"Washington has the nation's most unfair tax system," Inslee said in his annual speech. [...] Applause in the legislature was reportedly split along party lines.

Yeah, split between the rich & the very-rich one one side, and the corporate lap-dogs on the other.
--
FYI for the curious: Dieudonné translated literally, is "God given". Helluva last name.

@2,

That's his first name.

How is Charlie Hebdo responsible for what the French state does or for what French politicians say? Greenwald should be deeply embarrassed with himself.

@1) Um, if you had actually read the story, you would know that the defendants themselves repeatedly no-showed at court-ordered depositions. So they suppressed themselves.

(And i suggest you look up the poly-syllabic word 'depositions' in an actual dictionary before attempting any retort - see I'm looking out for you).

At 27, the bloom of "youth" has usually passed. Unless the lifestyle makes one perpetually a "youth?"

@6: When making smart ass comments, triple check them, because when you say something stupid like "the defendants themselves repeatedly no-showed" when what you mean is the WITNESSES, it takes a lot of the sting out of your critique.
Hope Solo is the defendant. I didn't want you to have to look up the word in the dictionary.

You're welcome.

@5, I think Greenwald was criticizing prosecutions for 'defending terrorism.' I'd agree that seems hypocritical following the free speech rally. But I disagree with him that all speech is protected, including anti-Semitic threats. There's no more reason to defend that speech than there is to engage in discussions of what images might 'provoke extremists to attacks.'

@6: Yes, because witnesses not showing up for depositions definitely means that they chose to no-show themselves and weren't pressured by their famous and (relatively) well-off acquaintance/relation. That's iron-clad logic you're employing there.

I only wish I had you as a professor in law school instead of the life-long legal professionals I was stuck with to teach me about depositions. Then I might have some kind of clue about what the definition of that word has to do with my comment or your feeble attempt at a smack down response.

Dieudonne is a coq

@9 Given how much space of the column Greenwald gives to bashing Charlie Hebdo in rather disgusting terms, I think it is safe to say he was doing more than protesting prosecutions. His conflating the march with the establishment's hypocrisy is rather lame as well.

@12, Greenwald's opinion seems to equate to we should defend whatever he thinks is worthy. Claiming Hebdo is hypocritical for firing a writer for anti-Semitic material is lame. On the other hand, Greenwald is not the only one questioning a free speech rally that includes representatives from Israel, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Is that a criticism of the rally or a questioning of the motives of those government's in attending?

@13 Pointing out that some unsavory characters attempted to co-opt the rally is important but it shouldn't overshadow the many valid reasons there were to attend it. Greenwald doesn't not have anything positive to say about the rally. Draw your own conclusion.