We have often discussed the embrace of censorship by the left and many Democratic politicians, including President Joe Biden. However, the most distressing aspect of this trend has been the support of many in the media. That erosion of support for free speech was on display this week in a tweet from a New York Times’ reporter. Sheryl Gay Stolberg said that this week’s effort by Democrats to censor Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “raised thorny questions” about whether misinformation is protected speech. The statement shows a breathtaking lack of understanding of the First Amendment as well as a lack of fealty for free speech values. There are no “thorny questions” over the censorship of this speech, because misinformation is unquestionably protected under the First Amendment.
The media’s embrace of censorship was on display on various channels after the recent opinion finding that the Biden Administration had violated the First Amendment in “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” However, the New York Times immediately warned that the outbreak of free speech could “curtail efforts to combat disinformation.” Yet, no one expressed it more simply and chillingly than CNN Chief White House Correspondent Phil Mattingly who stated that it “makes sense” for tech companies to go along with government censorship demands.
The most recent controversy arose after Democratic members responded to a hearing on censorship by trying to censor Kennedy. Not only did members object to his being able to discuss his censorship on social media, but Rep. Deborah Wasserman Schultz (who has led previous attacks on witnesses on censorship) sought to move the hearing into executive session so that the public could not hear what he had to say.
What followed were unrelenting attacks on Kennedy who was repeatedly asked questions by Wasserman Schultz and others but then denied the ability to respond. As in the past, Democratic members asked insulting questions and then reclaimed their time to prevent the witness from defending himself.
Democratic members made clear that they supported barring people from social media and even congressional hearings for opposing views on Covid. One member told Fox News “I am not afraid of anything that he would say, I just do not want to hear him.”
After watching this abusive treatment, the only “thorny question” for Stolberg was whether Kennedy’s speech and misinformation in general has any protection under the First Amendment.
Misinformation is generally defined as information that is false, but the person who is disseminating it believes that it is true. In other words, others believe that a speaker is mistaken. Yet, Stolberg believes that such mistaken beliefs may fall outside of the First Amendment. Of course, this leads to the Zen-like question of whether the mistaken belief that the First Amendment does not protect mistaken beliefs is itself protected. But down that road lies either enlightenment or madness.
Note that Stolberg was not discussing whether social media companies can legally censor speech. While that is a denial of free speech, these companies often note that they are not covered by the First Amendment as private entities. (In reality, that is not accurate since they can be agents of the government, which I previously discussed in my testimony in the first of these censorship hearings).
Stolberg was discussing whether misinformation in general is protected under the First Amendment.
What makes the statement chilling is that it is part of a growing chorus from the left suggesting that hate speech and now disinformation may be exceptions under the First Amendment. Indeed, when I testified before this same committee,
I was taken aback by the opening statement of the committee’s ranking Democrat, Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.). Besides opposing an investigation into the role of the FBI and other agencies in such censorship, Plaskett declared that “I hope that [all members] recognize that there is speech that is not constitutionally protected,” and then referenced hate speech as an example.
Hate speech is indeed a scourge in our nation, but it is also protected under our Constitution. Yet many politicians and pundits are using this false constitutional claim to defend potentially unconstitutional actions by the government.
Recently, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who is a lawyer, said that “if you espouse hate … you’re not protected under the First Amendment.” Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean declared the identical position: “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”
Even some dictionaries now espouse this false premise, defining “hate speech” as “Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.”
Now the New York Times is posing the question of whether misinformation is protected. It is. When false information is used to steal money, it is called fraud. Speech can also be the basis of other crimes like conspiracy. However, simply stating something that others view as misleading or wrong is protected under the First Amendment.
The First Amendment does not distinguish between types of speech, clearly stating: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
It does not say “good speech” or “factually correct speech.” It says speech. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has declared that even lying about military honors is protected. The Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act. In United States v. Alvarez, the Court held 6-3 that it is unconstitutional to criminalize lies — in that case involving “stolen valor” claims.
Likewise, spewing hate-filled lies is protected. In Snyder v. Phelps, also in 2011, the Court said the hateful protests of Westboro Baptist Church were protected.
Yet, at the New York Times, the most “thorny issue” was not the effort of Democrats to censor a witness at a censorship hearing, but whether his speech has any protection under the First Amendment.
