Liberty University President Calls For Trump Critics To Be Arrested

220px-The_ScreamLiberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. issued an alarming tweet that suggested that critics of President Donald Trump including James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Jeff Sessions, and Loretta Lynch should be arrested.  While we are living in an age of rage, such statements from a university president is deeply disconcerting.  This follows a disturbing poll showing a surprisingly large percentage of Republicans believe that the President should be able to shutdown media organizations.  It seems like the rising distemper in this country is turning us against the foundations of our system from due process to the free press.

In his tweet, Falwell Jr. wrote:

“Are there any grownups w/ integrity left in the DOJ? When I was a kid, I watched Repubs join Dems to force Nixon out. Now Dems won’t join Repubs to lock up Comey, Lynch, Ohr, Rosenstein, Strzok, @HillaryClinton, @BarackObama & maybe even @jeffsessions despite damning evidence!”

Why leave out Bernie Sanders and Rosie O’Donnell?

The very suggestion that criminal arrests are an appropriate response for people like Sessions or Lynch shows how grotesque our national dialogue has become.  While Liberty University is often criticized for its academic curriculum and mission, Falwell is still the president of a university that represents students and faculty alike.  This is an irresponsible and unwarranted comment from someone who represents an institution.

Falwell previously made a gratuitous jab at Sessions, who he called a “phony” and said that Liberty students snubbed him on a visit to the university. Why would the president of a small university ridicule an attorney general who visited his campus?

In the meantime, President Trump has again issued a new and in my view unfair attack on Sessions, tweeting he is “scared stiff and Missing in Action.”  The suggestion is that Sessions should violate his recusal decision that was reached after the recommendation of his own career staff and many of us outside of the Justice Department.  I have previously criticized Trump for such tweets.

The greatest danger of the increasing shrill dialogue today is to make the unthinkable thinkable — like rounding up critics or political opponents of the President.  I understand the frustration and emotions are running high on both sides but we remain joined as a people by a common covenant based in the rule of law.  Disagreeing with people does not  make them criminals and arrests are not a way of amplifying our differences over policies or politicians.


296 thoughts on “Liberty University President Calls For Trump Critics To Be Arrested”

  1. Anyone who would call “Liberty University” a University should be confined in a psychiatric facility. It’s o madrassa for snake jugglers.

      1. “Trump University’ was a set of seminars on working in the real estate business. It bore no resemblance to Liberty, which is a diversified teaching institution which has 12,000 enrolled on its brick-and-morter campus and upwards of 40,000 at any one time taking correspondence courses.

        1. It’s not a “real institution of hjgher learning” unless it teaches communism and accommodates all 70+ genders.

    1. Really? Without checking, lets say you tell us what the degree programs are there, how they allocate their faculty between degree programs, how their degree recipients are distributed between the institutions various faculties, what the pass rates are for their graduates on occupational licensing exams, &c?

  2. Yup, he’s as big a nutter as anyone the DNC is pushing. Not good. Mercifully, his reach is not what it used to be – if it weren’t for social plague, er, *media*, I’d be surprised if his statements made it out of the room they were spoken in. Let’s hope this is the last we hear of it, tyranny from either side is tyranny.

    1. Let’s hope this is the last we hear of it, tyranny from either side is tyranny.

      Please specify what tyranny did this citizen advocate? It would be a ridiculous assumption that Falwell implied bypassing our entire legal process to lock these people up in tweet essentially admonishing our two-tiered justice system.

  3. I am going to back Falwell on this one, JT, you are dead wrong. And Falwell is correct in what he says.

    1. And Falwell is correct in what he says.

      If Falwell was in your opinion not correct in what he says, would you still back his right to say it?

      1. OLLY – it was a two-part statement, one for freedom of speech or press (depending on how you consider Twitter) and the other for being factually correct.

    2. Turley has added a few clarifying remarks to his original post since yesterday. Here’s one of them:

      “Disagreeing with people does not make them criminals and arrests are not a way of amplifying our differences over policies or politicians.”

      The first clause warns against the politicization of the law. The second clause warns against the criminalization of politics. Both warnings are well warranted. Trump campaigned on both of those themes: ”

      The system is rigged. She never should’ve been allowed to run. Crooked H, lock her up.”

      Nearly two years later, Trump’s supporters and defenders are still adamantly demanding that the supposedly rigged system that allowed Clinton to run against Trump rather than lock her up should, itself, be locked up. There’s a name for that: FUBAR. And here’s another one of Turley’s clarifying remarks:

      “I understand the frustration and emotions are running high on both sides but we remain joined as a people by a common covenant based in the rule of law.”

      1. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – as H. A. Goodman says about Hillary, “Pick a crime, any crime, and arrest her.” Except for Sessions, all are guilty of crimes that we, the American public, know about. Why have they not been arrested?

        1. I’m under standing orders not to chase the shiny ball of your choosing under the couch of your choosing. Stop tempting me into leaving my post.

