Rep. Cicilline Demands The Censuring Of Colleagues For The “Mischaracterization” Of The Jan. 6th Riot

We have been discussing the effort in Congress to punish dissenting viewpoints among members on issues ranging from the Jan. 6th riot to the pandemic to racism. This has included sweeping calls for members to be disbarred or expelled for their criticism of the 2020 election or continued questioning of election irregularities. Rep. David Cicilline (D., R.I.) has been one of those calling for punishment of members who have the temerity to disagree with his view of the election or the riot.  Now, Cicilline is asking Democratic colleagues to sign on to a resolution to censure three House Republicans who are accused mischaracterizing the Jan. 6 riot, including refusing to call it an “insurrection.” It is the latest attempt to regulate how members and others discuss issues, dictating viewpoints by controlling speech used to express views.

Cicilline is demanding a resolution to censure Republican Reps. Andrew Clyde (Ga.), Jody Hice (Ga.) and Paul Gosar (Ariz.) for remarks that he felt downplayed the violent attack on the Capitol during a House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing this week. This included the failure to use the seemingly mandatory reference to the riot as an “insurrection”:

“The members who testified that January 6th was ‘not an insurrection’ and undermined the damage that was done put their own political agendas above their country. In doing so, they recklessly disregarded the future harm they could cause by legitimizing a violent attack on our democratic institutions – a conscious and harmful decision calling into question their dedication to their role as Representatives'”

The obvious problem is that rejecting the term “insurrection” is not “legitimizing a violent attack.” Many of us refer to the violence as a “riot” because it makes fewer assumptions as to the motivations of all of those present. It is not to downplay the violence or its implications for our country.  I condemned Donald Trump’s speech while he was still giving it and condemned the violence as it was unfolding. However, there were thousands of people at the protest and most were not violent and did not enter the Capitol. Those who did enter the Capitol revealed a mix of motives and actions as reflected in the charges brought by the Justice Department. Some meandered around the Capitol while others engaged in violent and destructive acts.  There was clearly a core of determined and violent individuals who engaged in a premeditated efforts to stop the certification of the votes from the election.  Recognizing such varied motives and actions does not legitimize the violence or dismiss the seriousness of the attack. As I have previously written, even if this was not technically an insurrection, it was a desecration of our constitutional process.

The most important point is that people of good faith can differ on how to characterize or understand what occurred on January 6th while still condemning the violence. The comments of Clyde received the most attention in the press. Here is what he said in pertinent part:

CLYDE: Thank you, Madam Chair. This hearing is called the Capitol Insurrectionlet‘s be honest with the American people. It was not an insurrection, and we cannot call it that and be truthful. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines an insurrection as, and I quote, “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence” and then from the Century Dictionary, “the act of rising against civil authority or governmental restraint specifically the armed resistance of a number of persons to the power of the state.”

As one of the members who stayed in the Capitol and on the House floor who with other Republican colleagues helped barricade the door until almost 3 PM that day from the mob who tried to enter I can tell you the House floor was never breached, and it was not an insurrection. This is the truth.

There was an undisciplined mob; there were some rioters and some who committed acts of vandalism but let me clear, there was no insurrection, and to call it an insurrection, in my opinion, is a bold-faced lie. Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes taking videos and picturesYou know, if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.

There were no firearms confiscated from anyone who breached the Capitol. Also, the only shot fired on January 6th was from a Capitol Police officer who killed an unarmed protester, Ashli Babbitt, in what will probably be eventually be determined to be a needless display of lethal force.

Notably, Clyde then undermined his distinction between a riot and an insurrection by stating that the real insurrection was the Russian collusion scandal:

I agree with that 100 percent, you know, but the only insurrection that I have witnessed in my lifetime was the one conducted by members of the FBI with participants from the DOJ and other agencies under the banner Russia, Russia, Russia. High-ranking employees from these federal agencies and members of an independent counsel coordinated and fed a false narrative for over two years that the 2016 election was stolen and illegitimate.

Democrats were on the news almost every night saying the evidence is there, and the mainstream media amplified the fake news. This was indeed a very coordinated and well-funded effort by a determined group of people to overthrow our duly elected President Donald J Trump.

The statement taken as a whole is self-contradictory and ultimately incoherent.  However, Clyde was not defending the rioters but objecting to the characterization of their criminal conduct as an insurrection.  Members like all citizens are allowed to draw such a distinction. I disagreed with the challenge on the floor and the claims over the authority of Vice President Pence to “send back” the votes.  However, members reflects different constituencies and viewpoints.  They have a right to voice those views. Indeed, members are protected in doing such by not just the First Amendment but the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution.

Clearly, the Congress has the right to censure any member. Under Article I, Section 5  “[e]ach House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” However, to do so over such a question is an abusive of the legislative process.

Rep. Hice focused on defending former President Donald Trump from allegations that he incited an insurrection, the basis for his second impeachment. That is an issue that still divides this country with good arguments on both sides.

As for Rep. Gosar, he criticized the handling of the investigations and prosecutions by the Justice Department as excessive and pointed out how the lead prosecutor boasted on television that they sought to hit defendants so hard as to create “shock and awe” to deter others. He specifically questioned the handling of the investigation into the death of Ashli Babbitt, a case that raised concerns for many including myself.

