Academia, Columns, Congress, Media, Politics

The Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Testify For Republicans

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the perils of professors who agree to testify as Republican witnesses, particularly in an impeachment. It is not the continuing threats against me and my family. That happened when I testified in the Clinton impeachment. No, it is the response of fellow academics and the degree of flagrantly false stories in the media. As a lawyer, I have worked with accused murderers, polygamists, spies, terrorists, and others. However, nothing produces the unhinged rage as appearing as a Republican witness.

Here is the column:

American journalist H.L. Mencken once observed, “Say what you will about the Ten Commandments, you must always come back to the pleasant fact that there are only ten of them.” Despite an unending respect for Mencken, this is an occasion in which I found him mistaken, after I violated the Eleventh Commandment, “Thou shalt not testify for Republicans.”

Worse yet, I am a recidivist sinner, after testifying as a constitutional expert in both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings. Like all mortal sins, the violation of the Eleventh Commandment comes with not just eternal but immediate damnation. What is most striking about this commandment is that it does not matter if your testimony is made in good faith. For example, under the Ninth Commandment, you are only guilty if you give false evidence against your neighbor. Under the Eleventh Commandment, it does not matter if your testimony is true or false. A law-fearing academic must not give any testimony for Republicans.

In my recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee regarding President Trump’s impeachment, I opposed the position of my fellow witnesses that the definition of actual crimes is immaterial to their use as the basis for impeachment — and I specifically opposed impeachment articles based on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations or obstruction of justice. The committee ultimately rejected those articles and adopted the only two articles I felt could be legitimately advanced: abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. Chairman Jerrold Nadler even ended the hearing by quoting my position on abuse of power. Our only disagreement was that I opposed impeachment on this record as incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate.

None of that matters under the Eleventh Commandment, however. It is the act of testifying for Republicans that is a sin against the legal academy. Indeed, what followed was a series of false stories attacking not my testimony but me, personally. The falsity of these stories is a warning to any academic who considers straying from the Democratic path.

Turley flipped his testimony from the Clinton impeachment. One of the most bizarre false stories was that I testified differently on my views of impeachment during the Clinton and Trump impeachments. Given the 21-year gap, it might not be strange for views to change. However, my views in the two cases were the same.

In both hearings, I said a president could be impeached for noncriminal conduct, including abuse of public office. Yet stories on CNN and other outlets objected that, in the Clinton case, I warned Congress, “If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct.” Somehow this was portrayed as a “flip-flop” since I was arguing against impeachment in the Trump hearings on this record. It doesn’t matter that the Judiciary Committee did precisely what I suggested in dropping the four criminal theories for the articles or going forward with the two I said would be legitimate. I was not arguing against impeaching on the two articles adopted — only that a completed record was absent.

More importantly, the statement in the Clinton case referred to perjury. Democrats argued back then that a president could commit perjury on some subjects, such as sexual relations, and not face impeachment; they argued that an impeachment crime must be tied to the office, not to personal interests. That was ridiculous and would allow a president to kill a lover but not face impeachment. Indeed, the Democratic position would allow a presidential Harvey Weinstein to abuse countless interns and then pressure them to lie to an independent counsel.

Turley thought Justice Sotomayor wasn’t smart enough. Perhaps the most vile false story can be traced to a tweet sent out by a University of Baltimore law professor asking, “Does anybody else remember @JonathanTurley appearing on MSNBC to explain that Sonia Sotomayor didn’t have the intellect to serve on the Supreme Court?” I certainly didn’t remember that — because I never said anything like that. No matter: Soon, from MSNBC to liberal websites, the story was all the rage, with titles such as “Jonathan Turley thought Sonia Sotomayor wasn’t smart enough to be on the Supreme Court.”

When then-Judge Sotomayor was nominated, I was asked as a legal commentator to review her opinions and give my view of what that body of work suggested about her potential on the Supreme Court. The issue at the time was whether President Obama was appointing an intellectual counterweight to conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. I noted that her opinions were narrow and offered few insights into her potential as an intellectual force on the court. My comments were directed to her opinions, not her intellect. And I was not alone in this conclusion: Adam Liptak in The New York Times noted that her opinions were “narrow” and “reveal no larger vision, seldom appeal to history and consistently avoid quotable language.”

