Berkeley Police Arrest Attacker Of Conservative Activist

Zachary Greenberg, 28, has been arrested by Berkeley police after the attack on conservative activist Hayden Williams, 26, on UC Berkeley campus while trying to recruit students for a conservative group. While President Donald Trump encouraged Williams to sue Berkeley, the university actually condemned the attack and launched an investigation. For that reason, I cannot understand Trump’s criticism. I have objected to the treatment of conservatives on campuses including Berkeley, but in this instance the university seems to have acted quickly and responsibly. I fail to be the basis for a lawsuit against the university or the President’s attack on the university’s actions.

In a video, Williams (who is not a Berkeley student) is shown recruiting for the Leadership Institute, when he is attacked by Greenberg. The table was knocked over, signs destroyed, and Williams viciously punched.

The San Francisco Chronicle has identified Greenberg as the suspect who punched Williams several times. reports that Greenberg once worked for the university from May 21-July 9, 2010 as a lab assistant in the Department of Psychology.

Greenberg was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and attempting to cause great bodily injury. It is not clear what the deadly weapon might be. It looks like two punches were thrown.

Notably, another person was also involved but has not been arrested.

Greenberg is being held on $30,000 bail and is scheduled to appear in court on Monday.

107 thoughts on “Berkeley Police Arrest Attacker Of Conservative Activist”

  1. It is laughable for Professor Turley to defend the University and applaud its actions. UC Berkeley and its faculty are well known to promote hatred of and antagonism toward conservatives. This is the perfect atmosphere to promote violence against conservatives.

    1. It’s like when the police in Mississippi Burning “opened an investigation” into the two black activists that their own members murdered in the Klan.

  2. the left never care about Americans. They are driven by hate, selfishness and ideologies.

    The best example is what Hillary and Obama did to the Benghazi heroes. Their ignoring the Americans in Benghazi is their swan song….they just cant help themselves lacking duty, honor and country

  3. The criminal case must be completed before filing a civil tort.

    As to whether UC Berkeley has some liability for this attack, I could see naming them as a defendant if there is ample proof that, in the past, UCB has gone easy on violent political activists, for instance choosing not to prosecute. That failure of due diligence for campus safety and free speech rights could be argued as contributory negligence.

    1. Neither person were working for the university. As publicly owned land, people are allowed to enter. Universities have always struggled with off- campus participants involved in on -campus crimes. But I don’t see how UCB is even tangentially responsible.If two people started fighting in a Denny’s would the manager be responsible? Hate crime has nothing t do with some jackass punching you because they don’t like what you say, or else there would be all sorts of hate crimes happening after big game losses.The thug should spend some quality time in jail so he can reflect on the wisdom of a society based on the rule of law, something both extremes seem happy to forget when it suits their purpose.

      1. I do not know about legal responsibility.

        What I can say is that Berkeley has a long, well documented history of bias and harassment against conservatives, on campus and in the classroom. Even the professors participate. There is also bias in grading conservative papers. The news segment referenced a violent protest against Milo Yiannopolis, conservative provocateur. There is a culture of oppression against conservatives in general. If they won’t do something about it, perhaps a lawsuit would make the regents take it seriously. Otherwise, parents just vote with their dollars. Perhaps it will become an openly Democrat madrassa, with education a secondary goal. They should put that on the literature, however, “no conservatives welcome.” Then they need to stop taking federal funding, leave the UC system, and operate as a private institution. How can the university accept federal funding, while preaching Leftist politics in the classroom? That, too, needs to be litigated.

        People voted against Evergreen University. My father was adamant that I not apply to UC Berkeley. It had a horrid extremist reputation even then.

        Berkeley launched an investigation. What is the result? That will determine their role in his latest harassment of a conservative on their campus. They are already in trouble with the overall harassment of non Leftists on campus.

      2. from your comment we can see how “hate crimes” and “hate crime enhancements” work

        1) pet groups of the left like homosexuals get preferential treatment
        2) legacy groups like whites men are second class citizens

        so if it was a straight punching a queer guy campaigning for gay rights, that’s a hate crime
        but if it’s a queer punching a straight campaigning against gay rights, that just regular crime

        So that works like this. A year in prison to punch a queer; time served after arrest like one week, if you punch a straight. Is that equal protection? Obviously not.

        Only 5 states don’t have “hate crime” bogus laws and probably soon that number will be even less. Stupid Republicans have let this happen and failed to fight back against a clever left wing Democrat ploy to put Republicans and legacy social groups into second class citizen status.

        In my mind it’s a denial of equal protection. They’re unconstitutional even if courts have not yet decided that. One day they will!

