i really want will to do a piece on my oldest son’s favorite news guy… channel 5. he feels like an alternative to the maga right and my oldest has been following him since high school.
maybe do a piece on what young (late teen/early 20’s) people who are not in the maga or christian nationalist camp are watching and getting their news from.
i find it very refreshing- at least this guy seems to take journalism seriously!!
Will, I have a request. Can the Bulwark create a Groypers lexicon on the app? Somewhere we can go to look these crazy terms up? I have ordered my brain to delete the knowledge of what WHAGHAF means but may need to look it up later.
Is the case against Robinson SO WEAK that the claims of a fired, anti-semitic, groyper, conspiracy theorists can derail the case?
If the case IS that weak, then there are more problems than just Kent.
Further ... isn't putting Kent on the stand, under oath, exactly what you SHOULD want? He can't lie - so this is your opportunity to totally discredit him, and expose him as the anti-semitic, groypyer, conspiracy theorist that he is ... right?
(PS You left a few of his claims unmentioned - claims that I personally would like to see evaluated in a court of law).
Why not call Candace Owens to the stand as well, and expose her as an anti-semitic, groyper, conspiracy theorist? I would if I were the prosecution.
So again, why SHOULDN'T he be put on the stand, under oath?
I was a prosecutor for 28 years and actually tried murder cases.
The last thing a prosecutor wants the jury to see is a witness who is a crazy pants conspiracy theorist, especially when the murder case is as simple and straightforward as the Kirk murder case. It only muddies the waters. That's the job of defense counsel. It doesn't advance the State's case at all.
The rules of evidence would preclude either side from turning a murder trial of a specific dead victim into a political circus, if the judge does his/her job. Criminal court is serious business with real world repercussions, not a MAGA fever swamp where everyone gets to air their delusions.
We have no eyewitnesses to the shooter, nor do we have a confession from Robinson, but we DO have a guy in the crowd who immediately claimed responsibility before claiming that he only said that to let the shooter get away. He has been charged with obstruction of justice.
That implies a conspiracy.
The forensics, ballistics, and DNA all have issues, and have not been tested in court.
The evidence is really electronic text messages … which are circumstantial, and you know will be challenged. The text messages language sounds like a cop.
And that’s before you have Kent saying that he was prohibited to investigate a foreign nexus … which of course brings in the whole of the “Charlie Kirk was a lion of Israel” bullshit from Netanyahu… only to have those claims exposed as lies … with even more controversial text messages.
Netanyahu has denied shooting Kirk more times than Robinson has.
If Netanyahu had kept his mouth shut, then you’d have a much stronger case.
Robinson’s defense was ALWAYS going to be “the foreign conspiracy theory”. The prosecution just can’t wish that away.
the whole plan of staffing the entire defense/intelligence side of the admin with square-jawed dolts dying daddy sees on TV doesn't seem to be working out great.
Have to wonder why Rep. Bobert is perpetuating the longtime goal of the recalcitrant right's attempts to repeal FISA, when now it seems it might help clear things up amongst its lunatic podster meltdown. Oh well.
Will these people, Kent, Owens, etc., believe anything that comes out of Tyler's trial? When it's determined he was a disturbed individual acting entirely on his own with no foreign influence, will they just call that a whitewash? Does that mean we really can't trust anything that happens in our judicial system? I get the feeling that MAGA-world wants to dismantle the entire criminal justice system as well as the election apparatus. Or am I overreacting?
Surely a court of law, in a capital murder case, is the IDEAL place to call for all the evidence, rather than newsletters that smear one side of the argument.
Kent says there is evidence beyond just Robinson. Instead of smearing him as a conspiracy theorist, put him on the stand under oath and make him produce the evidence.
You wouldn't want to convict a man for a crime he didn't commit, would you? If there IS exculpatory evidence, shouldn't it be presented?
Is the Robinson case SO WEAK that it can't handle a single anti-semite with conspiracy theories? Because if it is, then it is a pretty damn weak case.
I'm almost ashamed to say I did some research. According to a the description accompanhing a youtube posted this past November, WANGHAF is the name of a 1988 racist and antisemitic song by "80's supergroup Zach and The Sleeping Giant performing a cover version of the illegal pop funk single "WANGHAF" written and produced by Nate 'The Burger King' Higgs." I can't vouch for the actual truth of that description though. Here's a link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhUb45u2U7s
WANGHAF? Isn't that creative. We're obviously dealing with a bunch of high IQ activists. I, for one, am moving to my multi-million dollar bunker before it's too late!
Is anybody still talking about why to gun supposedly used by Robinson should have left an 'exit wound' in Kirk but did not?
Man, all these crazy people you mention now make up the solid right wing of the Reoubkican Party. They sound totally nuts.
https://youtu.be/-_6mni6k0Zw
i really want will to do a piece on my oldest son’s favorite news guy… channel 5. he feels like an alternative to the maga right and my oldest has been following him since high school.
maybe do a piece on what young (late teen/early 20’s) people who are not in the maga or christian nationalist camp are watching and getting their news from.
i find it very refreshing- at least this guy seems to take journalism seriously!!
