There is an old fable of a scorpion who wants to cross a river and convinced a hesitant frog to carry him on its back. After all, if he stung the frog in the river, they both would die. That seemed logical so the frog agreed to do so only to have the scorpion deliver a lethal sting halfway across. When the frog asked why the scorpion would doom them both, the scorpion replies: “I am sorry, but I couldn’t resist the urge. It’s in my nature.”
The story came to mind this week when the new head of the Disinformation Governance Board, Nina Jankowicz, pledged to protect free speech despite a career dissing and dismissing the right. After withering criticism of her appointment, Jankowicz declared the new board at Homeland Security will “maintain the Dept’s committment [sic] to protecting free speech.” She has spent a career denouncing “first amendment zealots” like myself who believe in a robust view of free speech.
As previously discussed, Jankowicz has made a career as an advocate for public and corporate censorship as well as spreading disinformation. She has been a popular figure on the left in assuring audiences that “the ‘free speech vs censorship’ framing is a false dichotomy.”
Not surprisingly, she was one of the first to express outrage at the notion that Elon Musk might restore free speech rights to Twitter:
“I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities … which are already shouldering … disproportionate amounts of this abuse.”
Jankowicz has declared disinformation to be “an American pathology” and said that Joe Biden is the doctor who can cure that condition.
That pathology, however, appears to largely manifest itself on the right for Jankowicz who has been criticized for spreading disinformation on subjects like the Hunter Biden laptop. She is also a huge advocate of censorship, including calls to ban conservative publications from social media.
In her article, “How to Defeat Disinformation: An Agenda for the Biden Administration” in Foreign Affairs in November of 2020, Jankowicz wrote that Biden needed to get into the business of regulating speech in a big way. Despite the outcry of many of us over the expansive censorship programs on social media, Jankowicz was not satisfied. She dismissed those programs as merely
“temporary, surface-level changes to curb the spread of false claims, but [social media companies] continue to profit from the very structures and imperatives that are now driving groups of Trump-supporting, reality-denying vigilantes to rally at ballot counting centers across the country.”
That has led Jankowicz to call for good old-fashioned government controls over speech if Biden is going to take the threat of disinformation “seriously.” She has pushed the same European censorship efforts that were recently championed by Hillary Clinton after the Musk takeover.
Jankowicz wanted Biden to “creat[e] a counter-disinformation czar within the National Security Council and setting up a corresponding directorate.” That “directorate” was created in Homeland Security instead.
Turns out, the Biden administration gave this new power to the Department of Homeland Security.
Jankowicz, however, is now assuring the public that it has nothing to fear with our new Disinformation Tsar on its back. In history, the shores of civil liberties are littered with dead frogs who accepted that “trust me, I’m the government” assurance.
218 thoughts on ““Trust Me, I’m [Now] The Government”: Jankowicz Pledges to Protect Free Speech Rights”
It is time to make censorship a crime
What’s your proposed legislation / constitutional amendment (since depending on what you’re proposing, you might need to amend the Constitution for your proposal to pass constitutional muster)?
I don’t think you’d need an amendment to the Constitution. If a government agency wrongfully censors (i.e., violating 1st A rights), and such is adjudicated by the courts, the agency should be subject to civil penalties paid to the aggrieved party. Maybe extend that liability to the head of the agency (that’d be fun!).
If a private actor, you would have to demonstrate either that the entity is operating in something akin to “under color of law” (e.g., DHS’s new Truth Directorate requests something be censored) or the entity’s platform is such that it has become a marketplace forum (See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) as a starting point; not dispositive). Then civil penalties would lie. A fine of $100,000 per unlawful censorship might focus the mind wonderfully.
Manny’s statement, “It is time to make censorship a crime,” was quite broad. I responded to that broad statement.
If, for example, Manny wishes to make it illegal for a social media company to delete a comment that violates the company’s Terms of Service, then Manny’s wish violates the company’s own 1st Amendment rights. THAT could only be overcome with an amendment modifying the company’s 1st Amendment rights.
In the case of private actors, you’re over-engineering the solution to the problem (if problem exists). It is not a matter of tuning up the 1st Amendment. You can leave that as is (if I was going there, I’d probably only work on making it easier to sue for defamation). I’m not saying it could be dealt with solely by statute, given the constitutional issues, but by court decisions such as Pruneyard. Especially where the court believes the private entity is acting in concert with and/or at the behest of government. Directly or indirectly (see news story yesterday about Biden Administration “admonishing” Politico for not covering his policies the right way in their view). Or that a social media platform has become so ubiquitous that it comes under the 1st A for the benefit of society at large.
I don’t know what court rulings you’re imagining, but Pruneyard didn’t make anything a crime.
Again, Manny said “It is time to make censorship a crime.”
And I said make it a civil penalty.
This just in: Twitter loses bid to toss Alex Berenson lawsuit https://politi.co/3KpUv80 via @politico
“If a private actor . . .”
So you want a “law” that violates the rights of private citizens, e.g., to property, and to associate and not associate with who they want?! In the name of “protecting” a right, you want the government to initiate force against individuals and companies.
In principle, there is no difference between the government banning speech, and the government compelling a person to publicize speech. More broadly, there is no such thing as the “right” to violate the rights of others.
You apparently didn’t understand the qualifiers: The private entity is either acting “under color of law” or the private entity has become so ubiquitous that it has become “the public square”. I think both can be argued vis-a-vis the major social platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. It’s a relatively complex argument and may be beyond your understanding. I don’t mean that in a judgmental way, I only mean that you may not be well-versed in constitutional precedent and statutory laws.
“. . . It’s a relatively complex argument . . .”
Your conclusion is crystal clear. Your appeal to complexity is merely smoke and mirrors.
“. . . it comes under the 1st A for the benefit of society at large.”
You use collectivism (the “public good”) to rationalize the destruction of, for example, the rights to contract and to property.
” . . .that a social media platform has become so ubiquitous . . .”
And *that* is the evil of your argument. A company’s owners and management use their productive abilities to make a product fabulously popular (“ubiquitous”). Your response to that success is not to protect and reward them. But to punish them.
Not sure how requiring, say, Twitter to allow people to speak is “punishment”. Isn’t the model for Twitter people speaking? You don’t explain that. Not sure how making a “public square” argument is “evil”. You don’t explain that, either. In terms of the latter, the courts have recognized the phenomenon of a private venue being treated as public for purposes of allowing speech. I’ve previously cited one case in that sphere: PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).
