Below is my column in The Messenger on continued campaigns to remove material from movies and comedy acts, including most recently a stage remake of the film classic Life of Brian. So far, John Cleese has told critics to pound sand and seems to be channeling Brian’s mother from the movie in declaring “He’s a very naughty boy! Now, piss off!”
Here is the column:
It sounds like the ultimate Monty Python scene: A bunch of humorless functionaries review a hilarious script to remove every line that might offend someone. The result is a virtual haiku of disconnected observations without a punchline.
That would make for a funny premise if it were not actually happening to comedy legend John Cleese. With a much-anticipated stage remake of the film classic, Life of Brian, Cleese said he found himself under siege by several actors to drop offensive material from the movie. It is a scene being replayed across movie, television and comedy show venues. We are becoming less funny as activists squeeze edgy and insulting jokes out of material. From commercials to sitcoms, our range of comedy appears to now run the gamut from A to B.
Comedy and satire have long been important forms of political discourse. Since the time of court jesters, comedians have challenged rulers and entrenched political classes. Even in ancient Rome, comedians used performances to challenge social and political norms. Indeed, jokes can lay bare religious, social and political issues in a unique and transformative way. They can allow for a dialogue or recognition of issues that are too sensitive or inflammatory for other forums.
One of the favorite targets of the Monty Python troupe was political activists who lacked any humor or self-awareness. That was the thrust of scenes in Life of Brian involving Cleese’s character, Reg, the leader of the “People’s Front of Judea” who faced endless demands for countervailing causes — so many that the group never actually gets anything done beyond meetings.
In one scene, an activist named Stan announces that he wants to be a woman and have a baby:
Reg: “You want to have babies?!?!”
Stan: “It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.”
Reg: “But … you can’t HAVE babies!”
Stan: “Don’t you oppress me!”
Some actors reading the script urged that the scene be cut, and producers now face a dilemma after Cleese refused to drop it.
For the most part, the war on comedy is working. For nearly a decade, many leading comedians have avoided performing on college campuses because they simply have no material that will avoid triggering one group or another. Six out of ten students in a 2020 survey said offensive jokes can constitute hate speech.
Activists are converting much of the world into their own humorless, ticked-off image. It is hard to enrage others through identity politics if some comedian is making fun of different identities. So the message has become that there’s nothing funny about identity. Satire is now viewed by some as a vehicle for objectification, subjugation and alienation.
These are the modern versions of the Puritans and Victorians, imposing their own rigid demands on artists and writers to conform to their own social values.
In other countries, this crackdown on comedy is being enforced by the state through criminal and human rights laws. With the possible exception of jokes about white men, Christians or conservatives, any reference to the stereotypes of any group is now considered offensive or criminal.
In Canada, a comedian named Guy Earle was charged with violating the human rights of a lesbian couple when they got into a trash-talking exchange during one of his stand-up acts. In Brazil, comedian Danilo Gentili was prosecuted for implying a politician was a prostitute.
Comedians are being prosecuted under hate-speech laws in various countries that criminalize mocking any group or identity. In Scotland, comedians have objected to laws that allow prosecution for inflammatory material that relies on listed characteristics such as age, disability, race (and related characteristics), religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics.
In the United States, the chilling effect on comedy is perfectly glacial.
Comedians like Chris Rock have lashed out at “unfunny TV shows” and lamented that “everybody’s scared to make a move.” Ricky Gervais, Jennifer Saunders and others have raised similar objections.
David Zucker, the director of the classic comedy Airplane!, observed that the movie could not be made today and that activists have squeezed humor out of Hollywood. Doing so, he noted, is the “death of creativity.”
Even fantasy is now subject to social agendas. The new Disney remake of The Little Mermaid was criticized by New York Times movie critic Wesley Morris for lacking sufficient “kink” and being too safe in order to appease parents. Likewise, actress Paloma Faith denounced the entire premise of the film as telling the story of a girl who gives up her voice for a man.
The attack on Cleese’s script should be the height of ironic humor. The movie featuring humorless, clueless activists with no sense of self-awareness is now being targeted by some of the very same characters in real life.
The problem is that the loss of such humor will only increase the rage in society. The ability to laugh about ourselves and others can help vent social pressures and force people out of their myopic, monotonous perspectives.
In the movie Good Morning, Vietnam, comedian Robin Williams left the country rolling in laughter over his role as disc jockey Adrian Cronauer, who savaged every possible political, religious and racial group. His nemesis, Lt. Steven Hauk, fails to replace him on-air with Hauk’s own safe, unfunny jokes. When a general refuses to take Cronauer off the air, Hauk defiantly declares: “Sir, in my heart, I know I’m funny.”
He wasn’t funny, of course, which is why he needed a comedy horn to show people when to laugh. That is why we prefer to have comedies written by people like Cleese as opposed to government functionaries.
There is little room for humor in an age of rage. Yet what is lost is not just the sense of release that comes with humor. We are losing an avenue of social discourse that requires both tolerance and perspective. We are becoming “the worst audience ever” of people sitting with knotted brows and crossed arms, no longer capable of seeing the joke beyond our political divisions. Much like the characters from Life of Brian, we are all becoming members of the People’s Front of Judea, living in a perpetual state of rage.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.
My favorite quote by H.L. Mencken….. “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
Today’s liberals summed up.
I like it 😉
Cindy,
Good one!
Good one!
Amen to that, Cindy.
And, more recently, SNL’s “Olya Povlatsky” skits, with Kate McKinnon’s stereotypical depiction of the frumpy Russian woman in drab, worn, baggy clothes and, of course, head kerchief, while one episode featured a serious – and necessary – plea against anti-Asian hate in the wake of COVID. (Re SNL: years ago, Steve Martin’s and Dan Ackroyd’s “Two Czechoslovakian Brothers/Wild and Crazy Guys” skits. Mocking Slavic people for comedy is OK.) The M*A*S*H* series was good at this too: episodes criticing racism and homophobia, but frequently a character depicted as dumb, crude or boorish would have a Slavic name.
If you cannot laugh at yourself….or have others tease you….then you are hiding something from yourself.
That gross failure to admit to reality is what trips the Left up…..as they cannot abide being criticized, critiqued, reviewed, evaluated, or rebuked an horrors if they. should be rejected!
For proof….just read their responses here at the Professor’s Blog
You’re confusing the left with the right. The right can’t handle criticism. That’s why they always claim they are being attacked for exercising their free speech and views. Mocking and criticizing silly or stupid views are…attacks to them.
DeSantis punishes those who criticize his policies by using legislation. Which IS unconstitutional.
🤡
The spineless are caving to the braindead horde sweeping across the planet with a cultural eraser and Svelaz, unable to handle criticism in its own write, and never letting an opportunity go to waste, side steps the issue with one of its irrelevant commercials because IT can’t stand criticism. Just what does DeSantis have anything to do with the 21st Century version of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution?. Erasing the humor of Monty Python and replacing it with their version of humor. Transvestites twerking in the faces of pre-schoolers, ‘creative’ writers inserting ‘queer’ into literature for the middle school with graphic depictions of fellatio, and employees dictating to the now hapless who write their checks, as to when its appropriate to report to do the tasks. You say you’re a member of a faculty. May providence look kindly upon my grandchildren, newly graduated and on to University, who might be obliged to suffer such a fool. My good fortune to have retired from academia over a decade ago. Homey would not have played this!! Don’t look to us when the worm turns, the piper changes the tune you’ve been virtue dancing to, and they come for YOU with the tumbrils.
No, Professor Turley. With all due respect, there is still room for humor in this age of rage: these same people never object to even the most crude, disgusting stereotypical depictions of Russians and Russian culture, always acceptable – remember the 1980s “Wendy’s Russian Fashion Show” commercial? – now allegedly justified as “Stand With Ukraine.” To the contrary, some of these same people and venues promote them. https://www.greanvillepost.com/2019/08/21/bigotry-xenophobia-about-the-russians-is-the-only-kind-pc-culture-allows; . https://thatswhatshehad.com/russian-villains-stranger-things.
That is some weird —-!
Turley is out of touch with the comedy world. He’s just using isolated examples that are not endemic to the whole genre.
Comedians still do edgy and risky material. Conservatives still chafe at being mocked and ridiculed for their stupid ideas or insults. Dave Chappell famously “punched back” at the trans community for trying to cancel him.
There’s a new trend in stand up comedy that is changing the old norms. Rather than just riff out material the audience is now a source of instant material. Where roasting and veiled insults are or just making fun of an audience member is part of the show. Comedians are also becoming more adept at navigating the taboos and touchy subjects and good Skilled comedians are successful with them. It’s the bad ones that are not succeeding in making good edgy jokes.
Svelaz
“Turley is out of touch with the comedy world. He’s just using isolated examples that are not endemic to the whole genre.”
Jerry Seinfeld
“I don’t play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me, ‘Don’t go near colleges. They’re so PC,’” he said. “They just want to use these words: ‘That’s racist;’ ‘That’s sexist;’ ‘That’s prejudice,’” he continued. “They don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.”
Multiple times a day Svelaz expounds at great length. on yet another subject matter. Proving President Regans observation. Liberal know lots of things, its just, that so much of what they know…is wrong.
Iowan2,
Seinfeld? Really. Seinfeld’s style of comedy is not what college level audiences are interested in. Just because he doesn’t do them doesn’t mean others don’t either. Shows how much you know.
I’ve been around the comedy scene for years and I can tell you it’s nothing of what you or Turley think it is. Turley clearly isn’t one to attend a comedy club or even a college show. That level of comedy is clearly not Turley’s cup of tea. He’s a law professor who spends his day writing columns pushing false narratives and political innuendo for his employer. He knows squat about comedy. His idea of comedy would be watching victor borge. Not comedians like Matt Rife, Dave Chappell, or even…The Machine.
You. Don’t know what you’re talking about. Turley is doing what he always does. Feed you a narrative that tickles your gullible mind into more manufactured outrage and incredulity.
Seinfeld may balk at college shows. But other comedians have more courage than he does.
“I’ve been around the comedy “
Of course that is where you reside. You are a joke.
“Comedians are also becoming more adept at navigating the taboos and touchy subjects ”
Correct. And Lenny Bruce is rolling in his grave.
That is not Comedy.
