Thursday, November 21, 2024

Why Again Do We Still Have a Special Relationship With the Tyrannical UK?


America and the United Kingdom have long had a special relationship, working closely as allies to protect the West from oppressive dictatorships that suppress their own people, arbitrarily jailing them and persecuting them for exercising their God-given right of free speech. Here’s the problem. The UK has become one of those oppressive dictatorships that suppress their own people, arbitrarily jailing them and persecuting them for exercising their God-given right of free speech. And I’m not particularly interested in having a special relationship with a country like that. Nor are many other Americans. 

Great Britain has always had a fraught relationship with freedom, at least regarding people who aren’t British. In its glorious imperialist era, when its colonialism brought the light of civilization to a huge swath of the world, it presumed to tell us Americans what we could and could not do. At Lexington and Concord, 250 years ago this spring, a bunch of redcoats tried to take our guns. We shot them. And we kept shooting them until they went home. But no hard feelings – they even burned down much of Washington, DC, during the War of 1812 as a gesture of friendship to the American people.

Still, our special relationship was built upon a shared reverence for the basic tenets of freedom that the British themselves pioneered. From the Magna Carta to the rise of Parliament and the restraining of their inbred royal rulers, the British set the template for freedom, and we Americans took it to the next level. We wrote our Constitution with a Bill of Rights that addressed some of the presumptuous impositions the British had tried to inflict upon us Americans. The First Amendment was one of the key rights. So was the Second. The Brits had been jerks to us until we shot them and they went crying back to their godforsaken moist and frigid island, but they largely treated their own people well. You could speak freely. You could say things that offended the elite. The idea that you might be tossed into the stony lonesome for sounding off was completely alien to them. And that unique reverence for individual rights was why we could have a special relationship with people who have terrible teeth and food and insist on calling a car’s trunk a “boot.” 

And that relationship was sealed with blood. Americans and Brits fought together in World War I, World War II, Korea, Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan. And the Brits were hella fighters, too, if you put aside how we kicked their butts. Those lads knew how to take care of business, whether they were fighting a Zulu or a Nazi. They were part of our team in Desert Storm when I was there, and we worked with them in Kosovo when I was there. I’ve got a lot of respect for their soldiers.

But many Americans don’t respect the UK anymore, and it’s all the UK’s fault.

It’s tempting to think that something of the old British Spirit passed away when their magnificent Queen Elizabeth II passed away. This indomitable woman took no grief, but she also presided over a free country. Her lame son doesn’t. Great Britain is not so great anymore. Not to put too fine a point on it, you can now be arrested and imprisoned for tweeting things. Think about that. You can say something, and then cops can come to your house and haul you away to jail, maybe for years longer than actual criminals, because you’ve said something. This is part of a two-tier “justice” system aimed squarely at regular Englishmen with the intent of silencing and disenfranchising them. This is intolerable to any lover of freedom, although the British – by giving up their guns – ensured they can do nothing about it. 

And there are other outrages, too. Keir Starmer, the degenerate communist who got about 30-some percent of the vote and now rules like a dictator, freed criminals, you know, the ones who’ve committed actual crimes, so that he can fill up the jails with people whose “crimes” are dissenting and opposing him. They’re also in the process of culling the kulaks by engaging in a vendetta against rural farmers that uses the inheritance tax to pry them off the land they occupied for generations. Let’s also put aside that the Labour government has been absolutely clear that they consider Donald Trump, and we who voted for him, to be Nazis, which is really weird because the Labour government is channeling the Nazis. You see, Nazis put people in jail for saying things. If you do that, you’re like a Nazi. Fortunately, I’m in a free country, despite the best efforts of Kamala Harris and her voters, and I can say that without having some flatfoot pound on my door demanding that I explain my free speech upon pain of imprisonment. Of course, the Brits are fantasizing about arresting American Elon Musk for tolerating free speech.

Once, the idea that the UK would someday be ruled by a glorified human resources department backed up by the police would have been simply insane. But now it’s reality. It’s also unacceptable. This means that we, as Americans, must not accept it.

