Hillary Clinton is continuing her global efforts to get countries, including the United States, to crackdown on opposing views. Clinton went on CNN to lament the continued resistance to censorship and to call upon Congress to limit free speech. In pushing her latest book, “Something Lost and Something Gained,” Clinton amplified on her warnings about the dangers of free speech. What is clear is that the gain of greater power for leaders like Clinton would be the loss of free speech for ordinary citizens.
Clinton heralded the growing anti-free speech movement and noted that “there are people who are championing it, but it’s been a long and difficult road to getting anything done.” She is right, of course. As I discuss in my book, the challenge for anti-free speech champions like Clinton is that it is not easy to convince a free people to give up their freedom.
That is why figures like Clinton are going “old school” and turning to government or corporations to simply crackdown on citizens. One of the lowest moments came after Elon Musk bought Twitter on a pledge to restore free speech protections, Clinton called upon European officials to force Elon Musk to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA). This is a former democratic presidential nominee calling upon Europeans to force the censorship of Americans.
She was joined recently by another former democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, who called for government crackdowns on free speech.
Other democrats have praised Brazil for banning X. For her part, Clinton praised the anti-free speech efforts in California and New York and called for the rest of the country to replicate the approach of those states.
Clinton added a particularly illuminating line that said the quiet part out loud. This is all about power and the fear that she and others will “lose control” over speech:
“Whether it’s Facebook or Twitter or X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content we lose total control and it’s not just the social and psychological effects it’s real harm, it’s child porn and threats of violence, things that are terribly dangerous.”
Clinton continues to offer a textbook example of the anti-free speech narrative. While seeking sweeping censorship for anything deemed disinformation, Clinton cites specific examples that are already barred under federal law like child porn.
Despite the amplified message on sites like CNN, most citizens may not be as aggrieved as Clinton that she and her allies could “lose total control” over the Internet. The greater fear is that she and her allies could regain control of social media. The Internet is the single greatest invention for free speech since the printing press. That is precisely why figures like Clinton are panicked over the inability to control it.
If citizens remain true to their values and this indispensable right, Clinton will hopefully continue to face “a long and difficult road to getting anything done” in limiting the free speech of her fellow citizens.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Matt Taibbi: How to Fight Back Against the Censors
https://www.thefp.com/p/matt-taibbi-censorship-free-speech-rescue-the-republic
Another great article by Matt Taibbi. Thank you for an other insightful post.
From Upstate SC
Government is NOT supposed to have “total control”
In fact it is supposed to have the least control that is consistent with maximum freedom.
The purpose of government is to limit SOME of our freedom to actualize ALL of our freedom.
We restrict the freedom to use violence because the use of violence reduces the freedom of others.
Clinton noted that extreme free speech would result in child pornography and incitement to violence on Social Media.
Those SPECIFIC restrictions on free speech are near universally accepted.
Conversely though restrictions on information based on the alleged lack of truth of that information – have been very uncommon, never worked and faced significant opposition.
The right to free speech is more than a human aspiration, it is more than a human right, it is a major factor in human success.
societies with greater freedom – particularly greater freedom of expression end up with higher standards of living.
“ Clinton noted that extreme free speech would result in child pornography and incitement to violence on Social Media.
Those SPECIFIC restrictions on free speech are near universally accepted.”
It’s important to note that Turley consistently ignores crucial distinctions to portray Hillary as a tyrant. He fails to emphasize the difference between inciting violence and protected speech, allowing his readers to reach false conclusions. In the EU, inciting speech and speech itself are considered acts of violence if they encourage, promote, or imply violence against others or property. Speech that directly calls for or encourages violence with the intent to inspire others to do the same is not protected speech. Turley’s failure to distinguish these differences reveals his intention to unfairly portray anyone on the left calling for accountability and moderation of harmful speech.
