A Response to Lawrence O’Donnell on the Weaponization Hearing

After my testimony before the Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government yesterday, I found myself the subject of a segment on MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell where criticized me for a bizarre exchange with freshman Democrat Dan Goldman. O’Donnell did not actually show the full exchange, but the claim is patently false and I wanted to briefly respond.

I appeared before the Committee to discuss the constitutional limits on the government supporting or directing censorship. I have written about the concerns over “censorship by surrogate.”

Rather than address that testimony, Rep. Goldman asked the following question: “have you ever worked for the federal government?” 

I answered “yes.”

Goldman then proceeded to ask me to explain how I worked for the federal government. I have actually worked in all three branches in various capacities through the years and started by noting that I started with internships. Goldman then interrupted and pressed me on the internships. Obviously, despite O’Donnell’s claim, I was not claiming a single internship as a credential to discuss the Twitter Files.

O’Donnell scoffed at the fact that I mentioned that I worked for Congress as counsel and said that this is not working in Congress. However, the question was whether and then how I worked for the federal government. When I then tried to discuss other work for the government, Goldman cut me off.

The tactic of reclaiming time to prevent such explanations is common in such attacks. I have previously objected to the tactic used against other witnesses, but it remains a favorite of members.

(Rep. Goldman also cut off my fellow witness when he asked the former FBI agent if he had ever investigated extremist groups. When he also answered “yes” and tried to explain, Goldman also cut him off).

This is much like complaining about the weather in Washington. I understood that I would be attacked for raising these questions. (On MSNBC, member of Congress who also testified yesterday were denounced as “Putin apologists” and Putin lovers.). However, I felt that some brief response was warranted.

183 thoughts on “A Response to Lawrence O’Donnell on the Weaponization Hearing”

  1. “‘Sam’, thinks I have no business criticizing you because you and I have no “special relationship” that gives me a right to form my own opinion–that Sam thinks is just “conjecture”. So let’s review the record.”

    You’re either incredibly dense or incredibly dishonest.

    My comment applies the Left’s ad hominem premise to you (and the rest of the Left). *By your own* bogus premise, your opinion of Turley’s testimony is just “conjecture.”

    Goose meet gander.

  2. Jonathan: It’s Super Bowl Sunday! I should also point out that this the the first Super Bowl with 2 Black quarterbacks leading their respective teams. Anther reason we should also be celebrating Black History Month–although I know we won’t hear from you on this important subject. Sad.

    By the way, I have received a lot of unwarranted criticism for my post yesterday ( at 2:39 pm) about your testimony at the “Weaponization” hearing on Friday. One of your loyal followers, “Sam”, thinks I have no business criticizing you because you and I have no “special relationship” that gives me a right to form my own opinion–that Sam thinks is just “conjecture”. So let’s review the record.

    In your testimony on Friday you admitted to Rep. Wasserman Schultz that you had no “special relationship’ with Twitter–that your sole relationship was your user account and your opinion expressed at the hearing was based only on the “Twitter Files” from which you said these “Files” showed a vast censorship system between the FBI and Twitter. I pointed out in my comment that none of the witnesses, called by Chairman Jordan, could back up your claim with actual evidence. I also pointed out that at the Oversight hearing on Thursday the three former Twitter execs testified they never censored anyone based solely on pressure from the FBI or any other agency.

    Back on 1/5/23 you wrote a column in The Hill about Adam Schiff trying to get Twitter to ban a critic of the work of the House Intelligence Committee that Schiff deemed “misinformation”. He did. And what did Twitter do? It refused Schiff’s request. Which kind of belies your claim that Twitter and government officials were working together to censor conservative critics. But it’s true that Twitter received hundreds, maybe thousands, of request by government officials to ban certain critics. Even Donald Trump tried to get the wife of John Legend banned for her very personal comment about him. Again, Twitter refused. You conveniently omitted this case from your testimony because it did not fit in with your theory that only liberals are trying to censor conservatives on social media.

    I think the evidence so far shows that Twitter based its decisions to suspend or ban someone on its own internal policies and procedures–not because it was pressured to do so by some government official–including Donald Trump or the FBI. But some of your loyal followers are not interested in the facts. They parrot what you say–just as you provide a echo chamber for Fox–your employer. It’s misinformation on top of misinformation!

