Post New

....Texas style.

Texas Tech student expelled after video showing Charlie Kirk rant on campus

The now-former student, Camryn Giselle Booker, is allegedly seen in the videos arguing with another person in the free speech area on the campus.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott shared a post on X saying the Texas Tech student "definitely picked the wrong school to taunt the death of Charlie Kirk."

Texas Tech Board of Regents Chairman Cody Campbell reposted the governor’s statement and said, "We are proud of our values and are not afraid to stand up for them."

Booker was also arrested and charged with assault following the incident,

https://www.fox4news.com/news/texas-tech-student-e...

There is a link to the video, on X, in the article.

Steve

Throwing a ham sandwich at an ICE agent.

Flicking someone’s baseball cap.

When will the violence stop?

When will the violence stop?

When all the "liberals" are in forced labor camps?

Steve

Free speech for me but not for thee.

Throwing a ham sandwich at an ICE agent.

Flicking someone’s baseball cap.

When will the violence stop?
***

Hopefully that stuff continues.

Small stuff turns into big stuff.

As long as liberals don't care nor do I.

Small stuff turns into big stuff.

When the small stuff doesn’t work, assassinate your opponent. That’s haw the left ends it.

“The New Poll That Proves Liberals Are Growing Dangerously Comfortable With Political Violence”

https://redstate.com/rusty-weiss/2025/09/15/the-ne...

“The New Poll That Proves Liberals Are Growing Dangerously Comfortable With Political Violence”

Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about that poll. At least, no more than you worried about the polls when they showed the reverse:

One-third of Republicans (33%) today believe that true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country, compared with 22% of independents and 13% of Democrats. Those percentages have increased since 2021, when 28% of Republicans and 7% of Democrats held this belief. Republicans who have favorable views of Trump (41%) are nearly three times as likely as Republicans who have unfavorable views of Trump (16%) to agree that true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country.

Americans who believe that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump are more than three times as likely as those who do not believe that the election was stolen from Trump — 46% to 13%, respectively — to agree that true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country.

https://prri.org/research/threats-to-american-demo...

Because these polls are mostly just measuring how people respond to questions about political violence. When one "side" has most prominently engaged in political violence, and is thus more portrayed/perceived as being associated with political violence in that moment, then the respondents from the other "side" are far more likely to condemn it, and the folks from that same "side" are more likely to say it's not that bad or sometimes necessary. So in the aftermath of January 6th, Republicans were 4x more likely to believe that "true patriots" might have to resort to violence to save the country (28% to 7%) - because there's a lot of motivated responsiveness there.

Don't worry - once there are significant acts of political violence by people who are coded as being on the right, rather than the left, those numbers will reverse again.

Texas Tech Board of Regents Chairman Cody Campbell reposted the governor’s statement and said, "We are proud of our values and are not afraid to stand up for them."

hahahahahaha. Oh, that's rich.

FU Texas, where all my roots are.

Don't worry - once there are significant acts of political violence by people who are coded as being on the right, rather than the left, those numbers will reverse again.

What makes you think we will ever get to see 'those numbers'?

NYT being sued by Trump for $15 billion.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott shared a post on X saying the Texas Tech student "definitely picked the wrong school to taunt the death of Charlie Kirk."

Texas Tech Board of Regents Chairman Cody Campbell reposted the governor’s statement and said, "We are proud of our values and are not afraid to stand up for them."

I wonder if it might be time to update the classic poem, in the context of campus free speech:

First they came for the Racists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Racist
Then they came for the Misogynists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Misogynists
Then they came for the homophobes
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a homophobes
Then they came for the transphobes
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a transphobes
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

Progressives spent a lot of time building up an intellectual framework that allowed them to justify a very illiberal approach to speech on campus. Speech = violence, hateful speech serves as a barrier to educational opportunity, etc. Now that this framework is going to be turned against progressive ideas, it's not going to be pleasant.

What makes you think we will ever get to see 'those numbers'?

Because Trump will lose that lawsuit. Heck, he won't even pursue it beyond the filing. Unlike his CBS lawsuit, this lawsuit (and the one against the WSJ) won't be able to proceed without Trump sitting for a deposition - which he'll never do.

When the small stuff doesn’t work, assassinate your opponent. That’s haw the left ends it.

That is how the RIGHT ends it. Kirk was killed by a RIGHT WINGER who disagreed with him. Do you *suddenly* have a "problem" with a SECOND AMENDMENT SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM? WHY ????

When the small stuff doesn’t work, assassinate your opponent.

Just an opponent? Piker.

Go for the gold! Invade the capital to hang the VP as the cherry on top of an insurrection.