American patriots have noticed what’s happening across the pond. We are already reviewing America’s foreign policy in general, challenging some of the assumptions that have guided us since World War II. And now we’re challenging the idea that we should have a special relationship with a country whose leadership differs in its oppression and suppression of basic civil rights from Vladimir Putin’s Russia only in degree. Vladimir Putin will put you in jail if you say something that he doesn’t like. And Keir Starmer will put you in jail if you say something that he doesn’t like.

We Americans don’t particularly want to put our blood and treasure on the line for a country that does that. We’re supposed to be fighting against dictatorships, not being their buddies. And what do we lose by the UK ending our special relationship by becoming tyrannical? Not much. Uh oh, no more Coldplay – don’t throw us in that briar patch. And yes, I know we have long-standing connections with the British as far as our military and our intelligence agencies. But you know what wouldn’t fill up the Rose Bowl? The entire British Navy. They barely have an army anymore either. The British have chosen to stop having an effective military. And why have they done this? Well, their Labour government is communist, but you can’t blame it all on Labour. The Conservatives, who were not in any way conservative, suck too. They let the military wither and are not much better on free speech. This censorship campaign ramped up under Starmer, but it started under the Conservative governments. I’m trying to imagine Maggie Thatcher, who is the subject of the most brutal and bitter contempt by her fellow subjects, sending cops out to round up her opponents and throw them in jail. It didn’t happen, and it never would’ve happened because she respected the right of people to speak freely, including idiots, morons, and commie halfwits. But she also didn’t have to because, unlike the Conservatives and Labour of 2024, she did not represent a failed ruling elite that can only hang onto power by force and by suppressing the truth about its corruption and incompetence.

It is degrading to the United States of America to be in a special relationship with a country that puts people in jail for saying things. We are better than that. I thought the British were better than that, but apparently, they’re not. They seem to be tolerating this. Many of them seem to be giddy about it. And to be fair, many Americans would be perfectly happy to put their fellow Americans in jail for saying things if they could do that. But, of course, they can’t do that here. We have a written Constitution and a Supreme Court that enforces it. We are also armed to the teeth. Putting people in jail for saying things is the kind of thing that could spark a civil war, just like keeping people in chains as property once did. And, of course, any government that oppresses its own people by jailing them should they speak unapproved things deserves to be overthrown.

Such a nation certainly does not deserve to be in a special relationship with the United States of America. We are better than that. The UK, as currently constituted, is unworthy. It’s a petty dictatorship. It’s sad.

Maybe there’s some spirit left in the British people that will lead them to vote out these tyrants, assuming they’re allowed to vote against, or even publicly oppose, the current government. We have seen courageous people there speak out. Nigel Farage, Tommy Robinson, and J. K. Rowling have all spoken out against the party line. One of the three is currently in jail. How long the other two remain free is an open question.

Fortunately, the Trump administration understands the value of civil rights, largely because this Democrat administration and its allies so grossly violated our new president’s civil rights. We supporters of President Trump have been intermittently and temporarily silenced and censored, but only in a few rare instances have people been arrested for saying things. That was a big issue in our election. We’ve drawn the line here, and free speech is going to reign supreme in America. But until it reigns supreme in Britain once again, and I hope it does, the UK can go have a special relationship with itself.



X22, And we Know, and more- Nov 21

 




Ukraine’s Courage & Strength Has Bought The Free World Time To Prepare For War.

 November 20, 2024

It’s Time For Us To Stop Squandering It.

Our leaders need to match their rhetoric with action.

It’s now over 1000 days since Russia invaded Ukraine.

In that time, Ukraine has paid a massive price for having the courage to resist the fascist Russian regime:

Unfortunately, many in the West fail to understand the scale of what Ukraine has managed to achieve, and many fail to understand how much we have benefitted from Ukraine’s courage.

Remember, Russia is a hostile nation. They are led by a regime that wants to overturn the liberal democratic world order. Russia wants Canada, the United States, and our allies to be weaker.

What does that mean for you?

