Pacific University Professor Suspended After Sharing Story About Drag Bar In New Orleans

Pacific University is the latest focus of an intense struggle over academic freedom after it suspended Professor Richard Paxton.  Dr. Paxton was accused of violating the “civil rights” of students under Title IX after he shared an experience of unwittingly walking into a drag bar in New Orleans. The story was a story shared for a pedagogical purpose. While that story appears to have been the impetus for the initial action against Dr. Paxton, he was also accused of saying that “every person has a gender”  and other references. He has alleged that  Jennifer Yruegas (who is not just the university’s  but associate vice president of human resources and associate dean of the business school, and Title IX coordinator) pushed Paxton to resign. The investigation has now dragged on for months and, to its credit, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has filed its own letter of concern in the matter. The case is similar to other recent controversies where professors were suspended and subject to long investigations without a clear basis for such action.

The main complaint against Dr. Paxton was the story that he shared in a class on cognitive development and specifically Jean Piaget’s “schema theory.”  The theory has been described the following way:

Schemas are categories of information stored in long-term memory. A schema contains groups of linked memories, concepts or words. This grouping of things acts as a cognitive shortcut, making storing new things in your long-term memory and retrieval of them much quicker and more efficient.

The theory suggests that human conduct and behavior is based on these groupings of patterns and concepts from our life experiences. Paxton shared his response to the bar as an example. He and his friends entered what they thought was a typical bar when they gradually realized that it was a bar featuring the “World’s Best Female Impersonators.”  They left.

When there was a complaint, Paxton recounts an alleged confrontational call with Yruegas and another official. The letter to Fox New’s John Roberts was reprinted on the site the College Fix.


The letters from counsel and the university indication that four students also cited his remarks about race, including that Jews funded the Revolutionary War, and an observation that women don’t wear purses “like they used to.”

The AAUP raised serious concerns over the handling of the dispute and the length of time of this ongoing investigation. He is a tenured professor who was allegedly pressured by Yruegas to resign. He says that he has been subject to an unrelenting campaign and public humiliation, causing him to sell his house and deal with depression. He is now preparing a lawsuit. He also filed a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for age discrimination.

The suspension contravenes his status as a tenured professor as well as principles of academic freedom, according to the AAUP letter.

American Association of University Professors letter to Pacific University by The College Fix on Scribd

The response from the University seems little more than a shrug and a type of “these things take time” defense. There is notably no response to the claims that Paxton was pushed to resign or he would be subjected to a Title IX investigation.

Pacific University response to American Association of University Professors by The College Fix on Scribd

As we have previously discussed, these long and public suspensions (like the one involving a John Marshall law professor recently) do not have to succeed in termination to have a chilling effect on other academics.  Few professors would risk what is now approaching six months of suspension and public humiliation. Instead, many will yield to what the perceive are the demands of the majority in their teaching and research.

These controversies raise questions over how speech regulations are being enforced either in controversies involving speech on or off campus. We have previously discussed the concern that academics are allowed (correctly) to voice extreme views on social justice and police misconduct, but that there is less tolerance for the voicing of opposing views on such subjects.  There were analogous controversies at the University of California and Boston University, where there have been criticism of such a double standard, even in the face of criminal conduct. There were also such an incident at the University of London involving Bahar Mustafa as well as one involving a University of Pennsylvania professor. Some intolerant statements against students are deemed free speech while others are deemed hate speech or the basis for university action. There is a lack of consistency or uniformity in these actions which turn on the specific groups left aggrieved by out-of-school comments.  There is also a tolerance of faculty and students tearing down fliers and stopping the speech of conservatives.  Indeed, even faculty who assaulted pro-life advocates was supported by faculty and lionized for her activism.

Professors have a right to express themselves even when they espouse offensive or disgraceful positions. As we have previously discussed, one professor called for more Trump supporters to be killed. Another called for strangling police. Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis, who writes for the site Lawyers, Guns, and Money, said he saw “nothing wrong” with the killing of a conservative protester — a view defended by other academics.  While sites like Lawyers, Guns, and Money feature writers law professor Paul Campus who call for the firing of those with opposing views (including myself), they continue to feature a writer who has justified actually killing those with opposing views. I have opposed calls that extremist figures like Loomis should be terminated at their universities for speaking publicly on such issues. However, there remains a sharp contrast in how such controversial statements are treated by universities depending on their content or conclusions.

One distinguishing feature here with some of these cases is that the statements were made in class though the university letter stresses that such investigations would apply to comment on or off campus. Yet, faculty have been criticized for extreme statements on race or gender in classrooms. Some of us have defended them on the basis of academic freedom despite our personal disagreement with the statements. Putting aside the content of the statements made by Paxton, there remains the response. If such a comment constitutes a Title IX violation and warrants months of suspension, the protections of tenure could be eviscerated by universities.  I do not fault the university for investigating. If students complained, it has an obligation to address those complaints to be sure that a professor is not abusing students. In this case, that may warrant a broader inquiry. The question is the need for a suspension that is now approaching half a year.

There is also a concern with the university’s response recently to the AAUP. It is basically and “cut and paste” of the Title IX procedures and no specific response to the allegations of abusive process and statements contained in the letter from Dr. Paxton’s lawyer. At a minimum, the University could have promised to separately look into how this matter was handled and whether such abuses occurred. That is not necessarily germane to a Title IX investigation of Dr. Paxton’s statements in class.  For example, if Yruegas did push Paxton to resign or face a Title IX investigation, there are serious concerns over due process. This was a meeting allegedly called with very little notice and an alleged demand for immediate resignation. If true, that would be an outrageous violation of principles of due process under the faculty handbook and AAUP guidelines. The University does not acknowledge such specific allegations in its letter, let alone promise to investigate them.


76 thoughts on “Pacific University Professor Suspended After Sharing Story About Drag Bar In New Orleans”

  1. Monumentcolorado reacted to my comment by stating: “ Your posting is typical lefty writing: “I demand…; and by the way I don’t like what you already said.” Bad mannered, arrogant, and worst of all, tedious. You people are ugly.”

    Insults aside, will anyone who defends Turley explain why he is ignoring the Smartmatic defamation lawsuit against Fox News? It was in all the headlines. I’m sure he must have read about it.

    Seriously, there must be a reason for his silence. My guess is that he does not wish to discuss the allegations made in the complaint because they reflect poorly on his employer. Am I wrong to suspect that he may be holding his tongue for fear of upsetting his Fox News bosses? Do you think he will ever post a commentary on this topic or otherwise provide an explanation why he will not? Aren’t any of you Trumpists bothered by Turley’s mystifying failure to rush to the defense of Fox News?

    1. Why ignore the smartmatic lawsuit ?

      Because it only appears to be in the left wing nut news.

      I have seen little about it.

      I do not expect it ultimately to go anywhere.

      But should it actually do so – THEN I am sure it will get some attention.

      The most critical question of these faux defamation lawsuits is what venue they are decided in.

      If they are decided in DC – the whole country is in trouble.

      If they are decided in TX – they will die quickly.

      And that is one of the problems today.
      In blue parts of the country – the rule of law no longer exists.

      Government, courts, everything is all determined by left wing nut oppinion. Not law.

      This is self evident by the lefts hypocracy.

      I do not think that anything Paul Manafort did was a crime. But if it was – then inarguably Hunter Biden’s conduct was 10 times more egregious.

      I am bothered by the conduct of Chao – but it is still orders of magnitude less offensive than the Biden family.

      The left tortured Gen. Flynn about pruported lies to the FBI that no one can even identify.

      Now we find the Flynn investigation started with lies tot he FBI by Stephan Halper – that agents knew were lies at the time.
      Why was Halper not prosecuted ? Why was Flynn ?

      Klinesmith falsified documents in representations to the court – and gets a slap on the wrists.

      Gen. Flynn has been vilified.

      I do not know if Flynn is a good person. I do know that those who persecuted him are evil.

      And those of you on the left have cheered that on.

      What misconduct by your own is great enough for you to take a serious look at yourselves and your own hypocracy ?

      The tide has turned on Gov. Cuomo at the moment ? Why Now ?

      The allegations of sexual misconduct against him are not new.
      The fact that he sent Covid patients to nursing homes to kill the elderly is not knew.

      Most of us with brains have known these things for months.

