New York Attorney Under Fire After Video Of His Threatening To Call ICE On Spanish Speakers In Restaurant

 

download-2New York lawyer (and GW Law graduate) Aaron Schlossberg who went on a bizarre tirade against Spanish-speaking restaurant workers has quickly become the most hated man of the week in New York.  The New York Post reports that he has now been kicked out of his office by Corporate Suites, the company that held his lease.  There is also an effort to disbar him and even a petition to hire a mariachiband to follow him around New York.  That could lead to an interesting legal fight if he alleges harassment or stalking.  The moves against Schlossberg raises our long-standing debate over actions taken against people for obnoxious or unpopular speech in their private lives or on social media.

 

In the video, Schlossberg seems triggered by people speaking Spanish and suggests that the employees are likely undocumented immigrants, and threatens to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to report them: “My guess is they’re not documented. So my next call is to ICE to have each one of them kicked out of my country.”

A petition has gathered more than 10,000 signatures, to get him disbarred.

The New York bar follows the standard professional conduct rules with general language on misconduct raising questions of fitness but focus on actions taken in the practice of law:

 

A lawyer or law firm shall not:

1. Violate a Disciplinary Rule.

2. Circumvent a Disciplinary Rule through actions of another.

3. Engage in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer.

4. Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

5. Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

6. Unlawfully discriminate in the practice of law, including in hiring, promoting or otherwise determining conditions of employment, on the basis of age, race, creed, color, national origin, sex, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation. Where there is a tribunal with jurisdiction to hear a complaint, if timely brought, other than a Departmental Disciplinary Committee, a complaint based on unlawful discrimination shall be brought before such tribunal in the first instance. A certified copy of a determination by such a tribunal, which has become final and enforceable, and as to which the right to judicial or appellate review has been exhausted, finding that the lawyer has engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice shall constitute prima facie evidence of professional misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding.

7. Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer.

We have seen bars block admission for people with racist views in the past, as with the Nathan Hale case.  The question is where to draw such a line on racist or offensive or intolerant views.

The basis for terminating the lease is equally problematic if based on the political views of a tenant, though a commercial space there is likely fewer regulatory protections. I am assuming that Schlossberg is an at-will or monthly tenant but it is still uncommon to see a termination for the exercise of free speech, even offensive speech.  The landlord could view Schlossberg as so controversial that his presence could threaten the operation or access at the building.

Scholossberg appears to have a history of intolerance but no known convictions for criminal acts.

Videos show Schlossberg at various protests.

His  website says that he  handles business and commercial law in New York.  He has an impressive resume. He earned his Bachelor of Arts Degree in English from The Johns Hopkins University and his Juris Doctorate Degree from the George Washington University Law School. Notably, he studied in Spain and knows Spanish.

Like most people, I find Schlossberg’s statements to be deeply troubling and offensive.  Of course, nothing protects Schlossberg from public criticism for his offensive speech, including those who want nothing to do with him as a lawyer.  However, as a free speech advocate, I am concerned about lease terminations and disbarment proceedings based entirely on the unpopularity of speech.  The First Amendment protects us against government speech regulation. Yet, the termination of a lease or a disbarment proceeding raise contractual and policy concerns over when people can be evicted or denied a livelihood over the use of free speech.

Where should the line be drawn in such cases?

219 thoughts on “New York Attorney Under Fire After Video Of His Threatening To Call ICE On Spanish Speakers In Restaurant”

  1. Schlossberg’s comments were certainly rude. That said, if he truly thought that he was speaking with illegal immigrants, then how is his threat to report their crime an offense worthy of disbarment? (Please note that I have limited bandwidth, and cannot watch the video at home. I do not know the entirety of what he said.)

    One of the reasons why I want virtually all immigration to go through legal channels, is to improve tensions. Many people resent illegal immigrants for a variety of reasons. They are line cutters. They have not gone through a basic background check or health check, so you have absolutely no idea if they are nice people or with a cartel. (Note that crime is an equalizer. Women with children can be criminals, including recruiters for human trafficking, just the same as men. Merely brining a child with you is not some sort of character reference.) Many actually receive money from the government via earned income credit, rather than paying into the system. Identity fraud is rampant. In CA, an illegal immigrant is allowed to carry less insurance than a citizen. Get hit by an illegal alien, and you’re out of luck. Many cities in CA allow them to loiter on street corners to get day labor, under the table jobs that pay no taxes. If a day labor cluster begins to grow around businesses, the aggressive participants can drive away all other customers. Antibiotic resistant TB is on the rise among illegal aliens, who refuse to go through the system and get a health check. Many in the construction, landscaping, childcare, and home services industries hire illegal aliens. They do not pay them the minimum legal pay and benefits, and thus are able to undercut the legal competition. They flood the country and compete with the existing, legal poor residents for entry-level jobs, and scholarships. There is so much animosity between African Americans and Latinos over illegal immigration, that many of the schools out here self segregate. Finally, sanctioned illegal immigration is a slap in the face to everyone who came here from countries who do not share a border with us. They often leave their families behind to get a job and get settled, taking years sometimes before they send for them. But illegal immigrants complain about separating families? That is how families have immigrated here for generations. It is nonsense to make the claim that merely because a country shares a border with us, it is somehow rude to require them to get in line at the front door, just like everyone else. What about those from Barbados who cannot just walk across? How is that fair to them?

    In short, the arguments in favor of illegal immigration sound eerily like those that favored the continuation of slavery. It was passionately argued that none but slaves would work the fields, and that without this heinous abuse of humanity, the cost of food would skyrocket. There is this racist ideology that only Latinos will do certain jobs. Illegal aliens are exposed to exponentially more workplace hazards. For example, they work conventional fields where they are exposed to massive amounts of herbicide and pesticide, with the result that studies show many health issues among such farm workers. If employers only had a pool of legal applicants to choose from, perhaps they would be forced to create a more healthy work environment. Californians vote for higher wages, benefits, and regulations, but when it comes time to spend their own money, they skip all that and hire illegals under the table. They do like their serfs.

    I am deeply concerned at this feudal system that has developed in CA. If it’s a gross or dangerous job, chances are it is a Latino doing it. For instance, there is the guy who was leaf blowing the streets in LA county, where I could literally smell the human feces aerosolized in the air from the homeless encampments that keep setting up, moving on, and then returning. Was he in a hazmat bunny suit with proper filtration? Nope. Just a regular dust mask with plenty of gaps around his nose, breathing in all that Hepatitis. Illegal immigration has allowed a serf class to persist in the 21st Century of the US.

    Somehow, other countries manage to heel-toe it every day without illegal aliens doing all their dirty work. Shall the US become Saudi Arabia, where all the Arabs are too fine to work, and they import abused domestics to do all the menial labor? Or are we going to find our bootstraps and persevere? Honestly, if our country would starve to death without illegal immigrants getting poisoned in fields, then our country is a dead end, evolutionarily speaking.

    If all immigration went through legal channels, then the assumption would be that any person with limited English was either a visitor, or they were a new legal immigrant, properly vetted and screened. An invited guest.

    1. Karen, do you actually live in California? Or are you just regurgitating misinformation from right-wing media?

      Because I’m here in the heart of Los Angeles and your take on the situation here sounds much scarier than reality. It sounds like right-wing media accounts geared for Trump supporters. Most ridiculous are your comparisons to ‘slavery’ and how California loves to ‘exploit’ the undocumented.