If Russia were to get it’s way, every free nation would be isolated and vulnerable. We would all be much poorer, as international trade would be a fraction of what it is today. To survive without alliances, we would have to spend at least 5% of GDP on our military (and possibly even more).

If you think life is expensive now, imagine what the cost-of-living would be like if global trade collapsed and we were forced into a full war economy…

Additionally, we would face the constant threat of terror attacks and internal division, with our citizens manipulated into hating each other rather than focusing on external threats.

This is already starting to happen, but it can still be stopped.

And it can still be stopped because Ukrainians are fighting back.

Russia has taken immense casualties in Ukraine, and have run down a huge portion of their pre-war stocks of Soviet-era equipment.

Remember, that Soviet-era equipment was meant to be used against NATO countries – including Canadian soldiers. Instead, much of that equipment no longer exists, because Ukraine’s brave defenders destroyed it.

This is why the current anti-Ukraine narrative pushed by many on the far-left and far-right is not only morally reprehensible but also completely backwards.

You’ll notice that critiques of aiding Ukraine always talk as if we are doing Ukraine a favour by providing weapons, but they never mention what Ukraine is doing for us.

The reality is that the Ukrainian People are the ones doing the free world a favour, by resisting Russia and grinding down their stocks of military equipment.

Without any foreign boots on the ground, Ukraine is facing off against an enemy that would – if it was capable of it – seek to rebuild the Soviet Union through a brutal campaign of conquest across Europe, which would draw in nations like Canada and the United States.

Had Russia rolled over Ukraine and incorporated even a fraction of Ukraine’s manpower and military production capacity, we could be facing down WW3 in Europe.

Essentially, we should be the ones thanking the Ukrainian People for holding off Russia, rather than expecting the Ukrainian People to thank us for providing them with weapons.

Ukraine has bought us time. But we’re squandering it.

While the rhetoric of many Western leaders regarding Ukraine has been laudable, actions have not always matched up.

In the 1000+ days since Russia invaded Ukraine, many of our leaders have failed to take advantage of the fact that Russia was bogged down in Ukraine, and have failed to provide the level of support Ukraine needs.

For example, countries like Canada should have immediately ramped up artillery shell production after Russia’s invasion began. This would have enabled us to both replenish our own stocks, and provide more assistance to Ukraine.

But this was not done.

We also should have formed partnerships with companies like Germany’s Rheinmetall to build tank factories in Canada while investing in military recruitment and R&D.

Furthermore, the Prime Minister should have addressed the nation and explained to Canadians that we were in a different world now, a world where credible military power is a necessity, not a luxury.

But again, this was not done.

Over and over again, our leaders – along with the leaders in many Western nations – spoke as if we were in an existential battle while acting as if it was business as usual.

This has come at a cost.

Russia – despite taking massive casualties – is continuing to ramp up its military industry.

China is engaged in the world’s largest military build-up since WW2.

North Korea is sending troops to fight on Russia’s side against Ukraine, and has provided Russia with more artillery shells than North America & Europe combined have sent to Ukraine.

Iranian drones are being utilized by Russia, and China-Russia economic cooperation is keeping Russia’s overheating war economy afloat.

Our enemies are gearing up for a long and brutal war, while many of us in the West pretend nothing is going on.

Our enemy gets a vote

This is where it is essential for us to shed our naivety and our narcissim. We have long lived in a world where the West could almost singlehandedly dictate the course of events, and this has led us to forget that our enemy gets a ‘vote’ in the direction of world events.

You’ll often hear people say they ‘don’t want war,’ as if that magically undoes Russia & China’s massive military build up. People will say they ‘support peace,’ as if that stops Vladimir Putin & Xi Jinping from dreaming of wars of imperial conquest.

The fact is that it if our enemies want war, it ultimately doesn’t matter what we want. It just takes one side to start a war, and once a war is under way, the only choice is whether to surrender or fight.

We simply cannot afford to indulge in magical thinking. We can’t pretend that repeating ‘I don’t want war’ as some sort of mantra is anything other than a naive attempt to evade the rising threats we face and pretend all is well against all evidence.

