There’s a reason us English-speakers have to use Hebrew to express the concept of “chutzpa.” The definition of “chutzpa” is popularly explained using the example of a kid who kills his parents, then requests leniency from the court on the grounds he is an orphan. In the below news item, Jews are engaged in their merry task of “murdering America.” When caught, they scream “poisecution.” Dorothy Rabinowitz, the author of this column and fellow in-group conspirator references bland missive by Pastor Martin Niemöller, entitling the article “First, They Came for the Jews.”
TAKE NOTE: In the first paragraph, she-tapir Dorothy Rabinowitz complains about the limitations on courtroom press coverage. Were she being honest, she would admit that she is glad there is so little coverage of this AIPAC scandal, lest the organism get wise to what the parasite was doing and do something about it, as nearly every other society that had a case of Jew. Thought experiment: Imagine that the press is covering this scandal as it should be covered (instead of, say, the post-postmortem train-wreck of an overweight former model). Can you imagine her being relieved, or would she be wailing about the poisecution, and accusing this Jew-yoked Amerikwa of being a “Nazi” state as she is here for noticing that AIPAC Yids were spying on us in the first place?
The government has also moved (in the interest of protecting classified information) to impose strict limits during the trial, on the testimony the public and press will be allowed to hear. If the proposal is allowed, significant portions of the testimony will be available only in the form of summaries. Witnesses, furthermore, would not be allowed to deliver certain testimony directly to jurors, who would instead be told to look at secret documents. It will be, as a member of the Reporters Committee For Freedom of the Press, now opposing the government efforts, describes it, “a secret trial within a public trial.” (Dow Jones, publisher of this newspaper, has joined the Reporters Committee in filing an objection.)
. . .
The consequences of this spectacle–the indictment of two citizens for activities that go on every day in Washington, and that are clearly protected under the First Amendment–far exceed any other in the now long list of non-crimes from which government attorneys have constructed major cases, or more precisely, show trials. A category in which we can include the mad prosecutorial pursuit of Mr. Libby.
The government could succeed in this prosecution of two non-government professionals doing what they had every reason to view as their jobs–talking to government officials and reporters, and transmitting information and opinions. If such activities can be charged, successfully, as a “conspiracy,” every professional, every business, every quarter of society–not to mention members of the press–will have reason to understand that this is a bell that tolls not just for two AIPAC lobbyists, but also for countless others to face trials in the future, for newly invented crimes unearthed by willing prosecutors.