“Who Watches the Watchmen?” Infowars Case Raises Difficult Question For Both The Biden Administration and The Media

“Who watches the watchmen”? That question from a federal judge this week came in a confrontation with the Justice Department over its targeting or charging journalists. At issue is the prosecution of a controversial host of a far-right website called Infowars. Owen Shroyer was charged with trespass and disorderly conduct during the Jan. 6th riot. However, Shroyer claims to have been present as a journalist while the Justice Department insists that he is an activist. When U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui asked for the basis of that distinction, the Biden Administration refused. The conflict exposes the problem with new regulations protecting journalists without clearly defining who is a journalist.

Recently, news reports of the Biden Administration targeting journalists in criminal investigations led to congressional hearings and a new policy that Attorney General Merrick Garland promised would protect the journalists in the future. I testified before the House Judiciary Committee on how this was just the latest in such controversies extending from the Clinton to the Biden Administrations. As I wrote on these pages at the time, the most glaring flaw is the continued failure to define who is a journalist. Without such a definition, the new reform is as worthless as the long litany of prior reforms.

Shroyer was arrested on charges of trespassing and disorderly conduct on the Capitol grounds. Prosecutors also alleged that he violated an agreement not to engage in such conduct after he was removed from a 2019 impeachment hearing for heckling a Democratic lawmaker. Shroyer was openly advocating for the protest and the underlying view that the election was stolen. He marched with a crowd toward the Capitol shouting, “We aren’t going to accept it!” However, he insists that he entered the Capitol to report on the events for Infowars.

Under the Justice Department guidelines, the attorney general must approve the investigation or charging of a member of the news media with a crime. That led Judge Faruqui to ask the obvious question of whether the guidelines were followed or whether the Biden Administration simply refused to recognize Shroyer’s claim of journalistic status. The judge noted that “The events of January 6th were an attack on the foundation of our democracy. But this does not relieve the Department of Justice from following its own guidelines, written to preserve the very same democracy.”

The Justice Department however simply defied the court and said the regulations were “scrupulously followed,” but refused to explain how the guidelines were satisfied. John Crabb, head of the Criminal Division of the U.S. attorney’s office in D.C., wrote “[s]uch inquiries could risk impeding frank and thoughtful internal deliberations within the Department about how best to ensure compliance with these enhanced protections for Members of the News Media.”

Faruqi was not satisfied by such refusals and noted “the Department of Justice appears to believe that it is the sole enforcer of its regulations. That leaves the court to wonder who watches the watchmen.”

The court’s inquiry highlighted the fact that the earlier pledge is worthless without some ability to review such decisions and, most importantly, some definition of those protected by it.

It is not just the Justice Department that is discomforted by the question. The media itself is equally uneasy. As with the status of Julian Assange, the media would prefer not to address the distinction between Shroyer and other advocates in the media.

Newspapers like the New York Times have rallied around journalists like Nikole Hanna-Jones who have declared “all journalism is advocacy.”  She is now going to teach journalism at Howard University and other academics are encouraging the abandonment of traditional views of objectively and neutrality in the media. Stanford journalism professor, Ted Glasser, insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that the journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.”  Thus, “journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”

Once you discard objectivity, the rest is easy. Schroyer was an “overt and candid advocate” but he was not deemed an “advocate for social justice.”  Thus, advocacy on sites like Infowars or Fox News is not real journalism, because it is false or “disinformation” while advocacy on sites like the Daily Kos or CNN is based on truth.

Reporters not only now define what is true but can actively protest against those with opposing views. Recently, National Public Radio made it official and said that, for the first time, its journalists will be allowed to actively participate in protests. However, NPR will pick the causes that journalists can openly join. The rule allows reporters to become protesters for causes that support “the freedom and dignity of human beings, the rights of a free and independent press, the right to thrive in society without facing discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, disability, or religion.” Two examples of worthy causes offered by NPR are Black Lives Matter protests and Gay pride protests.  It is doubtful that NPR would view pro-life or pro-police protests to fit that vague definition. Like the Justice Department, it reserves to itself to state which causes are worthy and which are unworthy.

Advocacy in the media is now rampant. Indeed, the White House regularly promotes the views of media figures like MSNBC’s Joy Reid and the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin who have been long criticized for their blind advocacy of pro-Democratic and anti-Republican causes. They would likely be protected under the Justice Department rules. Even when they are proven false in their assertions, they are treated as media advocates for the truth.