    2. not necessary whatsoever. it’s usually the case people let it get done first, to make the civil case easier. but there is no such requirement for intentional tort like this.

  4. Berkeley should be sued. Berkeley has a long history of allowing, if not encouraging, violence and property damage to occur on campus. Berkeley employed Greenberg in the “Psychology” department, of all places, and should have been aware of his extreme political bias, instability and potential for violence. In my opinion and as my guess, many Berkeley officials were standing and cheering the video.

  5. Wait.

    Isn’t he out of uniform?

    Weren’t all the thugs issued

    Feminazi White Shirts?

  6. Maybe their moocher checks from the taxpayers started showing up a bit late and they got the message seems to work with all the bright crimson red socialist states.

  7. You cannot understand Trump’s criticism? Do you actually expect Trump ever to make sense?

  8. With the university pursuing legal action, President Trump should have complicated the school instead. If the university could possibly pursue a policy of free speech, this would be a major game changing event.

  9. I see that JT threw youze guys a nice slow pitch up the middle to knock it out. That’s ok, given the week by week bad news that’s been coming your way. The fact still remains that the rise of far right-wing groups have been rising for years according to by law enforcement groups that track, as the FBI, city, county, state records. So, as always the right plays the victim that they are picked on, poor snowflakes. I seem to remember a saying that Trump supporters said when Trump ran and elected……*uc* your feelings. Those words came from Trump supporters, not mine.

    1. “The fact still remains that the rise of far right-wing groups have been rising for years according to by law enforcement groups that track, as the FBI, city, county, state records.”
      Given the runaway ramp up of leftist radicals like antifa, I welcome a countervailing force. I like the Ying to their Yang. Keeps the crazies in check with a little mutual assured destruction while the rest of us live. When one gets the upper hand, we always have the legal system to warehouse them until their oats go to seed. They tend to grow out of “stupid.” Not all of them, mind you.

    2. Fishy:

      “That’s ok, given the week by week bad news that’s been coming your way.”

      Gee, what might that be? Mueller investigation petering out leaving Trump unscathed and the country feeling duped, Dems leftwinging themselves out an election, or Congress making a bigger fool of themselves piously listening to Pinno-cohen like he actually knows anything? Maybe you mean the millions off food stamps, roaring stock market or the best employment figures since we starting keeping numbers?Or maybe you mean the Left ebbing all over the globe and the rise of nationalism all over the Mediterranean starting with Italy and France soon to follow along with Spain. Can’t wait for those May EU elections. Can you?

      1. Do you or are you self aware the you sound and act like a fascist? That’s ok you stick to your so-called principles, by your actions, future generations will know what your BS is. I think by reading your posts, you are getting dumber by the day, wake up and smell the covfefe.

    3. haha are you one of those idiots who underwrite the enormous salaries and posh digs of the SPLC? Keep on sending your hard earned money suckers! The C Suite there needs a raise




    A new executive order from the White House will aim to make federal research funding for colleges and universities contingent on their support for “free speech,” President Trump said Saturday.

    The announcement, during Trump’s address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, appeared to target complaints by some university critics that institutions of higher education stifle right-wing viewpoints.

    “If they want our dollars, and we give it to them by the billions, they’ve got to allow people like Hayden and many great young people, and old people, to speak,” Trump said, bringing onstage a young conservative, Hayden Williams, who was physically attacked last month while tabling for a conservative organization at the University of California at Berkeley.

    The executive order, Trump said, would “require colleges to support free speech if they want federal research” money. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Trump told the CPAC crowd, meeting at National Harbor, Md., that he planned to sign the order “very soon” but did not provide specifics or say whether a draft has already been prepared.

    The federal government distributes more than $26 billion a year to colleges and universities for research purposes, according to the National Science Foundation. The vast majority of that money is assigned to projects for the Pentagon, NASA, and the departments of Agriculture, Energy, and Health and Human Services.

    Trump is likely on strong footing with the proposed executive order, said Cynthia Miller-Idriss, a professor of education at American University.

    “There’s a history of the federal government requiring universities to do certain kinds of things in order to receive federal research funding,” she said. For example, she said, the U.S. government imposes ethical guidelines on studies involving human subjects.

    But the order could disproportionately affect private colleges and universities over public ones, Miller-Idriss added, because those institutions have historically enjoyed greater leeway to determine who may speak on campus.

    “If I had to wager a guess at this point,” she said, “I would say probably [the order] would be asking for private universities to follow the same kinds of things state universities have had to do, which is basically to say that if you rent space publicly, for example, you can’t control who rents that space.”