The *evil* actions are those that seek to turn a forum into an echo chamber for one point of view, that hides true facts it finds inconvenient to its own beliefs and suspends speakers simply for being contrarian…and then labels that speech as “hate” only as a cover to hide their anti-speech intent. And the shareholders be damned.
“Not sure how requiring, say, Twitter to allow people to speak is ‘punishment’.”
That “requiring” is government force, compulsion, coercion. It is the government injecting physical force into a free market transaction. That “punishment” is usurping Twitter’s rights (e.g., to property, contract, association).
Statists always use the collectivist notion of public “good,” common carrier, public square to rationalize government control of an industry. Public ownership of the means of production is not capitalism. It’s a page from Marx.
That “echo chamber” is a separate issue. A private company has the right to set whatever terms of trade it desires. It has the right to refuse service. You may not like those terms or their implementation (as I don’t agree with Twitter’s). But it’s not your company. The civilized reaction is to take your business elsewhere.
You are simply arguing in circles and ignoring the point that the courts have held that, at some point, it is possible for a private enterprise to cross a line into public (government) oversight. Whether it is Pruneyard applied to Twitter or the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 applied to Big Tech in general. None of those would be considered Marxist, none would be taking the means of production. All would be intended to foster fair and free trade…..and free speech.
Your appeal to (wrongly decided) court opinions is the fallacy of legalism. This is an issue of *rights*, not of court precedent.
Free trade and free speech include the absence of the initiation of physical force (whether by an individual or the government). What you, and others, demand is for the government to inject its police powers into a free market transaction. Playing games with words does not rescue you from that fact.
More meaningless, circular, argument. Goodbye.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
– Sir Edmund Burke
Good actual American men, wake the —- up!
“The lunatics have taken over the asylum.”
– Richard A. Rowland
FIVE YEAR PLANS AND NEW DEALS WRAPPED IN GOLDEN CHAINS
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”
– Ronald Reagan
Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) propose a little bit of student loan forgiveness.
This is completely and irredeemably idiotic communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) incrementalism.
All student debt will be cancelled before you know it and those “evil greedy” taxpayers will be left holding the bag.
Americans are too oblivious to know when they’ve been beguiled, or just too stupid to care.
“Smaller, targeted amounts of student loan forgiveness are more likely to benefit struggling Americans, report claims”
The pause on student loan repayments has been extended. But as the Aug. 31 deadline looms, the conversation around student loan forgiveness has again intensified. About 38 million Americans had a total federal student loan debt of about $1.38 trillion as of December, according to the New York Federal Reserve. But who benefits from proposed blanket forgiveness policies that have been proposed in recent years by Democrats? A new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York looked at the impact of both $10,000 and $50,000 forgiveness of federal student loans—as well as capping the eligibility of student loan forgiveness to those earning less than $75,000. Leading Democrats including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) have repeatedly pushed for President Joe Biden to permanently cancel up to $50,000 per person of loan debt. Biden and other Democrats, meanwhile, have indicated support for a smaller level of forgiveness, around $10,000. It turns out that while forgiving a larger amount does mean more Americans benefit, using a smaller forgiveness amount and a more targeted approach—such as an income cap—means the programs are much more likely to benefit borrowers who are more likely to struggle with repayment. Not only that, the U.S. would spend less money forgiving the loans of Americans who are likely to repay their loans anyway.
– Megan Leonhardt, Fortune, April 21, 2022
Who’ll Stop The Rain
Long as I remember the rain been comin’ down
Clouds of mystery pourin’ confusion on the ground.
Good men through the ages tryin’ to find the sun.
And I wonder still I wonder who’ll stop the rain.
I went down Virginia seekin’ shelter from the storm
Caught up in the fable I watched the tower grow
Five year plans and new deals wrapped in golden chains.
And I wonder still I wonder who’ll stop the rain.
Heard the singers playin’, how we cheered for more.
The crowd had rushed together tryin’ to keep warm.
Still the rain kept pourin’, fallin’ on my ears
And I wonder, still I wonder who’ll stop the rain.
– John Fogerty, 1970
Biden shakes hands with the air, takes orders from the Easter Bunny, cannot take simple questions from reporters (who must submit their questions beforehand), cannot complete a sentence. It is overtly obvious. Watching the reporter’s dutifully following along is painful to watch. The President barely has a schedule and spends much of his time in his home.
So who is really running the administration? I played hours and hours of the cards and games like Battle Ship as a youth. One eventually figured out the opponent by watching the hands they play. This is the same.
Why is the Biden administration encouraging the illegals, drugs, and human traffickers at the border? Why are they undermining the energy sector? Why are they waging war on the middle class and small businesses owners? Why are they fervently seeking to shut down free speech?
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to fugue it out. They hate the United States of America and what it stands for. They seek to destroy our way of life. They despise free thinking, independent citizens and dissent. They cannot “build back better” unless they destroy what presently exists.
I call it “Broke Back Better.” 🙂
Rwanda, 1994, Hate Speech Goes Mainstream
In Rwanda, we know what can happen when political leaders and media outlets single out certain groups of people as less than human.
By the mid-1990s, the Hutu leadership was in jeopardy. Multiple political factions had emerged, and the insurgent Rwanda Patriotic Front, an organization composed mostly of young Tutsi exiles, had entered the country. For Hutu leaders, it was time to play the Tutsi card. Extremist publications had sprung up, especially a newspaper called Kangura.
But it was the private radio station RTLM—which stands for Radio Télévision Libre de Mille Collines—that illustrates the power of hate media. Rwanda had an official radio station, but Hutu hard-liners came up with the idea of creating a private radio station to carry incendiary anti-Tutsi propaganda.
Joseph Goebbels said, “That propaganda is good which leads to success, and that is bad which fails to achieve the desired result. It is not propaganda’s task to be intelligent; its task is to lead to success.” RTLM was very successful. It managed to plant a seed of discord among the moderate Hutus who were slowly drawn into the extremist fold.
At the beginning of 1994, it was evident that the country’s leadership was planning something sinister, on a much larger scale than had ever been imagined. Just a month before the genocide, RTLM’s Noël Hitimana gave the first hint over the radio:
On the day when people rise up and don’t want you Tutsi anymore, when they hate you as one and from the bottom of their hearts … I wonder how you will escape.
