The London police are under fire this week for threatening to arrest a man wearing a kippah near a pro-Palestinian march. Officers inform Gideon Falter, head of the Campaign Against Antisemitism watchdog, that he was “antagonizing” the protesters by being “openly Jewish” near such a march. He was told that, if he tried to cross the street while being “openly Jewish,” he would be arrested for breach of the peace.
In the video, one police officer said: “You are quite openly Jewish, this is a pro-Palestinian march, I’m not accusing you of anything but I’m worried about the reaction to your presence.”
Another officer then added later: “You will be escorted out of this area so you can go about your business, go where you want freely or, if you choose to remain here, because you are causing a breach of peace with all these other people, you will be arrested.”
Falter was also told that being openly Jewish near such a march was “antagonizing”.
Activists have long protested the dangers of “driving while black” in prompting stops by police and threats of arrest. Falter appears to have established a danger of “walking while Jewish” in London.
The Metropolitan Police later apologized, but had to issue a second apology after saying in a now deleted statement that
“In recent weeks we’ve seen a new trend emerge, with those opposed to the main protests appearing along the route to express their views. The fact that those who do this often film themselves while doing so suggests they must know that their presence is provocative, that they’re inviting a response and that they’re increasing the likelihood of an altercation.”
Calling an openly Jewish man “provocative” only reaffirmed the original statements made by the officers. As a result, the police had to issue a new statement, which said that the previous one had “been removed. We apologize for the offense it caused.”
What is equally disturbing is the threat to arrest a man who was doing nothing wrong based on his identity. These threats were being made as protesters were hurling abuses at him because he is Jewish.
Notably, the United Kingdom has embraced a wide array of criminalized speech, arresting people for hateful or denigrating comments made against groups or individuals.
A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”
We also discussed the arrest of a woman who was praying to herself near an abortion clinic. English courts have seen criminalized “toxic ideologies” as part of this crackdown on free speech.
I have opposed those laws. Yet, this incident illustrates the arbitrary enforcement of such laws. The police simply ignored the anti-Semitic comments being leveled at Falter and confronted him on being openly Jewish. That is not to say that I favor the enforcement of criminal speech laws. Rather, it shows the added danger of such laws in their selective enforcement.
USC Controversy And Turley’s Man In London
USC is barring valedictorian Asna Tabassum from speaking at its May 10 commencement — a first in the university’s 143-year history — over unspecified safety threats, Provost Andrew T. Guzman announced in a campus-wide letter Tuesday.
The move came after pro-Israel groups criticized Tabassum for a link on her Instagram profile directing people to a pro-Palestinian website.
Groups on and off campus say the site is evidence that the graduating senior is antisemitic, which Tabassum denied in an interview with The Times.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-18/usc-protest-valedictorian-cancelation
……………………………………………..
This would seem to be a Made-For-Turley controversy. A valedictorian is barred from speaking at commencement because some regard her views as antisemitic. What’s the free speech angle here??
This article contains a surprising twist with regards to Turley’s column today. Pro-Palestinian students supporting Tabassum staged a silent march on campus to protest her exclusion from commencement ceremonies.
Yet two Jewish students, opposed to Tabassum’s views, felt no need to counter-protest. Here are their comments from the article:
***
Prior to the on-campus demonstration, Sabrina Jahan, a pro-Israel Jewish student involved in the Chabad Jewish Center at USC, said she would avoid the area near Thursday’s protest.
“I don’t see me showing up to this silent protest as something that will be productive for either side,” Jahan said.
Sarah Schornstein, a Jewish graduate student who was on campus Thursday, said she was also avoiding the protest.
“I’m a free speech absolutist,” said Schornstein, who studies public diplomacy.
“I agree that she (Tabassum) linked to things that were clearly antisemitic — a page calling for the dissolution of Israel,” she said of Tabassum. “But ultimately, we don’t know what she was going to say” at graduation.
…………………………………..
This brings us back to Gideon Falter, Turley’s man in London. The police offered to escort him away from the pro-Palestinian protesters. But Falter apparently felt an urgent need to ‘mingle’ with protesters to the annoyance of police.
This is a rebutal to your arguments by the former head of the ACLU a very liberal democrat.
https://youtu.be/Kypokn111hU
Turdrunner returns to explain to all of us what free speech is. Arent we so fortunate to hear his wisdom every day?
Its no small wonder that he isnt the one whose opinions people value and JT isnt the one posting sundowners no sense on a blog.
What a douche.
A valedictorian is not speaking for herself, she’s speaking for her class and for the school, and it’s completely standard for schools to vet speeches beforehand. In this case even if she handed in her speech beforehand they could almost guarantee that she would change it on the spot to throw in antisemitic proclamations.
Can you imagine any school allowing a known white supremacist to be valedictorian and trust them not to say things like “All black people should be rounded up and deported back to Africa, or else returned to slavery”? Of course not. If they did and she said something like that they would be in deep sh*t with the parents, the other students, and the DOE. So how is this different? She’s still free to express her nazi views on her own dime and in a traditional public forum, such as a street, so long as she doesn’t block it.
