Academia, Bizarre, Congress, Constitutional Law

Laurence Tribe Calls For the Impeachment Of Trump As A Terrorist And Racist

Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe has a history of passionate opposition to President Trump and calling for his impeachment, and he continued the trend Sunday by blaming Trump for a pair of shootings that took place over the weekend in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. Others have also placed blame on Trump for the shooting though Tribe goes as far as to declare Trump a terrorist. I have previously disagreed with Professor Tribe on these tweets against Trump and Republicans and this attack appears unhinged and entirely inappropriate for a respected academic.

Tribe wrote:

“How many more people have to DIE violent deaths at racist hands before impeaching the president for inciting white nationalist terrorism and violence is taken as seriously as impeaching him for obstructing justice? The real national emergency is Donald J. Trump’s terrorism”

Laurence Tribe✔@tribelaw

Recently, I wrote about an anti-Trump activist featured on CNN who tried to firebomb an immigration center. While the attack by  Willem Van Spronsen followed over-heated rhetoric from various Democratic candidates, his political motives or associations were largely ignored by the media. As I said at the time, I think it would be grossly unfair to associate Van Spronsen’s violence with Democratic leaders or their rhetoric. There are also a high number of cases with Trump supporters or people wearing MAGA hats have been assaulted on streets or in cafes. No one is calling out the left for responsibility in stoking such flames. Nor should they. The point was only that the media routinely makes that nexus to Trump by those who are anti-immigrant or white supremacist. None of these political figures, including Trump, can fairly be blamed for the acts of a violent, disturbed individual. If we start to treat political speech as a type of criminal inducement, we would eviscerate the first amendment.

Tribe’s suggestion that an impeachment can be based on this highly tenuous connection does a disservice to the public which relies on academics to give honest and informed analysis. Moreover, there is a curious jumping of the rails in raising slaughters by white supremacists in calling for impeachment for obstruction. The suggestion seems to be that we should impeach a president to achieve a different purpose: remove Trump on obstruction to somehow end racial violence in the nation. That would seem to encourage members to impeach to achieve ulterior purposes outside of the scope of impeachment.

When asked later by the Fox News about the tweets, Tribe would only say that “There is an alarming pattern of incitements that together warrant being taken seriously in conjunction with other, more specific, offenses.” I am not sure what that means in the context of an impeachment. It suggests that a member should vote on one alleged offense while being motivated by other uncharged offenses. We would never allow that in a real court of law. Indeed, the mere suggestion to a jury would likely leave a lawyer in a contempt of court.

While impeachment is not a real court by any stretch of the imagination, it is still a proceeding with a defined standard for members to satisfy. Encouraging members to act with reference to charges outside of legitimate articles of impeachment is itself a type of reckless inducement.

Tribe subsequently clarified by saying that he is not saying that Trump “should be impeached” for “racist incitements alone,” rather that “impeaching the president for inciting white nationalist terrorism and violence [should be] taken as seriously as impeaching him for obstructing justice.”

Tribe later added that he was not suggesting impeachment for racist alone but “impeaching the president for inciting white nationalist terrorism and violence [should be] taken as seriously as impeaching him for obstructing justice.”

Again, “impeaching the president for inciting white nationalist terrorism” would seem a highly subjective standard for impeachment — a standing that could sweep dangerously into political speech protected by the First Amendment. Any majority party could claim that a president was encouraging violent or criminal conduct in his speeches or policies. It would turn a narrow constitutional standard nto a virtual invitation for political removals.

What do you think?

523 thoughts on “Laurence Tribe Calls For the Impeachment Of Trump As A Terrorist And Racist”

  1. https://tiffanyfitzhenry.com/2019/08/06/behind-the-illusion-ellen-degeneres/

    A leaked 2009 memo in an email exchange with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton singled out The Ellen Degeneres Show which could be used to “amplify and deliver messages that advance policymaking.”

    The memo stated that Ellen DeGeneres is willing to use her platform to promote the agenda of the State Department.

    The email was part of a batch of State emails released in response to a Judicial Watch lawsuit.

    The State Department memo highlighted the importance of ‘using shows like Ellen’ to ‘push government agendas’ as opposed to more political news outlets, writing:

    “These outlets can create vital support for official policy or pending legislation among key domestic constituency groups but also create momentum for policy abroad. As the media environment continues to become more and more globally interconnected, it will be critical for the leadership of the State Department to leverage these media opportunities to amplify and deliver messages that advance policymaking.”

