Below is my column in the Hill on the murder of Charlie Kirk, the latest victim of our age of rage. The evidence of Antifa scribblings and indoctrination of the shooter came as no surprise. For months, some of us have been warning Democratic leaders about their dangerous rhetoric and how it would be received by the most radical elements in the Antifa movement.
Here is the column:
“Prove me wrong.”
For years, that tagline of Charlie Kirk and his group, Turning Point USA, enraged many on the left. In “an age of rage,” nothing is more triggering for the perpetually angry than an invitation to debate issues.
Indeed, someone has now killed him for it.
What is most chilling about the assassination is that it was not in the slightest degree surprising. This follows two attempted assassinations of President Trump and the killing of a pair of Minnesota politicians.
I heard of the assassination in Prague as I prepared to speak about the age of rage and the growing attacks on free speech. I was profoundly saddened by the news. I knew Charlie and respected his effort to challenge the orthodoxy on college campuses. We all have received regular death threats (and Charlie more than most), but there is still a hope that even the most deranged will leave these threats at the ideation rather than the action stage.This killer left Charlie’s wife, Erika, and her two young children as the latest victims of senseless violence against someone who refused to be silenced.
We do not have to know much about the shooter to recognize the rage. The person who killed Charlie did not view him as a father or even as a person. That is the transformative, enabling effect of rage.
In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I write about rage and the uncomfortable truth for many engaging in rage rhetoric: “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. Like all addictions, there is not only a dependency on rage but an intolerance for opposing views. … Indeed, to voice free speech principles in a time of rage is to invite the rage of the mob.”
Charlie was brave, and he was brash. He refused to yield to the threats while encouraging others to speak out on our campuses.
He was particularly hated for holding a mirror to the face of higher education, exposing the hate and hypocrisy on our campuses. For decades, faculty have purged their ranks of conservatives and libertarians. Faced with the intolerance of most schools, polls show that a large percentage of students hide their values to avoid retaliation from faculty or their fellow students.
Charlie chose to change all that. TPUSA challenges people to engage and debate them. The response from some on the left has been to trash their tables and threaten the students. Recently, at UC Davis, police stood by and watched as a TPUSA tent was torn apart.
Charlie is only the latest such victim, and he is unlikely to be the last.
For months, some of us have warned about the rise in rage rhetoric. Some believe that they can ride a wave of rage back into power. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) has called for people to take to the streets to save democracy and posted a picture of himself brandishing a baseball bat.
Likewise, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) declared, “I’m going to punch these sons of bitches in the mouth.”
Various radical groups welcome such rage rhetoric, particularly Antifa. The most violent anti-free speech group in the U.S., Antifa has long attacked journalists and others with opposing views. In his “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” Professor Mark Bray noted that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists. … From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”
Alleged shooter Tyler Robinson, 22, reportedly left telltale Antifa markings on evidence, including marking bullets inscribed with the lyrics: “Bella Ciao, Bella Ciao, Bella Ciao, Ciao, Ciao”(from an Italian anti-fascist anthem) and “Hey, fascist! Catch!”
I previously testified in Congress about the dangers of Antifa, and I discuss the group in my book. Despite such warnings, Democratic leaders have dismissed those dangers or actually embraced Antifa.
Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison (D), now Minnesota’s attorney general, previously celebrated how Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. Liberal sites sell Antifa items to celebrate the violent group, including onesies for “Antifa babies.”
Some politicians have privately expressed alarm at the rising violent speech in their ranks. One Democratic member told Axios, “Some of [our supporters] have suggested … what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.”
Protesters are burning cars and dealerships. Even lawyers and reporters on the left are throwing Molotov cocktails at police. Some on the left have rolled out guillotines and chanted, “We got the guillotine, you better run.”
Just before he was shot at Utah Valley University, Kirk rallied the group with its signature chant of “prove me wrong.” Someone responded by killing him.
Of course, the murder proved nothing except that senseless hate is sweeping over our country. Someone preferred to kill Kirk rather than engage with him or others who held opposing views.
It is precisely the lack of debate and dialogue that has triggered this type of violence. For those dwelling deep in the hardened silos of our news and social media, dissenting voices become increasingly intolerable.
Charlie is still exposing that hypocrisy. As I prepared to address Charlie’s murder in Prague, anti-free speech groups were already using his murder to justify even greater limits on free speech to combat hate and disinformation. This is the ultimate dishonoring of his life and his legacy. Charlie died in the fight for free speech, challenging speech codes and censorship.
