Merrick Garland and the Love Warriors

Surprise: An Update to the 2021 Loudon School Board Saga Reveals an Atty. Gen. Double Standard

by Nathan Harden for American Greatness

The year 2021 was not an easy one to be a school board member. Some parents had concerns about the use of critical race theory in the curriculum, and many were angry about school closings and restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Public school board meetings grew increasingly contentious in many districts.

In October of that year, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a controversial order directing the FBI and other federal agencies to identify and prosecute violent threats and harassment from parents attending school board meetings.

Garland issued the memo days after the National School Board Association (NSBA) sent a letter asking the Biden administration to halt a growing problem of violence or threats of violence directed at school board members. The letter documented 20 such incidents at school board meetings across the country.

“We are coming after you,” said one such letter mailed to an Ohio school board member. “You are forcing them to wear mask – for no reason in this world other than control. And for that you will pay dearly.”
Despite the examples cited by the NSBA, Garland’s critics saw his actions as an overreach – perhaps politically motivated – of federal policing power. The backlash against Garland’s order, especially from Republicans, was swift.

Sen. Josh Hawley placed himself at the center of the outcry, sending a letter to the attorney general a few days later.

“All around the country, Americans are speaking out against the radical racist ideology sometimes called ‘critical race theory,’” Hawley wrote. “Americans have responded to this radical ideology by winning elections for local school boards and protesting peacefully at school board meetings. Yet your memo yesterday to the FBI and local U.S. Attorneys ignored all of this and warned of an insurgence of ‘threats of violence’ and ‘efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views.’”

“I certainly share your view that threats of violence have no place in this country, but the backdrop of your memo strongly suggests that your concern is not violence, but democratic pushback against critical race theory,” Hawley wrote, adding that Garland had “provided no evidence of actual, genuine threats of violence.”

Republicans feared that Garland’s order could have a chilling effect on parents who wanted to speak out about their kids’ educations. At a Judiciary Committee hearing a few weeks later, GOP senators grilled Garland about his memo, and Sen. Tom Cotton called for his resignation.

Despite the blowback, both Garland and his order remained in effect. His critics’ ire was stirred again in May 2022 when a whistleblower revealed that the FBI had launched dozens of investigations of parents and had labeled them with a threat tag created by the bureau’s counterterrorism division.

Meanwhile, in Loudoun County

Fast forward a year later. In Loudoun County, Virginia, a mere 40 miles from FBI headquarters, a new controversy erupted related to school board meetings and alleged threats of violence. Only this time, it was the parents who were the target of the threats.

The controversy began after some Loudoun County parents spoke up at school board meetings on issues such as school safety, single-sex bathrooms, and parental rights in education. Some were later threatened with violence on a message board for a Facebook group that called itself, rather incongruously, the “Loudoun Love Warriors.”

Members of the Loudoun Love Warriors group published the home address of at least one outspoken parent and began a campaign to demand that others be fired from their jobs. One father said that he lost his job after the group contacted his employer.

According to a report by local ABC affiliate WJLA, here are a few examples of what members of the Love Warriors wrote:

• “Im telling you. SOMETHING has to happen to one of them.”
• “Lines drawn in the cement.”
• “Lives needs to be ruined beyond repair.”
• “Lets actually destroy them. Grind them.”
• “If he had said that s*** about black kids or autistic kids I would shoot him.”
• “We REALLY need to find this guy.”
• “You guys need to stop protesting and start fighting back against these people Time to just do something different to shut them down.”
• “Im soooo ready to show up with guns lol.”
• “His life needs to be PERMANENTLY disassembled.”

WJLA reported that the Loudoun Love Warriors group included supporters, volunteers, and staff of several Loudoun County officials, including four members of the Loudoun County school board. None of the school board members themselves were members of the online group. When reached for comment, these officials denounced and distanced themselves from the threatening messages their supporters, volunteers, or staff had posted online.

Yet some of the targeted parents believed that the Love Warriors’ threats should have prompted a criminal investigation. Elicia Brand, Scott Mineo, and Mark Winn were three of the individuals named and targeted by the group. Brand referenced Merrick Garland’s order to investigate parents, and Brand accused the attorney general of practicing a double standard.

