Below is my column in the New York Post on the media meltdown over the Musk takeover at Twitter. The column again suggests a way for Musk to make a clean break from the censorship culture and apparatchiks at Twitter: the First Amendment Option. Musk has already made great progress toward restoring free speech on the platform with the firing of the two chief censors at the company, but the deconstruction of one of the world’s largest censorship systems will be a challenge in the weeks and months ahead.
Here is the column:
News reports last week seemed to start out like a bar joke: The richest man in the world walks in carrying a sink . . .
Of course, it was a joke — a colossal joke. The question is whom the joke is on.
For Elon Musk, the punch line was appropriately delivered on Twitter, the company he’s taking over Friday at an inflated price. Calling himself “Chief Twit,” Musk posted the video with the caption “Entering Twitter HQ — let that sink in!”
For the Musk-phobic, it was as funny as a drive-by shooting. CNN analyst Juliette Kayyem denounced Musk’s taunt as “fundamentally cruel.” After all, when Musk was first reported to be buying the company, employees were so traumatized that leadership had to offer emotional support just to “get through the week.”
The reason is less the fear of Musk bringing bathroom fixtures than free speech into San Francisco headquarters. Twitter has created one of the largest censorship systems in world history — a system widely condemned for a pattern of political bias and viewpoint intolerance.
Outgoing CEO Parag Agrawal is unabashedly hostile to traditional views of free speech. Soon after he took over, he pledged to regulate content and said the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the Internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.”
For employees who are true believers of this censorship scheme, the joke no doubt feels like it’s on them. The censorship skill set may not be quite as much in demand in a Musk-owned firm. While Facebook, Google and other companies are still committed to corporate censorship, Musk has pledged to restore free speech principles to Twitter.
But the joke may still be on Musk if he yields to Twitter’s corporate culture or the mainstream media’s unrelenting pressure. Democratic leaders like Hillary Clinton have turned from private censorship to good old-fashioned state censorship.
Clinton has called on foreign governments to step in and pass laws that would force Twitter to continue to censor opposing views. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern recently repeated this call for global censorship at the United Nations to the applause of diplomats and media alike.
Musk may have to yield to such domestic laws, but he can use his platform to inform citizens of those countries they are being censored and controlled in what they are allowed to read.
The most important thing in America is for Musk to hit the ground running at Twitter.
First, he needs to order the preservation of all records. There are well-supported examples of biased censorship, including the burying of The Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story before the election. There are also allegations of back-channel communications from the government to manage a type of censorship-by-surrogate system to evade the First Amendment.
Second, Musk should focus on the First Amendment as a model for Twitter’s content-management policy. It has become a mantra on the left that free-speech objections to social-media censorship are meritless because the First Amendment does not apply to private corporations.
This is a knowingly cynical and senseless argument. The First Amendment has never been the sole and exclusive measure of free speech. It concerns the greatest threat to free speech at the time of the founding. But corporate censorship on communication platforms is an equal, if not greater, threat today to free-speech values.
Musk could call these anti-free-speech advocates’ bluff. Former President Barack Obama flogged this false line at Stanford in April. He started by declaring himself “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist.” He then called for the censorship of anything he considered “disinformation,” including “lies, conspiracy theories, junk science, quackery, racist tracts and misogynist screeds.”
Like many others on the left, Obama claims to be a free-speech champion but narrowly confines such fealty to government censorship. He emphasized, “The First Amendment is a check on the power of the state. It doesn’t apply to private companies like Facebook or Twitter.”
While the First Amendment does not bind private corporations, there is nothing preventing one — like Twitter — voluntarily assuming such protections for free speech. Even with some adjustments for a private forum, what I call the First Amendment Option would create a default in favor of free speech that doesn’t exist on these platforms.
There’d be narrow exceptions for threatening, unlawful and a few other proscribed categories of speech. Twitter can tap into a long line of First Amendment jurisprudence limiting the scope of such speech regulations. Even with a private company’s greater flexibility, a First Amendment-based policy would establish much better protections for free speech.
In other words, Musk could show up at Twitter with precisely the standard long dismissed by censorship advocates — and then let that sink in.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
Jonathan: So what else was in the news this week? Donald Trump, now a private citizen, nevertheless thinks he should not have to face so many lawsuits and prosecutions all at the same time–especially so close to the midterm elections! Try to figure that one out. So Trump is doing what he does best–delay, file frivolous claims and generally obstruct. Judge Erdogon, who is presiding over the tax fraud case brought by NY AG Letitia James against the Trump Organization, just refused Trump’s request to reassign the case to another judge. Trump’s reaction was instant in a Truth Social post: “His name is Arthur Erdogon & he is a vicious, biased, and mean ‘rubber stamp’ for the Communist takeover of the great & prosperous American Company that I have built over a long period of years”. For Trump it is a big “Communist” conspiracy to get him. Talk about delusional! Look out Judge Erdogon. Make sure you have police protection throughout the trial because some right-wing nut supporter of Trump might be inspired to act out on Trump’s vicious attack on you!
Speaking on vicious attacks, for years Trump has demonized Nancy Pelosi, making personal insults and attacks on the Speaker. Other Democratic lawmakers have been threatened with violence–inspired by Trump’s personal attacks. During the Jan. 6 insurrection the rioters inside the Capitol shouted “Where is Nancy, where is Nancy?” This week a right-wing zealot acted. David DePape invaded the Pelosi home and attacked Paul Pelosi with a hammer. Pelosi is recovering in a hospital with a fractured skull and other injuries. During the attack DePape also shouted “Where is Nancy?” Trump has remained strangely silent about the attack although some GOP leaders, like Mitch McConnell, have condemned it. Over at Truth Social Kevin Nunes, it’s CEO, has posted a photo of a man in a mask holding a huge mallet with the caption: ” At least this guy has clothes on”. Pretty much says it all about Trump’s reaction to the attack on Pelosi!
And who is David DePape? He is a follower of QAnon. In a post he referred to “diversity” as a “dog whistle for the genocide of the White race”. DePape also posted videos questioning the Holocaust and alleging Jewish bankers were responsible for Hitler’s rise to power. He has also posted racial slurs and far-right conspiracy theories, He supports Trump’s claim the 2020 election was “stolen”. His right-wing credentials are pretty well established. He is not a “leftist” or a card carrying member of Antifa!
In your previous column you complained that the Penguin workers who want Judge Barrett’s book to be recalled are “dangerous” and “delusional” What say you now about the “dangerous” and “delusional” attack on Paul Pelosi? Will you also [remain silent like Trump?
It’s quite likely that today, offensive but educational shows like “All in the Family” with the bigoted character “Archie Bunker” couldn’t be made today and would be censored. Or the show “The Jefferson’s” couldn’t survive today’s censors.
Both television shows made the bigots and racists look ridiculous. It helped defeat and combat racism and bigotry.
The real issue (to be resolved) is “Tribalism” not censorship. The historically “Over-Dog” group (WASPs) that controlled everything are a lesser percentage of the U.S. Population and the “Under-Dog” groups are being better represented and are tired of being crapped on.
Although the WASPs are very scared of these demographics, if America has a strong “constitutional rule of law” with a strong Bill of Rights – it protects all minority groups including WASPs.
So storming the Capitol on January 6 or blacklisting innocent Americans after 9/11 – to subvert the “constitutional rule of law” actually harms WASPs in the longterm. Tribalism and factionalism harms all Americans.
Leaders of both parties need to try to relax those WASP fears and phobias, not make those fears worse. Trump, for once in his life, could uphold his Oath of Office and stop agitating these fears today. Censorship is not the solution.
Elon Musk vows to review why Just the News story was censored
https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/elon-musk-vows-review-why-just-news-story-was-censored
Long but good read by Glenn Greenwald,
The Consortium Imposing the Growing Censorship Regime</strong?
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-consortium-imposing-the-growing
“Musk should focus on the First Amendment as a model for Twitter’s content-management policy.”
Yet you, Turley, do not do this for your own comment management. You are a huge hypocrite.
IIRC, you have a long history of violating the civility code of the professor’s privately owned, blog.
And then play the victim.
Twitter has a civility code too. Guess who violates that code most often. Conservatives. That’s why they get censored or banned more often. Twitter is a private company. Turley doesn’t run his blog according to his own “1st amendment model”. Remember the 1st amendment still doesn’t prohibit private entities from censoring speech. Let that…sink in.
a) Free speech includes uncivil speech.
b) You’re confusing me with someone else.
Again: IF Turley argues for free speech, THEN he should abide by it on his own blog. He is a hypocrite who wants Twitter to host speech that Turley himself will not host.
Probably screening for hypocritical bots.
*I am not a robot.
When anonymous has nothing to say, he attacks the professor. That might be considered an improvement. When he thinks he has something to say, he is generally wrong.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ When anonymous has nothing to say, he attacks the professor. ”
He has a valid point. The professor IS a hypocrite. His blog doesn’t run on the principles he wants twitter to adhere to.
How so ?
We have been through this repeatedly.
If you use certain words that WP filters – your post will get blocked.
If you post more than 2 links – your post will get blocked.
If you cut and paste more than fair use allows – your post will get blocked.
If a post gets deleted – all posts linked to that will disapear.
If you post spam – your post will get blocked.
Nearly all these rules come from WP not Turley.
I have repeatedly asked for evidence of any Content filtering beyond that – and no one has provided evidence.
Lots of people claiming posts were blocked for no good reason – but no one providing evidence of that.
No one has mentioned that posts with child porn will get blocked – and likely reported to the police.
Nor that actual threats will get blocked.
Nor that NSFW content will likely get blocked.
I would expect that all those rules will be in place on Twitter after Musk.
Musk has also made a big point of targeting Bots.
I personally do not care what Turley or Twitters rules are so long as:
They are either obvious or published.
Adhered to without bias.
I expect that both Turley and Twitter will have SOME rules
I also find it interesting – a decade ago conservatives confronted Social media and SM said they were not specially filtering based on politics.
Today they are openly admitting that they do that.
The lies and hypocracy are from the left.
Every time sleepy joe opens his moth some whopper comes out – but for the most part the right does not whig out as the left does over trump.
Joe is not all there and we no it. Even when he was – no one thought he had a functional relationship with truth.
Joe is ignored by most of the country.
One of the reasons that this election is a referendum on Democrats – not Biden, is because the entire party is complicit in the desturction of the Biden presidency – not just sleepy joe.
In fact he may be the least culpable, as he really does not know what is going on.
John Say,
I think the difference between the mass hysteria MSM went on about questioning Trump’s mental capacity and Biden’s is MSM and Leftists wanted everyone to question Trumps mental state.
With Biden, everyone knows his mental state.
“My, my legislation says there can be no more than eight bullets in a round.”
“And, of course, they’re going try for their 499th time, or whatever the number is — they’re still determined to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. And, by the way, if they do, that means — not a joke, everybody,” said Biden, not jokingly. “That’s why we defeated it in 2018 when they tried to do it. We went to 54 states.”
“Jackie, Jackie are you here?”
” Our economy is strong as hell.”
There are many differences.
Trump was wittily offensive. His remarks showed competence – even if you did not agree.
Biden is dull and at best programmed.
Of course all that is new is degree. Biden has never not been dull.
If people thought Biden was actually competent – we would be far more offended at his remarks.
Still the bottom line – and a major factor in this election is that our current mess is not Biden’s fault.
It is the entire democratic parities fault.
“ Nearly all these rules come from WP not Turley.”
So Turley has an excuse? That it’s not HIS rules, but word press. That’s quite the cop-out for Turley. To declare himself a “free speech absolutist” and then make excuses that a third party or software is at fault would make him a massive hypocrite.
To be an ”absolutist” would be to allow for even foul and racist offensive language. Here you’re claiming there should be SOME rules because they still have a right to run their platforms as they see fit. Looks like Turley and the rest of his supporters want to have their cake and eat it too.
The entire point of being a “free speech absolutist” is that certain words SHOULDN’T trigger a deletion. They may be offensive and according to you and Turley it’s ultimately the decision of the reader to decide whether to accept it or not. Not Turley or WP or whatever excuses he or you come up with.
If the rhetoric or content becomes overly offensive or foul you or anyone else can move along to another platform or blog.
Twitter censoring others to prevent the platform from devolving into a cesspool of conspiracy theories and racist rhetoric and yes even political lying IS what kept it appealing to the vast majority of members.
There’s a reason why platforms like Parler and truth social are not popular or profitable. Because they are filled with the same racist rhetoric and nut jobs, and bigotry that can ruin any platform, but that’s free speech according to Turley and an “absolutist” would NOT censor even foul or racist rhetoric from his blog.
Is there one of these rules you have an issue with ?
Are these rules politically biased ?
Are they secret and changing each day ?
If I personally brought up a Blog on WP I would likely end up with the same rules by default.
I would have to choose to go without the rules and risk lots of NSFW content and spam, and ….
Or opt for these rules some of which I might prefer not to have.
I likely would decide much as Turley has – to take a few rules I am not completely happy with to get spam filtering and NSFW content filtering that I want.
Nor am I going to enormous effort to get exactly what I want.
I am not Musk and this is not twitter.
“To declare himself a “free speech absolutist” and then make excuses that a third party or software is at fault would make him a massive hypocrite.”
Nope.
If you wish to have an actual debate over the important negative impact of spam filtering – go ahead.
If you wish to make a defense of online Child pornography – be my guest.
I have not claimed their SHOULD be anything.
Only that there are.
If you wish to debate the merits of each of these rules – go for it.
I am listening.
I would note – no one expects Musk to make Twitter an absolute no holds barred free speech free for all.
I do not think there are many right or left that want that.
Whether it is Turley or Musk, most of us do not have a problem with the owners making the rules.
We do have a problem with arbitrary and capricious and every changing rules.
We have a problem with bait and switch.
I have not been on Twitter for a long time several years.
I still have an account.
Maybe I will go back.
But I joined twitter when it promised to be the free speech platform for the internet.
Ultimately that proved a lie.
Bait and switch.
I wasted alot of time on twitter building a reputation – only to have twitter destroy the value of twitter to me.
I am not rushing back to twitter.
Musk will have to earn my return.
I have liked what I heard before he took over.
But I want to hear NOW what his comittments are.
And I think I will wait for him to see what’s going on before I put much trust in those.
If I do not like what I hear – I will not come back.
There are plenty of alternatives.
This is how free markets work.
“If the rhetoric or content becomes overly offensive or foul you or anyone else can move along to another platform or blog.”
That is correct, and if I am Elon Musk and I just paid $44B for Twitter, my goal is to increase the number of Twitter users – not decrease them
That means I want as few left wingnuts to leave as possible, and as large a portion of those who find the prior censorship chaffing to return.
It means the Market gets to decide – not you, not me, Not the left, not the right.
If those like you are correct and Musks choices result in Twitter becoming a cess pool no one wants to visit – he will have blown $44B for nothing.
And he will likely have to change how Twitter is run.
Conversely if he increases freedom and on net MORE people move to twitter – then the rest of SM will with near certainty follow his lead.
I suspect the latter is more likely than the former – and that is what has YOU and the left terrified.
“Twitter censoring others to prevent the platform from devolving into a cesspool of conspiracy theories and racist rhetoric and yes even political lying IS what kept it appealing to the vast majority of members.”
We shall see.
“There’s a reason why platforms like Parler and truth social are not popular or profitable.”
Twitter was not profitable BEFORE Musk bought it. In fact I think the only SM platform that is profitable is FaceBook.
As too popularity – Parler, Truth, Rumble are growing more rapidly than anything else.
They have a long way to go to be competitive.
Further the Amazon fiasco in early 2021 has slammed them all with the requirement to build completely independent infrastructure from the ground up. They learned that they can not buy anything from anyone and not create a vulnerability for the left to find a backdoor extort them.
That makes things harder, but the results will be better.
“Because they are filled with the same racist rhetoric and nut jobs, and bigotry that can ruin any platform”
I have been on Parlor for a long time. There is no racist rhetoric, no nut jobs, no bigotry.
It is a pretty mellow place. It is also an excellent supliment to the MSM. You will get the news that the MSM is supressing.
