“Agitated Passions”: A Response To Chairman Nadler Et Al.

In the wake of yesterday’s hearing, my office and home have been inundated with threats from people irate over the fact that I would question the sufficiency of this record for impeachment. There has also been a couple of facially false narratives that have been aired and are being widely disseminated without any apparent fact checking or analysis. I have addressed one historical point separately. In recognition of Sen. Pat Moynihan’s view that “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts,” I have published a column on these attacks: Hill Column

It is an ironic moment. President Donald Trump wants a fast impeachment. I do not blame him. He knows, and I believe the Democratic leadership know, that this will easily collapse. I encouraged that the case be strengthened to address deficiencies.

I do have an opinion and offered an extensive analysis to support it. That is my opinion with which many can honest disagree. However, these attacks are more evidence of the “passions” that have out-stripped the proof in this controversy. Hence, the column today.

Just for the record, here is my actual testimony:

199 thoughts on ““Agitated Passions”: A Response To Chairman Nadler Et Al.”

  1. The USA Patriot Act and the Freedom Act were shot down routinely by libertarians and liberals due to the Fed Government intelligence community and law enforcement agencies surveillance of Americans. Collecting phone data was bad we were told

    Apparently a Member of Congress like Schiff doing it was just dandy with not a word from the MSM. That phone companies like ATT and Verizon complied is just chilling.

    Adam Schiff Is Watching Obtaining phone logs of political rivals is a stunning abuse of congressional power.


    Fanatics can justify any action, and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff this week demonstrated where that mindset leads. In his rush to paint Donald Trump as a lawbreaker, Mr. Schiff has himself trampled law and responsibility.

    That’s the bottom line in Mr. Schiff’s stunning decision to subpoena the phone records of Rudy Giuliani and others. Mr. Schiff divulged the phone logs this week in his Ukraine report, thereby revealing details about the communications of Trump attorneys Jay Sekulow and Mr. Giuliani, ranking Intelligence Committee member Devin Nunes, reporter John Solomon and others. The media is treating this as a victory, when it is a disgraceful breach of ethical and legal propriety.

    If nothing else, Mr. Schiff claims the ignominious distinction of being the first congressman to use his official powers to spy on a fellow member and publish the details. His report also means open season on members of the press. Mr. Giuliani over months has likely spoken to dozens of political figures and reporters—and the numbers, dates and length of those calls are now in Democrats’ hot little hands. Who gets the Schiff treatment next? If you think politics is ugly now, imagine a world in which congressional partisans routinely track and expose the call lists of their political rivals and disfavored media.

    If we’ve never had a scandal like this before, it’s in part because it is legally dubious. Federal law bars phone carriers from handing over records without an individual’s agreement. The statute makes some exceptions, including for federal and state law-enforcement agencies.

    But not for lawmakers. “There does not appear to be any basis to believe that a congressional committee is authorized to subpoena telephone records directly from a provider—as opposed to an individual,” former Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells me.

    1. Schiff’s Surveillance State: The Democrat demands, and then discloses, the call logs of his opponents.

      Wall Street Journal | December 4, 2019

      Democrats are trying to convince Americans that President Trump should be ousted for trying to “dig up dirt” on a rival. They’d have more credibility if they didn’t abuse their surveillance powers for drive-by smears of Republicans and a free press.

      Adam Schiff’s 300-page House Intelligence impeachment report doesn’t include much new about Mr. Trump’s Ukrainian interventions. But it does disclose details of telephone calls between ranking Intelligence Republican Devin Nunes, Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow, reporter John Solomon, former Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, the White House, and others. The details are “metadata” about the numbers and length of the calls, not the content.

      The impeachment press is playing this as if the calls are a new part of the scandal, but the real outrage here is Mr. Schiff’s snooping on political opponents. The Democrat’s motive appears to be an attempt to portray Mr. Nunes, a presidential defender and Mr. Schiff’s leading antagonist in Congress, as part of a conspiracy to commit impeachable offenses.

