Turley Speaks to the Federal Bar Association on the Supreme Court

I have the pleasure this morning of speaking with the Federal Bar Association in Utah. The keynote address is entitled “Dangerous Times for the Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court in the Age of Rage.” Ironically, the topic was selected months ago, but the recent leaking of the draft opinion on abortion and doxing of justices adds a particularly menacing element to the topic.

Last night, the Utah FBA started the conference with an extraordinary event at the Tuacahn Center for the Arts in Ivins, Utah. Tuacahn is an amazing community for the performing arts. It is located in the mouth of the Padre Canyon next to Snow Canyon State Park.

The event featured some of the artists performing at the Center, including local children. It was an incredible performance. I was not aware until last night that this 42,000 acre center is sitting on the land of Orval Hafen, the grandfather of my friend (and Utah FBA president) Jonathan Hafen. It is an incredible legacy for the Hafen family that has created a world-class artistic center outside of St. George, Utah.

The event also featured a wonderful speech on “How to Support and Defend the Constitution in Our Toxic Political Climate” from Judge Tom Griffith, who has returned to private practice and is lecturing at Harvard Law School. His speech was a tour de force on importance of civility and compromise in our democratic system.

Today will feature an array of impressive features including various federal judges and the renowned Supreme Court litigator Carter Phillips from Sidney Austin.

68 thoughts on “Turley Speaks to the Federal Bar Association on the Supreme Court”

  1. Jonathan: It’s nice to see you have changed your tune from arguing protests in front of justice’s homes could be prosecuted under 18USC,Section 1507 to now saying yesterday : “I believe the use of this law…would be a serious blow to free speech and would be difficult to defend in the courts”. But GOP Sen. Tom Cotton apparently only saw your original post and send a letter to AG Garland demanding the prosecution of the protesters. Cotton went so far as to threaten Garland that if he doesn’t swiftly act Cotton will support impeachment proceedings in the next congress. Perhaps you need to send your latest post to Cotton and Rupert Murdock at Fox that also has been pushing for prosecution of protesters under the law.

    The big Q is why the change in your position? I think it’s because your default position is to push Fox’s talking point of the day. That’s why Fox hired you as their “legal analyst”. But then someone, maybe a member of your staff or one your law students, pointed out the weight of legal opinion, based on McCullen v. Coakley, would make it almost impossible to prosecute peaceful protests on public sidewalks and streets.

    It must be difficult these days to balance your need to be perceived as an independent legal scholar and academic and acting as an echo chamber on your paid gig at Fox. It’s a Hobson’s choice…a delicate balancing act. Maybe Rupert Murdock won’t notice you now support the right of peaceful protest. Maybe he will be satisfied you continue to bizarrely argue protesters are “doxing” the justices and the protests amount to “mob rule”. And as protests continue in front of Alito’s home, disturbing his and his family’s domestic tranquility, he will no doubt use the first opportunity to overturn the decision in McCullen. That should satisfy your desire to preserve the sanctity of SC proceedings–even if it means sacrificing “free speech” in the process.

    1. Dennis says:

      “GOP Sen. Tom Cotton apparently only saw your original post and send a letter to AG Garland demanding the prosecution of the protesters. Cotton went so far as to threaten Garland that if he doesn’t swiftly act Cotton will support impeachment proceedings in the next congress.”

      It would be fair-minded of Turley to call out by name those like Cotton who are calling for the criminalization of the peaceful protesters. Like Turley, I do condemn those legal protests because judges are bound not to be influenced by public opinion. Only politicians should be influenced by public protests.

      Unsurprisingly, Turley rarely criticizes Republicans because the Republican Senate is one of his clients! You think he is called upon by the Republicans as its Impeachment witness for nothing? He gets paid as its Constitutional legal advocate. Thus, he does not want to burn his bridges with those Senators; rather, he needs to stay in their good graces.

