The Case For Internet Originalism

Twitter LogoBelow is my column in The Hill on Twitter’s adoption of a “living Internet” approach to censorship policies. Notably, at the recent hearing before the Senate, Democratic Senators demanded more censorship despite the Big Tech CEOs admitting that the blocking of the Hunter Biden story was a mistake. Twitter and Facebook responded within days with new attacks on free speech in barring conservative viewpoints from a Republican women’s group and one of the highest Trump Administration officials.

Here is the column:

Twitter finally lifted its suspension of the New York Post over its reporting on the laptop of Hunter Biden. The decision came two weeks after both Twitter and Facebook barred access to the story about his emails that appeared to reveal influence peddling and contradicted past statements of former Vice President Joe Biden. Twitter now admits there was no evidence that the emails were fabricated or were the product of Russian disinformation, a conclusion confirmed by both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the director of national intelligence.

Rather than apologize for its error, however, the company cited a curiously familiar argument to excuse its decision: Its policies are “living documents” subject to continual change. That sounds like an internet version of the “living Constitution” theory used by jurists such as the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to continually update the meaning of the Constitution. Twitter’s claim should turn every citizen into a strict “internet originalist.” Before addressing the “Living Twitter” theory, a few established facts on the story should be noted.

The Bidens have not denied that these were, in fact, Hunter Biden’s laptop and his emails. Second, various senders and recipients of the emails have confirmed that they are real emails. Third, not only was the laptop subpoenaed last year by the FBI in an investigation into money-laundering, but the FBI has confirmed that the investigation involving the emails — including Hunter Biden’s involvement — remains ongoing. Finally, a former business associate has asserted that Joe Biden’s past denials of knowledge or involvement in his family’s business dealings are “lies” and has shared his allegations with the FBI, under criminal penalty for making any false statements.

There is no evidence that the laptop or emails are false. Indeed, the only obvious “disinformation” about this story has come from Joe Biden and his allies. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, for example, stated that the entire story was Russian disinformation, a claim repeated by Biden this week. In reality, Twitter and Facebook tried to bury a story by the New York Post that appears to be accurate regarding the source and the content of the emails.

After dropping its suggestion of Russian disinformation, Twitter claimed the underlying material appeared to be hacked material — a claim ridiculous on its face, since the Post’s article was based on the contents of an abandoned laptop. Now the social media company is adopting a claim that its policies should be read like a living Constitution: “Our policies are living documents. We’re willing to update and adjust them when we encounter new scenarios or receive important feedback from the public.”

It is precisely the type of argument that would drive the late Justice Antonin Scalia to distraction. Scalia rejected this approach to constitutional interpretation as little more than opportunism to change the meaning of rights without having to ask the consent of citizens through amendments: “You would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things … .” That is a view shared by newly sworn Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who recently testified that “I interpret the Constitution as a law. That I interpret its text as text. I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time, and it isn’t up to me to update or infuse my own policy views into it.”

I am not a constitutional originalist, but I am an internet originalist. The internet was originally the greatest single advancement in free speech since the printing press. It was an open, free platform for speech that united the world. Not surprising, it also was a threat to authoritarian countries and figures who have struggled to control and censor the sharing of information and viewpoints. Originally, Twitter was the ultimate expression of those free speech values, as individuals associated with others to share instant observations and experiences.

Yet, the original free use of the internet has come into increasing conflict with liberal politicians who demand that social media companies actively prevent people from sharing information they deem to be false or misleading. Joe Biden has demanded that these companies block postings linking mail voting to fraud; Democratic leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have threatened punitive legislation if the companies do not censor groups accused of spreading false information.

In this week’s Senate hearing on Twitter’s suppression of the Biden story, Democratic senators ignored the admissions of Big Tech CEOs that they were wrong to bar the story and, instead, insisted that the CEOs pledge to substantially increase such censorship. Senator Jacky Rosen warned the CEOS that “you are not doing enough” to prevent “disinformation, conspiracy theories and hate speech on your platforms.”

That is why a “living internet” interpretation is so dangerous. These companies are driven by profits and politics, not principle. If Democrats take control of Congress and the White House, these companies will face growing demands for increased censorship. That is when “living policies” change “to update and adjust them when we encounter new scenarios or receive important feedback.”

The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.

If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.

It has been a long time since a bunch of geniuses came up with a new form of communication on Twitter. Back then, the platform was neutral. Its appeal was its convenience, not its supervision. Dorsey himself said the success of Twitter is based on the principle that you “make every detail perfect and limit the number of details to the perfect.”

A free and open forum for communication was the original and perfect design. And here, once again, the Constitution could offer the clarity of that original meaning to limit the detail to the perfect. To paraphrase the First Amendment, Twitter should return to a simple static, “originalist” position: It should “make no policy abridging the freedom of speech or the press.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

124 thoughts on “The Case For Internet Originalism”

  1. Remember the Arab Spring, and how “activists” used Facebook as a catalyst for “change?” The “GPS to the revolution” as they called it. To the cheers of an adoring Obama administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the Progressive establishment? Quoting from a 2011 Atlantic Article, “You have a moral obligation to look at what is happening in your country.”

    My how things change depending on whose ox is being gored.

  2. The tragedy is, critical thinking has been consigned to oblivion by agenda driven propagandists infesting the education system. Hollywood, big money sports, and mainstream media have become the Orwellian masters of double speak but are too clouded by bias and ignorance to realize it.

  3. Indeed anonymous, Trump performs typically 1 or 2 legal outrages a week which Turley manages to avoid while railing about Hunter Biden, CNN hosts, and college professors.

    Hey, he’s only the President and Turley is too busy attending to the insignificant BS.

