was actively looking into “a sophisticated attack by the Kremlin on the 2016 election and … whether Americans aided and abetted in that attack.”
And that is the most troubling thing of all. Trump isn’t the first president to fire an FBI chief. But he is the first to fire one who was investigating him and his administration. Comey isn’t the only one who has made history here.
This is how many on the left want most Universities to look
• Qatar gave $1 billion to elite American universities since 2011, according to Department of Education data.
• The Qatar Foundation is suing the Texas attorney general to prevent information about Qatari funding from becoming public.
• Universities are taking money from Qatar, a nation with a checkered human rights history, as students rally for social justice causes.
The nation of Qatar, a Sharia-law monarchy that has been accused of trying to influence other countries’ governments, gave $1 billion to elite American universities since 2011, according to Department of Education data.
Some universities have refused to discuss where strings are attached to that money. The Qatar Foundation, for example, filed a lawsuit against the Texas attorney general Oct. 12 to hide information about the $225 million Qatar has awarded to Texas A&M University since 2011.
The Qatar Foundation hired the politically connected powerhouse law firm Squire Patton Boggs for the suit, which was filed in response to a researcher’s public information request regarding the foreign funding.
The biggest recipient of Qatar’s educational funding, Georgetown University, repeatedly ignored requests from The Daily Caller News Foundation for basic information about the funding and whether it implicates academic independence.
Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have accused Qatar of meddling in other nations’ internal affairs as well as funding terrorism. Qatar also wields influence through its media group, Al Jazeera.
Top Foreign Funders of U.S. Universities, 2011-2016 (Source: Department of Education)
Country
Amount
Qatar
$1,024,065,043
England
$761,586,394
Saudi Arabia
$613,608,797
China
$426,526,085
Canada
$402,535,603
Hong Kong
$394,446,859
For a nation seeking sway over the U.S., Georgetown University would be a particularly tactical site of influence. Georgetown has received nearly $333 million from Qatar since 2011 — far more than any other U.S. school has received from any foreign nation.
Georgetown is situated in the seat of power, near the State Department, and its experts are frequently cited by groups shaping policy. In fact, the Jesuit Catholic university trains many of the United States’ future diplomats at its Walsh School of Foreign Service.
Its website notes that “At SFS, you can study with former Secretaries of State” and access “connections to diplomats from just about every country, and of course, the seat of the U.S. government. Our location gives SFS the extraordinary opportunity for us to engage (and sometimes even influence) the debates that lead to real action.”
Thanks to the Qatari funding, Georgetown and its foreign service program has an entire outpost in Qatar. “Georgetown University in Qatar (GU-Q) is an additional location of Georgetown University, based in Education City in Doha,” its website says. “The University offers a four year undergraduate program in international affairs leading to the Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service (BSFS) degree.”
Students from VCU’s home campus visit the Imam Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab Mosque, the national mosque of Qatar. Source: VCU
The magnitude of liberal-leaning universities’ reliance on the foreign nation, a poster child for income inequality, provides a stark contrast. As U.S. college students clamor for university endowments to divest from fossil fuels, the schools take money from the oil-rich kingdom. As they rally for social justice causes, Qatar has a checkered human rights record.
Qatar has only 313,000 citizens, and 2.3 million foreigners dwelling there, many of them laborers serving the country’s elite, according to 2017 data.
“The tragedy of 1.7 million migrant workers trapped in Qatar defines modern day slavery,” the International Trade Union Confederation said in 2015.
Nepalese laborers died at a rate of almost one a day in Qatar, according to The Guardian.
“We were working on an empty stomach for 24 hours; 12 hours’ work and then no food all night,” one said. “When I complained, my manager assaulted me, kicked me out of the labor camp I lived in and refused to pay me anything.”
In Washington, professors of Islamic issues have engaged in activism. Jonathan A. C. Brown, a convert to Islam and the director of the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown, which Qatar rival Saudi Arabia funds, offered an Islam-based defense of slavery, concubinage and non-consensual sex.
“The Prophet of God had slaves. He had slaves. There’s no denying that,” he said in 2017 at an International Institute of Islamic Thought talk. “Was he — are you more morally mature than the Prophet of God? No, you’re not. I’ll answer your question for you.” (RELATED: Before Killing Of Journalist, Elite Universities Took $600M From Saudis)
Studying abroad forms a bond between U.S. students and Qatar and helps Qatari nationals learn about the U.S., according to marketing materials.
Top Recipients of Qatar-Affiliated Funding to Universities, 2011-2016 (Source: Department of Education)
Country
Amount
Georgetown University
$332,818,297
Northwestern University
$277,456,289
Texas A&M University
$225,455,141
Carnegie Mellon University
$71,456,401
Cornell University
$47,577,242
Virginia Commonwealth University
$40,117,185
University of Michigan – Ann Arbor
$7,860,694
Harvard University
$7,693,947
Purdue University
$2,794,462
Arizona State University
$2,276,044
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
$1,223,630
Meanwhile, college students have adopted a fondness for the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions to Israel movement.
The vast majority of funds from Qatar were contracts, the Education Department data shows, requiring Georgetown to do something in return for the money, unlike gifts.
