“MyPillow Guy” Becomes a Nightmare for a Jan. 6 Rioter — and for Free Speech

Below is my column in The Hill on the re-arrest of an Iowa man who took part in the January 6th riot. The case raises a growing concern over the way courts are weighing the political views of defendants a matter for bail and sentencing.  While raising such concerns inevitably brings out an Internet mob and accusations of being a “fellow traveler,” free speech often demands the protection of the least popular individuals in our society. Many of those who long denounced the censorship of suspected Communists in the 1950s now support censorship or blacklisting of individuals on the right. Others remain conspicuously silent in the face of speech sanctions or censorship. The Jensen case reflects a new sense of license in weighing the political views of defendants in determining whether to release or to jail them.

Here is the column:

In “A Man for All Seasons,” Sir Thomas More confronts Richard Rich, a former protege who lied in court to convict him in exchange for being named attorney general of Wales. As Rich passes by, More asks: “For Wales? Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … but for Wales!”

The scene came to mind after Doug Jensen, one of the Jan. 6 rioters, was rearrested for listening to an online speech by Trump supporter and pillow magnate Mike Lindell. Jensen agreed not to use the internet as a condition of bail … but to violate those terms for the MyPillow Guy?

I have long been a vocal critic of Lindell and all those who rioted in Congress. Yet the Jensen case raises a concern about the conditions placed on bail by courts and the message that “rehabilitation” or remorse can be convincingly shown only by denouncing past political viewpoints or association.

After the riot, the Justice Department opposed bail for many defendants. The FBI found no evidence of a broad conspiracy of insurrection, however, and most of the roughly 570 people arrested have been charged only with forms of trespassing or parading. Only 40 face conspiracy charges related to planning to do violence or property destruction. Jensen was one of the best-known figures, pictured standing before police with his arms spread wide wearing a QAnon T-shirt emblazoned with an eagle.

He was charged with seven counts, largely for trespassing, parading or unlawfully entering the building; just one count alleges “assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering” with officers. Jensen did not appear to be armed and was shown moving through the halls, verbally confronting officers.

Like many of the arrested, Jensen had to fight for bail for six months before a judge agreed to release him pending trial. In securing bail on July 13, Jensen assured U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly that he no longer believed in QAnon and was deceived by those who questioned the election. Kelly agreed, but only if Jensen stayed away from internet or cellphone access. Two weeks later, a court officer reportedly found Kelly in his garage secretly listening to Lindell.

According to the Washington Post, Judge Kelly initially was not inclined to release Jensen because “he wanted to be part of a revolution.” Kelly said it was “a close question” but decided to release Jensen because the accused man renounced his prior political views and said he was deceived by “a pack of lies.”

That scene is being repeated across these cases, as defendants are told to renounce their prior political association or, like Jensen, pledge to seek “therapy.”

Let’s be clear on a couple of points: Jensen deserved to be charged and deserves to go to jail for participating in a riot in the Capitol — and he clearly broke the conditions of this bail.

The concern, however, is that courts increasingly demand political reform as a prerequisite for bail or more favorable sentencing. The “close call” for Judge Kelly was resolved by Jensen denouncing those, such as former President Trump, who accused Democrats of stealing the 2020 presidential election.

Most of us view QAnon as a bizarre group of conspiracy theorists, one of the most active on the internet on either the left or the right. However, it is a bit unnerving to hear judges asking defendants if they are or have ever been a QAnon member. Kelly made clear that, if Jensen did not renounce the views of figures like Lindell and Trump, he would be left to wallow in jail.

We have seen this before. In the 1950s, liberal writers, unionists and others were pulled before Congress to state whether they were or ever had been communists. The very status of “fellow traveler” was enough to be blacklisted, investigated, even arrested. When Sen. Joe McCarthy waived his list of “known communists,” he was identifying not just “card-carrying members” but those “loyal to the Communist Party.”

The troubling aspect of Kelly’s bail decision is the message that if you believe a “pack of lies,” you should not be granted freedom pending trial. Cutting Jensen off of the internet was directly linked to preventing him from listening to such lies.

For civil libertarians, the concern should be that such conditions can become a type of thought-crime. We’ve already seen such cases abroad, including the United Kingdom where, in May, Nicholas Brock, 52, was arrested for what a court called his “toxic ideology” of racist and pro-Nazi views. Those views not only led to his arrest but drove his sentencing. Judge Peter Lodder declared: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.” Lodder denounced Brock — who did not commit any crime other than possessing hateful material or holding hateful views — as a danger to society due to his being a “right-wing extremist” and his “enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology.”

It is risky to raise concerns over cases like Brock’s or Jensen’s in this age of rage. To even voice such free-speech concerns is to invite an internet mob to accuse you of being a QAnon defender or an insurrectionist. Yet, governments always start to limit speech with the least popular, most-hated among us.

The focus of the Jan. 6 cases is the riot itself. I would have the same objection to courts demanding that arrested Black Lives Matter (BLM) or antifa followers renounce their views as a condition of bail. Hundreds were arrested over the past year in violent rioting, including pre-planned attacks to take over or torch city halls, police stations and courthouses. It would be outrageous for courts to demand that BLM or antifa supporters not listen to these political movements or related political figures. They were arrested for arson and rioting, not holding “toxic ideologies.” For that reason, while I have long denounced antifa, I opposed the use of sedition charges against them in defense of free-speech rights that they would deny to others.

Even Jensen’s lawyer called his interest in right-wing sites an “addiction.” However, it shows the futility of trying to coerce people to give up their political viewpoints. Germany has outlawed Nazi symbols and material since World War II, but that has done little to quell the neo-Nazi movement. The only solution to bad speech remains better speech, not censorship and coercion.

Doug Jensen has been cut off from the MyPillow Guy — but that hardly makes me sleep better at night.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

254 thoughts on ““MyPillow Guy” Becomes a Nightmare for a Jan. 6 Rioter — and for Free Speech”

  1. Off topic. Texas anti abortion law. Someone who is pro abortion and hates the law could file suit as a plaintiff against some clinic and the plaintiff could state in their petition that they hate abortionists and wish to destroy them. In opposition to motion to dismiss they could say things which would almost require the court to dismiss their case but also declare the law unconstitutional. Standing to sue is an issue.

  2. Turley makes one critical mistake in his argument. He says that Jensen has political views and they are being silenced by the judge.

    Are conspiracy theories political views? Jensen is or was a Qanon adherent. But he’s also supposedly a Republican. Obviously his “political views” are first and foremost reiterations of Qanon conspiracy theories.

    Turley still agrees that Jensen is rightfully guilty of the charges against him. What I don’t see him dispute is the fact that it was Jensen himself who admitted to the the judge that he gave up believing the Qanon “pack of lies” and agreed to the terms the judge imposed. It was Jensen who chose (obviously he was lying) to give up Qanon.

    The fact that Jensen got caught breaking his agreement and proved he lied to the judge is all that matters. Turley is making hay over a guy’s deliberate insincerity as some sort of attack on free speech.

    1. slavez : really are you going there with the conspiracy bent ?. Seems for almost all of Pres Trumps term everything was a conspiracy being blown out like no other from the left full retard crowd and media. NONE of it proved true. And yet here we are where people are being “re-educated” by the system for their political beliefs whether one agrees with them or not. These are not the die hard violent marxists that have done bombings and arson/riots that the senile biden apparatchiks have put into actual society and pardoned etc etc , and yet these violent Marxists have to a single one never denounced or condemned what they did,
      That dog don’t hunt !.

      1. Phergus,

        Turley claims the courts are making people renounce or change their political views, but that’s clearly not true.

        It was Jensen who voluntarily admitted to the the judge that he absolved himself of QAnon and it’s “pack of lies”. It was also Jensen’s own set of poor and less than credible claims to the court that he was merely an observer when video evidence shows otherwise.

        Jensen wasn’t forced to change his mind by the judge. It was Jensen’s desperation and clear attempt at lying that did him in. He wasn’t being sincere and the judge was being skeptical when he made the remark about it being “a close question”.

        Turley is being disingenuous with the context of the issue when he claims the courts are holding people in jail until they change their political views. They are doing it all on their own in attempt to get out of jail. It was all fun and games when they went into the Capitol building. It was a whole other story when they got arrested and reality slapped them across the face.

        Conspiracy theories are not political views.

        1. Svelaz says:

          “Turley is being disingenuous with the context of the issue when he claims the courts are holding people in jail until they change their political views. They are doing it all on their own in attempt to get out of jail.”

          Turley says:

          “However, it is a bit unnerving to hear judges asking defendants if they are or have ever been a QAnon member. Kelly made clear that, if Jensen did not renounce the views of figures like Lindell and Trump, he would be left to wallow in jail.”

          On the one hand, I tend to agree with Turley that a defendant should not be asked to renounce his beliefs to be released from jail. Undoubtedly, Jensen was willing to promise anything to get out of jail, but the judge should not have sought/demanded such a commitment. A person should be restrained only if he constitutes a flight risk or poses a threat to commit another crime while on bail. Because there are no thought crimes in our jurisprudence, I can’t see how one’s political beliefs are relevant when evaluating a pre-trial release. On the other hand, how many of us would think different in the case of an unrepentant sworn Jihadist being released pending trial for aiding and abetting a conspiracy to commit a terrorist attack which was foiled in the early planning stages.

          1. Jeffsilberman,

            The question is, did Turley really demand that Jensen renounce Qanon? Hearsay? I don’t see Turley directly quoting the judge making that demand.

            Do you think conspiracy theories are political beliefs? Clearly Jensen is addicted to the ideas that conspiracy theories bring and as evidenced by the fact that he got caught delving into them again makes the case that this is more like a drug addiction than mere political views. Jensen is in jail for valid reasons and anyone who is in jail doesn’t have the same kind of liberties that everyone has even before going to trial. Turley never clarifies if the judge really demanded Jensen to renounce Qanon. Jensen himself could have sworn off Qanon before the judge “demanded” him to renounce it. We both know Turley has a knack for making subtle twists in context unless there is a solid quote he can use to back it up.

            1. “The question is, did Turley really demand that Jensen renounce Qanon? ”

              That was meant to say did the judge really demand that jensen renounce Qanon?

              1. Svelaz,

                You make a good point. It’s not clear if the Judge made such an overt demand. And I agree that mere political beliefs are one thing and a sworn Jihadist or a dedicated Neo-Nazi is another.