Comedy is about punching the Tabbos right in the face, It is about stomping all over touchy subjects.
It is about getting us to laugh at ourselves.
” good Skilled comedians are successful with them”
Nope. I watch lots of comics – pretty much every comic manages to offend me during their bit.
If they haven’t they have not done their job. They stomp all over my views on myriads of subjects.
They jokes are often stupid and obviously wrong. But if they are FUNNY – then it is all OK.
The very best jokes are both FUNNY, Uncomfortable, and either obviously true or painfully close to important truths.
Regardeless, you are free to demand that John Cleas modify his comedy
And he has properly said “F#$K you”.
Regardless, I can not think of a single good comic that actually does the things you claim comics are doing.
In fact there are plenty of GOOD Comics that are failing BECAUSE they are doing what you say.
I do not care that Stephen Colbert is a left wing nut. He used to be a funny left wing nut.
But he is not funny anymore. And few people are watching him.
Gutfeld overtook Colbert several years ago and now he is far in the review mirror.
And I do not think Gutfeld is all that good a comic – he is just funnier than Colbert.
When is the last time a Republican tried to cancel a comic for making fun of republicans ?
If your “community” is so thin skinned that you can not laugh at a joke about you – that is YOUR problem.
What is increasingly self evident is that the left is increasingly entirely humourless.
This used to be a valid criticism of the right – but no more.
Commedy is about the puncturing of sacred cows – and the left is drowning in sacred cows.
Svelaz: thank you. On this note, tonight TCM will be showing “Blazing Saddles” at 8:00 p.m (EDT).. Since TCM promises that everything it shows will be uncut and commercial-free, expect liberal use of the “N” word–not used to offend black people, but to point out the ignorance of whites who need the black sheriff to protect them against being overrun by hoodlums, but don’t accept him even after he saves them. There’s some other great lines, too, that couldn’t be used in a film made today. Gene Wilder saying to Ku Klux Klanners: “Oh Boys–looky what I go here”–holding Cleavon Little by the shirt collar–to which Cleavon replies: “Where are all the white women at?” Madeleine Kahn to Cleavon LIttle: “Is it true what they say about you people?: ….”Oh, it’s true, it’s true, it’s true”. Madeleine perfectly mocks Marlene Dietrich’s English pronunciation problems with words containing the letter “r”. Little to the townspeople of Rock Ridge: “Pardon me while I whip this out”. There are more iconic lines. Turley is paid to stir the culture wars and attack “the libs”, among other assignments. He simply can’t defend what DeSantis and other dumbaxx Republicans are doing in other states by banning books. And he must, somehow, find a way to project this affront to freedom onto “the libs” and “Democrats”. Turley never apologized for his gaffe the other day, in whcih he falsely accused Joe Biden of influence peddling at a time when he wasn’t even in office.
It is said that some look forward to 2024 when President DeSantis and the GOP super majorities in Congress pass new Congressional laws forbidding the manufacture of onesies with pouches for TransWTF as a crime against fashion couture.
CTHD must have gotten under your skin that you’re still thinking about her.
Please notice the irony of having Svelaz preach about is angst at having a column about the lack of humor in today’s society instead of a column about Trump. Because poor Svelaz can’t seem to be able to find stories attacking Trump anywhere else. Hey Svelaz, maybe if you didn’t sit on this site 18 hours a day and didn’t comment here 200 times a day you might actually find other places that agree with your demented world view. If it could be called that.
Hullbobby,
Huh? What are you babbling about? You’re just upset that there are others who post besides you. And you still can’t seem to count.
Svelaz, the column has been up a few hours and you are already at 20 comments.
My point, which was helped by you is that after reading a column about the lack of humor your first comment was “where’s the column on Trump”. Get a life and get a sense of humor.
HullBobby,
“Get a life and get a sense of humor.”
Of which he has neither.
Although he did make a witty comment to my comment, I will give him that.
He still a groomer.
“Svelaz, the column has been up a few hours and you are already at 20 comments.”
So? Not 200? Weird.
I didn’t say “where’s the column on trump? That was Dennis McIntyre. No wonder you have trouble counting. You can’t keep track of stuff, basic stuff. Sheesh. Get a brain.
Meanwhile as the leftist fascists “demand” that Cleese remove the benign and actually funny scene due to it somehow offending someone the left has no issue with the LA Dodgers one of our most famous sports franchises, inviting a group that has done bits like having a man on a Cross with a male stripper dancing on a stripper pole and then pretending to service the man on the cross. No offending here, right?
The left also defended using TAX DOLLARS to pay for an “artist” to “create” a work of art known as “P*ss Christ” which was Jesus in a jar filled with urine. Tax dollars no less. So you can’t tell a funny joke about some confused guy wanting to have a baby due to it being offensive but you can have a make stripper servicing Jesus on the Cross…AT A BASEBALL GAME!
Jonathan: So what else was in the news this week we should pay attention to? Unfortunately, not much to laugh at. Below are a few items that caught my attention:
For starters, good news for Mike Pence. The DOJ notified Pence they will not prosecute him over his retention of classified material after he left office. This will probably be the same result over Joe Biden’s retention of classified after he left office. No harm, no foul. Pence is now free to pursue his own campaign to pursue the GOP nomination next year. But he he has an uphill struggle because MAGA supporters will not support the “traitor” who refused to stop the electoral college vote.
But the news this week was not good for Donald Trump. Fani Willis, the Fulton County Georgia prosecutor, has expanded her investigation. She is looking into two firms Trump hired to dig up any evidence to support his false claims of election fraud around the country. This means Willis is expanding her investigation outside Georgia. Legal experts believe Willis is contemplating including the Georgia RICO statute (similar to the federal RICO statute) as part of her indictments against Trump and all those involved in the conspiracy to subvert the Georgia election. Trump is bringing a whole new meaning to the term “organized crime”.
Trump is not the only one facing a mountain of legal troubles. GOP Texas AG Ken Paxton was just impeached by the GOP-led Texas House. Wow! The GOP in the Lone Star State has turned on one of its own! Paxton is charged with bribery and other offenses. Trump predictably came to Paxton’s defense. He called the Texas House a bunch of “RINOS”. Too bad US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has not followed the lead of his brethren in Texas by expelling George Santos over his recent criminal indictments. I guess what happens in Texas stays in Texas.
Dennis, glad to see you returned to form. Was it because of my previous post? You had me worried for a minute.
Too bad US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has not followed the lead of his brethren in Texas by expelling George Santos
Why wasn’t Bob Menendez removed when he was indicted? Oh yea, he’s a Democrat. Dennis is a typical Democrat. He is forced to awake each day, believing history is not real. (Like Democrats are the Party of Jim Crow.)
Why wasn’t Ted Kennedy expelled or censured for his conduct at Chapquiddick, or, even more, in sending a letter to Soviet leadership in 1983 suggesting that Kennedy and Soviet leadership conspire to hurt Reagan’s chances of re-election in 1984? https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/12/14/ted-kennedy-made-secret-overtures-to-russia-to-prevent-ronald-reagans-re-election/ None dare call it treason.
Willis is a political hack – like Bragg.
Your own diatribe points out the idiocy of her efforts.
Lets presume that Trump actually beleived he lost the election. Lets presume that he hired companies to produce false claims of election fraud.
That is NOT a crime. And that is NOT the business of any DA anywhere.
Hillary Clinton paid Perkins-Coi to produce a long collection of false claims regarding Trump and his campaign.
There is no doubt she and those involved KNEW they were false – they made them all up themselves.
Hillary lied about Election fraud, and she attempted to get electors to flip their votes. And several did.
Yet there were never DA’s or US attorney’s investigating Hillary.
Because there is no crime.
Willis is beating a dead horse. IF she actually succeeds in getting to court to prosecute all that will do is further prove how politically corrupt democrats are.
The law is not a weapon to go after your enemies.
It is proper that DOJ dropped the Pence inquiry.
They never should have started the Trump inquiry. There is nothing there.
Trump is entitled to take pretty much anything he pleases fromt he WH at his departure – just as Clinton and Obama did.
“The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff’s
claim is not redressable. NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as
“Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right,
duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy
would be available to redress plaintiff’s alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff’s
characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the
Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty,
to do, the case must be dismissed.”
This is but one in a long series of cases on this issue. You can attempt to change the case law. You can hope a higher court overturns Judge ABJ.
But even if you succeed you can not get a crime from Trump’s conduct. Because he wasw entitled to rely on JW v. NARA.
There is a reason that NARA did not take their fight with Trump to court.
They would have lost.
There is a reason that DOJ did not attempt to enforce their subpeona.
They would have lost.
This has always been a dead bang loser.
There are several issues that are relevant in the Biden Classified Docs case that are not applicable to either Trump or Pence.
Biden took documents from a SCIF at the capitol as Senator. There is no way that is unintentional,
With respect to documents taken as VP – unlike Pence these documents did not leave the Naval Observatory, and end up in Biden’s home in sealed boxes.
The classified Documents that Biden was found with were packed, unpacked and moved many times. They were handled both carelessly and intentionally.
Biden was not president at the time. He had very limited declassification authority. The constitution does not vest the powers of the executive in the Vice president.
There are provisions for Vice Presidential records, but these are far narrower than presidential records.
There is no credible claim that Biden owns these documents, or that he has the power to declassify them.
It is still unlikely that Biden will be prosecuted. And even if he was, he will just pardon himself.
John Say: With every comment you get more bizarre and absurd. If there was ever a “political hack” it was Bill Barr. He did Trump’s dirty work by turning the DOJ into his boss’s personal law firm. With Trump’s urging Barr appointed John Durham to “find” crimes by the Clinton campaign. And how did that investigation turn out? 2 trials and 2 acquittals! Durham’s long investigation was a train wreck from the git go!
Trump knew he lost the 2020 election. That’s why he called the Georgia Secy of State to try to get him to switch votes. That’s election fraud and a criminal violation of Georgia’s election laws. Sorry, but Fani Willis is not a “political hack”. It is her “business” to enforce the laws of Georgia–including the state’s election laws.