...this lawsuit (and the one against the WSJ) won't be able to proceed without Trump sitting for a deposition - which he'll never do. <<<

He just asks a judge he owns, say, an Eileen Cannon, to excuse him because he's busy POTUS....

excuse him because he's busy POTUS....

Then he gets countersued and he loses--because he CLAIMS he is unable to be questioned under oath. Yet he "found the time NOT BEING THE POTUS" to have his PERSONAL lawsuit prepared and submitted UNDER OATH.

Perjury charge(s) in Florida. Yet another FELONY CRIMINAL charge and conviction. NOT a surprise.

Plus, whichever attorney(s) represented him preparing and submitting the initial suit will be caught between a rock and a hard place.

He just asks a judge he owns, say, an Eileen Cannon, to excuse him because he's busy POTUS....

That's not really how this works. Trial court judges have a lot of discretion, but they don't have unlimited discretion. There are some pretty generic, plain-vanilla rules of civil procedure that apply to every single federal civil trial, and they're pretty well understood.

You don't get to bring a case, introduce evidence on those claims, but then refuse to give the other party a chance to exercise discovery against your client as to the matters raised by that evidence. Colloquially, you can't use privilege as a sword and a shield. You can't raise claims in a lawsuit and then refuse to answer questions about the facts you assert. Anything you refuse to provide discovery on will end up being excluded from the trial.

The courts have made the POTUS "shield" incredibly large, so it's unlikely that he could ever be compelled to testify in a case he didn't want to testify in. But if he chooses to protect himself with that shield, there's little chance that even a friendly judge would let him move forward with his lawsuit. Unlike the CBS lawsuit, where the facts that (ostensibly) supported his lawsuit were unrelated to anything that he could possibly be deposed about, this lawsuit is directly based on Donald Trump's actual business ventures. If he isn't willing to be deposed about his business ventures, he's not going to be able to introduce evidence about his business ventures. No matter how friendly the judge.

“The New Poll That Proves Liberals Are Growing Dangerously Comfortable With Political Violence”

We have gotten used to it, but it's because the right wing is so violent, at least twice as violent as us, but in some year 6 or 8 time as violent as we are. I post links, but I know you don't care. There's no intellectual acceptance of how bad y'all are, or you might feel obligated to denounce your won side. Fat chance of that because you've never walked independently in your life.

...Trump sitting for a deposition - which he'll never do.

Are you sure? I'm reasonably certain he thinks he can just lie his way through it. The swearing-in prior to the deposition won't mean anything to him.

Are you sure? I'm reasonably certain he thinks he can just lie his way through it.

Yeah, I'm sure. He's quite clever in a lot of respects and knows what one needs to do to protect oneself from real legal trouble. He gets 99% of what he wants out of this lawsuit just by filing it and pushing it to the point where it's dismissed - he doesn't need to subject himself to the headaches that come with complying with the NYT's requests for discovery about his business ventures.

he doesn't need to subject himself to the headaches that come with complying with the NYT's requests for discovery about his business ventures.

At what point (iow: how soon) could the NYT start pressing for discovery even if not likely to be granted? Could they, for instance, file a motion tomorrow for discovery of the Jeffrey Epstein files? His bankruptcy proceedings? The contractors he’s stiffed? His conflicts of interest a the self-profiting he’s done since being elected?

Again, even if the court were to turn that down, there would be headlines about it; and in fact if that were to be legal, somehow, I would counsel them to file a new set of discovery options every day until the end of time , or perhaps shortly thereafter.

At what point (iow: how soon) could the NYT start pressing for discovery even if not likely to be granted? Could they, for instance, file a motion tomorrow for discovery of the Jeffrey Epstein files? His bankruptcy proceedings? The contractors he’s stiffed? His conflicts of interest a the self-profiting he’s done since being elected?

Sure. But the plaintiffs can drag it out and make it very expensive for them if they try.

Here's an oversimplified model of civil procedure. There are three main decisions that get made: i) whether the plaintiff has a legal basis to bring the suit; ii) whether there's any dispute between the parties over relevant facts; and iii) deciding which party has proven which disputed facts.

In that first phase, the plaintiffs and defendants argue with each other (mostly through legal motions before the judge) over legal issues. Do the facts as the plaintiff claims exist support liability? Are they legally entitled to file the lawsuit, did they file in the right place or at the right time, are there legal deficiencies that preclude relief, are there undisputed affirmative defenses, etc.? The court doesn't need to resolve any disputed issues of fact during that first part - it doesn't (yet) matter what the facts are, just what's being alleged in the legal documents.