    2. These SCOTUS inspired “peaceful protesters” are the best argument for abortion I’ve seen. What a ragtag group of miscreants beeatching ‘cause they now have to work at convincing millions (instead of merely 5 black robes) that gratuitous violence against babies or babies in waiting is a societal good and elevation of the rights of womanhood. Good luck with that one zombie horde.

  2. It’s looking like the identity and discipline of the court leaker will be going in the direction of the Hillary emails and the perpetrators of the Steele book of fables.

    1. Roberts told his intent when he handed the investigation to the SCOTUS Marshall.
      The most moderate IT protocols tell exactly who accessed what .when. Every single paper copy can be accounted for. Digital copies are hard to generate, again easy to track.

      1. “Every single paper copy can be accounted for.”

        Really?

        If Justice Thomas prints a copy for himself and brings it home, and Ginni decides to make a copy at home and leak it, how would the Marshals know that?

        1. Very simple. go to Thomas house and scan the hard drive of the printer.

          That’s why it is so easy to track.

          1. You’re assuming that all of the Thomas’s printers have hard drives and that the US Marshals have gone into the homes of the Justices to gather evidence (rather than, for example, just asking each Justice to voluntarily answer some questions).

            In the absence of either a warrant or permission, the Marshals have no legal basis to search the Justices’ homes.

              1. Again: you’re ASSuming that the Marshals have asked for permission to search their homes.

                You have zero evidence that the Marshals have asked for permission to search their homes in the first place.

            1. and that the US Marshals have gone into the homes of the Justices to gather evidence

              That’s the problem. Roberts has not called for the US Marshalls to investigate. Only the SCOTUS Marshalls, Near as I can tell, they don’t even have the power to draft a warrant, to get signed by a judge. Which is why Roberts is never going to release the name, he doesn’t want the evidence. And he especially doesn’t want a person to know, that can be question under oath in front of Congress.
              This really is too simple. It is becoming obvious this is very close to one of the three liberals Justices. Maybe with their full approval. Which ever clerk did the deed, must likely has evidence of having approval to leak the opinion. These are supposed to be the SMARTEST legal minds available. They have to be smart enough to protect their life long dream.

  3. I usually don’t comment on typos. In this instance, however, I will. The last sentence in the column refers to “Sidney Austin.” I think that Professor Turley might have meant to say “Sidley Austin.”

  4. The Age of Rage is a consequence of abandoning the role of moderators, curators, and neutral referees in our national discourse. When national news orgs were bought up by corporations, profit became more important than probity, and now the predominant news format is conflict theatrics — the more incivil, the better for audience ratings.

    The social media platforms abandoned moderated discourse because the idea was to achieve massive scale with algorithms. Algorithms don’t understand meaning and purpose, nor social norms and customs — only humans at this point can understand the dialog to fill a moderator’s role.

    Having a powerful, fast-acting, neutral referee supervising over high-stakes competitions is not a new idea. Every American understands how a Court of Law requires such a role to keep the proceedings on track. We see the same requirement in sports. Without a referee who is neutral, fair, and equipped with on-the-spot powers of intervention, competing parties overrun the rules to gain advantage — you get an escalating deathmatch mentality of “the ends justify the means”.

    The answer is so obvious to me. Why aren’t we inserting neutral, powerful, rapid-response referees where needed in politics and media?

    1. How would you “insert” a “neutral, powerful, rapid-response referee” into a political or media context — what do you mean by “insert”?

      Who would determine who these “neutral, powerful, rapid-response referees” are? These days, even judges often aren’t seen as neutral, nor are the courts generally “rapid-response.”

      Personally, I wish Congress held more hearings that would allow people to be questioned under oath about important political issues, and I wish that the speech and debate clause didn’t protect members of Congress when they lied in congressional hearings.

