Turley Testifies on the Foreign Agents Registration Act

I will be testifying this morning in Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties of the House Judiciary Committee in a hearing on “Enhancing the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.” The hearing will be held at 10 am at the Rayburn House Office Building (Room 2141). My testimony is below.

I will appear with a distinguished panel of experts. We largely agree on areas of possible reforms, including the potential dangers of registration laws like FARA for free speech and association.

Here is the panel:

Mr. Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette
Government Affairs Manager, Project On Government Oversight

Mr. Nick Robinson
Senior Legal Advisor, U.S. Program, International Center for Not-For-Profit Law

Dr. Jacob R. Straus
Specialist on the Congress, Congressional Research Service

Mr. Jonathan Turley
J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director, Environmental Law Advocacy Center, The George Washington University Law School

Turley.Testimony.FARA.2022

63 thoughts on “Turley Testifies on the Foreign Agents Registration Act”

  1. Not to be unexpected (or as expected) the Hearing was politicized, particularly by the line of questioning of Mr. Johnson (Rep. GA) in a manner of defensive-support of Hunter Biden’s Laptop contents [On the Left]. And Mr. Johnson (Rep. LA) for drawing out Hunter Biden’s activities as Engaging-in or Acting-as a Foreign Agent [On the Right]. Thankfully Ms. Jackson Lee (Rep. TX) pulled the Hearing into purposeful focus with her comments and relevant questioning of the Witnesses.

    The Hearing unfortunately did not touch upon the subject of Christopher Steele
    [The Steele Dossier, a.k.a. Trump–Russia Dossier], undoubtedly not only a Foreign Agent, but a
    British intelligence (MI6) counterintelligence specialist, and how a FARA registration might work to prevent subterfuge that which disrupts the American political processes [i.e.: National Elections].

    The development/evolution of Law (FARA) that provides protection from the circumvention of democracy would be beneficial. FARA from it’s origins and amendments has sought to prevent intervention of our democracy such as that perpetrated by Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS (Via Steel). Future permutations of FARA to address new intricacy such as this are it’s natural evolution.

    Ref. … The dossier, leaked by BuzzFeed News in January 2017, without its author’s permission, is an unfinished 35-page compilation of raw intelligence based on information from anonymous sources known to the author, counterintelligence specialist Christopher Steele.

    Steele, a former head of the Russia Desk for British intelligence (MI6), was writing the report for the private investigative firm Fusion GPS, who were paid by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). …

    Ibid.: See: wikipedia.org/Steele_dossier

    House Committee on the Judiciary
    Video: https://youtu.be/b_gx-SkRBxo

    Acronym Definitions:
    FARA – Foreign Agents Registration Act
    CID – Civil Investigative Demands
    PTM – Public Transparency Mechanisms (as it relates to NGOs & Nonprofit Orgs)
    LDA – Lobbying Disclosure Act
    Agent of a Foreign Principal
    22 U.S. Code § 611

    Koodos Turley !

  2. Why not do to Putin what was done to Noriega, with a commando raid and shoot-out to capture him?

  3. I read Turley’s Congressional testimony. As usual, very enlightening. I understand Turley’s valid concerns. Admittedly, the lines not to be crossed are murky and can be taken advantage of by those agents who try to skirt the law and those officials who enforce it over broadly.

    I don’t share his concern that being identified as a “foreign agent” is as stigmatizing as he fears. There is no shame in getting paid to advance the goals of a foreign country. The shame is doing so WITHOUT people realizing that you are in its employ! People just expect transparency; they should know whether you are advocating from the heart or getting paid to do so.

    It seems that Turley has a disliking being identified as an agent himself. You’ll notice that he acknowledges his employment with Fox News only when he is ethically obliged to do so, e.g., when commenting about Fox per se which is very rare. When he disparages Fox’s media competitors CNN and MSNBC, however, he does not reveal that he is an agent of Fox.

    If he would identify himself as a “Fox Legal Analyst,” then it would not be incumbent upon him to reveal his agency each time he advances his principal’s agenda of disparaging CNN and MSNBC as “fake news” when he criticizes their journalism.

