TikTok Torts: Idaho Professor Sues “Internet Sleuth” for Defamation Over Idaho Murders

There is an interesting defamation case out of Idaho in which Rebecca Scofield, an associate professor and the chair of the history department at the University of Idaho, is suing TikTok personality Ashley Guillard for defamation. Guillard continues to maintain that Scofield ordered the murders after a falling out with one of the victims from a romantic relationship. Scofield denies ever meeting any of the victims, let alone having an affair with one of them.

Guillard is a Texas-based social media commentator, and accused Scofield of arranging the murder of Xana Kernodle, her boyfriend Ethan Chapin, and Kernodle’s roommates Maddie Mogen and Kaylee Goncalves in their Moscow (Idaho) house on Nov. 13. In one video, Guillard said that Scofield conspired with an anonymous University of Idaho student, identified only as J.D., to murder the students.

The complaint states that Scofield was in Oregon with her husband visiting friends when the murders occurred.

The filing describes Guillard as “a purported internet sleuth” who “decided to use the community’s pain for her online self-promotion.” It further described how Guillard “promotes herself on Amazon and TikTok as an Internet sleuth that solves high-profile unsolved murders by consulting Tarot cards, and performing other readings, to obtain information about the murders.”

The case makes out a clearly viable defamation claim. The postings of these videotapes accuse the professor of murdering four students and have caused considerable damage to her reputation.

What is interesting is that Guillard is not apparently focusing on a defense that this was mere opinion. Rather she is relying on the classic defense of “truth.” Truth is always a defense to defamation since a published fact must be false as well as harmful.

In many of these high-profile cases, counsel attempts to portray the representations as opinion. That was the case with the litigation over the false claims made against former Rep. Gary Condit by the late Dominick Dunne.

The First Amendment limits the scope of defamation in some cases. As one court noted, “‘rhetorical hyperbole,’ ‘vigorous epithet[s],’ ‘lusty and imaginative expressions[s] of . . . contempt,’ and language used ‘in a loose, figurative sense’ have all been accorded constitutional protection.” Ferlauto v. Hamsher 74 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1401 (1999)

Moreover, what constitutes an opinion as opposed to a factual claim is generally left to a jury: “some statements are ambiguous and cannot be characterized as factual or nonfactual as a matter of law. ‘In these circumstances, it is for the jury to determine whether an ordinary reader would have understood the article as a factual assertion…’” Kahn v. Bower, 232 Cal.App.3d 1599, 1608 (1991).

In Wilkow v. Forbes, Inc., 241 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 2001), opinion prevailed as a defense. In that case, a journalist with Forbes was sued for harsh characterizations of a lawyer and his practice. Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that “although the article drips with disapproval of Wilkow’s (and the judges’) conduct, an author’s opinion about business ethics isn’t defamatory under Illinois law.”

Like Dunne, however, Guillard was making very specific claims as well as suggesting that she had “solved” the case with her own sleuthing of publicly available evidence.  It went beyond mere opinion.

The Complaint notes that Guillard was warned not just by counsel for Scofield but others about the clearly defamatory character of her published remarks: “Many TikTok users warned Guillard that her statements were false and that she was defaming Professor Scofield, among others.”

Guillard not only persisted but seemed to double down. She continued to insist that she will prove that Scofield killed the students and even expressed joy at being sued:

“I am actually gleaming with excitement . . . People just don’t get it, like I’ve been against people big and small, corporations and giants and systemic policies [and] racism and won. They all regret coming against me. All of them…Now Rebecca is going to be added to that list of regretful people.”

It remains a mystery why Guillard picked out Professor Scofield for this vile public accusation. There is no evidence that appears to link the professor to any of the students or the murders.

While Guillard may prove effectively “judgment proof” (I am not sure what a TikTok star makes from such notoriety), the lawsuit is well based and unlikely to be dismissed by the court.

Here is the complaint: Scofield v. Guillard.


88 thoughts on “TikTok Torts: Idaho Professor Sues “Internet Sleuth” for Defamation Over Idaho Murders”

  1. I don’t see how she can sue for defamation when the actual facts of the case are not yet known. As far as anyone knows, the cards may be right. They’ve arrested a guy so if he confesses or if he is convicted then I would imagine a defamation case can proceed. But just to play devil’s advocate, anybody who arranged a killing would make very sure to be in another state when it happened. It may be unlikely that Scofield is involved but it’s not impossible. To say “it couldn’t be, therefore it isn’t” does not seem compelling to me but what do i know.

    1. deboluccia: in a civil complaint, the plaintiff makes allegations. Here, they include the assertion that the plaintiff “did not commit or in any way participate in the murders of the four students.” You ask how the actual facts of the case can be known? That’s what the trial is for. And discovery before that.

      1. Oldman: I did not ask how the facts can be known. I said the facts are not yet known. And, with all due respect, I speak seven languages. I understand the word plaintiff and the role of discovery in a civil case. I am simply saying that this case is far from cut and dried and as far as anyone knows, Scofield may indeed be involved.

  2. Jonathan: I have gotten some unexpected and entirely unjustified criticism from some on this blog about my comment comparing the “Glass Onion” character Miles Brun to Elon Musk. Many on this blog still defend Musk claiming he has a strategic game plan to remake Twitter and is “moving in the right direction”. So here is an example of how Musk might be “moving” in the opposite direction.

    Yesterday, a Twitter user directly confronted Musk with this comment: “You’ve got the impulse control of a toddler. I really hope you have a secret plan, but as it stands now, you paid the most ever to be the biggest internet troll”. And this is Musk’s response: “And you have tiny testicles!”. Not the first time Musk has resorted to personal insults in responding to his critics. One Tesla investor told Musk: “Advertisers will be lined up to come back after that response”. I doubt you would ever respond to a critic like Musk responds to his. You have better things to do and hurling personal insults does not advance the cause of “free speech”. The problem for Musk is that he is super sensitive to any criticism–an insecure narcissist who demands loyalty. If Musk has time to respond to every criticism is he the guy who should be running Twitter on a daily basis?

    You support Musk because of his conservative political views. It appears this is alienating Twitter users and especially Tesla potential buyers and shareholders. Paul Krugman summarizes Musk’s problem: “Tesla is an expensive luxury car, but zero emission, and until the other day Elon Musk seemed like a cool guy…Instead he’s gone full MAGA, turning off exactly the people who might buy his cars. Stupid? Unable to control his impulses? Probably both”. Tesla shares have plunged more than 70% since Nov. 2021. Part of the problem, of course, has nothing to do with Musk’s political views. But Musk’s use of Twitter to advance his political views is not helping.

    You can agree or disagree with Krugman about Tesla but Twitter is clearly in meltdown. According to NY Times reporting employees at the Twitter HQ are bringing their own toilet paper to work. Bathrooms are filthy due to the fact that Musk fired the janitorial workers after they went on strike and the self-declared “genius” has not hired a new company. Is treating his workers this way the best method to motivate, cultivate and retain talent? It’s hard to admit when you make a mistake. The Q is how much longer you are going to back the Musk brand?

