For many of us who were long active in Democratic politics, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recognize the party as a new generation of foul-mouthed, censorship-supporting, mob-enabling leaders take over. That sense returned this week when Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY) claimed that the FBI investigating attacks on Tesla cars and facilities is nothing but “lawfare” and “political weaponization.” Goldman’s latest controversy captures how Democrats have now entirely cut the cords of decency and moderation that once tethered their party to the mainstream of our society.
Democratic leaders have been fueling the attacks on Musk and his companies, even putting national security interests aside to seek to punish him.
Goldman (and other Democrats) have previously pushed back on criticism of Antifa and left-wing attacks. However, Goldman’s criticism of the FBI task force on these widespread attacks is otherworldly.
Goldman this week declared:
“This is the political weaponization of the DOJ. Trump uses his official authority to defend his benefactor Elon Musk. The FBI then creates a task force to use our law enforcement to ‘crack down’ [sic] on adversaries of Musk’s [sic]. Where are the Republicans so opposed to ‘lawfare’?”
There are have widespread attacks on Tesla charging stations, vehicles, and dealerships, including multiple arson attacks. It is clearly political violence orchestrated against an American company and American property owners, including individual citizens, to push consumers away from buying Musk products and associations.
That sounds a lot like the definition of terrorism. The Justice Department defines domestic terrorism as “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”
I have long criticized the expansion of terrorism definitions. However, this fits even the narrowest definitions. It is political violence designed to intimidate and harm those with opposing political views.
The fact that they are lone wolves like Daniel Clarke-Pounder, 24, who set himself on fire after throwing Molotov cocktails, does not change that criminal intent.
The Democrats have long been accused of belittling or dismissing the seriousness of such crimes. That was the case with Molotov-cocktail throwing lawyers in New York who were given relatively light sentences under the Biden Administration.
It is also evident in the reaction to the recent attack on a conservative in the New York subway. There is a sense of license among some on the left in carrying out attacks on those on the right.
This is how rage rhetoric of leaders like Goldman can fuel violent rage in the most unhinged elements of their party. As I previously wrote:
“What few today want to admit is that they like it. They like the freedom that it affords, the ability to hate and harass without a sense of responsibility. It is evident all around us as people engage in language and conduct that they repudiate in others. We have become a nation of rage addicts; flailing against anyone or anything that stands in opposition to our own truths.”
Once released by the rage from the confines of reason and civility, it is easy to dismiss the investigation of political violence as “political weaponization.” In attacking the FBI investigation, Goldman is the very voice of an age of rage.
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.”
Someone is going to squeal like a pig….Oink, oink
HAHAAHAHAHHAHAH!!!
“This guy was arrested today after ramming his mini four-wheeler into a Cybertruck.
Little did he know that the Cybertruck has 1.8mm bulletproof stainless-steel doors capable of taking some heavy hits. He was charged with one count of felony criminal mischief & failure to identify.” https://t.co/acludqm3tq
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) March 26, 2025
Looks like he didn’t need the four-wheeler! BIG GUY!
Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY) & California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) just waiting in the wings for the 2028 Presidential Election.
Pray the GOP stays strong in the Midterms. After the Midterms, be prepared for the Media onslaught of attacks on the GOP
and the glorious embellishment of these two.
Just Say No to DEMs
Another large block ov voters have switched to support President Trump. The United Auto Workers. More proof that the dims have left the blue collar working class behind. They definitely favor the over educated progressive left over the people.
Dan “Biden did talk business with Hunter’s gang” Goldman is now my favorite Dim Fool surpassing Hank “Guam is Tilting” Johnson (immediate past winner) and Sheila “Where’s the US flag on Mars planted?” Jackson Lee (Previous winner, RIP 2024).
George rises to Goldberg’s defense with this deflection! Vandalism is more important than a national security breach of epic stupidity and incompetence.
George prefers we call the Soviet Democrats’ domestic terrorism “vandalism” – like they’re spraying graffiti on a few random vehicles in one city. And that’s what it must be – not one of the elected Soviet Democrats has headed for the press’s microphones and video cameras to condemn it.
Just as they watched and smirked when George was one of the foot soldiers in their 2020 Election Season Mostly Peaceful Rioting, Pillaging and Murder. Over 570 riots – all good!
Epic stupidity and incompetence is George stupidly thinking he has some kind of credibility here – and his incompetence at either earning some or being an effective liar. George STILL hasn’t figured out that it was BIDEN who started the use of Signal for those within a president’s cabinet, recommended that it be used by them, and the crypto technicians who started by installing Signal on Bribery Biden and The DEI Hire’s government devices are the same ones who installed it on the devices issued to those serving under Trump.
Biden-era memo advises ‘highly targeted’ officials to use Signal for communications
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/biden-era-memo-advises-highly-targeted-officials-use-signal
“The Justice Department defines domestic terrorism as “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”
Exactly!! Well said professor and it sounds more and more you, like all the other sane, normal, traditional and moderate Democrats are getting tired of their own party. Reflects in the Democrat approval numbers.
@Upstate
Yup. To add, I love how being arrested is somehow now being ‘diappeared’, or ‘kidnapped’. Pardon my french, but f*ck these people. You get arrested, you get put in handcuffs and your stuff gets confiscated and goes into a plastic bag until someone bails you out. This is not freaking new, not by any measure whatsoever. The modern left is a clown show that is literally impossible to quantify. The levels of ignorance or sheer stupidity have broken the scales.
If Darwin were still alive he’d be studying the mystery of the modern left, not the animal kingdom, because the modern left is, frankly, more baffling. How can people de-evolve in such record time, when advanced evolution took centuries?
It kills the modern left that most of us are perfectly aware of all of this, and more. 🤷🏻♂️
“…it is becoming increasingly difficult to recognize the party as a new generation of foul-mouthed, censorship-supporting, mob-enabling leaders take over.”
Uh, the lady doth protest too much.
Goldberg – one of Professor Turley’s fellow Democrat lawyers. The multi-millionaire trust fund kid who eagerly served as the Democrats’ lead counsel in both the House and then Senate in the Democrat’s Soviet style impeachment attempt of Trump. That was after Trump endorsed him during his election campaign by saying Goldberg was “very compassionate and compromising to those within the Republican Party”
Professor Turley: your fellow Democrat lawyers who also work in some area of politics are not the root cause of all that troubles our nation – but they certainly are for most of it!
You’re not quite as critical of your fellow Democrat lawyer Goldberg’s language as you are when Trump’s choice of language troubles you – but at least you’re getting there.
Wow, that senator Duckworth has quit the potty mouth. Oh, I forgot, she’s a democrat. She has license to act this way. She’s mostly civil.
