Many of us criticized statements attributed to Attorney General Bill Barr this week calling for the use of sedition laws against rioters. However, instead of raising constitutional or statutory objections, Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe instead raised Barr’s Catholic faith in a completely unwarranted and unfounded tweet. The response to the reference was total silence. Not a single professor at Harvard or elsewhere chastised the use of a person’s religion in such commentary. This is not the first profane or prejudiced statement by Tribe.
Attorney General William Barr reportedly told federal prosecutors to move aggressively against rioters. That is nothing new. However, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal reported that Barr urged prosecutors to seek federal charges that included sedition laws designed for those who conspire to overthrow the U.S. government. The WSJ article stated “[Barr] encouraged the prosecutors to seek a number federal charges, including under a rarely used sedition law, even when state charges could apply, the people said.” (A U.S. Attorney has come out against allegations in the NYT article, including the allegation that Barr wanted the Seattle mayor criminally charged).
I have handled cases raising sedition or treason allegations as criminal defense counsel. It is entirely inappropriate and abusive to treat such protests as a form of sedition. It would not only fail in most such cases but it would return the Justice Department to a dark period of the use of such laws against forms of political dissent. There are ample criminal laws to address rioters. There is no reason to use sedition laws to combat rioting. I also believe that Barr’s escalating rhetoric is undermining the role of the Justice Department in addressing both the protests and the upcoming election.
Tribe however was not content with calling out Barr on a legal basis. He introduced his presumed religious beliefs: “It’s way beyond monarchical. It’s paranoid and dictatorial. Opus Dei, anyone?” It is like someone disagreeing with Alan Dershowitz and noting that he is a Jew or incorrectly referring to Kabbalah.
We have often discussed how conservatives have faced national condemnations and campaigns to be fired for dissenting views, often being labeled as “racists” for questioning aspects of the current protests or underlying claims. However, there is a conspicuous silence in the media when liberal academics engage in false or outrageous comments.
The level of intolerance in Tribe’s remarks is breathtaking. Making this even more outrageous is that Barr is not Opus Dei, as discussed last weekend in the Washington Post. He is a deeply religious Catholic. As Tom Hamburger wrote in the Post, Barr has shown tolerance for opposing values, including supporting a friend’s same-sex marriage.
None of that matters, of course. Raising the religion of Barr is an exercise of raw religious intolerance and prejudice. Yet, no one called out Tribe because such concerns are rarely acknowledged when the targets are on the right.
This type of personal assault has become a type of signature for Tribe, who regularly engaged in juvenile and vulgar attacks on those who hold opposing legal views. Yet, the media ignores these unhinged attacks and continues to cite Tribe in his continual criticism of Trump. Tribe has called Trump a “terrorist” and supported a long litany of highly dubious criminal theories. Tribe called Senator Mitch McConnell a “flagrant dickhead!” and loves to use Trump-like insults like “McTurtle” to refer to the Senator. Tribe thrills his followers by referring to Trump as a “Dick” or “dickhead in chief.” (I have also been the subject of such vulgar attacks for holding legal views different from Tribe’s). Such slurs and invectives are all ignored. Indeed, the only time Tribe generated a modicum of criticism from the left was when he referred to the selection of an African Americans like Kamala Harris for Vice President as a merely “cosmetic” choice. Rather than being the target of a petition campaign like so many conservative professors, Tribe simply moved on by renewing his personal attacks on anyone with views that might support Trump.
I could not find a single liberal commentator or professor who objected to Tribe attacking Barr for his wrongly presumed religious views. Professors lined up to (legitimately) criticize Trump for references to the Muslim faith of critics. Yet, there is no apparent problem in raising a Catholic’s faith in a put down.
The reason for the reference in this tweet is obvious and obnoxious. Calling Barr Opus Dei is like calling a Muslim lawyer a “Wahhabi” with a connotation of dangerous extremism. Putting aside that Barr is not Opus Dei, his following the movement would have nothing at all to do with using Sedition Law. Tribe’s religious intolerance is only matched by his religious ignorance. Opus Dei followers are not inherently supportive of authoritarianism. Followers believe in more strict adherence to church teachings like more conservative groups in other major religions. The use of “Opus Dei” as a type of sinister cult reference is a stereotype that circulates on the Internet, often on anti-Catholic sites.
Over the years, I have praised Tribe and even did so when raising an honest concern over his growing intolerant and hateful attacks. At a time of rising intolerance and violence, academics have an added responsibility in reinforcing basic values of civility and decency in our debates. It is possible to hold opposing views of constitutional principles without engaging in personal, let alone prejudicial, attacks. It is the abandonment of the core principles of academic discourse, dispensing with substantive dialogue in favor of profane or prejudiced diatribes.
“It’s paranoid and dictatorial.” Well why then if tribe is a paranoid dictator he is still receiving his salary and teaching numbers of stupid law students. What proof? Just look at the latest group of state AG’s and city attorneys. Mostly funded by GSoros for their anti American attitude rather than enforcing law and order..
Barr is right!!!! In many cases sedition is the correct charge.
“Sedition charges require proof of efforts to overthrow the United States Government.” from larry tribe.
And from P Turley: “Not a single professor at Harvard or elsewhere chastised the use of a person’s religion in such commentary. ”
You now have 2 quotes to read. The first question I wouild ask is that IF NOT 100 + DAYS OF RIOTING don’t show clear and compelling proof of efforts to overthrow the United States Government larry, what in your feeble mind would show cause?
