Mea Culpa: New York Times Caves To Protests And Apologizes For Posting Conservative Opinion

440px-The_Yellow_Press_by_L.M._GlackensIn an act that virtually stands alone in the abandonment of self-defining values, the New York Times last night caved to protests from its own writers to apologize for publishing a conservative opinion piece by a ranking Republican senator. On Thursday, the editors had rightfully held firm on the need for the paper to hear all viewpoints as publishing a column by Sen. Tom Cotton (R, Ark.) calling for the use of military troops to quell rioting.  Times editorial page editor James Bennet and Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger issued defenses of the use of the opinion section to hear all sides of such national controversies. We discussed that position yesterday and many of us heralded the editors for their courage despite the overwhelming calls for private censorship.  Then, the newspaper and its journalistic ethics entirely collapsed with an announcement that effectively declared an original sin “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa” (“through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.”

The column by Cotton was discussing a statutory option used by presidents in the past in times of riot.  He was arguing that troops could be used support insufficient law enforcement numbers.  He stresses that his column concerns the violence not the protests. While I disagree with the column, Cotton does not denounce the protests or the protesters. Rather than he objects to “a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.”  In doing so, he not only cited the history of such use but cautioned that it should only be used temporarily to get hold of the situation:

“This venerable law, nearly as old as our republic itself, doesn’t amount to ‘martial law’ or the end of democracy, as some excitable critics, ignorant of both the law and our history, have comically suggested. In fact, the federal government has a constitutional duty to the states to ‘protect each of them from domestic violence.’ Throughout our history, presidents have exercised this authority on dozens of occasions to protect law-abiding citizens from disorder.”

I have repeatedly opposed such a move as unnecessary and inimical to the exercise of free speech. However, it is a major policy question being discussed by one of the key member of Congress.  Instead of responding to the arguments, various writers demanded that the editors be removed and no such opposing views be published in the Times.

download-1In a breathtaking surrender, the newspaper has apologized and not only promised an investigation into how such an opposing view could find itself on its pages but promised to reduce the number of editorials in the future.  In a statement that will go down in journalistic infamy, the newspaper announced:

“We’ve examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication. This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards. As a result, we’re planning to examine both short term and long term changes, to include expanding our fact-checking operation and reduction the number of op-eds we publish.”

The prior attacks on the newspaper capture the rising intolerance for opposing views in our society. This action shows that such attacks can succeed even with the largest and most esteemed publications.

We have seen the expansion of speech codes and regulation on campus and calls for private censorship by companies ranging from Twitter to Facebook. Politicians, including Vice President Joe Biden, have called for removal of comments deemed misinformation, including political commentary. What is most chilling about this controversy is that this intolerance for opposing views has not only reached our major newspapers but the demands are coming from journalists and writers themselves. This is akin to priests declaring their opposition to the free exercise of religion.  You cannot claim to support free speech and seek to silence those who hold opposing views.

225px-BrandeislAs Justice Brandeis said, the solution to any bad speech is more speech, not forced silence. When editors run columns, they do not endorse the sentiments or viewpoints. They foster debate and dialogue in allowing alternative views to be heard. Sen. Cotton was advocating an option that has been used previously in this country and is a focus of debate in Washington. These writers would impose a bar on any who would argue for the option, leaving the newspaper little more than a hollow echo chamber of approved speech. As I stated, I have opposed the option discussion by Sen. Cotton. However, I find the anti-free speech views of these writers far more chilling than his exercise of free speech.

The anger over the editorial shows the cost of echo journalism and how far it has penetrated in the profession. Too many have become so accustomed to news delivered in a hermetically sealed echo chamber that even the appearance of an opposing view is now offensive and intolerable.  Some of these writers supply the very echoes that bounce unchallenged on many sites. The New York Times just formally declared that it would reframe its publication to be a part of the echo journalistic model.

I have been a columnist and commentator for decades and I never thought I would see the day when writers called for private censorship of views.  We are gleefully killing the very thing that sustains us.

