Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law

Is the Red Scare Going Blue? Democrats Accuse Government Critics of Being “Putin Lovers” and Supporting Insurrectionists

Below is my column in the New York Post on the growing attacks on those who are challenging the alleged abuses by the FBI and the censorship system on social media.

Here is the column:

“The Democratic Party [is] the bedfellow of international communism.” Those words from Sen. Joe McCarthy captured the gist of the Red Scare and the use of blacklists and personal attacks to silence critics. The Democrats this week appear to have taken up the same cudgel in labeling opponents and critics Russian sympathizers and fellow travelers in opposing government involvement in a massive censorship system.

The Red Scare is back and it is going blue.

I testified this week in Congress on the Twitter Files and how they suggest what I have called “censorship by surrogate” or proxy.

The files show dozens of FBI and government employees actively seeking the censorship of citizens and others for their viewpoints. In my testimony, I warned that this was reminiscent of the McCarthy period where the FBI played a role in the establishment of blacklists for socialists, communists, and others. I encouraged Congress not to repeat its failures from the 1950s by turning a blind eye to such abuse.

This view was amplified by former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who became persona non grata for her anti-war sentiments in Congress. She was later labeled a “Russian asset” by Hillary Clinton, who has refused to support that scurrilous claim against a former member.

For years, the Democrats pushed a Russian collusion theory that collapsed. It was later disclosed that the Clinton campaign hid and then lied about funding the infamous Steele Dossier. Nevertheless, people like Carter Page were falsely accused of being Russian agents and critics of the investigation labeled as Russian apologists. Ironically, the FBI was warned that the dossier appeared to be the result of Russian disinformation and relied on a presumed Russian agent.

If anything, my warning of McCarthy-like attacks and measures seemed to be taken more as a suggestion than an admonition by some. Soon after the end of the hearing, MSNBC contributor and former Sen. Claire McCaskill appeared on MSNBC to denounce the member witnesses (Sen. Chuck Grassley, Sen. Ron Johnson, and former Rep. Gabbard) as “Putin apologists” and Putin lovers.

She exclaimed, “I mean, look at this, I mean, all three of those politicians are Putin apologists. I mean, Tulsi Gabbard loves Putin.” (For the record, she also attacked me as not being “a real lawyer.”)

What was most striking is the level of attacks on those seeking an investigation into possible FBI abuses. The Democratic Party was once the greatest defender of free speech, the greatest critic of corporate power, and the greatest skeptic of the FBI. It is now opposing the investigation into the FBI’s involvement in a massive corporate-run censorship system.

In the 1950s, it was easy for politicians to avoid discussing underlying views by just labeling their opponents as fellow travelers. We are watching the same use of personal attacks today as a way to evade the troubling disclosures in the Twitter Files.

While some like McCaskill yell “Russians!” others use more modern labels, such as “conspiracy theorists.” That notably includes the FBI itself.

When criticized for the role FBI agents played in secretly targeting citizens for censorship, the FBI called critics “conspiracy theorists . . . feeding the American public misinformation.” It is something that you might expect from a pundit or politician. It is far more menacing when this attack comes from the country’s largest law enforcement agency.

Where the Hoover FBI would call dissenters “Communist sympathizers,” the Wray FBI labels them “conspiracy theorists.”

Alternatively, various Democrats portrayed anyone criticizing Twitter for censorship as supporting insurrections against the government. Member after member suggested that seeking to investigate the government’s role in censorship was to invite or even welcome another Jan. 6.

Thus, when Thomas Baker, a former FBI agent, testified on his extensive writings about changes in the FBI, he was attacked by freshman Congressman Dan Goldman (D-NY) who asked him if he had any experience investigating extremist groups. He didn’t get the answer he hoped for. When Baker responded, “Yes,” and tried to explain his prior experience, Goldman immediately cut him off and accused him of trying to sell a book.

For my part, I got off light. I was not accused of being a Russian mole or fellow traveler of insurrectionists. After responding to a question on the specific content of the files (released and confirmed by Twitter itself), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), denounced me for offering “legal opinions” without actually working at Twitter. It is like saying that a witness should not discuss the content of Pentagon Papers unless one worked at the Pentagon. (By the way, the content of the Pentagon papers as well as the Twitter Files are facts. The implication of those facts are opinions. I was asked about both the factual content of the files and their constitutional implications).

It is all tragically familiar. The effort this week was to attack witnesses rather than address what appears to be the largest censorship system in the history of this country. It is, of course, ironic that those seeking to check such government-supported censorship are the ones being called Putin lovers. Putin loves censorship and likely stands in awe at the success of the left in using the FBI and corporations to regulate speech on social media.