Advocacy reporting is the new touchstone of the journalistically woke . . . unless, that advocacy is for conservative causes or groups. I do not agree with Shroyer any more than I agree with Reid. However, they are both engaged in what is now celebrated as advocacy journalism. It is bad enough to witness the demise of traditional journalism but the Shroyer case may foreshadow an even worse future where only certain forms of advocacy will be allowed. As with NPR, what is being advocated will determine who is still a journalist. That will bring the movement of advocacy journalism to its inevitable end, leaving only advocacy in the wake of journalism.

 

296 thoughts on ““Who Watches the Watchmen?” Infowars Case Raises Difficult Question For Both The Biden Administration and The Media”

  1. this will probably be a dumb question but here goes….if the capital is a public space, basically owned by the citizens of the country, how can one trespass on property one owns a piece of?

    1. The good thing about being dumb is that one is too dumb to know that one is dumb; I speak from vast expanses of personal experience.

      One may “trespass” in the park, “…a public space, basically owned by the citizens…,” constructed for public use.

      One may not disrupt governmental operations on public property, which are, presumably, beneficial and designed to serve and facilitate the maximal freedom of the citizens, while perpetuating the severe constitutional limitations and restrictions on government.

      1. George,

        Of the Million + people that showed up on 1/6/21 for Trump’s Pro American/Peacefully Rally, I seen parts of on videos, how many went into the Capital, & a closer observation how many were causing trouble/breaking stuff & were they paid by any US/Foreign intel/leo?

        The Govt will have to break out all the exculpatory evidence, including the 14000+ hours of videos & then those accused, their lawyers can go to discovery under oath.

        God knows what the heck would come out?

        We’ll See.

    2. No, it’s not a dumb question at all. I would think the Judge would demand the DOJ explain their false indictment & arrest of Owen Schroyer & many others there when SOH Pelosi/McConnell/etc. called off extra security that day having been warned days before that Massive Crowd were coming, that the Capital Police were filmed giving High Fives & taking Selfies with people as they moved barriers out of the way & let them into the Capital Bldg.

      I would like to see all the exculpatory evidence, videos included with the pictures that P Turley said shows Owen inside the Capital, ( Maybe I mis-read?) Alex Jones/Owen/Crew had body cams running so they can document their side of the story.

      The Judge could/should just issue a summary judgment in Owen’s favor with Prejudice.

      And further order that Prosecutor& Garland to burn their law incenses for aiding/Abetting Pelosi/MConnell/etc in their Treasonous Sedition & Insurrection against the people’s US govt?

      We’ll see.

        1. What the hell does that mean? Are you going around provoking violence, what are you stupid or what?

          “We’ll See”

          That means we’ll see what this judge & other courts rule.

          If Infowars & the people who support them stand for anything it’s for non-violent remedies through govt & citizens, like people that showed up 1/6/2021.

          1. Infowars is a conspiracy theory site.

            For years, Alex Jones used his show to promote the conspiracy that the Sandy Hook shooting, which killed 20 children and six educators, was a hoax. The families of those murdered at Sandy Hook have said they’ve been subjected to harassment and received death threats from Jones’ followers, and some sued him for defamation. In a deposition for that suit, Jones claimed that he “almost had like a form of psychosis back in the past where I basically thought everything was staged, even though I’m now learning a lot of times things aren’t staged.” His psychosis is broad, and I hope that he gets help.

            Only fellow conspiracy theorists value Infowars. The rest of us recognize it for the garbage it is.

            1. Anonymous the Stupid, I am glad you recognize conspiracy theories. Since I don’t read Infowars, I can’t comment on what they write.

              When it came to spying on Trump:
              Ukraine
              Russia hoax
              the Steele Dossier

              Who had a better average of accuracy? The NYT and Washington Post or Infowars.

              I know that both the NYT and Washington Post were wrong 3/3 times. One can’t score any lower than that.

              1. Allan the Abusive / S. Meyer, you should talk with a therapist about your uncontrollable desire to denigrate commenters you dislike.

                Like you, I don’t read Infowars. Unlike you, I do read news from reliable sites that have reported on the lawsuits against Alex Jones and quoted his statement about his “psychosis” in his deposition.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, you write a lot about Alex Jones and know more about him than I do. I don’t care about his reports on the National Enquirer type stuff if he does any. I am interested in the big topics we have discussed on this blog:

                  Ukraine
                  Russia hoax
                  the Steele Dossier, etc.

                  The NYT and Washington Post were both continuously wrong, so he can’t possibly have done any worse than them. Try proving otherwise, or don’t use him as a weapon when your sources are worse or just as bad.