      Wow, more recently you have found data that tells you what was obvious to most of us all along.
      Or there are new allegations to go along with the old ones ?

      When is it that those of you on the left heed the advice of Lord Acton

      POWER CORRUPTS. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.

      If you do not want significant corruption in government that can only be accomplished with the bare minimum of government.

      You wasted 4 years ranting about Trump’s purported corruption – and never came near touching him.

      But even if your allegations had proven correct – how are they not the norms of government under democrats ?

      Crime in blue cities is skyrocketing – what did you expect after ranting to “defund the police” ?

      The most poorly governed parts of the country are governed by those on the left, at great expense and great failure.

      The Trump familiy is uncouth. They are the beverly hillbilly’s come to washington.

      But unlike the Biden’s as an example, they are not peodophiles, drug addicts, or pawns of oligarchs.

      What would happen if there were pictures of Eric Trump passed out naked smoking crack ?
      What would happen if Don Jr. got millions from a Putin tied Oligarch ?

      When you are capable of judging your own honestly – then you can expect some respect from decent respectable people.

      1. John Say writes:

        “What would happen if Don Jr. got millions from a Putin tied Oligarch ?”

        Interesting, because the GOP majority led Senate Intel Comm wrote:

        “….(U) The Committee found that the connection between Trump and the Agalarovs began
        in 2013 with planning for the Miss Universe Moscow pageant. Aras Agalarov is a prominent
        oligarch in Russia, and his son, Emin Agalarov, is a musician and businessman in Moscow. The
        connection evolved in 2014 and focused on an effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow that
        never came to fruition. During that time communications further extended to Agalarov
        associates and family members and to Trump associates and family members. The relationship
        with the Agalarovs, which continued through the 2016 U.S. election, included business and
        personal communications, in person meetings, and gifts.
        (U) The Committee found that Aras Agalarov was personally involved in pushing for
        both the June 9, 2016 meeting between NataliaVeselnitskaya and senior m~mbers of the
        Campaign and for a second meeting following the election, also with Veselnitskaya, that did not
        take plac·e. Agalarov likely did this on behalf of individuals affiliated with the Russian
        government, judging from his ties with Russian officials who have pursued a repeal of the U.S.
        sanctions under the Magnitsky Act. · ·
        (U) The Committe~ found evidence suggesting that it was the ‘i~tent of the Campaign
        · participants in the June 9, 2016 meeting, particularly Dortald Trump Jr., to receive derogatory
        information that would be of benefit to the Campaign from a soui:ce known, at least by Trump
        Jr.,. to have connections to the Russian government……”

        1. What is politically corrupt about a private citizen who was in the business of realestate – and particularly hotels and hotel management attempting to build a hotel in Moscow in 2013 ?

          You seem completely unable to distinguishing between govenrment and private.

          Again a common blind spot for leftists.

          My problems are not with Manafort, or Hunter Biden – these are all private actors.

          I am significantly more disgusted by Hunter Biden’s conduct – he was clearly selling his influence with his father – he was selling the public trust indirectly. But the CRIME is that of Joe Biden himself. Hunter Biden can not sell what he does not possess.
          It is the FACT that those paying Hunter received VALUE from Joe that is criminal. Hunter had nothing to offer but access to Joe.

          With respect to the Trump’s – they were NOT selling the public trust.
          There were selling hotel management.
          They were selling a brand.
          They were selling a service.

          Even Hunter Biden was selling a service – but that service was NOT epxertise in corporate management, or gas exploration. It was his influence on the public trust. It was his ability to end a government investigation of Burisma through influencing PUBLIC service.

          That you are unable to grasp the difference is seriously disturbing.

          1. The Trumps were not engaging in private business when they met with their Russian buddy’s emissaries in 2016, they were seeking help in their election campaign. The Russians gave them help, just as they did when he was crashing in the 90s and and as they do operating now from Trump Tower in 5th Ave.


            1. PS If John Say has any evidence that Pres Biden broke any laws involving Hunter Biden – or anyone – he should produce it. It was his job as VP to fire the corrupt prosecutor who WAS NOT investigating Burisma – which is why the US, EU, and IMF all wanted him fired. If John read any of the investigative reporting on this by the WSJ, Bloomberg, NYTs, and WaPo or listened to the numerous State Dept witnesses heard during the Ukraine hearings he’d know this.

              1. Of Course Joe Biden broke federal ethics laws.

                Hunter Biden was free to do business with anyone he wanted to – Hunter is a private actor.

                Vice President Joe Biden is NOT free to act as government in any domain in which his family might benefit.

                That is clearly spelled out in government ethics laws.
                There are lots of emails between the state department and the office of the vice president about this at the time.

                Vice President Agnew plead no contest to similar charges.
                Gov Blogovich went to jail for this.
                Sen Menedez was prosecuted for this.
                Sen. McCain was publicly censured for less than this.
                DOT Sec Chao is being investigated for this.
                Trump was impeached for much less than this.

                Lets not play these stupid games.

                Innarguably what Vice President Biden did was WRONG.
                Innarguably it violated federal ethics laws.

              2. “It was his job as VP to fire the corrupt prosecutor who WAS NOT investigating Burisma”

                Doubly false.
                Ethics laws required Biden to recuse himself from matters where his son was involved.

                Separatelhy there is plenty of evidence that Shokin WAS investigating Burisma – Hunter Biden and his law firm certainly knew that – as did the US state department. Hunter;’s lawyers had numerous exchanges with Shokin. The US state department had numerous exchanges with both Shokin and Hunter’s lawyers as they tried to thwart the investigation. BTW all of that is LEGAL.
                But more to the point – it was self evident and incredibly well documented that Shokin was investigating Burisma.

                “which is why the US, EU, and IMF all wanted him fired.”
                False ALL efforts to get Shokin Fired originagte with the US FBI team led by VP Biden’s office. The positions of the EU and IMF were driven by the US – and VP Biden’s office.

                “If John read any of the investigative reporting on this”
                I have.
                Not only have I read the reporting – I have read the EVIDENCE.
                The emails between Biden’s law firm and the State Department.
                Between the State Department and the VP’s office.
                The publiclhy available documents from Ukraine.
                Shokin’s sworn statement. the records of meetings between Biden Lawyers and Shokin.
                And many many many other SOURCE documents.

                I have no idea whether the reporters you cite have done so.
                I have no idea whether the reporters you cite actually reported what you claim.
                I have no reason to Trust you.

                I would Further note that the Burisma story had its origens ON THE LEFT.

                The earliest reporting was by NYT and it was driven by Sydney Blumenthal – Hillary Clinton’s “fixer”. With the successful intent of driving Biden out of the 2016 campaign.

                There was subsequent reporting BY THE LEFT in 2019 – when it was hoped to drive Biden from the 2020 campaign.
                The media only flipped to this stupid “russian disinformation” nonsense AFTER it became clear that Democrats only hope in 2020 was Biden.

                I would note that the relentless “russian disinformation” rant by the media and those like YOU are compelling evidence that you are psycophants. There has NEVER been any indications that Russia was behind this story.
                All the evidence is quite real, and most of the sources are actually from FOIA requests of FBI, the VP’s office, and the State Department.

                I can not speak to what you think you read in some news paper article, god knows when.
                Though after the past several years – Why would anyone trust the news ?

                Can you name a single major story they have gotten right.

                Here is a good review of the massive problems of political bias in journalism today.
                Though you can also follow the reporting of Matt Taibbi, or Glenn Greenwald or Barri Weis or myriads of others.
                I beleive that Don McNeil has written on Vox about the disaster that is the NYT now. Not that they are unique.


                “listened to the numerous State Dept witnesses heard during the Ukraine hearings”
                I did – I listened to witness after witness note that the State Department had begged the VP’s office to deal with Hunter Biden, that there was a massive conflict of interests.

                I would separately note that much has come out since regarding many of the Impeachment witnesses – there is compelling evidence that many of them lied under oath, or that evidence was not provided for these and other hearing that would have cast testimonhy in a different light.

                Fiona Hill turns out to be the person who provided Christopher Steele with the contact information and recomendation for the Russian Spy that was the primary subsource for the Steele Dossier – actual Russian disinformation.

                Vindman admitted under oath than parts of his summary of the call between Trump and Zelenski was made up.
                Yavonovich and Democratic congressional staff were collaborating with the Whistleblower BEFORE the complaint was filed.