And you have apparently not read the Presidential Records Act. It authorizes NARA to recover all presidential records–including those a former president refuses to return upon request. And you have all your facts wrong. You are living in an alternate universe to claim “There is a reason that DOJ did not attempt to enforce their subpoena. They would have lost”. The DOJ did go to court and obtained a subpoena. When Trump hid classified materials and refused to return them the DOJ went back to court and the judge authorized a search warrant. What in the world are you thinking by repeating such foolish nonsense? You are apparently desperate in your attempt to defend Trump by making up so much non-sensical stuff! You better stop before it rots your brain!
I have no intention of defined Barr – except to note that YOUR claims of his failures are idiotic garbage.
Barr’sw failure is that he did NOT clean up the DOJ and FBI and end their lawlessness.
I think Barr was wrong about several things. What he was MOST wrong about is underestimating the scale of corruption within DOJ/FBI.
It should be self evident at this point that Barr SHOULD have appointed a Special Counsel to investigate Joe Biden on his way out of office.
It is clear that FBI and DOJ had more than enough evidence in 2020 – and before to investigate Joe Biden specifically.
But Barr did not do that – and as a result we have spent the past 3 years slowly exposing the misconduct.
I would further note that Barr should have appointed a Special Counsel to look into the 2020 Election.
While there is plenty of evidence of lawlessness and massive illegal ballot harvesting.
What the rest of us now KNOW that Barr must have known then was the extent to which DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS were involved in trying to influence the election.
That is more than enough grounds for a special prosecutor.
Yet all of this VERY REAL malfeasance is not be investigated by law enforcement. It is being chased down by a FEW journalists, by a FEW private lawsuits, and now finally by congressional investigations.
Accross the country we have myriads of left wing nut prosecutors chasing Trump for things that are not crimes.
They are not allegations of crimes.
Was Joe Biden actually bribed as VP – I do not know, but there are aparently many credible allegations of bribery that were made to the FBI – where is the Crossfire Huricane II ? Where are the FISA warrants, Where is the special counsel ?
Was the Biden family deeply involved in influence pedaling to often hostile and corrupt foreign governments – absolutely.
The very best defense the Biden’s have is that the defrauded all these people – they took their money., and gave them nothing.
Otherwise what is all the money for ?
But this has gone WAY beyond Biden Corruption – we are now into PROVEN allegations of election rigging. The Government worked to kill the story of Biden corruption in order to get Joe Biden elected.
After the election – and posibly Before – the investigations of the Biden’s have been slow walked – otherwise known as a COVERUP.
If this is a witch hunt – we have run smack dab into a coven.
“With Trump’s urging Barr appointed John Durham to “find” crimes by the Clinton campaign.”
Nope., Durham was appointed because the IG report made it clear that there was political corruption in the Crossfire huricane and Clinton email investigations.
And Druham found far more than Horrowitz did. Clitnon was not the target.
“And how did that investigation turn out?
Pervasive corruption throughout the FBI DOJ even CIA. Read the rteport.
“Trump knew he lost the 2020 election. ”
Your a mind reader ?
Regardless, we are WAY past that now. I can repeat the many many claims of election fraud that were never investigated.
But I do not need to – We have PROVEN election interferance – By just about all the alphabet agencies.
By Government contractors, by NGO’s in collusion with Social media and the Media and the DNC and the Democratic party and the Biden campaign.
Government may not take any role in influencing the outcome of an election. That is FRAUD, that is Election rigging.
While there is incredibly strong evidence that but for the election rigging, the giant conspiracy to influence the election that Trump would have won in a landslide.
It does not matter if he actually would have still lost.
Fraud is Fraud. Election rigging is election rigging.
Worse still democrats, the left YOU have made yourself into a TAR BABY.
Once you are caught lying repeatedly – everything you have ever said is subject to doubt.
It has practically taken nuclear weapons to expose the censorship and election rigging operation.
But it has been more than Exposed – it has been proven. And idiots on the left are still busy trying to claim – it did not make a difference – wrong and irrelevant.
Nixon was going to crush McGovern in 1972 no matter what – Watergate was STILL a crime.
You may not use the power of govenrment to influence a US election. Political censorship by government is illegal and unconstitutional – but even if it wasn’t – it would be illegal and unconstitutional to do so to influence and election.
Do you think we are all stupid ?
DOJ went from Zero to handcuffs and a criminal arraignment with Rep Santos in a couple of months for charges that should have AOC and Maxine Waters shaking in their boots. Yet it has taken DOJ/IRS 5 years to bring a dirt simple tax fraud case against Hunter Biden ? Much less the long list of other charges ?
No one Cares about Hunter. We all KNOW that Joe will pardon him when he is charged.
That is not the issue. The issue is that the same political corruption that Durham found in spades – is STILL going on.
“That’s why he called the Georgia Secy of State to try to get him to switch votes.”
No he called him to FIND votes – real the transcript listen to the call.
“That’s election fraud and a criminal violation of Georgia’s election laws.”
Nope. Raffensberger does not work for Trump, Trump can not order him to do anything and did not threaten him.
You are free to dislike what Trump said but it is perfectly legal.
“Sorry, but Fani Willis is not a “political hack”. It is her “business” to enforce the laws of Georgia–including the state’s election laws.”
Yes, the actual laws. This case is CLEAR.
As with all the election related nonsense, those of you on the left continue to equate speaking out against a lawless, corrupt, riggesed untrustworthy election as somehow criminal.
I can not tell you if Trump actually won or lost – though the illegal and unconstitutional supression of the NY POST story alone likely tipped the election.
But I can tell you with absolute certainty that the election is not within a million miles of trustworthy.
But even if there was absolutely no doubt at all that the Biden won the election – Just as Hillary begged and succeeded in getting some electors to change their votes, Trump is allowed to ask Raffensberger to find more votes.
When you do not have a crime and you are trying to parley protected political speach into a crime – you are a political HACK.
Regardless willis joins a long list of such political hacks. DOJ just recently allows a MA US Attorney to resign rather than prosecute her for election interferance.
No one is going to prosecute the DOJ/FBI/DHS for their 2020 election itnerferance – with certainty continuing into 2022, and probably 2024.
Accordingt to the idiotic legal theory you used to impeach Trump Willis, Bragg, Smith, etc are ALL guilty of going after political enemies.
I can easily explain Why Trump’s efforts to get Zylinsky to investgate Biden are legitimate. And this is the same reason why Bragg and Willis and … are
not.
BTW I do not expect that anything will come of Willis. Willis is subject to oversight by the State in GA – Bragg is not in NY, and GA is a red state. Maybe a bit pink, but not blue.
“And you have apparently not read the Presidential Records Act. It authorizes NARA to recover all presidential records–including those a former president refuses to return upon request.”
I have read the PRA, You have not ready JW v NARA which IS the binding Caselaw.
Here is the HOLDING
“The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff’s
claim is not redressable. NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as
“Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right,
duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy
would be available to redress plaintiff’s alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff’s
characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the
Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty,
to do, the case must be dismissed.”
The basis of this and the reason you are WRONG regarding hr PRA is quite simple – from the constitution.
“The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
That is ALL executive power. Any power that the constitution delegates to the executive is a power of the president.
And power that congress delegates tot he executive is a presidential power.
The power to decide what is classified and what is not – belongs to the president. PERIOD. While he can authorize others to do so,
No president can relinquish or limit his own power to do so.
The [power that Congress gave to NARA int he PRA is Executive power – it is not and never was NARA’s power.
It is executive power and there fore presidential power.
While JW v NARA is a very specific blunt refutation of your idiotic claims regarding the PRA the underlying legal and constitutional issue goes all the way back to the founding. There are HUNDREDS of cases where the supreme court has constrained. altered or voided laws passed by congress because they tried to delegate executive power out of the reach of the president.
Without amending the constitution there is absolutely no means for Congress to empower NARA, the DOJ, the FBI CIA, the CFPB or any other part of the executive without the president being vested in that power. If Congress says NARA can do X, The President can also do X.
Further, if you read the entirety of JW. V NARA you will find that not only is the final decision as to what is his personally and what NARA gets custody of the presidents, but the decision is not reviewable by the courts.
You are so far off in LALA land on this it is not funny.
“And you have all your facts wrong.”
Nope.
“You are living in an alternate universe to claim “There is a reason that DOJ did not attempt to enforce their subpoena. They would have lost”. The DOJ did go to court and obtained a subpoena.”
NOPE. Lawyers issue subpeana’s. In this case a US attorney signed the subpeona.
Do you have any real world experience with subpeona;s ? I have actually issued subpeona,s and received subpeona’s.
If there is a case and discovery has been approved by the court – any of the lawyers in the case can issue subpeona’s on their own.
They need not and do not go to the court for permission. The courts permission is implied – usually by a discovery order.
But the court does not review individual subpeona’s .
I would further note that failure to comply with a subpeona is often highly subjectective. Pretty much ALWAYS the lawyers write the subpeonas as broadly as possible. Sometimes those subpeonas are challenged – and the court narrows them. Sometimes the subpeonaed party does what the beleive is necescary – as in this case. And rhe attorney subpeoning beleive the subpeona was not complied with – in which case they go to court and the court brings BOTH parites in to argue the legitimate scope of the subpeona and then the court either quashes the subpeona, decides it has been complied with or orders further compliance.
That litterally happened in another Trump case, and theTrump lawyer was ordered to personally search off of Trump’s properties – which she did and proviided the court and affadavit that she found nothing and the court rescinded it sanctions.
Regardless, in this Case The US Attorney – not the court subpeona’d Trump’s custodian of records – a lawyer – not Trump, She made a good faith effort to comply with the subpeona. The US attorney NEVER went to court claiming failure to comply.
And FINALLY – Subpeona’s are about DISCOVERY – ACCESS, Not about POSESSION. A subpoena gives you ACCESS to evidence not OWNERSHIP or POSSESSION. This BTW is also trrue of warrants and is the legal trickery that the 11th apelate court used to interfere with Judge Cannon.
A search warrant is an order to acquire EVIDENCE, it is not an order to take ownership of property. The 11th appelate court essentially stripped Cannon of power claiming that since the possible criminal case had not been resolved, It was premature for Trump to demand his property back.
But let me assure you that when Smith drops this case – Trump will be back in court demanding ALL his property back – and he will Get it.
This is all settled law.
“When Trump hid classified materials and refused to return them the DOJ went back to court and the judge authorized a search warrant.”