Professor could you please address the case of Mahmoud Khalil?
stuff it, George
Turley’s article is nothing more than a distraction from the disaster that is Signalgate, Trump deporting people because they exericsed free speech, and attacking law firms because they represented their clients, and demanding judges that have ruled against him be impeached. Turley has a lot of controversy and constitutional questions far more imporant than these petty grievances he keeps writing about.
He’s avoiding it because he will have to criticize Trump and his administration a lot harsher than he wants to. That brings the unacceptable risk of being a target for MAGA’s…rage rhetoric against him and the posssibility of being ostracized by Trump supporters for his…”rude,” or “unfair” treatment of Dear Leader Trump.
No mention of Mahmoud Khalil. No mention of the campus protests. No mention of Gaza. No mention off the recent ICC or ICJ rulings. Nothing since 10/07/23. But we’ve been treated to pictures from his recent trip to Berlin
The US if not part of ICC or ICJ they have no authority or jurisdiction.
Gaza is not a US legal topic.
Khalil is being deported for conduct.
Campus protests become a fit subject for this blog either when non-violent free speech is infringed on by govenrment or when violence is represented as protected free speech.
It is weird that the left – which does not recognize a right to free speech, then tries to argue that because someone who committed a violent criminal act did so during a protest or other first amendment excercises that not only is their speech protected but their criminal acts are too.
Govenrment may not infringe on protected speech.
It most definitely can arrest you for seizing or destroying private property – even if you were concurrently excercising your first amendment rights.
The people blowing up tesla’s are engaged in an act of political expression.
That does not change the fact that their acts are a crime and the fact that the crime is also political expression does not protect them from prosecution
“Khalil is being deported for conduct.
Campus protests become a fit subject for this blog either when non-violent free speech is infringed on by govenrment or when violence is represented as protected free speech.”
Khalil did not engage in violent conduct. His conduct was 1st amendment protected activity. You can’t even articulate exactly what he did that justifies his detention. Passing out flyers, and negotiating with school administration is not violent conduct. Trump’s DOJ has not provided any evidence showing Khalil’s conduct violated his green card stipulations. Saying he supports Hamas is not enough. He’s never supprted Hamas and the government has the burden of proof.
The government claims Khalil encouraged violence was part of a violent protest is not enough to deport because he did neither. They can’t articulate exactly what he did and neither can you.
“ It most definitely can arrest you for seizing or destroying private property – even if you were concurrently excercising your first amendment rights.“
Nobody is saying they can’t be arrested. When did Khalil seize or destroy property? Guilt by association is not a legitimate argument. The law states the government must prove Khalil personally committed the acts the allege.
“The people blowing up tesla’s are engaged in an act of political expression.
That does not change the fact that their acts are a crime and the fact that the crime is also political expression does not protect them from prosecution”
Nobody is saying they shouldn’t be prosecuted. But they are also not acts of terrorism as the DOJ claims. At best they are acts of vandalism.
“Khalil did not engage in violent conduct.”
Of course he did, he threatened Columbia with continuation of the violent protests he organized if they did not agree to his demands.
You can pretend that Khalil did not intend for the violence. But by law once it started he was obligated to distance himself from it NOT weaponize it or he owns it.
When he threatened Columbia with a continuation of the occupations and violence, the question of whether he intended violence when he orgainized the protests became moot.
There are many other issues with Khalil, But this one alone meets the requirements for deportation.
Though I will note that Aliens do not have the same first amendment rights as citizens.
The US is not obligated to allow Nazi’s as an example to get Visa’s – even if they have committed no crimes.
The US Governemtn can discrimate against the speech of visa applicants and visa holders.
Green card holders have slightly more first amendment protection – but not the same as citizens.
I think that you will find large numbers of foriegn students who participated in these protests being deported regardless of whether they can be proven to have engaged in violence.
For a US citizens speech to be a crime in the US it must meet a very hight standard.
For the speech of a VISA holder to be considered a national security threat is a far lower standard.
“You can’t even articulate exactly what he did that justifies his detention. ”
I have done so many time.
“Passing out flyers,”
Flyers that advocate for violence against others.
“negotiating with school administration is not violent conduct.”
It is when that negotiation is a threat of continued violence unless your demands are met.
Lets be Clear Khalil was a critical part of the group that organized the protests that were violent.
He was as part of that group threatening continued violence if demands were not met.
That is NOT protected speech.
“Trump’s DOJ has not provided any evidence showing Khalil’s conduct violated his green card stipulations.”
They have and more.
This is not just about Green card stipulations.
You can not lie or hide associations or activities – including political advocacy in a Vias or Green card application.
Visa’s and green cards can be denied based on speech that US citizens are free to do.
Visa’s and greencards can be revoked for lying or hiding most anything in either application.
“Saying he supports Hamas is not enough.”
Actually it is. The US is free to and Does refuses Visa’s and green cards to supporters of Hamas.
Just as we would supporters of Hitler or Pol Pot.
“He’s never supprted Hamas”
Of course he has there is video in the US of him doing exactly that.
It is also likely that he did so in Syria. Which means he lied on his visa application.
“the government has the burden of proof” Correct but the standard of proof is extremely low.
“The government claims Khalil encouraged violence was part of a violent protest is not enough to deport”
yet it is.
“because he did neither.”
Read the columbia report
“They can’t articulate exactly what he did and neither can you.”
You saying that you have not heard proof on left wing media does not mean there is none.
There is video of Khalil advocating for Hamas.
He threatened columbia with continued violence if they did not capitulate.
Both of these are well established fact.
The latter is even a crime. Extortion
“ It most definitely can arrest you for seizing or destroying private property – even if you were concurrently excercising your first amendment rights.“
“When did Khalil seize or destroy property?”
I pointed out multiple grounds sufficient to deport Khalil, and while there are Crimes, First amendment rights of aliens are almost non existent.
“Guilt by association is not a legitimate argument.”
That is not my argument – negotiating for criminals and threatening continued violance is not Guilt by association.
It is actual involvement in the violence.
However fordeportation – being closely associated with any number of undesirable groups is sufficient.
A citizen can not be deported for hanging out with Nazi’s, an alien can.
” The law states the government must prove Khalil personally committed the acts the allege.”
Nope. Not only is that not the standard for immigration law – it is not the standard for criminal law.
If you hire a hitman – you are guilty of attempted murder.
It the hitman succeeds you are guilty of murder.
No you do not have to have personally committed violence to be convicted of a violent crime.
Adn the standard for deportation is much lower.
““The people blowing up tesla’s are engaged in an act of political expression.
That does not change the fact that their acts are a crime and the fact that the crime is also political expression does not protect them from prosecution”
Nobody is saying they shouldn’t be prosecuted. But they are also not acts of terrorism as the DOJ claims. At best they are acts of vandalism.”
I personally have a problem with our domestic terrorism laws. However as Turley demonstrates – these acts meet the requirements of those laws. These acts are domestic terrorism.
If you wish a different definition of domestic terrorism I will join you to change the law.