The second quote shows how sheep like law professors in the US would NOT CRITICIZE larry tribes tweet. Oh well. I really expected nothing better from that sleaze group of so called professionals.
There haven’t been 100 days of rioting. There have been over 100 days of protests, and thousands of protests across the country during that time, some of which had riots, but most of which didn’t.
“Between 24 May and 22 August, ACLED records more than 10,600 demonstration events across the country. Over 10,100 of these — or nearly 95% — involve peaceful protesters. Fewer than 570 — or approximately 5% — involve demonstrators engaging in violence. Well over 80% of all demonstrations are connected to the Black Lives Matter movement or the COVID-19 pandemic. … In many urban areas like Portland, Oregon, for example, which has seen sustained unrest since Floyd’s killing, violent demonstrations are largely confined to specific blocks, rather than dispersed throughout the city” and a given night’s protest may include both peaceful protest in one area and violent protest in another. Of the 570 that included violence, many occurred on the same day instead of being separate “days of rioting.” “Despite the media focus on looting and vandalism, however, there is little evidence to suggest that demonstrators have engaged in widespread violence. In some cases where demonstrations did turn violent, there are reports of agents provocateurs — or infiltrators — instigating the violence. During a demonstration on 27 May in Minneapolis, for example, a man with an umbrella — dubbed the ‘umbrella man’ by the media and later identified as a member of the Hells Angels linked to the Aryan Cowboys, a white supremacist prison and street gang — was seen smashing store windows (Forbes, 30 May 2020; KSTP, 28 July 2020).”
Committable:
“There haven’t been 100 days of rioting. There have been over 100 days of protests, and thousands of protests across the country during that time, some of which had riots, but most of which didn’t.”
*****************************
Which, of course, completely ignores that the riotests were started over lies, exaggerations and incomplete information. But who cares about facts? The riotesters were being noble. Hahahaha
Mark continues getting his rocks off with name calling. He’s the one who’s committable.
Yeah, pithy accuracy be damned and you’re above reproach oh cowardly one.
Tribe gets no criticism from academics because nothing he says offends contemporary academic culture, which is a satisfactory measure of the quality of that culture.
Mr. Turley,
You really NEED to go back through this post and fix your many glaring errors.
Thanks
Steve
Steve,
Turley doesn’t read the comments. You can try emailing him — address is here: https://www.law.gwu.edu/jonathan-turley
Thanks, I just sent an email.
Steve:
Nobody likes a shushing librarian.
Mark, nobody likes an adult who acts like a whining child either, but that doesn’t keep you from acting that way.
I’m with Mark on this one. I never liked being shushed.
mespo727272 wrote, “Nobody likes a shushing librarian.”
WTF is that supposed to mean?
Mr. Turley had some serious errors in his post that made sections of blatantly false or not clearly understandable. I ignore grammar errors and typos as long as the intent is clear. In one instance Mr. Turley actually used Trump’s name when he should have use Tribe’s name which made what was written literally false.
Any blogger with integrity would appreciate being informed that there were glaring errors in their blog. I emailed Mr. Turley and I got back a nice reply that said in-part “I appreciate your emailing to alert me.” and it appears that the errors have been fixed.
“Shushing librarian”; you can bite me mespo727272.
I have been on here for many years, Steve, and I agree that the grammar errors can be annoying. However, after all this time, I have just given up and try to read what JT is intending to write.
Most of us realize JT is an awfully busy public figure and doing us a favor with these posts. On the other hand, some of us are apparently OCDish and wish to preen grammatical acumen despite our completely understanding the points made. No need to bite Steve. He’s taken enough away from his credibility all by himself. (Email JT over grammar? ) Apologies to all the librarians out there. Steve is more nanny than librarian.
mespo727272 wrote, “He’s taken enough away from his credibility all by himself. (Email JT over grammar?”
I know this’ll be hard for to get through that thick skull of yours but I didn’t complain about grammar and if you had comprehended my comment above you would have understood that, in fact I wrote “I ignore grammar errors and typos as long as the intent is clear.” Is English a second or third language for you?
mespo727272 wrote, “Steve is more nanny than librarian.”
Now you’re intentionally trolling, bite me.
Steve, intentionally trolling is mespo727272’s favorite pastime.
Aninymouse:
“Steve, intentionally trolling is mespo727272’s favorite pastime.”
*******************************************
Not true. I prefer to read your comeuppances by other more intellectually gifted commenters — which is just about everyone.
Steve:
“I emailed Mr. Turley and I got back a nice reply that said in-part “I appreciate your emailing to alert me.”
**************************
I’m always nice to buffoons I meet in the street, too. It costs me nothing, patronizes/appeases them and sends them on their way to obsess about other worthless things like what the cicadas do for the 17 years before their appearance. Steve, you really have too much time on your hands and it seems the reading comprehension is an issue for you and not me. I understood JT’s comment and points clearly enough without insulting the guy on his own blog. As for biting you, I suspect you’re too full of bile … or something … to be considered palatable.
Mark, for someone whose real-life photo shows you to be morbidly obese, maybe you shouldn’t be talking about others being too full of … something.
Anonymous wrote, “Mark, for someone whose real-life photo shows you to be morbidly obese”
That was an petty personal attack.
Personally I don’t give a rats rear end what mespo727272 looks like, a troll is a troll and I’m not going to feed the trolls.
