Turley Testifies in the Senate on Domestic Terrorism

This morning I will be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the expansion of domestic terrorism investigations. The hearing is titled “Examining the ‘Metastasizing’ Domestic Terrorism Threat After the Buffalo Attack” and will begin at 10 am in the Hart Senate Office Building (Room 216). The written testimony is linked below.

The Democrats have proposed legislation that would create news offices for the investigation of domestic terrorism. It would impose reporting, training, and assessment of “the domestic terrorism threat posed by White supremacists and neo-Nazis, including White supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and the uniformed services.” The legislation also directs these offices to prioritize certain domestic terrorism cases. It is that final element that runs against the grain of the Constitution and the principle of separation of powers.

As discussed in the written testimony, we all have ample reason to oppose these violent elements on both the left and the right. The Constitution imposes limits on the range of action for Congress in addressing such issues from the First Amendment to the doctrine of the separation of powers. The “Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act” is an example of how such means can be well-intended but still contravene constitutional principles. I encourage the Senate to reconsider this approach to address those concerns.

Here are the witnesses who will appear at the hearing:

  1. Robert A. Pape, PhD

    Professor Of Political Science And Director Of The Chicago Project On Security And Threats
    University of Chicago
    Chicago, IL
  2. Michael German

    Fellow, Liberty And National Security Program, Brennan Center For Justice
    Former Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation
    Washington, D.C.
  3. Garnell Whitfield, Jr.

    Buffalo, NY

  4. Justin E. Herdman

    Former U.S. Attorney
    Northern District of Ohio
    Cleveland, OH
  5. Professor Jonathan Turley

    Shapiro Professor Of Public Interest Law
    The George Washington University Law School
    Washington, D.C.

192 thoughts on “Turley Testifies in the Senate on Domestic Terrorism”

    1. It was well-written and thoughtful. To bad is omitted the salient part that Daniel Webster reminded us of:

      “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

      ~Daniel Webster

  1. Why did the Jan “select” committee hire a former ABC producer to present their hearing? I imagine the presentation will rival the Depp trial or the movie Ben Hur? Will there be an Emmy like Mario? Will there be a credit role “Staring Adam Schiff as Tourquemada” “candid interview with Ray Epps”? Since when do congressional hearings require professional producer’s or even unprofessional producers? By the by who’s money is paying the producer, surely not Americans tax dollars? We are living crazy times friends.

    1. Watch “The Century of the Self”. It’s a very long documentary first aired by the BBC in Britain.

      The elite ruling class has been using mass communication technologies to manipulate the emotions of the masses to control them since those technologies were invented.

    2. “Why did the Jan “select” committee hire a former ABC producer to present their hearing?”

      They are channeling their inner Nero.

      If you give people a “circus,” make it a spectacle.

      And if you’re going to “fiddle,” while your country burns from inflation and deprivation, at least be entertaining.

    3. “Why did the Jan “select” committee hire a former ABC producer to present their hearing?”
      Because every circus needs a clown.

  2. Blog Stooge Ridicules Existence Of Rightwing Terrorism

    Our resident Blog Stooge is out in force, with all his puppets, ridiculing the idea that rightwing terrorism exists.

    Puppets to watch for are James, Giocon, Ralph Chappelle, Estovir, Margot Ballhere, Mistress Addams, Feldman, Thinkthrough, Hullbobby and many, many more.

    1. Nobody denies the existence of the far right, But those claiming it is the number one problem, are doing nothing but the usual chicken little routine. The summer of love and $billions in property damage, and hundreds of lives lost, isnt yet 2 years past.

  3. Dim Dickionary:

    Domestic Terrorist: someone who believes something politcally different than me and who scares me because he’s masculine.
    Government Protection: Something that will save us all from ourselves and on whom we must rely. e.g: Big Daddy
    Democrats: The new secular religion of identity politcs, intersectionality and balkanized societies. e.g. New Maoists
    American Public: Played for suckers until they rise up and throw off the Democrats.

  4. When Democrat Woodrow Wilson showed the film “Birth of a Nation” – essentially a KKK recruitment film – in the White House, roughly 4 million Democrats were members of the KKK. Today, the Southern Poverty Law Center estimates the number of KKK members is somewhere around 5000-8000.

    By comparison, the FBI has around 35,000 employees. The New York Police Department also has about 35,000.

    This is another example of Democrats gaslighting the public to facilitate a power grab.

    Bureaucracies exist to expand their fiefdoms. Period. They’re work programs for college educated who hold themselves out as “experts.”

    I’m not aware of a single time since Democrats permanently changed the relationship between the government and the people with the creation of the bureaucratic welfare state that an agency head has come before Congress to say that it has solved whatever problem it was created to address and therefore it no longer needs its budget. Heck, forget about completing its mission. Is there is a single time an agency head has come before Congress and requested her budget be reduced by even $1?

  5. I wish the Professor luck. Given that viloent ‘right wing’ domestic terrorists are largely a figment, I doubt anything good could come of any of this (no, younger viewers: someone that simply disagrees with you or thinks differently or has the audacity to stand up for themselves is not a fascist or terrorist). Guarantee a dem led department will not be investigating Antifa, BLM, or self-declared ‘socialist eco-fascists’. May it meet the same swift death as the ministry of truth. These people are ridiculous, and the gaslighting has become parody. They really do believe the populace is stupid and money is enough. Oh, we’ve definitely had enough of *something*.

    1. The Ministry of Truth is stronger than ever, yes, they lost Jankowicz but she was replaced by a couple of smarter and more sly heavy hitters. Former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff and former U.S. Deputy Secretary General Jamie Gorelick under Clinton “will lead a thorough review and assessment” of the board that was “grossly and intentionally mischaracterized.”