      1. I agree that “insert” was a poor choice of words….”institute” would have been better.

        Here are a few examples of conflict points that could benefit from neutral referee roles:
        Elections. Who do you go to if your campaign suspects the opposing campaign doing some illegal dirty trick? Many democracies have instituted Election Commissioners who are neutral and set-up to deter and investigate allegations of campaign misconduct. We don’t have anything like that. Sussmann went to DOJ with suspicions of Trump-Russia collusion, but concealed his acting on behalf of the Clinton infowarfare team (Marc Elias, lead). James Comey steered the investigation of similar suspicions to the 7th floor (McCabe/Strzok/Page), a team not vetted for neutrality. If the suspicions were able to be put in front of an Election Commission investigator, detecting the Clinton campaign as the originator of these narratives would have been rapid and decisive. I have elsewhere proposed the U.S. institute a Rapid-Response Election Integrity Office (EIRRO). All federal campaigns would have to spot their lead attorney as an official liaison to EIRRO, giving immediate access to investigate all accusations.

        Without a neutral campaign & elections referee, the US is quite vulnerable to continued disasters like Watergate, Crossfire Hurricane, and the Biden family influence-peddling operation. We cannot afford election outcomes where the voters only find out about the cheating after the fact — that’s a recipe for major calamity.

        Social Media and Section 230. Tech platforms received protection of defamation suits on the theory that they didn’t operate as publishers with editorial controls. Now that it’s obvious they do favor some contributors and content, that protection should be removed, so that those waging outright deceptive infowarfare campaigns via social media can be sued along with the platform.
        Making Facebook and Twitter accountable for defamation will completely change the game (break their biz models), and they will have to descale by orders of magnitude in order to become human-moderated. By taking away Section 230, these platforms would be forced into human moderation (and forced to concede AI moderation does not work).

        Speaker of the House. In Article I, the Speaker is not a partisan position. The House needs a leader-manager at the helm who has power and can stand astride the partisan factions forcing them into creative compromise. The “capture” of the Speakership as a party-owned property ruins the institution, since there is nobody powerful who can play the role of the neutral mediator. Note how ineffective Speaker Pelosi has been, and before her, Paul Ryan and John Boehner, at legislative productivity (bills crossing the finish line with a Presidential signature). Someone should sue the 2 major parties in Federal Court on the grounds that the Speakership no longer be considered a partisan leader position — an extra-Constitutional contrivance to weaken the contribution of some elected Representatives and strengthen that of others.

        How do you establish and maintain the neutrality of a referee? You have to have oversight by other committed neutrals. Yes, partisans will attempt to capture a referee position if allowed, and there should be punishment for any such attempt. We need to build up a strong coalition of institution-oriented, process-respecting citizens who can think and act in a neutral fashion. You build a culture of honor. We have it in sporting referees. We have it in Court Judges. We can do it elsewhere.

        1. Re: “Sussmann went to DOJ with suspicions of Trump-Russia collusion, but concealed his acting on behalf of the Clinton infowarfare team,” that has been alleged by Durham, but he has not yet proved it in his motions. Instead, he’s said that he’d prove it at trial.

          Sussmann claims that in his meetings with LE about the anomalous Trump-adjacent data, he was only representing Tech Executive-1 (Joffe), not the Clinton Campaign.

          So we will have to wait for the trial (due to start next week) to see whether Durham can prove this allegation.

          “Section 230 … protection should be removed”

          I don’t agree, but it’s a matter of opinion for both of us.

          “Someone should sue the 2 major parties in Federal Court on the grounds that the Speakership no longer be considered a partisan leader position — an extra-Constitutional contrivance to weaken the contribution of some elected Representatives and strengthen that of others.”

          Who do you think has standing to file such a suit?

          “We need to build up a strong coalition of institution-oriented, process-respecting citizens who can think and act in a neutral fashion. You build a culture of honor. We have it in sporting referees. We have it in Court Judges. We can do it elsewhere.”

          Seems to me that it sometimes exists in sports and courts, and other times it doesn’t. There are certainly referee scandals in sports, and there’s a reason that people expect judges nominated by Republicans to rule differently on specific issues (e.g., abortion) than those nominated by Democrats.