    1. Turley has done his best to enable Trump and Barr, and he has stoked the lies and disinformation with all the reverence of a paid operative. He’s neck deep and he can’t get out, history will record his dishonestly.

  4. Are the “living documents” solely internal to the companies and their decision-makers?

    Does the reformed Patriot Act, now known as the Freedom Act, allow for any governmental interference?

    “The NSA also uses the Patriot Act to force tech and telecommunication companies to hand over private information. Under the law, the NSA can bar the recipient of the warrant from discussing the warrant with anyone.”

    https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/a-breakdown-of-the-patriot-act-freedom-act-and-fisa/#How_does_the_NSA_usethe_Patriot_and_Freedom_Acts

    If this is so, can the NSA conversely force tech and telecommunications companies to block information?

    1. One thing that really bugs me is the Orwellian newspeak names of bills in US parliaments, “Patriot Act”, “Freedom Act”. It ought to be a law that an act is NULL & VOID if its name does not accurately describe its purpose and effects and if any unessential detail not covered by the title is included.

  5. Well I have to admit I am struggling a bit to keep up. Some questions.

    1. Obscenity, Sedition, Incitement: I see Miller v. California (1973) supporting an Originalist contention the 1st Amendment was never intended to protect Obscenity; I see Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) supporting an Originalist contention that the 1st Amendment was never intended to protect Incitement; and I see Abrams v. USA (1919) supporting an Originalist contention the 1st Amendment was never intended to protect Sedition. Sound about right?

    2. As I understand it, Mr. Turley has the right to censor this blog as he wishes. It’s a private platform, not a government platform. If I keep using the word “blue” and he doesn’t like the word “blue,” or he doesn’t like the look of my gravatar, he can block my comments, yes?

    3. But at what point, if at all, is it CRIMINAL for a commenter to post Obscenity, Sedition or Incitement on this blog, and what are Mr. Turley’s obligations with respect to such comments?

    4. Is Mr. Turley the publisher of our comments, is WordPress the publisher, am I a self-publisher, or is there no publisher of comments on this blog, per Section 230?

    5. Which state’s Obscenity laws, if any, apply? Virginia’s? New York’s? Both? Does the fact this is not an age or adult content consent-protected blog affect the kind of language we can use, and video content we can upload? I know the FCC has no jurisdiction over the Internet, but do FCC content guidelines regarding obscenity, indecency and profanity at all parallel or influence the kinds of language we can use on an age-unprotected blog?

    https://www.fcc.gov/general/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity

    Thanks.

    1. I dont know about these others but per 4, Turley is not a publisher, he qualifies for sec 230 protection, against various forms of clearly illegal speech

      as for obscenity, that could apply to any state where the content is viewed.

      your questions are good but let’s keep in mind, that the “Terms of service” that porn websites use, are almost universally ignored by minors.

      in the UK they put teeth into their law requiring age verification. no doubt the ACLU would fight that here, but going back to before the 2000 CDA, the American internet sites hosting sexual content use to have a popup age verification system, that was done away with entirely. now minors can view almost any form of the most disgusting and explicit content imaginable, practically speaking. now if the creepy sex offender down the road showed your kid a porno, you would fairly expect the cops to toss him in jail, but google and apple can give them whatever they want!

      Moreover the bloated billionaires of Google and Apple, the biggest porn purveyor in human history, roll in their disgusting “freedom” while the average poor sex worker has to fear getting locked up for a completely vanilla paid sex act between consenting adults. this is preposterous

      https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/why-is-pornography-legal-and-prostitution-is-not-31164

      speaking now just about policy, without worrying too much what the ACLU thinks of it, I propose

      a. stripping big social media sites of section 230 protection if they aggressively edit content like Twitter,

      b. regulating them as utilities, to protect the public’s interest in having a free speech area, and public access

      c. passing an age verification law to apply to porn sellers on the internet similar to the UK, to protect minors from the indecent display of explicit sex

      d. state by state push for legalization of sex work between consenting adults.

      PS as far as I can tell prostitution in the UK is basically legal. And yet they protect the kids from porn! Somehow England survives.

      1. Thanks Kurtz!

        Found this on Section 230 for Bloggers over at EFF:

        https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230

        “Section 230 says that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.””

        “Bloggers can be both a provider and a user of interactive computer services. Bloggers are users when they create and edit blogs through a service provider, and they are providers to the extent that they allow third parties to add comments or other material to their blogs.”

        “Your readers’ comments, entries written by guest bloggers, tips sent by email, and information provided to you through an RSS feed would all likely be considered information provided by another content provider. This would mean that you would not be held liable for defamatory statements contained in it.”

        Now if a group of Turley’s students got together and printed hardcopies of his blog every month, including our comments, and distributed them for free or at cost on the GWU Campus, would they be a publisher? What about the comments section of online newspapers? Seems a bit odd to argue these are not publishing platforms. Wonder how other countries treat this.

        I forgot about Defamation as another form of speech the Originalists would tell me the 1st Amendment was never intended to protect, within limits, citing NYT v. Sullivan (1964).

        1. EFF is an excellent resource

          Handbills are a different form of speech. There are interesting cases from the 40s about Jehovah Witnesses handing out handbills. In short anybody can pass out leaflets and even toss them on lawns, and not be stopped by either prior restraint or pretextual laws for littering. So long as the speech is non-commercial,

          before the internet, racist groups had a reputation for occasionally “flyering” a neighborhood with “hate speech” type handbills. This would often stir up a lot of calls to police. And yet, if anyone was arrested for it, they would quickly be turned loose by the prosecutors who know these Jehovah witnesses cases prevent this kind of criminal punishment, no matter if people are offended or not.