    Other experts said Trump’s proposal raised serious First Amendment concerns.

    “Somebody would have to decide which universities were not supporting free speech on campus,” said Catherine Ross, a professor in constitutional law at George Washington University. “Some group of Washington civil servants — or maybe even worse, political appointees — would be looking at charges of speech discrimination at various colleges and universities, and labeling them as either acceptable in terms of free speech or not acceptable. And that … is a government interference in speech.”

    What’s more, she added, Trump’s policy could inadvertently disqualify many religious academic institutions from receiving federal research funding, to the extent that their religious beliefs prohibit certain views or speakers on campus.

    Higher education groups swiftly pushed back against Trump’s proposed order.

    “This is a solution in search of a problem that will create its own problems,” said Terry W. Hartle, senior vice president for the American Council on Education, which represents college and university presidents. “Free speech is a core value for research universities because it’s tied up with academic freedom. Controversies do arise, but they tend to be relatively infrequent.”

    Standing onstage together, Trump praised Williams and urged him to sue the University of California at Berkeley over the incident. A university spokeswoman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Full article: “Trump Promises Executive Order That Could Strip Colleges Of Funding If They ‘Don’t Support Free Speech’.


    Should Catholic universities be required to let Planned Parenthood advocate on campuses?

    And what if the KKK wants to distribute pamphlets on the campus of a Black college? Should the security staff of a Black college have guard the KKK members while they antagonize Black students?

    One has to ask if Trump really thought out these questions before popping off at the C-Pac Conference.

    1. Off-topic….Anybody wanting a good laugh or just be sick to your stomach, read or watch Trump’s 2 hours and 20 min speech at the C-Pac conference.

      1. FishWings– I did watch Trump’s speech. It was enjoyable and on target. If it made you “sick to your stomach”, why would you watch it for 2 hours and 20 minutes? Or did you really?

    2. Hey, this is just more red meat from and for people who don’t think seriously about the consequences of anything they say or applaud. Dear Leader said it and they’ll suck it up.


      Religious schools are private institutions with intentional purposes. This really is not that difficult to understand.

      1. Yeah, that difficult to understand:

        “The University of Notre Dame has received $128 million in research funding for fiscal year 2016 — the second highest in its history. In fiscal year 2015, the University’s research funding was its highest of all time, reaching $133 million…..

        Of the awards received in fiscal year 2016, 57 percent came from federal funding, with 16 percent from foundations and 15 percent from industry. Other sponsors, including foreign entities, local and state governments and nonprofit organizations, funded the remaining 12 percent.”

          1. You want a cartoon to go with the text?

            Notre Dame – a Catholic university – receives most of it’s research funding from the federal government and it is upward of $70 million a year.

            1. You said that. You’re drawing what implication from that? Again, answering me is not difficult. It’s just something you’re avoiding. (While being a sneering prick).

              1. I’m sorry but I am not able to paint pictures for pettifogging dummies. I’m sure everyone who read this exchange with an iq above 75 understands that religious universities do indeed receive federal dollars and so will be under our jerk in chiefs edict and judgement.

          2. Tabby, I perfectly understood Anon’s comment. Your’s escaped me completely. ‘What point’ were you trying to make?

            1. No, you didn’t understand him.

              The federal government runs a patronage mill wherein it purports to achieve certain purposes through financing state and local government, corporations subsidiary thereto, and philanthropies. This is a qualitatively different thing than government contracting, which is undertaken by an application and bidding process by companies electing to be in that business. Only a modest share of commercial and industrial revenue is to be obtained through government contracting and most enterprises aren’t in lines of commerce and industry wherein they can benefit much from government contracting. It’s important for aerospace firms and for components of the construction business.

              With state governments, local governments, and higher education, you’re given the dilemma of leaving money on the table (and there are always internal lobbies who want the money for their objects) and possibly damaging your competitive position on the one hand and getting hemmed in by compliance costs on the other (though the compliance costs may not be perceived as a problem if the threat of federal action can be used in intrabureaucratic battles). In a well-run society, these dilemmas are contained and obviated by not providing discretionary or special purpose grants. Governments achieve their purposes making use oftheir own employees, plant, and equipment or contracting out with a bidding process and limit themselves to unrestricted grants. Ideally, these go to individual households (e.g. Social Security. If a superordinate government finds it necessary to subsidize constituent governments, the ideal method is revenue sharing according to a distributional formula which incorporates population and per capita income as arguments. According to this method, the beneficiary governments can do with the funds anything within the scope of their enabling legislation, so local preferences aren’t distorted and annexed to the preferences of the central government.