Georgetown spokesman Matt Hill ignored questions from TheDCNF about the strings attached to such funds and whether they could influence curriculum and would not provide the contract governing them.
The dean of Georgetown’s Qatar campus is Ahmad Dallal, who the Middle East Forum describes as “a long-time and enthusiastic supporter of the State Department-designated terrorist group Hezbollah. Dallal, who chaired Georgetown’s Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies from 2003 to 2009, is also pro-Hamas, pro-Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, co-author of an Arabic textbook whose maps omit Israel, and signatory of a letter warning that Israel would engage in ‘ethnic cleansing’ at the start of the Iraq war.”
The Zachor Legal Institute, which opposes the movement to sanction and boycott Israel, submitted a Freedom of Information request in May to Texas A&M (TAMU), a state university, for “a summary of all amounts of funding or donations received” from Qatar and a long list of proxies.
The office of state Attorney General Ken Paxton ruled “the university must withhold the donors’ identifying information … the university must release the remaining information.”
Most of the money to TAMU were contracts, not donations.
The Qatar Foundation’s high-powered lawyers intervened, arguing the relevant portion of the attorney general’s ruling “requiring release of all remaining information other than donor identity is incorrect and without force or effect.”
They wrote:
This is an action to prevent disclosure of confidential financial information concerning the relationship between QF and Texas A&M University … QF operates programs dedicated to education, science, and community development. It is responsible for funding much of the development in Education City, a hub for higher education outside Doha. … In addition to TAMU, Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, Georgetown, Northwestern, and Virginia Commonwealth University have all established campuses in Education City.
The Attorney General concluded that TAMU could withhold information identifying ‘donors’ under section 552.1235. But the Attorney General stated that TAMU would be required to release all remaining information requested, which would include information related to payments made by QF to TAMU pursuant to a contract. In so doing, the Attorney General implicitly ruled that those payments were not ‘donations,’ and therefore not exempt from disclosure under the PIA … The information related to these grants and donations is also confidential commercial information and constitutes a trade secret.
The Qatar Foundation’s general counsel is Michael Mitchell, a former vice president of Ohio State University.
Marc Greendorfer, an attorney for the Zachor Legal Institute, responded to the Texas attorney general Nov. 8: “One of the Qatari entities that was the subject of our original request has taken the extraordinary step of taking the Texas Attorney General to court to suppress the information that we requested. Now, with the most recent attempt by TAMU to prevent public disclosure of information as to how Qatari entities are involved with a Texas public university, the intrigue grows, and we have to wonder what it is they are trying to keep from the public.”
TAMU and the Qatar Foundation did not return requests for comment.
The university operations by Qatar are just one prong in a massive public relations and influence push that includes millions to lobbyists and public relations firms in the U.S.
It is also not the only involvement of Squire Patton Boggs with Middle Eastern countries. The same law firm also has a $100,000-a-month contract with Qatar’s rival Saudi Arabia for the kingdom to retain former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and former Democratic Louisiana Sen. John Breaux.
According to Foreign Agent Registration Act disclosures, it worked directly with Saud al-Qahtani, the same aide who allegedly organized the killing of a
Michael Moore 2020 Wish List: Meryl Streep, LeBron James, Oprah, Michelle Obama
Michael Moore revealed some of his top picks for the 2020 Democratic ticket Thursday, naming actress Meryl Streep, NBA great LeBron James, TV mogul Oprah Winfrey, and even rocker Bruce Springsteen, among others.
“Let’s name ourselves the “2020 Recruitment Committee” & get the Thanksgiving Dinner conversation started! Our job: Find a BELOVED American who shares our VALUES and can WIN the White House in 2020. Think of a BOLD, fresh idea & post w/ #Draft2020. I’ll start: Ellen Degeneres!” Michael Moore said in a social media post.
Michael Moore
✔
@MMFlint
· Nov 22, 2018
Let’s name ourselves the “2020 Recruitment Committee” & get the Thanksgiving Dinner conversation started! Our job: Find a BELOVED American who shares our VALUES and can WIN the White House in 2020. Think of a BOLD, fresh idea & post w/ #Draft2020. I’ll start: Ellen Degeneres!
Michael Moore
✔
@MMFlint
We need to think outside the box. If a Lesbian Native American MMA fighter can be sent 2 Congress from KANSAS—the sky’s the limit! Sully Sullenberger. Michelle Obama. Tulsi Gabbard. Tom Hanks. LeBron! Bernie! Oprah! Beto! Streep! Why don’t we win for once! #Draft2020 Post a name!
1,697
7:57 AM – Nov 22, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
When I said think outside the box I meant food box.
732 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
“We need to think outside the box. If a Lesbian Native American MMA fighter can be sent 2 Congress from KANSAS—the sky’s the limit! Sully Sullenberger. Michelle Obama,” Moore continued. “Tulsi Gabbard. Tom Hanks. LeBron! Bernie! Oprah! Beto! Streep! Why don’t we win for once! #Draft2020 Post a name!”
