“It All Meant Something. Until It Didn’t”: A Response To Rep. Anna Eshoo

I testified yesterday on possible private and public limitations on free speech and the free press, including a letter from Democratic members pressing companies to remove Fox News and networks from cable.  Democratic members sent the letter to AT&T, Verizon, Roku, Amazon, Apple, Comcast, Charter, DISH, Cox, Altice, Hulu and Google’s parent company, Alphabet. During the hearing, House Democrat Anna Eshoo (D., Cal.) insisted that she was only “asking questions” and then reframed the objections to the letter as whether the letter itself was a violation of the First Amendment. It seemed like the line from A Hologram for the King: “It all meant something. Until it didn’t.”

Given the limited opportunity to respond to Rep. Eshoo in the hearing, I wanted to respond.

Rep. Eshoo insisted that the hearing itself was guilty of the type of disinformation that she was combatting in her letter co-authored by Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.). That itself was disconcerting since we were sharing opposing views on the import of her letter, including widely shared views that the letter was pressuring these companies to drop Fox News and other networks from cable programming.

The First Amendment Argument

Eshoo started out by objecting by reading the First Amendment on the government abridging free speech. She then added:

“The First Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting laws abridging the freedom of speech. . . It does not, however, stop us from examining the public health and democratic implications of misinformation. The idea that members asking questions violates the First Amendment is absolutely absurd; it’s our job to ask questions.”

She then added that she had submitted the letter to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to see if there was such a violation in the letter. The problem is that I did not say that the letter itself was a violation of the First Amendment. Indeed, my testimony said the opposite while noting that free speech values go beyond the First Amendment. Indeed, I raised the danger of letting members do indirectly what they cannot do directly. Asking the CRS to look for First Amendment violations is about as useful as asking them to look for endangered species violations. It was answering a question not asked.

Ironically, the emphasis on the narrower test under the First Amendment is precisely what some of us have objected to in this and other controversies. As I stated in my testimony:

What is particularly concerning is the common evasion used by academics and reporters that such regulation is not really a free speech issue because these are private companies and the First Amendment only addresses government restrictions on free speech. As a private entity, companies like Twitter or publishing houses are clearly not the subject of that amendment. However, private companies can still destroy free speech through private censorship. It is called the “Little Brother” problem. That does not alter the fundamental threat to free speech. This is the denial of free speech, a principle that goes beyond the First Amendment. Indeed, some of us view free speech as a human right.

Consider racial or gender discrimination. It would be fundamentally wrong even if federal law only banned such discrimination by the government. The same is true for free speech. The First Amendment is limited to government censorship, but free speech is not limited in the same way. Those of us who believe in free speech as a human right also believe that it is wrong to deny it as either a private or governmental entity. That does not mean that there are no differences between governmental and private actions. For example, companies may control free speech in the workplaces and companies have been recognized as having their own free speech rights. However, the social media companies were created as forums for speech. Indeed, these companies sought immunity on the false claim that they were not making editorial decisions or engaging in viewpoint regulation. No one is saying that these companies are breaking the law in denying free speech. Rather, we are saying that they are denying free speech as companies offering speech platforms.

Some have noted that it is possible for pressure from government officials to constitute state action for the purposes of an actual First Amendment claim. Thus, they cited cases when a borough president in New York City asked a billboard company to take down a sign or when a village official wrote to a local chamber of commerce objection to an ad. In both cases however the standard involved a dismissal where all facts must be inferred in favor of the opposing party. The point is valid that letters can cross the line as a threat of retaliation or action against a private company.  Yet, there are countervailing political speech and legislative interests for members of Congress. Courts are often uncomfortable in drawing such lines between advocacy and coercion by elected officials. A great variety of letters can be taken as veiled threats of possible congressional action. I know of no case where a letter of this kind ultimately resulted in a successful claim. There is also the question of relief. If a court were asked to enjoin Eschoo, what would the court order her not to do? She is engaging in free speech as a representative of her district as well as inquiry as a member of the legislative branch. If the relief is a declaratory judgment, what would be declared? That it is unconstitutional to encourage companies to apply misconceived moral standards?