Ironically, the government could have raised this “thorny issue” when the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers, claiming that it was just “misinformation” that was harmful to the public. While that was a prior restraint case, would the government have had a stronger case if it argued that the Times was publishing information that it thought was true but was misleading or false?
What about the disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation spread by the New York Times in the last few years on issues like Covid-19. For years, scientists faced censorship for even raising the lab theory as a possible explanation for the virus. Their reputations and careers were shredded by a media flash mob. The Washington Post declared this a “debunked” coronavirus “conspiracy theory.” The New York Times’ Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was calling any mention of the lab theory “racist.” Are Mandavilli’s writings unprotected?
Yet, it is not a thorny issue when a Democratic member admits that she sought to prevent Kennedy from speaking publicly because “I just do not want to hear him.”
What is so troubling is how the “legacy media” has jettisoned the most noble aspects of its legacy and has become that enabler of censors.
The political Left wishes to censor what it does not want the general public to know because it does not trust the general public with the truth. They fear the people thinking for themselves for the people just might oppose them if the people made up their own minds.
Having alternative viewpoints censored is bad. Having uninformed voters is also bad.
I would rather have the latter than the former. Uninformed voter ignorance can be challenged with more good speech. Censoring prevents those discussions from taking place. I am not fearful of misinformation, disinformation, etc. I have confidence in my ability to distill truth from error. Free speech means permitting ALL speech. Only then can the public have confidence their government is not steering their choices.
OT
NEWSMAX: Bill Barr Knew About Biden Bribery Evidence Before 2020 Election
The DOJ under Bill Barr has a lot to answer for. The credible allegations in the Form 1023 are mainly about Joe Biden. Moreover, that form refers to similar allegations made in March 2017 by the same CHS. There was no reason for these allegations against Joe Biden to become part of Weiss’s investigation into Hunter Biden. A new investigation should have been opened against Joe Biden and sufficient resources devoted to it.
For a contrast about whether it’s as credible as you believe: https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/07/23/chuck-grassley-must-think-the-fd-1023-informant-is-worth-killing-off/
I will proudly announce I defended, in relentless fashion, the unwanted speech of the (Lawyers) Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church at the military funerals and other events. It was really bad out there, and I was all alone a lot of the time.
I took all the attacks and bans and lies easily. Either you are for free speech or you aren’t.
The vast majority were not for free speech on that issue.
“What was the vote count in Snyder v. Phelps?
In Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the First Amendment prohibited the imposition of civil liability upon a church and its members who picketed the funeral of a slain Marine.”
Westboro Baptist Church – were you free speech advocates or did that one break you ?
Poor ol’ Dennis…..ignores the fact the FBI owns the Laptop now….or perhaps the Repair Shop…..but Hunter gave up his right to own when he abandoned the Laptop in the Shop.
It sure makes you wonder which “legal” blogs. he attends…..Tribe, Ellison,Weissmann, Comey……perhaps?
A question for those who are in favor of censorship……would they think the same if a Republican Government censored their speech they would allow to happen to those on the Right/Conservative/Independent side of the aisle?
Of course they would blow their feeble minds over the mere hint of censorship of them….all the while loving it when it happens to those they disagree with.
That’s what I want to happen. I want to see the entire lib MSM and all the little blue raving checkmarks and the whining race baiters and the collegiate safe spacers and professors and the Fauci’s HAMMERED BANNED DELETED CENSORED FIRED DEBANKED ATTACKED IN PUBLIC VEHICLE KEYED RUNOUT OF TOWN BLOCKED ON THE ROADS LAWFARED ETC ETC
When that happens for a decade straight we will check about “going back to normal”.
This is exactly what they perped on us – I mean imagining the extent of their tyrannous victory is difficult to imagine.
So I am better than them, no doubt about it. I would be doing it for the right reasons, tamping down the commie globalists as is required.
I would be wearing a Halo, probably actually visible.
HAHA
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….
The Framers wrote the 1st Amendment to convey to all people for all time that the freedom of speech shall not be abridged, and, by implication, that “…courts of justice…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
________________________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
__________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
But many Democrats, their media supporters and others, engage in hate speech against and inane statements about Russians as a group (James Clapper’s repeated comments on their genetics), and the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for its Russiagate reporting. As the saying goes, go figure.
