16 months after her fraud conviction, Elizabeth Holmes still playing the "game" to avoid prison

 

How long ago was it that Elizabeth Holmes was convicted of conspiracy to defraud investors and customers with her “magic” Edison machine that was supposed to be make dozens of tests from a single drop of blood? Almost 16 months ago? 

And yet she still has managed to avoid starting her 11-year sentence at a resort prison for attractive white women who only stole hundreds of millions of dollars through coddling gullible high-profile persons who wanted to do the socially-progressive thing and support a woman’ grand idea that no one before thought possible. Why not—just throw in enough money into a crazy scheme and who knows what will happen.

The problem of course was that there was a reason why Holmes’ scheme hadn’t been tried before, and that was because it was next to impossible, just this fool's gold. Holmes didn’t have any tech qualifications, she had no clue how to go about building a machine that could do all of this on a single drop of blood. It was a “bold” idea, but she was naively dependent on others to do the impossible. She didn’t want to hear the truth from those tasked to this chimera of a project who told her this was not happening. But as she saw the “idea” of Theranos making her a multi-billionaire, she had to maintain the fraud until a “miracle” happened. 

It didn’t happen, and when the fraud was exposed and investors lost millions when Theranos—after literally rising from nothing to billions to nothing again in a matter of years—collapsed into a company that had not a single product to sell, save the “idea” of it. This was something people perpetrating the hoax couldn’t just get away with, and Holmes and her co-conspirator Sunny Balwani, whose principle crime was being her “Svengali” who advised her on how to “sell” her idea, were charged with fraud and conspiracy in separate trials. Balwani was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to 13 years, while Holmes was seen with relative “sympathy” by jurors who did not convict her on the most serious charges, although the judge was hardly as sympathetic in his sentencing.

Yet we get the impression that Holmes thinks she is going get away with this. It doesn’t take much cynicism to suspect that Holmes never would have chosen to become a “mother” if Theranos hadn’t collapsed with felony charges on the horizon. A “mother” would be looked upon with greater sympathy by a prosecutor, jury and judge, and she might get away with just another fine (which she couldn’t pay), a suspended sentence, or an easier time believing that she was a helpless “tool” of Balwani.

Again, it didn’t “work. Apparently one child wasn’t enough to sway a jury and judge (who saw right through her scheming), so Holmes while waiting on appeal got herself pregnant again, perhaps hoping that her latest delaying tactic—appealing her prison date to the Ninth Circuit Court—will somehow keep her out of jail free. It’s absolutely sickening how people play this “game” where they feel if they play it right they can avoid doing the time they deserve. 

For his part, Balwani lost his appeal to the Ninth and reported to prison without incident. But what will Holmes do if she loses her appeal and is told to report to prison? Will she refuse to do it? Is she hoping for public "outrage" to save her if federal marshals are tasked to physically detain her and take her to prison? I wouldn't put it past her, given her history of arrogant conceit.

Of course if Holmes does eventually report to the minimum security prison, she will likely be able to play fake “parent” in a daycare kind of way with her children because, you know, she is more “special” than, say, a mother in prison who received a few dollars more on welfare payments she wasn’t entitled to who wouldn’t be able to see her children save for a few hours during the weekend. Some people are just more “special” than others—even if their crimes are greater by many multiple factors.

Of course now there is this story from Military.com:

Col. Meghann Sullivan, commander of the 5th Brigade Engineer Battalion, 5th SFAB, faces allegations of assaulting at least two subordinate men and harassing several others, with some of those incidents allegedly tied to alcohol abuse, according to one of the two sources. At least one of those alleged assaults involved forceful kissing and another grabbing a man below the belt without his consent.

Note that "alcohol" abuse may be used here as an "excuse' for this behavior, except that alcohol tends to bring out a person's true character. Sullivan’s brigade commander had previously been immediately suspended while under investigation “into allegations of toxic leadership,” but, according to the story, “Sullivan is seemingly still in command, though commanders are sometimes suspended amid investigations.” 

Well, OK, double standards then, right? And who do we usually expect to benefit from them, despite what gender activists claim? After all, every time there is a report of “fraternization” in a media organization, it is always the man who is fired, because the woman involved is seen as the “victim.”

And no doubt Holmes wants people to see her as the “victim” to avoid jail time, and even if she does eventually report to prison, it will probably be a brief stay anyways, for "good behavior" and "for reasons of motherhood."