        2. “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
          John Adams

          With respect your quest for a neutral referee is not possible,

          No govenrment can ever be designed that will work absent fundimental morality.

          The constitution was net designed for neautral referees, It was designed to pit interest against interest, It was designed to pit passion against passion.
          It was designed such that myriads of potentially partisan groups all had oversight over each other.

          But the CORE to our government was the HOPE that those in power
          ultimately accepted the rule of law.

          All government actions must be conducted according to the rule of law – otherwise there is no trust of govenrment and there is no legitimate govenrment.

          As Madison noted – mean are not angels, and angels do not govern men.

          Our government can tolerate alot of error, partisanship, even some abuse of power.
          But without the rule of law, without a core of morality in those who govern – we are doomed.

          One of the fundimental problems with the left today is it is openly nihilist.

          The left rejects any objective concept of morality.

          To the left – if morality exists – it is subjective.

          That can not work. And as we see it DOES NOT WORK.

  5. We see a small crack of sunshine. A whistle blower coming forward, exposing AG Garlands lie about his actions concerning Spying on public school board meeting.
    Garland claimed he just want to be available to work with State a local agencies on process to protect people.
    I have said for more than 4 years, when it was clear the govt was spying on the Trump campaign, the real problem was the lack of whistle blowers in the FBI and DoJ Thousands of worker bees, knowing egregious constitutional violations, and not a peep from a single soul. That is institutional rot.

    Garland, the nations top cop, lied to Congress. I wonder if he will prosecute when congress forwards a criminal referral.

    The FBI labeled “dozens” of investigations with the threat tag “EDUOFFICIALS,” Representatives Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) and Mike Johnson (R., La.) claimed in their new letter on Wednesday, citing FBI whistleblowers. Jordan and Johnson wrote that the new revelations contradicted Garland’s congressional testimony denying that parents were intentionally targeted under counterterrorism procedures.

    https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-whistleblowers-claim-agents-investigated-024910174.html

    1. To the extent Garland’s memo sent a strong signal to the most militant parents (those considering guerilla tactics of intimidation against school board members) that such covert lawlessness would be come down upon like a ton of bricks, it seems to have worked. What we’re seeing now is more normal political processes at work, such as using elections to replace school board members.

      The idea that Garland was “taking sides” in culture wars over CRT and mask mandates was never more than speculation.

      As a moderate, independent centrist (with experience as a neighborhood group president who had to deal with illegal dirty tricks meant to intimidate), I always felt that Garland’s only interest was to deter intimidation-militancy. It seems to have worked, and hasn’t in any way deterred school board reformists willing to work within the rules. I’m expecting to see many school board seats overturned this fall, and the brakes put on CRT / “social justice” curricula.

      1. I always felt that Garland’s only interest was to deter intimidation-militancy
        Actions not words
        This is not some mid level grunt getting out of his lane. The is the Attorney General of the United States. Zero Constitutional power to insert the federal govt, in local business

        But we have to understand how this happened. The White House wrote a letter, Sent it to the National Association of School Boards, to send to the AG. This was hatched and carried out as a raw political move, using the full power of the Federal Govt to squash, public debate. We can add all the times Garland and Biden said the White House and DoJ never had, nor ever would, work together.

      2. (those considering guerilla tactics of intimidation against school board members)

        What a lie.

      3. When school boards act in direct contravention of the wishes of the parents who elected them you best I want to see some militant intimidation. It’s the people’s job to hold public servant’s feet to the fire, and not just at the next election. They should feel as if the eyes of the people are on every second of every day scrutinizing every single act they take.

        1. I’m taking about militant-intimidation tactics that go over the line into illegality. There’s no problem holding public servants to accountability for policies…through tough questions asked at meetings. Every elected official should expect this, and have the stomach for it.