          Seems to me Robert Bork said something like this. Think of the speech the first amendment protects like a circle. At the core is political and religious speech. Then an outer ring that is other speech about general topics. Then a ring of lesser protection that is commercial speech. When you get to the outer rings that are forbidden, you have civilly impermissible speech such as defamation, and then outwards, crimnally impermissible speech, like obscenity, or criminal conspiracy speech. Think of a plan to rob a bank: the plan “plus” some “substantial step” towards the criminal act, renders the previous hypothetical speech, criminal .

          I believe Bork’s point was, that obscenity should not be considered at the core. The core concerns are political and religious speech. I don’t think Bork was an outlier in this paradigm, either.

          1. i forgot trademark and copyright infrigements and violations, another species of forbidden speech, comparable to defamation, but a lot easier to prove. So, in a way, less tolerated by far

            1. Yeah, and I just found privacy violations and negligent speech, e.g., bad medical advice. Add to periphery. Great Bork model, very helpful.

              So maybe as commenters/information providers under Section 230 we are all like self-publishers.

  6. Social media platforms are absolute private property.

    Absolutely not public property.

    Congress has no power to regulate or “claim or exercise dominion over” private property per the 5th Amendment and Article 1, Section 8, as Congress has the power to regulate ONLY the “value” of money, the “flow” of commerce among nations, states and Indian tribes and land and naval Forces.

    The solution is ALWAYS competitive free markets.

    If parties do not create a new and different social media platform, parties have no basis for complaint.

    Various social media platforms may be established by opponents.

    1. Well with all of the money involved ed with both Twitter and Facebook, I think that would meet the definition commerce among nations, states, and Indian tribes.

      Regardless of ones view of the politics, all should be horrified with the idea that some self-appointed person should decide what is true or not. That crosses into editorship and turns its back on neutral passing of information.

      You are of course correct that someone can start their own social media to compete and as far as I am concerned, should.

    2. George, you often lack common sense in the extreme, and this is one of those times. By your reasoning all anti-trust laws are illegal, which they are not.

  7. Turley is wrong again, and it’s hard to keep imagining it’s by mistake.

    No, the FBI has not confirmed it is investigating Hunter BIden’s emails as Turley claims. In fact the letter from the FBI to Sen Ron Johnson on the subject says:

    “.“the FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing investigation of persons or entities under investigation, including to Members of Congress. As the Inspector General firmly reminded the Department and the FBI in recent years, this policy is designed to preserve the integrity of all Justice Department investigations and the Department’s ability to effectively administer justice without political or other undue outside influences. Therefore, the FBI cannot provide any additional information in response to the enumerated questions in your letter,”

    Did you get that Jonathan? You keep repeating the same nonsense and then go off on the same toot based on false claims.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/fbi-hunter-biden-laptop-russia/2020/10/20/3478408a-133d-11eb-bc10-40b25382f1be_story.html

    1. Joe Friday:

      “A justice department official has confirmed to Sinclair Broadcast Group that the FBI opened up a criminal investigation into Hunter Biden and his associates back in 2019, focused on allegations of money-laundering and that the probe remains active.

      Sinclair investigative reporter James Rosen has also spoken with a central witness in these allegations, which suggests that former vice president Joe Biden knew more than he has acknowledged about his son’s overseas dealings.”

      https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/tony-bobulinksi-i-have-now-put-myself-in-huge-risk-for-the-sake-of-the-american-people

      It has also been widely reported that Bobulinski has been interviewed by the FBI as part of this investigation.

      There is a big question, however, that the same FBI made infamous by the notorious Comey and Strzok is even capable of performing a non biased, effective investigation.

      1. Karen, thanks for that news from 2019, but it doesn’t support the falsehood Turley claimed in his column:

        “the FBI has confirmed that the investigation involving the emails — including Hunter Biden’s involvement — remains ongoing.”

        No, they haven’t. They have specifically ruled out doing so, just like they didn’t reveal or comment on their investigation into Trump’s campaign before the 2016 election. Perhaps you remember it.

        1. “They have specifically ruled out doing so”

          The FBI has clearly stated that there is an ongoing investigation.

          Your ChiCom pretzel logic isn’t working here, Joey.

          1. From the FBI letter last week to Sen Ron Johnson on Hunter Biden.

            ““the FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing investigation of persons or entities under investigation, including to Members of Congress. As the Inspector General firmly reminded the Department and the FBI in recent years, this policy is designed to preserve the integrity of all Justice Department investigations and the Department’s ability to effectively administer justice without political or other undue outside influences. Therefore, the FBI cannot provide any additional information in response to the enumerated questions in your letter,”

            What part of that is difficult for you Rhodes? Karen S seems to have gotten it – or at least she has not disputed my explanation – so maybe she’ll help you.

      2. OK, Karen, we know you are true Trumpster, but Sinclair Broadcasting might as well be called Trump News Network II, with Fox being Trump News Network I. Nothing they have to say, especially about anyone unwilling to kiss Trump’s oversized ass, is likely to be true, including criticism of the FBI.

    2. Turley is wrong again, and it’s hard to keep imagining it’s by mistake.

      More classic projection from Book. It takes no imagination to prove you’ve been wrong on nearly everything over the last 4 years; the archives have all the evidence to prove it. Bwahahahaha!

      1. Olly, what has FBI Director Christopher Wray confirmed? Feel free to post from recognizable sources.

        1. the FBI’s comment means 2 things

          1- there is an investigation. we also know there is a money laundering investigation, from the evidence sticker they put on the laptop
          the fbi’s non-reply is their usual reply confirming an investigation by not confirming much about it

          2- “they have nothing to add” to DNI Ratcliffe, who said: this is not Russian disinformation. He is their boss when it comes to counter-intelligence, and they have not gainsayed him

          ergo, CONFIRMED it is Hunter’s laptop and not a Russian trick

          1. Kurtz,
            It’s pretty sad you even needed to explain that. These idiots have demonstrated no objective interest in facts or evidence. All they have is their ridiculously subjective truth and they’d prefer to burn this country to the ground to prosecute what they feel is just.