    1. “No, my proof is a trove of emails from the FBI and DHS and thousands of moderation requests in spreadsheet form from agencies across the government – information that is damning, nonpartisan, and went totally ignored by captive media when published. @mtaibbi”

    2. btw, it is unbecoming, unnecessary and inappropriate for that lying pos Raskin to be wearing a doo rag in Congress.

    3. Why is it so important that there are two black quarterbacks in the Super Bowl? They obviously got there through merit so it doesn’t really matter their skin color, does it. I prefer to say they are both devout Christians which says more about the content of their character.

    4. Dennis you have every right to criticise Turley.

      What many of us question is not your rights, but your sanity.

      You do not seem to think that what you say ought to make any sense or have any relationship with facts.

      Turley was knowledgeable enough for Democrats to use him as a witness on legal and constitutional issues probably a dozen times in the past 25 years.

      Their current attacks on him reflect badly on them not Turley.

      If Turley is as poorly qualified as Goldman and Wasserman-Shultz and you say – Why did democrats choose Turley as their constitutional law expert to testify at the Clinton impeachment hearings 25 years ago ?

      1. It’s amazing that you don’t understand that the very same person can be well-qualified to discuss X and not well-qualified to discuss Z.

        1. Can you left wing nuts make up your mind what your argument is ?
          Goldman did not attack Turley’s excellent understanding of the constitution regarding Free speech.
          He questioned his federal government employement. Which is both irrelevant, and which Turley has served both as an employee in all three branches. As well as an expert witness beforfe congress on numerous constitutional issues including speech.

          Wasserman Schultz did not challenge his credentials regarding the constitution and the first amendment but whether he had been employed ny Twitter.

          Neither addressed hsi queslifications regarding the issue.
          I would note that if Turley is not qualified to be a witness then neither W-S nor G are qualified to ask questions or
          craft legislation

          As to the Issues – Turley has been counsel in prior first amendment litigation.

          This was a stupid attack.

          That you think there is some merit in it just exposes your own inability to reason.

          This is like my asking you to prove you are human,
          When the issue being discusses is how to send rockets to mars.

  3. Jason Miyares is Cuban. The FBI is targeting Americans, parents, Catholics, Christians, children, and the enemy of the US Constitution. They must be defunded and disbanded.

    Miyares calls for investigation of leaked FBI memo with ‘anti-Catholic bigotry’

    RICHMOND, Va. — Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares is joining 19 other attorneys general condemning a leaked internal FBI document that allegedly labeled some Catholics as “violent extremists.”

    Miyares said the memo, which allegedly originated from the FBI’s Richmond field office in late January, targeted Catholics as potential threats due to their religious beliefs.


  4. Hey everyone! OT but important! re: second object shot down by U.S.:
    My first impression was that it was staged, as a defense strategy to show Americans that Biden Admin “was on top of things and orchestrated a foreign object to fly over Alaska, appease Lisa Murkowski’s criticism, and give F-22s a little training.
    But wait-it’s even better!!! Now it looks like Canada’s Trudeau called Biden, warned him that it was coming and where it was, then both Canada and U.S. responded.
    So…truth is maybe like Biden was merely reactive, not proactive, and we likely might not have known but for Canada? Thank you, Canada. Murkowski, please read the attached:

        1. DB: -Yes, after my post, it’s on all the news tonight.
          But do you think the Biden admin would have known about it without Trudeau calling Biden?
          (even if you respond, this is my last post; I don’t want to take up space OT) thanks

      1. Apologies, everyone. Evening news simply said, -with no excitement, that Trudeau announced he had talked to Biden, then they coordinated and U.S. shot it down. I checked Internet and linked it to you. Then I read the whole thing…oops
        Hope everyone forgives me,but, Either way, veddy veddy strange…….)

  5. “I suppose the bottom line Q is what experience or credentials . . .”

    All such garbage is just an elaborate ad hominem attack, meant to distract from the fact that the Left cannot engage the issue: Censorship by government agents, some with badges and guns.

  6. Jonathan: There’s a lot your loyal followers on this blog have opined about your performance at the “Weaponization” hearing on Friday. Most applauded–even by those who didn’t even bother to watch.