Putin and other authoritarian countries have long feared the Internet and social media. They have struggled to gain the very level of censorship carried out by Twitter and other executives with the support of politicians and pundits.

We now know that members like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) secretly sought censorship of critics, including a columnist. Their success would make Putin blush.

However, Democrats have insisted that freedom is tyranny. Columnist and former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich went full Orwellian when he previously dismissed calls for free speech in social media and warned that censorship is “necessary to protect American democracy.”

He then added bizarrely of uncensored social media: “That’s Musk’s dream. And Trump’s. And Putin’s. And the dream of every dictator, strongman, demagogue and modern-day robber baron on Earth. For the rest of us, it would be a brave new nightmare.”

Indeed, it is a nightmare, but a familiar one.

Jonathan Turley is an attorney and a professor at George Washington University Law School.

268 thoughts on “Is the Red Scare Going Blue? Democrats Accuse Government Critics of Being “Putin Lovers” and Supporting Insurrectionists”

  1. Professor Turley is catching the heat because he has stated what Robert Reich said about censorship. Robert Reich says that stopping you from saying what you want to say is being done just because he is trying to save you from yourself. Praise the little god. Robert has a lot in common with people from the past who have said the same thing. When he sees his power slipping away he brays out something stupid in desperation. His first name should be Third.

  2. Professor Turley Writes:

    “What was most striking is the level of attacks on those seeking an investigation into possible FBI abuses”.
    …………………………………….

    Here Johnathan Turley is almost hoarse with frustration; imagining himself as a contemporary Paul Revere trying to warn the nation.

    Today, Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin explains the underpinnings of Turley’s frustration:

    MAGA conspiracy theories only work in the hermetically sealed universe of right-wing media, where no assumptions are challenged, no hard questions are posed and no complete explanation of a supposed scandal is required. In that realm, a MAGA lawmaker can scream “Hunter Biden!” and be cheered for “owning the Libs.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/12/democrats-house-weaponization-committee-hearings/
    ………………………………………….

    The entire purpose of these hearings is to intimidate mainstream media and social media providers. Republicans want them all to know that censoring rightwing disinformation could get then hauled before a MAGA inquisition.

    2. There is no sane reason to read anything Jenifer Rubin writes.
      She is another of the bat$hit collusion delusion shills.

      Being attacked by Rubin is evidence that you are doing something right.

      1. Rubin was not wrong. She laid out exactly why Turley and republicans in their committees are looking so foolish. They are so invested in their own conspiracy theories that they are running into the nasty reality of their delusions.

        1. Jennifer Rubin picks up bird droppings thinking they are gold. How much of a success have you been trying to parlay her bird droppings into meaningful responses. Zero.

        2. exactly why Turley and republicans in their committees are looking so foolish.
          A committee that has Dem selected and Republican selected members holding open hearing for all to see, vs. Jan 5 that recorded, edited and produced video presentations. All from a committee that was selected 100% by Pelosi.

        3. Rubin is obviously wrong – because what you claim she demonstrated is clearly false.

          It is a serious prblem when free speech – particularly political speech is censored.
          It is absolutely the busines sof congress to examine that.

          There are multiple legitimate questions and issues inhvolved.

          Is the conduct of SM companies legal ? If so should it be ?
          Did the SM companies follow their own terms of service and if not is there a legal remedy ?
          Is the DMCA working as it was intended to foster Free speech rather that to supress it ?
          Does the DMCA need to be repealed or amended to correct problems ?

          What is the role of political parties and political campaigns in censoring social media ? Other media ?
          Is that legal ? Is that a campaign contribution ? Do the laws need changed regarding that ?

          What is the role of govenrment in censoring free speech ? Political speech ? True Speech ?
          Is that conduct constitutional ?
          Is it in violation of existing laws – such as the hatch act ?

          Does the law need changed ?

          All these and much much more are perfectly legitmate lines of inquiry for Congress.

          It is Rubin that looks foolish and hypocritical.

          Does anyone doubt Rubin would be screaming bloody murder if SHE was being censored by SM at the request of the FBI ?

          That you do not understand this leaves your own reasoning ability in question.

          1. “ Is the conduct of SM companies legal ? If so should it be ?”

            Yes. Because the constitution does not prohibit SM companies from censoring political speech if they deem it in violation of their policies. Opposition to their legal censorship seems to be they should adhere to the principle of free speech when they are not really obligated to.

            “ Did the SM companies follow their own terms of service and if not is there a legal remedy ?”

            Yes they did. That is not saying they have been arbitrarily applying it. They have on numerous occupations accommodated president Trump when he violated their terms. There is a legal remedy which is spelled out in their terms and conditions.

            “ What is the role of political parties and political campaigns in censoring social media ? Other media ?”

            Political parties are not government entities, neither are political campaigns. As long as individuals are not active government officials technically they can request that certain content be censored by social media. However the decision still rests with social media. Other media? Mainstream media or any media is not constitutionally or legally obligated to report or publish a story. Claims that certain outlets “blocked” a story implying they censored a story are not bound by any law or constitutional requirement that stories be published.

            “ What is the role of govenrment in censoring free speech ? Political speech ? True Speech ?
            Is that conduct constitutional ?”

            No, because clearly the constitution’s probations on censorship are specifically prohibitions on government. Not private entities, political parties, or political campaigns.

            “ Does anyone doubt Rubin would be screaming bloody murder if SHE was being censored by SM at the request of the FBI ?”

            If SM actually followed the recommendation and there was no violation of the SM platform’s policies. She would know the distinction. If she understood that the FBI mentioned her content violated a SM platform’s terms of service and SM agreed she would have no recourse since it’s legal for the FBI to do that.

            1. ““ Is the conduct of SM companies legal ? If so should it be ?”
              Yes. Because the constitution does not prohibit SM companies from censoring political speech if they deem it in violation of their policies. Opposition to their legal censorship seems to be they should adhere to the principle of free speech when they are not really obligated to.”
              The constitution does not prohibit rape, yet it is illegal throughout the US.
              We already constrain Colleges that receive money from the federal government to conform to the same free speech standards as the Govenrment. Obviously it is constitutional for Government to require private actors reciving a govenrment benefit to conform their limits of the speech of others to the same that apply to government.
              SM recieve a benefit from Government in the form of protection from claims of defamation for publishing defamatory remarks.

              ““ Did the SM companies follow their own terms of service and if not is there a legal remedy ?”
              Yes they did. ”
              No they did not – that has repeatedly been established.

              “That is not saying they have been arbitrarily applying it.”
              Sorry – far worse than that. Though I would not that arbitrary application of a contract is arguably breach of contract.
              Regardless, there is legitimate grounds for congress to inquire and to consider what law exists and what should exist.

              ” They have on numerous occupations accommodated president Trump when he violated their terms.”
              False, in fact the exact opposite is True – the Twitter files made it obvious that many in Twitter wanted Trump banned for a long time – But despite infuriating them, he did not actually violated the TOS.

              “There is a legal remedy which is spelled out in their terms and conditions.”
              Both false and irelevant.

              Lets say I won a rental property and my lease says that I dan rape you if you are late on rent.
              And that if I do so in error, you can appeal to me for reconsideration.

              The fact that a remedy might exist in a contract does not make the contract valid.

            2. Your entire post is presumes the law as it currently exists is completely immutable, that it is correct, and that it is accurately reported by you
              NONE of which is true.

              You are clearly not familiar with the facts – as an example we have both documentary evidence and testimony from Twitter executives directly contradicting most of whjat you claim are facts. such as that the followed their own TOS, or that banned content or people violated the TOS.
              As just one example.

              But more importantly you presume that What occured is both legal and constitutional – which it is not.
              And that even if it were that it MUST be that way.

              As I have pointed out – we already have laws that require colleges that take federal funds to conform to the same free speech requirements as government. Obviously we can choose to require SM to dpo exactly the same.
              The simplest is to condiction S 302 Imunity on complying with the same censorship constraints as apply to Government.
              SM can then either censor as they please – just as the News does, while facing the prospect of defamation claims,
              or accept immunity from defamation claims – in return for restricting censorship to the same constraints as govenrment.

              Those are not likely the only choices, but the point is obvious and clear, what currently exists is probably not legal, many not be constitutional, certainly is not moral, and most importantly can be changed by law – and that is what congress exists for.

              And that is precisely why these hearings are legitimate and necescary.

              To determine how things are and then how they should be.

            3. There is some evidence to indicate that the FBI or other govt. agency paid money to Twitter and possibly others to obtain their assistance in the censorship. I think that has indeed become government censorship of free speech.

    3. “A MAGA Inquisition”? These committees have numerous Democratic members, chosen by Democratic leadership, unlike the truly inquisitional J6 Committee, which contained only two quisling Republicans, chosen by Nancy Pelosi.