        1. Right Art even though it said the contrary, that it was not proven.

          and then took a middling “not enough evidence” stance on obstruction

          they made a big deal out of it and then the result was a disappointment.

          so they pretend now it said something different, just because!

        2. Tabby, Mueller obtained 37 indictments and 7 convictions. That’s extraordinary if ‘nothing was proved’.

          1. Indictments are mere allegations. Convictions is what matters. They were all low hanging fruit except for Manfort, and that was all stuff from BEFORE the election.

            Really you need to parse this more carefully. It was a bust.

            Here the ABA– an organization that clearly dislikes Trump– says it found no collusion.

            https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

            As I said, the obstruction conclusion was more ambivalent.

            One would think you guys figured that out during the impeachment when obstruction was the tip of the spear. This is why. Forgot already?

            Collusion was a bust and moreover we now know, the original Crossfire Hurricane was a bogus farce from the start

              1. you say so. i doubt it. but overall, I find myself not caring what they think or you do, not about that

                1. Well no, I don’t say so, the GOP led Senate Intel Comm says so:

                  ” The Committee found that the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multifaceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election…..

                  The Committee found that Manafort’s presence on the Campaign at;td proximity to
                  Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and
                  acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign. Taken as a whole, Manafort’s highlevel access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the
                  Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska,
                  represented a grave counterintelligence threat.

                  Hack and Leak

                  (U) The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian
                  effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak
                  information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow’s intent was
                  to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the
                  Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the
                  U.S. democratic process.

                  Wiki-leaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian
                  influence campaign and very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence
                  effort. The Committee found significant indications that (REDACTED)
                  At the time of the first WikiLeaks releases, the U.S. Government had not yet declared WikiLeaks a hostile
                  organization and many treated it as a journalistic entity.

                  (U) While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump
                  Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those leaks to aid Trump’s electoral
                  prospects. Staff on the Trump Campaign sought advance notice about WikiLeaks releases,
                  created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following
                  thdr release, and encouraged further leaks. The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the
                  attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and
                  WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort….

                  Wiki-leaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian
                  influence campaign and very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence
                  effort. The Committee found significant indications that (REDACTED)
                  At the time of the first WikiLeaks releases, the U.S. Government had not yet declared WikiLeaks a hostile
                  organization and many treated it as a journalistic entity.

                  (U) While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump
                  Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those leaks to aid Trump’s electoral
                  prospects. Staff on the Trump Campaign sought advance notice about WikiLeaks releases,
                  created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following
                  thdr release, and encouraged further leaks. The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the
                  attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and
                  WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort….”

                  There’s more Kurtz

                  1. Kilimnik was an FBI asset, not Russian intelligence. That was Mueller’s strongest play, and it was a lie from the beginning; Andrew Weissman signed off on Kilimnik’s “service.” [a good summary: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/expos-in-the-hill-challenges-mueller%5D

                    Secondly, once CrowdStrike’s president, Shaun Henry, was actually under oath he admitted they had no evidence the Russians hacked and stole the DNC emails. [see: https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1258572139504054274?lang=en%5D

                    It’s all been discredited – you just have to be willing to continue reading since the press has not been forthcoming with retractions.

                    1. Forgot to add – CrowdStrike was also forced to retract a claimed Russian hack of Ukrainian artillery that rendered 80% of the tubes inoperable, using the same methods they allegedly used on the DNC. It caught the Ukrainians off guard because their artillery did in fact work just fine. Too much alike for both to be the result of them “misspeaking.”

                    2. FlownOver maybe those GOP Senators need your expert testimony because they’re not buying what you have been sold. Or maybe they’re part of the Deep State.

                  2. Clapper and Brennan under oath. ” I have no proof that the Russians interfered with the election”. So now you don’t believe the leaders of the intelligence agencies under the Obama administration. Pure dementia.

                    1. Whatever they said, they didn’t say what you put in quotation marks. If you Google the quote, it says “No results found for “I have no proof that the Russians interfered with the election”.”

                      Why are you lying about what they said TIT? Is it too hard for you to copy and paste accurately?

                  3. If the FBI is not an accomplice to your Demonkrap party and doing everything in their power even crimes to get Dems elected to office, ,please explain to readers why did the FBI allow Crowd Strike who works for the Dems, to make a mirror image of HRC’s computer instead of getting the computer by physical force if necessary and doing that job themselves?

                    Crowd Strike could and certainly would have doctored the evidence that would get HRC tossed in prison. This FBI act was exactly like allowing a suspect to make up their own evidence confirming their innocence, and is absolutely, positively against FBI regulations/policy and you know it is.

                    There is no known first hand evidence in existence confirming Russia hacked HRC’s computer.

                    I trust Julian Assange over HRC and any Demonkrap like you, and Julian swears the source of HRC’s emails is NOT Russia nor Putin.

                    What irony! 30 years ago the Dems trusted no one in the intelligence services, which were all given power strictly to never ever use their craft against Americans on American soil . Today DEMONKRAPS like you are in bed servicing every known member of the intelligence services 24/7, and those services are used against Americans with abandon more and more each day, without any external control.

                    The CIA helped kill Kennedy because he promised the CIA he would disassemble it because he rightly said it was out of control. At least 3 of the worlds best snipers could not replicate Oswald’s shots, IIRC even with modern weapons. No one on the face of the earth could make those shots with Oswald’s POS Russian relic military surplus rifle, about $12 via mail order.