I have not been on Truth – mostly due to technical problems.
But Trump and Nunes have repeatedly claimsed that their goal is to make Truth “Family Friendly”
I suspect that means they do to the left – to drag queen story hour, and what not, what the left did to them on Twitter.
Turn about is fair play.
I was on Gab briefly. That was much like Twitter except that it was not so ideologically titled.
Anything goes – racism, and biggotry from all sides.
That is not what I want.
But it is what some people want.
That is what is wonderful about a free markey – there is something for everyone.
You can not seem to grasp that.
“I have repeatedly asked for evidence of any Content filtering beyond that – and no one has provided evidence.”
I wasn’t talking about “content filtering,” which is automated. I was talking about Darren removing comments that have made it past the WordPress filter and been posted.
Two examples of comments removed by Darren after they were posted, which you can see in the archived version of the page but have been removed from the current version of the page:
* the August 28, 2022 at 11:11 AM comment archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20220828151459/https://jonathanturley.org/2022/08/28/federal-judge-indicates-intent-to-appoint-special-master-to-review-seized-documents-in-mar-a-lago-raid/
* the April 30, 2021 at 10:18 AM archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20210430154145/https://jonathanturley.org/2021/04/30/georgetown-professor-under-fire-for-reading-the-n-word-in-a-class-on-free-speech-and-racism/
Both of those comments would be protected speech under the First Amendment. But Turley, who claims to be a free speech absolutist, choose to have Darren delete them.
That’s Turley’s right. After all, it’s his blog. But Turley is a HYPOCRITE for demanding that Twitter allow all protected speech when Turley himself does not do so on his own blog.
ATS, how can anyone believe you? Do I need to send a link providing evidence that you censor yourself? You do that type of thing to make unjustified claims. Not an honest type of behavior.
So your saying it is not OK for Turley to delete comments from posters asking that the US intelligence service use nerve gas to kill an ex-president ?
I have no problem with that.
EB should be thankful, the post is actually a violation of US law, and he could easily have been hauled away by Secret Service Agents.
Both of those comments would be protected speech under the First Amendment. Strange that you believe the first to be a violation of US law.
As for your question, no, that’s not what I’m saying. Bizarre that you inferred that from what I said. What I actually said is: Turley, who claims to be a free speech absolutist, choose to have Darren delete them. That’s Turley’s right. After all, it’s his blog. But Turley is a HYPOCRITE for demanding that Twitter allow all protected speech when Turley himself does not do so on his own blog.
What part of what I actually said do you not understand?
Threatening to use nerve gas on a protected person is a crime under US law.
After reading that I did not bother to read the 2nd.
The fact that you think there is no problem with the first, leaves me with no reason to trust you on the 2nd.
Regardless, are you saying that posts such as that are acceptable ?
If Turley is censoring posts with explicit threats to anyone – I am OK with that.
If FB or Twitter is doing so – I am OK with that.
It is also indicative of the moral bankruptcy of the left that explicit threats to use nerve gas on someone are OK to those of you on the left.
But questioning left wing nut Dogma is an unacceptable threat, even though there is no threat.
The illogical of those on the left is fascinating.
The more education one gets today, the stupider they get.
He didn’t “Threaten[] to use nerve gas on a protected person.” It’s not well-written, but he was discussing a hypothetical action by Putin, not proposing something he’d do himself.
“After reading that I did not bother to read the 2nd.”
If you don’t read the second one, you clearly cannot assess whether it’s protected speech.
“The fact that you think there is no problem with the first …”
The fact that you AGAIN pretend that I said something I didn’t say only underscores your weak reading comprehension. I said Both of those comments would be protected speech under the First Amendment. That speech is protected in NO way implies that there is no problem with it. Amazing that you do not understand that.
We are discussing whether certain speech is legal under the First Amendment, which is a legal issue, not my personal opinions about whether said speech is or isn’t offensive, is or isn’t appropriate, etc.
“He didn’t “Threaten[] to use nerve gas on a protected person.” It’s not well-written, but he was discussing a hypothetical action by Putin, not proposing something he’d do himself.”
Should Turley bet the blog that the Secret Service will see it that way ?
I would not bet my freedom on it.
““After reading that I did not bother to read the 2nd.”
If you don’t read the second one, you clearly cannot assess whether it’s protected speech.”
After reading the first I can assess that you do not know what protected speech is and what unprotected speech is.
That is all I need to know.
“The fact that you AGAIN pretend that I said something I didn’t say only underscores your weak reading comprehension. I said Both of those comments would be protected speech under the First Amendment.”
Confirming that I did not pretend you said something you did not.
You are saying the first is protected speech.
It is not.
If you posted the first comment on my blog – or twitter or pretty much anywhere – it would get deleted the moment anyone with the power to do so saw it.
You say it is protected.
I am not going to the supreme court and risking jail to defend your right to threaten to use nerve gas on the former president.
Not even if you do so obliquely.
Nor likely is anyone else.
If you wish to prove that doing so obliquely is protected – do it in your email, or on your blog.
I am not going to make myself the defendent in your test case.
Nor is Turley.
“What part of what I actually said do you not understand?”
I understand all of it. You are a piece of work.
So in you world Turley is a huge hypocrite for taking deleting posts that could get the poster arrested and the entire blog taken down ?
I do not beleive ANYONE of ANY political persuasion is advocating that posts that could result in visits from the secret service or a government takedown of the entire blog should be allowed.
I was aghast that you did not understand why the post you provided was taken down.
I’m amazed that you consistently misrepresent what eb said, and don’t understand that what he actually said is protected under the 1st Amendment.
I am amazed that you think that it is OK to threaten to use nerve gas on others.
Does the post you link meet the criteria that allows government to prosecute it as criminal – maybe not, but I am not betting my freedom on that.
Does it meet the criteria necessary for government to censor it – certainly.
Does it make your claim that Turley is censoring inappropriately – not a chance.
EB was continuously using foul language even after being censored. I think that is why he was removed. Maybe you like listening to others using foul language, so you see nothing wrong with it.
No person/company, beast or politician should be allowed to control 70.97% of the ‘social media’ market place, imho. As president Obama (back on the campaign trail) recently pointed out, over a determined chorus of ‘fu*k Joe Biden chants, that’s the government’s job.
He said there ain’t no reason and the truth is plain to see. Never underestimate the ability of Joe to fu*k things up.
(Obama was/is the greatest waste of raw political talent in my life .. . and I didn’t just fall off the turnip wagon.)
>”The most important thing in America is for Musk to hit the ground running at Twitter.”
Well, according to General George S. Patton, compared to war all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance. .. and I think Musk would agree.
…This is war in the 21st century. Just look at the number of pawns the left has already sent to the front lines for defense.
This is bizarre. Is this a real post or a random sequence language bot?
Not only do I resent Elon ‘owning’ 70.97% of the social media market place, having the spare $44 billion pocket change laying around to buy it .. . makes my head swim.
*also, I’m a jealous lover.
Bad bot.
Professor Turley,
If Musk removes bots from Twitter (as he has stated he will), how can he square that with his commitment to protecting free speech?
A bot’s post is simply an expression of the free speech of the bot’s creator/coder.
Contradictions like these make me skeptical that Musk or any self-proclaimed free speech absolutist has actually thought through the implications of their philosophies.
Really? So by removing the bot, has the creator’s voice been censored? Nope he can still speak.
The real question is whether the bot creator will be willing to speak if he knows he doesn’t have the ‘support’ of thousands/millions of fake likes, plus the added thousand/millions of unchained real voices laughing at his/her moronic bleatings.
“ Really? So by removing the bot, has the creator’s voice been censored? Nope he can still speak.”
When Trump was banned from twitter was he still able to speak? Obviously he was. So was he really censored or just denied the platform which millions could hear him? Remember it was NOT his platform in the first place.
What did he say on twitter after his ban? What was permitted to say on twitter?
You’ll have to check out what he said on his own platform, Truth Social. He didn’t stop speaking obviously.
LOL. Good one, but he is censored from twittwer, unlike a person whose bots are censored.
Partisan hacks like Svelaz want Trump banned and yet have no issue with the CCP or the Mullahs in Iran being allowed to “opine”. When our enemies hang us guys like Svelaz will sell them the rope.
Trump is selling the rope.
Hullbooby,
Trump banned himself. He violated Twitter’s rules. Just as it happens on this blog. Violation of Turley’s blog rules gets you banned.
You argue free speech should be free from censorship. That would include allowing mullahs and terrorists to post on Twitter too. Or do you think they should be banned just because they are terrorists and mullahs. What if they just spew speech that’s hateful towards democracy. Should they be banned? According to Turley they shouldn’t.
After Svelaz sells the rope to hang decent people, he will be hung with the left-over rope. People like Svelaz know nothing of history. If he did he would quake in his boots.
S. Meyer,
That is an interesting observation.
I think we are seeing something of a cross between Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Civil War 2.0.
The small, but loud minority Leftists are pushing for Mao like concepts with modern twists.
Then there is the silent majority whom are now rejecting those concepts.
Just read an article about small towns where the sexualization of children and CRT indoctrination as young as 3rd graders is driving parents to pull their children out of public education and into private schools, homeschooling.
Recent studies have found public schools that prioritize social justice curriculum, students have lower reading, writing and math skills.
Leftists would rather have an hyper emotional, uneducated populace.
Conservatives would rather have an educated, logical based populace.
Those two ideologies are going to clash at some point.
“The small, but loud minority Leftists are pushing for Mao like concepts with modern twists.”
Upstate, you have some interesting viewpoints. Do you think at least some of those Lefists are on the take or being given funding for their actions? I think of the rule: whatever dirty things Democrats accuse others of, they are likely the one’s doing it.
If you have kids in those grades you have personal knowledge. Rufo is one of the experts on the subject and has a blog. This might be interesting. https://christopherrufo.com/resource/radical-gender-theory/. Most of my links today are going nowhere. This one I looked up and needs to be downloaded. I hope it works if you try it. If not search for some of his other items meant to help parents.
I think the ideologies have clashed and that is part of the reason mothers are called domestic terrorists. We haven’t heard a lot of noise because the media remains deaf, dumb and blind.
Svelaz is dumb and whatever he says is generally garbage.
S. Meyer,
Thank you for your kind words.
That is an interesting idea, but in this day and age, there are plenty of useful idiots who would gladly take those actions for free.
My kids are grown and on their own.
The link you provided did open. Will read it later.
Thank you.
Upstate, grown children might have children of their own that are too busy to follow all the craziness of the left. As a grandparent I listen to what the grandchildren say they learned in school and then discuss it with them.
Yes, by censoring a bot, you have censored the bot’s creator…
A bot is just a tool through which speech is delivered. That’s the point.
Anonymous turned himself into a broken pretzel.
I think he will accomplish good things with it. That said: the young (and not so young, but mainly young) privileged (as in insulated by wealth, doesn’t really matter what happens) and indoctrinated will likely be just as hateful, violent, and self-serving for the remainder of their lives. The majority of Nazis that managed to escape did not change their stripes. Think ‘Manson Family’, not, ‘kid going through an idealistic phase’ in terms of their mental instability, because that is the truth of it. The same is possibly true about fragility and anxiety without a shift in mind.
The important thing here IMO is that (hopefully) the leftist narrative will be freely and directly challenged every day, which is perfectly fair, and (hopefully) that will continue to spread as 2020 was likely just the beginning of the left’s very public totalitarianism in my view, unfortunately. I know they like to say the same about others but sorry, we were all alive then (and before) and we do not have the collective amnesia they are hoping for.
Another aside: historically, the DNC has treated Independent voters as second-class citizens, as an afterthought. All the way up to 2020. This year? I get so much dem spam, the attention is embarrassing. Actually makes me a little nervous in terms of the lows they might stoop to this time. Someday there may be forgiveness for 21st century dems, but a whole lot of us sure are not going to forget.
Jonathan: In any card game you eventually have to show your cards. You have done that in this post. One of your suggestions to Musk to make Twitter a “model” for First Amendment protections is to “order the preservation of all records”. And what “records” are you interested in? You want Musk to reveal everything “including the burying of the Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story before the election”. Ahah! You want Musk to help spread all the disinformation you and the Post have been spreading for years about Hunter Biden–what you have called the greatest corruption “scandal” in US history. Claims so far that have not been proved in a court of law. And you want Musk to do this just before the election so the Bidens cannot respond.
MarketWatch has a column (10/28/22) by Richard K. Sherwin, professor of law at NY Law School, entitled “Elon Musk takeover of Twitter will destroy freedom of speech, not protect it”. Sherwin points out that in the first 12 hours after Musk completed the deal the use of the n-word increased nearly 500% from the previous average. Sherwin concludes: “Musk’s claim that he will save society’s ‘public square’ is fundamentally bogus. He will fuel its disintegration by permitting it to be overrun by toxic disinformation, including deep fakes, insipid disinformation, including deep fakes, insipid propaganda, calls for violence, doxing, and other forms of illiberal anti-speech acts”.
For you Twitter is really not so much about “free speech” but spreading the so far unproven conspiracy theories about the Bidens that you hope will get traction in the mid-terms. So far they haven’t. You are on a fool’s errand just like John Durham!
…and you, Sir (Dennis McIntyre), to use your words ‘You are on a fool’s errand…’ with your attitude of entitled superiority, talking down to the rest of us re: YOUR advocacy of all radical toxic Left-wing points of view as being the only ‘free speech’ worthy of expression… ..let that sink in,’
EighteenthHole,
Just scroll past him.
I do.
eighteenthhole: You probably made a hole in one on the 18th years ago and you are still bragging about it. At least that’s what the guys in the club house say. They say you can’t even break a hundred these days. Golf aside, if I have a sense of “superiority”, which I don’t claim, it’s because I back up my opinions with FACTS. I try to address important issues of the day that Prof. Turley ignores. That’s more than we can say about your posts. Just regurgitated right-wing screeds like “radical toxic Left-wing points of view” rather than any rational analysis. If you have a different opinion on any thing I post let’s hear it. Otherwise, don’t waste valuable space in this blog with your utter nonsense and gibberish! You would probably be better served by joining Musk’s Twitter!
Please, from whom did the 50% increase of the n-word data come? And 12 hours after he took over? This makes no sense. also, what was the context of the n-word? Like the current usage? Or hostile? And the NYU lawyer prof? Why does her opinion mean more than mine? Or more than Turley’s? I would want the data, the sourcing of the data and then I would decide what to believe.
Dennis chooses to remain in fantasy land. When done talking to Mickey Mouse he will do the same with Donald Duck. Talking to anything but a comic strip is beyond Dennnis’s abilities.
We are getting way past claims proven in court and russian disinformation.
There is absolutely zero doubt that the entire Biden clan – including Hunter and Joe are deeply involved in lucrative financial deals accorss the world – with powerful interests, including foreign governments that are US enemies or at odds with US interests.
The left whigged out because Trump had sold condo’s to Russian oligarchs.
Hunter has sold US oil from the SPR to the Chinese with profits going to himself, his family and the president of the united states who made it possible to sell the SPR to China.
Is all this legal – unlikely, but maybe. That really is not the point. We spent 4 years listening to constant claims that Trump was compromised by Russia – without evidence. VP and President Biden have participated in myriads of deals with foreign powers and their agents. to his personal benefit. Is it legal – probably not, but maybe. Is it moral ? No. Is it ethical ? No. Is it impeachable ? yes.
I do not expect Joe to be impeached. I also do not expect him to remain president to the end of his term.
“ There is absolutely zero doubt that the entire Biden clan – including Hunter and Joe are deeply involved in lucrative financial deals accorss the world – with powerful interests, including foreign governments that are US enemies or at odds with US interests.”
So what exactly is illegal or criminal about it? Nobody has been able to articulate exactly what that is. Can you?
“ Is all this legal – unlikely, but maybe. That really is not the point. ”
The point seems to be just a petty need to be vindictive because “they” did it too.
It’s a deliberate attempt at smearing the president under the shadow of possible criminality or illegal activity by pushing mere suspicion. It’s claims of guilty of a crime by mere allegations of suspicious activity.