Clarence Thomas' continued presence on the Supreme Court only underlines its increasing moral and ethical illegitimacy

 

When George H.R. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas for the U.S. Supreme Court, most people who thought about it found it a direct affront to the legacy of the man he would be replacing, civil rights legend Thurgood Marshall.  Thomas was not only in no way qualified for a position on the highest court of the land, but he seemed to have no comprehension that Marshall's work to overcome discrimination was benefiting him even as a "token" black Republican; the party needed him to "prove" it wasn't just a white party, although it helped if you thought like one.

Thomas' contempt for Marshall's legacy became a matter of record as Reagan's appointee to head the EEOC, his “mission” being to end affirmative action and stop “discrimination” against white people. Unlike Marshall, who was appointed to the Second Circuit Court by JFK and then as Solicitor General by LBJ, Thomas' only "credentials" were that he was a black man with hardcore far-right inclinations more typical of white racists. 

Obviously he was naturally “useful” for Republicans, besides being a “token” to “prove” the party wasn’t “racist.” Party leaders envisioned Thomas as a useful tool for their long-range objective of packing the courts with right-wing ideologues, and he  was nominated and approved for the DC District Court of Appeals, which he was also unqualified for as he had no previous experience even in arguing before such courts, or any courts.

Thus it was easy to be cynical about Thomas’ nomination for the Supreme Court. Bush’s previous Supreme Court appointee, David Souter, embarrassed him by turning out to be a moderate who often sided with the left-wing of the court, and there was a need to nominate someone whose right-wing “credentials” were unquestioned, and Thomas’ tenure in the Reagan administration demonstrated that there was a self-loathing for being born “black”—he allegedly once went into a law school classroom wearing a stereotypical “field hand” outfit as a show of self-pity as to how he felt white students viewed him—and like closet gay men who attack other gay men because they remind them of their “shame”—he attacks other blacks because they remind him of the social reality he can’t escape, and he hates them for it.

But Thomas' lack of qualifications for the bench were not at issue during his confirmation process, since senators felt constrained by the "need" to replace Marshall with another black applicant, which Republicans were well aware of. Despite committee votes refusing to endorse Thomas' nomination, opposition from civil rights organizations, “tears” over his anti-abortion beliefs and the testimony of his former assistant, Anita Hill, about somewhat bizarre claims about his behavior, Thomas was confirmed by a 52-48 vote, aided by nine "yeas" by conservative southern Democrats. 

Thomas then proceeded onward to a rather undistinguished career on the bench, rarely giving opinions, and when he did, they were so far out of mainstream opinion that it only confirmed the belief that he had no real judicial philosophy, just personal “issues," gripes and chips-on-his-shoulder that were not tempered with an understanding of rights enumerated in the Constitution.

Unfortunately for Thomas, this failure to distinguish himself on the bench has left him with a legacy that is now only “distinguished” by both his and the right-wing of the bench’s corruption. His wife, Ginni, is a far-right activist who actively supported election fraud conspiracies and even contacted the White House to urge it to act to overturn the 2020 election. Despite this, Thomas' refused to recuse himself despite being fully aware that he couldn't even pretend to be capable of impartial judgment.

The fact the Thomas was the lone dissenting vote on cases involving the election and the January 6 insurrection indicates that his wife at the very least had undue influence on him—and more likely they were working in tandem, which revealed that Thomas had little understanding or care for constitutional government: he was a partisan extremist who had no business making rulings  that effected millions of people.

But there are other partisan extremists on the Supreme Court, whose advancement was bought and paid for by the dark money that far-right corporate and billionaire activists hoped would put the "right" people on the bench who supported their "vision" of constitutional “originalism,” which they interpreted  as protecting only their “rights."  

What makes Thomas stand out is the fact that he has the greatest contempt for the “esteem” of the court and thinks nothing of degrading it to act out his personal whims and vindictiveness.  However, his refusal to recuse himself for election process bias is one thing; another thing is that he is being enabled by a corrupt right-wing of the court that refuses to “police” itself. Thomas may have the longest tenure of any on the court at the present time, but his personal corruption is such that he is due no "respect" or special “dispensation.”

