Does Officer Jonathan Mattingly Have A Defamation Case In The Coverage Of The Breonna Taylor Case?

Louisville Metro Police Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly is reportedly moving forward with defamation actions against those who have called him a “murderer” for his role in the Breonna Taylor case. His attorney Todd McMurtry has been unclear on who would be sued for the commonly used label following the shooting of Taylor and her boyfriend Kenneth Walker.  A defamation is possible but it would be highly challenging under controlling case law and this specific context.

We have been discussing the increasingly common use of defamation lawsuits as a way of amplifying positions or correcting public accounts as in the recent dubious lawsuit by Alan Dershowitz against CNN.  When criminal cases become the subject of widespread protests or commentary, courts are placed in an uncomfortable position between deterring defamatory statements and curtailing free speech.

This is obvious a case at the apex of public debate and controversy.  Mattingly was one of the officers who served a no-knock warrant on the residence on March 13. The Grand Jury found that the officers did knock and announce themselves before entering, but Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker fired his gun at them, hitting Mattingly in the leg. The officers fired at least 30 shots, shooting Taylor, an emergency medical technician, six times and killing her.

As a legal matter, the Grand Jury found no basis for a murder charge and only charged former LMPD officer Brett Hankison with three counts of wanton endangerment for shooting his gun into a neighbor’s home where a family was sleeping.

On its face, being called a murder is not just defamatory (if untrue) but defamatory per se.  Kentucky follows the standard common law rules on libel and slander. E.W. Scripps Co. v. Cholmondelay, 569 S.W.2d 700 (Ky.App. 1978). Mattingly must show that an alleged defamatory statement (1) was spoken to someone other than the person defamed; (2) is false; (3) is unprivileged; and (4) tends to harm the defamed person’s reputation so as to lower him in the estimation of the community or deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.

While damages are presumed in libel (written defamation), they are only presumed in slander (or spoken defamation) in cases of slander per se. Those per se categories include (1) “imputation of certain crimes” to the plaintiff; (2) “imputation . . . of a loathsome disease” to the plaintiff; (3) “imputation . . . of unchastity to a woman;” or (4) defamation “affecting the plaintiff in his business, trade, profession, or office.” CMI, Inc. v. Intoximeters, Inc., 918 F. Supp. 1068 (W.D. Ky. 1995). Notably, the federal district court in Kentucky held that “to constitute defamation per se, the alleged defamatory speech ‘must tend to expose the plaintiff to public hatred, ridicule, contempt or disgrace, or to induce an evil opinion of him in the minds of right-thinking people and to deprive him of their friendship, intercourse and society. But it is not necessary that the words imply a crime or impute a violation of laws, or involve moral turpitude or immoral conduct.'” Harrod v. Phillip Morris (quoting CMI at 1083 (quoting Sweeney & Co. v. Brown, 60 S.W.2d 381 (Ky. Ct. App. 1933)).

In many states, the line between libel and slander is being erased and per se categories are often used with reference to different forms of defamation in general.  Moreover, broadcasts are treated in most states as libel not slander.

In this case, Mattingly is being called a murderer and that would be defamatory per se, absent “truth as a defense.”

The court, however, would still have to decide whether Mattingly is a public official or public figure. The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Ironically, this is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written and he is precisely the type of plaintiff that the opinion was meant to deter. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, West must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth. The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures.

He could argue that mere government employment does not make him a public official to apply the actual malice standard to his case.  The Supreme Court has held that the term “ ‘public official’ cannot ‘be thought to include all public employees,’ ” id. (quoting Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 119 n. 8,(1979)). Of course, the Sullivan in New York Times v. Sullivan was Montgomery police commissioner L. B. Sullivan. However, he was not a simple officer.  This interesting issue was put before the Supreme Court a few years ago in Armstrong v. Thompson but the Court denied cert. However, without addressing the issue, the Court assumed that an officer was a public official in St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968).  Roche v. Egan, 433 A.2d 757, 762 (Me.1981)(“[l]aw enforcement is a uniquely governmental affair,” an officer “of law enforcement, from ordinary patrolman to Chief of Police, is a ‘public official’ within the meaning of federal constitutional law.”).

In this case, however, there is an argument that the public statements issued on behalf of Officer Mattingly would make him a public figure under  Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974) and its progeny of cases.  The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when  someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” A limited-purpose public figure status applies if someone voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself” or allows himself to become part of a controversy “as a fulcrum to create public discussion.” Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979).

That still leaves us with the question of what is permitted commentary, including opinion, in a major matter of public debate. The Supreme Court dealt with such an overheated council meeting in Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970), in which a newspaper was sued for using the word “blackmail” in connection to a real estate developer who was negotiating with the Greenbelt City Council to obtain zoning variances. The Court applied the actual malice standard and noted:

It is simply impossible to believe that a reader who reached the word “blackmail” in either article would not have understood exactly what was meant: It was Bresler’s public and wholly legal negotiating proposals that were being criticized. No reader could have thought that either the speakers at the meetings or the newspaper articles reporting their words were charging Bresler with the commission of a criminal offense. On the contrary, even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered Bresler’s negotiating position extremely unreasonable.

Of course, calling someone repeatedly a murderer is more than simply “rhetorical hyperbole.” However, it is also part of a public debate that is heavily laden with protected political speech.

Any news organization calling Mattingly a “murderer” as a statement of fact would be risking a defamation action.  Context is everything. This is a highly charged environment where terms like “murder” are often used in the context of protests over systemic racism and police abuse.  However, it is also being used in the specific context of a criminal charge.  Many believe that this did meet the standard of murder and that is a protected opinion of the underlying criminal code and facts in this case. A court, like this Grand Jury, may disagree, but it is an opinion on a matter of intense public debate.

It is hard to see an actionable case in this context, though again news account stating that this was murder as a fact could raise a cognizable claim.  I am however skeptical in finding a case that was not heavily laden with opinion on the elements of crime or the proper interpretation of this case.

278 thoughts on “Does Officer Jonathan Mattingly Have A Defamation Case In The Coverage Of The Breonna Taylor Case?”

    1. I think you hit the nail on the head steve. NYT V Sullivan guts defamation as a viable cause of action.

      A form of judicial mis-legislation it is, wherein the court decided to negate the common law, which was actually only the proper province of state or federal legislatures. Undemocratic!

      A boon to global corporate media conglomerates like the NYT it was

  1. In consequence of repeatedly being called a murderer, Officer, Mattingly has received an avalanche of death threats. Those defending the use of false accusations to whip up the mob don’t talk about what that means to Mattingly, and his relatives.

    If it’s murder to return fire, then cops are eventually going to just walk off the job. They’ll leave us to The Purge that BLM is so vigorously fighting for.

    1. BLM is the one that’s gonna get purged. Trust me, with Trump’s reelection or without it, they’re gonna get a correction. Biden has implied it in no uncertain terms.