That’s your problem, Mz. Stolberg. You are fundamentally all —— up, and you can’t see the forest for the trees; you don’t want to. You are an ideological communist, and your version of a “democratic society” is the functional equivalent of Karl Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat.” America is not a “democratic society.” America is a restricted-vote republic as all “democratic societies” have been since their inception in Greece. Never was America designed or intended to be a one-man, one-vote democracy, but a republic by way of the restricted vote. Never were “persons esteemed to have no will of their own,” “persons of indigent fortunes,” or “persons under the immediate dominion of others” intended to vote. In 1789, turnout was 11.6% by design, and general vote criteria, set by States, were male, European, 21 and 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres. In 1790, the vote was further restricted by the Naturalization Act.
The Revolutionaries broke America off from the British Empire in the name of freedom. Lincoln ended American freedom, seized the country, and threw the baby out with the bathwater—the Constitution out with reprehensible slavery—commencing the incremental implementation of the principles of communism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” America has inexorably evolved into the inevitable, despotic, communist police state. Actual Americans no longer have any choice but to nullify Lincoln in totality, suspend habeas corpus in Lincolnesque fashion, and recover their country by severely restricting the vote, making American rational again.
Make America Rational Again!
There. He said it.
_______________
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
__________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
_______________________________________
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
_________________
You couldn’t.
When Americans on the far left sense there is little support for the changes they want in the Constitution and federal law, they bypass the democratic process, altogether, do whatever they hell they want in defiance of the Constitution and federal law.
All acts to “bypass the democratic process” must be immediately struck down by the Supreme Court under the doctrine of Judicial Review established in Marbury v. Madison, 1803.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Judicial Review in the United States
Annotation
The legitimacy of judicial review and the judge’s approach to judicial review are discussed.
Abstract
The doctrine of judicial review holds that the courts are vested with the authority to determine the legitimacy of the acts of the executive and the legislative branches of government.
– U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs
_____________________________________________
Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes that they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law.[1][2] The Court’s landmark decision established that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals, and helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government.
Dear Prof Turley,
Honesty is the bedrock foundation of every [human] affair. That’s why ‘misinformation’ is so pernicious and difficult to root out. NYT reporters and journalists, such as they are, honestly believed the Laptop was Russian disinformation. .. and probably still do.
Disinformation is merely the organized dissemination of misinformation. .. and all is fair in love and war.
Tyranny of the minority: Liberal law profs urge Biden to defy the courts and the public
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/tyranny-of-the-minority-liberal-law-profs-urge-biden-to-defy-the-courts-and-the-public/ar-AA1ecRqc?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=4b84e87cebae4f75bb97bf794e7578cf&ei=6
“The Framers saw the Supreme Court as playing a counter-majoritarian role when it is necessary to protect individual rights and constitutional norms. The alternative is what the Framers viewed as a tyranny of the majority, where popularity rather than principle prevails. For that reason, the Court has often stood with the least popular in our society and, since Marbury v. Madison, has had the final word on what the Constitution means.
Justice Robert Jackson once observed that he and his colleagues “are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final.” ” ~ story
*That Justice Jackson must have been a hoot and a holler. .. his wry opinions never seem to withstand the test of time.
The opinions of the SCOTUS will never end and the 2024 Elections are neigh upon us! This will no doubt invite the opinions of the SCOTUS to leap forward .. . although at ‘great risk to its present hegemony.’
Something everybody has left out is the Constitution was designed by GOD! When the demonrats think they are bigger than GOD, hang-on!
God is happy, sabu. Many of the more expansive and progressive ideas enshrined in the U.S. constitution are not so much ‘American values’ as human values.
*God rests in reason. .. I don’t know what S/He is doing the rest of the time.
We got us another naive partisan mind reader again: “NYT reporters and journalists, such as they are, honestly believed the Laptop was Russian disinformation. .. and probably still do. ”
Your opinion isn’t fact even when presented as such.
I guess the defense is “my side are stupid idiots incapable of researching anything or coming to the truth in any way shape or form, so don’t call them liars, call them the vast majority, left wingnut journalists.”
The mens reatard defense.
You don’t believe the majority of NYT reporters and journalists thought the laptop really was Russian disinformation, shortly before the election .. . and probably still do?