          1. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – you are a faithful pet. I hope they feed you well and rub your tummy.;)

            1. Your previous post quoted a guy exclaiming “pick a crime, any crime and arrest her.” If you really think that you could thro the book at Hillary and the whole book would stick, then you’re the faithful pet who has been subjected to operant conditioning by means treats and tummy rubs.

              1. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – H. A. Goodman contends that Hillary has broken so many laws in her time that you really have your choice.

  4. Speaking of surprising commentary from our esteemed host, I hadn’t seen this discussion before. Someone I follow on another forum linked this Turley blog discussion. I was not aware that the FBI does not electronically record interviews. Apparently the only electronic recordings they engage in are wiretaps on individuals they are interested in prosecuting. So not only did Strzok and company not conduct any interviews during the Clinton investigation with the subject under oath, whatever record of those conversations were subject to the *ahem* ethical determination of the agent conducting the interview. Yeah, that won’t be abused.

    1. OLLY – recorded wiretapping is something we can thank Hoover and FDR for.

      1. Paul,
        My SECRET clearance in the Navy required the “two Person Rule” when removing information from secure storage. This obviously assumes one person with access is a greater risk for compromising classified information than two. The likelihood that two people with access and “Need to Know” would be extremely rare.

        In the case of law enforcement agencies, it has been proven LEO’s are not infallible. Recorded interrogations, dashcams, and body cameras are now considered necessary tools to provide objective evidence for the protection of the accused and those tasked with enforcing the law. In light of the conduct by high-level FBI agents and DOJ personnel, there needs to be a change in policy regarding the use of Form 302 reports as the only requirement for record-keeping of interviews/interrogations at the FBI. I don’t care if they have 2 or 10 people witnessing an interview, the FBI has now proven there is nothing special about their agents ethics or objectivity that would shield them from an abuse of power.

        1. With a well known liar sitting in the Fake President chair in our White House.

          1. Tom in El Paso – that’s what happens when you are President of the United States and you publically humiliate Donald Trump at a dinner in front of his friends. Damned if he doesn’t become the next President of the United States and take the keys to the Oval Office right out of your hands. People really should take that as a lesson as to what could happen to them if they screw too much with Trump.

            1. The Office of the Presidency of the United States is not an instrument for pursuing high-school level vengeance against those who slighted Trump.

              If that’s truly all that you Trump Troupers have got to see you through, then the whole lot of you Trump Troupers truly are pathetic TWERP-A-ZOIDS.

              1. It isn’t an instrument for expanding your opportunities to hang with people on Martha’s Vineyard, either. You voted for him anyway.

                1. And if the Democrats nominate Keith Ellison for President in 2020, then I’ll vote for him, too. That doesn’t mean that I favor Ellison for President. Although, I gladly voted for Obama every chance I got. And not just because he was the nominee of The Democratic Party.

                  Hmmm. Martha’s Vineyard versus reversion to high-school. I suppose that is a tough choice for twerp-a-zoids.

              2. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – I didn’t even know about the public humiliation until a couple of weeks ago. On the same note, is it right for the President of the United States to set up a counter-intelligence investigation of a candidate for the office of President using the FBI and DOJ? I refer you to Lisa Page’s text to Strzok, “POTUS wants us to keep him up to date on everything we do.” I paraphrase.

                1. Did this supposed humiliation of Trump occur before or after Trump sued to have Obama’s birth certificate released?

                  If it happened after Trump took up the cudgel of the Birther nonsense, then Trump got less than he deserved from Obama.

                  1. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – he forced Obama to show his fake long form birth certificate. It was after that.

                    1. Ah-ha! I figured it was something like that. Do you still think that poor little Donnie-doo is the aggrieved party?

                    2. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – I think The Donald was pi$$ed. Aggrieved sounds more like a legal term. Trump wanted revenge and he got it. 🙂

    2. Olly,….
      – I think that the FBI is changing, or has changed, its policy on recording interviews.
      Up until very recently, they did not record interviews, so even a relatively recent article might state that they do not record.
      The reasons/ motivations for not recording seen suspicious to me.

      1. Olly, I just did quick check. As of May 2014, the FBI and other federal investigative agencies are required to record interviews.
        I’m not sure if they recorded Hillary and others in the email investigation, or even if there is overall compliance with the policy requiring recordings.

        1. Thanks Tom. I would expect Judicial Watch to have filed a FOIA for those interviews; if in fact they are required.

          1. It has been recorded that the FBI neither videotaped nor audio taped their interview with Hillary Clinton.

            The FBI did release heavily redacted notes from their conversation:


            “The FBI notes show that the deletion of emails began after the New York Times first reported Clinton’s use of a private email server, which could be a violation of public records’ laws.

            Someone the FBI interviewed, but who was redacted in the released documents, said he had an “oh sh–” moment around March 25, 2015 when he deleted Clinton’s archive mailbox after realizing that he forgot to implement an “email retention policy changes” that had been requested in December 2014, several months prior, by Clinton’s top aide, Cheryl Mills.