      Read the details here: https://dailycaller.com/2022/05/19/nina-jakowicz-jamie-gorelick-michael-chertoff-disinformation-governance-board-dhs-patriot-act/

      1. “The Ministry of Truth is stronger than ever . . .”

        Which is why it was always a mistake to focus on the cartoon character they put in charge. The fundamental issue is not the *principal.” It’s the *principle.” And what the Left is establishing is an evil principle — government censorship.

      2. “Jamie Gorelick”

        But if you want a footnote on one of the principals . . .

        Jamie Gorelick is the swine who defended Duke University during its attempted frame of the innocent lacrosse students. If you want a hack to stomp on justice, she’s a good choice.

  6. No tolerance for Nazis — in America, that is. We can certainly tolerate — and fund and arm — them in Ukraine. And where do you think they’ll be coming after Ukraine loses this war?

  7. Interesting that everyone listed is from Chicago or East of there and Washington D.C. and north of there. Pretty select group. What about voices from all the rest like the South, Rest of the Midwest (it does consist more of more than just Ohio and Chicago), the Mountain States , The Southwest, and even the Pacific coast. 3 largest states with nearly 90 million inhabitants and not a single witness from them. I think they are overlooking some voices out there.

  8. We have the FBI, ATF, IRS, DCIS, NCIS, CID,OSI and the Military and Federal Courts….all who have current jurisdiction to investigate such persons of interest (of all Races) who engage in activities that could be considered Domestic Terrorism….even Parents at School Board Meetings as ordered by AG Garland.

    There are Task Forces in existence that are engaged in such investigations

    Local and State Police agencies are conducting investigations.

    Fund them, tightly control how they go about their business…..and rid the notion of there being any one Race being the targets….go after every person or group is engaged in criminal activities without bias or favor.

  9. The committee seems racially motiviated. Is it reverse-racism to see only white people as the problem? Has a minority ever inconvenienced a white person with a knife or a bullet? What about THAT? In the interest of Equal Protection, why not a committee discussing all the crimes committed against white people at the hands of minorities? It seems that whenever minorities freely associate to complain about the things that white people do, it is considered a civil rights group, but when whites freely associate to complain about the things that minorities do, it is a hate group.

  10. Given JTs close association with right wing terrorists, he likely had important insights.

    1. “Given JTs close association with right wing terrorists . . .”

      And the vicious smear campaign continues.

  11. Should any discussion of domestic terrorism include Antifa as a topic?

    1. RE:”Should any discussion of domestic terrorism include Antifa as a topic?..” The Democrat Sturmabteilung? Why cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face?

    2. FBI breaks it down thusly:

      Left wing domestic terrorism >> 4%
      Islamic extremist domestic terrorism >> 20%
      Right wing domestic terrorism >> 75%

      Chris Wray correctly says that right wing domestic terrorism is this county’s greatest threat.

      So the answer to your query is, yes, Antifa should be looked at…, through a 4% lens.


      1. Chris Wray who. has failed to clean up the FBI….that Chris Wray? That FBI?

        Chris Wray does exactly what he is told to do….and that is to protect the FBI…..and keep it acting as an arm of the Democrat Party.

        See no evil…hear no evil….but they darn tooting do lots of evil.

        How many FISA Warrants did they lie about?

        How long did they pursue the Trump Campaign and Trump…even AFTER they knew the Russia Collusion/Bank/Steele Dossier was fabricated by Hillary Clinton’s Campaign…..that FBI?

      2. The same Cris Wray that spied on a President of the United States? That Chris Wray.

        The Chris Wray that is responsible of 80% of 702 lookups done illegally?

        That Cris Wray is nothing but a leftist politician pushing a leftist narrative.

    3. The entire concept of “terrorism” – particularly domestic terrorism is just a ruse to expand federal powers.

      We have far more to fear from drug gangs than “domestic terrorists”
      Who all to often are meaning people with mental health issues that have turned violent.

      I do not give a $hit if the 3 KKK members left int he country want to go off into the woods and wear sheets.

      If they comitt a crime – they are criminals and local law enforcement can deal with them.

      Murder is murder. It does not require the FBI.

      Aparently we needed the Border Patrol in Uvalde, as both local law enforcement and the FBI on scene were WORSE than worthless.
      But normally we should expect local law enforcement to deal with local problems.

      It is increasingly likely that we have no need for a Federal Bureau of Investigation at all.

      1. The reason why the FBI is important is because states don’t have the resources to deal with domestic terrorism. What if the local law enforcement has members of certain groups deemed domestic terrorists?

        When the KKK was in its prime. Many members were also police officers in the south. The federal government was the only entity that operated beyond the corruption of local law enforcement.

        This may still be true today.

        Aren’t the Texas rangers “big government” as well when they have to take over investigations from local law enforcement?

        1. There is no consequential threat of domestic terrorism.

          The history of the FBI in dealing with domestic terrorism has been abysmal – need I remind you of the entrapment of islamic teens post 9/11 or of the Witmer Kidnapping fiasco, or Richard Jewel.

          I can not think fo an example that could not be better handled by local authorities.

          There are only 10,000 FBI agents in the country, there are 1M police officers.

          There is no shortage of resources that the FBI needs to fill.

          1. “ There is no consequential threat of domestic terrorism.”

            Timothy McVeigh ring a bell? Domestic terrorism does exist. Ever since the Oklahoma bombing those groups who ARE considered domestic terrorists are still around.