The government’s propaganda machinery had carried out its task meticulously. Four weeks later, all the demons descended on Rwanda. Blood was flowing on the streets. The Tutsi were hunted down without mercy; they were killed in schools, churches, hospitals, and even prisons.
Today, the leaders of powerful nations use dehumanizing language in describing certain groups of people. In mass-shooting incidents, people die because someone has deemed them subhuman on account of their race or religion.
In Rwanda, our history shows where talk of cockroaches and snakes can lead. Rwanda is recovering, but it is a wonder that the country is still intact.
Professor Turley has spent years extolling the virtues of ‘free speech’. But we have never seen a column by Turley describing a situation like Rwanda’s where media was used to incite genocide. ‘Free speech’ sounds very noble. Yet even more noble would be an articulate framework to prevent ‘free speech’ from inciting mass violence. In this regard Professor Turley is an empty vessel offering no guidance whatsoever.
Anonymous, the genocide in Rwanda was the result of overpopulation alone. Jared Diamond wrote about it, so you need to catch up.
Speaking of overpopulation, who is trying to overpopulate the USA?
Now let’s look at the censors’ side of the ledger. Stalin had 20 million. Mao had 40 million, I believe. Pol Pot had a at least 1,000,000. God only knows about Hitler. I lost count with North Korea.
No, the genocide in Rwanda was NOT “the result of overpopulation alone.” Overpopulation was A factor, not THE sole factor.
Overpopulation was the main factor. The rest was just an excuse to cull the herd.
BTW, do you have a response to my point about all those good speech regulators who wound up killing more people than you or I could count in a lifetime?
Let’s go with overpopulation and grant that argument. Nevertheless hate speech over radio lit the match that triggered the bloodbath. And your argument seems to be that ‘Violence from hate speech is an acceptable risk to avoid communism’. ..How contrived..!
One doesn’t have to be too terribly paranoid to fear far-right elements in the U.S. will resort to flagrant hate speech. The QAnonization of the Republican party is certainly a step towards a Rwanda-like scenario.
More On Rwanda’s Radio Télévision Libre de Mille Collines
Bill Clinton is responsible for the Rwandan Holocaust. How is it within the realm of possibility that informed people can discuss that tragedy and never mention his role? Could it be the monopoly of the left-wing, hate-driven, liberal media that offers cover for a depraved, lying coward and monster like slick?
You can add “deplorables” to the “talk of cockroaches and snakes”,
Actually Rwanda shows how Government controlled speech can lead to bloody violence.
BTW genocide between Hutu and Tutsi predates radio.
“‘Free speech’ sounds very noble. Yet . . .”
That “yet” always heralds a censor — and a power-luster.
And note the dishonest technique of those who usurp rights:
Pick a disaster (real or imagined). Allege that the disaster is caused by someone acting on that right. And thus frighten people into surrendering that right. (If you need another example of that vicious technique, see all the fascist restrictions rationalized by the “Covid ticking clock.”)
There’s no such thing as “misinformation, disinformation”, etc. and etc. For that matter, there’s really no “fake news.” It’s all information and it’s up to the recipient to decide what to do with. The idea of governme3nt regulating information is EXACTLY why James Madison conceived the “First Amendment” to the Constitution that so many in Virginia feared would lead to monarchy.
There is such a thing as misinformation.
misinformation, noun, “false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.”
It’s a fact that some claims are false and that people sometimes lie (i.e., make false statements intended to deceive). Why are you claiming there is no such thing?
“The idea of governme3nt regulating information …”
The government has long regulated the use of some information. For example, the government regulates some kinds of drug information (e.g., info that is required by law to be provided to consumers about drug safety) and also regulates the privacy of information in some ways (e.g., via HIPAA).
There are specific categories of speech that are outside the scope of 1st amendment protections. In Alvarez, the Supreme Court declined to expand those categories to include false speech in and of itself. Falsity may be a requisite element of such unprotected speech as libel, fraud, perjury, and lying to an official, but Alvarez clarified that the falsity of speech alone does not make it unprotected. So it is unconstitutional for the Government to prevent or punish speech on the basis that it is false.
“it is unconstitutional for the Government to prevent or punish speech [solely] on the basis that it is false.”
Did someone say otherwise? (I didn’t.)
That said, there a multiple crimes where falsity is an element of the crime, such as 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (false advertising) and 18 U.S.C. Ch. 47 (fraud and false statements).
As I said. Do you agree that if the DGB seeks to prevent or punish false speech that would be unconstitutional?
You chose not to respond the questions I asked you this morning:
And you also ignored the question I asked you in my 4:58pm comment.
This should be a two-way street. After you answer the questions I’d asked earlier, then I’ll answer yours.
In the meantime, I’ll say that I think the conditional clause in your question is a huge “if,” and I’ve yet to see any evidence that it’s charged with anything along those lines.
In other words, he has cornered you.
If it does that would it be unconstitutional?
My questions to you preceded your question to me.
As long as you refuse to answer the questions I’d asked you, then I’ll respond in kind and refuse to answer yours.
As soon as you answer mine (which came first), then I’ll respond in kind and answer yours.
Your poorly delivered your question. You need to learn how to ask a proper question.
AMERICA MUST BE TAKEN BACK…TO THE FUTURE, 1787
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can take it back.”
– Ben Franklin, 2022
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
“We told you so.”
“You wouldn’t stand for something, the “manifest tenor,” so you fell for everything.”
“Have you noticed?”
– The American Founders and Framers, 2022
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
Place America back under the dominion of the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which would privatize education and most governmental agencies and departments.
Apply strict vote criteria and election protocols by State legislatures.
Repatriate and onshore industries and jobs for American men; stop the fertility rate “death spiral.”
Deport illegal aliens from 1863 forward.
Repeal the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments.
The Biden administration, consisting of Ronald Klain, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, Barack Obama et al. under the command of the globalist, collectivist, Deep Deep State “Swamp,” is a direct and mortal enemy of the Constitution, Americans, and the United States of America.
The entire American welfare state of wack jobs is irrefutably and treasonously antithetical and unconstitutional; the Constitution severely limits and restricts government, not individuals, not People.
Central planning, control of the means of production, redistribution of wealth, and social engineering are unnatural, ungodly, counterintuitive, immoral, un-American, antithetical, illicit, illegal and unconstitutional.