            The New York Times released their story March 2, three weeks before this individual began deleting the archive.”

            At this point, the FBI was still lying and stating that no security breaches occurred.

            They probably did not audio tape because there would have been gasps of astonishment when that IT person claimed he deleted her archive mailbox (after the NYT article informing the public of the private server), and then went, oh, wait, I forgot to retain emails. Whoops! I wonder if that was before, or after, they used Bleach Bit?

            “Clinton also told FBI investigators that she wasn’t sure what the “c” meant next to paragraphs in one email that was used to designate confidential information. She said she didn’t know the difference between different levels of classification but that she took them all “seriously.””

            My Dad had clearance. There was no way he could have exited the training not knowing how classified information was designated, the different levels, or how to handle it.

            1. Karen S – I think there was some discussion as to whether Hillary actually took the classification training. I don’t think they can find any logs that show she took the course. 🙂

              1. But she was the most qualified candidate in American history!!!

                Did they just release her into a SCIF and let her wing it?

                How does she do it? Blackmail material on everyone in government? Magical nonstick coating?

                1. Karen S – ask her how she got material that is only supposed to be read on secured computers, off those and onto Huma’s?

            2. Well apparently Karen, Mr. El Paso is easily convinced by the expenditure of time and money. In other words, he’s okee dokee with just taking the FBI’S word for it.

              1. Did he accept the NSA’s least untruthful comments they could make? Would he accept the FBI’s word in defense of Trump?

          2. Olly,
            – It definitely seems that the recordings are required, based on a flurry of May 2014 articles that I skimmed.
            Whether the FBI has always complied with that requiement in the past 4 years is another matter.
            There were a lot of “unique features” in the handling of the Hillary email investigation.


              This is to “I never met a conspiracy about Hillary that I didn’t like” tommie

                1. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – people have gone to prison for a lot, a lot less than what Hillary did. Why is she special?

                  1. Because! Once you’ve got Hillary behind bars, you won’t be able to demand “Crooked H, lock her up” anymore. And that’s the real reason that Hillary keeps getting off scot free.

              1. Marky Mark Mark – since you defend so many federal detainees, certainly you could give us the low-down on exactly how the FBI does those 302s and how upright they are. Wouldn’t that be a better response than a sophomoric attempt at “whataboutism?”

                1. Mark M. is under no obligation to chase the shiny ball of your choosing under the couch of your choosing. It’s strictly optional.

                  1. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – you have earned your title again today. I am so disappointed in you. How are they going to grow if you keep covering for them? And how are you going to grow? Do you want to spend your remaining years protecting two old white dudes? Is that the best use of your time?

                    1. Give me back Original Ken, Linda-Linda Tyger-Tyger and Swarthmoremom. And I’ll stop enabling Dr. Benson and Mark M.–neither of whom need any enabling anyhow.

                    2. PC Schulte,…
                      – I think her parody of a demented propagandist is a riot.
                      Once her comments are viewed in the proper light…..that she’s actually just pretending to be a lying gasbag…. then her posts here are almost worth reading.

              2. I’ve never mentioned any of the items you listed in the first paragraph, dumbass.
                When there is a requirement that FBI interviews be recorded, into effect in 2014, and a 2016 interview is not recorded, this isn’t some big conspiracy theory.
                When you so busy lying, and proving what an ******* you are, you’re bound to miss a lot.
                This is to “I love being a scumbag and a lying anonymous troll, Markypoo”

  5. The trouble with getting immunity to prosecution is that you no longer can claim 5th Amendment rights to remain silent, and only immunizes you for specific behavior.

    According to Prof. Turley, being a loudmouthed prominent critic of the President effectively immunizes one from prosecution for everything, without limitation, losing that right, or having to delve into the other messy details.

    1. One can always commit criminal contempt of court, instead. Criminal contempt of court is pardonable at the federal level. Believe it or not, but there’s actually case law and at least one Supreme Court decision on the topic from Chief Justice Taft.

  6. JT,

    I read that tweet as saying these people should be locked up for their illegal actions. There is a lot of evidence that they all engaged in illegal actions. That evidence should be referred to a prosecutor.

    If he were asking for people to be arrested simply on the basis of criticizing Trump, that would be heinous. I just don’t read the tweet this way.

    1. That’s how I read it, too. I don’t know anything about this guy. But people have been calling “lock her up” not because she is a Democrat, but because she’s broken the law with impunity over and over again. It is an objection to the double standard of our criminal justice system.

      Look at Mueller. He threatened Gates with almost 300 years of jail time, unless he turned on Manafort, in which case he would only get probation. That is an incentive to compose. Manafort is being threatened with over 300 years of jail time. Again, that is an incentive to compose.