Separately – while this is Vandalism.
It is also arson. The punishment for arson is very high.
“ Khalil did not engage in violent conduct.”
Of course he did, he threatened Columbia with continuation of the violent protests he organized if they did not agree to his demands.”
That’s not violent conduct. He didn’t threaten to continue violent protests. You’re conflating the actions of individual protesters out of his control as his conduct. If you have to start making things up to justify your lack of evidence you already lost the argument.
“ You can pretend that Khalil did not intend for the violence. But by law once it started he was obligated to distance himself from it NOT weaponize it or he owns it.”
You have zero evidence of intent. You know that even the government has no evidence of intent. You are grasping at straws now.
“ There are many other issues with Khalil, But this one alone meets the requirements for deportation.
Though I will note that Aliens do not have the same first amendment rights as citizens.”
No it doesn’t. Your argument is still pure conjecture and speculation. That won’t hold up in court. The law requires the government prove their claim with evidence, not speculation or assumption.
Nothing in the constitution says Aliens have lesser 1st amendment rights than citizens. They are subject to the same right as citizens just as they have the right to due process. Can you cite any constitutional precedent saying aliens have less 1st amendment rights?
“ There is video of Khalil advocating for Hamas.
He threatened columbia with continued violence if they did not capitulate.
Both of these are well established fact.
The latter is even a crime. Extortion“
He was not advocating for Hamas. He wasn’t threatening continued violence. He stated the protest would not end until the school met their demands. Twisting facts and semantics shows you don’t have an argument.
“ Guilt by association is not a legitimate argument.”
That is not my argument – negotiating for criminals and threatening continued violance is not Guilt by association.”
You just proved it is your argument doofus. “Negotiating for criminals” , no he was negotiating for protesters, people exercising their free speech rights. By calling them criminals you are insinuating that he is guilty because of their conduct. He did not commit violence or engage in it.
“ A citizen can not be deported for hanging out with Nazi’s, an alien can.”
Hanging out with protesters is not the same thing. They were protesting against Israel and for Palestinians. You and the right want to label their protests as Hamas support. None of that is true. Even the government cannot prove that allegation is true. Its a political smear used to justify the deportation and punish the protesters.
“ The law states the government must prove Khalil personally committed the acts the allege.”
Nope. Not only is that not the standard for immigration law – it is not the standard for criminal law.”
Its the standard for the AEA. The burden of proof is on the government and they have to be able to prove that their claims have evidence.
“ I personally have a problem with our domestic terrorism laws. However as Turley demonstrates – these acts meet the requirements of those laws. These acts are domestic terrorism.”
They don’t meet the requirements. Mere conjecture is not enough to claim terrorism. Its just vandalism. For it to be terrorism it must have a clear ideological, religious, or political messege. There is no evidence that its political of ideological. To prosecute anyone under terrorism charges the government has to prove the intent was political or any of the criteria required to be terror related. That’s very difficult to prove in court. Vandalism is much easier and harder for the perpetrators to defend. They still get punished.
George,
He was not advocating for Hamas. He wasn’t threatening continued violence. He stated the protest would not end until the school met their demands.
That “protest” was violent and criminal. Therefore when he threatened that it would continue if his demands were not met, he threatened violence and crime. Further, negotiating on behalf of the criminals makes him their accomplice. Advocating violent crime is protected speech; but enabling and facilitating it is not, and that is what he did when he negotiated on the criminals’ behalf.
he was negotiating for protesters, people exercising their free speech rights.
They were NOT exercising their free speech rights, they were illegally occupying property and engaging in violent crime. They are Nazis, and he was their agent and accomplice. That is what he can be deported for, not his speech, which is indeed protected.
John, I take issue with this:
Though I will note that Aliens do not have the same first amendment rights as citizens.
Yes, they do. The first amendment doesn’t distinguish between citizens and aliens, and the fourteenth amendment says the constitution protects “any person”.
The US is not obligated to allow Nazi’s as an example to get Visa’s – even if they have committed no crimes.
This is true, but only because they’re not yet in the USA. Once they visa was issued and they have arrived here, the USA cannot cancel the visa and deport them merely for expressing their vile opinions while here. That is the distinction that the administration doesn’t seem to understand, and it seems that neither do you.
The US Governemtn can discrimate against the speech of visa applicants and visa holders.
No. It can discriminate against applicants’ speech while they are in their countries. It can NOT discriminate against their speech once they’re here.
Green card holders have slightly more first amendment protection – but not the same as citizens.
The constitution explicitly says the opposite. Even illegal aliens have the same protection as citizens. They can be deported for being here illegally, but not for what they say while they’re here, no matter how vile it is.
I think that you will find large numbers of foriegn students who participated in these protests being deported regardless of whether they can be proven to have engaged in violence.
If that happens it will be a crime, and those who carry out the deportations will be criminals.
You can not lie or hide associations or activities – including political advocacy in a Vias or Green card application.
You can lie if it’s not material (i.e. you would have got the visa even if you had told the truth). Only a material lie is perjury. And you are never required to volunteer information that you weren’t asked for.
The US is free to and Does refuses Visa’s and green cards to supporters of Hamas.
And so it should. But once they’re here the first amendment protects them.
A citizen can not be deported for hanging out with Nazi’s, an alien can.
Not once he’s already here.
George Svelaz, I am going to summarize all your comments and John Says responses for you to understand.
YOU ARE WRONG!
No mention of the campus protests. No mention of Gaza.
Ah! One of the New Hitler Youth branch of the Democrats is here, demanding somebody defend his fellow genocidal neo-Nazis, whether the campus felons here or the Hamas/Hezbollah butchers in the middle east he is drooling at the thought they might finish what Hitler started!
Rioting on campus, destroying school property, threatening, harassing, assaulting and preventing Jewish students from attending the courses they attended isn’t criminal, it’s just “campus protest”.
Wait! The Democrats already have alternate language for that Democrat violence from 2020: “Mostly Peaceful Protests”.
George the signal nonsense will die quickly.
The story is simple – easy to understand. Nothing is hidden or secret.
No one is hiding anything.
There is no hook to keep peoples attention.
You can try to reframe it or spin your narative – but none of that makes the story more devious or intriguing.
People listen to it once. Understand everything there is to understand and move on.
What you are calling signal gate is either already dead or will die quickly.
Your stupid legal claims – even if one accepted them as true – still have no legs.
There was nothing wrong with the Chat between NS officers. Even if the material actually was classified – they are still free to communicate among themselves.
Your FRA claim is bogus – but even if it was not – so what. FRA violations are not a crime, and The federal governemnt is not keeping text messages and requiring recordings of zoom chats or phone calls – and people understand that. The governmetn must keep records of the ACTIONS it takes. Not water cooler discussions or exchanges over coffee.
If the conversation was classified – the inclusion of Goldberg is the only violation. There is no violation for top NS officials to communicate about pending military actions.