In the interview cited by the Baltimore professor, I gave my view of 30 of Sotomayor’s opinions, which did not contain anything particularly deep or profound in judging her possible impact on the court. However, I immediately stated that this is not unique and that other justices have had similarly short, unremarkable appellate opinions yet proved to be profound on the Supreme Court. I expressly compared Sotomayor to Justice John Paul Stevens, whom I have long praised; I also said that Sotomayor could prove to be a truly great justice but that her opinions did not offer any glimpse into how she might emerge in such a role.

In my analysis of Justice Sotomayor’s nomination, I returned to these points and specifically objected to those who said her narrow decisions were evidence of a lack of intellectual depth. I wrote, “This is demonstrably absurd. These opinions are little different from those of [Justices] Alito, Souter, or the limited writings of [Justice] Thomas. Clearly, Sotomayor is quite intelligent. This record is little different from records of Republican nominees who enthralled these same critics.” And I repeatedly stressed that she could prove to be a great nominee in finding voice and depth in her opinions on the court.

Some articles objected that, in an “unprompted” comment, I raised Sotomayor’s gender and race. I did so to praise the selection of the first Latina to the court, a nomination that I said was “rightfully” a point of pride. Moreover, the vast majority of news stories also referenced that historic aspect of her nomination. However, that was separate from the analysis of her opinions and the question of her intellectual legacy. What also was omitted is that, before Sotomayor’s nomination, I wrote a column on intellectual leaders on the courts and pushed for the nomination of Diane Wood of the 7th Circuit, a liberal powerhouse.

None of that matters, however, because heresy demands condemnation — whether or not it is based in reality. After all, this is all meant to get people not to seriously consider the flaws in the impeachment, including the proposed articles that ultimately were dropped. So, for any academic tempted to testify for Republicans in an impeachment proceeding, I can only caution that Romans 12:19 may say that “vengeance is mine … sayeth the Lord” — but judgment will be more immediate for anyone who strays from the chosen professorial path.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a witness expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing during the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

191 thoughts on “The Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Testify For Republicans”

  2. The Left, Liberals, the Press, and Democrats’ rabidity has been in full view for the last 30 years. I am sorry it has affected you Dr T but conservatives have had to deal with the rabidity for decades. The list the Dems have taken their vileness to is long: SCOTUS Kavanaugh, GWB, RR, Palin, McCain, Romney, Pres. Trump’s ENTIRE administration, Sarah Palin, Nikki Haley, Ben Carson …. the list is long and the Press/Democrats desire to smear and ruin people they don’t agree with is vile. If you didn’t see the Democrats rabidity for the last 30 years your eyes were shut. I’m glad you are finally calling it out.

    PS – Please share the response you got in CLinton administration because I can PROMISE you it was not the same as the Dems/Press are providing now and to conflate the 2 episodes is dangerous – you need to name the evil before you can deal with it.

  3. That’s funny and strange. I thought you were testifying on behalf of our Constitutional Republic and upholding your oath of office to the Constitution. Both times. But then one time you had RINO employees of the left and this time DINO of the left to contend with.

  4. Jonathan: Gee, and I thought the “Eleventh Commandment” referred to Ronald Reagan’s admonition not to speak ill of any other Republican. I suppose you are entitled to a certain literary license to reinterpret the Eleventh Commandment to mean that any academic, like you, who testified in support of Trump before the House Judiciary Committee “is a sin against the legal academy”. But you should know that when you enter the public arena as a partisan academic you have to expect blowback from other constitutional experts. That’s part of the process. I have not read any criticism of your House impeachment testimony that could be interpreted as an attack on you “personally” for “straying from the Democratic path”. When you engage in partisan politics you have to develop a thick skin. As they say. if you can’t stand the heat in the kitchen get out!

    1. Where are the like condemnations, recriminations and misleading stories in the media regarding the Democrat scholars? Q.E.D.

  5. Republicans, libertarians and actual leftists now find it nearly impossible to engage in speaking with Democrats about politics. Facts do NOT matter to them. It is truly bizarre. I worry about this because it keeps all of us from working together for a common good. Democrats think the rest of us are evil and stupid. Naturally, they do not want to work with those whom they consider beneath them, the subhumans!

