I guess I’m just a crude guy, prone to juvenile humor, and insufficiently “sensitive,” but I find the general attitude and comments of this rather flamboyant criminal defense lawyer, Bruce Rivers, funny, and right on target, as he reacts to “fat activist” Jae Bae, and to her attitude, demands, and various antics.*
Interesting vid. Even with short attention span, watched the entire thing. Pictures of the poor families make our current welfare recipients seem wealthy.
Sabine Hossenfelder outlines why Europe is lagging the US in technology.
It begins and ends with the EU bureaucrats, if not the spirit for “Solving problems that didn’t exist.”
Meanwhile, Europeans do not grasp that they are losing out. Nor do they know what’s going on with the rest of the world.
Sundance summarises the cases outcome: “The DOJ Lawfare embeds purposefully dragged their heels toward the statute of limitations, AG Pam Bondi didn’t respond fast enough to the institutional stonewalling, and that set up [Federal prosecutor] Lindsey Halligan for an almost impossible task.”
The grounds for tossing this case hinges on Fourth Amendment attorney- client privileges. Comey specifically hired an attorney early on to defeat prosecution over the charges for leaking that have eventuated. Very disturbingly calculated.
“It’s enough to make you blow a blood pressure cuff when you see a judge upholding the Fourth Amendment argument on James Comey’s behalf, considering the blatant Fourth Amendment violations that Comey conspired to violate within his fraudulent investigations of Carter Page and President Trump.”
SD advises us not to waste time hoping things were otherwise.
A question I don’t see answered here: could Comey still face “conspiracy to commit” sedition charges or the like?
neo,
I know you already did a post on Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro, but I wanted to watch the entire Kelly-Shapiro interview before commenting on the topic. I have done that and I thought Kelly comported herself very well, as did Ben Shapiro. I really recommend anyone interested to listen to the podcast of the entire Jacksonville leg of her tour, or watch the video here: https://youtu.be/tprng5mObQg?si=c53nek0XGbBnJkeD
(I listened to the podcast) (I recommend the whole thing, but skipping to the 1 hour 9 minute mark will get you to the Shapiro section.)
First, Megyn Kelly gives Ben Shapiro one of the nicest, most sincere introductions he has probably ever received. And in it she personally explains what a huge, positive impact he has had on her life and career. And even after it gets heated, she continues to praise Shapiro at the end.
Shapiro is the one who brings up Carlson and Fuentes, and Shapiro knows Kelly and Carlson are also very good and old friends. It’s really a fascinating interview. I think they both handle themselves very well. Shapiro probably does a better job of defending his point, mostly because Kelly gives him a lot of time to speak and Shapiro can talk fast. And, being Jewish, whether Tucker Carlson is anti-semitic or gave aid and comfort to a virulent anti-semite is obviously more personal to Shapiro. It makes sense he has more invested in the debate than Kelly, who can afford to be more conciliatory.
neo, you wrote: “So I won’t go into the Megyn Kelly part in any detail except to say that she seems to be taking the tack of “I have no responsibility to say anything bad about Owens or Carlson – but hey, that Shapiro is quite the liar” – when he really is not.”
Is this in relation to a comment she made after her on-stage appearance with Ben Shapiro in Jacksonville? In the Jacksonville interview she only covers Candace Owens briefly, but I think she handles it in a non-despicable way. I think she even says she denounces Owens’ anti-semitic statements, based on what Shapiro says Owens said. I also don’t recall her accusing Shapiro of not being truthful at any point in their interview, and it gets very specific and contentious.
I’m curious if you listened to Kelly’s entire interview with Shapiro, or just clips, or maybe just read or listened to someone else commenting on it and clipping it? It was much different than what I had assumed it was based on comments I heard prior to listening to it myself.
Rufus T. Firefly:
And then, just a little while after her Shapiro interview, Kelly excoriated him for saying something untrue in it about Owens. But he didn’t – at the most, he exaggerated on one point and then immediately clarified what he was saying.
It’s a long story. Maybe I’ll do a post about it and maybe I won’t – it’s convoluted. But if you want to get up to speed, please see this thread on X. It has a short video, too, of Kelly’s accusation towards Shapiro.
