Academia, Bizarre, Lawyering, Media, Politics

Law Professor Compares Questioning Voting Results To Holocaust Denial [Updated]

We have been discussing how the celebration of Joe Biden’s election as a “unifying” and “healing” moment has been lost on many who are calling for blacklists and retaliatory actions against anyone viewed as “complicit” in the Trump period.  Indeed, for years, I have been writing about a rising McCarthyism in our country  and the growing threat to both free speech and academic freedom. This hateful or unhinged rhetoric has on occasion come from law professors, but most academics have retained a modicum of restraint and tolerance.  For that reason, it was disappointing to read a bizarre attack from University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos who compared my discussion of possible voting irregularities to Holocaust denial.

Professor Campos writes for a legal site called Lawyers, Guns and Money and clearly took umbrage over my discussion of recent challenges filed over the 2020 presidential election this morning. The segment addressed the recent ruling in Pennsylvania that the Secretary of State violated the law in extending a deadline.  I also addressed President Obama’s comments about how these challenges may be undermining democracy. I noted that confirming the vote count only reinforces democracy, particularly in identifying problems for future elections.

My comments on the software controversy in Michigan was the focus of the posting and generally my statement that we need to review the actual evidence that emerges from these cases. I have repeatedly stated that I do not believe that the current challenges are likely to overturn the election of Biden as the president-elect. However, I have stated that there is no reason why these challenges should not be considered and problems addressed. There have been irregularities ranging from the improper order in Pennsylvania to a small number of identified deceased voters in Nevada to the controversy over the tally error in Michigan.  Again, I have emphasized that these remain localized problems and there remains no evidence of systemic problems that would overturn the results in various states.

On the software, I have addressed the Michigan issue repeatedly in interviews and noted that the votes were given back to Trump and we do not know if such human error occurred outside of that district.  I have repeatedly stated that it was caught and corrected. The Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson confirmed that an Antrim County clerk reported the glitch that miscounted 6,000 Trump votes as Biden votes. The wrong designation of Trump votes as Biden votes was quickly corrected.  That is why I have repeatedly said that this was not a case of fraud or nefarious purpose. The point is that there is a valid reason to check to see if others made such mistakes of human error. The “vulnerability” of the system was a reference to the fact that there was clearly a stage where the ballots could be wrongly assigned by human error. (In this morning’s interview, one of the hosts repeated that this was human error and stated that this problem had no impact on actual votes. I had already noted that this involved one district and was attributed to human error. The host added that it appears that only five counties had computer issues and only one involved the Dominion software). The reason for noting that Dominion is used in many other districts and states was a reference to the allegations that if system is vulnerable to such human error, it could impact other ballot tabulations around the country.

Campos however ignores the very interview that he references and falsely claims that I am “going on national TV telling lies to promote a paranoid conspiracy theory believed by tens of millions of Americans: that the presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump by massive amounts of voter fraud.”

Every interview that I have given has included a statement that there is no such evidence and that it is unlikely that such evidence will emerge.  However, while some were claiming the absence of serious irregularities within 24 hours of the race being called for Biden, I have noted that we are still waiting to see any underlying evidence in these cases.  At the same time, I have criticized the Trump legal team (in the very interview Campos references) and previously said that it was time for the team to produce claimed evidence. I have also criticized President Trump for his rhetoric.  Indeed, liberal sites have cited my interviews as expressing doubt over the evidence of widespread fraud.

Yet, Campos declared that this commentary amounts to Holocaust denial. (By the way, he includes a tweet from a person falsely suggesting that I failed to reveal that the software in Michigan may actually have been the result of human error. I said expressly in the interview that it appeared to be human error and that there was no evidence of any nefarious purpose. I was not “corrected” by the host who noted that it was human error and one district because I had just stated those facts). I argued that it would be useful, regardless of the findings, to look at the performance of new systems and software:

“What I don’t understand about this rush to end all challenges is what is being achieved here? People treating the president-elect as the president-elect. Most of us are supporting his going forward with the transition.