    I do not want to just say this is only Democrats. The fact that vicious war criminals such as Trump and Obama are the most admired men tells you that this problem goes very deep within the entire society.

    This is an interesting video that may explain some of what is happening:
    https://stillnessinthestorm.com/2019/10/bigger-than-snowden-neuro-weapons-directed-energy-weapons-mind-control-targeted-individuals-5g/

    2. This post is hilarious in addition to be ignorant. But we can all assume we know from whence it came. Let’s all be cautious of the trolls that have tried to take down America and not fall for it the way the Democrats did for the last few years.

  6. No one prevents a witness who can exonerate him, from testifying. Absolutely no one. Yet In the alternate reality of Trump world, he claims he can’t get a fair trial.

    2. No one prevents a witness who can exonerate him, from testifying.
      ______________________________________________________

      The trial has not even begun. How would you know who will testify and what that testimony will be?

    3. No one prevents a witness who can exonerate him, from testifying. Absolutely no one.

      Were you making that same argument during Schiff and Nadler’s hearings? Republicans were denied their list of witnesses. The one witness the Republicans were allowed is our host, who articulated a constitutional position that forced Nadler and crew to reconsider charges. In their haste to conjure up something before Christmas, they impeached on the weakest of articles, all but assuring the Senate a laydown dismissal.

  7. What a shame the liberal media and the Democratic Party have become , .or maybe it was there all the time , for TDS has unveiled their loathing of anything or anyone that has an opposing view , truth and it facts be damned.

  8. May I suggest that asking our Father in Heaven, in the name of Christ, For The Holy Spirit, Could very well be, The Best thing that you could possibly do. The worst thing that you can do, is what you have already done just like everyone on this Earth has done. We all have done what God has commanded that we must never do. God has said. “Put Your Trust in the Arm OF NO FLESH” In order to worship God, we must do so in Spirit. The Holy Spirit has been having communion with Mankind, since “The Day of Pentecost” Only God can give his children what they actually really need. Ask and you shall receive. Knock and the door will be opened to you. No one of this World can give you Peace, Love, and a Joyful Eternal Life. God is your only one you can Trust!

      1. Wisdom that many historical leaders grasped and followed…

        Better to take refuge in the LORD
        than to put one’s trust in mortals.
        Better to take refuge in the LORD
        than to put one’s trust in princes.
        – Psalm 118:8-9
        http://www.usccb.org/bible/psalms/118

        We are fools for Christ

        We are fools on Christ’s account, but you are wise in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are held in honor, but we in disrepute.
        – 1 Corinthians 4:10

        Turley has his priorities all wrong.

  9. JT:

    Sorry to hear about the threats, JT. The Left’s sociopathy is absolute nowadays. Today’s Dims would be seen as buffoons or seditionists by the Democrats of the 60s and 70s. This is precisely what happens when you have a diverse (i.e. invaded) society in which every conceivable group — good, bad and crazy — must be catered to. Too bad, really. The Dims, like their Labour cousins, are headed to a colossal defeat and I’m not sure there will be enough left to pick up the pieces. Ah well, like the Whigs, the Dims needs eulogizers, too.

    That said, let’s dwell on the good things like the booming economy, our energy independence, the lack of foreign wars and perhaps the most effective President at getting his agenda passed in my lifetime. You know, Trump’s not pretty by conventional standards of being “Presidential,” he just gets the job done and confounds his critics in doing so.

    He reminds me of General Grant who won ugly but ultimately won against the stately Lee. Lincoln understood the difference between style and substance. Once, when hearing war room criticism of Grant’s ungentlemanly imbibing before battle, the President quipped: “Well, I wish some of you would tell me the brand of whiskey that Grant drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other generals.” Lincoln, you see, understood that, in times of great tribulation, looking good wasn’t the same as doing good. As he so clear-eyed and chillingly stated about Grant, who enjoyed the same superiority in men and material that a host of predecessors like General McClellan timidly refused to utilize, ” he understands the arithmetic.”

    Trump, as the leader of the greatest energy, political, military and cultural power in the world, clearly “understands the arithmetic.”