    1. “You [Turley] support Musk because of his conservative political views.

      Maybe Dennis is correct this time. Turley supports free speech, endorsed by most conservatives.

      You do not support free speech, placing you among the fascists of the Democrat Party.

    2. Of course, shares of Facebook and Amazon have plunged as well; it’s just the nature of tech stocks right now. Are Bozos and Zuckerberg also petulant children? So, plunging stock prices are irrelevant. You just don’t like Musk’s course of action. It’s a free country (or, at least, was at one time); you don’t have to remain on Twitter. LEAVE. If not, stop whining and participate in the conversation that was previously, and tyrannically, under authoritarian control to the advantage of leftists. That is no longer the case. If, as it seems, you resent not being able to be a member of the controlling class, and resent an actual level playing field (you are free to say whatever you like, as are others, on Twitter), you will simply self-destruct from the toxicity of your own malevolent poison.

    3. Dennis McIntyre – your comments are interesting in that they (rightly) criticize Musk for his ad hominem responses to his critics, while at the same time you seem unaware you are doing the same thing relative to Musk. I find his antics foolish and childish, but that’s all beside the point where freedom and free speech is concerned. On that topic (free speech) the only actions that matter are Musk’s opening up of the platform to a wide variety of viewpoints, something the prior corporate leadership refused to do. Did Musk err in temporarily banning a group of journalists under the pretext of doxxing and personal safety? Yes. But he fairly quickly reversed that decision and allowed them back on — which cannot be said for the censors who were previously in charge at Twitter. As for the criticisms of how he’s running the company from a profitability standpoint, all that is also beside the point, and in any event you overlook that he took the company private and so, if it’s losing money, it’s his own money being lost, not the shareholders’ money, as it was with Twitter 1.0, which spent lavishly on employees with little prospect of earning a profit for the shareholders to have dividends. IOW, Twitter 1.0 wasted other people’s money in a censorship regime; Musk is wasting his own money in a free-speech regime.

      1. oldmanfromkansas: Finely, we agree on something. Musk’s response to one of his critics was certainly “foolish” and “childish”. It seems to me there is a serious problem when the billionaire owner of Twitter has time on his hands to lash out at his critics. Musk is still banning his critics based on what he views as a personal slight. At least under the former regime there was a content moderation department that worked with senior management to make banning decisions. Musk wiped out that department along with senior management. Now it appears one guy is deciding. That’s an autocracy!

        You say Twitter’s profitability is “beside the point”. Then why has Musk told Twitter employees there is the possibility of bankruptcy? Musk desperately needs Twitter to pay its way after most big advertisers have left. Musk has sold a lot of his Tesla stock to finance Twitter’s daily operations. How much longer can Musk do that? Tesla stock is in the tank and the shareholders are up in arms worried about the “profitability” of the carmaker. I don’t think Tesla stockholders are going to let Musk use Twitter as his little plaything.

        1. “At least under the former regime there was a” propaganda department, whose strings were pulled by censors at the FBI, DHS, HHS (to name a few).

          Now the statement’s accurate.

        2. “It seems to me there is a serious problem when the billionaire owner of Twitter has time on his hands to lash out at his critics.”

          Take the issue step by step.

          What does being a billionaire have to do with anything? Why criticize one who works and supplies jobs for others? Why not leave that criticism for those not working or looking for a job?

          What have you done to make yourself superior to others giving you the right to tell others what to do?

          Did you build a company like Tesla or Space X?

          Have you created wealth or jobs for others?

          What have you done? Demonstrate your superiority. To date, we see nothing special from you except the ignorance of your surroundings.

          1. Dennis McIntyre: The only issue that concerns the public is freedom to express their views on Twitter. That is a public concern worldwide because people all over the world use Twitter to express views, and read others’ views. You state there is still a major problem because of critics he has banned. Who has he banned? You don’t name anyone. If you can name someone he’s banned due to their viewpoint, I’ll agree there is a problem. (This does not count the people he has restored; that was error but it has been corrected.). On the contrary, it is common knowledge that many people were previously banned because they expressed views that did not align with either (a) what the agencies of the governmental security state wanted people to hear, or (b) with the political philosophy of the liberals who were running Twitter. Your reference to a “content moderation department” is an Orwellian euphemism for “censorship department.”

            As for Twitter’s profitability, or its prospects to become profitable, that is entirely the concern of Musk and his employees and, as such, is entirely beside the point. It is a private concern. It does not directly affect the public. You blow a lot of smoke trying to make it relevant, but it simply has no relevance at all to the issue of free speech on Twitter, which is what affects the worldwide user community. Nor do Tesla stockholders have any say in how Musk runs a private entity that he owns and has no corporate affiliation with Tesla.

            The unavoidable bottom line, that you never confront, is that Twitter 1.0 ran a censorship regime using and wasting other people’s money. Now, Twitter 2.0 is a free speech regime run by Musk using his own money. You have not marshaled one single relevant argument tending to undermine the contention that, from a free speech point of view, Musk is moving Twitter in the right direction.

    4. Anybody that quotes the NYT…IS AN IDIOT OF EPIC PROPORTIONS!!
      The story about employees having to bring their own TP was as fake as CNN.
      You should be embarrassed to be repeating fake news from the king of fake news, the NYT.
      You cite Tesla’s stock price, maybe you didn’t notice how the Xiden admin destroyed the stock market. Maybe you don’t inform yourself very well. Musk owns twatter, he can do or say what he pleases. Why anybody gives two turds about what idiots say on twatter is a mystery. But I guess self centered people are so insecure that they have to bolster their egos somehow. I’d say everybody that uses twitter are twits or twats, or just plain brain dead.

  3. I don’t see how the plaintiff has a case here. This seems like the textbook example given to demonstrate the “implication of unstated facts” test. What the defendant wrote is a conclusion.

    Conclusions cannot in themselves be actionable, because by definition they are a kind of opinion. However often a conclusion is written in a way that implies to a reasonable reader that the writer must know some facts that s/he has not mentioned, that led him/her to this conclusion. And that implication can indeed be actionable.

    But if it is clear to the reader that there are no hidden facts, that the conclusion is based entirely on the facts given, if any, and those facts are true, then it’s not actionable, no matter how unreasonable the path is from the given facts to the conclusion.

    Here the only fact, rather than conclusion, that the defendant is alleging, is that the cards told her the plaintiff is responsible for the murders. Now that fact may not be true, but if so it’s impossible to prove it. Far more likely it is true; the cards did “tell” her this nonsense. So she can’t be sued for saying they did. As for her conclusion that the cards were telling the truth, that’s an opinion and not actionable. A reasonable reader will conclude, not that the plaintiff is a murderer, but that the defendant is a nut case.

    1. From your statements, I conclude that you are a pedophile, a terrorist and a malingerer who neglects to return shopping carts.