      The past decade has proven 2 things that are painfully clear across the spectrum to anyone with brains

      1. the supply chains which had everything from computer chips to masks to medicines being made in the PRC is not sustainable if the USA is to remain a sovereign power.

      2. the ability of billionaires like bloomberg, bezos, and soros to buy off elections from the local DA to Pelosi is also a risk to sovereignty.

      Under our existing political system, it may be impossible to rectify #2. The First Amendment leads a clear path to citizens united and without changing the first amendment we may not be able to kick in the teeth of those who so richly deserve it like mikey bloomberg and soros.

      and yet, rectifying the secondary effects of their mischief may become a more clear strategic focus for either candidate who wins.

      observe that Liz Warren has spoken out against the overweening power of Silicon Valley over speech and expression in America… a good sign

      However, #1 is a lot easier to rectify. It has already been corrected to some extent, and the trend will continue

    2. It’s wrong to threaten people with violence. We should all condemn it, regardless of who it’s directed towards.

  2. mur·der·er
    Learn to pronounce
    noun: murderer; plural noun: murderers
    a person who commits murder; a killer.

    sure sounds like one to me.

    1. Are you autistic, Olaf? There is this little thing called ‘nuance’, and it’s why we have courts in the first place.

    1. Gabbard has no integrity. She couldn’t even bring herself to vote for or against the Articles of Impeachment. She voted “present.”

      You should be wary about making new claims about ballot harvesting after our exchange last night where you falsely claimed ballot harvesting by Democrats in Madison, WI, when it was actually poll workers legally accepting ballots from people who’d requested and received absentee ballots.

      Gotta wonder about anyone trusts who James O’Keefe at this point. By all means, investigate what his video alleges. But that should involve getting unedited copies of his videos and having him and others testify under oath.

      1. It was her supreme integrity that she voted present and did not vote to impeach based on the fake Mueller persecution and the bogus Russia collusion narrative.

        But thank you for reminding me of another example. She is truly a diamond in the dust of Congress!

            1. Kurtz, her major problem for me involves her ideology but I don’t know if she is a purist or not. If she isn’t then one could skip the ideologies and try to make certain things better. I wanted to hear more from her even if I wouldn’t vote for her but the DNC is not as open as they wish people to believe.

              1. She is a patriot and a sincere liberal. The kind of Democrat who used to find a welcome home in the Democratic party.

                If American bipartisan system is to regain its health going forward, then Democratic party leadership is going to have to make room for people like her who have integrity and their own viewpoints and do not just meekly kowtow to Hillary’s factional directives.

                As Republicans we should probably hope they do not, but as Americans we would all be better off if the Democratic party leadership would step down from its crazed “get TRUMP” obsession and get busy with policy and legislation instead

                1. “She is a patriot and a sincere liberal”

                  Kurtz, the word liberal means too many different things to different people. Many of her views are socialist and big government. What she is striving for, the ends, can probably be mostly obtained in a different fashion. The dreams of socialism can never be obtained.

                  1. With respect Allan., I consider that FDR was a socialist but also a true American and a patriot.

                    when so much of our economy has been taken over one way or another by government spending or programs for so many decades, I am not going to worry too much if someone is a little more of a socialist than somebody else. I appreciate that private markets price things more accurately and allocate resources more efficiently than government bureaucrats do, so I am not a fan of socialism, but I am not reactive to the notion, either.

                    right now the CDC has forbade all residential evictions by a short diktat. If that is not an act of socialism I am not sure what would be. Trump could have forbade that order which is almost insanity in my mind but apparently he did not. I am not going to get too wound up over that, either

                    1. Kurtz, FDR was somewhat of a socialist. There is no purity. But he had to deal with a depression and a war. In dealing with the depression he probably prolonged it. If I remember correctly he had other feelings such as believing that there should be no union representation in government. How far FDR would have gone without the depression one can’t say but on his table was always a possibility of revolution.

                      I am not sure how Tulsi stands up to intelligent discussion or what compromises she would make. I don’t even know if she as a President would stand behind her campaign promises like Trump did.

                      Since not enough is known about her I wouldn’t debate her as an entity rather what she stands for and what she promises to do and how. In the end that is what counts. Trump has pushed for what he promised and succeeded in most despite being severely hindered by a weaponized DOJ and a democrat congress that cares more for power than the American public. Tulsi on the other hand seems to favor many of Bernie’s policies that are doomed for failure.

              2. Same here, I found her intriguing. Will she change parties as a result of her treatment? Not likely, and so she will remain in that limbo forever. Sad.

                1. I need to find a video where she is interviewed by on that concentrates on principles and how different ideologies meet those principles.

                  1. the simple principle is the common good. this is what animates most sincere minds when it comes to law.

                    how politicians reckon the common good is different from instance to instance. the operative principle in American politics is mostly just “pragmatism”

                    1. “the simple principle is the common good. This is what animates most sincere minds when it comes to law.”

                      Ok, I’ll accept your pragmatic approach. We find that you are an impediment to the common good on this blog. We can remedy that. Off with Kurtz’s head.

                      Pragmatism and the common good have such fine results, right? 🙂

          1. ART DECO fanticises about the life he imagines Seth Warner leads. It’s not Seth Warner’s life, mind you. But it’s a vivid fantasy that Art Devo summons for dreary moments of self-pleasure.

            1. PaintChips, you are such a nerd. Whether you wish to call yourself Manny or Steve or anyone else under this icon you are still PaintChips with an intellectual disability due to the ingestion of paint.

              1. Allan, even if you wish to call yourself Anonymous, you are still a guy with an intellectual disability due to the ingestion of paint.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, too Stupid to do much of anything other than repeat Stupid things and change his icon. What a coward.

                  1. I’m just holding up a mirror so you can see your reflection in the insults you spew round the clock. You’re too Stupid to do much of anything useful here.

                    1. Anonymous the Stupid your personal explanations don’t work. You like to engage in meaningless confrontation that exclude content. You just demonstrate how Stupid you are.

                    2. “need it to inflate your date.”

                      I believe you Anonymous the Stupid. You had to buy an inflatable doll. A real person couldn’t stand your stupidity.

        1. Why on earth should she vote “present” rather than voting AGAINST impeachment?!?
          Voting “present” is what a wimp does.

          1. look it up yourself cthd because you may see a “present” vote in the forthcoming Senate confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett and you won’t want to be ignorant as you are today when that happens. here is a good homework idea for you. I am sure you can find better sources than me to explain, on your own

            1. No, Kurtz, I understand why someone who’s running for reelection might vote “present.” But Gabbard had already announced that she wasn’t running for reelection in the House months before the impeachment vote. In addition, she wasn’t in a swing district. And the question of whether Trump merited impeachment is nothing like the issue of confirming a Justice. So don’t make that false comparison. She simply didn’t have the guts to make a decision.