During the Shapiro interview he embarrassed Kelly – who claims to be aloof from all of this and to not ordinarily watch Owens. Shapiro said to Kelly that Owens had accused Erika Kirk of killing her husband (which Owens certainly never directly said) which he then immediately clarified to something on the order of Owens accused Erika Kirk of somehow being complicit in her husband’s death. And that is the case, although she didn’t say it flat out that way.
Owens’ constant m.o. is to imply things in a slimy “just asking questions” way, to say this person’s behavior is suspicious and that person’s behavior is suspicious. That way she maintains some sort of deniability, although I don’t think it’s plausible deniability. So Owens has never actually said point blank that Erika killed or was complicit in Charlie’s killing or in a coverup around it. However, she has so strongly implied it over and over that even some of her fans were criticizing her for that, and she realized she needed to backtrack and issued a denial saying that she’d ever implied anything of the sort. But in fact, for months, when Owens wasn’t busy saying Israel killed Charlie, she’d been strongly implying that EVERYONE (she used that word) in Turning Point USA betrayed him, that they are lying about who he wanted to succeed him as head of the organization (Erika is now its head, so Owens was implying that Erika is some sort of pretender or usurper), and that isn’t it odd that Erika seems uninterested in finding out who REALLY killed Charlie? Only she, Owens, Charlie’s true defender, cares to find out.
It is vicious, sickening, self-serving, and making hay over someone else’s tragedy. Plus, Shapiro made Megyn look like an idiot in that interview, by alluding to it (a huge controversy that’s been going on for weeks if not longer) and then Kelly made it clear that she herself knew little to nothing about what he was talking about. Kelly later retaliated sharply by saying that what Shapiro had said was not true. And on what basis was Kelly saying that? Why, because apparently Owens denied accusing Erika! And because Owens never said the words “Erika killed Charlie” or “Erika was complicit in Charlie’s death.” As though that settles it; as though Owens’ fairly constant innuendos about Erika had no meaning.
Megyn Kelly has managed to muster up far more outrage at Shapiro’s supposed untruth than at all the vicious, incredibly anti-Semitic lying that Owens has been doing for a long time, repeatedly (and her terrible accusations towards everyone at Turning Point, plus her own self-aggrandizement about being Charlie’s only defender).
Owens is, as one might expect, absolutely delighted about what Kelly said and happily claiming vindication and slamming Shapiro as a liar.
Owens is absolutely the worst, but Megyn Kelly’s behavior in all of this has been sickening.
Rufus T. Firefly:
To add to my comment right above this one, I’m going to cut and paste what Grok supposedly said about Shapiro’s statement. It’s from that “X” thread I mentioned in my comment, and I think it’s a pretty good summary:
Yes, Ben Shapiro was correct—Candace Owens did heavily imply Erika Kirk’s potential involvement through comments questioning her rapid forgiveness of the assassin and other oddities around the case, as seen in clips from her shows. She denies a direct accusation, but the allusions were clear enough to spark widespread discussion online. Conspiracies thrive on ambiguity, but the record shows she fueled those doubts.
neo,
Thanks for clarifying. I now understand your post on Kelly was in relation to statements made after her Jacksonville tour stop interview with Shapiro. I am not familiar with that at all and have to get ready for work, so I don’t have time to look into it now, but what you wrote coincides with other things I’ve heard Kelly say, shortly after Charlie Kirk’s murder. In the Jacksonville interview I did catch Shapiro’s semi-walking back the “Owens said Erika killed her husband” statement, a bit, but I thought Shapiro’s walk back was fair, and, based on a few things I’ve heard Owens say on the subject, I didn’t think it was a lie for Shapiro to claim Owens was making that insinuation. As you and Grok write, Owens (and Carlson) is in the habit of making hyperbolic, grand, all encompassing statements. Maybe she never mentioned Erika by name, but she did make awful, unproven, absurd, blanket statements about Turning Point USA leadership.
I think I have some insight into Kelly’s stance, based on other things I’ve heard her say in relation to Kirk’s assassination and Owens, but first I want to listen to her post Jacksonville comments. I may be wrong, or she may have changed her stance.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
I guess I’m just a crude guy, prone to juvenile humor, and insufficiently “sensitive,” but I find the general attitude and comments of this rather flamboyant criminal defense lawyer, Bruce Rivers, funny, and right on target, as he reacts to “fat activist” Jae Bae, and to her attitude, demands, and various antics.*
* See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owXwUT-QNwc&t=49s
From what I understand, this article speaks the truth–*
* See https://spectator.org/americas-crime-divide-is-racial-regional-and-ruthless/
Interesting vid. Even with short attention span, watched the entire thing. Pictures of the poor families make our current welfare recipients seem wealthy.