I thought you were all about the rule of law and you’re innocent until proven guilty yet here you’re already implying the Biden’s as guilty without proof.
“So what exactly is illegal or criminal about it? Nobody has been able to articulate exactly what that is. Can you?”
Actually plenty of people have articulated that.
Regardless, we are way past the point where any of what I wrote is not known as fact.
There are as you inarticulately note questions of to what extent any of it is criminal.
That will be explored in great detail come January.
“ Actually plenty of people have articulated that.”. But you haven’t and you didn’t point out who. So you’re just peddling BS.
Sounds more like you’re wanting to go on a witch-hunt of your own. Like Durham’s investigation. It will just be another colossal waste of time and money.
““ Actually plenty of people have articulated that.”. But you haven’t and you didn’t point out who.”
I have repeatedly, and you are ignoring it.
“Sounds more like you’re wanting to go on a witch-hunt of your own.”
Nope, a Deal memo where the Current VP gets 15% is prima fascia evident of public corruption.
It is far more than enough to deeply investigate.
In fact it is enough to go to a jury and get a conviction outside od DC.
“Like Durham’s investigation.”
My only unhappiness with the Durham investigation is that he has not charged anyone in FBI or DOJ.
What he has found was absolutely damning.
Sussman should have been convicted – he filed a false criminal report.
There is no materiality exception for false reporting, nor a – But the FBI knew it was false exception.
Sussman and Danchenko are both repugnant. But most of their conduct was legal.
Just as the conduct of Papadoulis, Flynn, Van Der Zandt, Manafort, and Flynn was legal.
And also moral.
Danchenko and Sussman perpitrated a fraud on the government on the american people, on you.
Legal or not, that was immoral.
The INITIATED the bad conduct Durham prosecuted.
Every single person targeted by Mueller did nothing, They did not make themselves targets – Danchenko and Sussman made them targets.
They did not immorally lie about the conduct of others in order to trigger an investigation.
All they did wrong was refuse to Kowtow deeply enough to Mueller and his corrupt investigators.
It will just be another colossal waste of time and money.
“ Actually plenty of people have articulated that.”. But you haven’t and you didn’t point out who.”
I have repeatedly, and you are ignoring it.”
You haven’t articulated anything other than pure allegations. You say crimes have been committed and all you can offer is allegation upon allegation instead of actual proof. Nothing you pointed out is illegal. Your “primal facie” evidence is not evidence of corruption. Remember corruption is very narrowly defined and there has to be a clear evidence of quid pro quo. Making money is not illegal or criminal.
You cited statutes prohibiting gifts as proof of illegal actions but none of the deals you allege are considered gifts. Your struggle to define the crimes or illegal actions shows the weakness of the allegations and claims.
“ Like Durham’s investigation.”
My only unhappiness with the Durham investigation is that he has not charged anyone in FBI or DOJ.
What he has found was absolutely damning.
Sussman should have been convicted – he filed a false criminal report.”
Durham couldn’t charge anyone in the FBI or DOJ because the allegations were based on conspiracy theories. Not evidence. It became pretty obvious Durham had no credible evidence to use in court.
Sussman did not file a false report. Wanting that to be true does not change that fact. Durham couldn’t use that allegation either because he specifically did not hence evidence to prove the claim.
Durham didn’t find anything. All he found was a bunch of allegations and rumors borne out of baseless conspiracy theories that even he convinced himself to be true but could not prove in court. Specifically because they were just conspiracy theories.
Mueller produced more convictions and guilty pleas in less time than Durham did in almost four years of “deep” investigations.
You are daft.
You continue to argue that Biden can not be investigated if he can not be convicted.
That is idiotic circular reasoning.
And frankly – there is more than enough to convict Joe Biden – outside of DC.
Just to be clear the SCOTUS did not require a quid pro quo – in everything but a gift there is always a quid pro quo.
Unless you are claiming Biden was Gifted a huge amount in these assorted deals, there is a quid pro quo.
The question is whether there was an illegal one.
If Biden sells his corvette – there is a quid pro quo. Unless he sells is for 20M no one is going to claim that is a crime.
But Where Joe has no tangible asset to sell – the QPQ is presumptively his power as VP.
Regardles to Quote VP Biden
“Fire the prosecutor, or Billions in US aide goes away”.
Illegal QPQ.
And BTW if you are actually familiar with all the available documentation – the whole circle is closed.
Burisma paid Hunter to end the investigations into Burisma.
Through his Father he did that.
Joes claims to be uninvolved in Hunters business are LIES – there finances were entangled, Joe met with people Hunter wanted him to.
Hunter and Joe left voice mails about their business together.
No doubt a DC jury would not convict. But most anywhere else would already be trivial.
Regardless, the standard to investigate, to issue warrants, to indict, to impeach have all been met already.
None of these have EVER been met with Trump.
You keep lying about Durham.
Durham did not convict Denachenko and Sussman.
You clompletely ignore the fact that the Trials PROVED that the Steele Dossier and alpha Bank nonsense were HOAX’s.
How ? Because both the prosecution and defense presented evidence and agreed the were.
I am disappointed – not because Durham did not convict Danchenko or Sussman. Frankly those trials were wins – when the Defendant is making YOUR argument, presenting YOUR evidence – that is a win.
Durham was not appointed to convict Sussman or Danchenko, he was appointed to find and expose misconduct.
he has done that.
I would have liked to see him prosecute about a dozen in government – as they were the real malefactors.
Regardless, he exposed them. He exposed the entire corrupt “get Trump” scheme.
Danchenko and Sussman were acquited on the EVIDENCE that the DOJ and FBI already knew that the Steele Dossier and the Alpha Bank scam were HOAX’s.
That is the juries finding that is the basis for their acquital.
That is what is called a “finding of fact” by a jury.
It the Sussman and Danchenko case it means they are innocent.
But the SAME fact also means that much of the FBI and DOJ are GUILTY of abuse of power.
DOJ/FBI knew the Steele Dossier was a HOAX – and yet they used it as the centerpiece of 4 warrants.
Warrants in which people as High as Comey and Rosenstein SWORE the Steele Dossier was credible – NOT a HOAX.
These are CRIMES. These are massive abuses of Public Trust.
You rant that there is not enough evidence to convict Biden – maybe not yet.
But there is more than enough to investigate him.
But the Danchenko and Sussman trials proved there NEVER was enough evidence to INVESTIGATE Trump – and that FBI and DOJ knew it.
I have no idea of what will happen – but there are now Rumors that Durham’s investigation will be expanded – particularly after the red wave crashes down in 2 weeks.
We shall see. Regardless, there will be LOTS of investigations in the new year.
Most of which are long overdue.
“ I have no idea of what will happen – but there are now Rumors that Durham’s investigation will be expanded – particularly after the red wave crashes down in 2 weeks.”
More like wishful thinking.
There is zero doubt there will be a deep dive into DOJ/FBI after the election.
The only question is who will do it.
The GOP will start January with FAR too much to investigate.
They are going to have to triage and delegate.
If they win the Senate – which now seems a certainty, that will make it easier – they will be able to run different investigations in the house and senate.
But it still makes sense for the GOP to demand that Durham continue.
There are complexities – because technically Garland controls both the Durham and Hunter Biden investigations.
But the GOP will have a great deal of leverage.
They can cut DOJ’s or FBI’s Budget if they do not get what they want.
I expect the GOP to do better than House democrats did with the J6 committee and the lawless Trump impeachments.
But Republicans – particularly in the house are seething, Democrats have treated them like $hit for 4 years and they are not going to forget that.
I do not expect democrats to be gagged as Republicans were.
but I do expect them to have little power to derail investigations.
Further the Democrats have set bad standards – failure to respond to a house subpeona is now a crime.
That gives enormous new power to a GOP house in investigating a democratic executive.
“ The GOP will start January with FAR too much to investigate.
They are going to have to triage and delegate.”
It’s more likely they will trip in themselves trying to outdo one another and make a mess of things as they always do. Because spewing rhetoric is easy, actually investigating and following the law is hard. Durham found out that he can’t use conspiracy theories as a basis for an investigation.
“ There are complexities – because technically Garland controls both the Durham and Hunter Biden investigations.
But the GOP will have a great deal of leverage.
They can cut DOJ’s or FBI’s Budget if they do not get what they want.”
You mean they are going to politicize the whole thing? Oh yeah, that’s what they will end up with.
“ But Republicans – particularly in the house are seething, Democrats have treated them like $hit for 4 years and they are not going to forget that.”
That’s their own fault. But they are going to do it as an act of vengeance rather than real issues. They won’t have much to gain from it.
There is not a possibility on earth they can do worse than democrats have done with J6.
You keep pretending about Durham.
Personally I found Durham’s investigation amazing.
Horowitz left us with the understanding this was a mess that never should have happened.
But Durham made it clear that none of this was accident or incompetence – that it was planned malice.
You rant about conspiracy theories – Bur Durham actually exposed one – a pretty big one.
I would prefer to see the perpetrators hauled off in handcuffs – but that was never going to happen.
Regardless, Durham was oddly brilliant. He went straight to the very start.
He not only proved the foundation was corrupt and everyone knew it – but he actually got those he prosecuted to make that case for him.
You keep ranting that Durham proved nothing, but He got Danchenko and Sussman to argue that not only was this all a Clinton Hoax – but that everyone in the FBI KNEW it.
You are so fixated on how many people he put in jail to miss the fact that he obliterated the entire collusion delusion from the very foundation all the way to the end.
Horowitz left us with a keystone cops view of the DOJ/FBI, But Durham proved political corruption.
Here we have Danckenko and Sussman pleading and begging the jury to beleive that it was all a big lie – and the FBI and DOJ knew it,
and you miss the inescapable conclusion – that if the DOJ/FBI knew this was all lies from the very start – then the entire thing – From July of 2016 until Mueller closed his doors was entirely politically corrupt and a giant conspiracy.
Durham did not chase conspiracy theories – He let Danchenko and Sussman prove that for him.
There remains little likelyhood that anyone could convict the “conspirators” in a DC court. But everyone with a functioning brain knows, that Durham took the foundations out of the entire investigation. He let Danchenko and Sussman prove that The DOJ/FBI were politically corrupt from the start.
They knew it all was a lie and investigated anyway. How much more corrupt can you get ?
The GOP can not “politicize the whole thing” – that ship has sailed.
But yes, they are going to continue to use politics to force getting to the Truth.
They will do so because it is to their political advantage.
But that happens sometimes – the pursuit of Truth and politics sometimes align.
You do not seem to understand – that You, the left democrats made this mess.
Yes, Republicans are going to take advantage of the fact that the democratic party has repeatedly jumped the shark.
You say Hunter and Joe Biden committed no crimes. That is OK, the GOP is going to feature every single transaction, over and over.
Ultimately it will not matter if they are crimes, the conduct is immortal and unethical and p[uts democrats in a bind.
These peopel are the people YOU put into the whitehouse. This is what YOU covered up.
Frankly, I do not know what congressional Democrats will actually do – do you think that the squad, or Nadler or however many democrats remain in the house and Senate after November want to be defending this ?
Frankly I do not know why YOU are stupid enough to.
When you were attacking Trump you tried to make hay by painting Trump as different from ordinary people – the average person does not sell million dollar condo’s. Ultimately that attack failed – Trumps blue color supporters stuck with him.
Do you think Democrats are going to stick with Biden – or other democrats when the discussion is about the Bidens billion dollar hedge funds with money from China ? Is that going to be “kindly uncle joe”
AOC is already under attack from her own supporters over her support for the War in Ukraine.
the Far left did not elect her to feed Raytheon.
You wanted DOJ/FBI to go after Trump – that MIGHT have worked – but you stupidly went after ordinary people too.
You went after Parents of schoolkids. You went after non-violent prolife protestors – and did nothing about violent prochoice attacks.
The GOP will be going after Garland/DOJ/FBI – had you stuck to Trump MAYBE GOP congressmen would have left DOJ/FBI alone.
But you had to sic them on ordinary people – and that empowers a republican congress to aggressively go after DOJ/FBI
They will be too busy preparing for hearings or in hearings to continue targeting republicans.
I am personally shocked.
Throughout my life democrats have been far better at messaging, at politics than republicans.
But starting in the middle of Obama and slowly continuing from their – democrats lost touch with much of the country.
On of the big political themes of the past decade has been – when Democrats change the norms – the long term advantage has gone to republicans. The Faux impeachments, the J6 committee all the politicization of everything that democrats have done – have btoh lowered the bar for republicans, empowered them, and put them in a position to do much the same – only better.
“They are going to do it as an act of vengeance rather than real issues. They won’t have much to gain from it.”
Of course they are going to do is for vengeance – you think you can target abuse and belittle people and not expect them to want revenge when they regain power ? that is what house republicans want, that is what republican voters want,
That is what pro-life voters want, that is what parents with kids in school want, that is what all the different groups that have been targeted want.
You pissed people off and they want revenge. You abused power to go after them – turn about is fair play.
But Republicans have the advantage – there are REAL ISSUES, and there is lots to gain, and House democrats have shown how to do it wrong.
Republicans are going after DOJ/FBI, they are going after Hunter and Joe. They are going after DHS, they are going after the NIH and CDC and FDA. What they are not going to do is go after ordinary people who are democrats. They are not going to demonize half the country.
They are going to demonize democrats in government – who deserve it.
You have sown the wind, you will reap the whirlwind.
“The point seems to be just a petty need to be vindictive because “they” did it too.”
There is no “they did it too”.
This is just “they did it”. Trump and the trump family did nothing even close to this.
The Trump’s traded real value for real value – The only thing the Biden’s have to trade is the abuse of government power.
“It’s a deliberate attempt at smearing the president under the shadow of possible criminality or illegal activity by pushing mere suspicion.”
Wasn’t that what you were doing with Trump the past 6 years ? Only one difference – in reality there was no foundation for suspicion.
There is a bit of news regarding whether Hunter will be indicted. That is NOT the question.
The question is Why isn’t there an SC investigating Joe Biden ?
There is far more reasonable suspicion of corruption on the part of Biden than there ever was on Trump.
None of the “dirt” on Biden is stuff made up from gossip by Danchenko – this is real meetings with real people and real payments of real funds.
“It’s claims of guilty of a crime by mere allegations of suspicious activity.”
Nope it is a solid foundation for a long deep investigation.
“I thought you were all about the rule of law and you’re innocent until proven guilty yet here you’re already implying the Biden’s as guilty without proof.”
The presumption of innocence is for the jury room. The rule of law REQUIRES that were there is reasonable suspicion we must investigate.
One way or another that will happen.
But there is a difference between this and the collusion delusion. This is not the steele dossier,
The people are real, the deals are real, the money is real. The absence of any real value being delivered by the Biden’s is real.
There is more than enough not just to open an investigation – but to bring this to a jury.
But right now, it will be investigated starting in January.
That is what the rule of law requires.
“ This is just “they did it”. Trump and the trump family did nothing even close to this.”
Nope. Trump and his family did business in the same manner others accuse Hunter Biden of. Pretending it was different for Trump is pure denial of the facts.
Every politician in Washington does this and yes that includes Trump and Biden. Because it’s legal neither is going to be prosecuted for it. This is why the DOJ is having a hard time coming up with charges against Hunter Biden. There is no difference between what Trump did and Biden.
“ The Trump’s traded real value for real value – The only thing the Biden’s have to trade is the abuse of government power.”
LOL!! That’s cute. Trump traded money for access to himself. Real estate or money, either source was to make a profit and benefit from his position. Nothing illegal about it. That’s why even Biden won’t be prosecuted or charged with anything.
“ There is a bit of news regarding whether Hunter will be indicted. That is NOT the question.
The question is Why isn’t there an SC investigating Joe Biden ?
Because there’s nothing to investigate. The frustration of those on the right stems from an inability prove with any certainty any real wrongdoing. Corruption is not criminal according to the Supreme Court. Corrupt behavior has to be very narrowly defined and so far nothing Biden has done is any different than what Trump has done. That’s the problem. Republicans want to apply a double standard and their need for that are purely for vindictive and petty reasons.