                If you were paying any attention “you would know this”

            2. AnonJF, you’re still obsessed with Trump and Russia?!

              Who said this recently?

              “These imbalances in global socioeconomic development are a direct result of the policy pursued in the 1980s, which was often vulgar or dogmatic. This policy rested on the so-called Washington Consensus with its unwritten rules, when the priority was given to the economic growth based on a private debt in conditions of deregulation and low taxes on the wealthy and the corporations.”

              1. Biden appears to be continuing the policies towards Russia that Trump instituted.

                Everything Russia related over the past several years has been nonsense.
                But for the worlds largest stockpile of nuclear weapons Russia would be a third rate power.

                While they declined post the collapse of the USSR.
                They have been clobbered economically over the past decade plus.
                Russias constant war mongering is a ploy to remain in power as their economy stagnates.
                It is probable that even the war mongering is near end as Russia militarily is not likely capable of maintinaing the incursions it already has much less anything new.

                Credit Trump, Credit Obama, Credit falling energy costs and other economic problems, Russia is weak.
                Their economy is 1/10 that of China, or the US or the EU.
                Brazil, Canada, Italy and myriads of other small countries have larger GDP.

                Russia’s best hope right now is that bad US energy policies drive up energy costs giving some support to the Russian economy,
                AND that Biden renigges on Trump’s guarantee of the EU’s energy supply – amplifying Russian and mideastern power.

            3. The Trump’s were not engaged in the abuse of public power.

              Like it or not – thankfully political campaigns are not yet part of govenrment – and hopefully never will be.

              You do not seem to grasp that they are and MUST be private.

              The entire process of elections is SUPRA govenrment. This is part of the reason that elections must follow the law rigorously AND be SEEN to be following the rules rigorously.

              The election process is the process by which government secures the consent of the governed – without which government is not legitimate.

              One of the things you do not grasp about the events of Jan 6. is that even if you deem them illegitimate – there MUST be some point of failure of government at which the armed violent uprising of people against government or the results of an election MUST BE legitimate.

              You are completely unwilling to grasp that is not merely a possibility – but a requirement.

              Campaigns are PRIVATE – they are not part of government – they should not ever receive government money and there should be no restrictions on the actions of political campaigns – beyond ordinary criminal law.

              But the administration of ELECTIONS – is not only public – it is the most important thing that government does.
              It is the ONE thing that government MUST NOT screw up. It must not even APPEAR to screw it up.

              Yes, the Trump’s WERE engaged in private action when they met with Natalia. Just as Clinton was engaged in private action when through a long series of cuttouts she received Russian disinformation regarding Trump from a Russian Spy and then supplied it to the FBI.

              Because Campaigns are PRIVATE – they are not acts of government. They are PRIVATE PEOPLE seeking the consent of other PRIVATE PEOPLE to form a government.

              They are the embodiement of the SOCIAL CONTRACT – which is what CREATES govenrment.

              What you fail to grasp is that the SOCIAL CONTRACT – is NOT a Government act, it is the CREATION of legitimate government.

              Like typical poorly educated left wing nuts you are completely clueless.

              You get to VOTE for whoever you please.
              That person gets to do anything they wish – that is not criminal to persuade you to vote for them.

              I do not give a $h!t if Putin personally financed Hillaries campaign, or if China engaged in massive social media posts favoring Biden.

              All forms of PERSUASION are legitimate.

              What is NOT legitimate is INDUCEMENT – you can not bribe people to vote for you.
              What is NOT legitimate is COERCION – you can not blackmail people to vote for you.

              What is NOT legitimate is manipulating the GOVERNMENT to tip the balance in the election your way – which is what occured in 2020.

              Government is not allowed to put its fingers on the scales to favor one candidate over another.
              Government is not allowed to pick its own election winners.

              The actions of the FBI (and CIA) were govenrment actions – and as such subject to the highest scrutiny and the highest expectations.
              The actions of Biden as Vice President in Ukraine were govenrment actions – and subject to the highest scrutiny and ethical standards.

              The actions of the Trump and Clinton campaigns were NOT govenrment actions – and as such subject only to the law int he narrowest of senses.

            4. You seem to have a problem with moral foundations – you seem to beleive that you can pick and choose what is a matter of public trust and what is not at whim.

              You can not. The public trust is the additional moral ethical and legal obligations you undertake when you are given the authority to excercise govenrment power.

              Campaigns do not involve the excericise of govenrment power – they are PRIVATE.

              The administration of election IS an excercise of government power.

              One of the problems with the “collusion delusion” is that not only was it false – it was also not relevant.

              Political campaigns are PRIVATE, Election administration is PUBLIC.

              If you can not get simple things like that straight you will fail in your reasoning constantly.

            5. “The Trumps were not engaging in private business when they met with their Russian buddy’s emissaries in 2016”
              They were private actores.

              “they were seeking help in their election campaign.”
              True, Just as Hillary did.

              “The Russians gave them help”
              False, and irrelevant.
              The Trump campaign got nothing of value from that meeting which is self evident as they USED nothing from that meeting.
              Conversely the Clinton comapign clearly got something of value with its connections to Russian spies as it USED the results to get the FBI to investigate Trump.

              “just as they did when he was crashing in the 90s and and as they do operating now from Trump Tower in 5th Ave.”
              Trump’s businesses are free to seek funding wherever they wish.
              In fact the Russians are free to GIVE Trump money – as they did to the Clinton Foundation – over 100M dollars.

              Though I would note I have never heard in a single one of your claims against Trump any evidence that anyone GAVE him anything.

              Various entities have loaned Trump enterprises money – all businesses borrow money.
              Do you have evidence that Trump enterprises have not repaid that money ?
              Is there a bank that is suing for failure to repay a loan ?

              You do not seem to understand the difference between free exchange,
              Loans and gifts.

              Trump has traded value for value.
              He has borrowed money and repaid it with interest.

              Clinton received money for nothing.

              Hunter Biden received money in return for his ability to leverage PUBLIC POWER through his father.

              Again learn some critial thinking.

              Right and wrong, are not determined by your feelings.
              They are not determined by your preferences regarding winners and losers.

              We are supposed to be a government of laws – not men.

              That means we follow the law as written – regardless of the person.
              If we do not like the law as written – we use legitimate process to change it.
              And then apply it – blind to those we are applying it to.

              By definition if the Trump campaign did something similar but less than the Clinton campaign – either both are criminal, or both are legal.
              There is not Trump only law.

              WaPo is free to Rant about Trump’s ties to Russia, just as they are about Clinton’s or Biden’s.
              And you are free to vote accordingly.

              But those ties are criminal or not based on standards that are universal whether you are a democrat or republican.
              It that is not so we are lawless – which you have succeeded in making us, and that does not end well.

        2. This discusses some of the associated material so I thought you might be interested in it. Purely for your edification.

          “Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation” It’s from the offices of the Inspector General December 2019.

          Try and respond using links that aren’t outdated. Most of the world already knows that the earth isn’t flat. Apparently the news hasn’t caught up to you.

        3. A political campaign is NOT government.
          It is not “public service”.
          It is NOT a public trust.

          The Clinton campaign received “derogatory” – and false, information from A russian spy and a russian puppet,
          There is no crime in this. It is disturbing – and you can vote accordingly.

          The Trump campaign SOUGHT similar information from a source slightly less tawdry.
          Also not a crime. And you can vote accordingly.

          There are slight differences in sources – but the big difference is what they did.

          Clinton took Russian disinformation and fed it to the FBI which knew it was garbage and used ti to start an illegal investigation anyway.

          Trump did nothing with the garbage the Russian’s provided.

          Again you can vote accordingly.

          That said – those in the FBI (and CIA) who were invovled in investigating Trump and other based on known false russian disinformation should be permanently barred from government service.

          And some should be in jail.

          That the Federal government used the known garbage Steele Dossier as the basis for an investigation is a massive and atleast partly criminal failure of government.

          You seem to be completely devoid of critical thinking.

          You do not seem to grasp that the problem is NOT that the information came from Russia.
          It is the actions those in government took based on it – given that the KNEW it was garbage.

          Trump – as president sought to have the Biden’s investigated for their dealings in Ukraine.

