Alexandra Hutzler of Newsweek is a liar

The headline sets the tone with Black Lives Matter Says System Is Upholding ‘White Supremacy’ After Rittenhouse Acquittal. Technically that is true. @Blklivesmatter did tweet that on November 19th. That claim is absurd on the face of it but the author doesn’t even hint there is anything wrong with such a claim. She quotes numerous other falsehoods told by various people and then tells one of her own:

Rittenhouse, then 17, was illegally armed with a semiautomatic rifle and said he traveled from Illinois to help protect businesses during the protests.

False. The judge threw out that charge because it was false. The law is confusing and it would be easy for the average person to believe that claim but numerous lawyers and many ordinary people were able to build the flow diagram to conclude, as did Rittenhouse before carrying the gun, that it was legal. Hutzler even mentions the judge threw out the charge. Why didn’t she get the clue? I suspect she did get the clue but the truth didn’t matter to her. She is a liar and may even be proud that she can (mostly) get away with it.


4 thoughts on “Alexandra Hutzler of Newsweek is a liar

  1. …”but numerous lawyer(s) and many people”…


    In other words: many lawyers were able to understand this. Some actual human beings understood it too.

    • Ya, a seventeen year old kid. He also had to school Binger on the fact that he wasn’t able to purchase a handgun at his age. And that’s why he bought an AR.
      Their all liars. And there’s no excuse for them.
      The only good thing is we get to see firsthand just how incompetent these people truly are.

      • But wait. Are they incompetent (clinically mentally deficient, ignorant), or are they willful liars fighting a war against truth to bolster their pride and feed their lust for ephemeral gain? It can’t be both. If we can’t make up our minds on that point, or if we fail to see any difference where a great difference exists, then perhaps we’re the incompetent ones.

        Maybe the Romish left therefore is run by master manipulators who have us fooled into believing they’re not competent enough to stand trial for their crimes. Perhaps by calling them idiots, etc., for years and years we’ve been giving them a mountain of testimony as to their innocence. How can we dare accuse them after spending a lifetime thus exonerating them?

        Is the road to hell paved with good intentions, or is it paved with bad intentions masquerading as the good intentions of the incompetent? There is a mighty big difference there, and if we can’t see it then who in the final analysis will have been the more deserving of the title, “incompetent”?

  2. We say there’s no excuse for them, and then grant to them the excuse of incompetence.

    Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

    Surely there is no hope for us without the divine savior.

Comments are closed.