So long as Russia and China – and their proxy regimes like Iran and North Korea – are led by people who desire war and conquest, we must recognize that peace may not be in the cards for us in the coming years.

Ukraine’s courage – along with Israel’s resolve in fighting Iran-backed terror groups – has given us the chance to finally wake up and start building up our military strength.

Along with continuing to provide military aid, this is the best way for us to show gratitude to the brave Ukrainian People. They have shown the courage to fight for their freedom, and we must ensure we have the capacity to do the same.

Spencer Fernando  

https://spencerfernando.com/2024/11/20/ukraines-courage-strength-has-bought-the-free-world-time-to-prepare-for-war-its-time-for-us-to-stop-squandering-it/

The Russians are right. Joe Biden is doing everything he can to prolong this war.

The Confirmation Wars


If you know anything about Washington, D.C., you know that lying and backstabbing are routine. Your enemies lie, and, often, your friends lie -- or those you assume are friends. In Washington, hidden motives are a given. Sleight of hand is a card shark’s trick perfected in D.C.

When it comes to confirming Matt Gaetz as attorney general, Pete Hegseth as DoD chief, Tulsi Gabbard as DNI director, Kristi Noem at Homeland Security, and John Ratcliffe at CIA, it’s a given that hyperpartisan Democrats are going to fight their nominations. That’s as sure as it gets. But then there are establishment Republicans and pliable conservatives with hidden agendas, too. They have reasons to see Trump fail.

Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk will head the “Department of Government Efficiency” or DOGE. DOGE is meant to swoop in to compel swift and dramatic overhaul of executive departments and agencies. That includes slashing Uncle Sam’s workforce in the tens of thousands.

Said Ramaswamy to Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo:

"The people who we elect to run the government -- they're NOT the ones who actually run the government. It's the unelected bureaucrats in the administrative state -- that was CREATED through executive action... it's gonna be FIXED through executive action."

Part of DOGE’s success hinges on Trump having his nominees confirmed. Ideally, they’ll be in place to work hand-in-glove with Ramaswamy and Musk.

The nominees mentioned are particularly critical (the FBI nomination is vacant as of this writing). Law, defense, and security and intelligence portfolios are the muscle and sinew of big government and underpin the incipient tyranny we’ve experienced for four long years. It’s imperative to overhaul those key departments and agencies. Forever wars and military adventurism need to end. Our liberties require greater safeguards. The confirmation fights involving those offices are the makings of an epic struggle. The struggle is about to get intense and nasty.

Republicans enjoy a modest Senate majority. There are enough RINOs in the GOP caucus to make trouble for Trump. Doddering Mitch McConnell has just pledged that there won’t be any recess appointments for Trump. Evidently, no one reminded McConnell that he’s no longer the GOP leader. But he still has a vote, as do other anti-Trump Republicans. The window for confirming nominees is smaller than some may appreciate. Protracted confirmations work for Trump’s opponents and are slow-bleed deaths.

Trump’s election mandate -- both his Electoral College and popular vote thumpings of Kamala Harris -- has stunned D.C. lifers, including Republicans. Washington elites and corporate media have been rocked back on their heels, though in the last few days, we’re seeing them recover some footing. False allegations have begun flying.

Allegations of sexual impropriety are being leveled by corporate media against Hegseth and Gaetz. That’s right from the “Get Trump” playbook. Trump has been dogged by baseless charges -- criminal and civil -- of sexual misconduct since running for president in 2015. He’s appealing the absurd E. Jean Carroll verdict in blue-biased Manhattan.

Hegseth is also taking flak from establishment media for sporting a tattoo of the “Jerusalem Cross.” The tattoo is clearly meant to proclaim his Christian faith. Media is alleging it’s a white supremacist insignia. They damn well know better. Democrat representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz is in full character assassination mode, branding Tulsi Gabbard a “Russian asset” -- that’s Army Reserve Lt. Col. Tulsi Gabbard, whose record of service is unblemished. John Brennan, a college communist and a master smearer, accuses Gabbard of being an “apologist for Putin.” If Gabbard can sue for defamation, she should.