The list of Thomas' corrupt activities seems to be growing by the week: Thomas is accused of taking “gifts” from billionaires like Harlan Crowe; Thomas certainly likes his gifts, which he stopped reporting on his financial disclosures as required for the past 20 years. One of these recent “gifts” was an island-hopping “vacation” for Thomas and his wife that cost an estimated $500,000—so one may suspect that Thomas has a reason for stopping reporting these little gratuities. 

Thomas claims that he sought “guidance” about whether to report his corrupt transactions on his financial forms, and he apparently received support by other judges who were equally corrupted by such “gifts” as long as they were from “close friends”—that is “friendly” so long as there is a quid pro quo “understanding.”

Thomas has been in clear violation  of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act for years, which also includes the disclosure of real estate transactions over $1,000. There are now calls for his resignation over reports that he sold three properties to Crowe in 2014 valued at the time at $133,000. Thomas belatedly tried to “amend” not only his 2014 financial statement, but many others which include previously unreported income from his wife. It is clear that Thomas’ personal corruption is such that there really is no redeeming him. There have been calls not only for his resignation, but a criminal investigation by the Justice Department.

What is equally appalling is the lack of “oversight” that led to corrupt practices on the bench by Chief Justice John Roberts, who apparently receives little respect from those further-right on the court anyways. Roberts refused to voluntarily testify before a Senate committee, and furthermore refused to publicly  comment on Thomas’ ethical shortcomings. The fact that this isn’t the first time Roberts has not commented on this means that he has not acted as well; Thomas has  acted to “reveal” what he has illegally concealed only after damaging revelations in the media.

It is of course unlikely that Thomas will “voluntarily” resign unless even worse allegations of illegality are revealed that even his colleagues on the bench can’t ignore, and his continued presence only reflects worse on the court’s perceived illegitimacy.  But the reality is that the damage has been done; while the court avoided stepping on a land mine by allowing the sale of an abortion pill that a Texas judge had blocked, this seems more like an effort to avoid further scrutiny on its legitimacy.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for president? That needs some thinking

 

What a country we live in: Elon Musk’s Space X rocket booster blows up and it’s called a “success,” Don Lemon is fired from CNN for saying about Nikki Haley what she said about Joe Biden (and you want to know why CNN is a distant third), Tucker Carlson taking the fall for Fox News’ defamation defeat while Maria Bartiromo still has a job, despite being the worst enabler of false election fraud conspiracies at the network, and another kid shot by an paranoid gunslinger. Who is going to save us from ourselves?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.?

Some of us remember when Sen. Ted Kennedy decided to challenge Jimmy Carter for the 1980 Democratic nomination. Some were doubtful, since the Chappaquiddick incident was not forgotten and would for some time leave a question mark in people’s minds. One current “theory” about what happened was that Kennedy became aware of the presence of a police car and didn’t want to be caught in a drunk driving incident with a woman not his wife, and got out of the car and walked the rest of the way home, telling Mary Jo Kopechne to drive back on her own; but being unfamiliar with the narrow bridge and in an intoxicated state herself, she drove over the bridge into the water. When Kennedy realized she hadn’t arrived he went off looking for her and found the car in the water, and by that time she was long deceased. 

But Kennedy knew this was his “best” shot at the presidency, because Carter was highly unpopular at that point, and his “malaise in America" speech was not what people wanted to hear. Carter was under attack even from the left for having no plan to attack inflation or unemployment, instead focusing on yet another energy crisis, insisting on people suffering more by turning down their thermostats and supporting a national 55 mph speed-limit law. Then there was the Iran hostage crisis and the disastrous “rescue” attempt. Of course Kennedy was to the left of Carter, but maybe people wanted a government to be proactive, and not what Ronald Reagan was offering, which was just cutting everything and allowing businesses and the rich to run the country free of annoying regulations.

Kennedy ended-up only winning 12 states and 37 percent of the total primary vote, but he did pick up 1,151 delegates, which should have been seen as just how much trouble Carter was in. Although with a third party candidate in the mix Reagan won less than 51 percent of the popular vote; he took home 489 electoral votes, winning all but six states. Two months after his inauguration, John Hinkley tried to shorten his term in office, and was later found not guilty for (what else) “reasons of insanity.” But Reagan was soon back in the saddle to fulfill his promise of a new “morning in America,” even though for the next two years the country saw double-digit inflation and unemployment—as well as questions about Reagan’s mental state, which frankly was more questionable than Biden’s is today.