“When we have something like this in writing, I call out to Merrick Garland and I say this is domestic terrorism, not parents who are speaking out for their children and others and trying to advocate for the best education possible for them,” Brand said. “Domestic terrorism is the fear that they’re putting into my life, taking away Scott’s ability to provide for his family, and threatening Mark’s life. That’s domestic terrorism.”

Conservative activists were galvanized by the close relationships between Loudoun County officials and members of the Facebook group. A conservative media watchdog group, Accuracy in Media, launched a billboard campaign to publicize the connection between Loudoun County school board officials and the individuals who posted the online threats.

Politicized Law Enforcement

What transpired on the Loudoun Love Warriors Facebook page was certainly detestable, maybe even illegal in some instances (though an initial police investigation resulted in no criminal charges). Whether it was, in fact, “terrorism,” as Brand asserts, is doubtful – but not as doubtful as believing that parents across the country who, like Brand, speak up at school board meetings belong on the FBI’s counterterrorism watchlist. Nevertheless, to this day, that appears to be the legal opinion of the attorney general of the United States.

Garland’s directive and the lunacy in Loudoun County feel related somehow – like two random chapters pulled from the same ugly story. What lesson does that story hold? First, an obvious one: no school board member should face threats of violence, and the same goes for any concerned parent who addresses a school board meeting.

But perhaps another important lesson of the Loudoun Love Warriors story concerns the role that political bias plays in federal law enforcement. Garland was quick to launch a national effort to investigate (largely conservative) parents attending school board meetings and protesting the decisions of (largely progressive) school board officials. Meanwhile, federal law enforcement officials launched no similar response when the (largely conservative) parents themselves were threatened by supporters and staff of the (largely progressive) school board officials.

That seeming double standard is at the heart of conservative parents and activists’ ire over what transpired in Loudoun County. Maybe Garland is simply keener to see danger on the opposite side of the political spectrum from the one he inhabits. In that sense, he is like most other Americans. But, of course, Garland is unlike any other American in one crucial respect: he is the most powerful law enforcement official in the country. His bias, therefore, likely makes him more worrisome than any of the outspoken parents being investigated by his counterterrorism division.

X22, And we Know, and more- Sept 10

 

The WEF and the Climate Cult:

Colluding for a World-wide Welfare State

by Thaddeus G. McCotter for American Greatness

One should never underestimate the Left’s propensity for projecting its sins upon its victims; nor, when the Left does manage to admit the destructive effects of their regressive ideology, to proclaim these disastrous consequences as fundamental transformational and “liberation.” To avoid such a fraught misunderstanding, one must ever remember the Left perverts the purported rationale of every entity captured in their “long march” through the institutions.

To wit: The World Economic Forum (WEF).

One would think an organization comprised of the uber rich global elitists would be assiduously focused on increasing wealth. The rationale would be their own greed; and the need to spread wealth to meet rising global expectations of material prosperity that, as history shows, when unmet lead to revolutions – revolutions which confiscate the wealth of the rich and often their lives. Yet, to spread material wealth is rarely the goal of the rich. Their goal is to amass wealth; then, having amassed it, to protect it from the masses. However, in a contradiction Karl Marx would appreciate, in spreading their wealth to increase the masses’ material prosperity, they will also be increasing the masses’ expectations. In an age of instantaneous global communication among the masses, these expectations will rapidly and exponentially rise. There is every reason to believe they will not be met; and revolutions and/or chaos will ensue as the masses demand their “equitable” share of prosperity.

Thus, for the WEF, what to do if one doesn’t necessarily want to share their pile to spread the wealth and only exacerbate rising expectations among the masses that can’t be met; and, when unmet, spur nothing good for rich elitists?

For the first time in human history, the goal is not to increase material prosperity but to cap and curtail it. By making diminished expectations a virtue, the WEF hopes to coercively redistribute other people’s wealth to manage mass expectations, prevent governmental confiscations and preclude revolutions. In sum, the WEF goal is not creation of prosperity, but the management of scarcity. In this, they have found a willing partner in the apocalyptic climate cult, which is more than happy to scare and coerce people into latching onto their mutual, radical, socialist agenda.

But, one may ask, how can the ostensible “titans” of capitalism become strange bedfellows with socialist environmentalists? Because both want to control you for their own purposes; and, for now, those purposes coincide. One need look no further for proof than the ESG movement among multinational corporations. Someday, likely sooner rather than later, when these two colluders’ interests no longer mesh, it will be interesting to see which side is the rider and which is the tiger.