            The proud Boys, the bugaloo group. Are the same anti-government outfits that produced individuals like Timothy McVeigh. They openly support armed conflict with the government.

            The FBI is not perfect, but it’s training and detachment from local politics and corruption give it a better authority to really investigate issues.

            Remember, the local authorities were not going to really investigate the Arbery shooting until video surfaced of the incident. The FBI and Georgia state bureau of investigation got involved.

            Local authorities don’t always have the resources or are corrupt. Local authorities, especially in the south have a long record of corruption and abuses.

            1. “Timothy McVeigh ring a bell?”

              Some 350 Antifa/BLM riots ring a bell?

            2. McVeigh was 25 years ago.

              I would note McVeigh’s actions were a response to the gross misconduct of the FBI at Ruby Ridge and Wacco – where the US government MURDERED innocent americans – even women and children.

              AGAIN – end the FBI.

              Noting Further McVeigh is part of a long pattern with respect to far right groups.
              American Far right groups BELEIVE the US government is comming after them.
              They PREPARE for a defensive war against US Government forces.

              They are historically HARMLESS unless actually attacked.

              There was lots of conflict between the FBI BLM and groups like the Bundy;s during the Obama administration.
              The Bundy’s are nuts, but again are harmless if left alone. But the BLM and FBI instigated conflicts and in court after long protracted battles Bundy and supporters WON most cases. Federal courts found that the FBI provoked incidents, Set Snipers to take out protestors, and then tried to trigger violence to allow the snipers to act. They found BLM did not follow federal law or its own laws and procedues.

              Just yesterday a pro-life clinic was fire bombed – must be right wing domestic terrorism.
              This is just the last of several such bombings since the SCOTUS draft leak.

            3. The Bugaloo groups are of dubious political affiliation – they are an anti-law enforcement group and there members are as likely to be left as right.

              The proud boys are really your example of domestic terrorists ?
              The proud boys essentially follow antifa arround wait for Antifa members to throw a punch and then beat them up.
              They also provide protection against antifa for journalists that attempt to cover them.
              In portland they provide protection for elderly people just trying to cross the street in the midst of Antifa infestations.
              The leader of the Proud boys and many of their members are not even white.

              And Actually no neither is in anyway related to the antigovernment militias – either in the past or the present.

              Further McVeigh was not affiliated with the Anti-Government militias. McVeigh was reported to law enforcement BY the antigovernment militias.

              The Millitia movement today is radically different from 30 years ago. Today members are nearly all current and former law enforcement or military. They include women and minorities. They are strongly pro police and were instramental in providing assistance to the police in the BLM riots in the summer of 2020. Politically they tend to be pro 2nd amendment, and for limited government.
              They are not antigovernment.

              The FBI has historically been far more corrupt and political than local police. Regardless, you can not seem to make up your mind what the role of the FBI is. Are you saying they are to investigate police corruption ? I have not seen any evidence of that.
              In the Whitmer bomb plot we saw the FBI properly exposed. I would note that there is not a single high profile FBI case that has not had Massive corruption and misconduct in it. The Whitmer kidnapping case is not an aberation – it is the norm. The FBI did the same thing large scale to islamic teens Post 9/11.

              Are you saying that local police corruption prevents them from investigating something like a mass shooting ? Or a church bombing ?

              I am hard pressed to think of a case of purported domestic terrorism that can not be easily handled by local and state authorities.

              Murder is murder – regardless of purported motives. Purported domestic terrorist cases are the easiest to deal with – the perpitrators are either dead or proudly and openly confess.

              The entire Collusion delusion has revealed the FBI and DOJ to be hopelessly politically corrupt and contra your claim horribly incompetent.

              We are being subject to the Star Chamer that democrats are pushing right now – but there has been no meaningful inquiring into the FBI’s role. We know that The FBI knew about chatter ahead of the event – and yet the capital police were not warned and Trump’s efforts to bring the National Guard in ahead of time were thwarted by Pelosi.
              We know that the FBI not only infiltrated groups like the Michigan Wolverines – but that they were essentially running them – there were more agents and informers than members. We know there would have been no illegal conduct but for the FBI.
              Yet, no real inquiry into the FBI’s involvement in J6 has been conducted. Given the FBI’s past history, particularly the Whitmer kidnapping was was not merely massive entrapment but appears to have been calculated to be an “october surprise” to tip the election.
              It is near certaint he FBI was involved in J6 – yet we have been stonewalled on that.

            4. You have far too much faith in the FBI and far too little knowledge of them.

              Again – I can not think of a single high profile FBI case that was not ultimately exposed as a massive disaster.

              So the local authorities were not going to investigate. So what ? Without the video all you had was the defendants testimony.

              I beleive given all the facts I support the verdict – atleast much of it. But without the video there is no case.

              Without the video you have these men essentially doing a neighborhood watch. Aubrey who either was the robber or looked alot like him.
              A confrontation in which the men claimed Aubrey went for their weapon.

              It is only the video that separates legal actions by the defendants, from illegal ones.

              The TRayvon martin case might have been decided differently – with video.
              Or it might have been decided the same.

              Our justice system is not perfect. Cases proceed with the evidence we have, not what we wish we had.
              The required outcome is the benefit of doubt goes to the defendant.

            5. It is 2022, not 1960. The corrupt southern police you refer to are long dead.

              The police are far from perfect – and have plenty of problems even in the north.

              BTW if you want massive police corruption read Serpico. Or several other deep looks into the NYPD.

              But the FBI is not even close to better, it just serves different masters, that is all.