      “It is, I think, deeply concerning, that at a time when the President of the United States was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there may be evidence that there were members of Congress complicit in that activity,” Mr. Schiff told the press on Tuesday. Complicit in what? Doing his job of Congressional oversight? Talking to Mr. Trump’s lawyer to get a complete view of the Ukrainian tale? Apparently Mr. Schiff now wants to impeach Members of Congress too.

      This is unprecedented and looks like an abuse of government surveillance authority for partisan gain. Democrats were caught using the Steele dossier to coax the FBI into snooping on the 2016 Trump campaign. Now we have elected members of Congress using secret subpoenas.

      1. The abuse of office is manifested most of all in the person of Mr Schiff. He should be arrested and tried for his crimes against the people. Then, flip him to unmask all the coup plotters in the Deep state., and after due process, punish severely them all. But, little hope in that.

        Revolutionary cadres should be formed immediately, by proper authorities, outside the channels of the lethargic, poisoned, saboteur infested bureaucracies, ready to rectify the ongoing sedition, and protect America from its domestic enemies, with organized and just force.

        This would take a few years to get properly organized, so, the present mischief is timely to help make it plain to see.

        The great irony of all this mischief from the Democrat party, is that it makes such an outcome all that more likely to happen, And when it does, unfortunately, we won’t know who the white hats are, or not, from our view as bystanders among common folks.

        Even now the blatant falsehoods which are systematically spread among the population by Silicon Valley, the miseducational system and mass mania I mean mass media, are so awful and harmful to proper social life. We are in the middle of a social engineering experiment of unprecedented magnitude and it may have awful consequences. Whether it just continues to slide or the whole mess goes up in smoke, either way, it’s on a bad trajectory.

    1. Inde Bob,

      I likely would have said the same 10 yrs ago, but not now.

      (Turley for AG, Turley for Chief Justice)

      P Turley has some good points.

      I suggest we all go back to the “Plan” , always go back to the plan, by the founders as they still remain among the sharpest of us even today.

      Fm Prez Thomas Jefferson, Madison specially & their views about govt & the Federal Courts.

      The other day Turley was pushing an old saw, that the SCOTUS are the GODS of us all.

      I think not, I’ll go with Jefferson, that the people of this nation are the GODS & that if they are no longer it’s past time to disband this Fed Govt.

      I didn’t get far on that this morning/ie work, but I was trying to start here.


  2. As a lawyer of almost 50 years, a crazy liberal and a strong believer that Trump must be impeached and convicted, I am appalled at how you have been treated. I have read your blog for years and while I haven’t always agreed I have never felt you were anything but 100% driven by your honest interpretation of the constitution. Don’t let the idiots get you down.

    1. I second Richard. People are one nut dug under the pine tree. Strange times we live in.

  3. Turley triggered the wacko leftist, which wasn’t very hard to do it seems. Such a sad state of affairs, the hearts of millions filled with hate.

    Divide and conquer is alive and well, it must be stopped before we loose it all.

  4. Thank you, Jonathan Turley, for perhaps the last shreds of truth and fact in this impeachment debacle. You actually believe in the rule of law. How quaint and refreshing. When a man disagrees with another, yet affords the object of his disagreement objectivity, this is a rare and precious principle too often lost in this emotional morass we are in.

    Again, thank you for your honesty.
    John Bean

  5. Of note, all the trolls showing up after Prof Turley’s comments, little doubt over the next few days some of their scouting will find it back to their bosses.

    And if they don’t like ” I love you Baby” maybe they’ll like an Estovir pick, I know I do.


  6. It is telling that an erudite student of the Constitution spends hours explaining, clarifying, and interpreting the most important American document for the hoi polloi, and then gets threatened for his educational effort.

    What is the pathology that creates such panic and animalistic snarling in people who are exposed to a point of view that differs from their own?

    1. Darkness & Madness fell upon the Godless Heathens of earth who had taken the Govt/Pharma Vaccines.

      Welcome to the world of Idiocracy, the home game. Where people tear down statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Robert E Lee & pull his Battle Flag from the SC capital & from public view.