    In another leaked official State Department exchange, a top government aide and the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) discuss Ellen Degeneres’ “willingness to do whatever we ask.”

    So, to recap, Ellen Degeneres is willing to covertly push official government foreign policy under the guise of a silly, non-threatening morning talk show. If that’s not the definition of a government asset I am not sure what is?

    1. excerpt cont’d…

      I sometimes forget that there are people who still don’t know how Wikileaks revealed that Jake Tapper is a puppet of the power establishment. This is the same power establishment that started all our wars, rigged the election against Bernie Sanders, and still somehow managed to lose the technology to go to the moon. I may not have as much money as you, Tapper, but at least I don’t carry water for those dickheads.

      “Tapper and DNC staff discussed in emails:

      “If we want to offer Jake Tapper questions to ask us”

      After Tapper’s producer Jason Seher asked what DNC Hispanic Media Director Pablo Manriquez wanted to talk about on the show.

      The rhetoric among DNC staff makes it seem as though it was a standard procedure to write their own questions for CNN interviews.

      In another email between Jason Seher and Miranda of the DNC, Seher wrote:

      “Thanks for facilitating Luis coming on today, and bear with us through the meelee of GOP nonsense and cancellations and all that. Any particular points he’ll want to make? We’re gonna stay Dem focused.”

      Hmmm, that doesn’t seem very fair and balanced, and it doesn’t remotely resemble journalism. Jake, for his part, didn’t think he did anything wrong when the justifiable outrage ensued following the leaks.

      In his defense, it’s been a while since we’ve had real journalism in America. Maybe he doesn’t even know what his job is supposed to be. Journalists aren’t supposed to collude with politicians. They aren’t supposed to get questions from the people they’re interviewing – that’s called PR sweetie.

    2. old hat. operating mockinbird, cia, op. look it up on wiki if you think it’s a “oonspiracy theory”

      government gets cooperation from fake news all the time, just sometimes fake news decides they don’t like certain government actors ie trump, then they aim propaganda his way

      the phony part is where they pretend to be oracles of the truth

      they are just presstitutes. if they’re not selling suds for P&G it may be “woman’s issues” for a candidate, under guise of fake news

        1. Anon – that is a very curious, and telling, reaction to the threat of death camps for Republican voters. The “party of tolerance” seems to be getting quite bloodthirsty.

        2. I’m a student of Communist “reeducation” camps. Both in years past and today. What is sauce for the goose one day may be sauce for the gander.

  3. The is, on this site as well as many other sites that allow comments, a determination that there is one set of beliefs and outcomes. That is all there is. And if you don’t subscribe to that one set, you deserve to be attacked by Antifia – composed of left-wing, autonomous, militant anti-fascist groups and individuals in the United States. And yet, their anti-fascist behavior propels them to be what they demonstrate and violently attempt to inflict as much harm as the KGB and other like-kind fascists. Remember, it is Socialism that has killed more than 5 million persons world wide. Is Antifiapuke any different? Certainly a terrorist organization by any other name. And just look at the politicians seen snuggling up to them. Now, there is a real name changer. Snuggle bunnies.

    1. azlan calls for kellyanne to be eradicated; and I call for azlan to be eradicated

      they want to go there really badly. they are not ready. that’s good, let it come.

  5. L. Tribe is a white nationalist who deflects investigating him as he points to someone else. Yes, just what liberal tribe is he from, anyway? OH, that seems apparent – it’s the tribe of the idiotically unhinged and entirely inappropriate, did I mention moronic.

    1. “This source of competition for skilled labor from immigrants and visa holders around the world has made a very difficult situation even worse for natives as they compete in the skilled job market. To compete, people have to get better credentials by spending more time in college. It used to be that a high school degree was worth something. Now a bachelor’s degree is what’s recommended to be competitive in the job market. The cost of college degrees has exploded as their value has plummeted. This has led to a generation of indebted, overqualified students filling menial, low paying and unfulfilling jobs. Of course these migrants and their children have contributed to the problem, but are not the sole cause of it. The American lifestyle affords our citizens an incredible quality of life. However, our lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country. The decimation of the environment is creating a massive burden for future generations. Corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly overharvesting resources. This has been a problem for decades. For example, this phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades old classic “The Lorax”. Water sheds around the country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations”

      SOUND CRAZY? sounds pretty sharp actually. too bad nobody took this troubled soul under their wing and channeled his energy in a socially positive direction.
      .