Again, I do not agree with some of the characterizations or rhetoric of these members.  However, the attempt to censure colleagues for holding such opposing views is a disgraceful use of legislative authority.  Cicilline wrote:

“These three members dangerously mischaracterized what happened that day and showed more sympathy for the domestic terrorists than the Capitol police officers who died during the attack…These members cannot be allowed to rewrite history at their convenience by disrespecting the sacrifices made by Capitol police officers and downplaying the violent, destructive intent that rioters carried into this sacred building,” Cicilline added. ‘The January 6th insurrection was an attack on our democracy that we must continue to defend against today.’”

Read that over a few times. Cicilline wants to censure colleagues for “dangerous mischaracterizations [of] what happened that day.” Putting aside the irony given challenges to Cicilline’s own often over-hearted rhetoric (including as a House impeachment manager), he is seeking to punish colleagues for holding an opposing view of what occurred on that day.

As support for this abusive measure, Cicilline cited the expulsion of 17 members of Congress during the Civil War for “disloyalty to the United States.”  Cicilline is historically correct about the expulsions but absurdly off-base in his analogy to the current controversy.

The move to expel these members occurred on March 1861. That was a month after the start of the war with the firing on Fort Sumpter. On April 15, President Lincoln declared an insurrection. By that time, most Southern members rushed back to support the Confederacy, leaving vacancies in Congress. Maine Sen. William Pitt Fessenden thought it was insane to hold the seats for members who left the Senate to join a rebellion.  The Senate agreed and struck the names of the senators.  In July 1861, The 10 senators were expelled in July 1861 for being engaged “in a conspiracy against the peace and union of the United States Government” for their support of the Confederacy, according to the Senate.  Keep in mind that the first Battle of Bull Run occurred on July 21, 1861.

One senator was expelled on Dec. 4, 1861 because John Breckinridge, of Kentucky, had waited to see if Civil War could be avoided but then “joined the enemies of his country, and is now in arms against the Government he had sworn the support.” What is interesting is that, in October 1861, Breckinridge sent a formal letter of resignation to the Senate but months later Michigan Sen. Zachariah Chandler still moved to expel him. Ultimately, 14 senators were expelled.

Those were members who supported a civil war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives, including some like Breckinridge who took up arms in the Confederate forces. Cicilline sees no distinction with colleagues who condemned the violence but characterized it as a riot rather than an insurrection. Again, Cicilline insisted “We cannot allow this abhorrent mischaracterization to go unchecked.”

Just as our Constitution protects against the tyranny of the few, it also protects against the tyranny of the majority. As Madison said, “It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”

While a censure is unlikely to prompt judicial review (which is why it likely appears to Cicilline), it is still an offense to our constitutional values.  The Cicilline resolution should be condemned by members of both parties as an abuse of legislative authority and inimical to the legislative process.  He would open a Pandora’s Box of politically retaliatory measures that would see no end in our age of rage. There remain members on both sides who continue to fuel our divisions and capitalize on our tragedies for political purposes. No party owns the rights to Jan. 6th or the national pain caused by the attack. It remains an open wound for our nation as a whole. We will continue to debate the causes and the characterization of that attack on Congress. However, members cannot dictate how others reference or interpret these events.

 

325 thoughts on “Rep. Cicilline Demands The Censuring Of Colleagues For The “Mischaracterization” Of The Jan. 6th Riot”

  1. Facebook said, “we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured from our apps.”

    But, but, but, announced Anonymous the Stupid and his cadre of dolts, Politifact, according to the dolts, is ‘proof that Covid is not manmade. FB said it wasn’t true. …” How many times do we have to see reversals in what the left says without them admitting they were wrong?

    This type of reversal probably leaves Anonymous the Stupid quaking in his boots while holding his Cuomo doll. Let’s not forget Cuomo’s Emmy.

    1. The problem with “we will no longer” is that it inherently means FB was ALWAYS wrong to censor that content.

      One of the many problems with censorship is that it inevititably censors the truth.

      To be clear it is NOT absolutely certain that C19 was the product of a lab leak.
      It is just increasingly likely – I beleive that the State department calculated that there was a 1:13000000000 chance that C19 was completely natural in origens in 2020.

      FB sshould not get Kudos for no longer censoring that. They should be ashamed of spending a year censoring what turned out to likely be the truth.

  2. “Few here understand everything is not left right better than I”

    John, if you want to know how the left thinks and acts, read David Horowitz. He was one of the prominent intellectuals of the left and is now the same on the right. Few know their enemy better than he.

    In many respects I believe the left has infiltrated the minds of some of the libertarian think tanks. At least their money has.

  3. Seems Jan 6 had some unsavory people from the left.
    —-
    DOJ Seizes $90,000, Charges Black Lives Matter Supporter Allegedly ‘Stormed Capitol,’ Sold Footage to News Outlets
    BY JACK PHILLIPS May 23, 2021 Updated: May 23, 2021 biggersmaller Print
    The Department of Justice (DOJ) seized $90,000 from a Utah man who sold footage of Ashli Babbitt being shot during the Jan. 6 Capitol breach, according to court filings filed by federal prosecutors.