It’s essential to recognize that the government mandates warnings on everyday products like toys, electrical appliances, and cars. Social media should be subject to similar regulations, particularly when it comes to content credibility, deep fakes, and unfounded claims. Holding those who purposefully lie for malicious reasons accountable for their speech, especially if it causes harm or incites violence, is a complex issue but still necessary. While the government may not enforce these limits, it can certainly encourage private companies to adopt stricter content moderation without crossing into censorship.
Turley’s own stance on government intervention is hypocritical, as seen in his book where he proposes government legislation or defunding of private ranking companies that deem conservative or libertarian sites unfavorable. This reveals his anti-free speech position regarding these companies, highlighting his blatant hypocrisy.
Mrs. Bill is a tyrant- wanabee! She was not much but a politician’s wife – one who first made certain the $$ flowed to them, then was nothing more than first “wifey” in Arkansas and the USA WhiteHouse, went on to use hubby’s Clinton name to get into the Senate and disgrace the USA’s Secretary of State job and lastly (despite so many ghastly efforts) lost her campaign to have another Clinton in the WhiteHouse. So many books to write … so much $$ to be made at the hands of FOOLS who buy those books – the same, probably, who voted for her either because of the “D” tag or because she is a woman. Lastly, she could not “control” the lusts of her spouse, so she has moved on to control the speech of her countrymen.
George – Why do we have to continue to play wack-a-mole with these idiotic arguments.
Yes, there are distinctions between US and UK/EU speech laws.
We see the consequences of those differences across the EU/UK all the time – and the results are nearly always BAD.
As Douglas Murray, and John Clease have pointed out repeatedly – the result is radically disparate use of the law.
Neither Murray nor Clease are ever likely to face consequences for their words, even JK Rowley has stood up to Scotch laws restricting speech without consequence.
Atleast in the short term affluent people – even those opposing the govenrment are unlikely to face consequences for their speech.
But a relatively unknown woman standing in front of an abortion clinic praying silently will go to jail.
Where you like it or not – the UK/EU laws DO NOT WORK.
They result in the rule of man not law.
And that undermines the rule of law, as well as trust in and the legitimacy of government.
In the US we have spent 250 years working out the rule of law regarding free speech – which you seek to throw away for a european model which does not work, and results in politically weaponizing government power against opponents.
THAT is precisely what Clinton wants.
And that is what we are opposing.
As to US speech law – is it perfect ? Probably not. But it is far better than that of the EU/UK.
Further it WORKS.
Government restrictions on speech are extremely rare and extremely narrow.
Most of us decry Sen. MacCarthy’s efforts to weaponize government against people over speech and ideology – that despite the FACT that communism – socialism are a reprehensible and immoral ideology that always results in harm and usually results in bloodshed.
Hillary, democrats, the woke and the left make Sen. MacCarthy look harmless.
“Turley’s own stance on government intervention is hypocritical”
That claim would be more meaningful if you actually KNEW what Turley’s stance was – which is especially disturbing as he writes about it all the time.
“as seen in his book”
Have you read the book ? I doubt it because you have not read his posts here.
“where he proposes government legislation or defunding of private ranking companies that deem conservative or libertarian sites unfavorable.”
Turley does not propose – the constitution requires that government not engage in censorship – directly or by proxy.
I would note that if Government is paying you to do its business – you are NOT a private company acting privately -= you are a government agent.
I would note the issue has NOTHING to do with conservatives.
Government may not participate in censoring free speech directly or indirectly.
It may not do so through private companies – even if those companies MAY be able to do so themselves.
With respect top private companies NOT funded by government, those are subject to:
Loss of credibility in the marketplace – and “defunding” by boycott.
Tort claims for defamation for fraudulent rating.
Tortuous interferance in contract claims for inducing parties to a contract into breaching that contract.
They are far less likely to be subect to these constraints if they are accurate and truthful.
Thus far that has not been the case.
“This reveals his anti-free speech position regarding these companies, highlighting his blatant hypocrisy.”