There is nothing in the Chat that Goldberg released that is wrong doing.
It is just Hegseth providing an overview of a pending actions that everyone on the chat had some role.
If it was War Plans – the only issue would be Goldberg being added.
If it was a discussion of nuclear codes – the only issue would be goldberg being added.
But it was none of those things.
An argument can be made that the chat was classified. There is just barely enough actual information that if a sophisticated foe had access in real time it might have blunted the attack. That is a reach. But it can be argued that the chat was classified BARELY.
I do not think so.
But more importantly it is not going to appear to be classified to ordinary people. Most people do not grasp that often classified information is relatively mundane.
You also have the problem that a sargent in an engagement directing his squad would technically be classified, but verbal communications prior to or during an engagement are not encrypted, and not recorded.
Again people are going to have a hard time understanding why saying F18’s are taking off at 12:15 is classified – even if it might be.
Your story has no hook. It is mundane. The operation was successful. If the Houthis were reading the Chat in realtime – it would have been beyond their capability to benefit from it.
In the end there is no there there.
The claim that Signal can not be used – died completely when the Biden CIA authorized it for EXACTLY these types of communications.
Your FRA claim also dies similarly – because the Biden admin authorized the use of Signal for communicatiosn that YOU claim have an FRA requirement, but Signal can not comply with FRA. Either the Biden CIA erred or these communicatiosn do not require FRA preservation.
John Say,
Great comment and an excellent take down of the slow and dumb one. Well done!
Apparently the FRA came up in recent hearings. The FRA requires that DEcisions made by those in govenrment must be documented and preserved. Communications that do not constitute decisions – i.e. that are purely informative are not covered by the FRA.
That sounds reasonable to me.
Regardless, it should be self evident that the FRA does not cover every single communication by someone in govenrment. ‘
Governmetn would spend more time keeping records than doing anything.
“Apparently the FRA came up in recent hearings. The FRA requires that DEcisions made by those in govenrment must be documented and preserved. Communications that do not constitute decisions – i.e. that are purely informative are not covered by the FRA.”
Deciding whether to proceed with a planned military strike in another country is purely informative? John even you are not that stupid.
There were policy decisions, military action discussions, and determiniation of consequences if the plan did not go as planned. All those do fall under the FRA.
Holding those policy and military discussions on a commercial app that allows for the deletion of the entire official government communications is illigal under FRA. The violation was clearly shown when Walz set his conversation to delete in four weeks. That alone is a direct violation of the FRA.
The Signal fiasco is not going to be over anytime soon now that Judge Boesberg will preside over a lawsuit brought by an organization arguing the legality of using Signal and how the FRA applies.
“Deciding whether to proceed with a planned military strike in another country is purely informative?”
First that is not what they were doing. Hegseth was reporting to other NS officials what was about to happen – that is informing them.
Decisions had already been made.
Separately had they been “deciding” the communications leading to a decision – are NOT records.
Only the decision is.
” John even you are not that stupid.”
George you constantly engage in shallow thinking and misrepresentation.
You are not even consistent in your misapplication of the wrong standards./
“There were policy decisions, military action discussions, and determiniation of consequences if the plan did not go as planned.”
Not in anything Goldberg has provided. Regardless, lets say that you are correct, then the FRA would require Hegseth or whover actually made the decision to memorialize that decision in writing and that memorialization becomes the record.
The FRA standard you are manufacturing would cover phone calls, water cooler discussions – all forms of verbal exchange.
And you KNOW that the government only rarely records verbal communications.
Further most everyone knows about atleast some of the texts – such as those between Page and Strzok in crossfire Huricane.
The Cell phones of all crossfire Huricane FBI agents were provided to Mueller. They were then wiped clean – despite a record preservation demand by IG horowitz. Mueller obstructed justice in doing so – though his people claim this was not deliberate.
But Mueller did not violate the FRA by wiping the phones of FBI agents.
“All those do fall under the FRA.” The FRA is not 1/10th as broad as you claim.
“Holding those policy and military discussions on a commercial app that allows for the deletion of the entire official government communications is illigal under FRA. ”
Nope.
Not only is that false – but in fact those in the executive routinely delete policy discussions even those that lead to decisions.
You keep harping on commercial app. That is entirely irrelevant. Even the Military today uses large amounts of COTS gear – Commercial Off The Shelf. In SOME uses Commerical products have to be authorized as suitable for the purpose.
“CIA Director John Ratcliffe told a hearing of Cotton’s Senate committee on Tuesday that his agency approved the use of the Signal app for work-related communications. “It is permissible to use to communicate and coordinate for work purposes provided, provided, senator, that any decisions made are also recorded through formal channels,” Ratcliffe testified. ”
“The violation was clearly shown when Walz set his conversation to delete in four weeks. That alone is a direct violation of the FRA.”
No it is a Violation of the GRA – Georges Record Act.
“The Signal fiasco is not going to be over anytime soon now that Judge Boesberg will preside over a lawsuit brought by an organization arguing the legality of using Signal and how the FRA applies.”
Once again Boasberg is blundering in where he has no jurisdiction.
😂 slow and dumb one…
“There was nothing wrong with the Chat between NS officers. Even if the material actually was classified – they are still free to communicate among themselves.”
The chat was done on an unauthorized app the pentagon just a few weeks ago warned was vulnerable to hacking.
Pentagon rules, and ODNI rules explicitly say such communications be done on authorized government secure channels. They all knew that or are supposed to know that. Remember, Hillary was excoriated for using a private server to communicate outside official government channels. You were adamant that she be prosecuted for even having a private server. Now we have the heads of the CIA, defense department, the VP, and national security advisors all using a private app that allows for the deletion of discussions contra the FRA which explicitly prohibits the deletion of such documents.
“The federal governemnt is not keeping text messages and requiring recordings of zoom chats or phone calls – and people understand that. The governmetn must keep records of the ACTIONS it takes. Not water cooler discussions or exchanges over coffee.”
The government keeps texts, zoom calls, and phone conversations involving official business. It’s required by law. The Signal chat was not a “water cooler discussion.” It was literally a council of principals function involving a military operation and discussion of foreign policy. That falls under the FRA. Hegseth’s posting of a military attack plan also falls under FRA rules.
“ If the conversation was classified – the inclusion of Goldberg is the only violation. There is no violation for top NS officials to communicate about pending military actions.“
It was classified. The violation was not just the “mistake” of including Goldberg, it was conducting it on Signal where an unauthorized reporter was privy of an operation that the secretary of defense asserted as OPSEC. The fact that he had to declare it as OPSEC means it was meant to be classified. You are clearly trying very hard to defend the indefensible and it’s obvious.
“There is just barely enough actual information that if a sophisticated foe had access in real time it might have blunted the attack. That is a reach. But it can be argued that the chat was classified BARELY.
I do not think so.”