      Mueller was supposed to investigate Russian interference in our elections, and if the Trump team was involved. The Gates/Manafort case is for tax evasion in 2005, and Gates has admitted to embezzling and lying already. Is this how it’s going to be from now on? Anyone who dares to work for Trump will have the FBI investigate them back to their infancy for a crime, and then throw the full weight of the federal government at them unless they come up with some dirt on Trump? That’s not justice.

      Mueller’s investigation has no integrity because he has not investigated Hillary Clinton, who actually did pay a British spy to pay Russian spies for fraudulent information on Trump. Then she used that slanderous document to instigate an FBI investigation on her political opponent. She also tried to release the document to the press right before the election, when there would not be enough time to dispute the charges. And yet, Mueller is investigating her victim, and anyone even obliquely associated with her victim, rather than the perpetrator.

      Foreign sourced opposition research is not illegal. How else are we to learn of wrongdoing that occurs on foreign soil? For example, Haitians informed us that the Clinton Foundation paid big political donors big bucks to, for example, build “hurricane proof” trailers that were full of mold and falling down to “help” the Haitians. How would we learn of that domestically?

      It was not illegal for Hillary to pay a British national to get information from Russian nationals. However, that information was false, and not vetted. That’s slander. In addition, it should be investigated that Russians fed false information into politics. The bigger problem, however, is Chinese theft of intellectual property through cyber crime, and the glaring vulnerability of hacking voting machines. That has not happened yet, but it might. In addition, basic voter fraud should be fought with the same tools that banks use to fight the same thing – ID. They should also periodically audit the voter rolls. People can accidentally be registered to vote in multiple locations, such as when they move or if they go away to college. That leaves an opening to be exploited.

      It was also not illegal to take a meeting with a Russian national who claims she has opposition research on your political opponent. All she wanted to talk about was the Magninsky Act, which needs to stand, so it went nowhere. But if she had produced a recording with Hillary Clinton admitting she sold 1/5 of US Uranium to Russia in exchange for their hefty donation to her Foundation, that would be relevant news.

      As for “meddling” in elections, the US does it all the time. You are to recall Obama’s trying to scuttle Netanyahu’s reelection campaign. We interfere in the politics of countries across the world. Of COURSE Russia would gleefully enjoy sowing discord in the US. Does the source matter if it’s true? Democrats seem ready to go to nuclear winter with Russia because they are alleged to be responsible for getting into Podesta’s emails, whose password was “PASSWORD”. An executive would be sued for negligence for such a mistake. We all discovered that Hillary Clinton had taken on the debt of the DNC before the primary, in order to steer the party, thus defrauding Socialist (!!!) Bernie Sanders of a fair shot. Other conspiracies were revealed which showed fraud in favor of the Clintons. The Dems are howling treason. I guess they really, really feel strongly that they never wanted the American people to know. And a rather large chunk of the American people are ready to go to war with Russia because they really, really did not want to know this embarrassing information.

      1. We have already spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours “investigating” Hillary and have found absolutely nothing that’s prosecutable. Thou doth prostest too much.

        Evidently your Trump University diploma can be used as toilet paper, the courts did find that fact true enough to charge Fake President $25,000,000.

        1. Tom in El Paso – Hillary has been found culpable, but most prosecutors thought it might be hard to get a guilty verdict. She has very dirty hands.

      2. without delving too deeply in the breathtaking amount of ignorance demonstrated by this “contribution,” just for grins I would point out that “slander” is not a criminal offense. Rather, (and contrary to what you’ve apparently learned on reddit) slander is a tort, for which one must file a lawsuit to seek remuneration. I will point out that a cursory review reveals that every single paragraph in your missive is utterly unsupported by anything even remotely related to facts. Pro tip: going down multiple rabbit-holes is still nothing more than going down rabbit-holes. Seek help.

        this is to “I hope I remembered everything hannity said” karen

        1. Marky Mark Mark – first, I am amazed you learned anything in Torts I. Second, normies confuse libel and slander all the time. Third, a cursory reading of your comment shows you accused Karen S. of first getting her information from Reddit (it is capitalized) and later from Hannity. Were you just painting with the broadest brush possible? Which is it? Enquiring Minds want to know?

          1. PC Schulte,… Is Markypoo drunk, retarded, or both?
            He never made a lot of sense, but now it looks like he’s posting while experiencing the DTs.

            1. Tom Nash – he is certainly old enough to be suffering from the DTs, however, his spelling is still pretty good. And he is fairly coherent. He might be hoisting a few while he is typing, I have no idea. It is his life to live. 🙂

          2. I’m most assuredly not shocked that you have failed to recognize how I utilize the lack of capitalization for words or names which normally require capitalization.

            this is to “oh, now I see it” sad-faced paulie

            1. Marky Mark Mark – do you fail to capitalize when you file your court papers? BTW, I live a very Zen-like life. Sad is not an emotion that normally is something that I have to deal with. I am sad if a friend dies or a pet dies. You, nothing.

      3. Karen S. It’s too bad that nobody with the admin seems to have your ability to explain the truth so comprehensively yet succinctly.