“ The presumption of innocence is for the jury room. The rule of law REQUIRES that were there is reasonable suspicion we must investigate.
One way or another that will happen.”
Wrong. Presumption of innocence is constant until a jury or evidence in court determines otherwise. Suspicion alone is not enough. You’re innocent the entire time until the jury makes a decision. Not before or when under investigation.
“ It’s claims of guilty of a crime by mere allegations of suspicious activity.”
Nope it is a solid foundation for a long deep investigation.”
But that’s what you’re claiming for Biden. You already accuse Biden of being guilty of a crime before any charges are filed. But if that’s your rationale then it’s still ok to keep investigating Trump on a much deeper level.
I am going to address the Law – the SCOTUS decision that is relevant directly – since you clearly have broadened it beyond recognition.
SCOTUS ruled that When politicians received low value gifts, such as watches or plane trips from actual freinds, that proof of a quid pro quo was necescary.
They did not rule public corruption was legal, they merely raised the standard of proof in SOME cases.
The SCOTUS decision does not apply to the President or Vice president, or the executive branch at all. As it is illegal -for members of the executive branch to receive gifts while in office. or more accurately gifts received belong to the federal government.
Did Biden give his 15% for “the big guy” to the US Treasury ? No. Therefore he committed a crime.
“ SCOTUS ruled that When politicians received low value gifts, such as watches or plane trips from actual freinds, that proof of a quid pro quo was necescary.”
No. SCOTUS ruled that ANYTHING of value received had to have proof of a quid pro quo. Not just low value items. Otherwise, just giving money to a politician is not criminal. They essentially made bribery legal under the umbrella of free speech. Selling access to a politician is NOT a crime. Its no different than what SCOTUS reasoned in the citizens United case.
“ They did not rule public corruption was legal, they merely raised the standard of proof in SOME cases.”
They narrowed the criteria of what defines corruption significantly. Because the government was using a very broad interpretation of what constitutes corruption. It applies to ALL cases. Not just some. The government now has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a quid pro quo occurred and that it was intentional.
“ The SCOTUS decision does not apply to the President or Vice president, or the executive branch at all. As it is illegal -for members of the executive branch to receive gifts while in office. or more accurately gifts received belong to the federal government.”
The SCOTUS decision does not restrict the application of their ruling to those below the president or VP.
“ As it is illegal -for members of the executive branch to receive gifts while in office. or more accurately gifts received belong to the federal government.”
No it’s not.
“ Today, the handling of gifts from a foreign official to any Federal Government employee, including the President, is largely governed by the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966 and further legislation passed in 1977. Congress has allowed Federal employees to retain any gift from a foreign government, as long as the total US retail value of the gifts presented at one occasion does not exceed an amount established by the General Services Administration (GSA).[1] Foreign official gifts over this “minimal value” are considered gifts to the people of the United States, which the recipient must purchase from GSA, at fair market value, in order to retain. The White House Gift Unit sees to the disposition of foreign official gifts that the President and First Lady do not retain.”
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/reagans/reagan-administration/presidential-gifts
Making money from investments or making a profit from a deal are not gifts. That’s not illegal.
“ Did Biden give his 15% for “the big guy” to the US Treasury ? No. Therefore he committed a crime.”
It was supposed to be 10% and that transaction never materialized. Therefore there was no crime and that’s the problem. Even if he did get that 10%. He would have been able to have it because he was not VP at the time and it was legal.
You have failed to articulate exactly what crime was committed and what statute or federal law was violated.
““ As it is illegal -for members of the executive branch to receive gifts while in office. or more accurately gifts received belong to the federal government.”
No it’s not.”
Yes, it is and you literally provided the evidence.
We are not dealing with diminimus items, we are dealing with millions of dollars.
Nor are we actually dealing with gifts.
Where there is a quid pro quo – it is not a gift.
When businesses are created shares are distributed based on the value of each shareholders contribution – they are rarely if ever gifts.
When a deal memo establishes that Joe Biden will get 15% – that is not a gift. That is payment for HIS contribution to the enterprise.
So what is VP Joe Biden’s contribution to a Chinese hedge fund, funded by the Chinese government ?
John, your contorted attempt at proving your argument fails when you try to conflate these deals as gifts. The fact that you are indeed trying to conflate the two when clearly it’s not even close shows the weakness of your claims. You’re trying too hard and it shows.
“ When a deal memo establishes that Joe Biden will get 15% – that is not a gift. That is payment for HIS contribution to the enterprise.”
There was no payment. That’s the problem with your claim. The memo just says there was going to be a benefit but it never occurred. That’s not a crime. In order for corruption charges to stick. The DOJ would need proof of a quid pro quo occurred and that it was intentional. Without those two crucial criteria there is no basis for a charge.
As I said before Biden made his tax return public. If he made any money on that deal it would have shown up on his returns. Your “proof” of criminality or illegality is heavily dependent on allegations instead of real evidence.
“John, your contorted attempt at proving your argument fails when you try to conflate these deals as gifts.”
That was not what I argued.
What I argued is that the DEFENSE that these were gifts – would not hold up.
They are obviously not gifts.
“The fact that you are indeed trying to conflate the two”
Again not conflating the two.
Just addressing the ludicrousness of the claim that they are gifts.
““ When a deal memo establishes that Joe Biden will get 15% – that is not a gift. That is payment for HIS contribution to the enterprise.”
There was no payment. That’s the problem with your claim. The memo just says there was going to be a benefit but it never occurred. That’s not a crime. In order for corruption charges to stick. The DOJ would need proof of a quid pro quo occurred and that it was intentional. Without those two crucial criteria there is no basis for a charge.”
First – you glossed over “that is not a gift”. Next, you seem to be under the delusion that Biden suddenly started making Deals in China in 2017.
Readily available evidence goes back to alteast 2015.
“As I said before Biden made his tax return public.”
And again, that would not show anything he did out of the country unless he brought the money back into the US as income.
Been over that.
Trump’s tax returns did not get you anywhere either.
Tax returns tell you very little about assets -and nothing abut assets outside the country.
” If he made any money on that deal it would have shown up on his returns.”
False.
Not only False – But Biden could have made Billions out of the country(legally or illegally) and it will never show on his tax returns.
It only become taxable – and reportable, when it is brought into the US as income.
” Your “proof” of criminality or illegality is heavily dependent on allegations instead of real evidence.”
There is plenty of evidence. You are just blind to it.
We now KNOW Joe Biden was involved in Hunter Biden’s businesses – an ACTIVE participant.
We KNOW that Hunter was selling access to VP Joe and that VP Joe provided that access.
These are not secrets any more.
We also KNOW some of this is ongoing
President Joe released the SPR. While Hunter brokered selling oil from the SPR to china.
What constitutes the required evidence needed to move through each step from opening an investigation through getting a criminal prosecution is complicated – and obviously beyond you.
But some things are simple.
Thousands of documents proving interactions financial and otherwise with foreign actors – government and private inarguably will get you farther than 2 know HOAX’s.
Further what can be done at any point is based on what we DO KNOW, not speculation regarding what we MIGHT find out.
Can the Biden’s be convicted on what e have now ? In much of the country yes, but even if you disagree, there is more than sufficient for a thorough investigation.
Was the Crossfire Hurican or Special Counsel investigation ever lawful o constitutional ? No. PERIOD.
“As I said before Biden made his tax return public. “
Stop proving you don’t understand what is in a tax return. Don’t look at your own which is about as simple as they get and says very little. Look at a tax return of someone with assets that moves money around.
CU is quite literally an ACTUAL free speech case that has ZERO bearing here.
it was NOT about contributions to politicians.
It was about private contributions to groups engaged in issue advocacy.
Your reasoning skills are abysmal.
Our laws regarding consuming alcohol while driving have no bearing either.
I would separatly note – Even if you were claiming the Chinese money to Biden was a political contribution – it would still be a crime.
Foreign political contributions are illegal.
“ CU is quite literally an ACTUAL free speech case that has ZERO bearing here.
it was NOT about contributions to politicians.
It was about private contributions to groups engaged in issue advocacy.”
Nope. It was also about politicians getting contributions. Hunter Biden IS a private individual. Therefore arranging access to his dad or getting money to arrange a meeting is well within the umbrella of free speech. Foreign contributions to a private individual like Hunter Biden to arrange a meeting is not illegal. Nice try. I would note that CU applies to dark money as well.
Citizens United was about whether the Group “Citizens United” could broadcast a documentary about Hillary Clinton.
CU was not affiliated with any campaign or politicians. Some of its shareholders were democrats.
There were no contributions to any politicians involved.
Please read the case.
You make discussion tedious by forcing others to proven minor points which you get wrong and yet hold fast to stubornly.
It makes you look stupid or dishonest.
“Hunter Biden IS a private individual. Therefore arranging access to his dad or getting money to arrange a meeting is well within the umbrella of free speech. Foreign contributions to a private individual like Hunter Biden to arrange a meeting is not illegal.”
Correct – so long as the person within government has nothing at all to do with it.
The moment the Vice President says to his secretary – if Hunter wants me to meet with people – schedule it we are dancing close to a crime and have more than we need to investigate.
AGAIN Hunter Can not commit a Public Corruption crime (though he can be an accessory).
Only a public official can.
“I would note that CU applies to dark money as well.”
More left wing nut spin.
You are not entitled to know what others do with their money.
The rules regarding political contributions directly to candidates are messy.
They are radically different depending on whether a candidate accepts federal matching funds.
Regardless, in many cases candidates must disclose their donors.
That is unconstitutional.
Fortunately the Courts have not allowed that unconstitutionality to spread farther.
You are not allowed to know how I spend my money.
You are not allowed to know what groceries I buy.
You are not allowed to know what books i read
You are not allowed to know what charities I contribute to
You are not allowed to know what political causes I contribute to.
You should not be allowed to know what politicians I contribute to.
You constantly think your desire to pry into the affairs of others is a right.
It is not.
In the McDonald case in which you are referring, Gov. McDonald of VA, Held Events for tobacco companies for which he received payment.
SCOTUS determined that these were not “official Acts” – i.e. that it was not clear that McDonald was exercising public powers.
In subsequent cases it has been made CLEAR that where the public official ACTS as a public official – such as a Judge imposing sentence,
or a Vice president withholding government funds – that is an OFFICIAL ACT and therefore public corruption.
McDonald is not in anyway a free speech case.
It is primarily a case of whether while a person holds office they can get paid for acts that do not involve the use of public power.
As an example it would mean that Trump while president could sell condominiums in FL signing contracts int he Oval office.
But that he could NOT take kickback for government contracts to build the wall.
McDonald does not apply to any of the actions of VP biden.
“ McDonald does not apply to any of the actions of VP biden.”
It’s clear you don’t understand the scope of the case. It’s much more complicated than that. The ruling was not about free speech. But, it DID emphasize the fact that a lot of these “contributions” are under the umbrella of free speech.
Biden has not done any official acts as a result of his alleged 15% take neither is Hunter Biden’s arrangement of a meeting with his father illegal. The ruling still asserted that there has to be clear evidence of a quid pro quo and proof that it was intentional. Those facts don’t change. None have been shown to prove Joe Biden did either of those things. Your arguments are still weak.
““ McDonald does not apply to any of the actions of VP biden.”
It’s clear you don’t understand the scope of the case. It’s much more complicated than that. The ruling was not about free speech. But, it DID emphasize the fact that a lot of these “contributions” are under the umbrella of free speech.”
Svelaz, you can not even keep the cases right.
McDonald is about what constitutes an official act – i.e. When is public official acting as a private person, and when under color of his office.
McDonald decided that getting paid to appear at events was not an “official act”.
That it was essentially freelancing.
“Biden has not done any official acts”
Then you can answer what Joe Biden was being paid for ?
There was no argument what was being paid for in McDonald – McDonald was paid to appear at Tobacco company events.
What was Joe Biden being paid for ?
Further, this is actually radically different – Joe is not “getting Paid” – he is taking part ownership in a business.
The question is what is his role in the business ?
“as a result of his alleged 15% take neither is Hunter Biden’s arrangement of a meeting with his father illegal.”
Again confusing things. The arrangement of meetings is further evidence of Joes Active role.
“The ruling still asserted that there has to be clear evidence of a quid pro quo and proof that it was intentional.”
No that is not the core of McDonald. The core of McDonald is that you can pay public officials for non-government acts.
And what in god’s name to you think is an unintentional QPQ ?
There are a whole raft of federal laws that would apply
One – 18 U.S.C. § 1346
Here are a few of the specific charges against Rod Blegoivich
Plotting to “obtain a personal benefit in exchange for his appointment to fill the [President-elect Barack Obama’s] vacant seat in the United States Senate”;
Plotting to extort the Tribune Company by withholding state funds unless it fired certain members of the editorial board who had been critical of the governor;
Plotting to obtain a campaign contribution in exchange for signing a bill to divert casino gambling revenues to the horse racing industry.[114]
Rod Blegoivich had clear specific evidence against him when he was caught trying to sell Obama’s seat in exchange for favors. THAT was corruption in the narrow definition that SCOTUS ruling.
The majority of the charges against him were dropped or dismissed because of the SCOTUS ruling. On the charges he was charged involved clear evidence and proof of intent which is what landed him in jail. Ironically he was pardoned by Trump despite his clear guilty charge.
All those laws would still require that prosecutors prove with evidence that there was quid pro quo and intent. Those facts STILL have not changed.
Again please read McDonald. you clearly do not understand it.
Blago was convicted of something like 17 counts. Not just trying to sell Obama’s senate seat.
Regardless, the fact is that you can not legally sell a government act that is within your power.
You can not sell the appointment of a senator.
You can not sell the firing of a prosecutor
You can not sell the leverage of foreign aid.
I would further note the Blago case also makes clear that benefits to family members are included.
Getting your wife a job in return for an official act is a crime.
Joe Biden acting in his official capacity as VP in a way that gets a benefit for Hunter is public corruption.
Blago was convicted for that. No money needs to change hands.
VP Biden need not personally benefit – so long as a family member does.
You have your facts incorrect.
The deal in question was conducted while Biden was VP.
Hunter and Joe Flew to China on AF2,
the deal was negotiated, and they returned back on AF2.
The Bobolinsky deal that fell through was in 2017.
There are numerous deals involving china in 2015 and 2016.
The Bobolinsky deal merely gives us an excellent insider view of Joe’s conduct and involvement in that deal.
Which tells us what the others were like. It is called pattern of conduct evidence.
“ The deal in question was conducted while Biden was VP.
Hunter and Joe Flew to China on AF2,
the deal was negotiated, and they returned back on AF2.
The Bobolinsky deal that fell through was in 2017.
There are numerous deals involving china in 2015 and 2016.”
The fact remains that none of those deals materialized or occurred. Making deals is STILL not illegal.
A pattern of legal deals is not proof of illegal activity. Again, your arguments are weak and devoid of credibility.
None of those deals materialized ? Hunter has been living on roots and berries ?
Please Hunter is currently making money brokering the sale of oil from the SPR to china.
And you have no clue what foreign Assets the Biden’s hold.
You have no clue which deals closed and which did not.
You clearly have never filled out a tax return that included a business.
The standard of proof to CONVICT someone of a crime is beyond a reasonable doubt.
The standard of proof to open an investigation is reasonable suspicion.
There is more than enough to open an investigation into the Sitting president of the United States for Public Corruption as Vice President.
There is far more than enough to impeach him.
The presumption of innocence is not a bar to investigating crimes – or no crime could ever be investigated.
“ The standard of proof to open an investigation is reasonable suspicion.
There is more than enough to open an investigation into the Sitting president of the United States for Public Corruption as Vice President.
There is far more than enough to impeach him.”
As YOU noted. Public corruption has been so narrowly defined by SCOTUS that proving criminality will be extremely difficult and no evidence has been shown to go anywhere near that level of certainty. Trump had had far more evidence of corruption than any other president before him. From tax fraud to fraud involving his PAC donations. Even with all that he still couldn’t be convicted. Biden’s alleged corruption is nowhere near what Trump had.