Anyways, with Biden's poll numbers underwater, a new Kennedy is on the horizon, and should we take him as seriously as he does himself? After all, it’s not like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a household name, and he has never held political office. After an arrest for heroin possession in 1983, in which he was sentenced to probation after entering a drug treatment program, he began a career as an environmental activist, as a lawyer representing  various groups who filed lawsuits against polluters. Unfortunately, Kennedy is perhaps better known for his Covid-19 denialism, which quite frankly might give one pause, although Kennedy seems to think this will help him win votes among Republicans who might not like their choices in 2024.

A few weeks ago Kennedy tweeted "If it looks like I can raise the money and mobilize enough people to win, I'll jump in the race. If I run, my top priority will be to end the corrupt merger between state and corporate power that has ruined our economy, shattered the middle class, polluted our landscapes and waters, poisoned our children, and robbed us of our values and freedoms.” Well, it appears that the necessary criteria have been met (in his mind anyways), and he has made known his intention to oppose Biden for the Democratic nomination:

 

 

On Fox News the other day, he praised Carlson for “exposing” how “greedy Pharma” controlled news content which “promoted jabs they knew to be lethal and worthless.” This was the kind of misinformation that got Kennedy banned from Instagram (he also claimed that the vaccines caused autism in children). Kennedy also oddly accused Trump of being the instigator of lockdowns, which “wiped out the middle class in the country systematically.” Of course many people would say that the “wiping out” of the middle class was a process that began decades ago, with the gradual loss of manufacturing jobs and the lowering of marginal tax rates.

Yet Kennedy wasn’t afraid to be on the left of the kind of thing Fox News usually pushes: "There's a cushy socialism for the rich and this kind of brutal, merciless capitalism for the poor. It keeps us in a state of war… it bails out banks,” he said, adding that

Last month, the United States government told 30 million people it was cutting their food stamp checks by 90 percent. It took 15 million people off Medicare. The same month it gave $300 million to the Silicon Valley Bank and tapped up the cost of the Ukraine war to $113 billion. We're sending $113 billion to the Ukraine. The entire budget of EPA is $12 billion. The budget of CDC is $11 billion. We have 57% of American citizens could not put their hands on $1,000 if they have an emergency. A quarter of our citizens are hungry. So we're cutting welfare and food stamps by 90 percent.

Of course the comment in regard to Ukraine is playing to “populist” and “America First” sentiment, which could “appeal” either to the far-right or far-left; it is also predictably misleading. The U.S. has sent less than $80 billion in aid to Ukraine, two-thirds of that is in the form of military assistance. The EU and European countries on their own have spent much more than the U.S. in direct financial assistance. 

Still, while we may conjecture that Kennedy’s other “figures” are incorrect or exaggerated, it should be noted with or without aid to Ukraine, the amount of money spent on social programs started at low base since the Clinton presidency, so Ukrainian aid shouldn’t be seen as the problem, because that aid isn’t going back into social programs anyways if Republican budget-cutters have any say in it. 

Without an arm-twister in the White House (since begging didn't work), you can't expect people like Manchin and Sinema to help people on the federal level, so it is local governments who have to fill in the gaps of humanity, at least in "liberal" cities. Last night I encountered an old man who looked like he hadn't washed in a year, jabbering gibberish to an unseen companion. He wouldn't last long in a homeless shelter, so I thought that maybe I better mail in that ballot (given that today is the voting deadline) in support of the creation of mental health "crisis care centers."

Unfortunately the baggage that Kennedy carries also includes a habit of shooting his mouth off and making bizarre analogies, such as asserting that lockdowns were akin to, well, the way authoritarian regimes like the Nazis “controlled” the populace (actually, more like the Orwellian model). He has opposed Covid-19 vaccinations for children, in fact has asserted that the vaccines were concocted too quickly and there is no proof they are useful. Personally, I took my two shots and did not die (yet) from it, although it is my suspicion that it did not work against the Omicron variant.

Maybe some of this can be blamed on his childhood upbringing; in his book RFK Jr: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Dark Side of the Dream, Jerry Oppenheimer claims that his mother, Ethel, had lousy parenting skills and largely ignored her children. We are told that Kennedy found comfort in animals (which may have had a hand in his environmental advocacy), and drug use. The lack of parenting after the assassination of his father led Kennedy and his siblings to lead “rebellious” lives; Kennedy himself was kicked out of numerous boarding schools and ran with a “bad” crowd.