      The truth is that undocumented farm workers, picking fruits and vegetables, can earn $15 per hour in California fields. The work is tough, mind you. But that’s a much higher wage than Walmart pays thousands of White Americans throughout the inland states.

      Furthermore, illegal immigration to California peaked almost 20 years ago. And during the Great Recession, more Mexicans went home than entered California. So your notion that this problem is out of control is somewhat dated now.

      1. Because I’m here in the heart of Los Angeles

        On another part of the thread, you said you were living in New York. Can you get your fictions straight?

        1. Give me the date where I said I live in New York!

          I don’t mind your dispassionate cynicism or cult-like Libertarian thinking. But don’t start lying.

          And ‘where’ do you live, anyway??

          1. Peter, I could be wrong but I seem to remember that in one post you indicated that you lived in Brooklyn. You say so much that is inconsequential that it is difficult to remember anything you say.

            1. I briefly lived in Brooklyn when I was 22 years old. But I’ve been to New York many times since childhood and I have family there. I also lived in Chicago for 8 years; right on the lakefront.

              1. Do you see how your prior comment about Brooklyn was misleading where at least 2 commenters thought you were living there in the present? In any event, I doubt you know much about NYC today or much about its financial and political world of the present and past so that whatever comment you made about NYC wasn’t enhanced by your living there at age 22.

                1. Look, Allan, you get around. I’m sure you can talk knowledgeably about more than one city. I believe you said you live in three cities including New York. So what’s the issue here? Many people have lived in different parts of the country. And we have family and friends in different parts.

                  We may have been a soldier stationed in various states. Military families get around more than me. I have In-Laws that were a military family. For that reason I have some familiarity with Mississippi of all places.

                  Here in L.A. one meets people from an amazing number of states and countries. Lot of Canadians here! Americans don’t know. A surprising number of British too. They think L.A. is a colony of London.

                  But more than anyone you meet New Yorkers here. The ‘industry’, as it is known, a bi-coastal operation.

                    1. “Peter, never lay down with perros or you will end up with pulgas”

                      Fran, Eres un perro callejero? Parece que has tenido mucha experiencia con las pulgas.

                  1. “Look, Allan, you get around. I’m sure you can talk knowledgeably about more than one city. I believe you said you live in three cities including New York.”

                    I don’t know that what you say is true, but what I said about you and NY stand.

                    Also, I note that I provided you with proof regarding the lies about Trump calling Latino’s animals when he didn’t. He called M-13 animals which they are. I also note that you couldn’t comment on another lie in the NYTimes that you refer to so often.

                    You either can defend your arguments or you can relegate yourself to so many of the mindless ones on this list. Which is it?

                    1. “Fran, Eres un perro callejero? Parece que has tenido mucha experiencia con las pulgas.”

                      Lamentablemente tu madre nos dio pulga a todos cuando te parió

                      Cuando tu empujas, el mundo empuja para atrás. Ya veamos el fruto de tus padres

                      Un Saludo cordial hijo de pta

                    2. “Lamentablemente tu madre nos dio pulga a todos cuando te parió Cuando tu empujas, el mundo empuja para atrás. Ya veamos el fruto de tus padres Un Saludo cordial hijo de pta”

                      Aaron, I will reply in English since that is the primary language used on this blog. You are a nutcase.

      2. Peter – yes, I live in CA. I’m also not scared. We’re all used to this debacle.

        Any data on the number of illegal aliens has difficulties. Do you believe that all illegal aliens self report? In addition, immigration status has been removed from many forms. Right now, the only reliable measure of illegal alien activity are the drivers licenses our state issues. Pew Research gets a rough estimate of illegal immigration by taking the total estimated number of immigrants from the census, and subtracting the legal ones. You may recall that there was a recent dustup about asking for immigration status on the census. The Left does seem to be putting forth a lot of effort to prevent the government from gathering facts on illegal immigration – their actual numbers, those who are convicted of crimes, and other data.

        According to Pew, CA has the highest burden of illegal immigration. You may notice because of all the bilingual, or Spanish only, signs.

        Now, instead of doubting my veracity in the state in which I reside, or otherwise focusing on me, personally, you should instead discuss my points.

        Or, you could just go sit on the 405.

  2. Blah, blah, blah. The truth is, he spoke the truth. There are tens of millions of us who are disgusted that the liberals and the government policies they created allow millions of illegal aliens to live among us, free from prosecution as lawbreakers and collecting benefits from those of us who work, live lawfully and pay taxes. We tens of millions vote. And we rejoice when one of us has the balls to speak up publicly. And we smirk that the liberals want to pillory him/her. This incident, like so many others, doesn’t do much to motivate the pro-illegal immigration liberals any further. But the liberal response steels our resolve to take this country back.

    1. More right-wing fruitcake scare-mongering. It looks good on you though. Pro tip: regurgitating Pravda Faux News prattle only make you look even sillier.

      this is to “oh, I didn’t know that illegals immigrants actually pay more taxes than most citizens” selfie

      1. Marky Mark Mark – Super Pro Tip – you have not reached talented amateur yet. I will let you know when you can give pro tips.

        BTW, can you back up that comment on illegals and taxes with a government site?

  3. He doesn’t deserve disciplinary action, but potential clients should look elsewhere. And what a shanda fur die goyem! He makes me cringe.

    Incidentally, one of my many Revolutionary War patriot ancestors on my dad’s side was Michael Kelchner. He enlisted April 28, 1775, and served to the end of the war. His gravestone, and that of his wife, was in German. So were their church records.

    As far as I know, George Washington wasn’t screaming at my German speaking patriot ancestor to speak English…

    1. Did your patriot ancestor ever learn English? When troops were moved from place to place did the officers give the orders in multiple languages? Was your patriot ancestor impolite speaking German so that only a few could understand him?

    2. @Andrea May 18, 2018 at 6:48 PM
      “He doesn’t deserve disciplinary action, but potential clients should look elsewhere.”

      I concur on both counts. I certainly wouldn’t want someone representing me who’s that ignorantly prejudiced and lacking in self-control.

      “And what a shanda fur die goyem! He makes me cringe.” 🙂

      I wasn’t familiar with that Yiddish expression, but appreciate your bringing it up. I wasn’t aware that he’s Jewish, but now I’d like to ask, are you more embarrassed for him as a fellow Jew, or rather more sorry for him as a fellow human being whose virulent ethnocentrism is obviously making him miserable?

  4. I am afraid, as a non-attorney, a major point is being missed in the legal profession, and remains undiscovered by the public at large. It is that of refining the law and regulations governing civil conduct so far that, incident by incident, each becomes a court clogger, straining at gnats.

    It is patently obnoxious to threaten to call ICE because someone is speaking Spanish (or any other language) so loudly as to disrupt an otherwise calm atmosphere, and similar and as unknowing to me as a parent threatening to call the cops on an unruly child.

    But, that type of warning, to me, still is protected speech no matter the depth of prejudice or juvenility is exposes in the user. Does it rise to offensive hate speech? To me it can be compared to that which refers to my national heritage as being a Polak as my grandfather came from that area well before my patents were born in this country.

    I strongly disagree that a legal condition of immigration to this country is learning English — decided many times over the years. While inconvenient for monolingual citizens, speaking another language does not rob one of their humanity, or rights as a citizen.