  3. “When criticized for the role FBI agents played in secretly targeting citizens for censorship, the FBI called critics “conspiracy theorists . . . feeding the American public misinformation.” It is something that you might expect from a pundit or politician. It is far more menacing when this attack comes from the country’s largest law enforcement agency.”

    Turley’s disingenuousness continues. He neglects the fact that the Trump administration literally engaged in demanding tweets be removed multiple times. Turley remained dead silent on that issue and focused only when a democrat administration is involved. He’s not being honest with his “legal opinions”. He claims there is massive censorship without really going into detail which would include republicans who also engage in censorship. For example banning private companies and higher education from discussing DEI or critical race theory, banning books they don’t like, and punishing others for having a different point of view such as DeSantis punishing Disney for opposing his “don’t say gay” bill.

    Trump is a Putin lover. He clearly admires Putin and Kim Jung Un. He has “love letters” from this dictator and yet somehow this pesky fact has eluded Turley. Even supporters of trump on this blog have looked away from the fact that trump and some republican members support Putin. That’s true. Being criticized for it is part of free speech and it’s fair game.

    1. Svelaz you have claimed that Professor Turley is being disingenuous on many occasions when he has obviously stated that Twitter had requests to censor from both The Trump Whitehouse and the Biden Whitehouse. You are being disingenuous when you don’t mention that censorship by the government through Twitter is wrong no matter who has requested it to be done. You know that the predominance of requests to Twitter by the FBI were meant to silence conservatives. Mr disingenuous himself complains of something that Professor Turley left out when the Professor has done no such thing. You are simply Mr. Deflection. Your sanity depends on it.

      1. “You know that the predominance of requests to Twitter by the FBI were meant to silence conservatives.”

        No one could possibly know that without looking through all of the FBI requests.

        You pretend to know things that are actually guesses on your part.

        1. Anonymous, we know from the Twitter Files that those who were banned were expressing predominately conservative viewpoints. I know that you refuse to read the Twitter Files but many of us have so don’t try to tell us that we shouldn’t believe our own eyes. Let’s just consider the big one. The New York Post Hunter Biden laptop story that was banned by Twitter at the request of the FBI. I can recall when you assured us that the laptop story was just Russian disinformation. Now that CBS, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN Politico Magazine and Hunters lawyer have admitted that the laptop is Hunters’ you still persist in your disinformation. In the Twitter files there is a spread sheet of who the FBI censored on Twitter. You should read it before making a rebuttal which displays that you have made no attempt to educate yourself on the matter. You simply see what you want to see and disregard the rest.

          1. If you were honest, you’d recognize that the “Twitter files” don’t represent all of the government requests (per sworn testimony to Congress) and you cannot possibly know what was omitted.

            You pretend to know things that are actually guesses on your part … because you’re a troll.

            1. “the “Twitter files” don’t represent all of the government requests . . .”

              Same skeptic’s and sophist’s premise (which you attempt to evade): You can’t know anything, until you know everything.

              You should run a three-card-monte scam on a street corner. You’d be good at it.

              1. Sam, you are wrong. He would fail at three-card-monte. He overplay’s his hand. 🙂

          2. Those who were banned were violating twitter’s policies. Conservatives were violating their policies more often. That’s why it “seems” they were being targeted.

            Twitter also had a spreadsheet noting who in Trump’s administration was requesting tweets be removed.

            1. The liar and deceiver is calling another a liar. You grab onto whatever makes your position look good, even when you know the story will change tomorrow.

              We haven’t examined all of Twitter, and we haven’t examined all of Hunter’s laptop are your typical claims. But we have examined enough of both and seen the results. Those results tell us that Twitter supported Democrats in power and Joe Biden needs to be investigated.

              You keep trying to muddy the water, but now with so much information out and you being proven wrong repeatedly the only thing you are muddying is yourself.

        3. What left-wing newspapers, podcasts, and politicians, what COVID-dissenting scientists, what war-loving Democrats, were silenced by Twitter and the other social media? Of course, we do not know “everyhing.” That never happens on any subject. But we know enough now to see what in fact was happening during the Trump presidency.

      2. TIT, Turley makes a slight passing comment on the trump administration requesting tweets be removed. When Trump was in office Turley didn’t criticize trump for doing if. Instead he focused on the Hunter Biden whenever Trump’s administration did anything similar to what he now criticizes the Biden administration of. That’s why he’s being disingenuous and why he’s rightly called out for it.

      3. TIT: Svelaz is right. How come Turley rarely writes about or glosses over the actual scandals involving Trump and Republicans, like, for example, all of the BS, unprofessional behavior and lies put out by Marjorie Taylor Greene, George Santos, etc? You accuse Svelaz of being disingenuous because he doesn’t write about “censorship by the government through Twitter”, when even your hero, Turley, admits this is only “alleged”, that Biden himself never asked for Tweets to be removed, but Trump did several times. And, just like Karen S., you try to elevate the conspiracy theories, vaccine misinformation and outright lies that alt-right media pushes as the viewpoint of “conservatives”. Real conservatives, like members of the Lincoln Project, as just as opposed to this slop as Democrats are.

    2. Svelaz,
      You have never been in the military.
      One can admire a adversary’s tactics and actions. One can respect a worthy adversary. Warriors seek the worthy adversary to test their own prowess.
      Read Sun Tzu sometime, you undercooked chicken wing.

      2. Leftists are not worthy adversaries. Through their actions they display are not worthy of respect.
        Just look at Hillary Clinton.
        Just look at the misinformation, disinformation and outright lies Leftists tell.
        We see it here on the good professor’s blog, nearly every day.
        I have more respect for the livestock I raise. At least they serve a purpose.

    3. Ah once again Svelaz brings up book banning and once again I give you one of the books that has not been allowed in a Jr, High School library. https://theiowastandard.com/shocking-images-from-book-gender-queer-which-is-stocked-in-school-libraries-across-iowa/. Svelaz has argued in the past that because young people can find pornography on the internet it’s no big deal. They can find pedophilia on the internet too so should we just allow it in our schools. I make this statement in preemption of what Svelaz has said on the matter as an answer because he has done so on more than one occasion in his previous posts. Interestingly he never gives an example of what books have been banned. Some of the books have been banned by the left but Svelaz never mentions this book banning. It really is amazing that he continues to bring up book banning without telling us what books have been banned in schools and why. Maybe Svelaz is being disingenuous. Different day same pile.

        1. UpstateFarmer, thanks. When I present the facts it drives them crazy. My hope is that I may change a mind not save a political party.

    4. Svezla – “He neglects the fact that the Trump administration literally engaged in demanding tweets be removed multiple times.” Can you provide evidence for this “literal” engagements? Provide just three examples.

  4. Putin is wealthy Germany and the EU’s problem.

    They must have adopted the Constitution as an objective, rational decision, and the EU must provide for the common defense.

  5. My, how times have changed.

    “Crazy Abe” was a “REPUBLICAN” who was an antithetical, anti-Constitution, anti-capitalist, liberal and latent socialist-cum-communist.

    While a DEMOCRAT of the era was strongly conservative as an adherent of the clear English language words of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights – an American through and through of the American [restricted-vote] republic, in the immortal words of a Founder and Framer, Ben Franklin.

  7. A progressive process with incentive reaped from a wicked solution in bennies for babies.

  8. “After responding to a question on the specific content of the files (released and confirmed by Twitter itself), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), denounced me for offering “legal opinions” without actually working at Twitter. It is like saying that a witness should not discuss the content of Pentagon Papers unless one worked at the Pentagon. (By the way, the content of the Pentagon papers as well as the Twitter Files are facts. The implication of those facts are opinions. I was asked about both the factual content of the files and their constitutional implications).”

    Turley was asked if he was an expert on twitter’s inner workings. Not if he worked at Twitter. Turley is avoiding the fact that he was exposed for just offering his opinion rather than expertise. He claims there is a massive censorship agenda or program or whatever without really supporting it. He couches his claims with words that don’t make his claims as certain as he implies. Words like “alleged”, “suggests”, etc. He is hedging on his claims while implying that they are certain.

    “I testified this week in Congress on the Twitter Files and how they suggest what I have called “censorship by surrogate” or proxy.” How they “suggest” rather than how they prove. The Twitter files don’t prove what he is implying and that was shown during the hearings when Twitter employees under oath did not support his assertions. He is relying on pure speculation rather than facts. What he calls “facts” are only what he cites from the Twitter files which do not show what he claims. He hasn’t questioned the validity of the files or if they are really what Elon released.

    These hearings have turned into a bad clown show and unfortunately, Turley chose to lend what is left of his credibility.

    2. From the transcript:

      Wasserman Schultz: “Mr. Turley turning to you. Have you ever worked for Twitter?”

      Turley” “No.”

      Wasserman Schultz: “Do you have any formal relationship with the company?”

      Turley: “No, I just have an account.”

      Wasserman Schultz: “Do you have any specific or special or unique knowledge about the inner workings of Twitter?”

      Turley: “Nothing beyond the Twitter Files and what I read in the media.”

      Wasserman Schultz: “So essentially, your responses to the questions here today were your own opinion and pure conjecture?”

      Turley: “No, I wouldn’t say that. I mean, they’re based. I try to base them on what we know from the Twitter Files.”

      Wasserman Schultz: “Well, but you said that you don’t have any specific or unique knowledge of Twitter, but you spoke as if you did. You were asked very specific questions about Twitter’s — the way Twitter functions and the decision-making that they make. But yet you don’t have any unique or special knowledge about Twitter and have never worked for them. And so this is only just your opinion, would you say, as a Twitter account user?” .

      Turley: “No. I come to give legal analysis based on facts that are in the public domain, and I was really referring to what I was asked about.”

      Wasserman Schultz: “Reclaiming my time. “Legal analysis is another word for opinion.”

      Turley: “I would, I would think there is some distinction. But yeah, it’s all ultimately, is an opinion. But I believe the question to me was based on what the Twitter Files show, and that was my reading of the Twitter Files.”

      Wasserman Schulz: “Right. And again, that’s another way of describing your opinion being offered, which was represented as unique and special fact, which you don’t possess. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.”

      With that dismissive comment, which is par for the course in such hearings, Turley was not allowed a rebuttal. She left it where she wanted it. Had he been able to do so it is certain he would have impressed even her with her bias and ignorance. The conclusion was that Wasserman Schulz is no match for Jonathan Turley.

    3. Professor Turley is a Constitutional scholar. Can you tell me which article of the Constitution defines Twitter’s SOPs? Thanks.

      1. Your question of Svelaz brings up this video. There are some that lack so much knowledge they shouldn’t be appointed to the bench or even seriously responded to on a blog.

    4. “The Twitter files don’t prove what he is implying . . .”

      Unless you are “an expert on twitter’s inner workings,” how do you know that?

      Goose meet gander.

  9. An interesting transposition of blue and red fields. That said, a revisit of Wilson’s Palmerism.

  10. Their queen hillary, started the slander of Tulsi Gabbard, in 2016, after Tulsi won the dnc debate. She also started the russia, russia, russia hoax, that schifty ran with. The dims have been bamboozled. Carl Sagan said, “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
    ― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
    And NO, I don’t trust Trump, either.

    1. Rixthe1,
      Great post and quote.
      Makes a lot of sense. Rather than admit the bamboozle they created, they are doubling and even tripling down on it.

  11. As long as there exists a growing body of people who cannot or will not determine for themselves what is misinformation, the leadership of the Democratic Party will always have a large enough pool of hapless beings essential to sustaining its hold on power. It’s nothing more than their party’s historical raison d’etre: Government shall make decisions for its citizens and plan their lives accordingly. It all begins and ends with ubiquitous censorship and the eagerness of authoritarians to use it for their own purposes.

    1. Bob, there are bio labs doing research on dangerous pathogens in Ukraine which are supported by the DOD. in case you haven’t noticed there is a war going on in Ukraine where buildings are being destroyed. Let’s consider for a moment the possibility of one of the buildings where a bio lab is located is hit by a rocket. Pointing out this possibility by Tulsi Gabbard does not make her a Russian stooge. If you desire to dig a little deeper rather than being an echo chamber I think you may find this link helpful. https://ua.usembassy.gov/embassy/kyiv/sections-offices/defense-threat-reduction-office/biological-threat-reduction-program/. Let’s see, to study pathogens you must have pathogens to study. There’s your fact check. The DOD says there are bio labs in the Ukraine where the bombs are flying.

    2. Bob,

      Tell us just who & how much money does US intel, 5 eyes & other nations pay/paying these propaganda outfits like yahoo, wapo, nyt, abc, nbc, cbs, npr, la times, miami herald, etc….

      How many $$$$$$$ Bob???

      Maybe you can go dig up the tape of Victoria Nuland & her sides kicks, (cough Hillary Clinton, John Bolton, etc.,) plotting to over throw the Ukraine govt 2014?

      And get us the video of her saying last year, yes the US has Bio- ——– labs in Ukraine. Grab all the FOIA info also.

      If I recall the number is around 35 there & another 300 +/- elsewhere. I’m sure they must have some sort of safety programs in place to keep us all safe from those damn white coat Lunatics playing God.

