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

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. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I didn't pronounce the judge guilty. I said the story isn't fake news. I sourced it back to the American Spectator and discovered the author was there when the judge was delivering her riff. That's enough to tell me the story isn't fabricated. Now go find those counter-witnesses. If you can.

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

Once I saw where he said it was through a closed door I knew he was lying. If he was not in the room how does he know who was? The he said "to the extent I could hear" This guy is full of shit.

I didn't pronounce the judge guilty. I said the story isn't fake news. I sourced it back to the American Spectator and discovered the author was there when the judge was delivering her riff. That's enough to tell me the story isn't fabricated. Now go find those counter-witnesses. If you can. Originally Posted by lustylad

Again, in a case like this, the person making the claims should be the one on whom the burden of proof lies. That would be Neumayr. Not the person who is being accused. That would be Hall.

Now go find someone who supports Neumayr's story. If you can.

Neumayr presented the only evidence. You can impeach his account (as MT tried to do) and/or present counter-evidence. Or ask the judge what happened. Or be lazy and stubborn and say "the defense rests" without calling any witnesses. That worked out well for Manafort.

You're so close-minded you wouldn't believe Neumayr even if he had recorded it.

Did he record it?

Did he record it? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I don't know... maybe. Seems like you and speedy don't care to find out. Even if he did, it would still be fake news to you.

You're so close-minded you wouldn't believe Neumayr even if he had recorded it. Originally Posted by lustylad

Sorry but you are lying. If there was any evidence anywhere by anyone to support Neumayr's allegations, I would probably believe him. There is none. Therefore I put the allegations in the category "unsubstantiated".

The proof is in the putting, lustylad.

Still awaiting your retraction.

Still awaiting your retraction. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Based on the first-hand account of the author George Neumayr, your dismissal of the story as fake news is hereby retracted.

If there was any evidence anywhere by anyone to support Neumayr's allegations, I would probably believe him. There is none. Therefore I put the allegations in the category "unsubstantiated". Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

There is also no evidence anywhere by anyone to refute what Neumayr says he heard. See how that works?

Pay my expenses to New York and I'll see if I can substantiate Neumayr's account of what happened. As you said, there were plenty of people at the citizenship ceremony. Until I track them down, let's agree the story is based on a first-hand account and therefore is NOT fake news.

Neumayr presented the only evidence. You can impeach his account (as MT tried to do) and/or present counter-evidence. Or ask the judge what happened. Or be lazy and stubborn and say "the defense rests" without calling any witnesses. That worked out well for Manafort.

You're so close-minded you wouldn't believe Neumayr even if he had recorded it. Originally Posted by lustylad

I didn't cast doubt I proved his account of it is incomplete. He did not see who was in the room and did not hear all of and was not able to discern the whole conversation. There could have been a TV on and it may have not even been her. Plus the folks he was talking to were friends and family to the immigrants. How would they even know who she was? His compared notes comment is ridiculous. As for counter evidence I have done just that. Another odd thing is he complained about giving up his phone when he went outside. They would have already done that when he entered the first time if that was the case. I think he added that little crumb as a excuse as to why he has no audio or video. I could not find anything that said they took your phones when you got there but I may have missed it, So I can not say he lied about it. It does seem like an odd comment though.

There is also no evidence anywhere by anyone to refute what Neumayr says he heard. See how that works?

Pay my expenses to New York and I'll see if I can substantiate Neumayr's account of what happened. As you said, there were plenty of people at the citizenship ceremony. Until I track them down, let's agree the story is based on a first-hand account and therefore is NOT fake news. Originally Posted by lustylad

I never said the story was "fake news" just that it was unsubstantiated.

You've made your point. I've made my point. We disagree. End of discussion on my side.

Burden of proof continues to rest with the affirmative.

You cannot prove this story is accurate. Yet it cause a number of you to spin wildly off into the ozone.

It seems that the entire Trump movement is collectively grasping for anything that makes their leader’s failed policies (are they policies or edicts?) look less ludicrous.

This thread proves that point.

Burden of proof continues to rest with the affirmative.

You cannot prove this story is accurate. Yet it cause a number of you to spin wildly off into the ozone. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

This story is NOT a he-said versus he-said. There are no competing versions of what happened.

One witness (the author) affirmed what he heard. There are no contradicting witnesses. All the evidence points to the story being true. An Obama appointed federal judge spins wildly off into the ozone while swearing in new American citizens!

Did he record it? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

next time this judge holds a swearing in this guy George Neumayr should record it. don't see anything unauthorized about that .. it's not a criminal trial after all.

some family probably do record it to preserve the moment .. so why can't this guy?

any bets that if this judge sees a reporter recording her she'll try to have them removed?

if he does record it, will you claim it's a .. fake video?

bahahahaaa