Judge Swears In New Citizens and Tells Them to Kneel During Anthem

Utterly fake bullshit.

The Eaglesnest or whatever the fuck it calls itself riffed off of the American Spectator piece which quotes "someone."

"Take a knee" is quoted but in what context?

Utterly fake bullshit.

The Spectator should be ashamed of itself. But they know there are a lot of willing readers out there who aren't feeling so great about the state of the regime, craving some red meat right about now.

Who are they to deny them based on fact or truth?

Or, did Dilbert misinterpret the story he read? Dilbert, did you read anywhere where the judge in question "Tells Them to Kneel During Anthem?"

So now, three times removed from the actual alleged event, it's become a judicial order, right Dilbert?

..

So it is either the mainstream media ignoring a potentially damning left wing event.... Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Wouldn't be the first time. Like the MSM reporting all the nonviolent non-Antifa people who were attacked by Antifa during a peaceful demonstration.

Can't find it anywhere else, can you? Your story is a lie, Dilbert. Someone played you.

FAKE NEWS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! !!!!! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

There are no facts that I could find one way or the other... Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Utterly fake bullshit...

The Spectator should be ashamed of itself...

So now, three times removed from the actual alleged event... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Un-fucking-believable.

The judge's speech was heard by the author of the Spectator piece. That's not "three times removed". He is a first-hand witness. That means he has direct personal knowledge of what happened. His testimony can't be dismissed as hearsay. It can become a finding of FACT, if we were litigating what the judge said.

I even posted the fucking link to the original source. Now you make me print it out for you!


"Out of sheer boredom, I decided to go down to the second floor early and could hear the judge bellowing at the newly sworn-in Americans through the closed door...

Her speech to the new citizens, to the extent that I could hear it, was appalling...

Then she started in on some ludicrous riff about the First Amendment encouraging the new Americans to exercise that right as robustly as possible, including by 'taking a knee.' "

https://spectator.org/judge-tells-ne...o-take-a-knee/


And you can spare us the usual nonsense about the remarks being taken out of context. There is no context in which it would be appropriate for a federal judge to be talking to new citizens about dissing the flag under which they were just sworn in.

Un-fucking-believable.

The judge's speech was heard by the author of the Spectator piece. That's not "three times removed". He is a first-hand witness. That means he has direct personal knowledge of what happened. His testimony can't be dismissed as hearsay. It can become a finding of FACT, if we were litigating what the judge said.

I even posted the fucking link to the original source. Now you make me print it out for you!


"Out of sheer boredom, I decided to go down to the second floor early and could hear the judge bellowing at the newly sworn-in Americans through the closed door...

Her speech to the new citizens, to the extent that I could hear it, was appalling...

Then she started in on some ludicrous riff about the First Amendment, encouraging the new Americans to exercise that right as robustly as possible, including by 'taking a knee.' "

https://spectator.org/judge-tells-ne...o-take-a-knee/


And you can spare us the usual nonsense about the remarks being taken out of context. There is no context in which it would be appropriate for a federal judge to be talking to new citizens about dissing the flag under which they were just sworn in. Originally Posted by lustylad

which means this writer is a material witness and could provide direct testimony in a court of law. how ironic? testifying against a sitting judge as a material witness!

you can't make this stuff up!

Produce some hard evidence and I’ll elevate this conversation to “out of context.” Right now, it’s mired in BULLSHIT.

Un-fucking-believable.

The judge's speech was heard by the author of the Spectator piece. That's not "three times removed". He is a first-hand witness. That means he has direct personal knowledge of what happened. His testimony can't be dismissed as hearsay. It can become a finding of FACT, if we were litigating what the judge said.

I even posted the fucking link to the original source. Now you make me print it out for you!


"Out of sheer boredom, I decided to go down to the second floor early and could hear the judge bellowing at the newly sworn-in Americans through the closed door...

Her speech to the new citizens, to the extent that I could hear it, was appalling...

Then she started in on some ludicrous riff about the First Amendment encouraging the new Americans to exercise that right as robustly as possible, including by 'taking a knee.' "

https://spectator.org/judge-tells-ne...o-take-a-knee/


And you can spare us the usual nonsense about the remarks being taken out of context. There is no context in which it would be appropriate for a federal judge to be talking to new citizens about dissing the flag under which they were just sworn in. Originally Posted by lustylad

I am looking for one piece of corroborating evidence. There were how many people at the citizenship ceremony? At least dozens. How many people have come forward and said the judge did what George Neumayr accused her of doing? None.

The writer of the article obviously is not a fan of Obama and like many on this forum thinks anything Obama did in office is a crime. So all I am saying is let's get someone to validate the comments made in the article before hanging the judge.

I am looking for one piece of corroborating evidence. There were how many people at the citizenship ceremony? At least dozens. How many people have come forward and said the judge did what George Neumayr accused her of doing? None.

The writer of the article obviously is not a fan of Obama and like many on this forum thinks anything Obama did in office is a crime. So all I am saying is let's get someone to validate the comments made in the article before hanging the judge. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

+1

Produce some hard evidence... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I already did. The guy was there and heard it. That constitutes EVIDENCE. If you were there you would deny your own ears.

Did you believe Dick Durbin when he said he heard trumpy talk about "shithole" countries? Or was that "fake news" too?

Others heard that, lustylad. This is simply one person's word against NOTHING.

Waiting for your retraction.

I am looking for one piece of corroborating evidence. There were how many people at the citizenship ceremony? At least dozens. How many people have come forward and said the judge did what George Neumayr accused her of doing? None. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

No shit there were dozens of other people there! Go find them if you think Neumayr is lying. Right now the only evidence says the judge made a reference to "taking a knee". The burden is on you to produce counter-evidence - if it even exists. Most good liars are smart enough not to lie when there are dozens of potential contradicting witnesses.

So you’re saying the author of the story is a good liar?

I already did. The guy was there and heard it. That constitutes EVIDENCE. If you were there you would deny your own ears.

Did you believe Dick Durbin when he said he heard trumpy talk about "shithole" countries? Or was that "fake news" too? Originally Posted by lustylad

Way back before the 2016 election when about 10 women came out of the darkness with claims against Trump for sexual harassment, I said innocent until proven guilty. Certainly the charges were possible but until someone could back the charges up, I considered Trump innocent and said so on this forum.

Same thing in this case.

No shit there were dozens of other people there! Go find them if you think Neumayr is lying. Right now the only evidence says the judge made a reference to "taking a knee". The burden is on you to produce counter-evidence - if it even exists. Most good liars are smart enough not to lie when there are dozens of potential contradicting witnesses. Originally Posted by lustylad

There's no burden on me. This is something you usually read about in the "scandal sheets" you find at the checkout counters at super markets. It may be true. It may not be true. To attempt to ruin someone's credibility, in this case Judge Hall, based on one person's statement, is wrong in my opinion. Especially when that person is far from being an unbiased person.

So you’re saying the author of the story is a good liar? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Just the opposite. You called him a liar, not me. If he is lying, he is a bad liar. Why would he make it up knowing dozens of other first-hand witnesses could contradict him?

His editor would have asked for corroboration, too, before running the story. Did you forget the part about why Neumayr was there? His friend was being naturalized. There's your corroboration.