    1. She should just say she believed based on faith, which is about as nonsense as Tarot cards. Both unsupported beliefs without evidence

      1. JAM:
        “Both unsupported beliefs without evidence.”
        Faith is all you have when reason fails you. A lot of good was done in the name of faith. That’s real and indisputable.

        1. Individuals who mock people of Faith while proclaiming themselves as followers of evidence are deeply insecure and demonstrate they know neither evidence nor history.

          Gregor Mendel and Anthony Fauci are my Catholic scientists inspiration


          Robert Boyle 1627 – 1691. Said that a deeper understanding of science was a higher glorification of God. Defined elements, compounds, and mixtures. Discovered the first gas law – Boyle’s Law.

          Antoine Lavoisier 1743 – 1794. A Roman Catholic believer in the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures. A founder of modern chemistry; discovered oxygen’s role in combustion and respiration; discovered that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen.

          Michael Faraday 1791 – 1867. A devout member and elder of the Presbyterian Church. Discovered electromagnetic induction; discovered the first experimental link between light and magnetism; carried out the first room-temperature liquefaction of a gas.

          James Clerk Maxwell 1831 – 1879. An evangelical Protestant who learned the Bible by heart at age 14. Transformed our understanding of nature: his famous equations unified the forces of electricity and magnetism, indicating that light is an electromagnetic wave. His kinetic theory established that temperature is entirely dependent on the speeds of particles.

          Gregor Mendel 1822 – 1884. A Roman Catholic Augustinian Monk and Abbot. Founded the science of genetics; identified many of the mathematical rules of heredity; identified recessive and dominant traits.

          Arthur Compton 1892 – 1962. A deacon in the Baptist Church. Discovered that light can behave as a particle as well as a wave and coined the word photon to describe a particle of light.

          Georges Lemaître 1894 – 1966. Roman Catholic priest. Discovered that space and the universe are expanding; discovered Hubble’s law; proposed the universe began with the explosion of a ‘primeval atom’ whose matter spread and evolved to form the galaxies and stars we observe today.

          Isaac Newton 1643 to 1727.Passionate dissenting Protestant who spent more time on Bible study than math and physics. Profoundly changed our understanding of nature with his law of universal gravitation and his laws of motion; invented calculus; built the first ever reflecting telescope; showed sunlight is made of all the colors of the rainbow.

          Charles Townes 1915 – 2015.A member of the United Church of Christ. Prayed daily. Wrote books linking science and religion; believed religion more important than science. Invented the laser and maser. Established that the Milky Way has a supermassive black hole at its center.

          John Dalton 1766 – 1844.A faithful Quaker who lived modestly. Dalton’s Atomic Theory is the basis of chemistry; discovered Gay-Lussac’s Law relating temperature, volume, and pressure of gases; discovered the law of partial gas pressures.

          Carl Friedrich Gauss 1777 – 1855. A Lutheran Protestant who believed science revealed the immortal human soul and that there is complete unity between science and God. Gauss revolutionized number theory and invented the method of least squares and the fast Fourier transform. His profound contributions to the physical sciences include Gauss’s Law & Gauss’s Law for Magnetism.

          Charles Barkla 1877 – 1944. A Methodist who believed science was part of his quest for God. Discovered that atoms have the same number of electrons as their atomic number and that X-rays emitted by excited atoms are ‘fingerprints’ for the atom.

          George Washington Carver 1864 – 1943. A Protestant Evangelist and Bible class leader whose faith in Jesus was the mechanism through which he carried out his scientific work. Improved the agricultural economy of the USA by promoting nitrogen providing peanuts as an alternative crop to cotton to prevent soil depletion.

          Ernest Walton 1903 – 1995. A devout Methodist, who said science was a way of knowing more about God. Winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics after he artificially split the atom and proved that E = mc2.

          Florence Nightingale 1820 – 1910. An Anglican who believed God spoke to her, calling her to her work. Transformed nursing into a respected, highly trained profession; used statistics to analyze wider health outcomes; advocated sanitary reforms largely credited with adding 20 years to life expectancy between 1871 and 1935.

          J. J. Thomson 1856 – 1940. A practicing Anglican who prayed and read the Bible daily. Discovered the electron; invented one of the most powerful tools in analytical chemistry – the mass spectrometer; obtained the first evidence for isotopes of stable elements.

          Alessandro Volta 1745 – 1827. A Roman Catholic who declared that he had never wavered in his faith. Invented the electric battery; wrote the first electromotive series; isolated methane for the first time.

          Blaise Pascal 1623 – 1662. A Roman Catholic theologian. Pascal’s wager justifies belief in God. Devised Pascal’s triangle for the binomial coefficients and co-founded probability theory. Invented the hydraulic press and the mechanical calculator.

          William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) 1824 – 1907. An elder of the Free Church of Scotland. Codified the first two laws of thermodynamics, deduced the absolute zero of temperature is -273.15 °C. On the Kelvin scale, absolute zero is found at 0 kelvin. Invented the signaling equipment used in the first transatlantic telegraph via an undersea cable.

          Charles Babbage 1791 – 1871. A Protestant devotee who devoted a chapter of his autobiography to a discussion of his faith. The father of the computer, invented the Analytical Engine, a Turing Complete computer in 1837 – the first general purpose computer.

          Werner Heisenberg 1901 – 1976. A Lutheran with deep Christian convictions. One of the primary creators of quantum mechanics. Formulated the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

          Samuel Morse 1791 – 1872. A Calvinist with Unitarian sympathies who funded a lectureship considering the relation of the Bible to the Sciences. Took part in the invention of a single-wire telegraph and patented it. Developed the Morse code.

          John Eccles 1903 – 1997. Christian and sometimes practicing Roman Catholic. Believed in a Divine Providence operating over and above the materialistic happenings of biological evolution. Winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on the physiology of synapses

          Francis Collins 1950 – present. Atheist turned devout Christian. Invented positional cloning. Took part in discovery of the genes for cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, and neurofibromatosis. Directed National Human Genome Research Institute for 15 years.

          Anthony Fauci 1940 – present. A devout practicing Roman Catholic who credits his Jesuit formation in high school and college for his belief in God and the sciences, HIV researcher scientist, physician, advisor to many US Presidents, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, one of principal editors of Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine

          1. All the examples you cite are a widespread and widely know phenomenon: Compartmentalization, i.e., those who hold contradictory philosophies. Compartmentalization proves nothing about the supposed efficacy of faith — which proof is in fact impossible, because proof requires reason, logic, and this-worldly evidence.

            1. Witness testimony is, by definition, in law, evidence. The evidence ‘proves’ that Jesus Christ was crucified by the Romans, died, rose from the grave, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father and will come again to judge the living and the dead. Dispute that by ‘reason.’

              1. “Dispute that by ‘reason.’”

                One cannot use reason to dispute the arbitrary. One merely dismisses it, and walks away.

                “Witness testimony is, by definition, in law, evidence.”

                Really? You’ve never heard of a “witness” being mistaken or delusional? That someone asserts something does not make it true.

          2. Thank you for posting that list of great achievements. Every single one was made possible by the use of reason (not faith).

