Below is my column in the Hill on truly celebrating St. Patrick on this holiday. Despite our shared history and values, the United States and Ireland are moving further apart on free speech. Ireland has followed the European Union in embracing speech regulation and censorship. If we truly want to honor the legacy of St. Patrick, we can start by honoring free speech. We need to chase the censors from Ireland.
Here is the column:
With the arrival of Saint Patrick’s Day, our nation’s close affinity to Ireland was on full display in the White House as President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance hosted Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin.
We are two countries joined by blood and tradition. Of course, there are tensions over trade conflicts with the European Union and Ireland, which quickly came to the surface in the meeting. In the end, however, we are likely to resolve those trade problems. The fact is that we need each other, both economically and culturally.
Yet, there is one chasm between the two countries that not only remains wide but is widening: the gap between how each country handles free speech. And Martin would much prefer to talk about Irish socks than Irish censorship.
Ironically, before he became associated with green beer and leprechauns, Saint Patrick was a symbol of freedom of speech. Although there is no evidence beyond pious legend that he chased snakes out of Ireland (there likely never were snakes in Ireland), he did chase slavery and human sacrifice out of the country, despite the initial unpopularity of his reforms. A former slave himself, St. Patrick’s public statements against slavery, paganism and longstanding traditions were viewed as harmful to social tranquility and harmony.
Does that sound familiar?
Today, Ireland, like many of our European allies, is shredding free speech with laws criminalizing viewpoints and regulating speech by its content. “Irish eyes [may be] smiling,” but Irish tongues are increasingly silent in the face of government investigations and prosecutions. The growing conflict between the U.S. and the Irish could not be more telling.
Irish immigrants, including some of my relatives, came to this country to live freely, and many soon became lawyers fighting for individual rights. Just before Martin’s arrival in Washington, his government was hammering Elon Musk and conservative sites in the latest crackdown on free speech. The most recent flashpoint was a small pro-life platform called Gript, a rallying point for many in his Catholic country who oppose abortion. The government demanded that X turn over Gript’s data on sources and users.
An Irish court on June 13, 2024, sought the data on private accounts as well as IP addresses and messages linked to Gript coverage of the April protests against Ireland’s housing of documented migrants. The violence in those protests gave the Irish government another justification to curtail free speech.
In yet another defining moment for Musk on free speech, he not only resisted but informed Irish citizens what the government was doing. That transparency and opposition sent the Irish government into a full-on rage.
After the arrest of 34 people and extensive property damage in the anti-immigration protests, the government moved to expand on its already draconian anti-free-speech laws. A new bill was introduced criminalizing “preparing or possessing material likely to incite violence or hatred against persons on account of their protected characteristics.” That includes any material concerning national or ethnic origin, as well as protected characteristics including “transgender and a gender other than those of male and female.”
The bill included crimes relating to “xenophobia” and can be committed merely by the “public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material.”
Then-Prime Minister Leo Varadkar declared his intent to “modernize laws against hatred” by criminalizing speech that his government decides is “incitement.” He stated an intention to not only stop those engaged in violence but those who say things that might arouse their anger.
The powerful Irish Green Party was all-in with censorship and speech prosecutions. As Green Party Sen. Pauline O’Reilly admitted, “We are restricting freedom, but we’re doing it for the common good.”
It is a familiar pattern. In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss how “rage rhetoric” is often exploited by governments as an excuse for “state rage.” Citing false claims made in the protests, the government declared a new round of crackdowns on viewpoints it considers harmful or misleading.
Ireland’s national police, known as the Garda Síochána, ordered X to produce extensive data linked to Gript Media’s official X account, @griptmedia. It wanted to see not just information identifying users but also private messages and addresses that would have revealed the media outlet’s confidential sources and communications.
Ireland reflects the free fall of free speech across Europe. Germany, France and the United Kingdom have followed the same path of the ever-expanding regulation and criminalization of free speech, including statements deemed by the government to be “disinformation.”
This week, I will be speaking at the World Forum in Berlin, Germany, on the anti-free speech movement, led in no small part by the European Union. Anti-free speech groups and figures are also gathering, particularly after Vance’s historic speech recently in Munich criticizing our allies for their abandonment of free speech.
After years of largely unimpeded growth, the anti-free speech movement is facing its first serious impediments following Musk’s purchase of Twitter and the new American defense of free speech.
Musk has borne the brunt of the counter campaign. By breaking away from the other social media companies, Musk’s X defied the EU and its censor. He was threatened not only with financial ruin but also with actual arrest unless he restored the censorship system.
The left in the U.S. and Europe targeted his companies and his revenue. Recently, Tesla dealerships and charging stations have been vandalized and even set on fire.
In Ireland, Martin denounced Musk and objected to “the degree to which, under the cover of free speech, it essentially is allowing … unacceptable material in terms of hate, bile and attacks, and so on.” Again raising the Dublin riots, he said changes have to be made to protect “democracy and society.” In other words, free speech is endangering society.
This has been the siren’s call of censorship throughout history.
Despite this history, there is reason to be optimistic. The Irish government was forced to withdraw its draconian legislation due to a groundswell of opposition from young voters, including within Martin’s party.
Free Speech Ireland celebrated the defeat by the two main parties, which “miscalculated in what they think young people want.” It turns out that it is still difficult to get a free people to give up freedom.
The defeat of the Irish legislation was perhaps only a temporary victory. But for the free speech community, it was a rare, positive moment in dark times. It raised the possibility, on this Saint Patrick’s Day, that we just might be able to chase censorship, like slavery, from the Emerald Isle.
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.”
Our natural rights exist by virtue of our willingness to fight for them tooth and claw(and also using more modern methods). Whether they are God-given, as some believe, or part of a chaotic biological evolution, those who wish to deprive us of them have lost before and will lose again, Big League.
Refer to Rafal Gan-Ganowicz on how to deal with communists.
Refer to the Seige of Vienna on how to deal with Islam.
Refer to Ellen Ripley in Aliens on how to deal with the WEF and associated globalists:
“I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.”
Your perception and interpretation of history is warped. And yeah, toss in a scene from a movie for intellectual effect. Sad.
OldFish – your perception of history is spot-on. And the movie reference you thew in is awesome!
Thanks,
-OMFK
OldFish,
Well said. I like the Aliens reference. One of my all time favorite movies.
Old Fish-Spot on. Love the movie references.
Jonathan: While you are complaining about Ireland and the EU for alleged attacks on “speech” you completely ignore the attacks on free expression right here at home by the DJT regime. Take DJT’s EO against the law firm of Perkins Coie because they represent clients the God-King doesn’t like. Never before has a president used a EO to target an individual law firm like this. That’s a direct assault on 1st Amendment rights that is intended to intimidate law firms from representing clients with claims against the DJT autocratic regime. DJT is sending a clear message to law firms throughout the nation: “If you represent clients I don’t like I will go after you!”
As a lawyer and law professor we would expect you to defend the “free speech” rights of law firms and chase censors out of the WH. For someone who only defends people like Elon Musk and his neo-Nazi propaganda machine I guess that would be expecting too much.
Never before did we have a true puppet of a president acting as the front-corpse of another president’s third term, either, but you dont seem upset by that
Dennis – we have been through this before.
Laundering the money for a fraudulent Dossier and then presenting it tot he FBI as evidence of a crime is NOT protected free speech.
There is no right to a security clearance, you get them at the pleasure of the president.
There is absolutley no evidence of money laundering or fraud. Allegations are not evidence.
Trump is seeking to silence the law firm for doing it’s job. He didn’t like the way they were going after him because that’s what their clients hired them for. It’s an afront to free speech if a president can threaten a law firm with prosecution for doing it’s job. The security clearance is not the issue. It’s Trump’s attempt to punish a law firm for representing their clients and expressing their view that the president committed crimes and angaged in unlawful conduct. It chills speech just to engage in threats to prosecute. Perkins and Coie have a strong case against Trump and they are some of the best lawyers in the country. They have already succeeded in convicing the judge to issue a TRO against Trump in record time. That’s not a good sign.
Censored speech is intellectual slavery.
Intellectual slavery. God lord, you went to Columbia.
Censorship is a very bad idea, but even if you support censorship – it’s impossible to implement and enforce.
On this St Patrick’s Day have some fun and watch comedian George Carlin’s “7 Dirty Words You can’t say on television” (full length version)or “Best of George Carlin” – it’s simply impossible to censor and it’s fun watching Carlin explaining why!
Free speech? Freedom from slavery? Whites as oppressors?
Nah….. blacks have historically enslaved blacks and still do, some even a former Columbia University Human Rights Fellow!!!!! You cant make this stuff up.
“UN Judge, Onetime Columbia University Human Rights Fellow, Found Guilty of Slavery”
A United Nations judge was convicted on Thursday of trafficking a young woman to the United Kingdom and forcing her to work as a slave.
Ugandan judge Lydia Mugambe, 49, “exploited and abused” the victim, prosecutors said, forcing her to work as an unpaid maid and caregiver while barring her from seeking other employment. A jury found Mugambe guilty of multiple offenses, including facilitating illegal immigration, forced labor, and witness intimidation, the Independent reported.
Mugambe was a fellow housed within Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights, whose fellows work to “address some aspect of a history of gross human rights violations in their society, country, and/or region,” in 2017.
Columbia did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/un-judge-found-guilty-of-slavery/
Bill Hill
Ireland and Rosie O deserve each other.