                  “denigrate commenters you dislike.”

                  I don’t dislike you. I think you actually could do better than you do, but that is not a reason to dislike you. If I knew you in person, I probably would be happy to go out to lunch with you. Dislike? No.

                  Also, I don’t denigrate you. My comments are accurate and fair. You like to pick at people, and that is proven day after day. You provide data and links that are meaningless or erroneous. You make comments without a basic understanding of the subject matter. All of that is fine, but then when criticized nicely, you get nasty. That is Stupid, as are many of the comments you make.

                  1. As is often the case with your insults, Allan, they describe you better than the people you attack.

                    1. Anonymous the Stupid, do you notice how you haven’t dealt with content? Try dividing your responses into two parts.

                      Part 1, deal with the content.
                      Part 2, insult anyone you wish in any fashion you desire.

                      If you do both parts you won’t seem as Stupid.

                    2. Allan, if you don’t wish to discuss the topics that I raised in my response to Oky1, that’s totally fine, but I’m uninterested in discussing the topics that you wish to shift the discussion to.

                      If you think I insulted you by referring to your insults, then you acknowledge your insults.

                    3. What you are really saying is that you don’t want to take responsibility for your comments or the sources you use. You want a one way street and that isn’t going to happen. You call the references of other blogger’s trash, but when the question is asked about your references you refuse to prove them better than the one you are criticizing. That is pure stupidity.

                      “If you think I insulted you by referring to your insults, then you acknowledge your insults.”

                      This is another Stupid comment. With such comments and such a lack of content how can you be known by anyother name than Anonymous the Stupid?

                    4. He= Anonymous the Stupid.

                      Don’t you see why you fit so comfortably in that alias?

            2. If you’re going to slander Infowars, Alex Jones, their other shows, news reports & his/their viewers/listeners you should yourself 1st watch & listen so you’ll know what the heck you’re speaking of/writing about before you speak/write.

              Banned.Video

              https://www.newswars.com/

    3. Tell us, Karen Ann, do you believe that you can just enter a government building, wherever, like your home town, whenever you please, and do you think because it’s a government building you can break windows and enter after being told to “cease and desist”?

    4. Karen Ann,

      It’s “CAPITOL.” By your logic, they should not lock the doors at night so the public can walk in any time they get the feeling.

  2. George Washington, a man of considerable courage and resolve, assessed the landscape and grabbed the bull by the horns, ignoring the definitive mortal jeopardy he placed himself in.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

    – Declaration of Independence, 1776

  3. This is a very good article by Michael Anton in The American Mind. The quote by Machiavelli and follow up comment by Anton should be our strategy in the war on terrorism.

    “The Romans,” Machiavelli says, “made their wars short and big.” We Americans have taken to making our wars small and long. We inflict pinprick strikes over decades rather than getting the whole thing over within a matter of days or weeks.

    A better strategy, right after 9/11, would have been to do what we did, but finish the job at Tora Bora—and then leave immediately, with a note on the fridge saying “If you do anything like that again, we’ll be back quickly with overwhelming force, and we’ll leave just as quickly. We will do that as many times as you make us.”
    https://americanmind.org/salvo/afghanistan-doomed-from-the-start/

    1. Duration is victory. You simply can’t soak the US taxpayers enough during a short war.

      BTW: the Romans destroyed themselves by trying to build an unwieldy empire and adopting totalitarianism. Not a good role model for most of us.

  4. During his bumbling speech, Biden warned those responsible:

    “We will hunt you down and make you pay.”

    Maybe his Keystone Kops can find an aspirin factory in the Sudan to bomb.

    Or look in the mirror.

    1. “hunt you down and make you pay.” Such bombast. That’s how it all started on 9/11/01. He seems to have missed the whole point of the last twenty years. Plus the fact that the perpetrators were suicide bombers. Biden can hunt them down in hell.

    2. From your Narcissist in Chief:

      On the same morning that at least 12 U.S. service members were killed in a bloody terror attack in Kabul, former President Donald Trump suggested Osama bin Laden wasn’t a big deal and only “had one hit”.

      Calling into conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt’s show on Thursday morning, Trump doubled down on his recent claims that the Taliban wouldn’t have quickly taken over Afghanistan following American troop withdrawal if he were still in charge. (Trump negotiated the original peace deal with the Taliban in February 2020, which included a May 1 withdrawal date and the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners.)