      LOL, are we not entertained?

    2. Matt:
      “What is the pathology that creates such panic and animalistic snarling in people who are exposed to a point of view that differs from their own?“
      Fear of losing power.

  7. Sir, I wish my Democratic friends would hear what you’re saying. You’re trying to tell us how to make a water tight case that not only has a chance of succeeding with a convincing win in the Senate but as important, doesn’t create future case law precedent that forever undermines impeachment as a mechanism to check autocratic rule.

    I want a more thorough inquiry before we say we have nothing of importance left to discover. If we’re confident we are right then more evidence only makes it more compelling. That is how some will change their minds, not in a small number of hearings that sometimes assumed the air of a reality tv show.

    Winning over those who already favored impeachment is not sufficient to say we’ve learned enough to close the hearings. We’re just getting started.

    We learned of many new things in the first round of inquiries that merit a closer look. We the People are also learning things we never knew about our system of governance, foreign relations and diplomacy, public policy, the legal foundation for the constitution, European history, more! This is potentially a good process and ought not be rushed (though fewer theatrics and less snubby behavior like you experienced Wed would be good)

    And I agree about the court challenges. If this isn’t a real case then why are we going down this path? If it is real how can we not pursue all means available to us to get to the bottom of it?

    If Trump denies a court challenge then it will be hard for all but a few to recognize that as pure, simple obstruction. It’s solid in the courts. And if he complies we get the info we believe will be so damning. No need to parse 1795 definitions to know what “obstruction” means.

    Thanks for giving me a lot to think about over the last few days. It would have been good to hear you and Feldman debate some of the differences instead of the staged questioning and sound bite opps.

    This decision to rush will come back to haunt us. We need to stop worrying about the Democratic primaries right now and look after the Constitution. This time next year will be too late.

  8. Thank you, Mr Turley for the great service you did for your country. You are in good company with Pat Moynihan, one of America’s truly great statesman.You must now know what it feels to be like him, being willing to argue your principles when your party is not interested in hearing the unpopular point of view.

    I wonder if today’s Congress has any such quality members left. Your review of the impeachment trial of Johnson and the difficult votes taken by Republican Senators was appropriate for the moment. You made the call for brave members to do the right thing. Hopefully, for the good of the country, they were listening.

  9. Mr Turley. Thank you for your logical and well worded testimony yesterday and it perfectly articulated how many of us feel. I fear that our representatives, from both sides, but demonstrated by Mr Swalwell’s criticism of your representing a federal judge, have become a mob.

  10. “Just for the record, here is my actual testimony”

    Are you actually using as a defense the same line as Trump, “read the transcript”?! LOL

    1. As opposed to Mr. Schiff’s “Let me make up a straw man conversation and then have you argue and defend that”??…..

      I think your comment excuses you from further participation in intelligent dialog…

    2. Are you suggesting the call transcript is not relevant? Would you be as dismissive of the transcript if it read like Schiff’s parody?

  11. While I agree that the evidentiary record is deficient, I wish you’d stated more clearly the reason for that. The Administration’s categorically refused to produce relevant documents or witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the events. It would be one thing if there was a good faith back-and-forth underway between the Administration as to what is and isn’t producible, but what’s underway is an across-the-board refusal to provide ANYTHING. How can Congress tolerate that?

    1. John D.,
      They don’t always tolerate it and they have options. Congress got the Nixon tapes when SCOTUS rejected Nixon’s challenge to the subpeona for them.
      Congress ultimately got the subpeonaed documents they were after in the Fast and Furious investigation.
      ( Not involving the critical issue of an impeachment, the F&F case wound its way to through the courts over the course of 2-3? years).
      My view is that if those pushing for impeachment claim that they’re impeded by a challenge to their subpeonas, they should press the issue in court.
      A “we want to do this impeachment fast” mentality is not an excuse for failing access material they say is essential.