      2. I read this years ago before I went to medical school. A good read

        The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
        by Francis S. Collins, PhD (Physical Chemistry, Yale), MD (UNC-Chapel Hill)

        “An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity.

        It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them.”

        1. How do you use logic to prove that (“faith”) which its own practitioners admit is *beyond* logic?

          Someone is trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

            1. “No one ‘admits’ anything of a kind.”

              You might want to educate yourself on the ideology of the church’s intellectuals.

  4. Great to have you writing about legal issues, Professor. And a couple of great comments including one by one of the contending attorneys in a case you mentioned. Now if you would moderate off the comments about impeaching Abraham Lincoln and any comment about a completely extraneous subject and the blog might return to its glory

    1. Oh, my yes! Please censor and deny the freedom of speech and ignore the “completely extraneous” subject of the abrogation of the Constitution and the imposition of the dominion Karl Marx’s thesis, “from each according to his ability [to pay unconstitutional, confiscatory and punitive taxation] to each according to his [irresponsible, parasitic and dependent] needs,” and the principles of the Communist Manifesto, superseding fundamental law and freedom in America. Certainly, America is done with the issues that have destroyed it. Ironically, America was not done with the issue of a false and non-existent constitutional right to abortion when the Supreme Court acted retroactively by 50 years to correct the egregious constitutional aberration and strike down Roe v. Wade of 1973. Roe v. Wade was far worse than “Crazy Abe’s” wholly unconstitutional “Reign of Terror” and the ultimately resultant, communist, American welfare state, right?

      Abraham Lincoln is “…an earnest of the epoch to come…to lead his country through…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”

      – Karl Marx https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

  5. C’mon folks. She held a seance and Sherlock Holmes deduced all the evidence of the murders. The incense had such a lovely aroma. She should consult the Tarot Cards to find out how much of her bank account is going to disappear. Her alias is Gigi.

  6. I consulted my ‘QUIJA’ board and found the current trend line is leaning towards a sever collision. We cannot allow individuals, institutions, businesses, or Governments to assume that anything goes. There are some who have lost their moral decency, have no intellectual aptitude to understand Newton’s Law, and constantly cast their sputum, [as in a sign of disease], over everything they put forth. I thought we lived in a real world governed by accepted laws and rights, not some place where ‘we choose truth over facts’. I truly do fear for The United States of America if we can’t stop the whirlpool of nonsense we see almost daily.

  7. Guillard is entitled to her opinion even if she IS nuts!
    Though the subject matter is tragic, with a smile on my face, I look forward to this seeing her trial and her “proof.”

    “People just don’t get it, like I’ve been against people big and small, corporations and giants and systemic policies [and] racism and won.”

    Is there any verifiable record of any of these wins?

  8. Jonathan: A defamation suit in Idaho is not exactly how I would want to bring the year to an end. So let me bring to your and you’re follower’s attention a movie you might want to watch while tipping back that hot buttered rum on New Year’s Eve. It’s “Glass Onion” starring Daniel Craig, Edward Norton and Kate Hudson. The film is now on Netflix. Edward Horton portrays “Miles Bron”, a tech boy billionaire genius, who invites some friends to spend the weekend at his island compound/commune. Early in the movie Bron tells his friends he is a great believer in “disruptive theory”–the idea that blowing things up presents an opportunity to rise to the top–over the carnage, even if it means pushing others aside or stepping on them to accomplish your goals. “Glass Onion” asks how and why we put out faith in billionaires–let them run our lives with promises of things they can’t deliver because we mistakenly believe they are “geniuses”.

    I know what you are thinking. “Glass Onion” is a parody of Elon Musk. Bingo! But Rian Johnson, the director, made the movie before Musk took over Twitter. But the movie does predict what Musk would do at Twitter. Blow up a lot of things without a “master plan” to transform the platform. Musk has winged it from day to day because he thinks he is a “genius” and everything will eventually work out to his advantage. It doesn’t take a “genius” to understand Twitter is in serious trouble. It’s problematic whether Musk can put it all back together again.

    The lesson of “Glass Onion” for me is that unquestioning faith in billionaires, like Musk, to bring us the things we want (like “free speech) is something we should not automatically accept based only on faith. You and many of your followers thought Musk would do everything he promised–probably because he is rich and successful and would deliver. Didn’t work out like you thought, did it? It’s like the collapse of Sam Bankman-Fried and his cryptocurrency exchange FTX. A lot of people bought into his scam and lost a lot of money. It was Enron all over again in spades. The noted economist Paul Krugman predicted SBF’s demise. He has said for some time that bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are simply a tool of criminals and mostly a Ponzi scheme.

    As an aside the actual “Glass Onion” compound is up for sale at an astounding price of $450 million. It has 17 bedrooms, 22 baths–over 29,000 sq. ft. with several pools and spas, a huge exercise room–and other amenities. I have a contact for the broker handling the sale in case anyone is interested.*

    * Actually, there is no “Glass Onion” compound. The film was largely shot at a hotel in Port Hili, Greece . But, see, you fell for my scam and underscores my point that the wise should be careful before putting their faith in billionaires like SBF or a Musk. They don’t have all the answers. Of course, I am the exception to the rule!

    1. Dennis, thanks for the recommendation. Interesting you pick on the one billionaire who is not lockstep with virtually all others in suppressing freedom in the name of left-wing elitist goals. Musk is not perfect, but he at least has brought to light wide-scale governmental corruption, which the prior regime at Twitter took pains to hide. (Leftists used to like it when government corruption was exposed; those days are gone.) Nor was Twitter 1.0 a model of business profitability, if you get my drift. Bottom line, the fundamental difference between Musk and most contemporary billionaires is that Musk at least makes strides toward freedom, if erratic and halting to some degree. He is moving things in the right direction. The others, with very few exceptions, are aiming at suppression and control of the masses to serve their power-hungry, elitist aims.


        “It’s the [Supreme Court with the power of Judicial Review], stupid!”

        – James Carville

        It’s not “the one billionaire who is not [in] lockstep with virtually all others in suppressing freedom in the name of left-wing elitist goals,” it’s the historical “Big Picture” since Karl Marx and his BFF, “Crazy Abe” Lincoln. American freedom persisted for a mere 71 years. It’s the entire communist American welfare state which must have been struck down every time, from the outset of every incremental step. Lincoln’s “Reign of Terror” must have been “nipped in the bud” through a Supreme Court review of the Constitution, finding that secession was not prohibited by the Constitution and was, therefore, fully constitutional (follow the law, let the South constitutionally deviate, fail and return to the U. S. hat in hand). That particular oversight and juridical failure to “nip it in the bud” has come all the way forward, resulting in the current welfare state including, but not limited to, wholly antithetical and unconstitutional matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

        Be sure to review the Constitution on secession, the severely limited, enumerated powers to tax and regulate in Article 1, Section 8, and the absolute, not qualified by the Constitution, and prevailing 5th Amendment right to private property. Also find the failure of the Supreme Court to review immigration/naturalization law on January 1, 1863.