    I suppose the bottom line Q is what experience or credentials, other than being a law professor and Fox legal analyst, that qualifies you to opine that under the former Twitter management the FBI was acting Gestapo-like using Twitter as a “surrogate” to censor conservatives–like Donald Trump and MTG. Under questioning by Rep. Wasserman Schultz you admitted that, other than having a Twitter account, you have no direct knowledge of the policies and internal review procedures at the platform. You testified that your “opinion” is based only on your analysis of the “Twitter Files”–that are really just a snapshot of some decisions made by Twitter executives that don’t even prove the FBI was calling the shots. And certainly not your testimony that there has been a “weaponization” of the federal government to silence conservatives using “surrogates” like Twitter. In your testimony you stated that “Even based on our limited knowledge, the size of the censorship system [at Twitter] is breathtaking,…”. “Limited knowledge” is not sufficient to form a legal opinion–at least not based on my experience. But you used that “limited knowledge” to make the sweeping generalization that the federal government was using Twitter to silence conservatives.

    Joe Patrice, senior editor at Above the Law, I think best summarized your testimony: “Turley seems to think that being a law professor grants him expertise enough to spin his own hypos. Unfortunately, testifying about the impact of a fact-pattern that is not only admittedly incomplete, but also likely dubious renders the testimony useless at best and dangerous at worst”.

    Frankly, I think you would have been better served by simply stating at the hearing: “I am a famous and well known legal scholar but I do not have enough information on the record to form a legal opinion as to what went on at Twitter constitutes a constitutional violation”. Now that would have been a refreshing. and it would have left Lawrence O’Donnell empty handed.

    1. Frankly, we don’t give a damn what Dennis or Anonymous, or joe patrice, think of Professor Turley. Strangely, the first two appear on this blog every single day, wonder why. Are they envious little competitors, like patrice?

        1. That anonymous was right but it wasn’t S. Meyer. However, a comment was previously made:

          “Joe Patrice is a mudslinger for Above the Law. He does a lot of their dirty work. Anonymous the Stupid is incompetent at mudslinging, so he lets Above the Law and Joe Patrice do it for him. ATS and Patrice share authoritarianism, something they both have in common.”

          You keep guessing but you don’t get anything right.

    2. Dennis – why you fighting so hard to distract from the real issue?

      State-directed censorship is scary.

      Sure, in your tiny brain, it’s okay because it is against conservatives, Trump supporters and Republicans. But don’t be so certain that it will not soon be used against you and your ilk. Because it will. It already is.

  7. I’ve posted a number of times here about how surreal it is to live through McCarthyism 2.0 with Schiff playing the role of McCarthy. Russians! Infiltrating government! Secret papers prove it.

    I am glad that the great (I mean it!) professor Turley has been making the point recently.

    It’s obvious. No need for secret information to prove. The video tape doesn’t lie – but Schiff does.

    I’m resolved that the state of California is going to elect a democrat to replace Feinstein. I don’t see how anyone can vote for Schiff in good conscience.

    1. “surreal it is to live through McCarthyism 2.0 with Schiff playing the role of McCarthy.”

      You are correct, but McCarthy should be separated from the deed. McCarthy’s major theme was correct and proven correct multiple times while Schiff is a liar. McCarthy was looking to remove potential communists from sensitive government positions. The Venona Project released years later proved McCarthy correct and provided messages and names.

      Today we have similar types in government selling America down the drain.

  8. Larry O’Donnel is an angry leftist lunatic curmudgeon. That’s why the only gig he can get is on MSNBC.

  9. “It wasn’t a good day for [Turley] yesterday . . .”

    Have you ever worked for Turley?

    Do you have a special relationship with Turley?

    Do you have any intimate knowledge about Turley’s daily operations?


    Then your opinions about Turley are really just conjecture, based on your time as a blog user.

  10. Professor. I watched both Mr. O’Donnell’s segment on you as well as your segment on CSPAN while I was at a Montana ski resort standby – @7000+ ft. The patrollers had you live onscreen and the consensus was that you ‘waffled’ way to much for 4 of 5 of the group. Mr.O’Donnell gave you a pass in my view because you were such a waffle iron. The Hon. Rep. Goldman schooled you in cross examination. Answer the damn question – and I thought you were both smarter and better but clearly, you should be teaching rather than writing drizzle for the “Hill” and spending time on Fox. Hang it up soon!