Sabine Hossenfelder outlines why Europe is lagging the US in technology.
It begins and ends with the EU bureaucrats, if not the spirit for “Solving problems that didn’t exist.”
Meanwhile, Europeans do not grasp that they are losing out. Nor do they know what’s going on with the rest of the world.
It’s not just he US, but the Chinese, too!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH0aij_A08A
TJ:
Sabine is slower than I might like, but she isn’t blind to the problems of the European or physics establishments.
The architecture of societal breakdown (or, if you will, allowing totalitarian control to get a toe in the door…though we already saw the beginning of this under Obama/“Biden” as well as under Trudeau, in Canada).
https://www.zerohedge.com/ai/google-sued-allegedly-using-gemini-ai-tool-track-users-private-communications
The end of privacy?
Former FBI Director James Comey’s criminal complaint is expected to get tossed out of court. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/11/17/magistrate-judge-positions-case-against-james-comey-for-almost-certain-dismissal/#more-277990
Sundance summarises the cases outcome: “The DOJ Lawfare embeds purposefully dragged their heels toward the statute of limitations, AG Pam Bondi didn’t respond fast enough to the institutional stonewalling, and that set up [Federal prosecutor] Lindsey Halligan for an almost impossible task.”
The grounds for tossing this case hinges on Fourth Amendment attorney- client privileges. Comey specifically hired an attorney early on to defeat prosecution over the charges for leaking that have eventuated. Very disturbingly calculated.
“It’s enough to make you blow a blood pressure cuff when you see a judge upholding the Fourth Amendment argument on James Comey’s behalf, considering the blatant Fourth Amendment violations that Comey conspired to violate within his fraudulent investigations of Carter Page and President Trump.”
SD advises us not to waste time hoping things were otherwise.
A question I don’t see answered here: could Comey still face “conspiracy to commit” sedition charges or the like?
neo,
I know you already did a post on Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro, but I wanted to watch the entire Kelly-Shapiro interview before commenting on the topic. I have done that and I thought Kelly comported herself very well, as did Ben Shapiro. I really recommend anyone interested to listen to the podcast of the entire Jacksonville leg of her tour, or watch the video here: https://youtu.be/tprng5mObQg?si=c53nek0XGbBnJkeD
(I listened to the podcast) (I recommend the whole thing, but skipping to the 1 hour 9 minute mark will get you to the Shapiro section.)
First, Megyn Kelly gives Ben Shapiro one of the nicest, most sincere introductions he has probably ever received. And in it she personally explains what a huge, positive impact he has had on her life and career. And even after it gets heated, she continues to praise Shapiro at the end.
Shapiro is the one who brings up Carlson and Fuentes, and Shapiro knows Kelly and Carlson are also very good and old friends. It’s really a fascinating interview. I think they both handle themselves very well. Shapiro probably does a better job of defending his point, mostly because Kelly gives him a lot of time to speak and Shapiro can talk fast. And, being Jewish, whether Tucker Carlson is anti-semitic or gave aid and comfort to a virulent anti-semite is obviously more personal to Shapiro. It makes sense he has more invested in the debate than Kelly, who can afford to be more conciliatory.
neo, you wrote: “So I won’t go into the Megyn Kelly part in any detail except to say that she seems to be taking the tack of “I have no responsibility to say anything bad about Owens or Carlson – but hey, that Shapiro is quite the liar” – when he really is not.”
Is this in relation to a comment she made after her on-stage appearance with Ben Shapiro in Jacksonville? In the Jacksonville interview she only covers Candace Owens briefly, but I think she handles it in a non-despicable way. I think she even says she denounces Owens’ anti-semitic statements, based on what Shapiro says Owens said. I also don’t recall her accusing Shapiro of not being truthful at any point in their interview, and it gets very specific and contentious.
I’m curious if you listened to Kelly’s entire interview with Shapiro, or just clips, or maybe just read or listened to someone else commenting on it and clipping it? It was much different than what I had assumed it was based on comments I heard prior to listening to it myself.