Ari Melber, MSNBC loon: “If you own all of Twitter or Facebook or what have you, you don’t have to explain yourself, you don’t even have to be transparent, you could secretly ban one party’s candidate or all of its candidates, all of it nominees. Or you could just secretly turn down the reach of their stuff and turn up the reach of something else and the rest of us might not even find about it ’til after the election.”
Having no sense of humor just makes the left boring. Having no sense of irony is what makes them dangerous.
Diogenes: Best sentence out here today: “Having no sense of humor just makes the left boring. Having no sense of irony is what makes them dangerous.” thank you!
Great minds think alike, Lin. Thank you! 🙂
The only bigger fool than “anonymous” is someone who wastes time reading and responding to “anonymous.” There is a reason that “anonymous” is anonymous. This person does not even have the courage to put his name to his mindless fact-free screeds.
“The Disinformation Governance Board”
We need a test case. I’ll volunteer.
Dear DHS Ministry of Truth:
Covid was created by Democrats to infect the brains of Republicans. As were the vaccines.
I freely admit that that comment is disinformation, and eagerly await a visit from your Disinformation Compliance Officers.
An Unrepentant Disinformationist
You’re waiting for something that won’t occur.
How dare you, you un-American, Trump loving, anti vaccine, global warming denying, gun toting, January 6th participating parasite!
“. . . our new Disinformation Tsar . . .”
I few months ago, I could not understand the motivation behind the amped up smear campaign against Turley. Now I do understand. The fascists knew that they were going to unveil this Ministry of Truth. And they know that Turley is one of the greatest obstacles to their lust for censorship. Thus, the word went out: Destroy Turley. At any cost.
This discussion is reminding me of my favorite childhood story – “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Perhaps I should take Ms. Jankowicz aside and clue her in on something. The most obvious source of disinformation is the President himself. His commentary about matters of importance to us all is just plain delusional.
“. . . reality-denying vigilantes . . .” (Jankowicz)
In other words: Our Higher Authorities are the arbiters of reality. Dissenters can expect a night-time visit from our enforcers.
The Left has gone full-blown totalitarian.
No, not “in other words.”
She’s talking about “Trump-supporting, reality-denying vigilantes … [who] rally at ballot counting centers across the country” in November of 2020 after the election, as Trump continued to claim promote his Big Lie. Do you deny that some Trump supporters threatened election officials after the 2020 election? Do you need a reminder? Here you go: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/threats-to-election-officials-piled-up-as-president-trump-refused-to-concede/
“Do you deny . . .”
Peddle your snake oil elsewhere.
If you had lived during the “Reign of Blasphemy and Heresy,” you’d have been a useful Apologist.
Are you referring to a fact — that some Trump supporters threatened election officials after the 2020 election — as “snake oil”?
It is your whataboutism that is snake oil.
Rayless, pointing out that the phrase Sam quoted — from “Trump-supporting, reality-denying vigilantes … [who] rally at ballot counting centers across the country” in November of 2020 — is not “whataboutism.”
Sam said; ““. . . reality-denying vigilantes . . .” (Jankowicz)”
It was you who posted the more *complete* quote (with apparent edits);;
“Trump-supporting, reality-denying vigilantes … [who] rally at ballot counting centers across the country”.
Why are you attributing to Sam that which you said? Also, where did this quote come from? Are you trying to pull a ‘Schiff’ on me?
“Why are you attributing to Sam that which you said?”
I’m not. I said “the phrase Sam quoted” (i.e., “reality-denying vigilantes”) came “from” a longer statement Jankowicz made, and when Sam said “in other words …,” he pretended that she was implying something that she was not implying.
“where did this quote come from?”
Too lazy to do a simple text search on the page to find it?
It came from Jankowicz’s Foreign Affairs article that was cited by Turley in his column.
No, you didn’t say that at all.
Ray: Thanks. I didn’t feel like explaining to one who is willfully blind.
You’re quite welcome Sam.
It doesn’t matter what Trump or his supporters say. They have a right to say it, over and over and over again, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks or worse yet, feels about it. You don’t get a say in what others say or think. You don’t get to circumscribe what others say because of how you feel. Grow up and more importantly, toughen up, or go self-immolate. I don’t want to live with such shrinking violets in my midst.
“It doesn’t matter what Trump or his supporters say.”
Sure it does.
It matters whether people are truthful!
It matters whether some people threaten others with their speech!
If you think truthfulness and threats don’t matter, then I have to question your morals.
“They have a right to say it, over and over and over again”
Actually, true threats of violence are not protected speech: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats
Here’s an example of someone charged for threatening election officials after the 2020 election: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21184045-chad-stark-charges
“Grow up and more importantly, toughen up, or go self-immolate.”
SMH that someone who tells another to “go self-immolate” thinks that the other person is the one who needs to grow up.
If you’re really troubled by what I said, then I stand by all of it. You are weak and sniveling, and I will enjoy continuing to taunt and revile you, because you are beneath me. You are not fit to live as a free person.
Anyone who supported Trump has a right to be outraged and to demand answers. Election officials or anyone else involved in our elections are not and should not be immune to scrutiny. I don’t care if Democratic election officials ever felt afraid – if they were being honest, they wouldn’t have been covering windows with plywood or ejecting Republican colleagues before counting votes. The language of fear, or of feeling threatened, of couching perceived threats in terms of feelings and emotions, these things are all subjective and cannot be proven. They are tools to be used to control speech and to play psychological games for social or political advantage. They cannot be the foundation of a robust and free society.
“I will enjoy continuing to taunt and revile you”
Thanks for outing yourself as a troll.
“Actually, true threats of violence are not protected speech:”
You are correct true threats of violence are not protected speech. I don’t believe people are arguing that. However, having a different view IS protected speech and that is the case whether is true or not. If something is not true open debate will expose that. If something is true open debate will also expose that and in a much broader and enduring way than just shutting down debate on the subject. If something is true and factual you should be willing to debate those who you think are presenting a false view. Over the long arc of debate information will surface and evolve and the truth will prevail. And the fact there will always be a few who won’t accept it does not matter. We still have people who believe the Earth is flat – and we shouldn’t be thinking about punishing or even “threatening” them.
If your example manages to make it to SCOTUS the prosecution will fail.
There are many elements necescary for what you call a “true threat” – one that can be criminalized.
This is missing most.
You do not seem to grasp that all heinous and offensive even immoral speech is not illegal.
Most of it is not.
