A few days ago, I had the occasion to debate Michael Klarman, the Charles Warren Professor of Legal History at Harvard Law School. Colgate asked us to address the following question: “Is There a Constitutional Crisis? How Would We Know?” Many asked me to post the video of the debate, which is available below. I was also asked to respond to factual assertions made by Professor Klarman, who invited such fact-checking during his remarks.
Professor Klarman stated at the outset that he would present a condensed version of a talk he had given at Harvard. As a result, he did not focus on the specific question presented beyond saying that what constitutes a “constitutional crisis” means different things to different people. Instead, he presented a list of grievances against Trump, the MAGA movement, the Supreme Court, Congress, and the media as evidence of the rise of fascism and authoritarianism in America.
The result was a bit of a disconnect between our remarks. I addressed the common claim of a constitutional crisis and why I do not believe that we are in a true crisis. I have rejected that claim for decades as hyperbolic and unfounded.
Given Colgate’s framing of the debate, I did not respond to many of the specific claims made by Professor Klarman. After the debate, some faculty members and students asked if I disagreed with some of those claims. I thought that I would respond now.
At the outset, I appreciate the invitation of Colgate to address this important question and the work of our moderator, Cornell Law Professor Stephen Garvey. I also want to thank Professor Klarman for his participation and his candor. Although the debate became sharp at points, I still believe that these events are important efforts to expose students to opposing views on the difficult issues facing them and our country.
I should also note, as a threshold matter, that I do not agree with much of Professor Klarman’s characterization of our current conflicts. This includes his repeated references to “fascists,” “ICE thugs,” and analogies to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. During the debate, he stated:
•”[The Republicans] are trying to steal the 2026 election.”
•”[The Administration] is indifferent to suicides committed by transgender youths. There is a word for that. It is fascism.”
•”[The Administration] is essentially telling the world go ahead and attack [transgender people] we don’t care.”
•”They are indifferent to higher death rates among African Americans.”
•”Many [republicans] are very uninformed…many do not read newspapers…”
•”There will be a pretext…I do not know how far it will go…What happens when …. [they[ shoot down immigrants in the streets… seize voting boxes…put troops in democratic cities to intimidate people from voting…that is terrifying.”
It is clear that Professor Klarman truly believes these things and, as he correctly noted, there is subjectivity in how we view the same events or controversies. I credit Professor Klarman for wanting to have an exchange on these issues.
Professor Klarman started his remarks by noting:
“I am going to be extremely factual. Everything I say I can cite check chapter and verse for. You are right to beware of misinformation today but you are not going to get any of it from me.”
He later added that he had spoken completely factually and challenged the audience with “what did I say that is not true?”
I did address a couple of factual assertions during the debate. For example, Professor Klarman claimed that
“[Trump pardoned] violent insurrectionists including several who were directly responsible for the death of police officers.”
As I pointed out, only one person died during the January 6 riot, a protester named Ashli Babbitt. The claims that police officers died that day are false, though often repeated by politicians and pundits. The New York Times helped spread the false claim that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died as a result of being hit with a fire extinguisher. Sicknick suffered two strokes and died of natural causes the day after the riot. As a past correction states, “The medical examiner found Sicknick died of natural causes which means ‘a disease alone causes death. If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural.’ Four other officers committed suicide days to months later.” Other officers died months later from such causes as suicide, but there is no direct causal link to the riot.
I would like to now address five additional claims.
- “[Undocumented persons are being] deported without due process. Kavanaugh has said go for it, not constitutional problem.”
I am not sure what Professor Klarman was referencing here. However, in cases like A.A.R.P. v. Trump, Justice Kavanaugh joined his colleagues in halting deportations to protect the due process rights of these undocumented persons. It was Justices Alito and Thomas who dissented to allow removal under the Alien Enemies Act. The majority stated that the Administration “erred in dismissing the detainees’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction.” Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence stating:
“The circumstances call for a prompt and final resolution, which likely can be provided only by this Court. At this juncture, I would prefer not to remand to the lower courts and further put off this Court’s final resolution of the critical legal issues. Rather, consistent with the Executive Branch’s request for expedition—and as the detainees themselves urge—I would grant certiorari, order prompt briefing, hold oral argument soon thereafter, and then resolve the legal issues.”
In 2025, he did vote with the majority in a 5-4 decision on Venezuelan immigrants. It allowed for deportations to continue in ruling that the challengers erred in not bringing their challenges as habeas corpus claims. However, it also ruled that the alleged gang members need to be given notice of deportation and the opportunity to contest the deportation. Kavanaugh voted in favor of that position. I may be missing what Professor Klarman is referencing but Kavanaugh has repeatedly voted in favor of due process rights, even if it may not be as robust as Professor Klarman might have wanted. There are cases under this and prior administrations allowing for immediate deportations near the border that occur within a certain period of time. I cannot see any decision where he has effectively “said go for it” and deny any due process.