      At the same time, the ex-president also took the opportunity to boast about the terror leaders that had been killed during his term, notably ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Iranian military chief Qasem Soleimani. And he claimed that both of them were far worse than bin Laden, the former al Qaeda leader who killed thousands of Americans in the 9/11 attacks and prompted the War in Afghanistan.

      “And we took out the founder of ISIS, al-Baghdadi, and then of course Soleimani,” Trump blared. “Now just so you understand, Soleimani is bigger by many, many times than Osama bin Laden. The founder of ISIS is bigger by many, many times, al-Baghdadi, than Osama bin Laden.”

      From the Daily Beast. How much arrogance and how much lying by this despicable excuse for a person does it take to offend people like you, anyway? Do people like you even begin to comprehend the meaning of “patriotism”?

  5. New York Times and Washington Post have one agenda, bring The New World Order into existence. Read “Call It a Conspiracy” Larry Abraham and Allen. Alex Jones is controlled opposition. Really help Professor T. to get clued in. Most of the country does not have the cognitive skills to grasp what is happening.

    1. Wake up,

      If only Turley could meet with you Trumpists face-to-face to tell you what he really thinks of your inanities.

      1. Turley as an intelligent man would either agree with most of the important policy decisions or at the very least consider them alternatives that have substance.

        He would laugh at you and your intolerant ideas.

        1. Already, there are those on this blog who have expressed their disenchantment with Turley for his not echoing their Rightwing views. I predict, here and now, that this dissatisfaction will rise as more lawsuits against those who lied on behalf of Trump come to fruition. Turley has been very deft at not alienating Trumpists by remaining silent on controversies which might have revealed his antagonism towards naked Trumpism, e.g., ignoring the Big Lie. But in the final analysis, he will not join those of you who attack the MSM as the enemy of the people. He will infuriate you when he refuses to endorse your accusations that the prosecutions of Trump associates or his Organization are witch-hunts. Whatever complaints he levels at government agencies, he does NOT subscribe to the fantasy that there is a “Deep State.”

          Turley condemns our “age of rage” as embodied by rage entrepreneurs like Alex Jones and Mark Levin. You’ll see soon enough that Turley is not the advocate you think he is.

          1. Attaboy Stewart. Keep pumping those daily affirmations. Because you’re good enough, you’re smart enough, and doggoneit, people like you. 👏

            1. Olly,

              Too bad we can’t put our money where are mouths are. I’d match whatever you were willing to put up. I’ll have the last laugh. I’m willing to bet on it.

                1. Olly,

                  You are a good sport for conceding the wager. By nature, I don’t gamble- only when I eat at a new restaurant.

          2. “Already, there are those on this blog who have expressed their disenchantment with Turley for his not echoing their Rightwing views. “

            You are correct, Turley supports rightwing views. Most prominent of them is his great love for freedom of speech and diversity of ideas. I can understand how his love of free speech and diversity offends your tender ears and those of your fellow leftists..

    2. “Controlled opposition ”

      That would be many of those with Q/pBLMpantifa & what the heck are those other psyops of the CIA/FBI/DHS, DEA, NCIS, ETC., & 100’s/1000’s of subcontractors for them.

      I think there’s 35 intel outfits HQ’d in DC on 1/6/21.

      Then throw in all the Native & Foreign Corporate Spies, Jesus, who in the hell would live anywhere near that S’hole DC? Not Me.

  6. There is no ‘special’ classification as journalist; that is a ‘journalist’ has only the same rights as all other everyday citizens.

  7. “The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”
    – William Colby, former CIA director

    Exhibit A: Purported reporter Anderson Cooper interviewing purported journalist John Sullivan. I’ve left the scare quotes off to avoid triggering certain types.

    Is Shroyer not major enough to be owned? On the other hand, one suspects that since Colby’s time, the budget to buy mouthpieces has only grown.

    Journalism is dead. Write the obituary. Hire someone who isn’t a journalist to write it.

    1. Purported journalist Shroyer was onstage at the Capitol with purported journalist Alex Jones. You can put scare quotes around their names too. Does Jones “own” Shroyer?

      1. Apparently even the CIA had problems with J. Edgar, and he with them … but that’s another story.

  8. Journalists, on the left, can burn buildings and physically attack whomever they please knowing their bail is already paid should they be arrested. Journalists, on the right, are insurrectionists, enemies if the state, and flat out treasonous murderers out to destroy this “democracy”. Good, democracy sucks, we want our Republic back. The double standard is literally killing people.