It’s time to unleash the Irish Banshee:
A female spirit who wails or shrieks as a harbinger of death, often associated with democrats,
and is a prominent figure in Irish mythology and folklore.
Free speech censors, and all Muslim “migrants”! Now!
According to the Constitution, you’re wrong.
The powerful Irish Green Party was all-in with censorship and speech prosecutions. As Green Party Sen. Pauline O’Reilly admitted, “We are restricting freedom, but we’re doing it for the common good.”
In other news, O’Reilly told someone: “I’m going to kill you, but I’m doing it so you will live a long time.”
My theory (bear with me here) is that all of the Europeans who, genetically, had a stiff spine, immigrated to the land of the free generations ago and left those who were, genetically, disposed to bending a knee behind and as such; explains why Europe is in the mess that it is in now.
Europe has come a long way since the Seige of Vienna🤣🤣🤣
“ The left in the U.S. and Europe targeted his companies and his revenue. Recently, Tesla dealerships and charging stations have been vandalized and even set on fire.”
It’s not the ‘left’. It’s consumers. The free market is responding to Elon’s overreach and stupid attempt to “shrink” government. There is going to be some vandalism, but more importantly people are just not buying Tesla products anymore and the free market is punishing Elon where it hurts more. His stock price. Tesla has already lost more than 100 Billion dollars in value and you can tell it has his attention. If China were allowed to sell their electric cars here Tesla would be done within months. They are that good.
Wrong.
Tesla Stock
3/17/2024 174
3/17/2025 234
That’s not an accurate represention of Teslas performance. Tesla’s peak stock price in 2024 was around 430, it averaged between 200 and 300 throughout the year. It’s lost 70% of it’s value and losing $100 Bln is a big deal.
You use stock price as a metric for success/failure, and the nano it gives you numbers you don’t like, you move the goalposts.
Well Georgie, that shit don’t float down here.
Johh deceptively used only one days stock price against another. That didn’t show the real picture. Tesla’s stock has been climbing wildly since March 2024 hitting apeak of around 430 while averaging between 200-300 per share that year. It has been trending down for weeks now and it’s already lost 70% of it’s value. That’s not a positive outlook for Teslas in any measure. It’s still losing value.
“Johh deceptively used only one days stock price against another.”
No deception – the long term trend is up.
” That didn’t show the real picture.”
Actually they did, they did not show the noise.
“Tesla’s stock has been climbing wildly since March 2024 hitting apeak of around 430 while averaging between 200-300 per share that year. It has been trending down for weeks now and it’s already lost 70% of it’s value. ”
If you bought at or prior to march of 2024 you have made alot of money.
Tesla
March 11, 2025 222
March 17, 2024 237
it has been volatile. It will go up and it will go down.
It may be a while before it hist 430 again.
But unless you bought at a peak over the long run you are doing fine.
Nvidia
April 19, 2024 79
Jan 21, 2025 147
March 17, 2025 119
Up and down with a long term trend UP.
Just like Tesla – and Nvidia is not being boycotted by the left.
“That’s not a positive outlook for Teslas in any measure. It’s still losing value.”
If you bought at the peak you are in trouble.
Otherwise you are doing fine. ALL Long term not cherry picked trends are up.
Pick any statistical means of calculating long term trends and Tesla is doing fine.
YOU are the one engaged in decption.
Your comparing peaks to troughs. That is nearly always deceptive.
“ ” That didn’t show the real picture.”
Actually they did, they did not show the noise”
That “noise” is the trending price overall. It’s not good when it’s losing value, epeciallly 70%.
“ If you bought at or prior to march of 2024 you have made alot of money.” For those holding stock, sure. But it’s not good for the company when they lose. 70% of their value. Sales are tanking and currently it has been steadily losing value for a few weeks now. That’s not good for investors. The longer Elon becomes unpopular the more value it keeps losing. That’s not a good outlook for any company.
it is one metric – in this case Rather than doubling it only increased by 40%.
If that is failure – “Please sir can I have more”
“That’s not an accurate represention of Teslas performance.”
It is . the value of the company has increased by 30% in the past year.
“Tesla’s peak stock price in 2024 was around 430,”
It did.
” it averaged between 200 and 300 throughout the year.”
” It’s lost 70% of it’s value and losing $100 Bln is a big deal.”
No it lost 70% of its PEAK value.
Regardless, you can but Tesla or sell – your choice.
Musk is MORE wealthy than in march of 2024 – not less.
“Tesla remains the dominant player in the US market, accounting for 42% of total EV sales and selling 35,000 more EVs than second-place Ford in the first month of the year.”
Business insider
So what, If Chinese EV’s were allowed into the U.S. market Tesla is guaranteed to lose market share to better EV’s from China. That’s why the U.S. bans Chinese EV’s in the U.S.
China dominates the world market in EV’s compared to Tesla and it’s sales are tanking in Europe, South America, and the Middle east. Shouldn’t we have access to better Chinese products to lower EV prices here? It is a free market thing, right?
Tesla is losing market share. Not gaining. Other EV’s are taking advantage of the anti-Musk sentiment and it’s starting to show.
“So what, If Chinese EV’s were allowed into the U.S. market Tesla is guaranteed to lose market share to better EV’s from China. ”
Probably – so would Ford and GM. Chinese EV’s are VW Beetles – very low prices and very low values.
That is a good deal for many people. They should be allowed on US markets
But they have not been – not by Trump, not by Biden.
“That’s why the U.S. bans Chinese EV’s in the U.S.” – is it why Biden banned chinese EV’s ?
“China dominates the world market in EV’s”
China dominates the chinese market – which do to a population of 1.6B people and a Standard of living of 11K/yr makes a cheap EV incredibly popular there – and Still Tesla sells LOTS of EV’s in China – enough to have its largest plant there.
China does less well elsewhere – where people want something more than a VW Beettle.
You are trying to conflate the natural structure of markets with ideology.
Harry Winston does not sell much jewlery in China.
I have no problems with Chinese EV’s or Tesla’s
Let the market decide.
And what the market has decided – which is pretty normal – is there is a place for both.
Blue Origen will ultimately catch up to SpaceX in rockets. And SpaceX will lose market share when they do.
Currently they have 50% of a market of less than 1000 launches a year.
In 10 years they may have 30% of a market of 10,000 launches.
You attribute everything negative that happens with Tesla to politics – but you do not grasp that your own argument about CHinese EV’s has nothing to do with politics.
In a truly unregulated market – any player with high market share and huge profits will be challenged and loose market share and profits.
ALWAYS. But absent management failure – they will likely make more and more money.
Regardless, the behaviour of markets is a good thing, I do not care if Telsa goes broke. What matters is that consumers over time get more value for lower cost.
I do not think Tesla is going to fail anytime soon. But Musk is the richest man in the world because over and over he saw domehting others did not. Bet heavily on it, worked his ass off, and dominated that area – FOR A WILE, making a small fortune.
I expect there will come a time – possibly soon, when Musk will sell his interest in Tesla – as he did in PayPal and other early ventures.
Why ? Because EV’s are no longer an emerging market and Muck is an entrepeur. He wins bets to radically change the world, not to apple polish it a bit. Tesla will continue to improve and prices will drop slowly. But the era of radical EV inovation is over, and that is Musk’s forte.
Currently Musk owns 100% of SpaceX which is worth 350B and the worlds most valuable private company.
SpaceX is still in the change the world phase.
As I said – Blue Origen and others will someday catch up.
And Musk will move on to something else.
“Shouldn’t we have access to better Chinese products to lower EV prices here? It is a free market thing, right?”
Absolutely – end govenrment regulation of the Auto industry and you too can buy a Chinese EV.
I have zero problems with that – do so because it is cheaper. Do so because it is more bang for the buck
do so because you hate musk.
but it is democrats that decied that all this economic regulation that hinders selling Chinese EV’s in the US was a good idea.
“Tesla is losing market share. Not gaining.”
Yes once upon a time Tesla has near 100% of the EV market share.
They also only sold a few cars at the time.
“Other EV’s are taking advantage of the anti-Musk sentiment and it’s starting to show.”
You are free to beleive what you want – the world will continue regardless.
Buy a Tesla, or don’t – your choice.
I am not buying one – it is not suitable for the driving I do, and more than I will pay.
But I am not buying a Lamborghini Hurican either.
You can advocate for boycotts – it is a free country.
You can not engage in vandalism.
If there is going to be “some vandalism” – then it is the duty of law enformcement to hunt down and jail the vandals.
No the Chinese EV’s are not that good. Again buy what you want. But despite a nearly double price – Tesla is holding its own against Chinese EV’s in china.
The Chinese EV’s have taken more than 50% of the market share because even though Telsa’s are much better the Chinese product is cheaper.
I do not have a problem with Chinese EV’s and they likely would sell moderately well in the US. Germany did quite well selling Valkswagon Beetles in the 60’s That does not mean that the Beetle was equal to the Ford Mustang
This clown writes so much nonsense he ought to get a medal.
That’s no way to insult John
“ St. Patrick’s public statements against slavery, paganism and longstanding traditions were viewed as harmful to social tranquility and harmony.
Does that sound familiar?”