Greater censorship will not make political violence less likely; it will only make the likelihood of another Charlie Kirk less likely. Europe shows that extremists flourish under speech controls. The neo-Nazis are having a banner year in portraying themselves as victims.
It is the rest of us that are deterred by speech codes. According to polling, only 18 percent of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Fifty-nine percent of Germans do not even feel free expressing themselves in private among friends. Only 17 percent feel free to express themselves on the internet.
Charlie was hated because he exposed the left’s intolerance of opposing views … all in the purported cause of achieving greater tolerance. By challenging others to debate, he triggered a generation of speech-phobics who are more interested in silencing others than speaking on their own account.
Charlie was hated for stripping away the pretense and self-delusion of those canceling, blacklisting, and attacking others for holding opposing views. He did so by standing in harm’s way.
The conservatives that Kirk coaxed out of the shadows can honor his memory by showing that they will not be silenced. They can step forward and renew his same challenge: “Prove me wrong.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Guilty of associating with people who exercise their freedom of speech?
Kirk’s death was a tragedy, Turls. And despite your efforts to turn it on Antifa, it’s much more likely due to internal squable within magat world.
While being a misogynistic racist is not a reason to be killed, it certainly contributed to Kirk’s early death.
Nobody needs to “turn anything on antifa”—they give themselves away. Go look at their vile (and revealing) perfomances on TikTok.
And NO, GiGi, Kirk was not a “misogynistic racist,” but your endless lies and malicious rehtroic “…certainly contrilbute to Kirks early death.”
MAGAT world? Get a life ANON!!
You are reading it all wrong.
I would offer a prayer for your deviant soul…but i truly believe it would be wasted effort judging by your complete ignorant hate filled screeds.
Wrong again dummy.
Scot Adams @ScottAeamsSays-23h
Has anyone offered a direct quote-in context-from Charkie Kirk that they considered racist or sexist or bigoted?
That dog is not barking.
By now, I should have seen plenty of examples. All I hear is generic insults and hate.
Come on all you Anon haters and trolls, show us that direct quote ‘in context’ that is racist or sexist or bigoted.
No snipping of a few words to change the meaning.
The idiocy of the response of so many on the left to this assassination is exposed in its vileness,
buy the response of some of those on the left who ARE decrying this.
Those on the left who are speaking out against this vile political violence, are NOT gaining the attention of the media – EITHER on the right of the left.
Interesting both left and right leaning media are highlighting the same people – who are railing about Kirk.
But there are alot of voices on the left condemning this – some of them are surprising.
And those should be given credit.
Charlie Kirk is dead – there is no fix for that.
Kirk’s family has been devastated. This will have a profoundly negative effect on the next several years of their lives – and some things will never go away.
But it is highly likely they will not allow this to ruin the rest of their lives.
They will eventually move past this and get on with their lives
Tyler Robbinson’s life is effectively over.
Even if there is no death penalty he will spend the rest of his life in prison.
Tyler Robbinson’s family is actually going to have a harder time than the Kirk Family.
Their son murdered someone – it is hard to get past that.
It is hard for others to get past that.
The Kirk Family will get lots of support.
The world will quietly turn its back on the Robinson family.
We have other examples of families of high profile killers – such as the families of the Columbine killers.
This tears those families apart.
Tyler Robbinson has wrecked the future of his family.
So true John
When you rule out discussing your differences with another person, you’re sort of limited to one other alternative.
“Appeals court blocks Trump from firing Fed’s Lisa Cook, setting stage for SCOTUS clash”
“The 2-1 ruling is a near-term blow to Trump, who fired Cook last month on social media.”
– Fox News
______________
The president enjoys all of the executive power.
The judicial branch has no executive power and may not usurp the executive power of the president.
Where is the Supreme Court – where is Professor Turley?
This guy slept through his high school US history class on Marbury v. Madison.
Judicial review is judicial power, not executive power. Executive power, if not subject to judicial review, would make us a banana republic. I’m a Washington fan, not Simon Bolivar.
“Executive power, if not subject to judicial review, would make us a banana republic. I’m a Washington fan, not Simon Bolivar.”
‘Judicial review, where unelected judges usurp the power of the Executive Branch, is where you get statist government by unelected judges who don’t answer to the voters like the Executive Branch does.
When did Lisa Cook work under the judicial branch, where they get to decide if she gets fired or a medal for committing mortgage fraud and getting away with it like her last name is Biden?
Cite the Constitution please, without making things up as you go along.