Nor should it be illegal. Who defines what is heinous and offensive or immoral? There were and are many things said about Donald Trump that would be considered heinous and offensive or immoral by many people. Would you ban their speech?
Oh and where does the Constitution say you have a right to not be offended?
Do you deny that full coverage and exposure of the Hunter Biden laptop would have swung voters by ~17%; people who voted Biden would not have voted Biden? It was not covered or, if mentioned at all, was branded as “Russian disinformation”. The NY Post was banned from Twitter. But you and your cohort were perfectly fine with that abuse of power and blatant effort to swing an election for their favored candidate. Just as you’re perfectly fine with the Democrat’s propaganda turning trespassing into insurrection; an insurrection with no guns, no bombs and where the only violent death was of an unarmed female protestor shot by a police Lt. who was never fully investigated, much less prosecuted.
“Do you deny that full coverage and exposure of the Hunter Biden laptop would have swung voters by ~17%”
I doubt that there’s any way to know how much full — and, importantly, accurate — coverage of Biden’s laptop would have swung voters, and I think it’s a fool’s errand to cherrypick a single issue while ignoring other issues for which full, accurate coverage might also have influenced voters.
You certainly do not present any evidence for your claim, and you make no attempt whatsoever to identify other issues that might have likewise influenced voters’ choices in both directions.
“But you and your cohort were perfectly fine with that abuse of power and blatant effort to swing an election for their favored candidate.”
I suggest that you not project beliefs onto me. It’s counterproductive.
“you’re perfectly fine with the Democrat’s propaganda turning trespassing into insurrection”
Again: I suggest that you not project beliefs onto me. It’s counterproductive. If you want to discuss what I’ve actually said about Jan. 6, I’d be happy to discuss what I’ve actually said.
copycatting “I suggest”
Doubt all you wish, here’s just one poll: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2020/11/24/special-report-stealing-presidency-2020 .
Your repeated use of the charge of “projection” is simply revelatory of your inability to respond substantively. It is a shallow tactic meant to obscure the weakness of your position. The point was “not what you said” but was, in fact, your distortion of facts and, importantly, what you choose to ignore. Just as the MSM chooses to ignore facts/news that may be inimical to their favored candidate or political party.
Did you bother to click through and read that poll?
It does NOT substantiate your claim that “full coverage and exposure of the Hunter Biden laptop would have swung voters by ~17%”
First, it was not a poll of voters in general (e.g., it was not a national poll, it was not a random or representative sample of voters).
Second, it’s a push-poll that asks loaded questions.
Third, it did not ask about the laptop!
“Your repeated use of the charge of “projection” is simply revelatory of your inability to respond substantively”
No, I repeat the word “project” twice because you twice made false claims about me that have no basis in what I actually wrote — in your claims “you and your cohort were perfectly fine with that abuse of power and blatant effort to swing an election for their favored candidate” and “you’re perfectly fine with the Democrat’s propaganda turning trespassing into insurrection”
How bizarre to suggest that I “respond substantively” to lies. When someone lies about me, my response is to call out the lie, not to pretend that the lie is true.
“The point was “not what you said” but was, in fact, your distortion of facts and, importantly, what you choose to ignore.”
Of course the point is what I said!!!
If you’re going to make allegations about me, based them on what I actually said, not on your imagination about me.
You allege the following, but you do not provide a shred of evidence for it:
1) “you … were perfectly fine with that abuse of power and blatant effort to swing an election for their favored candidate”
2) “you’re perfectly fine with the Democrat’s propaganda turning trespassing into insurrection”
3) “your distortion of facts”
I dare you to quote what I wrote that you believe substantiates your 3 allegations.
They polled only Biden voters. “For this report, The Polling Company conducted a national survey of 1,750 individuals living in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin who reported voting for Joe Biden in the 2020 election.
The survey was conducted entirely online, between November 9-18, 2020. The poll has an accuracy of +/- 2.34% at a 95% confidence interval.”
As to the balance, you know I’m not going to try to go through all postings by you on this site. If that’s even possible. You can simply refute my statements and state: “I publicly condemned Twitter and Facebook suspending information regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop”. If you can show where you said that, I’ll be happy to apologize and offer you kudos for being a fair-minded American (assuming you are, in fact, an American).
“They polled only Biden voters. ”
They polled only Biden voters in only 7 states. As I said: it was not a poll of voters in general (e.g., it was not a national poll, it was not a random or representative sample of voters).
Now take a look at the push-poll questions, and confirm for yourself that they did not ask about the laptop.
For all of these reasons, that poll cannot possibly substantiate your claim about voters in general that “full coverage and exposure of the Hunter Biden laptop would have swung voters by ~17%”
“You can simply refute my statements”
It’s not my responsibility to prove your claim false. It’s your responsibility to prove your claim true. You haven’t done so, and apparently you’re not going to try. Attempting to push the burden onto your debate opponent is a fallacy known as “misplaced burden.”
We litterally can not know what would have happened had the truth been exposed.
But we do know that large numbers of democratic voters went to the polls actually beleiving that the Hunter Biden laptop story was russian disinformation, and that Trump rather than Biden was lying about it in the debates.
You can attack poll results if you wish – this poll way done like most are.
But Biden’s approval has tanked. Maybe it tanked because people learned he was corrupt, or incompetent, or a liar, or a fool.
Regardless, his approval has tanked and Trump is now up by 6pts
That approval tanked for a reason – probably several – but nearly all are because Biden, the media and social media LIED about Biden before the election.
You can argue that all those lies are perfectly legal – and the might be.
But they are still immoral – and they are STILL a form of fraud.
WHAT is false?
The poll was limited to the 7 states that would have swung the Electoral College in favor of Trump; the close votes in the states a Biden win was surprising (e.g., Arizona and GA).
Yes, I already pointed out that it was limited to Biden voters in 7 states.
That doesn’t change the fact that it was a push-poll and did not ask about the laptop!
They polled only Biden voters in the seven *swing* states that determined the election. These are the voters that would have swung the election had the truth been revealed.
Ray in SC: Excellent response/comment and it further sheds light on information overlooked/ignored, intentionally or otherwise, thank you!
Rayless, I already knew that they polled only Biden voters in 7 swing states.
But once again, you seem to be having difficulty interpreting comments in context.
Matt suggested that his poll was evidence for his original claim that “full coverage and exposure of the Hunter Biden laptop would have swung voters by ~17%,” when the poll he cited does not substantiate THAT claim.