Your wishful thinking is just that, wishful thinking.
“ The presumption of innocence is not a bar to investigating crimes – or no crime could ever be investigated.”
Nobody says it is. That still doesn’t change the fact that Biden is innocent until proven guilty just as Trump is.
“As YOU noted. Public corruption has been so narrowly defined by SCOTUS”
No public corruption has not been narrowed. Please read the actual decisions. The McDonald case is about the non-official acts of a public official. McDonald essentially says that Public officials can be paid for endorsements, or for activities that are NOT within the scope of their job.
VP Joe Biden could get paid for introducing a Chinese investor to a US Bank.
He could not get paid for witholding foreign military aide – that would be a crime.
“that proving criminality will be extremely difficult”
The difficulty of proof has nothing to do with whether the conduct is criminal.
There is ample evidence to begin multiple investigations.
There is ample evidence to appoint a Special Prosecutor.
There is ample evidence for a conviction in the court of public oppinion.
There is ample evidence to impeach.
There is ample evidence to indict.
Whether there is enough to convict after a thorough investigation remains to be seen.
The standard is NOT we will not investigate unless before we start we can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasonable suspicion is all that is necescary at this stage. We have far more than that.
“Trump had had far more evidence of corruption than any other president before him.”
Nope.
“From tax fraud to fraud involving his PAC donations.”
You clearly do not know what you are talking about.
Political donations are generally tax exempt. Regardless, the responsibility for the taxes rests with the Donor.
“Even with all that he still couldn’t be convicted.”
Of course not – because as is typical – you make up crimes.
Your PAC nonsense is a perfect example. You clearly do not understand tax law – not even at the simplest level.
You also do not understand election law – which is generally not criminal and really can not be without running afoul of the constitution.
Frankly laws governing political campaigns ought all be unconstitutional.
“That still doesn’t change the fact that Biden is innocent until proven guilty”
Only in a court of law.
There is nothing even close to a double standard here.
Do you have an instance where Trump brought a family member to a foreign country on AF1, where the family member struck a multi-billion dollar deal with a foriegn official, and Trump personally got 15% of the deal ?
That did not happen because it is not even close to legal.
All of Trump’s financial conduct before being elected and after has been under a microscope.
You came up with NOTHING. Most of the idiotic claims occured BEFORE Trump was president.
“ Do you have an instance where Trump brought a family member to a foreign country on AF1, where the family member struck a multi-billion dollar deal with a foriegn official, and Trump personally got 15% of the deal ?
That did not happen because it is not even close to legal.”
https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/trump-ties-saudi-arabia-fbi-raid-20220818.html?outputType=amp
What proof is there that Biden personally got 15% or 10%? His tax returns are publicly available. None show he got 15% of any deal. Are you playing the “lack of evidence is evidence” game again?
“ You came up with NOTHING. Most of the idiotic claims occured BEFORE Trump was president.”
Trump continued to do deals while he was president thru his kids running the Trump organization that he still had control over. It was all legal. Biden did nothing more different than what Trump did. Willful denial is all you got.
Your link is behind a paywall.
Yet, from what little I can tell it is completely inapplicable.
Kushner refinanced properties. that refinance was happening no matter what.
It could be through american banks, or German ones.
As noted before – that is a value for value exchange.
There is no quid pro quo.
Further you have a very bizzare problem – Kushner refinanced his property – again a value for value exchange.
Further he negotiated a huge peace deal in the mideast concurrently.
You keep trying to connect these – yet, there is no connection.
You do not understand what a refinance is – it certainly not a bribe or a payment.
A refinance is a trade of a mortgate – a binding promise to repay money borrowed, for money now.
A sale is a trade of money for a property.
There is no money for nothing. There is no quid pro quo.
In fact there is the opposite. Kushner wanted the Abraham accords.
Your litterally arguing Kushner got what he wanted, and he got what he wanted,
therefore there must be something nefarious.
What is it the Qatari’s got ?
“Your link is behind a paywall.”
I only scanned it because it didn’t seem worthwhile. It was more junk, the type of stuff Svelaz spews continuously. Fact is something the left lacks. If the article had facts, Svelaz would have copied the operative sentences. I doubt Svelaz read it. If he did, it wasn’t read using critical thinking skills.
“You do not understand what a refinance”
Svelaz understands nothing of the business world. I wonder if he has seen a tax return that needs more space than an index card provides. Repeatedly he says things that are nonsense and doesn’t seem to learn.
“Trump continued to do deals while he was president thru his kids running the Trump organization that he still had control over. It was all legal. ”
Correct. the Trump organization continued to do business as usual. Exactly as they did before Trump was president.
No Quid pro quo’s. Normal trades of value for value.
You are confused about what it is that Biden is doing that is illegal.
The crime is not doing business deals. It is not trading value for value.
Few would object if Biden sold his delaware home.
The crime is selling his the public trust – his power as president or vice president.
“Fire Shokin or lose billions in US aid”
Quid pro quo. A clear excercise of government power for personal gain.
“Biden did nothing more different than what Trump did.”
Quite obviously the opposite.
Trump has about $3B in assets that he can buy and sell, he can leverage that to about $15B. Alon with the rest of the Trump family the Trump organization assests are likely close to $100B in gross value and about 20B net.
Joe Biden worked briefly as a lawyer before running for congress. Whatever assesst he has are from that brief stint or from investing his public income – OR from public corruption.
Biden is not buying and selling Condo’s. He is buying and selling his govenrment power.
That is what is different.
No one cares if Biden sells his corvette.
Reasonable suspicion is the actual legal standard necescary to investigate.
This was debated at great length regarding the collusion delusion.
The Andrew Downer allegation was sufficient for FBI to open an investigation into the Trump campaign.
But reasonable suspicion died after Both Downer and Papadoulis stated in FBI interviews that Clinton’s emails were not mentioned.
The Steel Dossier then became the “reasonable suspicion” necescary to justify the investigation.
Except as we learned from the Sussman and Danchenko trials. – the FBI knew the Steele Dossier was a HOAX fromt he start – therefore it did nto constitute reasonable suspicion.
Hunter Biden’s deal notes documenting that VP Biden get 15% of the deal money is far more than sufficient to meet the standard to open an investigation. It is more than enough to convict. VP Biden could not accept Gifts – so the SCOTUS Gift case does not apply.
“ Hunter Biden’s deal notes documenting that VP Biden get 15% of the deal money is far more than sufficient to meet the standard to open an investigation. It is more than enough to convict.”
Nope. Because mere allegation is not enough to convict. Notes documenting a deal for Joe Biden to get 15% does not prove he actually got the 15%. In order to convict there has to be proof beyond reasonable doubt that he actually got 15%. Not that he was supposed to. The law is quite specific on what would be proof for a conviction.
The whole China deal eventually never occurred. Nothing you allege was illegal or criminal.
Here’s more insight into the issue.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/oct/02/donald-trumps-accusations-about-hunter-biden-and-c/
Politifact ? Really ? Is there anything they have ever been right about ?
Blagojevich did not sell Obama’s Senate Seat. He was convicted of trying to.
Selling public office is illegal.
Obviously what I have alleged is illegal.
Trump sold condo’s and hotel rooms.
What is it that Joe Biden was Selling ?
Most of us know what Joe was selling. Nothing that he owned.
“You already accuse Biden of being guilty of a crime before any charges are filed.”
Yes, I am entitled to do that.
“But if that’s your rationale then it’s still ok to keep investigating Trump on a much deeper level.”
If you have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed – yes.
But you do not. I would note there is no need to investigate Trump further – you have put him under a microscope.
All is known. There is very little in the way of actual investigation of Trump continuing.
What is going on, is a deep dive into all the documents that have been provided in the hopes of finding something criminal.
So far NADA, Zip.
“ You already accuse Biden of being guilty of a crime before any charges are filed.”
Yes, I am entitled to do that.”
So you are lawless since you are denying the right of an individual’s constitutional right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty. I’ll remember that.
“ But if that’s your rationale then it’s still ok to keep investigating Trump on a much deeper level.”
If you have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed – yes.
But you do not. I would note there is no need to investigate Trump further – you have put him under a microscope.
All is known.”
Not all is known. Trump had actively obstructed investigation upon investigation. His constant obstruction and obfuscation leads to deeper suspicion and further investigation. That’s Trump’s fault.
“ What is going on, is a deep dive into all the documents that have been provided in the hopes of finding something criminal.”
Nope. It’s not known whether Trump has provided all the documents. There’s evidence that he might have moved more to other locations besides MAL. until all documents are fully accounted for that investigation is not over. Trump is facing criminal charges as the result of this criminal investigation. It’s just a matter of when they will be filed not if.
“So you are lawless since you are denying the right of an individual’s constitutional right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty.”
The constitution does not bar alleging guilt. It does not bar investigating.
It bars GOVERNMENT (and Jurors) from Presuming guilt before conviction.
There is nothing in the presumption of innocence that bars investigation,
Or considering the evidence.
There is no constitutional right to evade investigation.
You are litterally misinterpreting the constitution such that it is not possible to ever convict anyone of anything.
““ But if that’s your rationale then it’s still ok to keep investigating Trump on a much deeper level.”
If you have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed – yes.”
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard that requires evidence.
The evidence used was the Steele Dossier – which those using it knew to be a fraud.
That is what Durham proved. Therefore the investigation was lawless.
“Not all is known. Trump had actively obstructed investigation upon investigation. His constant obstruction and obfuscation leads to deeper suspicion and further investigation. That’s Trump’s fault.”
Again reasonable suspicion is based on evidence.
You can not obstruct an unlawful investigation.
Someone professing their innocence does not constitute legal reasonable suspicion.
An innocent person obstructing a lawless investigation – does not constitute legal reasonable suspicion.
When we are accused – we are not obligated to fall to our knees and confess or be presumed guilty.
The fault is not in Trump, it is in YOU.
You are littleraly echoing the CCP legal standard.
““ What is going on, is a deep dive into all the documents that have been provided in the hopes of finding something criminal.”
Nope. It’s not known whether Trump has provided all the documents. ”
Absent probable cause (higher than reasonable suspicion) of a crime – the requests for documents are themselves illegal and unconstitutional.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Can you provide evidence of probable cause ?
Evidence you are willing to stand behind with an oath ?
If you can not – then your suspicion that there may be more – is just that – suspicion.
Neither you nor the courts are entitled to whatever they want.
You are entitled to search for evidence – when you have probable cause.
Not a felling in your gut.
“There’s evidence that he might have moved more to other locations besides MAL.”
No there is speculation – that is not evidence.
“until all documents are fully accounted for that investigation is not over.”
You are asking for Trump to prove the none existance of documents you do not know exist ?
What do you need another romp through Melania’s intimates ?
“Trump is facing criminal charges as the result of this criminal investigation.”
At this point he is not.
” It’s just a matter of when they will be filed not if.”
If you have sufficient evidence – When is now.
If you do not – it is never.
Your argument remains – I can not prove trump is a criminal.
I can not even prove probable cause of a crime.
But if only I get to root through Melania’s intimates a few more times.
I am sure I will.
That is called beleif not evidence.
“Trump and his family did business in the same manner others accuse Hunter Biden of.”
Nope, Trump and his family traded obvious value for obvious value.
“Pretending it was different for Trump is pure denial of the facts.”
No one doubts that the Trump family sold Condo’s to Russian Oligarchs at a time no one in the Trump family held a position of public trust.
The Trumps got money. the Oligarchs got condos. Value for value.
And none of if while in office.
“Every politician in Washington does this”
Nope, and I have no problems with barring those who do from government.
“and yes that includes Trump”
Nope,
“and Biden.”
Yes.
“Because it’s legal neither is going to be prosecuted for it.”
Selling condo’s to Russian oligarchs is legal. Renting hotel rooms to foreigners is legal.
Selling government access, selling the power of public office is illegal. It is bribery and that is a crime.
The legal standards that the Supreme Court imposed for proof are very high,
But that does not change the fact that it is a crime, only that it is a very difficult to prove crime.
Regardless the standard for conduct of politiicans is not – It’s OK unless you can prove to a much higher than normal standard.
“This is why the DOJ is having a hard time coming up with charges against Hunter Biden.”
There is no problem coming up with Charges against Hunter Biden.
There is a very long list of Crimes he is obviously guilty of.
Every single thing Manafort was charged with it True in spades of Hunter – as well as many many other things.
The FBI/DOJ is treading carefully with Hunter because he is the President’s son.
Few beleive that he will ever be charged.
But Hunter is NOT the issue.
The issue is that while Vice President Joe Biden took money from foriegners. The ONLY value that VP Biden brought to the deal was that he was VP. And he did all this While VP. He did not sell a condo to an oligarch – Before he was VP, He did not Rent a Saudi a hotel room.
He took money for something, and there is no something aside from what he could do for them as VP.
The left has sought something this clear with Trump for all 4 years of his presidency.
They NEVER found such a thing.
“There is no difference between what Trump did and Biden.”
The difference is between legitimate bussiness and public corruption.
“Trump traded money for access to himself.”
Nope. No oligarches came to the WH when Trump was president.
The sale of Condo’s occured prior to Trump’s presidency and was a clear trade of value for value.
And I know you do not understand this, but in actual value for value trades the norm is Everyone profits.
“Real estate or money, either source was to make a profit”
Yes in all value for value exchanges both parties seek to make a profit.
And they usually do. It is very rare that people engage in free exchange without making a profit.
“benefit from his position.”
You have both a time problem and a logic problem.
First the Condo sales occurred before Trump was president.
Next the Profit was on the Condo – that is NORMAL.
Joe Biden clearly profited from Hunters deals – what is Joe Biden’s profit on ?
There are no condo’s that Joe owns that he sold to Russian’s or the chinese.
What is it that VP Joe sold to the Russians or Chinese that earned him these profits ?
“Nothing illegal about it.”
That remains to be seen.
Actually no it does not, the conduct is prima fascia illegal.
“That’s why even Biden won’t be prosecuted or charged with anything.”
He can not currently be charged, or prosecuted, he is the president.
“Because there’s nothing to investigate.”
Of course there is.
“The frustration of those on the right stems from an inability prove with any certainty any real wrongdoing.”
No the frustration and not just on the right is that you wingnuts demanded an SC to investigate the target of a hoax.
You did not investigate the hoaxsters, but their victims. And now with far more compelling evidence you will not investigate actual crimes.
There is no one here who beleives that if Donald Trump receives 15% personally on a deal that Eric Trump cooked up in China, after flying in on Airforce 1, and that DJT subsequently met with the “investors” in the white house – that he would be wearing an orange jumpsuit in a federal prison right now.
The rest of us are frustrated by a two tier system of justice.
We are also appalled that for those on the left like you – that is perfectly OK.
Your fine with excusing actually criminal conduct by your own,
and OK with wasting 2 years of public attention tearing someone on the rights life apart over claims that were a HOAX targeting them from the start and that law enforcement KNEW that and hid it from everyone.
That speaks to YOUR morally bankruptcy.
“Corruption is not criminal according to the Supreme Court.”
False. All SCOTUS did was set the standard of proof high.
I would note that Money for nothing meets even that high standard of proof.
“ Is it impeachable ? yes.”
No. It was not impeachable for Trump to have the same kinds of deals Biden is accused of. You pointed out that they are not illegal or criminal so why would it be impeachable?
So why exactly would Biden’s deals which are the same kinds of deals Trump engaged in be an impeachable offense?
Trump did not actually have the same kinds of deals Biden is accused of.
Trump was not even accused of having the same kinds of deals.
Most of the Trump accusations were facially stupid.
If a Russian buys a $1M condo from Trump for $1M, there is nothing to see.
It is no different than if Elon Musk buys a $1M condo from Trump for $1M
It is a trade of value for value – dollars for Condo’s
The First problem with the Biden deals is that they are not trades of Value for Value.
They are trades of Value for influence.
What Value did Hunter Biden provide to Burisma ? To any of the myriads of people and countries he was entangled with ?