240 thoughts on “Mea Culpa: New York Times Caves To Protests And Apologizes For Posting Conservative Opinion”

  1. The Orange revolutions have come home.
    Libturds going for the overthrow, intel directing.

  2. I see from a news feed that Justin Tredeau knelt during an anti-racism protest in Ottawa. Why doesn’t that surprise me. Obama bowed to Arab leaders.

      1. Tell me the big difference between Obama’s reverent bowing to despotic Arab leaders and Tredeau taking a knee in deference to despotic leftists. This is not that difficult but for you it is impossible.

        1. Leaving alone Trump’s letting an Arab leader literally having a journalist he disagreed with chopped up in an embassy, I’d say your ‘difficulty’ scale is more than a bit skewed.

          Suggestion: try spelling Trudeau correctly. Next, wait for that lovely pop sound when your head pops out of your butt.

          1. I understand how the gory details can sicken one, but those are not our gory details. They are the details of the one’s Obama bowed to. As unpleasant as it might be we have to deal with despots, but as the greatest nation on earth we don’t have to bow to them.

            You like bowing to despots and using foul language. It’s easy for you to bow. You have no backbone.

        2. And the answer to your apples and oranges comparison, Allan, is context.

          How about producing visual evidence of what you’re speaking about? Talking about the similarities and differences between the situations?

          Of course that would highlight aspects of your character more than anything else, but at least it would be a step away from the staggering intellectual laziness behind your claim.

          1. How can I explain your problem. I could say ignorance but even ignorant people can figure this out.

            In both cases there exists an anti-American act. I am glad you are now recognizing that the word context exists. Next step is for you to learn what it means.

      1. As low to the ground as you are no one will notice you taking a knee.

        Do you also have buck teeth?

  3. The National Review article says “This negotiation took place with an editor who the Cotton team assumed was working with his superiors on his end” (emphasis added).

    But that assumption may not have been justified.

    “James Bennet, the editor in charge of the opinion section, said in a meeting with staff members late in the day that he had not read the essay before it was published. … The Op-Ed was handled by Adam Rubenstein, an editor in the opinion section… Several of them said they had not been aware of the article before it was published. During the editing process, Mr. Rubenstein asked a photo editor, Jeffrey Henson Scales, for photographs of state and federal forces who were sent to the University of Mississippi in 1962 to quell segregationists protesting the enrollment of the first African-American student at the school. Mr. Cotton had cited the military’s role in desegregation to make the case for sending troops into the streets. Mr. Scales raised an objection. ‘A false equivalence, but historical images are there now,’ he wrote to Mr. Rubenstein on Slack, the internal messaging software used by Times employees. … In a video meeting of the opinion department on Thursday afternoon, Mr. Bennet and James Dao, the deputy editorial page editor, acknowledged that there had been a breakdown in the process of preparing the essay for publication, according to four people who attended it.” (NYT)

    “During the Q&A portion of the meeting [between NYT leadership and staff], Bennet took several confrontational questions from irate staff. When asked why he did not personally read Cotton’s column before publishing it, Bennet said it was ‘another part of the process that broke down.’ He added, ‘I should have been involved in signing off on the piece… I should have read it and signed off.’ … [An] editorial assistant—Adam Rubenstein, formerly of The Weekly Standard, a now-defunct conservative outlet—… oversaw the piece.” (DailyBeast)

  4. Actually agreed with Turley in that I don’t believe Alfalfa should be silenced. He wrote about a reprehensible topic that many former military are rightfully calling out as anti- America.

    Let Alfalfa speak and have to defend his abhorent POV. Point/ counter point.

    The issue should be weighted properly to avoid the freak show that often happens in climate change discussions when the less than 2% of scientists who are climate change deniers get 50% of the airspace to shill their corporate funded nonsence.

    But Alfalfa should be allowed to speak publicly and then rightfully shredded for his POV.