    1. Fluffy,

      Goldamn sought to score points not get at the truth.

      Either you beleive Turley is actually unqualifed – in which case – Why are you here ?
      Or the only other alternative is that Goldman (and Wasserman-Shultz) were trying to publicly paint a false narrative to viewers who are NOT familiar with Turley’s background.

      This is not the first time Turley has testified in congress.
      It is probably not even the 10th time.
      He has likely been a witness for Democrats more frequently that Republicans.
      He testified at the Clinton impeachment – so he has been testifying before congress on constitutional issues for 25 years.
      He testified against the Bush administrations enhanced interogation.

      Turley is a true liberal and civil libertarian.
      The democratic party used to be full of them.

      Where are they all now ?

      Democrats are losing their best and brightest.

      But keep attacking Turley – red pill him as fast as you can.

    2. Fluffy, don’t put folks down in hopes it will elevate You. A great person must suffer because he really understands.
      Do to credential dance at great peril. It’s like this. my Uncle wrote, “The Old Timers of Yaak, MT” and his uncle was librarian at the Cosmos Club for many years as well as working for the Library of Congress for 41 years. He was eulogized by members of both parties. My grandfather was a school principal at Bartlett, N.H., which was in the family’s neighborhood for centuries. What I’ve done, we’ll save for another time. You can’t claim more Montana creds than I; O’Donnell can’t claim more (West Wing) Bartlett creds than I; Goldman can’t claim more federal creds than I. Plus, my 4th great grandfather invented crackers in Newburyport, Mass. You can’t claim to know more about waffles than I.
      Plus, I voted for Bill Clinton twice and Barack Obama twice. You can’t claim more American liberal creds than I.
      And you’re wrong about this one. “Four out of five skiers at a Montana ski resort” is not a credential.

    3. Disqualified! No one gives a crap what “4 out of 5” MSNBC viewers think. LOL. Beyond laughable, more like pathetic. Does MSNBC even have more than 5 viewers these days?

  11. The rebuttal to Biden’s SOTU by his own people:

    ” his administration announced the nation had suffered its worst trade deficit in history last year at nearly $1 trillion. Shortly thereafter, his Fed chairman warned inflation was not abating as expected and would be sticking around longer”

    “And the top Border Patrol chiefs — delayed for weeks from testifying to Congress by their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas — managed to finally raise their hands on Tuesday morning and deliver a devastating portrait of the insecure border, leaving no doubt that Biden’s policies had empowered drug cartels to fatally poison thousands of Americans with fentanyl.”

    “His cohort, Rio Grande Sector Border Patrol Chief Gloria Chavez, told lawmakers border walls are effective and more are needed, undercutting another Democrat talking point”

    “Census Bureau got into the action, highlighting numbers showing poverty dropped across the country … on former President Donald Trump’s watch from 2019 to 2021.”

    “There wasn’t much pride in the weeklong delay in shooting down the China spy balloon”

    “Drug cartels are now raking in billions of dollars … to kill our children,”
    “Real wages are down 21 months in row,”


  12. OT

    U.S. Military Shoots Down High-Altitude Object Over Alaska
    Object about the size of a car was flying at 40,000 feet and posed threat to civilians, officials say

    Biden’s handlers stated it wasn’t a good idea to shoot things down over Alaska vis a vis Chinese “Weather” Balloon. What changed? The only reasonable answer is that the latest car-sized object at 40,000 feet in Alaska hung over people who were wearing masks, so it was OK to shoot down object. The CCP balloon, howevee, hung over Alaskans who were not masked


    1. This is a tale told by the military and the administration to “resecure” the brass carriers and joey’s cred. “The president ordered it shot down way over there where it started this time, at Alaska ! See, we aren’t neutered, our POTUS has the kahunas. ”
      We’ve now averted the impression of the entire lower 48 wide open for aerial invasion.
      I assure you there was no small sized object at 40,000 feet, it wasn’t silvery and floating, and now everyone can shut up, go home, and not pick on the fools in charge for totally blowing it for a week long joy ride across America.

  13. Jonathan: It must have been a humiliating experience to have to sit there at the “Weaponization” hearing and listen to all the outrageous things that were said to and about you. Rep, Goldman had the audacity of accusing you of never actually having “worked for the federal government”. I loved your response: “Well, I was an intern off and on for 2 years”. Good for you.