There is a serious question of whether Congress is using Section 230 (and the threat to remove its protection) as a way to coerce companies to censor political critics. That is a more substantial theory with a closer nexus between legislative authority and direct demands for action.

The vast majority of criticism directed at this letter (including my own) was that it undermined free speech values and not that it was in itself a First Amendment violation. This ties into the next issue.

When Questions Are Answers

Rep. Eshoo then noted “Now I don’t know, Mr. Turley, if you find this so chilling that it is actually glacial for Congress to ask strong, important questions.” As I noted in the hearing, these were clearly statements masquerading as questions.  Putting a question mark after this line does not make any less than a statement:

“What moral or ethical principles (including those related to journalistic integrity, violence, medical information, and public health) do you apply in deciding which channels to carry or when to take adverse actions against a channel?”

The vast majority of writers — on the left and right — took the letter as less of an inquiry than a not-so-veiled demand. The letter was sent after many have campaigned to force these same companies to drop Fox News and other networks. Demanding to know why these companies still air Fox News was obviously as a statement against such access. Indeed, the letter was heralded by many who want to see Fox News taken off the air and saw the letter as prompted by the campaign to bar Fox News from cable.

In fairness to Rep. Eschoo, parts of the letter did request information. Moreover, I do not question her deep-felt and honest concerns over the impact of false and extremist speech. I share some of those views even if we disagree on how such speech should be addressed in our country. (Indeed, I share many values with Rep. Eschoo and support her efforts particularly in the area of the environment and protecting the California coastal areas).

The “chilling” aspect of Eshoo’s letter was also her insistence that there should be “moral” criteria applied in deciding whether to allow viewers to watch Fox News and other networks. The answer should begin with the obvious principles of free speech and the free press, which are not even referenced in a letter pushing for major news outlets to be essentially shutdown. Instead, the companies are asked if they will impose a morality judgment on news coverage and, ultimately, access. This country went through a long and troubling period of such morality codes being used to bar speakers to censor material in newspapers, books, and movies, including feminists, atheists, and other disfavored groups. To invite a return to such subjective standards is alarming, particularly in barring the preferred news sources for tens of millions of citizens. Fox News has long ranked as the most watched cable network for news, and is the primary source of news for tens of millions of citizens. Like CNN and MSNBC, it is also the target of criticism over the balance of its reporting. However, the role of these companies is not to take “adverse actions” against channels because of such objections to the focus or viewpoints exhibited on such channels.

The letter stresses that “not all TV news sources are the same” and confronts the carriers on airing the networks as purported “hotbeds” of disinformation and conspiracy theories. Specifically, they object that “Fox News . . .  has spent years spewing misinformation about American politics.” The letter does not address the long-standing objections to networks like CNN, MSNBC, and others for pronounced bias and refuted stories. There is a long list of such false stories. Some were corrected and some were not. Indeed, major media figures like Chuck Todd have made demonstrably false statements and aired a clearly false or misleading clip without any correction. Those were false stories but there are a broader array of stories that advance arguments based on rejected theories or legal interpretations. Claiming that there are strong criminal cases to be made on rejected legal interpretations is “disinformation” but it is also a form of opinion – and clearly an exercise of free speech.

Yet, the letter solely seeks to bar those networks that the members and their constituents do not like or likely watch. It is a complete list of every major television channel viewed as conservative-leaning. If the companies were to yield to such pressure, there would be no major television outlet offering a substantial alternative to the coverage of companies like CNN and MSNBC. Tens of millions of viewers would be forced to watch those channels or watch nothing at all. Frankly, such curtailment or outright elimination of these networks would work to the advantage of these and other Democratic members.  There is a rather obvious conflict of interest that is laid bare not only by the demand but the inclusion of only networks with large conservative audiences. The objection to “spewing misinformation about American politics” is clearly made from one side of such politics.