  5. If by “conservative”, you mean racist authoritarian militarism, then, yes. Jesus H Turley, you are nothing if not consistent in your relentless defense of fate indefensible. Now, you twist your trade to somehow JUSTIFY the blanket use of force against Americans protesting PEACEFULLY? An ignore that it’s about .01% of those out in public who are committing any crime whatsoever? You’re as big a piece of shit as those ordering those attacks on Americans. Since Trump has been in office, you have been on a steady decline in actual recognition of our Constitutional rights.

    1. For all of the many faults in his column, Turley did *not* attempt to “JUSTIFY the blanket use of force against Americans protesting PEACEFULLY.”

      On the contrary, Turley said “I disagree with [Cotton’s] column. … I have repeatedly opposed such a move as unnecessary and inimical to the exercise of free speech. … I have opposed the option discussion [sic] by Sen. Cotton.”

      We’re all better off discussing this honestly.

      1. “We’re all better off discussing this honestly.”

        That would be a first for you.

    2. Just like family members can occasionally require police intervention to prevent them from tearing themselves apart, do you think it’s possible that the national ‘family’ could at rare times of utter chaos, also need intervention from the local Police, National Guard – or if insufficient numbers, the Military? (That is of course, only if exercising well trained restraint – unlike what George Floyd received.)
      John E.

      1. Does society sometimes need law enforcement intervention? Sure. Some people are criminals.

        But this is not a time of “utter chaos,” and we do not need the military right now. Most of the protests remain peaceful, and although there have been some violent rioters, the police have also sometimes escalated the situation by responding with unwarranted violence themselves (let me know if you’d like links to videos of unwarranted violence / escalation from police). There’s actually a good comparison between cities like Newark, Camden, and Flint, where the police marched with protesters and things remained peaceful ( ) vs. those where law enforcement escalated violence through their own actions.

        If you think of the US as a family, Trump is not a good parent. He has been doing a great deal to increase division rather than repair it. Imagine if he had responded to the protests with an attempt to listen to protesters’ concerns, with an attempt to calm people, by taking concerns about police brutality and racism seriously, …

        1. “the police have also sometimes escalated the situation by responding with unwarranted violence themselves”

          If that is the case then the military should definitely be called in.

          As I said before your thinking process is very superficial.

        2. Thanks for your reply to further this discussion. I apologize for a delayed response here. I also appreciated your tone – different from the rough one of your response to Turley. I replied to you then anyway, partly to take myself on in recognizing that your ‘rough edges’ may not be mine, but I have them just the same. And they’re not more virtuous than yours.

          That leads me to my burden in responding to your points: namely that at east some diligence and humility need to prevail. Diligence that I am being as accurate as I can be in in reflecting on you, Trump’s, Turley’s … message. And at least a smidgen of humility that reminds of the possibility I might have something to learn from the one I disagree with.
          I do at least pick up this consistent spirit from Turley in is dogged support of free speech – disagreeing with Cotton’s article, but defending the free speech of his point of view (given that debate is for the benefit of us all – that we might learn something).
          By the way, Turley did leave everyone to wonder what his disagreement was – understandable, since his whole focus was the erosion of free speech. I suspect that as a civil libertarian, he holds that the military exists exclusively to counter foreign threats; and that domestic perils only be met with other measures??
          Soapbox wander there. Back to our conversation.

          For accuracy/clarification: I too do not think that “utter chaos” has now been reached. But I also cannot say for certain that we could be near some kind of tipping point in that direction, or that our society is immune from the possibility of failure.
          Neither Trump (nor Cotton in defending him) were ordering up the military to clear out the streets – now! Do you think in the interest of accuracy, that at least needs to be clarified?
          A follow-on point would be that any President tasked with the primary duty of the nation’s protection, should have an impulse to be ready for imminent perceived threat? (Notwithstanding that all presidents have mixed motivations for doing anything, and that their perceptions have been proved wrong in hindsight.)
          And speaking of motivation there’s always the realistic political one. e.g. (‘If I don’t
          do X, I’ll be accused of Y’. Of course he gets shot at for X anyway – such has been the reality for ‘the top dog’ for millennia!?)