THAT is what I was pointing out to him.
Do you understand why the poll he cited does not substantiate the claim that “full coverage and exposure of the Hunter Biden laptop would have swung voters by ~17%”?
“These are the voters that would have swung the election had the truth been revealed.”
Are you suggesting that there’s a single truth for voters to understand about the multiple issues that were relevant to voters’ choices?
As I initially told Matt: “I doubt that there’s any way to know how much full — and, importantly, accurate — coverage of Biden’s laptop would have swung voters, and I think it’s a fool’s errand to cherrypick a single issue while ignoring other issues for which full, accurate coverage might also have influenced voters. You [Matt] certainly do not present any evidence for your claim, and you make no attempt whatsoever to identify other issues that might have likewise influenced voters’ choices in both directions.”
The poll in Matt’s article covered eight (8) controversies surrounding Biden that were suppressed or ignored by the media. Hunter’s laptop falls into the second controversy which is described as “the financial scandal enveloping Biden and his son, Hunter (a story infamously censored by Twitter and Facebook, as well as ignored by the liberal media).“
Yet here you are saying (for the second time) “I think it’s a fool’s errand to cherrypick a single issue while ignoring other issues for which full, accurate coverage might also have influenced voters. You [Matt] certainly do not present any evidence for your claim, and you make no attempt whatsoever to identify other issues that might have likewise influenced voters’ choices in both directions.”
You have been complaining about various aspects of this poll yet it appears that you have never actually read it.
This is but one example of why you have no credibility here.
You just quoted a news story about the poll, but what you just quoted does not appear in the poll itself.
Again: the poll did not present evidence to substantiate Matt’s claim “full coverage and exposure of the Hunter Biden laptop would have swung voters by ~17%.”
“You have been complaining about various aspects of this poll yet it appears that you have never actually read it. ”
On the contrary, I *have* read the poll, and perhaps *you* have not, and perhaps you don’t understand the difference between a news story about the poll and the poll itself, and perhaps it’s also hard for you to focus on whether the poll itself substantiates the claim that Matt made: “full coverage and exposure of the Hunter Biden laptop would have swung voters by ~17%.” It does not.
There have been multiple polls,
Though I would note that polls are nothing more than an effort to ascertain what people are thinking.
Further, this was clearly NOT a push poll.
A Push poll asks questions in a misleading way to get people to change their vote.
This was done after the election.
Nor is it the only poll of this kind – Biden’s approval is in the tank.
Further on nearly every issue voters oppose him even more.
His overall approval is getting the benefit of the perception that he is a doddering old fool.
We do not beat fools.
You want to attack the result – lets assume the poll was off by a factor of 10.
And only 1.7% of democratic voters in those 6 states would have changed their votes, or just not voted for Biden.
Even if the poll was off by a factor of ten – all 6 swing states would have flipped.
If the polls was off by a factor of 100 – GA and AZ at a minimum would have flipped.
Attacking the poll does you no good.
But things are getting worse.
Raffensburger – who Defended the 2020 elections now thinks that 6-7% of the mailin votes in GA were fraudulent.
A push poll asks biased questions to sway people’s views, generally — but not exclusively — during political campaigns.
Every single one of their “Messaging Series” questions was either a negative question about Biden or a positive question about Trump.
Anomaly: At first I thought you may be a misguided lawyer. But your continued (as well as constant) overuse of words like “allege” and your constant demands for “evidence” hint otherwise. Can Matt express his opinion and challenge statements you made without your flailing-about with pseudo-legal retaliation? (you and svelaz have remarkably similar response mechanisms.) Oh, and by the way, do you have evidence that the poll cited by Matt is a push-poll?????
Oh, and Please substantiate your claim (with evidence) that the poll cited by Matt used “loaded questions.”
Oh,– and did you just “allege” that your reason for ‘repeat[ing] the word “project” twice’ -without providing any “evidence” to “substantiate” your “claim????” Please stop this silliness. Lighten up, OK?
No, I’m not a lawyer, and I’ve noted that previously.
The words “allege” and “evidence” are not limited to the legal field. It is quite common to work with evidence in STEMM fields, the social sciences, etc. What you call “pseudo-legal” seems to be a misunderstanding of my non-legal use of these terms. Perhaps you also noticed that I use words like “conjecture” more than many people.
Matt can do whatever he wants within the bounds set by Turley.
But if Matt makes a false claim to me, I may well point out that it’s false; if he makes an evidenceless claim, I may ask him for evidence; and if he does something that I consider counterproductive — such as pretending that I believe something I do not believe — I may call him out on it.
“do you have evidence that the poll cited by Matt is a push-poll?”
My evidence is the biased set of questions they asked in their Messaging Series and the fact that MRC owns conservative sites like CNSNews (which MRC identifies as “conservative”). They don’t self-identify as neutral and don’t seem to be aiming to be neutral.
“did you just “allege” that your reason for ‘repeat[ing] the word “project” twice’ -without providing any “evidence” to “substantiate” your “claim????””
Your question makes no sense. You seem to have omitted some text at the end: did I allege that my reason for repeating “project” was ____ . To be clear: I did provide evidence — relevant quotes — for my statement (not an allegation) about why I twice said “project.”
“Please stop this silliness.”
I don’t agree that it’s silly.
Trump lost GA by about 0.25% of he vote. It is pretty easy to see that the 17% figure need not be perfectly accurate to change the result.
If I am incorrectly projecting onto you – that means you agree with me.
Given I doubt that – I am not projecting.
But I would be happy for you to prove me wrong.
You do not seem to grasp that an argument must make sense.
If you want to argue something – you should consider what it means if you are right.
If I ma projecting – that means I am falsely accusing you of disagreeing with me.
Logically that means you agree,
“I am not projecting.”
And I didn’t claim that you were projecting.
I did ask Matt (NOT you) not to project beliefs onto me.
You seem to have badly misinterpreted what I said to Matt (not you).
Matt, we’ve never seen your name before. Just popped our of nowhere?
I drop in now and then. I like sites with people with whom I disagree. This is one.
Is WeHo propositioning Matt?
Once again, you use “we” when you mean “I.” That you, personally, have not seen someone’s previous comments doesn’t mean that the person hasn’t commented before
He’s been around for at least a week: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/23/destroying-democracy-to-save-it-court-advances-effort-to-block-gop-candidates-from-ballots/comment-page-1/#comment-2176928
Matt, we’ve never seen your name before.