    As to self sufficiency, what infant or child coming to this nation is self sufficient.

    I am afraid that these questions must be answered in general — if we are to maintain national borders and identity, but the idea of there always being exceptions to the rule leads us down the path of becoming enmeshed in millions of spider-web like threads like gnats, and losing our humanity and sense of justice because the webs are needed to decrease the gnat population being protected by the spiders.

    1. I strongly disagree that a legal condition of immigration to this country is learning English — decided many times over the years.

      He wasn’t making a statement about positive law. He was making a statement about optimal policy. And he’s right. Passing a written and oral proficiency test should be a requirement before you’re given a place in the queue.

    2. Gregory: What’s wrong with a parent threatening to call the cops on an unruly child? My mother regularly threatened us with calling the cops, military school, Catholic school, boot camp, and of course, burning in Hell. We all turned out fine. But fortunately, we were raised before the snowflake generation. 🙀

  5. Maybe it’s because he just didn’t get his coffee yet, some people need their java ya know. As for some of the comments, they need help too, but it will be more than just coffee they need.

  6. I don’t view this as cause for disbarment.

    A person reporting crime is generally considered to be immune from civil or criminal prosecution unless there is actual malice. Their telling others that he/she will call police because they believe a crime has been committed, in this case entering or remaining in the United States in violation of immigration law, is not actionable in court, thus no basis to sanction his law license.

    1. I regard this as a cause for advancement.

      Surely there is a position for a person with Mr. Schlossberg’s abilities and views within the Trump administration?

      1. Somebody who acts and talks like that should be at least a President’s adviser. Maybe Trump should call this guy when he gets off the phone with his buddy Sean Hannity.

      2. @wildbill99 May 18, 2018 at 2:52 PM
        “I regard this as a cause for advancement.
        Surely there is a position for a person with Mr. Schlossberg’s abilities and views within the Trump administration?”

        Well, he has been videotaped in a MAGA cap at at least one Trump rally-up, but if he can’t get a gig at the White House, he can always become a dual-citizen of the US and Israel and run for Congress.

  7. I agree with Professor Turley that this incident raises troubling questions. Should any one individual, with no criminal record, be publicly shamed and stalked for one foolish outburst?

    Yet you have to wonder why Aaron Schlossberg felt emboldened enough to make a scene like that last a Midtown Manhattan eatery. Have Trump’s anti-immigation tirades affected otherwise sensible people?

    1. “Have Trump’s anti-immigation tirades affected otherwise sensible people?”

      Not to any significant extent, but the left’s actions have had a dramatic impact on the country causing bad behavior and violence.

      1. Trump’s tirades have affected ‘you’, Allan. Your grandchildren tell me you used to be ever-so-vaguely moderate. But since Trump took office, they can’t even talk to you!

        1. Hallucinating again I see. By the way, Trump isn’t a conservative nor is he a libertarian. But he isn’t a dumb Liberal either. I listen to you and laugh. You make up stories and quote articles, but have little understanding of what you say.

          1. Trump doesn’t know what he is! His views are mainly affected by the last person he spoke with. Trump would be terribly hard-pressed to analyze almost any given issue.

            1. Peter, it’s stupid to try to read things into a mind that you don’t know. For decades he has spoken out on certain issues and he has been relatively consistent.

              The Democratic leaders that have been governing our nation have changed their minds far more than he has his. Chuck Schumer was against immigration. Obama was against gay marriage. Those are just two small examples of major shifts in position without a change in the rationals that formulated those decisions in the first place. I would expect a lot more variation from a nonpolitician like Trump but it seems all too many Democratic leaders that are experienced change their minds over and over again. They have no principles.

              1. Trump has been consistently boorish! He was largely responsible for stoking the Birther Movement. How responsible was that..??

                Show me mainstream media coverage detailing Schumer’s alleged ‘opposition’ to immigrants. That would be a very risky position for a New York Senator or Congressman.

                1. Peter, the media has continuously lied and people like you will requote known lies so don’t expect the President or anyone to be extra nice to you or them.

                  Examples below in next postings.

                  Schumer is on video saying that. Look it up. You won’t find that information in the MSM.

                  1. Peter, I don’t expect much comment from you on the following posts because your mind seems to act like a filter only remembering short slogans and headlines from the MSM. I never see you actually delving into the data available except that data that is misleading.

                    So be it. I had hoped originally you were able to defend a position without utilizing the work product of others and thereby advanced the discussion but after a while, I didn’t find anything more than an empty vessel. Too bad.

                2. Who’s An Animal?
                  Posted: 17 May 2018 02:11 PM PDT
                  (John Hinderaker)
                  You likely are already aware of one of today’s dustups, the press’s false claim that President Trump described illegal immigrants as “animals.” This lie has cropped up in so many places that there is no point in trying to catalog them all, but the New York Times, as usual, was one of the malefactors:

                  Trump lashed out at undocumented immigrants during a White House meeting, calling those trying to breach the country’s borders “animals” https://t.co/aQNeu29T6e pic.twitter.com/ogrFKaWyDZ

                  — The New York Times (@nytimes) May 16, 2018

                  That is a flat-out lie, as we will see momentarily. It was repeated by many others, including USA Today and the Washington Post. The Associated Press at least had the decency to delete its false tweet:

                  AP has deleted a tweet from late Wednesday on Trump’s “animals” comment about immigrants because it wasn’t made clear that he was speaking after a comment about gang members.

                  — The Associated Press (@AP) May 17, 2018

                  The New York Times, on the other hand, is sticking to its story.

                  As the AP ultimately admitted, President Trump referred to members of the vicious MS-13 gang as “animals.” The context was a White House round table on California’s sanctuary law and its impact on the federal government’s ability to deport violent criminals who are illegally present in the U.S. At the beginning of the discussion, President Trump framed it this way:

                  Each of you has bravely resisted California’s deadly and unconstitutional sanctuary state laws. You’ve gone through a lot, too, although it’s becoming quite popular what you’re doing. A law that forces the release of illegal immigrant criminals, drug dealers, gang members, and violent predators into your communities.

                  California’s law provides safe harbor to some of the most vicious and violent offenders on Earth, like MS-13 gang members putting innocent men, women, and children at the mercy of these sadistic criminals. But we’re moving them out of this country by the thousands. MS-13, we’re grabbing them by the thousands and we’re getting them out, Kevin.

                  The round table had nothing to do with illegal immigrants in general, or “those trying to breach the country’s borders” (the caravaners, I take it). This was the president’s reference to animals; again, he obviously was referring to MS-13 gang members:

                  SHERIFF MIMS: Thank you. There could be an MS-13 member I know about — if they don’t reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about it.

                  THE PRESIDENT: We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — and we’re stopping a lot of them — but we’re taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals. And we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before. And because of the weak laws, they come in fast, we get them, we release them, we get them again, we bring them out. It’s crazy.

                  Scarcely a day goes by without the news media lying about the president and his administration. No wonder trust in the press is at an all-time low. It should be.

                  1. Illegal migration to California peaked 18 years ago. There is nothing urgent or new about this issue. But Trump is deliberately creating the impression that this matter is somehow boiling to a head. It isn’t.

                    1. ” But Trump is deliberately creating the impression that this matter is somehow boiling to a head.”