    John Earle Sullivan, a political activist who reportedly attended Black Lives Matter protests last year and who allegedly agitated rioters inside the Capitol, was also charged with new weapons charges, according to the documents unsealed last week.

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/doj-seizes-90000-charges-black-lives-matter-supporter-who-stormed-capitol-sold-footage-to-news-outlets_3827441.html?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-05-23-3&mktids=809e070afc5f51aa3ccd0002efb60e66&est=MVKIAxgOlz77NIbXR8jMxjhbzllpRpAKnHUEgZOpth249XVFcLvAWHCzhLNhjk37Y8w%3D

  4. “S. Meyer says: May 23, 2021 at 10:43 AM

    There is a crazy lunatic on this blog. I don’t want to embarrass him. I will give only his initials, J.S.”

    _____________

    S. Meyer posted his comment, in order to distract from the exchange down-thread, about him and his pal, john Say. The two of them are not the same person, IMO, as others have speculated, but they’re both a couple of nutcases, with a heavy time-investment in the comments section of JT’s blog.

    It was obviously lost on S. Meyer (not a surprise) that john Say — and the person to whom Meyer is referring — both have the same initials.

    1. Anonymous the Stupid, even a silly person like yourself recognizes that John Say responds with a lot of good and interesting information. Therefore you should have deduced that the JS represented another individual. You weren’t smart enough to do so. You will have to figure out who that JS is (Not John Say) because I don’t wish to embarrass him more than he embarrass himself or you embarrass him making your silly comments.

  5. There is a crazy lunatic on this blog. I don’t want to embarrass him. I will give only his initials, J.S.

    I figured I would help him out by posting Turley’s career history from the left-wing Wikipedia where he or she can go and obtain more information to clear all the debris affecting his or her mind.

    TDS is a horrible disease. For J.S. and others with TDS, please donate to Trump Fight Fund against TDS. Help Jeff and so many others.

    —–
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley

    Turley holds the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School, where he teaches torts, criminal procedure, and constitutional law. He is the youngest person to receive an academic chair in the school’s history. He runs the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS),[6][7]the Environmental Law Clinic, and the Environmental Legislation Project.[8]
    Prior to joining George Washington University, he was on the faculty of Tulane University Law School.[8]
    His articles on legal and policy issues have appeared in national publications; he has had articles published in The New York Times,[9] The Washington Post,[10] USA Today,[11]the Los Angeles Times,[6] and the Wall Street Journal.[12] He frequently appears in the national media as a commentator on a multitude of subjects[13][14] ranging from the 2000 U.S. presidential election controversy to the Terri Schiavo case in 2005.[15] He often is a guest on Sunday talk shows,[13] with more than two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox News Sunday. He served as a contributor on Countdown with Keith Olbermannfrom 2003 until 2011 on MSNBC, and later on Current TV[16]in 2011 and early 2012; Turley also appears occasionally on Pacifica Radio’s Democracy Now!.[17]
    Since the 1990s, he has been a legal analyst for NBC News, CBS News, the BBC and Fox News, covering stories that ranged from the Clinton impeachment to presidential elections.[18][8] He is on the board of contributors of USA Today.[19] He is a columnist with The Hill.[20]

    1. What is particularly wrong about Jeff is that he honestly thinks that he has a right to demand that Turley act to suit him.

      Turley is free to do as Jeff wishes.
      Turley is free to NOT do as Jeff wishes.

      Jeff has no understanding that others are actually free to deviate from his wishes,.

      Does anyone doubt that if Jeff or others on the left had the power to do so, they would eliminate Turley and anyone else’s freedom and compel then do do as they wish.

      In the past I have defended Faucci – though that is getting harder to do as his own ties to GF research and actively supressing inquiry into the origens of Covid.

      I have defended him NOT because i think he is right, but because like most “experts” he seeks to do good.

      Our big problem is not with ‘experts” who are often wrong.
      It is with POWER.

      It is increasingly clear that while it was effectively suppressed by the news and social media that there were and are myriads of competing “expert” opinions regarding Covid.

      That there is no some established science, and that to the extent there is, it is at odds with the “experts” like Faucci given a platform by the media, and consistent with that of “experts” that were supressed.

      My point is not that Faucci was wrong and someone else was right, but that contra the left, Government rarely knows what to do, and is unlikely to “pick” the right “experts” to listen to.

      We can debate details – but inarguably – under Trump, under Biden, under our governors, the US handling of Covid was Abysmal – though virtually no nations did well and most nations ultimately have done worse.

      There are some exceptions – it is near certain that we would STILL not have a vaccine but for Trump. This is not to downplay what pharmaceutical companies accomplished, just to recognize that Trump’s fierce determination to have a vaccine quickly bulldozed red tape and government obstacles. Further Trump guaranteed that no matter what if vaccines were developed the US government would buy them.

      That was a huge deal.

      But returning to my point – government can not know what the right choice is. That should be self evident from the past year.

      Biden has inarguably done no better than Trump. Likely worse.

      And people are slowly getting wise and returning to normal lives slowly regardless of government edicts, and the expressions of some experts.

      Nor are they doing the same things.
      Which is quite reasonable.

      One of the greatest stupidities of the experts regarding Covid was the one size fits all approach.