          Lastly re. your mention of Trump being “not a good parent.” (in my analogy of the US family): I just think that it’s difficult for productive conversations to grow out of black-and-white statements like that. Barack Obama (and likely most presidents) was also the recipient of extreme judgements from the right – from not being a citizen, to just plain evil. And certainly ‘not a good person’ – which at least strongly infers ‘a bad person’. In my case, 3,000 miles away from the man, and filtered through a maze of major/social media bias – add to that the deviousness of my own bias, and misjudgements about what’s going on in my own head! ALL THAT at least should give some hint to apply a little humility as I make my judgements about national leaders and complexities.

          A more focussed point might be, that completely writing off individuals and viewpoints can blind to the value (or even the possibility) that one can hold and advocate for 2 injustices at the same time – namely the gross inhumanity of a cop’s treatment of another human, AND the counterproductive lawlessness in reaction. (excuses for both aside)

          What think ye?


          1. I recognize that Turley is approaching this as a free speech issue, but as a law professor, he (should) know that it’s not a free speech issue.

            No one has a legal right to have their opinions published by the NYT. Cotton remains free to express his opinions publicly — which is what free speech actually refers to: the absence of government restrictions.

            I think that sometimes what you refer to as “black-and-white statements” are wholly appropriate. I used to volunteer with a child abuse prevention non-profit (they had a 24-hour phone line for stressed parents to call, free drop-in child care, counseling, …), and if a parent is physically abusing his/her children, I think it’s appropriate to call that person an abusive parent. If one uses the analogy of the nation as a family, I think I can justify calling Trump a bad parent. But I understand if you don’t want to get into that discussion.

    3. @anonymous

      A racist is someone who disagrees with any tenant of the left so what is your point? Easy to point and sputter. Means NOTHING and means EVERYTHING. Only used as a destroy word and to shut someone up. Not meant as a way to engage someone in serious debate. The word did not even exist until invented by Leon Trotsky.


  6. The NY Times is now engaging in wilful and active suppression of opinion (in this case, an opinion supported by 58% of voters overall and 48% of Democrats) at the behest of the DNC. Why? It doesn’t fit the chosen narrative.


    “The thirteenth rule of radical tactics: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

    “Men will act when they are convinced their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil.”

    “The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results.”
    — Saul Alinsky

    From history, we know that one of the most effective means is control of the media.

    A free and fair press is one where facts, news and issues are presented dispassionately and both sides of the argument are presented without favor. The reader reigns supreme.

    As political power concentrates and consolidates, the media tends to undergo the following (d)evolution in stages:

    Bias – Subtle at first but much more pronounced in later stages as the reader is more and more encouraged (through selective information skewing) to embrace a certain viewpoint as a “logical” outcome of what is presented By 2016, it was clear we were in latter stages of bias.

    Narration – Facts and information are increasingly presented (in latter stages, almost exclusively) in support of a given and chosen narrative–narrative becomes synonymous with news. Media actively engages in counter-narrative to discredit facts and/or information that don’t support the given narrative.

    Suppression – Beyond counter-narrative, the media simply suppresses (or severely downplays) facts and/or information that are deemed “detrimental” to a given narrative. Counter perspectives are actively discouraged and even ridiculed in later stages. Us versus them. There’s “nothing to see here” and “it happens all the time”.

    Distortion – The reader is now increasingly encompassed with an almost singular and insular view of the world. More and more, there is only one “acceptable” viewpoint. Gaslighting and similar techniques start to become more commonplace. The end clearly justifies the means and facts, information and principles become secondary to ideological outcomes. Factual hypocrisy increasingly justified as “this is different” or “for the greater good”. Accuse others of what you are doing.

    Domination – Ostracization and other socio-political consequences for not embracing the “acceptable” viewpoint. Near complete polarization of issues. What was previously narrative is now accepted as fact. Extreme groupthink. Programming. Reader is actively conditioned what to think. Pravda. 1984.