              1. Ah you still dont get it. She voted against the impeachment without voting against her party’s Democrat leadership. That was the clear essence of the choice

                what you call a lack of guts on her part is actually a failure to grasp nuance on your part

                1. If she believed that impeachment was wrong, she had a duty to vote that way. You’re implying that she put politics over her oath to the Constitution.

                  More than one Democrat voted against the Articles of Impeachment. They weren’t wimps. They were willing to vote against theDemocrat House leadership.

                  I can grasp nuance just fine. What she did wasn’t nuanced.

      2. “you falsely claimed ballot harvesting by Democrats in Madison, WI, when it was actually poll workers legally accepting ballots from people who’d requested and received absentee ballots.”

        the claim is not false. it is your opinion that it was perfectly legal and apparently there was a lawyer quoted there in your article who disagrees. I am no expert on Wisconsin law– NOR ARE YOU.

        at best it is a disputed claim

        1. The claim was false. It was all out in the open, it was approved by the city’s attorney, election officials nominated by both the Republican and Democratic Parties were invited, no one was arrested for ballot harvesting, no one was indicted for ballot harvesting, and no one has challenged it in court.

          1. normally people understand that not every thing which is legally questionable gets challenged in court. crimes and lesser illegalities happen all over daily.

            challenging things costs money. it may be a pointless exercise especially when the courts are packed with Democrat judges

            there may yet be colorable claims of illegality. surely you can understand that even though you are not a lawyer?

            1. Kurtz, sometimes people threaten in order to make a point and rectify the situation. The lawyer didn’t specify who they were going to sue so it stops a lot of people from pursuing this line of unnecessary talk. Most people don’t want to end up in court so they will settle one way or the other.

            2. The courts aren’t packed with Democratic judges (not nationally and not in WI), and you’re focusing on a court challenge while ignoring the rest of what I said:
              It was all out in the open, it was approved by the city’s attorney, election officials nominated by both the Republican and Democratic Parties were invited, no one was arrested for ballot harvesting, no one was indicted for ballot harvesting.

              1. CTHD: “no one was arrested for ballot harvesting, no one was indicted for ballot harvesting.”
                YET. It looks now as if money has been paid for votes. Is that legal?

              2. I heard you.

                As to courts being packed with Democrat judges, lol. I have friends who are Democrat judges who have received campaign donations from me. I am just a nobody but I know a thing or two about Democrat state court judges. Many of them are fine public servants but in political cases they will not be eager to rock the boat.

                I don’t know about Wisconsin but if you think that there are not a lot of counties in the US especially metro areas like Madison that are not stocked 100% with Democrat judges then you need to do some research on that one too

                I’ll give you a little resource to get you started on this. How about this. Let me knw if you find a single Republican in a court of proper venue for that question, who is a Republican.


                Then if you are really up to it, figure out how they assign new cases to what judge. That’s a subject that should keep you pretty busy if you can find it out at all. Sometimes that is a closely guarded secret and how to game it is even more so

                1. See day in and day out we get people blowing smoke on the internet about democracy this or that and they don’t have the faintest clue how the engine under the hood actually works.

                  The debate between “merit selection” and partisan election of judges or judicial retention elections is a technical subject. People aren’t interested in technical subjects. Technicians who get paid to make things happen, take the time to figure it out. Those ballot harvesters? They’re technicians. The people who set them in motion? They’re technicians. Do the technicians ever spill the beans? Rarely. here was one that was widely ignored


                  Here’s a little bit of insight about our vaunted mass media. Journalists are NEVER technicians about pretty much anything besides how to get their copy printed. They run out and get a quote if some editor tells them too. They only ever scratch the surface and provide the readers with their own unqualified conclusions reported as fact.

                  Now there is such a thing as “investigative journalism.” it occasionally hits a gold mine. We can think of some famous examples in history and occasionally one finds a little gem like the one I linked above. But those are exceptions which prove the rule. The rule is that news is low quality coverage aimed at people who are barely literate and ever credulous.

                  If people understood how utterly incompetent newspaper journalists are at “covering” topics, compared to what would be a thorough understanding, they would realize how over-rated our vaunted “First Amendment” really is. But it is precisely keeping these popular narratives going that is essential to some of the most important business complexes in the USA if not the world, such as, precisely, mass media and its evil twin social media. Big business keeping people dumb and complaisant!

                  Most people are experts in nothing. Of course it’s like saying most kids dont get As. That is fine, its human nature. But understanding the degree of willingness and influenceability of the average person that is key to advertising, and most of all, elections.

                2. “I don’t know about Wisconsin ”

                  But you’re going to try to give me homework.
                  The WI Supreme Court has a 4-3 conservative majority. If you want to know more about WI, look it up for yourself.

                  Mitch McConnell kept oodles of federal positions open around the country during the Obama Admin., then filled them with Trump nominees.

                  1. you gloss over my remarks. i was not talking about the Supreme Court of Wisconsin I was talking about courts of first impression.

                    venue selection aka forum shopping and the criteria used to evaluate a potential case is apparently a boring topic. again, technical matters which may be too boring to discuss. the point was simply that a case not being brought, does not mean there were no merits. it just meant nobody filed the case, thats all

                    & I did look. 5th circuit includes Green county. I am not sure if that is the exact location in question but it seems like it may be.
                    I can’t confirm but I suspect Judge Beer is a Republican and Judge Vale is democrat. Speculating there, not confirmed.

      3. Hmmm let’s see. I wonder if O Keefe just made it all up. I take it at face value



      4. Again, CTDHD looks to slime O’Keefe because his videos have been accurate and the raw video has been presented. CTDHD knows that the editing process can be used to change the context. She knows this very well because that is what she does on this blog.

        Distortion is her game but it is not the game of O’Keefe who has provided the full footage of past questions and provided many circumstances involving different locations and persons to prove his point.

        O’Keefe didn’t have money early on but now that he does he is suing those outlets that make spurious claims against him. So far out of 8 claims he has won all 8 and is being paid large sums of money for damages. Because the media is learning that he now has the ability to pay lawyers to sue they are now retracting statements one after one. The number of retractions is well above 300 (awhile ago) with loads more to come. Based on the suits and retractions one is assured that what O’Keefe is publishing is real and accurate. Sliming O’Keefe demonstrates who and what CTDHD is and at the same time tells us she cannot be trusted.

              1. Do you see how you have proven what you are? I opened a door and without even answering you slammed it shut. That shows who and what you are. I don’t need comfort. I am willingly playing a game of cat and mouse though in this case it is a rat and a dumb one at that. It is obvious you have a small world and a small mind to match it.

                1. …And once again she acts as if another anonymous is patting her on the back. Dumb as sh1t. She plays these games because she has a very small brain.

