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. OT,
    The Trafalgar Group and Convention of States Action conducted a poll of 1,000 people, would they be more or less likely to buy from a company that was politically neutral.
    76.9% of Dems said they would be more likely.
    78.8% of Reps said they would be more likely.

    Push back against companies going woke?

  2. “I found myself the subject of a segment on MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell where the host accused me of “inflating my resume” in 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.”
    Oh, that’s beautifully, ironically rich. Being called a self-aggrandizer by smarmy, emotional self-important O’Donnell is like being called crazy by Jeffrey Dahlmer. Yeah he is one but can’t possible know what one is. Please watch this arbiter of virtue:

    1. You can rest assured that, given MSNBC’s low & still plummeting ratings, not too many saw his rant. As for your testimony, the majority of people dissing you flat out don’t understand straight up facts & commons sense. The current political climate for the left (not Liberals – they are in NO WAY “liberal”) is – if you don’t agree w/them or declare hate for DJT – they hate you. Very ignorant & childish, but that’s where we are these days.

  3. It just drives the left nuts that there is still one liberal not willing to drink the Kool-Aid and who loves America more than the leftist ideology. The trolls here are proof of that as well.

    1. The nature of evil is that is always put its interests ahead of everything else. You can define selfishness as junior varisty evil because it starts there. On the other hand “good” is short-hand for self-sacrifice in service to others. The world really isn’t that complicated once you understand the terms.

  4. Probably good you’re taking time to respond Jon since your butt got scorched yesterday as you tried to pretend to be a fact witness rather than just a Fox talking head going before Congress…

    Goldman took you to lawyer school as he’s done other times before. I’m sure he and O’Donnell will join your list of grudge driven names you obssess on here at your blog.

    Glad you jumped in with an attempt at protocol after the scorching you took yesterday otherwise it would’ve been really awkward in here.

    1. Anonymous, there were two FBI whistle blowers on the witness panel who confirmed Professor Turleys’ testimony. Are you going to tell us that they are just sellouts too. I know that you will have more to say because you and Goldman are cut from the same cloth. What got scorched was your Turley Fox sellout B.S. You should make a trip to the local tavern to cry in your beer and spare us your achey breaky heart. Come on Anonymous, tell us that you believe the former FBI agents who testified are sellouts. We know it’s coming.

  5. Don’t waste your time responding to these clowns. You are way above them. They are the epitome of of the swamp. Nasty partisans who are there for the money and fame and not for the love of Country.

  6. David Brock is personally working with Hunter Biden and his legal advisors to attack, spin and undermine witnesses and Congressional investigations into Joseph/Hunter Biden malfeasance.

    Expect Professor Turley’s blog to pick up troll traffic and undoubtedly many new sockpuppet accounts.
    Good luck Darren.


    “They feel that there is a whole counternarrative missing because of the whole Hunter-hater narrative out there,” said liberal activist David Brock, who attended the meeting. “What we really got into was more the meat of it, the meat of what a response would look like.” Brock was planning for a new group, Facts First USA, focused on fighting the looming House GOP investigations.


  7. All things considered, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell has never worked for or in a news organization. So the 150 people tuned into his segment about JT learned absolutely nothing.

    1. Olly: If what you say is true (I know nothing about O”Donnell/don’t watch MSNBC), thanks for the perfect response/comeback!

    2. BOOM! Good one, OLLY. If the best they can do is attack Prof. Turley rather than counter his testimony with their own witnesses, then phooey on them. SOP for MSLSD.

  8. I saw that exchange. Rep. Goldman was trying to build a narrative to undermine Turley’s credibility and he failed miserably but in the process he did officially tarred himself as a partisan political hack with his pure unadulterated irrelevant ad hominems.

    In my opinion, Rep. Goldman is an unethical piece of ________ and anyone that parrots his unethical ad hominem attacks is a piece of ________.

  9. We must refute the “misinformation” consistantly proffered by the left and then establish a routine of ignoring their blather with a large amount of disdain. Giving them air time beyond the correction of factual errors on their part is giving them extended life. Shut them down in one sentence and ignore them – they thrive of the ever-lasting implication.

  10. It is a shame you felt the need to respond to someone like Lawrence O’Donnell, who is ignorant fool posing as a journalist on a 3rd rate network. It is also a shame that you had to be subjected to the partisan questioning from freshman Congressman Goldman. You have always presented yourself and opinions as fairminded and balanced. I appreciate reading your views of various news items each day. Keep fighting the battle.

  11. There’s not a single figure on MSNBC who is credible, in fact, the channel itself exists only to spread Democratic party talking points and to carry out the party’s character assassination. In return, MSNBC gets “exclusive” interviews. Years ago that became crystal clear. And that’s one of the reasons for its low ratings.

    1. And it furthers the argument that the government is using surrogates (stooges) for misinformation and censorship. Shortly after the National Socialists came to power in 1933, they coopted the press by eliminating Jewish journalists and anyone with anti-Nazi sentiments. Sound familiar? Soviet leaders had (have?) their own state media. Our Dem “leaders” have the MSM which the Founders never envisioned would allow themselves to be co-opted by a tyrannical government. Ideological prostitutes all.

  12. If O’Donnell said it, there will be a couple dozen Swarthmore undergrads pissed as hell. Prepare yourself, Johnny.

  13. The fact that Democrats are doubling down on their same old sleazy tactics is a sign of how terrified they are that their bubble is bursting. They have been wallowing in lies for years, and would continue to do so if they had held on to the House. Republicans may not be able to do more than shed a little light on the crimes of this administration and its Big Tech colluders, but even a little light is better than complete darkness. The irony is, while the media focused on the fake Russiagate story for years, like a deer in a headlight, now that they have some actual facts and true crime stories, they are ignoring them. How much longer can the war of words go on before the side that keeps getting shut out of the debate turns to a different kind of war?

    1. Yup. Biden said the other night that we were at an inflection point in this country. That we are as you note in your last sentence. I used to believe in the Obama years it was hyperbole and hysteria to foretell the coming end of American liberty–and the country–but now I realize it’s reality.

  14. Lawrence O’Donnell long ago destroyed my confidence in “journalism”. I remember after the election in 2016 when he proclaimed that millions of people would be crying over the results. All others at the table agreed. NOBODY mentioned the millions of us who were ecstatic over the results. I was literally doing cartwheels.

Leave a Reply