      Everyone’s Covid Risk is NOT THE SAME.
      If you are 80 – there is a 1:3 chance C19 will kill you if you get it.
      If you are 20 – C19 is atleast 3 times less dangerous than the flu and possibly 10+ times.

      We do not all have the same risks.
      That was understood early on.

      Yet we pretended that we all do.

      That is what happens when we use force to resolve debates.

    2. “There is a crazy lunatic on this blog. I don’t want to embarrass him. ”

      OK, then I will.

      One of the biggest lunatics on this blog is S. Meyer, himself. (As noted, earlier, john Say is another one.)

      Read on…

      1. Anonymous the Stupid, I see your point. You are jealous of anyone with a brain so you lash out. You should join Dorothy in your quest to find a brain.

  6. John Say said: “While there is little wrong with SM’s posts – Why would I want to pretend to be him ?

    Further why would you care if I did ?”

    EB,

    Help me out here! Your nose is more attuned to smelling out an impostor. One possibility is that Meyer and Say are multiple personalities of a clinically “advanced” individual if you catch my drift. Or it could be that his is the greatest troll effort of all time. Either way, John Say is too indistinguishable from S.Meyer from my point of view, but I’ll await your ruling on the matter since I trust your judgment.

    1. I think they’re two people, Jeff…, although the concept of them being two personalities amongst many in the same disturbed individual is indeed fascinating!!

      My take is (until I try your assessment on for a bit more!) is that Allan is truly disturbed, whereas John Say skews more toward the straight up obnoxious side. He’s obviously obsessive and can’t stay on a singular point for any amount of time. And his responses are wildly tone deaf (one time he wanted to bet me on what the final death count from Covid would be), however he seems more along the lines of the straining against his diaper/temper tantrum sort.

      Allan on the other hand seems to be in a psychotic break every single day on this comment section. I think he’s literally incapable of hearing what’s being said to him and have often wondered if he’s institutionalized. His discussion about insurance fraud was particulary fascinating because his take on it was along the ‘just leave the money stuff to the accountants’ and he’s often talked of having an apartment he visits in Manhattan from wherever he lives…, that’s no small moneyed existense…, so maybe he’s a Billy Madison type character. But either way, he’s not tracking right and seems to be internally punnished by deep learning disabilities. I think I have to scale back my sarcastic tendencies when dealing with him for that reason.

      They are an interesting pair though aren’t they? The fact they run rampant on this blog says a lot about them…, but it also says a lot about Turley. i think many on this on the center/left or left have this hope that Turley can be rescued and be restored to something we took him as from the past…, but I suspect he may be beyond that now. It’s kind of sad.

      EB 25

      1. EB,

        Thanks for your amusing reply. It’s thanks to your clarity of thought that my faith in my own sanity is restored, for when I read much of what is posted here I think I must be nuts because I honestly can’t understand what most are thinking!

        Which leads to my question of what is the purpose of this blog? Because Professor Turley will not respond to any posts, he is not acting as a teacher. If the points of view expressed by most here were raised in his classroom, he would certainly correct them. We would learn that he does not subscribe to many, if not most, of the views posted here.

        I wonder why he does not believe he has a responsibility to correct misinterpretations of his commentaries. He would not have to engage very often, but once in a while to set the record straight. If ever I had the opportunity to address him, this would be my first question. As you have suggested, it could be that he uses this blog solely as a means to boost his public profile to secure financial gain. Be that as it may, by inviting people to post reactions to his articles, he has a concomitant responsibility to correct them when they have misunderstood him; otherwise, this blog cannot be an effective teaching tool.

        1. Couldn’t have said it better, Jeff. And thanks for pointing out that there is a glaring question to be answered about this blog in terms of purpose…, my questions to Turley would be similar. I’m just not sure why he is okay with a lot of what goes on here. He does create space for it with his trying to keep a foot in different worlds but there just seem to be so many fluff articles to rev up the base of late.

          EB 25

          1. EB,

            Notwithstanding that people accuse me of hating Turley, I actually defend him, for I have never lumped him in with the Trumpists who proliferate here. He is far too educated not to see Trump for what he is. I fault him because he self-censors. Ordinarily, I follow my mother’s good advice to self-censor, “If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” Though not in Turley’s case. Oftentimes, he expressly decries what he calls the “age of rage.” And yet there is so much hostility expressed on his blog which he does nothing to soften. Worse, he profits from a network whose business model is to enrage its viewers, and yet he does not criticize the talk show hosts who deliberately encourage their viewers to despise the Left. Thus, I criticize him because he is a hypocrite for self-censoring when it is incumbent upon him to speak.

            As you point out Turley’s “fluff” articles which ostensibly are handed to him by Fox writers echo the one-sided narratives of his employer. In so doing, he is feeding the monster, so to speak, and fueling the rage which he deplores! He self-censors his opinion about the Big Lie, Liz Cheney, the Arizona recount, etc., all in a bid not to alienate himself with the Fox audience lest he destroys his utility as an objective contributor.

            But his strategy will not save him in the end. If Trump, Giuliani, Gaetz are prosecuted, you know as well as I do that the Trumpists will not accept a guilty verdict regardless of the magnitude of the evidence. Yet, there is not a chance that Turley will turn his back on his profession and support a Deep State conspiracy drummed up by Trumpists to explain away the convictions. And, unfortunately for him, he won’t be able to self-censor his opinions on the legitimacy of these likely prosecutions; silence will not be an option. He will have to choose a side, and it won’t be with Fox News/Trumpism. I suspect Turley will not be asked to “contribute” on Fox….