          Seeking a government investigation is NOT a crime. Seeking a govenrment investigation based on foreign source information – is NOT a crime. Seeking a foreign government investigation based on forereign sourced information is NOT a crime.

          The use of government power vested in a person to start a criminal investigation for personal gain where there is no credible basis – is a crime. The use of government power to interfere in a foreign investigation – particularly one with a credible basis to personal benefit – is a crime.

          The only likely crimes in anything you have uncovered are those of Joe Biden, The FBI and CIA.

          Had you the smallest ability to think logically – that would be readily apparent.

        4. Rather than quote lots of stuff that you clearly have no understanding of.

          Try in your own words to identify what you think is parallel ?

          Are you saying that anyone who is in business can not ever hold governemnt office ?
          Frankly I think anyone who has NOT been in business can not ever hold federal office.

          Are you saying that anyone who was interacted with foreigners can not hold government office ?

          Here you have Trump Jr. meeting with an agent of a foreign government.
          There is no doubt that Trump Jr. KNEW that up front.
          There is no doubt that Trump Jr. EXPECTED dirt on Clinton.

          Are you saying that no one can ever get dirt on a political figure from foreign governments ?

          Trump Jr. DID NOT get anything of value – which is the most solid proof there is that Putin favored Clinton.
          Do you honestly think that If Putin wanted Clinton to lose in 2016 – he was not capable of accomplishing that ?
          Just releasing a few of her state department classified emails would have accomplished that.

          But lets Say Trump Jr. got something of value from Russia – and used it, and as a result the Trump campaign defeated Clinton.
          Still no crime.

          There is not an abuse of public power involved.

          Clinton clearly got something from Russia – and Used it. And the result was a fraudulent federal investigation of Trump – and lots of others.

          There is a CLEAR abuse of public power – not by Clinton, but by those in the US government serving her.

          1. From the Sen Intel Comm Report, part of what the Trump campaign got of value from Russia for free (The Clinton Campaign paid Fusion GPS who paid Steele for his Dossier information – by the way, no one published any of it before the election, unlike the emails and disinformation which the Russians put out to help Trump.

            “…(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.
            -WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian
            influen~ery likely knew it was assistin a Russian intelli ence influence
            effort. The Committee found si nificant indications tha
            At the time of the
            first WikiLeaks releases, the U.S. Government had not yet declared WikiLeaks a hostile
            organization and many treated itas 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. The Committee found no
            evidence that Campaign officials received an authoritative government notification that the hack
            was perpetrated by the Russian government before October 7, 2016, when the ODNI and DHS
            issued a joint statement to that effect. However, the Campaign was aware of the extensive media
            reporting and other private sector attribution of the hack to Russian actors prior to that point.
            (U) Trump and senior Campaign offici.als sought to obtain advance information about
            WikiLeaks’s planned releases through Roger Stone. At their direction, Stone took action to gain )
            inside knowledge for the Campaign and shared his purported knowledge directly with Trump
            and senior Campaign offictals on multiple occasions. Trump and the Campaign believed that
            Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone’s information suggested more
            releases would be forthcoming. The Committee could not reliably determine the extent.of
            authentic, non-public knowledge about WikiLeaks that Stone obtained and shared with the
            Campaign. …”

            1. We have been through all this nonsense before.

              1). What you cite is NOT evidence – it is not primary source data.
              It is bad analysis by politicians – it is near worthless. It is oppinion not fact.
              Worse it has been falsified by subsequent actual primary source data.

              2). You are STILLtrying to pretend that a political campaign is a government act of power – which it is not.
              Political campaigns are the public manifestations of private actions. They are NOT public acts.
              There can be no abuse of public power in a political campaign – not Trump, not Clinton.

              In other long posts I have gone through this nonsense report almost clause by clause and dismembered it – using FACTS – not spin or oppinion.

              Further I have done this in replies TO YOU – so it is incredibly disengenuous of you to be shilling the same rot again.

              You have never credibly responded to the destruction of this nonsense that was done over a year ago.

              Quit selling this pile of debunked schiff.

              I mean honestly – READ the damn crap you are citing. It presents as evidence claims to know that people beleived about what other people said that turned out to be FALSE.

              Stone had no direct contact with Wikileaks.
              Not that such contact would have been wrong.

              Stone had no prior knowledge of anything Wikileaks released.
              Not that such knowledge would be wrong.

              All of this is incredibly well documented – including by Mueller.

              How exactly does it matter that the Trump campaign beleived that Stone had knowledge and access that he did not ?
              Worse how does it matter if had that been true it would have still be legal.

              I would further note that Wikileaks is not Russia.
              And todate there is no actual evidence that Russia was the source of the DNC emails.
              Testimony under oath by crowdsource – the only people with actual access to the DNC’s servers stated that not only dont they do not know who hacked the DNC, there it no evidence that the DNC emails were exfuiultrated as part of either of the two DNC hacks that did occur.

              So your entire Senate report that you fixate on has the fatal flaws that:

              There is no Russia to be found.
              There is no prior knowledge.

              What somebody thinks somebody else BELEIVED is entirely irrelevant when we know what is TRUE.

              To have an actual Crime here – The DNC emails had to be released as a result of a hack.
              Todate we do not know that.

              The Trump campaign would have to have prior knowledge of the hack and have materially aided in the hack.
              Given that the Trump campaign had no prior knowledge of the DNC emails to the general public that is impossible.

              You are trying to make a crime out of gloating over Hillaries embarrasing emails.

              Just to be clear – if the emails were not hacked – if the Trump campaign actually paid someone in the DNC to leak them, that would be legal.

              If the DNC emails were hacked – absent involvement and support of the hack itself – there it nothing that the Trump campaign did or could have done wrong.

              In some hypothetical world – Stone coulf have known about the DNC emails hours after they were purportedly hacked.
              He could have fascilitated their transfer and release by wikileaks.
              He could have even made the trump campaign aware of this.
              And the transfer and release could have involved campaign funds.
              And all of that would be LEGAL.

              in fact it would all be MORE LEGAL that paying through multiple cuttouts a russian spy for faux dirt on Trump and shilling it to the FBI
              As Clinton did.

              The FACTS are Trump did NONE of this.
              The campaign did nothing more than gloat over Hillary’s misfortune.
              Gloating over leftists tears is legal.

              There is not BTW a single actual Russian in the Stone Saga.

              1. John, you have the patience of a Saint, but you are speaking to a nail that has been hit by a hammer one too many times.

                1. This idiocy is disturbing.

                  Frankly the Senate was stupid to write this – it is self contradictory, and not an actual finding of fact, it is a conclusion that is self contradictory.

                  There is an excellent video of Sharyl Attkinson talking about what USED to be the norms of journalism.

                  Concluding that someone LIED nearly always requires mind reading.
                  Lying is NOT the same as being wrong.

                  Regardless, several of the “conclusions” of this “finding” are not only mind reading, they are obviously wrong based on the text of the finding.

                  Worse still everything in here is flatly contradicted by subsequently exposed primary source material.

                  More recently we have found that Stephan Halper provided knowingly false statements to the FBI in July of 2016 that triggered the XFR investigation.

                  So we have Mueller hounding Flynn to personal destruction started by lies, ultimately without any foundation,
                  While Halper who started the mess with a lie is ignored.

                  This is left wing nut logic.

                  Worse still Halper was at the time on the payroll of US intelligence.

                  The obama administration is most disturbing.
                  Nixon resigned and would have been impeached and removed for much less than what was done under Obama.

                  1. This discussion is being funded by JF, Joe Friday, Jan F., etc. from ICOL, Idiots in Control of Lies.

                    When this Senate report came out many involved on the right were fighting to get documents released and didn’t even know of some of the documents that existed that proved most of the left was either ignorant, lying or playing a political game.

                    At the time of the initial discussion most of what the left was saying sounded like BS, but the right lacked absolute proof even thought they had considerable proof, logic and common sense on their side. The left had a lot of made up stories that one couldn’t prove were lies.

                    JF in his usual fashion stood firm behind the lies even as those lies were dispelled. Recently tremendous amounts of information were released from the FBI and included emails and all sorts of documents that wasn’t even known to the left but proves their contentions wrong.

                    JF doesn’t change his argument in the least because he never had an argument in the first place.He stood behind lies then and he stands behind the same lies now despite proof of the opposite.. Truth has no value to JF. He doesn’t care what he says as long as it backs up his contentions.