The first goal of the collusion between the WEF and the apocalyptic climate cult is to convince the upper and middle classes of the wealthiest industrialized nations that diminished expectations are virtuous. It is done by indoctrinating these classes with the belief they are an elite born to impose the radical, extreme, and dangerous agenda of “less is more.” Initially, given their wealth and status (often inherited), they will feel immune to the policies they impose; and, when they do, the sacrifice will feel small in relation to the external validation they receive among their class for their “virtue.” Only later will the full deleterious impacts of the bait and switch of the “less is more” agenda become clear to the privileged of the industrialized nations; and by then it will be too late.

This is the second goal of the unholy alliance of the WEF and the apocalyptic climate cult: the redistribution of the industrialized countries’ citizens’ wealth to the poor of less industrialized countries. The group’s name is the World Economic Forum, after all; and the climate cult is out to save the planet not Peoria. This redistribution is requisite to preventing more “Arab Spring” popular uprisings amongst the poorer nations, lest they give the poor populations of the industrialized nations ideas. The poorer nations’ leaders are brought on board by the redistributions of the richer nations’ wealth, because it will flow to their hands first; and then be allocated as these leaders see fit to their impoverished people.

The bitter fruit of the WEF and the apocalyptic climate cult’s zero-sum agenda of scarcity and autocracy? A world-wide welfare state where richer nations are compelled to redistribute wealth to poorer nations; but in amounts sufficient not to encourage poor populations’ rising expectations, but only to foster their dependency.

Sure, there will be those who dispute this. First, however, I would ask them to ponder the following: During my youth in the mid-1980s, I well recall Live Aid, where musicians combined to hold a fundraising concert to provide food to starving Ethiopians. There were songs, “Do They Know It’s Christmas” by Band Aid, and “We Are the World” by USA for Africa, as well as an album to provide further assistance to the hungry of Africa. There is even a remake of the Christmas song by Band Aid 30, released in 2014. It was a noble cause, recognizing that hunger is a political problem; and one that the creation of more food and its unfettered, humane distribution can ameliorate. Today, however, the EU supports farmland eradication to prevent climate change. If one wonders how the elites can promote and impose this policy to reduce the amount of food available in world where hunger has not been eradicated, one should acquaint themselves with the works of Thomas Robert Malthus.

As for the aforementioned Leftist propensity to survey the disastrous consequences of their policies and proclaim them virtuous victories as they erect a world-wide welfare state of soul crushing dependency and serfdom for the masses, I suggest one acquaints themselves with The New York Times’ reporter Walter Duranty’s deceitful and despicable articles claiming there was no Holodomor famine in the “workers’ paradise” that was Stalin’s famine-ravished Ukraine – though, a warning: don’t hold your breath until the Pultizer Prize Board revokes his award.

President Trump Shows Rare Moment of Emotion During Speach About How Our Great Nation Is Being Destroyed

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

The first discussion of this moment appeared on Twitter, where several people were caught off guard by how President Trump seemed to become emotional as he discussed our great nation and the damage that is being done to it.  From Twitter, the video segment started to be shared and quickly became viral.

After eight continuous years of constant attacks, simply because President Trump demands we put America First, the recap of his speech focusing on how great our nation really can be started to hit a core nerve in the otherwise indefatigable candidate. The American people know how much Donald J. Trump loves this country, and watching the man in the arena fight for all of us is something quite remarkable, and yes, emotional.

We have all experienced that moment, it comes from deep inside, that moment when the knot we keep buried begins to surface. That moment when we look away from the face in front of us…. that moment when the callouses we have developed on the inside start to fail… We all know this feeling, this moment…  WATCH [6:00:49 Prompted]:

President Trump has something behind him, something holding him in the gap.  He has the power and favor of the purest truth around him, and he has the support of a grateful nation.

Massive numbers of Americans, far more than the corrupt system operators would like to admit, are standing with President Trump as our gloriously imperfect vessel to destroy all their schemes.

It is the most remarkable moment in history as one man stands the gap and fearlessly faces down the combined effort of decades of political corruption.

It truly is inspiring.

The Authoritarian Left Is Ramping up its War on Free Speech. We Better Be Ready to Fight

posted by Jeff Charles at RedStateVIP 

The authoritarian left is escalating its war on free speech. The right to freely express one’s views has stood as one of the most fundamental pillars of American society. Unfortunately, some on the hard left have decided that protecting this right is problematic – especially when it comes to speech that contradicts their ideology.