But we also don’t see the great harm to democracy in guaranteeing that votes were counted. If nothing else, not just for his election but for future elections. This is a very different election. We used new systems, new software; shouldn’t we take a look at that and resolve these questions?”

Campos however called for my termination for stating such views:

Should a history department continue to employ a Holocaust denier? Let me sharpen that up a bit: Should a history department continue to employ a Holocaust denier whose academic speciality is the Holocaust?…

To pursue this analogy further, Turley is the kind of mendacious troll who would just ask questions about whether the gas chambers and the death camps really existed, while of course acknowledging that many Jews — maybe even hundreds of thousands! — died because of “harsh conditions” in the concentration camps etc. etc. so you’re actually libeling him by calling him a Holocaust denier etc. etc. (BTW before anybody gets to that I don’t know or care whether Turley himself is Jewish, or whether he lost family in the Holcaust [sic] etc. etc. because the analogy is valid in any case m’kay snowflakes?).

Campos goes on to call for my shunning by my faculty and professors everywhere.  He also notes that I would ideally be fired for such an interview:

“If Turley were a contract faculty member it would be appropriate to fire him immediately for promoting paranoid conspiracy theories directly related to his area of purported professional competence…. It’s s tricky question, but it’s a real one, and Turley should at a minimum be excoriated and shunned by anyone in legal academia in possession of a brain and a conscience.”

We have been discussing efforts to fire professors who voice dissenting views of the basis or demands of recent protests, including an effort to oust a leading economist from the University of Chicago as well as a leading linguistics professor at Harvard.  It is part of a wave of intolerance sweeping over our colleges and our newsrooms.

It is therefore an ironic moment as someone who has been writing about the growing intolerance of dissenting views on our campuses and efforts to fire academic.  Some have been targeted for engaging in what is called “both sides rhetoric” rather than supporting a preferred narrative or viewpoint.

Campos is arguing that it “would be appropriate to fire” any professor who stated that we should allow these challenges to be heard even though they have not and are unlikely to produce evidence of systemic fraud to overturn these results.  That is a view of academic freedom and viewpoint tolerance shared by some in academia.

I am not the first academic that Campos called to be terminated for his views. In the end, I would defend Campos in his posting such views. Unlike Professor Campos, I do not believe that he should be fired for holding opposing views or even calling for others to be fired. That is the cost of free speech. Indeed, Professor Campos is the cost of free speech.

Update:

Notably, CNN Legal Analyst and Stanford Professor Rangappa has sent out a link for people to contact the law school over my interview, presumably to follow up on the calls for my termination.  Just for record, I have criticized Rangappa previously for doxxing a student who criticized her and a baseless attack on Nikki Haley. She has also called for sanctioning Trump lawyers.

188 thoughts on “Law Professor Compares Questioning Voting Results To Holocaust Denial [Updated]”

  1. Hopefully the roiling pot of hatred from the Left will be reduced to a gentle simmer in the wake of an uneventful transition? Enemy lists and cries for retribution ( for what exactly ? ) have no place in a forward-looking government. Burning bridges is best done after the conflict, not in anticipation of conflicts to come ?

  2. Outside the fact that Turley is putting out wrong and false information that even FOX has to correct him, I hope he reads at least some of what his base is saying. Pay attention what you have enabled and been very complicit of.

  4. “Campos” is a nickname adopted by those who hung out at Camp Oz in California where pot was smoked by all.
    This fellow “is in denial” that he is a “pot head”.

    1. Campos grandfather had a German last name a was part of The German American Bund.

  5. The only choice left for is a complete and transparent audit of the ballots cast in five Battleground states or war.

  6. Not only should elections be fair, elections should appear to be fair.

    This election stinks.

  7. Anti-Semite right there via CNN…but of course

    AMANPOUR: Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.

    This week, 82 years ago, Kristallnacht happened. It was the Nazis’ warning shot across the bow of our human civilization that led to genocide against

    a whole identity. And, in that tower of burning books, it led to an attack on fact, knowledge, history and truth.

    After four years of a modern-day assault on those same values by Donald Trump, the Biden/Harris team pledges a return to norms, including the truth.