Finding Clarity and Common Ground

I do believe that the Eshoo letter is an attack on free speech and the free press values. However, I appreciated the civil and substantive dialogue in the hearing. While Soledad O’Brien and I disagree on points, we share a concern for how our media is changing with the “echo chamber” model that is now widely adopted. We also agree on the need to bolster local media and to more clearly distinguish between opinion and news coverage. Finally, all of the witnesses agreed that Congress should not try to regulate the media and that there should not be a push to take Fox and other networks off cable platforms — a rejection of the underlying premise of the letter.

Where O’Brien and I disagree is on her position that we should all support free speech but not for “liars.” O’Brien insists that media should bar “liars” from interviews without defining how we make such judgments. She simply suggests that it is obvious Free speech means little if it does not apply to anyone accused of “disinformation.” We have seen how subjective that standard can be.

O’Brien said that the media should not be continued interviews after former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway used the phrase “alternative facts.” Yet, wasn’t that news? Conway was interviewed about that phrase and what she meant. Under O’Brien’s approach, she would not have been interviewed further? I obviously disagree that interviews with challenged individuals is still not news. I noted in the hearing that Gov. Andrew Cuomo has been accused of lying about about nursing home deaths from Covid-19 and his Administration’s past statements to the state and federal governments. Should we refuse to interview because some say he is a liar? What if we believe he is lying, isn’t it still news to interview him and challenge him on those points?

These are difficult and interesting questions. I would prefer to discuss them at media conferences rather than a congressional committee. Particularly with the release of the Eshoo letter, the hearing was widely taken as an effort to apply pressure on these companies and fuel demands for forms of private or public speech controls.

I was hoping that Rep. Eschoo and other Democratic members would use the hearing to offer a simple and unifying statement: we oppose efforts to remove Fox News and these other networks from cable programming. Not a single Democratic member made that statement, which (in my view) should be easy for anyone who believes in free speech and the free press. Even though every witness (including one who lost her father to Covid-19) made that statement, no Democratic member was willing to state publicly that they would oppose efforts to remove Fox News from cable access. That silence was also chilling to the point of glacial.

This blog was updated.

106 thoughts on ““It All Meant Something. Until It Didn’t”: A Response To Rep. Anna Eshoo”

  1. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? While the self-appointed intellectual elite debate the finer aspects of who they really need to censor to win the next election, er, to protect us, the lizard brains among you stick to one thing we do know: free speech means free speech. Period. When you start inserting ifs, ands, or buts, free speech ain’t free anymore. Such a simple concept that even the “intellectual elites” should be able to wrap their massive brains around it.

  2. Today, President Biden held a press event to congratulate himself for what he called a ‘halfway’ goal of 50,000,000 vaccine doses administered in the U.S. so far.

    Problem with this is that there have actually been 66,500,000 doses administered so far. Biden is only celebrating the 50,000,000 that have been administered since he became president.

    And if Biden was left with “no plan” by the Trump admin, then how the heck did the country manage to administer 66,500,000 doses total within the first 36 days of Biden’s presidency?

    Answer: Joe Biden is a liar.

  3. “Just over a month ago, America had no real plan to vaccinate most of the country. That changed the moment we took office.” @POTUS 2/24/21

    This is a flatout lie being told by President Joe Biden. Why do the media let it stand??

    “I am so tired of the continuing lies that President Biden inherited a COVID19 Vaccine mess, when in fact 99% of current vaccine manufacturing and distribution is EXACTLY as planned and explicitly described by Trump Administration’s Operation Warp Speed.” @DrGiroir

    *Dr. Brett Giroir is a Physician-Scientist and Innovator and Former Assistant Secretary for Health and WHO Board Member
    and Admiral, US Public Health Service.

    Dr. Giroir sets the record straight.

    Joe Biden is a liar.

  4. “The “chilling” aspect of Eshoo’s letter was also her insistence that there should be “moral” criteria applied in deciding whether to allow viewers to watch Fox News” Very chilling indeed. Will it start with what we watch, then what we read, then what we do, then what we………..?