        2. Should Academics Debunk Conspiracy Theories?
          Kurtis Hagen
          Published 2020
          Sociology
          Social Epistemology
          ABSTRACT This article addresses the question, ‘Should scholars debunk conspiracy theories or stay neutral?’ It describes ‘conspiracy theories’ and two senses of ‘neutrality,’ arguing that scholars should be neutral in the sense of being fair and openminded. While that does not exclude the possibility of debunking, it does mean that the motive should be to assess rather than to debunk. This article also responds to a particular group of social scientists who have argued that conspiracy theories are ‘unhealthy,’ and suggests that their perspective may be reasonably representative of social scientists working on conspiracy theories. Maintaining that the arguments given for pathologizing conspiracy theorists are poor ones, it suggests that social scientists have not shown a tendency to treat conspiracy theories reasonably or fairly, and further suggests that they are therefore unlikely to be helpful in assessing conspiracy theories unless they reform their attitude. Greater appreciation for the philosophical literature on this issue may help social scientists come to appreciate that conspiracy theories ought to be evaluated on their particular merits, not pathologized and dismissed as generally unhealthy.

          https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691728.2020.1747118?journalCode=tsep20

          \\][//

      2. Is Infiltration of “Extremist Groups” Justified?

        Kurtis Hagen

        Published 2010

        Sociology

        International Journal of Applied Philosophy

        Many intellectuals scoff at what they call “conspiracy theories.” But two Harvard law professors, Cass Sunstein (now working for the Obama administration) and Adrian Vermeule, go further. They argue in the Journal of Political Philosophy that groups that espouse such theories ought to be infiltrated and undermined by government agents and allies. While some may find this proposal appalling (as indeed we all should), others may find the argument plausible, especially if they have been swayed by the notion that conspiracy theories (or a definable subset thereof), by their nature, somehow or another, do not warrant belief. I will argue that Sunstein and Vermeule’s proposal not only conflicts with the values of an open society, but is also epistemically indefensible. In making my case, I will adopt their favored example, counter-narratives about 9/11. T is a critical evaluation of the article “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures”2 by Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule. They support confronting supposedly pernicious3 and “demonstrably false” conspiracy theories (or “extreme views”), rather than ignoring them. One strategy, which they emphasize, they describe as follows: [W]e suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.4 In other words, they suggest undermining conspiracy theories by engaging in a conspiracy against groups that promote them. I will argue that, beyond the obvious irony, this recommendation is epistemically indefensible, even when considering the rather extreme case of 9/11 conspiracy theories, which is their primary example. Sunstein and Vermeule’s argument in a nutshell is as follows: (1) Lots of people are susceptible to belief in conspiracy theories. (2) Some of these theories are …

        https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Is-Infiltration-of-%E2%80%9CExtremist-Groups%E2%80%9D-Justified-Hagen/6e805ed80b037b707eec829252e003982b21d714

        \\][//

  3. “My Pillow Guy” becomes a Nightmare for a Jan. 6 Rioter – and for Free Speech.”

    Who wrote that deceptive headline? Mike Lindell did not force Doug Jensen to riot, he did not arrest him, he did not set his bail restrictions, he did not force him to violate those bail restrictions and he did not rearrest him. Doug Jensen is responsible for his actions on January 6th. Law enforcement is responsible for arresting him. The Judge is responsible for setting his bail restrictions. Doug Jensen’s nightmare – and that of Free Speech falls squarely on the court.

    Professor, you owe Mike Lindell an apology for alleging he is responsible.

    1. Burn the books, dunk the witches, and throw the Jews in the oven. t’s the diversity or color bloc theory (e.g. racism, ageism, privilege) of a human collective that denies human dignity and agency. Throw a baby on the barbie for good measure and social progress.

    2. Olly, Mike Lindell has gone far beyond the ‘call of duty’ in stoking election conspiracy theories. Never have we seen a businessman leverage his credibility to the extent that Lindell has. And it’s hard to understand why a businessman would want to make his product politically radioactive. One can only presume that Lindell is seriously self-destructive.

      1. “One can only presume that Lindell is seriously self-destructive.”

        Or we can follow Lindell’s evidence and grasp that he has good reason for claiming the 2020 election was fraudulent.
        The judge in the dominion case is allowing the deposition of Eric Coomer, the chief saled rep for Dominion who posted an email on line saying he had made sure that the S.O.B, Trump wouldn’t win. He was also heard in a phone call with members of Antifa bragging that he had fixed the election. If Coomers lies in court and is charged with contempt, the tables will suddenly turn in the Dominion case against Lindell and Sidney Powell.

        People should not rely on mainstream media so much in forming their opinions.
        WW

        1. Prophet, Trump’s elections claims lost in more than 60 courts. In fact, Trump lost before judges that he, himself, appointed.

          1. Trump’s elections claims lost in more than 60 courts.

            Talk about the “big lie”

            Every single court never heard a single piece of evidence. The judges all found procedural excuses to avoid evidence. Or they admitted if the evidence proved the case, the relief sought was going to be extreme.

            1. Iowan2 says:

              “Every single court never heard a single piece of evidence. The judges all found procedural excuses to avoid evidence. Or they admitted if the evidence proved the case, the relief sought was going to be extreme.”

              A couple of judges have sanctioned Trump lawyers because their election allegations were so demonstrably fraudulent that they were sanctioned by the court, ordered to pay attorney’s fees and referred for disciplinary proceedings by their State Bar Associations for violating their attorney ethics!

              Turley would not come to their defense because he cannot dispute the court findings. If Trump had a leg to stand on in court, Turley would have said something on his behalf, but he has said nothing at all.

              1. ” If Trump had a leg to stand on in court, Turley would have said something on his behalf, but he has said nothing at all.”

                Did I misread one of your previous statements? I must have gotten it wrong. You said you went to law school, but I think you must have said you got a degree in reading tea leaves. Your legal analysis is a hodgepodge of error, but at least, in the end of tea leave reading, you have a beverage to drink.

        2. “The judge in the dominion case is allowing the deposition of Eric Coomer . . .”

          Thank you for the update. I was wondering if they’d be permitted to depose that worthless piece of garbage (EC). He is a linchpin to proving that Dominion had motive, means, and opportunity to rig some of the vote calculations.

          1. That is right. Coomer was hear on a phone call of an Antifa conference call telling the other members that they had nothing to worry about, Trump was going to loose the election because he had made sure of it.

            This is covered in the full length film Deep Rig

            https://deeprigmovie.online/ViewMovie/2b743875-7143-4f4a-bf3c-0b8a5355d7ce

            There is also video footage of Coomer showing how votes can be flipped using the adjudication function on the Dominion machines, This video was on YouTube until Biden was sworn in and YouTube deleted it.

            It is so obvious to those of us who have kept abreast of the 2020 fraudulent election, that Dominion was a big part of “fixing” the election for Biden. At some point this will all spill out. Probably when it is too late and the Biden regime has already flushe America down the toilet.

            Willy Whitten
            \\][//

            1. “It is so obvious . . .”

              Since you seem to be abreast of the lawsuit:

              I’ve wondered whether Powell, et al., would be allowed to pursue, in the depositions, China’s investment (in the fall of 2020) of some $300 million in Dominion (via its parent company).

              Any word on that?

              Thanks in advance.

            2. Tell us, Prophet:

              How many other conspiracy theories do you believe?

              Kennedy Assassination?
              Vince Foster’s murder?
              Seth Rich’s murder?
              9/11 Trutherism?
              McCarthyism?
              Q-Anonism?
              Birtherism?
              The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

          2. SO NOW IT IS REVEALED

            https://youtu.be/-h49aH8RzV8

            John Kerry
            “Normal was a crisis; normal wasn’t working,” said former US secretary of state John Kerry in his opening remarks. “We must not think of it in terms of pushing a button and going back to the way things were. We’re a long way off from being able to go back to any kind of normal.”

            The responsibility will lie with governments, the “great convener”, Kerry said. “Forces and pressures that were pushing us into crisis over the social contract are now exacerbated,” he said. “The world is coming apart, dangerously, in terms of global institutions and leadership.”

            “What we never did was adequately address the social contract, the franchisement of human beings around the world, to be able to participate in things they can see with their smartphones everywhere but can’t participate in.”

            Explaining that the United States of America is currently “gridlocked”, Kerry said: “This is a big moment. The World Economic Forum – the CEO capacity of the Forum – is really going to have to play a front and centre role in refining the Great Reset to deal with climate change and inequity – all of which is being laid bare as a consequence of COVID-19.”

            \\][//

      2. Anon ; It’s the political and violent Marxists and media that have squandered their integrity political capitol for years now indulging in conspiracy theories to blatant lies. This should matter more to you than a danged businessman you politically are the opposite of..but you probably love that evil business guy SOROS. And the media keep on peddling their snake oil version of the truth…like Ignoring Lord Fraudci and his too numerous to count lies to and before congress regarding Gain of function research and funding coupled with his DIRECT involvement in ALL aspects of this wuflu debacle.

      3. Bezos has leveraged the Washington Post and through his influence on government policy has reaped billions upon billions of dollars in the wake of the destruction of many small businesses.

        Lindell spoke as a private citizen and for the most part Lindell has been correct. Some people believe in our country. You and others do not. You are responsible for the upsurge in racism, the deaths of servicemen and horrible exit from Afghanistan, the border crisis, the spread of Covid, etc. Yes, all these things can be leveled at your feet because of the policies you support, and the anti-American attitude you seem to have.

      4. Lindell is like drug pushers who break the cardinal rule of never get into the product you’re selling. Lindell’s behavior clearly is of that drug pusher who broke the rule.

        1. I’m actually curious if he’s smoking crack again. His rants are getting progressively desperate. If so, I hope he’s able to do some rehab time and get clean.

          eb

  4. Remember all the times Democrats claimed an election was stolen, and released a flood of lawsuits? Al Gore? Hillary Clinton?

    It’s patriotic when Democrats question election integrity but a punishable offense when the right does? The Fascism of the Left increases.

    There were over a million original ballots unaccounted for or thrown out. Many ballots went missing in Wisconsin alone. Republican poll watchers were thrown out of ballot counting. Heck, I personally received voting materials for multiple people who don’t live here. Previous owners, including someone I know died years ago, and a neighbor. Every voter on voter rolls got a ballot, even though we know those rolls are inaccurate. They contain dead people (see me repeatedly getting voting materials for a former owner of the property who died), felons who can’t vote, duplicate entries, and people not allowed to vote. My friend had a legal resident friend who voted who had no idea he wasn’t supposed to. Since one million ballots were undeliverable, that alone indicates a pressing need to update voter rolls.

    We will never know the extent of malfeasance, since so much original data was lost. I also believe that mail in voting appealed to voters who would have been too apathetic and unmotivated for Biden to exert themselves enough to actually drive 5 minutes. He didn’t appeal to people, but if all you had to do was check a box and drop it in the mail, then more people voted who otherwise wouldn’t have bothered.

    By simply requiring voters to request a mail in ballot, that alone would help prevent sending out duplicates, to former addresses, and to the deceased.

    1. As usual, none of the things you claim are true. Al Gore and Hillary Clinton DID win. Hillary was cheated out of her victory by Russian collusion with the Trump Campaign, calculated to sway the Electoral College by spreading lies about her on social media. The FL recount was stopped before it was completed, and that’s how we got stuck with Bush, who started the war in Afghanistan. And, Karen, it’s not “the right” that is “questioning election integrity”. More of your sad attempt to soft-peddle the Big Lie. Trump lost, just like every poll predicted he would, and consistent with 4 years of less than 50% approval ratings. He began lying about a stolen election before all of the ballots were even counted. To this day, he has no proof of widespread voter fraud, all as verified by Bill Barr and Chris Krebs, 50 Secretaries of State and 60+ failed lawsuits. Still, you believe the Trump lies. And, none of the claims about “unnaccounted for” ballots is true–all have been disproven, but Trump still won’t stop lying about this. If you sent in a ballot for a former occupant or dead person, it wouldn’t have been counted, plus you’d be guilty of a felony.