Those are only opening salvos in attempts to destroy Trump’s picks. Salvos will continue and increase in the coming weeks. Call them rangefinders. To counteract the media’s efforts to pick off his nominees one at a time, Trump and his team blitz-announced his major nominees, knowing that sequential announcements spaced throughout the transition would have left Trump’s picks highly vulnerable.

In the coming weeks, and into his term of office, Trump’s mandate will lessen as events overtake the freshness of his win. Trump is aware of this. He struck hard bargains with each of the contenders for the GOP Senate leadership job -- but especially with John Thune, who was the leading contender. Thune won. In exchange for Trump staying out of the Senate leadership battle, Thune pledged not to delay Trump’s nominees. Unlike his long-time mentor, Mitch McConnell, Thune has declared that he’s open to recess appointments ifnecessary. With Thune, though, there’s a huge “trust but verify” factor.

In the wake of the 2020 elections, Trump established the America First Policy Institute, a D.C.-based collection of veteran conservative policymakers and Trump loyalists. They’ve hammered out many of the policy prescriptions that Trump has featured. AFPI pros have also helped identify candidates for roles in Trump’s second administration.

Make no mistake, Trump means for his presidency to initiate historic, ground-shifting change. Think Franklin Roosevelt and the 1932 elections, when the Roosevelt coalition won a landslide victory over Herbert Hoover and the Republicans. The GOP’s long political dominance -- starting with Lincoln and extended by William McKinley’s election in 1896 -- came to a crashing finish.

The longer Progressive Era, with its many chapters, has been disintegrating since the 1960s. Trump seeks to inaugurate an “Era of Common Sense,” driven less by ideology and more by practical solutions to the nation’s many problems. Trump does mean to return government to a more limited, traditional framework.

Trump’s nominees -- named and to be named -- pose mortal threats to the culture that’s grown up in Washington over 90 years. Incomes, careers, and lifestyles are at stake. Business as usual in Washington is bad for average folk, but has been a boon to politicians, bureaucrats, government contractors, and hordes of consultants. Some of the wealthiest counties in the U.S. are in the D.C. metro area.

Government has been corrupted and infested with leftist militants. A newer generation of leftists -- led by an older generation of power-hungry Democrats -- have sought to trample our constitutional rights -- starting with the 1st and 2nd Amendments -- to centralize elections in Congress, unleash the DoJ, FBI, IRS, and other powerful federal agencies on average citizens who won’t knuckle under.

Trump’s nominations are the first in a series of critical steps designed to seize government and change its course, and in so doing, change the nation’s trajectory. No small feat, but Donald Trump doesn’t think small. Nothing is guaranteed, though. Losing momentum is the greatest danger in the early going.

With both houses of Congress under Republican control -- albeit by slim margins -- the game is for Trump and his White House team to engage congressional Republicans using carrots and sticks. Just four GOP senators (expect Dave McCormick to be seated) bolting spells trouble. Conservative grassroots and alternative media need to be brought to bear routinely.

Democrats and their corporate media allies have easier jobs: Make enough noise and kick up enough dust to provide cover for anti-Trump or weak-kneed Senate Republicans to vote against key nominations or stonewall them out of existence. The 2026 midterm elections will see more Republican than Democrat senate seats up. You can bet reelection is top of mind for that class of GOP senators. Speed is Trump’s best ally.

Getting Trump’s nominees confirmed will be a fireworks spectacular. Getting John Thune and Mike Johnson and their lieutenants to keep their caucuses together to move Trump’s legislative agenda as a compliment to, or an expansion of, Trump’s executive actions, will be a prodigious effort. The first half of 2025 will be a mad dash. Mandates don’t last. Politicians waver. Get ready for a helluva show.




Getting the States In Line on Immigration Enforcement


In the wake of the Democrat wipeout on November 5 and the tapping of Tom Homan as President Trump’s “border czar,” Democrat governors are busy trying to build a new “blue wall” to shield illegal aliens from promised immigration law enforcement. “Governors Safeguarding Democracy” is a new organization designed to stymie Trump initiatives in blue states. New Jersey governor Phil Murphy pledges to stand up “if there is an attack on the Garden State or any of its communities from Washington,” pledging “I will fight back with every fiber of my being.”