      Sit down the Petri Dish & back away slowly Bob! LOL;)

      ***********

      Man Confronts Pfizer HQ Over Gain of Function Work

      16,843 views

      ·

      Feb 8, 2023
      9
      Share
      Download
      Slave2liberty
      Slave2liberty

      Project Veritas released a video of Jordan Walker the project manager of mRNA research and development at Pfizer. Matt baker reports live from the campus in la Jolla California. FULL VIDEO👇

      https://banned.video/watch?id=63e3a6e63527cd2ea206c12e

  13. For a long time they tried to convince you that no shadow banning happening when they knew that it was happening. They looked you in the eye and lied to your face and they knew that they were lying. Now that they have been found out there is no contrition but only the gnashing of their teeth in your face and a further proclamation that you and your kind should just shut up and allow yourself to have your hearing and your speaking controlled by their hand in order that their power will be maintained. Some say that nothing will change so what’s the use in trying but there was a time when it was believed that men were the property of other men but change did happen. You live in a nation where you can make a difference by rejecting the people who did the things that they did to our nation. The time for not knowing is over.

  14. JT quotes Senator McCarthy saying “The Democratic Party is the bedfellow of international communism” and says that statement was the gist of the Red scare etc. Is JT aware that similar Communist, Marxist, Socialist, and Comrade labels are expressed all the time around here on this blog in response to left of center commenters, comments, or criticism and if he is aware, why is he not speaking out against it?

    1. It is curious that you refrain from using “CCP Troll” as your avatar instead of your current dishonest “Concerned Citizen” identifier. Why is that?

      Thank you ahead of time for your authentic response, and much obliged for your attention

    2. “saying “The Democratic Party is the bedfellow of international communism”
      —

      Concerned, did you try and ask yourself, is this true? There is a bit of deja vu when one listened to the J6 committee and the news media. This type of thing happened when post WW2 the House Select Committee refused to allow an expert named Dr. William A. Wirt to expose the communist threat.

      That committee was composed of 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Later one of the Democrats on the committee confessed to a wrongful act:

      John J. O’conner (D NY) was sorry for “turning the thumbscrews” on Wirt

      the committee met “and discussed rules as to how to handle Dr. Wirt and to prevent the minority Republican members from converting the hearings into an investigation of the truth of the charges.”

      “The procedural motion, which I personally presented, limited the hearings to an examination of Dr. Wirt under oath to bring out the names and the exact statements of his informants. Over the protests of the minority members, any examination of the other persons, connected in any way with said activities was precluded … Dr. Wirt was not allowed to have his counsel cross-examine witnesses, nor was he called in rebuttal after they had presented their ‘well-staged’ denials. I use the word ‘well-staged’ advisedly because it was known that at least six of them met and rehearsed their denials of what they had told Dr. Wirt.”

      Wirt was “dishonored and purged and retired.”

      Based on that alone, one might want to think further about “The Democratic Party is the bedfellow of international communism”

      This confession was published in many newspapers but not in the NY Times.

  15. I’m afraid that McCaskill is simply another example of what truly plagues this nation – stupid white women. They are everywhere – the middle class suburbs are overrun with them. They are easily swayed, and they act on faith and not evidence, and they are example #1 of the Dunning-Kruger affect. Maybe it is all the anti-depressants they ingest, maybe it is the poor education paths they take, I don’t know…but clearly they are holding the nation back.

      1. That’s not true. White women are way more lost. You are correct that there are a bunch of stupid old white men that think the DNC is what it was when they were young, and then there are the alphabet men – maybe it is the anti-depressants…

  17. Here’s what Matt Taibbi tweeted about this Turley article —>

    “This column by ⁦@JonathanTurley on the new Red Scare is deeply disturbing. If you read the section about Claire McKaskill and don’t see a problem with what she said, you’ve been swept up in a mania. @mtaibbi”

    2. You should hear some of my blue-check ‘legal’ friends dismiss Turley! Consiglieri to the Trump monkey Apostle crime family.

      *that’s why I’m here .. . to see for myself.

      2. …blue-check ‘legal’ friends dismiss Turley! Consiglieri to the Trump…

        Truley rarely takes a political position. His foundation to forming an opinion on the facts, rests on the words of the Constitution, and statutory law.

        It is very telling, the left confuses a Constitutional stance, with a conservative position.

  18. Democrats are screaming loudly now because these House oversight hearings will likely expose the FBI’s political relationship with the Democratic party and how far they will go to help them. Democratic committee members will ramp up the volume to hopefully drown out the committee’s finding in the mainstream media and minimize the impact for the upcoming 2024 election. Just keep screaming. Might work. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.