      NOT CRAZY AT ALL THAT ONE. pretty normal concerns for kids that age, actually

      2. Kurtz – the eco terrorism part was completely insane. He suggested killing millions of people to save the environment, as well as to create the impetus for Latinos to return to their home countries.

    2. Karen, assuming that’s really the shooter’s manifesto, it reads like ‘populist extremism’; an angry commoner feeling cornered by the forces of globalism.

      Politically he occupies a twilight zone between Trumpers and Bernie Bros. Which doesn’t surprise me. Some people define their politics in terms of conspiracies. The Bernie Bros aren’t too different from Trumpers in that regard. Some people are so ignorant of politics they can’t completely distinguish left from right.

      But one thing that stands out is The Shooter’s fear of a ‘Hispanic invasion’. On this point the shooter sounds influenced by Trump. And that’s the dangerous aspect of Trump’s leadership; he appeals to paranoid lunatics.

      When a president is forever ranting about imagined conspiracies, that strikes a cord with delusional outcasts. Hearing conspiracies from the president gives them credibility. Loners like this shooter think, “If the president believes in all these conspiracies, there must be something to them”.

      One could design a W W II propaganda poster with a close-up of Trump’s face contorted in rage. The caption could read: “Loose Lips Inspire Lunatics”.

      1. Peter – that there is an invasion on our southern border is not a conspiracy. It is also not a secret.

          1. Peter, just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean that everything you don’t like represents paranoia. It is not good for a country to have millions of illegal people living and getting benefits from the government along with the criminality that is encouraged.

          2. Hill – even the mainstream media tacitly admits that there are negative consequences to overwhelming illegal immigration. They do so in many ways:
            1. When they express outrage that Border Patrol facilities run out of supplies when they have to house multiples of the people they were designed to hold.
            2. When HuffPo wrote about the 85% plus rape rate of women and girls on the illegal migrant trail.
            3. When children die along the way or are abandoned.
            4. When emergency rooms close due to the burden of illegals.
            5. When school test scores decrease markedly, the more ESL students enroll, until entire classroom progress grinds to a halt, lowering the quality of education for all students.
            6. When they report on terrorists being caught illegally crossing. Considering how many illegals get through, it is intuitively obvious that there must be terrorists among them.

            There are more examples. But the point is that of course it is not paranoid to point out that there are problems with uncontrolled illegal immigration. Even mass murderers can point out the sky is blue. Their criminal acts does not change that fact.

            Why are you unwilling to admit that there are any problems with illegal immigrant. Democrat controlled media is trying to use this tragedy to make the argument that if you point out the obvious problems with illegal immigration, you are racist, and supporting a mass shooter. This is completely illogical.

          3. for my part I have said about a thousand times on this blog before the shooter did

            we are under an invasion, even if it is done by teeming hordes of decent hungry women children and refugees from central america. they are not bad people just because they are crossing the border illegally, but they are still committing a crime,. and in the numbers which have done so, it is certainly in the millions and on the scale of an invasion

            invasion is an appropriate word for it. this is not hate it is an accurate description of the situation. it may be a soft invasion, it is not an armed invasion, it is not an invasion of belligerents, but it’s an invasion nonetheless. and a crime from a to z. just calling for border enforcment of our laws is not hate. if you hate us for calling for borders, ok, well, then you’re ginning up the hate yourself., because you demonize regular folks for wanting national geographic integrity as haters, then you might as well be a fifth columnist and a collaborator with the invading forces

            this can all deteriorate very quickly, be careful what you wish for

      2. Hill – he was inspired long before Trump, and says so.

        Why do you pick and choose the immigration issue, while ignoring the eco terrorism? He said that the government needed to give people a universal income, as well as other expensive benefits, and that corporations were destroying the environment. His solution was that millions of people should be killed to reduce the strain on the benefits structure, incentivize Latinos to return to their host countries, and to save the planet.

        I don’t blame AOC for her 12 years til doom rhetoric. People are choosing not to have children because of her ignorant, irresponsible predictions. It is irresponsible of her to make such declarations, but it is not her fault that a mass murderer chose to do his part to save the planet by wiping out as many people as he could. Nor do I blame Bernie Sanders for convincing him that a universal income was a good idea, and so people needed to be culled so that we could afford to give it out. Nor was it Elizabeth Warren’s fault for her anti-employer rhetoric. Nor was it Trump’s fault for pointing out the problems with out of control illegal immigration.