The parties would usually start discovery during that first phase. But because none of that is (yet) relevant to what the court is doing, it's not very pressing. So even if the NYT asks for a bunch of stuff at that point, the defendants are likely to dispute whether it should be disclosed or not - and the court isn't especially likely to move too fast on making the parties play nice in discovery while it's still working through whether there's even a lawsuit that's moving forward.

As for what they can ask for, it's very broad - although there does have to be at least some plausible connection to the matters at dispute in the case. But whatever the Times asks for will be fought by the defendants....and that's a mug's game for the Times. They can spend ungodly amounts of money on lawyers fighting over whether it's legitimate discovery to get information on any particular thing, and this suit is unlikely to get anywhere near a point where it's necessary to have a solid factual record (it will get tossed long before trial).

So I'd expect the suit to get fought over, and probably tossed, on purely legal grounds for the immediate future.

https://www.contrabandcamp.com/p/if-charlie-kirk-w...

If Charlie Kirk Was an Advocate for Free Speech, Why Am I on His Watchlist?
Since his death, Kirk has been hailed as an exemplar of free speech. The watchlist his organization created was designed to intimidate professors into silence.

No matter what I write here, however measured and intentional my statements are, someone will try to misconstrue my words and use them to get me fired from my job. If they have power and influence, they’re more likely to be successful, especially in 2025, in the wake of the public killing of 31-year-old conservative youth activist Charlie Kirk.

When I heard Kirk was shot, I was genuinely shocked. My second or third thought was that the Professor Watchlist, which his organization, Turning Point USA, curates, is still online. The next day, I taught two classes, “Writing Rap” and “The ‘Black Voice,’” a seminar on pop culture, race, history and listening. My classes are informed by the research that will be published in my forthcoming book, Being Dope.

As I was responding to a question about the shooting, I told students that my name was added to the list last year and that the names on it are organized by the campuses where we work. At some point during the conversation, one of my students asked her classmate closest to the door to make sure it was closed so that the automatic lock was engaged. I probably wouldn’t have noticed the gesture if not for the graduate student who gave knowing looks at each student in recognition of the unspoken precaution.

As I was responding to a question about the shooting, I told students that my name was added to the list last year and that the names on it are organized by the campuses where we work. At some point during the conversation, one of my students asked her classmate closest to the door to make sure it was closed so that the automatic lock was engaged. I probably wouldn’t have noticed the gesture if not for the graduate student who gave knowing looks at each student in recognition of the unspoken precaution.

Stochastic violence.

Charlie kept a list. Organized it by campus. Published the list online. Made disparaging comments about those on the list. Urged that those on the list be fired. Praised Paul Pelosi’s attacker

Everyone “gets” the list- prospective victims and perpetrators alike.

“Free speech” was never what Kirk was about, except for his own and others who agreed with him.

Everyone else was a prospective target.

The parties would usually start discovery during that first phase. But because none of that is (yet) relevant to what the court is doing, it's not very pressing. So even if the NYT asks for a bunch of stuff at that point, the defendants are likely to dispute whether it should be disclosed or not

You’re talking about RESULT. Yet in an earlier post you quickly and correctly identified that Trump filing his lawsuit had nothing to with “result”, it was about the headlines it would generate to feed the monster.

I’m talking about the same thing. I don’t care if they don’t get the discovery materials until much later - or at all really - I’m after a “counter headline” campaign to put this in the proper perspective.

I admit that’s unlikely to happen with a newspaper that purports to be neutral, and is far more likely with a politician or other individual who doesn’t need to remain so, but the NYT is one party with the resources and backbone to do it.

So my question again: could they begin demanding “discovery” [of specific targets of inquiry*] TOMORROW?

Yeah, I would like to see that.

*Epstein
*Emoluments
*Abuse of power
*Popularity
*Ability to impose tariffs without Congressional approval
*and so on.

I’m after a “counter headline” campaign to put this in the proper perspective.

If there's one thing I've learned over the last decade, it's that when your opponent consistently fails to follow the rules or conventions, you're not going to win by strictly following those rules and conventions. You may have to break some of them.

You have to fight fire with fire.

It's taken a long time, but we're finally starting to see a bit of that with things like the Gavin Newsom supported Prop 50 in CA, to fight GOP gerrymandering with gerrymandering from the Democratic side, and some similar efforts in other states.

--Peter

So my question again: could they begin demanding “discovery” [of specific targets of inquiry*] TOMORROW?

Not tomorrow. But certainly soon. It's been a number of years since I had to deal with basic Civ Pro. I know that you don't have to wait for all the motions on the pleadings to be done before you start discovery, but it doesn't start right away. There's a bunch of preliminaries at the start of the lawsuit - service of process, getting the court docket set up, and at least one early "meet and confer" session between the parties to just sort of lay out how things will go. But that wouldn't take more than a month or two.