He did he just paraphrased he constitution.
“Article II
Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
Judicial Review is NOT a 2nd opinion on the effacacy of a law or executive act.
Judicial review is the courts power to examine executive actions and laws purely for compliance with the law and constitution.
Hiring and firing people is a power that ALL executives have – and in the executive branch of the federal govenrment that power belongs to the president.
The president can not fire members of congress of the judiciary ro their staffs.
But he can fire anyone in the executive branch.
You’re going to have to find a way to adjudicate absent the exercise of executive power because only the president has any and may do that.
Marbury found that legislation may not amend, and it must have found that a writ of mandamus is the unconstitutional exercise of executive power, of which a court has none.
Advocate for and compel Congress to impeach and the Senate to convict if you do not approve of the exercise of executive power, which only the president has.
Correct – but Judicial review is limited to compliance with the constitution and the law.
Judges do not get to way in one how the govenrment SHOULD work.
There is no doubt the president can fire members of the federal reserve board for cause.
There is an open question as to whether he can do so without cause.
Generally the president can fire anyone in the executive branch without case.
But there are a few positions that since the 30’s have been more complex.
The court has been moving away from the positions it took on this in the 30’s
But that is not relevant here.
Cook filed several false mortagage applications, and there are a number of other misrepresentations she has made of her past.
The false Mortgage applications are a felony.
Firing someone is NOT the same as convicting them.
There is no RIGHT to a job.
Cook has admitted the mortage application failures but claimed they were oversights.
That MIGHT convince a jury in a criminal trial.
But the standard for firing is far lower.
Cook filed several false mortagage applications, and there are a number of other misrepresentations she has made of her past.
These are only “allegations” at this stage. There’s been no finding of fact by a neutral judge, other non party, that the allegations are true. Not weighing in on Cook’s case or cause, just pointing out it should take more than mere allegations to remove or take adverse action against Cook.
Rabble:
Come off it. Her position requires a high fidelity of trust. If they truly were false, we would see her fighting it like hell. With her job, however, even a claim should be grounds for release.
Also, no word about people being fired, fined, arrested, unfairly jailed for “allegations” over the past 16 years under liberal rule?
TELL JUSTICE TANEY THAT
______________________________
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”
“I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861
What public high school teaches Marburg v Madison? These kids can’t even read or do math at grade level.
Of course the charge of mortgage fraud against Lisa Cook turns out to be completely bogus.
At the time she took out the mortgage she told her Credit Union that the home in Georgia was a vacation home.
“A loan summary from the Bank-Fund Staff Federal Credit Union in May 2021 reads: “Property Use: Vacation Home.” Additionally, public records in Fulton County, Georgia, reviewed by NBC News show that no tax exemptions available for a primary residence were sought by Cook
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/lisa-cook-federal-reserve-bank-documents-mortgage-fraud-allegations-rcna230964?utm_source=flipboard&utm_content=user%2FNBCNews
And of course there was no violation with her primary residence in Michigan.
“The property tax authority in Ann Arbor, Michigan, said that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook hasn’t broken rules for tax breaks on a home there that Cook declared her primary residence.
Ann Arbor has “no reason to believe” that Cook violated property tax rules, City Assessor Jerry Markey told Reuters. Cook has at times lived elsewhere and city records indicate she sought permission from Ann Arbor authorities to rent out the Michigan home on a short-term basis.
Temporary absence from the home or renting it out short-term wouldn’t disqualify her from a tax exemption in Ann Arbor, the tax official said. “Living elsewhere temporarily does not necessarily make an owner ineligible for a principal residence exemption,” said Markey.”
So she did everything by the book !!!
On the other hand we have the parents of Bill Pulte, Director of FHFA, who started all this nonsense.
Mark and Julie Pulte, the father and stepmother of Bill Pulte, have claimed so-called “homestead exemptions” for residences in wealthy neighborhoods in both Michigan and Florida, according to records. The exemption is meant to give a discount to homeowners on taxes for properties they use as their primary residence.
Local tax officials in both states say that claiming more than one home as a primary residence isn’t allowed and could be punishable by fines or back taxes. Darrin Kraatz, Director of Assessing for
Bloomfield Township, Michigan, on Thursday said the township “as of today” would revoke the exemption on the Pultes’ residence there.
According to public real estate records, and a resident at the Michigan house on Thursday evening, the home was rented out by the Pultes, a move that also violates rules for the exemption. “Revised tax bills will be issued to the Pultes, including all applicable penalties and interest,” Kraatz said.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bill-pulte-accused-fed-governor-lisa-cook-fraud-his-relatives-filed-housing-2025-09-05/
“Of course the charge of mortgage fraud against Lisa Cook turns out to be completely bogus.”