            1. I think you’re completely on the money with this assessment, Jeff. Turley doesn’t seem to see what just about every person rotatiing in the Trump universe experiences. Or he sees it but is bound to stay in it for some reason. Yes, sometimes i even think his academic, ‘tyranny of the left’ pieces may be written by interns or students to satisfy a deadline or mandate. (If so, keeping an eye on the typos might help!)…

              But there’s a time when everyone in the trumposphere gets cut loose. I wish Turley would realize he’s been crusing past the off ramps. I suspect it may be too late, and if it isn’t, he’s playing it way too close for someone like myself to have whatever respect I had for him come back to where it was.

              eb 25

              1. EB,

                I agree. As I have long said, his employment at Fox is inexcusable no less so had he been engaged by Infowars. If only he could be made to watch an hour of any one of the Fox prime time broadcasts and asked- under oath- if the host is being honest? It’s only by virtue of his ability to avoid such an embarrassing confrontation that he is able to escape accountability. We don’t know what he would or could say to justify his silence, but the very fact that he never references Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham, or Mark Levin by name in his commentaries demonstrates that he does not wish to align himself with their lies.

                In light of Turley’s observation that there is far too much rage in our politics and given his admonition that the best solution for bad speech is not censorship but, rather, more speech, it’s quite ironic that he remains so speechless in the face of the many Trumpist falsehoods and lies. You would think that Turley would feel morally obligated to correct the numerous misapprehensions of his positions which he elucidates here.

                Turley’s choice of articles seem very self-serving. As you saw, I linked to an article which reported that there are many at his law school who are not pleased by his relationship with Fox. And many are they who scratch their heads wondering what has become of him. His preoccupation with highlighting examples of conservatives being “cancelled” in higher education may reflect his growing apprehension of his own position at GW. It could be that his testifying as the sole academic on behalf of the Republicans at Trump’s impeachment has made him persona non grata among his GW colleagues, and now finds himself isolated and reaching out to conservatives. We don’t know what is playing out behind the curtain, but I’m sure if it were lifted, we would have a much better understanding of what is motivating him.

                Turley will never be able to erase the notoriety of having legitimated Fox News’ bogus narratives by appearing with its hosts. When eventually he is forced out of Fox’s employ because he won’t defend the indefensible, he will have to account for his sin of silence; otherwise, he will not be able to begin to rehabilitate his once sterling reputation.

                1. The hypocracy of your moral outrage is amazing.

                  Not a big Fox fan, but most of the rest of the left wing media has been shilling lies to us for the past 5 years and that does nto beother you at all.

                  Former NYT reporters – certainly not Right wing Fox hosts are writing books about the massive journalistic failures that have occurred at what once was the “newspaper of record”.

                  Once upon a time, much of the media that you are unwilling to criticize had near sterling reputations.

                  Today, Alex Jones is more credible.

                  And you ? Attack Fox ? Like they are the problem.

                  Fox is no paragon of virtue – but they certainly look like one compared tot he rest of the media.

                  1. John Say said:

                    “Once upon a time, much of the media that you are unwilling to criticize had near sterling reputations.

                    Today, Alex Jones is more credible.”

                    Because of ludicrous statements such as this, I won’t waste any of my time responding to you. As much as I hate to admit it, I owe Meyer an apology for thinking that you and he were the same person. I can have intelligent conversations with some on this blog; you are not among them.

                    JS

                    1. What is ludicrous is that my statement is true
                      Alex Jones is a right wing nut tin foil hat conspiracy theorist
                      And he has been more accurate than the left media

                      The media and the left and you have destroyed your credibility without any help

              2. Do you live in the real world ?

                Aparently everyone who acts differently than you wish is greedy.

                Do you have to act like a caricature of some maoist ?

                There may be some Trumpsphere – but the opposition that the left faces is bigger than that.

                Everyone is not taking orders from Trump.

                I have been fighting against the left long before Trump appeared and drove you all bat$hit crazy.

                YOU are the problem. Not Trump. At best he and his are a sometimes allie in the fight against your evil.

                Look arround you. What ever you may think of Trump – he is far less dangerous than you are.

                Look arround you. I am actually shocked that Biden has been as big a failure as he has as fast as he has.

                As Obama demonstrated we can tolerate an enormous amount of failure and still push through. Still grow, still make life better than before.

                But everyone except you learned in the past 4 years that The Obama economy, the Obama country need not be. That it was not the best we could do. Trump is not the best we can do – not even close, but if you draw a line from Obama to Trump – the direction towards Trump leads to a better world, and towards Obama to a worse.

                Biden inherited an envious situation. The fundimentals were solid. We should have had a rapid expansion. Happy days should have been here again. He was given a vaccine to defeat Covid, enormous pent up energy waiting to be released, the most peaceful world we have had in decades, energy independence. The lowest crime rates in decades.

                And in a few short months he has blown it all.

                And there are storm clouds that no one anticipated.

                Trump did not screw this up – you – the left, did this yourselves.