          What a public official does not sign up for are devious, cowardly expressions of hatred. Examples are: doxxing and intimidating family members about their personal safety (making vague threats), tire slashing, disrupting order at a public meeting so that nothing can be done, asking people to boycott a business owned by the school board member, etc. There are always a few oddballs who think they help the cause by acting out aggressively (illegally or dishonorably), and they have to be reigned in and deterred from that aggression. If not, militants will easily take over all of local politics thru intimidation tactics.

          1. Those are crimes for local law enforcement.
            The Federal government has no jurisdiction.

  6. Some would offer that we in America are living through a time when Rupert Murdoch and George Soros are battling for supremacy.

  7. I post my comments in hopes that fair-minded people who might happen to peruse this blog will be put on notice of Turley’s disingenuousness.

    Follow the link provided, It is great, and needs all the amplification JS can generate. WATCH THE VIDEO!

    1. Iowan,

      Kenneth Starr is going on Mark Levin’s Fox show on Sunday?

      Does it surprise you that Fox legal analyst Turley has NEVER appeared with fellow attorney Levin on his Fox show or his radio show? Does it surprise you that Turley has never mentioned Levin by name in ANY of his articles? What does that tell you?

      Turley wants to keep his distance from this hate-monger.

      1. How does that tin foil hat effact your cell phone coverage?

        It might be as simple that Turley has never done a long format interview. Regardless you retarded logic of deducing intent form words not said is…..retarded.

  8. Welcome to Utah! St George is a beautiful place. The scenery is magical. I live in Northern Utah, near Salt Lake City–my daughter lives in St George, so we get down there frequently. Enjoy your time there!

  9. jeffsilberman is a waste of bandwidth here….has been…always shall be.

    But…the Good Professor allows him to hold forth all day long….as the Professor knows those with a grain of commonsense shall simply consider the source and ignore the comment.

    Those that respond to the Troll merely feed the Troll and accomplish nothing but distracting from the dialogue.

    The polite way to deal with a Troll is to simply ignore the Troll.

    Folks….when I see certain User Names….I just keep scrolling as I choose not to feed Trolls.

    1. Ralph says:

      “The polite way to deal with a Troll is to simply ignore the Troll.”

      Would you please tell John B. Say and S.Meyer and the person who threatened to shoot me in the head with a large caliber rifle and the anonymous individual who encourages me to commit suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge to ignore me? Please?

      Thanking you in advance, Ralph buddy.

      1. Oh, my ! Some fictitious person has purportedly threatened you.

        Rise up oh Jussie Smollet and wrap yourself int he mantle of victimhood !!

        This is trivial Jeff – either you are making a valid argument – or you are engaged in fallacy.

        Given that I can not recall that you have ever made a valid argument about anything – or even a bad approximation of a valid argument – you are inherently engaged in fallacy.

        All discussion with you ultimately devolves to people, not issues. Because you do not debate issues, or facts.

        You rant about people.

        People disagreeing with you makes you feel unsafe,
        Or anyone who disagrees with you is a troll.
        Or they are motivated by hate or religion or some other ludcrously stupid and irrlevant claims.

        I do not give a $hit about your feelings.

        Nor do I care much if others have threatened you. The left has normalized violence against those they disagree with, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

        If you constantly accuse everyone who disagrees with you of baing a racist, sexist, homophobic haterful, hating hater – eventually they WILL come to hate you.

        I have no sympathy for you regarding problems you have made for yourself

        I would further note that the core of your ideology is immoral – it is about using FORCE against others.

        You are under the delusion that if you can gain power by any means you are free to use FORCE to accomplish whatever you want.
        That is immoral. And you should expect that others will resist with FORCE if necessary.

        With very few if any exceptions everyone on the right would have little problem getting along with everyone on the left, if those on the left ceased using force to control other peoples lives.

        The use of FORCE – aka government is RARELY justified. Regardless, if you intend to use force the burden is on you to justify it.