    1. JeffSilberman, you started out pretty good but then you regressed to your normal Turley Fox News drivel. Do you think that Proffesor Turley would appear on CNN or MSNBC if he received an invitation? Its hard to appear on an alternative news source if they won’t invite you to appear. Why won’t CNN and MSNBC ask the Professor to appear on their platforms? It’s because of how stupid he would make them look before they even uttered one tenth of one half of a syllable of the beginning. In case you haven’t noticed Fox News is not a foreign nation. I see that you were so cleverly able to twist the subject to your maniacal obsession with Fox News but cleverness has nothing to do with it. I thought that you started out with a good analysis of the disclosure of being a foreign agent but once again you destroyed your own explanation when you dipped into the absurd. Is there any time during the day when Fox News is not on your mind. If you would leave your Fox News mania behind it seems that you could have an opinion that is worthy of consideration. Alas, I understand that it’s like asking a big wind to stop blowing.

      1. TiT asks:

        “Is there any time during the day when Fox News is not on your mind.”

        I’ll make a deal with you, ok?

        When Trump concedes that his election was not stolen, I’ll stop exposing Turley’s hypocrisy in RIGHTLY criticizing the advocacy journalism of the MSM and WRONGLY ignoring it at Fox.

        Deal?

      2. He is an attention seeking wh0re at his late age. What a waste of food, housing, resources and energy exhausted that could go to far better recipients.

    2. acknowledges his employment with Fox News only when he is ethically obliged

      Is there a higher standard?

        1. What exactly is “the higher standard” . Higher than, everyt ime its ethically required.

          all the readers know because there is retard, with impulse control issues, that brings it up in every single post, even ones that have nothing to do with FOX, which is most of them.

  4. Why is scope of the registration act of import at this time.

    In the following are Hunter and Devon Archers emails. Also included are transfers of funds from the Russian oligarch Yelana Butirina to the Hunter owned Rosemont Senaca Corporation. The emails also revealed that Hunter set up a meeting with his dad and the President of Burisma Petroleum. https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/hunter-biden-sought-cash-oligarchs-during-first-russian. This link leads to a long story about Joe and Hunters involvement but it is worth reading every word including the links used to substantiate the story. Keep in mind that Joe Biden said that he was never involved with his sons business affairs. A copy of the actual records of the deposits to the Rosemont Senaca bank account are displayed. The pieces of information that I present are a small part of the entire story. This is like reading a mystery novel. The difference is that a mystery novel is fiction and this conspiracy is not based on reality but actually is reality. It’s no wonder that the Democrats impeached Trump for trying to look into the Joe, Hunter and Russian affair. It has to be admitted that Pelosi and Schiff are masters of the art of distraction. Thankfully the coverup has not been successful.

  5. I’ve been looking for this supposedly published law review article, but I cannot find it in any of the online versions of Volume 45 of the cited Harvard Journal, nor do I find that it was published in 2021.

    Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States,” 45 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (2021)

    I don’t get it. Anyone?

    1. Only issues through volume 44, number 3, from last summer, are available for free. I suspect that you have to subscribe or have Lexis or Westlaw to get volume 45.

        1. Jeff, my guess is that it was accepted for publication, and he anticipated that it would be published in 2021, but it hasn’t been published yet. If that’s the case, he should have instead listed it as “in press.” Only the first issue of Vol. 45 has been published, so perhaps it will be published in a later issue of Vol. 45 this year.

          1. Yes, I figured it has yet to be published, but I was not certain given his citation.

            Thanks to the few rational people like you on this blog, you restore my faith that I am not as crazy as the overwhelming majority here would have me believe!

            1. Hey Dumb ass. Volume 45 is cited and available on the publication’s website. Obviously Professor Turley provided the wrong citation. Where are your publications and scholarly CV citations, dumbass? How gangsta do you have to be to act this stupid?

              “Exclusive: Suspect in Sacramento mass shooting was out of prison despite 10-year term”
              https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article260131840.html

              After his release from prison, Martin came to the attention of authorities again in November 2016, when he was stopped in a vehicle with three other passengers and asked for his name and date of birth. Martin gave the officers a phony name and ran when officers told him they were going to detain him, the letter states.

              “After a foot pursuit Inmate Martin was eventually incapacitated with a Taser and ultimately taken into custody,” the letter says. “Officers were able to identify him and learned he was a parolee at large.”