        This damn sure ain’t the America of the American Founders anymore. It’s the America of Karl Marx and his favorite minion, and “earnest of the epoch” leading America toward the “RECONSTRUCTION of a social world,” the very anti-American “Crazy Abe” Lincoln.

        Judicial Review in the United States

        The legitimacy of judicial review and the judge’s approach to judicial review are discussed.

        The doctrine of judicial review holds that the courts are vested with the authority to determine the legitimacy of the acts of the executive and the legislative branches of government…

        – DOJ, Office of Justice Programs

        “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

        – James Madison

        “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

        – Alexander Hamilton

      2. Oldmanfromkansas: Thx for the thoughtful comment. I am an old man from Missouri. As to your claim that Musk “at least makes strides toward freedom” you might tell that to all the reporters and other critics that Musk has banned and then was forced to take back because that was inconsistent with his “free speech” policy. Yes, Musk has offered to bring back Trump and his idea of “freedom” is providing every racist, anti-semite and QAnon follower to troll on Twitter. You may call that “freedom” but I don’t. Like the fictional character in “Glass Onion” Musk thinks he has an answer for everything because he is a “genius”. Watch what happens to Twitter and tell me I am wrong. Unfortunately, you have drunk the cool-aid that billionaires have all the answers to what ails the country. They don’t and the sooner we realize that the better off we will be. Just hope you didn’t buy any FTX cryptocurrency!

        1. Dennis – he does make strides towards freedom. Like I said, they are halting and erratic — the ill-advised temporary banning of some reporters is an example of that — but overall he’s moving in the right direction. And yes I do call freedom of speech “freedom.” It is contrasted with censorship, a favorite tool of those with totalitarian instincts. The ACLU, an organization I have great respect for, famously (and correctly) argues all the time that the answer to objectionable speech is more speech, not censorship.

          And the bogeymen you focus on are a tiny fraction of those where were banned from Twitter for “unapproved” opinions. Tons more were banned for expressing doubts about the government’s Covid policy (e.g., skepticism about vaccine mandates), and any number of other political issues on which reasonable minds can differ, such as whether it is good policy to irreversably physically mutilate children who are temporarily confused about gender issues. Yes the Q’Anon and similar whackos on both ends of the spectrum will be able to have a voice, but having a free and open society means dealing with that kind of messiness, and the sane ones among us are not overly taxed by it; I have that much faith in us.

          Finally, I haven’t drunk any kool-aid, other than literal kool-aid decades ago when I was a kid and it was considered a tasty kid’s drink. Best wishes from one old man to another and happy new year!

        2. Since there is no record of your outcry for Twitter’s previous practice of promiscuous suppression, you present complaints lack all credibility and value.

      3. oldmanfromkansas,

        Just read that the WEF has joined in the cancel campaign against Twitter, Twitter is not invited to Davos 2023, and the WEF is recommending Chinese made apps.
        Musk must be doing something right.

    2. Come on. Despite your fantasizing, Twitter is in much better shape now that Musk is running things. Just firing 75 percent of their manpower put the balance sheet in much better trim. And no, Glass Onion is not so much about Musk as about all of these horrendous little twits that run Facebook, Google, and Amazon. It’s so funny how people always see in movies what they want to see, not what is really there.

      1. “…people always see in movies what they want to see, not what is really there.”

        – abraham lincoln


        Twitter Schmitter! It’s not about “claiming and exercising” dominion over one’s private property, it’s about news and social media free market competition, oh, and governmental officials covertly colluding and facilitating election corruption and vote tampering as crimes of high office by withholding and suppressing relevant information, such as the fact the Hunter Biden and the entire Biden family constituted a criminal enterprise on the eve of the “rigged” 2020 election. Oh, and what about the Obama Coup D’etat in America – another thing that was not seen but really there. Geez, America has been a comprehensively illicit criminal enterprise that was not seen but “really there” since 1860. If you want to “fix” something, fix the teachers unions’ public schools that are propagandizing, indoctrinating and teaching American children-of-the-state to be America-hating communists.

        “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

        – James Madison

      2. Dennis rather conspicuously ignores the PLUNGING stock prices of all three techs you mentioned: Fakebook, Gogle and Amazing (that anyone still buys their stuff). I guess the clowns that run those companies are petulant children ‘winging it’ day by day, too.

    3. I always find is fascinating that left wing nuts confuse movies with reality.

      Reality is far different from movies.

      Everything that Musk or any other successful person has done that has contributed to that success has had to meet one critical requirement.

      It has had to benefit others more than any benefit to themselves.

      very Very few people succeed solely by destroying, and none for long.

    4. Comparing SBF to Musk is stupid.

      Musk has ALWAYS traded value for value.

      SBF like maddoff is a criminal.

      FTX was a Bitcoin exchange, which is sort of like a bank. A place people store their crypto currency.

      SBF stole money from the exchange used it for personal benefit and also invested it in his hedge fund.

      When his hedge fund went bust his the accountholders in his Crypto exchange were defrauded.

      I have no problems with hedge funds. People can make enormous amounts of money through them.
      They can also lose enormous amounts of money.

      If you have a few billion lying arround and want to risk it in a hedge fund – that is your business.

      But FTX’s account holders did not agree to invest in hedge funds. They through that FTX was holding their crypto currency so they could easily exchange it for goods, and that FTX proftied by a small charge on transactions.

      Much like Debit cards.

      There is no comparison to Musk.

    5. The sudden turning of the left on Musk should send a clear message to Republicans.

      Trump is NOT the problem.

      Musk has been a center left democrat most of his life. Prior to looking at purchasing twitter, most everyone understood that.

      He is Not and never was some racist white supremecists far right extremist.

      Bu when Musk bought Twitter and sought to restore free speech. When he exposed the immoral conduct of the left,

      Suddenly Musk is universally painted by the left and very nearly Hitler.

      Republicans should take note – Trump is NOT some right wing extremist. He is not particularly toxic.

      Any one on the right that threatens the lefts hedgemony will get the Trump/Musk treatment.

      If Republicans want to go with DeSantis, or Noem, or Halley, or Romney, or Kaisich, or whatever republican you want in 2024.
      That person will be treated by the left, the media, democrats social media exactly the same as Trump and Musk are currently.

      It is not Trump or Musk that is that are the extremists. It is those attacking them.

      1. John Say – excellent points. My only reservation would be concerning people like Romney and Kasich, who are known to be RINOs. The Left can always tell (even better than the right) who in the GOP has a spine and who doesn’t, and they treat the latter like royalty because they know the results will be in their favor. A clear example of this was in 1987, when they went to war, first against Robert Bork, then against Douglas Ginsburg. Finally, Reagan nominated Kennedy and the left-wing attack dogs fell silent. They knew.

        1. I am not trying to defend or attack “Rino’s”.

          Mostly I think it would be wise for republicans to end the war on Rino’s – there are some states that will electe a moderate republican that will not elect a MAGA republican. MAGA needs to learn to live with that.