How would opposing government funding of government actors trying to create a loophole to the constitutional prohibition against government censorship be either anti-free speech or hypocritical ?
Your argument seems to be that anyone can defame anyone else to their actual harm – and that is still free speech
That government can seek to supress speech through third parties – and that is still free speech ?
Logic is not your forte.
John Say,
Well said.
Two things are glaringly evident here.
First, exactly like Democrat presidents and their administrations engaging in Lavarentiy Beria style police state fascist lawfare, when Democrats censor and attempt to criminalize opposing speech, Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Obama, etc are supremely confident that what they do when in power to their political enemies (and citizens) who stand in their way will NEVER be used in the same manner against them when they’re out of power.
History shows this to be true: Republicans have never engaged in similar machinations anything remotely like the Democrats’ “Russia Dossier” or two Soviet style impeachments. One conducted behind closed doors with a defense prohibited, or the second one conducted long after their target had left office.
Whether Republicans reject doing the same when in power hoping the media will like them, or they hope that they can win elections by occupying the moral high ground, there is absolutely no deterrence to Democrats going further and further every time they hold power.
They have nothing to fear, just like a schoolyard or bar room bully that knows nobody is going to first kick him in the balls and then in the teeth when they hit the ground. Democrats and bullies will do whatever they want when they know it will only be their victims blood on the ground, none of theirs.
Second, as always Professor Turley can describe (as Missing In Action Biden does), ‘you know… the thing’. However, he is completely incapable of naming his fellow Democrats: Merrick Garland, Clinton, Obama, Biden, Pelosi, et al what they so obviously are.
Police state fascists and totalitarians.
And they went down that road long before Trump entered politics and BBBBUUTTTTT…. MUH TRUMP! became the excuse they and their handmaiden propagandists in the mainstream media and here on Professor Turley’s blog use as their excuse.
They and their handmaiden culls were calling Reagan and both of the Bush’s “literally Hitler”, long before Trump ever ran for office. They were waging lawfare against Republican senators and potential presidential nominees long before Trump ran for office – Jack Smith’s first performance in that role as their weapon.
Professor Turley, as a writer, you might find some inspiration from another constitutional scholar and author (and seven-time #1 New York Times bestselling author) who has also dealt with this while working on constitutional issues for a previous Attorney General:
The Democrat Party Hates America
https://www.amazon.com/Democrat-Party-Hates-America/dp/150118315X
American Marxism
https://www.amazon.com/American-Marxism-Mark-R-Levin/dp/150113597X
Pages of links to the source material; facts rather than theories and emotions. Should be easy reading for anyone who is familiar with the halls of academia.
Total control? Does it occur to Clinton (pick one) or Kerry that they don’t now have, nor ever in the past have had, total control? Even during times of heaviest government censorship there are people who refuse to be controlled. These are sometimes people who advocate destructive ideas and false narratives, but one has to admire their persistence.
* Republicans should show the dems how to really cheat in an election. BTW how are the hurricane victims going to vote? There are no polling places, no post offices left. Guess they don’t vote. Bizarre
Well there’s still the cemetery voters. A voter block known to lean 100% leftist. Not so bizarre.
* and the moved to a different location 💯 left.
* and that studio apt address with 100 people living in it 💯 left
You notice that the DemonRats don’t seem to care about anything that is going on in western NC, including the rights of the voters. Sad state of affairs, isn’t it?
“We lose total control” implies that they have almost total control already, which seems true based on how the legacy media all mysteriously have the exact same talking points at the exact same time.
The media all said Biden was “sharp as a tack” right before the debate where it became obvious to the public that he has serious dementia.
Then they tossed out Biden against his will, like an old newspaper, and installed Kamala as the candidate, even though no one in the Democratic primary voted for her. Super shady and undemocratic!
Yeah … news flash, Hilary, you’re not supposed to have total control!!