    2. You hit the nail on the head! I respect and appreciate Professor Turley’s efforts and dialog. But he is wrong. He focused on lack of evidence. It only takes one article to impeach the president. Forget the evidence, which I believe is more than sufficient. Even after a federal district court ruled that the impeachment hearing in the House is legitimate, Trump’s continuous ordering of his administration to not cooperate is most definitely obstruction of Congress, or justice. That is impeachable. So I am truly puzzled how this brilliant jurist came to the conclusion he did. Impeach on obstruction. They can’t wait for court, nor are they required to. Trump could tie it up in court until he’s out of office and continue with his destruction of our Constitution and this democracy in the meantime, by running his monarchy.

      1. “appreciate Professor Turley’s efforts and dialog. But he is wrong. He focused on lack of evidence.”

        Jerry, NO, no, no. Turley focused on the law something you ought to focus on as well. You should especially reconsider your obstruction charges since looking to the courts to solve differences of opinion is how our legal system works. You are not put in jail because a prosecuter thinks you committed a crime. It goes to the courts.

        “Trump could tie it up in court until he’s out of office ”

        This demonstrates how lost you really are. Trump will finish his term in less than one year at which time the public can decide. The Democrats are pushing impeachment in the hope of preventing his 2020 victory. Listen to Al Green Democrat House member: ‘If we don’t impeach Trump will win in 2020’ (paraphrased). You don’t see how bad this is for the country because as a partisan you don’t want to know.

        1. Impeachment is a political action, not a legal one. No one is going to jail.

          Impeachment is also the sole power of Congress. Meaning they do not require an OK from the courts to remove a recalcitrant chief executive. The Framers’ used the words “sole power” to clarify that it does not rely on the other branches.

          Also keep in mind that the President makes appointments to the judiciary. Such simple political calculus was not lost on the Framers as it appears to be lost on you.

          The election argument dodges allegations of misconduct. Either the allegations are wrong, or the President should be removed immediately. By arguing to table the decision to the election, you are saying the President has cart blanche to whatever criminality or abuse he/she desires.

          1. Also keep in mind that the President makes appointments to the judiciary.

            The President nominates and with the advise and consent, the Senate confirms. Such simple political calculus was not lost on the Framers as it appears to be lost on you.

            1. A fine quibble. Politically, it still remains that judges and justices owe their appointment to the President, first and foremost. The point of my statement.

              1. “judges and justices owe their appointment to the President, first and foremost.”

                Average, The justices do not owe their appointment to anyone though some of the justices seem to have become political and feel they owe their appointment to a progressive ideology. The conservative judges believe in the Constitution and try to preserve it. I do not mind the justices having opinions differing from my own but when they talk about judging a Constitutional issue in a manner that they personally feel fair I find that overbearing. That is the job of Congress.

              2. The point of your statement was to infer the courts would be deferential to this President because they have a political motivation.

                If you’re going to cite the the Framers, you’d at least include the fact the nominees must be confirmed by a full vote of the Senate and that these are lifetime appointments. Both of which were intended by the Framers to confirm objective jurists that would not be influenced by politics.

                That’s not quibbling, that’s torpedoing your biased opinion.

                1. If you understand history, stacking the courts with the old guard was what the midnight appointments were all about.

                  I’m not one for politicizing the judiciary. As a matter of fact, I think it’s our only remaining branch of government that truly works. I’m just pointing out the reality of the appointment process.

                  Yes, the confirmation process is a check, but once appointed there is one person to thank for that. Do judges generally give allegiance? I think not.

                  Is the natural political force still there? Yes, per my mention of the midnight appointments. The Framers put in insulation, but they left the sole power to Congress for a reason.

                  1. I agree with that John. Human nature being what it is, the Framers did a brilliant job at designing a system to control as much of the bad as they could.

                  2. I’m not one for politicizing the judiciary. As a matter of fact, I think it’s our only remaining branch of government that truly works.

          2. “Impeachment is a political action, not a legal one. No one is going to jail.”