    1. By passing his agenda, mespo means the free wall, 4% growth, perfect healthcare, and all the easy deals he’s made, if only he can get Kim to sign it. Meanwhile, in the real world, there is no wall though mespo fell for the bait and switch and can’t wait to pony up his part, the economy is riding on a trillion dollar hot check his grandkids will be paying and fewer employment gains as Obama and no 3 or 4% growth as promised, no healthcare, our foreign alliances are in tatters and no one will make a deal with a compulsive liar.

      Hey, where’s that middle class tax cut promised in October 2018?

      Other than that, let’s all stand up and salute.

      1. I got my tax cut. Maybe you need a better CPA who can keep up with the increased standard deduction and lower tax rates.

        1. That’s amazing Foxtrot, because as soon as the 2018 election was over Trump forgot about his promise and never sent a proposal to Congress. Did you get perfect healthcare too?

    2. Wow. Mespo makes the greatest comment of 2019 along with a history lesson and a fun one at that

      Deo Vindice!

    3. Mespo

      After we drove across the NC line towards OBX for the weekend, we stopped at several locally owned shops. You came to mind. There is a plethora of goods in these low budget stores advertising Trump 2020. Gun stores pepper the routes throughout NE NC and Trump flags were seen waving proudly. On our return home yesterday, we saw a truck on I-64 Laburnum exit that was plastered with Trump bumper stickers. One made me laugh: “keep on Trumpin’ “

      These are the Americans that Turley, Pelosi, pollsters and MSM disregard. These are also the Americans that make America function daily

      I questioned many people while we stayed at OBX, trying to check their barometer on current events. I mainly targeted service workers and less than 3 tourists with the bucks to vacation at a resort like us. Hands down all of the blue collar Americans with whom I interacted while chewing the fat with them expressed hatred towards the Dems and believe Trump is purging the necrotic tissue that is worrying them. What I saw this past weekend mirrors what I see ij my daily life with sick patients

      Turley has his sights on the wrong crowd

      ps. We had Tiramisu one night

      😜

        1. Hi Cindy

          Outer Banks is a string of islands on the Atlantic from SE Virginia to most of the North Carolina coastal shore. We go to Kitty Hawk every so often to get away from Richmond and be in touch with our love for the ocean and Florida / Caribbean roots

      2. Estovir:

        Sounds great and I love your informal poll. Gimme these real people to represent anytime. Matthew 5:13 (King James Version):

  10. No, it is the response of fellow academics…nothing produces the unhinged rage as appearing as a Republican witness.

    Apparently it’s true, Turley doesn’t read the comments section of his own blog.

    1. He has Darren and Turley Jr to do that. Pretty sure Darren has had it up to the gills with most of us.

  11. There’s a lesson in here. You’re inveterately collegial in regard to the conduct of judges and law professors. Most of them don’t merit that deference. (See Robert Bork’s remarks on constitutional law 20 years back: it had simply ceased to exist as a subdiscipline of law given the relentlessly result-oriented conduct of appellate judges advised by law professors). Academe in general is what Fr. Paul Shaughnessy calls ‘sociologically corrupt’, by which he means incapable of reform making use of its own personnel and in need of outside intervention. A corrupt guild, in Shaughnessy’s view, may in its composition differ only modestly from a healthy one. However, in a corrupt order, the superiors are concerned with appearances and public relations and act to conceal the behavior of bad actors rather than sanctioning them. Same deal with the courts. Now, who should be the interveners? The collection of businessmen and lawyers who make up the trustees at any given institutions have demonstrated their worthlessness.

    1. TIA, it would only get worse for him if he paid them back in the same currency they use.

      Turley is tough, disciplined, hard worker, generous instructor to the people as well as his students.

      He’s a historically excellent constitutional law scholar and lawyer, and I have known some good ones.

      I hope people don’t let my obnoxious presence here, diminish Turley’s standing, he’s an honest to goodness star.

  12. The right wing is well known for its threats of death and rape. Don’t pretend it’s not. Right wingers run over people. Enough with the false equivalency.

    4. Enough with the false equivalency.

      LOL! You list 3 false equivalencies and then chastise yourself for doing so. Brilliant!

    5. “right wingers’ have for fifty years been the most timid opposition and your present rage is over the fact that the bad habits are receding under Trump’s leadership. Hence, the hate.