    It should be noted that in the last stages of domination, a democracy simply can not exist and in its place will be a uniparty, a regime (Soviet Union, CCP) or the like.

    No matter where you think we are on the above, one thing is abundantly clear: the trend is beyond worrisome and the stakes for our democracy couldn’t be higher.

    1. Thanks for an equally serious addendum to the Prof’s solemn article!
      John E.

  7. They are commies, not “liberals”. Calling yourself “Antifa” but acting out violence and hatred and silencing of the Jews, er, the Republicans, like fascist Nazis did, doesn’t make it OK.

    But to people who think words hurt, even more than actual bricks and fires, are the snowflakes who, had they been in Germany in 1933, they would be Sieg Heiling and reporting any who didn’t.

    That’s the Democratic Party today – and those who vote Democrat, support an end to Free Speech.

  8. I have a free speech is so here I look forward to Trumps departure from office and Rush Limbaugh slow painful demise

  9. Mr. Turley, after reading your column about Senator Cotton’s free speech as interpreted by the NYT’s, I draw a blank on your blanket, “disagree with the column.”
    I do get the singular focus of your article on the alarming erosion of free speech, along with your abundantly fair (as usual) representation of Sen. Cotton’s thesis. However, as a civil libertarian do you take a black and white position that the military should never intervene in domestic breakdown – including disagreement with all historical examples cited by Sen. Cotton?
    If you have already written clearly on my questions, I would appreciate being directed to that source.
    John (Entermann)

    1. Perhaps that reply could address his concerns about the use of troops by Eisenhower, et al. and how these protests are different.

    2. I read your essay and I definitely agree that free speech as you once knew and practice is dead in a society that prides of this constitutional eight. Am I surprised that the NYT has stooped down to apologized for making the mistake of allowing opposing views to be posted? No because we know who these NYT staffers and editors are! Honestly, free speech is dead in America!

    1. DSS, I did not know of the extensive back and forth process the Times performed before permitting the article to be published. That was no rush job and shows how honest Cotton was and how the Times restricts what is said by conservatives. Thanks.

    2. Yes.

      We’ve seen what being full of it has done to you and take it as an extremely cautionary example.

      1. No, there is no glitch

        Since you use Tor network, your settings for Tor Browser dictate where, how and if your comments are posted

        Use your home IP on a normal browser and you will have no problems but that means Darren will track you and your many sock puppets

        1. I’m not using Tor. I’m using Firefox. And I don’t have any sockpuppet accounts. If Darren is the one who does comment moderation, he presumably has my email address, as I’ve emailed Turley about some comments (including plagiarism and a threat to Turley and his wife), and they were subsequently removed, so if Darren is the one who acted on it, I assume that Turley forwarded my email to him.

          SMH that so many people are ready to assume false things about me.

          1. You started off claiming honesty and the first thing you did was lie. That is not a good start. That immediately links you with the pin heads.

              1. Hellvis, if I lie you have every opportunity to correct me, but you don’t. You are a shining example of ignorance that responds with four letter words and gets thrown off the blog. You don’t even learn from your mistakes. Pro Tip: protect your head because inside is your brain and it has sustained enough damage.

  10. Anyone remember when liberals/leftists (nowadays this is being redundant) said one of the following:

    1. I may not agree but will support your right to say it.

    2. If you don’t like what is on TV just turn the channel.

    3. If you don’t like pornography, just don’t buy or view it.

    4. If you don’t agree with the campus speaker, don’t attend the speech. Or if you do,challenge them with a probing question.

    Those days are long gone.

    I suspect that most leftists (certainly not all) only supported free speech because the dissidents tended to be communists, anti-war protesters or pornographers.

    Here is just another example of the famous leftist “tolerance”.

