Much of the outrage surrounding the Lance Twiggs ruling overlooks an important legal distinction. The judge’s decision concerns only the preliminary hearing, not the trial itself. A preliminary hearing is not a determination of guilt or innocence. Its sole purpose is to decide whether there is probable cause, a deliberately low threshold, to bind the defendant over for trial. Under Utah law, reliable hearsay may be used at this stage. The ruling does not mean Twiggs cannot or will not testify at trial nor does it preclude the defense from compelling his testimony later. Questions of credibility, cross-examination and the ultimate search for truth remain matters for the trial itself.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present what may well be the most hysterically hilarious "debate" in recorded human history. Owen Shroyer and the marvelously irascent Gavin McInnes engage in a démêlé so gloriously unrestrained, so magnificently combustible and so unintentionally comedic that one almost forgets there was supposed to be a point. Shakespeare had his tragedies. We have this. Future historians will study it. Psychiatrists most certainly. Performance histrionics at its finest. WARNING: Do not play this in mixed company or where coprolalia is frowned upon.
Erika Kirk once (initially) commanded sympathy, curiosity and attention. But lately, her message feels frozen in time, recycled and repetitive. The same themes, the same vague talking points, the same emotional cues delivered as though repetition alone creates relevance. We're asking a simple question: where is the vision, the originality, the spark? Public figures survive on ideas and energy, not nostalgia. If nothing changes, audiences eventually tune out. And for many observers, that moment may already have arrived. Why is she still speaking on behalf of TPUSA and (sadly) the exploited and commodified memory of Charlie.
@RealCandaceO, a rabble rouser of the first stripe, a subrident firebrand, an unapologetic heretic with battalions of acolytes for a platform, a contrarian who barrels through polite society spewing and spouting the holy word of truth. She eviscerates sacred cows, mocks gatekeepers and delights in asking questions that send [SG] jackals into conniptions. She is impossible to ignore and absolutely refuses to play by anyone else's rules. Dig. Thusly.
Americans will barely get off of their arse to vote or to protest or to care. About anything. But when it comes to celebrating a professional title New Yorkers will brave crowds weather sweat funk grime congestion heat rain inconvenience pain, anything. To celebrate a title.
In his latest podcast, @TuckerCarlson revisited longstanding questions surrounding intel failures and the events leading up to 9/11, citing a 2001 Fox News investigation by Carl Cameron that explored allegations involving Israeli intelligence and the notorious "dancing Israelis" incident. Tucker's point was not to declare a verdict but to ask whether every relevant question has been fully examined and whether inconvenient avenues of inquiry have been dismissed too quickly. Do you have a problem with that?
The FBI allegedly found no evidence linking the detained Israelis to the attacks themselves and deported them for visa violations. Still, Tucker argues that skepticism and curiosity are not crimes, especially when discussing one of the most consequential events in modern history. Do you have a problem with that?
Predictably, the usual suspects accused him of irresponsibly trafficking in suspicion, while rational critical thinkers and investigators praised his willingness to revisit uncomfortable yet valid subjects and challenge conventional wisdom. The debate highlights a growing divide within historians and investigaotors over foreign policy, intel agencies and the boundaries of acceptable inquiry.
Lionel Nation
Much of the outrage surrounding the Lance Twiggs ruling overlooks an important legal distinction. The judge’s decision concerns only the preliminary hearing, not the trial itself. A preliminary hearing is not a determination of guilt or innocence. Its sole purpose is to decide whether there is probable cause, a deliberately low threshold, to bind the defendant over for trial. Under Utah law, reliable hearsay may be used at this stage. The ruling does not mean Twiggs cannot or will not testify at trial nor does it preclude the defense from compelling his testimony later. Questions of credibility, cross-examination and the ultimate search for truth remain matters for the trial itself.
2 hours ago | [YT] | 62
View 2 replies
Lionel Nation
Ladies and gentlemen, I present what may well be the most hysterically hilarious "debate" in recorded human history. Owen Shroyer and the marvelously irascent Gavin McInnes engage in a démêlé so gloriously unrestrained, so magnificently combustible and so unintentionally comedic that one almost forgets there was supposed to be a point. Shakespeare had his tragedies. We have this. Future historians will study it. Psychiatrists most certainly. Performance histrionics at its finest. WARNING: Do not play this in mixed company or where coprolalia is frowned upon.
18 hours ago | [YT] | 16
View 0 replies
Lionel Nation
Erika Kirk once (initially) commanded sympathy, curiosity and attention. But lately, her message feels frozen in time, recycled and repetitive. The same themes, the same vague talking points, the same emotional cues delivered as though repetition alone creates relevance. We're asking a simple question: where is the vision, the originality, the spark? Public figures survive on ideas and energy, not nostalgia. If nothing changes, audiences eventually tune out. And for many observers, that moment may already have arrived. Why is she still speaking on behalf of TPUSA and (sadly) the exploited and commodified memory of Charlie.
2 days ago | [YT] | 33
View 2 replies
Lionel Nation
Caption this.
2 days ago | [YT] | 423
View 346 replies
Lionel Nation
A fascinating interview with @SabbySabs that I'm sure you'll find entertaining, refreshing and, yes, fascinating.
2 days ago | [YT] | 7
View 0 replies
Lionel Nation
Is Trump back?
3 days ago | [YT] | 154
View 103 replies
Lionel Nation
@RealCandaceO, a rabble rouser of the first stripe, a subrident firebrand, an unapologetic heretic with battalions of acolytes for a platform, a contrarian who barrels through polite society spewing and spouting the holy word of truth. She eviscerates sacred cows, mocks gatekeepers and delights in asking questions that send [SG] jackals into conniptions. She is impossible to ignore and absolutely refuses to play by anyone else's rules. Dig. Thusly.
3 days ago (edited) | [YT] | 36
View 1 reply
Lionel Nation
Americans will barely get off of their arse to vote or to protest or to care. About anything. But when it comes to celebrating a professional title New Yorkers will brave crowds weather sweat funk grime congestion heat rain inconvenience pain, anything. To celebrate a title.
4 days ago | [YT] | 467
View 52 replies
Lionel Nation
If you're going to post something remember the issue is not how people will interpret it but rather how the brain dead will misinterpret it.
4 days ago | [YT] | 639
View 19 replies
Lionel Nation
In his latest podcast, @TuckerCarlson revisited longstanding questions surrounding intel failures and the events leading up to 9/11, citing a 2001 Fox News investigation by Carl Cameron that explored allegations involving Israeli intelligence and the notorious "dancing Israelis" incident. Tucker's point was not to declare a verdict but to ask whether every relevant question has been fully examined and whether inconvenient avenues of inquiry have been dismissed too quickly. Do you have a problem with that?
The FBI allegedly found no evidence linking the detained Israelis to the attacks themselves and deported them for visa violations. Still, Tucker argues that skepticism and curiosity are not crimes, especially when discussing one of the most consequential events in modern history. Do you have a problem with that?
Predictably, the usual suspects accused him of irresponsibly trafficking in suspicion, while rational critical thinkers and investigators praised his willingness to revisit uncomfortable yet valid subjects and challenge conventional wisdom. The debate highlights a growing divide within historians and investigaotors over foreign policy, intel agencies and the boundaries of acceptable inquiry.
Do you have a problem with that?
4 days ago | [YT] | 258
View 8 replies
Load more