                You can rant about Trump and whatever else you wish – the mess we have and whatever we may see is of your doing.

                The so called Trump-o-sphere is not the seeds of your destruction – YOU are, YOUR ideas – don’t work.

                When will you learn that ?

              3. There is only one thing you must do to cast Trump into the dustbin of history – Succeed.

                You do not even have to do that well. Better than Obama, about as well as Trump.
                that is all. Trump is not all that high a standard to beat.

                Regardless, the left controls the future of this country right now.

                Succeed and nothing Trump or republicans say will matter.
                Fail and you will see Republicans – Trump republicans rush back into power.
                You may even see President Trump again.

                When you fail – it will not be someone else’s fault – it will not be Trump’s fault.
                It will be yours. Because your ideology is bankrupt and ruinous.

          2. “And thanks for pointing out that there is a glaring question to be answered about this blog in terms of purpose”
            Nope.

            You are not entitled to the answers you want.

            JT is free to have whatever purpose he wishes for this blog, or none at all. Or to change that purpose at his whim, and you are not entitled to know that purpose or know that it has changed.

            You do not have the right to impose positive duties on others.

            “I’m just not sure why he is okay with a lot of what goes on here.”
            You are incredibly narcissistic. This blog is not about you.

            Maybe JT is OK, maybe not, that is his choice, as is whether to act. He owes you no explanations for anything.

            If you find the blog valuable – read it. If you wish to comment – do so.

            You have control of your own choices – not those of others.

            BTW is you were not in such an increadibly think leftist bubble, you would grasp that JT is center left. Not libertarian, not right.
            He is an old school liberal. Like the ACLU used to be, or similar to Alan Derschowitz.

            But You, the left are slowly “red pilling” him and many other liberals.

        2. What kind of an idiot are you ?

          The purpose of this blog is obvious – for JT to post his mostly legal commentaries on current events.

          He has also allowed others to comment – with minimal censorship.

          Why is he obligated to respond to you ?

          When have you posted anything worth responding to ?

          No Turley is not “acting like a teacher” – He is acting like the owner of this blog.

          He can do as he pleases with it.
          Within the few constraints he has imposed – you can do as you please.

          What you can not do is compel him or anyone else to do as you please.

          And who knows – you claim JT does not respond. How do you know that ?

          JT could post under a pseudonym. He could be JBsay or SM, or Allan or …

          Regardless, like the typical left wing nut, you want control of everything.

          “If the points of view expressed by most here were raised in his classroom, he would certainly correct them. ”
          Once again you engage in mind reading. Why do you presume to know what JT would do in a different context ?

          “We would learn that he does not subscribe to many, if not most, of the views posted here.”
          Of course he does not – that is a tautology – no two people are the same.

          You are so drowning in your leftist bubble you are incapable of grasping that SM and I are distinctly different.

          JT does not share my views, nor yours, He has his own. Those are found in his articles, not in comments.
          He makes no secret of his views, and he has chosen not to respond to any of his.
          That is his choice.

          I doubt he spends much time reading the comments.

          “I wonder why he does not believe he has a responsibility to correct misinterpretations of his commentaries.”
          Because he does not.

          He is responsible for ONLY what he says – not what others respond.
          You really are clueless and incapable of breathing without foisting obligations on others that they do not have.

          “He would not have to engage very often”
          He does nto have to engage at all – and he does not.
          It is called liberty – the freedom to make choices for your self.

          Even you demand and practice it, though you constantly tell us that others are not entitle to the liberty that you grant yourself.

          “but once in a while to set the record straight.”
          There is nothing to set straight. JT made his position clear in his articles.

          The comments section is NOT his views.
          None of us are responsible for what others say and do.

          “If ever I had the opportunity to address him, this would be my first question. As you have suggested, it could be that he uses this blog solely as a means to boost his public profile to secure financial gain.”

          If Turley is making money for his blog – more power to him.
          But I see no evidence of that.

          “Be that as it may, by inviting people to post reactions to his articles, he has a concomitant responsibility to correct them when they have misunderstood him; otherwise, this blog cannot be an effective teaching tool.”

          No he does not. JT is responsible for himself – not you or I.
          He is responsible for his own remarks. Not yours or mine.

          Again you are a typical leftist – imposing duties on people that do not exist.

        3. So Slobberchops, you demand Prof Turley hire a babysitter for a day care center here on his blog so he’ll in your eyes be a good Comrade & explain to you what you/us need to do & say in public to comply with the current daily govt edicts so Turley can maintain a good Social Credit with your own CCP and “As you have suggested, it could be that he uses this blog solely as a means to boost his public profile to secure financial gain”, instead of encouraging you to grow up, think for yourself & learn how to wipe your own butt & to deal with the thousands of the different individuals one would encounter in a normal life.

          Isn’t that about right?

          A don’t forget to take all 3 of your Covid 19 Gene Therapy Vaccines.

          https://www.infowars.com/posts/27-year-navy-vet-running-for-house-i-didnt-serve-three-decades-to-surrender-america-to-weak-ass-republicans-communist-coup/

          https://www.infowars.com/posts/antifa-activist-who-sold-footage-of-january-6-to-cnn-nbc-had-90000-seized-by-feds/

      2. EB

        Why does this matter to you ?