      Democrat leadership is corrupt and anti-American. It’s very sad for the working people of America who have historical ties to the party, which has squandered its goodwill. A healthy two party system can only work when both parties have a bona fide desire for national unity and success at their core.

      Some of the finest leadership in the 20th century emerged from the Democrat party. What’s gone wrong? It’s like LBJ poisoned the well somehow. I have some “theories” about that. But that’s old news.

      The current Democrat leadership has taken all that Saul Alinsky garbage to heart and it’s poisoned them. This is very regrettable. They’re not just breaking down their adversaries. I watch and see how they snipe at each other over trifles, and habitually insult principled new leadership like Tulsi, and it’s all very shameful.

  13. As if the other members of that panel were not attacked from the right in that hearing and later in print. JT needs thicker skin if he wants to be in the news everyday, and clearly he does. Some of his complaints are are about arguable at least interpretations of his past statements, not lies as he pretends. He claimed to have been unfairly treated by Swalwell at the hearing, but I challenge anyone to watch that easily available clip and deny he was treated politely and that anything Swalwell said was inaccurate. It wasn’t.

    Stick to the law. If we want political posturing and personality news, we can get that anywhere.

    1. You should tell your handlers at Correct-the-Record that your effectiveness is damaged when they expect you to respond to everything.

    2. I don’t think Rep. Swalwell is mentioned in this column.
      There was a column about Swalwell about 10 days ago, but that dealt with a very questionable claim that Swalwell made.
      bythebook, when you claim that a specific statement (about Swalwell) was made by Turkey, and there does not appear to be anything about it in this or previous columns, then it’s better to provide either the specific quote or a link to it.
      Watching a video of Swalwell during Turley’s testimony does not tell us if Turley actually claimed that he was treated unfairly by Swalwell.

      1. Not sure what your point is anonymous, but I posted on that earlier thread and with a link to Swalwell’s interaction with Turley. Here it is again:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKOpL6S_tjk

        I also read JTs comments on Sotomayor which he thinks have been misinterpreted, and that is arguable at best.No, he did not call her stupid, but clearly voiced the opinion that she was not an impressive thinker. Hey, that’s what arguments are made of and public ones may not follow the most convenient nuances you hope for. In JTs case he does have opinions which flipped 180 depending on who’s ox was being gored. The fact that he has trouble defending that does not mean he is being crucified anymore than any other public commentators, including his fellow House panel members.

        1. byethebook,
          Specifically, when did Turley “claim that he was treated unfairly by Swalwell at the hearing”.
          As far as the other issue, “no, he did not call Sotomayer stupid”.
          Nor did he say she was not smart enough for the Supreme Court.
          In “reporting” news, it’s one thing to quote a person accurately.
          It’s another thing to mischaractorize what the person said, and present that as if it were an accurate quote.

        2. Turley said he was not impressed… Not that she was not impressive. Words matter, I suggest you learn to comprehend them better.

    3. byb:
      ” If we want political posturing and personality news, we can get that anywhere.”
      ********************
      You’re right. We get it from every day.

      What’s the daily Soros supplement?

    4. You are essentially correct. Prof Turley wants/needs to be in the public arena and therefore should expect to be treated as roughly/unfairly as the Republicans have treated the law profs who testified for the Democrats. If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

      2. 1. The Republicans haven’t mistreated the other faculty.

        2. See the remarks of Ann Althouse, late of the UW Law school. The other professors were unwatchable. They’d deserve harsh treatment, which Turley does not.

        1. They make me wonder if maybe Saloth Sar had some good ideas about “re-education” of parasitic intellectuals.

      3. I watched the impeachment hearings from start to finish, except for the hearings that took place privately and for Democrat eyes only. i never saw any of the Professors for the Democrats treated “roughly/unfairly” by the Republicans. If you consider questions and cross examination cruel and unusual punishment, then chances are you have never been in a courtroom.

        1. There were no “democrat eyes only” hearings. That’s false. All hearings were open to both party’s appropriate members (some were not public but GOP members were able to and did attend the private ones).