        We are making mass shooters famous, which provides inspiration for someone to try to one up them.

      3. Hill, I neglected to mention that I agree with you that the shooter feared an Hispanic invasion.

        Trump, however, does not want to stop immigration. He does not want to prevent minorities from coming to America. He wants them to do so legally. The El Paso shooter, on the other hand, wanted to stop all immigration. One of his problems with Republicans is that they supported legal immigration and visa holders.

    3. “White racists” have had serious concern for the environment in the past and continue to talk about it.

      this may not be a fact well known to people who caricature them

      its been so at least a century, since MADISON GRANT penned his classic
      ‘
      THE PASSING OF THE GREAT RACE …. see link for pdf text below

      who was he? from wiki

      Madison Grant (November 19, 1865 – May 30, 1937) was an American lawyer, writer, and zoologist known primarily for his work as a eugenicist and conservationist as one of the leading thinkers and activists of the Progressive Era.

      As a eugenicist, Grant was responsible for one of the most notorious works of scientific racism, and played an active role in crafting strong immigration restriction and anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. As a conservationist, Grant is credited with the saving of many different species of animals, founding many different environmental and philanthropic organizations and developing much of the discipline of wildlife management.

      https://archive.org/stream/passingofgreatra00granuoft/passingofgreatra00granuoft_djvu.txt

      1. Well, I’ve long argued against Democrats believing that only they, and not Republicans, care about the environment. Everyone breathes the same air.

        There is a continuum of beliefs that any single person can have, almost infinite variations. A racist environmentalist is not a contradiction, as these are two very separate beliefs that have no relation to each other. In addition, naturalists from hundreds of years ago cared about the environment, yet were products of their times as far as social mores.

  7. OT: The question of healthcare reform frequently is discussed. This is an article by one of our finest thinkers. Forget what you want to promote and think of the points he is making.

    The Economic Trap Of “Medicare For All”

    by Richard A. Epstein
    Monday, August 5, 2019
    When an untested program looks too good to be true, it is almost certainly far worse than anyone could imagine. Case in point: the Medicare for All program set out in Senate Bill 1129, introduced this past April by Senator Bernie Sanders (VT) and cosponsored by three fellow presidential candidates, Senators Cory Booker (NJ), Kamala Harris (CA), and Elizabeth Warren (MA). The legislation proposes a government takeover of the nation’s entire health care system—the same government that is notoriously unable to address the endless waste in its very own Veterans Administration health care program. The obvious explanation for the government’s abysmal performance in health care is its lack of ownership stake and the associated lack of accountability for costs and performance. This difficulty is inherent in all government-run enterprises, which explains why the United States Post Office is far less efficient than Federal Express and UPS.

    cont: https://www.hoover.org/research/economic-trap-medicare-all?utm_source=Hoover+Daily+Report&utm_campaign=66f7393446-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_08_06_05_55&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_21b1edff3c-66f7393446-73452805

  8. Anon1 says: August 7, 2019 at 7:11 AM

    What law did Hillary break?

    U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information
    U.S. Code § 1031 — Major fraud against the United States
    U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense
    U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
    U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
    U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
    U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records
    U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
    U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
    U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations
    18 U.S. Code § 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

    Her usage of an illicit private email server while at the State Department;

    The sending and receiving of classified information on unsecured channels;
    Obstruction of justice, lying under oath, or destruction of government property;

    Misleading or concealing information from federal agents conducting an official investigation;

    Abusing a government office for private gain, such as vis-à-vis The Clinton Foundation;

    Engaging in quid pro quo arrangements that risk the national security of the United States;

    Otherwise engaging in a “cover-up.”

    https://ijr.com/11-federal-laws-hillary-clinton-is-accused-of-breaking-the-last-one-is-a-doozy/

    1. Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke Federal Laws And Jeopardized National Security, No Charges Recommended… WTF, FBI?!
      https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fbi-clinton-was-extremely_b_10818458

      Of the approximately 30,000 emails Hillary Clinton turned over to State in 2014, the FBI found

      “110 emails, in 52 email chains, have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was ‘Top Secret’ at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained ‘Secret’ information at the time; eight contained ‘Confidential’ information at the time.”
      Average American:

      This already shows mishandling of classified information. 44 email chains were “Top Secret” or “Secret” at the time they were sent, meaning she, being the Secretary of State, should have been competent enough to know better than to be sending classified information over unsecured, personal, in-home servers. #HillarySoQualified

      1. As above

        Comey: Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

        HuffPooh: Wait what?! WTF?!<

        Comey: To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions, but that’s not what we’re deciding now. As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.”