Oh boy, it does sound familiar. St. Patrick is no different than Mamoud Khalil ironically. Trump is trying to silence him because he’s ‘upsetting our social tranquility and harmony’ by protesting against Israel and organizing protests. Both free speech activities. Turley is still ignoring the blatant attacks on free speech by the Trump adminsitration. Last night Secretary of State Rubio could not answer the simple question of what exactly did Khalil do that is criminal. He stated that he negotiated for the protesters, but that isn’t a crime or voicing support for Hamas. Trump is deliberately attacking free speech and Turley is whining about other countries exercising their right to define what constitutes free speech. Why not start here? Khalil’s case is about the Trump administration punishing him for exercising his free speech to criticize the government.
Nobody has been able to articulare exactly what the crime is or directly link him to any support for Hamas or show any evidence that he engaged in violence. He has no criminal record.
The Irish were subject to similar treatment here ironically and Turley barely touches on that. The irish were slaves, but not slaves in the same sense as african slaves. They were not sold in markets and sent ot the south to pick cotton. They were more precisely indentured servants shackled by debt owed instead of being real slaves. Turley should at least be honest about it. The irish were treated as outcasts because they were mostly Catholic and that resulted in anti-catholic laws and regulations in those days. In a futher irony that seems to have escaped Turley is the fact that mass immigration of irish catholics created huge problems in America, They were the “invaders” of their day as conservatives label today’s immigrants. We treated them like crap. They didn’t have freedom of speech either we actively denied them rights and privileges simply for being Irish. Just like we treat our immigrants today. We seem to have a long history of doing that which makes Turley’s article quite a work of hypocrisy.
Maybe Turley should focus on our free speech problem first before chastising another country’s free speech practices, you know…America first and all that.
Maybe, no wait. You should try and think logically and clearly Gorge. Turley doesn’t read your mind boggling comments; trying to force an argument on false information, is, well… typical for you. You are not an intellectual. Just some twerp with a lot of time on its hands.
I do wish our gracious host would at least acknowledge his comment section from time to time, not to reprimand free speech, but to maybe answer some of these troll’s questions
That would be phenomenal. If Turley spent a day on the blog answering questions it would be a huge boost to his readership. Sadly I’ve only seen him post once to apologize for posting an article too early. I suspect he reads it from time to time, likely a brief perusal instead of a deep dive.
I don’t care whether Turley reads his blog or not. But pointing out his hypocrisy still matters. It’s a free speech blog, right?
What false information? Turley supports putting out false information. It’s a different point of view. Turley is a huge fan of free speech and clearly he makes it a point to fight censorship and attacks on free speech. Trump is attacking free speech in such an obvious way that it s puzzling how Turley seems to be ignoring it while focusing on the same issues abroad. He’s avoiding it because it will require serious criticism of Trump’s administration and that will bring MAGA upon him like they did with ACB. Turley doesn’t want to face that type of backlash or lend crediblity to Khalil’s defense. It’s obvious he is showing loyalty to Trump by not criticizing his attacks on free speech and punishing those who exercise their right to protest.
Pointing out hypocracy does matter – the hypocracy on bold display day after day is yours.
Criticizing others is not an attack on free speech – it is actual free speech.
Criticizing the speech of others is not an attack on free speech – it is actual free speech.
Many on the right are upset with the decisions of some judges on the right.
I beleive ACB and Roberts erred as a matter of law – TRO’s violate due process in equity matters – because you can always order payment with damages after a full hearing. You can not claw back funds dispersed by a court after the fact.
But the Roberts ACB decision did not prove to be a major issue – the USAID contractors case fizzled when those who were not actual contractors had to drop out and Judge Ali’s orders turned from $2B to a few hundred thousand when only those with outstanding invoices for completed work were allowed Payment.
Few if any are calling for ACB’s head. What is being demanded is a remedy for the left wing lawfare.
That was a major factor in the 2024 election – it is a plank in Trump’s platform. And yet Democrats continue to destroy their own credibility by waging even more lawfare.
With a few exceptions – The Trump administration is near certain to prevail in nearly all these cases. This lawfare is merely a delaying tactic – and an unpopular one at that. Recent polls found that the majority of americans want Musk to audit Social security.
I know this is hard for you but challenging speech you do not like with more speech is not censorship – is not a threat to free speech.
“ Criticizing others is not an attack on free speech – it is actual free speech.
Criticizing the speech of others is not an attack on free speech – it is actual free speech.”
Apparently it is according to the Trump administration. Khalil and students are being punished for criticizing the government. Trump is attacking free speech in the name of “national security” and “antisemitism”.
“Left-wing lawfare”? really? You mean exercising their right to due process like appealing and challenging executive orders legally? Remember, Trump did this all the time. Now Republicans are upset that Democrats and other plaintiffs are using the same system and methods to challenge this administration. That’s rich.
Trump wants to sidestep the legal process because the left is successfully hindering or reversing some of Trump’s EO’s and he’s begging the Supreme Court to overturn everything because he can’t stand the idea that judges CAN issue TRO’s and order injunctive relief like they did with when he was out of office. Hypocrisy much?
“Apparently it is according to the Trump administration. Khalil and students are being punished for criticizing the government. ”
No they are being punished for rioting, destruction of property and disruption of classes.
none of that is speech.
Like the Nazi’s many of use find the pro hamas speech offensive, but it is the rioting violence and violation of the rights of others that is a crime.
“No Trump is seeking to deport threats to national security”.
“Left-wing lawfare”? really?”
Yup.
“You mean exercising their right to due process like appealing and challenging executive orders legally?”
You are free to challenge whatever you wish on whatever daft legal theory you wish.
But the courts are not supposed to buy nonsense arguments – or worse grant TRO’s that inevitably lose based on garbage.
“Remember, Trump did this all the time.”
No Trump did not.
Trump was a target of left wing lawfare.
Not an instigator of lawfare.
“Now Republicans are upset that Democrats and other plaintiffs are using the same system and methods to challenge this administration. That’s rich.”
Republicans nearly always win the RARE challenges they make to laws or executive actions.
Democrats nearly always lose.
The reason for the difference is that democrats use bizarre legal theories made up recently in left wing nut law schools.
While republicans rely on the law, the constitution and legal theories that are hundreds of years old.
“Trump wants to sidestep the legal process because the left is successfully hindering or reversing some of Trump’s EO’s and he’s begging the Supreme Court to overturn everything because he can’t stand the idea that judges CAN issue TRO’s and order injunctive relief like they did with when he was out of office. Hypocrisy much?”
The purpose of the courts is not to “hinder or reverse Trump” it is to uphold the law and/or constitution.
Those of you on the left have already lost the overwhelming majority of these challenges. Often int he same court with the same judge that granted the TRO
It is self evident that you are making up claims as you go.
We had a big stink over Judge Ali and purportedly $2B in unpaid contracts for completed services.
Turns out – nearly all the plantiffs had no claims, and the few that did only ammounted to a few hundred thousand not 2 B.
Clearly no irreparable harm would have in not issuing an illegal TRO and holding a hearing where evidence is presented and then Judge Ali can order payment for those few invoives that are for contracted services actually completed.
While ACB and Roberts ruling produced the correct outcome – it failed to correct the problem.
TRO’s are almost never allowed in equity cases, because irrepairable harm is not possible in a dispute over money.
The purpose of the courts is to review the complaints of the plaintiffs. Challenging executive EO’s and Trump’s policies are well within the rights of the left just as it was for the right during Biden’s term. This is nothing different. The only distinction is that Republicans don’t like it when it’s applied to them. Turnabout is fair play, right?
“ The reason for the difference is that democrats use bizarre legal theories made up recently in left wing nut law schools.
While republicans rely on the law, the constitution and legal theories that are hundreds of years old.”
So? Trump has used bizarre legal theories too. Even odd re-interpretations of old laws, constant delays, etc. The left can use these theories or precedents to argue their cases in court. What you call “bizarre” we call legal precedent and actual law. “Lawfare” is just regular challenges to government policy which are constitutional. Republicans engaged in Lawfare all the time during the Biden adminstration.
“ We had a big stink over Judge Ali and purportedly $2B in unpaid contracts for completed services.
Turns out – nearly all the plantiffs had no claims, and the few that did only ammounted to a few hundred thousand not 2 B.”
Not true. Turns out only certain plaintiffs were indeed owed $2 Bln dollars for work already performed. You cite no evidence that “a few hundred thousand not 2 B” were withheld. What’s your evidence for that claim?
There is no such thing as an illegal TRO. The government is not harmed by the issuance of a TRO since it is only temporary. Also Trump appealing TRO’s shows the incompetence of Trump’s lawyers. TRO’s are unappealable. You appeal when there is a definite ruling. Not before.
“The purpose of the courts is to review the complaints of the plaintiffs. Challenging executive EO’s and Trump’s policies are well within the rights of the left just as it was for the right during Biden’s term. ”
Correct.
“This is nothing different.”
Of course there is – Trump nearly always prevails in the long run and Biden lost a much larger share of challenges.
Further Republicans did not take a shotgun approach – challenging the Same EO 20 times in 20 different courts.
Republicans did pick their venue. but they typically challenged a case in ONE court and stuck with that.
Another difference is that Republicans mostly did not challenge popular actions of the president.
While student loan forgiveness was WILDLY popular among college students.
It was unpopular overall.
Deporting illegal immigrants generally remains popular
Deporting Tredeargua or Khalil is incredibly popular.
The left is picking fights it will lose legally AND politically.
Even your temporary legal wins are unpopular.
“The only distinction is that Republicans don’t like it when it’s applied to them. Turnabout is fair play, right?”
It is, but you miss the big picture.
Republicans challenged democrats on ground they could win, and on issues where they had public support.
Democrats are challenging republicans on losing ground legally and politically.