        You want me to use your prefered pronouns – ask politiely – I probably will – if I can remember them, But FORCE me and the answer is no. Or berate me because I can not deal socially with the complex mess you have made were every person in a room must be refered to differently and I can not rely on standard queues – and again – it is YOU that is evil.

        If you are adult and wish to alter your body – your choice, get a tummy tuck or a face like or a mastectomy or an orchidectomy – your business.

        You want to live your live at odds with your chromosomes – your business. But do not piss over others because they can not figure out who or what you are – and often you can not yourself.
        Nor when others laugfh at you – because often you are hilarious.
        Nor when no one will give you a job, because just like nearly no one likes musical disonance, we tend to avoid dissonance in other things too.

        And on and on and on. When your idea of doing good starts with stealling from others – your the problem not the answer, you are evil, not good.

        But you do not make arguments – you tell everyone else how they must live without offering any justification beyond your own beleif that your wishes are good and therefore moral.

        If I own another as a slave, and force them to do good for my neighbor – who earned the moral merit for the good done ? The master who directed the slave to do goof ? Or theslave who did good out of fear of the master ? Was actual good even done ?

        But you do not ever consider whether what you seek is good o evil or whether the means of acheiving good may be worse that not doing good at all.

        And anyone who disagrees – is a troll or enthral to some vague evil power.

        Before you tr running the leves of other – Get your own life in order.

        1. John, that is a wonderful exposition about who and what Jeff Silberman is. I think he was coddled a bit too much by his parents, which directly or indirectly continues through today.

          2000 Mules

      2. I noted my wife is a public defendant.

        Sometimes criminals kill each other. And Public defenders tongue in cheek talk about it as a “public service killing”.

        It is likely that if I actually knew you – I would lament your death – if someone shot you or you committed suicide.

        But given all I know of you is your posts, not so much.

        If you want your life to be held as value by those who do not know you.
        Then do or say something of value that involve the use of force against others.

        Do good YOURSELF

  10. How can anyone take Turley’s concern for the “age of rage” in our society when his Fox colleague, Mark Levin, engages in this rage fest:

    https://youtu.be/F8HYbZJCClY

    Has Turley EVER acknowledged the hatefulness of Levin’s rhetoric?

    Never.

    Until Turley denounces the rage engendered by his Fox brethren, he is a total hypocrite. He would do so but for the fact that he earns a handsome paycheck capitalizing on the rage provocateurs at Fox.

    1. Sounds like you’re raging that he isn’t raging at the right people who are raging. Lol!

      1. Turley complains about the “age of rage” which applies to both sides, Left and Right, but he ignores those at Fox News because he does not wish to bite the hand that feeds him.

    2. The blogs resident retard, had never heard of the Streisand Effect.

      I encourage all to view the video. I would have never viewed this if not led by this clueless dolt, to its existence. Thanks for the hyper link make it so easy to view this great content.
      Spoiler alert. There is not a single item of hateful rhetoric evident in the 8 minute clip. There are, however, multiple examples of Democrats subverting the constitution.

      1. Iowan,

        Calling the Left “American Marxists” is no less hateful than were I to call Trumpists “American Nazis.”

        Would you like to be called that? Does this name-calling increase or decrease the rage in those so called?

        It is telling that Turley has NEVER endorsed Levin’s book (like Hannity) much less even mentioned his name once! Turley should condemn Levin for fanning the flames of rage in this country, but all we hear from him are-

        Crickets

        1. “Calling the Left “American Marxists” is no less hateful than were I to call Trumpists “American Nazis.”

          The former has proven true. The latter is part of the formers desire to lie. We can line up the facts for you when you are ready.

          1. I wonder what Turley would think. I could not care less what lying Trumpists think.

            1. Simple people need others to tell them what to think. You fit that category. That is why you are on the left.

      1. I post my comments in hopes that fair-minded people who might happen to peruse this blog will be put on notice of Turley’s disingenuousness.