Lets do a POLL! We must be talking cross-purposes.
*I’m not talking about the 51 top intelligence officials, including the last five CIA Directors, who said it was Russian disinformation. .. they’re full of sh!t.
Be wary of those who hold the state to be the ultimate institution with an unlimited duty to develop and manage society, and who zealously decry “misinformation” and “disinformation” as being among all the other factors that inhibit their control of the masses. Rather than deflect misinformation with fact and disinformation with honesty, as has been the pattern and practice throughout the history of our republic, a new generation of statists have come upon the scene too weary and gutless to hold out against and fight back and instead intend to wholly forego their challenges and simply censor what they haven’t the stamina to abide. If this should work out for them, it shall come as no surprise when their zest for censorship becomes ever more exhaustive.
Ron – there are a couple scenarios. One is that what they label as disinformation really is false or misleading. In that case your analysis is spot on.
The other, which I believe to be more common, is that what they label as disinformation is actually true (as in their opposition to RFK, Jr. or the Hunter laptop story), but it undermines the regime narrative. In that event, there is no way for them to counter it with truth. So they fall back on censorship in the name of stamping out disinformation. In short, they want to propagate their own disinformation to suppress the truth, all the while pretending to fight against disinformation. It’s perverse.
Malinformation is their term for what’s true but harmful to the leftty regime narrative.
I agree with Thinkitthrough. Also there is this little process called DISCOVERY and that would probably scare off any thinking attorney with a client like Hunter. I suspect that the threats of full discovery in Hunter’s child support case forced the settlement. I would really like to see that total package and the NDA . Much safer to file an ethics complaint. Us republicans realize that Rep Boebert and Rep MTG have their uses but more for deflection and as fake front while the real thought goes on elsewhere.
Are these actions and statements shocking in light of the following history?:
-Rep. Deborah Wasserman Schultz was pushed out of the position of Democratic National Committee chairwoman because of bigotry towards her own party members.
-The NY Times, via Walter Duranty (called “the originator of fake news”), failed to ‘cover’ Stalin’s starvation of Ukraine and got a Pulitzer for it.
-The NY Times seemingly covered for Hitler and minimized the Holocost apparently at the wishes of FDR’s administration.
-The NY Times not only provided coverage for Fidel, when Fidel came to NYC he sought out NY Times reporter Herbie Matthews at the NY Times headquarters to award a medal for “reports he owed much of his initial positive press and notoriety in the United States”.
– Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.) met with Jeffrey Epstein and his associates to get “contributions” between ‘2014 through the 2020 election cycle’. Epstein was a recognized pervert and child trafficker during that period…to the extent the V.I is suing to recover $190 million from JPM for his activities.
-Old Ben Cardin has been a Democrat operative his entire career that even extends beyond Joe Biden’s career in terms of time in elected office.
-Sheryl Gay Stolberg is a mere reporter for the NY Times whose Pulitzer Prizes (actually awarded to staff of the LA Times) are for riot and earthquake coverage.
And these are the people and organizations that would have us assume that they are in the know about what is and is not misinformation? About what is and is not hate speech? That may fool the Democrat’s poorly educated and dependent base but don’t kid yourself, limiting speech is a weapon that they will use to subjugate all of us. Look no further than their COVID related activities.
Dennis McIntyre, the pictures of Hunter getting orally serviced were to much for the members of congress to handle but a twelve year old boy orally servicing another twelve year old boy in a book in a school library in Ohio, according to you, should be allowed. The GASP by Democrats in congress is a joke. You Dennis, GASP right along with them after defending pornography in schools. GASP, Dennis does it again.
One thing I don’t understand is how the left has defeated human nature. Let me explain. The Founding Fathers used ambition as a mechanism for ensuring the safety and efficacy of our “checks and balances” system and yet we have the Democrats/liberals IN CONGRESS crying when the Supreme Court rules that the Executive has usurped Congressional prerogatives and ruled that some power belongs in Congress. So we have members of Congress screaming, and I do mean screaming, that the Court should not give more power to THEM????