— Elon Musk
Mrs. Clinton: “We lose total control” . . . wait a minute . . . isn’t that the point! Isn’t that precisely what the Constitution was designed to do?
If these Socialists are worried about, losing control . . . I say . . . mission accomplished Mr. Madison!
Macbeth – Act 1, scene 3
BANQUO
“Were such things here as we do speak about?
Or have we eaten on the insane root
That takes the reason prisoner?”
Another aspect of speech but this is worse than denying your free speech, it is forcing your speech and forcing your mind to comply!
“Victory for Virginia French teacher who refused to use trans pronouns as he gets payout from school that fired him”
“A French teacher who refused to use a transgender student’s pronouns has reached a staggering $575,000 settlement with the Virginia school that fired him.
Peter Vlaming, who taught at West Point High School for around seven years, was fired in 2019 after he declined to use he/him pronouns for a pupil who had transitioned. ”
https://www.btimesonline.com/articles/169704/20241003/virginia-school-district-settles-for-575-000-after-teacher-refuses-trans-pronouns-on-religious-grounds.htm
Why would anyone have expected otherwise.
The bar against compelled speech is even higher than that against free speech.
If there were not free speech, we might still not know the extent to which Mrs. Clinton went trying to become president. Also, we would not know about the “home-government” computer hook up she had, And, we would not know about the sale of uranium to Russia. Of course, she wants censorship of opposing ideas and opinions. Bless her heart.
Or her Russia!, Russia!, Russia! screaming. Well said, JEG
We all know how much Turley hates censorship. Oddly he has not commented at all on Desantis threatening criminal prosecution on those who air pro-choice ads about the amendment.
https://meidasnews.com/news/desantis-threatens-to-prosecute-stations-running-ads-for-abortion-amendment
Oh wait, Desantis is a Republican. They are allowed to censor.
And don’t forget the thousands of books banned by right wing people. And no, the vast majority are not even close to pornography. The books depict life that many on the right wish to outlaw. Banning the books is the first step in banning lifestyles they disapprove of.
And many, such as Huck Finn or anti-youth trans treated similarly by the left. Someone has to choose what books to include in a library.
This is nearly always – right or left about elementary school libraries.
These have a few thousand books at most that are supposed to be age appropriate and contribute to the education of the children.
Further I know this is difficult for left wing nuts – but with very few exceptions raising and educating children is the domain of PARENTS
While we should eliminate public schools. As we still have them, they are constrained by the wishes of parents.
“ Further I know this is difficult for left wing nuts – but with very few exceptions raising and educating children is the domain of PARENTS”
I assume you also agree that it’s the responsibility of parents to make decisions about the medical needs of their children, including treatments and counseling for gender dysphoria, which may include surgery.
I bring this up because it seems like the government is interfering in these decisions due to objections from others who disagree with parents making these choices for their children. I assume you oppose laws that ban transgender care or treatment for gender dysphoria.
Further I know this is difficult for left wing nuts – but with very few exceptions raising and educating children is the domain of PARENTS”
So if you don’t want your child to read a book, instruct your child not to read a book. But what gives you the right to take books away from parents that want their4 child to have access to books?
It is people like you that are censoring.
Oh I know, you are just protecting your little wee ones from the horrors of reality. Please, get a life and leave my kids alone.
He can’t leave the kids alone. He isn’t right in the head.
* it is a form of pedophilia actually.
And don’t forget the thousands of books banned by right wing people.
A “right wing” government banning books must surely provide a list of the books that retailers are prohibited from selling. How else would you know of this if that list didn’t exist?
Why is it that Democrats refuse to provide a link to these “banned books” that are prohibited from being sold by Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc.?
Is it because they’re Democrat liars and no such lists of banned books exists?
You can buy this one from Amazon and elsewhere. But read aloud from it to a Democrat school board and they’ll ban your right to read it to them in public while they want to put it in elementary schools.