        HuffPooh: No sh!t there would be consequences! Tell it to Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden or anyone else who has released classified information for the public benefit who’ve since been branded a traitor and punished to the fullest extent of the law. You not only ignored the evidence of negligence (first factor), but by your own statement you destroy the second factor of your decision-making in this case: context. If anyone else were discovered doing the same as she was there would be consequences meaning that, in a similar context, another individual would be prosecuted, but not her. Since when does not having precedence for charging a blatant violation of a clearly worded federal statute ever prevented a prosecution? There’s a first for everything right? You have evidence she mishandled classified information in a grossly negligent way, she and her colleagues destroyed State Department-related communications in the same manner, she jeopardized national security and was probably hacked, either directly or indirectly, all things any other citizen would be punished for, but you recommend NO CHARGES?! WTF FBI?!

        #HillaryFighting4Us

        😇

        1. Estovir, even though Republicans controlled Congress, no one could make one of these charges stick? That’s pretty far-fetched. The Republican House had actually spent 4 years investigating Hillary. It’s odd that they didn’t leap at the chance to hit her with these charges.

          1. even though Republicans controlled Congress, no one could make one of these charges stick?

            Why is that? What does it take to make it as you say stick? Was it lack of evidence?

    2. Time for Anon to run away or provide a generalization that is meaningless.

    3. First up on Estovir’s list, U.S. Code § 798, :

      “(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—”

      No, Hillary didn’t do that.

      Next, U.S. Code § 1031 –

      “a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent—
      (1) to defraud the United States; or
      (2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises,

      No, Hillary didn’t do that.

      Based on that nonsense, really not worth anyone’s time following Estovir’s fantasies for true-believers.

  9. The only purely political mass shooting I can think of in recent times was two years ago when the Bernie campaign worker literally made sure Republicans were in the field when he took a rifle in to slaughter them.

  10. CLUES YOUR LEADER IS EVIL (repeat from below)

    Positive presidents give speeches with positive messages. And you can see it in faces when cameras pan the audience. Folks are smiling, tearing-up and embracing those around them.

    Think of that Norman Rockwell picture celebrating free speech. It’s that tall, lanky man addressing the town council while neighbors gaze with admiration.

    That’s how supporters look when heroic leaders speak. They’re glowing with admiration. In a normal America supporters look that way when great presidents speak.

    But when supporters keep jumping up to shake their fists in rage..

    while chanting bellicose taunts regarding perceived enemies..

    as their leader grins mischievously..

    These are all bad signs! A person born deaf can figure something’s wrong.

    These are clues said leader is really a mischief maker. Trump’s yellow hair tells us that up front. Normal leaders aren’t wearing preposterous comb-overs.

    Trump looks like The Joker of Batman comic strips. Trump functions as The Joker. Like ripping the country apart will make us ‘great again’..??

    That very slogan is the most cynical of lies.

    2. Hill those people are justifiably enraged since for over 2 years the weaponized intelligence community has tied to unseat the duly elected president they voted for – your side lost and is now literally supporting the police state in trying to oust him. Who’s evil?

      1. Anonymous, whoever you are, ‘Tom Nash’, perhaps, Republicans controlled Congress during most of the Mueller Probe.

        1. Brock Boy Hill and his sidekick anonymous are now up to 4-5 possible identities for the anonymous that displeases them.
          Given how popular they’ve both made themselves here, they may end up with a very long list if they keep at it.

          1. Hill’s guess might have been a good one, had it been correct.
            I understand that as his anonymous sycophant, you are obligated to modify your previous guesses and line up with those of your master.
            The pair of you are no better at sleuthing than you are at anything else.

        4. Hill – For god sake Mueller actually worked for Trump! Your point is not just a red herring – but an incredibly stupid one at that. My point stands – and no I’m not Tom Nash.

          1. Anonymous at 10:14 PM,
            Peter Hill has issues with sock puppets, or those who post as anonymous.
            He will make exceptions to those in that category that suck up to him.
            So if you do not want to be mis-identified in the future, try laying on a little flattery for the propaganda platform he uses here for his HHHNN media outlet.