        1. Karen is always on target but when dealing with loons it doesn’t make a difference how one states the facts. The loons deal with fantasy and storytelling. Just listen to Diane(Late4Diaper change).

      4. That’s a great post Karen!

        In addition, basic voter fraud should be fought with the same tools that banks use to fight the same thing – ID. They should also periodically audit the voter rolls.

        That statement would fit well with the Lunch Lady story today. Of course there is no voter fraud because we don’t have the incentive to do looking for it.

  7. The President of Liberty University apparently places “liberty” second in line with his political attitude. Placing liberty second is at odds with my web name here. I choose the name to suggest the Second Amendment, not putting freedom second. In fact the Second Amendment puts liberty in the forefront on the battle front as back in the days when we fought the bloody British in the town of New Orleans. We need a militia. We need guns in the hands of the militia which compete with the guns in the hands of the Trump army. We may need a revolution, a militia and an armed militia. Read the entire words of the Second Amendment. We also need to arm bears.

      1. Jay S – don’t forget what happened to Senator Sumner. That was a prelude to the War of Northern Aggression.

      2. They can’t estimate their troop strength without the NSA tracking their troop movements.

        Don’t tell them.

  8. People need to do their job and not waste America’s they me spewing nonsense!

  9. Despite your headline, I don’t read Falwell’s remarks as advocating for the “arrest” of persons because they are critics of the President, but rather because he believes that the enumerated officials and former officials broke the law. I don’t necessarily agree with his list, but many on it did far more to interfere with the 2016 Presidential election than Russia as state-actor. Meanwhile, anyone connected to the Trump campaign has been placed under an investigative microscope to see if they can be prosecuted for something that will pressure them to “flip” in aid of impeaching the President. Something is very wrong with using the Department of Justice and the intelligence services as a means to serve political ends.

    1. stepheng2010 said “. . . did far more to interfere with the 2016 Presidential election than Russia . . .”

      Multiple choice “trick” question for the returning classmate from 2010: Did any of the people on Falwell Jr.’s list interfere with the 2016 election a) before the 2016 election, b) during the 2016 election, c) after the 2016 election or d) not at all?

      Extra credit: Identify and describe the specific differences, if any, between a federal election versus an FBI investigation.

      1. Yes.

        Extra credit: Absent a quid pro quo bribery, one cannot violate one of the federal obstruction of justice statues with respect to a federal election OR an FBI investigation. Regarding the later, there was no “proceeding” to “obstruct” at thee point in time that Trump fired asked James Comey if he could “see his way clear” to end the investigation into Flynn or when he subsequently fired Comey. (A grand jury investigation qualifies as a proceeding, an FBI investigation does not.)

        That is not to say that one cannot commit crimes in connection with an FBI investigation that has not yet ripened into a proceeding (e.g., subornation of perjury; dissuading a witness; false statements to the FBI) but that is not currently alleged against Trump.

        And, BTW, I graduated LS in 1978, not 2010. 🙂

        1. The “trick” answer “yes” is not an appropriate “trick” answer to a multiple choice “trick” question.

          Your extra credit answer ignores the context in which the multiple-choice question was posed; namely, the election interference charge that you leveled against some of the people on Falwell Jr.’s to-do list.

        2. As I like to say, when Clintocrat types yell about “OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!!!” is, “what Justice?”
          I mean, doesn’t justice involve things like: due process, equal treatment under the law, actual evidence of crime? Every aspect of justice is being mocked by the Mueller investigation, as in the FBI precursor investigation. Especially when contrasted to the coddling of Clinton.

          1. So, you have a source in the Special Prosecutor’s office? Do tell, since you seem to have your finger on the pulse of the evidence in possession of that office. Thanks, and I’ll hang up and listen.

            this is to “I’m on the inside, I tell ya” davie

            1. Marky Mark Mark – your buddy, L4D, seems to have the inside track in the SP office. Maybe it is pillow talk, I don’t know. Still, she is getting the daily 4 am document drop that the FBI/DOJ have set up for the NYT and WaPo. She sure toes the party line.

              1. I specifically told Captain Mueller that I didn’t want to know anything that I wasn’t allowed to know until it was time for everybody else to know it, too. The Captain has not yet returned my call. I’m beginning to suspect that the message was never forwarded to Captain Mueller. But there’s always tomorrow, or the next day. Keep hope alive.

        3. stepheng2010 said, “. . . there was no “proceeding” to “obstruct” at thee point in time that Trump fired asked James Comey . . .”

          Yesterday I forgot to mention that I’ve seen stepheng2010’s “trick” before–about six months or so ago. The rule about a legal proceeding is from the statute for civil obstruction of justice. The rules for civil obstruction of justice do not apply to criminal obstruction of justice. I suppose it was worth a try, though, counselor. Your client, Trump, would, indeed, be quite perfectly innocent under the statute for civil obstruction of justice. If only that were the relevant statute for criminal obstruction of justice.