Steve:
Aninymouse has an obsession with weight. No biggie for me but it certainly explains her mindset. Wonder if she dates anybody or simply raises hundreds of cats? She hides behind anonymity and like most anonymous clods is just projecting. Yeah, I’m betting cats.
There are many of us who respond to you using this Gravatar, Mark. You’re a mouse being played with by several cats.
Aninymouse:
” You’re a mouse being played with by several cats.”
***********************
Doubtful based on the commonality of stupid suggesting a single dysfunctional brain but a confederation of pussies is certainly possible, too.
In one instance Mr. Turley actually used Trump’s name when he should have use Tribe’s name which made what was written literally false.
****
And yet you understood what he meant, so what’s the big deal? He’s busy. It amazes me he is so productive and I would rather have all of it with “errors” rather than much less produced with punctillio. I didn’t take you for a sissy.
By the way, you should have said ‘used’ rather than ‘use’ in that sentence. See! Can happen to anyone.
Lawrence Tribe, like many other never Trumpers, has lost his mind. He hates Trump and the last four years he has come up with some wacky crazy legal reasons for getting rid of Trump. But the True colors and beliefs come out with all this hatred and crazy ideas, he hates religius people and any one who is not far left.
It is precisely because of attacks like this the Repos continue to get support. Just be honest with the criticism, respect differences, and IMHO, Trump and his ilk will be relegated to the dustbin of history. Instead, attacks like this show people how unhinged the left can be. Sad, Truly sad.
Nearly 20 years later, Barr should investigate the DOJ’s Cointelpro tactics, like “Employment Tampering”, still happening in 2020 to innocent Americans blacklisted during the 9/11 era. Today the DOJ chooses which occupations some Americans are allowed to work in, without confronting their targets or allowing a challenge in front of a judge. Barr himself could be an “accessory-after-the-fact” to war crimes if he continues this program.
As you likely know, it goes way beyond “employment tampering.”
Jonathan Turley wrote, “It is entirely inappropriate and abuse to treat such [riots] as a form of sedition. It would not only fail but it would return the Justice Department to a dark period of the use of such laws against forms of political dissent. There are ample criminal laws to address rioters. There is no reason to use sedition laws to combat rioting.”
Riots are NOT protests so I fixed Turley’s improper use of of the word “protests” in the first sentence above and replaced it with the appropriate word “riots”.
I completely disagree with Turley’s opinion on this.
Sedition: conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
Subversion: the undermining of the power and authority of an established system or institution.
The chairman of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York, Hawk Newsome, said “If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it”; this is NOT justice, this is subversion and sedition. That is just one of the statements coming from rioters that leads me to believe that charging some of the rioters with sedition is appropriate, these rioters and even some of the protesters are openly calling for a revolution and some have written it in their graffiti on the burned out and destroyed buildings.
I wrote this in my “How Continuous Rioting Morphs the Thinking of Society” blog in August 2020…
I wrote this in my “Apathy Fertilizes A Breeding Ground For Stupidity” blog in June of 2019 when I saw what was just over the horizon…
If you blow off what’s happening in the streets you’re a damn fool! These people are clearly trying to intentionally destabilize the United States of America with their grass roots version of sedition and subversion. The seeds of this irrational movement were sewn in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014 and rationalized by unwitting authorities enabling the irrational movement based on lies to grow.
Personally I think that both sedition and subversion have been taking place for a while now and not just with some of the irrational rioters. When it comes right down to the defined words, sedition and subversion, we’ve been seeing and hearing sedition and subversion from the political left since the Presidential election in 2016. People have been writing about this since 2017; Here is a blog written in May of 2017 specifically about this topic as it relates to the anti-Trump resistance. The rioters in the streets are currently the ignorant foot soldiers of the political left creating the civil unrest that far too many people in the political left appear to justify and enable with their silence and ignorant virtue signaling.
Steve, take a pill. “these people” who are rioting – as opposed to protesting (about 7% to 93% according to one investigation) – are an incredibly small group disrupting and destroying property in a very limited number of locations. Yes. we should be upset and we should hope for their arrest, but suspension of civil rights in all but a very few of these specific locations is uncalled for. Yes, we know it’s a juicy campaign issue. No, we don’t have to pretend it is a movement of significant proportions.
By the Book wrote, “Steve, take a pill. “these people” who are rioting – as opposed to protesting (about 7% to 93% according to one investigation) – are an incredibly small group disrupting and destroying property in a very limited number of locations.”
It’s your choice to stick your head in the sand; I choose otherwise.
It may be my choice but not one I am making. I suggest you try employing “perspective” . It’s the ability to not decide to burn your house down to get rid of the mice.
By the Book wrote, “It may be my choice but not one I am making.”
Did you intend to write that nonsense?
By the Book wrote, “I suggest you try employing “perspective” . It’s the ability to not decide to burn your house down to get rid of the mice.”
Here is the differences between you and I; I actually have a perspective that’s based on years of critical observation plus I’m not trying to denigrate you for your opinion, I just happen to think that you’re choosing to ignore the evidence.
Fair enough Steve, though I don’t think “sticking your head in the sand” is intended as flattery.
By the Book wrote “Fair enough Steve, though I don’t think “sticking your head in the sand” is intended as flattery.”
Sticking your head in the sand = choosing to ignore the evidence.
Same meaning, different words. Neither one is meant to flatter and neither one is meant as an insult.