So I wonder what would happen if a group of Jews staged a pro-Israel march and an “obviously Muslim” man showed up on the route.
Yeah, that’s what I thought too.
To think that one of the major powers helped defeat Nazis, is now violating the rights of a professing Jew! 360 from being right and now targeting Jews instead of the racist people threatening to kill them! Something is wrong!
360°?
Lest we forget, this “major power” sat on its hands for years while Nazi Germany ramped up their campaign to first disenfranchise then murder Europe’s Jews. Oswego comes to mind.
What exactly should the UK have done about the Nazis’ antisemitic program? How could the UK have interfered with it, and how could it have justified such interference? Finally, what has Oswego, New York, USA got to do with the UK?
Let me guess that you’re completely ignoring the topic, and instead ranting against the USA, as if it had done something wrong in Oswego. For those not following, Oswego was the site of a temporary camp the USA set up for the survivors of a concentration camp liberated in Italy in 1944. The USA kindly brought them here and offered them temporary shelter until the war would be over and they would be able to return home. The USA was not in any way responsible for their plight, so it owed them nothing at all. It had no reason to take them in, even temporarily, except the goodness of some officials’ hearts. But instead of praise for this, all the government got was unfair criticism for not giving them permanent residence, so eventually it caved in and did so. That was nice of it, but it was under no obligation, legal or moral, to do that.
Disturbing the peace is a well used “crime” by American law enforcement.
Disturbing the peace is also an actual crime, one that has existed ever since we’ve had crimes at all. If you’re suggesting that people should never be arrested for it, you’d better explain why, and how that world would work, or be a better place than the one we have now.
I demand “ASYLUM” from illegal alien invaders.
15 Attorneys General Demand Answers From Bank of America, Alleging Lender Shutters Accounts Over Customers’ Religious and Political Views
Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General of Virginia, leads a 15-state Republican coalition alleging the banking giant has a history of “viewpoint-based debanking,” and has one of the worst rap sheets in the business for unbanking clients based on their religious or political stances.
By: Alex Richardson ~ April 21, 2024
https://dailyhodl.com/2024/04/21/15-attorneys-general-demand-answers-from-bank-of-america-alleging-lender-shutters-accounts-over-customers-religious-and-political-views/
New Stablecoin Bill Would Violate Free Speech Rights, Says Crypto Advocacy Group Coin Center
… Coin Center goes on to note that banning decentralized algorithmic stablecoins is no different than banning computer code, which is a violation of the First Amendment. …
By: Mehron Rokhy ~ April 21, 2024
https://dailyhodl.com/2024/04/21/new-stablecoin-bill-would-violate-free-speech-rights-says-crypto-advocacy-group-coin-center/
“It’s the [freedom], stupid!”
– James Carville
___________________
Americans enjoy the 5th Amendment right to private property.
No legislation is constitutional that denies the 5th Amendment right to private property.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
5th Amendment
No person shall…be deprived of…property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
____________________
Take your “dictatorship of the proletariat” elsewhere, comrade.
The American Founders utterly grasped the imperative of gregarious homogeneity and the insuperable impossibility of mixing oil and water and resolved this very problem in 1790, within the year of the adoption of the Constitution, through their immigration law, the Naturalization Act of 1790, which persisted for 74 years and was never legislatively or legally abrogated but extirpated by fire under the invalid and illegitimate “Reign of Terror” of Abraham Lincoln, his successors, and various and several serial adherents who were anathematically and unconstitutionally progressing towards communism. But for the savage, illicit, and unconstitutional violence and brutality of Abraham Lincoln, the pristine, once-free, and exceptional United States of America of its American Founders would exist to this day.
It requires reconstitution.
_____________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Is the next Holocaust here? How is any of this ok in the United States of America?
“@sahar_tartak
Tonight at Yale, I was assaulted by a student today at an anti-Israel protest. He stabbed me in the eye with a Palestinian flag. Now I’m in the hospital. This is what happens when visibly Jewish students try to attend and document these rallies.”
“@AvivaKlompas
Right now @Columbia University. The pro-terror mob screams that “resistance is justified”
Jewish students were advised earlier today to leave campus to ensure their security. The administration has lost control.”
“My husband and (freshman) daughter felt like refugees fleeing a war zone”…. at Columbia University campus 116th and Amsterdam, NYC.
You are dealing with mental illness here, in the first part the Jew wanting to be in a dangerous situation, and secondly the cop was trying to protect him and the little schmuck decided to make trouble for the cop. WTF is wrong with these people?
For thousands of years the Jews have been killed, persecuted, and enslaved. Most notably “Kristallnacht” in 1938 and the execution of 6 million Jews that continued through 1945. Most recently, the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7th, 2023. The Jews are a smart and resourceful people. They have learned that appeasement does not work.
Obviously, you are with the crowds of antisemitic thugs, and get a thrill out of trying to destroy innocent people. Makes you feel powerful.
Sometimes you have to just stand up to a bully.