              Less than six months later, he was involved in the incident that led to the 10-year prison sentence, the letter says, when he forced his way into his girlfriend’s home.

              “He located her hiding in her bedroom closet and hit her repeatedly with a closed fist on the face, head, and body, causing visible injuries,” the letter says. “He then dragged her out of the home by her hair to an awaiting car. After he put her in the car, he assaulted her with a belt.

              “During the investigation, information was gathered that the victim had been working as a prostitute and that Inmate Martin had been assisting and encouraging her to be a prostitute. Text messages and social media conversations revealed that he would tell her what kind of sex buyer she should date, how much money to charge, how to accept payment, and what forms of payment she should accept.”

    2. Jeff, it took about 10 seconds. When one’s eyes are closed tight, it is often difficult to see things that you want to see. Alternatively, when you keep your eyes closed so as not to see what you do not wish to see, you lack the requisite information to engage in civil discussion. Finally, if you only search places you know you will find agreement or are familiar with, you will never find everything you want.

      Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States
      by Jonathan Turley
      November 1, 2021

      https://www.fff.org/freedom-in-motion/video/harm-and-hegemony-the-decline-of-free-speech-in-the-united-states/

      1. Of course, I found that, and I intend to listen to it, but it is not this reference:

        Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States,” 45 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (2021)

        Swing and a miss.

        1. You dumb ass. There are several formats to cite published material. MLA, APA, Harvard, AMA, Chicago….

          It is so predictable that you’re an idiot with nill intellect other than a flooded brain of Dopamine to keep you going

          1. You needn’t say what you did. Everyone already knew what you say, but now Jeff knows what everyone thinks. Like everything else he says, he will say he doesn’t care.

          2. Jeff asked about an article, not a talk. You linked to a talk, not a journal article. It’s so predictable that you insult without cause.

            1. Leave him alone! He is dripping with masculinity and comes across as a real alpha! Would love to meet such a rugged male, unlike the crap I meet on Grindr

            2. ATS, are you that dumb? Jeff asked for “I’ve been looking for this supposedly published law review article” that he couldn’t find. I provided him with the site. There is a likelihood that no transcript exists. Go back to your cave. Below, Svelaz is waiting for you with open arms and is talking about “Grindr”.

              1. You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar, and if you weren’t so Stupid, you’d understand the difference between (1) an article published in Vol. 45 of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, which is what Jeff asked about, and (2) a webinar presentation by the same name, sponsored by the Future of Freedom Foundation, which is what you linked to.

                You did not provide Jeff with what he asked for, which was a link to the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy article; however, because you’re Troll, you baselessly denigrate Jeff anyway.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, along with being petty and rude, you are Stupid. Jeff couldn’t find something. It was found by others, though in video form. He didn’t ask for the Harvard link. He was confused as to why he didn’t see it there.

                  Here is what he said:
                  “I cannot find it in any of the online versions of Volume 45 of the cited Harvard Journal, nor do I find that it was published in 2021.”

                  In your tiny mind, everything is a big case. LOL

                  1. You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar.

                    “He didn’t ask for the Harvard link.”

                    Liar. He asked about a published law review article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

                    In his first post about it, Jeff clearly said
                    I’ve been looking for this supposedly published law review article, but I cannot find it in any of the online versions of Volume 45 of the cited Harvard Journal, nor do I find that it was published in 2021.

                    Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States,” 45 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (2021)

                    Jeff was not asking about a talk.,

                    Perhaps if you were more used to citations, you’d know that Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States,” 45 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (2021) refers to an article published in Vol. 45 of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy in 2021.

                    It appears that there is no such article. Presumably it’s in press, and Turley will eventually correct the publication date and add it to his list of Law Review Articles & Chapters In Books: https://www.law.gwu.edu/turley-jonathan

                    1. Look Stupid, if Jeff were searching for the document and couldn’t find it, yet wanted to read it, the video would replace what didn’t exist, and he would have what he needed. If it didn’t exist in transcript form, that is part of Jeff’s inability to search for anything of value.

                      Are you too dumb to realize that a video is better than nothing? Of course, you are, and that is why you continuously make Stupid statements day and night.