Don’t take this the wrong way; but, only a 21st century emotional snowflake would take “sticking your head in the sand” as an insult and I really don’t think you’re a snowflake. We may disagree but snowflake, no friggin way.
It’s all good.
Kumbaya, Bro.
Steve, maybe some of these quotes and data – from June, so older now – will be reassuring to you. They demonstrate the similar views on most aspects of the protests/riots from Americans of both major races and political party. Starting with a quote from the much hated Rep Omar (I don’t like her either):
“Over the weekend, Representative Ilhan Omar, a left-leaning Minnesota Democrat, lamented, “Every single fire set ablaze, every single store that is looted, every time our community finds itself in danger, it is time that people are not spending talking about getting justice for George Floyd.”
Once the fires are out, what is the best way to secure justice? The most promising national debate about Floyd and policing reform would reflect three realities: large majorities of Americans oppose riots; the public is deeply divided in its attitudes toward policing and race; despite those disagreements, large majorities favor specific reforms that would reduce police killings.
Opposition to riots is broad. On the 25th anniversary of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, Gallup noted that 73 percent of white Americans and 92 percent of black Americans believed that the not-guilty verdict in the trial of the police officers who beat Rodney King was unjustified, but that “nevertheless, 75% of blacks joined 79% of whites in calling the violence unjustified.”
Already, black elected officials who are accountable to large black constituencies are lauding peaceful protests and condemning violence. Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms of Atlanta delivered a scathing denunciation of the cops who killed Floyd, immediately followed by scathing denunciations of violent unrest:
What I see happening on the streets of Atlanta is not Atlanta. This is not a protest … This is chaos. A protest has purpose. When Dr. King was assassinated, we didn’t do this to our city. So if you love this city, this city that has had a legacy of black mayors and black police chiefs and people who care about this city––where more than 50 percent of the business owners in metroAtlanta are minority business owners––if you care about this city, then go home.
You’re not honoring the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil-rights movement. You’re not protesting anything running out with brown liquor in your hands, breaking windows in this city. T.I. and Killer Mike own half the west side! So when you burn down this city, you’re burning down our community. If you want change in America, go and register to vote. Show up at the polls. That is the change we need in this county. You are disgracing our city. You are disgracing the life of George Floyd and every other person who has been killed in this country. We are better than this. We’re better than this as a city.
On Saturday, Omar held a press conference in Minneapolis during which she inveighed against rioting and discussed the hard work of so many in the community to build minority-owned businesses in the Lake Street corridor—where some of those same businesses had just burned. “We can be angry; we can ask for justice; we can protest; we can take it to the streets. What we cannot do is start a fire,” she said. “If you care, again, about black lives, you cannot set a fire in Minneapolis risking black lives.”….
….The results of a poll conducted May 29 and May 30 by YouGov and Yahoo News do suggest, though, that police-reform advocates can win huge victories quickly if they choose the right battles.
Eighty-nine percent of respondents believe that Floyd’s killer should be charged with at least third-degree murder. “Going forward, Americans largely favor a set of reforms to reduce deadly-force encounters with police,” the poll found. “Sixty-seven percent support banning neck restraints; 80 percent support an early-warning system to identify problematic officers; 87 percent support outfitting all cops with body cameras; and 88 percent training officers to de-escalate conflicts and avoid using force.”
That’s extraordinary––super majorities in favor of broad reforms specifically targeted to reduce unjust killings. Where do Americans disagree? As of May 30, “wide majorities of Republicans (73 percent) and whites (57 percent) see the unrest in Minneapolis as ‘mostly violent riots.’ Only a third of Democrats (33 percent) and black Americans (32 percent) describe the events that way.”
Emily Ekins’s polling work with the Cato Institute in 2017 underscored that Americans with sharply differing attitudes toward police and policing can still agree by overwhelming majorities on specific reform measures.
“Although whites (57 percent), blacks (36 percent), and Hispanics (49 percent) disagree about whether police are held accountable for misconduct in practice, strong majorities of all three groups support reforms intended to enhance accountability,” she wrote.
“For instance, 79 percent of Americans support having outside law enforcement agencies investigate police misconduct, rather than leave it to the department to handle in-house (21 percent).”
“Asked whether they would back cuts in funding for police departments, 65 percent of Americans said no,” the YouGov survey found. “Just 16 percent said yes—a number that held steady across party lines, with Democrats at 16 percent, Republicans at 15 percent and independents at 17 percent.” The proposal failed to achieve majority black support, with 33 percent in favor.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/police-reform-popular-rioting-not/612580/
about the only “reform” idea i really like so far are 2.
first is an end to no knock warrants. those are really abused far and wide.just end them.
also they could lay off the assert forfeiture nonsense, confiscating cars and money and so forth which are ALLEGEDLY used in a crime, and keeping them. See, often the owners are never charged with a crime, let aone convicted. But have to go hire lawyers to get their own money back., A lot of times the candle is not worth the game. So the police make thieves out of themselves with this abusive practice. that is an awful long standing abusive practice. it’s already been rolled back in some places but needs
more reform
“these people” who are rioting – as opposed to protesting (about 7% to 93% according to one investigation) – are an incredibly small group disrupting and destroying property in a very limited number of locations.”
That is a bald faced lie, and you know it’s a lie.
Dude, you better know WTF you are talking about before you post, but thanks for the opportunity to rub it in your face.