  11. Rather than law students paying $200 for textbooks written by this idiot, his books should be used for toilet paper.

    1. Maduro just denounced the US “gun culture” or something like that. not worth the link but yeah Venezuela’s got a pretty high murder rate right now worse than nearly everywhere in the US and that is pretty hard to accomplish

      1. Kurtz, Maduro is just like Peter Shill, dishonest, ignorant and doesn’t really care about the people. He focus’s in on himself and how he feels.

  13. The Media Causes Mass Shootings
    The media knows it helps cause mass shootings. It doesn’t care.

    August 5, 2019

    There are two types of mass shooters.

    Let’s call them Fred and Charlie.

    Fred is angry, frustrated and wants revenge. He wants to die. He doesn’t care about being famous, he just wants to cause as much damage as possible before dying.

    Charlie may have some things in common with Fred, but his ego drives him to be famous. His sense of self-importance convinces him that he deserves to be worshiped, adored and celebrated. His anger stems from an unfulfilled ego and mass murder is also his way of getting famous.

    The media bears some of the responsibility for Fred. It’s likely that Fred got the idea of a mass shooting spree from media coverage of past shooting sprees. But Charlie, whether he’s a Neo-Nazi or a black nationalist or a leftist, is very much the media’s responsibility.

    The media has been creating, feeding and nurturing these little monsters since Columbine. And they know that what they do will make them famous. They write manifestos and make videos because they know the media will broadcast them.

    There’s also fairly solid evidence that media influence plays a major role. Here’s one of my old articles on the subject.

    Some 200 years later, German television debuted “Death of a Student”, a six-part series about Claus Wagner, a high school student who commits suicide by jumping under a train. Each episode began with Claus jumping under the train… And suddenly the number of teenage boys killing themselves by jumping under a train increased by 175%. Having failed to prevent enough suicides, the show aired a second time. This time fewer people were watching and the suicide rate for teenage boys only went up 115%.

    A few years later in neighboring Vienna, suicides went up when they were featured on the front page rand fell 75% when they were pushed to the back page, run sans photos and without mention of the word, “Suicide.”

    Suicides spike after front page coverage of a suicide. After Marilyn Monroe’s death, 197 more people killed themselves than the statistical norm. Suicides rise even after fictional suicides on soap operas. And murders are also influenced by the coverage of real and fictional murders. The rise in the number of shootings after a heavily publicized shooting isn’t a mysterious conspiracy, it’s Werthers being Werther or Lanza or Holmes; identifying with the method of dealing with their frustrations, if not the man.

    None of this is news. The media amplifies the messages of mass killers for the profit motives involved and for the ideological agenda.

    The media knows it helps cause mass shootings. It doesn’t care.

    2. Alan, is this an original piece by you? Or did you copy it somewhere? Perhaps it’s stock commentary from a right wing blog? One of those blogs with an American flag in the upper left corner, and an eagle to the right. They furnish stock comments for cornballs to post. This was titled: “Response To Mass Shootings”.

      The piece sounds vaguely wise while changing the subject. But no one is likely to read beyond two paragraphs. Yet people credit you with posting something halfway thoughtful. And that’s the whole idea; ‘Readers think of you as a well-intentioned cornball’.

      1. Peter, you are not making much sense. If you disagree with the piece good, but tell us why. If you agree with the piece that is good as well. But what you are doing is trying to create doubt about the piece for the sole reason being that it didn’t come from the Washington Post. That is really stupid because for the past 2-3 years the Washington Post has been almost completely wrong about Russia and Trump. What makes you think that the Washington Post is a legitimate news source? I’ll help you with the answer. For the most part the Washington Post is a rag that doesn’t care about the truth.

        Do you know how newspapers make money? By selling newspapers and advertisements where the fee is dependent on the number of readers. The Washington Post believes that they can generate more interest by lying than by telling the truth and you are the goofball that falls for that type of cr-p.

    3. Allan’s at it again:

      “The Media Causes Mass Shootings | Frontpage Mag
      https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/…/media-causes-mass-shootings-daniel-greenfiel…
      1 day ago – There are two types of mass shooters. Let’s call them Fred and Charlie. Fred is angry, frustrated and wants revenge. He wants to die.”

      1. Thanks, Anonymous. That’s one thin ‘newspaper’. Still if Alan credited them, we would know where the hell he got that piece.