                    2. No, “Stupid,” a talk does not “replace” an academic law publication. I’ve given academic talks and published in peer-reviewed journals in another field, so I understand the distinction Jeff made.

                      The fact remains that the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar, lied when he claimed that Jeff “didn’t ask for the Harvard link,” and nothing you’ve said changes that.

                    3. Anonymous the Stupid: If someone wants to know what another said on a subject, it is better to have the video than nothing. Your logic is faulty here and everywhere else. For whatever reason, Jeff couldn’t find the transcript.

                    4. The one and only Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar, you’re simply too childish to admit that you were lying when you claimed that Jeff “didn’t ask for the Harvard link,” so you deflect.

                    5. It was clear that Jeff could not find the material he was looking for. He looked for a transcript but seemed not to understand why he couldn’t find it. Another looked as well and didn’t find it either. Still, another thought is that it might not yet have been published.

                      Anonymous the Stupid is so dumb he thinks Jeff wanted to look at the words on the screen or a piece of paper, but one would guess Jeff wanted the content. I gave Jeff the content, and ATS is still arguing about it.

                      Everyone can see that you are proving yourself the fool you are. Aren’t you embarrassed?

                    6. “He looked for a transcript”

                      Liar.

                      You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar.

                    7. Anonymous the Stupid, are you now telling us Jeff wasn’t looking for the Harvard Transcript? Alternatively, are you trying to convince us he was only interested to know if the Harvard Transcript existed and didn’t want to know its content?

                      You are making yourself look more and more foolish. You can’t handle yourself when people show your statement of facts to be lies. You can’t tell the truth. You prefer to be a fool.

                    8. You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar. You can’t tell the truth. You prefer to be a fool.

                      Among your lies is that Jeff “looked for a transcript,” when he never said anything about a talk transcript. Rather, Jeff very clearly stated that he was looking for a “published law review article: … Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States,” 45 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (2021).”

                      You ask “are you … telling us Jeff wasn’t looking for the Harvard Transcript?”

                      Duh!

                      The word “transcript” appears in your lie, not in what Jeff asked about. Jeff clearly asked about the published law review article. You are apparently too Stupid to understand the difference, or too much of a Liar to admit it. This is why you are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar.

                    9. Transcript: Jeff was looking for a digital copy of what was supposed to have been written.

                      Yes, I used the term transcript. Tell us why you have gone ballistic over my use of that word? Anyone who is following your lunatic rantings can easily recognize you are making a mountain our of a molehill. Such a response demonstrates a psychiatric problem that I won’t discuss because you likely already are aware of your problems.

                    10. Meyer the Troll Liar, no matter how many times you attempt to pretend otherwise, Jeff was looking for a copy of a published law review article — Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States,” 45 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (2021) — that Turley cited in footnote 2 of his prepared remarks: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU10/20220405/114580/HHRG-117-JU10-Wstate-TurleyJ-20220405.pdf

                      If you cannot tell the difference between an article published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy and a talk, you only underscore that you are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid.

                    11. Anonymous the Stupid, I gave Jeff more credit than you did. I assumed he did a proper search. You must think he is a goofball. Maybe he is, but not finding something doesn’t make him one. I found something that met the name requirements. I was not looking for something he could not find.

                      Something is better than nothing. When God provided you brains, you got some but not as much as you think. Would you prefer nothing instead?

        2. Jeff writes: “Of course, I found that….Swing and a miss.”

          Jeff could have been civil and said thank you, but that is expecting too much from Jeff. Did he actually find that link? Highly unlikely based on his comment where he demonstrated significant confusion.

          That is Jeff’s nature. On the one hand, he can admit to not knowing about anything and, on the other hand, try to prove himself to be in the know.

          Jeff, have you always been like that or did it start while aging alone, trying to convince yourself you are somebody?

      2. I found it in 5 seconds with one search attempt, with a link to the video
        Jeff is an attention seeking wh0re.

    3. Jeff, as I’ve noted elsewhere, I’ve occasionally had brief email exchanges with Turley. You might email him saying that you’d like to read the article but haven’t found it, and asking for a preprint. You could add that you’re wondering if it’s in press for 2022, and 2021 was a typo. In my experience, faculty are generally happy to send preprints to interested readers and are also happy to send a copy when an article has been published but is paywalled. Faculty want their work to be read.