That’s not the point John. You don’t get it. Hegseth posted military plans to attack targets In Yemen BEFORE they were carried out. That alone made the infomation classifed by Pentagon rules, NSA rules, and CIA rules. All while a reporter was right there watching it all unfold. What we don’t know is who else could have been there watching this? The whole point of not using apps like this was demonstrated by Goldberg’s presence and the obliviousness of everyone on the chat that there was an unauthorized person witnessing all of it in real time. That’s a serious security breach by any standard.
“ Again people are going to have a hard time understanding why saying F18’s are taking off at 12:15 is classified – even if it might be.”
You might have a hard time understanding, but those that do, including pretty much every professional and foreign government official clearly gets how serious that is. Because A REPORTER THEY HATE AND CALL A HOAX-PEDDLER WAS ON THE CHAT. What if he decided to publish it before the strike? He could have done that and upended any element of surprise and exposed not only the fact that they were doing this on a platform that allows you to delete the info, but Europe would have learned that we were considering using that plan to extort money from them.
“The claim that Signal can not be used – died completely when the Biden CIA authorized it for EXACTLY these types of communications.
Your FRA claim also dies similarly – because the Biden admin authorized the use of Signal for communicatiosn that YOU claim have an FRA requirement, but Signal can not comply with FRA.”
There is absolutely zero proof that Biden authorized the use of Signal. None. The only reason you mention this is because Radcliffe said so? Please. Radcliffe and Gabbard were already lying about it. Signal still violates the FRA, even if Biden allegedly authorized it. Now it looks like Judge Boesberg will preside over the case that will present the CIA director’s claims as real or not.
All official government communications are to be preserved.
“3101. Records management by agency heads; general duties
The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.”
George – why do we have to REPEATEDLY debunk your nonsense ?
Elswhere on the Block is a link to a JTN article that not only Confirms the Biden admin recomendment the USE of Signal for exactly these types of communications, But the article links to a PDF of the Actual Biden CIA directive.
Next you cite the FRA – nowhere in your cite is the content of this chat covered.
First the law requires preserving records – are verbal conversations recordes ? Are chats, Zooms ?
But being a record is alone not sufficient.
This chat was NOT a record of the oganization.
It was not a records of its functions.
It was not a record of its policies.
It was not a record of its decisions.
It was not a record of its procedures
It has nothing to do with legal and financial rights.
It was information from Hegseth.
You claim it documents decisions. This was a military strike, the Military does NOTING without orders.
It is likely that an order can be communicated via signal.
But orders are still to those in the chain of command. Aside from Hegseth who is at the top of the chain of command at DoD none of these people were part of the chain of command.
This was information sharing – that is all.
George, you’ve scored points. Someone put Goldberg there and perhaps it was a way of saying, I’m here, too incognito.
Senator Schiff made the point in an interview I saw yesterday–the information that is now out there would allow the Houthis to reverse engineer the operation to figure out where the point of origin was and how the weapons were sent–so, they’ll be ready next time, and can and will shoot down our planes. What they did is wrong and indefensible.
To the extent there is any anger over this – it is that some idiot thinks there is a legal case here and Once again Judge Boasberg is butting into an area he does not belong. This was a miliatary operation Thousnads of miles outside the US, Boasberg is trying to prove Steven Miller wrong when he said Judges can not redirect Carrier Battle Groups.
People are getting Angry with Judges that think they run the country. We did not elect judges. They have lifetime appointments and are restricted to adjudicating the law and constitution in actual cases and controversies legitimately before them.
They are not investigatiors,
They are not prosecutors.
They can not opine on the wisdom of the actions in cases before them.
They are limited to what they have jurisidiction over and the law and constitution.
There are excellent centuries old reasons for that.
But left wing judges are envious of the powers of banana repoublic judges who seem to think they actually run countries.
And THAT angers people.
Those like you who think this is a bigger deal than it is.
People are not angry with you.
They just think you are a fool.
Turley can comment on this if he wants – I would guess he may not – it is outside his focus.
There are no free speech issues here.
He might comment on the case as it goes before Boasbeg – that is atleast a legal issue.
It is possible that some conservatives migh passionately disagree with him – but I doubt that.
He has already opined on the left wing lawfare. He opposes political impeachment and expects SCOTUS to reign this in and urges patience until they do. That is generally correct, but the courts already have poor trust and credibility and it is being further eroded by the day.
And the left wing courts are increasingly egregious in their interferance in legitimate executive actions.
The role of the courts is to rule on constitutionality and legality – not thwart the implimentation of the policies the electorate voted for.
Or worse take over the executive branch as some of these orders have done.
People may not understand the nuances of constitutional law.
But they do understand when a judge is pretending to be president.
Anyway if Turley comments on the Signal Chat – it will likely be on the judical overreach.
Those of you on the left seem to think this blog is DailyKos or TPM,
But it is not – this is not a political blog it is a legal blog with a focus on free speech.
Even if you would not know that from the comments section.
John, I don’t know how you can respond like this to the short-bussers every day and not get sick of it. I can’t even handle reading past the first sentence most times. And, ultimately, I think all you’re doing is playing into their hands. They want people to answer so they can spew their next talking point.
I don’t think you should stop (because your comments are, bar none, the best on this site), but maybe less fervor in trying to negotiate with the chessboard-crapping pidgeon?
It is not about them.
I may “reply” to George etc. But others here read those replies.
The point is to dismantle their stupid remakrs and demonstrate the shallowness of their thought to those who might have doubts.
“The role of the courts is to rule on constitutionality and legality – not thwart the implimentation of the policies the electorate voted for.”
The appeals court ruling begs to differ. They correctly pointed out that Judge Boesberg’s TRO and the plaintiffss arguments on the merits are likely to succeed. The consitutionality is on due process rights and the legality of invoking a war-tiime law that requires a declaration of war.
The appeals court noted that the context of the wording in the AEA specifically refers “invasion” and “incursion” in military terms. Gang members are not a military invasioin force and they further noted that the states territories were not threatened by these gang members as one example of why the term “invasion” does not meet the claims the Trump administration interprets as “invasion”.
Contra to your claims the AEA does not prevent courts from exercising judicial review. Because even Alien enemies have the right to challenge the government’s claims of who they are. The court noted that the plaintiffs are not challenging the detentions, but the government’s allegations that they belong to a gang. It has already been reported that despite the government’s assertions that only gang members and men have been deported using the AEA women have been included in the deportations which El Salvador could not accept. They had to be flown back to the U.S. for proper processing.
This showed the judge that the administration sought to deport immigrants as fast as possible before any court would have a chance to weight in on the legality of the deportations. The orders to stop deportations and flights were ignored and the judge has every right to find out if the government did indeed ignore his orders. That is not a usurpation of the president’s powers.
“The appeals court ruling begs to differ.”