Your destroying yourself.
“Trump has used bizarre legal theories too.”
Mostly not.
“Even odd re-interpretations of old laws,”
I read the Enemy Alien act of 1798 as well as the two other related acts passed at the same time.
Those other two acts were time limited and have expired – but they are part of the legislative history.
Based on reading the act – I do not think there is a way in the world that Trump loses with respect to Tren De Argua.
Venezuela has taken hostile war like actions against the US – it has emptied its prisons into the US.
That meets the requirements of the act.
But I do not think that Trump can easily extend that to Mexican Drug Cartels or other criminal groups in the US.
But we will see. Regardless Trump’s reading is NOT bizzare. It is clear from the act that congress intended it to be a counter measure to the war like acts of foreign powers. But Veneseual and Tren De Argua meets that.
Thus far Trump has NOT actually so to apply the 1798 act broadly.
“constant delays, etc.” That would be the left.
” The left can use these theories or precedents to argue their cases in court.”
They can and the courts are supposed to toss those quickly
“What you call “bizarre” we call legal precedent and actual law.”
No that would be lack of precident, unusual legal construction, and arguments that were thrown out decades ago, or so bizarre no one has made them before.
““Lawfare” is just regular challenges to government policy which are constitutional.”
There is a reason that Republicans are currently arguing about the courts.
It is not left wing nut private legal challenges that are the problem
it is their short lived success in lower left wing courts.
Lawfare is when you use the law to delay and harrass and you count on the lower courts to delay and harras, knowing you will lose in the end.
“Republicans engaged in Lawfare all the time during the Biden adminstration.”
No they mostly won.
“Not true. Turns out only certain plaintiffs were indeed owed $2 Bln dollars for work already performed. You cite no evidence that “a few hundred thousand not 2 B” were withheld. What’s your evidence for that claim?”
Judge Ali’s ACTUAL COURT ORDERS.
The case is effectively DEAD.
Do you really need the full history of this case ?
Grow up – Trump won – repeatedly, and worse still made democrats look bad in the process.
“There is no such thing as an illegal TRO.”
Of course there is
“The government is not harmed by the issuance of a TRO since it is only temporary.”
Pausing funding was temporary – you got a TRO stopping the pause – that cause REAL and irrepairable harm.
The standard for TRO’s and preliminary injunctions is that they are to delay something to prevent irrepairable harm.
As YOU said – a pause is rarely irreparable harm.
But Un Pausing often IS.
Delay is almost never irreparable harm – forcing action prior to full adjudication nearly always risk irreparable harm.
As I noted before – in matters of Equity – Money – there courts are nearly always precluded by centuries old rules of judicial procedure from acting until the full case is heard.
Why ? Because forcing issues with money DOES cause irrepairable harm, while actual delay does not.
Again – centuries of case law state that Courts can not stop firing’s. These are matters of equity. It the person being fired is somehow wronged – they are entitled to damages. But we virtually never force an employer to keep an employee they do not want. Only to pay for the priviledge of getting rid of them, when they do so for improper reasons.
You should be noting a theme that is baked into the law. The courts are to act – TRO’s and preliminary injunctions,
when a failure to act causes a harm that can not be addressed with monetary damages.
This is not a democrat republican thing. Even LOCAL TRO’s are do be used very rarely – nationwide ones almost never.
“Also Trump appealing TRO’s shows the incompetence of Trump’s lawyers. TRO’s are unappealable.”
Normally that is true. But when it is the TRO that causes irrepairable harm – they are appealable.
I would note Trump has won most of these appeals, and even the high profile one he lost – the ALI/USAID won – the Roberts ACB order severaly constrained Judge Ali and when he followed that order. the case bombed.
“You appeal when there is a definite ruling. Not before.”
True when the courts are following the case law and rules of judicial procedure regarding TRO’s and preliminary injunctions.
Again if these TRO’s were proper – why have pretty much all of them been vacated RAPIDLY – most of the time with the judge who issued them quietly going “oops” or by an appeals court – even a DC apeals court going NOPE.
It is the FACT that left wing nut judges are granting improper TRO’s and preliminary injunctions that is wh this is lawfare.
You correctly note – anyone get get into court.
But it is the JUDGES responsibility to make sure that cases that are liklely to fail – and the presumption is that plaintiffs will fail,
do not cause damage in between.
It is the behavior of left wing judges that is the problem – not left wing plantiffs.
George professes “St. Patrick is no different than Mamoud Khalil ironically.”
You became detached from reality right there. Khalil is a foreigner openly supporting groups that have engaged in violent protests on behalf of a barbaric, terrorist organization. He’s a pig and his wife is a traitor. Allowing monsters like Khalil in this country is like allowing Joseph Goebbels in the Whitehouse press pool. That’s exactly how it is.
It’s still not a crime to oppenly support protesters who may occasionally engage in violence. That doesn’t mean he endorses it or calls for it.
He’s practicing exactly what St Patrick did. Political speech. Turley is missing out on an important case deliberately, because he doesn’t want to criticize Trump directly. He knows Trump is wrong to attack Khalil’s free speech with the excuse that he is posing a national security threat. We all know it’s BS. Turley knows it’s BS. He just doesn’t want to face MAGA’s wrath for “siding with Khalil”. Just doing so would further undermine Trump’s flimsy argument to revoke his green card. Rubio is already making poor excuses for arresting him. None that will fly in court. They know they messed up and they are not having a hard time justifying his arrest. They arrested him for exerising his free speech rights because even if he voiced support for Hamas which he never has he would still be protected under the 1st amendment. It’s not a crime to voice support for an organization that everyone else may not like. Just like it’s not a crime to voice support for the KKK or Neo-Nazis or even the Chinese government. It’s political speech and Turley knows it.
“It’s still not a crime”
That is not the standard for deportation.
Nor was this “support” for protestors who “may” engage in violence. Khalil formed the group that ran the protests, he organized the protests. he advocated for Hamas – a terrorist group, he may have received funding from terrorists groups and may have provided support to terrorists groups. He was actively engaged in trying to extort Barnard college – promising that the occupation of buildings and destruction of property and disruption of education would continue until his demands were met.
According to Barnard – Khalil was not threatingin Barnard with peaceful protests, he was threatening to continue the illegal acts until Barnard capitulated.
Khalil OPENLY endorsed the Violence of Hamas in Israel – praising the Oct 7 terrorist attacks – that is endorsing.
And calling for more.
George we will see what happens in court – and more importantly on appeal.
There appears to be enough evidence to charg Khalil with multiple crimes. But that is not the standard for deportation.
No one is throwing Khalil in jail – they are sending him Back to Syria.
“ “It’s still not a crime”
That is not the standard for deportation.”
It is for a green card. That’s why Rubio and The Trump administration are having a hard time showing exaclty what he did to violate his green card. He has not been charged with a crime. The government has not presented any evidence directly linking Khalil supporting Hamas or committing violence. Their only claim is that he ‘negotiated’ for the protesters to peacefully resolved the building occupaitons. That is not a crime or a violation of his green card.
“ Khalil formed the group that ran the protests, he organized the protests.”
That’s not a crime. It’s a free speech activity. It’s exercising political speech.
“ he advocated for Hamas – a terrorist group, he may have received funding from terrorists groups and may have provided support to terrorists groups.”
May have, could have, are assumptions, not direct evidence required to deport him. You cannot provide any proof of those claims. No video or speeches of Khalil openly pledging support for Hamas. All he has done is voice support for Palestinians and lend voice to their plight. That is protected speech and that is why he was arrested.
“ Khalil OPENLY endorsed the Violence of Hamas in Israel – praising the Oct 7 terrorist attacks – that is endorsing.
And calling for more.“
Even if he did that, it’s still protected speech here. Seeking to punish him for expressing a view like that would be a direct violation of the 1st amendment because a citizen could not be punished or arrested for saying the same thing. Equal treatment under the law applies to everyone within our borders.
“ There appears to be enough evidence to charg Khalil with multiple crimes. But that is not the standard for deportation.”
There appears to be nothing. The whole case rests on the legality of his arrest. If he was unlawfully arrested everything else is moot. He cannot be arrested and charged witha crime after. DHS had to have reason to arrest him. They first claimed his student visa was revoked, but he wasn’t on a student visa any more. Then they changed their reasoning to say his green card was revoked, but that requires proof that he committed a crime or violated his green card requirments and the government clearly has no evidence other than a vague declaration from the Secretary of state. That in itself raises constitutional issues because his arrest rests heavily on the claim that his political views association critical of the U.S. are deportable offenses. It runs counter to free speech.
The Trump administration messed up and now they are trying to save face by making allegations they can’t back up. They tried to rush his deportation before any court could review his case and they failed. Now they have a mess in their hands and Turley knows it. That’s why he won’t discuss it. He will have to criticize the Trump adminstration and face MAGA’s backlash. He doesn’t want that.
“It is for a green card. ”
No george it is NOT,
The standard for a green card revocation is higher than a visa – but lower than citizenship.
A subsequent crime is NOT sufficient to revoke citizenship – but lies on applications even without crimes ARE under rare circumstances enough to revoke citizenship.
The standard for revoking a green card is MUCH lower than citizenship.
“That’s why Rubio and”
No – it is neither Trump or Rubio’s obligation to prove anything to YOUR satisfaction in the press.
They have to meet a specific standard – whcih is NOT that of a crime in court to revoke a green card and deport.