                    1. It is absolutely amazing how much effort it has taken to get these documents.

                      There is not a document released so far that should have ever been classified.

                      None reveal anything that impacts national security – atleast as that has to do with foreign powers.
                      None reveal sources or methods.

                      Every single one of them is classified for only one reason – because it exposes the fact that government was up to no good.

                      There is stuff from the CIA that has STILL not been made public.

                      Purportedly that reveals that Brennan was pushing on CIA analysts to change from Putin wants Clinton to Putin wants Trump.

                      Again there is nothing classified in that.

                      Those involved in hiding these documents should at the very least NEVER hold public office again.

                      But the left has no concept of morality, and no understanding that misconduct by government is very dangerous and could easily be used against them too.

                      And in fact was in the past.

                      And we should not forget these are the same idiots that the Biden DOJ now intends to use to target “right wing domestic terrorism”.

                      This all ends badly. It is just a question of when.

              2. John claims to have destroyed the Senate Intel Comm report over a year ago. A true accomplishment, since it’s only been out 7 months.

                1. Then I guess you are clairvoyant because you have been shilling it that long.

                  It is OLD, It is WRONG. It is self evidently NOT fact finding. It is self contradictory – even the portion you cited is complete gobbledy gook.

                  It is extremely well documented by Mueller and others That Stone had no contact with Russians or direct contact with Wikileaks.
                  Everything Stone got from Wikileaks was through Randy Credico. Credico NEVER forwarded anything from Stone to Wikileaks – Stones information was entirely one way. Nothing Credico received from wikileaks predated public disemination.

                  The entirety of Trump Campaign – Wikileaks claims is thoroughly debunked horse$hit.
                  Even your Intel committee report never says otherwise.

                  It fixates entirely on the BELEIF of the Trump campaign that Stone had direct access to wikileaks.

                  SO WHAT ?

                  You (and the report) are a million miles from what would be necescary for actual wrong doing – Prior knowledge and assistance in HACKING the DNC emails.

                  It has not even been established as anything close to a fact that the emails were the product of a hack.
                  That the hack that did occur was Russian.
                  And it has been completely disproven that Trump or the Trump campaign had ANY prior knowledge at all.

                  Just about every single claim about Trump/Wikileaks has been thoroughly debunked – even though nearly all would have been legal had they occured.

                  I have gone over this myriads of times – with You or “Joe Friday”.

                  I and myriads of others have dismembered your “citation” word by word.

                  It is not even “all sound and fury signifying nothing”.

                  It is just nothing.

                  Come up with REAL EVIDENCE.
                  Not more debunked garbage like this.

                2. Is there actual evidence that the DNC emails were released as a result of Hacking ? No !
                  They MIGHT have been, but there exists no evidence that they were.

                  Is there any evidence that the Russian’s had anything to do with it ? No !.

                  Is there any evidence that anyone involved even tangentially with Trump or the Trump campaign new about the DNC emails before they were publicly released ? No !.

                  Each and everyone of those MUST be proven to make a viable claim against the Trump campaign.

                  There is no evidence of the first two and the last has been completely DISPROVEN.
                  Even YOUR report says as much.

                  I do not care what some senators think Trump BELEIVED.
                  I am not interested in ouija boards and mind reading.

                  FACTS MATTER. Not Feelings, not beliefs about beleifs. Not double mind reading twice removed.

                  I do not know what others think, or feel – nor do I care.

                  I care what they actually DID.

                  We know that Trump and his campaign did NOT do.

                  We know what Biden and his familiy DID do.

                  Facts, not feelings.

                  1. What a treasure we at Turley’s blog have. Not only does John Say refute things before they’re presented, but he has better sources than the Senate Intel Comm (they have a full time staff and access to virtually all gov docs as well as the investigative powers of FBI and all US INtel agencies and subpoena power) as well as more objective vision than the Committee which was investigating a president of the majority power.. He has also demonstrated these skills in assessing the recent election, where he has ruled the 60 judges were all wrong, including the many Republican and even Trump appointees who threw out the Trump friendly cases for lack of evidence and in some cases lack of standing (on the latter point, who doesn’t want states to have the ability to challenge the electoral votes of other states if they don’t like who they gave their votes to).

                    1. What you just presented was the 5th iteration of the Senate report.
                      I am sure we can find the same nonsense in versions 1-4.

                      Regardless, the text you quoted is SELF refuting.
                      It is NOT fact finding, it is mind reading.

                      Of course I have better sources – FACTS. Not Mind reading.
                      Much of what I cite is actual under oath testimony before the SENATE.

                      Why do we have to keep going through the same nonsense with you over and over ?

                      The collusion delusion has been refuted OVER AND OVER.

                      No the Senate does NOT have access to virtually all government docs.
                      Most of those that have been declassified and made public recently were not available to wither the house or the senate.

                      That has been a major portion of this battle from the start.

                      The left and democrats have been selling garbage based on self serving anonymous “leaks”
                      Most of these “leaks” were not actually leaks – or they could have been prosecuted.
                      Leaking classified information is a crime.
                      Leaking lies is not actually a crime.

                      Regardless we have real primary source FACTS.

                      And you have Bupcus.

                      You can not even bother to actually read the nonsense you cite.

                      Mind reading is not fact finding.

                    2. Ah, the powers of the FBI etc.

                      Do you really want to go there ?
                      Do we need a long list of the absolutely disasterous decisions and actions of the FBI – not merely recently but over time ?

                      Once upon a Time the LEFT was actually justifiably suspicious of the faux law enforcement and national security aparatus of the federal government.

                      But today you accept rubbish from them.

                      Regardless the very sources that you claim are authorities have been thoroughly discredited BY THEIR OWN WORK PRODUCT.

                      The CIA reported to Comey, Obama and the FBI in june of 2016 that Putin was feeding Hillary Dirt about Trump.

                      The FBI’s own assessments of Steele in 2014 and 2015 – were that he was an unreliable stooge likely being used by the Russians.

                      The FBI Identified his primary subsource as a likely Russian Spy in 2013.

                      Stephan Halper has been caught lying to the FBI in July of 2016 about Flynn at the initiation of the Flynn investigation – but that was never prosecuted.

                      The DOJ and Mueller team have been caught REPEATEDLY Lying to the courts, and failing to follow the law regarding disclosure.

                      We were repeatedly told there was information aside from the Steele Dossier that supported this nonsense.

                      Years later NADA, Zip, Nothing. The Vaunted ICA – not even a real cross agency inteligence assessment.
                      It is the product of a cherry picked Brennan crew from 3 agencies – not 17, and it relied entirely on the thoroughly discredited Steele Dossier.

                    3. Why are we suppose to beleive these authorities you claim we should rely on ?

                      None have produced actual evidence to support their nonsensical claims.

                      All have a long term reputation for LYING.

                    4. The election cases were not thrown out for lack of evidence.
                      They were not even thrown out.
                      Many are still continuing.

                      You do not seem to understand what failure to grant a TRO means.

                      Regardless, Though democratic governors and AG’s in many states are thwarting further investigation.

                      There are several ongoing investigations into 2020 election Fraud.

                      The Antrim County case is ongoing. The “human error” claim is coming apart slowly.
                      Regardless in a single county there was a 6500 vote post election correction that flipped the county from Biden to Trump decisively.
                      There remains todate no credible explanation of that. Further the error is over 44%.
                      There is an ongoing lawsuit and an ongoing criminal investigation into election fraud.
                      And discovery will start in April.

                      In Whickham county in NH every single democratic candidate received a 300 vote bump by DVS equipment.
                      There is todate no explanation of that.
                      There is an ongoing criminal election fraud investigation.

                      In TX there have been several guilty please for large scale election fraud in the 2020 election.

                      In GA there is a criminal investigation of thousands of votes of election fraud in Fulton county in the Warnock election.
                      The GA challenge to the 2020 Fulton county presidential election is still stalled and still ongoing. It will proceed eventually.

                      In AZ 2.1M ballots and other election materials have or are about to be turned over to the AZ Senate for proper examination.
                      That said there is now a criminal investigation of election fraud in Maricopa County – because just before turning over the ballots to the Senate thousands of Ballots were illegally shredded.