        Why is it necescary fdor you left wing nuts to always degenerate everything into character assassination, mind reading, diagnosis, insult, and fallacy ?

        Are you capable of sticking to any issue ?

        i am not SM. Maybe Allan is, maybe he is not. I do not care. I do not understand why you care.

        Regardless, this like all your fallacious tangents DOES NOT MATTER.

        “An ad hominem attack against an individual, not against an idea, is highly flattering. It indicates that the person does not have anything intelligent to say about your message.”
        — Nassim Nicholas Taleb

        But Taleb misses something – You – the left are very dangerous. When you do not get your way – you escalate.
        Eventually you resort to violence.

        In posts here you have resorted to diagnosis.

        Does anyone doubt that with the power to do so you would commit those who disagree ?
        That was a common soviet means of controlling dissidents.

        If you do not wish to be compared to the bloody left of the past – do not behave like them.

        1. EB,

          Would you handle this cry for help? You have more experience with this type than I. I just don’t have the wherewithal to deal with this madness. Thanks!

    2. Why OT of something that popped up that I like. Now wake the Ph up & come on in with for the big win! 😉

      #tearsinheaven​ #ericlapton​ #singer​
      TEARS IN HEAVEN (Eric Clapton) – Covered by Jay Choi
      27,424 views
      •Mar 22, 2021
      2.5K
      6
      Share
      Save

    3. “EB,

      Help me out here! Your nose is more attuned to smelling out an impostor. ”

      You want to play this game – go ahead. But I already told SM in prior posts that it is a pointless endeavor.

      “One possibility is that Meyer and Say are multiple personalities of a clinically “advanced” individual if you catch my drift. ”

      Typical leftist idiot – engaged in mind reading, ad hominem and pretending to be able to do mental diagnosis over the internet.
      Of course in lef wing nut world anyone who disagrees with them is mentally unhealthy.

      It is these tendencies that contribute to why leftism always degenerates to blood.

      If you can not manage an argument – you shift to other means of getting what you want.
      Once you decide the ends justifies the means – even genocide becomes laudible.

      “Or it could be that his is the greatest troll effort of all time.”
      You are the troll you can not focus on the actual issues – instead resorting to fallacy, and insult.

      “Either way, John Say is too indistinguishable from S.Meyer from my point of view”
      You should not engage in this nonsense as you are not good at it.

      The primary values SM and I share are that we are not left wing nuts.

      It is actually hilarious that left wing nuts such as yourself see everyone who is not on the left as the same.

      “but I’ll await your ruling on the matter since I trust your judgment.”

      Since when has EB demonstrated good judgement ? And when has he been trustworthy ?

      Both of you have been shilling debunked left wing nonsense. Why should anyone trust either of you ?

      Can you identify ANYTHING in the past that either of you have been right about ?

  7. “john say argues with scattershot lack of focus while straining against his diaper.”

    non-sequitur,
    Ad hominem.

    If as you say my arguments are scattershot and unfocused – you will have no difficulty refuting them with facts, logic, reason.

    I am patiently waiting.

    Real debate is an engine for finding truth.

    My arguments or anyone else’s – true or false will never fall a barage of insults and other fallacies.

    The cruicible of facts, logic, reason is how we test truth, and argument,

  8. John Say said:

    “We have myriads of examples of baseless state partisan prosecutions.
    Many of which failed.

    Lets see some EVIDENCE.”

    I’m not going to waste one second of my life arguing facts with you. However, I propose a deal:

    If Trump or the Trump organization is found NOT guilty of any CRIMES, I will concede that I have been wrong about him all along, and I will never show my face here again. I will accept the jury’s verdict who will have seen all the evidence and have heard the trial arguments on both sides. Can you not now commit on the record to accept a jury’s verdict, and if Trump or the Trump Organization is found guilty, you will concede that Trump is not as innocent as you think?

    I’m willing to put myself on the line, will you?

    1. “I’m not going to waste one second of my life arguing facts with you.”

      Jeff, you have no facts, and you cannot dispute John’s facts. We learned that long ago. You talk a good story about discussion and behavior, but you are precisely the opposite of what you express. You are not an honest broker. Instead, you are a leftist ideologue that is ignorant of facts. Despite claiming to be a lawyer, you are unable to argue facts or ideas. That would leave a prospective client up the creek without a paddle.

      SM

      1. Typical drivel from S. Meyer. He has these canned responses that are mostly variations on the same old theme.

        Jeff refuses to engage with him and S. Meyer keeps goading…, trying to get a response.

        1. Ain’t it the truth! I am to Turley what Meyer is to me; he is my very own Jeff Silberman; the irony! And I’ll ignore him just as Turley ignores us all….

          1. Jeff, based on your comment we can only assume that if Professor Turley were to debate you he would ask for facts and proof. As soon as he did that you would make certain he was exposed to your back as you run away.

              1. Honestly, I don’t enjoy all this back and forth bickering. I will respond to Meyer’s taunts just as soon as Turley responds to mine. So, it’s in the professor’s hands.

                1. “Honestly, I don’t enjoy all this back and forth bickering.”

                  Then do not engage in it.

                  Regardless – is there someone here who cares what you enjoy ?

                  I certainly don;’t.