                      Peter, it has been simmering for decades. Time to pass immigration legislation that benefits the US, Build a Wall. Provide work permits if beneficial to the US while not providing social services since that can be guaranteed by the employer. End the idea that being born in America makes a person a citizen and recognize that birthright is due to the parent’s citizenship and nothing else. End the ability to have an additional citizenship when one has American citizenship.

                      The above doesn’t mean Latinos cannot become citizens of the US. It is simply a way to permit the US to best serve its citizens. It doesn’t even stop workers from entering the US. It is just a way to see to it that the workers benefit US citizens. A country has a sovereign right to control its borders and the most civilized of nations do so though in recent times that control has been lessened in some European nations that are now paying for that lack of control with increased violence, discord, and costs.

                  2. I note Peter that as usual, you don’t respond to the issues at hand. I believe you or at least one of those that think like you on this blog called Trump a bigot because the NY Times said Trump called Latinos “animals”. That was a blatant lie since he called M-13 gang members animals.

                    This is why one can’t have an intelligent conversation with you. You simply bow out of a conversation when the data points to you being wrong. You then make a generalized statement that is wrong as well but cannot argue your position because you rely on inaccurate headlines and campaign slogans. There is no depth to any of your discussion

                3. McCarthy reads the Times story
                  Posted: 17 May 2018 01:37 PM PDT
                  (Scott Johnson)
                  Andrew McCarthy gives the (new) Times origin story the kind of close reading I called for here earlier today. With the benefit of an educated eye, he reads the Times story between the lines and concludes (all emphasis in original):

                  * * * * *

                  The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation. With the blessing of the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans — Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries.

                  The Times averts its eyes from this point — although if a Republican administration tried this sort of thing on a Democratic candidate, it would be the only point.

                  Like the Justice Department and the FBI, the paper is banking on Russia to muddy the waters. Obviously, Russia was trying to meddle in the election, mainly through cyber-espionage — hacking. There would, then, have been nothing inappropriate about the FBI’s opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia. Indeed, it would have been irresponsible not to do so. That’s what counterintelligence powers are for.

                  But opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia is not the same thing as opening up a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign.

                  The media-Democrat complex has tried from the start to conflate these two things. That explains the desperation to convince the public that Putin wanted Trump to win. It explains the stress on contacts, no matter how slight, between Trump campaign figures and Russians. They are trying to fill a gaping void they hope you don’t notice: Even if Putin did want Trump to win, and even if Trump-campaign advisers did have contacts with Kremlin-tied figures, there is no evidence of participation by the Trump campaign in Russia’s espionage.

                  At the height of the 2016 presidential race, the FBI collaborated with the CIA to probe an American political campaign.

                  That is the proof that would have been needed to justify investigating Americans. Under federal law, to establish that an American is acting as an agent of a foreign power, the government must show that the American is purposefully engaging in clandestine activities on behalf of a foreign power, and that it is probable that these activities violate federal criminal law. (See FISA, Title 50, U.S. Code, Section 1801(b)(2), further explained in the last six paragraphs of my Dec. 17 column.)

                  But of course, if the FBI had had that kind of evidence, they would not have had to open a counterintelligence investigation. They would not have had to use the Clinton campaign’s opposition research — the Steele dossier — to get FISA-court warrants. They would instead have opened a criminal investigation, just as they did on Clinton when there was evidence that she committed felonies.

                  To the contrary, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation in the absence of any (a) incriminating evidence, or (b) evidence implicating the Trump campaign in Russian espionage. At the height of the 2016 presidential race, the FBI collaborated with the CIA to probe an American political campaign. They used foreign-intelligence surveillance and informants.

                  That’s your crossfire hurricane.

                  1. Peter, again I demonstrate how you have argued based on mistruths you have seen in headlines and slogans. I note you don’t respond when someone takes the time to show you line by line the lies you have adopted. That makes what you say vacuous so don’t complain about the rhetoric on this blog. Blame yourself.

                    Any time you wish to truly debate go ahead and you will find a high-level debate rather than debate that has to deal with superficial people that can’t get beyond misleading headlines and lies.

                  2. Thanks for filling us in on the Pravda Faux News talking points for today. Pro tip: when you cite to yet another wignut wackjob conspiracy paranoic, you come across yet again as a buffoon. You’re dismissed.

                    this is to “I have a ‘Hannity was here’ tattoo across my lower back” allan

                    1. Mark, you believe Andrew McCarthy is a wackjob? Did you work for him at one time only to be fired because your finger cuts bloodied up the files? You know of course that over time his articles have proven to be very prescient, but maybe you haven’t had the time to read being relegated to that basement filing job.

                      Time for you to climb out of your hole and immerse yourself in the wonderful world of information. Down in that hole, you seemed to have turned a bit disturbed and looney. …And put some clothes on.

      1. When I said, “one foolish outburst”, I meant that in a broad, theoretic sense.

        The weird thing about that recent outburst is that New York diners have had Spanish-speaking staffers for decades now. I would be unsettled if I didn’t hear at least ‘some’ Spanish in New York. Yet this guy is going off like he’s in a “Saturday Night Live” parody. In fact, SNL will have a hard time satirizing him because he’s already so over-the-top.

  8. This is an example of the power of the internet to turn an incident of one obnoxious New Yorker behaving badly into a national issue. It allows people cross-country and across the globe to pile on, sending threatening tweets, defacing his company website, harassing his family and threatening his livlihood. He certainly won’t be disbarred; this is just an opportunity for a lazy politician to impress his guillable constituents by doing essentially nothing. He likely had a staffer draft a referral to the State Bar, which he knows is going nowhere, but it’s easier than the hard work of drafting legislation. And adolescents can hack and deface the attorney’s website because they know they can get away with it. Nobody is going to track them down and prosecute them, because the attorney is an unpopular figure. I doubt if the hackers really care about the issue; they’re just having fun. The company which abruptly terminated his lease and barred him from his office may face some legal jeopardy, if he chooses to pursue it. All in all, the incident doesn’t say much for him; he was being unnecessarily obnoxious. Nor does it say much for our bully culture, where people like to hound, harass and destroy those who express disagreeable opinions.

    1. You’re right, he shouldn’t lose his right to practice law.
      Were we to disbar every lawyer/jerk think of all the ambulances that wouldn’t be properly chased.

      The other ills he brought upon himself.

    1. anony:
      Column writer Cohen demands that we take the advice of our the circling the drain allies who act more like our rivals. Don’t know about “moral rot” (especially from the place that refused to get Trump’s remarks on MS-13 straight two days ago) but “intellectual rot” is a pretty good description of Mr. Cohen’s nonsense. Everyday I am reminded of the wisdom of Indiana Coach Bobby Knight, a flawed genius to be sure, but who presciently said, “All of us learn to write in the second grade. Most of us go on to greater things.” He pillories a private remark about McCain by a low level WH communication staffer but blithely passes over subtle calls for assassination of the President and horrendous attacks on his wife and child. Knight had it right. These are the bleatings of a tantrum-addled second grader positing his selective morality. He ought to go on to greater things — like Legos.

  9. Don’t worry good, tolerant, sweet liberals, 15 years from now, a person similarly situation will be prosecuted for “inciting racial hatred” or some other type of hate speech law. And then our society will be rid of such bigoted people.