In the press their objective is the majority of americans – and they are doing well there – a super majority wants Khalil gone.
That is not the standard in court – but it is the standard in politics. And you are ultimately losing both.
“The Trump administration are having a hard time showing exaclty what he did to violate his green card.”
Rubio has told the american people – all most of them need to hear – if this was to be determined by vote – Khalil wold be headed to El Salvador with Trendeargua.
“He has not been charged with a crime.”
He is being sent to Syria – not jail.
” The government has not presented any evidence directly linking Khalil supporting Hamas or committing violence.”
They have.
“Their only claim is that he ‘negotiated’ for the protesters to peacefully resolved the building occupaitons.”
The evidence is that he THREATENED. You left wing nuts do this all the time.
When Woltz foudn a horsehead in his bed in the God Father that was negotiation – it was also a criminal threat.
Khalil made demands of Barnard in return for protestors under his direction ceasing to occupy property and ceasing to disrupt classes. That is evidence, There is no – “I am just the negotiator” excuse – particularly when the organizations running the protests were founded by Khalil’s
” That is not a crime or a violation of his green card.”
Oh, but it is.
““ Khalil formed the group that ran the protests, he organized the protests.”
“That’s not a crime. It’s a free speech activity. It’s exercising political speech.”
Horseheads in your bed are speech – they are not protected speech.
“May have, could have, are assumptions, not direct evidence required to deport him.”
They are more than assumptions and less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Khalil is NOT being charged with a crime – he is not being threatened with loss of freedom.
They threat is returning him to Syria.
The standard of proof is NOT beyond a reasonable doubt.
“You cannot provide any proof of those claims. ”
Lots of proof has been provided.
“No video or speeches of Khalil openly pledging support for Hamas.”
Ah so anything short of a public pledge of fealty is not the same as supporting Hamas ?
Again wrong standard.
” All he has done is voice support for Palestinians and lend voice to their plight.”
He has on several occasions voiced support for Hamas.
Further – even you are admitting that he negotiated for the violent protestors.
But you refuse to acknowledge – he was not some independent representative flown in from Hawaii.
He was the founder of the group he was negotiating for. By threatening to continue the illegal actions he makes himself a part of those acts – in the highly unlikely instance he did not instigate them in the first place.
“That is protected speech and that is why he was arrested.”
He was taken into custody to be deported.
He is not currently charged with a crime.
““ Khalil OPENLY endorsed the Violence of Hamas in Israel – praising the Oct 7 terrorist attacks – that is endorsing.
And calling for more.“
Even if he did that, it’s still protected speech here. ”
For a US citizen, yes, for a Visa or greencard holder – no.
You do not seem to understand – there is no right to be in the US for non-citizens.
You can not be arrested as a citizen for voicing support for a terrorist organization.
You can be deported for it if you are not a citizen.
“Seeking to punish him for expressing a view like that would be a direct violation of the 1st amendment because a citizen could not be punished or arrested for saying the same thing.”
Khalil is not a citizen. We deport illegal aliens for crossing into the US. We can not deport citizens from crossing into the US.
The rights of citizens are greater than those of greencard holders.
It litterally has to be that way or why be a citizen ?
“Equal treatment under the law applies to everyone within our borders.”
Nope, citizens can not be deported. non-citizens can. Citizens and non-citizens are NOT equal before the law, they are not equal in rights.
““ There appears to be enough evidence to charg Khalil with multiple crimes. But that is not the standard for deportation.”
There appears to be nothing.”
ROFL
“The whole case rests on the legality of his arrest. ”
Nope. I do not beleive he is under arrest. He is being detained pending deportation.
Arrest is for criminal charges. Also he would be out on bail if he had been arrested.
“If he was unlawfully arrested everything else is moot.”
That is false even in a criminal context – but this is not a criminal context.
If you unlawfully arrest someone – you can rearrest them lawfully.
An unlawful arrest MIGHT get some evidence suppresed – that is about it.
“He cannot be arrested and charged with a crime after.”
Of course he can – and that is how all arrests happen.
But this is not a criminal case.
He has been detained prior to deportation.
That is not the same as arresst.
“DHS had to have reason to arrest him.”
yes, but he has not been arrested, and regardless they have lots of reasons.
Even in a criminal case – you prove your reasons at a trial in court.
Not to left wing nuts in the media.
“They first claimed his student visa was revoked, but he wasn’t on a student visa any more. Then they changed their reasoning to say his green card was revoked”
I doubt you have your facts stright but it does not matter as you are by law wrong.
“but that requires proof that he committed a crime”
nope.
“violated his green card requirments”
Like not lying on his visa or green card application and not advocating for terrorism.
“the government clearly has no evidence other than a vague declaration from the Secretary of state. That in itself raises constitutional issues because his arrest rests heavily on the claim that his political views association critical of the U.S. are deportable offenses. It runs counter to free speech.”
Again – not a criminal case – the legal and due process burden is much less.
Further this is NOT about criticizing the US. It is about advocating for ciolence and supporting those who do, and participating in that violence. Functioning as the representative of the groups holding the building and the campus hostage and making demands is the same or worse that breaking in the doors in the first place.
“The Trump administration messed up and now they are trying to save face by making allegations they can’t back up.”
ROFL.
Even if DOJ loses this case – it will be a political win for Trump.
I do not know that they will win at the initial hearing.
But I expect that Khalil will eventually be deported.
“They tried to rush his deportation before any court could review his case and they failed. ”
They are allowed to do that.
“Now they have a mess in their hands and Turley knows it.”
If this is a mess – “Please Sir can I have More?”
“ That’s why Rubio and”
No – it is neither Trump or Rubio’s obligation to prove anything to YOUR satisfaction in the press.
They have to meet a specific standard – whcih is NOT that of a crime in court to revoke a green card and deport.”
The government has the burden of proof here. Trump or Rubio have to show to the court exactly why they believe they have a reasonable belief that Khalil is supporting a terrorist organization or is offering material support in any way. They have not provided an ounce of proof and they know they don’t have anything other than a vague allegation that he allegedly engaged in support of Hamas. That’s not enough.
The other option of to prove he commited a serious crime in order ot revoke his green card and again they have zero proof.
“ Further this is NOT about criticizing the US. It is about advocating for ciolence and supporting those who do, and participating in that violence.”
He was not advocating violence. That claim is not backed up by evidence. Not even Rubio can attest he has evidence other than “look at the video” that’s not proof. Negotiating on behalf of protetesters to peacefully resolve an impasse is not a crime or a violation of his green card.
“ Even if DOJ loses this case – it will be a political win for Trump.
I do not know that they will win at the initial hearing.
But I expect that Khalil will eventually be deported.“
How does he win? Trump is making Khalil into a martyr. If Khalil wins his case he still gets to stay here legally and continue to protest and criticize the government of israel.
“ They tried to rush his deportation before any court could review his case and they failed. ”
They are allowed to do that.“
No, they can’t. Not without violating is due process rights which the Trump administration is trying to do now.
“ They first claimed his student visa was revoked, but he wasn’t on a student visa any more. Then they changed their reasoning to say his green card was revoked”
I doubt you have your facts stright but it does not matter as you are by law wrong.”
It’s what happened. It matters because it determines whether his arrest was legal or not. If it was in unlawful arrest everything after that is moot. How am I wrong? They didn’t have an arrest warrant for him. In order to deport him an/or revoke his green card he had to have been charged with a crime or have a deportation order signed by an immigration judge outlining the violation. None were presented. That is a problem.
“ DHS had to have reason to arrest him.”
yes, but he has not been arrested, and regardless they have lots of reasons.
Even in a criminal case – you prove your reasons at a trial in court.
Not to left wing nuts in the media.”
He was arrested. Even in a criminal case they had to have had evidence BEFORE the arrest. Not after. Trump wants to deport him because he doesn’t like the fact that he protested against Israel and supportred the Palestinians. If they had evidence of what what they claim they would have presented it by now. They have nothing.
“ He has been detained prior to deportation.
That is not the same as arresst.”
No, an arrest is a seizure. A detainment is temporary. He was arrested for violating his green card. He is being detained pending his case.
immigration warrants (“administrative warrants”) do not require a showing of probably cause. look it up, georgie.
The didn’t show any warrant. That is going to be a big problem. ICE claime they had a warrant because they revoked his visa, but upon learning he had a green card instead they changed their reasoning without showing the warrant. If ICE can’t produce a warrant for the original arrest then the arrest itself was unalwful and any attempt to deport him is unlawful.
Any evidence presented after the fact would be inadmissible in court. The current issue right now is about moving him back to NY. to have his day in court. Not in an immigration court in Lousiana where immigration judges serve at the pleaure of the president meaning they almost always rule in favor of the government.
George – as usual you are making things up.
But it does not matter.
And you are clueless regarding the rules of evidence.
A defective warrant is a major problem IF AND ONLY IF a correct WARRANT would have produced a different outcome.
As an example – a warrant to search the wrong address would be a major problem.
A warrant for the wrong day is not a huge problem.
Actually defective warrants can be corrected – that is “harmless error”.
You are correct about one thing – there should nto be a difference between Lousiana and NY judges.
By admitting there is such a thing – you admit problems with the courts – you just incorrectly choose who is wrong.
The government nearly always wins deportations – because those being deported are not citizens. their rights are limited.
There is not a right to be in the US, there is not a right to a visa, or green card or citizenship.
The burden of proof for deportation is quite low.
“The government has the burden of proof here.”