                  4. Still eating your own vomit from the failed impeachment trial. Do all Demonkraps enjoy eating their own vomit, or just select media paid trolls like you?

          2. Yeah! Mueller got a whole slew of Russkies IIRC, who were posting stuff on FaceBook! Whatever happened to those Russkies at trial??? I forget??? My memory must be going. C’mon man, help me out! What happened to all them indicted Russkies???

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

          3. Anon: “Mueller obtained . . .”

            Of those 37, 26 were Russian nationals and 3 were Russian organizations. (Good luck with those.) The others were completely unrelated to the collusion hoax.

            That entire investigation was like spending $32-million on a two-year fishing trip, and coming home with a few minnows.

    3. You idiot. Tony B. gave 5 hours of testimony to the FBI and you don’t think there is an investigation??? Hmmm. Myabe the FBI agents were just feeling chatty! Yes, that’s the answer!

      (What a nimrod!)

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    4. Further, Demonkraps like you deny that the Director of National Intelligence confirmed the Hunter Biden emails as revealed by Hunter’s ex-business partner are real. You also deny that when Hunter typed “The Big Guy,” and “The Chairman” specified as getting 10% of Hunter’s illegal money laundering from foreign nations, that Hunter the Crack Addict was referring to Joe Biden.

      Anyone with an IQ above room temp knows those terms refer to Joe Biden, except for Demonkraps in Denial like you.

  8. Of course Twitter lifted its embargo on the New York Post. Most people have already voted. It’s too late now. Voters made their decision amid a maelstrom of deliberate lies and censorship.

    How would Biden and Trump be doing in the polls if:
    1. What if the DNC and Hillary Clinton hadn’t paid millions for Russian disinformation, packaged as the Trump dossier?
    2. What if Democrats Comey et al hadn’t used the Russian disinformation dossier to spy upon Trump the candidate, and Trump the President?
    3. What if Joe Biden had been investigated for bragging about a quid pro quo in Ukraine using American aid money, which benefited Burisma, rather than impeaching Trump for inquiring about it?
    4. What if the media hadn’t deleted the part of Trump’s remarks on “very fine people on both sides”, taking out “and I’m not talking about the Neo Nazis or the white supremacists, who should be condemned totally”? That reversed the meaning of his statement. What if that lie hadn’t been blasted across most news channels? Biden said he ran for president because Trump called white supremacists “very fine people.” Either Biden is misinformed, or a liar.
    5. What if the media accurately covered Trump’s accomplishments, and most voters were aware of the First Step Act, which helps reverse Biden’s crime bill that was so devastating to the black community. What if most voters knew about all the Middle East peace deals, no new wars, the record breaking unemployment, record breaking GDP growth just announced of 33.1%, Operation Warp Speed which will help distribute Covid-19 vaccines as soon as they are FDA approved? What about all the work on treatment? Remember when so many said Trump was going to start a nuclear war? Instead, we’ve had peace.
    6. What if the media accurately covered the violence on the Left? The looting, rioting, burning wasn’t “mostly peaceful”, nor would it have been described as such if it were Republicans.
    7. What if the media hadn’t spread one of the original lies, that Trump was an anti-semite for passing on a meme about locking Hillary Clinton up? It was a sheriff’s badge, not a Star of David, obviously. Most law enforcement badges I’ve ever seen are 6 pointed. That’s why the clip art is called “sheriff’s badge.” Yet the lie grew and grew and grew that Trump was an anti-semite, in spite of having a Jewish family. He turned out to be the most pro-Israel president in history.
    8. What if most of the media covered the Hunter Biden laptop, and investigation into the Biden family for money laundering?

    What if voters were given accurate information?

    Joe Biden wouldn’t have had a chance if he ran on the truth. The media had to lie and shield him with everything they had. It’s like they threw Biden into a car, and sped past Trump in a foot race, while throwing out spike strips to hinder him.

    It’s like we’re living in the time of the rise of Lenin, or Mao, or Hitler, when the truth was hidden, and dissent crushed.

    1. “It’s like we’re living in the time of the rise of Lenin, or Mao, or Hitler, when the truth was hidden, and dissent crushed.”

      No, it really isn’t.

      There are things that are hidden that need to be revealed, but you’re exaggerating, Karen.

    2. Karen, the Hunter Biden story played extensively on Fox News. Isn’t that enough? Why do mainstream sources need to run it? Isn’t mainstream only ‘fake news’?

      1. Anonymous:

        Defend why the media should deliberately shield Joe Biden from coverage of any damaging news story, thus leaving their viewers in the dark on election day.

        1. Karen, everyone’s heard the Hunter Biden story by now. No one’s going to be “in the dark on election day”.

          Why hasn’t rightwing media promoted the New York Times story about Trump’s tax avoidance?

    3. Yes, Karen, there are valid comparisons between your fat hero and Hitler: before obtaining power, immorally, both were abject failures, both had delusions of grandeur and believed themselves entitled to unlimited power and adulation, both could not stand criticism, both scapegoated anyone or anything who opposed them. In Hitler’s case, it was Jews. In the fat one’s case, it is Democrats and patriotic public servants who won’t tolerate his incompetence and lying.

      The “dossier” was started by a Republican opponent of Trump’s, and was taken over by Clinton’s Campaign after Trump got the nomination, and this is going to be the last time (I hope) you need correction on the “Steele Dossier”: THAT WAS NOT WHAT STARTED THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION. Stop lying about this and stop believing the lies Fox and Trump keep putting out. An Australian ambassador reported to the US about information he obtained from a member of the Trump Campaign. And, for good measure, Trump was not exonerated. Stop lying about it. He couldn’t be impeached because he refused to cooperate, and this is obstruction of justice.

      No one spied on Trump’s campaign. That’s been proven. Stop lying about it.