  10. On one hand, I don’t understand what his gripe is. He lives in NYC. The most cosmopolitan city in the country. I lived there for 16 years. I frequently heard people speaking languages other than English. It comes with the territory.

    On the other hand, he has every right to express his opinions to the manager about what he considered a bad customer experience. The manager should welcome the customer feedback. Evaluate it. Then decide if corrective action to improve the customer experience is necessary.

    It started out as a petty dispute between the customer and the manager about the quality of service rendered. It should have stayed that way. If he knew he was being recorded, it was both dumb and a douche move to threaten to call ICE. At that point what was a dispute about an unsatisfying dining experience became political.

    And once it becomes political, the modus operandi of the authoritarian left is to get outraged, or at least pretend to be outraged, so they can use every tool available to destroy his career and ruin him financially for disagreeing with them. It happens over and over.

    1. He’s raving like a lunatic.

      Of course he has the right to express his noxious views, in as despicable a manner as he chooses.

      But that doesn’t make him any less of a nutjob.

      1. I listened to the video and I probably would act differently, but I don’t think he is a nutjob and I don’t think anyone in that restaurant acted appropriately.

  11. I see the issue with his law license as questioning his mental health and emotional stability. Those would be relevant factors affecting the ability to practice. If there is a JLAP committee, he should be referred. Why would anyone go on a tirade and threaten workers in a restaurant just because they are speaking Spanish? What if he went on some other kind of tirade in another venue where people might be less inclined to cower and hide? There might be a fistfight. To me, free speech isn’t the issue here. Anyone who acts like this in a public place, lawyer or not, has issues that should be addressed.

    As to his tenancy at his office, if his presence there due to this incident, then the landlord might be within his rights to take steps to protect his other tenants.

    1. I see the issue with his law license as questioning his mental health and emotional stability.

      LMAO

    2. If Rudy doesn’t start doing a better job, I see a job opportunity opening up for this guy in the near future.

  12. Do I think this guy is appalling? Absolutely. Do I think he should be disbarred? Not on the basis of the evidence I’ve seen.

    His views may be objectionable to me and his conduct less than appropriate to put it mildly but he did nothing illegal, as far as I am aware. If we insist on firing people, disbarring peoole and kicking people out of their offices or homes for their political views we are opening the door to such wide ranging abuse that we will surely regret it.

    If we want to oppose someone’s views, we should do so with reasoned discussion.

    1. He’s an idiot.
      Here’s a compromise: Don’t disbar him, but instead decertify whatever Law School gave him his diploma.

    2. I doubt his views are problematic at all to the bar. The issue is more likely whether his demonstrated mental instability is of a chronic nature such as would harm the interests of his clients.

  13. There is also an effort to disbar him and even a petition to hire a Miriachi band to follow him around New York.
    *****************************
    It’s America. He can say any damn fool thing he wants and the government in the form of the Bar is powerless against him. As for the Mariachi band, I say bring ’em on. I’d like a little background music during my work. Plus, he is expressing a lot of people’s frustration with the out-of-control illegal immigration and its contribution to the welfare state. Who knows, he might get a conversation started in the dogmatic Big Apple.

  14. has he has now been kicked out of his office by Corporate Suites, the company that holds his lease.

    Interesting to know who in a gatekeeper position at Corporate Suites is making business decisions like this.

    That aside, he was rude, but so were they. No properly supervised service staff babbles to each other in Spanish except in break rooms out of earshot of the public. That sort of behavior is rude in front of anglophone co-workers as well except in circumstances where purely private conversation is taking place. If your co-workers or members of the public can hear you and can be expected to hear you, it’s not a purely private conversation. The supervisor who allowed this situation needs to be reprimanded or fired.

    BTW, it’s a reasonable wager that most of them were in the country unlawfully.

    1. The Hispanic workers were chatting in Spanish to a Hispanic customer who happened to be a friend. It was their personal conversation and their right. As someone who has experienced being in a foreign country where my new language was an often time insurmountable obstacle I fully understand the position of the Hispanic workers and their friend. They were having a private conversation that was nobody’s business but their own.

      This lawyer is simply off his meds. It is none of his business. The argument of speaking in the language of the country in which you find yourself varies from one extreme to another.

      It is rude to speak in a language other than that which is the common language of the land when in a group where only some of the participants speak that foreign tongue, but all speak the common one. That excludes those who don’t speak the foreign tongue for the preference of a few others. That is rude.

      In this case the lawyer is obviously a bigot with a personal agenda biased against Hispanic immigrants in this case, probably, as he stated, against immigrants in general. The mutt is not American. The mutt is fuel for fascism and hatred. His immediate society make the statement. That is how we preserve our rights, not by excluding immigrants of the right to talk among themselves in their native tongue. Unfortunately the racists and bigots in America are trying to set new rules.

            1. Unlike a lot of Ugly Americans, I am welcomed in Canada, the US, France, Colombia, Great Britain, and wherever I go. The reason being is that I am recognized as a citizen of this planet, who thinks for himself, and can agree with someone else, even if it is not to my advantage. There are things greater than America itself. America needs to evolve past the us or them routine. That polarity is what keeps humanity from advancing. Durn, is that too progressive?

              1. Americans of all stripes are welcomed and that doesn’t have to do with your planetary citizenship or your interplanetary citizenship. The Ugly American wasn’t generally ugly rather it was more of an excuse for many non-Americans to explain why they didn’t have the same advantages.

                Polonius counseled his son Laertes before he went to Paris. He says, “Neither a borrower nor a lender be; / For loan oft loses both itself and friend.” It means do not lend or borrow money from a friend, because if you do so, you will lose both your friend and your money. If you lend, he will avoid paying back, and if you borrow you will fall out of your savings, as you turn into a spendthrift, and face humiliation.”

              2. Actually, you’re a low-grade head case, harbor a number of conceits, and have no conception of what a pest you make yourself.

        1. The old SOT’s a little testy this morning. (S/he often tells people to take their meds. Hmmm…)

            1. And apparently obsessed with sock-puppets, too. (Diane??? You’re way off base.)

              Get a grip, Nii, DSS, SOT… I see you’re still running around in circles.

    2. You. Really. Need. To. Get. Out. More.

      this is to “I could run a sandwich shop, too, by golly” allan

      1. Mark, I see you are going interplanetary with Issac. Good job, but when it starts to get dark go home to mommy.

  15. Mr. Turley, it’s Mariachi, not Miriachi, sir. The correct spelling (not capitalized, I might add) was right there in the headline of the article to which you hyperlinked ‘Mariachi’.

  16. This is an interesting situation that touches both the freedom of speech and other reasonable reasons to hold one responsible for abusing that freedom. Through exercising the freedom of speech one can infringe on the freedoms of others. Threatening to damage a person by bringing to bear the authorities, especially ICE, can be seen as an abuse if not a crime. Engaging public services for personal reasons would seem to be an action that could bring a lawsuit if not criminal charges against the perp. There are instances where people have outed illegal immigrants in order to get out of paying them wages. The illegal immigrant may have been arrested and deported but the whistle blower is also liable for improper use of the police.

    In this case there was a sort of assault by the lawyer on the Hispanic workers. A creative lawyer might make a civil case against this bigot for stress and etc, etc, etc/creative lawyering. There is the freedom of speech tirade regarding the workers speaking Spanish. There is the verbal attack. There is the threat of bringing ICE into it. The lawyer has clearly abused his freedom of speech. Freedoms are rights that must not be abused. Our society will determine what is and what is not abuse. Our society seems to feel that the lawyer must be taken to task: lose his lease, be outed, etc. etc. One absolute typically leads more quickly to the other absolute.