Still, he was smart enough to get a law degree and engage in his environmental passions. Years ago I listened to his radio show when “liberal” Seattle actually had a “progressive” talk radio station, and he didn’t seem any more “out there” than the other left-wing personalities. Nevertheless, his Covid pronouncements were an embarrassment for his relations, leading to distancing then and refusal to endorse him now, given the mortification it might cause them if given a more public hearing.

But to be fair about this, opinion polls seem to suggest that the return to “normalcy” under Biden only worked for as long as people needed to catch their breath after all the confusion caused by the Trump years, and now people are back to their old left-center-far-right mindsets. I always said that Bernie Sanders would have beaten Trump in 2016 because the electorate wanted “change” again, and since Sanders and Trump were different sides of the same coin, “populists” and working class whites (especially in the Midwest states) who were morally queasy about Trump would have preferred to vote for Sanders, and that would have been enough to overcome the loss of votes from, say, bitter gender activists who were for Hillary or no one.

It is certainly possible we could see a similar “preference” for the "populist" Kennedy over the fascism of Trump or DeSantis and their own habit of disturbing pronouncements, if it came to that. One thing that is for certain now is that it could be a little bit more interesting primary season next year if Kennedy is running.

For people like Kat Tenbarge, it's all "personal"

 

The life of Justin Roiland, the co-creator of the animated series Rick and Morty, took a predictable turn for the worse when an “unnamed” woman accused him, according the NBC News, of “one felony count of domestic battery with corporal injury and one felony count of false imprisonment by menace, violence, fraud and/or deceit,” which allegedly occurred in 2020 and led to a brief arrest and a potential trial this year. 

Predictably without the benefit of due process, Roiland was “canceled” by everyone he was connected with. Also not surprisingly, Kat Tenbarge, who is the “tech” and “culture” reporter on NBC News Digital—meaning she has a virtual free hand to make a fool of herself that she wouldn’t last long engaging in if she was on broadcast television—was all over the story, the truth and due process be damned :

 

 

But before we get to the “rest of the story,” what we learn about Tenbarge is that although she keeps her “professional” and “personal” views—meaning that expressed on social media—separate, the “personal” does influence the stories she chooses to cover on the “professional” side. For example, in regard to a story on Andrew Tate, she quoted several people who said variations of this: "If Andrew Tate is guilty of human trafficking I believe he deserves a death sentence."

As in her more recent story on Tate in which she added her own “embellishments” and the “interpretations” of Tate’s alleged crimes by others, she has never discussed the “other side” of the case—which includes denials of trafficking by the so-called “victims,” aside from the prop who was sent to Romania to lie and set-up the Tates—but that it looks increasingly likely that prosecutors will eventually drop the charges for lack of evidence, and are only maintaining the illusion that there is a "case," likely to appease a certain foreign government and the gender activists pushing it to "act."  

But the Tates are only accused of “trafficking” phone sex workers who basically tell their customers on the other end what they want to hear. Yet Tenbarge—at least on her “digital news” page—has seemingly been supportive of female sex workers who earn their living on porn sites and/or “advertise” on Instagram. Thus her attacks on Tate for operating a “phone sex” service seems a bit hypocritical; obviously what she and other “feminists” don’t like about him is that he is what they would be seen as if they switched genders.

We can see that Tenbarge’s stories are top-heavy with sex and gender-related issues, mainly of the negative variety. She never speaks to the concerns of other groups—such as the fact that Latinos are voiceless in both “culture” and in the “media,” while other groups (like women) have an “open mike” to whine and complain about anything that piques their narcissism.   

And of course we know that narcissists need each other’s support, so we are presented with a headline which falsely suggests that Amber Heard got even a red cent from Johnny Depp in “her” settlement: “Amber Heard settles defamation case against Johnny Depp.” Tenbarge didn’t mention in that story that the verdict that found that Heard had defamed Depp with malice still stood, or that Heard’s own “defamation” claim was actually for a statement made by another person, not Depp.

It’s amazing how hypocritical “gender sensitive” environments are. Take Seattle, for instance. These two statues are considered “appropriate” for public viewing...