“The report, produced by the nonprofit Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, identified 7,750 protests between May 26 and Aug. 22 in 2,400 locations, according to The Washington Post.
The report found that about 220 became “violent” — a term defined as demonstrators fighting with police or with counterprotesters. The term also applies to demonstrations that resulted in property damage. In 93 percent of cases analyzed, there was no violence.
In the violent cases, the report said, violence was “largely confined to specific blocks, rather than dispersed throughout the city.”..
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/515082-over-90-percent-of-protests-this-summer-were-peaceful-report-shows
Sedition and subversion, like treason and terrorism, are defamatory political terms that the government applies to its political opponents to justify subduing them by violence or prosecution. They are only distinguishable from legitimate revolution according to the perspective of the person who uses the terminology on one or the other side of the ledger, A genuinely free society would thus never allow there to be criminal offenses that are defined primarily by their political character, rather than by the act being criminalized standing alone, e.g. murder, assault, arson, criminal mischief, larceny, etc. That is as far as any valid government may go to maintain social order. Beyond that, it is a tyranny.
“Sedition and subversion, like treason and terrorism, are defamatory political terms”
No. Treason is clearly addressed in the US Constitution in Article III, Section III.
As to Sedition:
“Sedition Law and Legal Definition”
https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sedition/
So, both Treason and Sedition are far more than just “defamatory political terms”.
Yes, you’re feeding my argument. Treason and sedition are indeed legal terms, but they are still fundamentally political in character and thus point to “violations” that should not be part of any free society’s criminal law.
Steve,
Most of the protesters are peaceful. I was one of them: I joined a peaceful protest with tens of thousands of people in DC a few months ago. I wasn’t violent, I wasn’t ranting, I didn’t spray paint anything, I’m not “stupid,” I wasn’t “publicly parroting the same irrational emotionally driven nonsense, shutting down public meetings, blocking roadways, wrecking businesses, destroying property and making the public feel unsafe to use their fundamental right to free speech and speak their mind.” Most protesters are like me: expressing our opinions without any violence or destruction. In fact, most protesters oppose violence, looting, rioting, etc.
You can explore the data here: https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/
Do you accuse all rioters of sedition, or only the ones you disagree with?
CommitToHonestDiscussion,
I support your Constitutional right to peacefully assemble and protest 100% regardless of whether I agree with the purpose of the protest or not.
I do not support violent destructive rioters at all regardless of whether I agree with their purpose or not. I won’t rationalize the violence of violently rioting destructive mobs.
Civil disobedience and violent destructive mobs in riots are NOT the same thing and anyone who claims they are the same is an ignorant fool or a liar trying to rationalize open violence.
All that said; in regards to the protests since George Floyd’s death. I’ve publicly condemned the irresponsible actions from the police officers involved but I think the protests are based on unsupportable propaganda and I disagree with their “arguments” and their activist agenda but I still support their right to peacefully protest. I don’t have to like it to support it.
I do not, and will not, support rioters under any circumstances regardless of their reasons for rioting. I don’t care one bit if the rioters were peacefully protesting hours earlier, as soon as they start to riot they loose 100% of my support. I haven’t seen a violent rioter that doesn’t fit the bill of engaging in sedition and subversion yet, and I don’t care what their opinion is on the politics of the day are, as soon as they engage in violence their real motives are clear, their original message is lost, and they loose my support.
I don’t know how you’ve protested other than what you just wrote, but let me tell you this; if you as a peaceful protester choose not to publicly condemn the rioting that’s being done on behalf of your activist agenda then you are just as morally bankrupt as the rioters. If you are against the rioters that’s great, stand up and tell the rioters and the world that the rioting needs to stop otherwise your silence is enabling the rioters. The choices are yours.
On these points I am unbending.
Steve, neither one of us supports “violent destructive rioters.” We agree that “Civil disobedience and violent destructive mobs in riots are NOT the same thing.” I’m simply pointing out that most of the protests around the country were peaceful. That’s a fact, and you can look at the data in the link.
But many members of law enforcement are too violent. There are plenty of videos of them physically harming people for no acceptable reason. LE have injured and killed people without cause. I don’t think that all LE act that way, but the vast majority accept the bad apples instead of working to push them out of the force as unfit for the job.
“if you as a peaceful protester choose not to publicly condemn the rioting that’s being done on behalf of your activist agenda then you are just as morally bankrupt as the rioters”
I’ve condemned it multiple times. When I said “most protesters oppose violence, looting, rioting, etc.,” I’m in that group: I oppose violence, looting, rioting, etc., and this is not the first time I’ve said so.
Do you also believe “if you choose not to publicly condemn abusive law enforcement then you are just as morally bankrupt as the abusive law enforcement”? Do you condemn abusive misconduct by law enforcement?
CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “I’ve condemned it multiple times. When I said “most protesters oppose violence, looting, rioting, etc.,” I’m in that group: I oppose violence, looting, rioting, etc., and this is not the first time I’ve said so.”
Good for you and I commend you for saying so.
Unfortunately way too many that protesters and Democratic politicians refuse to condemn the violence. Only recently has Biden/Harris team condemned the violence; it’s been going on for months and they are just coming around to this awareness – I question their motives and their morals because of their long delay to condemn the riots.
CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “Do you also believe “if you choose not to publicly condemn abusive law enforcement then you are just as morally bankrupt as the abusive law enforcement”? Do you condemn abusive misconduct by law enforcement?”