            Average John, Turley was called before Congress to testify on the law. That is what Turley did and to elaborate on impeachment he added historical features and legal discussion of prior impeachment procedings. The founders did not mean it as a political action because they feared that the opposition would do exactly what the Democrats are trying to do today, negate a legal election. What this demonstrates is that Democrats have no regard for our Constitution or the people of this Republic. Appropriate use of impeachment is to prevent “the President has cart blanche to whatever criminality or abuse he/she desires.”

            1. Turley also identified impeachment as “obviously political in the sense that it is being made by political figures based on their view of the public interest.” It’s also a vote, which is identical to passing legislation (a political action).

              Speaking of ignoring the Constitution, Turley’s argument to fight it out in the courts completely ignores it. “Sole power” means what it says. I understand he wishes it otherwise, and that’s dandy.

              Your last sentence is exactly what I’m saying. The Democrats believe (rightly or wrongly) the allegations are well-founded, so impeachment is justified. Whether they are correct needs to be decided by impeachment hearings possibly followed by a vote in the House and trial in the Senate.

              Elections are flat-out incorrect to decide allegations of abuse of power. Republicans suggest otherwise because that’s the talking point that sells for them right now.

              1. Speaking of ignoring the Constitution, Turley’s argument to fight it out in the courts completely ignores it.

                Turley’s argument has been that the President has the right to contest subpoenas in court. Do try to keep up.

                1. Which is not necessary for Congress to show obstruction and impeach. And likewise!

                  1. Average John:

                    “Which is not necessary for Congress to show obstruction and impeach. And likewise!”


                    Boy are you aptly named. No branch of government has unfettered power to remove the others. Did you just sleep through civics or did your Gentleman’s “C” include a pass to miss that day.

                    Here’s a primer:
                    Only the House can impeach, and only the Senate can remove from office and only SCOTUS can interpret the actions of both as conforming or not to Constitutional mandate. Test question: This is called: __________________.

                    Under your lamebrain understanding of the Constitution, the House could impeach because they don’t like Trump’s silk tie collection. Quit playing lawyer.

              2. Average, It’s hard to say what your defense is for your initial argument. It is equally difficult to understand what you are trying to say in your second paragraph.

                “The Democrats believe (rightly or wrongly) the allegations are well-founded”

                That would be an uneducated opinion by the Democrats who weren’t even involved in the hearings and are unaware of the totality of the evidence especially since much of it was not heard in the committee hearings. Other Democrats like Al Green have been a bit more honest ‘We have to impeach or we will lose the coming election’. Or Nancy Pelosi, ‘we won’t impeach unless it is bi-partisan.Then you have the crazies that hate this country.

                “Elections are flat-out incorrect to decide allegations of abuse of power.”

                You would be better off to debate whether or not there was any abuse of power and use standards such as previous administrations. If you believe Trump should be impeached for abuse of power then you must believe that Obama should be executed many times for his many abuses of power each one far worse that anything Trump has been accused of. That is the underlying problem with your arguments. You don’t use standards and you rely on your emotions that have led you down the wrong road.

                Trump has followed the law but his tweets seem to offend the media and the Democrats. Neither can accept being wrong or losing. When you are willing to state the abuses of power (they don’t really exist) and use a standard like the Obama administration let me know. To date none of those that believe similarily to you have tried to do so. They can’t.

    3. 1) This is not even an impeachment yet, just an inquiry because Pelosi is afraid to put swing state dems on the hook. 2) Schiff has done this inquiry behind closed doors, denying republicans even the smallest of rights and the President none. Therefore why in God’s name should the President cooperate? There is no back and forth from the democrats or cooperation on their part. None.

    4. I wish you’d stated more clearly the reason for that. The Administration’s categorically refused to produce relevant documents or witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the events.

      They contested subpoenas, which it is their right to do.

      And no, that’s not the reason. You have the transcript of the call. The dirt you want doesn’t exist.

    5. “to produce relevant documents or witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the events.”