The constitution begs to differ with the appeals court and soon the Supreme court will confirm that.
” They correctly pointed out that Judge Boesberg’s TRO and the plaintiffss arguments on the merits are likely to succeed. The consitutionality is on due process rights and the legality of invoking a war-tiime law that requires a declaration of war.”
That would be the same two judicial morons that were totally off in left field on presidential immunity.
While I disagree with the SCOTUS immunity decision – the CORRECT decision is that only Congress can overcome presidential immunity through impeachment and trial in the senate.
Regardless SCOTUS pretty much ignored the nonsense that these two bozos produced.
And BTW they were not even capable of agreeing with each other.
Read Judge Walkers Dissent. No the AEA is not limited to a declared war – read the actual text of the AEA.
BTW the AEA is NOT a “war-time” law it was passed in 1798 the US was not at War, Adams was president, and it was used by Adams.
Regardless both the text and the history of the AEA make it clear it is not limited to declared war.
The text of the AEA has been posted here many times – you have no excuse for being ignorant of it.
Next under the AEA the due process illegal aliens are owed is habeus.
Without the AEA the due process illegal aliens are owed is very little more than Habeus.
Throughout your posts today you have presumed criminal standards of beyond a reasonable doubt for legal issues that do not require crimes and do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Illegal immigrants are not citizens and only have a small subset of rights.
They quite litterally have no right to be in the US. There deportation is presumptive on establishing they are not here legally.
That is the only due process they are entitled to . Even legal aliens are not entitled tot he same due process as citizens.
You rant about constitutionality – who has standing – this is a law passed by congress granting the president broad power to deport under any of I beleive 4 circumstances – several of which the president is the sole judge.
As I have said repeatedly (as has SCOTUS) the courts do not issue advisory opinions.
They rule on specific cases that are brought by plantiffs that have standing, and are within their jurisdiction.
The constitutionality of the AEA was already decided by SCOTUS – so Boasberg has no power to address constitutionality.
Further you/Boasberg claims this is an APA case – but it is not. The challenge is to Trump’s invokation of the AEA,
The APA only involves violations of actual rights by agencies, executing constitutionally delegated powers.
Claims regarding the AEA are claims about the presidents actions. Those do not fall under the APA.
As Judge WAlker noted – you can spin this 10,000 different ways. this is a Habeus case and therefore Boasberg has no jurisdiction.
To paraphrase all “Let my people go” cases are habeus cases.
If you seek to avoid deportation, if you seek to move from one prison to the next, if you seek to be released from custody that is all Habeus.
Boasberg has no jurisdiction.
We have been over this before.
“The appeals court noted that the context of the wording in the AEA specifically refers “invasion” and “incursion” in military terms.”
“That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event,”
declared war OR
any invasion OR
predatory incursion
Further these can be
perpitrated OR
attempted OR
threatened
and can be by a
foreign nation OR
Government.
Asserting these are military terms is incorrect – it is also stupid as the military power of the president is not reviewable by the courts.
As I said these judges are bozos.
BTW as AG Bar noted – there is a presidential finding that meeets the requirements of the AEA before Trump took office.
The US intelligence services reported and the president issued as a finding, that the Maduro government has conspired with Tda to send criminals to the US for the purposes of disrupting the country as an Act of War.
This clearly meets “a preditory incusion” and an act of war by a foreign govenrment.
And again – the presidents military powers AND ihis foreign relations powers and his national security powers are NOT reviewable by the courts.
Others have cited the Lutieck case from the 50’s – that should be read.
“Gang members are not a military invasioin force”
When they are acting in concert with a foreign govenrment – they are.
Again another stupid claim. There are myriads of criminal forces throughout the world that are also governments unto themselves or acting at the direction of Governments.
Oct 7 in Israel was an Act of war committed by Terrorist gangs.
Are you saying that Hamas, Hezbolla, the Taliban, ISIS are not criminal gangs as well as sometimes governments or government affiliated actors ?
“they further noted that the states territories were not threatened by these gang members as one example of why the term “invasion” does not meet the claims the Trump administration interprets as “invasion”.”
The courts again do not have jurisdiction over the presidents military powers – again read Lutieck and many other SCOTUS cases.
Texas has delcared that they were invaded.
Further a predatory incusion is something less than an invasion. \
Tda has taken over city blocks apartment complexes and precluded lawful autority for axcess or control of these areas – that is a predatory incursion. And the Madoru govenrment conspired with Tda to do so to the harm of the US – and act of war.
The AEA specifies that the POWER to determine if the conditions required by the AEA are met belongs to the president.
If Congress disagrees they can repeal the AEA or modify it or challenge the presidents application of it in court.
Regardless this is a law passed by congress that intersects with the military and foreign relations powers of the president – except that it grants the president powers inside the US. There is no infringement or even Nexus with the the civil rights of citizens. There is no question of its constitutionality. Those aliens that are impacted by it are guaranteed Habeus rights and nothing more. Judge Boasberg has no jurisdiction over Habeus claims in TX. In multiple wars the AEA is outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
I would firther note that in the Lutieck case the court explicitly found that the courts do not have the authority to determine if we are at war.
YOu and Boasberg and the Plantiffs cite the APA. The APA only covers federal agencies. Requires a violation of the rights of citizens, and agencies executing powers delegated to the executive by congress – not presidential powers.
Not one of the APA criteria are met. No delegated powers, not even a claim that a citizens rights are infringed.
I beleive I have identified atleast 5 different ways that the courts do not have anything beyond Habeus jurisdiction – and Boasberg does not have Habeus jurisdiction. So that is 6 different ways this case is not properly before Boasberg.
Only one would be sufficient.
“Contra to your claims the AEA does not prevent courts from exercising judicial review.”
The supreme court says otherwise.
” Because even Alien enemies have the right to challenge the government’s claims of who they are.”
Correct that is a habeus claim and must be made in TX, and DOJ has said that these Tda members had the oportunity to make Habeus claims – the 5 plantiffs in this case filed this case in DC as a habeus claim – because that is what it is, but later changed their complaint when Boasberg told tham that a Habeus complaint would be outside his jurisdiction.
But calling this case something besides a habeus case does not change the fact that it is a habeus case.
“The court noted that the plaintiffs are not challenging the detentions, but the government’s allegations that they belong to a gang.”
Again word games. First please look up habeus, it applies to detention, transfer, deportation. There claim is a Habeus claim.
Back to TX. Further they claimed they dropped their habeus claim – because that would have sent them back to tx.
Now they can just be deported to El Salvador.
The law is not about word games.
“It has already been reported that despite the government’s assertions that only gang members and men have been deported using the AEA women have been included in the deportations which El Salvador could not accept. They had to be flown back to the U.S. for proper processing.”
There have been many such claims reported. I am not aware of any of them having been proved True.
Regardless AGAIN a Habeus claim. DOJ has already said even those currently in El Salvador had and continue to have the ability to make a Habeus claim – again in TX.