It doesn’t appear that you actually read all my comment above. I clearly wrote…
Did you really not understand “I’ve publicly condemned the irresponsible actions from the police officers involved”. I condemn irresponsible actions taken by police when it’s appropriate. Now if you’re expecting me to agree that anything the protesters are calling police abuse is actually police abuse, the answer is “heck no” but in much stronger terms than that. I base my opinion of irresponsible actions of police on my opinion of the incidents I won’t blindly jump on the screaming bandwagon of irrational social justice warriors.
Steve,
There’s plenty of video of unwarranted police violence, not just “irresponsible actions.”
Here’s an example, let me know whether you just call this “irresponsible” but not violence:
Chris David, a Navy veteran, approached some of the federal LE to tell them “That oath of office is essentially swearing loyalty to the Constitution of the United States, and what they’re doing is not constitutional anymore,” and he wasn’t violent at all, but he was beaten (had his hand fractured) and pepper-sprayed (there may be a better video of the incident, but this video also has him talking about it):
Steve,
And here’s a thread with hundreds of videos of police violence since the end of May, compiled by attorney Greg Doucette:
https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1266751520055459847
And here’s one where Doucette answers the question “I don’t expect I’m gonna get a lot of traction, but I’d really love it if some folks in #LawEnforcement or #lawyers wanted to jump in and give us a set of concrete steps we can take to deal with the takeover of the legal and justice systems by white nationalists.”
https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1266053291684827138
” hundreds of videos of police violence ”
In other words if a man attacks a woman with a knife and a policeman steps in to stop the attack that is police violence. If a woman during dangerous protests runs up to a policeman which threatens him he should do nothing.
You have an odd idea of police brutality because that is what you are purveying even when the police are saving lives. You are pretty sad.
false impression conveyed by cthd remark. against a supposed hundreds of police whatever, you have tens if not hundreds of thousands of forcible felonies happening in plain view for 3 months.
when people like that are out there calling trump a liar, that’s the speck in his eye against the beam in their own
Trump IS a liar, Kurtz. He lies all the time. If you cannot admit this, then you’re in denial.
I condemn violence, looting, rioting, and other criminal behavior, whether on the left or on the right.
I condemn police abuse as well.
The question, Kurtz, is why you won’t also condemn *both*.
Steve, that’s false. Biden has spoken out against violence in protests since May. It seems you are getting information from talking point mills that are lying to you. You should check statements like this against more reliable sources before spreading them
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/31/trump-allies-keep-accusing-biden-not-condemning-violence-shortly-after-biden-condemns-violence/
Looks like Larry’s brain tumor is growing again.
https://abovethelaw.com/2008/01/larry-tribe-has-a-brain-tumor/
Looks like Mark’s brain tumor is growing again.
He enjoys insulting people who hold different views than he does.
Anonymouse:
“Looks like Mark’s brain tumor is growing again.
He enjoys insulting people who hold different views than he does.”
*******************************************
Mine’s not diagnosed. Larry’s is – if you care to read. Larry’s a bigot loon and only supported by fellow bigot loons whose brain capacity is lower than his. Let that sink in for a moment.
Mark, your brain tumor is the one that results in you getting off on calling people bigot loons with small brain capacity.
Aniny:
Well, when the deranged religious bigot shoe fits you point it out.
So you identify as a deranged religious bigot, Mark?
Aninynouse;
“So you identify as a deranged religious bigot, Mark?”
**********************************
Not sure of your most recent non-sequitur but I’ll play. Bulging Brain Larry brought Barr’s religion into this argument and not me. In your hapless attempts at pithy repartee’, you’ve suffered yet another blowout. Keep up the marginal work!
I hear that it takes 10,000 practice strokes to get muscle memory. Given your less than prodigious intellectual attempts at nuanced commentary, I’m guessing your muscle head is on attempt 1,235.
PPS: You’re giving girls a bad name. Step it up, will ya?
I’m not trying to post pithy repartee, Mark. I’m just showing how childish your own comments are.
Keep up the marginal work!
Squeeky is a girl. I am not.
Anonymouse:
“Squeeky is a girl. I am not.”
***********************
You just argue like one. Not a woman mind you but a girl.
“He enjoys insulting people who hold different views than he does.”
That would be mespo/Mark.
You nailed it.
That was to Anon @ 11:11.
I’m a Cat O Lick from France, I am!
I grew up in Rome in a garbage can.
I got married to a widow next door.
She’d been married seven times before!
And, everyone was a Cat O Lick…
It wouldn’t be a Willie or a Fred!
For there ain’t no crook like Cat O Licks!
Cat O Lick the eighth I am!
More noteworthy was Barr’s attack on the DOJ and his own staff yesterday. He argues for the politicalization of the entire department, something he practices everyday in DC.
More crazy talk.
I can never figure out if you’re pathologically dishonest or just an idiot.
Today’s AP
“…Rejecting the notion that prosecutors should have final say in cases that they bring, Barr described them instead as part of the “permanent bureaucracy” and suggested they need to be supervised, and even reined in, by politically appointed leaders accountable to the president and Congress.