              Here we have a situation where the federal government has promoted higher education through several avenues, foremost among them subsidizing tuition and providing research grants. (Some institutions bid on government contracts as well. Johns Hopkins was once top of the heather for that).

              The institutions, public and private, put themselves at risk by taking federal assistance. The question at hand is what sort of compliance costs should the federal government impose. My position would be to withdraw the subsidy. To the extent the subsidy is present, though, to impose no compliance costs extraneous to the program. With regard to federal student aid, the only criteria should be that the institution meets certain boundary conditions for being an educational service provider. In the case of research grants, it’s that the institution and its researchers actually be undertaking the objects delineated in their grant application and not violating the state or federal penal code in the process. Obligations should be disclosed ex ante.

              Trump’s actually proposing to condition federal grants on institutions not practicing viewpoint discrimination. In this case, the distinction between public and private institutions is crucial. The most worthwhile private institutions have discrete architectonic purposes and historic missions. They are the missions of the constituents of the institution, not the state or the public at large. A public institution’s purposes are properly quite spare, and that means there is no more regulation of public discourse within the institution than there can properly be in any public forum.

              Now, this last observation bothers the left, because they fancy everything they care about is their property. And, of course, faculty in higher education fancy they are the proprietors of the institutions where they work, and have contempt for any outside party who insists that those public institutions have obligations to the actual public. Faculty are also addled by the Monovox bubbles in which they live and work. They simply do not conceive of contrary views as having any legitimacy or interest at all. The administrators are commonly drawn from the ranks of faculty or from the graduates of teachers colleges and have an even more pronounced bias. The faculty and administration have a constitutional obligation to refrain from viewpoint discrimination. This is an obligation they ignore in the absence of court injunctions. Trump’s proposing to make it hurt for them with a less cumbersome procedure.

              Now, Anon is propagating the fiction (which he may or may not believe) that religious institutions (which are comparatively few, comparatively poor, and with few exceptions largely suborned by trans-insittutional faculty culture) are particularly problematic and properly face the same obligations as public institutions. Of course, it’s not going to injure most such institutions. Duke University is nominally Methodist. It is going to injure genuinely dissident institutions like Brigham Young. (Of course, Notre Dame isn’t a dissident institution at all. It just has a charmless habit of selecting its president from the members of the Congregation of the Holy Cross).

              Anon, of course, is arguing in bad faith. Defenders of the Bourbon class in higher education always do.

              1. Tabby, to my knowledge Trump has no formal rules or legislation in place regarding ‘free speech on campus’. So I’m not sure how you can write this detailed analysis on the eventual effects.

              2. I’m sorry, were you talking to me?

                As I demonstrated above, religious affiliated universities often receive very large amounts of federal funding and so will be subject to whatever message control Trump wants them to abide by, and by precedent that of President AOC after 2028. Or maybe I missed a cogent comma in the 28 point agenda he thinks he implied in his 2 sentence post I first responded to above or his latest, full on – zzzzzzzzz…….zzzzzzzzzz – exegesis just above.

                1. I’m sorry, were you talking to me?

                  Not really. You’re a juvenile and a fraud. I expect nothing of you and you’re worth nothing. I’m explaining my reasoning to 3d parties and why your position is invalid.

    4. Universities such as Columbia in NYC have hosted the worst dictators and racists but have prevented peaceful conservatives from speaking. Who has been making the decision to prevent free speech on our university campuses today?

      Trump did a great thing in both supporting freedom of speech on campuses and highlighting the most recent violent leftist attack on a peaceful individual. Of course you didn’t like it. He makes people think.

  11. Can’t wait for some universities funding to be yanked for not granting a speaking permit to Farrakahn, Chelsea Manning, or an Antifa organisation.

    Hypocrites here are applauding a phony who is singularly the most responsible for promoting violence against other Americans.

    1. Which public institution hasn’t allowed a student group to invite any of these parties to their campus, or constructively refused by insisting that the student group pay double-overtime to the security staff?

    2. “Hypocrites here are applauding a phony who is singularly the most responsible for promoting violence against other Americans.”

      Be thankful folks. You’d have to hit seven or eight asylums to find this variety of crazy though I do prefer the time-proven classic, “The Devil made me do it.”

    3. That is the problem being faced. Far worse people and dictators from the left can speak at the universities, but peaceful intelligent people that criticize the left are prevented. But now we know why you make some of the statements that you make. You don’t know what is happening.

  12. After watching the video, Zachary did land a lucky sucker punch to the jaw. Maybe Zachary would like to settle this in a boxing ring with the Russian. And show his boxing skill sets.

    It’s war & anybody’s boxing match with the Russian

Comments are closed.