This appears to be what is motivating the Department of Education (DOE) under President Joe Biden to launch a civil rights investigation into New College of Florida after one of its trustees, Christopher Rufo, committed the unpardonable sin of misgendering someone.

RedState’s Bonchie reported:

Joe Biden's Department of Education has opened a civil rights investigation into Christopher Rufo and New College of Florida. The alleged violations cited included "misgendering" and the closing of the school's diversity, equity, and inclusion department.

Rufo shared the news on social media and posted some of the "evidence" being used. In one example, he is accused of "misgendering" the school's former DEI head, Yoleidy Rosario-Hernandez (a biological woman), who claims to go by fake pronouns "ze/zir." Rufo reportedly called her a "her" and a "she."

In a post on his Substack, Rufo explained other aspects of the investigation:

The investigation stems from a complaint by unnamed “students, faculty, and staff” alleging, in part, that the college’s trustees and administrators violated civil rights law by removing “gender neutral” signage from bathrooms, defunding the DEI and gender studies programs, and “misgendering” the former DEI director, who uses “ze/zir” pseudo-pronouns.

Rufo also argued that this effort “is a brazen attempt to subvert the democratic governance of New College and entrench left-wing ideological programs under the guise of civil rights law.”

What makes this development even more critical is the potential for criminal charges. As Bonchie pointed out:

According to the Department of Education's website, if its civil rights investigation finds fault and the targeted parties do not comply with whatever ruling is made (including actions to be taken), a criminal referral can then be made to the DOJ.

If this is the case, then when drawn out to its logical conclusion, it means the federal government could end up sending men with guns and badges to arrest people and throw them in cages for not adhering to the precepts of wokeism. This is leaps and bounds more dangerous than cancel culture, is it not?

This move on the part of the Biden administration is not merely about the use of pronouns. Rather, it signifies a much broader issue and underscores a shift towards criminalizing speech that does not conform to the mandates of the authoritarian left.

For starters, mandating the use of specific language is a direct assault on the First Amendment, which is intended to protect our freedom to freely express our ideas. It is meant to protect all speech, even that which is unpopular or offensive. The government should not be in the business of deciding what people can and cannot say under the threat of punishment. It especially should not be allowed to do this under the guise of protecting civil rights, which have nothing to do with how one feels about gender ideology.

As Rufo suggested, this probe is not about ensuring justice. Instead, it is a weaponization of the state to advance and protect far-leftist ideological perspectives. It is not at all in line with the notion that natural and constitutional rights should be defended. From where I sit, this story is a harbinger of what is to come. It is another step towards criminalizing certain types of speech, just like what is happening in countries like Canada and the United Kingdom. If successful, it could pave the way for authoritarian leftists to use the world’s most dangerous weapon against their political opponents: The United States government.

We have already seen how folks on the left are more than willing to wield the power of the state as a cudgel against those who do not share their views – especially when it concerns former President Donald Trump and his supporters. There can be no doubt that these people wish to expand their efforts to control those who do not think as they do. When it comes to the ongoing debate over speech, this story will be one to watch closely.

Eric Adams Is A Democrat So It’s No Longer Hateful To Oppose Uncontrolled Mass Migration

Nothing has changed about the border and immigration crisis. The only difference for The New York Times is that Eric Adams is a Democrat.

Eddie Scarry reporting for The Federalist

A favorite pastime of mine is watching how quickly the national media discover nuance and complexity in a tragedy once it’s a Democrat who’s at the root of it.

Political violence committed by a Republican? Right-wing, pro-gun, white supremacist inspired by Fox News and Donald Trump’s hateful rhetoric!

Political violence committed by a Democrat? Well, there’s plenty of blame to go around, and both sides need to do their part in bringing down the temperature a little.

Deadly virus spreading under a Republican administration? Mismanagement, ineptitude, willful ignorance, science denial!

Deadly virus spreading under a Democrat administration? Well, it’s the nature of a virus to spread, and the population density and age are factors — plus it’s up to the individual to do his part.

And now that major Democrat-run cities are well into a second year managing the influx of illegal border crossers by the tens of thousands, immigration isn’t so black-and-white either.

