"Many of those who invaded the halls of Congress on Jan. 6 are likely to get little or no jail time.....almost a quarter of the more than 230 defendants formally and publicly charged so far face only misdemeanors."
More here from the @washingtonpost on how judges are growing increasingly angry with attempts by prosecutors to imprison the Jan 6 protesters prior to trial, since so many of them used no violence or force: just strolled in as part of a protest:
The media/Democratic narrative that this was a "coup" or "insurrection" or existential threat to the Republic was the same kind of moral panic hysteria that reigned during the first War on Terror. What happened to the "insurrection"? It just vanished.
My favorite part of the whole episode is how police and prosecutors became the grand heroes and protagonists of the liberal narrative about the Jan 6 riot just months after the summer protests: much like they made the CIA, FBI, NSA and neocons their heroes during the Trump years.
Here, from the Politico story on how many of the Jan. 6 protesters will face little or no jail time, is the rationale (nobody questions the propriety of harshly prosecuting those who used violence or force on that day):
The issue with @ACLU is a bit more complex. They still have a few great lawyers who do old-school civil liberties work independent of partisan agendas. But the ACLU hides that work because they're so dependent on liberal donors, and because the dominant faction there opposes it:
ACLU still does stuff like represents NRA against NY State's attempt to destroy it. They represent @Snowden; still represent white supremacists' free speech & condemn Assange's prosecution. But they mostly hide rather than promote that. And it's increasingly just a liberal group.
From what I hear, one of the best reporters at the NYT is doing a big examination of the internal changes & factional conflicts within the ACLU: how liberal activism & Dem partisanship are drowning civil liberties. I examined some of that here:
Bolsonaro yesterday forced out *six* of his ministers: including Defense Secretary, Attorney General-equivalent, and Foreign Minister. His Health Minister "resigned" last week. Part of it is an effort to consolidate control over the military as his presidency is shaken by crises.
As is typical for Brazilian politics, there's no pat explanation or unifying narrative. Lots of moving parts. But that's a lot of political instability for a country which is plagued with what is, by far, the planet's worst COVID crisis.
Major political crisis in Brazil right now. After 6 of Bolsonaro's ministers were fired or quit yesterday, including his Defense Minister, the 3 top military commanders - the heads of Army, Navy & Air Force - just quit in protest, leaving Bolsonaro very isolated but dangerous.
Powerful media figures now invoke sexist and racist tropes to cast themselves as so fragile and marginalized that critiques of their work constitute bullying and assault.
The *only* purpose of that @USAToday article -- like so many from CNN, NYT, Daily Beast, etc. -- was to ruin the lives of powerless private citizens: prevent them from raising donations for their legal defense!
Then these bullies turn around and self-victimize to bar criticism.
This is the dirty little game journalists at major newspapers like @USATODAY play: they use their huge platform to attack and try to ruin the lives of powerless people & private citizens, then depict *themselves* as the fragile victims, the bullied, to bar any criticisms of them.
I'm going to have an article on this in just a bit. It's a massive scam journalists are running: If you're capable of writing news articles in the largest and most influential papers in the country -- attacking private citizens - then you're fair game to be criticized.
Watching journalists weaponize the language of the voiceless and the marginalized and then apply it to *themselves* -- to cast criticisms of them as some moral crime "bullying" or "harassment" -- is repugnant. You have the right to criticize journalists at major outlets. Use it.
Congratulations on using your new journalistic platform to try to pressure tech companies to terminate the ability of impoverished criminal defendants to raise money for their legal defense from online donations. You're well on your way upward in this industry for sure:
Not exaggerating: seems like 50% of journalism these days is finding new ways to pressure and shame tech companies to silence, censor and vanish people from the internet disliked by journalists. Their main cause is not transparency but internet censorship
If you ever find yourself confounded, frustrated or repelled by the behavior of mainstream journalists, just read this relatively short essay by Freddie deBoer which really does explain it all as perfectly and succinctly as anything could:
Let me just say again that there are few things I value more than good faith critics who really attempt to engage what you've actually said, while denouncing the cheap, smear-artist liars who can only criticize you while lying about your views. This video is a master-class in it:
I hadn't been familiar with @Zer0Books' show before, but if you've followed any of my recent conflicts with various liberal-left media sectors, this video is a very smart, amazingly produced & quite amusing critique of the worst factions in that culture:
To illustrate: @kittypurrzog & @jessesingal denounce someone here as maliciously anti-trans. Both are in the 90th percentile of the public - at least - in *defending* trans rights, but in dogmatic leftist circles, they're anti-trans genocidal monsters: