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.
Professor Turley, Respectfully Lawrence O’Donnell is not worth the sweat off your balls.
Mr. Turley I would not be too concerned about anything Lawrence ODonnell says. It is very unlikely more than a handful of people were watching.
I’m not into wasting time watching Congressional hearings so is your complaint that
– Nobody Congresspeople use this reclaiming time scam to cut off useful testimony
OR
– Some cable TV nobody lied about you
If the former, you posted your testimony yesterday so we already know your opinion on the subject. If the latter, please keep reminding yourself that well less than 2% of adults in the United States watch that sort of cable TV (including the outlet you appear on, which does get about 1% viewership while all the others get less than that combined)
“you posted your testimony yesterday so we already know your opinion on the subject” Assuming everyone had access to that?
“Reclaiming my time” is profoundly wrong and unethical when the “reclaimer” is questioning a witness with whom he/she disagrees.
Dan Goldman is an heir to the Levi Strauss empire, and attended all of the privileged schools of the Left: Sidwell Friends School, Yale, Stanford. He is one of the wealthiest members of Congress. He is not for the little people never mind for everyday Americans
Democrats are now the party of the rich and powerful, all on the backs of the poor, uneducated, underserved, etc, hence their contempt for minorities vis a vis COVID lockdowns, public school closures, devastating economies, etc
White Privileged indeed
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-30/dan-goldman-levi-strauss-heir-would-join-congress-s-richest-with-nyc-win
“Dan Goldman is an heir to the Levi Strauss empire . . .”
Almost makes one wish for a 100% inheritance tax.
JT, the paragon of free speech that does not allow free speech on the one platform he 100% controls.
If only he would ban from his blog dark triad trolls like you and yet here you are
What have I said that is not true? How am I a troll by pointing out JT does not allow anything that is legally free speech on his blog. This blog is censored and you are drinking his cool aid. Go follow trump and inflate the value of your assets so you can scam some bank, run around in the capitol rotunda with a confederate flag while you’re at it.
We were told in journalism school (turns out, not so jokingly) that freedom of the press is reserved for those who own one; so, too, is freedom of speech reserved for those who control a blog.
“The tactic of reclaiming time to prevent such explanations . . .”
Aka a perjury trap — motivated by a desire to make the witness look foolish, as opposed to being motivated by a desire for the truth.
Charming people.
Maybe you should just answer yes, no, or it’s too complicated for the time you have to explain.
I’m truly sorry, Professor Turley, I don’t know what else to say but thank you for doing what you do.
I have learned so much from your column here that I can think of nothing really better than to say Here!Hear!
Congratulations on your presentation. Obviously many members of congress simply don’t wish to hear the answers. That would befoul their train of thought, if there is any. I will admit it does afflict both parties but of late the left side of the aisle seems particularly bad. You stand accused, no proof needed. Almost like the reign of terror.
I always asked a question in order to get an answer and learn something. Cutting off a reply or preventing one is just grandstanding for sound bites and fail the people who are supposed to be represented there
A brief response is more than O’Donnell is able to understand.
Prof. Turley- your brief article today is the only practical way to deal with the Democratic Party and an extremist like O’Donnell. You make your statement and move on, no need to waste time on these people.
I’m sorry to hear about this experience, Professor Turley. Just make sure you keep voting for these people and everything will work out great.
The procedure to reclaim time is just another way to censor. Goldman was not interested in the answers only sound bites.
It is impossible to deal with these people. For once in my life I have to agree with Hillary Clinton. There certainly are “irredeemables”. Lawrence O’Donnell and almost every person who shows up on MSNBC are perfect examples.
Sir, thank you for standing on principle in the face of unprincipled attack.
Ditto. Thanks for speaking.
Lawrence O’Donnell has a very small viewing audience, consisting primarily of the radical left. Both he and his guests recognize that this audience is turned off by accurate and intelligent discussion, so they avoid both. As to the questioning at congressional hearings, it continues to surprise me on how childish and idiotic the questioners and questions are, and how presenting oneself as a buffoon and a pompous ass seems to be the order of the day. I don’t know the actual poll standing of congress at this moment, other than it is both very low, very well earned and very well deserved.
in contrast to the words coming out of the leftists mouths, I haven’t seen them so angry in years.
Comments here last night were a litany of ad hominems and lies directed against our host, Again, a tremendous amount of energy for something as meaningless as these hearings are.(according to the leftists)
I haven’t seen them so angry
in years.Since the Republicans took away their slaves.#1 rule is to never trust a Goldman.
BMan, I truly despise the Democrat party, I think that liberals/leftists are ruining our country, I think the media is destroying free speech, wrecking their own credibility and helping to bring our nation down. Having said all of that I must say that I find your statement troubling. I think it would be better for us conservatives if we didn’t have you on our side.
Do you trust Mark Levin? Ben Shapiro? Bibi Netanyahu?
Would you say never trust an O’Brien? Never trust a Ciccillini? Never trust a WASP? What the heck are you trying to say with you asinine little comment?
I watched the hearing and I thank you for your testimony. You are always truthful and concerned with the law and our rights and not concerned about the politics. Questioning like Goldmans and not really wanting truth or answers should not be allowed. Thank you and appreciate your participation in this hearing.