      1. When you compare benign things to the worst of the mass murder of Jews you are …anti-Semitic. When you don’t see calling political opponents Hitler you are probable…anti-Semitic.

        1. There was someone who commented at NPR named funbobby. Are you related?

          She wasn’t talking about genocide, but about an attack on truth.

          1. ChiCom alert. The troll above monitors National Peoples Radio.

            CNN Amanpour is an anti-semite. the Left is trying to gas all of us.

            To arms! To arms!

            🔫
            😃

    2. estovir If six million were murdered, what is the evidence for that claim? Many died of Typhus and other sicknesses, and some were no doubt killed by guards. If you study the case, and not just the propaganda, you learn that even the basic claim of six million -dates back to a “prediction” made in the 1890s.

        1. anonymous – I’m not wondering about the evidence. I’ve studied enough to be convinced. I have a feeling your knowledge of the forced labor camps is limited to the propaganda commonly found in MSM and politicians.

            1. ANONYMOUSE – What evidence do you have that six million were murdered – or do you simply repeat what your FOX tv tells you?

              1. The late Raul Hilberg concluded, after a study of the matter, that the number of Jews killed by the Nazis was five million, with a margin of error of 200,000. That’s a lot of people, but it isn’t six million. Hilberg is considered an expert on the matter. His main work is constantly cited. Why is the six million figure regarded as sacred and not to be questioned?

                1. Lysias – I can believe 200,000 were killed, but there wasn’t a means to kill five million.

            2. anonymous – A fool can ask a question it would take a thousand wise men to answer…Chinese saying. Just sayin’.

    3. Thanks, Estovir. I’m glad Ms Amanpour was bold enough to be that honest. For 4 years Trump has methodically worked to destroy our institutions. And his response to this election was his most destructive attempt to date.

      1. Would it greatly concern you if all of the votes in the 2020 Presidential election were routed to Amazon servers in Barcelona & Frankfurt before being reported or is it just me?

        #FightBack for No Hacked Elections
        5:14 PM · Nov 13, 2020 @LLinWood

  8. They want ALL of the marbles ALL of the time. Incapable of sharing. Constant tantrums. Cannot see beyond their own needs and desires. Don’t like to have limits and boundaries set by others. Like to name call and bully. Love to tattle on and wish their perceived enemy gone (cancelled).
    See a pattern here? They are like unruly toddlers. One has a thing for her special ice cream. Another is giving her assumed enemy the death stare to the back of his head. Some are making lists of the ‘bad guys’ (🎵I refuse to play with you 🎶). May God have mercy on our souls.

  11. I appreciate your thoughtful, unbiased, logical and Constitutional thoughts and opinions.

  12. “Yet, Campos declared that this commentary amounts to Holocaust denial.”
    ******************
    Campos looks like a pussy (short for pusillanimous, of course) to me.

    His study of King Lear (see his bio) should have led him to this piece of wisdom comparing lawyers and fools.

    “Fool: Mark it, nuncle.
    Have more than thou showest,…

    Then ’tis like the breath of an unfeed lawyer- you gave me
    nothing for’t. Can you make no use of nothing, nuncle?

    [to Kent] Prithee tell him, so much the rent of his land
    comes to. He will not believe a fool.

    Dost thou know the difference, my boy, between a bitter
    fool and a sweet fool?“
    Act 1 Sc 4

    I do. Campos is the bitter variety.

  13. John Denver wrote and sang a song fitting for this supposed professor of law. “Rocky Mountain High in Colorado” he must be smoking too much Kush?

  14. Imagine what leftists would do to us deplorables, if they could. The doxxings, deplatforming and firings are only the beginning.

    antonio

    1. Trump is the one firing people for being insufficiently loyal to him personally. You don’t have to imagine what he’d do to people.

      Their oath is to the Constitution. Their loyalty should be to the Constitution, not to him.