Gender Queer: A Memoir
https://www.amazon.com/Gender-Queer-Memoir-Maia-Kobabe/dp/1549304003
“Kobabe’s wbook focuses on themes of identity, sexuality, anti-fascism, fairy tales, and bonding with friends over erotic gay fiction”
ATS – there is a long list of books that people have sought to ban in school libraries over the past century.
That is NOT last year, or even the last decade.
Many of those efforts were by the LEFT – not the right.
AS an example it is the LEFT that has repeatedly sought to ban the works of mark twain.
NONE of these efforts sought to ban these books – all of them are still available in public libraries, in book stores, and on Amazon.
Some are NOT available in public school libraries.
I know this is difficult for you to understand – but school librarians and teacher may NOT indoctrinate other peoples children however they please.
The right answer to this problem is to eliminate public schools. Then parents can send their kids to schools that teach what those parents deem important.
Regardless elementary school libraries as an example do not have books on advanced particle physics of how to weld aluminum.
Why ? These books are not pornographic. They are still far outside of of material acceptable in elementary school and far divorced from teaching children anything close to the legitimate subjects for elementary school.
Elementary school libraries have thousands of books – there are millions of books that have been published.
Adults – atleast in the US have access to ALL of those. Children have full access to all that their parents allow.
“ NONE of these efforts sought to ban these books – all of them are still available in public libraries, in book stores, and on Amazon.”
You’re missing the point. Why do some parents get to dictate what everyone in the school should not be allowed to read? Just because one parent or a couple of parents are offended that these books are in schools, what gives them the right to dictate that everyone else should abide by THEIR values? That’s a problem. Just because a book is available on Amazon does not mean those who want to read it at a school library should be forced to pay for a book that could be available for free at their school.
Parents who are offended or are fearful of their children being “indoctrinated” should and CAN make arrangements for THEIR kids not to check out those books. They can also tell their children not to read those books. But it seems that is too difficult for them, so they would force the school to deny everyone access to those books because they are “looking out for everyone else’s children.” Parents with no issue with those books shouldn’t have to go through the extra process of buying them from Amazon or going to a public library because some parents are squeamish about some books their children may or may not read. Rather than focus on their kids and what they can control within their family, they force it on everyone else.
This isn’t about protecting children. This is about bigotry and attempting to stigmatize a specific group of people because they don’t like the fact that they can’t control what other people’s values should be. This whole “indoctrination” hogwash is nothing more than educating kids on the realities of society and the changes that are always going to be a part of society. It wasn’t long ago that the idea of desegregation was another “indoctrination” of children that they could mingle among different races and that it was ok to think of them as equals.
Right on que, next up Dennis, Anon, GiGi or Fishdip…
Simply amazing talent
Sammy – Once again left wing nut lies.
First you have to get 3/4 of the way through the article before there is a mention of anything that FL has done that is anywhere close to censorship.
Next, no one is seeking to ban all pro-choice advertisements – but ONE very specific advertisment that falsely represents existing FL law and constitution, but more importantly looks to encourage women NOT to seek the advice of a doctor and to take actions that are dangerous and harmful.
There is a threat of legal action – the law in question permits the state to seek an injunction as the next step.
While the law – which is an EXISTING false advertising law specific to medical advertising, includes criminal penalties,
The Health commissioner has NOT threatened criminal prosecutions.
Personally I think this application of this law – is unconstitutional.
Frankly I think the law itself is unconstitutional.
I think ALL laws against false advertising are unconstitutional.
But MY view on laws regarding false advertising are NOT shared by the courts or the general public and certainly not be those on the left.
So beyond YOUR overheated rhetoric and false claims,
I would ask YOU – are laws against false advertising constitutional ?
The modern left seeks to restrict far more than just false advertising.
Assuming that YOU accept that laws against false advertising are constitutional – I do NOT.
This advertisement is CLEARLY false, It Clearly would lead some women to make dangerous healthcare decisions.
Why would that not violate false advertising laws ?