      Trump was impeached for trying to trade aid to Ukraine appropriated by Congress to get Ukraine to gin up false allegations against Biden. Those are facts. He was impeached by the House, and 48 US Senators voted to remove him from office. Stop lying about it.

      You really need to stop repeating the Trump Campaign lies about the economy, so I’m going to help you out once again. Trump inherited a successful, growing economy. However, economic growth was better under: Obama, Jimmy Carter, and JFK. Before the pandemic, the economy flattened under Trump. Because of his failure of leadership, the economy tanked, and was at least as bad as the Great Depression. Under Trump, there was record unemployment, and the recent “record” employment numbers Trump tries to take credit for don’t begin to match the losses. We are not back where we were in March, so there’s no real growth. We are still at a net deficit. One in five small businesses went under, for good. The trade deficit is at a record high for the past 14 years. Thee are record foreclosures and evictions. The unemployment rate is more than 10% now. The economy is in trouble. Trump has managed to accomplish nothing other than cause misery and financial hardship. The economy will not recover under COVID is brought under control, and he has proven he has no interest or ability in doing this.

      “Operation warp speed” is nothing more than a fat, braggart behind in the polls, whining and trying to bully the FDA and drug makers to cut corners for safety and efficacy. As a result, Eli Lilly, for example, had to shut down production of a line of antivirals because they hadn’t been doing the quality-control testing necessary to ensure that batch-to-batch samples did not vary outside an acceptable range. Other drug makers have also had to shut down trials. Past experience has proven that drug and biological protocols must be followed for there to be a safe and effective vaccine. Back in the 1950’s, there was a bad batch of polio vaccine that contained live virus because it wasn’t processed properly. Multiple children died and others were sickened. Sensibly, most Americans know that Trump is a liar and can’t stand being put out of the White House, that he politicizes everything, including science, so he constantly lies about how soon there will be a vaccine. and his gullible followers, like Karen, believe him. Most Americans say they don’t trust any vaccine and won’t accept one produced under the Trump regime. Like he bullies everyone else, he has bullied the FDA–i.e., granting emergency approval for Hydroxychloroquine for no valid reason other than Trump demanded it because his big mouth wrote a check his ass couldn’t cash. Studies proved it was not only not effective for COVID–it is dangerous. So, would any reasonable person believe the FDA if it approved a vaccine while Trump is in office? If you do, you deserve what happens.

      There isn’t any “violence on the Left”. You really are out of your element when you say things like this. There has been violence at protests over unjustified police killings, but is it rare. It literally sickens me to hear people like you fall for Trump politicizing this. He not only does nothing to help ease the anger and frustration that leads to such protests, he takes advantage of it. He doesn’t try to bring the country together–he keeps trying to pull it apart.

      And, what is your fascination with anti-Semitism, anyway? How does it help the average American for Trump to stick his nose into affairs in the Middle East by siding with Israel over the Palestinians, anyway, which is what moving the embassy to Israel was intended to accomplish? Don’t the Palestinians, whose roots go back as far as Israel’s have rights too? And, according to Dr. Mary Trump, her uncle is an anti-Semite, and has used not only anti-Semitic but racist tropes throughout his life.

      The Hunter laptop story was cooked up to be Trump’s “October Surprise”. See, the anti-Biden plan was: Hunter is a crack addict and his father is a crook. When that went nowhere, partly because Trump was exposed for trying to trade aid to Ukraine for ginning up lies, next it was “sleepy Joe is senile”. That offended senior citizens, a key Republican demograpic. Then, they tried the alleged rape allegation that also went nowhere, so now they’re back to going after Hunter. It’s not working.

      1. Hunter is a crack addict and his father is a crook

        The Hunter Biden story is a troubling tale of privilege
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hunter-biden-story-is-a-troubling-tale-of-privilege/2019/10/04/8ad20988-e46e-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html

        In sum, the story of the Bidens, father and son, is more pathetic than nefarious. Yet it might do damage anyway. Less privileged Americans can’t be faulted if they wonder why their addicted loved ones are on the streets or in the morgue while the vice president’s son is blessed with diamonds and sinecures. Multitudes locked up for years under Joe Biden’s crime bill might ask why the author’s son traveled the world scot-free. And sober working people making $50,000 a year may be skeptical of a system in which a vice president’s addicted son reportedly collected that sum every month.

  9. The problem here is that if social media is going to have section 230 protections they shouldn’t be instituting a whole lot of censorship because that is what those protections are for.

    Democrats have intimidated social media over the Russia nonsense, just like they are trying to intimidate the Supreme Court into rulngs, recusals, etc. Republicans already had a problem with social media because there has been some evidence of bias in existing rules, and Twitter’s Dorsey his made it clear that he has no problem with a high level of bias currently.

    Social media should have never caved to pressure over the Russia nonsense. Once they caved to that pressure, they instituted rules covering politics which has put them in a situation they should have not put themselves in. They knew going in that their companies had a left wing bias. That was already evident. So as soon as they started putting in these stricter rules they knew that bias would become evident. The onlt way to avoid this would be to not institute these rules but the current climate of progressive cancel culture ruined it all. If they put in rules there is a simple thing you must do. Enforce them equally upon everyone. That didn’t happen in the slightest.

  10. Turley has interesting judicial priorities. For several weeks, Trump acknowledged Republicans will contest election results if Biden is declared the winner. Today, Trump said “As soon as the election is over, we’re going in with our lawyers.” Last month, Trump said Bill Barr’s legacy will be ruined if he doesn’t indict Obama, Biden & Hillary Clinton before election day.