    And soon those who support traditional free speech will be labeled nazis or at least nazi sympathizers. And today’s totalitarians could care less whether you are liberal on most other issues (that means YOU, JT). If you run afoul of the left on any of their pet issues regarding race, culture or immigration or toleration of expression for any of the former; you are no different than the Adolf Eichmann.

    Have given much thought as to how “hate speech” laws will come to America, how such would be enforced, etc. My guess is due to the 1st Amendment (which will be hard to abrogate), it will be done through anti-terrorist, financial disclosure or RICO laws. I’m afraid the left will not observe Marquis of Queensbury rules when designating the NRA, American Renaissance or VDARE “terrorist” organizations, all while claiming to respect the 1st Amendment. Let’s make it easy, just declare anyone on the $PLC “hate list” to be a domestic terrorist.


    1. I’m a liberal and of course Cotton has a right to *say* what he said. And I support his right to *say* it!

      But there is no right *to have something published in the NYT*. They get to choose for themselves what gets published there, just like the Federalist gets to choose what they publish, and so on for all other publications.

      I bet you understand the difference.

      1. I do understand the difference but leftists go way beyond denying someone a platform (ie NY Times) to supporting speech codes (including those for lawyers proposed by the ABA) and censorship.

        Tell me, who needs protection to speak on a college campus, Charles Murray or a BLM spokesman?


        1. antonio, the NYTs isn’t a “platform”. It’s America’s newspaper of record, which is why it’s on every executive’s desk every morning. For instance – and hard to believe – they’ve never let me use their editorial page. No, it’s true!

          1. @btb

            I don’t give a rat’s behind about their echo chamber. It is that simple. Don’t have a copy on my desk and I work as a professional. No, they are pretty much preaching to their own choir.


          2. @btb

            So tell me, who needs more protection on a college campus, someone like Ann Coulter or Charles Murray or a BLM spokesperson?

            Dare you to answer without calling me a name. You won’t of course. What’s great about being a leftist is never having to say you’re sorry or were wrong. After all your “heart” is in the right place and that is what is most important.

            Would respect you more if you were just honest about it. Some speech is more “equal” than others and thus more deserving of protection.


            1. I’m on the left. I responded to you without name-calling. I apologize when appropriate (e.g., if I’ve hurt someone), and I also say that I was wrong when that’s appropriate (I know that I can link to comments here where I’ve done the latter, just let me know if you want me to find an example; I don’t know if I’ve done the former here).

              I generally don’t agree that “Some speech is more “equal” than others and thus more deserving of protection,” but I’ll note that in fact, our laws and courts say that some speech is *not* deserving of protection, including defamation, perjury, child p*rn, and incitement to imminent lawless action.

        2. The First Amendment applies to government restrictions on speech. Private enterprise can engage in censorship, and as far as I can tell, some people throughout the political spectrum — left, right, and center — encourage private censorship of views they dislike.

          As for your question, I don’t think either one generally needs protection on campuses, nor do I think that college campuses are the only relevant locations to look at.

    2. Antonio, my main revulsion with Nazis isn’t “free speech” – yes we all know one of Hitler’s most important principles – but the “Jews won’t replace us” chants.

      1. @btb

        Actually the chant was “you won’t replace us”. Wasn’t there but am acquainted with some who were. Funny how NONE of them were ‘nazis’.


        1. “You won’t replace us” is a commonplace in certain circles, mainly palaeolibertarian and palaeoconservative outfits. It’s not a Stormfront chant.

  11. Jonathan: I say let Senator Tom Cotton, a strong Trump supporter, express his ridiculous idea that Trump should use the old Insurrection Act to stamp out the nationwide protests over the police shooting of George Floyd. It only shows how bankrupt and desperate Republicans are in their support of the “Bunkerboy” who thinks calling out the military will appeal to the “law and order” crowd. So by all means let them express their reactionary views.