While I beleive this application of this law, and the law itself is unconstitutional.
Those of you on the left beleive you can engage in far more egregious censorship than this.
This is NOT actually DeSantis acting – though I suspect he supports this.
Regardless, those on the left are being hoist by the own petard.
What is being “censored” is false and dangerous assertions that could lead to injury or death.
Sound like a law crafted by democrats and narrowly applied.
It is certainly less egregious than all the left wing nut lawfare.
Turley’s entire shtick is that political lies, even insane and dangerous ones, are protected.
HEC is an Alinsky disciple. She cannot follow him to her grave soon enough. She is an authoritarian thug and a menace to democracy. I wish her ill will
Wow, who would have thought that trump supporters are easy marks?
https://www.alternet.org/truth-social-scammers/
I wonder if JT is also looking at all the trump supporters as easy marks to sell his book to.
Just because Turley mentions his book almost on every article he does, not mean he’s pushing his book. It could be it’s just a reference to Trump supporters. Then again, I have a beautiful bridge in Brooklyn to sell.
“It could be it’s just a reference to Trump supporters. Then again, I have a beautiful bridge in Brooklyn to sell.”
FishFeces bought the Democrats “Russia Dossier”. Still does.
Then FishFeces bought the Democrats “That laptop isn’t Hunter’s – it’s Russian election interference”. Still buys it.
And somewhere in the past FishFeces bought a beautiful bridge in Brooklyn from Obama as an accessory to Obamacare that he wants to sell (along with his lies here).
FishFeces… you go, girl!
FW – it is Turley’s site – he is free to push his book.
That is free speech too.
That’s right, and Turley knows exactly who would buy that book, somebody who believes truth can be determined by alternative facts.
Is that *your” truth, Fishy?
Looks like Bribery Biden/Cackles Harris supporters think readers here are as gullible as they are providing links to their propaganda outlets.
Tyrants and would-be dictators will tell you who they really are if you just listen. All the horrors of the Nazis and the Communists were laid out in great detail in Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto. People just didn’t take them seriously until it was too late.
@Jeff
Beat me to it, so true. People were similarly asleep then as now. The conscious among really can’t afford to forget this time, Hillary and her cabal are basically hiding nothing at this point. We can choose freedom and tell them where they are welcome to go.
Dear Prof Turley,
This is like [falsely] yelling ‘fire in a crowded theater’. .. which is a common symptom of the TDS virus.
Hillary wants to abolish ‘Section 230’ (of the Communications Act), and prosecute ‘social media’ providers for all the crazy things people say on social media. Presumably, that would include Res ipsa loquitur. .. especially.
Not sure who put Hillary/CNN in charge of speech .. . but you could become an ‘information terrorist’ overnight.
*and you know what happens to terrorists.
If Clinton and Kerry are so in favor of limiting free speech, why don’t we start by shutting them up?
I’m watching ABC’s Good Morning and NBC’s Meet the Press this a.m. I’m watching in real time the attempted control of information going to the public. Little George Stephanopoulos tried over and over to get House Speaker Johnson to say that Trump lost in 2020. Johnson handled it well, and George cut him off and tried again and again–then also attempted to control what Reince Priebus was allowed to say, even allowing Donna Brazile to interrupt and shout over Priebus.
Now I am watching Kristen Welker likewise attempt to control what Sen. Tom Cotton is trying to say.
She mimics stephanopoulis’ tactic of cutting guests off, then throwing in a partisan final statement, moving on to the next topic before he can respond.
Another sly tactic used by both: FIRST interviewing Republican/conservative guests, —THEN interviewing Democrat guests, with carte blanche open floor to dismiss and strategically attempt to destroy/discredit what was just said by the Republican guest, —
who faces NO rebuttal or correction for his own comments. Immediately after the interview with Tom Cotton, Welker predictably brought Adam Schiff forward.