I hate the blood of those who persecute and torment the weak and the innocent, do you understand me you Goddamned Christ killer? Look at yourself, every wrong committed against you and your kind since the beginning of time is because you hate the innocent, Christ killer. You have your own self to blame, if you could only see kyke.
What the hell is wrong with you?
Can’t you read retard?
Get help before you get carted off to a padded room.
Mental illness along with homosexuality is a product of incestuous breeding practices, inbreeding. Your kind have been producing children with your sisters and cousins for centuries. Kyke it is a miracle you do not have two heads. You are not one to judge on the subject. Do you read me schmuck?
You’re a fzxcking retard go to hell schmuck. It is your destiny.
You are already in hell, Robert, you angry little troll.
But it is not your destiny.
It doesn’t have to be your final destination.
Stay in hell, or don’t. You get to decide.
No one really cares. Kapiche?
Why was it dangerous, Robert Browning? Would it have been dangerous if it had been a group of, say, Catholics protesting the role of the Jews in the crucifixion of Jesus? Because that was a belief.
And threatening, harming, or killing Jews over it went out of fashion, shall we say, a whole long time ago.
So – do you think a group of modern Catholics quoting from Matthew would have been dangerous to this “openly Jewish” man?
He could have gotten hurt, everybody hates the Jews, cause the Jews hate the innocent ain’t that right Christ killer? There is a problem and the problem is in Jew blood. You hate the innocent.
How amusing (nay, quite tragic) that you hate so-called Christ killers when you are anything but Christian in your behavior. You would have fit right in with Himmler’s boys.
What is wrong with you? The cop was NOT trying to protect him. The cop was trying to avoid his DUTY to protect him. He had the right to go proudly about his business, and it was the cop’s duty to make sure he could do so in perfect safety, and arrest anyone who assaulted him.
What you are saying is EXACTLY THE SAME as saying that a policeman should be able to forcibly prevent a woman from going near people who are likely to rape her, and arrest her if she insists on going there, instead of doing his duty to make sure she can safely go wherever she likes. That is not acceptable when it comes to women; how can it be acceptable when it comes to Jews?
What’s next, arresting black people for daring to show themselves to a Klan rally?!
The theme of this catastrophy appears to be, let the people fight among themselves, while the government remains passive. The police dont even realize they are the pawns. Keep the peace they say. Meanwhile, the very top can enjoy their lives to the fullest. Its all by design. The government in fact, doesnt need to do anything at all.
Jonathan: The job of every English “Bobby” is to preserve the peace. Telling the Jewish protester to “go about your business” was an attempt to avoid any provocation or possible violence. Probably prudent under the circumstances. But the police later apologized and Falter was not arrested. End of story. But here is another story about “antagonizing” right here at home you missed with your apparent obsession with how law enforcement is carried out across the pond. And it directly relates to protests here and in GB over Israel’s brutal killing campaign against Palestinians in Gaza. What’s this about?
USC just decided to rescind an offer to Muslim valedictorian Asma Tabassum to speech at the school’s commencement next month. USC cancelled her speech over unspecified “security concerns”. It appears the real reason USC cancelled the speech was because of complaints by pro-Israel groups who pointed to Tabassum website that said Zionism is a “racist settler-colonial ideology”. The rabbi who runs the Chabad Jewish Center at USC declared that Tabassum’s “social media is antisemitic and hate speech”. USC Provost Andrew Guzman said in a statement this week that there is “no free speech entitlement to speak at a commencement”. He declared that cancellation of Tabassum’s speech “has nothing to do with freedom of speech”.
There have been huge USC student protests over the cancellation of Tabassum’s speech. Even FIRE, who you frequently cite as advocates for “free speech” for conservatives, came out against the cancellation. So the Q for you is this: If a single Jewish protester in London is entitled to express his opposition to pro-Palestinian marchers, shouldn’t Tabassum also be permitted to speak at the USC commencement to express her pro-Palestinian sentiments? Isn’t that what “free speech” is all about?
I love your posts – because they are all so absurdly and transparently stupid.
Is it the job of police British or otherwise to “preserve the peace” ?
Should the colonists at Lexington and Condcorde have gone home lest this “disturb the peace” ?
Regardless, “preserve the peace” is an absurd and obviously false standard – which is why the actual standard is uphold the law.
Why is it absurd ? Is it the the presence of an openly jewish man that this the threat to peace ? or is it the presence of hundreds of pro-hamas protestors that are the threat to peace ?
Where there is a conflcit of ideas – what determines what threatens to disturb the peace ?
Do we decide that by the number of people on either side ?
Was Kristalnacht a legitimate action of the German police – because more people were opposed to Jews than there were jews ?
Do we decide based on which ideas we prefer ? Hamas supports can protest publicly – but Jews must disguise themselves lest Hamas supporters completely lose it ?
The fact is that disturbing the peace is determined by ACTS, not numbers or viewpoint.
While the declaration of Independence is not literally a part of the British tradition – it is part of evolution of western principles of self government that include the magna carte.