  5. Turley wrote: “I was hoping that Rep. Eschoo and other Democratic members would use the hearing to offer a simple and unifying statement: we oppose efforts to remove Fox News and these other networks from cable programming. Not a single Democratic member made that statement…”

    It’s the Biden/Harris “Unity” administration! Or wait….is it?? What, exactly, has been “unifying” about Joe Biden’s presidency so far?? Not much.

    You know what else Joe Biden did that shows his commitment to “unity” and “unifying” the country?

    Joe and Jill are flying to Texas on Friday (better late than never, Joe, it’s only been, what, 10 days since the devastating power outages?)
    And…Joe’s press secretary, Jen Psaki says seating space on Air Force One is “limited” so unlikely that Republican Sens. Cruz and Cornyn will be invited to travel with Biden to Texas.

    Did ya catch that one? Joe Biden’s empty promise of “Unity” is literally nowhere to be found in Joe Biden’s administration.

    We all see what a self-serving lying politician you are Joe Biden.

    1. Joe doesn’t want Republican Senators spending too much time on Air Force One with him and then spilling the beans about how senile Joe Biden really is. They have to keep a tight “lid” on old Joe. So no Texas Sens. will be invited to fly to their home state on AF1 with Joe.

      So much Unity!

      1. Here’s a question….will President Biden actually take questions from the press during his visit to Texas on Friday?

        Watch him avoid the press all day long in Texas. Except for prepared remarks, of course.

        Joe Biden is a liar, a fraud, and a disaster as president.

  6. Keith Richburg, an accomplished writer who is black wrote ” Out of America…”

    https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tLP1TcwNzA2yq4yYPSSzU7NLMlQKMpMzkgqLUpXyC8tUchPU0jMTQUKJQIAIRcOQw&q=keith+richburg+out+of+america&oq=keith+richburg&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j46j0l3.23184j0j7&client=tablet-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

    After visiting Africa he said near the end of his book something like: I know slavery is bad and all that but after seeing Africa I can say thank God my ancestors were brought to America.

    Doesn’t sound like he intends to get in line for reparations.

    Perhaps those demanding reparations will take them coupled with repatriation. If I didn’t like it here I would go.

  7. Even though every witness (including one who lost her father to Covid-19) made that statement, no Democratic member was willing to state publicly that they would oppose efforts to remove Fox News from cable access.

    This is because these Democratic members are unabashed ideologues whose fragile world view cannot withstand even an iota of inquiry or heaven forbid a contradictory proposition.

    These Democratic cretins are cowards attempting to hide their wanton censorial yearnings behind a patina constitutional righteousness.

  8. Constitution 101

    ABSOLUTE

    The Constitution and Bill of Rights are absolute and immutable.

    The rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are provided, and NOT qualified, by the Constitution and Bill of Rights and are, therefore, absolute and immutable.

    Without hindrance, impediments or interference, Americans have the right to fully and absolutely enjoy the rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities provided by the Constitution and Bill of Rights over any

    concern or thesis of Congress and/or the Judicial Branch.

    The judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, has NO power to legislate or modify legislation and enjoys as its sole duty and charge merely the power to assure that actions comport with law.*

    Fundamental law may not be modified by Congress or the Judicial Branch, including the Supreme Court, or by any State, but only through exercise of the constitutional amendment process.

    The freedoms of speech, press, religion and assembly are not qualified and are, therefore, immutable.

    The right to private property is absolute and immutable allowing only owners to “claim and/or exercise dominion” over private property, brooking no interference whatsoever by governmental entities.

    The right to keep and bear arms is absolute and immutable and shall not be infringed in any aspect or facet.
    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    What America is facing is conquest and extinction by its direct, mortal enemy, global communism and the emerging global hegemon, communist China, which, incidentally and importantly, made clear its intent to

    achieve dominion by releasing a biological weapon, “China Flu, 2020,” to improve its geopolitical position.

    The prime enemy is China and communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America have for decades been committing actionable treason by “…adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid

    and Comfort.”

    The enemy is not at the gates, the enemy is inside the gates.

    The enemy is egregiously violating fundamental law and is irrefutably culpable.