              Also you keep tossing arround “corrupt” as if it is some kind of magic incantation.

              What is it that you think “corrupt” means, regarding local police ?
              Are they on the take from Al Quida ?
              Are they going to let McVeigh or Roof walk ?

              And what are these magical resources the FBI has ?
              The FBI is tiny compared to local police.

        2. You presume the FBI was the only way to deal with the KKK.

          Aren’t the texas rangers “big government” ?

          That is a choice that is up to the people of Texas.

          I am not from Texas.

          Regardless, law enforcement is:

          Constitutionally the domain of states.
          One of few legitimate functions of government.

          that is also why lawlessness in government is so dangerous.

          In my state – which is not all that good, about 1% of my income provides the police, the courts, the da’
          s the district magistrates the jails. …..

          1. “ Aren’t the texas rangers “big government” ?

            That is a choice that is up to the people of Texas.”

            That’s avoiding the question. The Texas rangers ARE big government in Texas. The Texas government IS acting like big government in Texas which is the antithesis of what Texas republicans always complain about, big government. It’s hypocrisy at its finest.

            “ Regardless, law enforcement is:

            Constitutionally the domain of states.
            One of few legitimate functions of government.”

            That is true, however enforcement of the constitution is also the domain of the federal government. When states violate constitutional protections the federal, the FBI, has legitimate jurisdiction.

            “ You presume the FBI was the only way to deal with the KKK.”.

            When southern states were dominated by the kkk they were involved in most major aspects of state and local law enforcement. This is why the army was involved after the Brown vs. board of education ruling.

            What other law enforcement organization was involved in dealing with the kkk?

            1. Do you really want to expand this into Texas ?

              Is there anyone who thinks you know much about Texas or the Texas rangers ?

              Regardless. I am not especially interested in getting into Texas politics and government.
              I know little about it, and I do not expect you know anything.

              And the government of texas is the business of the people of Texas.
              If as you claim Texas has excessive per capita government wastefull spending and high taxes,
              then the people and courts of texas should do somethintg about that.

              My responsibility is for the mess in my own state.

              No matter what, States provide almost all actually necescary government services at a fraction of the cost of the federal government.

              The Worst US states are still more efficient at providing services from taxes than the federal government is.

              If TX is big government – it is still small compared to the cost and waste of the federal government.

            2. You seem to think that there are only two choices – anarchism and big government.

              Beat that straw man to death.

              Not avoiding anything. I am not fluent on the details of the Texas rangers.

              That said policing is a fundamental social contract task of government.

              A significant portion of what state governments do falls under even the most narrow libertarian or conservative understanding of the social contract.
              There are some things that states do go beyond the social contract.

              Much of what federal government does is outside the scope of the social contract.

              The constitution has greater breadth than the social contract does.
              Yet still much of what the federal government does goes far beyond what the constitution allows.

            3. You claim that the Texas rangers are big govenrment and that they are somehow the antithesis of what republicans say they want.

              How so ?

              I do not think there is a politician of any party that does not accpet that law enforcement is the legitimate function of government.

              I am open to an argument from you that the Texas Rangers are “big government”.

              But my default assumption is that they are a part of law enforcement in texas.

              I am not committed to defend the Texas rangers – make a case that there is something wrong with the Texas rangers – as I have regarding the FBI

            4. “Enforcement of the constitution” ?????

              The constitution is a blueprint for government – it is not a criminal code.

              “Enforcement of the constitution:” is the role of the courts – they exist to bar government from doing what the constitution prohibits.

              There are no constitutional limits on individual conduct – the constitution does not exist to constrain individuals.

              The FBI is required to FOLLOW the constitution. To UPHOLD the limits on government in the constitution.
              There are no constraints on individual conduct in the constitition,

              The constitution has no federal general police power. There is no basis for the FBI.

            5. As ONE example, when government fails to uphold the law, citizens can sue that government.

              Whn government violates the rights o citizens – citizens can sue the government.

              As I have already said – I oppose qualified immunity – in fact I oppose all government immunity from lawsuit.

              I would further note that The Southern Poverty Law Center – like he ACLU once a important force protecting our rights, sued the KKK, won, and bankrupted them.
              The SPL owns and operates out of the KKK’s headquarters in Montgomery Alabama.

            6. The army was not involved in Brown – the National Guard was. The Army can not be used for law enforcement functions inside the US.

              Regardless, neither the National Guard nor the the Army are the FBI which you keep trying to sell as necescary.

  12. Jonathan,
    I really like the tone of your written statement conclusion…

    “It was once said that “a politician thinks of the next election; a statesman, of the next generation.” We have never needed such leadership more acutely in our history than we do today. We are living in dangerous times not only due to the scourge of extremist violence but also due to the deep anger and divisions in our country. This is the time that the country needs people of good faith in both parties to seek to lower the level of conflict in our society. Fortunately, the Framers gave us a system that can withstand such factional pressures. Our Constitution is designed for bad times, not good times. Indeed, it was written in the worst of times of violence and intolerance. Yet, throughout that history, we have been joined as a people by a common article of faith in our Constitution. It is a covenant not with our government but with each other. That faith has sustained us through some of the worst periods of our history, from the Civil War to segregation to economic collapse. We prevailed despite our own failings and the failures of our political leaders. Yet, this constitutional system is not indestructible. The current political tensions in our country threaten to tear our nation apart. We are living through a crisis of faith where our foundational institutions and defining values are under attack. No one is above criticism for bringing us to this point, but we have to reestablish those bonds that unite and define us. The expanded use of domestic terrorism powers is a dangerous element to introduce into this tinderbox without careful considerations and clear limitations.”

