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. “Do I feel protected on the campus? I do,” he added. “The Capitol Police are brave men and women. They saved my life on a baseball field almost five years ago, and the lives of so many of my colleagues. They’re my heroes for doing that. But they were put in a terrible position because of politics and because of optics. And that was done by the person who controls the security apparatus of the Capitol. And that is Nancy Pelosi.”

    “Trump took steps to try to protect the Capitol before the riot, such as having his Pentagon offer National Guard troops to Capitol Police on Jan. 2, 2021, and signing an order on Jan. 4 to deploy 20,000 Guardsmen if requested by Congress.

    Capitol Police rejected the first offer of troops, documents show, and then when then-Police Chief Steve Sund decided he wanted the troops a few days later he was turned down by the House sergeant at arms because of concerns about the “optics” of having troops in the Capitol, Davis noted”

    The one ultimately in charge was Nancy Pelosi.


  2. “How many judges have to die before we do something about this clear and present danger – how many?” – Judge Esther Salas (whose son was murdered in the doorway of their family home).

    Impeach Merrick Garland.
    Impeach Joe Biden.
    Fire Schumer.

    1. Why are they not enforcing the law and removing the protestors from in front of the justices family homes?
      Their children are in clear and present danger.
      Their families are in clear and present danger.
      The justices themselves are in clear and present danger.

      Yet Biden, Schumer, Garland are doing nothing but both implicitly and explicitly encouraging protest AT THE HOMES OF JUSTICES!

    2. FLASHBACK to May 10:

      “Are you comfortable with protests that we saw outside the homes of Supreme Court justices over the weekend?”

      CHUCK SCHUMER: “Yes”

      These Democrats are reckless in their disregard for the clear and present danger they are intentionally fomenting against sitting SC justices. It is reckless to the point of sociopathy.

  3. Jonathan: I saw the pic of you yesterday sitting next to Garnell Whitfield Jr, the son of one of victims in the Buffalo mass shooting. Whitfield called on Senators to do something about racist domestic terrorism: “Is there nothing that you personally are willing to do to stop the cancer of white supremacy and the domestic terrorism that inspires?”. You looked uncomfortable having to listen to Whitfield’s passionate testimony–and probably for good reason. You claimed in your written testimony that Antifa is the real threat–not people like the white racist who killed Whitfield’s 86 year old mother. That argument is hard to sell to Garnell Whitfield.

    You also argued Jan. 6 was just a “riot” that got out of control–not “domestic terrorism”. GOP supporters of Trump have made the same argument. Jamie Raskin, who sits on the Jan. 6 Committee, has a different take: “The Committee has found evidence of concerted planning and premeditated activity. The idea that all this [Jan. 6] was just a rowdy demonstration that spontaneously got a bit out of control is absurd. You don’t almost knock over the US government by accident”. This is why you need to watch the Jan. 6 public hearings starting tomorrow.

    1. Raskin, et al, are biased and incapable of reasonableness, fairness, impartiality.

    2. Jamie Raskin is absurd. And a liar. They did not “almost knock over the US Government.” With what? A flag pole?

    3. If you searched for eye witness accounts leading up to the incursion into the capitol, there were a couple of groups of men trying to herd protesters into the capitol. Good luck on finding a “vast right wing conspiracy”. Once inside, the trespassers seemed lost, confused and wandered around. Indeed, Capitol police officers were with them telling them not to do this or that.

      Good luck with the hearings. Since it is Democrat-Centered, it will have about as much effect as a Hillary campaign.

    4. ““The Committee has found evidence of concerted planning and premeditated activity.”

      Of course they did. Again, Raskin is a liar. The FBI was in on it. Pelosi is in on it. Everything they are telling us is a lie. The truth is being withheld from us and concealed.

      The corrupt J6 committee is now ‘creating a narrative’ (not to be mistaken for fact-finding or truth-telling) while working hand in glove with a corrupt DOJ, a corrupt media, a documentary filmmaker, and a made-for-television-extravaganza producer.

      As for the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, they are political prisoners, being set up to take the fall as they build the case for indicting Trump. All carefully scripted, carefully timed. And built on lies.

      Neither the Oath Keepers or Proud Boys face weapons charges.