    If the guy is mentally unbalanced then he joins the ranks of those who are dismissed as mentally unbalanced and their tirades ignored. However, this is a functioning participant in society, a member of the legal profession, someone who can directly affect, adversely, others.

    1. “Threatening to damage a person by bringing to bear the authorities, especially ICE, can be seen as an abuse if not a crime. ”

      Why? He went over to the store manager and told him how he felt about the waitresses speaking Spanish to customers. They overheard him and became unruly and that increased all the tempers. What is wrong with calling ICE if the unruly waitresses start insulting the customer? If they are Americans there is no problem for them, but he and most people know a lot of these people are in the country illegally. That doesn’t make them bad people, but if they act like that and are illegal then it makes them stupid.

      1. Allan

        Read the article. He was the only one out of line. The manager and the employees stayed calm and let him vent. Threatening to use the police to get one’s way or out of vengeance or other personal aims may or may not be breaking the law but doing it has been cause for criminal charges.

        The Hispanics were, perhaps, being rude, speaking Spanish in the US where they should be at the very least practicing English, regardless of convenience. However, this mutt’s actions were out of the park. He is pure Trump, pure fascist. Let’s turn in anyone we see out of line; even just call the cops and let them sort it out. If the person, after being accosted by ICE, after being humiliated, perhaps incarcerated, is truly a citizen or legal then so what? Put yourself in their shoes or tire tread soled sandals-is that wrong?

        So, when someone gets pi**ed off at someone, they call the cops??? America has evolved from McCarthyism. There are systems in place addressing illegal immigrants, doing much harm while ‘setting things straight’. We don’t need fascists turning in people because they have a wild hair up there where the sun don’t shine.

        1. “Read the article. He was the only one out of line. ”

          Issac, Listen to the video.

          “He is pure Trump, pure fascist.”

          You ought to learn what a fascist is. You are also incorrect. It is part of being a good citizen to report lawbreakers. Illegal aliens have broken the law when they get that title.

          1. Allan.

            It is not being a good anything to call the cops on people because they pi** you off by speaking a foreign language. Are you really promoting the McCarthy ‘red menace’ routine where if someone appears to you to be a communist then you ruin their life? This mutt was doing nothing for America, only venting his spleen.

            The illegal immigration situation in this country is problematic to say the least. What is more true is that it is in a state of flux as to how it is being dealt with. Under Obama the records were set for deportation. Obama’s approach was to walk quietly and carry a big stick. Criminals and those that take rather than contribute were systematically rounded up and deported, to a greater degree than under the Bush administration and equalling that under the Trump administration thus far. The difference between the Obama approach and the Trump approach is that Obama’s intent was to get rid of the undesirables using the departments, manpower, and funds available. Those that might have had some toe in the door were to be left until the worst of the worst and then the worst were deported. That was the intelligent and humane approach.

            Trump’s approach has been to use the situation for political gains by creating a problem that does not exist and exaggerating the conditions. Since the mid 70s border crossings have decreased to their lowest levels under the Bush and Obama administration. Trump effectively did little to nothing except surface bigotry and hatred. Under the Bush and Obama administrations children of illegal immigrants were placed to the side to be sorted out in sequence of importance. Under Trump, what has been and always be a difficult act-deporting someone, has been made a battle cry to address the general angst of miserable Americans. The hatred expressed by this mutt in New York is the cry of angst and venting, in the direction of the enemy du jour.

            1. “It is not being a good anything to call the cops on people because they pi** you off by speaking a foreign language.”

              Speaking a foreign language with guests around is very rude and definitely inappropriate in an NY Deli. He didn’t threaten to call the cops because of their language rather he seemed to feel their rudeness was inappropriate especially when the likelihood of some of them being illegal was quite high. His threat was because he believed some were illegal and he probably was right.

              “Are you really promoting the McCarthy ‘red menace’ routine where if someone appears to you to be a communist then you ruin their life? ”

              You should learn about McCarthy, not because he was the nicest man, rather because in the end he was right. Today the left is acting worse than any did during the McCarthy error except those actions are occurring on the streets and involving normal citizens and college students. Tell me what you think McCarthy did.

              ” Obama the records were set for deportation.”

              You can’t be so naive. You have to look at how the data for the records were produced. Obama blew a lot of smoke, but there was little behind him that was good for America or the world. He was a community activist that knew how to destroy but didn’t know how to build.

              “Obama’s approach was to walk quietly and carry a big stick.”

              Obama didn’t walk quietly. He promoted himself and didn’t carry a stick at all except the one that used drones to kill terrorists. He permitted ISIS to grow and metastasize. He created an environment for revolution and fighting in the middle east, Russian expansion into the Crimea and Ukraine, Chinese expansion into the China sea along with threats to nearby countries such as Vietnam and Taiwan along with aiding N. Korea.

              I was not a fan of Bush. Trump has cut the illegals entering despite the fact he doesn’t get the needed help from Congress and he is attacking the gangs. I totally disagree with almost all that you have said and the actual statistics demonstrate that you are wrong.

              1. You should learn about McCarthy, not because he was the nicest man, rather because in the end he was right.

                He was a dipsomaniacal opportunist who generated self-promoting distractions and damaged the culture and morale of the Foreign Service and affiliated agencies. He also brought that grossly unscrupulous POS Roy Cohn into public life.

                There was ample infrastructure (acting cack-handedly now and again) to run Soviet agents out of the federal executive. It antedated and post-dated McCarthy. McCarthy was redundant to the execution of any defensible task.

                1. I think you are incorrect about the ample infrastructure. McCarthy was right and the Venona Project proved him right years later when it was finally released. Venona provided information that changes a lot of history and even told us about the unknown spies that were within the Manhattan Project. He was not the first person or the only person sending out the alarm, but he was right and he was right that the CPUSA served as an agent to a foreign power.

                  The CP assisted the KGB. McCarthy said that the FDR and Truman response to Soviet espionage was inadequate though they were responding. Probably the response should have been more proactive. Though in retrospect many of the Soviet operations under discussion were shutting down there was no way for anyone to have known that.

                  McCarthy was correct regarding the big picture, but probably wrong on a lot of the specifics. He has, however, been falsely accused by many who blame him for some of the things that happened at the time that had nothing to do with him. Those claims are based on a lack of historical knowledge. At the end over 200 Americans working for Soviet intelligence were never discovered.

                  1. McCarthy’s assertions had not a blessed thing with what was revealed in Venona. And McCarthy wasn’t responsible for exposing any notable cases of espionage anyone would remember.

                    McCarthy came to public attention in February 1950 claiming he had a list of 205 Communist Party members who were employed by the State Department. That was a lie. What he had was a 3 year old letter from James Byrnes discussing department employees who had been sanctioned for various reasons, among the drunkenness. The formal end of his public career came in January 1957 when his liver finally gave out. He’d been a ghost for the previous 28 months, the U.S. Senate having censured him. They censured him after the repulsive fandango known as the Army-McCarthy hearings, in which it was revealed the Roy Cohn had been attempting to extort from the Army chain-of-command preferential treatment for his chum David Schine. The hook was threats to hold hearings on the case of Capt. Irving Peress, and Army dentist who’d been given a promotion. (Peress was a red-haze nuisance who’d actually tried to get out of serving in the Army).