No they went to a separate court – actually a magistrate, where they had another exparte process – one in which the opposing party is not present and does not even no what is happening. In exparte processes the party present is legally required to present not only the arguments FOR granting their motion – in this case the warrant – but those opposing. Again this is part of the Huge deal over the FISA warrant – DOJ/FBI was legally OBLIGATED to tell the FISA court that PAge was a CIA asset and that the Steel Dossier came from the Clinton campaign they did not -= that is illegal.
This is why the demand for the publication of the affadavit in the MAL case – an affadavit that has only been party released and that what we have seen is legally insufficient.
Regardless, AGAIN a WARRANT is NOT an order to take ownership. It is an order to search for EVIDENCE of a specifically identified crime.
DOJ/FBI did NOT tell the magistrate – as they were legally required – that Trump is legally allowed to posess documents from his presidency – even classified documents. again read JW v NARA – even classified documents are addressed.
You are out in made up law land.
“What in the world are you thinking by repeating such foolish nonsense?”
I am repeating the law and the facts. Whether you like it or not it is ALL a matter of public record.
Aside from YOUR personal confusion about which court is which and the differences between a judge and a US attorney, and the difference between Access, possession, and ownership – a subpeona only grants access, A warrant can sometimes grant posession, but challenges to ownership MUST be settled by a hearing and an order of the court. There is no such order and there is not likely to ever be one – because on the matter of OWNERSHIP DOJ/FBI/NARA will LOSE.
This is settled law.
“You are apparently desperate in your attempt to defend Trump”
I am not defending Trump. I am presenting the facts and the law.
While JW v NARA involves LESS material – the FACTS otherwise exactly match this case. Bill Clinton to tapes recorded during his presidency that met the definition of presidential records under the PRA, and that with certainty contained classified discussions. JW sued NARA to force NARA to follw the PRA to recover those tapes. The Court – Judge ABJ – the same judge in the Stone and Manafort Trials, found that neither NARA, nor the government, nor the courts have the power to take ownership or even possession of WH materials that a president has claimed are his property.
Nor is the JW v NARA case alone – it is just the most recent in a long line since Watergate.
” by making up so much non-sensical stuff! You better stop before it rots your brain!”
Dennis – if you bother to check the actual facts and law you will find I am correct.
The issue of the vesting of executive power in the president is long settled constitutional law.
The issue of ownership of documents in the posession of an ex-president is settled law.
The issue and process for current administrations to ACCESS those is also settled – but access is not posession.
That subpeona’s are issued by attorney’s is just a fact. That subpeonas are for access not possession or ownership is also a settle issue of law.
That warrants grant access and sometimes posession, not ownership is also settled law.
That neither NARA, not DOJ, nor FBI has EVER gone to court to claim ownership is a FACT.
That the subpeona was issued in DC to a Trump lawyer – not Trump, and the warrant was issued by a different court in FL is just a fact.
You can find the subpeona online and read it.
I am pretty sure you can find the warrant on line.
You can find the mostly redacted affadavit online.
John Say: You spend a lot–and I mean a lot of valuable space on this blog–repeating all of Trump’s lies about the 2020 election, the docs Trump took back to Mar-a-Lago, who gets to issue subpoenas, the authority of NARA, Fani Willis’ case in Fulton county–ad nauseum. In every one of these you get the facts and the law wrong. But one of your bizarre assertions did get my attention. You say to me: “Let me assure you that when Smith drops his case–Trump will be back in court demanding ALL his property back–and he will Get it”. Are you sure you want to make that kind of prediction? The MGM Grand in Las Vegas would love you as a black jack player. So let me make my own betting prediction. I will assure YOU that when SC Jack Smith drops his 2-ton multi-criminal indictment on the Trumpster I will be back here to remind you of what a fictional world you inhabit!
All the king’s horses and all of the king’s men, couldn’t put Humpty back together again
“You spend a lot–and I mean a lot of valuable space on this blog”
The space on this vlog has pretty near zero value.
“repeating all of Trump’s lies about the 2020 election”
Then you would be able to prove that.
“the docs Trump took back to Mar-a-Lago, who gets to issue subpoenas, the authority of NARA, Fani Willis’ case in Fulton county–ad nauseum. In every one of these you get the facts and the law wrong.”
Nope. Again – make an actual argument – specifics, do not just lobb ad hominem.
I have given you the actual law and constitution – as well as the underlying arguments in great detail.
You counter is just insults.
That is not argument.
That is not evidence,
That is not facts,
That is not law.
Arguably that is not even opinion.
“But one of your bizarre assertions did get my attention. You say to me: “Let me assure you that when Smith drops his case–Trump will be back in court demanding ALL his property back–and he will Get it”. Are you sure you want to make that kind of prediction? The MGM Grand in Las Vegas would love you as a black jack player. So let me make my own betting prediction”
Yes,
I am predicting Trump will be back in court fro his property.
But there is no legal question that this is his property.
“I will assure YOU”
You can assure me anything you want – but you have no credibility.
“that when SC Jack Smith drops his 2-ton multi-criminal indictment on the Trumpster”
Correction – 2microgram.
I do not know what the odds Smith will indict are – I have just addressed the facts, the law, and the politics.
There is ZERO doubt that Smith CAN indict. Smith could get a GJ in DC to indict Trump for being a martion.
CAN is irrelevant.
I have told you why the LAW and Constitution would not support an indictment.
Why should he indict Smith is near certain to lose at some point.
Why in the unlikely event he prevailed – entirely independent of Trump that would be completely disasterous.
Something those of you on the left fail to consider.
What do you need – the Next Republican AG to prosecute Wray for Contempt ?
You NEVER think about the possibility that getting your own way would turn arround to harm you.
I have predicted it is unlikely that Smith will indict – but my basis for that is that I do not think Smith is willing to take the near certain risks that doing so entails.
But I could easily be wrong. I can not read smiths mind.
And it is quite obvious that those of you on the left will do absolutely anything within your power no matter how illegal, unconstitutional and immoral to retain power, to get Trump.
And you completely fail to consider that every single lawless and immoral act that you engage in to do so, you have normalized for your opponents.
“I will be back here to remind you of what a fictional world you inhabit!”
I fully expect that in the unlikely event Smith moves forward that you will be here chortling that it is proof of something.
All it would be proof of is the idiocy of the left.
You really do not understand that the more lawless you are the less trusted you are and the more bad things people beleive you are capable of.
and the more you normalize their doing the same to you in return.
I would further note that th e”leaks” that are going arround the media now, are that Smith has been grilling NARA trying to get them to spell out the process of handling classified documents and trying to find some trick to get arround the fact that the ultimate authority to classify, declassify or decide what is and is not a presidential reocord rests with the president at the time.
Allegedly either Trump was told or he was recorded being told and allegedly agreed that he was subject to restrictions in what he could do with classified documents.
This is suposed to be evidence that Trump knowingly did something he was not allowed to do.
The probelms is that Trump can unilaterally agree to anything. That does not change what his actual rights are, or change the constitution or the law.
If the FBI comes to my home and demands that I give them my gun, But allows me to keep it if I agree to keep it locked in the basement.
That does not change the fact that if I go down to the basement and get the gun and bring it to the kitchen, I have not committed a crime.
You can not create a crime from violating a voluntary or not agreement to limit your own rights.
Everything associates with the MAL raid is simple. Whatever Trump had at MAL – it was HIS property by LAW.
It was his property – whether it was classified or not. He was allowed to keep it whether it was classified or not.
There is an excellent independent argument that the material was not classified.
None of this is diffcult
And there is a reason that NARA/DOJ/FBI proceded in this incredbly obtuse way.
Because they would have lost in court had they just demanded possession in the first place.
They concosted a convoluted pretextual means to slowly escalate to the point where they could get a warrant so they could get arround JW v. NARA on posession.
John B. Say,
“It is proper that DOJ dropped the Pence inquiry.
They never should have started the Trump inquiry. There is nothing there.
Trump is entitled to take pretty much anything he pleases fromt he WH at his departure – just as Clinton and Obama did.”
LOL! BS.
Trump is not entitled to take pretty much anything he pleases from the White House. Clinton and Obama did not do that.
Trump’s problem is getting worse. Because the evidence against him keeps on coming. Even Turley acknowledges trump is in serious trouble with the documents case.
“NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as
“Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right,
duty, or means to seize control of them.”
The PRA gives NARA that authority. It’s the whole reason why trump is in trouble.
“LOL! BS.
Trump is not entitled to take pretty much anything he pleases from the White House”
Yup – JW. V NARA -= plus 250 years of history.
“Clinton and Obama did not do that.”
And yet they did.
“Trump’s problem is getting worse.”
Because you say so ?
“Because the evidence against him keeps on coming.”
Logic is not your forte.
There is no case because of THE LAW – there is no evidence that can change THE LAW.
While it is possible that Smith or Willis may TRY top prosecute this – I doubt it.
I expect a mean report from Smith that ignores the law but does nothing release about 100 days before the election.
I expect Willis to do nothing because she is subject to discipline by GA courts and the GA AG which will not be friendly.
“Even Turley acknowledges trump is in serious trouble with the documents case.”
Turley has on numerous issues worried that there was more there than there was.
Turley also towards the beginning felt Trump has some risk with respect tot he collusion delusion – how did that work ?
I think Turley is brilliant – though I rarely completely agree with him.
But there are two diffeences between Turley and I.
Turley has more constitutional experience than I.
Turley has far less experience standing out alone in the field with everyone telling him he is wrong.
When you have stood up to much of the world as frequently as I have and been proven right or atleast more right than everyone else,
you stop softening your language and adding escape clauses.
On the rare occasions I am wrong about an issue of fact or law, I correct myself.
Something you have never done -and none of us have time for you to do, your errors are so common.
I can only speculate what Smith or Willis will do. Bragg went ahead even though he has nothing at all.
But it is not speculation to say that Smith can not come up with evidence – because the law is against him.
In theory Willis could produce evidence of Trump trying to bribe Raffensberg. But short of something like that – only left wing nuts who think that any challenge to an election they think they won is a crime will beleive her.
For me to be wrong regarding GA – you have to find an ACTUAL crime. Not fund further evidence to suppoort an already garbage legal theory.
“The PRA gives NARA that authority. It’s the whole reason why trump is in trouble.”