    This conclusion, and most of your testimony, will likely fall on deft ears for those on the committee that lean hard left, for these “progressives” the ends justifies the means and your opinion doesn’t count.

      1. RE:”I don’t know how that got there…” Obviously a typo, but well put notwithstanding.

    1. Witherspoon. You just made an example of what the source of this division is. You agreed with Turley after he says this is an issue with both parties. After giving him credit for a well thought out opinion you immediately went on to attack the left and mock “progressives”. You are part of the problem as well. Turley tacitly mentions it. BUT even Turley is part of stoking those divisions when he feeds the rage with his columns geared towards his “audience”. Turley is being hypocritical most of the time, but his opinion on this hearing he is being more centrist.

      1. Svelaz wrote, “you immediately went on to attack the left and mock “progressives””.

        Again Svelaz is showing us the routine pattern of making up stuff like a political hack and internet troll to attack the messenger without addressing the opinion presented, that’s an ad hominem.

        Svelaz is a foolish foolish troll; I didn’t attack or mock progressives I simply stated an observed pattern shown by the hard left progressive members of the committee and Svelaz not liking my opinion doesn’t make it an attack or mockery.

        Also Svelaz completely ignored the fact that I freely stated “likely” which literally means I’m open to the hard left progressive members of the committee to actually break their unethical pattern of political hackery and take the things Turley wrote into serious consideration. That said, their pattern has been exactly what I wrote above so I’m not holding my breath waiting for them to seriously consider anyone’s opinion no matter how logical it may be if their opinion oppose the progressive hive mind in any way. It’s all or nothing for the progressive hive mind and that is the REAL problem in today’s politics.

        The way Svelaz trolls this site with regular nonsense makes Svelaz a poster child for unethical, immoral and irrational progressive nonsense, that’s why I rarely engage this Svelaz troll. Svelaz and those like Svelaz are the problem with debate in the USA.

        1. Witherspoon says,

          “ Also Svelaz completely ignored the fact that I freely stated “likely” which literally means I’m open to the hard left progressive members of the committee to actually break their unethical pattern of political hackery and take the things Turley wrote into serious consideration.”

          Couching your opinion with “likely” doesn’t change the fact that you did exactly what I pointed out and you’re exactly showing is why you’re part of the problem.

          Whining about trolling is only a deflection on the reality of what is true. Obviously you were offended by the insinuation that you’re part of the problem which is still true.

          Turley faults both parties for sowing divisions, but only focuses on the left while giving gas right the kid glove treatment. That’s where Turley’s hypocrisy comes from.

          You say “hard left” but that’s not what they are. Just labeling them “hard left” IS what continues the division. You’re only parroting what the right has been saying like an automaton. Anything they say is immediately not to to be believed because they are “hard left”.

          Your intention may not be to mock or attack progressives. But you still do it as a reflex. You don’t notice it until someone points it out to you and then get all bent out of shape because you can’t recognize it. I believe they call that cognitive dissonance.

          1. Svelaz wrote, “You say “hard left” but that’s not what they are.”

            That’s a pure gaslighting lie.

            If you don’t think that Dianne Feinstein (CA), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Christopher Coons (DE), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Mazie Hirono (HI) and Cory Booker (NJ) (that’s over half of the Democrats on the Committee) are hard left leaning “progressives” then you’re clearly a lot more ignorant of the reality of politics than I previously thought.

            Sling all the pointless lies and mud you want, where done here.

            1. Witherspoon, clearly you’re not being rational. The only reason you view them as “hard left” is because you’re way off into the extreme right of the spectrum. From your position anything approaching centrist ideology is considered “hard left”.

              The Republican Party has been veering more and more to the right to the point that anything to the right of that position, even moderate right like mitt Romney is considered “leftist”.

    2. Our constitution does not work when people have no moral foundations.

      Those on the right sometimes violate their own moral values.
      Those on the left have no moraltiy.

      The constitution can cope with the former.
      It can not work with the latter.

      Turley notes the nation is deeply divided.

      But it is not divided between Nazi’s and communists.

      It is divided between people who want fairly normal things.
      That only live citizens vote, and only once.
      That hordes and criminals can not rush into our country unchecked.
      That our laws are enforced as written, and if we do not like them – we change them, not ignore them.
      That if you are not old enough to buy an AR-15, you are not old enough to choose your gender or mutilate your genitals.
      That if you have a penis you can not compete in girls sports or use girls locker rooms.
      That we can not spend half of what we produce on govenrment.
      That parents are the final authority on what they choldren are taught.

      These people are not extremists. But those who oppose them are.

      The american revolution and the declaration of independence tell us that as the rule of law collapses – violence is not merely inevitable, but eventually a duty.

      1. John B. Say,

        “ Those on the right sometimes violate their own moral values.
        Those on the left have no moraltiy.”

        That’s quite a disingenuous statement.

        “Sometimes”? Try the majority of the time. It’s self evident. Start with hypocrisy. The religious right preach moral righteousness to the masses only to be doing exactly what they accuse the left of doing. Protecting pedophiles within the church. Ignoring sexual abuse of minors. Abusing their own congregations generosity for their own enrichment. Engaging in homosexual activity while arguing it’s sinfulness to others. There’s plenty to point out.

        How about those arguing against “big government” while engaging in “big government” mandates when it’s beneficial to them?

        The left certainly has its own hypocritical positions. But they certainly are not 100% without morality. Can’t have compassion without morality. Conservatives have far less compassion than liberals. That doesn’t mean they don’t have any compassion at all either.