                  I would prefer if you made actual arguments,.

                  You don’t

                  “I will respond to Meyer’s taunts just as soon as Turley responds to mine. So, it’s in the professor’s hands.”

                  This is stupid.

                  SM taunts you – because you will not engage in actual argument.

                  Turley makes his argument’s in his posts.

                  While he may not engage you. Others most certainly will.

                  If you rant and pray fallacy and ad hominem – that is what you will get in return.

                  We can debate who is stupider,

                  Or we can debate the issues.
                  Your choice.

                  You keep choosing fallacy and ad hominem

                  So we all trade insults.

                  Bravo!

          2. Jeff for once I agree with what you propose. I don’t want to discuss things with you and neither does Turley. Turley and I are both happy writing what we wish and not fighting with those that have poor critical thinking skills. We both comment as we please. He says things that upset you on a daily basis and I say things that may or may not upset you but are not flattering to your point of view or intelligence. Both are based on envy and hate.

            Let us leave it at that. You don’t respond to me and I correct the record in Turley’s absence. He would do a much better job and likely one more to his liking. I recognize that. I can only try to do the best I can.

            SM

            PS: I left a few errors not significant to anything being said. I wanted to make sure I gave you the opportunity to add some of your usual trivial comments.

          3. Delusions of granduer on your part.

            When you have made an actual argument – to ANYONE ?

            Why should Turley take you seriously when you can not overcome simople arguments from those here ?

        2. Anonymous the Stupid, you are the same as Jeff. If you are assuming that I want Jeff to respond then you have to assume I want you to respond as well.

          However, you do respond all the time. There is a disconnect. That either makes your comment regarding Jeff and I untrue or it leaves you in your stable form, Stupid.

            1. Apparently neither you nor your friend below recognize that you made a fool of yourself.

              Anonymous the Stupid, you are the same as Jeff. If you are assuming that I want Jeff to respond then you have to assume I want you to respond as well.

              However, you do respond all the time. There is a disconnect. That either makes your comment regarding Jeff and I untrue or it leaves you in your stable form, Stupid.

        3. “Typical drivel from S. Meyer. He has these canned responses that are mostly variations on the same old theme.”

          Yes, the them is old, it is simple and it is correct.

          Make and argument with facts, logic reason, not fallacy.

          “Jeff refuses to engage with him and S. Meyer keeps goading…, trying to get a response.”
          False – obviously.

          You engage constantly – with ad hominem and fallacy.

    2. “I’m not going to waste one second of my life arguing facts with you.”

      Yet you waste copious amounts of time spewing insults and ranting over emotions.

    3. “However, I propose a deal:

      If Trump or the Trump organization is found NOT guilty of any CRIMES, I will concede that I have been wrong about him all along, and I will never show my face here again. I will accept the jury’s verdict who will have seen all the evidence and have heard the trial arguments on both sides. Can you not now commit on the record to accept a jury’s verdict, and if Trump or the Trump Organization is found guilty, you will concede that Trump is not as innocent as you think?

      I’m willing to put myself on the line, will you?”

      But you are not actually putting yourself on the line.

      If we actually lived in a world were partisan prosecutions were rare, and where juries especially in NY and DC rendered honest decisions based on facts – then your “deal” would have SOME merit.

      For the the record – I would not accept a jury verdict as absolute proof – even where there were no partisan factors.

      Thousands of convicted criminals have been exonerated by the innocence project – these are people that a jury found guilty who we subsequently proved absolutely were innocent.

      The good news is that it is likely that only about 2.5% of people convicted of a crime are completely innocent.
      Though there is a separate and much larger catagory of those who are not guilty of what they are accused, but guilty of something.

      Regardless, Manafort, Stone, and Chauvin were convicted in blatantly unfair trials by blatantly biased juries and judges that were corrupt.

      Flynn evaded a lunitic corrupt judge.

      There have been no prosecutions of the Mueller team for egregious and often criminal acts.

      I actually fully support the BLM movements efforts to end qualified immuntiy – because not only should we be suing the police for violations of our rights but also prosecutors and judges.

      If you are put in a position of public trust and you can not follow the law – you are vile, and likely criminal.

      I would send police and prosecutors who frame people, who tamper with evidence – to jail for very long periods of time.

      Nothing is more dangerous to the rule of law, than lawless conduct by those enforcing the law.

    4. Do you have actual evidence to justify ANY criminal investigation at all ?

      Absent such evidence – your entire offer is moot.

      We have been through this nonsense before.

      CrossFire Hurricane was started on evidence that investigators KNEW was fraudulent.
      Warrants were issued that never should have been.

      A lawless investigation took place that tortured myriads of your political enemies merely for being your enemies.
      And the results ZIP, NADA, ZILCH.

      So Why are you still here ?

      Why are you showing your face ANYWHERE ?

      Why should anyone trust your offer ?

      Why is this time different ?

    5. How would anyone enforce your offer ?

      You post as anonymous.

      How would anyone know you are gone for good ?

      Your offer is not even honest.

      1. “How would anyone know you are gone for good ? Your offer is not even honest.”

        Jeff has not been honest from the start. Why would anyone assume Jeff would keep his word. Jeff doesn’t like hearing this but Jeff’s word is worth very little.

Leave a Reply