The purpose of government is to protect the RIGHTS of the people – peace flows from that.
NOT the other way arround.
Just as the Hamas protestors have the RIGHT to protest – and say whatever stupid things they wish – no matter how distressing that is to the “openly jewish man”, That “openly jewish man” has the Same rights and the protestors.
Emotional distress is YOUR problem. You have no right to live in a world when nothing offends you – even a moron should understand the impossibility of that, and the illegimate and idiotic power that beleiving such nonsense gives you over others and the FACT that conflicts over the excercise of that power can not be resolve without making viewpoint based choices.
The moment emotion becomes the criteria – government MUST chose between viewpoint A and viewpoint B – because all viewpoints distress someone.
Regardless legitimate govenrments purpose is the protection of rights – and emotional tranquiltiy is NOT a right.
The openly jewish man has the same rights to be present as the openly pro hamas protestors.
Neither have a right to tranquility – peace. Emotional or otherwise.
Each has the right to have their actual rights protected from the use of FORCE by the other.
“the peace” is disturbed when people initiate FORCE against those they do not agree with.
Not when their souls fill with hatred for those that disagree with them.
Both the openly jewish man and hamas protestors have the same rights.
What they do not have is the right to initiate FORCE against the other.
The role of the police is not to preserve the peace by preventing unpleasant thoughts.
It is to preserve the peace by thwarting ACTS of violence.
John Say, I am still waiting for you to cite the Constitution for the prohibition of secession.
Apparently, your position is: Because secession is not prohibited by the Constitution, secession is prohibited by the Constitution.
That, in my opinion, is the very definition of “extreme,” if not abjectly irrational.
You wax ad hominem in the complete absence of debate, much less, debate that prevails.
Secession was fully constitutional, and everything Lincoln did after denying the right to secession was similarly unconstitutional, for which Lincoln must have been impeached and convicted for crimes of high office.
_______________________________________
John Say says:
April 21, 2024 at 1:26 AM
George is realtively extreme and some of his reads of the constitution go pretty far beyond the constitution itself.
But he is correct on many of his claims regarding Lincoln. On numerous occasions Lincoln acted totally unconstitutionally.
Nor is he the only president to do so. To a greater or lessor extent – all presidents have done so. But FDR was nearly as egregious as Lincoln, and Biden is extremely bad too.
I still think Lincoln was a great president. But that does not make every decision he made constitutional or necescary.
I have serious questions about how Asma Tabassum became valedictorian – while her academic performance was top of her class at USC – so USC is a very large university and many many students had atleast equal academic performance.
That said – once that decisions was made – Tabassum had the right to speak, and it was WRONG to rescind that.
FIRE is correct in defending her.
FIRE BTW is not a conservative group. It was founded by liberals like Turley – not conservatives. Until very recently Free Speech was a right that was principly defended by liberals and it was conservatives who commonly looked for loopholes – though usually not ones so stupid as hurt feelings.
Today FIRE defends conservaitves more than those on the left like Tabassum because it is far more common TODAY for the free speech rights of conservatives to be infringed on.
Regardless, your complaints about the censorship of Tabassum are correct,
The right to free speech in the US is NEVER constrained by “security concerns”
Nor should it be in the UK.
Just as “openly jewish men”
are free to be present – even speech in public where there are pro-hamas protestors,
So is a openly pro-hamas supporter free to give the speach of her choice when she has earned the position of Valedictorian.
Those who do not like that are free to protest – so long as they do not thwart her ability to speak or impede the ability of those who wish to listen to hear.
The two events you cite are similar in that those in authority BOTH decided WRONGLY.
“Tabassum had the right to speak,”
Making your own definitions now, John Say????
I never realized that USC was part of any government’s executive branch. Who knew?
If the USC valedictorian wishes to speak and claim that the beheading of jewish babies is justified – she must be free to do so.
The right to free speech includes the right to bad speech.
Though USC’s position though wrong is atleast consistent with their censorship of conservative speech.
Which is better than YOUR position that British constables are justified by the possibility that Hamas protestors might attack an openly Jewish man. By YOUR logic – USC is justified in banning Asma Tabassum because her speech might offend others and drive them to violence.
In the US – incitement is PROPERLY treated very very narrowly. Saying things that offend others – wether it is Asma Tabassum of Donald Trump is NOT incitement.
You keep trying to pretend that these Gag orders are justified – because as the courts claim – they MIGHT cause third parties to engage in violence. That is both BS and irrelevant.
Asma Tabassum is not responsible for what others do in her name, nor what others do because she has angered them.
If Trump’s speech angers some right wing loon to try to assassinate Merchan or a juror, or … That is on the Right wing loon NOT Trump.
Conversely if Trump’s speech angers some left wing nut and drives them to do something violent and stupid – that is on THEM Not Trump.
Asma Tabassum is not responsible – absent actual NARROW incitement – for what Hamas supporters do as a result of her words.
She is NOT responsible for what angry Jews might do in response to her words.
She has the RIGHT to free speech.