Of course, Lyin’ Like A Proud Biden is completely bogus. Got a deflection or a ‘whataboutism’ to throw in there as well?
The left is desperate to deflect from their collective guilt in the murder of Charlie Kirk. They willingly participated in the repeated slanders and casting as “fascist” and “Hitler” and “our democracy” garbage in order to incite a killing, and they got the killing they wanted. Then they start dancing on his grave and mocking him for being murdered by one of their own. They don’t care, they perhaps just realize it’s bad for PR. So then they deflect with “squirrel!” “Lisa Cook fraud not fraudulent!”
Nobody is falling for their tactics any more. That makes them even more desperate so they turn up the volume on a losing strategy. They are pathetic, evil, absurd, ridiculous, and wrong. On everything. There can be no reconciliation with the Left in this country until they confess error and repent. They must be thrown out of polite society and shunned. They must lose their jobs and their positions in academia and media. They must become persona non grata until they repent, or this nation will not survive another 10 years.
Ya gotta admit Lisa Cook has an absolutely slam dunk case for YUGE damages in her lawsuit
Because her boss, the only entity with all the executive power, fired her?
Read the Constitution, counselor.
The Fed is NOT part of the Executive branch.
It is not even a part of the federal government.
“The Federal Reserve Banks are not a part of the federal government, but they exist because of an act of Congress. Their purpose is to serve the public. So is the Fed private or public?
The answer is both. While the Board of Governors is an independent government agency, the Federal Reserve Banks are set up like private corporations. Member banks hold stock in the Federal Reserve Banks and earn dividends. Holding this stock does not carry with it the control and financial interest given to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations. The stock may not be sold or pledged as collateral for loans.
Member banks also elect six of the nine members of each Reserve Bank’s board of directors.”
https://www.stlouisfed.org/in-plain-english/who-owns-the-federal-reserve-banks
A Fed governor can only be removed for cause related to official duties. In the case of Lisa Cook, even if she did commit mortgage fraud (which she clearly did not), that would not be part of her official duties.
She will remain on the Fed board.
You learn something every day, don’t you MAGA moron.
There Federal Government has 3 branches – the executive, judicial and legislative.
There are NO other branches.
The Federal Reserve should have been found unconstitutional.
Congress can not constitutional create anything that is not part of the federal govenrment and not part of a specific branch of the federal government.
Presidents – not just Trump, but Obama, and Biden and prior presidents have been challenging this idiocy of quasi government and quasi independent.
And they have been slowly winning – and they have most particularly being doing so over the issue of hiring and firing.
AS YOU noted – the Fed Board of Governors is part of the Federal Government.
There is no such thing as an “independent agency” Both Biden and Trump have Fired the heads of “independent agencies” and those actions were challenged in court and the presidents WON.
This case is not about whether the president can fire a Fed Governor without cause,
but that case will likely be coming soon enough – and whoever is president at the time will win.
You write about the conditions under which a Fed Governor can be fired as if Congress can ignore the constitution. All executive power is vested in the president.
If you are a member of the executive branch – and the Fed is NOT part of the Judiciary or legislative branches you can be fired by the president.
You are also totally wrong about what constitutes FOR CAUSE – Do you honestly think that a Fed Governor can not be fired for commiting a murder ?
Cook stands accuse of a financial felony. She has admitted the FACTS of the felony, and is esentially claiming innocence because there was no mens rea – no criminal intent.
She MIGHT successfully persuade a jury of that.
But the standard for a FOR CAUSE firing is NOT proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all elements of the crime including criminal intent. Her own claim that she was careless and signed paperwork that others improperly filled out – is all by itself sufficient CAUSE to fire her. She has one of the most important financial jobs in this country. The banks MUST be able to trust her, the people MUST be able to trust her. Carelessness in matters of finance is ABSOLUTELY cause for termination.
If the current court decision – another of these stupid preliminary injunctions is not overturned by the apelate court, it will be overturned by the supreme court – likely without comment beyond reverse and remand.
While there is little doubt the president has the right to terminate a Fed Governor FOR CAUSE – and her conduct meets the requirements FOR CAUSE termination – and NO there is no requirement to convict before firing – she could even win the criminal case and still be fired FIRST. the more important reason that SCOTUS will reverse and remand is this is an Equites case. a TRO or preliminary injunction on an equites matter is pretty much NEVER allowed. Because equities means MONEY. There is not and never had been a Right to any job – much less a right to a job as a Fed Governor. Even if the trial court were to determine that Trump has fired her illegally – the remedy is back pay – not her job back.