Second item. You would think that human nature and a desire to excel, not to mention good old greed, would have caused some liberal journalists to see the Biden corruption that is plain as day and gone and done a Woodward and Bernstein on these stories. For crying out loud, Bernstein faked 50 years off of that one (handed to him by a mole in the FBI) story. Yet not one liberal reporter has broken from the mob to a) excel at their job, reporting, b) made a name for themselves by breaking news and c) saw the corruption and/or the dementia and honored their profession by telling the truth. We see “reporters” going on MSNBC and telling the world that Biden is sharp???
This is not unlike the USSR and their American puppets letting ideology either blind them or make them lie. The NY Times and Walter Duranty saying all is well in the USSR and Ukraine, the left saying that Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs weren’t spies, that the US needs to disarm because it is our policies that make the Soviets aggressive. Today we see the left NEVER being critical of China, never demanding that China go green, never demanding that our companies stop making all of our drugs in China. We will see claims from the left that Israel is a racist state but nary a peep about Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria or any of the Muslim nations of Africa or Asia. Only Israel and now Saudi Arabia…because it harms the United States.
This is why GOP control of the Senate and White House are so important. The prog/left will install judges that water down the First Amendment so it doesn’t protect speech the left regards as “disinformation.” If you want evidence of that, just look at the anti-free-speech culture at America’s most prestigious law schools.
OTOH, the GOP will install Federalist Society type judges that will actually defend and uphold the Constitution. President Trump did that quite well and judging by the pro-censorship media culture, Trump’s work in that arena is virtually the only bulwark left between a free civilization and totalitarianism. The effectiveness of the Federalist Society in promoting its values among a small minority of law students and potential judges is reflected in the woke left’s tireless attempts (often successful) to disrupt Federalist Society-sponsored speeches on law school campuses such as at Stanford Law School.
To prove their sincerity, Democrats should support eliminating the protection against lawsuits that members of Congress have for any slanderous statements they make during the legislative process.
My view on the internet is simple. The website post anything it no longer belongs to them. Just like a newspaper. Once it hits the news stand it belongs tn whom ever buys it. If anybody comments on the articals that comment belongs to whom postf it. Now it would unlawful if a newspaper was to enter somebodies house to remove a paper. Same differece with a website removing information whether that information is true or wrong! It doesn’t belong to the website because the waves it travels on belongs to the people!
I have heard that Pravda magazine has declared that any speech against the government is hate speech. The Washington Post and the Kremlin see nothing wrong with declaring any speech that they do not like to be labeled as hate speech. They are different platforms with the same ideology. The Comrades in arms are still trying to control the supply of ink. Thankfully the use of ink is no longer the only means to present your viewpoint. If they could they would padlock your lips together. You would receive one warning and after that the key to the lock would cease to exist. This is their perfect future. They can count me out.
My only question to all of this is; Who gets to determine what is misinformation? Surely we cannot allow any in the circle of prog/left fanatics to decide anything in this area because their two credos are: 1) lie when needed to achieve your goals and 2) the ends justify any means.
Jonathan: There is still fall out from MAGA Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene’s gross stunt at the House Oversight hearing on Wednesday when she displayed a blown up photo of Hunter Biden engaged in a sexual act. MTG’s antic involved “revenge porn” that is a crime under both DC and Georgia law. The latter because MTG sent her constituents an email fundraising newsletter that included the Hunter photo.
I am on other legal blogs and the consensus is that Hunter could sue MTG for, among other causes of action, defamation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress–maybe even for conversion in taking the photo and using it without the permission of the owner of the laptop. MTG would not doubt claim the “speech and debate” clause as a defense. She would likely fail because displaying revenge porn at a House hearing does not come within her legislative duties.
Yesterday, Hunter’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, filed an ethics complaint against MTG with the House. In a statement Lowell said MTG’s gross actions were “abhorrent behavior that blatantly violates House Ethics rules and standards of official conduct”. Curiously, not one Republican on the Committee has condemned MTG’s conduct. Lowell also pointed out that federal law makes it a crime to transfer obscene material to minors–“even if one minor was included among the email distribution” by MTG.
I think MTG’s gross behavior reflects the fact that MAGA House Republicans have, so far, come up empty handed in trying to prove crimes by the Biden family. So they are reduced to selfie dic pics and MTG’s spurious claim Hunter was “making pornography” and violating the Mann Act. MTG is now the face of the Republican Party–a party without any ideas–just revenge porn.. That’s the part of Wednesday’s hearing you don’t want to discuss.