      There’s no “malfeasance” to learn about, except in the minds of you Trump disciples. You claim that Democrats are “too apathetic and unmotivated for Biden to exert themselves to actually drive 5 minutes”. As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Karen, Honey: THERE WAS A PANDEMIC RAGING LAST NOVEMBER THAT WAS KILLING PEOPLE. People were told to avoid crowds, which is why so many voted by mail, and which is why so many states expanded mail-in voting, which is no less secure than in-person voting. Some states ONLY use mail-in ballots, and your fat hero and Pence voted by mail. In my ruby-red state, people waited for up to 8 hours to vote, and most of those who waited a long time weren’t there to vote for Trump. I voted on election day, and it took over an hour. Why shouldn’t voting be simple and easy? Why is only checking a box and dropping a ballot in the mail a bad thing? More of the Trump/Republican blather you believe in–that it should be difficult to vote, hoping to suppress Democratic voters.

      Biden did “appeal to people”. Every single poll predicted his victory. In the first few months of his presidency, he beat Trump in approval ratings. It’s only in the alt-right bubble you occupy that Biden does not appeal to citizens.

      1. Ah, Natacha reveals herself to be a firm Bidenista, giving this forum a fine example of Argumentu Verbosium comlpete with disingenuous rhetorical rhetoric and flaming anti-Trump propaganda.
        And now even though the Biden regime has brought mayhem to the southern boarder and now utterly failed in the bungled exit from Afghanistan she still sings hail to the chief, the incompetent stumbling senile old fool Joe Biden.

        When will they ever learn?!?
        WW

        1. You persist in blaming Biden for issues with the exit from Afghanistan and refuse to discuss the situation he inherited from Trump. Please, please explain to me why: 1. Trump didn’t end the war despite promising to do so in his campaign; 2. Trump agreed to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners and to draw down our troops from 14,000 to 2,500 BEFORE anyone got out; 3. How Biden was supposed to know the Afghan Army wouldn’t keep the country secure for the 6 months minimum predicted by our own military intelligence; 4. If it was wrong to abandon Bagram and Kabul airports, Trump didn’t provide for the US to keep bases in Afghanistan in the agreement he made with the Taliban; 5. the RNC took down praise from its website for Trump’s agreement with the Taliban and then put all of the blame on Biden; 6. Trump didn’t even invite the Afghan government to participate in talks with the Taliban and then agreed to concessions on their behalf, thus demoralizing them and dis-incentivizing them from risking their lives to help Americans evacuate. You cannot defend Trump’s actions. He bears most of the responsibility, but you Republican/Trumpsters won’t even attempt to discuss what he did and failed to do.

          What specific facts did I get wrong in the post you are criticizing? Cite them for me, please.

          1. Bush ended Iraq War 1.0. Trump ended Iraq War 2.0 (transcontinental war precipitated by Obama’s premature evacuation and other choices). Biden inherited a stable situation (e.g. conditional withdrawal), then with a series of poorly made choices (e.g. announcing the withdrawal of support for the Afghan army), forced a catastrophic progression.

          2. “What specific facts did I get wrong in the post you are criticizing?”–Natacha

            All of them. Trump had an agreement with the Taliban. But Biden broke that deal having no idea of the strength and influence the Taliban had come to possess in the last few years. See, Kash Patel:

            I ran Team Trump’s Afghan withdrawal — Biden’s attempt to blame us is just sad
            By Kash Patel

            President Joe Biden has sought to place blame for the shocking dénouement in Afghanistan on the situation he “inherited” from the Trump administration. What a sad-sack attempt at blame-shifting. Team Trump’s withdrawal plan was sound. What proved catastrophic were Biden’s changes to that plan.

            I’m intimately familiar with former President Donald Trump’s Afghanistan strategy. In November 2020, I was named chief of staff at the Pentagon, where one of my primary responsibilities was to wind down the forever war in Afghanistan.

            Trump instructed me to arrange a conditions-based, methodical exit plan that would preserve the national interest. The plan ended up being fairly simple: The Afghan government and the Taliban were both told they would face the full force of the US military if they caused any harm to Americans or American interests in Afghanistan.

            Next, both parties would negotiate to create an interim-joint government, and both sides had to repudiate al Qaeda. Lastly, a small special-operations force would be stationed in the country to take direct action against any terrorist threats that arose. When all those conditions were met — along with other cascading conditions — then a withdrawal could, and did, begin.

            Everything changed when the new commander in chief declared that US forces would leave Afghanistan by Sept. 11, 2021, pushing back the Trump administration’s timetable by four months. Crucially, he didn’t condition the withdrawal on continued adherence to the agreed-upon stipulations. It would be an unconditional pullout with an arbitrary date based on pure symbolism — and set in stone.

            At that point, the Taliban sat back and waited for the date to draw near, then launched a countrywide offensive, knowing they had no reason to fear any reprisals from this administration. The ongoing chaos — not least the stranding of US personnel and allies — was the natural result of the Biden administration’s decision to eschew a conditions-based plan.

            With an unmovable withdrawal date in place, Team Biden showed no appreciation for ground-level intelligence reporting, which was largely rendered irrelevant. Just this week, Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, claimed the security situation in Afghanistan “unfolded at unexpected speed.

            Tragically, because of the Biden administration’s single-minded focus on the pullout date, hard-nosed intelligence was replaced with wishful thinking and false promises. In April, Secretary of State Antony Blinken vowed, “We will withdraw our troops responsibly, deliberately, safely. . . . We’ll pursue a durable and just political settlement between the government of Afghanistan and the Taliban.”

            None of that happened. Last month Blinken assured us that Biden’s withdrawal plan wouldn’t endanger the US embassy in Kabul, which is now evacuated. And Biden himself declared last month that it was “highly unlikely” the Taliban would overrun Afghanistan, which they have now done with blinding speed.

            https://nypost.com/2021/08/19/i-ran-trumps-afghan-withdrawal-bidens-attempt-to-blame-us-is-sad/

            Kash Patel served as chief of staff for the Department of Defense and as deputy assistant to the president for counterterrorism in the Trump administration.

            WW

            1. THE NY POST IS OWNED BY RUPERT MURDOCK, WHO ALSO OWNS FOX, so I don’t believe anything attributed to them, especially when they quote someone from the Trump administration. The former US Ambassador to Afghanistan said that Trump REFUSED to involve the Afghan government in negotiations with the Taliban, and that demoralized them, so they allowed the Taliban to simply take over. Tell me: did either the Taliban or the Afghan government cause any harm to Americans before the evacuation or did they attack our embassy? No. They didn’t. It was an ISIS-S faction responsible for the suicide bombing at the airport–not Al Qaida. Now, you’re claiming that the Taliban went on an offensive that ran counter to the Trump agreement, but it was the Afghans who stood down and simply allowed the Taliban to take over. Maybe if Trump had involved them in negotiations, things would have been different. So, what was Biden supposed to do? Stay another 20 years? The Biden Administration gave 15 warnings to Americans to leave, long before Afghans who didn’t qualify for SIVs stormed the airport, but the warnings were mostly ignored. And, it was Stephen Miller of the Trump Administration who intentionally slowed down the SIV processing because he is Islamophobic. Thousands of them could have gotten out months ago but for this. How do you or the person who is quoted in the Post know what “ground intelligence” told the Administration? You can’t and don’t know and neither does the person who claims to know. Of course, he was part of the Trump Administration.

              I’d like to know why the RNC took down references to the Trump agreement from its website. Could it be that it contradicted the current messaging that is to blame Biden for every problem? The Trump agreement was stupid and crummy from the get-go: release 5,000 Taliban prisoners, draw down troops from 14,000 to 2,500, before anyone got out and no provision for maintaining any base of operations, at Bagram or Kabul, which they’re now trying to blame Biden for. How is turning loose 5,000 Taliban and drawing down troops to 2,500 supposed to facilitate an orderly evacuation?

          3. I ran Team Trump’s Afghan withdrawal — Biden’s attempt to blame us is just sad

            President Joe Biden has sought to place blame for the shocking dénouement in Afghanistan on the situation he “inherited” from the Trump administration. What a sad-sack attempt at blame-shifting. Team Trump’s withdrawal plan was sound. What proved catastrophic were Biden’s changes to that plan.

            I’m intimately familiar with former President Donald Trump’s Afghanistan strategy. In November 2020, I was named chief of staff at the Pentagon, where one of my primary responsibilities was to wind down the forever war in Afghanistan.

            Trump instructed me to arrange a conditions-based, methodical exit plan that would preserve the national interest. The plan ended up being fairly simple: The Afghan government and the Taliban were both told they would face the full force of the US military if they caused any harm to Americans or American interests in Afghanistan.

            Next, both parties would negotiate to create an interim-joint government, and both sides had to repudiate al Qaeda. Lastly, a small special-operations force would be stationed in the country to take direct action against any terrorist threats that arose. When all those conditions were met — along with other cascading conditions — then a withdrawal could, and did, begin.

            We successfully executed this plan until Jan. 20, 2021. During this interval — when there were no US casualties in Afghanistan — President Ashraf Ghani and the Taliban conducted multiple rounds of negotiations, and al Qaeda was sidelined. The result was a successful drawdown of US forces in Afghanistan to 2,500, the lowest count since the dawn of the War on Terror.

            We handed our entire plan to the incoming Biden administration during the lengthy transition. The new team simply wasn’t interested.

            Everything changed when the new commander in chief declared that US forces would leave Afghanistan by Sept. 11, 2021, pushing back the Trump administration’s timetable by four months. Crucially, he didn’t condition the withdrawal on continued adherence to the agreed-upon stipulations. It would be an unconditional pullout with an arbitrary date based on pure symbolism — and set in stone.

            At that point, the Taliban sat back and waited for the date to draw near, then launched a countrywide offensive, knowing they had no reason to fear any reprisals from this administration. The ongoing chaos — not least the stranding of US personnel and allies — was the natural result of the Biden administration’s decision to eschew a conditions-based plan.

            With an unmovable withdrawal date in place, Team Biden showed no appreciation for ground-level intelligence reporting, which was largely rendered irrelevant. Just this week, Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, claimed the security situation in Afghanistan “unfolded at unexpected speed.”

            Tragically, because of the Biden administration’s single-minded focus on the pullout date, hard-nosed intelligence was replaced with wishful thinking and false promises. In April, Secretary of State Antony Blinken vowed, “We will withdraw our troops responsibly, deliberately, safely. . . . We’ll pursue a durable and just political settlement between the government of Afghanistan and the Taliban.”

            https://nypost.com/2021/08/19/i-ran-trumps-afghan-withdrawal-bidens-attempt-to-blame-us-is-sad/

            Kash Patel served as chief of staff for the Department of Defense and as deputy assistant to the president for counterterrorism in the Trump administration.