        Apparently Alan fancies us as passive readers. Like we have such faith in Alan we wouldn’t think of asking where he got an article. After all, Alan’s the ‘Dean of Commenters’ on Turley’s blog. Or he perceives himself as one.

        So when you’re a pillar of integrity, as Alan imagines, you don’t have to say where you got an article. No one’s going to ask except the liberal stir stick. And readers will just laugh at him.

        1. “That’s one thin ‘newspaper’”

          Peter, do you mean it doesn’t have the number of advertisements of WaPo or it doesn’t write incessant repetitions of the same stories? It is an editorial and not a news article though we already understand that you don’t know the difference between the two.

          Peter, I don’t limit myself to one source though I do read specific writers that have been shown to be accurate. What is the Washington Post’s accuracy with regard to Trump and Russia? Near zero. What is the accuracy of the writers I read regularly? Very accurate. In other words what you call legitimate news media is cr-p just like the stuff you spew.

          Anytime you find that one of the things I post is lacking let’s hear your side of the story. Same thing for anything I post. You don’t post rebuttal rather you attempt to slime the source. The reason? You have nothing in your head that can make a cogent argument rebutting anything.

    4. that is a factor

      I think the biggest causal factor, according to studies, is that these murderers have most often had a history of child abuse or neglect

      https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-04/el-paso-dayton-gilroy-mass-shooters-data

      this makes perfect sense. we need to ban child abuse qand neglect. ooops; that has always been banned. but it still happens. see how difficult some problems can be?

      there are always calls for more spending. I am crazy because i think we should spend more social resources on protecting children from rotten, abusive, neglectful socalled parents. for some reason I never see politicians of either party talking about that very much.

      how is of course a difficult question but if you talk to people who are deeply involved in things like child abuse cases, there are some very specific recommendations which could be implemented. not all are spending items; some are basically just rule changes for how cases are handled. I can’t get into this now but its out there, nobody not one single national voice talks very much about it. but there are some very real experts who can say.

      1. well, here’s one., Andrew Vachss is a writer of fiction, but he is also a child advocacy lawyer. his “Burke” series is a very successful one, in the crime genre.

        here’s some of what he says about child abuse cases.

        http://vachss.com/av_dispatches/casa.html

        Andrew Vachss also wrote a book called “A bomb built in hell” back in like 1980 or so that was almost a prophecy of Columbine.

        Andrew Vachss has been on “Oprah” etc back decades ago but not of late. he is still out there taking cases and writing however. Check him out. He is really, really good on child protection issues.

  15. What’s Really Behind the ‘White Supremacy’ Terrorism Scare

    The anti-Trump forces, now stripped of their Russian collusion ammunition, have invented another imaginary threat they hope to weaponize against the president: The public menace posed by “white supremacist” terrorism.

    Much like the collusion conspiracy theory—which relied on random incidents, fictional villains, unconvincing evidence, and the Bad Orange Man in the White House—there is little substance to this purported danger.

    Unironically, the whole ruse is being pushed by the same people who foisted the Russian collusion hoax on the American people for three years in the hopes of prompting President Trump’s impeachment and removal. The political agenda behind this manufactured white supremacy crisis is equally sinister because its specific purpose is to influence and undermine the 2020 elections.

    cont: https://amgreatness.com/2019/08/05/whats-really-behind-the-white-supremacy-terrorism-scare/

  16. They are looking for a crime any crime and have been since days after the election…… this has been an attempted coup since late 2016…. Now do I think we could do better..yes but I find trying to remove a president because you don’t like him…. essentially criminal… and I will vote for him again…not because I like him but because I am opposed to the illegal attempt to remove a president…simply because you don’t like him

      1. Allan,

        I was thinking Hollyweird Hill, Anon1 & all the American hating Totalitarians can attempt to blame Prez Trump & his supporters for everything bad that happens like Fake News WAPO, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, etc., regardless of facts, that I should just start giving Prez Trump credit for everything good that happens. 😉

    1. A friend once told me that attorneys will be the last group of professional to ever lose their livelihood.

  19. AMERICA COULD ELIMINATE MANY PROBLEMS..

    BY ELIMINATING TRUMP

    Whatever the problem, things would be better without Trump even with a president whose ideology and/or performance might not thrill most Americans.

    Combating domestic terrorism? Just getting rid of the instigator of white nationalism would be a plus. We could curtail Trump’s presidency and rebuke the white nationalist ideology, or we could reelect the man who stoked their grievance. It’s pretty easy to figure out the best option from a national security standpoint.