  15. It occurs to me that the Democrats would not care if there WAS fraud because they want Trump gone at any cost. They have an attitude of the means, any means, justify the end and there is only one end….Biden wins. I might vote for a candidate and be disappointed if he/she lost but if they lost because of the opposition cheating I would be really pi__ed. Given that the Democrats started screaming for impeachment before Trump even walked in the door of the White House, wasted years and money on a Russian collusion fiasco, screwed General Flynn (who my brother worked for and called a very honorable man), called upon people to “get in there faces”, and now call for McCarthy like lists, I have absolutely no trust in them as a party and certainly not as an ideology. If the claims and affidavits of poll workers etc are accurate they should be heard and investigated. Everyone should agree with that because in the next election it may be the candidate that you favor that gets screwed.

    1. I’m a Democrat, and I do care if there’s fraud. I suggest that you not make false assumptions about Democrats.

      I also care if there’s voter suppression. How about you: do you care about voter suppression as well as fraud?

      Here’s a start on investigating the charges of voter fraud:

    2. https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

      Sampling of Recent Election Fraud Cases from Across the United States

      The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database presents a sampling of recent proven instances of election fraud from across the country. This database is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list. It does not capture all cases and certainly does not capture reported instances that are not investigated or prosecuted. It is intended to demonstrate the vulnerabilities in the election system and the many ways in which fraud is committed. In addition to diluting the votes of legitimate voters, fraud can have an impact in close elections, and we have many close elections in this country. Preventing, deterring, and prosecuting election fraud is essential to protecting the integrity of our voting process. Reforms intended to ensure such integrity do not disenfranchise voters and, in fact, protect their right to vote. Winning elections leads to political power and the incentives to take advantage of security vulnerabilities are great, so it is important that we take reasonable steps to make it hard to cheat, while making it easy for legitimate voters to vote.

      1. I’m all for investigating and prosecuting voter fraud.
        Here’s an example of an arrest for voter fraud in the recent election:

        Trump Supporter Arrested For Requesting Absentee Ballot For Dead Mother
        https://www.huffpost.com/entry/-trump-supporter-arrested-voter-fraud-pennsylvania_n_5f91e43ec5b61c185f4848de

        The Heritage database includes instances from 1979 through 2020. It catalogs a total of “1,298 proven instances of voter fraud” 40 years time. That’s a minuscule amount of voter fraud.

        Voter suppression is much more common. I’m concerned about both. How about you, Estovir: does voter suppression concern you?

  17. Turley writes: “In the end, I would defend Campos in his posting such views. Unlike Professor Campos, I do not believe that he should be fired for holding opposing views or even calling for others to be fired. That is the cost of free speech. Indeed, Professor Campos is the cost of free speech.”

    Campos does not simply hold an opposing view. He is not simply calling for Professor Turley to be fired. He is comparing Turley to a Hitler Holocaust apologist. Why is Paul Campos not guilty of libel? Does his post not do significant unfounded and unjust harm to the reputation of Professor Turley, Turley’s students and GW?

    1. Turley does a lot of harm to his own reputation.

      He regularly makes false statements and fails to correct them. I used to post corrections to his Corrections page, but it’s now closed to comments. (I don’t know whether that’s on purpose or if comments close after a certain amount of time unless they’re kept open, and Darren didn’t override the automatic close. It’s possible that Darren was peeved that I was noting errors of fact and reasoning when Turley was only looking for comments about typos.)

      There are a variety of law faculty who condemn Turley’s sloppiness with facts. Here’s an example:

      Steve Vladeck (https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/stephen-i-vladeck): “I know we shouldn’t expect better from @JonathanTurley, but it’s hard to put into words just how irresponsible it is for a constitutional law professor to go on national television and spout conspiracy theories about election integrity that have already been thoroughly debunked.”
      https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1327224408168157184 (the tweet has a video of the comments by Turley that Vladeck is commenting about)

      1. That hardly seems like a fair assessment from Vladeck, CTHD.

        I suspect you have brought forward this example from another professor because you haven’t seen anything in your years (?!) of fact-checking Turley that leads you to believe he is any way comparable to a Holocaust apologist.

        Why isn’t Campos guilty of libel?

        1. What did Vladeck say that you think is unfair, Jonathan? (that Turley was “irresponsible”? that he was “spout[ing] conspiracy theories about election integrity that have already been thoroughly debunked”? that “we shouldn’t expect better from @JonathanTurley”? all three? something else?) Why do you think the statement is unfair?