Everyone knows Hunter Biden was not selling Condos. He was Selling the Vice President.
The 2nd problem – which reinforces the first and pretty much ends this is VP Joe Biden recieved money as part of Hunters Deals.
There is no legal explanation for the VP to get paid for activities of Hunter Biden in foreign countries – flying in on Air Force 2, with the VP in tow.
I expect Joe will resign – or democrats will quietly use the 25th to remove him.
I do not expect republicans to impeach him. They will not need to.
“ If a Russian buys a $1M condo from Trump for $1M, there is nothing to see.”
There is when the person buying the condo is well known to be a corrupt politician. Trump was making deals with Moscow’s well known corrupt Mayor. The same individual whose wife is now associated with Hunter Biden in investments. So yes it’s the same thing. Both individuals ARE intricately linked to each other. Trump made deals with a corrupt mayor, Hunter Biden made deals with his equally corrupt wife. That little tid bit of detail IS important.
“The First problem with the Biden deals is that they are not trades of Value for Value.
They are trades of Value for influence.“
So? That’s not illegal. Trump traded physical property to gain influence investing in a company is trading in value. Neither is illegal. Try again.
“ What Value did Hunter Biden provide to Burisma ? To any of the myriads of people and countries he was entangled with ?
Everyone knows Hunter Biden was not selling Condos. He was Selling the Vice President.”
Selling the Vice President? What is the proof?
Lots of wealthy individuals join boards of directors for whatever reasons. Whether he provided value or not it’s STILL not illegal or criminal. Hunter was benefiting from his fathers position. Still not illegal or criminal. Trump’s kids did exactly the same. Again not illegal or criminal. What else you got?
“ The 2nd problem – which reinforces the first and pretty much ends this is VP Joe Biden recieved money as part of Hunters Deals.
There is no legal explanation for the VP to get paid for activities of Hunter Biden in foreign countries – flying in on Air Force 2, with the VP in tow.”
What’s the proof? Biden posted his tax returns and made them public. None show any money being earned from those deals. You say he got paid but offer zero proof. If you know then you must have a solid credible source other than a mere allegation. So what is your proof?
Nothing you have alleged is illegal or criminal and that’s your biggest problem. Trump and family have done the same kind of deals and influence peddling. Neither is illegal obviously so..
“There is when the person buying the condo is well known to be a corrupt politician.”
Nope.
Are you telling me that the supermarket can not sell milk to “corrupt politicians” ?
“Trump was making deals with Moscow’s well known corrupt Mayor.”
I am sure as a private real-estate developer he was making deals that involved corrupt politicians all over the world.
Trump was not selling public office. At the very worst he was the buyer.
As I have said repeatedly it is not or should not be a crime to bribe a public official. The crime is for the public official to take a bribe.
“The same individual whose wife is now associated with Hunter Biden in investments. So yes it’s the same thing. Both individuals ARE intricately linked to each other. Trump made deals with a corrupt mayor, Hunter Biden made deals with his equally corrupt wife. That little tid bit of detail IS important.”
Not at all the same thing.
Trump as a private actor having to deal with Corrupt public officials is not at all the same as BEING the corrupt public officials.
Trump Tower Moscow was never built – despite a full court press by the Trump organization.
If Putin or important Russians actually favored Trump – it would have been built.
If Trump had bribed them with diamonds – it would have been built.
I do not care that Hunter Biden worked with Corrupt people.
The problem is that Hunter and more importantly Joe Biden ARE corrupt.
Trump did not give the mayors wife Diamonds. She gave Hunter a $3M rock.
Wow Trump dealt with people who are corrupt ! news at 5.
He developed Real Estate in NYC – with near certainty his organization had to deal with corrupt politicians, Corrupt labor unions, Corrupt building inspectors, even likely the Mafia. In some places dealing with Corrupt people is required to do business.
Trump got his buildings built, they are safe, and they meet the needs of those renting them.
The fact that Trump had to deal with Corrupt people does not make him corrupt.
Conversely if YOU are selling the public powers vested in you for personal gain YOU are corrupt.
I would note, I have presumed that Trump likely paid bribes or did favors to get things done in NYC.
I do not know that as a fact. Nor do you. In fact all the evidence we have seems to contradict that.
YOU make claims that Trump did not pay unions or others, not that he bribed them.
The Moscow Trump Tower was never built.
Conversely there is little doubt that Vice President Biden demanded to be paid significant amounts of money While vice president for no discernable value add that is not public corruption.
You are not comparing apples to apples.
You are comparing having to deal with corrupt public officials – with actually being the corrupt public offical.
“”They are trades of Value for influence.“
So? That’s not illegal.”
Yes it is – when the influence is with government.
The SCOTUS decision you keep citing does not come close to meaning what you claim.
All it means is that buying public influence must be proven – it can not just be assumed from a personal gift between long standing friends.
“Trump traded physical property to gain influence investing in a company”
What are you talking about ? Trump traded property for money, or money for property.
There is littlerally no evidence of influence peddling. But more importantly still there is no evidence of PUBLIC influence peddling.
Paying for influence in private transactions is legal, and commonplace – Artists have agents as an example, though I have not seen evidence Trump was involved.
“Neither is illegal. Try again.”
Selling public power is illegal.
““ What Value did Hunter Biden provide to Burisma ? To any of the myriads of people and countries he was entangled with ?
Everyone knows Hunter Biden was not selling Condos. He was Selling the Vice President.”
Selling the Vice President? What is the proof?”
Really ?
“Lots of wealthy individuals join boards of directors for whatever reasons.”
Actually no. Further Hunter is not a “wealthy individual”.
People who have been successful in business are on the boards of various businesses.
People do not knowingly put drug addicts on the board of multi-billion dollar companies.
Board members are appointed for their knowledge of corporate governance, their experience in business, or because they have an ownership stake in the business, or their experience in that specific business. Hunter meets none of these.
Every member of the Trump family including Baron Trump has more qualifications to be on a corporate board than Hunter Biden.
“Trump’s kids did exactly the same.”
Nope.
“ The 2nd problem – which reinforces the first and pretty much ends this is VP Joe Biden recieved money as part of Hunters Deals.
There is no legal explanation for the VP to get paid for activities of Hunter Biden in foreign countries – flying in on Air Force 2, with the VP in tow.”
“What’s the proof?”
The actual deal memo.
“Biden posted his tax returns and made them public. None show any money being earned from those deals. You say he got paid but offer zero proof.”
You do realize that Hunter has already repeatedly admitted to tax evasion – fairly large scale tax evasion ?
It is also very well established that Hinter and Joe Biden’s finances were heavily commingled.
That alone means Joe’s Tax return is fraudulent.
“If you know then you must have a solid credible source other than a mere allegation. So what is your proof?”
There is plenty of proof – one part of the 50:50 deal regarding the current senate was that Republican senators got subpoena power.
They have subpeonad and received bank records providing the proof you claim is missing.
I would further note that as you should know from the Manafort Trial – monies earned outside the US are neither taxed or reported on taxes until they enter the US.
Manafort made millions working for Ukrainian politicians. He kept that money in foreign banks. He did not report it.
All legal. Manaforts tax problem was that he “borrowed” the money in foreign bank accounts to pay expenses in the US,
did not document the loans and did not pay them back. That is tax evasion.
The Biden family can have hundreds of millions in foreign banks, and never have to report any of it on US taxes.
You do not seem to understand tax law very well.
Americans do not have to report foreign income. Unless/until they bring it into the US.
I would further note that income taxes are on INCOME.
If Joe Biden has a 15% stake in a Chinese hedge fund. That money is not income, until he liquidates the stake.
I own several business in the US – I own 100% of them. I owe ZERO taxes on that 100% stake.
If I sell all or part of those businesses – THEN I may owe taxes on them.
Nowhere on my taxes am I required to report anything about what I own.
Income taxes are on INCOME. Specifically US income.
Joe Biden’s tax return will tell NO ONE anything about his foreign income, or his assets – foreign or domestic.
You are ignorant of the law, as well as history.
Public corruption is the abuse of government power for personal gain.
It is always very wrong. It is always a crime.
SOME forms of public corruption are difficult to prove. That does not mean they are not still crimes.
“influence pedaling” is usually not a crime – unless it involves the abuse of government power for personal gain.
US taxes and US tax returns show Income this year earned in the US or brought into the US.
US Taxes returns rarely include information about US assets much less foreign ones.
Assets only appear on US tax returns if they generate taxable income or taxable losses. Foreign assets do not.
Even when assets appear on US tax returns – they are very rarely valued.
I do not report the value of my 401K as an example only the withdraws or contributions.
The conduct of Trump that you rag on is obviously RADICALLY different from that of the Biden’s.
And our laws reflect those differences.
There are some forms of influence pedaling that are crimes. But most are not.
Many transactions in free markets involve parties that facilitate transactions – brokers, agents, representatives, …. most of which are both legal, and moral. Some forms of “influence pedaling” are legal but not moral. A few forms are criminal. All forms involving selling the public trust are criminal.
This is true whether you are left or right.
“ The First problem with the Biden deals is that they are not trades of Value for Value.
They are trades of Value for influence.”
Again, that’s not illegal according to the Supreme Court. It’s protected free speech.
Svelaz might have a problem with this news article.
Hunter Biden ‘part of Chinese intelligence mission,’ says former acting attorney general
Whitaker said the national security concern elevates Hunter Biden’s alleged crimes to a higher level.
https://justthenews.com/government/local/hunter-biden-part-chinese-intelligence-mission-says-former-acting-attorney-general?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
You are clearly unfamiliar with the supreme court decisions.
None of them make public corruption legal.
The most recent decision makes proving corruption from small gifts between friends difficult.
There is no free speech exception to public corruption laws.
Public corruption is determined by what you DO, not what you say.
But some speech is also an ACT. Soliciting a hit man is an ACT, you do not get off the hook, because you only spoke to the hitman.
Generally directing others to commit crimes is an act – if you have the power to direct others.
If as an example as VP you say to a foreign country “Fire Shokin, or you do not get Billions in US aide” – that is an ACT, and if it is for the personal benefit of yourself or your family it is a crime.
BTW the democratic house defined an impeachable offense – Twice.
Anything we do not like. So obviously Biden’s conduct is impeachable.
This is what happens when you shred the norms. You can not get them back.
Durham exposed that the collusion delusion was not merely honest error.
That it was an actual HOAX perpitrated by the clinton campaign.
“ Durham exposed that the collusion delusion was not merely honest error.
That it was an actual HOAX perpitrated by the clinton campaign.”
No he didn’t. He couldn’t prove it in court. He couldn’t indict anyone of it either. There was no hoax.
Of course he proved it in court.
That is LITTERALLY why Danchenko and Sussman got off.
It was all a HOAX, they admitted it was a HOAX, and they proved that the FBI and DOJ knew it was a HOAX
And they were acquited BECAUSE the DOJ/FBI knew it was a HOAX.
With respect to your claims regarding Twitter.
Take a breath.
Wait and see.
Pretty much all of what fear is hogwash.
Regardless, if nearly everything you claim actually comes to pass – guess what ? We will deal with it.
Free markets will deal with it.
If Musk can not make Twitter more valueable to us that it is now – he will fail at a cost of $44B.
What your afraid of is that he will succeed.
It’s not a fear of his success that is the problem. It’s knowing that he will be a bigger problem when it comes to disingenuous claims about freedom of speech. Just wait. Republicans will suddenly make the exact same claims about private companies not being required to adhere to the 1st amendment when he starts doing what he wants regarding content.
“It’s not a fear of his success that is the problem.”
If course it is.
“It’s knowing that he will be a bigger problem when it comes to disingenuous claims about freedom of speech. Just wait. Republicans will suddenly make the exact same claims about private companies not being required to adhere to the 1st amendment when he starts doing what he wants regarding content.”
Does this actually mean something ?
You have been constantly arguing that private companies are not required to adhere to the first amendment.
Lets just presume that Musk decides to do what the left has been doing and starts censoring the crap out of the left.
How many of your posts do I have to copy saying that he can do that ?
In the real world that is not happening. Musk will be looking for the sweet spot – the level of content moderation that results in the least cost and the highest number of users.
What your afraid of is that will give people not on the radical left a voice again.
And that Musk will succeed and other SM companies will have to follow.
BTW every publicly owned company will be REQUIRED to follow if Musk succeeds.
You have said repeatedly that private companies can do what they want.
That is mostly true – if they are truly private.
But public companies are required to do what is best for shareholders.
If Musk proves that any different model succeeds. Every publicly traded sociam media company will be legally obligated to follow.
Otherwise their boards will face massive shareholder lawsuits that they will lose.
Apparently “deep fakes” are the new left-wing bogey monster.
Clearly a poorly though out one.
Does the technology exist to create a provenance for your dangerous deep fakes.
Say I manufacture a perfect deep fake of Biden ordering Myorkas to build the wall.
Is anyone going to beleive it ? Are the people who were present going to confirm the fake rather than the real communication ?
We do not make speeches to the world in dark closets with no witnesses.
“ Does the technology exist to create a provenance for your dangerous deep fakes.”
The technology already exists. It’s only a matter of time before they become commonplace.
NO Svelaz the technology does not exist.
You did not read the question. Creating Deep fakes is easy – that is within my capabilities.
Creating a deep fake that conforms against reality that people know or can find out is impossible.
If I create a deep Fake of Biden dancing naked in the rose garden, singing “Trump, ooo ooo ooo wishing you were here”
People would check if Biden could have been in the rose garden at that time.
They will check if others were there,
if anyone else witnessed this.
A truly successful deep fake – meaning one people will beleive as opposed to a funny parody.
Is pretty much limited to things people do alone.
You can not create a successful deep fake of someone in the public eye – because those who were present will reveal it as fake.
You are worried about a non-problem.
Disinformation like
Masks work.
The vaccine prevents the spread.
Covid came from a wet market.
Lockdowns work.
Hunter Biden’s laptop is russian disinformation
Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election ?
Stacey Abrams actually won in GA.
That’s not disinformation John.
Mask were never claimed to work. 100% never. What they DID work on was REDUCING the amount of spread. That was confirmed.
The vaccine DID prevent the spread of the ORIGINAL variant which the vaccine was most effective against. It was the constant disinformation and resulting hesitation based on that disinformation that kept the vaccine from doing what it’s supposed to do, prevent further spread of the virus.
Nobody knows where Covid came from still.
Lockdowns worked.
Hunter Biden laptop was originally thought to be Russian disinformation
“Mask were never claimed to work. 110% never. They were claimed to work to reduce the spread.” Umm. Did you read the CDC guidelines and the requirement to wear the masks? Why were they required if they were not claimed to work? Makes no sense, Svelaz. The vaccine did not prevent the spread of the original variant. They DID reduce the risk of death and/or hospitalization in high risk populations. So, you are wrong here, Svelaz. Disinformation did not have an effect on the vaccinations efficacy. Covid is still of uncertain origin, although NOW it’s considered okay to say it might have escaped a Wuhan lab. Lockdowns were not effective in the long run. And you never addressed Trumps Russia hoax or Abrahm’s election denialism.
“…a chain-link fence to stop mosquitos…”
“The virus that causes COVID-19 is about 0.1 micrometer in diameter. (A micrometer (µm) is one one-thousandth of a millimeter.) The holes in woven cloth are visible to the naked eye and may be five to 200 micrometers in diameter. It is counter-intuitive that cloth can be useful in this setting — it’s been compared to putting up a chain-link fence to stop mosquitoes. However, that analogy is wrong in many ways.”
– The Conversation.com
China is responsible for the leak of “China Flu, 2019” which was developed in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, in Wuhan, China.
Chinese scientists who worked in the Wuhan lab proved that “China Flu, 2019” leaked from the lab and spread to the local population and beyond.
The vast preponderance of evidence leads to no other suspect and proves the source of “China Flu, 2019” is the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Wuhan, China.
It is typical for defendants, the Chinese Communist Party in this case, to deny their commission of a crime.
There is no actual or plausible deniability in this case.
I am not disagreeing with you. Other than to say that this really hasn’t been ‘proven’, but it is a strong hypothesis.