While EXACTLY his case was not previously litigated – there have been a RAFT of similar cases of supposedly independent agencies heads or board members being fired.
In the past 20 years NONE have won.
Whether you like it or not – this case is a slam dunk win for the president, and Cook should have resigned. By fighting this she is reducing the unconstitutional ambiguity of the federal reserves independence.
The court should just find the Fed Unconstitutional – but they are not going to do that.
This will be an easy decision – it will be atleast 6-3, there is a small possibility it will be unanimous.
To avoid finding the federal reserve unconstitutional, the court will find that Congresses grant of Fed Independence does not extent to protecting a Governor from firing for cause by the president.
Again we have been through this before – with CFPB and with the OSC head. And I beleive other cases.
The power to hire and fire is purely executive – the constitution has no advise and consent provision for firing. Congress can not even make laws restricting the presidents power to fire people in the executive branch.
Cook signed federally required paperwork containing false information and language indicating that providing false information was a federal crime.
She may have done so carelessly, she may have signed paperwork others filled out.
Those are defenses she can make to a jury if this goes to trial.
But they have ZERO bearing on whether she can be fired.
The standard of proof for firing someone is NOT proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
And the incredible trust required for the job of Fed Governor make even carelessness – legitimate cause.
I would note though it is not relevant to the lawsuit, it is relevant to her qualifications as a Fed Governor – this is not the first “Careless” misrepresentation of Cook.
She claimed her thesis was published in a peer reviewed journal – it was not.
Further the core work to her thesis ultimately fell apart – the dataset she used was incomplete and her conclusion fell about when the full dataset was used.
A paper that did not hold up under scrutiny is the only consequential accomplishment she has had in here life.
Odd because I never read “for cause related to official duties”. Methinks you made up that related to official duties bunk.
This will be appealed – the Judge will be overturned, if not by the appelate courts then by SCOTUS. Cook will be fired. SCOTUS is not even likely to look at the merits of the case.
They are with near certainty going to rule that the president can fire a Fed Governor FOR CAUSE. That the federal courts DO have judicial review and Cook Can challenge the firing.
But that they can not issue a TRO – they can not prevent the firing. What they can do it AFTER a full civil trial for wrongful termination, that if she wins she is entitled to some back pay.
There will NOT be YUGE damages, just back pay and the will STILL be fired.
whether she is criminally convicted is a different question.
I doubt there will be a felony conviction.
“Of course the charge of mortgage fraud against Lisa Cook turns out to be completely bogus.”
Nope – what she “told” a person at a credit union is unimportant.
She filled out Government paperwork for the loan that misrepresented the use of the properties.
She has ADMITTED that – claiming this was just a mistake. She has also claimed that the error was made by others.
Those are valid defenses to Criminal charges and the MAY or may not convince a jury.
But the criminal case is INDEPENDENT.
This is about whether she can be fired.
If absolutely everything she has said is accpeted as true – it is still a basis to fire her.
This is very important appointed position it requires competence skill and oversite that she has NOT show in her personal affairs.
I have very little doubt SCOTUS will uphold her firing for cause.
But she stands some chance of jury nullification in a criminal trial.
Thought there really should be a plea deal here
Basically admitt the violation – even using the words she has already used to the media, and plead guilty to a misdemenaor, and resign.
“A loan summary from the Bank-Fund Staff Federal Credit Union in May 2021 reads: “Property Use: Vacation Home.”
That is admissible evidence in a criminal trial. It might persuade a jury.
But it does not change the way she filled out federal paperwork.
“Additionally, public records in Fulton County, Georgia, reviewed by NBC News show that no tax exemptions available for a primary residence were sought by Cook”
So ? Not familiar with Fulton County, but in most places vacation homes and residences are taxed the same.
“The property tax authority in Ann Arbor, Michigan,”
The crime is NO about property taxes.
It is about filing false federal paperwork in a mortgage apoplication – paperwork that contains a notice that misrepresentaitons are a crime.
The purpose of that paperwork is NOT to set property taxes – it is to determine the risk that the government will take on a mortgage guarantee.
People walk away from underwater vacation homes all the time.
The risk on a primary residence is many times lower.