      1. “You might email him saying that you’d like to read the article but haven’t found it, and asking for a preprint. ”

        While doing so, jeffie, you might want to tell Turley he is a hypocrite and libel him to his face instead of in places he doesn’t read. You are such a sissy.

      2. I can wait. I would not be satisfied having a brief email chat with Turley. I really don’t respect him for his remaining silent in the face of all the false narratives and rage spewed by his Fox colleagues. On the other hand, I will credit him and praise him notwithstanding when he deserves it because I am fair minded. He has a lot of explaining to do, and I brief exchange would only frustrate me.

        1. Jeff,

          Totally up to you, I just figured I’d say that I bet Turley would be happy to send you a copy of the article. I may email him to let him know that he’s been citing it as a 2021 article, and he may want to correct that in the future.

          BTW, if you read my exchange with the Meyer in this thread, it will show you why I call him a troll.

          He makes demonstrably false claims, such as “Jeff … didn’t ask for the Harvard link,” and “Jeff … looked for a transcript but seemed not to understand why he couldn’t find it,” and I simply don’t believe that he believes what he’s writing. I quoted your April 5, 3:31 PM comment back to him showing that you never said anything about a talk, much less a talk “transcript,” and that you *did* explicitly ask about a “published law review article” in a “Harvard Journal” with the citation “Jonathan Turley, “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States,” 45 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (2021),” but he just persists in his lies. There’s no way that a good faith discussant can make the claims that Meyer made, as his claims are too much at odds with what you actually said. He also refuses to change his mind about it when presented again with what you actually said. Instead of admitting that he’s wrong, he simply looks for a new line of false claims to make. It’s trolling behavior, and that’s why I call him a troll.

          Any normal person would understand (1) that you were looking for the journal article, (2) the talk comes up as a result for anyone who searches on the article citation, (3) but the talk clearly isn’t the journal article, so (4) you asked here if anyone knew about the journal article. Meyer is a troll, not a normal person.

          1. “He makes demonstrably false claims, such as “Jeff … didn’t ask for the Harvard link,”

            ATS, you are a lunatic. You have been unable to lie because so many people on the blog repeatedly correct you, which has been driving you crazy. Not that you weren’t crazy before, you were, but now you have left earth and are traveling somewhere out in space.

            Below is my earlier response to something similar.

            “Anonymous the Stupid, along with being petty and rude, you are Stupid. Jeff couldn’t find something. It was found by others, though in video form. He didn’t ask for the Harvard link. He was confused as to why he didn’t see it there.

            Here is what he said:
            “I cannot find it in any of the online versions of Volume 45 of the cited Harvard Journal, nor do I find that it was published in 2021.”

            In your tiny mind, everything is a big case. LOL”

            You also remarked: “you [Jeff] were looking for the journal article,” I think it would be more accurate to say he was looking for its contents as he wanted to read it and possibly learn from Turley. He didn’t find it. I and others found a link to an audible copy of what he was looking for. He might find the written word better than the audible, but one would think the audible copy would be better than nothing at all.

          2. Anonymous,

            Since you are more internet savvy than me, can you explain why I don’t see time stamps on my mobile? Is that a feature of computer access?

            What more can be said about S.Meyer that has not been said? The less said about him the better. I try to avoid engaging with him. Typically, his comments are self-identifying since they make you want to bang your head against the wall. It’s not unlike the Russian propaganda claiming that the war crimes discovered in Bucha were staged by the Ukrainians. It’s so patently preposterous that it takes your breath away. That’s a Meyerism.

            Whether he does so maliciously, as would a troll, or simply has a few screws loose, only those close to him can know. I’m just relieved that I’m not alone in recognizing that it is fruitless to converse with him.

            I am very curious to read how Turley argues his free speech thesis to academics as opposed to the general public. In his article, you would expect that he would have to anticipate and address the obvious arguments against his position- something he does not do on this blog.

            1. “Typically, his comments are self-identifying since they make you want to bang your head against the wall.”