                  1. It’s difficult for Allan to grasp the fact that more than one person posts anonymously.

                    He’s classy, too, judging by the language. /sarc

                    1. I get that point but you are the type that needs validation so it is totally likely that you do that yourself.

        1. apparently the great American Patriot Erik Prince is backing O Keefe now.

          If we ever are ever to have a real dictator and not just one who is falsely accused of it, I nominate Eric Prince

          he could play the part to the hilt

          1. Kurtz, O’Keefe gets money from a lot of places. You and anyone else can write him a tax deductible check to support his organization. We have precious few organizations that point out criminality that no one else is looking at. That should be worth a few bucks. He is hitting the mainstream media, teacher’s unions, criminal political activities, voter fraud, etc. pretty hard.

      5. CTHD:

        Okey dokey. So you are perfectly content for Republican operatives to go around and harvest mail in ballots at every old age home they can find in swing states and districts on the edge. They’ll make sure they have nondescript uniforms that do not show political affiliation. That’s so good to know. After all, if Democrats insist we keep ballot harvesting, then that’s just the way elections will be handled from now on.

        1. She doesn’t believe in our Constitutional Republic. That is the problem. Moreover she is willing to lie, cheat and distort in order to get her way. She demonstrates an autocratic nature and is not open to discussion, only conversion

          1. Allan, you are attempting again to put words in other people’s mouths. That is typical when you have nothing to say.

            1. Anonymous the Stupid is talking on behalf of CTDHD. Is it Anonymous the Stupid using the generic icon instead of his other one or is it CTDHD.

              I have a choice and can believe whatever I choose at the time. Maybe I will attribute these to CTDHD for she seems capable of such actions.

              1. Allan, I was quoting you. Just last night you said to someone else “You are attempting again to put words in other people’s mouth. That is typical when you have nothing to say.” You can believe whatever you choose, but delusions aren’t good for you, and double standards aren’t either. You object to other people putting words in your mouth but you’re happy to do it to others. You Need to Be Committed, or at least seek psychiatric help.

                  1. Haaahaaahaa!

                    In the last couple of days you’ve called me PaintChips, CTDHD, Brainless Wonder, Anonymous the Stupid, and maybe some other names. Do you think we’re all one person, or can you just not tell us apart? Get help pal. You badly need it.

                    1. I hate to interrupt this nightly dustup between allan and his detractors, but may i suggest that some of the regular anonymous posters simply pick a screen name and stick with it? that might cut down on people speculating.

                      just a thought, good night, enjoy the debates, sleep well!

                    2. Good idea Kurtz but the rat pack likes to stay anonymous and pat each other or themselves on the back. They are a silly group that combined say nothing. Just look at how Anonymous the Stupid thinks he is convincing people that his four remarks were from different people because he changed his icon. One has to be pretty Stupid to believe such a thing.

                    3. Who can ignore Anonymous the Stupid who flashes different colors every time he replies.

                      He keeps telling us that there is more than one anonymous because he can’t stand being blamed for all the anonymous posts. He is Stupid thinking different icons force us to believe such Stupidity.

                    4. Allan,

                      You’re the only person who has commented about the different icons.

                      Everyone else has ignored it.

                      So when you ask who can ignore an anonymous commenter “who flashes different colors every time he replies,” the answer is “everyone but Allan.”

                      Everyone but Allan.

                      You’re the only one who lacks the self-control to do it.

                      You want to be able to control how other people post. But you lack self-control. You’re like Trump that way.

                      There are several people who post anonymously. The content of the comments makes that clear. I’m one of them, and I decided to post a few comments using different icons as a lark. Your response has been revealing of who you are, which is that you have to pretend that it matters, you have to pretend that using different icons was trying to convince people of something and “stupid.” It was just a bit of fun, and it reveals how deeply, deeply sick you are, that you cannot just ignore it like everyone else.

                    5. “You’re the only person who has commented about the different icons.”

                      Anonymous the Stupid is one of those that requires validation from other people because he can’t stand on his own two feet. That is already known because he runs around with a pack of rats that continuously are patting one another on the back.

                      He has full control over his ability to not respond but based on meaningless electronic print he is ready to call in the cavalry because he with all his aliases plus all the other anonymous posters including those others like Bill and PaintChips are surrounded by one single poster, Allan

        2. “So you are perfectly content for Republican operatives to go around and harvest mail in ballots at every old age home they can find in swing states and districts on the edge. ”

          I’m not content for anyone — Democrat, Republican, Green, Independent, … — to harvest ballots illegally.

          Nor did I say or suggest otherwise.

        3. Karen, Republicans as a national party are so poorly supported at the local level, the organization so weak in most places, that the possibility of that happening is next to nil.

          The main reason Democrats can accomplish something like ballot harvesting over the decades, is precisely because they are capable of doing it in the first place.

          In other words, if you will excuse me alluding to a crude joke, it is like, why does a dog lick his nether parts? Because he can

          This could change, if Republican voters demanded it, but they are a pretty undemanding group of people by nature. And that too is why Democrats often win–

          “squeaky wheel gets the grease!”

      6. “Gabbard has no integrity. ”

        With all due respect, you’re wrong about Tulsi. She has more integrity in her little finger than most Dems and Republicans. And she is certainly not supportive of Trump.

        About impeachment:

        On Wednesday, Ms. Gabbard explained her present votes by saying she could not in good conscience vote against impeachment “because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing.”

        “I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country,” she said.

        Ms. Gabbard said she introduced a measure to censure Mr. Trump on Wednesday.

        The censure resolution, she said, “will send a strong message to this president and future presidents that their abuses of power will not go unchecked, while leaving the question of removing Trump from office to the voters to decide.”

        Ms. Gabbard said that when she voted to support the impeachment inquiry nearly three months ago, she stated that for the process to maintain integrity, “it must not be a partisan endeavor.”

        “Tragically, that’s what it has been,” she said. -NY Times

        1. Then she’s ignorant when she said “removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process,” since Trump literally could not be removed without it being bipartisan, since Republicans had a majority in the Senate.

          She was not being asked to vote on removal.

          1. CTHD: “She was not being asked to vote on removal.”
            No, she wasn’t. She was being asked to step into floppy shoes, put on a big red nose and join the rest of the clowns in the big clown car for a political exhibition in the main ring.

            She wisely, decently, and ethically declined.

          2. Instead of making up stories Needs to be Committed could refer to Tulsi’s statement and then provide her comments in context. Here is what Tulsi said, but what does CTDHD care? CTDHD will now create a false narrative to repair her image because she acted in her normal slimy way. CTDHD left out some important reasoning. I personally don’t agree with Tulsi but accept her statement which follows.

            “Throughout my life, whether through serving in the military or in Congress, I’ve always worked to do what is in the best interests of our country. Not what’s best for me politically or what’s best for my political party. I have always put our country first. One may not always agree with my decision, but everyone should know that I will always do what I believe to be right for the country that I love.