New York Mayor Eric Adams was featured in a viral video this week wherein he said some very interesting things about the unabated stream of migrants bused from Texas into his city, where residents get the privilege of bathing, clothing, feeding, and housing them all at taxpayers’ expense. That’s money that doesn’t get to be spent on things like homeless shelters, police, and more public services that would otherwise go to actual Americans and legal residents.

“We have a $12 billion deficit that we’re going to have to cut,” Adams said. “Every service in this city is going to be impacted.” But what he said thereafter was even more urgent. “They’re destroying New York City,” he said. “It’s going to come to your neighborhoods. All of us are going to be impacted by this. … The city we knew, we’re about to lose.”

I remember a certain someone who spoke of the mass migration problem in similar terms.

Trump, October 2018: “This is an invasion of our Country…”

During that time, a month ahead of the midterm elections, Trump was warning about the so-called “caravan” of several thousand migrants marching from Central America to the U.S., where they would demand entry and all the perks that come from scamming our laughable asylum policy.

Here’s the headline The New York Times ran the same day as Trump’s remark: “How Trump-Fed Conspiracy Theories About Migrant Caravan Intersect With Deadly Hatred.” The corresponding article used the words “alarmist,” “hatred,” “paranoia” and “conspiratorial” to describe Trump’s posture.

By contrast, an article in the Times on what Adams said in the video merely noted that the mayor “has struggled to provide housing and services to the migrants” and said that his outcry was an “escalation” of rhetoric. To the extent there was anything remarkable about Adams’ comments at all, the Times allowed that they were “his most ominous yet.”

And just like that, the border crisis isn’t about “hatred” and “paranoia.” It’s about a mayor’s struggle!

Nothing really changed here. The border has been a mess for years. The problems that come with crushing migration from Latin America’s most destitute nations are still the same. The only difference is that it’s now a prominent Democrat at the center of it.

Newsom Just Accidentally Revealed the Reason He Is Not Running for POTUS in 2024

Becca Lower reporting for RedState 

If someone wanted to find a California politician who is more crooked, conniving, and self-serving than former senator and current Vice President Kamala Harris, you could do worse than turning your attention to the Golden State's chief executive, Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom.

Newsom is well known in these pages for his draconian COVID lockdown policies during the coronavirus pandemic, which only served to highlight his hypocrisy when he didn't bother to abide by them himself. This is in addition to his slavish advocacy for pro-abortion and anti-gun legislation -- both at the state and federal levels. Don't forget that he has doubled down on calling for a new, 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which, as my colleague Matt Dempsey wrote, "would completely gut the Second Amendment as we know it." So, far, he's managed to push it into consideration by a California state Senate committee.

Beyond those dangerous and wrongheaded policy prescriptions (among others; find them in the links at the end), he's possibly going to debate 2024 Republican presidential candidate and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. It seems the California governor might be trying to walk back his request, though. No one really knows why Newsom even suggested it, but it's part of the bizarre political landscape we find ourselves in heading into the general election.

Maybe some of the answers will come this weekend. NBC News’ "Meet the Press" invited Newsom to sit down for an interview, which will air in full on Sunday. As my colleague Bob Hoge reported in June, this will be moderator Chuck Todd's final episode as the show's moderator. So far, the network has released a snippet in advance, and there are some mighty interesting tidbits in it -- including his making news about whether he's mulling a 2024 presidential run.

But before we get to that, here is Todd asking Newsom what he thinks "another four years of Donald Trump" in the White House "would look like":

That's not exactly what Newsom says, as you can hear in the video. He slams DeSantis both directly and indirectly, by saying that "Trumpism" (he means conservatives here, not just Trump supporters) is more dangerous than anything. Of course, he trots out the ominous narrative that Democracy is in peril if any Republican wins the White House. It's only at the end that he shares his alleged insights into what's in Trump's heart, which is frankly pretty creepy.

The largest part of the preview, though, is on whether he would run for the 2024 Democrat nomination, or challenge Harris for it -- should Biden, for whatever reason, not run for reelection:

CHUCK TODD: Filing deadlines haven't passed. President Biden doesn't run, why shouldn't we consider you a likely candidate?

 GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM: Well, I think the vice president is naturally the one lined up and the filing deadlines are quickly coming to pass and I think we need to move past this notion that he's not going to run. President Biden is going to run, and looking forward to getting him reelected. I think there's been so much wallowing in the last few months, and handwringing in this respect. But we're gearing up for the campaign. We're looking forward to it.