“The men and women who have ultimate authority in the Justice Department are thus the ones on whom our elected officials have conferred that responsibility — by presidential appointment and Senate confirmation,” Barr said, according to his prepared remarks. “That blessing by the two political branches of government gives these officials democratic legitimacy that career officials simply do not possess.”…”
Bookfree Commentary:
““The men and women who have ultimate authority in the Justice Department are thus the ones on whom our elected officials have conferred that responsibility — by presidential appointment and Senate confirmation,” ”
*************************************************************
Well that is the blackletter law since the Prez appoints and the Congress consents but let’s have it your way since, as you perpetually tell us, you know more law than any of the lawyers around here. Right Walter?
Long standing tradition and aspiration in the department is the political appointees have ultimate authority but exercise discretion in excercising it while staff is entrusted to pursue justice without political considerations. Same for the FBI. Both traditions have been under assault by Trump and now Barr as they openly express and enact purely political weaponization of these organizations. You will not like the results if this lowered bar is regularly crossed by future AGs.
The biggest assault on the integrity of the DOJ and FBI began under the Obama Biden administration, as the ample evidence now coming to light from the Durham investigation reveals. The smashing of government cell phones seems to be a regular habit since Hillary Clinton started the trend as a member of that regime. But then I suppose fraud upon a FISA court, and legitimizng
the lies in the Steele dossier were justified because they knew better than the American electorate who should be in control of our democracy.
Bookmaker:
That’s only for the Summrr of Love crowd in Frisco. We in the rest of the country like the law better.
Barr’s Hillsdale comments were right on target .The permanent bureaucracy in the US is subordinate to the democratic will of the people. The POTUS is the only office every single American is allowed to vote for and accordingly it is our one sole strong institution to rectify the bureaucracies. For 3 and half years we have seen the FBI and DOJ bureaucracies RESIST the lawful authority the POTUS, and UNDERMINE the AG and policy, and SABOTAGE the democratic will of the people. This undermines rule of law. This must be rectified
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/remarks-attorney-general-william-p-barr-hillsdale-college-constitution-day-event
I applaud AG BARR
Then Kurtz we should expect no complaints from you in the future if the DOJ and FBI targets political opponents and stays off political cronies of the Presidents in all districts across the US. If that’s what you wish for, you’ll deserve it.
i knew you would leap forward with hyperbole book
in fact previous administrations have always targeted opponents to a degree. it’s just in this administration we have seen such massive insubordination
trust me, the phenomenon is to a degree inherent in all democracy. even in non-democratic systems which pretend to be above “politics” it remains an issue. it never goes away
book you must not realize that your local elected county prosecutor is a small scale office which is not above politics.
this is why Soros went around buying up all the big city DAs to help prepare his insurrection
https://www.laadda.com/the-ongoing-attempt-to-buy-the-criminal-justice-system/
The Ongoing Attempt to Buy the Criminal Justice System
By Michele Hanisee
In 2016, Peter Weir was re-elected District Attorney, Jefferson and Galpin Counties, Colorado after weathering more than $1.3 million in viciously negative and false ads funded by George Soros. That campaign was one of more than a dozen District Attorney campaigns nationwide where Soros funded political action committees poured in huge sums of money at the last minute to elect candidates sharing his political and social justice agenda, particularly regarding opposing incarceration. Now, California is in the crosshairs of Soros funded campaigns that target District Attorney races in San Diego, Alameda, Yolo and Sacramento counties.
District Attorney elections used to be lightly financed campaigns largely focusing on personal qualifications. Definitions of criminal conduct and the proper penalties for that conduct were left to be decided in the political process by legislation or initiative. Now, as DA Weir notes, Soros has seized on District Attorney races to bypass the legislative process, seeking to elect candidates who support Soros’ political agenda and social views. A staple of these candidates is the promise not to enforce laws with which they disagree.
An example of this is the candidate Soros is now backing in San Diego County, who promises not to “enforce what we call the quality of life offenses” with which she disagrees. Similarly, in Florida Soros financed District Attorney Aramais Ayala announced she would refuse to seek the death penalty for any case prosecuted by her office. The Governor of Florida promptly removed all pending death penalty cases from her office, a move upheld by the Florida Supreme Court which commented Ayala’s decision “does not reflect an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, it embodies, at best, a misunderstanding of Florida law.”
While many DDA’s are protected by civil service, in the jurisdictions where that protection does not exist Soros financed DA’s have engaged in wholesale purges of experienced prosecutors upon election to “change the culture” and send the message to those remaining that their jobs exist at the political whim of the newly elected DA. In Philadelphia, Soros financed DA Larry Krasner fired 31 DDA’s in his first week of office; nearly one-third were in the homicide unit and included a prosecutor set to begin a murder trial the following Monday who was told “no” when asked to stay to complete that trial. In Houston, the Soros financed DA Kim Ogg (who ironically attacked Soros for supporting her primary opponent before accepting more than $500,000 from him in the general election) fired 37 veteran prosecutors in pursuit of her “culture change.”
Finally, as Soros backed candidates rail against “mass incarceration” it is noteworthy to look at who comprises the prison population in California. In 2008, 71% of California state prison inmates were serving time for a violent, serious, or sexual offense; as of 2016, 91% of state prison inmates are serving time for a violent, serious or sexual offense.
We can’t sum it up any better than DA Weir regarding George Soros’attempts to buy the justice system: “To see some East Coast billionaire who has no idea of local interests acceding to a radical reform agenda at the expense of our democratic process is incredibly dangerous.”
Michele Hanisee is President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent representing nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.
Kurtz,
The Federalist’s Ben Wilson wrote a great article regarding Barr’s appearance at Hillsdale. I applaud him as well. This comment from him reflects an AG that’s not concerned with political winning, but rather the rule of law winning.