                      There are allegations of shredding ballots in every single one of the 6 pivital cities.

                      But you do not hear much of this – because you have blinders on and the press does not report it.

                      I would further note that these are not the only credible allegations of election fraud.

                      They are just the ones were democrats have not been able to thwart further investigation.

                    5. When a case is dismissed for lack of standing. that is merely the courts determine the case was brought by the wrong party.
                      It is most definitely not a decision on the merits.

                      There is good reason for the courts to preclude some lawsuits on standing.

                      As an example they should have precluded myriads of govenrment lawsuits against Trump and others on the basis of standing.

                      The government should never be able to claim what is essentially breach of conduct, absent a party to the contract actually claiming breach.

                      But standing pretty much has no application to elections.
                      Every candidate on a ballot has a right to legally challenge their election.
                      Every voter has the right to legally challenge any election in which they are qualified to vote in.

                      Finally the constitution is a contract between the states – you and unfortunately SCOTUS seem to fail to get that.
                      When any state is lawless in a way that negatively impacts other states those states have the constitutional right to sue each other.
                      And those lawsuits are the only instances in which the supreme court has original jurisdiction – i.e. it is NOT an appelate court.
                      Further they are among the only cases that SCOTUS MUST TAKE.
                      There is not a standing issue. That decision was bogus.

                      Regardless one of the fundimental problems of ALL these cases that were dismissed for purported lack of standing, is that
                      ALWAYS some party MUST have standing.

                      Dismissal for lack of standing does NOT mean the case has no merit.
                      It means the case is not being brought by the party who was harmed.

                      Every single case that was dismissed for lack of standing – should be proceding somewhere with the correct party making the challenge.
                      If that is not – the courts have seriously erred.

                      Standing is not a means of dismissing a case.
                      It is a means of making sure that cases are brought by the parties actually harmed. That is all.

                    6. You have been here long enough to know that I have not fixated on the fraud in the 2020 election.

                      There is always fraud in elections – and we have nbeeded to do something about that long before 2020.
                      There is also far more fraud in mailin voting, and we need to never do that again.

                      But I personally have no idea of the scale of the 2020 fraud – just as neither do you, nor do the courts.

                      Because as of yet very few courts have looked into the merits of any of the claims of fraud – and there are thousands of fraud claims some of very large scale.

                      What I have focused on is the indesputable lawlessness of the 2020 election.

                      And it is absolutely indisputable – the Time article was a gloating expose by those on the left openly explaining how they subverted the law in state after state.

                      5 of the 6 key states have state constittuional provisions that require secret ballots – there is no means by which mailin voting can ever meet the requirements of a secret ballot. Regardless the 2020 election in these states was NOT by secret ballot.

                      You rant about 60 courts – all that is, is a giant admission of failure and lawlessness.

                      As you say – 60 COURTS failed to enforce the state constitutions. 60 courts failed to require the states follow properly enacted election laws.

                      That is pretty much the defintion of the rule of man not law that John Adam’s warned us against.

                      And we are seeing the failure of that all arround us right now in other areas.

                      We have had nearly a year of lawless government by executive fiat.

                      And we are learning slowly how abysmal that is.

                      Cuomo and Newsome – Hero’s not too long ago are now goats.

                      We have had nearly a year of bad government by executive fiat – which we have no brought to the federal level.

                      You rant about 60 cases. There are far more than 60 cases.

                      All wrongly decided.

                      Our constitution, state constitutions, and duely enacted laws MUST be applied – even in emergencies – otherwise we get the nonsense of the past year.

                      It was self evident from the start that government does not have any power over nature.

                      that the sun will rise tomorow regardless of executive decree.
                      And that a highly contagious virus will spread without respect for assorted executive decrees.

                      You have ranted that the left is “following the science” – yet CLEARLY you are not.

                      It has ALWAYS been mathematically clear that reigning in a respiratory virus with a 2.8-3-8 transmission rate is impossible.
                      It has ALWAYS been mathematically clear that even a 97% effective mask will do little more than slow the spread of a virus, it can not stop it.

                      Biden’s 100 days of masks is 100 days of idiotic nonsense.

                      On issue after issue YOUR purported experts have contradicted themselves repeatedly, as well as contradicted the SCIENCE.

                      And you continue to make stupid appeals to experts ?

                      Your posts are full of nonsense.

                      Trust the FBI, Trust the CIA, Trust the courts, Trust the governors, Trust the press, Trust the government, Trust the experts,

                      Not the only thing that matters TRUST THE FACTS.

                    7. Anyone but a left wing nut like yourself would have gone away quietly after having been so thoroughly discredited.

                      Do you have any non-fallacious argument to make ?

                      Do you have any claim that is not an appeal to authority on any issue ?

  2. I have kinswoman who quit her excellent job as a partner in good law firm to go do title 9 investigations for the university. I’m not privy to how that works, she keeps those cards close to the breast. Ooops, did I say that? Meaning, she does not much discuss her work.

    I had other friends in the GC office at the university, decades ago. We remember how it used to work inside the GC office before title 9 was a thing. The GC office actually worked to protect the university from all the errant mischief makers on campus. GC office was not afraid to do its work. GC office made tough calls, and was proud of it, right or wrong.

    We had a lot of criticisms in those days about how the GC office worked. sometimes it seemed like they buried things too much. And yet, decades later, whatever we disliked about the GC office, only seems worse under the new “system” as real problems are still buried, and yet falser ones get elevated.

    I will repeat what more than one GC office veteran said: “before it was like a family; now it is like a big corporation.”
    Of course it was a big corporation back then too, but it seemed like an extended family. NO MORE! This is almost everything in “America” today

    the reforms are often worse than the ills they presume to cure

    sal sar

  3. At one time liberals had a proud tradition of supporting free speech, anti-communism and supported working class people. Such liberals include(d): Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jonathan Turley. Today’s leftists (as opposed to liberals) support laws regulating speech, and quasi-terrorist groups such as BLM and Antifa.

    To avoid getting cancelled and doxxed by the leftist apostles of tolerance, here are some questions you can ask to determine if someone is a traditional liberal vs. leftist. If you encounter the latter it might be best to only talk about inane subjects such as the weather (though not global warming) or sports (though not NFL players taking a knee during the playing of the National Anthem).

    1. The University of California has declared this statement racist: “There is only one race — the human race.” Do you agree with the University of California, or do you agree with the statement?

    2. Is the goal of being “colorblind” — doing one’s best to ignore a person’s color and concentrating only on the person’s character and personality — a noble goal or a racist one?

    3. Do you agree that all or most white Americans are racist?

    4. If your answer is yes, would you tell the millions of blacks in Africa and the Caribbean who wish to emigrate to America that they would be making a poor decision? If not, why not?

    5. Is it racist to claim that Johann Sebastian Bach, Ludwig van Beethoven and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart composed the greatest music ever composed?

    6. Is the national anthem racist?

    7. If your answer is yes, what would you like to put in its place?

    8. Do you agree with The New York Times’ “1619 Project” that America was not founded in 1776 but in 1619 with the first arrival of black slaves in North America, and that the Revolutionary War was fought in order to preserve slavery?

    9. Should statues of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln be taken down?

    10. Has the United States, overall, made the world a better place?

    11. Would America be better, worse or the same as now if all Americans dropped their religion and became secular?

    12. Has capitalism been a net-plus for America and the world?

    13. Could a good person have voted for Donald Trump in 2020?

    14. Do you believe that CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media are biased toward the left or try to present the news as accurately as possible?

    15. There are between 11 and 30 million people in America who entered the country illegally. Should they all be put on a path to citizenship?

    16. Do you believe police departments should be defunded, or at least have their budgets severely cut?

    17. Should it be legal for a teenage girl to have her breasts surgically removed because she identifies as a male — or should there be a minimum age of 18 or 21?

    18. Schoolteachers have been told to stop calling students “boys and girls” because a student might not identify as either male or female. Do you agree with this policy?

    19. Should biological males who identify as females be allowed to compete against biological females in sports?

    20. Do you believe that free speech allows for hate speech, or should hate speech be banned?

    21. If you believe hate speech should be banned, who do you believe should determine what is hate speech?

    Those seeking to avoid cancellation and doxxing would do well to determine which category they are speaking with.