The Bowling For Columbine director later followed up with a bigger list of names, reading, “Thx for these new names as to who should run in 2020: Sally Yates, Andrew Gillum, Kamala Harris, Sherrod Brown, Richard Ojeda, Shaun King, Cecile Richards, Anthony Romero, Stacey Abrams, Marianne Williamson, Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom, Kate Brown, Amy Klobuchar, Bruuuce! Others?”
Michael Moore
✔
@MMFlint
Thx for these new names as to who should run in 2020: Sally Yates, Andrew Gillum, Kamala Harris, Sherrod Brown, Richard Ojeda, Shaun King, Cecile Richards, Anthony Romero, Stacey Abrams, Marianne Williamson, Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom, Kate Brown, Amy Klobuchar, Bruuuce! Others?
4,273
2:40 AM – Nov 23, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
2,390 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
I’m not fat I just carry a lot of water. Like Lake Michigan
Moore’s celeb-filled list may be indicative of his wishes but most voters aren’t likely to care. According to a Rasmussen poll from October, most voters have no interest in celebrities’ feelings about politics.
While not suggesting that Bruce Springsteen run for president, the 58-year-old filmmaker is busy warning anyone that will listen that the United States could be in the “last days of democracy.”
A tough guy at college only. Why don’t he move to a socialist country?

Dartmouth College lecturer Mark Bray made the argument to abolish capitalism in a recent op-ed for Truthout, linking capitalism to the prioritizing of profit over the environment and everything else.
The professor has previously donated half of the profits from his book chronicling Antifa to the organization, written an introduction to an Antifa comic book, and tweeted glowingly about Antifa flags made by kids at a summer camp.
A Dartmouth professor argued on Tuesday that “if we don’t abolish capitalism, capitalism will abolish us.”
Dartmouth College lecturer Mark Bray made the remark in an op-ed for Truthout, titled “How Capitalism Stokes the Far Right and Climate Catastrophe.”
“We must recognize that the climate crisis and the resurgence of the far right are two of the most acute symptoms of our failure to abolish capitalism.” Tweet This
“We are on a deadline,” Bray says. “Lesser-evilism among capitalist politicians may have some rationale when spending five minutes casting a ballot on Election Day, but we don’t have time for it to be a guiding strategical outlook. We need to organize movements to build popular power and shut down the industries that threaten our existence.”
“Fascism is ascendant,” the Ivy League professor continues. “The world is on fire. This is no time to be patient. If we don’t abolish capitalism, capitalism will abolish us.”
Bray claims that the far right advocates for environmentally destructive policies, alleging that the faction prioritizes interests of certain groups over those of the entire planet, but takes his argument a step further by blaming capitalism.
“We must recognize that the climate crisis and the resurgence of the far right are two of the most acute symptoms of our failure to abolish capitalism,” the scholar asserts. “A capitalist system that prioritizes profit and perpetual growth over all else is the mortal enemy of global aspirations for a sustainable economy that satisfies needs rather than stock portfolios.”
Bray’s faculty profile lists the Dartmouth lecturer as an associated visiting scholar of the school’s Gender Research Institute. It also describes him as “a historian of human rights, terrorism, and political radicalism in Modern Europe.” But Bray seems to have done more than just document issues of radicalism.
The professor donated half of the profits from his book “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook” to Antifa.
[RELATED: Dartmouth prof to donate half of book proceeds to Antifa]
He has also authored the introduction to an Antifa comic book and in a tweet displaying photos of what he suggested were Antifa flags made by kids at a summer camp, said “super rad!”
Campus Reform contacted Bray, asking him what his preferred alternative to capitalism would be among other questions, but the professor did not comment in time for press.
Tuesday on MSNBC’s “All In,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) said President Donald Trump was a “poster boy for what a mob protester looks like.”
Discussing conservative media calling protests a “mob,” Waters said, “Well, I think it’s absolutely ridiculous. It’s not believable. As a matter of fact, this country was built on peaceful protests. And those of us who were part of the Civil Rights movement, who understood the power of protest taught by Dr. Martin Luther King and others know that we cannot allow Donald Trump and anybody else to take protests away from us and to deem it to be violent and to try and make us look like a mob. It is because of peaceful protests, not only in the Civil Rights movement, but the labor movement was able to get better wages, able to get better working conditions, able to get better pay, everything because they learned to march and protest. And they still do it today. We know that protest is guaranteed to a democratic society. We know that this is guaranteed to us by the Constitution.”
What A Damn Joke
She continued, “They’re trying to change the description of protest and call it a mob. Well, this president is the poster boy for what a mob protester looks like. He is—matter of fact, he’s the one who has been violent in his speech. He’s the one in his rallies has said things like ‘I’d like to punch him in the face.’ Trump said that at one of his rallies, he said ‘knock the crap out of them, would you, and seriously, okay, just knock the hell out of them, I mean, I promise I will pay the legal fees.’ That’s the kind of talk that he has done. That’s violent talk. With don’t have that kind of talk that has come from the women who are protesting. As a matter of fact, this country is past due for the kind of protests that we have seen women do in the last few days as we have gone through this confirmation process of Kavanaugh. It is time for women to say that we’re tired of being disrespected.”