          4. Trump was reducing hostilities. No peace agreement makes peace. The parties concerned are the one’s responsible. In the last 18 months there were no American casualties. Sometimes things take longer to work out but Trump was well on his way to ending the war in Afghanistan.

            Biden has likely put us into another war and if not he has brought more terrorism to our shores with armed terrorists left with billions of dollars of American equipment. Biden is an absolute failure.

            What you say is junk. Start dealing with reality. Stop blaming others for Biden’s miserable performance and yours as well.

      2. The irregularity and fraudulent voting in several Democrat districts has been proven in a majority of cases where Americans were not denied standing and their civil rights. The only open question is if it reaches a scale that would overturn the published results.

        There was collusion, between Russian oligarchical forces colluding with Obama, Biden et al backing violent coups in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, etc, hoping to disrupt relations with America and force a Slavic Spring in the model of the disastrous Persian, Arab Springs.

        There is a general presumption, of diversitist (e.g. racist) intent, by Democrats, that people… persons lack dignity and agency to vote, carry a license, learn, connect sex and conception, etc. without direction, without a safety net (e.g. wicked solution).

        The pandemic was driven by planned parent/hood facilities and practices in New York, Michigan, and others, with a false assurance (but plauof masks, with the incentive and general distribution of leaky pathogenic vaccines, and the denial and stigmatization of early, inexpensive, effective, low-risk treatments to mitigate infection and disease progression.

      3. Nastycha…. You r ignorance coupled with your partisan bent awards you the act “of going full retard”. Cankles McFraud one…yeah oh brother yeah … lay off the koolaide already. And that monotone Al gore(ski)…with a personality as intriguing as wet cardboard and a hypocrisy rating in the stratosphere…. Yeha claiming he won as well….oh dear god please keep your insanity to yourself. Remember it wasn’t gore/leiberman it was and always will be remembered as sore/loserman !!!.

        1. I’m going to remind you Trumpsters one last time that using the word “retard” or “retarded” to insult someone you disagree with is denigrating to someone born with or who acquires intellectual challenges due to, as examples, Down Syndrome, traumatic brain injury, illnesses like encephalitis, strokes, what have you. I know that this is one of Ann Coulter’s favorite insults for people she disagrees with, but it’s like using the “N” word to describe black people. It’s insulting and hurtful. You don’t score any points when you do this. But then, you do worship that person who made fun of a handicapped reporter, so it’s not too surprising.

      4. Natacha says:

        “He began lying about a stolen election before all of the ballots were even counted.”

        Trump telling his followers that the only way he could loose was if the election was rigged- says it all. He had no factual basis whatsoever to make that claim.

        You add:

        “To this day, he has no proof of widespread voter fraud, all as verified by Bill Barr and Chris Krebs…”

        Fox News which pushed the Big Lie in the court of public opinion is being sued for billions, and the lawyers who alleged that lie in a court of law are being sanctioned and possibly disbarred.

        Turley, whose independent judgment Trumpists here otherwise respect, does NOT believe the election was stolen or he would say so!

        PLEASE LISTEN TO HIM!

        1. “Trump telling his followers that the only way he could loose was if the election was rigged- says it all. He had no factual basis whatsoever to make that claim.”

          That was and is his opinion. There is a rationale behind that opinion and the rationale was the lawlessness involved in the election. Autocrats like Biden cannot be trusted to follow the law. There was lawlessness involved in the election.

          Learn the difference between opinion and fact. That seems to be something you don’t know.

        2. Fox News which pushed the Big Lie in the court of public opinion is being sued for billions,

          Lie is singular, therefore there should only be one lie. You never are able to mention or defend your concept of the Big Lie. You misuse it all the time. Now you are creating two things out of one. That is not how intelligent persons handle such problems.

          What is the Big Lie Fox News is being sued for?
          What is Trump’s Big Lie.

          You are all over the place and don’t seem to know much about the subject matter you talk about multiple times on a daily basis. You are unable to supply simple facts. Don’t complain when hurtful jokes are made about you.

        3. “all as verified by Bill Barr and Chris Krebs…”

          Krebs?!

          Krebs is the guy who announced that it was a clean election — about 5 weeks *before* some states had finished tabulating their ballots. That’s some crystal ball he has.

          1. Sam, it is amazing how some throw out names, quotes and all sorts of comments without knowing anything about them. Being on this blog is like walking in a dog park where no one picks up after their dog.

            1. China’s investment (in the fall of 2020) of some $300 million in Dominion (via its parent company).– Yes I have that information on file somewhere. But I think that the critical connections to these machines, both Dominion and Smartmatic which usee the exact same software, is the Britsh (America’s original enemy and still its most formidable foe):

              Vote Fraud with a British Face

              Today Antonio Mugica sits in London, where Smartmatic now oversees a global network of computer vote rigging. In 2014, Mugica, together with British Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, announced the launching of the SGO Corporation Limited, a holding company headquartered in London whose primary asset is the election technology and voting machine manufacturer, Smartmatic. Mugica is CEO of SGO Smartmatic and his Venezuelan cofounder, Roger Piñate, also sits on the London board. Smartmatic today still has deep Venezuelan roots to corrupt Chavez and Maduro circles.

              Mark Malloch-Brown, chairman of SGO Smartmatic is quite a key figure. As documented in excellent research by Matthew Ehret, Malloch Brown has been on the board of the Davos World Economic Forum, the prime driver behind the dystopian ‘Great Reset’ agenda of UN Global 2030. He has been also a board member of George Soros Open Society Foundations and Soros Quantum Fund. Soros is a major funder of Democratic Party candidates and groups, including BLM. Malloch Brown was a Deputy Secretary General of the UN under corrupt Kofi Annan and was Vice President of the World Bank. The Labour Party member is also a member of the highly secret Privy Council, an elite of some 500+ people selected by the Queen to run affairs of state. In 2008 just after the inauguration of Barack Obama as president, Obama’s UN Ambassador-to-be, Samantha Power, noted that, “The principal conduit between Britain and the Candidate [Obama]

              has been Lord Malloch Brown, the Junior Foreign Minister…” This is the person today heading the highly controversial voting systems group, Smartmatic.

              Another board member of SGO Smartmatic in London is DLA Piper global CEO, Sir Nigel Knowles. DLA Piper was then the world’s largest law firm in 2014. Notably, Douglas C. Emhoff, husband to Kamala Harris, is a partner at DLA Piper. Perhaps just coincidence?

              It gets more biased. In the United States Smartmatic has a four person Board. The Smartmatic USA chairman is Peter Neffenger, who has just been named to Joe Biden’s Transition Team. Neffenger was in the Obama Administration as TSA head. Fellow Smartmatic USA board member, Paul DeGregorio, was Chairman of the United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC) from 2003-2007. EAC was created by the 2002 Help America Vote Act and is responsible for “administering payments to states and developing guidance to meet HAVA requirements, adopting voluntary voting system guidelines, and accrediting voting system test laboratories and certifying voting equipment.” Sitting also with Neffenger and DeGregorio at the USA Smartmatic board is Gracia Hillman who also served as Chairman of the US Election Assistance Commission from 2003 to 2010 under Obama. Their website declares, “Smartmatic is the global leader in secure, accessible, transparent election technology & support services. We believe in equality and justice for all.”

              To underscore what can only be termed extraordinary bias, two of four board members of Smartmatic USA were head of the US Government agency delegated to develop guidelines for voting systems and two were Obama Democrat appointees, one now a Biden adviser. That is OK for election integrity, or?

              https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/16/election-fraud-2020/
              \\][//

      5. +100

        And truthfully, I think trumpers are just shocked his election cheating practices didn’t work this time around. It’s upset their views on the natural balance of the world. Lol. I mean, if you provide Russian intelligence insider data on where they should target their disinformation campaign in ’16 and then, as first act as president, shake down foreign countries to vie for ‘favor’ money through your inauguration fund, then proceed to create a racketeering and conspiracy organization actively seeking foreign help in an upcoming domestic election, then when that election doesn’t go your way you actively bully swing states to overturn their election results it’s, indeed, a shocking turn of events for the home team!

        No wonder these people are obsessed with election cheating…, their candidate openly has practiced it since he hired extras to clap for him as he descended the golden escalator while talking trash about Mexicans, Kris Kobach’s failed voter fraud committee and the Cyber Ninjas aside. Ha.

        eb

      6. The FL recount was stopped before it was completed,
        I know your a troll, cutting and pasting other peoples content, but evey now a then I like to show others how clueless you are.

        Tell me exactly who asked for the State Wide Recount.

    2. Karen, show us an article, from an established source, citing the lawsuits that Hillary Clinton filed with regards to the 2016 race.

      One should note that Clinton conceded the race on Election Night; which was arguably unwise of her. So I’m not sure where you get this, “Hillary sued” narrative.

      1. Take note that anything that disagrees with the Washington post is not considered an established source despite the fact that the Washington Post has gotten almost every major issue wrong and was using anonymous sources.

        This makes your comment look extremely foolish.

  5. JT still clings to “The only solution to bad speech remains better speech…”, unwilling to seriously debate the lead-time advantage of the deceitful infowarrior, and the real-time nature of decision-making whereby lead-time translates into power to shape decisions. Put these realities together, and by ignoring lead-time considerations, you’re ceding power to the mendacious.

    The key to countering this trend is to first recognize that the “first-strike” advantage of the skilled, deceitful infowarrior requires countermeasures steeped in deterrence. Deterrence, to be effective, requires a high-probability of consequences, impactful consequences, and not too much delay in levying them. This needn’t mean government censorship — not a good approach. Rather, it suggests a new fast-response torts, where cases are taken up rapidly, investigated rapidly (though thoroghly), and impactful consequences levied. I believe fast-response torts is the way forward to bring back standards of honesty and civility to what has become an unsustainable
    and self-destructive coddling of no-holds-barred infowarfare.

    So, let’s have the debate, JT.

      1. I agree, and the brilliance of our Founding Fathers was to design a system where those craving unbound power run into a brick wall.
        Ours is a system of distributed, dispersed power, yet one where power approximately correlates with responsibility-taking for results of exercising power.

        My proposal to deter deliberate, deceitful inforwarfare thru rapid-response torts….that strikes you as me “craving power”? The idea is to limit the power to deceive in the public sphere, and to place a new check on character assassination (which was unchecked due to the Sullivan decision).

        I’m trying to be realistic about how power flows through our society, and not impede persuasion which is meritocratic and civil.

        In my opinion, we’ve gone too far with the First Amendment in ceding power to the mendacious.

        1. My proposal to deter deliberate, deceitful inforwarfare thru rapid-response torts…

          Like the Texas Pro Life law that just took affect.

          Your problem rests with who defines “deceitful”. The CDC have admitted they were “deceitful” When they declared Mask use ineffectual. They reasoned the deceit was required to quell demand, saving Personal Protective Equipment for Medical care givers.
          Careful word usage can deliver a message, but not linguistically be deceitful. We are all aware ” it depends on what the meaning of ‘is” is.