    1. One line of thought is that more & more people inside US Intel & other agencies will also turn whistle blowers as they are seeing they & their families will be just as screwed over & harmed as what is being done to the Gen Pop.

      IE: Did you vote to give govt approval for Big Pharma/Big Ag to start shooting your meat products, cattle, chickens, pork with mRNA (GMO) Crap? What about Insect parts in you bread & other food products all with the GMO Crap. What about the FDA approval 2nd half 2022 to allow Nano Tech in our Food products? (Maybe into health care products?)

      Gee, do ya think just maybe they’re trying to get rid of large amount of us boomers to make room for the est. 40 million illegals expected under a 4 yrs of Biden?

      It’s said it’ll be over 100 million in the US next month, Mar 2023, on Medicare/Medicaid. About a 1/3rd of the US on another Commie care system like with ERISA or VA.

      *******

      And now to hide the side effects of the CV 19 mRNA shot, the HIV Postive test the govt/phama will just hide it with the below policy.

      ********

      FDA Proposes to Ease Restrictions on Gay and Bisexual Men Donating Blood
      By Jim Hoft
      Published January 28, 2023 at 2:20pm
      477 Comments

      https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/01/fda-proposes-ease-restrictions-gay-bisexual-men-donating-blood/

      1. Most likely to get his boss’s Marching Orders & to pickup his pay.

        From the looks of new info leaking he & his crew was actively blocking CV19/CV19 Jab info from Docs to the Gen Pop.

        A couple new pcs are out but I don’t have the links yet.

  19. There is a big difference between the 1950s and now. In the 1950s, Russia was part of the Soviet Union and they WERE communist, and there were a lot of leftists in the US who supported them. But something happened in the 1980s – the Soviet Union collapsed and now the only communist states are China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, with a few Marxist countries scattered around. I guarantee you that if Russia was communist today, Democrats would be fawning all over them like they did Uncle Joe Stalin and his successors.

  20. With serial trillion-dollar spending bills containing so much pork, it’s reasonable to conclude that that level of money is what’s behind these desperate attempts to prevent corruption from being exposed. America can be compared to a failing bank in which the corrupt government actors are engaged in insider looting (extending loans they know will never be paid back to friends and relatives in expectation of a quid pro quo, or to themselves under fictitious names). The objective is not to get at the truth – just the opposite – it is to hide the truth. With the GOP’s slim majority launching these investigations through House committees, there is real fear of exposure and for those who are running scared any means are justified by the objective of preventing such exposure.

    1. I have little hope the ‘slim GOP’ majority will expose any major corruption or criminality.

      *it’s all classified far above their level. .. and ‘the IC has six ways from Sunday’ to [redacted] them.

    2. The last time in 2008 the Wallst/DC/City London/Germany/Swiss/etc., got caught in another of their famous Ponzi Scams they were able to again have the Tax Payers pay the bill to keep the scam alive with govt bail outs.

      Knowing the Fed Reserve/Central Banks wouldn’t have the fire power to do it again they passed legislation allowing for what they call a Bail In instead of a Bail Out for the Warren Buffet’s/JPM’s & other assorted Banking/Insurance Trash.

      So what many people I follow think is about to happen/is happening is an authoritarian switch to digital currencies to lock the world’s gen pop down. CBDC ( W/all personal medical info & real time tracking capabilities)

      Basically the Govt/Banks ( Bail In) Steal 80% of the cash out of everyone’s accounts leaving us with 20% in digital currency & maybe a promise to pay us back what they stole from us in at least the next 70-80 years.

      Mind you that’s on top of what they’ve already stolen in recent years through inflation.

      We’ll soon see it for what it is, “Mark of the Beast”!

      1. “The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.”
        –Lord Acton

        1. I’m not sure how many of these videos I have. This one here from US is leaning towards only a 20% bail-in. I always like to carry a lil extra cash in my wallet in case the thief needs more the 20%. LOL;)

          The video starts getting to some meat about 2.5-3 mins in.

          Shocking Video: FDIC Knows Banking Collapse is Coming & They’re HIDING it From You

          67,669 views

          Jan 14, 2023
          37
          Share
          Download
          Man in America
          Man in America

          Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) officials recently discussed how to deal with the next approaching market collapse and hide alarming data from depositors to prevent bank runs, video of a meeting shows. Join me for an economic update with Dr. Kirk Elliott PhD.

          https://banned.video/watch?id=63c2fbeaeb7b0916fc06c9f4

Comments are closed.