Which has no bearing on the substance of his comment
Threatening people can be breaking laws we already have in place. If it is a real threat legal action can and should be pursued. Saying you believe the election was a “Big Lie”, “rigged”, “stolen” or anything else is NOT breaking the law, and it never should be, regardless of whether it is true or not!!!
“Do you deny that some Trump supporters threatened election officials after the 2020 election?
The vast majority did no such thing. And that tiny minority mainly was hot air representing zero threat. A few are crazies seen in all groups, and some may have been leftists, not supporters of Trump. How do we know? We saw some of them in action, and we saw FBI officials trying to get people to do illegal things.
Do you deny Pelosi et al. threatened those supporting policies that she didn’t like? How did they do that? They put Nordean in jail for over a year, spending most of his time in solitary confinement. To date, there is no proof that Nordean acted violently. That was done by Pelosi et al. to threaten Trump supporters.
It is you and your side that is the violent ones. Your side sends the FBI out to push people to violent things or kidnap Governor Whitmer. It is you, who the criminal is.
“She has spent a career denouncing ‘first amendment zealots’ like myself who believe in a robust view of free speech.”
Once again, Turley can’t be bothered to link to the source of a phrase he quotes, so we can see what the person said in context.
Here’s what she tweeted:
“I have been reminded that writing about social media regulation brings all the first amendment zealots out of the woodwork.
“IMPLEMENTING COMMON SENSE TRANSPARENCY REGULATIONS ON ADVERTISING IS NOT A RESTRICTION ON FREE SPEECH. “Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.”
Is Turley saying that he objects to what she was talking about? (I doubt it. I suspect that he simply copied the phrase “first amendment zealots” from someone else who had quoted it, like Sen. Hawley’s lie that “Jankowicz has even described opponents of social media speech codes as ‘first amendment zealots’” — when she very clearly was not talking about speech codes by about advertising transparency regulations — and that Turley never even bothered to find the tweet and read the phrase in context before quoting it.)
He claims “Jankowicz has declared disinformation to be ‘an American pathology’ and said that Joe Biden is the doctor who can cure that condition.” Here’s that phrase in context:
What she wrote in that 11/19/2020 article was “The 2016 U.S. presidential election propelled the threat of disinformation to the forefront of public debate. Americans were shocked by Russian attempts to influence voters by spreading misleading narratives. They had never imagined that a foreign power might use social media and other modern technologies to interfere in their elections. Four years later, it seems that foreign adversaries were not able to meaningfully disrupt the 2020 U.S. presidential election—the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) declared this recent election “the most secure in American history.” But disinformation continues to circulate widely in the country as President Donald Trump refuses to concede to President-elect Joe Biden. Conspiracy theories about the legitimacy of the election’s outcome course through social media, fill the airwaves of certain partisan outlets, and spill from the White House itself. The current impasse is a reminder that disinformation is not just an inchoate foreign threat—it is also an American pathology. …”
No surprise that Turley doesn’t want to address the phrase “an American pathology” in context, because that context is Trump’s Big Lie.
He says “She is also a huge advocate of censorship” and suggests that that is the goal of this DHS governance board when he says “Jankowicz wanted Biden to ‘creat[e] a counter-disinformation czar within the National Security Council and setting up a corresponding directorate.’ That ‘directorate’ was created in Homeland Security instead.”
But if you read her proposal in context, she said “Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, appreciate the magnitude of the problem. The British government convenes foreign and domestic policy officials to develop plans for mitigating online threats and to respond to specific crises, such as the onslaught of Russian disinformation that followed the 2018 poisoning in the United Kingdom of the former Russian intelligence officer Sergei Skripal. The United States should take a similar approach, creating a counter-disinformation czar within the National Security Council and setting up a corresponding directorate. This office would monitor the information ecosystem for threats and coordinate interagency policy responses. It would not try to serve any fact-checking or content moderation role, thereby avoiding accusations of censorship.”
Turley loves to talk about this being the “age of rage,” and he feeds it with his columns, both in his choice of topics and how he writes about them.
Anonymous: As proven by your own comment, Professor Turley merely-but directly, quoted Jankowicz.
Anything beyond that, i.e., -any conclusions as to what he was IMPLYING-and/or what she was truly advocating, are pure inferences on your and others’ part-which may or may not include consideration of “context.” Accordingly, the majority of commenters on this blog site (including you and I) most often express opinions formed from our inferences.
Perhaps conclusory “inferences” that are nonetheless presented as factual are more of an “American pathology” than the underlying facts. Thanks.
“As proven by your own comment, Professor Turley merely-but directly, quoted Jankowicz.”
No, he didn’t “merely … quote Jankowicz.” He quoted her — sometimes pulling quotes out of context and choosing not to link to the source — AND he made claims about both her and her statements.
“any conclusions as to what he was IMPLYING-and/or what she was truly advocating, are pure inferences on your and others’ part”
What “conclusions as to what he was IMPLYING” are you referring to?
I criticized what Turley SAID. For example, he SAID “She has spent a career denouncing ‘first amendment zealots’ like myself who believe in a robust view of free speech.”
But the phrase of hers that he quoted, “first amendment zealots,” did NOT refer to people “who believe in a robust view of free speech.” If you read that phrase of hers in context, it clearly refers to people objecting to “COMMON SENSE TRANSPARENCY REGULATIONS ON ADVERTISING.”
I don’t understand what you mean by “Perhaps conclusory “inferences” that are nonetheless presented as factual are more of an “American pathology” than the underlying facts.” Would you clarify and quote whatever you’re referring to? TIA.
Thank you for proving my point. Your inferences have led you to conclude that your “contextual” references to Jankowicz’s words represent the actual and only time she has made such statements or used those words, and that this is what Professor Turley was referring to.
However, if you take the time to research, she has created quite a record of her views/opinions/posture/philosophy over the years. Several of these are well-documented in numerous publications, as well as in other tweets and public statements. I leave you to your research.
Speaking for myself, SELECTIVE FACT propagation, intending to create certain inferences and conclusions, is the real American pathology. As always, I know how much you like to get the last word in, so please go ahead.
“Your inferences have led you to conclude that your “contextual” references to Jankowicz’s words represent the actual and only time she has made such statements or used those words, and that this is what Professor Turley was referring to.”
First, I provided evidence that it’s AN “actual … time” that she used those words, so that’s not an inference.