Hey Dennis, if Hunter takes Green to court do you suppose that Green would present the same photos of Hunter to a jury. I say bring it on. Let’s just say that this is not one of your brightest ideas. That’s saying a lot. Democrats say it and the very next day Dennis posts it on this blog. They got that Washington D.C. lockstep down to a tee.
Thinkitthrough: Let me ask you to ponder this Q? Was it appropriate or within her legislative duties for MTG to hold up a photo of Hunter Biden naked and having sex? Even the 2 IRS witnesses were shocked. They thought they had been called to talk about Hunter’s taxes. Did you see the looks on their faces–or those in in the audience? That tells it all. Now when Hunter sues MTG his attorneys will submit the naked photo as Exhibit No. 1. to show not only how MTG violated several criminal statutes but stole the photo from Hunter’s purported laptop. See, your problem is you never think things through!
Was it appropriate or within her legislative duties for MTG to hold up a photo of Hunter Biden naked and having sex?
She held up sex photos of your favorite pedophile just like you make yourself an azz on this blog. She has that right as do you though you are far better than MTG at looking like an azz
No Denny, he didnt see the IRS agents faces, because in the ONE original broadcast on a major news channel, they didnt show that. He didnt get his info from a DNC email, but like those who wanted the whole truth, he watched the entire hearing. Lie and say you did, I dare you.
And even after all of the DOCUMENTED evidence of Hunter’s many and varied crimes, the POTUS still thinks its a good idea to let him parade around Washington, accompany him on diplomatic trips overseas, and live at the White House. Shove that despicable POS right in our face and laugh about it. And you think MTG is perverse??? Give me a goddam break from your stupidity.
Dennis: thank you for your thoughtful and well-written comment. MTG”s conduct is pathogonomic of today’s Republican Party–she did it to pander to the base, who lapped it up with a spoon and fork. They think this pathetic excuse for a human being is some kind of anti-“woke”, anti-“Biden Crime Family” heroine. Never mind that this was on the floor of the House of Representatives, that Hunter Biden has never run for office and has no plans to do so. Never mind that there’s no proof that any of the puffery or statements on his “laptop” PROVE anything in regard to Joe Biden, much less any crime, or that Lev Parnas said the following (from Ali Velsi’s program):
” Former Associate of Rudy Guiliani, Lev Parnas, joins Ali Velshi to discuss his letter to Rep. James Comer and the House GOP-led Oversight Committee this week urging them to abandon their “wild goose chase” investigation of President Biden and Hunter Biden’s relationship with Ukraine. On allegations of bribery, Parnas said: “Where are the wire transfers? Where are the tapes that you are talking about? I think this is just a disservice to the American public and to our democracy.” The GOP’s strategy for pushing the narrative, he added, is “to confuse the public. As Americans, we’re told to listen to our Congressmen and our Senators… it’s sad to see what’s going on.”
Parnas also said (from NBC News):
“Lev Parnas, a Ukrainian businessman who figured prominently in Rudy Giuliani’s effort to dig up dirt on Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 election, said Tuesday that a GOP-led House committee should end its probe into the Biden family.
In a 10-page letter obtained by NBC News, Parnas told House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., that there is “no evidence” that the president or his son Hunter interfered with Ukrainian politics, “and there never has been.”
“With all due respect, Chairman Comer, the narrative you are seeking for this investigation has been proven false many times over, by a wide array of respected sources,” Parnas wrote. “There is simply no merit to investigating this matter any further.””
Is it conceivable that our founding fathers could imagine someone serving in the House of Representative doing something as crude and disgusting as this for no good reason other than to embarass our President and entertain the Republican base? What would Ike, Ronald Reagan or Abraham Lincoln say? That the base keeps cheering on this pathetic loser is, as Parnas said ” a disservice to the American public and our democracy.” She needs to be removed from office immediately. Will that happen? No. Just how low can the Republican Party sink? That remains to be seen. And, where’s Turley on this matter?
No evidence?
You cannot seriously use the word “ethics” in the same sentence with the name “Biden.”
Joe Biden is the most corrupt dishonest politician to ever occupy the White House.
Biden is the “public servant” — not an authoritarian dictator.