Very loosely correct, but only because they are trying to undo the grant of a green card.
The actual granting of Visa’s and green cards is discretionary.
Further the burden of proof is very low – AGAIN – this is a deportation – not a criminal charge.
Khalil is going to Syria – not to jail.
“Trump or Rubio have to show to the court exactly why they believe they have a reasonable belief that Khalil is supporting a terrorist organization or is offering material support in any way.”
Correct as ONE possible basis for deporting him. And the standard of proof is low.
Khalil founding and led CUAD. CUAD published material at his direction that meets the criteria, CUAD organized tohe protests that turned violent. CUAD provided support for protestors engaged in violence. CUAD and Khalil specifically threatened Barnard with more violence and more disruption unless it capitulated. Barnard called the police to break up the protests.
The above is enough. DOJ does not have directly tie Khalil to every bad thing CUAD did – he was the founder, leader and active manager of CUAD – its acts are presumed to be his – in the case of CAUD acts – DOJ must prove the acts – Khalil must prove he had nothing to do with them. In the intances of severing as the propertestors representative to the college – he now OWNS the acts of the protestors.
And this is only ONE of the many claims against Khalil.
“They have not provided an ounce of proof”
Correct – they have provided a ton.
“they don’t have anything other than a vague allegation that he allegedly engaged in support of Hamas. That’s not enough.”
Not vauge and more than enough.
“The other option of to prove he commited a serious crime in order ot revoke his green card and again they have zero proof.”
No pretty much any crime can get you deported on a green card. Possession of Marijuana will do it.
My wife has dealt with Deportations since the Bush administration – even Obama was deporting people for Pot convictions.
One case I remember the person had been here 30 years, served in the military. had a purpole heart was honorably discharged, had children and did not has so much as a parking ticket before getting charged with posession of Pot will Obama was president. He was deported.
“ A defective warrant is a major problem IF AND ONLY IF a correct WARRANT would have produced a different outcome.”
They presented no warrant. That’s a problem.
“ Khalil founding and led CUAD. CUAD published material at his direction that meets the criteria, CUAD organized tohe protests that turned violent. CUAD provided support for protestors engaged in violence.”
Khalil did not found CUAD. CUAD’s statement is protected political speech. They can’t use speech against him. Its a direct violation of the 1st amendment.
George: (I acknowledge that this comment was not addressed to me, but I brought this up previously and you never responded)
I think they CAN use speech (or his non-criminal conduct) against him, -even if that speech “would be otherwise lawful in the U.S.” — IF and I repeat, IF, the Sec’y of State proves in combination with other high evidence that it “would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.” (language from the 212 provision, not the 237 one).
I would think it would be the totality of “presence,” “activity,” speech and other conduct that Rubio will combine to paint a picture that meets that ^standard.
George, I at least agree with you that Rubio will have to meet this with plausible, “facially legitimate, bona fide” argument (as cited in the case law).
I do NOT agree that he must exclude evidence because you mistakenly presume it is the result (“fruit”) of an illegal arrest (you never responded to me) unless it is shown that it was so obtained.
thx.
“He was not advocating violence.”
The organization he founded and administered put out literature advocating for violence.
The protests he organized resulted in violence.
That is evidence an it is enough.
“Negotiating on behalf of protetesters to peacefully resolve an impasse is not a crime or a violation of his green card.”
A horsehead in your bed is negotiating – it is also a crime.
The way to restore peace was to restore peace. You do not have the right to threaten violence to get what you want.
It is called extortion and it is a crime.
When you go before Barnard college repesenting protestors that YOU organized and say we will end the violence when you give us what we want – you have committed a crime, and you have taken ownership of the acts of those you organized.
Way to spin
“It’s still not a crime to openly support protesters who may occasionally engage in violence.”
Correct – but not what you were saying through J6 cases and not what Judges and Juries in DC decided.
While your statement is correct – it is NOT what occurred.
Diogenes, don’t forget who you are talking to. George is a very impotent person. Lies and stupidity give him his highs.
Yes George, remember when foreigner St Patrick supported the murder, rape and kidnapping of civilians? Remember when St Patrick called for the end of Irish culture and Ireland as a nation? Remember when St Patrick prevented Jews from attending classes? How about when he or his “clan” held janitors captive after breaking into an elite university?
Wow, when will George’s USAID money finally run out? Nobody that isn’t getting paid to argue these inanities would ever spend all day doing so.
George, Dennis, Gigi and a few Anonymous guys are the last Japanese soldiers holding out on Pacific islands waiting to hear from the Emperor. Hey folks, you lost. The war is over.
Hullbobby, you know very well what I mean. Unless you’re experiencing the same reading comprehension issues a certain anonymous keeps having.
Khalil’s case can be compared to St. Patrick’s the same way Turley portrays it. That’s why it’s so ironic.
The problem with your claims is that none can be attributed directly to Khalil. All you can offer, like everyone else, is allegations and insinuations without any evidence. Just like the Irish experienced back in those days.
George – the only one with a reading comprehension problem is you.
Khalil’s case can be compared to St. Patrick’s just as spaceships can be compared to rocks.
The claim that none can be attribute to Khalil is false – you are not paying attention.
No John, you’re not paying attention. Khalil is facing the same problem the Irish faced when they were first starting to come here. They were treated like crap and they were subject to the same insinuations and allegations that current immigrants are facing today. They were accused of bringing crime, disease, immorality and their religion. Many were not keen on accepting the fact that they too had rights like the rest. Only “real” citizens like some of you currently portray as the “real” beneficiaries of our laws, rights, and privileges.
St. Patrick championed free speech. Khalil exercised it in the same way St. Patrick believed everyone should. Trump seeking to punish Khalil for daring to exercise his right to protest and to criticize the government and express his political views by deporting him under false pretense and by rushing to deport and completely denying his right to due process.
It is very likely Khalil will succeed in preventing his deportation. The government has a flimsy arguement and still cannot provide evidence that he poses a “serious national security risk”. Turley knows this and this is why he won’t write about it. He knows he will have to defend Khalil and he doesn’t want to do that because he disagrees not with his right to free speech but with the fact that the protest disrupted classes and “harrassed” SOME students instead of protesting in a more civil manner. Turley is all for protesters having the right to voice their opposition to whatever issue is being debated, as long as it’s done according to his preference. A wholesome, quiet civil protest. The constitution does not require any protest to be civil, quiet, or disruptive. Only that the government may not punish the protesters for their views and criticizm. Even in support of groups that are offensive to others.
George, you set up a “straw man” when you say that Kahlil is being punished for free speech. He is not. He is being punished for actions that violate a green card. His leadership in organizing riots, supporting Hamas, and acting as a “mediator” for a group that was trying to extort Columbia University, I.e., divest or we will continue to disrupt, etc are contrary to acceptable behavior for green card holders. Wrong conduct; not speech.
“ He is not. He is being punished for actions that violate a green card. His leadership in organizing riots, supporting Hamas, and acting as a “mediator” for a group that was trying to extort Columbia University, I.e., divest or we will continue to disrupt, etc are contrary to acceptable behavior for green card holders. Wrong conduct; not speech.”
As has been the case for the past few days. Nobody, not even Secretary of State Rubio has been able to demonstrate or show evidence that Khalil committed a crime or show evidence that he supports Hamas in any material way. Negotiating a peacful resolution to the protest is not a crime or a violation of his green card.
Rubio could not answer the simple question of what exactly did Khalil do that is a crime or what evidence he has that he directly supports Hamas. Negotiating for a peaceful resolution to the issue of protesters occupying buidings is not a crime.
Khalil was arrested for exercising his free speech right, for his political speech. DHS first claimed his student visa was revoked and upon finding out he did not have a student visa they conveniently changed it to revoking his green card. Offering a vague rationale that still has not been fully explained. That means the government has no evidence to back up it’s claim and Rubio confirmed it yesterday when he could not produce a clear justification for revoking his green card.
George – there is evidence of crimes – Rubio and others have provided that – the Barnard college report provides it.
But that is NOT the standard for deportation.
Revoking a green card is harder than revoking a visa, but hardest of all is revoking citizenship.
That is very rare – only about 6 people a year have citizenship revoked.
But grounds for revoking citizenship are lies on your VISA application regarding affiliation with terrorist organizations, disfavored political parties – such as the nazi’s, and affiliation with criminal organizations.
“ George – there is evidence of crimes – Rubio and others have provided that – the Barnard college report provides it.”
They have not provided any evidence. Allegations and insinuations are not evidence. Even you can’t articulate exactly what those crimes are.
“ But that is NOT the standard for deportation.”
No, it isn’t, but Trump and Rubio are trying to use the allegation of a crime as reason to deport him.
You cannot refute the fact that the Trump administraton has no evidence of Khalil having any direct link to Hamas, or evidence that he provided any material suppot to Hamas. His protesting and advocacy has been in support of the Palestinians and criticizing Israel. Trump wants to punish him for doing that and deporting him for it is not only an illegal act, but a violation of is free speech rights.
It’s notable that every time a government spokesperson tries to justify Khalil’s arrest and deportation the preface any excuse with “it’s not about his free speech”. If it wasn’t there wouldn’t be a need add that explanation, it would be self evident. That’s how weak the government’s argument is.
George. George. George.
Neither you nor I nor John know(s) what Rubio has in his back pocket until the hearing. Why you keep reverting to Khalil is curious. Why don’t you just wait, eh?