    But it is clear the Dems on the Committee were out to get you. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz used her time to wonder why you were even called to testify as an expert on the subject.: “So essentially your response to the questions here today were your own opinions and pure conjecture”. When she asked you whether you had ever worked at Twitter or had any particular expertise on the inner workings or deliberations inside the company you responded that you had no such expertise–but you had analyzed the “Twitter Files”–at least those selected chosen by Elon Musk. So why wasn’t that good enough? One Twitter user responded to your answers this way: “This testimony is coming from a Law Professor? The ‘Twitter Files’ he (you) refers to have not released any evidentiary documents or evidence, to support their outlandish claims, even though various news organizations have requested them! Basing legal opinions on Matt Taibi. seriously?”. Another Twitter user opined: “So when the House Republican decided to investigate the Twitter Files they needed a witness who actually knows something about its policies, and contemporaneous decision making–and who did they call? Prof Turley?”.

    I dunno, It wasn’t a good day for you yesterday–your first appearance before a congressional committee this year– not even Twitter users were behind you. None of the other witnesses called by the Republicans, not Chuck Grassely nor Ron Johnson, could provide any evidence to buttress your “opinion” that the “US government is now a partner in what may be the largest censorship system in history”. The Dems were loaded for bear at this first hearing. Perhaps, the Republicans will be better prepared at the next hearing but I doubt they call on you to testify. That’s sad because you have so much to offer. If this was a court of law you could always tell the judge: “Well, your honor, we’ve got plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence, aren’t they”?

    1. Honestly – You are questioning Turley’s credentials ?

      Turley is one of a handful at most of the best constitutional lawyers in the country.

      And free speech is a major constitutional law issue.

      I have no problems with Goldman and Wasserman Shutz’s questions – if they wish to waste their time trying to distort that is their business.

      But you should know better.

      Why are you even here if you think Turley is so incompetent ?

      1. John Say: I am not questioning Prof. Turley’s “credentials”, such as they are. But is he “one of a handful at most of the best constitutional lawyers in the country”? Nope. One website lists the “20 Top Constitutional Law Attorneys in the USA”. Turley is not on the list. Do you even know the difference between a constitutional law attorney and a constitutional scholar? There’s a big difference. In his “Bio” on this blog Turley claims to be a “constitutional law scholar”. But how is he ranked in that category? Go on the web. There is a list of the 20 most-cited constitutional law faculty in the US (2016-2020). Erwin Chermerinsky (U of C, Berkeley) is the most cited. Turley didn’t even make the list. That’s probably because Turley doesn’t teach constitutional law at GWU School of Law. He has written no treatises or other books on constitutional law. He teaches torts and is listed as professor of “public interest law” on the faculty of the GWU School of Law. Now in a bit of self-aggrandizement Turley says in his “Bio” he is “ranked in the top five most popular law professors on Twitter”. That was based on Twitter’s criteria based on the quality of tweets, the number of followers and the most active users. As you know Turley is on Twitter every day–almost 24/7. Most constitutional scholars or attorneys don’t have that much time to devote to Twitter–so I can understand why Turley might get that ranking. But being the most “popular law professor” on Twitter doesn’t count on the rankings listed above and not something most constitutional scholars or attorneys would crow about.

        Once again you don’t know what you are talking about. But that doesn’t matter to those of you on this blog who think Turley’s “credentials” should not be questioned. Think again!

    2. “The people determined to reduce the Twitter Files into a partisan pissing match are doing so precisely because the real targets of these stories aren’t parties, but the FBI, DHS, DOD, and other massive state entities who’ve been improperly meddling in domestic speech. @mtaibbi”

  14. From Rep. Dan Bishop’s weekly newsletter:


    “The Weaponization subcommittee held its first hearing yesterday, setting the stage for our investigation into the weaponized and politicized federal bureaucracy.

    “This is just the beginning of our inquiry – we will leave no stone unturned as we expose and root out corruption. Importantly, we’ll use our investigative conclusions to craft legislative solutions to cure the rotten culture and practices in the FBI, the Intelligence Community, and the other alphabet agencies.