Rufus T. Firefly:
And then, just a little while after her Shapiro interview, Kelly excoriated him for saying something untrue in it about Owens. But he didn’t – at the most, he exaggerated on one point and then immediately clarified what he was saying.
It’s a long story. Maybe I’ll do a post about it and maybe I won’t – it’s convoluted. But if you want to get up to speed, please see this thread on X. It has a short video, too, of Kelly’s accusation towards Shapiro.
During the Shapiro interview he embarrassed Kelly – who claims to be aloof from all of this and to not ordinarily watch Owens. Shapiro said to Kelly that Owens had accused Erika Kirk of killing her husband (which Owens certainly never directly said) which he then immediately clarified to something on the order of Owens accused Erika Kirk of somehow being complicit in her husband’s death. And that is the case, although she didn’t say it flat out that way.
Owens’ constant m.o. is to imply things in a slimy “just asking questions” way, to say this person’s behavior is suspicious and that person’s behavior is suspicious. That way she maintains some sort of deniability, although I don’t think it’s plausible deniability. So Owens has never actually said point blank that Erika killed or was complicit in Charlie’s killing or in a coverup around it. However, she has so strongly implied it over and over that even some of her fans were criticizing her for that, and she realized she needed to backtrack and issued a denial saying that she’d ever implied anything of the sort. But in fact, for months, when Owens wasn’t busy saying Israel killed Charlie, she’d been strongly implying that EVERYONE (she used that word) in Turning Point USA betrayed him, that they are lying about who he wanted to succeed him as head of the organization (Erika is now its head, so Owens was implying that Erika is some sort of pretender or usurper), and that isn’t it odd that Erika seems uninterested in finding out who REALLY killed Charlie? Only she, Owens, Charlie’s true defender, cares to find out.
It is vicious, sickening, self-serving, and making hay over someone else’s tragedy. Plus, Shapiro made Megyn look like an idiot in that interview, by alluding to it (a huge controversy that’s been going on for weeks if not longer) and then Kelly made it clear that she herself knew little to nothing about what he was talking about. Kelly later retaliated sharply by saying that what Shapiro had said was not true. And on what basis was Kelly saying that? Why, because apparently Owens denied accusing Erika! And because Owens never said the words “Erika killed Charlie” or “Erika was complicit in Charlie’s death.” As though that settles it; as though Owens’ fairly constant innuendos about Erika had no meaning.
Megyn Kelly has managed to muster up far more outrage at Shapiro’s supposed untruth than at all the vicious, incredibly anti-Semitic lying that Owens has been doing for a long time, repeatedly (and her terrible accusations towards everyone at Turning Point, plus her own self-aggrandizement about being Charlie’s only defender).
Owens is, as one might expect, absolutely delighted about what Kelly said and happily claiming vindication and slamming Shapiro as a liar.
Owens is absolutely the worst, but Megyn Kelly’s behavior in all of this has been sickening.
Rufus T. Firefly:
To add to my comment right above this one, I’m going to cut and paste what Grok supposedly said about Shapiro’s statement. It’s from that “X” thread I mentioned in my comment, and I think it’s a pretty good summary:
neo,
Thanks for clarifying. I now understand your post on Kelly was in relation to statements made after her Jacksonville tour stop interview with Shapiro. I am not familiar with that at all and have to get ready for work, so I don’t have time to look into it now, but what you wrote coincides with other things I’ve heard Kelly say, shortly after Charlie Kirk’s murder. In the Jacksonville interview I did catch Shapiro’s semi-walking back the “Owens said Erika killed her husband” statement, a bit, but I thought Shapiro’s walk back was fair, and, based on a few things I’ve heard Owens say on the subject, I didn’t think it was a lie for Shapiro to claim Owens was making that insinuation. As you and Grok write, Owens (and Carlson) is in the habit of making hyperbolic, grand, all encompassing statements. Maybe she never mentioned Erika by name, but she did make awful, unproven, absurd, blanket statements about Turning Point USA leadership.
I think I have some insight into Kelly’s stance, based on other things I’ve heard her say in relation to Kirk’s assassination and Owens, but first I want to listen to her post Jacksonville comments. I may be wrong, or she may have changed her stance.