I would further note that the federal law, for mortgages, federal law of r other purposes, and state and local tax law with near certainty have completely different definitions of primary residence and vacation property.
For Federal Mortgage purposes you can only have ONE primary residence.
But you can be a legal permanent resident of multiple states – even voting in their local and state elections. With a “primary residence” in multiple states.
My father owned Multiple properties in multiple states and for TAX purposes several of them were “primary residences” – meeting that state requirements for a residency.
But he was only allowed to list ONE home as a primary residence for mortgage purposes.
Mortgages and taxes are completely different.
Cook may well NOT have violated the tax laws of GA and MI.
But she has inarguably violated federal mortgage laws and has admitted that.
“So she did everything by the book !!!”
Nope, she filled out federal mortgage applications falsely.
If you can establish that Pulte violated the law – then Prosecute him.
But as I noted before – for FEDERAL Mortgage application purposes you can only have one primary residence.
For TAX and residency purposes – states have their own laws and requirements.
Regardless, dependent on the State you can have multiple primary residences.
But you can not have more than one for federal mortgage purposes.
“Local tax officials in both states say that claiming more than one home as a primary residence isn’t allowed”
I would not trust those tax officials – who you do not cite.
Not only can you have a different primary residence in another state as far as state taxes go,
But you can have multiple primary residences in the same state.
“According to public real estate records, and a resident at the Michigan house on Thursday evening”
Public real estate records tend NOT to convey that information.
Regardless if Pulte has violated the law – the governments in question can come after him.
The crime Cook committed is regularly committed by millions of people on 2nd homes.
SOMETIMES it results in criminal prosecutions – but not often.
But the question is NOT – does everybody do it.
It is NOT – will a jury convict.
It is NOT – was this a unintentional error.
The question is can she be fired for it, and the answer is an unequivocal yes,
She is a federal Reserve board governor.
She is expected to be far far far more disciplined in her dealings with money than ordinary people.
She can be fire for cause for overdrawing her bank account – which is not a crime.
“And of course there was no violation with her primary residence in Michigan.
“’The property tax authority in Ann Arbor, Michigan . . .'”
The Left excels at deception.
Property tax is a local issue, and irrelevant to the allegations against Cook. She is facing charges of mortgage fraud, which is a *federal* issue.
“Left-Wing Streamer Steven Bonnell, AKA “Destiny” Calls For Conservatives to be Killed More Often So They Will be Afraid to Attend Events Or Speak Out”
– Gateway Pundit
_____________________
This is war!
Don’t take the bait.
I appreciate the implicit compliment but I don’t have an army.
My complement is directed to everyone.
I’m certain you tell your therapist something quite different comrade.
hlo
The antidote to rage is civility and willingness to take responsibility for keeping the atmospherics productive.
There is a faint suggestion that rage gives form to expression that is an alternative to violence. But, I’ve lived in decades prior where public speech was kept civil and moderated by gatekeepers (editors, TV producers) who were almost always mature, well-adjusted adults.
When social media blossomed, and anyone-could-publish, suddenly the ignorant, immature, and mean-spirited were given the more amplification than the well-informed, responsible and good-willed (thanks to addiction-guided algorithms).
I’m now certain that rage begets more rage — it doesn’t prevent violence, but rather stokes ideation in that direction.
Worst of all, rage drowns out the dispassionate, rational give and take necessary for complex problem-solving. It leads to widespread dysfunction and dystopia. Who can suggest how to work back to civility?
Would breaking the algorithmic chokehold over public communication make sense? That’s the idea behind repealing Section 230 — stop protecting the tech giants from lawsuits over the harms they create — break down their business plans — force humans back into the loop as responsible gatekeepers. Go back to having thousands of much less powerful publishers.
Outlawing the algorithms would be a good idea. They only feed addiction and build rage. They are designed with $$$ in view, to keep the eyeballs glued and the person engaged in social media, and away from real-world activities and interaction with family and friends. The Silicon Valley elite get uber-wealthy while the rest of the nation descends into civil war and loneliness.
I am not aware of any First Amendment or other constitutional protection for the use of such algorithms. If I’m wrong in that, please let me know. But if I’m right, then there is nothing stopping legislators from banning them. The legislators will have to be willing to forego some campaign contributions from wealthy Silicon Valley donors, so it will take principled action to accomplish. That and pressure from constituents.
I’ve said that before. AI doesn’t have 1st amendment freedoms.