    Real journalists have been warning the experimental injections contain graphene oxide for months. It’s why magnets stick to injection sites. It’s the nanotechnology used to encase the mRNA. It’s also illegal and deadly to humans. Not true you cry! The Japanese have recalled over 1 million doses of Maderna’s offering because it contains a “foreign substance” their scientists believe is graphene oxide.

    The Speaker of the House is next in line after the Vice President. God help us if Pelosi swoops in on her broom and becomes leader of what was once the pinnacle of the free world but is now, thanks to her band of merry communists, is the laughing stock of every dictator paid for by the Gates Foundation. A foundation hell bent on reducing the world’s population to just 500 million. How does Gates plan to do this? By his own admission, on camera more than once, through mass vaccination programs.

  9. Turley proposes gently in his opinion that there is something very very wrong in our government and how it is presently doing and defining constitutional matters. In this for sure he is not wrong. And for all you leftists , communists , antifags , statists here it is severe butthurt to you types for him to point out the hypocrisy of senile biden and Jamaica heels up harris , the thoroughly politicized DOJ , useless state dept and DHS for that matter too. It really seems that all of your stripe has deliberately lost sight of the meaning and laws of the constitution in your partisan political jihad(s).
    The government under a sick senile elderly puppet is being driven by those in the shadows , not elected to do what they are doing. Hacks of absolute mediocre to pitiful quality in their positions let alone as humans are calling the shots and KILLING citizens by the score for political points. Does this in any way offend you , wake you up ?…..or are your eyes and brains so yellow dog tinted it is AOK for America to have run off the rails by such buffoons ?. The latter is the kick me sign you wear in the eyes of most Americans… and you know this but are loathe to admit such. The dismantling of our great nation with woke-ism and socialism being waved like some needed salvation when they are nothing more than cancer to our people should have you quacks mad , fighting mad. But you left and far left zeig heil types actually embrace these cancers of zero principal.
    You know you are dead wrong but like good drones you rape ,, pillage and burn American society on your pilgrimage too funeral pyre of your mindsets adverse thinking. And to note Heels harris by definition of law/rules can not be pres…how she got her heels up so high to be VP …well she is good at the oldest profession , qualifications be damned !.

  10. Isn’t InfoWars the outfit that claimed Sandy Hook was a hoax and everyone involved was a crisis actor? I mean, they were sued for that and lost big time.

    I do not think anyone on their staff can call themself a journalist. They just make things up.

      1. Yeah, they gave us four years (at least) of pimping for the Russia gate hoax. Complete malarkey. Also Covington Kids and fake Kavanaugh atrocity stories and no doubt other things I can’t recall right now.

    1. So does the mainstream media outlets, but that is ok. The problem is the double standard.
      Journalist job is to INFORM us, not form us.

    2. Crisis,

      Apparently Turley believes that the Infowars reporter at issue could demonstrate his bona fides as a journalist notwithstanding his obvious advocacy for Trumpism.

      Turley has seemingly resigned himself to the age of advocacy journalism whether by Fox News and Infowars on one side or MSNBC and NPR on the other. Were it always so. “Fair and balanced” was always a marketing slogan.

      Advocacy journalism should still have standards of honest reporting, but the favoritism will be played out in what stories are covered and not coveted. For example, Fox had been focusing on the Southern border “crisis” and ignoring the upsurge in Covid cases in the Deep South, whereas MSNBC had been focusing on those Covid patients hospitalized and dying while regretting not getting vaccinated and ignoring the immigration surge. They push different narratives. This is unavoidable.

      1. whereas MSNBC had been focusing on those Covid patients hospitalized and dying while regretting not getting vaccinated and ignoring the immigration surge. They push different narratives. This is unavoidable.

        You take the fake bait, hook, line, and sinker.
        Yes MSNBC “focuses on those patients hospitalized” Yet you ignore the lack of statistics in said reporting. Ignoring Florida ~190 deaths Aug 10th, to ~60 deaths yesterday That/s a seven day average. I know when the media is feeding me personal stories of suffering and grief, they are driving a narrative, most likely a narrative that is opposite of facts.
        That’s in a state that prevents meaningless mandates. Why the staggering drop in deaths? The most evident explanation, the virus is going to virus, regardless of symbolic “mitigation strategies” We have more than 18 months of state by state experiments that inform us, mitigation is meaningless. This virus, like viruses before it, will run through the population, until the R value is <1
        The fact is, if you are 55 years old or less, and healthy, you are not at risk from covid. And if you catch it, the worst you can do is spread it. But the vulnerable are vaccinated, or have accepted the risk.
        Time to end the covid panic porn, show.