          Democrats have a similar problem of their own and that has cost them Gabbard, Sienna and could cost them Manchin.

        2. My core point is that it should be obvious at this point that Democrats will frame ANYONE they do not like as far far right fringe racist.

          Trying to placate the media, the left, social media to avoid being painted into the extreme is a fools game.,

          1. We disagree. Bork was an excellent choice for the supreme Court. He added a dimension involving securities and exchange, antitrust. That was needed on the court.

            1. Borkean originalism is a total complete disaster.
              I have no doubt that he was an excellent judge in many areas.

              But anything that became a constitutional issue that hinged on originalism
              Bork had atleast a 50% chance of F$%King up.

              And constitutional issues are a big deal on the supreme court.

              Everything that is called “originalism” is not good.
              Frankly everything that is called originalism, is not really originalism.

              This is why we sometimes get very odd things from conservatives on the court that ad very anti-originalist.

              1. John Say – my point was not about whether Bork would have been good or bad, but that he had a spine (as did Ginsburg – who, by the way, would have been an excellent choice, IMHO). Also, FWIW, having read Bork’s book, The Tempting of America, I believe Borkean originalism is more nuanced than it is often given credit for.

                In any event – and this is a whole nother topic of considerable depth – we as a society are 30 years behind the times with Kennedy instead of Bork. This whole post-Dobbs political mess at the state level would instead have begun in June 1992 instead of June 2022. States as laboratories of democracy and all that. Imagine a field of science (say, physics) in which nobody is allowed to do any research for 30 years. Then suddenly the Supreme Court says, “Okay, time’s up, you can continue to do research.” Great, glad you said so, but now we’re 30 years behind where we otherwise would have been if you hadn’t usurped the issue in the first place.

                1. I have no doubt Bork had spine.
                  Nor do I question his intellect or abilities.

                  But just as the living constitutionalism of the left is not merely wrong, but certain to fail,
                  so is Borkean originalism.

                  The error manifests itself in two related places.

                  Those on the right lament “activist judges” – but the reality is we want activist jusdges.

                  We want judges who will say “that is unconstitutional” and strike down bad laws.
                  What we do not want is judges that legislate from the bench.

                  The conservative attack on judicial activism is too broad.

                  The next related problem with Borkean originalism is it does NOT operate on the assumption that the constitution specifies the ONLY enumerated powers of the government.

                  Borkean and far too much conservative originalism allows government to do anything that it can accomplished through democratic processes,
                  through elections, through legislators. It presumes with too few limits that the constitution is a set of limits on government, and that anything not explicitly prohibited is within the domain of govenrment power is democratically enacted.

                  Borkean originalism is strongly democratic.

                  I would note this form of originalism was not limited to bork. There is alot of it in scalia.

                  Frankly it is strong in the current court.

                  The good news is that an increasing reliance on the actual history of law and constitution undermines that democratic originalism.

                  I do not think the current court properly accepts that the constitution is one of limited enumerated powers, and limitless individual rights.
                  But relying on history Frequently gets us close to the same result.

                  1. John Say – very interesting. What you say certainly applies to state legislatures more than Congress, since Congress has enumerated powers whereas states have general police powers. As I recall from con law (admittedly several decades ago), Congress’s enumerated powers were all but converted into general police powers by the Supreme Court’s fanatical interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause in the first half of the 20th century. E.g., Wickard v. Filburn (1942).

                    My thought about how that intersects with (could be cured by?) Brokean originalism is that, getting back to the original understanding of the ICC, Congress’s powers could be lassoed back in to the more limited realm that they held before the rise of the administrative state. If you disagree, kindly explain where I’m going wrong.

                    1. “very interesting. What you say certainly applies to state legislatures more than Congress, since Congress has enumerated powers whereas states have general police powers.”

                      The position that the constitution delegates to government and particularly the federal government limited enumerated powers, Is correct, and is how it MUST be – both ideologically and pragmatically. But it is NOT the position of all originalists. And I am pretty sure it was NOT Borks.

                      Bork and to a lessor extent scalia and moany other prominent originalists tended to view government constitutional powers as whatever is not prohibited is permitted – so long as it is arrived at by democratic processes. That is WRONG.

                      One of the most fundimental consitutional fights – dating back to conflicts between the courts and the founders shortly after the founding is the limits of federal power. With the courts near universally from the start finding broader powers than were present in the constitution.

                      The 14th amendment “priviledges and immunities” clause was not just about slavery, it was a slap to the courts saying that not only did our founders mean it, but WE mean it when we say government has limited enumerated powers and individuals have not merely limitless rights, but that even priviledges and immunities – which was deliberately intended to go BEYOND just rights, which government can not infringe on.

                      If you wish to call yourself an originalist in my view several criteria must be met.

                      You must accept that the powers of government – especially the federal government are limited to those enumerated in the constitution and whatever powers are necescary to act on those powers.

                      You must accept that the 9th amendment means something. That is a very ANTI-Borkean position.
                      And that it means what is not given to government belongs to the people.

                      You must accept that the 14th amendment is a delberate EXPANSION of the 9th amendment.

                      All these are easy to find in the expressions of the framers.

                      I am glad that the current court is starting to rely on more than just textual originalism, but actual practice at the time the constitution or an amendment was written. As a means of understanding what was intended.

                      But we must be careful as even our founders often violated the constitutional constraints they placed on themselves.

                      The Alien and Sedition act being one of the most authoritarian heinous and hypocritical laws this country ever passed and that was passed by the very people who wrote the first amendment.

                      We must look at what they said. and we should ALWAYS use the practice at the time where that makes clear that they intended government power to be limited. But we must be careful and understand even our founders had clay feat. They spoke of great principles, but very rarely actually lived by them. Originalism is harder when They meant what they said, but did not live by what they said.

                      Wickard V. Filburn and the massively overbroad interpretation of the commerce clause were a supreme court mistake we may never fix.
                      Wickard is heonous as NOTHING can evade its broad definition of interstate commerce.

                      I would note that our founders did NOT intend the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. The commerce clause was in the constitution to remove the power from the states. For almost 150 years the federal government did little or nothing to regulate interstate commerce. Our founders and nearly every other generation prior to the 1930’s understood that was a very bad idea.

                      “Getting back to the original understanding of the ICC”
                      As a libertarian I would celebrate if that happened.
                      There is a snowballs chance in h311 that any court likely to be constituted in the US is ver going back to pre wickard understanding of the commerce clause.

                      We are not even going to get back to interstate commerce allows nearly anything government might imagine

                      I wish as you, but that is not happening. I doubt you could get 1 vote on SCOTUS for that.
                      No justice is going to vote 90% of the federal government out of existance.

                    2. I have some understanding of the constitution – and sometimes argue it.

                      But Fundimentally I am libertarian, not conservative, and not even some form of strict originalist.

                      I like a proper originalist constitution – because it is very libertarian.

                      But while the constitution is the fundimental law of the land, “It is not the word of god”, it is not infallible truth.

                      Just a reasonable approximation.