Meanwhile,
Two days ago, after apologizing to others for feeding into your OT preaching, I pointed out (and provided statutory citations and case law) that:
(1) Rubio need only provide enough to satisfy Section 237 of INA which recognizes EITHER “PRESENCE or ACTIVITY (emphasis mine) [that constitute] …potentially serious adverse consequences to national security/foreign policy interests.” While either crime or speech or both could be presented to support the gov’t’s position, neither is requisite under the INA statutory clause(s).
(2) I cited for you case law that Rubio’s position must only evince “a facially reasonable and bona fide basis,” and/or “is facially legitimate and bona fide”
(3) I cited case law affirming that handing out flyers adverse to the above may be deemed “material support.”
(4) I pointed out that Khalil was the headmaster/spokesperson for the campus chapter of CUAD, with its stated mission “to eradicate Western civilization.” Here, George, read this:
https://www.campusreform.org/article/columbia-university-anti-israel-group-says-fighting-total-eradication-western-civilization/26077
John Say also pointed out some good things.
Now can we just get back on topic about Ireland?
Thanks George, yours truly, lin.
Lin,
Great comment.
Lin, he doesn’t have anything in his back pocket. The government already filed documents outlining what he’s accused of and they are the same allegations Rubio has been making. They have no evidence. Alluding to some vague support or negotiating for a group is not proof of providing support to Hamas or posing a serious threat to national foreign policy. They don’t have anything.
ICE initially claimed they had a warrant for deportation becaue he violated his student visa. When they realized that Khalil was not on a student visa they changed their reason to Secretary Rubio revoked his green card while never showing any warrant or producing it on court documents. If they didn’t have a warrant or a valid reason to arrest him in the first place then the arrest and detention is unlawfu making everything else moot.
The burden of proof is on the government and so far their justifications and “evidence” has been flimsy.
George: II don’t and never did practice criminal law, so I may be wrong. But believe the law is that an arrestee need not be automatically set free because of an illegal arrest.
Also, I think Khalil could be held (up to 48? 72? hours, even if illegal arrest) and he was served the very next day with order to appear, https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/8a3cbff6-4589-43e1-8455-042fa9555e3c.pdf, and I believe he may be served with EITHER warrant OR notice to appear during that time (either satisfies the requirement) or else released.
I may be wrong, but that’s what I remember
Also, I think you may be confusing “fruit from the poisonous tree” (gathered/found subsequent to an illegal arrest)– with evidence that DHS/ICE already had to justify revocation of his student visa.
why did you skip #1 and #2 that she pointed out?
“ 3) I cited case law affirming that handing out flyers adverse to the above may be deemed “material support.”
Handing out flyers is not material support. Not in the U.S. and flyers supporting Palestinians is not proof of support for Hamas.
“ Section 237 of INA which recognizes EITHER “PRESENCE or ACTIVITY (emphasis mine) [that constitute] …potentially serious adverse consequences to national security/foreign policy interests.”
Rubio will stil have to articulate exaclty how does protesting and and handing out flyers presents an adverse consequence to national secuity/ foreign policy interests. Citing a negotiation to resolve an impassed with students and the school is does not show any support for terrorism. How does negotiation transform into support for Hamas? The government’s case against Khalil is fundamentally weak and it shows.
“ 4) I pointed out that Khalil was the headmaster/spokesperson for the campus chapter of CUAD, with its stated mission “to eradicate Western civilization.”
Of course they are not going to base their argument on a single line from a mission statement. That mission statement.
“ We are Westerners fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization. We stand in full solidarity with every movement for liberation in the Global South. Our Intifada is an internationalist one-we are fighting for nothing less than the liberation of all people. We reject every genocidal, eugenicist regime that seeks to undermine the personhood of the colonized,” the organizations wrote.”
Putting the whole thing into context changes the tone of the accusation. The mission statement cannot be used against him since it is purely political speech.
As it’s always the case with the right. Distorting context and narratives is their bread and butter. Khalil was arrested for exercising his right to express his views. Trump didn’t like it and ordered his deportation because of his political views.
George: You keep mixing up your arguments. Why does Rubio have to “articulate” ANYthing– if, as you say, the arrest is illegal and you argue that “everything that follows that” cannot be used.? Khalil’s lawyers protested his being held in Louisiana. Did they file habeas writ for his immediate release because of an “illegal arrest?” Did they argue that all evidence is thrown out pursuant to illegal arrest? Why did the judge allow him to remain detained if he was being held illegally?
Let’s save this for another day, George. We are WAY off topic. thanks
I thought Khkalils and his group were also handing out flyers with Hamas logo on it?
George, one doesnt have to commit a crime to have their green card revoked. It is enough that one actively supports terrorism and is an agent for a group that attempts to coerce (extort) a university.
“ George, one doesnt have to commit a crime to have their green card revoked.”
Yes, you have to commit a crime, a serious crime to have your green card revoked. That’s why they can’t charge him with one, he didn’t commit a crime.
“ It is enough that one actively supports terrorism and is an agent for a group that attempts to coerce (extort) a university.”
How is supporting a group demanding a university divest from Israeli stocks terrorism?
Khalil demanding the University divest from Israeli stocks or ventures is not a crime. It’s free speech.
Negotiating for a peaceful resolution with the University is not a crime either, it’s also not evidence of supporting terrorism or Hamas.
The government has nothing to back up it’s claims. That’s why Turley won’t write in defense of Khalil and Trump’s attack on his free speech rights. He’s afraid he will get excoriated by MAGA for “supporting Khalil”.
Also wrong.
George – still trying to Shill for Hamas ?
Khalil will get his day in court. Given the numerous leftwing nut lawless judges who do not apply the facts and the law – it may take the appeals courts to resolve this issue. It is even possible though as more information comes out – extremely unlikely that the Government may not be able to demonstrate to the low standard required that Khalil made misrepresenations on his Visa or Greencard application or that Despite Barnard’ colleges public report to the countrary that Khalil and the group that he founded and managed did not engaged in violence, property destriction extortion, and the violation of the rights of Barnard students.
I which case he will be allowed to stay and keep his green card.
Previously I suggested that you should keep your powder dry and wait for the facts to emerge. It is likely that even more will emerge over time but more recently
Barnard College’s report has been made public and it specifically attributes the property damage to the college the disruption of the educational process, the violation of students rights and the violence to police, with The organization that Khalil founded, and managed during this violence. Further Khalil was the representative of that organization who was extorting the college – threatening that the violence would continue until Barnard/Columbia altered their investments to suit Khalil.
Khalil will get his oportunity – likely multiple ones to make his case in court.
But whether you like it or not – there is no right to come from another country to the US. There is no right to get a green card. The US routinely denies visa’s and greencards to people who are controversial – particularly those advocating for terrorist causes.
HAMAS is a terrorist organization and has been listed as such int he US for decades.
While it is increasingly rare – because most of them have died – we STILL deport people – people who are not citizens, who lied about their relationship with the NAZI party in Germany.
Separately but related – while I expect Khalil to get the due process he is entitled to, the due process that foreigners are entitled to is not the same as citizens. There is no right to enter the US.
The democratic party is in the toilet – multiple left wing polls are showing them in the tank – with disapproval twice that of approval.
The democratic party is even 9pts under water among democrats. Conversly Trumps approval is double that of democrats. It has been fairly stable arround the low 50’s – the highest of any president at any time since Obama’s first term
On issue after issue – Democrats have picked the least popular position to champion.
Khalil being the perfect example.
Even if the protests on Campus had been peaceful rather than violent and abridged no ones rights and focused on the plight of the palestinian people rather than support of terrorist organizations like Hamas, even if those protests had refrained from the advocacy of genocide.
They still would have been unpopular with most americans. But none of these things were true.
The US is not required to grant visa’s or green cards to people who support terrorism.
The Barnard College report establishes the criminal activities that Khalil was part of.
But That is not the standard for deportation. Misrepresentations on a Visa or Greencard application are sufficient.
Close affiliation with terrorists groups are enough – we STILL deport former Nazi’s and deny visa’s based on affiliation with political groups.
Threat to US national security is enough.
It is fairly rare – only about a handful of instances occur per year -but we have revoked actual citizenship of people who immigrated to the US legally who lied about afilliations with nazi’s or terrorist groups or criminal organizations.
“ Misrepresentations on a Visa or Greencard application are sufficient.”
What misrepresentations? DHS or ICE has not proven anything his application has shown to be a misrepresentation. You cannot claim he was lying for doing something that you cannot predict. DHS has no exclusive foresight powers. Assumptions of what he might have believed or could have believed at the time of his application are irrelevant.
“ Threat to US national security is enough.”
And what exactly is that threat? Vague assumptions are not enough. The law requires Rubio specify and concrete proof that Khalil is indeed a threat and they don’t have it. Allegations and insinutations are not evidence.
We deport former Nazis because they were criminals. Some were indicted long ago. That’s the distinction you leave out. That’s why it’s easier to deport them because they have direct history and evidence against them. Close affiliation is not enough. If that were true every neo-nazi in this country would be rounded up and jailed.
Khalil has not voiced support or sent support to Hamas. The government has zero evidence and they know they don’t. Otherwise they would have presented it the moment he was arrested. Khalil was arrested for his political views and association with a protest. Neither is a crime or a violation of his green card.
George – we have been through this already.
The standard is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the commission of a crime.
Evidence of Actual crimes has been presented – by Barnard college in their report on events.
Khalil was the negotiator for those occupying and destroying property and disrupting classes.