What does Phil Murphy envision? Donald Trump in a rowboat, flag in hand, crossing the Delaware on Christmas Night to attack Trenton? Given the outfit now holding the state capital, this New Jerseyan thinks that wouldn’t be a bad idea.

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (co-founder with Colorado’s Jared Polis of “Governors Safeguarding Democracy) promises to block federal interferencein the Land of Lincoln. While I have no doubt a J.B. Pritzker body block would be formidable, I think we can circumvent him.

These Democrats are channeling their inner George Wallace, promising to resist federal encroachment on their “state’s rights.” Consider the paradox: Democrats finally found the Tenth Amendment.

Except news flash to J.B., Phil, Kathy, Gavin, Gretchen, Maureen, Jared, and Ned: immigration is a federal priority.

That was your argument when Republican governors in Texas and Arizonatried to fill the vacuum caused by Obama's and Biden's non-enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Now that President-Elect Trump is committed to seeing the INA is “well and faithfully executed” -- as the Presidential Oath of Office requires -- just step aside.

Now, I never believed the argument that federal immigration jurisdiction preempted state cooperation with federal authorities. It only preempts, in my view, undermining federal enforcement, certainly actively but even passively.

One way “sanctuary” states and cities have refused to enforce federal immigration law has been how they handle criminals. Verifying whether people who are arrested have a right to be here should be a no-brainer. When we look at how most Blue States are governed, “no-brainer” seems like an apt description.

“Sanctuary” states do not verify immigration status and do not honor “retainers,” i.e., requests by federal law enforcement to hold someone otherwise to be released when federal immigration is interested in them. This should stop.

Liberals used to claim the immigration system is flawed because employers do not verify employment eligibility and, therefore, Republican corporate typeswere as much to blame for illegal immigration as Democrats. There’s something to that argument, which simply means we should enhance the penalties for failing to verify employment eligibility status and/or hiring in violation of ineligibility. (Of course, most leftists have moved beyond “employers aren’t vetting illegals” to “no matter what, our economy will tank without them regardless of eligibility”).

That also means we need to break down some of the federal siloes that result in Social Security and other agencies not robustly interacting to track down fake users of Social Security numbers or verifying mismatched numbers and names.

All that said, however, if we expect employers to verify the right of somebody to work here, it’s legitimate to expect law enforcement – any law enforcement – to verify whether somebody in custody has a right to be here.

It is simply ludicrous to contend that “it’s not my job.” If you detain a man who’s wanted in the next state for rape, you don’t say, “Well, he didn’t do it in Illinois, so good luck, be well, you might want to avoid Indiana.” If you hold a man in California, run his name, and discover he’s wanted in Arizona for “breaking and entering,” you don’t say (well, it’s California, you might): “You’re free to go, just don’t book any flights to Tucson.” If you can be extradited for breaking and entering a house, why are you immune for breaking and entering America’s house?

How to solve the “Blue Wall?” I suggest combined regulations and law changes. Require states to run immigration status, notwithstanding any state rules. Try it as a regulation: the worst that can happen is dragging through the courts.

Obviously, the best thing is to make it federal law. While at it, let’s adopt the Frank Lautenberg approach, used to strongarm recalcitrant states into increasing their drinking age. Any state that fails to enforce federal immigration law, at least with regard to detainees (and possibly if requested in conjunction with raids on illegals) should forfeit, say, 25% of federal law enforcement assistance money. Why should America’s taxpayers be paying full aid to states that don’t provide full legal enforcement aid?

“This will spike crime,” you say. Well, yes, it might. And perhaps that is the unfortunate cost of forcing otherwise myopic blue cities and states -- which are often leaders in crime statistics anyway -- to reckon with the costs of selective law enforcement. Either locals will pay more for law enforcement, or they will face the consequences – and wake up to the consequences of retrograde criminal justice policies that subsidies from more responsible states are buffering.

It’s tough love… but that’s what’s needed to reverse our downward spiral and make America great again.