            After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.

            I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing.

            I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country. When I cast my vote in support of the impeachment inquiry nearly three months ago, I said that in order to maintain the integrity of this solemn undertaking, it must not be a partisan endeavor. Tragically, that’s what it has been.

            On the one side — The president’s defenders insist that he has done nothing wrong. They agree with the absurd proclamation that his conduct was “perfect.” They have abdicated their responsibility to exercise legitimate oversight, and instead blindly do the bidding of their party’s leader.

            On the other side — The president’s opponents insist that if we do not impeach, our country will collapse into dictatorship. All but explicitly, they accuse him of treason. Such extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process.

            The Founders of our country made clear their concerns about impeachment being a purely partisan exercise. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned against any impeachment that would merely “connect itself with the pre-existing factions,” and “enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.” In such cases, he said, “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

            Donald Trump has violated public trust. Congress must be unequivocal in denouncing the president’s misconduct and stand up for the American people and our democracy. To this end, I have introduced a censure resolution that will send a strong message to this president and future presidents that their abuses of power will not go unchecked, while leaving the question of removing Trump from office to the voters to decide.

            I am confident that the American people will decide to deliver a resounding rebuke of President Trump’s innumerable improprieties and abuses. And they will express that judgment at the ballot box. That is the way real and lasting change has always occurred in this great country: through the forcefully expressed will of the people.

            A house divided cannot stand. And today we are divided. Fragmentation and polarity are ripping our country apart. This breaks my heart, and breaks the hearts of all patriotic Americans, whether we are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents.

            So today, I come before you to make a stand for the center, to appeal to all of you to bridge our differences and stand up for the American people.

            My vote today is a vote for much needed reconciliation and hope that together we can heal our country. Let’s work side-by-side, seeking common ground, to usher in a bright future for the American people, our country, and our nation.

            1. in her speech, Tulsi actually overcame the very outcome that we know Russian influence operations are known to seek–


              what an irony that the one who saw through it to the most salient point is called a Russian asset. Here we can see who the worst liars are still coming from today

              1. “Russian influence operations are known to seek– DIVIDING AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION AND EXACERBATING THE DIVIDES”

                The divide in the U.S. has grown larger under Trump than it was under Obama. Trump tries to divide us all the time. Is he doing it on behalf on Russia?

                If you laud Gabbard for working against that, then you should condemn Trump for working in favor of it.

                1. The divide in the U.S. has grown larger under Trump than it was under Obama. Trump tries to divide us all the time. Is he doing it on behalf on Russia?

                  I see you’ve finally abandoned any pretense of being honest. I’ll agree on your first sentence, but you’ve completely omitted the 4 year divide and conquer effort by the FBI/IC/DOJ, Democrats and the MSM. Oh, not to forget the Russian spy paid by Clinton and the DNC to get the FBI/IC/DOJ, Democrats and the MSM off and running. Add in impeachment, Covid-19, Antifa/BLM, and on and on.

                  In a sense though, President Trump has clearly defined the divide between those that support him and put America first and your ilk, hellbent on burning it to the ground.

                    1. I get the sense that Olly just wants to riff and show off his fox news retention abilities.

                  1. Olly, you are right, the divide was already there and being widened by the left every day. Trump’s great achievement was to make them pull their masks off.

                    1. Trump’s great achievement was to make them pull their masks off.

                      Absolutely! No different than how CTHD’s mask has been ripped off.

                  2. Go ahead an spin this you lying hag.

                    “In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin,” Ratcliffe wrote in his summary of U.S. intelligence findings.

                    On September 7, 2016, U.S. intelligence authorities “forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding ‘U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server,’” Ratcliffe noted.

                    1. Yeah, calling me a “lying hag” is definitely the way to get me to cooperate, Olly. /s

                    2. A response from Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner: “It’s very disturbing to me that 35 days before an election, the Director of National Intelligence would release an unverified Russian rumor.”

                      It couldn’t be that Ratcliffe is trying to help Trump could it?

                    3. It’s very disturbing to me that 35 days before an election, the Director of National Intelligence would release an unverified Russian rumor.

                      That’s what disturbs him? Not the fact is was verified by our intel community and that Obama was briefed by Brennan on this campaign by Hillary Clinton? He should be fired.

                      It couldn’t be that Ratcliffe is trying to help Trump could it?

                      Well duh. It helps the President to know and disclose to the American people that he was right all along. The timing is inconvenient for the Democrats and Biden, but you’d have to ask the intel community why this wasn’t disclosed 4 years ago.

                    4. Olly, the threading indicates that you posted it in reply to a comment you made to me. And “hag” is a term of disparagement for a woman. Are you suggesting that someone in this subthread — other than me — is a woman? If so, could you clarify: is it Young, Kurtz, or Bug? (If I’ve been mistakenly referring to them as “he,” I’d like to correct that.)

                    5. “you’d have to ask the intel community why this wasn’t disclosed 4 years ago.”

                      Disclosed to whom?

                2. No, he’s doing it to stimulate support among his base, who lack support from social institutions like the mass media and universities
                  he is a champion of the law abiding citizens of flyover when he does it

                  obama did his own work of division to excite his base too. he was a champion of his base

                  it is VALID for American politicians to “politick” and it is YOU who claims that it is Russian agent this or that, wrongly

                  you ever miss the point. or more likely willfully obtuse and argumentative

                  1. Yes, the divide grew under Obama too. It got even larger under Trump.

                    It sounds like you’re saying that it’s good for Gabbard to work against “DIVIDING AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION AND EXACERBATING THE DIVIDES,” but fine for Trump to increase “DIVIDING AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION AND EXACERBATING THE DIVIDES” as long as his goal is “to stimulate support among his base,” and also OK for Obama to do it for that reason. And maybe you’re also suggesting that even though “Russian influence operations are known to seek– DIVIDING AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION AND EXACERBATING THE DIVIDES,” that doesn’t make it a bad thing.

                    “it is YOU who claims that it is Russian agent this or that, wrongly”

                    I did?

                    If you’re going to argue about what I’ve claimed, it would help if you didn’t hand-wave and instead made clear what claim(s) you’re referring to.

                    If you’re referring to someone else having called Gabbard a Russian asset, that wasn’t me. That was one of the Anonymous commenters with a blue icon who later signed a comment as Seth (perhaps to correct me in wondering if he was Paul, as there was something about a previous comment that reminded me of Paul). I haven’t seen any evidence that she’s a Russian asset.

  3. Reportedly, the person who revealed voter fraud in Omar’s district first went to the FBI but turned to Project Veritas when the FBI was slow to act. That agency appears to be infected with rot from top to bottom and should be dissolved. I used to think they were great. Now I trust nothing they say or do.