    “The expert witnesses, including current and former lawmakers, former FBI agents, and Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, testified to the depth of the Deep State’s corrosive, weaponized nature.

    “As these investigations develop, I pledge to provide regular updates on our crucial work in this newsletter and via my social media channels.”


    (The most recent newsletter — from which the above excerpt was taken — hasn’t been posted, yet.)

  15. FORBES – Feb 10, 2023
    ‘Censorship Isn’t Just Done Willy-Nilly’: Jim Jordan Explores The Findings From The Twitter Files

    At a House Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government hearing on Thursday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) spoke about the Twitter files.

  16. One of the finest, most ethical men ever, in the public eye. Certainly, the only Democrat in that category, and to be disparaged by the likes of O’Donnell, is a badge of honor. It’s always enlightening, and a pleasure to read the Professors writings. Keep up the good fight, sir!!

    1. are you serious? This “professor” had his ass handed to him. Repeatedly. He was an embarrassment and should be nowhere near any serious investigation

  17. I watched the hearing, Professor Turley….Goldman is an ass. Obviously out to make a name for himself as an obnoxious warrior for the lying left. You were fabulous, as always. The problem is that these lefties have gotten used to abusing their power and now we all have to work to wrest it from them, before our nation is ruined. You, Jonathan, are one of our best fighters for the first and fourth amendments, for the whole constitution. I always listen when you appear on my screens.

    1. I will second that. Unfortunately, I was not able to watch the testimony. Without the benefit of Professor Turley’s daily blog, it would be very difficult for many of us to stay centered.

      1. here’s an idea” Watch the footage of your dear professor embarrassing himself giving testimony, and you will realise he’s a showboating ignoramus out of his depth for all the world to see

        1. Hmm, perhaps “farmer2405” could enlighten us about what topics he is actually Qualified to testify about in front of congress!

        2. Or you could watch the dozen or so other times he has testified before congress at the behest of Democrats.

          That these democrats did not already know Turley’s extensive background is the evidence they do not belong in congress.

          Put simply YOUR evidence proves something quite different than you think.

      2. Catherine Cassidy: How could you possibly “stay centered” by only reading Turley’s blogs? To stay centered means to not just rely on preconceived notions but to consider maybe inconvenient facts that challenge what you thought was true. That applies to the two hearings on Thursday and Friday–particularly the latter where Turley testified. In neither hearing was any evidence presented to substantiate Turley’s opinion that Twitter was a willing participant is a vast censorship system against conservatives. But don’t take my word. You can still watch the important parts of the 2 hearings. Not one witness, all chosen by the Republicans, could substantiate Turley’s theories. Who was it who said “trust but verify”? That’s what you need to do–rather than to just accept Turley’s opinions as gospel.

        Now Chairman Jordan in Friday’s hearings said his committee is interviewing “whistle blowers” who will expose the so-called government censorship program. Some will probably be called to testify in future hearings. Watch and see if any can provide any evidence of such a vast censorship system at Twitter or any other social media platform. That will help you to “stay centered”.

        By the way are you related to Eva Cassidy whose music I love? What a voice!

        1. Currently Turley is probably one of the top 5 constitutional lawyers in the country. All you have managed to do is prove your web site sucks – I have no idea whether the author are biased or just stupid.

          And yes I know the difference between a constitutional scholar and a constitutional attorney and if you were actually familiar with Turley’s credentials his is both – as are the vast majority of constitutional lawyer are. I have met Lawrence Tribe on several occasions and also had email exchanges with him before he became a flaming insane left wing nut. I read his book on constitutional law while my Wife was in Law School.
          Nor is that even close to the only thing I have read on constitutional law. Or just law more generally.

          If we could get the old Liberal Tribe back rather than the nut job I no longer recognize on Twitter he would have been a far better supreme court justice than Jackson. Kagan. or Sotomayor.

          Repeating as you IGNORED it. Tribe has Testified to congress MANY times on constitutional issues – Including Every impeachment in the past 30 years both presidential and otherwise. Democrats attacking his creduentials is just the perfect demonstration of the hypocracy the democratic part is drowning in. Tribe was qualified When Democrats chose him as a witness for congressional hearings on constitutional issues such as impeachment in the past.

          He also has a background in Free speech law – as well as both practice and scholarship in Free speech and other constitutional issues.

Leave a Reply