What did Nathan Goodman say about the January 6th attendees who were sentenced to prison because they attended a rally? (or in Tarrio's case, didn't even attend the rally)
As far as I can tell, he said nothing about it.
Nathan Goodman could not care less about due process or justice. He's just a partisan hack.
This is not very charitable! In Nathan’s main body of work on the border, terrorism, drugs, and foreign policy, he pulls no punches against Democrats.
Perhaps Nathan should write more about J6, but people should be allowed to choose where they focus their attention and expertise. This particular piece is related to his broader work on immigration and terrorism, whereas J6 is only generally related to Nathan’s general work on civil liberties. I myself am drafting a piece on Prairieland in which I draw a comparison to J6, but I spend no more than a moment on it precisely because I don’t really have much to say other than, essentially, “look, both ideological poles have similar gripes here.”
Finally, in the interest of harmony among libertarians, I hope you’ll forgive me if I propose a more fruitful response: “Hey Nathan, I’d love to see your take on the J6 defendants and the extent to which they might have similarly been the subject of politically motivated rights violations.”
This is absolutely outrageous.
Appreciate your detailed walk through of the case.
Thanks, Dallin!
What did Nathan Goodman say about the January 6th attendees who were sentenced to prison because they attended a rally? (or in Tarrio's case, didn't even attend the rally)
As far as I can tell, he said nothing about it.
Nathan Goodman could not care less about due process or justice. He's just a partisan hack.
This is not very charitable! In Nathan’s main body of work on the border, terrorism, drugs, and foreign policy, he pulls no punches against Democrats.
Perhaps Nathan should write more about J6, but people should be allowed to choose where they focus their attention and expertise. This particular piece is related to his broader work on immigration and terrorism, whereas J6 is only generally related to Nathan’s general work on civil liberties. I myself am drafting a piece on Prairieland in which I draw a comparison to J6, but I spend no more than a moment on it precisely because I don’t really have much to say other than, essentially, “look, both ideological poles have similar gripes here.”
Finally, in the interest of harmony among libertarians, I hope you’ll forgive me if I propose a more fruitful response: “Hey Nathan, I’d love to see your take on the J6 defendants and the extent to which they might have similarly been the subject of politically motivated rights violations.”