'Due process' is a term of legal shop talk. Those of us who know something about the law — I know a little — know how to use it correctly. And those of us who think that words ought to be used responsibly in serious discussions should take offense at the 'slop talk' use of 'due process.' Trey Gowdy knows a lot more about the law than I do. But a couple of Sundays ago he asked how much 'due process' Laken Riley's assailant showed her. Sean Hannity is another who has asked this question.
That got me thinking about what sort of 'due process' Ibarra should have shown Riley. "You have the right to plead, to pray, and to protest your upcoming rape and murder; you have in addition the right to avail yourself of the services of any well-armed Good Samaritan who might come along."
What were Gowdy and Hannity driving at? That wide-open borders are a recipe for disaster? That the very notion of legal due process needs to be re-thought? Unclear. Commentators who want to be taken seriously should say what they mean and mean what they say.
Democrats are slop heads in the main; we expect incoherence, inanity, and slop talk from them. Conservatives ought not ape them. Does my use of 'ape' make me a racist? What if I were to use such words as 'niggardly' and 'denigrate'?
The WAPO fentanyl 'mystery' is another good illustration of how contemptibly stupid our political enemies can be. Karoline Leavitt has fun with it. In other news, her intersectional and highly 'wokified' predecessor has quit the Dems, and like 'Fake Jake' Tapper and others will endeavor to tap into the money to be made from telling tales of dementia and dysfunction in high places.
Further examples are easily multiplied beyond all necessity. "Tampon Tim" Walz is a bloody good source of them.