As does Donald Trump.
While USC is wrong – they are atleast not hypocritical.
YOU are. I absolutely aggree with you – Asma Tabassum has the right to free speech.
So Does Trump. The arguments used to silence Trump are the same ones used to silence Asma Tabassum.
And they are WRONG.
YOU see no problem with gaging Trump but are offended because Asma Tabassum right to free speech is being infringed on.
You are deeply hypocritical.
The british police are.
Judge Merchan is.
Democrats are.
USC surprisinging is wrong but not hypocritical.
FIRE is not.
I am not.
Turley is not.
Most but not all conservatives are not.
All very interesting sentiments…, but the 1st amendment protects the right to criticize the government. Not much else. Educational institutions, blogs, other entities pretty close to being on the ‘town square’ all have the right to censor content. Turley has taken advantage of that here on his blog.
John Say: We finally agree on something–Tobassum has the right to free speech. Beyond that not so much.
First, conflating one thing with something entirely different is your only strong suit. You can’t compare Tobassum’s situation with that of DJT. She is not a CRIMINAL DEFENDANT. DJT is. DJT is not free to move around freely. Tobassum can. DJT has to be in court every day. DJT can’t attend the graduation of his son without permission of Justice Merchan. Those were the terms of DJT’s bail as a CRIMINAL DEFENDANT. And as such DJT is subject to a gag order that prevents him from attacking and intimidating witnesses, jurors and family members of court personnel. If he violates the gag order, which he has done many times, he can be fined or put in jail for a night until he gets the message. Justice Merchan is holding a hearing next week to consider prosecutors request to sanction DJT.
You think, like the rest of the MAGA crowd, that DJT is “special”–he should be treated differently because he is a former president and he is running again. FALSE. DJT is a CRIMINAL DEFENDANT like any other. He has the same rights and limits on his freedom as any other CRIMINAL DEFENDANT. Of course, you would know that had you gone to law school!
GFY you deranged leftist lunatic
And I mean really….G….F….Y….
We are DONE with leftist brainwashed deranged lunatics like you….
Your brain is a wastebasket of utter stupidity. It’s outrageous to behold the idiocy of people like you.
You are too stupid to be allowed to vote in our elections!
Since you are too stupid and dense to understand what is happening, here is a summary:
This is not a real case.
This is not an impartial judge.
This is not a real trial.
There is no real crime.
This is a COMMUNIST SHOW TRIAL & ELECTION INTERFERENCE!
WTF is the matter with you?
Joe Biden is too demented to stand trial for HIS crimes but he is fine and dandy to run the country AND run for reelection?
Again, WTF is the matter with you? Wake the F up you dumFcuK.
If you are indeed a real person, then you and your like-minded wife, have to be two of the MOST insufferable, unbearable lefty loons to be around….maybe ever. I mean really: unbearable stupidity!
You went to law school? You say you are a lawyer. Educated. With advanced education and presumably the “intellect” to understand things, especially the justice system and the law. But OMG that is laughable because you are so utterly beyond stupid — typical leftist moron. You are too stupid to engage with. Unable to THINK. You are irrational beyond idiocy. God help anyone who ever had to deal with you as their, god-forbid: lawyer. Unbelievable idiocy.
Judge Merchan, not Justice Merchan.
The words Merchan and Justice should never be used together in the same sentence.
“John Say: We finally agree on something–Tobassum has the right to free speech. Beyond that not so much.”
Dennis the douche proves once again why he rarely engages in anything other than his Vox cut and pastes. He is an idiot.
Free speech doesnt entitle you to speak wherever and whenever you want, dum dum.
“If the USC valedictorian wishes to speak and claim that the beheading of jewish babies is justified – she must be free to do so.”
She has every right to do so. On the street corner.
If she were to use her valedictorian speech time to mouth the same trash that we’re hearing from pro-“Palestinians” voices everywhere, then what a waste of a great and solemn moment in her and her fellow students’ lives… but yes, I fully support her being reinstated as speaker.
How else are future employers, spouses, and friends going to know where she stands?
Obviously, there are differences. Couple things: (1) people go to a graduation–many don’t want to hear about politics. They want to celebrate their kid etc. etc. Not saying this means that they should have stopped her from speaking. (2) You elide over the problem–the cops presumed animosity at the Jewish guy simply because he was “obviously” Jewish.
So you’re dead wrong about “end of story.”
DJT stock is up to 38. Trump’s networth is 6.4B again. The stock will likely be volatile for sometime.
But it is likely that it will ultimately settle higher than it is now.
Both Avenatti and Trump sources have confirmed that they are considering calling Avenatti to testify.
Avenatti has claimed – and now several left talking heads are reporting that Clifford approached Trump not the other way arround – that makes Cliffords actions extortion – which is a crime.
There is also a rumor that Cohen not Trump was having the affair with Daniels. I doubt that is true – but who knows.
Democrats are now talking about how they will deal with a hung jury – suggesting that Bragg does not think Jury selection went well.