    Turley can’t muster up any response to Trump’s ongoing legal threats. Instead JT has spent the closing weeks of the 2020 campaign focusing on a NY Post report about a laptop “which purportedly belongs to Hunter Biden” & a social media platform which Trump has 87.3 million followers on. He would be wise to heed his own plea for a free & open forum for communication.

    1. Maybe that is because Turley doesn’t have to. I mean everyone shouting about Trump contesting the election forgets 2 things. Democrats haven’t seriously accepted the results of the last 3 elections that they have lost, and that the Biden Campaign has created a huge team of lawyers to contest the election as well. You can also add that Hillary Clinton, who essentially bought the entire DNC in 2016 has told Biden not to accept the results if he loses.

      Trump and Biden have every right to prepare themselves in case one, the other, or both challenge election results. It doesn’t become a controversial matter until after the election actually happens and we can see whether there is actually merit to challenge or not. So it would be wrong at this point to say that anyone can’t, won’t, shouldn’t etc. challenge any results because the situation has not been developed to that point yet.

    2. Indeed Race and Turley has not seen fit to write about Trump asking his AG to arrest Biden, Trump’s continued attempts to erode public confidence in our election, his use of the WH as a political prop in rallies and his convention, the GOP Senators stealing the court majority over the last 4 years from the majority of American voters who put Obama in the WH twice and Trump none, and now their railroading another justice representing the will of the minority of voters 1 week before the election. He doesn’t GAF, he’s all in for the team.

  11. Gretchen is at it again…..

    https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98178_98455-543708–,00.html

    Gatherings and Face Mask Order

    Contact tracing requirements for particular gatherings.
    Gatherings are prohibited at the following facilities unless the facility maintains accurate records, including date and time of entry, names of patrons, and contact information, to aid with contact tracing, and denies entry for a gathering to any visitor who does not provide, at a minimum, their name and phone number:
    All businesses or operations that provide barbering, cosmetology services, body art services (including tattooing and body piercing), tanning services, massage services, or similar personal care services;
    Recreational sports and exercise facilities, and entertainment facilities (except for outdoor, non-ticketed events), including arenas, cinemas, concert halls, performance venues, sporting venues, stadiums and theaters, as well as places of public amusement, such as amusement parks, arcades, and bingo halls;
    All businesses or operations that provide in-home services, including cleaners, repair persons, painters, and the like must not permit their employees to gather with clients unless the business maintains accurate appointment records, including date and time of service, name of client, and contact information, to aid with contact tracing.
    All dine-in food service establishments must maintain accurate records of the names and phone numbers of patrons who purchase food for consumption on the premises, and the date and time of entry.

    Upon request, businesses, schools, and other facilities must provide names and phone numbers of individuals with possible COVID-19 exposure to MDHHS and local health departments to aid in contact tracing and case investigation efforts.

    1. How dare she try to save lives, businesses and the Michigan economy, anyway, especially when doing so conflicts with the fat puzzygrabber’s narrative that “we’ve turned the corner”. Yeah, the corner on the edge of the cliff.

      1. How dare she try to save lives

        Democrats destroy lives

        Abortion Statistics
        Current United States Data*
        Total number of abortions in the U.S. 1973-2018: 61.8 million+
        186 abortions per 1,000 live births (according to the Centers for Disease Control)
        U.S. Abortions in 2017: ~862,320 (Guttmacher Institute)
        Abortions per day: 2362+ (GI)
        Abortions per hour: 98+ (GI)
        1 abortion every 96 seconds (GI)
        13.5 abortions / 1000 women aged 15-44 in 2017 (GI)

  12. Hunter Biden Story Was Widely Promoted

    But We Owe Nothing To Rupert Murdoch

    The New York Post is the second biggest newspaper in the nation’s largest market. Fox News is the nation’s highest rated cable news network. Between those two sources the Hunter Biden story got as much play as it deserved.

    Why is Turley demanding that every news source must amplify a Fox News story? Does Fox News give equal time to stories that broke in The New York Times??

    About a month ago, The NYT did an extensive feature piece on Trump’s long avoidance of income tax. Yet Democrats didn’t demand that Fox News and The N.Y. Post provide equal coverage to that topic. Though theoretically they should have!

    Why should Rupert Murdoch sources determine the national conversation. Murdoch is not even a real American! He’s just an international media baron meddling in the affairs of English-speaking countries. Screw Murdoch!

    1. I consider progressive liberals the real first name of current democrats instead of their real real name of Socialist. That settled Why shoud foreign ideologists determine the national conversation. Thinking back some decades I was paid to kill those sorts of whatever. and that was by a Democrat administration. Can’t say I objected to the job.Can’t say I woud cry big boo hoos should that happen again if it was this side of the Pacific. Can’t say I would give it much thought. Now if they were real citizens that would be different. those folks we took an oath to defend their Constitution and Constitutional Republic as if it were our own. Which it is. But cry boo hoos when enemies domestic meet their fate? What for? Cheers to the real citizen soldiers currently on active duty in all branches of the military. I exclude those who have chosen to violate their oath of office. Preserve, protect, Defend The Constitution Of The United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic…… Notice we upheld that oath which mentions only one item.

      Socialists need not apply.

      1. Michael, there is some good cause to interpret both Vietnamese, Chinese, and Korean communists as a form of peasant nationalism, rather than bona fide Marxism. They had an explicit political goal to unify the nation and eject the foreigners. On some level, I can respect that, in retrospect

        So strange today, to see how American commies have no such nationalistic mentality. They are ever eager to flood the country with migrants and dispossess the native born workers, and they take the money from the global capitalist billionaires to do the job, such as Soros.

        Today’s BLM/ ANTIFA. Student Red Guard wannabees, do not seem to have much comprehension of Marxist economics nor communist doctrine at all.