          I’m not sure why you think I’ve been fact-checking Turley for years. I’ve only been commenting since the spring. I don’t think he’s comparable to a Holocaust denier, but I do think he regularly does “harm to [his] reputation” through his uncorrected false statements and errors of reasoning.

          I don’t know whether Campos is guilty of libel. The only way we’d find out is if Turley files suit and a jury comes to a judgment.

          1. Everything Vladeck tweeted seems unfair to me, CTHD. Vladeck begins with ad hominem and doesn’t get better from there.

            What exactly did Turley say in the clip that you think was false? I’ve listened to it twice now and I still don’t understand the factual inaccuracy. Can you directly quote the error?

            “Only” since the spring?! I’ve only been here a month. You’re a relative veteran.

            I’m glad to know you don’t think Turley is a Hitler Holocaust Apologist.

            Thanks for clarifying your position on Campos.

        2. Jonathan, saying someone is not as bad as a holocaust denier is a low bar, but it depends on whether the denier is motivated anti-Semitism or just gullibly accepting bad information without malice.

          Similarly, the problem with Turley is not being misinformed, but his obviously dishonest statements. As recently as a couple of days ago he repeated again the complete falsehood that Trump had been found innocent of collusion with the Russians. He’s not stupid and surely knows Mueller specifically said that was not his findings while producing a report which documents numerous instances of collusion, 3 months ago the GOP led Senate Intel Report documented many of the same incidents. Why would Turley lie about this? Why would he repeat an already discredited rumor about election fraud on right wing TV, only to be slapped down on the facts by the right wing host?

          Hellllooooo.

          Never heard of Campo and probably never will again, while Turley is a regular presence on TV masquerading as an objective, cautious, and fair commentator. BS. I don’t care if he’s better or worse than a holocaust denier.

          1. Hey Joey, be a sweetie and provide the link to your dear leader Jeffrey Tobin wanking on Zoom in your sacred texts aka the New Yorker. Seems Bill Clinton is going to file a lawsuit against him for impersonating him and we want to see any similarities

          2. Hellloooo. You have been propagandized by left wing media. You are experiencing cognitive dissonance.

            Example: When you see Joe Biden standing in front of a backdrop that has the words, “Office of the President-Elect” and “Covid-19 Briefing”…..you are being duped. There is no such office and there is no official briefing to be given. It’s a fake out. It’s not real.

            1. Fact check: it is real. but you are still being lied to and propagandized by the left-wing media and big tech. 100% true.

              1. Key difference between Dem and GOP claims of election fraud: Dem claims get amplified eagerly by every organ of mainstream establishment opinion (see 2016). Conversely, GOP claims are subject to a barrage of disclaimers and censorship declaring them authoritatively to be false

  18. Trump and his team deserve credit for Operation Warp Speed.

    But the bigger story today is still his tweeting.

    Trump tweets: “Heartwarming to see all of the tremendous support out there, especially the organic Rallies that are springing up all over the Country, including a big one on Saturday in D.C. I may even try to stop by and say hello. This Election was Rigged, from Dominion all the way up & down!”

    More strong words from the US President.

    Which legal experts on free speech are advising him here, Mr. Turley?

    Unless he provides accompanying evidence, why is this not an impeachable offense?

  19. In fact, I have been wondering why there has not been a move to get Professor Turley fired. In this climate, those who take reasoned positions not in sync with the left, are often targeted for cancel.

    But Professor Turley perhaps should not have responded to Prof. Campos, well, at least not in this forum, because doing so may only serve to elevate Campos.

    1. SB: “In fact, I have been wondering why there has not been a move to get Professor Turley fired.”

      There have been a number of such attempts. I’m not going to recount the details here, because to repeat an insult, is to commit the insult.

  20. Professor Turley, I commend you for your courage. We are headed for some difficult times.

    1. I agree. I admire Professor Turley for his courage and for his patient rationality. He really thinks things through in detail. I learn so much when reading his blog.

Comments are closed.