          Again, remember your enemy is using this to ruin you.

        2. Pbinca, that’s certainly a very interesting approach. Turley’s approach of “more speech” is becoming too long in the tooth for the type of rhetoric and deceit that Turley accepts as protected speech.

          I agree that new approaches such as that of the judge are necessary in order to blunt the damage it causes. Turley seems to often forget just how fast that damage can occur with social media these days and preemptive conditions make sense. The closest thing I can think of is how drug addicts are dealt with.

          Jensen clearly lied to the judge about giving up Qanon and the “pack of lies” they purported. It’s not a political view, it’s a mental addiction that is similar to being in a cult.

            1. Young,

              “ Svelaz– You have almost convinced me. Everyone left of Trump should be silenced. See ya!”

              That’s not what I said at all. The issue is about individuals like Jensen. Clearly he is so deep into the QAnon conspiracy theories that he has resorted to being insincere to the judge. He well into the idea of storming into the Capitol building and saying on video exactly what he was doing. He spent 6 months trying to lie to the judge about what he was doing and obviously the judge was skeptical about his intentions, and he finally relented and gave him a chance WITH conditions. Jensen agreed to abide by them then he was caught violating them.

              Jensen’s insincerity made the case for others trying to use similar claims much harder to argue.

              Courts aren’t holding people in jail so they will change their minds. It’s those in jail who once thought it was all fun and games until they got arrested for real life charges.

        3. There are laws limiting freedom of speech. One can be sued for libel. But how do you know who the liar is when you try to limit free speech?

          I know you are very reliant on the tort system, but think of lawfare.

          1. “There are laws limiting freedom of speech. One can be sued for libel. But how do you know who the liar is when you try to limit free speech?”

            in this case of Jensen, it’s Jensen. He made lots of claims that are contradicted by evidence. The judge had a very good reason to put the restrictions as a condition of his release from jail. Since Jensen got caught and obviously lied to the judge he suffered the consequences.

            1. Jensen’s problem with the law is two fold. 1) It is said he broke the law 2) political, as he is being held to a different standard because of politics.

              You like to look at things in the most simplistic way that satisfies your desires. That is not knowledge. That is bias and bias leads to prejudice and hate. You are a prime candidate for that type of outcome.

    1. @ pbinca: 1) Who determines for what speech the deterrents are warranted, 2) Who determines what the consequences should be, and 2) what if the power to make those determinations ere to somehow fall into the hands of people who disagree with *your thoughts and ideals — would you still be so vehement in your support for your so-called non-government censorship? Intellectual honesty would require you to not only say yes, but to also welcome and appreciate being on the receiving end of your countermeasures. Further, as a true patriot, I’m sure you would renounce any of your deemed-to-be wayward thoughts and cheer for Oceania’s victory over Eastasia, because we have always been at war with Eurasia.

      1. Each individual citizen (organization) decides what speech has crossed the line into deceptive infowarfare, who has crossed that line, and files suit. The government is neutral in such disputes, only providing a forum for civil tort deterrence to take place, plaintiff vs. defendant.

        The suing (aggrieved party) decides what to sue for: money, public retraction, apology, etc.

        We have a torts system that bends over backwards to be the neutral magistrate and justice-decider. There is no reason to assume it could be easily corrupted.

        I don’t get your last sentence, other than it professes to read my mind.

        I’m careful and respectful about the way I communicate in public, without backing down in terms of content. I could therefore live with a torts system such as I’m suggesting.

        1. The government is neutral in such disputes, only providing a forum for civil tort deterrence to take place, plaintiff vs. defendant.

          Did you read Turleys post on the man put back in jail because he listened to Mike Lindell? The man is in jail because he has the wrong political view. That is a long way from neutral.

            1. The man is in jail for disobeying a court order

              There is an entire appellate process in place….because Judges are often wrong.

              1. Iowan2,

                No, there’s only one simple point. Jensen AGREED to the conditions the Judge imposed. He didn’t say you can’t listen to Lindell, he said he can’t go on the internet. In order to listen to Lindell he went on the internet on his phone. He broke the agreement he made with the judge. He was put back in jail because he broke the agreement. It was Jensen who declared he no longer followed Qanon and it’s pack of lies. The Judge agreed to let him out of jail on the condition that he stay away from the internet and any other device that allowed him to use it. The reason he imposed those conditions is because the judge was skeptical of Jensen’s sincerity, the judge’s skepticism was proven correct.

                1. Jensen Agreed? Nonsense, it is judicial coersion. Agree or rot in jail…that is a real choice? Don’t you have the slightes respect for individual liberty?
                  \\][//

                2. Svelaz, learn what the phrase “agreed to” means. When a robber approaches you with a gun, you agree to give him your wallet. The question is whether or not undo pressures were placed on the defendant, and whether or not he was treated fairly.

                  1. Anonymous,

                    “ Svelaz, learn what the phrase “agreed to” means.”

                    You’re referring to coercion which is not what Jensen was subjected to.

                    He voluntarily agreed to the conditions. He was in jail because he broke the law. He is being charged with several crimes and it’s very unlikely he will be successful in challenging them. Especially after breaking the agreement he made with the judge.

                    He wasn’t held at gun point. He was in jail because of his own actions. His “liberty” is limited just like any other criminal awaiting trial.

                    1. Learn the meaning of the word, coercion. Then learn how analogies are used. It seems analogies cannot go through dense materials.

                      SM

            2. The man is in jail for disobeying a court order. Period. End of report.

              Way to go deep on the thinking process. So if/when SCOTUS rules against Roe v Wade, that’s the end of it.

              Good to know.

    2. And – hey! You still cling to the notion that he, or any of us, care about your petty grievances or personal invectives. I guess we’re even. No one is twisting your arm to come here, and none of us enjoys it when you do. Thanks for clogging the comments feed though, so good of you.

    3. ^^What an awesome Word Salad! Word Goulash!

      I’m ashamed to say I had to read it twice before realizing it was unreadable.

      Glorious!!

  6. “That scene is being repeated across these cases, as defendants are told to renounce their prior political association or, like Jensen, pledge to seek “therapy.”–Article

    This situation seems to me to be beyond Orwellian, and actually Kafkaesque. Think of it, being forced to renounce your support for a former President of the United States, because the court is opposed to his speech that he believes the election was stolen from him. All other legal matters aside, that is the core of this issue.
    While I happen to agree with Trump that the 2020 Presidential election was in fact rigged by a cabal of corporatist oligarchs to put their own meat puppet Joe Biden in the White House.
    It is too much of a hassle to post links here, so I will merely explain. A journalist named Molly Ball published a piece in TIME Magazine on Feb 4. 2021 detailing how this cabal of corporatist oligarchs rigged the 2020 Presidential election.

    Quotes from the article:

    ”This is the inside story of the conspiracy to rig the 2020 election, based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum.”

    “But it’s massively important for the country to understand that it didn’t happen accidentally. The system didn’t work magically. Democracy is not self-executing.”That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.”

    Now consider this one assertion: *Democracy is not self-executing* …. REALLY? Democracy IS self-exicuting when left to the voters to choose on their own without interferance from who think they know best what is good for the nation. What utter hubris! But to actually interfer with the election on the scale reported in this article is a CRIME — it is called Election Fraud.

    More has gone terribly wrong in the United States than individuals being abused by the judicial system. The whole system has failed when a presidential election can be stolen, and then bragged about by the perpetrators who know they enjoy impunity.

    WW

    1. I read that Molly Ball article. It’s imprecise to summarize what these political, tech and media elites did as “stealing an election”. They opinion-shaped the electorate to the best of their ability to tilt the voting toward their desired outcome. Those with power over election processes and rules gamed the rules in the direction of the desired outcome.

      “Stealing an election” is vague, conspiratorial language. It may whip up negative emotions, but what is needed is cold, dispassionate, reasoned thinking about where and how to de-game election design and administration.

      If I were an oligarch hoping to further demoralize and disempower various factions of the electorate, that’s the framing I would push out….”the election was stolen”. Why? It stokes negative emotions (cynicism, defeatism), rather than empowering people toward actionable reform.

      We’re living in the age of Applied Group Psychology, and whatever you think of the power-brokers Molly Ball cites in her piece, those elites are bright, shoulder large responsibilities, and use AGP. The applied psychology toothpaste cannot be put back in the tube.
      There’s no choice but for the “lo-info” citizenry to learn how infowarfare works, and then devise effective countermeasures.

      The Jan. 6th march on the Capitol was delusional in its objective of stopping the EC count (“Stop the Steal”) — it showed lo-info citizens thrashing about unskilled in the persuasive arts setting back their cause.

      1. No matter what term you use to describe what the Molly Ball article speaks to as per the election, calling it “save”, meddling” “manipulate”, “interfere” “fix”, “rig”, “tilt”. “handle”, “intervene”, “control”, or “influence”; it amounts to the same thing: RIGGING THE ELECTION.
        WW

        1. I respectfully disagree. The more specific words (thoughts) you can find to accurately chronicle what power-brokers did in 2020, the more positive and clear your thoughts of how and what to go about reforming. Settling on vague, conspiratorial lingo like “rigging the election” puts you immediately outside the circle of actors capable of effective reforms / improvements. You become nothing more than a despondent, ineffective griper. At the risk of being blunt, it’s loser-talk.

          Choose your words and thoughts to be actionable. Fixing election rules comes down to small details, like the cutoff for receiving ballots after Election Day, signature verification, auditability, and preventing election-count leaks. Or, in the infosphere during election years, erecting deterrents against vile, ad hominem, deceitful infowarfare. Or, rolling back Section 230 exemptions from Google and Facebook, and exposing them to torts.

          1. The evidence of what the conspirators did is obvious in the aftermath. 55+ court cases dismissed on proceedural grounds, Laches and or Lack of Standing. No filing for Discovery, which means the the evidence was not seen and could not be ruled on.
            Intimidation of poll monitors on a grand scale in the swing states.

            Obvious ballot stuffing caught on the surveillance cameras at State Farm Arena. See:
            https://tv.gab.com/channel/somebitchiknow/view/composite-video-state-farm-arena-60be3103e03b8c0eaf22587c

            Plus you are grossly misreading the article by Molly Ball wherein she gives detailed examples of the techniques used to subvert the electoral process.As far as this is concerned I will leave it to the readers here to read the article and decide for themselves.

            There are also the issues with the Dominion and Smartmatic machines that are capable of flipping votes from one candidate to another. The Anterim County forensic audit by Allied Security Operations Group, found evidence of such ballot manipulation in the Dominion machine they autited.

            Only those who are willingly ignorant, who handwave all of the evidence that has been put forward since the 2020 election can deny that it was rigged.
            And thos who attempt to intimidate with the term “Conspiracy Theorist” are especially suspect as disinformants.
            WW

      2. It has become increasingly obvious after several months of dealing with the repercussions of the TIMES Magazine article by Molly Ball that some preliminary remarks are in order to understand the meaning of this article.