I agree with you. But I’m not certain the algorithms are AI. They could just be conventional algorithms. It is an interesting question – interesting to me at least – whether they are protected by 1A. I think not, even though they determine what speech gets expressed. Nobody would be suppressing speech, just the algorithm that determines how the computer decides what speech gets expressed next. I’m not aware of any judicial decisions on that question (doesn’t mean there aren’t any).
@oldmanfromkansas
Yes, Silicon Valley basically has immunity, which is a huge part of the problem, it’s called the Communications Decency Act, and it goes back to 1996, a time when no one foresaw any of this (except for those of us with the eyes to see):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act
Throw in draconian TOS agreements for online platforms, which are perfectly legally binding, and which most don’t even read, and you have a perfect storm.
James, but in your opinion the algorithms could still be banned legislatively, right?
We discussed the CDA, section 230, a number of years ago, but Hamburger’s suggestions were based on government censorship dealing with content, while we are dealing with design. I do not know why the companies cannot be sued under negligence, consumer protection, and product liability. Minors are one of the most affected groups, and the sympathy factor cannot be ignored.
While I think that CDA S230 protections are unconstitutional, to a large extent Musk has made this a dead issue.
He bought Twitter, fired something over 70% of the employees – large numbers of whom were censors, and he did not fail.
The rest of SM has seen this and we have been seeing layoffs in Tech particularly SM for years.
Censorship is an expensive no value proposition and quietly SM is moving away.
It is not just rage. It is also an ideology which says that the ends justify the means.
True.
Charlie Kirk wanted his followers to be “an American patriot” by bailing out Paul Pelosi’s attacker.
For those of you who claim Kirk was mainstream conservative, does that mean that mainstream conservatives support political violence?
Oldman and others have suggested that no one on the right praises right wing extremist violence. Well Charlie Kirk certainly did!
https://rumble.com/v1qs7n2-a-naked-smear-of-maga-don-buldoc-dan-cox-chadwick-moore-the-charlie-kirk-sh.html?e9s=src_v1_cbl%2Csrc_v1_ucp_a
“…no one on the right praises right wing extremist violence,” and this is true!
But your goosy Pelosi example is pure idiocy: the story you have been led to believe with all your sweet little heart is a COVER, to save face for these very rich-politicians who cannot suffer the embarrassment of admitting to a homosexual encounter.
You are a very good sheeple if you think everything they spin in your mainstream media world is the truth….
Any proof?
I literally posted the video of Kirk saying it. What are you talking about?
Madness.
Then post the video. Why would anyone believe you?
See above?
It’s just a guess, but the intentional omission of “context” renders leftist propaganda meaningless.
Did George Washington support political violence?
He supported the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
What sane person on this planet would oppose George Washington, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights?
I have no idea what this is.
A modern day leftist would.
You seethe hate like normal people breath air. Are you one of the Tranny class of internet “warriors” ?. I ask as you sound delusionally indoctrinated with very specific hate .
I remember arguing with Democrats a few years ago, that the party had a rising antisemitism problem. The belief that success means you must have oppressed people of color inevitably fuels antisemitism, as Jews are a demographic that generally does well. People twisted themselves into knots claiming that BDS was not antisemitic, though its goal was to weaken Israel so it could be destroyed. I am still astonished at how rapidly that antisemitism surged on the Left, to the point that many Democrats chant genocidal slogans like, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” An actress said, “Free Palestine” in her acceptance speech, wearing a Red Hand pin. Palestinians want Israel destroyed, and free of Jews, by killing all of them. Oct 7 was their step in that direction. The Red Hand Pin referred to a mob of Palestinians catching 2 Jewish IDF reservists in the West Bank. They tore these two young men limb from limb, and then one of them gleefully displayed his hands, dripping with Jewish blood, to the adoring crowd before. That’s what “free” means – killing all the Jews.
https://www.theguardian.com/gallery/galleryguide/0,6143,381704,00.html
Similarly, Palestinians celebrated the parade of the Bibas mother and her two babies, in their coffins.
This is what Leftwing Hollywood thinks is a brave cause to support.
An actress said, “Free Palestine” in her acceptance speech, wearing a Red Hand pin.
People like that are such amazing idiots. Israel has religious freedom, it has civil rights for women, it has robust enforcement of LGBTQ rights. Gaza/Hamas – just the opposite. Very regressive. Women are subjugated, gays are killed. No religious freedom. What basis is there to believe these ditzy Hollywood leftists have even two functioning brain cells?
JT you must be so proud of the 1st amendment crackdown trump has planned. You should be ashamed of yourself.