  4. “Juror in Breonna Taylor Case Sues for Right To Reveal What Really Happened in Court

    “A member of the grand jury that did not indict Louisville police for Breonna Taylor’s murder is now suing for the release of court transcripts and related records. The unidentified jury member’s motion, filed Monday, says it was filed so that “the truth may prevail.”

    “Specifically, the motion asks the court “to release any and all recordings of the grand jury pertaining to what is commonly known as the Breonna Taylor case,” and “to make a binding declaration that Grand Juror, and any additional members of this grand jury, has the right to disclose information and details about the process of the grand jury proceedings … and any potential charges presented or not related to the events surrounding that matter.” …”

    1. “…and any potential charges presented or not related to the events surrounding that matter.”

      This is a joke, right? That’s simply not going to happen, nor should it. Modern lefties sure have an “odd” sense of how a judicial system should work. You have the understanding of an angry toddler.

      1. Ivan, I think it’s news that a juror is asking for this. If you don’t, OK. But disagreeing about whether it’s news doesn’t make me an “angry toddler,” and your inclination to toss out insults only reflects on you. That I quote something doesn’t imply that I agree with everything in the quote. Do you assume that I agree with Trump when I quote him too?

        1. You’re desperate. All you do is insult Turley and his readers all day, everyday- it’s pathological. Then you cry when you get called out. Your behavior is that of an angry toddler. 🙂

  5. Uh, one of the things that came out was that the warrant was NOT “no-knock.” The officers were heard knocking and announcing that they were police, then Taylor’s bedpartner started shooting.

    1. The warrant *was* a no-knock warrant, but the police chose not to *enact* the warrant without knocking.

      The officers were heard knocking. There is only 1 witness who claimed to have heard them announcing, and that person has made conflicting statements about it.

  6. Flynn’s heading is today at 11:00…JT’s tweet:

    “When Michael Flynn walks into court today for his final sentencing hearing, a lifetime of respected national service will hang in the balance on what is said and what occurs. I am not speaking of Flynn but of District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan.”


    1. I hope that Sullivan does his job and asks questions that need to be asked, such as:
      * The DOJ claimed that they’d changed their minds about prosecution because of new evidence. What evidence was new to the DOJ itself?
      * The DOJ filings previously stated that Flynn had made material lies to the FBI, but in the motion to dismiss, it claimed that Flynn’s statements weren’t materially false. How does it explain the difference, and was the DOJ initially lying when it claimed that the false statements *were* materially false?
      * Peter Strzok’s lawyer filed a document yesterday noting that “Some of Mr. Strzok’s notes [that were just released] included in this attachment appear to have been altered. On at least two occasions, there were handwritten additions, not written by Mr. Strzok, inserting dates, apparently designed to indicate the date or dates on which the notes were written. On at least one occasion, the date added is wrong and could be read to suggest that a meeting at the White House happened before it actually did.” Who at the DOJ altered the notes and why?

      Unfortunately, Turley doesn’t dig into the details of the case.

      1. “Unfortunately, Turley doesn’t dig into the details of the case.”

        And exactly what difference would that make to you??? You are a partisan Democratic shill and there is nothing that can be said to get you off your Narrative. Criminy, but IIRC, you used post like a fiend with a draft law journal article against decided case law.

        Nope, facts and details are irrelevant to you.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

      2. Nope. Turley has dug into the details of the case and he obviously finds them damning for Judge Sullivan. I, like many others, am looking forward to his next post and article that will reach millions of Americans…your daily nonsense here makes me laugh.

        1. No, Ivan, he’s repeatedly ignored relevant details in the case, such as the ones I mention above.

          Glad that you get a laugh out of my comments. Comments from you and your friends make me sad for the country.

          1. I’m laughing now! You hate Turley and come here everyday, all day trying in vain to counter *everything* he says. It’s pure comedy.

      3. I hope that Sullivan does his job and asks questions that need to be asked,

        This ‘sentencing hearing’ has been ongoing for 21 months. If he were going to do his job, it would have been done. His job as is is to dismiss the charges, which everyone knows were bogus from the get go.

        1. “Art,”

          Sullivan postponed the sentencing in Dec. 2018 so that Flynn could benefit from continuing to cooperate with the government before being sentenced. He postponed the sentencing at Flynn’s request. And when Flynn was then supposed to have been sentenced earlier this year, both Flynn and the DOJ submitted motions interrupting that. Sullivan is doing his job, you simply don’t like it.

          That you, personally, believe the charges “were bogus from the get go” does not imply that it’s knowledge (i.e., warranted true belief), and you can only think that “everyone knows” this if you’re in denial about what those with different beliefs think about it.

  7. Cool. Glad you’re focusing on this today, JT. Especially when it’s clear the president is in big debt with multiple properties/loans and the only way out would seem to be for him to sell his debt off to those who’d want inside national security information in return. Trump is a textbook target for being worked as an agent for foreign governments. Everyone knows of his incompetence and corruption. Trump has worked himself into a position where his physical presence is a threat to too many entities. It’s got to be a truly hellish existence to be in that type of debt and to know you don’t have the skills to pull off getting out of it, and to know that several entities would love to see you leave the planet or to have to be in jail to fend off whoever is coming after you. Trump has had value to American intelligence because they know he’s on a hotline to Putin, so therefore has been a perfectly unwitting double agent, a spreader of whatever evidence intelligence has chosen to give him. That’s coming to a screeching halt.

    But hey, nothing *quite* rose to the level of impeachment, so we’re all good, right JT?

    1. And “Trump Secretly Mocks His Christian Supporter” –

      Surely Turley wants to cover that, given his recent columns attacks on the religious, right?

      “in private, many of Trump’s comments about religion are marked by cynicism and contempt, according to people who have worked for him. Former aides told me they’ve heard Trump ridicule conservative religious leaders, dismiss various faith groups with cartoonish stereotypes, and deride certain rites and doctrines held sacred by many of the Americans who constitute his base. …

      “In a September 2016 meeting with about a dozen influential figures on the religious right—including the talk-radio host Eric Metaxas, the Dallas megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress, and the theologian Wayne Grudem—the then-candidate was blunt about his relationship to Christianity. In a recording of the meeting obtained by The Atlantic, the candidate can be heard shrugging off his scriptural ignorance (“I don’t know the Bible as well as some of the other people”) and joking about his inexperience with prayer (“The first time I met [Mike Pence], he said, ‘Will you bow your head and pray?’ and I said, ‘Excuse me?’ I’m not used to it.”) At one point in the meeting, Trump interrupted a discussion about religious freedom to complain about Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska and brag about the taunting nickname he’d devised for him. “I call him Little Ben Sasse,” Trump said. “I have to do it, I’m sorry. That’s when my religion always deserts me.” …”

      Someone should turn that tape over to the Lincoln Project or Republican Voters Against Trump or the Biden Campaign.