    3. It seems with most incidents like the 11/3/2020 elections, Sandy Hook, 9/11/ etc., there are oddities that happen, like 5 swing states shutting down counting votes at about the same time & restarting counting about the same time with the trend lines reversed.

      Like the dad from Sandy Hook caught on live video Laughing & Joking around just right after he heard his young son was mur*dered, then told he’s about to go to live TV reporter, turns the laughing face on a dime into a big Frowning face. Odd you think? I still think it was.

      Then there’s all the questions Alex Jones/others bring up about 9/11/2021 event. The big easy question for anyone is bldg’ing #3 wasn’t hit by a plane that day so please tell Alex Jones, millions of us Infowars listeners & Architects& Engineers for 9/11 Truth, how it was physically possible for the bldg #3 fell perfectly into it’s own foot print that day? Makes many people say Hum?

  11. InfoWars was openly advocating and cheering on the terrorist insurrection while it happened. They were part of it.

    1. All the more reason why Turley dismisses Infowars. He constantly decries our “age of rage” which is epitomized by Alex Jones who is a leading Trumpist as you rightly point out.

  12. Journalism is already dead. The illness gripping “journalism” began in its present form in the 60’s just about the time of the Tet Offensive” Journalists were then openly being critical of our involvement in Vietnam. Had the Pentagon papers said anything other than what they did say, I have no dobut we would have never heard of them. Had Nixon been Kennedy, or even Johnson, or Humphrey, we would not have heard a word about Watergate. Look no further than the lack of interest in Hunter Biden or the Clinton Foundation as proof.

  13. Turley says:

    ““Who watches the watchmen”? That question from a federal judge this week came in a confrontation with the Justice Department over its targeting or charging journalists. At issue is the prosecution of a controversial host of a far-right website called Infowars.”

    I trust it did not escape your notice that Turley calls Infowars “a far-right website.”

    What, pray tell, do you Trumpists suppose he means by that characterization? Certainly, no one can gainsay that Infowars is a Rightwing website. The question is why did Turley see fit to add the qualifier “far” to his description? It seems obvious to me that he is implying that it is not a credible source of information. Similarly, I take it that you Trumpists use the word “far” as in “far-Left Mother Jones” to discredit its reporting.

    We have to presume that Turley would concede that his own Fox network as a Rightwing network though not as far Right as Infowars. And we have to assume that Turley would not, in good conscience, work for a network which did not accurately report the news. Thus, it follows that a far right network doesn’t.

    Yet I have seen many of you here post links to Infowars as if you regard it as a credible outfit. Do you all think that it is, despite Turley’s negative opinion? Does it concern any of you that he distrusts a news source which you do not?

    Just curious.

      1. Turley obviously believes so which is why I am perplexed that so many Trumpists flock to this site to seek his opinions when he evinces his disdain for Alex Jones who thinks as they do!

        1. Hi Jeff, the reason is that many of whom you deem Trumpists are simply conservatives. Who come to this blog because of the reason for it’s existence. To comment on issues
          ( mostly) from a legal perspective.
          Unlike many on the left, it is possible not fall lock step into every opinion as stated by someone on ” your side”.
          I believe it is called ( and I am reticent to use this term because it has been hijacked) , critical thinking. You can seek JT’s opinion and still not agree with Alex Jones. It is possible to have independent thought. Although those on the left construe actual thinking as a mental disorder.

          1. Hi Paul,

            I would never accuse you of agreeing with Alex Jones. But let’s face it, most of the Trumpists here, I dare say, do. Candidate Trump was interviewed by Alex Jones and Trump said:

            “Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down…. You will be very — very impressed, I hope.”

            Not to mention Roger Stone’s close association with Infowars.

            Trumpists trust Alex Jones’ conspiracy theories about the influence of elites such as Turley much more than they do Turley’s negative opinion of Infowars!

            1. Ok thanks. I don’t agree with Jones.
              Unfortunately we now live in a society where even six degrees of separation is not enough. The guilt by association, no matter how remote, is now the rule rather than the exception.

            2. I would never accuse you of agreeing with Alex Jones. But let’s face it, most of the Trumpists here, I dare say, do

              So this week the boogy man is Jones? Is that a one week run? Then you switch back to Qanon?
              Nobody pays attention to Jones, I doubt if 1% of R voters could tell you who he is. The only time I ever see anything about him, the left is providing the coverage. Just like Qanon, Nobody knows anything about them.

              The left, like you mistakenly think they are a valuable cudgel to beat on conservatives.