Nope, it can’t that is precisely what Judge ABJ decided.
The PRA was passed in 1978.
JW v NARA was in 2013 I beleive.
The holding in JW V. NARA takes the PRA into account FULLY.
And again – if you were correct – then the PRA would be unconstitutional.
That is the reason that ABJ (and other judges) have ruled as they have.
This is really quite simple. All executive power is vested int he president.
That is the very first thing the constitution say about the executive.
The power to classify, the power to declassify.
If congress passes law to give an agency in the executive a power. Then congress has given that power to the president.
And that is the end of this.
I would read the Holding in JW V NARA carefully.
ABJ did not say – JW is wrong in therir claims about these tapes.
She said that it did not matter if JW was correct or not.
If they met the defition of PResidential records under the PRA – JW still loses – the tapes are Clinton’s because as president he claimed them
If they are classified – does not matter.
I would further note there is massive litigation on this from Nixon through to JW v NARA.
Those decisions have been very consistent – the current administration MUST go to court to gain ACCESS to records posessed by a prior president.
Those records are the former presidents property if they have taken posession of them.
Their is no circumstance in which a former president can be orced to give up ownership of records they have kept.
But there is almost no circumstance in which the current administration can not – after going to court get ACCESS.
This is not hard. Though you try to make it hard.
“LOL! BS.
Trump is not entitled to take pretty much anything he pleases from the White House”
Yup – JW. V NARA -= plus 250 years of history.
“Clinton and Obama did not do that.”
And yet they did.”
JW v NARA is not what you think it is. It did not deter what you think it did. Clearly you have a dysfunction in comprehending what the case was about and what the judge said.
You STILL have not supported with specific and clear statutes or legal opinion saying what you claim. Just saying “JW v. NARA” is not argument. You do not understand the context in which the case was argued and why JW was not successful.
“The PRA was passed in 1978.
JW v NARA was in 2013 I beleive.
The holding in JW V. NARA takes the PRA into account FULLY.
And again – if you were correct – then the PRA would be unconstitutional.”
Again your whole argument is reliant on your gross misunderstanding of what the JW case was about. You keep misunderstanding it or you’re just willfully denying what it’s saying because it undermines your argument.
“I would read the Holding in JW V NARA carefully.
ABJ did not say – JW is wrong in therir claims about these tapes.
She said that it did not matter if JW was correct or not.
If they met the defition of PResidential records under the PRA – JW still loses – the tapes are Clinton’s because as president he claimed them
If they are classified – does not matter.”
Obviously you’re not reading it carefully.
JW could not get the tapes because they were NOT official WH documents according to the PRA. Clinton created those AS A PERSONAL PROJECT. The judge DID opine JW was not entitled to the tapes based on their claims and explained in detail why. You keep ignoring that part.
Clinton could claim them as personal because it WAS a personal project. It was not an official government required function. That’s the sole reason he was able to make the claim and why NARA did not have possession of the tapes.
You’re conflating this one instance of a clear definition of what was personal into an all encompassing authority to declare anything he designates as personal which is absolutely not true. The PRA has specific definitions of what is personal and what is an official record.
If a president designates something as personal he has a duty to prove it meets PRA definitions. NARA is required to review it according to the PRA.
Your gross misunderstanding of how the PRA is applied and NARA’s responsibility is the source of your constantly flawed argument. Citing JW v. NARA without specifying in proper context where in the case supports your argument. You have not provided anything to support it. Nothing.
“Those decisions have been very consistent – the current administration MUST go to court to gain ACCESS to records posessed by a prior president.
Those records are the former presidents property if they have taken posession of them.”
They are NOT his property. This is where you’re wrong. The PRA is very clear on this. All presidential records are PUBLIC property. They are a president’s records but they are not his property. Do you understand that? It seems that’s where your confusion lies.
By law NARA retains CUSTODY as in POSSESSION of the records. The president retains ACCESS to them but NARA RETAINS possession of them because they are PUBLIC property. They are “his” but they are public property.
Because they are public property a new administration CAN access them unless the previous president put certain limitations on access. Meaning anything NARA has that has not been designated by such limits AND the limits imposed by the PRA do not require a court.
You just keep demonstrating your lack of understanding on how the law works. You’re simply wrong.
Svelaz – you lost on this long ago.
You are doing worse now.
No JW v NARA is not what I think.
It is what it SAYS.
Again it is a motion to dismiss, that means it did not and could not have relied on your idiotic attempts to pretend there are specific facts that matter.
Motions to dismiss must take the facts however the non-moving party claims.
JW claimed they documents were presidential records pr the PRA, that they were atleast partly classified.
You can debate whether that is true. And had ABJ conducted a hearing in which she rejected those determinations in findings of fact – in a final order of the court – not a motion to dismiss – you would have an argument.
But that is not what happened.
Details do matter – and one detail that matters is that in a motion to dismiss – the judge CAN NOT decide which factual claims they agree with and which they do not. They MUST presume all facts are as claimed by the non-moving party. And they decide based solely on the LAW.
You have absolutely never addressed this.
You keep making up reasons for ABJ’s decision that have no foundation at all and contradict her actual decision.
And you pretend that your warped version of her decision – exists in a vaccum – ignoring that it is the most recent of numerous cases resting on the same premise.
The PRA is only constitutional if the president gets to decide what they keep and what they do not, AND if giving custody of documents to NARA is NOTT the same is giving ownership.
You are correct that there is SOME language in the PRA that iimplies differently. And the courts have REPEATEDLY ignored it.
Because giving it any meaning would make the PRA unconstitutional and unworkable.
In many many many instance including this I have argued with you that we can test a law by seeing how one reading of the law works in other circumstances.
This is a logical technique resembling reduction ad absurdem – though most of the time – I am not asking if the argument/law fails at the extremes – which is what reductio ad absurdem does, but if YOUR claims regarding a law work in other cases where we have established how things are.
I have noted that Obama has a contract with NARA – that contract is public.
Neither NARA nor Obama would have bothered to enter into a contract if NARA owned the documents.
If NARA owned them it would be free to do as it pleased.
Even if we say NARA owened them – but the law limited NARA in some ways. There is still no need to contract with Obama – all NARA needed to do was follow the law.
Two parties can only enter into a contract where there is an agreement to exchange some rights for something else of value.
That requires that Obama must retain some rights over his documents – Beyond those explicitly in the PRA.
That is ONE example of looking at how the same law worked in other contexts.
Your claims regarding the PRA do not explain why Obama has a contract with NARA. Mine do.
Next we have the many many many times current presidents have gone to court to access ex presidents records.
If NARA owns they records – congress can not limit the current presidents access to them – and the courts would have just said – this is none of our business – YOU own them.
The vested powers clause of the constitution burns you coming and going.
It means that the president CAN decide what is his to take with him.
It also means that if the ownership of the documents – even those kept by NARA is with the government – not the expresident – then the current president can do with them as he pleases without the need for permission from congress or the courts.
“There are provisions for Vice Presidential records, but these are far narrower than presidential records.
There is no credible claim that Biden owns these documents, or that he has the power to declassify them.”
The PRA applies to both POTUS and VP. Neither owns any of the records.
“There is a reason that NARA did not take their fight with Trump to court.
They would have lost.”
No. They were giving Trump multiple opportunities to comply with the PRA. Almost 18 months. When he still played games and refused to cooperate NARA requested the DOJ to get involved AFTER getting a subpoena for the records.
Trump has lost every challenge and lawsuit on the matter.
Biden can’t be prosecuted because he didn’t intentionally violate the law. Trump did and now there’s evidence he knew and he was deliberately obstructing authorities from getting the documents back.
Biden and Pence immediately did what they were supposed to do. Trump intentionally hid, and moved around documents to avoid NARA and the DOJ. That’s theft. He’s already on tape talking about having classified documents and showing them to others not authorized. He’s in really big trouble.
“The PRA applies to both POTUS and VP”
Not in the same way. Constitutionally the VP has almost no independent power.
Conversely the president has all executive power.
The PRA delegates power to the executive – that power is constitutionaly the Presidents power – NOT NARA’s
There are hundreds of supreme court decisions on that. There may be one more recently that the CFPB decision, But that is another example – Congress can not go arround the president on executive power. PERIOD.
“Neither owns any of the records.”
False, the president owns whatever WH records he decides he wants.
the PRA delegated the power to make that decisioon to NARA – in doing so they gave it to the president.
“They were giving Trump multiple opportunities to comply with the PRA. Almost 18 months. When he still played games and refused to cooperate NARA requested the DOJ to get involved AFTER getting a subpoena for the records.”
FALSE – you can not even get the facts correct.
NARA has the power to go to court on their own. They did not – because they would have lost.
NARA did not go to DOJ to get a subpeona,
The DOJ issues a subpeona in an unrelated J6 matter using an existing Grand jury
That was an effort to Bypass going to court – because they would have LOST.
DOJ did not go to court to enforce the subpeona – Because they would have LOST.
Subpeona’s give ACCESS not ownership.
Belive me I have been court over property matters – if I could have subpeonad to get my property back – I would have.
The court told me that I would have to bring another case to get the property.
Because you can not gain ownership of propetty by subpeona, or even warrant.
After they realized the Subpeona would not work – DOJ tried another exparte process – getting a warrant
Again avoiding a court hearing on the ownership of the documents- because they would have LOST.
Trump has not lost a single case regarding ownership of these documents.
Even your 11th circuti decision did not give DOJ ownership – just posession.
Trump is still free to demand the documents back the moment DOJ drops the case. And he will win.
“Trump has lost every challenge and lawsuit on the matter.”
No the 11th appeallate court did NOT resolve the issue of ownership.
While there decision was garbage, they punted.
They essentially said given the warrant trump can not go to court for posession while the criminal case is pending.
“Biden can’t be prosecuted because he didn’t intentionally violate the law.”
Of course he did,. The classified documents from the Senate SCIF did not walk out on their own.
Only Biden could have gone in and taken them. And he was not allowed to remove them.
As to the VP documents – You can MAYBE get away with your intentionality claim – when the documents were first moved from the Naval observatory to some storage fascility in China Town. But they were subsequently moved multiple times – some to his home some to Biden center.
Further we KNOW that they were handled several times.
Pences documents were found in seal boxes at his home – he never touched them. They never left the boxes they were packed in.