      1. Love it. This bit should definitely end up with the Lincoln Project, and actually seems designed to tweak Sasse in particular. This, running on a loop in Nebraska, would be interesting certainly.

        I’m always amazed that for someone whose career was literally salvaged by reality tv he didn’t learn the most obvious lessons from those shows…, mainly the villain can always get to the championship round by manipulation and backstabbing, but once there and having to get the votes of the manipulated and backstabbed, it leads to a stunning loss.

        1. Unfortunately, what Trump learned from his own reality TV experience was that he’d be saved by others scraping the tapes so that they could present a story in which Trump’s choices made sense:

          “The real alchemy of reality television is the editing—sifting through a compost heap of clips and piecing together an absorbing story. … At the end of each episode, Trump determined which competitor should be “fired.” But, as Braun explained, Trump was frequently unprepared for these sessions, with little grasp of who had performed well. Sometimes a candidate distinguished herself during the contest only to get fired, on a whim, by Trump. When this happened, Braun said, the editors were often obliged to “reverse engineer” the episode, scouring hundreds of hours of footage to emphasize the few moments when the exemplary candidate might have slipped up, in an attempt to assemble an artificial version of history in which Trump’s shoot-from-the-hip decision made sense. During the making of “The Apprentice,” Burnett conceded that the stories were constructed in this way, saying, “We know each week who has been fired, and, therefore, you’re editing in reverse.” Braun noted that President Trump’s staff seems to have been similarly forced to learn the art of retroactive narrative construction, adding, “I find it strangely validating to hear that they’re doing the same thing in the White House.” …”

          1. +10

            Hence Trump coming into office with the Alfred E. Neuman “what me worry?” mixed with ‘listen to me, I’m a businessman, I know best. Trust me. What the hell have you got to lose?’ schtick.

            Never mind that no one deserved that trust less…, as has been clearly borne out.

    2. Especially when it’s clear the president is in big debt with multiple properties/loans and the only way out would seem to be for him to sell his debt off to those who’d want inside national security information in return.

      Yes, big debt Donald Trump woke up one day with a brilliant plan; If I can become President, I’ll have access to our most vital national secrets and I can sell those secrets to pay off my debts. So he coerced Comey’s FBI, the DOJ and the IC to secure a fake dossier from a Russian spy and got the Clinton campaign and DNC to pay for it. Then he fired Comey so they would open an investigation with Robert Mueller, Weissmann and an army of attorneys. So now that President Trump has drawn every hostile eye imaginable on him, his finances, his family and anyone in his universe-like orbit, he’s poised to complete his plan. One problem big debt Donald Trump didn’t consider; Scooby Doo (Bug) and his meddling team were on the case.

      1. Pay closer attention to the news, Olly.

        “the House Intelligence Committee, which has sought classified briefings on the matter, says the FBI ‘has not investigated counterintelligence risks arising from President Trump’s foreign financial ties.’ Strzok said in an interview published Friday in The Atlantic that he believed the FBI’s counterintelligence inquiries into Trump ‘largely died on the vine,’ which two people familiar with the matter confirmed to NBC News. It’s doubtful, current and former U.S. officials say, that anyone at the FBI ever saw Trump’s tax returns or looked into whether he borrowed money from Russian oligarchs — something many Americans assumed was happening during the Mueller probe.” (NBC News)

        His niece has stated that his goal was to use the campaign to promote his businesses, and he didn’t expect to become President. His own sister didn’t expect him to be elected.

        So no, he didn’t wake up one day with a brilliant plan; his plan was not to be President, but to use the campaign — and donations to the campaign — to his benefit. But then he was elected, so he changed his plans to take advantage of what happened, transferring over $1M in public money directly into his pockets by visiting his properties every few days and changing Secret Service for room rentals, golf-cart rentals, …; letting others know that they could get in his good graces by spending money at his properties, which is why the President of Ukraine made a point of telling Trump he’d stayed at Trump’s hotel; …

        He’s a grifter.
        He has huge debts to unknown creditors.
        And the American people deserve to know who those creditors are.

      2. Looking into Trump’s finances was squashed by Mueller (and warnings from the White House that time spent there would result in firings). Weissmann’s book out today, actually. Really interested to check it out,

        As far as Trump’s expectations to win? His campaign staff was handing out business cards to fox news at the trump tower party on election night and trump himself was quoted as saying running for president was the best infomercial he could’ve possibly put out. He, and the country in general, would’ve been much better off had the plan remained solid.

    3. you might want to learn a little bit more about:
      The intelligence community, intelligence operations, counterintelligence operations, what makes a good target for a source, finance, economy, how to research things, and how to think about things in general. not necessarily in that order.

      1. And let’s just say that any counter op that doesn’t treat trump as prime double agent material is just plain stupid. He was investigated in the ’16 election as I’m sure he’s being investigated today. An impeached president who extorted a foreign government for help in his re election bid, who actively took help from the Russians and is massively in debt is literally the perfect target for counter intelligence investigation.

        1. You are sure why? oh you said so. Because people who disagree with you are “plain stupid”

          Of course neither you or I know. But don’t be so sure there is any FBI CI investigation open on him today

          Consider how agencies work, at least in theory, and who is the boss, and then perhaps you will revise your projection of who is actually stupid in respect of your remark

    4. only way out? lol. try “refinancing at 1 or 2%” as the easy way out him and every other major landlord will be doing. Why would he need to sell if he can do that?

      Bug, apply your smarts to your own propositions before you toss them out there so frivolously

  8. “protests over systemic racism”

    Once again, it is 2020, not 1960, JT.

    There is no “systemic racism”. So stop pissing down people’s legs and telling them that it’s raining.

    Until you stop, you are part of the problem, not the solution.

        1. Or maybe, blacks are a lot more criminal than whites and Hispanics??? Black men are 5% of the population and they commit 50% of the murders in the country.

          Everything that you say bad about the cops could easily be explained if you started saying bad (and true) things about blacks.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. It’s a disgusting truth about the black community that roughly 3% of the US population(young black men) commits 50% of the murders. The numbers get even worse when you look at sadistic murders(i.e. burning someone alive, etc).

          2. It’s quite disrespectful to the 90% of black Americans who are law-abiding to paint them with such broad brush strokes of race-wide criminality. I think your point is, if you look at the criminal element in the US, especially murderers, it is predominantly black. The short version of this is “Criminals are a lot more black”….you flipped it around into “Blacks are a lot more criminal”. Do you see the difference in wording?

        2. The FBI statistics are clear: young black men commit an extraordinary amount of the extreme violence that occurs in this country. My advice to foreigners who come to the US is to avoid these communities if you value your life. The only people black people need to fear are other black people. The police are actually less likely to shoot a black person than a white person in any given encounter. This is why BLM and their ilk never want to talk about the statistics.