    Listening further to the mad rantings of hysterical and incoherent zealots is no longer tenable.

    The enemy, as has been the case throughout history, must be neutralized, before said neutralization is no longer possible.

    America, including its Constitution and Bill of Rights, is in its final, mortal struggle for survival.
    _________________________________________________________________________

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and

    to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    – Declaration of Independence, 1776
    _____________________________

    *
    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “… men [will] do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton
    ________________

    “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

    – James Madison

  9. The judgment “misinformation!” IS AN OPINION. A political opinion. Political speech should not be censored.

  10. Democrats want to shut down debate about the 2020 election, but the questions about the integrity of our last election are not going away no matter how much they try to make it disappear.

    67% of Republicans say that the 2020 election was invalid! No wonder Dems and Big Tech are colluding together to censor and squash dissent! It will not work.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/540508-majority-of-republicans-say-2020-election-was-invalid-poll

    1. And when they can no longer keep a “lid” on senile Joe Biden, if they think the country will simply “accept” a Kamala Harris presidency, because she represents a “first” this or “first” that, they are in for a rude awakening.

      1. Did you say Kamala Harris?

        “IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE”

        Kamala Harris will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.

        Kamala Harris’ parents were foreign citizens at the time of her birth.

        – A mere “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.

        – The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”

        – Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”

        – “The importance of The Law of Nations, therefore, resides both in its systematic derivation of international law from natural
        law and in its compelling synthesis of the modern discourse of natural jurisprudence with the even newer language of political
        economy. The features help to explain the continuing appeal of this text well into the nineteenth century among politicians,
        international lawyers and political theorists of every complexion,” Law of Nations Editors Bela Kapossy and Richard Whatmore.

        – The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.

        – Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.

        – The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define words or phrases like “natural born citizen” as a dictionary, while the Law of Nations, 1758, did.

        ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

        Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758

        Book 1, Ch. 19

        § 212. Citizens and natives.

        “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

        ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

        Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:

        “…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”

        ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

        To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

        From John Jay

        New York 25 July 1787

        Dear Sir

        I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d

        Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

        Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,

        which sailed Yesterday.

        Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to

        provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

        administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief

        of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

        Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect

        Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere

        I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

        John Jay

  11. “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

    ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

  12. If we study the dictatorial governments of both the past and the present we can find one thing they all have in common. The first thing they do is take control of the press. There excuse is always that lies must be eliminated. For a house member to openly use the same tactic is inexcusable. Then again, it may be evidence that a knowledge of world history is missing from her resume.

  13. Free speech means all speech! Even when it is news that negatively reflects on the strange First Family dynamics and the very odd behaviour of the drug-addicted son of President Biden — the son who has cashed in ‘big time’ on his father’s political office. Hunter Biden is not off limits given how compromised he is by his family’s “investments” with Communist China. Reportedly Hunter Biden is still,”unwinding” these “investments”? Where is that investigation into Hunter Biden FBI? Get to it….the Biden family is bought and paid for by CCP and it is a national security issue.

    “EXCLUSIVE: Hunter Biden was living with his brother Beau’s widow Hallie while sending raunchy texts and FaceTiming in the shower with her married SISTER as they declared their love and she called him her ‘prince’ —

    Hunter Biden had a controversial affair with his brother Beau’s grieving widow Hallie, while exchanging raunchy texts, ‘partying’, and even renting a house with her sister, DailyMail.com can exclusively reveal.

    Hallie Biden’s older sister, Elizabeth Secundy, who was recently separated from her husband of 15 years, referred to Hunter as her ‘prince’ and told him she loved him, in a series of text messages dating back to 2016.

    The pair’s relationship was revealed in files and emails recovered from Hunter’s laptop – the contents of which became public last year after it was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop….”

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9237397/Hunter-Biden-living-brothers-widow-relationship-sister.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus

    1. Read this entire article and see what an effed up sociopathic, corrupt family Joe Biden has…..holy smokes that is one strange family…..ain’t it nice for Joe that the corrupt fake news constantly covers up for him and his effed up family? The Joe Biden family is corrupt and compromised and they are now compromising the national security of the United States of America. A complete disgrace.