                    1. “McCarthy’s assertions had not a blessed thing with what was revealed in Venona.”

                      That was not the point. The point is that McCarthy’s basic claims were correct and I listed a few. If you read to the end of my post you will note I mentioned he was correct regarding the big picture but probably wrong on a lot of the specifics.

                      His list was not 205. That is closer in number to the list provided by the FBI. His list was less than 100 and aside from one name, I don’t think he publically released the names at least not at the height of his career.

                    2. Allen, he claimed he had a list of 205 names n a speech in Wheeling, WVa. in February 1950. He later claimed the list had 57 names on it. At another time, it was 81 names.

                      Again, he provided nothing novel except elements of style and a capacity to organize harassment campaigns with the aid of his trusty second, Roy Cohn. The Truman administration was aware of the challenges it faced, as were congressional committees, the trade union leadership, and sundry others.

                    3. 81 names seem to ring a bell. The FBI had a list as well that I remember exceeded the number on McCarthy’s list and the list of operatives that remained undiscovered was over 200. I am not concerned with his number which could have changed with time. I am concerned with his big picture which turned out to be true. I also am concerned that he is blamed for things that occurred before he became Senator.

                      Truman was aware as I stated earlier, perhaps more aware than FDR. However, I don’t believe we were diligent enough at the time. He provided a voice that was heard and probably more voices were needed. He ended up becoming both edges of the sword.

                    4. I am concerned with his big picture which turned out to be true.

                      Except he provided absolutely nothing original to public understanding of the ‘big picture’. He just made a lot of noise.;

                  2. He provided a voice that was heard and probably more voices were needed.

                    That’s a witless fantasy, Allan. ‘Voices’ at that time were a cacaphony. How do you think Richard Nixon came to public attention?

                    1. “That’s a witless fantasy,”

                      Witless? He was a Senator. That is a major platform and carries a lot more weight than the guy in the desert screaming. He also developed ties with the Kennedy family and got himself reelected.

                      “How do you think Richard Nixon came to public attention?”

                      He was a good debater and a good conversationalist. It didn’t hurt that he was bright and politically inclined.

                  3. “absolutely nothing original to public understanding of the ‘big picture’.”

                    Don’t be foolish, public understanding occurs when the issue is spotlighted.

                    1. The issue was already spotlighted, Allan. McCarthy just added a layer of rude self-promotion.

                    2. NII, you can say what you want, but spotlighting and issue is sometimes not enough. For instance, the issue of Clinton’s crimes and the FBI behavior towards Trump has been spotlighted. Is that enough?

                    3. NII, you can say what you want, but spotlighting and issue is sometimes not enough. For instance, the issue of Clinton’s crimes and the FBI behavior towards Trump has been spotlighted. Is that enough?

                      Allan, you’re bound and determined to make a case for that sh*t sandwich of a man. He didn’t ‘spotlight’ anything that wasn’t already spotlighted and he gave no practical assistance to the actual work of rooting out Soviet agents. He did two things, which was to get his name in the papers and harass the bureaucracy in various ways.

                      People like Ellen Schrecker and Victor Navasky have spent decades peddling humbug about that period of years, some of which has been recycled for bad popular history and lying entertainment pieces. The proper response to humbug is truth, not humbug which tries to make counterpoints to the original humbug. Ann Coulter is a fool.

                    4. ” that sh*t sandwich of a man.”

                      It is easy to recognize how much you dislike him. You need not try to compete for the prize of who hates McCarthy the most. You easily win that prize and I have no objections to your belief.

                      One spotlight shines light on an area. Two spotlights provide more light. I guess your point is that you don’t want to waste energy. You have spotlighted two academics in the field. I wonder why you spotlighted two since according to you the second would only be spotlighting something already spotlighted? I guess you have your reasons, but will deny the same logic when it comes to McCarthy. Then you bring up a popular writer, Ann Coulter, who you call a fool. Yes, she can act foolishly at times and she goes through such periods, but she too informs the public. You might not like her and you might vehemently disagree with her but you can’t say she hasn’t changed a lot of minds through her books and lectures. She has published about a dozen books and has sold a few million. So call her a fool, but how many books have you sold?

              2. Excellent! The last member of the Joseph McCarthy fanclub! Please post more of this type of material.

                this is to “just getting started on the wine” allan

                1. Marky Mark Mark – never forget that Joe Kennedy was the major supporter of McCarthy and one of the Kennedy kids worked as an attorney on his staff. I leave you to look up which one it was. 🙂

                2. There were a good number of Joseph McCarthy fan club members. That is how he was elected Senator. He was a mixed bag and not the nicest. Like him or hate him one has to admit his big picture was right.

                  1. There were a good number of Joseph McCarthy fan club members. That is how he was elected Senator. He was a mixed bag and not the nicest. Like him or hate him one has to admit his big picture was right.

                    You keep making this assertion and it doesn’t get any less wrong each time you make it. He added absolutely nothing to available public knowledge or discourse except slanders and self-promoting distractions, riotous behavior picked up by others (e.g. Wm Jenner, who called Gen. Marshall of all people a ‘traitor’).

                    He wasn’t a ‘mixed bag’. He had one real virtue: energy when he set himself on an object, mostly manifest in the schooling he acquired. Other than that, he was an unscrupulous opportunist. ‘Mixed bag’ is not the term you usually employ to someone who throws down enough alcohol to drink himself to death at age 47.

                    1. Firstly, we know he was an alcoholic, but we don’t know that alcohol killed him though no matter what alcoholism was likely a comorbid disease. There were most definitely a good number of supporters of McCarthy who would not have become Senator without such support. He garnered the support of the Kennedy clan and Catholics. Many liked his basic point and that point was proven correct. Nothing you have said disproves any of these statements.

                      What we are left with is your personal and opinionated dislike of McCarthy. I am not going to convince you to like him because he wasn’t a likable person. That we all know that Trump is not guilty of collusion doesn’t mean that a blog shouldn’t add its voice to the discussion. Most politicians are opportunists or at least I look at them in that fashion and the makes McCarthy no different though he was a bit more vociferous. Your continued ranting on this subject is sounding irrational so there must be something more behind your person enmity against the man who we all agree is quite dislikeable.

                    2. Allan, you keep repeating yourself but not demonstrating your point. The man made no salutary contributions to the common life. None. You cannot name one.

                      My personal dislike of him? He had his staff splice photographs of Millard Tydings and Earl Browder together to make it look as if the two were having a friendly chat, then flooded the State of Maryland with them. Yeah, I personally dislike deception and defamation of a peculiarly gross sort.

                      He gave little sign when he was elected to Congress that his object would be rooting out Communists in government and he said little about it for three years following. He managed to win re-election in 1952 by a smaller margin than he’d obtained in 1946 and performing no better than Alexander Wiley had in 1944, 1950, and 1956. While we’re at it, 4 of the 5 Republican senators voted out of office in 1952 were McCarthy allies.

                    3. NII, it is not repetition rather a response you would prefer not to hear. You have an opinion and I have presented mine. Your response is your assessment of your standard of quality lacking content to demonstrate your position is better than mine. In other words, you are repeating your opinion over and over again. I know you enjoy this type of thing but unfortunately, that leaves all the thoughts in the same position as they were when the discussion began.