Ask the Chinese scientists who came to the West for the proof – they’ve already provided it.
Did OJ murder his wife and her boyfriend?
You may not be certain of that either.
Ok?
Soooo, I can tell you love to do your own due diligence, here ya go. Take notes, maybe some files:
Oky1 says:
October 29, 2022 at 6:52 PM
A few days left to watch this Free documentary…..
https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/viewing/
Everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional. Lincoln denied the right of secession. Secession was and is fully constitutional and is not prohibited by the Constitution. Lincoln conducted an unconstitutional war of aggression against a sovereign foreign nation which was undeclared by Congress. Lincoln unconstitutionally declared martial law. Lincoln denied the freedom of speech and press, and denied the freedom of their person to political opponents by unconstitutionally suspending habeas corpus, which he did, not in an invasion or rebellion, but during secession. The confiscation of private property and failure to enforce extant immigration law were unconstitutional acts by Lincoln. The list goes on.
Lincoln must have been impeached for egregious unconstitutional acts, the process of which Chief Justice Taney began.
Lincoln espoused the Marxist pejoratives “capitalist” and “fleece the people” in 1837 and was considered the “earnest of the epoch” leading America toward the “RECONSTRUCTION of a social world” by Karl Marx.
“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”
– Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837
__________________________________________________________
“Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”
– Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848
______________________________________________________________________________________
“The goal of Socialism is Communism.”
– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
__________________
“The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”
– Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864
_________________________________________________________________
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”
“I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861
Ok?
The Supreme Court acted retroactively by 50 years to correct patently unconstitutional Roe v. Wade.
The Supreme Court must now act retroactively by 150 years to correct the patently unconstitutional “Reign of Terror” of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln and the patently unconstitutional “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments” which were corruptly and improperly ratified under the duress of brutal, post-war military oppression and occupation. No amendment of the Constitution should come from an era of senseless violence and corruption, and primarily for the benefit of illegal aliens who were precluded from naturalization by extant immigration law, which required compassionate repatriation. Lincoln left a foreign, 3 million-man, standing army in America, the deleterious effects of which America has endured for 150 years.
The vaccines appear to have reduced the risk of Covid death or serious illness,
But the data has been coming in for a while now. It does not appear that the vaccines reduced the all cause risk of death. In fact they may have increased it.
Overall excess deaths data is coming in and it is pretty bad. The overall death rate for the unvaccinated is the same or lower than the vaccinated. But the COVID death rate for the vaccinated is lower.
There are strong indications that the problem is primarily with the mRNA vaccines.
The claim it came from the wet markets is false.
The claim that it came from nature directly to humans at this point has astronomical odds against it.
The more we learn the more certain it is this was an accidental lab leak.
BTW we have a similar problem with Omicron.
Omicron derived directly from the original Wuhan strain – not from Delta or any other Strain except the wuhan strain that never left China.
From that strain it mutated 3 times as fast as what all of us saw from other derivatives of the Wuhan strain out in public.
Then suddenly slightly different variants of Omicron appear out of the blue, simultaneously in 2 different parts of the world.
That fact pattern can not be replicated in nature.
Carole,
“ Umm. Did you read the CDC guidelines and the requirement to wear the masks? Why were they required if they were not claimed to work? Makes no sense, Svelaz.”
The CDC never said masks were going to prevent you from getting infected 100%. The effectiveness of masks were anywhere from 30% to 95% effective depending on the type. 30% is still more effective than 0%. One person wearing a mask that is 30% effective and another wearing the same mask reduces the chance of infection to 60%. That’s still better than 0%. Right? Now combining that mask that is effective at 30% with 6ft social distancing it increases the effectiveness of that 30% mask. Two people social distancing with masks that are 30% effective hugely diminish the chances of spreading the virus far greater than not wearing a mask at all. The problem was those refusing to wear a mask UNDERMINED the effectiveness of two people wearing a mask that is 30% effective and social distanced because ONE person had 0% containment of the virus or protection making the others more vulnerable to getting it even if they were wearing the 30% mask.
The CDC was not trying to stop the virus by issuing masks that didn’t stop transmission 100%. They were trying to minimize and reduce the rate of transmission as much as possible. That did two things. It was to reduce the number of people heading to the hospital and overwhelm ER and ICU beds and reduce the chances of a new mutation to take hold.
Those refusing to wear masks or social distance were prolonging the pandemic and making the task of minimizing the spread much harder. Common sense was in very short supply in those days and it was always overtaken by ignorance and the spread of misinformation about masks and the vaccine. Once the vaccines were more widely available the rate of transmission started to fall off. The more people were vaccinated the less opportunity for the virus to find a host to multiply.
“Those refusing to wear masks or social distance were prolonging the pandemic and making the task of minimizing the spread much harder. Common sense was in very short supply in those days and it was always overtaken by ignorance and the spread of misinformation about masks and the vaccine.”
I see talk of ignorance, but one should direct that ignorance to the poster of this argument. How was refusing to wear a mask prolonging the pandemic? Earlier in his discussion, he said, “That did two things. It was to reduce the number of people heading to the hospital and overwhelm ER and ICU beds ”
That argument is known as flattening the curve. Knowing that the number of infections at one time might fall, the decline meant that later the others would get infected and prolong the pandemic. You do not seem to get things right while you provide conflicting statements.
If masks give less than 100% infection and the rate of transmission is high (assuming no changes), everyone has to get the disease unless they are already immune.
Do you have no understanding of numbers and how viral diseases spread? I will answer the question for you. You don’t. You are full of misinformation, even after the fact.
“and reduce the chances of a new mutation to take hold.”
What do you know about viral infections? Tell us why you believe your statement to be true.
You are an adult. Generally, adults can learn from experience. Ask yourself, why can’t an adult learn from experience? The answer might be personally horrifying.
“That’s not disinformation John.”
Yes, it is.
“Mask were never claimed to work. 100% never. What they DID work on was REDUCING the amount of spread.”
That is litterally what 14RCT’s proved they do NOT do. There is no RCT (randomized control trial – the gold standard for anything that can not be proven in a labortatory) that has ever found Masks to reduce the spread.
And yes, your wing nut experts did claim they worked.
And people were censored on SM for saying the Truth – that they do not REDUCE the amount of spread.
I would note that even if they actually did reduce the spread rate – they would still fail – meaning they would have no value, possibly even negative value.
Unless you can reduce the spread rate signficantly below 1.0 – which all measures by government in agregate do not come close to,
You do not reduce the number of deaths. you do not reduce the number of infections. you just make the epidemic take longer to kill the same number of people. Further you increase the probability it will become endemic.
“That was confirmed.”
False. Check the facts.
“The vaccine DID prevent the spread of the ORIGINAL variant which the vaccine was most effective against. It was the constant disinformation and resulting hesitation based on that disinformation that kept the vaccine from doing what it’s supposed to do, prevent further spread of the virus.”
Again when it was announced that the effectiveness of the vaccine was 97% 2 weeks after the 2nd booster and had a half life of 6-8 months.
Anyone with a brain would know – this is not going to work.
If by some miracle the entire world was vaccinated on exactly the same day. that rate of effectiveness and that rate of decline in effectiveness assured that the Vaccine would not stop Covid.
And these FACTS were known by early 2021.
I wish the Vaccine worked. I am sure Trump wishes the Vaccine works – he is entitled to credit for it.
But grow up, get a clue learn some simple math.
The numbers alone tell anyone with a brain – can grasp – the vaccine could not work.
“Nobody knows where Covid came from still.”
Yeah, Right. more than 2 years later there is no host found in nature that is anywhere close to any form of Covid.
There is not anything part way between the Bat Corona Virus which we beleive Covid was derived from and C19.
If such an intermediary existed it would be found.
The intermediaries for SARS and MERS were found in less than 8 weeks.
Eventually you have to reject the impossible.
“Lockdowns worked.”
Nope. NOTHING worked.
Accross the world we conducted a massive experiment. Different countries, different states tried different things.
Throughout the world C19 infections and death are ENTIRELY determined by – demographics and geography.
NOTHING ELSE. Sweden did nothing – its deaths and infections were better than most of the EU.
Red states did almost nothing, overall their deaths and infections were on average slightly better than blue states.
But the economic carnage was much worse in blue states.
“Hunter Biden laptop was originally thought to be Russian disinformation”
No it was SAID to be Russian disinformation by people who KNEW better.
Glenn Greenwald wrote about this in great details shortly after the laptop story emerged.
It is trivial to verify the contents of the laptop. It was so trivial that those 51 “experts” telling you otherwise were lying and knew it.
An awful lot of your argument seems to be we censored things we should not have.
But that’s OK because we are good people.
Except your not.
I hope it all “sinks” in. The best part of the last few years is that we have seen so many of the anti free speech politicos unmask themselves as anything but democrats (small d) and more totalitarian junkies. Obama and H.R.Clinton both as well as many of the current officeholders I place in that category. There should be a plethora of communications and e-mails between news organizations, social media and political figures and how they conspired to suppress the speech of the country and a lot probably ran through Twitter. Just imagine what all those records could tell us. That may be why there is such an uproar. The EU and New Zealand cannot press their suppression too far because their companies deal in the US. There is an old means of communication and trade called tit for tat. Meaning you go after our companies for free speech, then your companies lose markets and shelf space in the US. Has been used before between the US and EU. As far as the New Zealand prime minister is concerned, her popularity is tanking because she appears to be overplaying her hand with many policies.
“ It has become a mantra on the left that free-speech objections to social-media censorship are meritless because the First Amendment does not apply to private corporations.” Turley likes to leave out the fact that it is indeed true it does NOT apply to private corporations. As a constitutional scholars Turley is fully aware of this issue and he doesn’t like it.
If Turley is truly a “free speech absolutist” then he wouldn’t be censoring racist speech, swearing, outright lying, and just foul speech on his own blog. But that is what he does. He exercises the exact same thing he blames twitter for censoring. This is the.problem with his argument. He is a hypocrite when he declares twitter should do what he won’t on his blog. We should be able to curse or spew racist and bigoted statements without fear of being banned or censored. That is the free speech that government CANNOT censor and if Turley wants to fallow the “1st amendment model” he would have to allow for such foul offensive speech the government is NOT allowed to censor because it is foul and/of offensive. Turley does NOT follow that model on his blog. He’s allowed to censor it because ironically it’s HIS free speech right to censor such content. The constitution does NOT prohibit his blog from censoring it at all.
Turley should allow, no, MUST allow, fully on offensive language and racists screeds to flow freely on his blog if he fully supports this “1st amendment model”. As the late great comedian George Carlin once pointed out people here should be able to use the seven bad words you can’t say on tv.Right? That is what free speech is all about. If you are offended, change the channel, switch stations, or go to another blog where that it not allowed.
Free speech is also about owning up to the responsibility of accepting the consequences of exercising it or allowing to exercise in Turley’s case and the is to narrow the moderation to the absolute minimum meaning the most offensive, foul, and fascist ideas, must be allowed. Even in his own blog. Otherwise he is gong to be the hypocrite he already is.
The most offensive, foul, and fascist ideas were already allowed.
The problem the left has now is that they will no longer be allowed unchallenged.
No, Turley has repeatedly removed extremely racist comments. The links in the following comment will give you some examples: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/11/sdsu-professor-removes-from-courses-for-using-racial-terms-in-course-on-racism/comment-page-1/#comment-2165372
That’s not the most offensive, foul, and fascist ideas.
What’s most offensive is a matter of opinion.
You’re implying that Turley deletes comments even when they are NOT among “the most offensive, foul, and fascist ideas.”
Sometimes comments are deleted that in retrospect should not have been deleted or they were deleted automatically by WordPress. One cannot be error-free.
I think Squeeky was quoting from a reasonable magazine and in the end, was attempting to say people were better off without those that act criminally. I agree with that thought and believe she wasn’t speaking in a racist manner but rather reporting ideas that led to an edgy response.
Whether she is a racist or not, I don’t know, but she has a right to her own beliefs. Whether you are racist or not, I feel the same, but based on what I have seen from both, I found Squeeky honest and edgy but a lot less racist than you appear to be.
Racist speech, like all speech is simply subjective Pre-Crime. However, banning people from speaking freely is an act with consequences. That is why you have been conditioned to accept punishing certain pre-crimes.
The government cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly. By conspiring with private companies to censor what is expressed on their platforms is a First Amendment violation and it is only a matter of time (short time, at that) before the SCOTUS so rules, 6 to 3.
I wish Musk the best of luck, but he will have to establish free speech as a value at Twitter, a difficult task a c)ompany whose staff appear to favor free speech only so long as it does not conflict with their strongly held beliefs and prejudices.
But for free speech to thrive, it must be a cultural value shared by the vast majority of an organization (or a society), not a frivolous option to be adopted on a whim. Like Twitter, the US, the UK, and the EU have all adopted mechanisms designed to limit speech, and the ‘woke’ insist that only speech of which they approve should be ‘free,’ while others argue that the First Amendment only applies to the American government, not to private organizations, which are free to curtail speech as they see fit, a disingenuous assertion, but one regularly employed to argue against free speech.
It is worth remembering that the anti-war movement of the ’60s was ushered in by a free speech movement, and that it is impossible to have informed citizens (and “free and fair” elections) without free speech, and that those who seek to control speech are not usually democrats with a small ‘d.’
Free speech does included all speech, and Professor Turley’s suggestion is a good start, but Musk must persuade the staff at Twitter that their job is to facilitate open debate, not to suppress speech with which they disagree, because they cause more harm to society by limiting speech than by allowing speech they dislike, and as a neutral ‘platform’ they should not be censoring speech or judging what speech is credible, especially if the speech in question is an opinion or an argument supported by evidence that might challenge their own beliefs. Admitting that you might be wrong is the first step toward embracing free speech as a basic value.
Musk’s most fundimental problem at Twitter will not be the staff – while false rumours have been spread of firing 75% of the staff,
it is withing Musks power to completely clean house.
I have no idea how many people will get fired, But one thing I am certain Musk WILL restore the understanding that HE is the Boss.
That Twitter will be whatever it is that HE wants it to be.
I suspect a part of his reasons for attempting to back out, is there is a huge difference between criticising from the outside and actually running the business.
All of us here are talking about free speech as a value or even principle in abstract senses.
Twitter is a BUSINESS – it exists to make money – it does so by providing a forum for speech.
I left twitter some time ago – because even people on the left I once respected had degenerated to toddlers lobbing juvenile insults at each other.
That is free speech.
It is not a place I wanted to be.
I highly doubt Musk is ultimately going to adopt a code of maximizing free speech. I doubt he will go with the model of censoring only what government is allowed to censor.
Musk has the difficult task ahead of:
Rebuilding Twitter to be a place where those not on the far left want to be.
Not driving out those on the left as he does so.
Making twitter attractive, useful and profitable.
In the end I expect that censorship on Twitter will be determined by what the free market wants – i.e. what makes twitter most valuable to the largest number of people, and attractive to however Musk monetizes Twitter.
Twitter makes money by selling advertising space. Advertisers don’t want to be associated with a company that allows itself to be a cesspool of foul mouthed, bigoted and racist or purely offensive content. This is exactly why right wing platforms like Truth social, Parler, and Gab are not successful and are constantly losing money.
Before Musk twitter did exactly what you say Musk is allowed to do. Run their company as THEY see fit. Censoring speech they don’t agree with is entirely within their prerogative and they CAN do it with impunity if they wanted to. Conservatives are upset that their views and their racist screeds are not being allowed to be be aired because they don’t understand that they agreed to the terms of the platform when they signed up and they stupidly allowed themselves to be censored willingly. Nobody forced them to sign up. What they are complaining and what the previous CEO of twitter correctly stated was that they are NOT allowed to be heard. You don’t have the constitutional right to be heard. The constitution allows anyone to speak their mind, views, opinion etc. What they do no have a right to is be heard. It’s an important distinction. People are NOT required to be forced to hear what they don’t want to hear and forcing twitter to carry speech they disagree with as a private entity is unconstitutional
Fox makes money by advertising – and I beleive they have 9 of the top 10 shows in the country right now.