JT is a fraud. If he does not come out forcefully about what trump and JD are doing. FRAUD JT, you are a fraud.
right.. You libs lie 7/24.
Crackdown? CRACK-DOWN?!
This from some leftist who no-doubt had nothing to say about the democrat orders for resolute destruction of free speech against Covid-Fascism and its UNconstitutional lock-downs,
And approved of democrat- run government that encouraged the refusal to treat and help those who did not take the injection and KNEW it was poison,
from one who accepted the junk-“science” about masks, the ones who vilified and attacked those who KNEW better,
this from one who surely LUVED and never questioned the vax-mandates that stole jobs and financially-ruined countless Americans who stood their ground against the shameful ripping away of freedoms.
NOW, your worried about loss of freedoms??? You hypocrite!!!
Crack? Did somebody say crack?
The smoking lamp is lit , smoke’m if you got’em.
How did Trump crack down? No.one was arrested for speech. No one was imprisoned for speech.No one wad executed for speech.
Free speech does not now and has never meant no consequences for speech. If you believe that speech should have no consequences tell your boss to F off tomorrow morning and let us know.how that went.
You publicly derp often and so large ?.
According to the Washington Post, Tyler Robinson confessed in a chat posting to shooting Charlie Kirk.
But it was more than chat—it’s a network—and many people in that gaming/trans/furry community of infantile manslayers [with loose lips] knew the murder was going to take place.
What to do about the people who, surprisingly, think someone who disagrees with them deserves to be murdered.
Maybe there is only one recourse:
Grab them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow.
What to do about the people who, surprisingly, think someone who disagrees with them deserves to be murdered.
If they’re visitors, deport them. They’re a threat to national security. They have no place in a civilized society.
If not, then stay as far away from them as possible. They’re a threat to your personal security. If they act on their beliefs, put them in prison for the rest of their lives.
Oldman– And if they are teachers, soldiers, doctors, nurses, or government bureaucrats?
Unlike Turley, I favor firing them. They burrowed in during Obama and Biden and look what harm they have done. They sabotaged Trump’s first term and relentlessly pursued him and his lawyers and advisers with lawfare. They went after Christian schools, parents who dared to speak at school board meetings, and they opened our borders.
They cannot be left in positions of authority or respect or we will wake up and find we are like England, or East Germany.
They say they are at war with us.
It is time we believed them and acted accordingly.
By which I mean deprive them of their power to act.
Fire them! Shame them! Ostracize them!
And when they commit crimes, jail them!
Young – yup, if they’re in public employment, they have no business being there.
If they’re in the private sector, it’s up to their employer, but we can publicize their hateful comments for all to see. This is because they already took the first step to put their comments into the public domain. Customers should know the character of the employees who work for a corporation where the customers are thinking of spending money. If the corporation fails to act, boycott.
If in the private sector and we’re talking about gleeful comments about murder which are not put into cyberspace, then a fellow employee should inform management, as the nurse did in NJ about the execrable doctor. The nurse was suspended, she sued, and now the doctor has resigned.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/nj-doctor-resigns-after-nurse-said-he-cheered-charlie-kirks-death
Oldman– Now you’re talking!
“if they’re in public employment, they have no business being there. If they’re in the private sector, it’s up to their employer, “
This touches on why education should be local and schools chosen.
Well said, oldmanfromkansas. I would add that keeping X uncensored has the advantage of knowing who wants us dead, so we can maintain some distance.
Karen S “keeping X uncensored has the advantage of knowing who wants us dead, so we can maintain some distance.”
True. It was a gift to civilization to uncensor X. As for keeping distance, it may be hard to do if one of them is in a position of power. Firing them creates distance.
Young – many people said at the time that it was a civilization-saving purchase by Elon. I believe time has confirmed that that was not an exaggeration.
Kirk supported political violence towards the Pelosi family. What would you do about that?
That’s the kind of evil slander that led to his murder. You people are the bad guys. It’s hard for you to accept that so you have to lie and deflect. But the fact remains: you people are the bad guys in today’s society.
What a stupid reply. Kirk wasn’t calling for political violence. His remark came at a time when criminals, even murderers, were being bailed out by the left and going on to commit more violence. Kirk questioned why this attacker wasn’t treated the same way. The point was clear: if even murderers were being bailed out, why not this guy? Because what’s acceptable for Pelosi isn’t acceptable for ordinary citizens.
Really…???….you are exactly like a Norwegian blue parrot.
You assume they have any balls to be worried of. The beta cucks and feminazis are some vicious types.