        First and foremost is Ms. Ball’s use of language. The language she uses is what George Orwell referred to as, “Political Language”, wherein the terminology takes on rather deceitful nuances to portray a message that although true, is couched in coded terms. So that when Ms. Ball is describing what is clearly a conspiracy to manipulate the 2020 Presidential election, she chose the term “to save” it.

        This key phrase has allowed for a disingenuous interpretation of the message Ms. Ball is giving the readers. This tactic allows for mollification of those who will automatically recoil from the real message that the article conveys, that the 2020 presidential election was ‘rigged’ ie; stolen by the cabal of corporatist oligarchs who conspired to place the candidate of their choice in the White House.

        Another thing is obvious from the article, and that is that Ms. Ball was obviously taken into confidence by the leadership of this conspiracy and given first hand detailed information. They wanted this story to be revealed to the public. They knew because of their powerful positions that they are impervious to any legal consequences for their plainly illegal activities, as they have the impunity of wealth and political power. These people can brag about this outrage and get away with it.

        There are quite a few things that have been revealed since the 2020 Presidential Election that prove the election was rigged.The most important of these are those revealed in the TIME Magazine article by Molly Ball on Feb. 4, 2021 that describe in great detail a conspiracy to rig the 2020 Presidential Election. I shall herein transcribe that in its complete form:

        https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/01/2020-presidential-election-fraud/

        https://tv.gab.com/channel/somebitchiknow/view/composite-video-state-farm-arena-60be3103e03b8c0eaf22587c

        \\][//

      3. The Jan. 6th march on the Capitol was delusional in its objective of stopping the EC count

        Protests take place in DC almost daily. Their goal is always to overturn some law, or create some new law. Their goal is always delusional.
        That does not allow the government to kill the protestors.

        1. Iowan2,

          “That does not allow the government to kill the protestors.”

          Well it true as long as said protesters are not rioting inside the capitol building and trying to breach a protected area where legislators are still present. Babbitt was an idiot that unfortunately was killed when she disobeyed orders to stop. We all know that if you don’t obey police orders in such situations you WILL get shot.

          1. We have had rioting in the streets that was cheered by the likes of you when someone on the left or a criminal was killed lawfully by police. You seem to have two standards of justice. That demonstrates that you don’t believe in liberty. You believe in force.

          2. Well it true as long as said protesters are not rioting inside the capitol building and trying to breach a protected area where legislators are still present

            I saw Congress critters with protestors threatening them with violence and they were within inches of their face. Not a single minute jail time befell those protestors.
            A very distinct equal justice dichotomy is prevalent in the justice system.

            Something you consider a feature, sadly.

        1. Bidenistas and the naive simply cannot accept what is clearly the conspiracy to rig the 2020 Presidential election by the corporatist oligachs who revealed thier entire scheme to Molly Ball.
          The excuse that it is “imprecise” is specious rhetorical sophistry. This is especially ridiculous when what these oligarchs have done to destroy America in the mere 9 months of their manipulation of the Biden regime is considered.
          In the face of this ongoing sociopolitical catasrophy your lame opinions pale to utter insignificance. To be so totally blind to the reality unfolding before you is asonishing to behold.
          And yet you chase Laocoon down the beach and tear him to shreds yet again.

          WW

  7. Are you kidding? As a condition of bail he wasn’t allowed to us the internet, or to listen to conservatives?

    Welcome to the new McCarthyism.

    1. No, Karen, the QAnons, White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis and others who participated in the Trump riots are NOT “conservatives”, and neither are you. And, the Judge has every right to put terms and conditions on pretrial release to prevent them from committing further crimes while awaiting trial, and to enforce terms and conditions of pretrial release by returning the rioters to jail.

      1. Wow, Natacha is such a ÜberLiberal Woke woowoo wormwanker that is is hard to believe she can manipulate her QWERTY with her head so far up her tush.

        “QAnons, White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis” ?!?!?! That is some seriously paranoid splatterverben for certain.Thorazine might be the answer darling.
        \\][//

    2. Karen,

      “Are you kidding? As a condition of bail he wasn’t allowed to us the internet, or to listen to conservatives?

      Welcome to the new McCarthyism”

      Jensen AGREED to the conditions. All he was not allowed to do was get on the internet by any means. He wasn’t prohibited from listening to conservatives. He got caught breaking the conditions he AGREED to. Back to jail he went. That’s it. It’s not a big conspiracy to silence dissent.

    3. Karen says:

      “Welcome to the new McCarthyism.”

      I’m beginning to think you are not a Trumpist. It is an article of Trumpist faith that McCarthyism was a noble era. Thankfully, you know it wasn’t!

      1. Your statement makes you sound foolish. I firmly support most of Trump’s policies. I do not support the idea of McCarthyism though McCarthy, who I dislike, wasn’t as incorrect as some would ascribe to him. He was not the era. It was an era that used his name. In fact the era started before he was in office. I hope you already know that and I hope you know the circumstances surrounding the debate concerning him. Too many people are ignorant of those facts.

    4. Wow, America is an awesome place…, where else can the guy who was actually *mentored by McCarthy’s lawyer* and who tried to create the new McCarthy ism while in office accuse his competitors of exactly that like a first grader would and get away with it???

      eb

  8. Under Taliban Joe’s fascist administration, bail is determined by one’s political views. Taliban Joe believes we should free criminals, but jail those that disagree with his administration.

  9. Many readers of the blog watched The Three Stooges at movie theatres or on tv. I think it was Curled who said: “Hotsie totsie, I smell a Nazi.”

  10. Our fed govt rounded up so called Nazis who called themselves The German American Bund at the beginning of WWII. This was approved by the Supreme Court in the Korematsu decision. Free speech does not include statements about killing all the Jews. Or persecuting others.

  11. “Let’s be clear on a couple of points: Jensen deserved to be charged and deserves to go to jail for participating in a riot in the Capitol”

    Wrong
    Although I applaud Turley on most things as he is one of the few voices for constitutional rights there are certain subjects he is just plain blind to. If there was any equal treatment under the law then all of the BLM rioters from last year would be rotting in jail.

    1. Turley didn’t say that all of the Capitol rioters belong in jail. He said Jensen does.

      Some BLM rioters are already in jail. Others are facing trial with a possible life sentence if convicted.

      Turley may be blind about some things, but this isn’t an example of one.

      1. “Some BLM rioters are already in jail. Others are facing trial with a possible life sentence if convicted.”

        A partial truth of this nature is as good as a lie.

              1. Anonymous the Stupid, let’s discuss this. I tell you what you say that is Stupid to give you a chance to correct the record and make things better.

                You have nothing to complain about when throwing your insults. We know that to be true because you can’t have a sustained argument to show where I am wrong. You don’t have that type of knowledge or ability. I don’t lie. Anyone reading what I write knows I am not an idiot. Even you know that, but you lie when you say otherwise.

                  1. We know. You float around the blog in a continuous state of delusion, permitting others to learn in advance what happens when one allows their mind to decay.

  12. It is fascinating watching you work, Jon. Saw it with how you stretched the truth around the Mueller report. And now we’re seeing it with January 6th. You claim the FBI report found “no” evidence of a coordinated insurrection on January 6th. But really what they found was little evidence that there was an organized arrangement between the mob and either Roger Stone and/or Alex Jones…, as if that is the defining characteristic of what an insurrection would entail…

    Here’s a more truthful version of the events of that day. Notice that what was not addressed in the FBI report were the ties between militia groups and the Proud Boys, etc. But you’re a master at splitting hairs, Turley. That’s why you get the big bucks…

    https://www.salon.com/2021/08/20/fbi-finds-little-evidence-jan-6-insurrection-was-organized-attack-report/

    eb

    1. EB: thank you. Someone had to say it. An additional beef with Turley includes his effort to spin the conditions for bail and/or sentencing into some kind of requirement to renounce one’s political views. This is yet again another feeble effort to defend Trump by equating the Trump Insurrection into something more benign than what it was–Turley actually tries to carry the Fox News/alt/right media theme that nothing really bad happened on January 6th, that most of the Trump losers were just walking around wearing their Nazi and White Supremacy insignia, protesting–all of which ignores the fact that they disregarded multiple police commands, they broke past outside barriers, broke down doors, smashed windows and beat the Capitol and Washington police officers, some very badly. Regardless of how unreasonable your political persuasion, you cannot break and enter a government building, leave human excrement around, deface memorials, refuse to comply with police commands to cease and desist, and your belief in the Big Lie is no defense to your conduct. And, continuing to adhere to QAnon and the Trumpist Big Lie is not holding political views–it is subscribing to violence, insurrection and terrorism. The motivation for these people to do it again hasn’t changed. If someone continues to pose a threat to others by continuing to be inspired by the people who fomented the Trump Insurrection, the court not only can do something to prevent further violence, it must act.

      I know Turley knows this, but there is NO RIGHT to bail. If a Judge grants bail, it must be reasonable in amount, commensurate with the risk of flight, sufficient to ensure the accused’s appearance in court, but no judge is required to grant bail, no matter how many times Turley and Hannity try to make the case that the insurrectionists are political prisoners. That is ironic, indeed. In addition to a monetary amount, a Judge can impose other terms and conditions, like requiring the defendant to turn in their passport if there is any risk of flight. Another example: in a child molest case, as a condition for bail, a Judge will almost always order a defendant to stay away from the child-accuser, even if it is his/her own child, including banning of any telephone calls, e-mails and other written communications. In such a case, a defendant could go to jail for sending a birthday or Christmas card to the child victim. In an assault case, a Judge.will order a defendant to stay a certain distance away from the victim, and not to have any form of contact. In this case, the Judge ordered this defendant to stay off the internet and cell phone, but he violated the terms of his pretrial release. This is not, as Turley tries to claim, requiring him to renounce his political views, nor is it censorship. Staying off the internet was a term of pretrial release, to which he had NO right in the first place. It’s just like someone addicted to child pornography and who molests children. They are almost always ordered to stay off the internet and not to view porn of any kind–child or otherwise, because these serve as triggers to their abnormal cravings. If they violate these conditions, they return to jail.

      And, the FBI investigation is NOT complete, something Turley knows, so they’ve reached NO final conclusions about conspiracy. Saying they have is fibbing.

      1. +100

        Absolutely! And it’s an exact replica of the way he handled what Barr did to the Mueller report by insinuating there was no conspiracy. Quite different from the reality of saying it would be hard to prove and impossible to prosecute a sitting president for. Turley tends to take the ‘nothing to see here’ strategy to entirely inappropriate levels. (Although it does remind me of a tv show from awhile back where Christian Slater played the boss of a private detective company I believe…, and when all the underlings began to prank each other hard he’d just say “I’ll allow it!!!”)

        eb

        1. Eb says:

          “And it’s an exact replica of the way he handled what Barr did to the Mueller report by insinuating there was no conspiracy. Quite different from the reality of saying it would be hard to prove and impossible to prosecute a sitting president for. Turley tends to take the ‘nothing to see here’ strategy to entirely inappropriate levels.”

          I concur that Turley plays dumb far too often. It is impossible to break down his “nothing to see here” approach unless he can be questioned thoroughly in an interview, but he is unwilling to submit to questions from us or someone of his academic caliber.