Regardless, I do not want to get into a debate about business and advertising with you – because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Among other things – you still think that advertising is one size fits all.
Numerous “woke” movies and series’s have failed over the past few years.
The problem is not that there is no audience.
It is that there is not a $100m audience.
Musk has already noted that he seeks to change Twitter’s revenue model.
Perhaps he can find a way to target advertising to those who are inclined to want to see that advertising.
That allows him to seek both the left and the right – so long as each is control of the audience they are seen by.
Regardless, I an nearly everyone else knows more than you.
And Musk is with certainty better than I.
Twitter is constantly losing money. Most SM except facebook is constantly loosing money – and FB is under threat.
Parler was growing exponentially until Amazon stabbed them in the back violating their contract.
Regardless, SM companies that are committed to free speech have been sent a clear message by the left, that they will have to build their own entirely independent infrastructure that can not be censored at any level.
That is much more difficult, but in the end it is a good thing.
The left has pushed big banks to specially code gun and ammunition purchases.
This and other tactics like that will just drive the shift to an uncancelable uncensorable economy.
It will certainly increase the use of crypto currency.
Rumble, Parler, Gab, Truth, Locals, Substack are all building new models new economic, new advertising, new business models, new infrastructure.
Some of that will succeed, some fail.
Can you name which one of the top 10 fortune 500 companies in 1960 is still in the top 10 today ?
Twitter just made a bunch of money for its investors.
Correct, but the company has not made money.
“Before Musk twitter did exactly what you say Musk is allowed to do. Run their company as THEY see fit. Censoring speech they don’t agree with is entirely within their prerogative and they CAN do it with impunity if they wanted to.”
With a few details – SM should not have S230 immunity if they are going to censor beyond what government is free to censor.
That is improper – it is an equal protection violation for print and similar media.
But you have never understood my arguments. I do want Twitter and FB to be free to operate as they wish – including censor politically if they so choose. I do not want government to regulate them – even though constitutionally they are allowed to.
I want the market to regulate them.
Musk buying Twitter is ONE form of market regulation.
Presumably Musk sees an oportunity. My guess is that he sees that Twitters growingly bad reputation for censorship, means that correcting that problem will result in a bigger market. He could be wrong.
I doubt it.
You felt the need to piss on Parlor, Gab, Truth, Rumble. Those have identified an underserved market and are serviing it.
Maybe it is only a niche. Maybe in 5 or ten years FB will be in the dustbin and Trump will add a couple of zeros to his net worth.
Maybe something between. All that depends on lots of factors. Truth could do almost everything right and still fail because they got one thing wrong.
But they are doing something very important – more than just providing FB clones.
They are building an uncanceleable internet.
That is likely to thrive even if they do not.
“Conservatives are upset that their views and their racist screeds are not being allowed to be be aired because they don’t understand that they agreed to the terms of the platform when they signed up and they stupidly allowed themselves to be censored willingly. Nobody forced them to sign up. What they are complaining and what the previous CEO of twitter correctly stated was that they are NOT allowed to be heard. You don’t have the constitutional right to be heard. The constitution allows anyone to speak their mind, views, opinion etc. What they do no have a right to is be heard. It’s an important distinction. People are NOT required to be forced to hear what they don’t want to hear and forcing twitter to carry speech they disagree with as a private entity is unconstitutional”
So much rot mixed in with a few correct observations.
Maleable contracts are a major problem they destroy Trust. You keep pretending the law or constitution is critical here.
While you are frequently wrong about both. You do not understand that trust is the absolute foundation of everything.
The core to free markets is that they actually build trust.
I am not going to try to 2nd guess musk or presume to know whether he succeeds or not.
What I do know is that in the description of how SM works that you provide – Musk sensed failure and oportunity – and I beleive he is right.
You keep ranting – sometimes inaccurately that SM companies CAN do a long list of things.
That does not mean they can do them and succeed.
Musk Buying twitter is a reflection of the fact that Musk thinks Twitter has FAILED – that in behaving as you support – they have left a great deal of money on the table.
It will be interesting to see if he is right.
I would note that the rants from the left are not concerned that Musk will fail.
The fear is that he will succeed.
That he is right and that all this left wing nut political censorship destroys rather than builds value.
If Musk is right – the rest of SM will either be bought, or it will change to reflect the changes Musk makes at twitter.
Musk represents an existential threat to the left’s censorship status quo. Because if he succeeds, everyone else will have to follow or cede the domain to Musk.
@John Say
This is actually a special case in that regard: It’s important to understand that many web 2.0 companies rely very heavily on advertising, some of which is more appropriately described as ‘marketing’, to generate revenue (it’s actually funny how closely they have ended up mirroring legacy media); take that away and they have a big problem. Apple’s recent policy changes in that regard have taken Facebook to the cleaners. Musk has already addressed this aspect, so this could all end up being a paradigm shift of even greater proportions as Twitter now contemplates revenue in light of the actions of companies such as Apple. Musk has also stated he may very well fail, as you are perhaps aware.
The players involved created this ecosystem and painted themselves into this corner a long time ago; they were bound to reap what they were sowing eventually even strictly economically, theirs wasn’t ever a bullet proof strategy, and it was always largely devoid of ethical considerations. If the (unlikely) hammer of trust busting ever came down as well – hoo boy.
None of this takes government directives etc., domestic and foreign, into account, either, there are many aspects in play here to consider.
I do not want government in this at all.
Our anti-Trust laws are stupid, have no real understanding of actual economics and never should have been passed.
I am mostly not looking to debate What musk will do, I posted primarily to note that economic factors exist.
It is POSSIBLE that Musk will treat this as public service – WaPo loses money, yet Bezo’s funds it.
Musk may set Twitter up as a free speech free for all – regardless of the economics.
But he is not likely to do so without understanding the economics.
My GUESS is that Musk will
end political censorship.
end censorship of alleged disinformation.
But seek some form of civility moderation that uses very clearly defined rules that can not easily be gamed left or right.
But that is a guess.
“ the First Amendment only applies to the American government, not to private organizations, which are free to curtail speech as they see fit, a disingenuous assertion, but one regularly employed to argue against free speech.”
It’s not a disingenuous s assertion at all. The first amendment does NOT apply to private organizations, Nowhere in the constitution does it say that it does. The constitution is a set of limitation on GOVERNMENT not private organizations or individuals. Turley knows this as a constitutional scholar but he disingenuously avoids this inconvenient fact like a plague unless he has no choice but to grudgingly acknowledge it with a certain disdain. The assertion is pointed out by the left because it is unquestionably true. The rights loves to argue about limited government and how government should stay out of private individuals affairs or how they run things. That.includes businesses, corporations, and organizations. Because they too have free speech rights. Here Turley is advocating that private organizations like twitter and Facebook adhere to the same limits that are imposed on government and that is not even legally required. Turley’s own blog does NOT run according to the “1st amendment principle” If he did people would be able to post foul mouthed offensive statements, fascist screeds and outright lies about others. Obviously he does censor it and bans individuals that violate HIS rules because he CAN run his blog as he sees fit. And that it is not run a according to the principles that he is demanding twitter to run by. Turley is a massive hypocrite and a disingenuous advocate of what he preaches. That is why his arguments are pure hypocrisy every time he makes that point. If he truly wants free speech he should do away with the content moderation that censors swearing, racist epithets, bigoted screeds, and all other offensive content short of death threats and violent incitement.
Turley ignores proven examples of why such “absolutist free speech” ideas are a problem such as Parler, Gab, etc, all those right wing versions of twitter can’t take off or are popular because they are doing exactly what he is demanding twitter to allow. They’ve become cesspools of racist, bigoted chat groups that have devolved into boring and unpalatable echo chambers. This is why Turley’s own blog censors that kind of speech, but that is NOT adhering to “1st amendment principles” is it?
When Turley starts allowing the same foul language and offensive statements that pervade the cesspools that are Parler, Truth social, and Gab then his insistence on following a “1st amendment model” should not be taken seriously.
You miss the point entirely. If a society does not value free speech, then it will not support it and its members will find whatever spurious argument they can to suppressed, limit, and censor speech, so it will become difficult even to enforce laws guaranteeing free speech.
As for private organizations, some certainly can limit speech — parochial and public schools, for example — and in most societies there is an unstated code of “polite” speech which enables free speech and renders it useful (yelling at one another or exchanging epithets is neither polite nor useful). Twitter is a rather unique organization, a de facto public square for both its users and many others (including journalists and politicians), so it becomes like the railroads or telephone companies — a public good that should not be used to favor a particular faction or closed to those with whom a dominant group disagrees.
That said, I would still advocate guidelines against foul language and other forms of speech which actually undermine the exchange of ideas, which free speech is meant to further. This is the form of ‘censorship’ which those who comment on this blog tacitly accept.
Twitter does not become like a railroad or telephone company. It’s not a utility either. People don’t pay to be on twitter they sign up to be on THEIR platform and the only reason people can participate in THEIR platform is if they agree to THEIR terms. Nobody is forcing people to join twitter or agree to their terms. It’s mind numbing simple. The moment anyone agrees to THEIR terms when they sign up. They essentially give up their right to control the content they post. It’s right there on THEIR terms and conditions.
“ That said, I would still advocate guidelines against foul language and other forms of speech which actually undermine the exchange of ideas, which free speech is meant to further. This is the form of ‘censorship’ which those who comment on this blog tacitly accept.”
That’s contrary to Turley’s claim of being a “free speech absolutist” an absolutist would NOT censor foul language or anything that undermines the exchange of ideas. Turley’s solution against that problem is MORE good speech.
Polite speech or foul speech both should be allowed if one is to declare to be a free speech absolutist. Can’t be an absolutist when you start making exceptions.
“ Free speech does included all speech, and Professor Turley’s suggestion is a good start,”
Turley does NOT include all speech on his own blog. He does censor offensive racist speech and swearing, According to his own “free speech principles” he shouldn’t be censoring it, but he does anyway. People should be able to express their views without having to “self censor” over using foul language and offensive racists or bigoted screeds on his blog. Why doesn’t Turley adhere to his own principles while demanding others do?
My apology. There are two glaring errors in my post, both typos which I missed. This is one. I do not believe that free speech includes all speech, e.g., physical threats and other forms of speech which are clearly illegal.
One should note the amount of traffic coming to this site, and the fact that only a tiny fraction of comments are censored. Turley must be doing something right. We do not even see personal attacks against Turley deleted. That is something Svelaz cannot reckon with.
Svelaz wants to say something negative because the professor doesn’t agree with him or his ideas. His rants are the equivalent of tantrums.
In the end, it appears almost all on the blog, right and left, find Svelaz’s comments foolish even without his ever-present factual errors.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ That is something Svelaz cannot reckon with.
Svelaz wants to say something negative because the professor doesn’t agree with him or his ideas. His rants are the equivalent of tantrums.”
You don’t know what “reckon” means. What you don’t get is that Turley knows he will always be subjected to criticism and disagreements. That’s what I post and that’s what free speech is all about. Your own rants are no different.
I have no problem when people intelligently criticize Turley. I don’t think he has a problem either.
Your comments are stupid and repetitive. Haven’t you noticed others commenting on your type of nonsense? One day you will learn about facts and be able to use one correctly, but to date you have failed.
Very few comments have been censored outside of error and WordPress, yet the number of responses is huge. That proves your rhetoric is idiotic.
weird…all kinds of terrible stuff is written and published….and some how I am able to avoid it!
basic filters….would allow foul language, nudity, and basic threat speech to be threaten.
Twitter has gone from jailing people on the right in twitter jail…with no warning on ridiculous premised.
Really shouldn’t be that hard! I can drop people who are delusion left wing people…now.
Previously it was basically the DNC censoring. The NY post being banned for a NEWS article was CRIMINAL!
Misinformation is COVERED in the Constitution, FREE SPEECH IS ALLOWED! Threats aren’t!
Threats are actually free speech.
The only threats that government may punish are “true threats” – threats of violence or real harm that is immediate and credible.
So according to Turley threats should be allowed on his blog. No?
I am not speaking for Turley.
All I said is that most “threats” do not constitute speech that government can censor or punish.
This should be obvious.
If you post again – I will vote straight republican” – is an obvious threat.
Is there something wrong with it ?
I would note there are threats on this blog all the time.
There are not clear specific threats of imminent unjustified violence.
Do you think before you post ?
Again law – is narrow and specific.
Most threats are protected by the first amendment – a very few specific types are not.
Musk appears to be caving already. He’s announced plans to form a new “Content Moderation Council”.
I agree completely with Turley’s approach to what Musk should do.
I also think the Texas law prohibiting viewpoint censorship by large social media platforms is a good model for public action, and was recently upheld by the 5th Circuit. Similar Federal legislation would be appropriate.
The TX law is as the courts determined constitutional.
But it is actually a bad idea.
This will solve itself without government eventually.
The appeals court that ruled the Texas law was constitutional was wrong. The 5th circuit ruled a similar law from Florida was unconstitutional. Government cannot compel a private company to carry someone else’s speech that violates their own terms and conditions.
“The appeals court that ruled the Texas law was constitutional was wrong. ”
Nope
“The 5th circuit ruled a similar law from Florida was unconstitutional.”
NO the 11th held the FL law unconstitutional. The 5th Upheld the TX law.
“Government cannot compel a private company to carry someone else’s speech that violates their own terms and conditions.”
Of course it can. This is long decided. Go to the grocery store, the shelves are filled with products with labels that constitute speech compelled by government.
Regardless, this is not a compelled speech issue.
Social Media offers a platform for speech.
The entire world knows that speech is NOT their speech. Compelled speech is one someone forces you to speak THEIR words.
AM posts are not SM speaking. They are SM publishing – not the same.
I think the courts and states should stay out of this – the problem will solve itself in sufficient time.
But that does not mean the TX or FL laws are unconstitutional.
This is more left wing nut nonsense.
I would not that Government has done this CONSTANTLY.
Employers are qequired to post a variety of work related placards
They are required to provide resources to unions trying to organize.
They are barred from some forms of speech opposing unions.
There is a large body of law that makes clear what is and is not unconstitutionally government compelled speech.
This is not even a close call.
He should keep that sink filled with ice cream!!
The Bird hasn’t fired enough of them.
This blog is an excellent example of Free Speech.
I’m exhausted by the censorship on the Internet. The Internet has become the propaganda arm of the government and the elites.
To censor is totalitarian.
Was twitterverse always this rotten, groupthinkers only hiring people that think like they do, and censoring, anyone that gets out of line, is libtopia. Most universities are getting like this. The #FreedomOfThePress, was intended to keep government out of the equation. Shining Elon’s light on the rats and roaches, has sent them into hiding. The few that got sacked is a start.
RE:Was twitterverse always this rotten..” Those two ‘topdogs’ he shit-canned are couple of ‘Fifth Columnist’ elitists whose intent was to reweave the fabric of our society.
MUSK knew, in the end, what he was facing and still went forward. He has a plan and a vision how he wants to shape Twitter. He is firing/laying off employees, Twitter had too much unproductive, over paid, too many in work benefits. He had his Tesla staff go in and review the software and lock down the system so insiders could not change or fool with the system.Told managers to cut staff by Monday. He is bring on a diverse staff to come up with a policy for free speech, he is reinstating many who were ban, eliminating shadow banning. The US Gov’t/DOJ/Biden know that Musk has the communications and documentations between them and Twitter. New Zeland, whi is run by a nut job authoritarian leader, the EU head are panicing and making threats. Musk will deal with it. Then we have the fast Growing Rumble and Truth Social websites and suspect others to gain traction. Free Speech, under the Constitution, will restablish but the Left Wing Nuts/DEMS/ and etc. will fight but willl lose in the courts and Twitter/MUSK will win.
This comment, in my opinion, is a bit too black hat vs white hat. I dont see Musk as a hero. I admire his business acumen, and I appreciate his stock performance. It is because of this us/them tribalistic animosity driven by the market differentiation needs of a corrupt two party system that we have the desire to ‘shut up’ the competition. Left wing or right wing ‘nuts’.