              1. “Nobody pays attention to Jones”

                Former President Trump does. Are you suggesting that he’s a nobody?

                Jones is clearly getting enough readers/viewers to make a good living. Oky1, one of the commenters here, has cited Jones and Infowars many times. Maybe you skip over Oky1’s comments?

                1. Do you know what President is good at? communicating. You’ve had 6> years to study the man and you are still clueless to what he accomplishes. .

                  1. You can certainly hold the opinion that Trump is good at communicating. Some people agree with you, and others (like me) do not agree.

                    Among the things I’d say that he accomplishes are getting attention and filling his pockets.

                1. You sure you don’t need some icecram jiffy ?…maybe some pudding to make you feel better ?. Change of depends maybe huh ?. Lying seems to come naturally for you amongst other left wing traits.

                  1. I’m putting you on my list with S.Meyer, JohnSay, and Olly. I won’t responding to your taunts. You are unworthy of my time.

                    1. Are you telling us that your time is worth more than dog doo on the bottom of one’s shoe. I don’t think so. Did phergus touch a nerve? It sounds like he did

            3. Not to mention Roger Stone’s close association with Infowars.

              What does this add to the topic?

              This tells everyone exactly how stupid and shallow you are.

                1. Not my nerve. I just expose how shallow your thinking is. You are left with nothing of substance so you pick a non-relevant target to hide your ignorance.

                    1. Elite posh leftist education – check
                      College paid for by daddy & mommy – check
                      climate hoaxer – check
                      feelings over common sense – check
                      live in an uppity white neighborhood – check
                      Drive a prius , but have a Mercedes stashed just cause you can – check
                      vote kneejerk leftist – check
                      never worked with your hands – check
                      never served in the armed forces – check
                      scared of mice – check
                      wear skinny jeans , because you want to – check.
                      Hubris – check

                      So jiffy tell me what I missed about your superb educational prowess ?.

                    2. Hey Turley,

                      Another contributor to your blog which you must be proud of his participation.

            4. “I would never accuse you of agreeing with Alex Jones. But let’s face it, most of the Trumpists here”

              If it weren’t for this blog, I wouldn’t know anything about Alex Jones. I still don’t know him.

              I wonder what his position was on the Steele Dossier? He was right if he thought it was trash, and the NYT and Washington post was wrong.

              If he were right on Ukraine, spying on Trump and many other issues, then he was right and the NYT and Washington Post wrong.

              We have three major issues where the journalists of the day were wrong, deceived the public, and used anonymous sources. All we need to know is what Alex Jones said.

              1. Next you will tell me you never heard of David Duke or what he stands for. Alex Jones is a high profile Trumpist whether you realize it or not. The fact that such a conspiracy-theorist hate-monger supports Trump and Trump validates him is disgusting.

                1. Next jiffy you will tell us you never heard of mao, marx , engles , Trotsky or stalin…but you know you love what they had to say and accept with smiles what they did. Brother sometimes you are just so full of it…I can’t imagine your sewer bill…it must be astronomical ! , and then the resultant plumbers bill !.

                2. You didn’t deal with the fact that on many of the big issues over the last 4 years Alex Jones, who you consider a nut, was right more than the NYT and Washington post.

                  Imagine that, the nut job was more accurate than where you get your information?

                  You don’t even know how close you are to being a Nazi, Stalinist, Maoist or any of the many other things. With your so-called higher education you seem lost when it comes to the important evil people of the 20th century yet you focus on Alex Jones. That places you in the realm of the dum-ass.

                  Does that make you a worse nut job than he? I think so and it also makes him right more than you.

                    1. You have a spell checker to correct typos. That is not a good indication of one with that high-caliber education you were bragging about.

                      So far, that person many call a nut job has better knowledge than you. You can’t deal with content, so you complain about typos. You are quite an ignorant character.

                      You have fulfilled all the earmarks of a dumb-ass.

                      I liked the comment by phergus so much, I will repeat it here. He got you. A perfect match.

                      “Elite posh leftist education – check
                      College paid for by daddy & mommy – check
                      climate hoaxer – check
                      feelings over common sense – check
                      live in an uppity white neighborhood – check
                      Drive a prius , but have a Mercedes stashed just cause you can – check
                      vote kneejerk leftist – check
                      never worked with your hands – check
                      never served in the armed forces – check
                      scared of mice – check
                      wear skinny jeans , because you want to – check.
                      Hubris – check

                      So jiffy tell me what I missed about your superb educational prowess ?.”