He threatened that these actions would continue until Barnard gave in to CUAD’s demands.
On multiple levels that is a crime – extortion is a crime – it also establishes control over those engaged in violence.
National security threats include organizing protests that turn violent.
A national secuity threat is not necescarily a crime. The activities of US citizens can pose threats to national security.
Those of VISA and green card holders may not. Support for terrorist organizations is sufficient.
You keep pretending that Khalil is easily distinguishable from the organization he founded and ran.
If I start and run a business – can I claim in court that just because the business did bad things – that had nothing to do with me.
“DHS or ICE has not proven anything his application has shown to be a misrepresentation.”
No, they have not proven anything TO YOU in press conferences.
“You cannot claim he was lying for doing something that you cannot predict.”
An absurd argument. A visa is granted for a purpose. Activities that are significantly beyond the purpose the visa was granted for are both unpredictable and LIES. How stupid are you.
You keep saying “has no evidence” – when plenty of evidence has already been made public and you have no idea what DHS, DOJ, STate have.
“And what exactly is that threat? Vague assumptions are not enough. The law requires Rubio specify and concrete proof that Khalil is indeed a threat and they don’t have it. Allegations and insinutations are not evidence.”
Much of that is incorrect – both in the reuirements to deport and what evidence exists.
“We deport former Nazis because they were criminals.”
No we do so merely because they were Nazi’s. Being A Nazi is not a crime. Lying about being a Nazi on a visa applicaiton can get your citizenship revoked.
“Some were indicted long ago. That’s the distinction you leave out.”
Logical fallacy. What is relevant is that SOME WERE NOT.
BTW I am sure that DOJ will have no problem indicting Khalil. But they are NOT looking to put him in jail, they are looking to send him home. Most americans would be happy to send all palestinians students home – just because they are palestinians.
You do not seem to have grasped that the standard is not “anyone can come to the US EXCEPT proven criminals and terrorists”
We do NOT get to be selective about the right and priviledge of being in the US for those born here.
We absolutely do with regard to those who wish to come here.
That is not fair. Life is not fair, get over it. We are not all born equal – some like you do not have the intelligence to argue yourself out of a paper bag. That is not fair. it is life.
“That’s why it’s easier to deport them”
George – what I refered to is the revokaction of citizenship – that is the HARDEST standard to meet.
Doing that requires establishing a material lie on ANY of the paperwork leading to citizenship – that includes visa applications and green card applications. The standard is lower for green card revocation and lowest for visa revocation.
“Close affiliation is not enough.”
Sorry George – but it is enough.
“If that were true every neo-nazi in this country would be rounded up and jailed.”
Almost Every Neo-Nazi in the country is a US citizen by birth – birth right citizenship is not revokable.
That is the one case Trump is likely to lose.
You do not seem to get that the standards are not the same for non-ctizens.
“Khalil has not voiced support or sent support to Hamas.”
False.
“Khalil was arrested for his political views and association with a protest.”
No he was taken into custody in order to deport.
George – some of the Irish – particulely those brought here very early WERE slaves int he same sense as African slaves – they were NOT indentured servants. They were abducted in Ireland – sometimes with claims of criminal conduct – often just for being irish, and tossed in chains in ships bound for america where they were worked to death. These were not indentured servants – those came later and usually from England not Ireland. Indentured servants made a choice – the early and even some later Irish did not. Indentured servants were not abducted and taken to the colonies in chains. They voluntarily signed contracts of indenture. Given that the life expectance in London at the time was about 25 and that those in indenture in the New World usually lived longer – there were good reasons to choose indenture. Almost 1/3 of indentured servants lived to the end of their indenture.
Gerorge – just to be clear when you say WE treated them like crap – you mean YOU. I am personally of Irish decent on both sides of my family.
Turley has repeatedly addressed free speech int he US. The efforts of left wing nuts like yourself to supress the free speech of actual aemricans.
While YOU rant that we are deporting people who arrived here illegally or who claim they came here to go to college – not to disrupt and shutdown those colleges.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m very pessimistic about Western Europe. The so-called “center-right” parties are now actually well left of anything resembling Westernism. Turns out, Angela Merkel was Honecker’s girl all along.
Current Leftism is national and cultural suicide, so I sadly expect growing civil conflict in Western Europe, but the European Left will serve one last useful purpose before self-extinction. They will remind that 51% of Americans who still cherish freedom how much of a violent and nihilistic threat the other 49% are, and that 51% better believe it. We are hanging by a two-percentage-point thread that has already snapped in Western Europe.
The good news is that “self-extinction” was not just a turn of speech. Many of the 49% are too neurotic to have children, and the Democrat Party looks more and more like a jungle gym of anti-social brats, so if we can hold on another 30 years, we can avoid Europe’s fate. It’s asking a lot, but at least now–thanks to Trump, Vance, and Musk–we have hope.
You kind of wonder what is going on in Europe. These people have seemed to lose their minds. They have never been really pro American or truly pro free speech. At the best of times they would tolerate us. But unless we were there to save them like WW2 they would just as well like us to not exist.
After all our ancestors left there and seemed to do very well and have totally eclipsed them for the past century. They would have been all part of greater Germany by the mid 1940’s or greater USSR by the mid 1950’s except for us.
They have potential but their elites seem hellbent on building up a 1984 sort of society. It certainly seemed to go off the rails when the European Union was formed. When those treaties were put together, the European elites made no secret that they wanted nothing to do with a true federal system like the US even though Germany, Canada, and Australia have federal systems and successful ones at that.
So now you have a European Union that is not answerable to the people, rapidly pushing them towards an authoritarian state. Maybe the ability of the Irish People to hold back the darkness this time is a hopeful sign but you can bet that the government will be right back at the same thing again, and soon. The EU has seemed to have a predilection for punishing politicians and countries that don’t toe the elitist line.
I have no problem with the European Union as a concept to promote universal values, rights and freedoms and prevent wars but the present structure is anathema to personal freedom.
If you don’t have political and economic freedom then you are simply someone else’s slave.
Um… whether you have a problem with it or not. No one cares. You are a nothing in the great scheme of things. Just an old guy with a lot of time on your hands, thinkin g coming here you can exercise your intellectual stamina, thinking you’re influencing the public. Delusional. Please, if you have family and friends, spend what little time you have left to enjoying and helping them.
made an ass of GEB.
GEB,
Well said.
Ireland was a nice place to visit and live but, the EU/Globalist have taken it over and enforcing their Globalist agenda, not only anti free speech policies but also changing Ireland with a large inflow of immigrants. Just like Biden/DEMS tried to do. Rising crime. Conflict between Irish citizens and immigrants. Now there is a large housing shortage and lack of affordable living. 2 to 4 people sharing an apartment? Its a shame.
But governments are the people?
Warped? That’s highly subjective. And you are bias free?
Lastly, god did not endow anyone with rights, natural or otherwise. That’s a philosophical statement with no basis in reality.
How about instead chasing the anti-Semites out of Ireland? Would there be anyone left? Let’s remember here that Churchill had his hands full (fortunately, they were big hands that had room for other jobs) trying to keep Ireland from siding with Hitler during WWII.
Excellent point. Didn’t have to write it myself because Ireland looks today like they would definitely side with Hitler. Their excuse is they are anti-Israel, not anti-Semitic, but that’s just a cover for their age-old hatred of Jews.
Left Ireland 35 years ago with my family would not know the country culturally now. The media publishes anti Trump and anti American tirades daily, one of 3 national newspapers uses the “Guardian” a recognized far left British rag for nearly all its articles. So much anti Israeli propaganda as well even though the first President of Israel was chief rabbi in Ireland, his son and grandson followed him as presidents in Israel.
How about instead chasing the anti-Semites out of Ireland? Would there be anyone left? Let’s remember here that Churchill had his hands full (fortunately, they were big hands that had room for other jobs) trying to keep Ireland from siding with Hitler during WWII.
Where’s St. Patrick when you need him?
The only freedom free speech actually endangers is governments’ “freedom” to structure society as they, not the citizenry, see fit, and force that warped version onto the citizenry whose natural, God-endowed rights have been stripped from them.
But governments are the people?
Warped? That’s highly subjective. And you are bias free?
Lastly, god did not endow anyone with rights, natural or otherwise. That’s a philosophical statement with no basis in reality.
Governments may be chosen by the people, but they are not in themselves the people. And while we decided the USSR for not allowing people any choice of candidates, we saw the attempt here in the just-concluded election cycle, and have seen Romanians denied their preferred candidate. We have in the West embraced what we once despised.
Actually, the Constitution points to natural rights, if you reject God – rights which shall not be infringed. The word was advisedly chosen. These rights are above governments ability to grant, they can only impede them, or infringe upon them.
Any government which fails to recognize those rights, or has a vision of society is deeply warped, and unfit for their place.
The blood in my veins watered the Revolutionary battlefields. That blood remembers.
Nice answer, but… “natural rights”. Again, they do not exist in the universe, just words slapped together. Any government can do as its pleases, with or without those words on a piece of paper. Look what the USA has done to the world over the last 125 years. Wrecked havoc, killed, maimed, destroyed countries all in the name of natural rights. As a self-proclaimed Patriot, you must take blame for that. Latest example: And what business is it of yours what the Russians or Romanians do in there countries? Democracy has always been battle cry for the US to force its will on the world. And look what it created.
So, you claim an inherent right to force democracy, natural rights, on others because some relative carried a gun around 250 years ago. Poetic but delusional.