      John Devlin, What are you talking about? The President released more documents and permitted even his own lawyer to testify before Mueller. How many more investigations must the President endure. Mueller found nothing. Impeachment was on the Democratic agenda day one and the Democrats failed despite the media and intelligence agencies. At some point this type of Democratic garbage has to stop. The trasncripts of calls have been released. Zelenski and Sondheim have testified no quid pro quo while the Democrats have refused to permit witnessesto testify that may be able to end the question with a few hours of testimony. The President has decided to stop the garbage and let the courts be the mediator. That is exactly what checks and balances is all about.

      Unfortunately you are a partisan so you are unable to see how bad the Democrats have been for the country and you are unable to see that the President is legally correct while the Democrats likely have stepped over the line. You can’t even listen to Turley a Democrat who dislikes Trump but provides excellent insight into the law. Instead you depend on so called legal experts that lie on the stand or bring a 13 year old boy into the fight.

      Open your eyes.

    6. how can we tolerate Congress still not passing an infrastructure bill 3 years into a Presidency where the boss says he wants one and would sign it and normally, they would usually line up fast to pass it?


      it’s total sabotage., Americans are held hostage by Democrat leadership, due to the irrational hate they have for Trump, and their spite over the last election outcome.

      1. Democrats and Republicans agree on the USMCA yet the Democrats will cause pain to American workers for political reasons and have done nothing to pass the agreement.

    7. It would be one thing if there was a good faith back-and-forth underway between the Administration as to what is and isn’t producible, but what’s underway is an across-the-board refusal to provide ANYTHING.

      Mr. Devlin,
      Do you believe the Democrats impeachment pursuit began in good faith? We can and should agree that that the Legislative branch exercises their article I powers to check the Executive. But when should we acknowledge those exercises are not in good faith, that they are intended to obstruct the Executive’s Article II authority and abuse their Article I prerogative of impeachment?

      How can Congress tolerate that?

      You should also ask, How can the President tolerate that? The answer to that question is the Judiciary. Lady Justice stands ready with the scales in her hand, blind to the passions and prepared to weigh the evidence. After all, abuse of power is not an Executive branch only problem.

      If you don’t agree with that remedy, then you’re not interested in our 1st world constitutional order, but rather a 3rd world system where tyranny of the majority rules.

  12. Of all the things you can do something about.

    How many thought to even take a look at the public info available in the Govt/Big Pharma’s own doc/Inserts for their Vaccines?

    Most all of it is public info yet you give them your consent to harm you & your kids/family & never even checked.

    What’s wrong with you? What are you doing about it?

    There are people watch, who knows, they may just think you’re in the road & part of the problem as you continue to put up with all the crap, for ever reason.

    Put this song on repeat or loop until….. & smile:)

    1. For your info:

      You likely recall in Prof Turley’s testimony yesterday he failed to warn those engaging in Treasonous Sedition & Espionage threats, that Prez Trump is still the Commander & Chief & can under that authority can round up Nancy/Nadler/Schiff & their cohorts to be held indefinitely as an ongoing National Security Threat.

    2. Vaccines are safe, and that’s not Frank Sinatra, and it’s “Can’t Take My Eyes Off of You”. Idiot

      1. tom jones,

        You can attempt to argue on but the facts say one could Rest their Case after your comments prove my case.

        Vaccines have consistently been shown Not to be Safe Nor Effective, that vaccines harm health, make you prone to get diseases, can kill you, give you the diseases they publicly claim vaxxes will prevent.

        Read what I wrote: Read the MFG’s own Vax Insert. It’s on line.

        Further addressing tom jones’ lower IQ,: Rep Bill Posey had William Thompson, one of the top 4 heads of the CDC, had Thompson’s CDC Evidence entered into the US Congressional Record showing their study, among many other studies, showing that the MMR vaccine is & continues to cause Brain Damage & lowering IQs among males.

        Among the massive amount of Vax damage news earlier this year it was admit the polio Vax was giving the Vax takers Polio… Philippines…

        The song, forget about it, don’t listen

      2. Tom Jones – while I vaccinate my child, of course vaccines are not 100% safe. That’s why you have to sign a release before the pediatrician vaccinates your kid. That release lists possible side effects and adverse events. That’s why the government released pharmaceutical companies from liability. Otherwise, they’d be sued every time a patient suffered an adverse event such as encephalopathy. It’s rare, but it happens.