But the Times wouldn't gain anything by "demanding" discovery regarding these things. Trump wouldn't turn anything over. His team would file motions arguing that they don't have to disclose certain things (not relevant, protected by privilege, etc.). And the NYT would file motions saying, "yes you do." And it would take several months for those motions to get resolved. Because, again, the judge is not going to be in any hurry to resolve these discovery disputes in a case that will probably be dismissed under basic First Amendment grounds.

There wouldn't be any counter headlines. "Judge delays ruling on routine motion for protective order in discovery" isn't going to make it into any newspaper.

The parties would usually start discovery during that first phase.

And if Trump, based on the involvement of a foreign government, makes a claim of "national security"? I remember Nixon trying to use "national security" to keep all the krap he pulled secret.

Steve

There wouldn't be any counter headlines.

Aren't we talking about the New York Times here? They can print whatever headlines the choose to print.

Isn't one of the basic rules of public discourse not to pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel?

And if the NYT prints it, lots of other places will pick it up and run with it, too.

What's being proposed here isn't a legal battle. Trump has already lost that, and likely know it. Its a battle of headlines and sound bites. Certainly the NYT should be a challenging adversary in a headline battle.

--Peter

Aren't we talking about the New York Times here? They can print whatever headlines they choose to print.

There wouldn't be anything going on in the lawsuit that's worth a headline.

If they wanted to use their "ink by the barrel" power to engage in reprisals against Trump, they certainly can. But writing about the lawsuit would be a horrible way to do it. If you wanted to write a headline about Trump's involvement with Epstein, write an article about that - and put a headline over it. "Trump's Close Ties With Epstein Cause Political Problems" is a better headline than "Judge Delays Ruling on Routine Motion for Protective Order."

Unless the NYT was actually going to get any useful documents out of this, it's not worth spinning wheels in a discovery process - and they're not going to get any documents out of it. And the process of not getting any documents is not likely to generate anything worth writing about, because Trump's lawyers probably aren't going to have to do anything dodgy to avoid those disclosures.

But the Times wouldn't gain anything by "demanding" discovery regarding these things.

Sure they would.

I’d become a lifetime subscriber. 😁

But the Times wouldn't gain anything by "demanding" discovery regarding these things. Trump wouldn't turn anything over.

Again - you’re looking for a RESULT. The Result is immaterial, it’s the filing of the suit that matters.

Let me jump a few years back to a place called “Watergate” during Nixon. The Washington Post followed the story for the better part of a YEAR before anybody else started paying attention. But because it had been going on so long, once it broke through that “this is just politics, right?” barrier it became “a cancer on the Presidency” in a remarkably short time, jumping from the Post to the Times and then everywhere, and to a highly toxic degree. (John Dean’s eloquent cancer remark made to Nixon 9 months after the break in, and publicly almost exactly a year later in the Senate committee.)

There wouldn’t be any counter headlines”

Don’t have to be. Look at the Trump playbook: flood the zone with shit every day, something new and different, keep the children entertained. Certainly the President has far more levers at their disposal to distract, but a determined effort (see: Watergate) can get into and gbe a driver in the news cycle.

If they wanted to use their "ink by the barrel" power to engage in reprisals against Trump, they certainly can. But writing about the lawsuit would be a horrible way to do it.

Who says they have to write “about the lawsuit”. Each demand for material would be accompanied by a public explanation of why it’s important. I have a partial list upthread: Epstein, Amoluments. Deployment of troops. Et. That becomes the “headline” attached to something people know is real.

You can count on some other parties joining in, slowly at first, but everybody from Jean Carrol to a Jeffrey Epstein intimate, to a farmer in North Dakota going bankrupt because China isn’t buying soybeans to a Korean person arrested falsely at the Hyundai plant to…

Recall the original cause for the NYT to request this information is that Trump has sued them for something or other. So they have a *right* to ask for this information, to prove “truth”.

Now, reality sets in. Do I ever expect such a thing to happen? Surely not. The Times can’t be seen on a “crusade”, and Ben Bradlee understood that well (some people still did, of course.) Their bank account isn’t unlimited, while Trump’s is, as he would be using government lawyers (aha! Another demand for information! This is a private entity being sued by a private individual but using unlimited government funds to do so!) You can attach several good stories to this demand, and *some* news outlets will run with it. Others will complain about it, and that’s fine too. Even Fox couldn’t NOT moan about Newsome’s social media posts. You have to play the media if you want to get somewhere (as the Right has so obviously figured out.)