          1. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – criminal or civil, the President is not guilty of doing his Constitutional job.

            1. In the first place, Mark M. requires no enabling nor any enabler. In the second place, the President’s Constitutional job precludes “corrupt purpose” which is in the statute for criminal obstruction of justice.

              1. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – the irony in your statement is blinding. Just a couple of statements back you were enabling him and here you are doing it again. May God forgive you!

                1. The Uncaused Cause is Universal Forgiveness–unless it’s universal condemnation. It’s one of those two, for sure.

  10. Everyone should read the book, “Factfulness” for insight into the human need for “us versus them” and everyone’s distorted and pessimistic view of life today. We all need to Chillax!

  11. Turley concluded that, “The greatest danger of the increasing shrill dialogue today is to make the unthinkable thinkable — like rounding up critics or political opponents of the President.”

    I doubt it. Who is going to perform such acts? The MAGA cultists, themselves? Acting on their own recognizance? Is some federal judge going to issue such arrest warrants? Will Congress exercise its power to grant letters of marque and reprisal to hire privateers to arrest the law enforcement officers listed in Falwell Jr.’s tweet? That was suggested sometime last week or so right here on this blawg. But we blawg hounds are a highly skewed self-selected sample population. And it would have to be the same Congress that has thus far declined to hold Rosenstein in contempt nor to impeach Rosenstein. So using pirates to capture Rosenstein would not be the least restrictive method under strict scrutiny review (Pshaw!).

    If Trump were foolish enough to issue illegal orders for such arrests, then no one currently in Trump’s employ would execute Trump’s illegal orders and those illegal orders would swiftly become exhibit A at Trump’s impeachment trial. Yes. Abuse of power is an impeachable offense. Don’t you know.

    Honestly, how is it possible that Hawaii is not producing the desired effect upon Professor Turley? Or is it? Could this, too, be just another red-herring mechanical-rabbit chase for Turley’s kennel of tireless blawg hounds? Turley is sunning himself on a beach somewhere in Hawaii whilst laughing heartily at the febrile plight of the whole lot of us. Figures.

    1. Dear Late4Yoga: We don’t understand your ramblings.

      1. Upon further review – perhaps you are making some sense today Late4Yoga. Will wonders never cease?

    2. “If Trump were foolish enough to issue illegal orders for such arrests, then no one currently in Trump’s employ would execute Trump’s illegal orders and those illegal orders would swiftly become exhibit A at Trump’s impeachment trial.”
      These days, I’m not so sure about that.

      1. You’re not suggesting that that’s the real reason Turley escaped with his family to Hawaii, are you???

  12. Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. issued an alarming tweet that suggested that critics of President Donald Trump including James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Jeff Sessions, and Loretta Lynch should be arrested.

    Hypocrite much? You’ve stepped in it this time Turley. As an ardent defender of the 1st amendment, not only are you bailing on a private citizen’s free speech, you are purposefully misrepresenting what was being suggested. Falwell in no way was talking about locking up critics of President Trump. That would number in the millions and have bipartisan support. What you wrote is a CNN-level headline of fake news if I’ve ever seen one. What Falwell is talking about is why the DOJ isn’t taking action against those individuals where there is evidence of crimes being committed.

    In your view, does a private citizen lose the right to criticize our top law enforcement agencies merely because they are a university President, CEO, sport’s star, entertainment mogul, etc? Maybe your head is not right from your CA hiking adventure, but whatever brought out this clearly disgusting opinion of yours, take a moment and explain your 1st amendment departure.

    1. Olly: Turley has an angel on one shoulder and devil on the other (like Pinto in Animal House). The angel occasionally convinces Turley to provide fair and/or insightful legal analyses. Some days the devil urges him to throw hype bombs to generate clicks for his blog and feed hope to the lefty loons. Today the devil won. .

      1. Thanks Bill. Turley, like the rest of us have it in our nature to give into devil from time to time. In this case, something triggered Turley to abandon his principles. While I expect that from individuals less enlightened on the importance of securing natural rights, Turley has demonstrated how weak a grip this country has on that security. When we have our very public, legal professionals that have been to this point firmly on the side of protecting speech, denouncing criticism of the state by private citizens, then we’re on the fast track to our state-run institutions taking active measures to penalize our exercise of that right.

        This is a very good article by Jonah Goldberg in his weekly article in the National Review:
        When it falls to a bunch of giant corporations — or the federal government — to decide what speech is permissible, it is usually a sign that the rest of civil society has failed to do its job. It is axiomatic that in a free society with a limited government, customs and norms should be strong and robust. Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes require that all the rules be set from the top. The people have no right to organize institutions around values of their own choosing.

        1. Chief Olly said, ” . . . legal professionals . . . . . . denouncing criticism of the state by private citizens . . . ”

          Let me guess: Turley is the legal professional denouncing Falwell Jr., the private citizen, for criticizing the state. Did I read that correctly?