Second, it’s a fact that for some of his quotes, he did not link to the sources of the quotes. That’s not an inference either.
Third, re: whether it’s the “only time” she used those words, I searched online prior to making a statement about it, and the sole result that comes up from *her* (rather than someone else quoting her) using the exact phrase “first amendment zealots” is the one I linked to. It’s certainly possible that she used that phrase some other time that didn’t come up in a Google search, and if Turley had simply bothered to link to his source, we would know for certain what the source was. Alas, he did not.
We can be pretty certain that the phrase came from something she wrote, as Turley quoted it as “first amendment zealots” rather than “First Amendment zealots,” and I would expect proper capitalization if Turley — a Constitutional scholar — had transcribed it from a verbal statement, though of course I could be mistaken about that.
For the record, it would not be the first time that Turley quoted a phrase out of context and failed to link to the source of the quoted phrase. It’s actually pretty common for him to do that, and I periodically comment on it. For example, in his column “Garland Gets His Fish: Liberal Activists Move From ‘Pack the Court’ to ‘Sack the AG,’” he originally claimed “Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) on Monday evening told Garland to just ‘do your job’ and get on with the Trump prosecution,” when if he’d bothered to check what Luria said in context, he’d have learned that “do your job” referred to Garland prosecuting Navarro and Scavino — not Trump — for contempt of Congress. Jeff Silberman pointed this out, I emailed Turley about the error, and he posted a correction.
“Speaking for myself, SELECTIVE FACT propagation, intending to create certain inferences and conclusions, is the real American pathology.”
I doubt that that’s any more common in the US than elsewhere.
“I know how much you like to get the last word in”
No, you don’t know that. You apparently believe that, and you assert that, but if you look at my exchanges with people, it’s easy to find lots of examples where the other person has the last word — including in my exchanges with you. Frankly, it’s ironic that you say this right after you made the previous claim, quoted above.
I encourage you not to conflate beliefs and knowledge. Only some beliefs are knowledge; people regularly have beliefs that aren’t knowledge, whether because they believe something false, or they believe that’s an opinion without a truth-value, or their belief is a conjecture with an unknown truth-value, …
I try to distinguish between those of my own beliefs that are knowledge versus something else, though I sometimes fail in that too.
“For the record, it would not be the first time that Turley quoted a phrase out of context and failed to link to the source of the quoted phrase.”
The Anonymous the Stupid guide to argument.
Never take responsibility for one’s actions.
Blame it on someone else.
If everything else fails, blame it on Turley.
FWIW, Turley has now linked to the primary source of the phrase “first amendment zealots” that he’d quoted, so now we know for certain that it is the same as the one I identified.
???? Non-sequitur. First, your inference preceded your knowledge of Turley’s particular reference. Second , Did you notice that the beginning of the professor’s statement that you criticize states, “She has made a career out of….” so using this quote as an example IN NO WAY supports your assertion. That’s like saying that If you call me “linoleum” everyday, and I comment about it by citing your most recent use, my comment is limited to that context. Give it up, bro.
oops, sorry, posted before completing my name.
Think you are very wrong. The man behind the discovery of so much that went on during that election was and is not a Republican but is a Libertarian who has been watching failing government systems for years now. We don’t need a committee set up by Biden because thank God we have a Constitution and no where is it given to the President of all people to perform a very political evaluation – committee or not.
“very wrong” about what?
“”very wrong” about what?”
Is Foggy World one of your sock accounts?
Anonymous, so the banning of Trump and The New York Post from twitter was just about truth in advertising. When she spoke about first amendment zeolites she was speaking about me. What’s this is really all about is that you and Jankowicz want to control what other people can or can not say. If I have to choose between the elimination of the First Amendment and being a zeolite for it remaining in our founding document I will happily take a place in the zeolite column. Her truth in advertising was not directed at companies thar make pop cycles but at the Republican election campaign information. Stalin called information coming from his rivals disinformation and history illustrates the effect of his final solution.
Ti T, I didn’t say and didn’t imply “the banning of Trump and The New York Post from twitter was just about truth in advertising.”
Work on your reading comprehension.
“you … want to control what other people can or can not say”
You’re a lying troll.
Are you getting paid to troll?
So misleading narratives were ivented in 2016?
Joe Biden actually believed it was his calling to be an ‘FDR’ type president.
At no point in his political career did FDR exhibit the kind of cognitive deterioration that Biden is exhibiting.
At no point did FDR’s immediate Staff find the need to ‘walk back’ or ‘correct’ or ‘overrule’ the Commander in Chief.
The shame of it is that Joe’s current group of ‘handlers’ and ‘minders’ prevent him from learning the truth of what he’s allowing them to do in his name, and the adverse consequences on the entire Nation of his (their) policies and actions.
And creating a Ministry of Truth is one heck of a way of telling our remaining Allies around the globe that the USA has abandoned its founding principles, and Joe (his handlers) is a Dictator and it suits his personality just fine —
How many of those voters who voted for him in 2020 want a ‘do-over?’ Polling after polling in recent months indicate the number is in the 100’s of thousands if not millions.
All good points, Richard Lowe!
FDR had a wheel chair but his brain was just fine. Joe ufortunately doesn’t have the latter so the chances of his being a decent President were zero sadly from the very start. And those around him seem to be just fine about his problem so if they get the chance, they will vote for him again.
For real accuracy, FDR was impaired to a significant degree over his last year. He was suffering from the after effects of a major heart attack that was kept from the public and his recurring bouts of “flu” was significant congestive heart failure which was complicated by severe out of control malignant hypertension. He was often distant and drifted off from policy discussions and would not finish them because his attention would lag and then disappear. On occasion he could rally for short periods of time and almost become his prior self. Read “Citizens of London” and Nigel Hamilton’s 3 volume set on FDR at War. Rare photographs were taken of him in later 1944 and 1945 because he lost so much weight and looked awful. He never appeared at the Democratic Convention that fall. He lost the ability to stand even with his braces. Also his medical records were in limited release several years ago and quantified a great what I mention here. Churchill was also often ill at that time and the only robust leader over late 1944-1945 was Joseph Stalin. Read Gen. MacArthurs notes on the Hawaii meeting in June 1944 when he saw saw FDR for the first time in about 7 years. In his notes and conversations he predicted FDR’s death within 1 year. FDR should never have been allowed to run in 11/1944.