Will, I have a request. Can the Bulwark create a Groypers lexicon on the app? Somewhere we can go to look these crazy terms up? I have ordered my brain to delete the knowledge of what WHAGHAF means but may need to look it up later.
I really don't understand this newsletter.
Is the case against Robinson SO WEAK that the claims of a fired, anti-semitic, groyper, conspiracy theorists can derail the case?
If the case IS that weak, then there are more problems than just Kent.
Further ... isn't putting Kent on the stand, under oath, exactly what you SHOULD want? He can't lie - so this is your opportunity to totally discredit him, and expose him as the anti-semitic, groypyer, conspiracy theorist that he is ... right?
(PS You left a few of his claims unmentioned - claims that I personally would like to see evaluated in a court of law).
Why not call Candace Owens to the stand as well, and expose her as an anti-semitic, groyper, conspiracy theorist? I would if I were the prosecution.
So again, why SHOULDN'T he be put on the stand, under oath?
I was a prosecutor for 28 years and actually tried murder cases.
The last thing a prosecutor wants the jury to see is a witness who is a crazy pants conspiracy theorist, especially when the murder case is as simple and straightforward as the Kirk murder case. It only muddies the waters. That's the job of defense counsel. It doesn't advance the State's case at all.
The rules of evidence would preclude either side from turning a murder trial of a specific dead victim into a political circus, if the judge does his/her job. Criminal court is serious business with real world repercussions, not a MAGA fever swamp where everyone gets to air their delusions.
Is it a “crazy pants conspiracy theory”?
Is the case “simple and straightforward”?
We have no eyewitnesses to the shooter, nor do we have a confession from Robinson, but we DO have a guy in the crowd who immediately claimed responsibility before claiming that he only said that to let the shooter get away. He has been charged with obstruction of justice.
That implies a conspiracy.
The forensics, ballistics, and DNA all have issues, and have not been tested in court.
The evidence is really electronic text messages … which are circumstantial, and you know will be challenged. The text messages language sounds like a cop.
And that’s before you have Kent saying that he was prohibited to investigate a foreign nexus … which of course brings in the whole of the “Charlie Kirk was a lion of Israel” bullshit from Netanyahu… only to have those claims exposed as lies … with even more controversial text messages.
Netanyahu has denied shooting Kirk more times than Robinson has.
If Netanyahu had kept his mouth shut, then you’d have a much stronger case.
Robinson’s defense was ALWAYS going to be “the foreign conspiracy theory”. The prosecution just can’t wish that away.
the whole plan of staffing the entire defense/intelligence side of the admin with square-jawed dolts dying daddy sees on TV doesn't seem to be working out great.
I don’t know how you do it. I hope you take your waders off outside before entering a decontamination chamber.
Stop the damn world. I’m getting off.
Have to wonder why Rep. Bobert is perpetuating the longtime goal of the recalcitrant right's attempts to repeal FISA, when now it seems it might help clear things up amongst its lunatic podster meltdown. Oh well.
As much as I delight in these far right conspiracies, surely there are some on the far left that are equally intriguing…?
We just want to have people to have health care and stop supporting genocide.
Give us that, and we'll be happy.
Will these people, Kent, Owens, etc., believe anything that comes out of Tyler's trial? When it's determined he was a disturbed individual acting entirely on his own with no foreign influence, will they just call that a whitewash? Does that mean we really can't trust anything that happens in our judicial system? I get the feeling that MAGA-world wants to dismantle the entire criminal justice system as well as the election apparatus. Or am I overreacting?
There's a flip side to that coin, Bill.
Surely a court of law, in a capital murder case, is the IDEAL place to call for all the evidence, rather than newsletters that smear one side of the argument.
Kent says there is evidence beyond just Robinson. Instead of smearing him as a conspiracy theorist, put him on the stand under oath and make him produce the evidence.
You wouldn't want to convict a man for a crime he didn't commit, would you? If there IS exculpatory evidence, shouldn't it be presented?
Is the Robinson case SO WEAK that it can't handle a single anti-semite with conspiracy theories? Because if it is, then it is a pretty damn weak case.
Well now. Aren't their mother's proud?
Mothers. Thanks Google
I'm almost ashamed to say I did some research. According to a the description accompanhing a youtube posted this past November, WANGHAF is the name of a 1988 racist and antisemitic song by "80's supergroup Zach and The Sleeping Giant performing a cover version of the illegal pop funk single "WANGHAF" written and produced by Nate 'The Burger King' Higgs." I can't vouch for the actual truth of that description though. Here's a link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhUb45u2U7s
That is AI slop with a silly backstory. Really sorry i read the comments on the video
So are you saying that the video and the comments (plus the backstory) are products of AI? I guess I need to learn about AI slop. Sadly.
Love your newsletter Will.
I'm for bringing back the X-Files and have Will join Mulder & Scully. The truth and weirdos are out there.
WANGHAF? Isn't that creative. We're obviously dealing with a bunch of high IQ activists. I, for one, am moving to my multi-million dollar bunker before it's too late!
The internet does crazy things with acronyms—and hyphens!