                      To put it in your words you haven’t ‘spotlighted’ anything that wasn’t already spotlighted and you have provided no practical advancement to the conversation. I understand your dislike of the man. I personally don’t find him a pleasant thought. He did what a lot of politicians did then and do today. Think of Harry Reid who said things on the floor of the Senate, where he couldn’t be sued for slander, knowing what he said wasn’t true.

                      “While we’re at it, 4 of the 5 Republican senators voted out of office in 1952 were McCarthy allies.”

                      But he had the support of the Kennedy’s and the Catholics. Maybe you have misstated your discontent with McCarthy and should have made your major attack against him that he should have been a Democrat.

        2. issac – you are one to talk. You have never learned to be a good American. You still do not know how the American political system works. And you did not give up your ties to Canada like you were supposed to. I think I will turn you in.

    2. There is the verbal attack. There is the threat of bringing ICE into it. The lawyer has clearly abused his freedom of speech.
      ***********************************

      The battle cry of every free speech tyrant. I don’t think he’s done anything but express his dismay with other folks in a forceful way. This isn’t a government matter. In a masculine society it’s wouldn’t merit a mention but in our nanny society it’s lead news. Maybe we need a good scare to shock us back into the reality that the world is a bad place and emasculating men for being frank might not be the best course of conduct to keep our society off of life support.

        1. …And then there are the girlymen like Issac that always want a woman in front of them to protect the front while they run away through the back.

            1. Anonymous maybe you like girlymen. Maybe you are into whips and chains and like to dominate. You have your chance as Issac is standing there without his pants on. Go to it.

              1. Never been a surviving civilization based on feminine attributes like compassion and turning the other cheek. Maybe there should have been, but it’s never happened. At the core truth, all survival is based on defeating rivals through force of arms. Hobbes knew that and so does every realistic politician. We don’t spend trillions on cruise missile ’cause we like the sound of “BOOM.”

                1. @mespo727272 May 18, 2018 at 2:08 PM
                  “Never been a surviving civilization based on feminine attributes like compassion and turning the other cheek. Maybe there should have been, but it’s never happened. At the core truth, all survival is based on defeating rivals through force of arms. Hobbes knew that and so does every realistic politician. We don’t spend trillions on cruise missile ’cause we like the sound of ‘BOOM.’ ”

                  Yes, indeed. In other words, who needs advice from God,* when we have a Hobbesian and Post-Constitutional Continuity of Government (COG) Plan for the Important People, conceived by realistic politicians, including underground redoubts** to which they and their familiars will repair when the plutonium hits the fan.

                  As “Dr. Strangelove” acknowledges in “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb,”
                  certain traditional feminine arrangements such as monogamous marriage will have to be abandoned, but that’s just one of the prices to be paid in the real world, in order to effect the repopulation of the earth after a nuclear holocaust.***

                  The details of the COG are, of course, shrouded in the utmost secrecy, so we Little People don’t know how many people with different knowledge bases and skill sets will be required for the underground-continuity-of-the-government-and-the-species project, but I should think that both lawyers and politicians may be needed in much smaller numbers, proportionally, than those they constitute currently, in these pre-holocaust times. (Just saying).

                  *”43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
                  44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
                  45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matthew 5-7, KJV)

                  **https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=continuity+of+government+underground+bunkers&qpvt=continuity+of+government+underground+bunkers&FORM=IGRE

                  ***http://www.bnwmovies.com/dr-strangelove.html (See him at the 1:23 Mark)

        2. Issac:

          You have no idea what the virtues of a masculine society are given your dearth of historical knowledge. It’s a honor society based on respect and achievement and suffering no whining from the beta males so prevalent today. It has rigid societal standards valuing courage, merit and ingenuity and eschewing graft, weakness and cunning. It has its faults to be sure (as does every societal system) like placing women in an inferior social status but it has its virtues, too. Much of the West’s progress was accomplished in just such a system.

          1. Mespo: I don’t know that there is a clear consensus on what constitutes “masculine” traits. Currently, the focus is on violence as the main characteristic of “toxic masculinity,” but I fail to see a pudgy teen shooting his classmates as masculine; he is really just a socially maladjusted mama’s boy. Similarly, lower-class black males are viewed as violent, given the startling crime statistics, but their other behavior is that more commonly thought of as womanly: focus on hair and clothes, talking too much, failing to support their families or taking responsibility for their actions, lack of self-discipline, etc. And if traditional white-male culture defines masculinity, why did they largely abandon it so quickly? We oft hear the argument that government welfare programs destroyed the black family, although I don’t know that that is true. The nuclear family is not known in sub-Saharan Africa. But it is certainly the norm for whites, and as welfare became readily available starting in the 60s, many white men were content to walk away and let the government raise their sons; hence we have several generations of woman-raised snowflake males and mama’s boys who have no concept of masculinity beyond primal violence.

              1. I quite like Jordan Peterson. I’ve only scratched the surface of the hundreds of hours of his lectures, but have his book.. The media makes the mistake of lifting a line or two from his book or an interview, and then extrapolating a meaning that isn’t there. Then he has to go through the tiresome process of defending a position he never had. He opposes ideologues, supports equality of opportunity rather than the absurd notion of equality of outcome, and emphasizes individuals over identity politics.

                And yet, the media like the NYT cannot get it right in its analysis of Jordan Peterson, and then all of the media’s consumers cannot get it right, either.

                What I also find interesting is that so many journalists, or even famous people like Russel Brand, interview Jordan Peterson, and then continually interrupt him, without letting him finish a single coherent line of reasoning. Are they monologuing or interviewing?

                1. I much enjoy watching Professor Peterson’s lectures on reason and topics relating to human thinking and social adaptation/evolution.

                  There are a great many individuals who refuse to accept his analyses and reply with political rhetoric that borders on mindlessness on their part. For me I am slowly becoming more selfish with regard to novel information and discussion. I attempt to share it with fewer individuals. In fact, this is the only website for which I make commentary and articles, and there are only a handful of those I know in my daily life that I bother to discuss issues.

                  The reason is the frustrating level of closed mindedness and self-righteousness fostered by too many. They’ve become so accustomed to allowing others to think for them, they find difficulty doing this themselves. Obviously, not all individuals resign themselves to this trapping but I am less willing to have to counter the over-reactivity because it is simply not worth my time or upsetting the tranquillity I prefer to reside in.

                  After my life experiences I suppose it was inevitable I became so selfish in this regard. I can enjoy a stimulating environment of listening to exemplary individuals or better yet ideas, knowledge, and processes while having this all to myself and without others interfering or interrupting my enjoyment of learning. Succinctly, why bother doing others’ research for them if they do not want to accept it?

                  1. “I can enjoy a stimulating environment of listening to exemplary individuals or better yet ideas, knowledge, and processes ”

                    Darren, try this http://intellectualdark.website . This is a variety of sophisticated people with different ideas that can actually talk to one another intelligently on all different topics. One doesn’t even have to agree with the ideas thrown around since the ideas are offered and debated to provide a place for ideas to be discussed in a nonconfrontational manner.

                  2. Well said, Darren, although I do not think you are selfish for wanting to structure your interactions and learning in the most enjoyable and productive manner. That’s just an efficient use of your time.

Leave a Reply