 

…but the original Starbucks’ logo is considered “inappropriate”:

 

The people who commissioned those statues apparently didn’t believe that these might be “offensive” to some people, particularly given the implication of pedophilia—which might not have been the intent, but we are talking about America, which unlike Europe has an unhealthy attitude about sex and nudity. Public displays of female nudity, even via inanimate objects, is forbidden in Seattle, so it is easy to become cynical about gender hypocrisy.

Then there is this story from the UK last week where a female teacher at an all-girls school was fired after saying “Good afternoon, girls” and a few students made a formal complaint against her for “misgendering” them because they considered themselves “binary” or “trans,” and of course the “woke” school backed them. Well, I say let’s not be hypocrites here: if you can’t figure out what your gender is because you think you are one thing and have the “parts” of another, then go to a co-ed school where the teacher can say “Good afternoon girls and boys” and you won’t be offended—unless of course there is some other “name” people are supposed to call you. Problems, problems. Isn’t life short enough?

Of course gender hypocrisy is quickly becoming more and more encased in American society, and we see this in the case of Tenbarge, whose primary claim to people even knowing she exists continues to be her insane insistence on convincing people that Amber Heard is not the liar and abuser that history, audio recording and a jury verdict  tell us she is, and that she completely blocks out any facts that harm the validity of her own “narrative.” Few people take Tenbarge seriously if they take the time to care at all; she has mainly become a source merely of frustration and bewilderment.

There are those who don’t want to be too harsh with her by accepting her own vague claims with she uses as a frame to justify her acceptance of other accuser's stories,  but like those who tried to give Michele Dauber the “benefit of the doubt” on those terms, it should be noted that there is no real “evidence” behind those claims, just Tenbarge’s “word.” If she defends Heard’ obvious lies, then why should we believe her own "word"? Tenbarge is one of those people with a preconceived victim philosophy and is self-obsessed with her own narcissistic egotism, and she apparently feels the need to keep hammering away with the lies not necessarily to Heard’s “benefit”—because we may presume that Heard by now wants people to stop talking about this too—but to appease her own dark fantasies.

Her latest social media posting has disturbed some people, since it clearly is a last-ditch effort to “convince” people that Heard is the "real deal." There she is, three years on as if she is just “discovering” it, Tenbarge dredges up the UK trial verdict, and in response Andy Signore at Popcorned Planet brought back the Black Belt Barrister in the UK to remind people that Heard was not the defendant in that case, so she was not required to provide proof of her claims like she was in the U.S. trial, and The Sun only needed to show that they didn’t know that the stories Heard was feeding them were obvious lies.

In the judge’s “opinion,” the barrister again demonstrated that he took Heard’s word at face value, ignored evidence that suggested Heard was lying, or wouldn’t know she was lying about until the U.S. trial—such in regard to the “donations” that the judge was mightily “impressed” with when Heard claimed that she had paid the “entire” $7 million divorce settlement to “charity.” But as we would discover, Heard was actually the selfish narcissist for whom the only “charity” she knows is herself. She even treats that child she was too vain to carry herself as a mine-all-mine “prop” like those dogs she was once so fond of, but you never see around anymore.

So what kind of person overlooks all of that and still defends Heard and her lies? Probably someone with similar personality traits, to be honest. Tenbarge wants to beat on you until you “believe,” and if you refuse to, she will try to destroy you like Heard tried to destroy Depp. But then again, whose listening?

So what was the “rest of the story” in the Roiland case? The Orange County, California, District Attorney’s Office last week dismissed all charges against him: “We dismissed the charges today because there was insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt” a spokesperson said in a statement from the office. Apparently “significant additional information came to light” that revealed the claims against Roiland to be fabricated. In his own statement, Roiland called the accuser an “embittered ex” who took advantage of the MeToo hypocrisy to “bypass due process” and have him “canceled.”

Cases like this could only in the past year have been brought to a point where there is at least a chance for the falsely accused to be heard. Of course that angers people like Tenbarge, who also took the time to attack Colonel Kurtz on her work exposing the Marilyn Manson hoax (although only on her social media accounts--Tenbage only attacks men on her "news" page). 

The exposing of the hypocrisy and the lies when due process is allowed to run its course drives people like Tenbarge "wild" because for them it is “personal.” But we can live with that, because people like Tenbarge are becoming just annoying gnats you occasionally have to swat away. Unfortunately, the mainstream media at large still hasn't learned that the accused have rights they ignore with impunity, and gleefully destroy people's lives before the facts are all in.