Whether you like it or not – intentionality is not required for an espionage act violation. Reckless or negligent handling is sufficient.
Biden’s docs were found in a chinese funded think tank, and in his garage and scattered all over.
The one place they were NOT found was locked in a SCIF.
Lastly Biden has no ownership claim to the documents and limited if any power to declassify them.
Trump had BOTH.
I know that you keep refusing to accept the fact sand the law – but Trump OWNS the documents in his possession,
He owns them whether they are classified or not. PERIOD.
Just exactly as Clinton owns the tapes in his sock drawer.
“Trump did and now there’s evidence he knew and he was deliberately obstructing authorities from getting the documents back.”
All irrelevant.
You can not get past the fact that Trump owns them, and that whether they are classified or not does not change that.
Nor can you get passed the fact that the power to declassifiy is fully veted in the president – and neither NARA, nor congress nor prior preisdents can limit that.
Nor anything Trump may have said to people from FBI or DOJ or NARA.
“Biden and Pence immediately did what they were supposed to do”
No they did what they were REQUIRED to do. They had no right to ownership, and no right to declassify.
They essentially threw themselves on the mercy of the DOJ.
They had to. They had no other legal way out.
“Trump intentionally hid [his own propertty], and moved around documents to avoid NARA and the DOJ.”
Irrelevant. HGis docs his property. He can hide it from anyone he wants.
“That’s theft. ”
You can not steal from yourself.
“He’s already on tape talking about having classified documents and showing them to others not authorized.”
Not relevant. Still his property to do with as he pleases – just like the tapes in clintons sock drawer.
“He’s in really big trouble.”
Not a chance.
The most I expect From Smith is a mean report.
Trying to prosecute is on the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of politics.
You keep trying to revive this – it is DOA.
“The PRA delegates power to the executive – that power is constitutionaly the Presidents power – NOT NARA’s”
Again, you demonstrate your gross misunderstanding of how the law works.
The PRA delegates power to NARA and designates certain privileges to the president. They do not include an absolute authority to designate anything as personal.
Your confusion lies in this part.
“Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.”
When it’s a COURTESY by NARA of INCUMBENT records. Not when a president LEAVES office the president retains custody of them. It’s if they president has not left office yet.
They cease being his property when he leaves office, when they become PUBLIC property.
“The PRA delegates power to NARA and designates certain privileges to the president.”
If that were true – than the PRA is unconstitutional – End of Story.
Congress can not delgate arround the president PERIOD.
This is established by more than 250 years of constitutional law.
The courts routinely read all delegations of power by congress to federal agengies as delegations to the president – otherwise they are unconstitutional.
This is not a close issue. There are probably 100 Sepreme court cases on this issue since 1787.
“They do not include an absolute authority to designate anything as personal.”
It does not matter. Congress delegated the power to make the decision to NARA.
The courts said that power must belong to the president – or the PRA is unconstitutional.
Congress provided criteria for that decision – but the courts can not enforce that criteria.
Therefore Congresses only recourse is impeachment.
“Your confusion lies in this part.”
NOPE, that is just one of MANY nails in YOUR coffin.
the PRA is inconsistent in its language. Frankly it just should have been found unconstitutional.
Regardless, as I noted. It can only Be constitutional as written if the documents remain the property of the (ex)president
and that would include those left in the custody NARA
As IO noted before – Congress can not restrict the current president from limitless access to the records of the executive branch.
If Trump’s presidential records are the Property of NARA or the Proprty of the fderal government – then power over them is EXECUTIVE POWER.
That means Biden can rummage through Trump records as he wishes, and Trump Obama, and …..
Yet we KNOW – both from the laungage in the PRA and from the caselaw – that is NOT the case.
While the courts have given presidents great latitude to access the records of prior presidents – even when they held those records personally.
They have NEVER allowed the current president to do so without a court order.
If NARA owned the reocrds – if they were government records – the courts would have say – we have no jurisdicution here – just as they did in JW v NARA.
The current president wants these. they are owned by the government – he does not need the permission of the courts or congress to access records that are owned by the government – again the same very first sentence in Article II of the constitution.
The only Way that the PRA can deny the president access to former presidents records, the only way the PRA can limit the presidents access to former presidents records. the only way the courts can claim the power to decide if current presidents can access former presidents records – is if those records are NOT the property of the government.
There is a reason that the PRA uses the word CUSTODY – there is a reason that NARA is the custodian – not the OWNER.
The JW v NARA case would never have happened if the law worked as you claimed. The court would have just required NARA to retreive the records.
After all they are government property.
I have separately noted that Obama has a contract with NARA regarding his documents.
Obama has no power to contract with NARA – if the documents belong to NARA.
Not only are the documents Trump had at MAL Trump’s property,
The documents held in NARA’s custody are Trump’s property.
Just as those of Obama’s held by NARA are Obama’s property.
That is the only way that the PRA remains constitutional.
“They cease being his property when he leaves office, when they become PUBLIC property.”
If that were true – just about every single ex presidents record case since Nixon left office was wrongly decided.
You re not on the wrong side of JW V. NARA – you are on the wrong side of dozens of cases.
I would further note that Judge ABJ – completely ignores all the “details” you think are important in her decision.
She does not care if the tapes are classified.
She does not care if they are government records.
She does not care who paid the historian.
There is not a signle details that you think is important that she mentions in her holding.
In fact she waves every single one of those “details” away – saying – if every claim Judicial watch has made is true – they STILL lose.
Because NARA does not have a power or duty to take Bill Clinton’s property from him, and the courts do not have the power to order NARA to.
ABJ did not decide on the FACTS of the case – she decided PURELY on the LAW.
That is how a motion to dismiss works.
The LAW is Congress can not usurp executive powers and delegate to NARA a power that the president does not have.
AND Congress can not constitutionally give the government ownership of private property without running afoul of the constitution.
The courts have therefore CONSISTENTLY found that the PRA gives the executive branch the power to provide the ex president with resources to protect and preserve the records of his presidency. That at the discretion of the ex president NARA can have CUSTODY, but not ownership of some or all such documents.
But that whether in the expresidents possession or not – that CONTROL – ownership – remains with the ex president.
They have done so because any other reading of NARA runs afoul of the constitution in multiple ways.
Whether you like it or not ALL court decision s regarding presidential documents are fully consistent with the law as I have described it.
NONE are consistent with the law as you have claimed.
And by LAW – I mean decades of decisions by the courts.
“GOP Texas AG Ken Paxton was just impeached by the GOP-led Texas House. Wow! The GOP in the Lone Star State has turned on one of its own!” In other words, Republicans believe that ordinary legal rules apply against themselves.
Edward: No, I think the Texas GOP legislature realized it had a cancer that needed to be excised. The optics of a corrupt AG was making it difficult for them to rule. Despite what you hear Texas is becoming increasingly a Democratic state–in spite of all the gerrymandering and voter suppression. Voters have wised up to corruption in the state house. If the GOP hopes to hold onto power next year they know they have to clean up their own house. Getting rid of the cancer that is Ken Paxton is their only hope! Paxton is the sacrificial lamb!
That you are stupid enough to beleive there is even a crime in the conduct that you are falsely alleging is disturbing.
Most of us – even if we have not examined the legal details understand that
Hillary Clinton was not prosecuted – either for election interference, sedition, treason or mishandling of classified documents, and that Biden will not be prosecuted for all the many many crimes he has actually committed.
If your legal theories were correct – and they are ludicrously stupid – you are STILL proving to people that democrats are corrupt and have weaponized the law.
You can not win here.
Trump’s popularity went UP since Bragg charged him.
Do you WANT Trump to get elected ?
If so keep it up.
Trump’s strongest bid for re-election – what distinguishes him from every other republican candidate is that EVERYONE – right and left expect Trump to CLEAN HOUSE in the executive if elected.
DeSantis will not do that. Halley will not do that. Scott will not do that. Pence will not do that.
None of them has the political capital, none of them was targeted to the same extent.
One of the most significant reasons that large numbers of people are supporting Trump is because they expect him to go through the Exectuive like a hot knife through butter.
Keep up the idiotic prosecutions. <Make it CERTAIN trump is elected.
“Most of us – even if we have not examined the legal details understand that”
If you haven’t examined the legal details and still come to conclusions based on the willful neglect of those details your arguments are already flawed from the start.
There’s a reason why those who DO delve into the details are more knowledgable and correct than you are.
The prosecutions are all Trump’s own fault. He’s not above the law and he continues to make stupid mistakes and keeps shooting his mouth digging himself deeper into the hole he created.
An incredibly stupid argument coming from someone who is pretty much UNIVERSALLY wrong on
The law
The facts,
the details.
Regardless, your best hope of “Getting Trump” was the Carroll case – and that was a dud.
The most important goal of the Carroll case was to turn Trump into a tar baby – to create enough disgust at him that in the future people would beleive any claims against him.
That failed. The jury decision was ludicrously stupid. But that is not the big deal. The big deal is that afterwords everyone yawned and ignored it.
Trumps numbers went up – not down.
You long ago convinced a little less than half the country to hate Trump. For all the garbage you have thrown since – you have not budged that needle an inch. In fact you are losing ground.
Few doubt that Smith or Willis can get an atlanta or DC jury to convict Trump – if they can get that far.
You keep talking about Trump losing cases – but in each case the only decision that matters is the final unapealable one.
Trump has won nearly all of those – and the ones he did not did not ultimately matter.
It is highly unlikely that Smith is going to indict unless he is near certain of convicting.
This is not Durham and Sussman or Danchenko.
It is not Mueller cases – just as Mueller did not go right at Trump Smith is highly unlikely to.
If Smith even indicts Trump and loses at any stage – he will be scornfully remembered – by BOTH right and left forever.
The left will never forgive him for shooting and missing and the right will view him as a partisan hack.
Further should Smith win initially affecting the 2024 election and them subsequently lose – you could have a REAL insurrection.
Smith is dancing arround election interferance. And he is doing so in an arean in which democrats have been caught badly using
DOJ to interfere in elections.
Smith will write a mean report like Mueller did.
Willis is different, She is not in the same league as Smith. She is not subject to the same pressures.
She can afford to fire and miss. But unlike Smith – Willis is answerable to the State of GA. To the GA AG and to the GA courts.