          If so, then can you show us how Turley’s criticism of Falwell Jr.’s tweet was a denunciation of Falwell Jr.’s criticism of the state rather than a complaint against “how grotesque our national dialogue has become”?

          1. If so, then can you show us how Turley’s criticism of Falwell Jr.’s tweet was a denunciation of Falwell Jr.’s criticism of the state rather than a complaint against “how grotesque our national dialogue has become”?

            Turley has been unflinching in his support of having a national dialogue, regardless of how grotesque that dialogue happens to be. It would be a useless exercise to debate what qualifies as grotesque; that’s not the issue here. What Turley has done here is to blow right passed Falwell’s objective right of free speech and subjectively denounce the quality of his statement. Turley’s recognizable opinion would be read as his legal judgment (unwarranted and irresponsible) merely on Falwell’s position as President of a university. As Turley has pointed out many times, in a free society, the desired response to statements such as Falwell’s is a reasoned and rational argument countering it, not calling for Fallwell to STFU!

            1. Seeing as how criticism remains the only constitutionally permissible approach to protected speech that offends one’s delicate sensibilities, you are well within your rights, Chief, to denounce Turley’s criticism of Falwell Jr.’s criticism of the “criminal suspects” on his to-do list. And the great cycle of free speech begins anew.

            2. Turley misrepresented Falwell as calling for the criminalization of speech (“critics,” he said) when he knows Falwell neither said nor suggested anything of the sort.
              I called it what it is : disingenuous.
              The persons listed (for the most part) are not mere “critics” of Trump; they committed, or likely knew of others committing, criminal acts (mishandling classified information, obstruction, perjury, etc) to exonerate Clinton of criminal violations and then deploy the full might of the U.S. intelligence apparatus, courts, and media assets against Trump to prevent and then reverse his election victory.

              As a front-row observer, Turley knows all this.

              We’re two+ years in
              The time for playing dumb is long over.
              You’re either with the coup or you’re with the constitutional republic. I hope he figures it out soon.

        2. Nowhere in the wackjob’s tweet does he qualify his desire for the arrest of those on his hit list with some sort of probable cause finding. He’s allowed to spew his ignorance under the First Amendment, but there are social and political consequences to doing so. Nice try though. Thanks for playing.

          this is to “Okay, I wasn’t really interested in the truth, after all, I was just sandbagging for the day glo bozo” olly

          1. Marky Mark Mark – several legal pundits have noted that there is more than enough evidence available to the public knowledge to arrest the people on that list. I do not use Tweeter, however, I understand you can only use 140 or 280 characters per tweet. That does limit what you can say to a short outburst at best and you are going to condemn him for that?

    2. Olly,

      I thought the same thing and agree with your statement. Of the people from that list, the one that really boil;es my blood is Lynch. How she is not in prison shows how bad things have gotten.

      1. Absolutely Jim. Turley’s post should be the canary in the coal mine for just how bad things have gotten, if his kneejerk reaction to Falwell is to condemn the exercise his first amendment right.

        1. Of course, Lynch was an actor in the administration of Barack HUSSEIN Obama, the greatest President of the United State since Harry Truman. And even more blood-boiling to real ‘Mericans, prior to his marriage he undoubtedly had “access” to the white women.

          this is to “let’s just chisel the Kenyan’s face off of Mt. Rushmore” jimmie

          1. Marky Mark Mark – it is so sad that you have to copy yourself. That is soooo unoriginal.

  13. Boy, there’s a lot of venom on this blog this morning.

    Trump, is a sick man. It’s looking like he has a lot of sick pals.
    The Republicans are complicit in all he’s doing.

    1. Dear Guinness Lite: OBAMA is a sick man. It’s looking like he has a lot of sick pals.
      The DEMS are complicit in all he HAS DONE.

      1. Obama has completed his two terms of office. Whataboutism is the tool of the gullible which demonstrates nothing more than a dearth of intellectual rigor. Thanks for playing.

        this is to “but hannity talks about Obama every day” billie

        1. Dude – I guess you need an explanation. Look at previous response from your comrade Guinness Lite. I simply changed the names from his sentence and fired back. I guess its true that lefty loons like Markey Mark and Guinness Lite have no sense of humor/irony. Markey Mark and Guiness Lite got not game – default setting is to respond with buzzwords “whataboutism” and “Hannity” but no substance.

          1. Bill Martin – I still cannot figure out how L4D thinks Marky Mark Mark could make a living writing for The Onion?

            1. PC Schulte,..
              A loon like that is probably easily entertained by things like shiny objects , and people who are repetitive, unimaginative, obnoxious fools.

              1. The belief that there’s something wrong with being easily entertained remains the ultimate folly. Those who insist upon being entertained only with great difficulty, the ultimate fools who suffer only themselves gladly.