        I have come to realize that I cannot convince lying Trumpists that Turley is a hypocrite, but I don’t let their naysaying deter me. I’m sure there are some NeverTrumpers who visit this blog now and then out of curiosity. It is they who I hope to convince by making a record of Turley’s duplicity. Anyone who can stomach reading the Trumpist comments inevitably will come across one of mine which will provide the other side of story about Turley.

        If I can apprise just 1 person that Turley is NOT the objective and impartial legal analyst that he holds himself out to be, then my work is done!

        1. Maybe start by being FAIR. You aren’t. So, look in the mirror, or go away. The RUSSIAN HOAX was a lie that YOU still drool over. And calling names is so fair minded. Grow up, and get a job.

          1. You’re the same person who once encouraged me to commit suicide because I’m pro-choice.

            Grow up and become more fair-minded yourself.

        2. Your comments are pure opinion without a shred of evidence to back up your opinion. State some facts to prove Prof. Turley’s hypocracy. State some facts to prove his duplicity or disingenuousness. Bassed on your comments,.I must presume you think Hillary did nothing wrong, that Biden’s son did not even own a computer, and that Shumer’s statements supporting going to SCOTUS’ homes to threaten by protest was a misquote. It would be better for you to go after someone that is truly biased like L. Tribe, who spews unsupportable partisan ideas on how to prosecute former Pres. Trump.

          1. You must me new here; otherwise, you would know where I stand on all these topics.

            1. He might be new, but he learns quickly and knows you have no evidence. Without being on the blog, he already knows what you think on various topics.

              Good Job Breton.

    3. “How can anyone take Turley’s concern for the “age of rage” in our society when his Fox colleague, Mark Levin, engages in this rage fest:”
      **************************
      For all you kiddies out there looking for an iconic example of the logical fallacy of guilt by association: Behold! Oh it’s sideways ad hominem, too, (for all you logisticians out there) but let’s just look at the biggest flaws shall we?

      1. Mespo,

        You are an idiot. I am NOT claiming that Turley is guilty of being a rage provocateur like Levin and Hannity due to his association with them. I am claiming he is a *hypocrite* for not denouncing their rage at the Left and their name-calling. I applaud Turley pointing out the rage on the Left; I chastise him for ignoring it at Fox, Newsmax and OAN.

        Can you cite me ONE instance where Turley faulted a host on Fox for adding to the rage in our society?

        Just one?

    4. The second I see the word Fox in any comment I immediately skip it because I know that they don’t have the intellectual fortitude for their argument to stand on its own merit

      1. I dont like Fox News. I find them insulting, manipulative and deceptive, just like the left leaning snews broadcasts

        However when the Left whines about Fox News, what they are really supporting is authoritarianism run media like in Cuba. I would rather have Fox News slugging it out with the Legacy Media, than the latter feeding us a truck full of manure like they did from the 1970s until Fox News put them in check. Truth is, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, et a,l wishes they had the market share that Fox News has. They’re just envious.

      2. You describe yourself as a person who wears blinders and acts like a horse pulling a wagon in the direction of his owner.

        1. No, I just think it is the height is intellectual laziness to think the messenger or source somehow invalidates the message or argument.

    5. An excellent video for people to listen to. Jeff doesn’t like Levin’s tone and factual statements that oppose what Democrats are doing to our children, universities and the Constitution. Jeff doesn’t like that Levin tells the truth about Pennsylvania’s election rules that weren’t followed. The Pennsylvania election didn’t follow the law or Pennsylvania’s Constitution.

      Good video to see a little of what is wrong. 2000 Mules adds to our knowledge of an unlawful election in Pennsylvania. Mules engaged in illegal ballot trafficking. When those illegal ballots are removed, we find Biden lost the election.

      Thank you, Jeff, for promoting fact-based information.

      1. Turley ignores 2000 Mules because it is bogus. Turley never discusses election fraud because he knows it is bullsh*t.

Leave a Reply