                      As an example we are debating free speech here lately.

                      The first amendment applies to government – not private actors. And I would have it no other way.
                      But the principle of free speech, and the bad consequences of restricting speech are NOT limited to government.

                      I have argued the first amendment against some left wing nuts here.
                      But free speech si more fundamental and important than the constitution and bill of rights.

                      It is a foundational moral precept. You can not have a functional free society without free speech.
                      Outside of government, I am OK with SOME restrictions that various organizations impose on the speech of members – such as bosses restricting the workplace speech of employees, or talk about confidential company information outside the company.

                      But the exceptions to free speech are RARE.

                      Regardless, I am more interested in the philosophy or free speech, the pragmatic importance of free speech, the logical requirement for free speech, than the constitution.

                      Without free speech – we can not find truth.
                      Without free speech successful self government is not possible.

                      Without free speech we will either have revolution, or we will drift to authoritarianism.

                      The most important arguments regarding free speech are not in the constitution, or our founders, but in their necessity for creatures with free will.

                      Some left wing nut legal scholar recently asserted the constitution is not libertarian – and he is correct. But it was created by people who were pretty libertarian and it is a blueprint for government close to what libertarians would want.
                      But the Constitution – though a creation of the ideology of the founders is a blueprint for government, it does not speak directly to ideology.

                      If you want the principles, as opposed to the framework for government – our founders put that in the declaration of independence, which is ultimately far more important.

                      The dclaration answers the question “Why”, the constitution is about how.

              2. John, one can argue on this subject forever, yet we will never know. Was Kennedy a better choice?

                1. Was Kennedy a better choice than Bork ? Yes.
                  That is not a difficult question.

                  That does not mean I like Kennedy.

                  Borkean originalism is no better than living constitutionalism.

                    1. It is an opinion. And again you keep channeling the left.

                      While no opinion is fact,
                      All opinions are not equal.

                      It is an opinion that Adolf Hitler would make a good supreme court justice.

                      It is not much of an argument to identify something as an opinion.

                      I do not want you to say my opinion is wrong,
                      If you are going to go to criticize it – do so with an argument.
                      Make your case.
                      You have to do better than demonstrate that Kennedy was a poor justice.
                      You have to demonstrate Bork would have been better. Or atleast argue that using facts and logic.

                    2. “It is an opinion. And again you keep channeling the left.”

                      Your opinions, compass-wise, might be a more direct route. When flying, however, sometimes one learns that one has to shift directions to avoid inclement weather, which causes delays. I prefer to fly around the problem, but you haven’t yet learned that technique, so you fly straight ahead.

                      All opinions are not equal, and sometimes yours are deficient because you didn’t place enough thought on the reality of the situation.

  9. This one’s not going to work out well for Guillard. Not by going the Tik Tok route anyway. Better off going for reward through the tip line if she’s seeking to monetize. And if she’s wrong she deserves every bit of this suit, plus some.

  10. Moscow police chief James Fry & Idaho AG Lawrence Wasden should consider bringing “swatting” charges against Ashley Guillard.

    It’s a felony offense. $150,000 fine & 20 years in prison.

  11. Wait, she consults tarot cards and “performs other readings” to ascertain alleged facts . . . ? That tells you all you need to know about how nutty this person is. Plus even if she’s somewhat judgment proof, she must have at least a little money and her future earnings can be pursued (think O.J. Simpson civil judgment). So her so-called “truth” (i.e., falsehoods) just bought her years of frustration.

  12. This child is a result of the distorted and miseducated education system we have because of the radical leftists in academia. These leftists, supported by the legacy media and Democrats, have distorted truth and thrive in the cesspool of misinformation. Most Americans are now miseducated, easily duped and deceived, and believe these lies because they emanated what might (previously) have been reasonable news sources, though they started their descent into propaganda in the 1990’s .

    The examples of the press and resulting American ignorance are endless over the last decades and most especially over the last 6 years. Their lies include: the Hunter Biden is Russian disinfo lie, the Steele lie, the collusion lie, the Fauci “I am science: lie” and the others health policy lies told in 2020, the boys can be girls lie if we genitally mutilate them and drug them lie, the 1/6 lies, the Covid kills kids lie, the C19 vax is just like other vaccines lie, the General Flynn is a traitor lie, the Randi Weingarten lies, the Joe Biden is mentally capable lie, the DIE lies.

    1. By “most Americans” you mean those who don’t fall for the alt-right lies–correct? There’s so much BS in this post, attempting to respond point by point would be overwhelming except to point out a few items: I never heard any “legacy media” call the fake “Hunter Biden Scandal” (if there even is one, because this is mostly the product of alt-right media) “Russian disinformation”. What, exactly, is the “scandal”, anyway? No crimes have been proven, and even Fox employee Turley admits that influence-peddling, if it is established, is not illegal, so this is just an attack against non alt-right media, based on the alleged authenticity of the hard drive. The provenance of the hard drive was seriously compromised by the fact that soon-to-be-disbarred, now-suspended attorney Giuliani took possession of it, copied it, distributed it to Republican members of Congress to be used as political ammunition before turning it over to the FBI. These are facts.

      Trump did collude with Russian hackers to cheat his way into office in 2016–so says a REPUBLICAN Senate Committee report that investigated the matter, as well as Dan Coats, lifelong Republican, former Congressman from Indiana, who was the head of all US Intelligence Agencies. Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 and 2020 because most Americans don’t approve of him and see him for the braggadocious liar he really is. Denying science is just plain ignorant. And the rest is just culture wars nonsense based on people like you who don’t understand gender dysphoria, and don’t want to. Joe Biden has accomplished more in his first 2 years in office than most US Presidents achieved in 4 years’ time, such as multiple legislative achievements, including the Chips Act, Infrastructure Act, Veterans Health Act, repairing much of the damage Trump did to our economy, our national health, our relationships with our NATO and EU allies, and our supply chain. You claim to be “highly educated”, yet rail against education and science–do you have any idea how dumb it sounds when you proclaim that “most Americans” are “miseducated”, based on the fact that they don’t fall for the alt-right media garbage you rely on? General Flynn was convicted of crimes–that’s also a fact.

      1. Gigi, you just want thirteen year old boys to be castrated and thirteen year old girls to have their breasts removed. You started your post by saying that you wouldn’t respond to all the statements by highly educated suburban women and then you responded on every point and added quite a few of your own. Your comments are some of the longest on the forum. You say you will not bloviate and then you bloviate. You are part of the people who still say that the Hinter laptop is Russian disinformation after The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico Magazine and CBS have all said that the laptop is authentic. We understand that it is a mental necessity on your part to stick with your story and repeat it until the bitter end lest you lose your sanity. It’s sad to say that it’s to late.

