Thursday, May 04, 2017

Snopes Shows Bias, Disproves Woman was Convicted of Laughing, Then rules it "True"

A story making the rounds on Fake Media is that an activist, Desiree Fairooz, was convicted of laughing during the confirmation hearing of Jeff Sessions. Fairooz, who was disruptive during the introduction of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, was convicted in the District of Columbia.

The laughter occurs at 34:30 on the C-SPAN2 video. The disruption then gets louder. Four officers are required to take Fairooz out of the room, after she refused to leave.  On the way out she resists for a bit and continues shouting insults about Senator Sessions. She is outside the room after about 1 minute.  Here is video of the event:

The claim that Snope investigated was, from headline:
Was a woman Prosecuted for Laughing During Jeff Sessions' Confirmation Hearing?
Snopes then does one of their famous switcheroos. They change the claim from being prosecuted for laughing, to being prosecuted for disorderly conduct *after* laughing.

Official "claim" From
Code Pink member Desiree Fairooz was prosecuted for disorderly conduct after she laughed during Attorney General Jeff Sessions's confirmation hearing.
Fairooz was prosecuted on two counts. One was disorderly conduct, the other was demonstrating on capital grounds. She was convicted on both counts. Snopes then has this paragraph, which directly contradicts the headline:
Fairooz was found guilty on both counts, the New York Times reported, although jurors who spoke anonymously to Huffington Post said it was her behavior when asked to leave, not her laughter, that resulted in the conviction. She faces up to a year in prison.
Clearly, the headline is false. The much easier claim contrived by Snopes, that Fairooz was prosecuted for disorderly conduct after she laughed, is not the claim that shows in the search engines. After all, the laughter had little to nothing to do with her conviction, but it is true that she laughed before she was arrested.

Fake news indeed.

Leftist activists are known for pushing to be arrested so that they can claim victim status.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


Anonymous said...

I have some bad news for a few people and it is not fake news. recently I have had four occasions where I had to draw my pistol on very aggressive dogs. Apparently the owners of the dogs reported me to the sheriff's deputy. Two times dogs not on a leash have attacked my dog and drawn blood, with my dog on a leash. Under Arizona law I could have legally shot the attacking dogs. the actual crime here is the dogs that were not on a leash, the Arizona leash law requires a four hundred dollar fine for a dog not on private property and not on a leash. I can legally shoot an aggressive dog not on a leash. I walk my dog on a leash and carry a pistol for snakes. My dog is on a leash not to be chewed up by dogs not on a leash. the complainers are the ones breaking the law.

Anonymous said...

Unclear on what this article has to do with guns.