      1. The hits just keep on coming:

        According to a report from Swedish newspaper Expressen, translated by Breitbart, emails obtained by Swedish media sources accuse Hunter Biden of smuggling guests into a Washington, D.C., building owned by the Swedish government where he leased office space starting in 2017.

        Not only were after-hours guests prohibited from entering the House of Sweden — an “exclusive modernist building,” Breitbart’s Chris Tomlinson notes — but one of those guests was a former stripper named Lunden Roberts with whom Biden would go on to have a child out of wedlock.

        “It has again come to my attention that it appears that visitors have gained access to number 507 through the northern entrance after office hours – as we have 24/7 video surveillance throughout the building,” the real estate representative for the building wrote in one email, Breitbart reported.

        “Help us keep the building safe by following House of Sweden’s rules.”

        Biden shot back, tacitly accusing them of racism. (Roberts is white, but some others involved apparently were not.)

        “If NN has a problem with my guests’ race or attire, I think we should all sit down and talk about it with a lawyer present,” he wrote, according to Breitbart.
        https://www.westernjournal.com/emails-hunter-biden-accused-smuggling-ex-stripper-building-owned-swedish-government/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=aa-breaking&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=firefly

            1. Ha! Kamala is upset that “they” didn’t tell her in advance either! We’re in good hands, America! Not.

              1. Another hit that keeps on coming….

                Joe Biden continues to get away with telling another Big Lie.

                He keeps repeating the following lie with zero pushback or correction by the media —->>>

                “Just over a month ago, America had no real plan to vaccinate most of the country. That changed the moment we took office.” @POTUS 2/24/21

                This is a flatout lie being told by President Biden. Why do the media let it stand??

                “I am so tired of the continuing lies that President Biden inherited a COVID19 Vaccine mess, when in fact 99% of current vaccine manufacturing and distribution is EXACTLY as planned and explicitly described by Trump Administration’s Operation Warp Speed.” @DrGiroir

                *Dr. Brett Giroir is a Physician-Scientist and Innovator and Former Assistant Secretary for Health and WHO Board Member
                and Admiral, US Public Health Service.

                Dr. Giroir sets the record straight.

                Joe Biden is a liar.

                1. Today, President Biden held a press event to congratulate himself for what he called a ‘halfway’ goal of 50,000,000 vaccine doses administered in the U.S. so far.

                  Problem with this is that there have actually been 66,500,000 doses administered so far. Biden is only celebrating the 50,000,000 that have been administered since he became president.

                  And if Biden was left with “no plan” by the Trump admin, then how the heck did the country manage to administer 66,500,000 doses total within the first 36 days of Biden’s presidency?

                  Answer: Joe Biden is a liar.

                2. Perhaps Biden is being setup by his own cabinet, led by the VP. Biden’s first 100 days is already proving disastrous for our country in so many ways. Of course Harris and the far left wing of the party will avoid blame. They’ll tell Biden to make these clearly false statements (not that he knows it) and at the end of the 100 days, they will use those as evidence Biden is unfit for office. Poor old Joe wasn’t lying, he was suffering from his dementia more than anyone knew. That’ll make the 25th amendment somewhat more palatable.

                  1. Interesting theory. Will keep an eye on it….

                    Evidence is suggesting that if they can get past the protective wall ‘Docta Jill’ has erected around old Joe, then the timing to take out Joe and install Kamala is closer than we may think…

    2. My Republican friend, you miss the point of what FBI’s primary purpose is as a sort of internal political police.

      Counter-intelligence is their seconary purpose. Crime fighting, their third purpose.

      Their primary purpose, is to control politics. To identify and cripple those whom the oligarchs consider extremists–

      – and to keep in line, those like Joe Biden, who get the brass ring.

      Hence, you can be sure, the FBI knew all about Hunter’s bad stuff, and the extent to which Joe dipped his beak, too

      But the FBI purpose is not to “protect America’ or whatever. It is to PROTECT FBI AND ITS PATRONS- the oligarchs.

      that’s their primary purpose.