Biden on multiple occasions this week has claimed his uncle was eaten by Canables – which New Guinea and DOD have both denied.
A long and growing list of foreign leaders are coming to visit Trump – indicating their expectation he will be the next president.
Support for Biden improved a bit post SOTU but is dropping again
Braggs opening remarks were delivered by Micheal Coangello – a WH attorney in the Obama administration, Merrit Garlands #3 attorney at DOJ until he left a prestigious position at DOJ to help Smith, then Willis, then James and now he is the lead Attorney on the Brag case – and you REALLY expect that people will beleive this is not political ?
Is Biden personally behind this ? Biden does not likely have enough brain cells still functioning to be “behind this”. But it is clear that the Biden WH is involved, that the Democratic Party is involved, that the Deep State is involved, that it is an illegal political conspiracy.
People are not stupid.
Judge EnMoron presided over James stupid challenge to Trump’s bond where he clearly did not know what he was doing – nor did James.
They wasted more NY Tax Payers money stupidly – the Bond is backed by 175M of Trump’s CASH. It had to be pointed out to EnMoron that the value of CASH does not go “up and down”. Regardless, he tanked James’s efforts to F#$K with the appeal – probably because he did not want biden slapped by the apeals courts AGAIN for stupidly messing in this when he has no jurisdiction.
Opening Remarks in the Trump case confirmed the core of this is Trump’s payments from his PERSONAL accounts for Cohen’s legal fees.
And that Trump did not even deduct these fees from his taxes. The Core of the case is DOA.
The answer to your idiocy is right there in your rant. You quoted it yourself. USC Provost Andrew Guzman correctly said that there is “no free speech entitlement to speak at a commencement”. How is that not a complete refutation of everything you wrote?
Do you claim that there is such an entitlement?!
And how can you compare it to someone who was forcibly prevented from going about his lawful business, which he had every right to do, just because he looked “too Jewish”?
This Tabassum is not seeking to go about her lawful business, nor is she an innocent person whom nobody should have any reason to threaten. She’s a Nazi, no different from a KKK supporter. She’s entitled to express her vile views on a public street, but not while giving a speech on behalf of her school, at an official school function, where she is required to reflect its views, not her own. No college would ever contemplate allowing a known white supremacist to use its platform to call for lynching black people, and no one would accuse it of violating the first amendment for not allowing it.
So many incrementally pushing and prodding society that, eventually, a more intense and enduring ‘summer of love’ will be born.
Few police forces are more vile and loathsome and fascist than British or Canadian.
Nothing to see here. Carry on. (as Monty Python would reply)
@Okeydoker
In 2024, few Western countries are more loathsome than those two. They are an object lesson for all of us.
The UK has a war on kippahs but Biden’s US Govt has a pedophile driven war targeting young women and girls. The UK and Europe have abandoned the ideology of trans gender identity especially as a minor. They changes their stance not only bc of lack of supporting scientific evidence, but recent scientific evidence proves it is all irreversible. Yet Biden’s handlers refuse to cede to evidenced based data, choosing instead to govern as deranged cultists.
Jews are feeling the threats to their lives in both the UK and America. In America young women and girls have suffered tremendously in govt schools and public spaces by deranged men wearing skirts and bad makeup. Women athletics aside, e.g. university swimmer Riley Gaines, Biden’s purposeful targeting and sexualizing of children, their pushing of sex changed hormones in prepubescent children, giving them autonomy as minors, and rallying for surgical sex changes, are far worse than what the Aztecs and Incas did in sacrificing young virgins.
Title IX was just changed by Biden’s government on Friday, where the protection of women and young girls have been set back decades. No parent should put up with this. The children are in the crosshairs of Biden’s high priests.
U.S. Department of Education Releases Final Title IX Regulations, Providing Vital Protections Against Sex Discrimination
APRIL 19, 2024
Protect against all sex-based harassment and discrimination. The final rule protects all students and employees from all sex discrimination prohibited under Title IX, including by restoring and strengthening full protection from sexual violence and other sex-based harassment. The rule clarifies the steps a school must take to protect students, employees, and applicants from discrimination based on pregnancy or related conditions. And the rule protects against discrimination based on sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics.
https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-final-title-ix-regulations-providing-vital-protections-against-sex-discrimination
Not just in the UK your rights are what politicians allow you to exercise.
ABC This Week: Retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer on Deciding Difficult Cases
By: Jonathan Karl – ABC News ~ April 21, 2024
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-4-21-24-rep-michael-mccaul/story?id=109467414
—
JONATHAN KARL: That was President Biden and Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, speaking following Breyer’s 2022 announcement that he was retiring. Justice Breyer is out with a new book titled Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, not Textualism. And Justice Breyer joins me now right here in the studio. Thank you for joining us.
STEPHEN BREYER: Well, thank you very much.
KARL: So let me get right at the thesis of the book. You make the case in this fascinating book, sweeping history of the Supreme Court, that justices should consider the practical consequences of a decision such as how those affected by the decision will react. How do you, how does that work in practice?