      I dated a girl in law school who grew up in Communist Czechoslovakia, got to know her family well also. Would discuss on occasion with her parents what life was like under Communism. Among other things, I remember being told that one never, ever shared their personal opinions about politics or society with ANYONE, if those opinions deviated from the official line; not unless that person was known and trusted.

      Does any of this sound familiar? I am just waiting for the first leftist s@@tlib to reply and explain why leftist censorship, doxxing and destroying their opponents is either not happening or OK.


      1. One wonders: perhaps we were fools to believe in free speech as a social value in the first place?

        Perhaps if many decades ago, we had acted fiercely as Jack Dorsey does now, we would not have Jack Dorsey today

        As some people are censored today, you can bet, their enthusiasm for free speech evaporates, and if they are ever in power, they will use the tools that formerly were used on them.

        Perhaps the Jack Dorseys of the world, are teaching us a lesson, that we really needed to learn.

        Sal Sar

        1. @sal sar

          Leftists only believed in free speech when it was communists and pornographers being attacked, not as a general principle. They don’t believe in it now because they gain no benefit from it, does not suit their purposes.


      2. Does any of this sound familiar? I am just waiting for the first leftist s@@tlib to reply and explain why leftist censorship, doxxing and destroying their opponents is either not happening or OK.

        Yes, it definitely sounds familiar and the explanation may be that we’ve not been adequately retrained to understand how our worldview is systematically oppressing others. Here is a guide to your retraining using AllyShip:

        TO BE AN ALLY IS TO…
        1. Take on the struggle as your own.
        2. Transfer the benefits of your privilege to those who lack it.
        3. Amplify voices of the oppressed before your own.
        4. Acknowledge that even though you feel pain, the conversation is not about you.
        5. Stand up, even when you feel scared.
        6. Own your mistakes and de-center yourself.
        7. Understand that your education is up to you and no one else.

        Of course retraining requires a program and your friends at Yahoo and Verizon have done the heavy lifting for you. Just get onboard their 6 month retraining program by taking the 1st step to becoming a useful idiot for the destruction of this country.

        This year, social movements have affected popular and corporate culture alike as underrepresented communities and their allies push for equality. We’ve learned that a systemic shift can only happen if we identify what needs to change and fully commit to do so.

        At Yahoo and our parent brand Verizon Media, we have a responsibility to give back to our community and leverage our global platform for good. We have the ability to amplify the voices of underrepresented communities as they fight to change hearts and minds for a more socially just world. To move forward, we must move forward together.

        1. antonio, you’re an exceptionly dumb and nasty a..hole. If anyone likes you, they’ve made a big mistake, haven’t they?

          1. @AnonJF

            Actually I have an IQ in the 95% percentile and hold a professional license in several jurisdictions.

            Calling me a bad name is not an argument but that is what leftists do because ‘crime statistics are racist’, along with math, classical music, IQ differences, high standards and speaking standard English.

            And besides I’m Hispanic, you’re insulting a victimized minority (according to your worldview). Tell you wha,t I will become a leftist, b@@ch and moan Hispanic, so you’ll have to suck up and k@@s my a@@.


        2. @olly

          I hate to break it to these White “allies” of POC’s but they can never do enough to placate their minority pets, let alone win their “love” and “affection”.

          The Church of Woke is a church with no salvation.

          Moving out = white flight = racism.

          Moves in = gentrification = racism.

          Sees color = racism

          Does not see color = ignoring racism = racism

          Doesn’t participate in culture = racism

          Engages in culture = cultural appropriation = racism



          1. And there you have it, Antonio. Great point. For the “illiberals,” the whole point of laws, regulations, rules, guidance, and standards is to make sure everybody is guilty of something. Then they can justify doing anything to anybody. Just look at how they persecute even other liberals.

      3. Referring to people you disagree with as “s@@tlibs” definitely encourages us to respond as if you’re looking for a sincere discussion. Why waste the time? I’ll just call you out on your trolling.

        1. Why on earth would you expect to be treated with respect by the 50% of the country that you have spent a decade calling racist, homophobic, transphobic, mysoginist, hateful, hating haters ?

          I have a problem with Antonio calling you “s@@tlibs” – because you are most definintely NOT liberal.

          The modern left is possibly the most illiberal ideological group ever.

          Grow up. Learn some critical thinking.

          H311 – just learn the tiniest bit of history.

          What you are selling FAILS. Badly. To the harm of those you claim to be trying to help.

          1. Interesting that John Say has been following “Anonymous” for a decade.

            (Somebody tell him what the word means and that there’s more than one.)

            1. Where have I said I had been “‘following anonymous for a decade” ?

              I have been following “the left” for much longer than that.

              I do not follow specific people.
              Frankly most of those of you on the left are so blandly generic you have not earned respect as individuals.

              I have a great deal of respect for those on the left who can engage in critical thinking, avoid hypocracy, make credible arguments.
              But there are very few of those, and every single one of them is unique and identifiable.

              The rest of you are maoist carcitures – in mao outfits, spewing the same nonsensical pablum – even if you are not littlerally maoists – that would require more intelligence than most of you demonstrate.

              You are posting as AnonJF – rather that anonymous.
              What is it in any of your posts ever that you think establishes a reputation for trust and credibility ? For critical thinking ?

              What is it in any of your posts that separates you from a nameless faceless mass of ignorant leftists ?

              You have claimed an alias – but you have not owned it, personaliszed it, demonstrated in anyway that you are not just an anonymous leftist.

              You have not demonstrated any basis for saying you – AnonJF, rather than you – generic idiot leftist.

                1. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

  4. The outcome would have been different if Professor Paxton visited the “Blue Oyster” biker bar.

  5. Thank you for the detailed account. I wish Prof. Paxton and Ms. DesCamp every success, but fear that they will fail, if for no other reason than that as officers of an institution, none of those seeking to get rid of the professor are personally liable for their actions. I suspect each would act differently if Prof. Paxton could sue them as individuals. But I am not a lawyer, so I may be mistaken.
    However, I am familiar with the academy, and this is how it works because most professors do not have deep pockets and cannot afford lengthy litigation. For the better part of five decades, I watched administrators use similar tactics to get rid of professors on the left, on the right, and in the middle, and to force out those whom department chairs, deans, and their allies simply did not like. In almost all cases, as the Borg might say, resistance was futile.
    My impression was that those who actively sought administrative positions were often reluctant scholars and mediocre teachers, who were often were more concerned to placate students and their parents, or to curry favor with their superiors than they were with nurturing good teaching and scholarship. Too many resembled the rigid authoritarians and plian underlings in Dead Poets Society.
    Tenure has never protected assistant professors, adjuncts, instructors, or anyone else who did not have it, but I seem to recall that it once had a halo effect which led administrators to tolerate gaffes and missteps by those without it, similar to the effect that millions of union members once had on working conditions and wages for non-members. Evidently, that is no longer the case.

  6. It is cut and paste. That’s how millennials like this young woman do – they have no ethics or critical faculties of their own due to their extreme sheltering. They are very good at memorization, not so much with extrapolation. And they really do think they are superior, it’s legitimate narcissism in many cases. Many of you would be appalled at how common the cut paste is in classwork, heck trolls do it on this site almost daily. To this cohort, ‘research’ is finding something online that supports how you feel and purloining it, and all of life is a term paper for which they must get an ‘A’. Their minds are utterly Pavlovian, and their emotional maturity doesn’t extend very far beyond high school.

    All of this has carried over to Gen Z with the added bonus of severe emotional fragility. Some of my wife’s 7th graders of recent vintage would quite literally wet their pants if corrected even gently in class. Yay. 😐😐 This does not bode well for our future.

  7. I have a suspicion that employment discrimination law provides an excuse for institutional karenwaffe to do what they feel like doing anyway. That the institution’s president allows the HR director to engage in this sort of abuse is a black mark on him.

    In a sane world, employment discrimination law would apply to the public sector only and would be enforced in a non-sectarian manner. Supervisors would hire and fire their subordinates. The HR department would be responsible for negotiating with bargaining units, letting out contracts to provide medical and l/t care insurance for employees, letting out contracts to provide EAP services, letting out contracts for counselors to assist employees with retirement accounts, hiring head-hunter services, posting advertisements for open positions, acting as a mail drop for applications and resumes, and maintaining employee records. Internal investigations would be handled by the security office or by contractors hired by the GC. Remember the exasperated salesman in Glengarry Glen Ross tearing into the office manager? “You’re supposed to help us, not to f**k us up!”.