        1. Svelaz, there litterally is no fundimental moral principles to the left at all.

          The so called religious right is a minor power in republican politics today. Jerry Falwell is dead.
          Absolutely there is some hypocracy within the religious right. It would not be Sunday if Jimmy Swiegart was not weeping and begging forgiveness for shacking up with a prostitute again.

          With respect to your pedophile nonsense – first that is primarily the catholic church. Further Pedophiles exist everywhere.
          Even within the catholic church – they are not more common than the population as a whole, the Church merely aired by covering it up.
          Further they are a huge target and much of what is being brought out occured over decades. Including decades where the country as a whole did a shitty job of protecting kids.

          I am sure there are instance of pedophila in evangelical churches. As there is in left wing NGO’s in foreign countries.
          Pedophilia is not affiliated with a particular political ideology.
          But alot of us are affraid that they left is moving towards trying to normalize it was is RADICALLY different from coverup and hypocracy.

          1. “ The so called religious right is a minor power in republican politics today. Jerry Falwell is dead.”

            John, the religious right is a fundamental component of the Republican Party. It’s the source of the Republican party’s agenda. Without the religious right the Republican Party wouldn’t be what it is today. Remember they are the ones pushing the culture wars. Laws against same-sex marriages, homosexuality, LGBTQ rights, pushing for religious prayer in schools, etc. The religious right is the sole reason why trump was elected to office and let’s not forget the abortion issue.

            Clearly the religious right is not a “minor” power in the Republican Party.

            “ Svelaz, there litterally is no fundimental moral principles to the left at all.”

            Of course there are, your just not wanting to acknowledge them because you WANT to deny the idea that they do have moral principles.

            1. You really are clueless – the birth of the Tea Party was the result of the vaccuum created as the power of the religious right within the GOP diminished.

              The religious right continues to exist, but they no longer have near the power they used to within the GOP.

              This is reality. That you are unaware of if leads me to question your familiarity with the real world.

            2. You appear to be clueless about the religious right.

              No the Religious right does not set the platform of the GOP – today the Tea Party and its successor in Trump’s supporters – which are far larger then the religious right and only encompass portions of the religious right.

              Trump early on had difficulty getting the support of the religious right.

            3. The religious right was a major force in the culture wars. But the country and most of the right and religious right has accepted equal rights for all citizens regardless of sexual orientation.

              But the Left has revived the culture wars buy jumping the shark.

              Further the new culture war is not betweent he left and the religious right – the left has pissed off people far beyond the religious right.

            4. If we eliminate public schools – for which there is no foundation or justification – the issue of prayer in school goes away.

              No the religious right is not the sole reason Trump was elected. Trump had poor support from the religious right.

              Romney is part of the religious right.

              Abortion is an issue for the religious right. It is also an issue for the catholic church – which is NOT part of the religious right.
              It is an issue for hispanics – who are mostly democrats.

              Politicians now divide almost uniformly between republicans and democrats over abortion.
              But people do not. There are still alrge numbers of democrats oppsed to abortion.

            5. I do not have any problem with criticism of the religious right.

              But they are not nearly as dangerous as the left.

              The religious right does have moral principles – some of which are wrong, They are also sometimes hypocritical.
              The left has no principles.

        2. Compassion and morality are not intrinsically related.

          Further stealing from others to do what you think is good is NOT compassion.

          If you think there is more compassion on the left than the right – you are not in the real world.

          In my community each week on local church prepares meals for the homeless.
          There are about 4 left leaning churches that do so – once a year. every other week it is handled by mostly evangelical churches.
          My family is has been part of this and without us – two of the left leaning churches would be ignoring homelessness.

          When there is a food or other crisis throughout the world the two groups that manage to get food and other aide in no matter what no matter where no matter how bad things are is the Catholic Church and the menonite Central committee.

          The left has spent the past couple of decades actively seeking to destory private charity – particularly by the catholic church.

          In the past most of the hospitals in the country were catholic.
          As recently as pre-obama care 1/3 of all hospitals were catholic. Now very few are left. Obama used healthcare to drive churches out of charity.

          There is plenty of evidence that Republicans – at every income level give far more to charity than democrats.

          Democrats seem to think that voting to have government steal to purportedly benefit the least well off is charity. It is not.

          1. “ Compassion and morality are not intrinsically related.

            Further stealing from others to do what you think is good is NOT compassion.”

            Wrong. Compassion and morality are related.

            What about those “stealing” from the poor who don’t pay their fair share in taxes?

            I’m sure you’re against government subsidies for big corporations.

            1. Please note what I ACTUALLTY said – compassion and morality are not INTRINSICALLY related.

              It is likely that people who have compassion and people who act morally significantly overlap.

              But there is no intrisic connection between the two.

              “What about those “stealing” from the poor who don’t pay their fair share in taxes?”

              I can not make sense of what you are saying.

              Regardless most americans do not pay their far share in taxes, The rich pay more than their fair share.

            2. I am against government subsidies of every single kind.

              I have been opposed to them for my entire long life.

              I want limited government.

              I do not want business trying to rent govenrmen power. I want the power of government limited so that businesses can not leverage it, but must compete in the free market.

        3. Matthew 25:31-46
          This is the defintion of charity.

          If the master of a slave direct that slave to help his neighbor rebuild after a fire – who acted morally ?

          Can the actions of a slave done out of compulsion bring merit to the slave ?
          How can the direction of a slave owner forcing someone else to do good, be itself good ?

          Acts of actual compassion you must be giving of yourself.

  13. Kinda crazy isn’t it on one hand we have “defund police” on the other create an agency to attack a white group with no members?