BREYER: In practice, you do your best to figure out what’s going to happen. When it’s most likely to play a major role is when you look at the words of the Constitution and they don’t tell you the answer. Look at the words of a statute. They don’t tell you the answer. And so people, forever, since Chief Justice Marshall in 18-whatever it was, and, Holmes and Brandeis, they say, look at, somebody wrote those words. They had a reason and you’re, you interpret them.
KARL: Because, as you know, there’s, there’s an argument that you, that a Justice has to stay within the, the four corners of what’s written on that page. Let’s look at, for instance, in the, in the Dobbs decision, what Justice Alito wrote, “we do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision, overruling Roe v–Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we will have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision.” Why is he wrong?
BREYER: Really? Because, well, let me give you a very simple case. You may know that if you have a person who has a child who’s handicapped, the school board has to give that child a good education. And if the mother or father think not, they can bring a lawsuit. And if they win that lawsuit, the statute says they’re entitled to their costs. And that was the case. Costs. Does cost include the cost of an educational expert? $29,000? Or does it just mean legal costs? So I say here, why don’t you try this, Mister Textualist? Say it loud. Cost! Now do you know the answer? Say it twice. Cost, cost. Three times. Cost, cost, cost. doesn’t tell you. So the other things the judges have always looked to too. Who wrote those words and what did they have in mind? What was Congress trying to do? What are the consequences if you go one way rather than another way? How does it fit into a set of values that begins with the Constitution? Judges have always done that kind of thing, and it is part of the role of interpreting, a statute or the Constitution.
KARL: So let me ask you, though, as a Justice, when you’re going through, a high profile controversial case, are you hearing the noise outside? I mean, I guess literally the protests outside the court, but more, more broadly, are you gauging and thinking about how the world is going to react, how the country is going to react to your decision?
BREYER: Yes, I would say that’s in your mind.
KARL: And how, how do you do that? Are you how–
BREYER: And when you say, does that lead, does that lead to your deciding x rather than not x?
KARL: Yeah.
BREYER: Well I can never say never, but rarely. Paul Freund. Professor, great professor, constitutional law said of the role of politics in the courts, in any court. He says no judge. No judge should or will be moved by the temperature of the day, but every judge will be aware of the climate of the season.
KARL: So what about our time now, which the political system seems hopelessly divided. The court seems to reflect that division.
BREYER: Hard to say. It’s a different, it’s a very complex institution. And where I think the politics that I’ve seen, I’ve not seen politics in the court. And I’ve been a judge for 40 years. I have not seen-
KARL: You have not seen politics in the Court.
BREYER: Not politics in the sense in which I understood that word when I worked for Senator Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, when he was a senator.
KARL: Yeah.
BREYER: And I worked there for a few years. But, you get a phone call. Mayor of Worcester. Same time. Secretary of Defense. Which call will Senator Kennedy take first?
KARL: Mayor of Worcester.
BREYER: Of course. It’s politics. Of course. Of course. I mean, politics was “how popular is this? How unpopular is that? How are we going to get the Republicans to go long, possibly, or some Democrats too. How do we get all the people to the Senate meetings? Where do you want to stand when you’re running for election and and and and.” No, that isn’t there. That just isn’t there.
KARL: So how important it was for the Supreme Court when they ruled in the Colorado case about whether or not Trump could be on the ballot, that that was a unanimous decision.
BREYER: How important was it?
KARL: Yeah.
BREYER: Well, don’t talk about that case because you’ll know more about it than me because that’s after I left the court. But in general, that is a very interesting question for me because, it’s very tempting once you’ve written a dissent. Even from a denial of a refusal to hear a case. Yeah, you’ve written the dissent. Your real audience is the other judges but if you fail at that, now you’ve written it, why not let the country have the virtue of seeing your–no, said Holmes. No said, Taft. And Taft said it’s just ego. Keep it. You can, you can join the opinion even though you don’t agree with it. And they did a lot in the Taft court. So I always thought, well, it doesn’t hurt to publish these things. It puts out another point of view. It shows people which they would believe anyway, that not everybody’s in agreement. But there’s also something to be said to try to keep down the extent to which you publicly reveal the disagreement.
KARL: Would the justices ever do the kind of horse trading we see in Congress? I mean, I don’t mean to be crass about this, but you have two cases.
BREYER: No.
KARL: For the court that could determine the presidential election. Decide one it looks better for Donald Trump, the ballot access issue. One, absolute immunity that doesn’t serve his purposes. And they both come out, send the country a message.
BREYER: I mean, I mean, you look, it may be that you can find a compromise in the conference or a way of approaching things in the conference that will, in fact, solve a number of problems. And that could be one of the problems.
KARL: It would be a very powerful message to the country to see. Two nine-o decisions that can’t be broken down into straight political lines.
BREYER: No, the second–Sandra O’Connor, used to say this, the first unwritten rule is nobody speaks twice ‘til everyone speaks once. Second unwritten rule, tomorrow is another day. You and I were the greatest of allies on case one. Case two. We’re absolutely at loggerheads. So.