        1. Turley would make inconvenient rulings from time to time. In the last 70 years, Democrats have made one appointment to the court given from time-to-time to throwing a spanner in their works. He joined the court in 1962 and left it in 1994. The culture of the appellate judiciary in our time is such that the Democrats would have to scrounge to find anyone in their ranks known to be off the reservation on select matters.

          1. Turley would make inconvenient rulings from time to time.

            I suspect Turley would be a more reliable constitutional conservative than Roberts.

            1. I’d say Turley would be a better Constitutionalist than Roberts, but after Roberts’ Obamacare rulling, that’s not a very high wall. I don’t feel it’s necessary to be a conservative to be a good Justice. My good opinion of Kavanaugh was based on the degree of libertarianism in his prior opinions. Libertarian judges make a favorable environment for conservatism that respects the Constitution.

    6. They might have been “attacked” by the panel, but not by their colleagues. That is the professor’s point, and the difference is key: you would expect partisan politicians who care only about either nailing or acquitting the president of harm-doing to play that lovely and narcissistic game of one-upsmanship. It;s what they do. You would not expect respected (ahem) professionals and colleagues in a field that is supposed to be devoted to the law and not PR to go after him to burnish their progressive cred.

      1. 1. See TIA’s self parody post at 10:08 and Althouse reference.
        2. Bad arguments are hopefully criticized without regard to politics and JTs are spectacularly bad on this one, not to mention inconsistent with earlier ones, while entirely consistent with ones rejected on a bipartisan basis (see Swalwell Interview).

    7. Your attempts at justifying how cruel the left has become, is unbecoming at best.

  14. And thus the reason I no longer trust our public education system, our higher level education system nor any media. I must work harder now to be a citizen of this country. Thank you for clear thinking and teaching.

    1. It’s difficult to locate an institution run by liberals which doesn’t betray its foundational mission routinely.

  15. You don’t deserve all this. People don’t want to hear things they disagree with. Unfortunately your advice fell on deaf ears due to the rush to get something done before the election. Our society doesn’t really know how to deal with a President as corrupt and ruthless as Trump and his followers.

    1. Our society doesn’t really know how to deal with a President as corrupt and ruthless as Trump and his followers.

      Our society is bedeviled by people notable for a mix of mendacity, stupidity, and viciousness. The country would be better off without you.

      1. “The country would be better off without you.” Said by TIA, not surprisingly.

        And a James Holmes-type killed Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta. Well, according to TIA, anyway — in his or her infinite wisdom.

        If one wants to see “mendacity, stupidity, and viciousness” on full display, take a good hard look at TIA

  16. Welcome to the world of reasonable, truth-telling individuals persecuted for courageously standing standing our ground.

  17. JT says ….the degree of flagrantly false stories in the media….

    The frequency of your assertion that you were “troubled” by the president’s use of the term fake news is too numerous to count.

    This is the fourth of fifth time you have written about false stories or false narratives regarding your judiciary committee testimony.

    Question: Do you know the difference between false stories, false narratives and fake news?

    Answer: There is no difference.

    1. Do you know the difference between false stories, false narratives and fake news?
      _________________________________________________________________

      Do you know the difference between an editorial opinion and news story?

    1. If you are getting gaslighted in the mass media, it can trouble you for years. I had my share of attacks in yellow journalism, just for doing my job for an “unpopular” client or two.

      Let me make this clear. The “liberals” meaning the Democrat leadership (who really have no coherent ideology, they are purely self-serving and only misuse leftist tropes to fool their lumpen base) but… the Dem leadership seek to HARASS AND INTIMIDATE LAWYERS FROM REPRESENTING THEIR FOES.

      The purpose for this is simple. Lawyers are force multipliers. They are specialists in an area of keen necessity. If one side can’t hire the best ones, they look bad and will more likely fail. Simple as that.

      Turley probably understands these things full well.

  19. Now you know what we Trump supporters have been going through since 2015. This comment will cause an FBI file to be opened on me.

    1. Paul C Schulte says:
      December 30, 2019 at 8:35 AM
      Now you know what we Trump supporters have been going through since 2015. This comment will cause an FBI file to be opened on me.

      ***********

      Welcome to the watch list Mr. Paul. You are in good company. I was put on it because I am a veteran and I own a gun and I vote.

Comments are closed.