“This showed the judge that the administration sought to deport immigrants as fast as possible”
Correct – that is the purpose of the AEA.
You keep trying to convert legal and constitutional intentions into illegal or improper intentions.
The government is always free to want to proceed as fast as it can.
It is not always able to.
The plaintiffs in this case initially filed a Habeus claim in the wrong district OBVIOUSLY every on of those deported had and still has the ability to file a Habeus claim.
BTW Women can be members of Tda. The only issue regarding a women is that El Salvador does not want women.
Given that Venezeula has reveresed and now agreed to accept Venezeulan deportees anyone El Salvador rejects will end up in Venezeula.
“before any court would have a chance to weight in on the legality of the deportations.”
Again THESE 5 plaintiffs filed a Habeus claim in a court 1000miles from where they were being detained – OBVIOUSLY your claim that they were denied access to courts is false.
These five plantiffs were also NOT deported to El Salvador – because they raised a Habeus claim.
“The orders to stop deportations and flights were ignored ”
False. The judge did not issue his verbal order until after planes had taken off and possibly left US air space.
Verbal orders are not binding except for actions inside the court room because judges nearly always write the written order differently – after reflection – and Boasberg wrote a much narrower written order than verbal order – recognizing he was on shaky grounds.
At the time the written order was issued one plane was landing in El Savador and the other was 20 mintues behind over Hondouras – outside the Judges jurisdiction.
I would further note that it is NOT the DOJ who rushed these people out. They were following normal procedures the flights left as scheduled days before. It is Boasberg who demanded that DOJ personal show up in his court on a Saturday to address an emergency TRO in a case they had not even been notified of. The planes left TX not DC. DOJ had about 30min from the start of the hearing – before any order was issued to direct the planes not to take off – and that is BEFORE the order. DOJ had no reason to expect that Boasberg would not toss this case for lack of jurisdiction or simply order these 5 plantiffs held for Habeus hearing in TEXAS.
It was a complete surprise to DOJ that boasberg would claim bogus jurisdiction over what was at that time a Habeus claim.
it is Boasberg that rushed to issue an illegal order. Not DOJ that violated it.
Now Boasberg is stalled by the DOJ’s invocation of the state secrets priviledge because he is demanding information that is once again within the military and foreign policy powers of the president which are again Non-reviewable.
Boasberg has no more authority to ask for infomration regarding negotians between the US govenrment an El Salvador or VBenezeula than he is to make himself a party to Ukraine war peace negotiations.
“the judge has every right to find out if the government did indeed ignore his orders.”
Nope. See above. His orders were not ignored. he did not issue an order until those he never had jurisdiction over – the case plantiffs are still in TX, were outside the US.
“That is not a usurpation of the president’s powers.”
It is YOUR judges that claim this is a military issue – Only SCOTUS has limited jurisdiction over the military.
Only SCOTUS has limited jurisdiction over the presidents war powers, or foreign relations powers.
This will hit SCOTUS shortly.
Boasberg and numerous other judges have overreached in multiple different ways.
The open question is precisely what basis SCOTUS will use to toss this.
While Kagan did not opine on the AEA she recently railed about nationwide TRO’s
It is very close to certain that SCOTUS will toss this. Among other reasons because if they do not reign in these nationwide TRO’s
Congress is moving quickly to do so.
SCOTUS acting is a step towards restoring the trust the in the courts.
Forcing congress to do so leaves the courts weak.
Here is Volokh post from Josh Blackman
A libertarian constitutional scholar and no supporter of Trump.
In this article Blackman barely touches the legal issues.
But delves into the political ones.
As Blackman notes – Marshal in his fight to establish the authority of SCOTUS as the final authroity on Judicial review was far more politically astute than Roberts.
Marshall wrote oppinions that said The court is the final authority, but then found a way to avoid an order that the sitting president – Jefferson and later Jackson was with near certainty going to ignore.
Marbury is the great Supreme Court decision that establishes the courts power of judicial review. But often forgotten is that Marbury punted – It did NOT order Jefferson to deliver the presidential commissions of his predicessor.
Marshall understood that the legitimacy of the court rested more in aapearance and public support than anywhere else.
Blackman and many others are critical of Roberts and ACB’s wimp out on the Judge Ali case. Trump ultimately got what he wanted.
The court made it impossible for Ali to force the disbursement of $2B in USAID funds. While at the same time choosing not to take on Alis’ TRO
AS Turley and Barr said in interviews I linked. These lower DC courts have already lost this battle.
The only question is whether SCOTUS or congress reigns the courts in first.
It is far better for the courts and the country for SCOTUS not to whimp out again.
Unlike Blackman I think Roberts is getting that message.
But Like Blackman I an near certain ACB has. The only question is whether this is a 5-4 or a 9-0 decision.
It needs to be 9-0 and it needs to be soon.
We are not there yet, but we are very close to the point where the Trump administration can say FU to the vourts and get away with it.
If that happens with Roberts as Cheif Justice – THAT will be his legacy forever. If the Trump administration actually ignores a court order,
it will move to ignoring many, Congree will do nothing – especially because these court orders are garbage.
But that will radically weaken judicial review. Subsequent presidents – right or left will then also chose to ignore the courts.
The only remedy for that is impeachment – and that will not happen when Congress and the people side with the president not the courts.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/03/23/luttig-a-rebuke-from-the-nations-highest-court-could-well-cripple-mr-trumps-presidency-and-tarnish-his-legacy/
George said Turley’s article is nothing more than a distraction from the disaster that is Signalgate
George ACTUALLY said: BBBBBUUUTTTTT…. MUH TURLEY!!!!! BBBBUUUUTTTTT…. MUH TRUMP!!!! BBBBBUUUTTTTT…. MUH TURLEY!!!!! BBBBUUUUTTTTT…. MUH TRUMP!!!!
This guy is a typical example of a contemporary dim. Over educated, filthy rich and has nothing in common with the rest of us.
However, there will be no investigation into the Pete Hegseth clown show.
Of course that is to be expected. Vandalism is more important than a national security breach of epic stupidity and incompetence.
What’s funny, or not so funny, is Trump is so incompetent, as his followers are, they don’t understand what wrong he did nor the gravity of it.
Millions in destroyed property, domestic terroism is much more important than the embarrsing accidental inclusion of a journalist in a chat where they did not belong. There was no national security breach.
George still hasnt told us exactly what classification level those texts had.
Instead he makes up more shit.
Perhaps he can explain this “breach” to us, because it looks pretty pathetic to me.
However, there will be no investigation into the Pete Hegseth clown show.
Hey! You copied and pasted that from what you posted here about The Oval Office House Plant’s SecDef – right after the Mostly Peaceful Successful Abandonment Of Afghanistan!