    There might be a few white supremacist and few neo-nazi but they’re not the problem. If they’re really interested in curbing crime they’ve got to start turning their attention to other colors. Is this an attempt to stop the violent attacks against Asians, people being thrown on tracks, victims of stray bullets in cities, mothers wheeling babies, white woman, parade attendees, Hispanic woman, rioting, smash and grabs, how about Supreme Court leakers, politicians who lie or rogue DA’s?

    Could this be an agency to get political opposition to destroy, jail them or worse?????? Please follow up on this article JT.

    1. Margot Ballhere wrote, “If they’re really interested in curbing crime… “

      Oh but they’re truly NOT interested in curbing crime, progressives are interested in using sensational crimes and public hysteria as an excuse to legislate and codify into law an easy extra-legal method to persecute those they politically oppose.

    2. Margot Ballhere,
      Well said.
      Sure, the Buffalo shooter was a racist, by his own words he was not what I would call right-wing extremist.

      Why do we not see more about anti-Asian attacks? Or anti-Semitism on the rise?

    1. Jeff, I have a better one to stir the pot. Moron Raskin wants to interject an idea to get rid of the Electoral College into the Jan 6 investigation. Because like the 2nd Amendment, getting rid of the Electoral College will be difficult if not impossible because that pesky Constitution will get in the way.
      Sorry, no reference to Trump or Fox. Maybe next time.

      1. Hi Paul,

        How you feeling? Been too quiet of late. I like Raskin. He’s no moron. I will look into that idea of his. Thanks for the heads up.

        1. Jeff, Feeling ok . Thanks for asking. Been a little quiet. Just haven’t had the energy to argue lately. Actually, I was waiting to comment on the recall votes on Lucifer funded DA’s Gascon and Boudin. Just volunteered to help out financially and otherwise to defeat my incompetent Congressman Schneider. That has taking up most of my time. My first foray into politics outside of voting. The only previous activity was taking some gambling winnings and supporting Youngkin. I am one for one.
          Weather getting better. Dinner offer holds.

          1. Thanks Paul. One of these days, I’ll take you up on your offer so that we can have a good old fashion food fight. Honestly, I don’t follow local and state politics. But I did see a report on MSNBC which stated that the claims against SF’s Local DA are unfairly and grossly exaggerated. I’m inclined to believe it, but I confess that I am ignorant of the situation since I don’t live in the city.

            Who do you like in the NBA finals? I’m pulling for my home team.

            1. Even though Kerr hit a winning shot for my Bulls in the finals, he is despicable. Rooting for the Celtics. But if I was betting, I would play the Warriors.
              But I had some money left over from Football and got 7 to 1 on the Aves to win the Stanley Cup in January.
              They are in the Finals
              I could make a crack about relying on any information from MSNBC but I won’t. I doubt the 10 people who watch that network will have an impact on the recall anyway.

              1. Paul,

                I watch 3 hours of MSNBC primetime every night. I DVR Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham every night as well. I scan these 3 hours to catch every time Turley soils his reputation by appearing on their respective programs. It’s very interesting that the Fox hosts never put Turley on the spot by inviting him to endorse their rhetoric of “witch-hunt,” or “hoax,” etc. They will say such Trumpist accusations during their respective programs but never to Turley’s face!

                They know better….

                1. Jeff, ok I will change my viewership number to 11. You have the right to watch whatever you want. But for the purposes of my last statement regarding Boudin, if you are referring to the Chris Hayes segment, I saw it. A bunch of doubletalk and obfuscation. He does stick to the basic tenant of liberalism. Nothing is anybody’s fault. Zero personal responsibility. There is no singular solution to the crime problem. But there are contributing factors. And reducing the number of crimes being charged is definitely one of them. More people in your area have died from Fentanyl overdoses than Covid. And do you know how many people have been charged with distribution? NONE!. And my guess is that the vast majority of those buying the drug are not tech executives. My guess is they fund their habit by illegal means.
                  As I write this I have no idea how the recall went. But I can hope.
                  As far as dinner, I would never waste food by throwing it. Glasses and plates maybe. But never food.

                  1. Paul,

                    I defer to your superior knowledge on the matter. I wouldn’t bet against you. You know the odds. I’ll just say that I have come to trust Chris Hayes. I’ll leave it at that.

                    I have to warn you that I am not a big talker at dinner. I rarely find that bad conversation is better than good mastication.

                  2. Jeff,
                    UPDATE: According to USA Today, Boudin has been recalled. It was not close. The people have spoken! One down. at least 5 to go. If Boudin went in S.F., things are looking up for the next domino to fall. Gascon.

                    1. The left has a lot of violent and heinous people that cause destruction.

                      San Francisco voters oust DA Chesa Boudin over soft-on-crime policies

                      Fed-up San Francisco voters ousted their progressive district attorney on Tuesday in a recall election that rejected his soft-on-crime policies following surges in shameless shoplifting, car break-ins and rampant, open-air drug dealing.

                      The recall effort against Chesa Boudin, a former public defender and the son of convicted Weather Underground terrorists, was supported by 61% of voters in early returns, according to NBC.

                      On January 29, 1975, an explosion rocked the headquarters of the U.S. State Department in Washington, D.C.

                      No one was hurt, but the damage was extensive, impacting 20 offices on three separate floors. Hours later, another bomb was found at a military induction center in Oakland, California, and safely detonated.