          Speech by definition requires a speaker AND a listener. We speak to Turley at his invitation, but he is unwilling to listen…

          1. “Speech by definition requires a speaker AND a listener. We speak to Turley at his invitation, but he is unwilling to listen…”

            Jeff, how do you know Turley is unable to listen?

            I think Turley uses at least some of these subjects and possibly what he posts here on the blog as part of his teaching material for his students. Don’t you think that is where he would engage with others?

            Why don’t you engage with the blog by providing your spin with regard to his legal points? There is a lot of disagreement on the blog as to opinion and that is great because different viewpoints helps all refine their understanding of the law. I note that of late your hostile attitude towards the opposing side has become a bit less harsh. Maybe hearing things from the other side has had some effect. Maybe having to think about some of your claims has also had some effect. Free speech helps people become acquainted with ideas they never came across before.

            1. Someone asks:

              “Jeff, how do you know Turley is unable to listen?”

              I said unwilling. I’m sure he is perfectly able. If he does look at the comments, it would be a hoot to learn what he thinks! I suspect that he does not respond to us so that he can claim that he is unaware of his followers’ attitudes lest he has to account for the disturbing fact that so many are conspiracy minded and hold views grossly antithetical to his.

              You ask:

              “I think Turley uses at least some of these subjects and possibly what he posts here on the blog as part of his teaching material for his students. Don’t you think that is where he would engage with others?”

              Of course, he answers question posed by his students. Perhaps some of his students ask questions raised by some of us on this blog. I have asked whether there are any of his students among us, but none have come forward. Because Turley has an obligation to teach, he must clarify his points of law for those students who have questions. As do we, but we are not so fortunate as his law students. It’s a shame that we are forgotten.

              You say:

              “l note that of late your hostile attitude towards the opposing side has become a bit less harsh. Maybe hearing things from the other side has had some effect.”

              I’m always prepared to listen to rational and civil arguments and have benefited by my conversations with some here. On the other hand, I have also become much more familiar with the attitudes of Trumpists, and it concerns me.

              Though Turley will defend the right of Trumpists to speak freely, he has made a calculated and pusillanimous decision not to instruct them how wrong they are until and unless it becomes intolerable to keep silent.

              1. “I said unwilling. ”

                Fair enough. If you ever worked as a lawyer, did you provide free legal work to others that weren’t paying your fee?

                “Of course, he answers question posed by his students.”

                Why should he answer your suggestions? If you wish, you could probably ask him if you could sit in on a couple of his lectures. He might very well permit you.

                It would be interesting if students participated and added their input. Problems would arise when their opinions on the law are turned political. Do you think that would help them learn the law?

                “I’m always prepared to listen to rational …”

                You may think you are open, but you want to have the right to determine what is rational and civil, yet you want the freedom to say what you wish, even if it isn’t rational or civil. You even want to tell Turley how to think and what to say.

                1. Anonymous,

                  I do not wish to be rude, but I am against carrying on a conversation with a anonymous person since there are several here with whom I am determined to avoid being drawn into a discussion.

                  If you wish to communicate with me, please identify yourself by signing some random initials at the end of your post so that I know it is you- whomever you are.

                  1. Since ideas are what count and anyone can put any initials down, I am not inclined to do so. I say what I believe and I try to understand what others believe. I think that goes for a lot of different folk. If you are uncomfortable, there is no need to reply.

                    1. I agree that it does not matter *who* makes an argument as it pertains to its soundness, but there is a troll on this blog who taunts me anonymously. But for his presence, I would not make such a request of you. I welcome good faith discussions; it’s unfortunate that some people spoil this blog. Were it up to me, I would insist that all contributors be identified. Being held accountable publicly for obnoxious posts would go a long way to eliminate them.

                      I hope that my meager request is not too much to ask of you. I am not worried that that my stalker will attempt to impersonate you by signing your arbitrarily chosen initials. I can generally tell when he is attacking me by virtue of his syntax, but I’d rather not have to sort through anonymous posts.

                    2. I don’t see the problem. Different ideas fly around and can be independent of one another. You are entitled to your opinion and the others, their own. That is the good thing about this blog. No one is being graded, though others can decide the value of every independent post.

              2. “I suspect that he does not respond to us so that he can claim that he is unaware of his followers’ attitudes lest he has to account for the disturbing fact that so many are conspiracy minded and hold views grossly antithetical to his.”

                In an odd way this dynamic kind of fascinates me about this blog. I wonder if anything gets through to Turley. I don’t want to speak for anyone else, but i know I’ll venture into shock territory from time to time to try to raise a sign that Turley pays even a little bit of attention to what goes on here.

                And just as aside, Jeff…, I think we’re beginning to see what you’ve been predicting for awhile. Mespo basically professed support for Qanon philosophy and John Say basically threatened Turley for even getting in the same area code of suggesting January 6 was an insurrection. Both happening within the last day or so. Things might come to a head quicker than expected.

                eb

                1. Eb says:

                  “I think we’re beginning to see what you’ve been predicting for awhile. Mespo basically professed support for Qanon philosophy and John Say basically threatened Turley for even getting in the same area code of suggesting January 6 was an insurrection.”

                  Indubitably, my dear Eb. Because Trumpists are suspicious of that which Turley holds dear, namely, American jurisprudence and law enforcement, how could it be otherwise?

                  “Fake news,” “Hoax,” and “Deep State,” are paranoid narratives anathema to an academic like Turley. While he has never endorsed this anti-intellectual mindset, his great sin has been his craven decision not to publicly condemn those who traffic in such mindless narratives and in so doing fuels the rage he constantly laments.

                  1. ““Fake news,” “Hoax,” and “Deep State,” are paranoid narratives anathema to an academic like Turley. While he has never endorsed this anti-intellectual mindset, his great sin has been his craven decision not to publicly condemn those who traffic in such mindless narratives and in so doing fuels the rage he constantly laments.”

                    Word! Totally agreed, Jeff.

                    eb

                    1. Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State
                      February 21, 2014
                      by Mike Lofgren

                      There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power. [1]

                      During the last five years, the news media have been flooded with pundits decrying the broken politics of Washington. The conventional wisdom has it that partisan gridlock and dysfunction have become the new normal. That is certainly the case, and I have been among the harshest critics of this development. But it is also imperative to acknowledge the limits of this critique as it applies to the American governmental system. On one level, the critique is self-evident: In the domain that the public can see, Congress is hopelessly deadlocked in the worst manner since the 1850s, the violently rancorous decade preceding the Civil War.

                      Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country…As I wrote in The Party is Over, the present objective of congressional Republicans is to render the executive branch powerless, at least until a Republican president is elected (a goal that voter suppression laws in GOP-controlled states are clearly intended to accomplish). President Obama cannot enact his domestic policies and budgets: Because of incessant GOP filibustering, not only could he not fill the large number of vacancies in the federal judiciary, he could not even get his most innocuous presidential appointees into office. Democrats controlling the Senate have responded by weakening the filibuster of nominations, but Republicans are sure to react with other parliamentary delaying tactics. This strategy amounts to congressional nullification of executive branch powers by a party that controls a majority in only one house of Congress.
                      Despite this apparent impotence, President Obama can liquidate American citizens without due processes, detain prisoners indefinitely without charge, conduct dragnet surveillance on the American people without judicial warrant and engage in unprecedented — at least since the McCarthy era — witch hunts against federal employees (the so-called “Insider Threat Program”). Within the United States, this power is characterized by massive displays of intimidating force by militarized federal, state and local law enforcement. Abroad, President Obama can start wars at will and engage in virtually any other activity whatsoever without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress, such as arranging the forced landing of a plane carrying a sovereign head of state over foreign territory. Despite the habitual cant of congressional Republicans about executive overreach by Obama, the would-be dictator, we have until recently heard very little from them about these actions — with the minor exception of comments from gadfly Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Democrats, save a few mavericks such as Ron Wyden of Oregon, are not unduly troubled, either — even to the extent of permitting seemingly perjured congressional testimony under oath by executive branch officials on the subject of illegal surveillance.

                      These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they tend to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi’s regime in Libya, and, when the instability created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention there. At a time when there was heated debate about continuing meat inspections and civilian air traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government was somehow able to commit $115 million to keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay at least £100m to the United Kingdom’s Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over and access to that country’s intelligence. Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways have collapsed due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During that same period of time, the government spent $1.7 billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This mammoth structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined. A yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive every single trace of your electronic life.

                      https://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

                      \\][//

                    2. https://off-guardian.org/2021/06/12/how-the-unthinkable-became-thinkable/

                      –This is especially serious, as leading World Economic Forum darlings like Yuval Harari flaunt such concepts as “the new global useless class” which Artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, automation and the Fourth Industrial Revolution is supposedly ushering in. Other Davos creatures like Klaus Schwab call openly for a microchipped global citizenry capable of interfacing with a global web …

                      Not for the naive or narrow minded trolls infesting Turley’s site.
                      \\][//

    2. Actually it has been reorted that the FBI itself organized the Jan 6 Riot

      Questions About the FBI’s Role in 1/6 Are Mocked Because the FBI Shapes Liberal Corporate Media

      The FBI has been manufacturing and directing terror plots and criminal rings for decades. But now, reverence for security state agencies reigns.

      The axis of liberal media outlets and their allied activist groups — CNN, NBC News, The Washington Post, Media Matters — are in an angry uproar over a recent report questioning the foreknowledge and involvement of the FBI in the January 6 Capitol riot. As soon as that new report was published on Monday, a consensus instantly emerged in these liberal media precincts that this is an unhinged, ignorant and insane conspiracy theory that deserves no consideration.

      The original report, published by Revolver News and then amplified by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, documented ample evidence of FBI infiltration of the three key groups at the center of the 1/6 investigation — the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters — and noted how many alleged riot leaders from these groups have not yet been indicted. While low-level protesters have been aggressively charged with major felonies and held without bail, many of the alleged plot leaders have thus far been shielded from charges.

      The implications of these facts are obvious. It seems extremely likely that the FBI had numerous ways to know of any organized plots regarding the January 6 riot (just as the U.S. intelligence community, by its own admission, had ample advanced clues of the 9/11 attack but, according to their excuse, tragically failed to “connect the dots”). There is no doubt that the FBI has infiltrated at least some if not all of these groups — which it has been warning for years pose a grave national security threat — with informants and/or undercover spies. It is known that Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio has served as an FBI informant in the past, and the disrupted 2020 plot by Three Percenters members to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) was shaped and driven by what The Wall Street Journal reported were the FBI’s “undercover agents and confidential informants.”

      https://greenwald.substack.com/p/questions-about-the-fbis-role-in?t

      WW

            1. Prairie Rose asks:

              Is Greenwald (a false prophet)?

              Positively. He is a frequent guest on Tucker Carlson’s Fox show. Anyone who appears with Carlson who sings the praises of the Hungarian autocrat Victor Orban and champions the conspiracy theories of Ted Nugent who Turley himself described as a “true lunatic,” is NOT to be respected.