              Jeff, thank you for enlightening us. You are a headbanger. Probably when growing up, you banged your head too hard and were left with diminished capacity. I wonder what happened to the wall, but that is not something we need to know. Maybe we finally have the answer to why you act the way you do.

            2. Jeff,

              I tried responding to your question, but it hasn’t shown up. Perhaps the WordPress filter objected to one of the links I included. My guess is that the problem has to do with the plugins on your phone. You could try checking wordpress.org/mobile/
              and/or post a query to
              wordpress.org/support/welcome/

              Unrelated, I thought you’d enjoy Judge Middlebrooks response to Trump’s Motion to Disqualify:
              https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157.30.0.pdf
              I especially enjoyed footnote 3.

              1. Anonymous,

                Thanks again for the link! Reading that opinion was certainly amusing. The judge concludes:

                “When I became a federal judge, I took an oath to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties . . . under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 453. I have done so for the last twenty-five years, and this case will be no different.”

                When one is a chronic and habitual liar as is Trump, the idea that anyone would observe an oath is not taken seriously. Since he isn’t honest, it’s only natural for Trump to project that everyone is no different. A liar can rationalize lying because “everybody does it”- only a sucker wouldn’t.

                The sad fact is that Trumpists think like Trump; oaths are not kept in a “Deep State.” Of course, Turley doesn’t subscribe to the Deep State myth and would likewise dismiss Trump’s preposterous arguments like this judge. Perhaps, Turley will reflect upon it here; certainly, you won’t hear about it on Fox primetime.

        2. “I would not be satisfied having a brief email chat with Turley.”

          You are a coward.

  6. CONSPIRACY
    ___________

    “Durham Hints at a Conspiracy Involving Agents of Hillary Clinton’s Campaign to Harm Trump [United States] with Russia Collusion Hoax”

    “A new filing by special prosecutor John Durham hints at a conspiracy involving agents of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in order to harm Trump’s campaign and presidency with the Russia collusion hoax.”

    – Cristina Laila

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/durham-hints-conspiracy-involving-agents-hillary-clintons-campaign-harm-trump-russia-collusion-hoax/
    ____________

    18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

    If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history. The co-conspirators are:

    Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,

    James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Sally Yates,

    James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove,

    Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper,

    Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power,

    Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,

    Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, Gen. Milley, George Soros, John McCain,

    Marc Elias, Igor Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Charles H. Dolan, Jake Sullivan, Strobe Talbot,

    Cody Shear, Victoria Nuland, Ray “Red Hat” Epps, Don Berlin, Kathy Ruemmler, Rodney Joffe,

    Paul Vixie, L. Jean Camp, Andrew Whitney et al.

  7. UPDATE – TURLEY BLOG ARTICLE

    “Texas Man Who Fatally Shot Girlfriend’s Ex-Husband Will Not be Criminally Charged: AG Paxton”
    _____________________________________________________________________________

    “A Texas man who fatally shot his girlfriend’s ex-husband last year will not be criminally charged.”

    “Video footage taken from two different vantage points shows the boyfriend Kyle Carruth, and Chad Read, the ex-husband of Christina Read, in a heated argument over picking up their son from Kyle’s home.

    “The argument that took place on the front porch of Carruth’s home led to the shooting death of Chad Read after Read attempted to wrestle for the gun.

    “Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that a grand jury did not indict Carruth because he acted in self-defense.”

    – Cristina Laila

  8. It is instructive that Professor Turley is consistently invited and seen as a valuable resource to Members of Congress unlike the Leftist lawyers who preen for attention on MSNBC. Impressive!

  9. I recall years ago hearing an advertisement on the radio for a company called Verbal Advantage. They had a clever tag line which went something like this:
    “People judge you by the words you use” or “People judge you by the way you speak.”

  10. Seems to me that the key thing about foreign agents registration is to lay out a specific criteria and then lay out specific punishments for different levels of transgressions. There seems to be some major discrepancies between reported instances of running afoul of this act and the punishments handed out. Maybe some limitation on prosecutorial discretion and specific limits on judges sentencing discretion.

  11. Turley is sure to tell whomever is listening that poor Mike Flynn who pleaded guilty got a raw deal, because in Turley’s view nothing Trump’s team did, “rises to the level”.

Leave a Reply