        In fact, they are almost always just anarchists, lumpen shock troops, and at most, dimwitted trotskyites. They are tools, useful idiots, pawns in the hands of global capital.

        So it is to give them an honor they do not deserve, to be associated with our former adversaries in Asia. These are merely rabble, enemies of our people. that’s all.

  13. Don and Hunter sitting in a tree.
    P I s s I n g.
    First came snowflakes and then came litter.
    Then came Schiff with his own twitter.

    Please note that “a twitter” is s dong.

  14. Turley (and Guiliani, and Trump) trying to goad Biden into denying this ridiculous email story is like the story of LBJ spreading a rumor that his opponent was a pig-f**ker. Aide: “Lyndon, you know he doesn’t do that!” Johnson: “I know. I just want to make him deny it.”

    Because denying it just adds to the voters remembering there was a charge, and adds another news cycle. After the election, when the FBI is done investigating, we are going to likely learn that there are some emails stolen from Hunter’s or someone else’s email account. That someone – maybe the Russians, maybe Guiliani, maybe Steve Bannon, put together a laptop containing some legitimate emails and some others. Certainly, if it was the Russians, DNI Ratcliffe would be hiding that info until after the election, but someone on Team Trump is also plausible. That these were then laundered through some willing dupe MAGA blind computer repair shop guy in Delaware, who was supposed to “discover” them, with some help from Guiliani.

    And the emails themselves? Small potatoes – a former VP’s relative (a private citizen) trying to profit off the name and connection to the former VP. Ho hum.

    1. That these were then laundered through some willing dupe MAGA blind computer repair shop guy in Delaware, who was supposed to “discover” them, with some help from Guiliani.

      Bwahahahahaha! As for willing dupes, your desperation slip is showing. Nevermind the fact the FBI has had the laptop since December 2019 for an active investigation. The mountain of evidence that proves damning to Biden and his family makes the entire Trump/Russia investigation out to be a Keystone Cops routine.

    2. “Small potatoes – a former VP’s relative (a private citizen) trying to profit off the name and connection to the former VP. Ho hum.”

      Joe Biden was VP when he, his son, and his brother, profited from his actions as VP.

      Apparently you’re a big fan of bestiality. How many years have you enjoyed having sex with farm animals?

  15. If you are all for the sharing of a Presidential candidate’s relative’s stolen emails on the eve of an election, then I am sure you would be okay with someone stealing Don Jr’s and publishing everything in them right before an election.

    I guarantee you there would be much more scandalous information in Don Jrs’ emails than in Hunter’s.

    But no, you will claim these were not stolen? Even if you believe the blind repair shop guy story, you believe that repair shops are free to just search for and release emails when someone drops them off for repair? Is that the industry standard?

    1. WAEP: “. . . you will claim these were not stolen?”

      That’s right. The laptop and all contents therein were *abandoned* by Hunter Biden. Once abandoned, they became the property of the computer store owner. Delaware law is very clear about the disposition of abandoned personal property.

      Let’s, though, assume that the emails (and salacious videos) were stolen. The fact remains: the corruption-incriminating emails speak for themselves.

        1. Olly: “Sadly, not in a post-truth world.”

          I don’t know about you, but I’m fed up with their “post-” worldview: post-Enlightenment, post-modern, post-objectivity, ad nauseam. They never create, and always destroy.

  16. Turley seems to keep forgetting that the constitution says nothing about private companies not being able to censor speech. They can and as they have shown, they will when they deem the content violates their policies. If they wish to treat their policies as a “living document” they are perfectly free to do so.

    Turley and these conservatives complaining seem to want to government to dictate what these companies should be doing according to the constitution despite the fact that the constitution’s restrictions are only for government. Anyone who views originalist philosophy should readily recognize that, but here it seems they are trying to twist their philosophy into knots trying to justify dictating what these companies should be doing.

    1. Can we just determine WHAT these companies are – press, public utilities, ad platforms, data collection for monetizing,keepers of the gate for who?

      1. Daryl, Turley, like many conservatives on this blog believe private companies such as Twitter, Facebook, and Google are violating free speech rights when they decide to censor controversial views or malicious rhetoric.

        Problem the regulation of free speech by private companies is not dictated in the constitution at all. The CAN and at times do censor speech. The irony of claiming an “originalist” view should be taken with these companies is that an actual originalist view doesn’t help their case because the constitution doesn’t apply to private companies on prohibitions on free speech.

        Everyone who signs on to those social media platforms literally give them permission to be censored. The second anyone clicks on “I agree” in the terms and conditions, which is a legal document. They then complain about it? It’s their own fault.

    2. Spot on, their claims that their constitutional right of free speech is being violated have no basis in law,
      Their disdain for private property rights, on the other hand, leaves them sounding like a bunch of communists.

      1. if you think that bothers me it doesn’t

        i dumped the liberterian schtick in the garbage years ago

        right now I could give a rip about the global multinational octopus’ own opinion about its socalled private property

        which is nothing more than a public utility that should allow use to anybody on essentially the same terms without editing content

        only liberterians get all fussy about regulating utilities,. the rest of us dont

        and we know you don’t care anyhow so quit whining. do you shine Jack Dorsey’s boots for free or does he pay you? lol

  17. Sadly, politics is a part of the Democrats being – sort of the essence of them as people. Just like dancing around with rattlesnakes and blabbering in tongues is in the heart of certain rural folk. Politics is a faith-based thing to Democrats. As such, Democrats can not tolerate Free Speech. Free Speech is a stake in their heart, because they can not compete with an effective conservative speaker, like Ben Shapiro or Candace Owens.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Independent Bob: Chicago — 3 dead 26 shot Black Lives Are Targets (BLAT)
      ****

      Is that all?

      Perhaps there really is an ammo shortage.

Leave a Reply