        Some vaccines have a better safety record than others. The polio vaccine actually had to be reworked due to safety issues. Now, it’s much better. In future, it may be further improved.

        I vaccinate my child for deadly diseases, such as polio. It has a high rate of effectiveness. Others provide such weak protection that they require boosters fairly often.

        One job of the vaccine is to irritate your immune system. That’s why it mounts such a strong defense to a vanishingly small viral protein or fragment. Most people handle this just fine. Others experience an exaggerated response, that can result in adverse events such a Guillain-Barre syndrome, seizures, fainting (so common in the Guardasil vaccine patients are required to sit in the doctor’s office for a while to make sure they tolerate the shot), brain swelling, or anaphylactic shot.

        Vaccines do help in many cases. They are not saline. It is impossible to inject a substance into billions of people worldwide and expect no one to have a reaction to it. In fact, there are even some people allergic to nickel…a material in the syringe itself.

        One of the terrible problems with giving government the right to mandate medical procedures is that it keeps creeping forward. In CA, medical vaccine exemptions are only given if a child experiences a life threatening, near death adverse event. Seizures won’t do it. Being hospitalized won’t do it. Personally, I believe the decision for what to give your child lies with the parent. If a procedure requires a release, then there is no true consent if there is government force. I believe that the fact that adverse events are not dealt with properly, and are no longer a reason to excuse further vaccination makes parents far less trusting of the entire vaccine industry.

        Here is one perspective, which discusses how doctors are no longer allowed to decide what is healthy for their patients. It’s all done by a board, now. A doctor may lose his license if he or she determines that a child had a bad reaction to a vaccine. If it wasn’t life threatening, the doctor could lose his license. They have to keep giving the shots that a child clearly is having a reaction to, until that child suffers brain damage, requires necessitation, or dies…pretty much. That’s government overreach.


        1. Karen,

          Sorry, I’m out of time tonight.

          The Short, Cali State Sen Pen should have been brought up on Nurenburg type War Crimes charge. Ok’s had what may of been his cousin here, he was run off for now.

          Vaccine can work!

          Currently there are No Safe & Effective Vaccines.

          No 0ne should take Any!!!!!

          This vid below is a repeat. It should piss everyone off, but most now seem to be Zombies. They must think, oh no, not me, my husband/wife/kids/friends.

          Now big Tech/Big Pharma is moving to ban info they don’t approve of off the web.

          IE: Save your old paper Books!!!

          Warning, it’s late, maybe don’t watch tonight. I can’t!

          Repeat & Repost:

          The below clip is just one vector we all are under life threatening attack by the idiots, the schools( I repeat myself, Idiots), govt & the medical community with the Lies that their Vaccines are Safe & Effective & yet P Turley, the Commie Media, Congress for their part say not a damn thing.

          The piece of the clip starts at around 44.30 in & lasts a few minutes. As you can all see, this just one of Millions of vaccine injuries where the kid may have been better off just have a major league ball player smack in the head full power with a ball bat.

          You wonder what in the hell is wrong with wackos in the world, in the news caught doing weird crap? Much of it starts here & then some get on drugs attempt to fix how they are feeling inside from the vax affects.


  13. You demonstrated courage, Prof. Turley, because you knew, as a very aware and acutely intelligent person, that the onslaught was inevitable You are a liberal, and as such are open and celebrate differing opinions and views. But The Left brooks no dissent. It is only interested in a totalitarian march toward the death of free speech and opinion in a completely soulless effort to assert total control over The Narrative. I thank you for your integrity and the courage to express yourself despite the assaults on you and your family you knew would be forthcoming.

  14. Great job. It is too bad that civil political discussions by opposing views are difficult to come by these days. Everyone seems to be hardened in their positions and unable to resolve differences. Why is that? I hate to think that money and power might play such a large role! Good luck to you.

Comments are closed.