To avoid risking getting removed from office. She must come up with a far better case than she has.
Do you have proof – or even a claim Trump bribed someone ?
Without that Willis is Dead in the Water.
Absolutely I am willfully neglecting YOUR details that do not matter.
If a Bank in atlanta is robbed and the accused was in L at the time of the robbery – the fact that the accused bought a gun the day before is an irrelevant detail and I am not negligent in ignoring it.
Before any of the details you claim matter -= you have to have a crime – and you do not.
You keep trying to manufacture a crime out of irrelevant details – most of which you can not get right.
Why are you still debating this – you lost badly on this MONTHS AGO.
Nothing has changed. If anything your case has gotten worse.
Paxton appears to be en-mired in a bitter personal feud with the TX house speaker.
This appears far more personal than criminal or political.
But you are free to hope otherwise.
Paxton is also involved in bribery and fraud. It’s more than just personal.
No he is accused of bribery and fraud by a politician he is in a bitter fight with who he was investigating.
I have no idea what all the facts are – neither do you.
I do find it interesting that you are absolutely certain that one person you hate is telling you the truth about another that you hate.
If Paxton actually turns out to be dirty – I would be surprised – but such things have happened before.
If the TX house speaker turns out to be dirty – I wont be surprised.
But again this will eventually play out.
And I certainly would not place any bets on your opinion.
I would note we all got through the Jussie Smollet nonsense
OR the Grietens case.
Things are not always what they appear to be on the surface – especially where politics is involved.
“No he is accused of bribery and fraud by a politician he is in a bitter fight with who he was investigating.”
False, he was accused of bribery and fraud by several of his own staff, not just one politician. A Republican investigation into the allegations produced a unanimous finding that was deemed sufficient to impeach. 20 articles of impeachment. Paxton went off in a rant accusing his fellow republicans of being liberals and Rinos. Clearly panic of a guilty individual.
Again you confuse politics with reality.
Absolutely a house chamber controlled by a speaker in a political conflict with PAxton used political power to attempt to put paxton in his place – BTW While Paxton was investigation the speaker and members of the Republican hose.
I do not know who is right in this fight – though my money is on Paxton.
But you do not either.
As to the merits of the committees findings – I have no idea what those findings are – nor do you.
Nor do I know the process or evidence that arrived at them – this all happened incredibly fast – rapidly after the Speaker learned Paxton was investigating him.
It sounds political – much like the findings of the J6 committee or the variosu Trump impeachments.
Is it good for republicans – certainly not. But I am not ready to decide that it is PAxton that is the crook there is plenty of allegations both ways.
And you FORGET that this started with investigations by Paxton – not the hose.
The US house has not impeached Biden – though there is far more evidence than against Santos.
Frankly the case against Santos appear relatively poor – there is stronger cases against AOC and waters that have not been prosecuted.
Regardless, I am OK with expelling Santos, and AOC, and Watters, and Schiff, and Swallwell, and …
“The US house has not impeached Biden – though there is far more evidence than against Santos.”
What evidence? Conjecture and suspicious reports are not evidence.
ROFL
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9ayDNPRo-ic/UDX5oFtC7LI/AAAAAAAAILE/-Us5rhq37Bo/s1600/monkeyseemonkeydo.jpg&ehk=PLNFRzKC6c8DMgBiQreDtdxsQkdD2vsJr+E+C7619Ww=&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0
https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.a47e4ed0741775f6a05d2879ba76c55f?rik=RHS82JX20sKuwA&pid=ImgRaw&r=0&exph=520&expw=826&q=osterich head in sand&simid=608004431447797691&FORM=IRPRST&ck=F20C058A06E7C792F9853B3491FF6472&selectedIndex=2&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
https://youtu.be/3DqAmyO7WUY
Reports of allegations or suspicious transactions are evidence.
If the Times’ movie critic has problems with The Little Mermaid, I can’t wait to see the classic music critic’s reaction to a performance of Dvorak’s Rusalka. It’s basically the same story, only with a little sex with no kink in it.
In the late 1980’s Woody Allen protested the colorizing of films that were originally filmed in Black and White. There were Congressional hearings in 100th Congress: (Legal Issues That Arise When Color Is Added to Films Originally Produced, Sold, and Distributed in Black and White: Hearing Before the Subcommittee, on Technology and the Law of the Senate, on the Judiciary, 100th Congress, 1st Session, 45 1987) the house also had hearing. Paraphrasing Allen “The new technology in the service of the artist is wonderful, but in the service of people who are not the originators of the film, it is a weapon”. Allen was opposed to Turner Broadcasting coloring such films as “It’s a Wonderful Life”,” Key Largo” and others. Congress responded by enacting the ‘National Film Preservation Act of 1988”.
Forrest Gump’s mother was indeed right “Life is like a box of Chocolates’; you never know what you’ll get”. In today’s left foray into the insane, every day is a taste of the legendary chocolate quote. Quoting from another film ‘You can’t handle the truth’ seems appropriate.
These tyrannical fools MUST be shown the door, stage left, as soon as possible to preserve our great nation.
“…our range of comedy appears to now run the gamut from A to B.”
More like D to D+, Dumb and dumber’r.
Once again, Turley distracts from really, really important things like Trump’s ongoing investigations into his collusion with Russian banks, Russian planted laptops, Russian election interference in the 2016 election that was stolen from Her Majesty, aiding and abetting the Russian invasion of the Ukraine and how much Trump likes Russian vodka! Turley never mentions those things that I want Turley to write about!
Instead all he does is write about how corrupt the Biden’s are, how the DOJ will not investigate all the evidence of wrong doing. How the media covers for the Biden’s and Democrats in general, while they attack anyone to the right Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. Despite evidence being brought forward by all the whistleblowers that are really not blowers but the IRS will not investigate either.
Turley writes about how bad it is for us to shout others down, to not allow their speech to be heard and for them to be censored.
He rages that teaching children that those who are white are bad and all others are good as if that is a bad thing. He never mentions banning pornographic books in FL elementary schools that prevents perverts like me from grooming children. He often writes about how women are being oppressed by biological males who identify as women competing in womens sports, as if that is a bad thing! Or how racist all those beer drinkers are for not supporting a guy pretending to be a girl while mocking and insulting women!
Everytime Turley does not write about what I want him to write about his reputation gets lower and lower regardless of all the hits his blog gets and how popular he is with all of his speaking engagements and appearances before Congress and columns he writes for The Hill, USA Today, The NY Post, The Messenger and of course Fox News who tells him what to wri-hold on a sec. . . I am getting new talking, cut and paste points from DNC central . . . Okay, a few hundred more posts and I will make my quota for the day!
BTW, I wrote the above.
If you found it humorous, add a comment!
Thanks Lt. Hauk for that very funny post.
That was actually very witty! Good one!
Upstate, PERFECT!!
Svelaz,
Nearly all of us are more family with the ongoing political weaponization of our justice system against Trump and republicans.
So far it has backfired against you horribly.
The policy distinctions between the leading republican candidates – Trump. DeSantis, even those farther behind such as Pence are arguments about how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
Trump leads all – including Biden BECAUSE of the politically corrupt weaponization of govenrment against him.
I would remind you that YOU fought to impeach Trump merely for asking Ukraine to investigate the obvious Corruption involving Hunter and Joe Biden.
To most of us it was obvious – from Joe Biden’s own public remarks that there was a legtimate reason to investigate.
Yet, you are chasing down Trump using manufactured claims of criminality.
It is legal to pay others for a non-disclosure.
It is legal to pay lawyers to seek nondisclosures.
They are nearly always considered legal fees.
It is legal to do so personally. through lawyers, throught your business.
It is even – based on the Edwards case legal to do so through a political campaign.
It is not a campaign finance law violation – the FEC already decided that and 4 prior FEC chairs concurred.
It is not a tax law violation.
There is no such thing as a fraud where no one has been harmed.
There is no lawful disclosure requirement for a nondisclosure.
It is legal to rant about election fraud.
It is legal to do so even if there was no fraud.
It is legal to do so even if you know there is no fraud.
It is legal to ask Secretaries of state that are NOT in your employ to find additional votes.
It is NOT legal for NARA to demand that ex-presidents return WH documents from their time as president – this has been addressed repeatedly.
JW. V NARA
It is NOT legal even if the documents may or are classified.
There is a fair amount of law since watergate that allows the current administration to demand ACCESS to a former presidents WH papers – though it MUST go to court to do so. There is not only NO LAW, but several cases REJECTING the claim that NARA or anyone else can take POSSESSION of the property of Former Presidents. The constitution is CRYSTAL CLEAR
“The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
If the constitution or the congress grants a power to the executive – that power belongs to the President. PERIOD.
What is and is not classified – that is a power of the president. The rules for doing so – up to the president.
Can trhe president change his mind about what is and is not classified or who can and can not declassify or how things are classified or declassified at whim ?
Absolutely. And if you do not like that – you must amend the constitution.
And the same is true of who owns the work product of the whitehouse. The presidential records act is only constitutional so long as it does not take from the president the power to make the decions that the act delegates to the executive.
The only Election interferance in 2020 – what that done by the US government and those conspiring with them.
The only “legal trouble” Trump is in is from a bunch of corrupt left wing nuts such as yourself.
We have a president who is simultaneously attacking everyone who disagrees with him politically – from pro-life protestors and parents trying to prevent the political and sexual indoctrination of their kids, to his obvious political rival. Who you impeached for far less serious an act.
And is separately feverishly thwarting investigation into his own and his families corruption.
It would be a great solution if the people as a whole would not give recognition to the activists and protesters. Keep their activism locked up within their own minds, so that they would not be able to destroy comedy. Yet it is the press that continue to allow these protesters to represent what they act like are those who profess mainstream thoughts.
That’s because the establishment media all agree with them.
No matter how they construct laws, just as criminals will not heed gun laws, so too will intellectuals, comedians and artist not heed “hate speech” legislation or societal bullying. The creation of satire and other art forms justly criticizing the insanity of our present time will go underground but it will not cease. The prog/left can no more stop human thinking than the communists in Russia or China can completely throttle criticism of their insanity. The prog/left feels invincible because they have most of the media and corporate heads supporting them, but just like Bud Lite – you can only push people so far
Couldn’t agree more. They can all piss off!