              Greenwald is so approving of Carlson’s malign narratives that I would not be surprised if he is offered employment at Fox. Like Turley, Greenwald is a putative Liberal being marshaled by Fox to make the argument that its narratives must be true because even some Liberals support them. An argument which explains why Trumpists vehemently insist that Liz Cheney is neither a true Republican nor a real Conservative once she took the side of Democrats!

              1. Jeff,
                “Positively. He is a frequent guest on Tucker Carlson’s Fox show. Anyone who appears with Carlson who sings the praises of the Hungarian autocrat Victor Orban and champions the conspiracy theories of Ted Nugent who Turley himself described as a “true lunatic,” is NOT to be respected.”

                That does not follow. That could be a valid criticism of Carlson but not of Greenwald. Greenwald does not have to agree with everything Carlson supports or gives a platform to, just as I’d wager Carlson does not agree with everything Greenwald supports.

                1. Prairie Rose,

                  Would you advise Turley to legitimate Alex Jones by appearing on his program— even to disagree with him? Turley would not stoop that low. Carlson is not unlike Jones except that Carlson does not scream and gesticulate; he is more posh, but the bogus narratives are largely the same.

              2. “Positively. He is a frequent guest on Tucker Carlson’s Fox show.”

                Jeff, I don’t think this demonstrates an open mind. Do you?

                1. Federal Judge Ruled Against MSNBC Defamation Suit, Says Maddow Viewers Know Her Show Is Non-Factual

                  An Obama-appointed federal judge just dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by a news outlet against MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and ruled that her show “is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news.” The court suggested that Rachel Maddow’s viewers know she offers exaggeration and opinion, not facts. Aren’t liberals big on “fighting misinformation?” Guess not.

                  The defamation suit reminded people that over a year ago Fox New’s lawyers used the same argument to win a slander lawsuit brought against Tucker Carlson. While the claim that Tucker could not be trusted dominated the headlines of mainstream media, it’s virtually impossible to find similar headlines in Maddow’s case in the news, which carries far more serious accusations.

                  The suit was brought by One America News (OAN), a conservative-friendly cable outlet that Maddow called a “paid propaganda outlet” for the Kremlin. She called one reporter a “Russian national” who simultaneously wrote copy for the Russian-owned outlet Sputnik and accused the entire network of being Russian propaganda.

                  But according to the court, everyone in the audience knows that Maddow’s show consists of exaggeration, hyperbole, and pure opinion with outlandish claims. The judge emphasized that Maddow’s statements “would be understood by her own viewers” as non-factual and to serve her liberal activism. They ruled her show as one that offers opinions to the news and that viewers would not conclude what she says as an assertion of objective fact.

                  https://politicodaily.com/federal-judge-ruled-against-msnbc-defamation-suit-says-maddow-viewers-know-her-show-is-non-factual
                  \\][//

                  1. “” The court suggested that Rachel Maddow’s viewers know she offers exaggeration and opinion, not facts. Aren’t liberals big on “fighting misinformation?””

                    Thanks profit. I will have to read the article later and find the exact quote by the judge. If you come by it perhaps you can provide the site.

                    I think most know Maddow isn’t on the up and up.

            1. False “Prophet2020” demands to know:

              “A “fasle prophet” you say. A rebuttal is required, not a simple assertion like that. Speak up hot shot. what do you disagree with and why?”

              Let me be specific- everything you have prophesied to date. Why? Because you are in the end stages of Trumpism.

                    1. Prairie Rose,

                      I read Greenwald’s article and some of the articles he linked to. There are few known facts and so much speculation.

                      I have read articles and watched documentaries which have exposed the FBI infiltrating and encouraging militia groups to pursue their illegal activities. It raises profound questions whether the conduct of the informants crossed the line into entrapment. This is a very complicated and fact specific conundrum- how to identify those individuals who have an inclination to terrorize without putting the idea in their head. It’s a fine line, and it certainly is possible that an informant- for a variety of reasons- may have disobeyed his FBI handlers and crossed the line. Thankfully, every defendant is entitled to a defense lawyer.

                      With regard to the FBI’s infiltration amongst the 1/6 rioters, it would be a dereliction of duty were there not some informants there. But to jump to the conclusion as Carlson and Greenwald insinuate that the riot may have been a FBI False Flag operation is reckless. I wish all the these factual controversies could be settled strictly in a court of law where rules of evidence apply and testimony is given under penalty of perjury subject to thorough cross-examination presided over by an independent judge and decided by an impartial jury. Because I distrust the court of public opinion, I don’t invest my time following a public controversy. I am content to patiently wait for a trial.

                      I am very much inclined to think that Trumpists themselves are to blame for the assault on the Capitol not the FBI. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t the defendants claiming in their defense that they were fed lies which instigated their storming the Capitol and not attempting to shift the blame onto the government? Turley has not appeared on Carlson’s show to back-up these claims that the unindicted co-conspirators could be FBI informants. That should tell you something….

                    2. “I read Greenwald’s article and some of the articles he linked to. There are few known facts and so much speculation.”

                      Greenwald is an opinion writer and a news gatherer. Unlike what you read, he clearly separates the two. His recent facts have mostly been correct, and his understanding of what was happening was far ahead of the curve. I say this even though he is politically on the opposite side from me.

                      Greenwald has been criticized about what he opined was happening. Now that we see he is correct, there are those like yourself that continue to attack him, not because of the fact that he has been right on speech type issues for a long time but because you are so far behind the curve basing your opinions on the left’s spinning away from what Greenwald is bringing into view. You can’t catch up until you stop placing politics in front of reasonable thought.

              1. Silberman, your idea of a rational rebuttal is more like a school yard taunt of a third grader. All of your empty bluster, comment after comment amounts to ZERO. Absolutely no reasoned responses, simply ad hominem and staggering stupidity. How you are able to type on your QWERTY with your head so far up your ass is miraculous.
                \\][//

  13. This is so weird from so many angles. The judge overreached and is on a magic carpet ride fueled by pseudo power fuel. Judge in the clouds has a need to come back to earth. The pillow guy? Really? Secretly listening to pillow talk is a crime now? Such is utter BS.

    1. @Upstate Farmer: Slowly, incrementally, we will be led to renounce even our faith, if it opposes the leftists’ faith in “Self.” Let’s ask Daniel or Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (better known by their Babylonian names: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) about the conflict between man’s law and God’s (Daniel chapters 3-5). Since God never changes, why would the Enemy need to change tactics beyond, perhaps, semantic games and renaming his practices?

      “Vanity of vanities […] there is nothing new under the sun.” – Ecc 1:2-11 (AMP)

      We’ve traded statues of Moloch for the altar called abortion, and at some point they will even seek to conquer and revoke Orwell’s allowance of ownership over “the few square centimeters inside your skull”. It’s a straight hop from constraining thought (speech) to disallowing and forbidding religious thought and faith beyond that which “they” (as agents of the Enemy, witting or otherwise) allow.

      The part to rejoice over is not the Enemy’s tactics, but the Lord’s unchanging response and ultimate victory. Let’s ask Noah (Genesis 6-9) or Elijah (1 Kings 19) about how God always preserves a retirement. Indeed, Paul asks:

      “Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”[a]? And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.”

      — Rom 11:2b-6 (CSB)

      God *will* have the last word. We will all acknowledge that: The question is on which side of eternity will we bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. We can rejoice, too, that His last word cannot be too very far off:

      “But understand this, that in the last days dangerous times [of great stress and trouble] will come [difficult days that will be hard to bear]. For people will be lovers of self [narcissistic, self-focused], lovers of money [impelled by greed], boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy and profane, [and they will be] unloving [devoid of natural human affection, calloused and inhumane], irreconcilable, malicious gossips, devoid of self-control [intemperate, immoral], brutal, haters of good, traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of [sensual] pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of [outward] godliness (religion), although they have denied its power [for their conduct nullifies their claim of faith]. Avoid such people and keep far away from them. […] Just as Jannes and Jambres [the court magicians of Egypt] opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, unqualified and worthless [as teachers] in regard to the faith. But they will not get very far, for their meaningless nonsense and ignorance will become obvious to everyone, as was that of Jannes and Jambres.”

      — 2 Tim 3:1-5, 8-9 (AMP) [see also: 2 Peter 3:3-6]

      My hope is to convince as many as possible to avoid hearing the words of judgment: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.

      1. Uh, God may very well preserve a “retirement,” but I had meant to comment on His preserving of a “remnant.” Should He also preserve a retirement, I’m sure it’s out of this world. 🙂

        I should ask for a refund from my editor for not having caught the typo.

  14. This is despicable treatment/sentencing by an out-of-control judge. The fact that so many are supportive or silent regarding this treatment scares me to the core.

  15. Mike Lindell has a very sober litigator to put forward his case with underlying data. The Honorable Mr. Turley is dismissive if Frankspeech.com as if Mr.Lindell was a so called rioter
    Disappointing in the lack of objective consideration of the case 🇺🇸

  16. “Found Kelly in his garage secretly listening to Lindell.”

    Remember the old war movies with the resistance listening to the BBC and the Gestapo breaking in?

    We all should speak up against this judicial overreach against a despised minority.

    Even Lefties since they have been and probably will be again, a despised minority.

    Conservatives express fear of the FBI monitoring our communications.

    Real or not, that fear is un-American and undermines our republic.

    1. mc-found this regarding BBC and nazi: This is scary stuff. Banned from listening to certain broadcast, radio wardens.

      1. Censorship of the press

      Newspapers could only print stories favourable to and approved by the Nazis.
      Daily briefings were held for editors to tell them what to print and where to place articles in their newspapers.
      Jewish journalists were banned.
      Editors had to join the Nazi Party or be dismissed.
      By 1935, 1,600 newspapers were closed.
      By 1939, 69% of newspapers were directly owned by the Nazis.

      2. Control of radio broadcasts

      All radio output was controlled by Goebbels’ Ministry through the Reich Broadcasting Corporation. Goebbels saw radio as the most important medium for propaganda.
      Listening to foreign stations was banned.
      9 million radios were sold cheaply so that most Germans could afford one and thus be indoctrinated. These “People’s Receivers” could only be tuned to the Nazi station. By 1939, 70 per cent of households owned one of them.
      Radio wardens were used to ensure people listened to major speeches being broadcast.

      1. Margot,

        You neglected to mention Nazi book-burnings. Of course, today we don’t need to burn books. It’s sufficient to label a news outlet as “fake news,” as does Trump, to virtually burn them. If Goebbels were alive today, is there any doubt that he would co-opt Trump’s “fake news” smear in order to discredit Jewish newspapers? Autocrats around the world are delegitimizing news outlets by branding them as “fake news.” A wonderful Trump legacy.

        1. “Autocrats around the world are delegitimizing news outlets by branding them as “fake news.” A wonderful Trump legacy.“

          Actually Trump was right and proven right over and over again to be right by the NYT, WaPo, CNN and others who have provided fake news to promote a political position. Our present administration, that is extremely authoritarian, likes that type of news, and uses it to promote his administration’s power over the people.

Leave a Reply