        1. TIT: how many times does it have to be explained to you that doctors do not, and cannot, by law, remove breasts or surgically alter genitalia on persons who are underage? That is not done, although sometimes puberty-blocking mediations are administered, but only after extensive psychiatric evaluation and a determination that the benefits outweigh the risks. The effects of puberty-blockers can be reversed. How many times does gender dysphoria have to be explained to you? Someone who identifies as female, but has a penis and testicles, does not consider themselves to be a “boy”; nor does a someone who identifies as male, but has breasts, consider themselves to be a “girl”. Your opinion doesn’t count when it comes to the reality of how such persons self-identfy and want to live their lives free of your judgmental ignorance. Despite being accused several times of claiming that the “Hunter Biden Laptop” is “Russian disinformation”, I never said that, and I never heard so-called “legacy media” claim that either. But, alt-right media keeps harping that: “see, we were right–legacy media admits they were wrong”. And, in any event, who cares what’s on the laptop if all it shows is alleged influence-peddling, which Turley admits is not illegal? The entire “Hunter Biden laptop Scandal” is nothing but an alt-right diversion to the true, proven crimes committed by your hero,Trump, plus the latest proof that he pays liltle to nothing in taxes, and that he lied when he said he couldn’t release his tax returns because they were being audited, which they weren’t. “Somehow”, the IRS, under Trump, failed to conduct the mandatory audit of presidential and vice presidental tax returns until a Congressional committee sent an inquiry. Now, you are accusing me of being insane? No one can have any kind of rational discussion with you Trump disciples because you’ve adopted his tactic of insulting people when you have no valid response to something they say that you can’t refute with facts or even logic.

      2. Gigi – Too much wrong info to address but that’s because you are also part of the miseducated. I love education and have spent years in higher ed.and I wonder where you were educated to think that JB’s rampant inflation, buying energy from Venezuela/Iran/Russia, 400% increase in illegals, and world chaos is success. JB is worse than J Carter. And who denied science or for you is Fauci =science? . Gender dysphoria is normal adolescence except to people like you who prefer of genital mutilation of children. Hunter’s laptop was Hunter’s lap top, “The Big Guy 10%” Joe Biden lied in the debate and said he never discussed business with Hunter but the laptop proves that’s false…. but the biggest scandal is that you were lied to and told it was Russian disinfo and believe it – unless you are Russian disinfo?

        1. Inflation is the result of Trump’s incompetence–lying about COVID made the pandemic much worse than it had to be, extending shut downs of schools, businesses and restaurants, which artificially depressed demand for petroleum because school buses weren’t running and people who could do so, worked from home. Once Biden turned things around, demand for fuel shot up, but production lagged behind. The situation is rapidly improving and gas prices are going down. Then, there’s Trump’s trade war with China that disrupted our supply chain, causing shortages of consumer goods. When Biden turned the economy and unemployment numbers around, demand went up, but supply lagged. High demand with low supply causes prices to go up. All of that is on Trump and his utter incompetence. Inflation is being brought under control.

          Biden has nothing to do with aliens seeking asylum. I’ve previously addressed the fact that people seeking asylum are not “illegals” because it’s not illegal to seek asylum. People standing in long lines are asking for asylum and they’re not illlegal. The problem is our broken immigration and asylum systems that Congress keeps trying to avoid fixing. This has gone on for decades, and until the law is changed, nothing much can be done. Title 42, based on the COVID pandemic was used to make them wait in Mexico, but this is really not a valid excuse. I do agree with the dissent in the SCOTUS that public health laws shouldn’t be used as a substitute for Congress’s failure to address immigration and asylum. I even posted the statute on asylum after being accused of not knowing the law, so for you to keep on calling asylum-seekers “illegals”, and blaming Biden for their coming here proves you are fact-immune or just plain ignorant. Until the law is changed, there’s not much Biden can do to stop them. They believe the lies of coyotes who told them that Biden was letting in anyone who wants to come. That’s not true. VP Harris even went to Guatamala and publicly announced: “don’t come here”. but the message didn’t take. They come here because we have a higher standard of living than in Guatamala, Venezuela, Honduras, and there are even people from Haiti who try to get in by going through South America. Nevertheless, alt-right media lies and says we have “open borders”, and tries to blame Biden. Congress is to blame, not Biden. Then, there are Republican Governors like Abbott and DeSantis who use these people as political pawns–transporting them to VP Harris’s home or to Martha’s Vineyard, enticing them with lies about jobs and housing waiting for them. Ignorant people who think using vulnerable people as political pawns is acceptable are deplorable. We are Americans and we don’t treat people like that.

          Gender dysphoria is not part of normal adolescent development. I don’t “prefer” anything other than acceptance of people as they are and not being judgmental. Children do not undergo “genital mutilation”, and saying so is just lying. People like you are the ones who cause needless suffering to people with gender dysphoria. I don’t know or care what’s on the laptop. Biden can’t live long enough to come up with the extent and depth of Trump’s thousands of lies.

          1. Gigi – You are uninformed, ignorant and a liar. Hundreds of children have been subjected to off-label drugs, medical genital mutilation and some are now suing the doctors and adults who mutilated their bodies. Chloe Cole started on puberty blockers and testosterone at 13, underwent a double mastectomy at 15. There are hundreds more that have been genitally mutilated … due to the ignorance of people like you. Hope you and yours take advantage of it as well!

  13. This is the giveaway from her quote:
    “I’ve been against people big and small, corporations and giants and systemic policies [and] racism and won”

    She lives in a society where claiming racism will get you off the hook, and likely feels invincible.

    There is some irony in all this as Professor Scofield researches ‘gender and sexuality’, so now we have another case of the radical left eating their own.

    1. Anytime Left/liberal Democrats are at war with themselves it’s always prudent to root for high casualty rates.

  14. ’tis a crazy case to be sure, but truth being the defense makes me want to sit in that courtroom. And for the TT “celebrity” isn’t that what it’s all about?

    1. I have not read the Complaint and do not know all the allegations, but the fact that the complaint alleges that the defendant on-line psychic based her statements on the supernatural — Tarot cards and other readings — should be significant. An opinion becomes actionable when it implies the knowledge of defamatory facts. For example, “I have insider information from the investigating officer, based on that information, I believe X is the murderer.” That might be defamatory, because the opinion statement implies knowledge of other facts that might be defamatory. But a statement like, “X is the murderer, because the cards tell me so,” on its face is not based on any facts but rather nonsense. The statement does not imply the knowledge of defamatory facts. I know that is not her defense, but it should be.

      But what do I know, I’m the attorney that lost the Ferlauto case cited above. Darn, all these years later, and that case is still being cited against me. BTW, that case involved a settlement with a confidentiality provision, and the main argument was whether the confidentiality provision acted as a waiver of the constitutional protections incorporated into defamation law. The Court rejected that argument, found constitutional limits still applied, then proceeded to analyze the case in the section that keeps getting quoted.

      1. Thanks, Tommy, my thoughts exactly. It’s so ludicrous that no reasonable person could believe it hence no damages. It’s really the perfect civil crime and our professor stepped right into it! Oh and don’t worry about that case.Only lawyers who don’t try cases, don’t have losses.

        1. mespo – several of her viewers want to know why the professor has not been arrested? Damages!!!!

Leave a Reply