          2. Good comment Paul. Notice that Silberman is perplexed by his assumptions. When he learns of how those assumptions are flawed, he chooses to remain perplexed. Yuri Bezmenov called his type, the demoralized.

            1. Olly, “perplexed” is much kinder than warranted.

              Paul, good luck in your efforts. Remember to stop banging your head when you start seeing stars. 🙂

              Good weekend to everyone.

  14. Let’s not overcomplicate things. The Biden regime decides who qualifies as a journalist. The exact criteria are nobody’s business. It is a matter of regime security.

  15. Leaders of private organizations interested in excellence will examine their process performance and make adjustments. Why? Because if they don’t they or their organization will cease to exist. Narcissists call that Monday morning quarterbacking.

    Leaders of government aren’t motivated by continuing the organization’s existence. That’s baked in. They are motivated to do those things that will further their own existence. Woe to the nation whose political and bureaucratic leadership is filled by cowards and narcissists.

      1. We’re actually hoping they skip the middleman (middleperson?) and go straight to Pelosi.

        1. Actually, the next person in the line of presidential succession, after the VP, is the president pro tem of the Senate, which is currently Patrick Leahy, Democrat senator from Vermont. The Speaker of the House comes after that, and then it goes back to the Executive Branch, starting with the Secretary of State and then down the Cabinet line.

          1. “after the VP, is the president pro tem of the Senate, which is currently Patrick Leahy, Democrat senator from Vermont. The Speaker of the House comes after that”

            Speaker then pro tem.

      2. OMG!

        Did you say Harris as President???

        “IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        – The Law of Nations is referenced in Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;….”

        ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

        Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758

        Book 1, Ch. 19

        § 212. Citizens and natives.

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

        ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

        ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

        To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787

        From John Jay

        New York 25 July 1787

        Dear Sir

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

        Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore

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

        which sailed Yesterday.

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

        provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the

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

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

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

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

        I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

        John Jay

        1. Citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States wherein they reside.”

          Cornell Legal Information Institute: “Anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to it’s jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.”

          Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, CA on October 20, 1964.

          The quotes were printed in a USA Today article written by Camille Caldera, published 9/21/20.

          1. A Voice in the Wilderness:

            Unfortunately, George is an extreme bigot and a nut. He also insists that Obama isn’t a natural born citizen, wants to repeal the amendment giving women the right to vote, wants all Black people in the US sent to Africa, …

      3. Could she possibly do any worse? 13 dead because Biden and his ship of fools relied on the terrorist Taliban to provide perimeter security. The damn Taliban! The enemy! He needs a 13 man firing squad made up of family representatives from those 12 marines and one Navy corpsman.

        1. “The damn Taliban! The enemy!”

          Yes, the very same enemy that Trump negotiated with, while excluding the Afghan government from the negotiation.

          “He needs a 13 man firing squad made up of family representatives from those 12 marines and one Navy corpsman.”

          No doubt you’ll also tell us how large the firing squads should be for Bush, Obama, and Trump. /sarc

          1. Typical anonymous cockroach. Trump delt with the talleywhackers on a basis of conditions , with a meat and potatoes plan…timetable on leaving based on those principles . And what does goober biden and his handlers do…they accelerate the hijinks in collusion with the talleywhackers and the talleywhackers double crossed the ignorant fools spectacularly. And here we are a certified mess with multiple casualties …dealing with the enemy billions in equipment abandoned , citizens and allies flat out abandoned….. the crisis , the disaster , the humiliation and our DEAD TROOPS are one this senile halfwits watch from his orders. Suck it up buttercup this total failure is on the biden admin and anyone , anyone supporting this utter halfwit.
            Trump had a plan , methodology and people that would have carried it out , no equipment abandoned , allies not spit in the face and NO PEOPLE LEFT BEHIND. But your team…whoa..epic failure history will always remember as “dumbkirk” , brought to you by joey magoo , and joey gets pudding on Thursdays !.

          2. Are you trying to say that the Afghan government should dictate U.S. policy?

            That sounds pretty foolish.

      4. What you have just said is that neither the president of VP deserve their office. You never say what Biden or Harris has done that is good. You only provide empty comments and complain about thought fun comments. You are acting like a jerk

  16. So finally NPR has officially declared itself to be in the opinion business rather than the news business. After 25 years of presenting opinion as news the have finally come clean. Coming clean means that they have been hiding their real identity in the past. The sad thing is that their faithful followers were somehow never aware of the ruse they were being suckered into. There faithful followers just exclaimed, “Give me more master, give me more”.

Leave a Reply