KARL: But they are looking to how the country is going to, going to receive these decisions.
BREYER: Be careful in saying that. I want to, say no, I want to say no, but I can’t say no, never. I mean, you’re up there in that. You’re up there in that building which I can see a picture of. And, and in that building, you are making decisions that will affect people. Of course, knowing that a lot of people are going to read a case leads me to write, if it’s my opinion to write, use certain language that is easy to understand and spend a lot of time trying to explain why.
KARL: And you don’t want to contribute to the political divide in the country?
BREYER: No, God of course not. But, you’re looking for, for an easy answer. When I’m not being coy and saying, no, there aren’t easy answers.
-30-
𝕏 Video Link:
By: Jonathan Karl – ABC News ~ April 21, 2024
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1782065268195246081/vid/avc1/1280×720/KUZGPuQpyUha2cFL.mp4?tag=16
Retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer: ‘I’ve not seen politics in the court’
In an extended conversation with “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl, retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer discusses his judicial philosophy and his new book, “Reading the Constitution.”
April 21, 2024
https://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/retired-supreme-court-justice-stephen-breyer-ive-politics-109474983
Anonymous: Thx for posting the interview with Breyer. I saw the video. We need more Breyers on the Court!
This is just stupid. NOBODY HAS EVER CLAIMED that every single question can always be answered simply by looking at the text. Sometimes the text is genuinely ambiguous or genuinely silent, and you have to either look elsewhere to figure out what it means, or simply say that the meaning of this clause cannot be determined with any certainty. What you have no right to do is to impose your own preferences, and decide that the law is what you wish it were. Nor do you have any right to deliberately create ambiguity where the text is clear, just so you can have an excuse to ignore the text and do what you want.
Here’s an example of how the current court has handled a similar question: In Bruen the court said that the constitution’s prohibition on infringing the right to keep and bear arms is absolute, but that doesn’t tell us what is an infringement. It’s clear that not all restrictions are infringements, so how are we to know which ones are and which aren’t? So rather than just say “any law I don’t like is an infringement and any law I do like is not”, the court said we have to admit that we have no ingrained knowledge of how to recognize an infringement, but people long ago did know. And if we find a restriction that those people were fine with, that’s a good indication that it’s not an infringement, so we can decide that similar restrictions nowadays are not infringements either. If we can’t find such a historical restriction, then all we can say is that we don’t know, but the presumption is strongly against it, so we can’t allow it.
‘She is responsible for her own rape because she wore provocative attire.’
Am I doing this right?
No. I think for you to make the proper analogy, it would be that the police told her she can’t go into a bar or on a date where a large group of people chanting and holding signs indicating that provocative attire is wrong and rape is right while she is wearing provocative attire because of a high risk of that outcome.
Yes. And if she insists that she refuses to change her plans or deprive herself of something she is entitled to just because there are criminals who threaten her, any policeman who threatens her with arrest should be fired. It would be the police’s DUTY to escort her into the bar and arrest anyone who attacks her, even if there are 100 of them, or 1000.
More evidence that The Law no longer represents Justice and has become not only a joke, but the enemy of Freedom and Liberty. The Law no longer commands, deserves or requires respect or obedience. Once weaponized, it becomes a tool of tyranny.
Weaponized tyranny, it is indeed.
Loren Merchan, judge Merchan’s daughter, has raised nearly $100 million off her father’s criminal trial.
She’s profiting massively from this thing. And the judge sits there, literally destroying public confidence in the Justice ‘system’ as he asserts his partisan power over President Trump, whom he despises, because he can. Who is going to stop the judge? Waiting for the appeals process to ‘work’ is too late. Merchan is aiding and abetting Democrats in doing the intended political damage now. Destroying faith in the judicial system is necessary collateral damage for the good of The Party. It’s disgusting.
No one will stop them. And they know it. Merchan, Bragg, Colangelo, et al, are aided and abetted by the corrupt media that treat this Trump trial, and this ethically conflicted, biased judge, as if this is a fair judge, presiding over a real case, over a real crime, and not the brazen election interference, Communist show trial that it is.
Loren Merchan, judge Merchan’s daughter, has raised nearly $100 million off her father’s criminal trial.
Says who? What is your source for that incredible allegation? I think you’re just making it up and pulling it out of your rear entrance.
Certainly according to what he told the Judicial Advisory Committee, she does not stand to make any money at all from the trial’s outcome.
Mattias Desmet is on a book tour and this essay about the political and social history of modetn-day Slovenia explains where we in the West are headed.
Milosevic rose to power in the second part of the eighties. He was a radical fascist at that time. To change the financial system of Yugoslavia, he realized, Yugoslavia’s social coherence had to be broken. He and the people who supported him realized that the only way to destroy Yugoslavia was to destroy it from within. This was the most obvious strategy to do so: to stir up hatred between the Muslims, Orthodox and Christians who coexisted under Tito.
Interesting that you never see the London police asking Pro-Palestinian marchers to move away from a Jewish person. England has fallen…..