Relying on the attorney general for final decisions and uniformity allows for the rule of law to reign in the department, he argued. Barr cited former attorney general and Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson’s statement that even when “the government technically loses its case, it has really won if justice has been done.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/17/attorney-general-says-blm-uses-black-americans-as-props-calls-out-dojs-permanent-bureaucracy/
Arty:
Can we a “both.”
Art Deco / This is absurd,
I can never figure out if you’re pathologically dishonest or just an idiot.
No kidding. There were outrageous statements sprinkled throughout the speech. Here’s another:
“putting a national lockdown, stay-at-home orders is like house arrest. .. Other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, this is the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history.”
He conveniently ignores Jim Crow, the Trail of Tears, Japanese Internment, the disenfranchisement of people of color and women, …
CTHD, how exhausting it would be to converse with someone who must preface every statement with all the history, past sins and grievances, etc. to make a point. If “greatest” is defined as affecting the MOST people, then the lockdown stay-at-home order is indeed the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history. You choose to conveniently ignore the plain meaning of something. Not everyone has all day to hear every sentence be prefaced by lengthy disclaimers and CYA blah blah words.
DV, the stay at home orders were not a “lock down.” Among other things, people were free to go food shopping, to get medicine and medical care, to go to essential jobs, and to go out for a walk.
“If “greatest” is defined as affecting the MOST people…”
What a bizarre way to define it, as if all that matters is the number of people affected, not the impact on each individual who was affected. According to your measure, Barr shouldn’t have said “Other than slavery,” since fewer people were enslaved than were affected by the stay-at-home orders.
If you had a choice between being enslaved vs. having to deal with a stay-at-home order, which would you choose?
If you had a choice between being removed from your home and forced on a march in the Trail of Tears vs. having to deal with a stay-at-home order, which would you choose?
If you had a choice between being living with the effects of Jim Crow vs. having to deal with a stay-at-home order, which would you choose?
If you had a choice between being forced from your home and put in an internment camp vs. having to deal with a stay-at-home order, which would you choose?
…
If you simply care about the # of people who are affected, then you’d conclude that developing a common cold is worse than cancer, since more people get a common cold annually. SMH.
Superb, wise remarks from AG Barr, read them to see what he says for himself
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/remarks-attorney-general-william-p-barr-hillsdale-college-constitution-day-event
Crocodile tears in defense of his hero by JT.
“Criticism of Opus Dei has centered on allegations of secretiveness,[14] controversial and aggressive recruiting methods, strict rules governing members, elitism and misogyny, and support of or participation in authoritarian or right-wing governments, including the fascist Franco regime which governed in Spain until 1978.”
His comment is not an attack on Catholicism or his religion, but a sect within it known for authoritarian right wing activities. Given Barr’s attack on those of us who don’t believe in God in his Notre Dame speech of last year, he can kiss my …Did JT write in opposition to those comments which made up not sentence but much of the speech?
The cult only hears what they want to hear. And Turley knows it.
Franco was not actually a fascist. Authoritarian, for sure. But he had in his alliance the Phalange, the Spanish fascists, but he put a firm lid on them once the war was over.
Opus Dei was part of the very successful reconstruction of Spain after the horrible mess the Republic had made of it prior to Franco’s success in the Civil War. But again, Franco was not a member.
We do not need sedition charges against the rioters as much as we need to find out who is financing them.
We need both and then both can be charged with that crime.
“It would not only fail but it would return the Justice Department to a dark period of the use of such laws against forms of political dissent.”
Is this not a dark period already?
“There are ample criminal laws to address rioters. There is no reason to use sedition laws to combat rioting.”
It doesn’t seem like any of these laws are being used. Well unless you try to defend your own property.
On that note, most immigrants in federal detention facilities are almost entirely Christians and many are Catholic. Why hasn’t Barr taken stronger action in investigating apparently coerced or non-consensual hysterectomies given to women under his authority? As reported this week by “The Intercept” (www.intercept.org). Where are the Christian clergy on this issue?
Turley. A coherent voice in a sea of babble. Don’t get me wrong, the babble is super entertaining but if you read the news to see how your going to act to look out for the best interest of family and work some facts are needed, not all entertainment.
We don’t know that sedition charges are not appropriate. Indeed they could be well justified if there is a central organizing force behind these antifa protestors providing funding. It’s curious to me the mobility of these groups to appear at flashpoints and execute very similar tactics, along with the sophisticated gear they are using. They must be wearing a few hundreds dollars each in personal protective equipment. Shin guards, knee pads, chest protection, flak vests, face masks, helmets. Where is all this money coming from when little johnny doesn’t have a job? Barr see’s the puppet master behind this.
I truly believe that many do not want to delve into this crime of sedition because it is a tangled web that will lead back to certain seats of power and money that will shake this government. Keep it all under the rug lest we all be swept away by what has actually been happening. There are those who wish to destroy our constitution and that is not news.
Thank you, professor Turley! You have strong principles and you are consistent! Hope to meet you someday. Steve Lewis
Good commentary.
Prof. tribe exemplifies the decline of the left – once thoughtful leaders are now engaged in puerile attacks that are both offensive and childish.
And yet their supporters’ only real response to criticisms is: “But Trump…”
The left today can be summed up in one word – poverty.
Poverty of intellect, poverty of reason, and poverty of compassion.