    The trade war with China? Trump now has seized “control” of policy, which has meant an escalation of tensions and the potential for a recession increase. The Post reports: “President Trump is increasingly acting based on his own intuition and analysis and not the advice of aides in the increasingly fraught trade war with China, five people briefed on the actions said, shattering a more cautious process that had yielded few positive results so far.” And how’s that working out? Not well.

    Get rid of Trump and you would, at the very least, have a less chaotic, less impulse-driven policy from someone who understands U.S. consumers and not China pay the tariffs.

    Relations with allies? They’ll immediately improve without Trump. Human rights policy? Once Trump is gone, we wouldn’t be in the business of praising mass murderers (e.g., Kim Jong Un). Environmental policy? Even some Republicans are dumping their climate change denial, but as long as Trump is in office, any hope of progress is illusory. Russia? No Democrat or Republican likely to be elected will kowtow to Vladimir Putin.

    I don’t mean to suggest that all our problems will go away if Trump does, nor do I mean to suggest it doesn’t matter who succeeds him. However, we would eliminate a slew of Trump-created problems and inanities and make it possible rationally to address issues. We’d end the nomination of unvetted know-nothings (along with the widespread use of “acting” officials). We’d be able to agree on things, well, that we agree on. (Anyone think just about any other president would have failed to pass a universally popular infrastructure bill? It’s like voting for puppies and ice cream.)

    It’s not hyperbole to say Trump is a threat to our democracy, to national security and to progress on virtually any issue. We want the best possible president, but we will settle for anyone who isn’t Trump.

    Edited from: “It’s Increasingly Obvious How Just Getting Rid Of Trump Will Help”

    Jennifer Rubin, Today’s Washington Post

    1. “AMERICA COULD ELIMINATE MANY PROBLEMS..BY ELIMINATING TRUMP”

      Peter, even stupid people have first amendment rights. Trump is the best thing to happen to America and the world in a long time.

    2. Here Peter is advocating shooting Donald Trump and all of his followers, just like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and the Dayton left wing shooter did

      Peter should be banned from both JT and Grindr. She would be a mess after that

      🤪

      1. Estovir, you’re a tough guy from 3,000 miles away. But I notice you can’t debate me.

    3. In his remarks Monday on the shootings, President Trump implored the nation to “condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy.” He added, “These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America, hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart and devours the soul. These barbaric slaughters are an assault on our communities, an attack on our nation and a crime against all humanity. We are sickened by this monstrous evil, the cruelty, the hatred, the malice, the bloodshed, and the terror.”

      1. Nice speech, written by someone else and read from a teleprompter by rote. I believe: 1. what he said in Florida from his own mouth last May and when he not only failed to chide the disciple who shouted: “shoot them”, he laughed, smiled and said you can only get away with that statement in the Panhandle. This is the most blatant failure of moral leadership we’ve seen in recent history. Actually endorsing the murder of unarmed people? Yes. That is what he did. 2. I also believe the 2,000+ Facebook ads placed by his campaign that referred to the “invasion”. Yes, he is stirring up hatred of brown people by calling them “invaders”. This was after he previously called them “murderers, rapists, drug dealers and breeders”. And, wouldn’t you know it, after the POTUS’s endless harping, which gives credence to the idea that brown people are invaders, someone actually started shooting them.

        See, nobody believes that Trump has any empathy for anyone. People are seeing first-hand the results of malignant narcissism. He’s behind in the polls, so he had to pander to the fears of his base over brown “invaders”. Well, words have consequences.

        1. Natacha – I know your elevator does not go all the way to the top, but we are being invaded on our southern border. Don’t you think the words of AOC and the entire cast of the “I want to be the Democratic nominee” so I am for open borders might not have had a hand in the El Paso shooting?

        2. “Nice speech”

          The speech was written to project his policy whether by a speech writer or himself. Trump follows through with what he promises something forgotten by other presidents. Trump has done a fantastic job and is one of the best Presidents we have had.

          Trump’s job with regard to those that chanted “shoot them” was to stop that type of talk. He succeeded in that job and made people think about what they were saying.You wanted to see him dance around like Obama or fall flat on his face like HIllary but he didn’t. He simply stopped that type of talk without a problem. That is fantastic and demonstrates fantastic leadership.

Comments are closed.