While Americans on both sides of the political aisle debate whether President Joe Biden should have pardoned his son, one entry into the discourse made an astoundingly embarrassing error.

The Esquire magazine article by Charles P. Pierce lambasted Republicans for criticizing Biden based on the historical precedent of Republican former President George H.W. Bush pardoning his own son Neil Bush. The problem is that this incident never happened. It's completely fabricated.

Eventually, the humiliating error was discovered, and Esquire issued a correction:

Editor's note: This story has been updated. An earlier version stated incorrectly that George H.W. Bush gave a presidential pardon to his son, Neil Bush. Esquire regrets the error.
Finally, the outlet deleted the story altogether.

Esquire was mercilessly ridiculed for the mistake.

Esquire is irrelevant.

Quote from: DKG on December 05, 2024, 09:40:31 AMWhile Americans on both sides of the political aisle debate whether President Joe Biden should have pardoned his son, one entry into the discourse made an astoundingly embarrassing error.

The Esquire magazine article by Charles P. Pierce lambasted Republicans for criticizing Biden based on the historical precedent of Republican former President George H.W. Bush pardoning his own son Neil Bush. The problem is that this incident never happened. It's completely fabricated.

Eventually, the humiliating error was discovered, and Esquire issued a correction:

Editor's note: This story has been updated. An earlier version stated incorrectly that George H.W. Bush gave a presidential pardon to his son, Neil Bush. Esquire regrets the error.
Finally, the outlet deleted the story altogether.

Esquire was mercilessly ridiculed for the mistake.

This isnt the first time this has happened. The fabricated Bush story has cropped up a few times although I cant remember the details.

Sen. Mike Lee (R) called out NBC News' "Meet the Press" and anchor Kristen Welker on Sunday for omitting six important words from the 14th Amendment.

Speaking with President-elect Donald Trump about his plan to end birthright citizenship — which grants United States citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil — Welker tried to suggest the plan is unconstitutional by citing the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

After Trump confirmed that ending birthright citizenship is "absolutely" his plan, Welker said, "The 14th Amendment, though, says that, quote, 'All persons born in the United States are citizens.'"

But there is a significant problem with Welker's quote, according to Lee.

In fact, Welker omitted six words from the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment — and those "words matter," Lee explained.

Here is what the beginning of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment actually says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
This means that Welker omitted the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," to create the illusion that Trump would be acting unconstitutionally if he sought to outlaw birthright citizenship.

Joy Reid was offered a pay cut to keep her job. The race-obsessed Reid's show bled nearly 50% of its audience after the election. MSNBC also cut Rachel Maddow's annual salary by $5 million.

Quote from: Brent on December 20, 2024, 03:09:09 PMJoy Reid was offered a pay cut to keep her job. The race-obsessed Reid's show bled nearly 50% of its audience after the election. MSNBC also cut Rachel Maddow's annual salary by $5 million.

MSNBC could save even more by firing those two and replacing them with reruns of Sanford and Son.

Quote from: DKG on December 10, 2024, 09:30:02 AM.
.
.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

This means that Welker omitted the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," to create the illusion that Trump would be acting unconstitutionally if he sought to outlaw birthright citizenship.

I suppose that would depend on what 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means.

If it means "You will be arrested if you break the law" then everyone is subject to the jurisdiction.

But if that's the case there's no reason for it to even be in the amendment.

Quote from: Oliver the Second on December 20, 2024, 08:49:51 PMI suppose that would depend on what 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means.

If it means "You will be arrested if you break the law" then everyone is subject to the jurisdiction.

But if that's the case there's no reason for it to even be in the amendment.

What I do know is that Kristin Welker omitted those words.

Quote from: Prof Emeritus at Fawk U on December 20, 2024, 05:24:49 PMMSNBC could save even more by firing those two and replacing them with reruns of Sanford and Son.

It would be the best business decision they ever made.