CHUCK TODD: I understand –you know, but you hear these calls privately. What do you tell these donors who are wallowing in this?

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM: Time to move on. Let's go.

CHUCK TODD: And am I supposed to interpret that comment about the vice president that if for some reason the president chose not to run at this point –

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM: Well it’s the natural –

CHUCK TODD: – everybody rallies around her?

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM: It's the Biden-Harris administration. Maybe I'm a little old-fashioned –

CHUCK TODD: And you respect that?

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM: Maybe I'm a little old-fashioned about, you know, presidents and vice presidents. I was a lieutenant governor, so I'm a little subjective.

I think Newsom has definitively put to bed any notion that he's running for president here, with that smart follow-up question by Todd about Harris. But with Newsom, you have to take whatever he says with a grain of salt. Even so, I think his posturing in recent months has been misread -- and now it's clear why. 

Anyone with a dash of cynicism must ask themselves about any politician: What's in it for him or her? Let's mull over a couple of alternate options first: To me, the least likely reason he is saying this now is that he's flat-out lying about his ambitions for 2024. This would be akin to eight-dimensional chess, and I just don't buy it from the guy.

Another possibility is that there's some sort of deal in place or loyalty to Harris. It's possible he's in line to get an ambassadorship or even more prized -- a cabinet post -- in a second Biden - or first Harris - administration. The reason this has merit comes from reading between the lines from the interview:

The governor described his relationship with the vice president, a former senator from California, as an "extraordinarily close working relationship," stemming from before they were in politics. He said they privately continue to "maintain a very good relationship."

"We’ve had the opportunity to sit down, have lunch together in the White House, spend time talking about important things," Newsom said.

When asked whether he could imagine running against her, Newsom replied: "Of course not. By definition. Won’t happen."

That aside, the simplest and most likely reason is that he's trying to help the progressive Democrats retain power -- and the tell on this is his attacks on conservative policies hammered out by Republican legislatures in red states. That's why he is so vociferous in his railing against Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. 

And the Left knows that any damage that's inflicted on DeSantis, who is still very much in contention for the GOP nomination -- helps the eventual Democrat nominee, whether that's Biden, Harris, or someone else in 2024.

Biden Busted for Plagiarism Yet Again

Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

Joe Biden has a history of making things up and saying things that are not true. 

We saw an example of that problem recently when he exaggerated the small kitchen fire at his home in 2004 that the firefighters put out in twenty minutes. He claimed that he almost lost his wife, his 67 Corvette, and his cat. Worse, he said that to survivors of the Maui fire, some of whom had lost everything including their homes and their family members. He was chastised by Hawaiian Rent-All business, with a sign saying sorry that he almost lost his Corvette with an accompanying Facebook post that it wasn't "always about you." 

Biden's history of making things up goes back decades, indeed for most of his political life. He infamously had to drop out of the 1988 Presidential race because he said false things about his background and plagiarized other politicians. His plagiarism in law school was also exposed at that time. 

Now there's a new accusation of plagiarism -- that Biden plagiarized part of an article that he sent to the Harvard Journal on Legislation for publication when he was a senator. The student who was supposed to check the citation on the article and who caught the plagiarism was Roger Severino, who is now the Vice President of the Heritage Foundation. Severino detailed to Fox's Jesse Watters what happened after he discovered multiple instances of plagiarism. ,

Severino said that after he pointed it out, expecting that the piece would be rejected for plagiarism, instead the editor just added citations and pretended as if it had never happened. 

Severino pointed out how this involved "mosaic plagiarism" -- changing a couple of words to make it harder to pick up but that this showed consciousness of guilt. 

Plus this was after that huge scandal when he had to drop out of the 1988 race, so Biden already was called out for this, it cost him a lot, and still, there he was allegedly engaging in more plagiarism. 

As Watters said, "He's learned nothing" and he still did it again. That's perhaps one of the most troubling things about Biden. Not just that he does such things, but that even after he's exposed for saying things that aren't true, he does it again. Even after the horrible falsehood to the people in Maui and all the backlash, Biden then told that story about the fire yet again, claiming that half his house "almost collapsed." 

Watters talks about Biden's insecurity and I think that's right. But it also seems like psychopathy at this point. That's a dangerous thing when his need to say things that aren't true trumps reality.