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Judge Rules MSNBC Pundit Potentially Defamed Trump Attorney

Stefan Passantino sued Andrew Weissmann last year after the former deputy to Special Counsel Robert Mueller claimed the Trump-world attorney ‘coached [Cassidy Hutchinson] to lie.’



A federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled an online claim made by a legal analyst at MSNBC against a former White House attorney in the Trump administration is potentially defamatory.

In September, U.S. District Court Judge Loren AliKhan denied a motion from MSNBC legal analyst and attorney Andrew Weissmann to dismiss a complaint filed by Stefan Passantino, who represented former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson before she became the Jan. 6 Committee’s star witness.

Passantino had previously served as head deputy ethics counsel in the Trump White House and was Hutchinson’s attorney when she was initially questioned by the House Democrats’ Soviet-style inquisition run by then-Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney. Hutchinson fired Passantino, who was being paid by the Save America PAC, when she decided to change her testimony before the House committee and make a series of outlandish claims immediately discredited by her own named sources.

Passantino sued Weissmann last year after the former deputy to Special Counsel Robert Mueller claimed the Trump-world attorney “coached her to lie.”

“This is an insidious lie,” Passantino’s lawsuit reads. “Ms. Hutchinson even testified, under penalty of law: ‘I want to make this clear to you: Stefan [Passantino] never told me to lie. … He told me not to lie.”

Hutchinson’s testimony can be found on page 42 of the publicly available transcript from her Sept. 14, 2022, interview with the Jan. 6 Committee. Passantino, instead, coached her as a standard fact witness to only answer questions she could recall. Passantino represented Hutchinson through her first three interviews with the committee before she changed counsel and appeared publicly. None of the transcripts dated Feb. 23, 2022, March 7, 2022, or May 17, 2022, show Passantino obstructing Hutchinson’s testimony. While the transcripts were also recorded, the Jan. 6 Committee destroyed the video.

Weissmann, however, charged Passantino with “coach[ing] her to lie” in a post to roughly 320,000 followers on X after CNN published a series of hit pieces that accused Passantino of pressuring Hutchinson to illegally manipulate her testimony.

On Dec. 21, 2022, CNN ran the first hit piece, which cited “sources familiar with the committee’s work” who alleged Passantino urged Hutchinson to mislead lawmakers. The network included a statement from Passantino, but made no reference to the transcript of Hutchinson’s Sept. 14 interview, in which she explicitly said he told her “not to lie.”

CNN ran another story on Dec. 22, 2022, this one headlined “Cassidy Hutchinson told the January 6 committee she felt pressure from Trump allies not to talk and instead risk ‘contempt.’”

“The final straw for former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson with her first attorney, paid through allies of former President Donald Trump, came when he told her to stop cooperating with the January 6 House select committee even if she risked a contempt of Congress charge, transcripts of her interviews and sources familiar with her testimony tell CNN,” the network reported.

The second story did link to Hutchinson’s nearly 140-page Sept. 14, 2022, transcript, which was embedded on the network’s website, and reported on her testimony that she was explicitly coached “not to lie” halfway through the story.

A recent report from House Republicans investigating the Jan. 6 Committee in October found that Hutchinson was communicating directly with Cheney without Passantino’s knowledge throughout his representation of her.

Three months after CNN’s stories were published and six months before Weissmann’s potentially defamatory post on X, the New York Times reported on “several dozen prominent legal figures, including past presidents of the American Bar Association and the District of Columbia Bar,” trying to revoke Passantino’s law license.

“In a 22-page complaint filed on Monday with D.C.’s Board on Professional Responsibility, prominent lawyers accused Mr. Passantino of the crimes of subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and bribery,” the Times reported.

Passantino became the target of another bar complaint, this one brought in Georgia by a group called the “65 Project,” which was expressly established to intimidate attorneys into not working for Republicans. Both the State Bar of Georgia and D.C. ethics watchdogs dismissed the complaints against Passantino by the end of March.

In October, Passantino filed bar complaints of his own against Cheney and the director of the 65 Project through America First Legal.