Oh well, next time (that is, if she can remember)…

In all seriousness, there’s probably some truth in that.

Something I noticed a _long_ time ago, at least back to the early 2000s, in discussions with liberals is that they had a tendency to just take for granted that most people shared their agenda and values, and their opponents were a shrinking minority. No evidence seemed to make a dent in that.

That probably had many causes. Partly I think it was just feedback from the fact that the news media, Hollywood, academia, etc. all reflected those values and beliefs back at them, and each other. It’s easy to see how someone could end up assuming they were in the majority if they rarely came into contact with actual dissent in their daily life, because all of the ‘public’ signals affirmed it.

As I said, I think that’s part of it, but I also think there was more to it, something almost theological.

Even when Trump won in 2016, they could tell themselves it was a freak, that most people hated it, that it was an artifact of the Electoral College. So their conviction that they were in the majority wasn’t seriously dinged.

So yeah, it’s entirely possible that Ms. Maher just assumed, reflexively, that most people agreed with her.

Ms. Maher is an interesting case.

I wonder whether she’s a fanatic leftist, who feels totally justified in saying whatever she needs to say, or a sociopath cynic, who feels totally justified in saying whatever she needs to say.

As for why she didn’t realize that the Internet is permanent, she still apparently doesn’t realize it, denying that she made statements even while they’re being read out loud. If she had told the truth, I could at least have respected her for honesty, if not wisdom or intelligence. But she apparently has no integrity or courage of her convictions at all, nor even any awareness that she should. She’s like a 6-year-old denying that she ate the cookies, with crumbs all over her face.

“Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the general false statement statute, outlaws material false statements in matters within the jurisdiction of a federal agency or department. It reaches false statements in federal courts and federal grand jury sessions as well as congressional hearings and administrative matters but not the statements of advocates or parties in court proceedings. Under § 1001, a statement is a crime if it is false, regardless of whether it is made under oath.”

Those found in violation of this statute, “shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years”

She’s on the board of Signal Technology Foundation. And a bunch of other boards.

If there’s someone who ginned up the Signal fiasco, it seems much more likely to be the three-letter agencies that don’t appreciate encryption they don’t have backdoors to, judging by them pushing forward people like John Bolton to complain about their use; they were mysteriously okay with this under the Biden Administration, but then they didn’t have a President they wanted to undermine.