                      A domestic terrorist group called the Weather Underground claimed responsibility for both bombs. Originally called the Weatherman or the Weathermen, a name taken from a line in a Bob Dylan song, the Weather Underground was a small, violent offshoot of Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, a group created in the turbulent ‘60s to promote social change.
                      We see the children of the 60’s radicals that have killed and destroyed lives following in their parents footsteps. Why? Ask Angela Davis, she’s a university professor. The left has a bunch of sicko radicals and the Democrats have yielded their party to them.

    2. Jeff is a mudslinger. He feels if one throws enough, some will attach itself. That doesn’t always work out in the long run, especially when people pay $5-$7 at the gas pump and double-digit increases on food, all, quickly rising despite the administration’s repetitive statements that these things are temporary.

      New mothers won’t forget that they couldn’t buy baby formula. Mothers of older children will soon realize that their children didn’t have to wear face masks at school. They may further learn that the lack of facial expression cause children to miscommunicate at a critical age. Who knows? That might be a cause for future mental illness with more school shootings. Some do not realize the implications of actions that should never have occurred.

      In any event, I don’t think Trump will run, so I like the fact that stupid people focus entirely on Trump. A new breed of Republicans may be in the Whitehouse come 2024. Though I am pessimistic about the nation returning to its former glory, I do see some retribution, political or otherwise, against those that greatly harmed our country.

      1. S. Meyer,

        “ Though I am pessimistic about the nation returning to its former glory, I do see some retribution, political or otherwise, against those that greatly harmed our country.”

        What former glory are you referring to? When was this country “glorious”?

        You’re gonna see a lot of retribution no doubt. Republicans will be wasting time and money on vengeance and payback instead of actually governing. There’s also going to be big government legislation telling people how they should live and telling LGBTQ individuals they don’t count as people or that they don’t have any right to be who they are. The religious right will have free reign over moral legislation and start forcing people to adhere to their beliefs and standards. That should be fun.

        1. “What former glory are you referring to? When was this country “glorious”?”

          Can you tell us of a powerful nation that was more glorious than America?

          You can’t. Once you have to deal with fact and ideas, you are left with your mouth wide open and nothing coming out.


          1. S. Meyer,

            “ What former glory are you referring to? When was this country “glorious”?”

            Can you tell us of a powerful nation that was more glorious than America?”

            You didn’t answer the question. What exactly is the former glory we should return to?

            Obviously you remember it. When was that?

            Military might is not the sole variable in which one can judge a country. Is it’s society and it’s well-being that matters most. Other countries have greater liberties, rights, and freedoms than we do.

            1. “What exactly is the former glory we should return to?”

              A Constitutional Republic where the individual was primary and had property rights along with many other rights not seen elsewhere. Now Svelaz you can answer my question that you refused to answer.

              “Can you tell us of a powerful nation that was more glorious than America?”

              Apparently you are not intelligent enough. That is an understatement.

              Tell us the other powerful nations that have “greater liberties, rights, and freedoms than we do.”

              You have been posting up a storm. Every response you gave was wrong or right, for the wrong reasons. You maintain your position as the least intelligent on the blog. That, too, is an understatement I have pointed out repeatedly. You are an absolute disaster that sometimes remains unanswered because smart people don’t waste their time on those who wish to remain permanently stupid.

              1. S. Meyer,

                “ Can you tell us of a powerful nation that was more glorious than America?”

                Apparently you are not intelligent enough. That is an understatement.”

                That’s not an answer.

                You’re going to great lengths to not answer these simple questions. Surely you’re intelligent enough to provide an answer.

                1. I answered your question, a Constitutional Republic where the individual was primary and had property rights along with many other rights not seen elsewhere. You are dumbfounded and dumb. You cannot respond. You know nothing of American history. You know nothing of economics. You know little of life. How you exist is hard to imagine.

                  What do you know about freedom? Nothing. When you respond on such issues you are all over the place and generally state conflicting ideas. Everyone can see that, even Jeff S. who will compliment you because he is looking for shill. He hasn’t found a worthwhile one, but at least he recognizes he is not at the bottom of the barrel. That place is reserved for you.

                  How many different discussions did we have? Many, and in each one you screwed up and didn’t know what you were talking about.

                  1. “I answered your question, a Constitutional Republic where the individual was primary and had property rights along with many other rights not seen elsewhere.”

                    Precisely! Which was roughly 1776 to America’s “Red Decade.”

                    And note what was born out of that glorious era of individualism: the Industrial Revolution — the greatest economic achievement in human history; an achievement that lengthened and improved life on a grand scale.

                    1. Sam, when listening to Svelaz, I feel sickened at the total lack of intelligence combined with an unrestrained arrogance. There is no reflection on his part even when he is proven wrong in multiple ways. He cannot deviate from the line drawn for him by others, and when the target changes position, he can’t even use nuance to get there. That results in conflict and conflation. Ideas fly out in every direction.

    3. A short list of cases that will be easily dissmissed – except those in DC that will have to wait for an appelate court to do what lower courts should have done.

      There is nothing in here.

      But keep providing a template for republicans to go after democrats.

      Can I sue Biden for emotional distress because gass prices are so high ?

      Do you realize how stupid these cases sound ?

  14. Thank you, Mr. Turley, for letting us know about your Buffalo stance.

  15. If all they focus on is white racism, well who cares about the carnage in the inner cities anyway.

    1. Perhaps the “carnage in the inner cities” is what fuels white racism. It’s a continuous cycle of rampant violence and lawlessness that fuels fear, anger and racial distrust. The more of the latter; the more of the former. The rational response is to not live or work anywhere near these communities, but on extremely rare occasions a young, angry white male will decide to react with irrational violence of his own.

Comments are closed.