        2. Marky Mark Mark – Obama is still in the game. He is spending $160 million to help candidates in the midterms. He is the leader of #Resistance. He deserves all the crap he gets. 😉

          1. Obama is The Kingmaker or The Queen-maker as the case may be. Whoever gets Obama’s nod is in like flint.

    2. Guinness:
      “Boy, there’s a lot of venom on this blog this morning.”
      Thanks for adding to the venom! Guess you didn’t think it was enough.

      1. LOL! My thoughts as well. Guinness apparently wasn’t struggling with do I go high, or do I go low? It was, damn, how low can I go?

      2. I think Guinness Lite was acting like a provocateur with his reply – in a similar vein to Turley post this morning. Just knowingly churning up the Shiite with no logical or factual basis. Guinness Lite is a lightweight.

      3. Mespo,…
        I think the explanation of “the right wing media making conservatives stupid” got us off to a hell of a good start last night.
        In the spirit of bipartisanship, we can now examine the issue of whether the left wing media is making liberals stupid, or if they have some other excuse.

        1. To be stupid is literally to have been hit in the head with a stone (a.k.a. stunned–not “stoned”). Ergo, you’d have an easier time demonstrating the thesis that the liberal media has made Trump and his Troupers stupid.

          1. If the stone that hit L4D on the head was large enough, that would explain some things.

  14. Jon Hurley Hype Machine missing the point which is that back in the day of Nixon wrongdoings there was bipartisan cooperation whereas today there is no bipartisan cooperation as it relates to substantiated wrongoings by Dems but instead unsubstantiated partisan Witch Hunt launched against Trump et al.

  15. They should be arrested. He’s right! I can name more that need to be subject to arrest. But let’s start with Rosie O’Donnell and all the women of The View who have pounded president Trump in public.

  16. Who or what accredits Liberty “University?”

    Liberty’s claim in the subject does not rise to the level of lie such as their claim that modern Israel is the New Testament fulfillment of OT Israel, and that modern so-called “Jews” are religious and DNA descendants of OT “Ioudaios,” but it’s in the same direction.

  17. A test for you Prof Turley:

    To whom were they’re referring to with the comment: “Your Name is Mud”?

    Who is they guy in today’s modern history named Phil Mudd? Why is that name relevant to the issues at hand?

    Do you even understand you what you are supporting, by your comments, coup leaders committing treasonous sedition, espionage other criminal acts to destroy the citizen’s current government? I believe you must know you’re engaging in supporting acts of treason.

    Further, you keep tell Trump to keep his mouth shut & say nothing at almost 650 days in after being elected & keep allowing out of control coup out of some leaders in Intel, DOJ, FBI., Bullsh*t on that.

    You support DOJ/FBI’s ethics teams advising Sessions to recuse himself & yet you say next to nothing about the ethics team saying nothing about the fact Rosenstein”s, Mueller’s & much of the leadership of the DOJ/FBI/CIA should be Fired for cause & bought up on Criminal Charges.

    At the very least Trump should have already made many of these points & Fired the Ethics Team!

    BTW: Thanks for post the great comments by Jerry Falwell Jr.

    1. What a surprise; another disconnected wackjob spewing the utter emptiness of his thoughts when he starts hitting the moonshine. How nice. Pro tip: Even the hannity / rush vaudvillians are laughing at your gullibility. So sorry for your loss.

      this is to “Oh, I gots mo wine, too” okie

      1. I still think that the long-term effects of ergot poisoning could be a valid diagnosis for Oky1. But then I am not doctor any more so than a lawyer.

  18. Both parties, and that is the sad part-only two parties-two choices-one more than a dictatorship, are rife with what can be seen as criminal behavior(s) given the us versus them condition of our political structure. Even in a true democracy/republic each party-typically four or more-would have a newspaper slanted to its convictions in the editorial section at the very least. In the oligarchy that is the American system each party has newspapers that favor them to varying degrees. This is normal. To call for the abolishment of newspapers because of their bent, is uniquely Trumpian.

    The Washington Post does a well substantiated job of illustrating just how many times Trump has lied, misrepresented the facts, etc.; but does not call for him to be impeached. The Washington Post does include editorials that suggest Trump’s impeachment is warranted; but these are opinions, not news-fake or not. Fox News and The Washington Times call for the arrests of various Democrats through their editorial opinions. These are self proclaimed right wing papers. This is the nature of a newspaper. It is virtually impossible for a country to have newspapers that are not opinionated to some degree regarding politics, especially when there are only two choices and the country is extremely polarized.

    This leaves us with the calls for the more extreme measures and from whom they come. Trump, the consummate liar and master of fake facts, calls for action against newspapers that expose his lies and misdeeds, labelling them fake or the pot calling the kettle black. Falwell calls for the arrest of those that criticize Trump. This is a uniquely right wing thing.

    There is no arbiter in this war of words. Regardless of who wins Congress, the Senate, or the Presidency, there will be newspapers leaning left or right. This has always been. What is new is the hatred and accusations expressed by Trump and Falwell. Regardless of who wins, it may be that they have ushered in an new level of polarization in America.

Comments are closed.