  8. Is it just me who thinks that this post is TMI? Apparently you want to point out all such cases affecting professors and academics, and the chilling effect of such institutional reprimands. I think you have made your point!

    I wish you would address matters that are more concerning to the welfare of the country at large. For instance, the fact that Trump and CPAC continue to spread the Big Lie that the election was stolen. This lie will continue to divide and polarize this country. You claim that you had a good faith concern over some apparent irregularities in the election count though nothing proven fraudulent which would have remotely changed the outcome. However, to your everlasting discredit, you have never acknowledged that Trump and his enablers and Fox News, et. al., did not act in good faith; rather, they made the bad faith claim that the election was fraudulently stolen. And for broadcasting this lie, Fox is being sued for defamation. For a free speech blog, you are strangely silent about the chilling effect of this 2.7 billion dollar lawsuit!

    1. Silberman:

      Sorry that the article contains too much information for you to process; others seem to have handled it.

      Sorry that Turley isn’t writing what you want him to write – on his own blog.

      Appreciate that you lay out a script for Turley to follow, but again sorry that he doesn’t seem to want to take you up on it.

      Basically, Silberman, you are SOL. You aren’t getting what you want.

      Your posting is typical lefty writing: “I demand…; and by the way I don’t like what you already said.”

      Bad mannered, arrogant, and worst of all, tedious.

      You people are ugly.

      1. Monument’s idea of good manners is agreeing with him and he has no problem with fellow Trumpers calling names and even threaten to shoot those they disagree with. He rarely has the horsepower to counter an argument, instead preferring personal attacks like this one.

        1. AnonJF

          Spoken by the man who changes his name when he has offended too many people.

          The man who tells our host Turley to F— Off.

          Another ugly person.

          1. Change my name when the mod kicks me off. He doesn’t like disagreement with Trump anymore than you do.

            1. You get moderated by a AI when you use foul language and sometimes the AI throws you off for no reason at all.

              Stop complaining. Most sites would throw you off based on who you are and how you act. In fact most of the times, if your posts stop going through, a single extra digit in the address will permit you to post with the same name, but the content of the last post that didn’t go through might be stored and rejected.

              You can go back to an original name anytime you wish on any other thread and it will function. You can even go back to Jan F., your first name that had to hightail it off the blog and create a new alias. Jan F. couldn’t take the heat.

            2. I’ve had to change my handle dozens of time and there was a period when my IP address was banned for months. Quit whining.

              1. How do you know your IP address was banned? Was it a singular address or the IP itself?

                I’ve had some bad problems both with the AI from this site but worse with my ISP/computer/program. I had some problems for a year or so but at the end of the year my email was going all over the place, I was getting emails from a year ago, some emails never made it, emails were duplicated etc. We couldn’t get most straightened out until into 2021.

    2. “For instance, the fact that Trump and CPAC continue to spread the Big Lie that the election was stolen.”

      Jeffrey, do you recall four years of Russia Russia Russia and Resist! Resist! Resist? Or nah?

      The “Big Lie” is that Joe Biden “won” a free and fair election.

    3. I wish you would address matters that are more concerning to the welfare of the country at large.

      The irony is certainly lost on you. Here you have a forum to freely express your views and you would subordinate free speech protections to a cat fight between Smartmatic and FoxNews. The outcome of that lawsuit will not move the needle one iota for those of us concerned with election integrity. And what have the Democrats done to assuage these concerns and unify the country? Well of course, they’ve branded them as insurrectionists and domestic terrorists. Of course nothing restores confidence in our elections better than to propose legislation (H.R. 1) that increases the risks to our electoral system. sarc/off

      Is the Heritage Foundation next to be sued?

      What H.R. 1 Would Do:
      – Seize the authority of states to regulate voter registration and the voting process by forcing states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting.
      – Make it easier to commit fraud and promotes chaos at the polls through same-day registration, as election officials have no time to verify the accuracy of voter registration information and cannot anticipate the number of voters, ballots, and precinct workers that will be needed.
      – Hurt voter turnout through early voting by diffusing the intensity of get-out-the-vote efforts; it raises the cost of campaigns. Voters who vote early don’t have the same information as those who vote on Election Day, missing late-breaking developments that could affect their choices.
      – Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by automatically registering individuals from state databases, such as DMV and welfare offices, by registering large numbers of ineligible voters, including aliens as well as multiple or duplicate registrations of the same individuals.
      – Constitute a recipe for massive voter registration fraud by hackers and cyber criminals through online voter registration not tied to an existing state record, such as a driver’s license.
      – Require states to count ballots cast by voters outside of their assigned precinct, overriding the precinct system used by almost all states that allows election officials to monitor votes, staff polling places, provide enough ballots, and prevent election fraud. Mandates no-fault absentee ballots, which are the tool of choice for vote thieves.
      – Prevent election officials from checking the eligibility and qualifications of voters and remove ineligible voters. This includes restrictions on using the U.S. Postal Service’s national change-of-address system to verify the address of registered voters; participating in state programs that compare voter registration lists to detect individuals registered in multiple states; or ever removing registrants due to a failure to vote no matter how much time has gone by.
      – Cripple the effectiveness of state voter ID laws by allowing individuals to vote without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are.
      – Violate the First Amendmentandcould cover a vast range of legal activity. Voter intimidation or coercion that prevents someone from registering or voting is already a federal crime under the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act. But H.R. 1 adds an additional provision to prevent interference with registering or voting that is so vague that it could easily interfere with free speech and other lawful activity.
      – Expand regulation and government censorship of campaigns and political activity and speech, including online and policy-related speech. H.R. 1 imposes onerous legal and administrative compliance burdens and costs on candidates, citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. Many of these provisions violate the First Amendment, protect incumbents, and reduce the accountability of politicians to the public.
      – Reduce the number of Federal Election Commission members from six to five, allowing the political party with three commission seats to control the commission and engage in partisan enforcement activities.
      – Prohibit state election officials from participating in federal elections and impose numerous other “ethics” rules that are unconstitutional or unfairly restrict political activity.
      – Require states torestore the ability of felons to vote the moment they are out of prison. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment gives states the constitutional authority to decide when felons who committed crimes against their fellow citizens may vote again. Congress cannot override a constitutional amendment with a statute.
      – Transfer the right to draw congressional districts from state legislatures to “independent” commissions whose members are unaccountable to voters. H.R. 1 makes it a violation of federal law to engage in “partisan” redistricting and mandates inclusion of alien population, both legal and illegal, in all redistricting. This is an anti-democratic, unconstitutional measure that takes away the ability of the citizens of a state to make their own decision about redistricting.
      – Violate separation of powers and directly interfere with the President’s constitutional duties. H.R. 1 bans his political appointees, such as the Attorney General, from participating in, directing the defense of, or assisting in any matter (including lawsuits against a President’s policies, programs, executive orders, or his enforcement of the law) in which the President is named as a party.

    4. “For instance, the fact that Trump and CPAC continue to spread the Big Lie that the election was stolen. This lie will continue to divide and polarize this country. “

      If you don’t like the results then among other things you shouldn’t have changed the rules of the game at the last minute. Some states violated their own constitutions. You are complaining because you were caught breaking the rules and even though you got away with not being punished you think those that were injured should be silent. That is the height of arrogance.

    5. “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

      [Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)]”

      ― Louis Brandeis

      Was the election conducted according to the law ? No!
      Was the election conducted transparently ? No!

      Has the public had any opportunity to actually confirm that all legitimate votes were counted and only legitimate votes and that the count was correct ? No!

      If you think the claim that “the election was stolen” is so scurrilous, and obviously false – you should welcome sunlight.

      “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”
      ― Joseph Stalin

    6. Is it just me who thinks that this post is TMI? Apparently you want to point out all such cases affecting professors and academics, and the chilling effect of such institutional reprimands. I think you have made your point!

      After a similar post last week, a commenter claimed Turley was focusing on rare events to push an agenda. Now you claim, calling attention to this event is needless repetition because the events are so common.

      Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

  9. Kipling anticipated the cancel culture of the left.

    “When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier.”

    Same compassion, same regard for human dignity. Heartless harpies.

Comments are closed.