Well, Goldman may be onto something here. If the FBI and DOJ were not investigating Democrat voters acts of political terrorism on Tesla, resources could be freed up to investigate how diaries of presidential children end up in the hands of a muckraker.
Or they could be investigating traditional Catholic parents who attend school board meetings to criticize the policy that allows boys who like playing dress up to participate in girl’s athletics. You know, important stuff like.
But the FBI and DOJ investigating political and ecological terrorism against owners and dealers of the country’s most important electric cars is a misuse of power according to an elected Democrats whose party pretends transitioning to electric cars will solve the “climate crisis” that we all know is fake.
In other (good) news, when was the last time there was a “climate protest”? Odd that since the left found attacking Israel could hurt the west they forgot about the “climate”. Maybe hating on Elon and Tesla made them forget about the so-called “existential threat” of the “climate”.
As for Dan Goldman, he is a white, northern, extremely wealthy Jasmine Crockett. Educated…yet dumb.
Well It’s nice to see the Professor inch closer and closer to leaving the “mostly peaceful Democratic Party “. His words have started to take on a sense of severe frustration and even anger. I understand the feeling. You place your faith in a party that seems reasonable and likely to carry out some of your hopes and wishes and then, for inexplicable reasons, it seems to go off the rails. The reasonable people start to disappear and you are left with a morass of foul tempered screamers who are convinced that just saying the same foul things louder and louder will suddenly make them palatable. The Democratic Party once had thinkers and people of empathy with concern for all the of the country. Where have they gone? They once could manage cities, keep a budget, provide safety and make you proud of your city. Where have they gone?
Once the Professor gets to the point of a sense of Betrayal, he will leave. Many of us former democrats have walked this path.
Nice to see BabyTrump and George mess up their diapers early so we have time to clean up the blog. And then we have ATS, foul and highly unpleasant from the gitgo. He does not seem to have yet found that burr under his saddle. They seem to be the representatives of the Present Democratic Party along with Representative Goldman. What a simpering fool he is. Reminds me of Joe Biden about 30 + years ago.
GEB,
That is a good question, where have the traditional Democrat Party gone? In its current form it is nothing of the sort. More like something that has gone bad. The fact Goldman wants to end FBI investigations into domestic terrorism just tells you how bad the Democrat party has become.
“where have the traditional Democrat Party gone?”
Upstate, rapidly that question is disappearing to be replaced by how will the Democrat Party of the future get the thinkers to return?
Whining about unfairness, and using lawfare, are all that is left in the Dems arsenal. Lack of leadership, no viable future candidate (Bernie and AOC ticket…Bwahahahahaha), and continued use of violent protest, are not endearing them to anybody, including the Party base. They embrace every topic that is toxic to any Christian, Jew, and Catholic. Need any more be said?
Goldman is a trust fund baby, but not all trust funds babies are this dumb. His remarks are clearly scripted. Pelosi may be out but the uni-response is still in force. Antifa good, siege of the Federal Courthouse in Portland good (2020, an actual siege, 120 days, set fire to it). It begs the question, is there a plan to goad normies into responding with violence? Emergency powers, frightened populace etc. Fear is a weapon. If this were to be the case, then we have much more to fear than fear itself.
“Whining about unfairness, and using lawfare, are all that is left in the Dems arsenal.”
Really? Republicans have been whinning and complaining about it incessantly for four years. Now they are the ones doing it. Dunning-Kruger syndrome seems to be dominating the Republican party.
–from georgie, the one who just a few months ago learned about dunning-kruger, then tried to impress and advise all of us by repeatedly calling it “Kruger-Dunning” my. my. my. clown show.
Typical left wing nut, accuse others of your bad conduct wen they are complaining about or trying to stop your bad conduct.
The use of the law to end political lawfare is not political lawfare.
“The use of the law to end political lawfare is not political lawfare.”
ROFL!
It’s lawfare no matter how you try to parse it. Both sides use it to counter the other. That’s how legal fights are conducted because its more civil than drive-by shootings and gang-style armed conflict, right?
George your claim means that it is impossible to remedy lawfare,
If attempting to punish weaponizing lawfare is itself lawfare then either the first party to engage in lawfare always wins
or we just have infinite lawfare.
Logic is not your forte.
Please re-read your posts before you hit reply and think just a little bit – does this make any sense ?
WRONG again. Democrats weaponized the system and have no concern for American security or America. Republicans are trying to give government back to the people.
@George
The day you stop seeing every microscopic aspect of life through a political lens is the day you might begin to feel content. Human beings disagree. The best of us work it out. You fall into one of those groups, though your own thinking could change that. Prejudice, is prejudice, and you have it like a sickness, a real disease.
Nobody here takes your seriously, and you must be mighty privileged to haunt us the way you do, incessantly, every day. The rest of us actually have lives to attend to, people to be accountable to, including Professor Turley, who does this every day for us, for free.
Go blow, George; nobody cares. Now more than ever. You are a boil on the butt of humanity, at least stateside, and we almost literally all think so in this particular space. The trolls here can now be counted on one hand, and it’s rather telling that they are the *same* God**** trolls, every time. Nobody is listening anymore. If you are just a cantankerous loner acting on their own and not a paid shill, then go to f***ing therapy and spare us. If it is the other: tell your employers they are now literally flushing their dollars down the toilet.
“They embrace every topic that is toxic to any Christian, Jew, and Catholic. “
Though not conservative, Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania, is a politician who still remains upright. His problem is he is Jewish but presently the Democrats are antisemitic.
Wow. Just – *wow*. Utter, unhinged, madness. Sadly, that’s the modern left in a nutshell.
The question of the day for Jonathan Turley:
Is suborning terrorism in the public square protected by the 1st Amendment? He is avoiding a key legal question by hiding behind the vague phrase “rage rhetoric”.
pbinca – you need a concrete example. Details matter.
The punishment for what Turley calls “rage rhetortic” is public opprobrium, not legal consequences.
The reqiuirements to punish speech cover only a small portion of “rage rhetoric”.
I do not have Turley’s problem with Rage Rhetoric.
Sometimes it is used by nutjobs to jusify bad acts.
If the public accepts that they should condemn the rage rhetoric not criminally punish it.
I have no problem with people engaging in rage rhetoric and no problem with people being held accountable – by the public – not government for rage rhetoric.
What is your perceived difference between free speech of an onerous nature and speech used for inciting to commit a crime?
“Suborning” is not a legal term in this context. I think the term you are looking for is “incitement”, and that is very strictly defined. Incitement is speech that is both (1) subjectively intended and (2) objectively likely to whip its audience up emotionally and temporarily rob them of their free will, causing them to (3) imminently commit a crime. All three elements must be present for it to be incitement. Calmly giving an audience information (whether true or false) and arguments (whether valid or invalid) which they can consider and decide for themselves whether to commit a crime is NOT incitement, and CAN’T be a crime because it is protected speech.