Why not have the Republican guest remain on set and bring him back to respond/rebut? Instead, –a very calculated CONTROL, to leave viewers with the final impression that a Republican platform or comment was completely destroyed by the subsequent guest.
Even when a token Republican “panel” member sits at the table on these shows, it will be anti-Trump Chris Christie or John Kasich, Mitt Romney, etc.–EACH and ALL who [coincidentally] lost their presidential runs to Trump.
This has NOTHING to do with supporting Trump, which commenters like to discredit it as being.
I am only interested in a great country that does not allow mass media communications (MSM) to be dominated by a singular political ideology or party, presenting selective facts, guests, and viewpoints to manipulate viewers’ understanding and sentiment- to the pronounced detriment, censorship, and control of opposing views.
To those who took the time to read this, I thank you and hope it will stimulate some mental consideration of what I say.
correction: my phrase, “what was just said by the Republican guest, —who faces NO rebuttal or correction for his own comments.” should read, “what was just said by the Republican guest, —but who face NO rebuttal or correction for their own comments.” sorry.
Glad to see you are alive and well, lin. I commented on the blog ~ 27 Sept that I was concerned Hurricane Helene took you and yours by surprise and hence some injury / damage in Steinhatchee. My in-laws in Dixie County are still without electricity but one relative has their home connected to a large generator so they are providing others shelter.
Now another storm Milton is percolating in the Gulf of Mexico possibly becoming a Cat 3.
Glad you are alright, lin. Was very concerned for you and yours
https://www.tampabay.com/hurricane/2024/10/06/milton-hit-florida-life-threatening-category-3-hurricane/
Lin,
Thank you for the observations and summary.
Yeah, it is a set up and Republicans have to play along or they would never be seen. They do more and better interviews with alternative media like Just The News.
The question is straightforward: Did Trump lose the 2020 election? By all accounts, the answer is yes. When Republicans avoid answering this simple question, it shows they are afraid to tell the truth because it could incur Trump’s wrath and that of his loyal supporters, on whom they rely for re-election.
The evidence presented by Special Counsel Smith in the election interference case clearly demonstrates that despite knowing they had lost, they continued to deny it. They failed to prove voter fraud, couldn’t present evidence in court, and even admitted to lacking evidence. It’s undeniable that Trump lost. Speaker Johnson, as a wholesome Christian, should have no trouble acknowledging this fact. The commandment against bearing false witness should be resonating strongly in his mind.
The Stephanopolous interview is not about controlling the narrative. It’s about asking direct, straightforward questions that should be easy to answer. After all, the right frequently employs these tactics. They set the rules for their programs, so why can’t the left be allowed to interview their guests in the same manner?
It is just amazing how Hillary Clinton and John Kerry repeatedly continue to remind us how fortunate we were to have rejected them in their efforts to be elected president.
* The commenters do have a point about illegal elections. Everyone join in the illegal elections and simply scuttle the entire mess. It’s illegal anyway.
It looks like Obama destroyed this world. He really had nothing to lose anyway. There can’t be any records left of him and so it goes. Toodles dystopia!
Hillary and John Kerry, two old war pigs that will never accept that they were rejected.
Both Kerry in 2004 and Clinton in 2016 both made a public concession speech the morning after the election so they did accept that they were rejected.
Smarmy. Clinton, Kerry, and the “we know best” chorus invite us to trade the natural, pre-government right of free expression for smarmy. That right, brought into the government blueprint in the First Amendment, says to the three branches, “if you reach out to tamper with this right, you’re going to be shopping for a new arm”. The smarmy trade offer puts disinformation, misinformation and malinformation into the text of the First Amendment for the Happy Time of the We Know Best People telling us what those words mean. The Constitution itself tells us how to change the words. Hitch up and follow the amendment process. The trade offer is worse than smarmy. It is lazy. Nobody in the world except us put together a blueprint of government for liberty like we have. They have made no case that it is broke. But they want to fix it anyway. Without amending it. What say we decline their offer of smarmy?