Biden snaps and lashes out at VOTERS, as if he should not be questioned.
Watch how candidate for president, Joe Biden, interacts with a VOTER by calling him a “damn liar.”
There are many more examples of just how nasty Joe Biden actually is with VOTERS — to whom HE serves.
Joe Biden is a criminal POS who sold out his country while running a global racketeering money laundering scheme that enriched the entire screwed up Biden family by the tens of millions. THAT is who Joe Biden is.
Anonymous–do you even know the difference between accusations and evidence? Lev Parnas does–and, as he points out, these “allegations” have been extensively investigated, and NO proof of wrongdoing by Biden was established. And, the loser who falsely accused our President isn’t a “voter”–they are an alt-right disciple, just like you, who uncritically believes whatever lies they are spoon-fed. Biden doesn’t have to take abuse from the MAGA losers.
Jan. 6 Coverage
EXCLUSIVE: Security Footage Undermines Key Claims in Police Report in Death of Rosanne Boyland on Jan. 6
Video also reveals rescuers spent more than 60 minutes trying to revive her lifeless body
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/exclusive-security-footage-undermines-key-claims-in-police-report-in-death-of-rosanne-boyland-on-jan-6-post-5414489?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=TheLibertyDaily&src_src=partner&src_cmp=TheLibertyDaily
I am on other legal blogs and the consensus is that Hunter could sue MTG for, among other causes of action, defamation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress–maybe even for conversion in taking the photo and using it without the permission of the owner of the laptop.
Legal blogs my A$$. 1. Publishing the pentagon papers was legal.2. Members of congress are covered by the speech add debate clause.
Average consumers of news are smarter than your “legal blogs. You on the other hand are so clueless you repeat what idiots tell you.
iowan2: You apparently have no legal training. That’s why you take what Prof. Turley says as gospel. There are a lot of legal scholars with different opinions. In fact, Turley tends to be always in the minority on most legal issues. If you checked out other legal blogs you would know that. Now, as to your two assertions: (1) Daniel Ellsberg and Tony Russo were indicted by the Nixon DOJ over the Pentagon Papers for conspiracy, misappropriation of government property, violation of the Espionage and other crimes. The trials of Ellsberg and Russo fell apart because of prosecutorial misconduct and violations of the law. They got off not because publishing the Pentagon Papers was “legal”. It’s still illegal and DJT is being prosecuted for some of the same crimes. So you strike out on your first claim: (2) Members of Congress are protected by the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution–but only as it relates to legislative activity. There is plenty of case law, including a SC decision, that stands for the proposition that a sitting member of Congress can be sued for statements acts unrelated to their legislative duties. Check out the case law if you don’t believe me.
Now, “average consumers of news” can’t possible be smarter that former prosecutors and other legal experts when it comes to the law. You are the “idiot” to believe otherwise. But since you also appear to be one of the “average consumers of news” answer this Q. If you get sued will you turn to one of those “average consumers'” for legal advice–or will you find an attorney who specializes in the area of the law over which you have been sued? I think I know the answer. So when it comes to comments that come from the “A$$” yours are right at the top!
Dennis your case law is far afield from from the facts you presented.
You’ll repeat any leftist. Never considering the content spewed by said leftist. Pathetic.
You know the inscrutable Jack Smith was overturned by SCOTUS 8-0 and the ruling admonished him for overly expansive interpretation of federal law. Legal Eagle Andrew Wiesemen took down one of the big 5 accounting firms Arthur Anderson…Only to be overturned, AGAIN unanimously by SCOTUS because of Wieseman warped concept of “corrupt persuasion”.
Those are todays leftist STARS in the legal field.
You are stunningly stupid. First, learn what “revenge porn” is. Then learn what defamation is. Then keep on going until you are able to correct all the other howlers in your moronic comment.
“when she displayed a blown up photo of Hunter Biden engaged in a sexual act.” Dennis, what is wrong with you. Do you not think. It is you and your friends that didn’t believe the story. You forced the picture to be shown with your ignorance.
LMFAO at Dennis again.
Revenge porn…is all you’ve got?
Your schtick is becoming way too predictable. “Turley should be talking about this instead of that”. Get your own blog. I bet MTG is shaking in her heels today. 🤣