Ditto!
Jonathan: I agree that “the ability to laugh about ourselves and others can vent social pressures and force people out their myopic, monotonous perspectives”. But try to find that on your blog. When I try to interject some humor your loyal followers greet it with scorn and humorless attacks. So your admonition has been lost on many who comment here. I suppose this is because they follow their leader, Donald Trump. Now there is a guy devoid of any sense of humor. The only time Trump attended a WH Correspondent’s Dinner he was roasted by Pres. Obama. He didn’t like jokes at his expense and never attended another Dinner.
In the coming presidential campaign you won’t see much humor. Trump is and will make non-stop personal and mean spirited personal attacks on his opponents. That’s because the Trumpster is a narcissist who lives in a “perpetual state of rage”.
It might help if your humorous comments were actually funny.
Thersites, you beat me to it. Perfectly stated!!!!
Thersities,
Now, that was funny!
Dennis, are you feeling OK? No comments on Turley not commenting on subject matters that are insignificant to anyone with an I.Q. over room temperature? Glad you once again you evoked Trump’s name into a post that had absolutely nothing to do with him. Not to overstate the obvious but this is Turley’s blog. HE gets to choose the topics.
Emotional Italian: You are way too “emotional”. And not to overstate the obvious but while Turley gets to choose the topics for his columns we, on the other hand, are not similarly restrained. Changing the subject is our prerogative on this blog–it’s part of Turley’s commitment to “free speech”. As Turley says under his “Civility” masthead “the blog is for civil dialogue on all manner of topics”. You need to read it again.
Translation: the paid DNC trolls are castrated, eunuchs, infertile. They give birth to nothing, they are trim, offer no new ideas, no new life, only the death of ideas.
This was Dennis in 2020, an attorney dressed as the grim reaper, on Florida beaches, not because he had the intelligence to realize how wrong he was to protest COVID lockdowns in Florida, and the reopening therein by Gov DeSantis, but because he had the “right” to call attention to himself like the Axis II person that he is and his many other avatars on here
Dennis is the grim repear of this forum.
Misery loves company, aka Gigi, Svelaz, sealioning Anonymous, et al
Estovir,
HA!
Now, whenever Dennis comments, I will forever have that picture of the Grimm Reaper on the beach in my head.
I had a typo:
They give birth to nothing, they are
trimgrim, offer no new ideas….Yes, Dennis is the grim reaper. That an actual attorney adopted that costume to warn beachgoers about DeSantis reopening Florida, shows us how well it aged. Grim reaper indeed.
Estovir: Yes, I am “the grim repear (sic) of this forum”–along with Gigi and Svelaz. We are coming for you and those who think like you on this blog. So better watch out! (Hope this brings a little levity to a blog that desperately needs it)
Dennis, I am not saying you don’t have the right to change the subject matter. But to invoke a childhood axiom, ” just because you can, doesn’t mean you should . Maybe start your own blog. I am sure all 3 of your confidants would be appreciative. And as I stated before you did return to form. And Turley is not ” Restrained”.
Dennis: “When I try to interject some humor your loyal followers greet it with scorn and humorless attacks. So your admonition has been lost on many who comment here.”
How many trolls does it take to eat a possum? Two. One to dine and one to watch for cars.
Diogenes,
That got a chuckle out of me!
Thank you!
😉
Dennis, this is not a comedy blog.
I am hard pressed to think of a single instance in which you have tried to inject humor – perhaps you can provide an example.
Regardless, I have no complaints about trying to do so – but humor is extremely difficult in the context of blog posts.
I have personally posted sarcastically and had people take it literally.
I am not telling you not to use humor, just pointing out that in this context it is very hard to pull off.
This is not a stage in a comedy club.
We can not see you, your expression, your demeanor.
We have no visual cues. no context.
No tone of voice. no gestures.
Try reading the script of Monty python – without notes
You make a great point about the WH correspondents dinner – though not the one you intended.
That dinner is a roast. The president is the guest of honor. At a roast the guest of honor is mericilessly poked fun at – usually be friends and always by people who ARE actually honoring them.
We do not invite our enemies to a roast
I am sure that the humor at recent WH corresponants dinners has been brutal. But it has been delivered mostly by people who love Biden and who beleive he is legitimately the president and who support him.
Trump NEVER gets that respect – not from you, not from the media.
I would happily be guest of honor at a rest by my friends,
I would not attend a roast by those that hate me.
Even if the jokes were exactly the same, the atmosphere and experience would be completely different.
Your post is typical of the left.
You expect those you hate to sit silently and take it while you viciously pummel them.
Yet anything even the slightest critical of you is hate speech requiring that you retreat to your safe space with your emotional support plushie.
And you are oblivious to the fact that your expectations of people are radically different based on ideology.
John Say,
Well said.
thx
The Harry Potter Story and the movies are really not for children. The story becomes increasingly dark and sinister. I am a huge fan of the books and the movies. When you watch the movies, each in series, the opening shows the Warner Brother’s logo. Each progressive movie, the logo gets darker and darker. When you think about it, the storyline seems to be playing out in our modern world. If life were once a bright color then it is now a muted tone and growing darker still. Lord Voldemort, the dark lord’s power is gaining and evil is sucking the color out of the world.
One would think people would learn that there is an endless supply of sad sack weirdos who are not content with their own misery but are hell bent to spread their joy to all the world and try as hard as they can to make things miserable for anyone they encounter.
One of the only positive things about some years of experience on this earth and having been blessed to have visited different places and met people of all ages and economic situations and at different times in history is the perspective of how things have changed from how they used to be, and not for the better. Sure, more people have electricity and running water and now endless idle hours to surf through vapid social media, but we are losing something special…..freedom….freedom of mind, freedom of thought and freedom to dream.
I applaud gutsy comedians and satirists. They are necessary to put so called “elites” in their place. They put their pants on one leg at a time and they grow old and frail and will soon die. I am not intimidated by them in the least and neither should anyone else be intimidated. Yes, they have some power now, but their days are numbered. “As for man, his days are as grass. As the flowers of the field so he flourishes. The wind passes over it and it is gone and the place thereof shall know it no more.”
All those who labor tirelessly to impose their warped concept of life on others will fade away, just like the millions before them and their little fiefdoms will vanish and fall. So, why can’t they just enjoy life a little and have a laugh or two?
Not before they abort millions of lives annually, globally, in world wars (e.g. ethnic Springs), and mutilate, sterilize, corrupt millions more for social, redistributive, clinical, political, criminal, and fair weather progress.
E.M.
Someone noted how the live action The Little Mermaid was dark in the color and lighting.
Look at the movie posters from the 1989 to the recent one.
it is so silly, isnt it? You and I are of the darker persuasion, yet I really couldn’t care less about the color of actors in movies, their ethnicity, politicians, ministers, speakers, etc. Competency >>>> skin color
Recall our recent discussion on Nazi concentration camps where Professor Turley’s friend, Thomas Buergenthal and Victor Frankl lived to describe the horrors they experienced in those camps. Victor Frankl delivered a withering speech in 1988 on how Nazism differentiated people based on race, and how he feared “collective guilt” would be used against younger generations to teach them racism like the Nazis did. Thus, per Frankl, we are seeing the a resurgence of Nazism today when groups peddle collective guilt based on race. You will agree that this is being done today by the Woke Left which should not surprise anyone considering Nazism is National Socialism, a Leftist construct.
Democrats since Lyndon B. Johnson, a racist’s racist par excellence, have been feeding the younger generation with Nazism just as Frankl warned in the 1980s. Recall Joseph Stalin killed more than 40 million people, and Mao Zedong over 60 million, via Marxist, Leftist ideologies. The Left hates life, from conception to natural death, which is why they promote childhood bodily mutilation and irreversible damage to children’s endocrine systems re: “Trans gender affirming treatments”.
The Left are godless, soulless and a threat to civilizations, where they celebrate destroying cultural institutions like families, education, religion, laws, fertility, and the elderly
Excellent speech by Viktor Frankl in German with English subtitles, worth viewing
Viktor Frankl, author of “Man’s Search for Meaning” speaks out against the concept of “collective guilt” as a continuation of Nazi-ideology. A seminal speech held in 1988 on the occasion of Austria´s annexation by Nazi Germany 1938.
Estovir,
Well said.
Absolutely the woke leftists are the real threat.
Frankl book is on my shelf in the library.
Estovir……….a powerful, powerful comment, as always.
Thank you my dear Cindy. I went for a bike ride after watching Viktor Frankl’s speech a third time to work off some steam. I cant help but look at current events through my political refugee eyes and be concerned.
Hope you are taking care of your ♥️ and are in the best hands possible in Texas
Oremus!
🙏🏾
@Estovir…Well writ.
Gracias Dr Homey. Come back anytime to la academia! You can administer propofol to the crazies prn
😉
My good fortune to have retired from academia over a decade ago. Homey would not have played this!!
Estovir…oh, you are so sweet! I deeply appreciate your kindness. The main problem is balancing the limited intake of daily fluids because of HFpEF, verses getting enough fluids due to dehydration caused by Jardiance.
Nothing’s easy…..but I’m grateful for what health I have. There are legions of people who have it worse than !.
Thank you, Estovir.
Those who survived Auschwitz and other creations of that ilk out of the minds of human depravity of that can demand accountability.. Those who seek to be financial compensated for the suffering of others, as well as those act to facilitate same, exhibit a depravity, and moral and ethical turpitude of another sort, in that the claimants did not physically endure the suffering but demand to benefitted by it.
He should probably drop the project altogether. The Tantrum Collective will undoubtedly respond to his refusal to comply by disrupting the performances.
Take a knee, beg, “donate”, and adopt cruel neutrality (e.g. “good German”).
The communist cancer of total censorship bleeds into the world of Comedy. Even our jokes require approval. Welcome to Amerika 2023. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
The hypocrites on the left are pulling a power play hiding behind the “we are victims of hate speech” ruse. They have no problem with the trans mob’s mockery of nuns and Catholicism, as the LA Dodgers are about to demonstrate. When enough people wake up to the fact that this is a battle between two opposing views, and the one on the left isn’t automatically on the side of the angels, maybe then enough people will have the spine to fight back. It’s our duty and our right to oppose the hypocrites.