      How does one “almost knock over the USG” with cell phones and selfies?

  4. An armed California man was arrested last night outside Justice Lava author Maryland house. He apparently told police that he intended to kill Kavanaugh. How’s that for domestic terrorism?

    Right after the leak, I thought the court should immediately take a vote on the case as soon as possible, to remove any incentive for assassination. Opinion-writing could follow. In Ex parte Quirin, the court voted right after oral arguments to uphold the military tribunal. The sentences (which included executions) were carried out within days. Opinions were not written until months later.

    I still think that example should be followed in the abortion case, even though doing that now would only accelerate the decision by a week. Imagine the awful possibility of an assassination now that alters the outcome of the case.

  5. A progressive just got arrested with a gun near Kavenaughs house. Claims he wanted to kill him because of the leak. The leaker should be proud. They almost got what they wanted. I hope they are happy.

  6. Are the media and politicians discussing the more than 30,000 street gangs and their thousands of shooting victims? Why is the media and local government so often silent on this subject?

    Because it does not fit the profile they are promoting? The demographics of the criminals and their victims is not consistently published. Why? The shootout in Milwaukee involved six shooters and at least seventeen victims. Because the ethnicity of the gunmen and the victims did not fit the political narrative.

    “Houston, we have a problem.”

    Do we have the resolve to really tackle this challenge? Not in this hyper-partisan environment. That is why politicians are on the lowest rung of confidence.

  7. Mespo must be on the Kremlin’s payroll. Oh, BTW, thanks to someone’s referral, I did a little research into Kagan. The man seems like someone who spent his entire career in an ivory tower without any real-world experience on which to base his opinions and conclusions about war, cherry picking the words of others in order to form them.

  8. The Czars of Russia, now called presidents or chairmen, were (and still are) the intellectual descendants of the Vikings. Vikings lived by plundering (as well as trading). Catherine the Great was a noted plunderer, for example.

    Now that the Rus have plundered all the way to the Pacific Ocean there is no direction to go but west. Hence the plundering, again, of Ukraine by Czar V.V. Putin.

  9. Americanization has worked very well in South Korea, Japan, and Germany, to mention a few.

    1. “Americanization has worked very well in South Korea, Japan, and Germany, to mention a few.”

      Yet you don’t mention the rest. All three involved major wars with tremendous death and destruction. Tell us the others you were referring to.

      In WW2 we were attacked by Japan and Germany following. We defeated them without negotiations for the surrender and left troops in all those countries. That appears the only proper way to end a war permanently.

      We defeated Russia in a cold war without bloodshed. Russia is dying demographically and economically. We decided to involve ourselves in the Ukraine war (I won’t comment as to right or wrong). We would have been better off if the Democrats under Biden and Obama didn’t create the environment for war, but they did.

      Now, what you seem to want is another world war with Russia, a nuclear power. You or someone with your name says we should try Putin and maybe execute him, not bright for you have provided Putin with the knowledge that he is dead if he doesn’t win the war. You have managed to push Russia closer to a growing enemy, China. You have managed to incite Russian nationalism. You have cost America and the world a reduced standard of living. Food supplies are in danger for much of the world, and you are happy. Your next desire is a nuclear exchange with Russia. Craziness doesn’t exist only in Russia. It exists in your head.

      Had we followed reasonable policy Ukraine likely would have been whole and the world better off. The upshot of this war is that Russia, at the least, will have a partial or a full land bridge to the Crimea. A lot of people will be dead, and much of Ukraine destroyed. Why couldn’t you let Russia’s fate be decided by its own demographics and economy while it slowly drifted from the scene?

    2. “Americanization has worked . . .”

      So using the U.S. military to protect Afghanistan from totalitarians is bad.

      But using the military to protect Ukraine from a despot is good.

      Can someone please explain the Left’s *principle* for the deployment of the U.S. military abroad?

  10. The prime minister of New Zealand is only a billionth of the tyrant that Putin is. I’m sure she can be voted out of office, and she’s not committing genocide against Australians. You would rather support Putin than her? A democratically elected prime minister of a peaceful nation gets your derision, but an actual tyrant gets your admiration? You’re a sicko.

Comments are closed.