Understand I have faint hope of “recreating Watergate”, I just note that a template exists. The diminution of power or the exorcism of certain individuals is unlikely if all anybody does is take the handout, report “he said, but the other he said” for another 3 years

To reiterate: it isn’t about “Result”. It’s about generating news stories which attach a real world example to each filing, done week after week for at least six months. It’s “advertising”, or if you like, Negative Public Relations, and yes, it should be a “campaign”.

Each demand for material would be accompanied by a public explanation of why it’s important. I have a partial list upthread: Epstein, Amoluments. Deployment of troops. Et. That becomes the “headline” attached to something people know is real.

Sure - but why does any of the above have anything to do with the lawsuit?

If you want to write a story about Epstein or emoluments, why not just write a story about that? Rather than have your article chained to the unquestionably boring aspect of a discovery request?

Discovery doesn't work the way I think you imagine it. There's not going to be a deposition or anything exciting going on. There won't be a filing every week. The NYT will send Trump's lawyers a document asking for every record that Trump has that's relevant to his business dealings, Trump's lawyers will write back and give a bunch of responsive (but useless) documents and a laundry list of things they think are privileged or exempt - and then the lawyers will fight about it in motions. The Times won't send a request for just materials on Epstein (which wouldn't be germane to the lawsuit), or just materials on emoluments, or anything like that. There won't be discrete "issue of the week" requests - that's not how the process is set up.

No one else is going to be able to join in. This isn't an investigation - it's court discovery. No one else will be participating unless they're another named party.

Again, you could do it - but I can't imagine that the Times can't come up with better hooks for these types of stories than tying it back to a boring discovery filing.

"Judge Delays Ruling on Routine Motion for Protective Order."

I'm not sure you're getting it yet. This isn't lawyering, it's marketing. Salesmanship.

Let's try these on.

Times Files Countersuit for Defamation by Trump
Trump Refuses to Turn Over Discovery Documents in $15 Billion Suit
Judge Considering Dismissal of Frivolous Suit Against Times
Trump Spends $Millions in DOJ Lawyer Time to Press His Personal Suit Against the Times

Times Files Countersuit for Defamation by Trump
Trump Refuses to Turn Over Discovery Documents in $15 Billion Suit
Judge Considering Dismissal of Frivolous Suit Against Times
Trump Spends $Millions in DOJ Lawyer Time to Press His Personal Suit Against the Times

Sure. But none of those has anything to do with what the Times asks for. Of course they'll make discovery requests - and of course Trump will resist turning over documents. But there's no way to really make this any more useful to the Times by adding in some extra stuff as part of those other filings.

Their bank account isn’t unlimited, while Trump’s is, as he would be using government lawyers

There is a big, fat headline. The lawsuit is a *personal* one, not related to his employment. Thus, no govt lawyers can be involved. If they claim they DO represent him, then the initial filing is, was, and was always KNOWN to be a fraudulent filing made under oath. NYT countersues both the govt and Spankee for $100+million plus expenses. AND they can validly publish his AND the govt attorneys' perjury in the suit. That changes the perception of the public to the case. THAT is something the judge WILL want to see ASAP because it CAN be ruled on quickly as a matter of fact.

The countersuit keeps Spankee AND the govt trapped in their own sworn complaint in that court and can NOT withdraw from the suit because the judge could then just grant the NYT its damages and expenses.

Whether it's Joe Biden condemning the killing of Charlie Kirk or Charlie Kirk calling for the killing of Joe Biden,
both men expressed their sincere thoughts, kudos to sincerity!

https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-...

Judge Dismisses Trump’s Lawsuit Against The New York Times

A federal judge in Florida on Friday threw out President Trump’s defamation suit against The New York Times four days after it was filed, calling the complaint “improper and impermissible” in its present form.

The judge provided Mr. Trump’s lawyers with 28 days to file an amended complaint.

The lawsuit, which asked for $15 billion in damages, accused The Times and four of its reporters, as well as the book publisher Penguin Random House, of disparaging Mr. Trump’s reputation as a successful businessman.

But Judge Steven D. Merryday, of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, said the president’s 85-page complaint was unnecessarily lengthy and digressive. He criticized Mr. Trump’s lawyers for waiting until the 80th page to lodge a formal allegation of defamation, and for including, ahead of it, dozens of “florid and enervating” pages lavishing praise on the president and enumerating a range of grievances.

“A complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective,” Judge Merryday wrote. “Not a protected platform to rage against an adversary.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/19/business/media/...

I really think Barry Zuckerkorn would be a good fit for Trump’s legal team.
He’s very good.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.