    Speaking of bunkers, after nationwide protests erupted in front of the White House Trump fled to his bunker to hide. Ivanka apparently prevailed over her father to come out from his hiding place and show some cajones. Trump decided his daughter was right but chose the most bizarre course of action. He had his AG William Barr clear Lafayette Park of peaceful protesters by using tear gas and rubber bullets. After it was safe Trump walked across the street and stood in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church and proudly held up a Bible. Trump act was apparently impulsive because no one bothered to notify the Church that Trump was coming. And religious leaders were not happy that Trump used the Bible as a prop. So Trump, not a religious person, resembled Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein who often held up the Quran in exhorting his followers..

    Now because a mass demonstration is planned in front of the White House tomorrow Trump authorized new fencing. It not only surrounds the White House but closes off the entrance to the Ellipse, stretches way up 17th St. and blocks off the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. One reporter, observing the new fencing, remarked that Trump is finally getting his “wall” but closer to home. Someone else noted that if Trump erected more than 3 miles of fence around the White House this would exceed what he has so far built along the Mexico-US border!

    It is a sad commentary that the “People’s House” has now become “Trump’s House”–cut off from the rest of the nation by tall metal fencing–and now resembles a lord’s medieval fortress without only the moat containing alligators! The “Bunkerboy” is afraid of the people..Now a real President with real cajones would be out mingling with the protesters tomorrow, showing empathy and trying to calm their anger over the death of George Floyd–you know, trying to heal the wounds. But “empathy” is not in Trump’s DNA. He only knows hate and retribution.

    1. I seem to recall Eisenhower sending the national Guard (and the 101st airborne) to little rock to enforce Brown.

    2. Surely, you’re aware elements among the ‘protestors’ have called for the President’s assassination, which certainly justifies additional security measures. The “old” Insurrection Act, as you call it, and as Mr. Turley notes, was invoked by modern Presidents. How is this different?

      1. “elements among the ‘protestors’ … called for the President’s assassination” when Obama was President as well, during protests in DC, but you didn’t see Obama putting extra fencing up around the White House and retreating into the WH bunker like a baby.

        1. He was behind bulletproof glass overseas dissing the USA and apologizing that it exists.

    3. And not one single mention of all the people these animal rioters have killed!

  12. Our American democracy is based on free speech not violence. What is the left based on? According to Slate Magazine violence “is an important tool for protesters,”

    What that actually means is kill blacks and destroy black neighborhoods. A bit of it spread to more affluent areas especially businesses, but who did that hurt? Working people that may not have jobs between Covid and the destruction from the riots. Blacks get hurt there as well.

    Is see a leftist knee sitting on the necks of black persons whereever the left has strength.

  13. New Yorkies:. You’re itShay does stink. You don’t even know that you had Klan members in your city. And The German American Bund.
    One man named Fred Trump belonged to and promoted both groups. He has a son whose first name is Donald. Fellow readers.
    Look this up on Google.

    1. Liberty, if you want to look stupid go ahead. What you are most likely referring to has been debunked on this blog many times. Hint, go to the news stories of the day and read carefully.

  14. Jonathan Turley, tch, tch. Cotton expressed a reactionary opinion, not a conservative one.

    I don’t object to the op-ed, but I am dismayed at the misuse of “conservative”. Reread your Edmund Burke, Thomas Hobbes, etc.

    Tch, tch.


  15. Well if the NYT is going to de-platform Sen. Cotton (a person, from I’ve read, I thoroughly disagree with), why should Sen. Cotton agree to interviews with the NYT in the future?

    Or, why should the Trump administration take questions from the NYT until they retract their apology?

  16. Think about the 60’s and its effect. What is the next step? Think about what has been going on for the past 3 years. Here is an example. Is what is presently being done too little and too late?

    ‘Somebody cooked up the plot’: The hunt for the origins of the Russia collusion narrative
    Key GOP senators are firing off subpoenas in a concerted effort to identify those who helped sustain a Russia collusion probe without the supporting evidence.

    That news hoax was from the NYTImes that today is censoring divergent opinions.

  17. Does it really matter? A phony apology to one side then the other and they are still propagandists for the far left.

Comments are closed.