        3. “disproportionately kill Blacks”

          You can thank LBJ and the Democratic Party for the fact that the amount of people killed in police shootings, and in prison for violent crimes, are “disproportionately” black.

          LBJ’s Great Society (welfare state) was a canard to create a black Democrat voting base, by his own admission.

          Johnson pushed through his Great Society agenda in 1964, and shortly thereafter he implemented the draft for Vietnam, and in so doing he signed the death certificates of thousands of young American black men and white men.

          All to be fed into the money machine that is the US MIC.

          Speaking of which. Obama’s color revolution in Syria has resulted in hundreds of thousands of starving Syrian children.

          Then there is Libya.

          1. You can thank LBJ and the Democratic Party for the fact that the amount of people killed in police shootings, and in prison for violent crimes, are “disproportionately” black.

            No, you can’t. Abnormal public order problems in black populations are not a function of a set of welfare programs enacted during the period running from 1965 to 1968. Also, there is one consequential welfare program that survives from that era: Medicaid. That’s not generating public order problems.

            1. “I’ll have those n****rs voting Democrat for the next 200 years.” – Lyndon Johnson

              The welfare system Johnson put in place is still in effect to this day, with some modifications. But the original lasted far longer than 1968.

              But you wouldn’t even be discussing this case if Breonna Taylor had been a white person.

              1. That cops shot at a residence hosting a drug dealer is nothing new. In the case of Breonna, she chose bad company. Question is “why”? Nothing good comes from associating with drug dealers. Another question, and more to the root of the problem of Black Americans, “where was her family, relatives, church friends, medical coworkers, loved ones?“ She likely associated intimately with a drug dealer because he provided her some intangible comfort (acceptance, flattery, approval) that she got from no one else. For all of the talk about Black Lives Matter, Blacks care for each other as much as Whites do, which is nill

                e.g. Brad Parscale. When the cops arrived to Baker Act him in Ft Lauderdale, his wife (#2) had bruises and scratches on her person from a previous physical encounter with Brad. Where were their family, church friends, Republican Trump loving coworkers to offer intervention, guidance, mentoring, protection prior to his Baker Act incident?

                Unless if Americans suddenly start getting involved in each others lives, a role provided by religion like no other institution, there is no reason to think any of these trends are going to get better, be it black or white. Welfare / LBJ arent the problem. America is broken.

                1. Neither Breonna Taylor nor Kenneth Walker (her current boyfriend, who was at her apartment) were drug dealers, Estovir.

                  Nor were any drugs found at her apartment.

                  Her residence was not “hosting a drug dealer.”

                  You sound confused. Presumably you’re referring to her *former* boyfriend who didn’t live with her, wasn’t there, and was arrested elsewhere.

            2. I suspect its not public programs, it likely runs deeper than that

              take a look at the awful history of tribal warfare in africa and one is tempted to ask the question is there something which makes them more bellicose than others?

              Im just asking. Let’s ask “General Butt Naked” of the Sarpo tribe, the infamous rebel captain in Liberia, who was known, among other atrocities, for cannibalism


  9. This constant arguing that ANYONE is a public figure has taken on a level of mental masturbation. This officer in NO WAY ever intended to be a public figure and until he was called a murderer he never spoke in a national or public way about himself. EVERYONE is public if they leave their house – we need to put logic on these arguments and stop the absurd.

  10. Again, Sullivan was a bon bon tossed by the Warren Court at the media. The appellate courts get treated with kid gloves, the media are effectively absolved of liability. It’s corrupt and unjust, like much of what the courts have been up to in social policy since 1937. End Sullivan, and allow people to wail on those swine in court. NB, British newspapers still employ actual reporters, and many of us repair to British papers to learn about things going on in this country that our lying guild media doesn’t want us to know. Make them liable, push most of them out of business, and maybe the survivors employ actual reporters subject to editorial skepticism.

  11. If Turley is going to comment on this, he should keep up with evidence in the case.

    He says “Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker fired his gun at them, hitting Mattingly in the leg,” but the news has subsequently reported variations of “Ballistics report doesn’t support Kentucky AG’s claim that Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend shot cop” (

    1. Do you actually read the stuff you constantly link and cut n’ paste here?

      “The KSP report says that “due to limited markings of comparative value,” the 9mm bullet that hit and exited Mattingly was neither “identified nor eliminated as having been fired” from Walker’s gun.”

      Who the hell else shot Mattingly?!

      Walker has admitted that he fired through the door because he thought they were intruders. You think that’s just coincidence?

      Breonna Walker is a perfect example of why you have to watch the company you keep. Had she never gotten involved with the previous boyfriend, and allowed him to live with her, this never would have happened.

      Had Breonna been white, you never would have heard (or cared) about her death. That’s because all you really care about is your chosen Party (tribe). You don’t give a sh*t about her.

        1. There is only one thing any of us ever get, Isaac.

          Exactly what we deserve. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction (aka/ Karma).

          But you could care less if she had been white, and had she been white, she still would have been shot and killed.

          All you care about is your own personal obsessive hatred of Trump, and anything and everything that feeds into that obsession.

        1. “You’re not a credible source.”

          As evidenced by the fact that you have no rejoinder to my statement that “Had Breonna been white, you never would have heard (or cared) about her death”, you are devoid of credibility.

          All you are is a DNC hack, who could care less about black lives, other than how that meme can serve your partisan interests.

          And as it turns out, it has done the opposite.

          1. Thank you for demonstrating that you cannot substantiate your claim.

            And LOL that you think I have to respond to a claim when you’re pretending to read my mind. Your game is boring.

  12. “Of course, calling someone repeatedly a murderer is more than simply “rhetorical hyperbole.” However, it is also part of a public debate that is heavily laden with protected political speech.”

    So if the defamatory targeting serves a political aim rather than settling a personal score then it’s OK, just like collateral damage in a military operation? I think we need to protect individuals that the press would make false defamations for use use in favored political narratives. But that’s just me.

  13. “Many believe that this did meet the standard of murder and that is a protected opinion of the underlying criminal code and facts in this case. A court, like this Grand Jury, may disagree, but it is an opinion on a matter of intense public debate.”
    In the context of a killing a human, a claim someone is a “murderer” is an assertion of fact not an “opinion on a matter of intense public debate.” I don’t know of any intensity exception to defamation either. Oh and the Grand Jury makes a ruling on not a true bill meaning no probable cause exists that any crime was committed. Thus murderer is factually false and I’d say pretty reckless. It’s an actionable per see defamation case and I expect a result similar to the Nicholas Sandman cases with settlements of seven figures out of court.

      1. I hope so. This “breathing space” for media has become suffocating g to the truth and de-stabilizing to our democracy.

      2. “Wisconsin follows the standard common law rules on libel and slander.”

        Louisville is in Kentucky, not Wisconsin. And under Kentucky law, defamation per se presumes malice.

Leave a Reply