      Sal

      1. Kurtz, your full of s…. I’ve met agents who risk their life to cathch criminals. How’d you do going out to clubs with a murdering gang leader for over a year, pretending you were a mafia guy from the other coast, then going home to your wide and kids? Real life Donnie Brasco stuff.

        You don;t know WTF you’re talking about.

        1. Perhaps joe is naive enough to think that J Edgar was the only FBI leader who sought kompromat on American politicians or attempted to exploit it or who directed subordinates to engage in extrajudicial activities not allowed under law. I doubt it for my part. Sal

  14. The preamble to the Constitution begins with “We, the people.” Therefore, Congress IS the people because they represent “the will of the people.” Therefore, there is no distinction between public and private. As for Soledad O’Brien, she is at least three/quarters white and is as racist as can be. As for her referring to “liars,” she’s a part of a lying profession. Free speech is free speech, period.

    1. The moment we live in, is a laughable historical irony. The party that pretends to be the champion of labor, the party that is supposedly socialist leaning, is actually the servant of global capital. The 11 priorities which precede the concern over #12, capitalism, are all issues that global capital has identified as ways of …. preserving the power of global capital against a rebellious white working class.

      Sal Sar

    2. The fact that Democrats see Trump supporters as a bigger problem than almost everything else tells you how insane they’ve become. The Democratic Party isn’t afflicted by Trump Derangement Syndrome, they are defined by it.

      Well, their messaging is certainly hitting it’s Mark.

  15. First let me state I’m sorry for the length of this post. But the Political Left has gone completely BONKERS!! From Brutus 1: “…If respect is to be paid to the opinion of the greatest and wisest men who have ever thought or wrote on the science of government… I shall content myself with quoting only two. The one is the baron de Montesquieu, spirit of laws, chap. xvi. vol. I [book VIII]. “It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected.” Of the same opinion is the marquis Beccarari…________ In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other. This will retard the operations of government, and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good…_________ In so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become above the controul of the people, and abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves, and oppressing them. The trust committed to the executive offices, in a country of the extent of the United-States, must be various and of magnitude. The command of all the troops and navy of the republic, the appointment of officers, the power of pardoning offences, the collecting of all the public revenues, and the power of expending them, with a number of other powers, must be lodged and exercised in every state, in the hands of a few. When these are attended with great honor and emolument, as they always will be in large states, so as greatly to interest men to pursue them, and to be proper objects for ambitious and designing men, such men will be ever restless in their pursuit after them. They will use the power, when they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying their own interest and ambition, and it is scarcely possible, in a very large republic, to call them to account for their misconduct, or to prevent their abuse of power…”________ Additionally I quote in part from a Supreme Court Ruling in “New York Times Company, Petitioner, v. United States, Petitioner, v. The Washington Post Company et al. June 30, 1971.———-
    “In seeking injunctions against these newspapers and in its presentation to the Court, the Executive Branch seems to have forgotten the essential purpose and history of the First Amendment. When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights to safeguard certain basic freedoms.1 They especially feared that the new powers granted to a central government might be interpreted to permit the government to curtail freedom of religion, press, assembly, and speech. In response to an overwhelming public clamor, James Madison offered a series of amendments to satisfy citizens that these great liberties would remain safe and beyond the power of government to abridge. Madison proposed what later became the First Amendment in three parts, two of which are set out below, and one of which proclaimed: ‘The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.’2 The amendments were offered to curtail and restrict the general powers granted to the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches two years before in the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights changed the original Constitution into a new charter under which no branch of government could abridge the people’s freedoms of press, speech, religion, and assembly. Yet the Solicitor General argues and some members of the Court appear to agree that the general powers of the Government adopted in the original Constitution should be interpreted to limit and restrict the specific and emphatic guarantees of the Bill of Rights adopted later. I can imagine no greater perversion of history. Madison and the other Framers of the First Amendment, able men that they were, wrote in language they earnestly believed could never be misunderstood: ‘Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom * * * of the press * * *.’ Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints.”

Leave a Reply