2. “Washington Post fired a journalist who simply reposted words from Charlie Kirk’s mouth” and “[Bezos] just fired a journalist for basically saying something that is true.”
Professor Klarman made repeated claims about this controversy. It appears to be a reference to the termination of former Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah. However, it is not true that she was fired for “simply reposting words from Charlie Kirk’s mouth” but for making racially inflammatory comments in direct contravention of both Washington Post policies and prior warnings from her editors.
Soon after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Attiah went on to Bluesky to post an attack on him with reference to his race. In one, she declared: “Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is….not the same as violence.” In a second posting, she wrote, “Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for white men who espouse hatred and violence.”
Those were the comments cited by the Washington Post for its actions. The Post stated “Your postings on Bluesky (which clearly identifies you as a Post Columnist) about white men in response to the killing of Charlie Kirk do not comply with our policy.” The Post prohibits postings that disparage people based on their race, gender, or other protected characteristics.
Sources told the media that Attiah had been confronted multiple times by the paper’s management over her inflammatory social media posts. This includes one in 2020 where she ended up apologizing on social media for erroneously saying that a new French law targeted Muslim children. It is simply not true that the Post fired her for quoting Kirk.
3. “ICE agents acting as thugs are kidnapping people off the streets…They are building concentration camps… they show up on streets without any identification.”
This is a common claim made by politicians and pundits. However, it has been debunked as untrue. ICE agents wear vests and badges that identify them as law enforcement. As with other law enforcement agencies, ICE agents in plain clothes are presumably used on occasion. However, in making an arrest, officers identify themselves as law enforcement. While widely claimed, there has been no evidence submitted (that I know of) of a systemic failure of officers to identify themselves when making an arrest or taking someone into custody.
ICE is not kidnapping people. Once arrested, these individuals are input into an electronic system. Kidnapping is a legal term that does not apply to a case of a person placed into custody by federal law enforcement. Even when an arrest is deemed legally invalid or improper, it is not treated as a kidnapping. That is why there is no case that I know of finding that ICE has engaged in the kidnappings referenced by Professor Klarman.
The reference to “concentration camps” was made in a debate with other references to the Holocaust and the Nazi regime. Large holding areas have been used for decades in immigration operations under both Democratic and Republican presidents. They are not “concentration camps” as the term is commonly understood or used.
4. “Trump says quote ‘slavery was not that bad.'”
This appears to be a claim that was circulating on the Internet and was debunked as untrue. There is no such quote that I could find. On August 19, 2025, Trump criticized Smithsonian museums for focusing on negative aspects of U.S. history to the exclusion of more positive elements. He noted that there was “too much” on slavery. Trump wrote the Smithsonian is “OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been.” He went on to add that there is “Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future.” One can certainly object to the comment about the relative importance of slavery and why it should be mentioned prominently in these displays. However, the quoted statement by Professor Klarman appears to be apocryphal.
5. “James Madison designed this whole thing without thinking about political parties… he was not thinking [of one party controlling the White House and Congress]”
As someone who frequently writes about Madison, I was surprised by this statement and wanted to present an opposing view. It is certainly true that some figures like George Washington opposed the establishment of political parties. However, Madison actually started one of the first such political parties in the early 1790s around the time that the Constitution was ratified. It was the Democratic-Republican Party created with Thomas Jefferson. The Federalist Party was formally established in 1789 by Alexander Hamilton and other prominent figures. When the Constitution was drafted and ratified, the country was deeply divided along partisan lines. Madison would have had to be naive or moronic to ignore the partisan alliances around him. He was neither naive nor moronic.
I think it was very clear that Madison “was thinking” about political parties when he laid the foundation for the Constitution. While Madison wrote about “factions” rather than “parties” in his famed Federalist Paper writings, he viewed such alliances as natural and inevitable. In a speech to the Constitutional Convention, Madison declared that “no free country has ever been without parties, which are a natural offspring of freedom.” By the time of the Constitutional Convention, the country was already divided along Federalist and Jeffersonian lines. Indeed, he said, in a latter letter to Henry Lee, that “The Constitution itself … must be an unfailing source of party distinctions.”
Clearly, Professor Klarman and I hold opposing views on a myriad of issues. The program at Colgate is an important effort to create greater dialogue and diversity on our campuses. (I will be participating in another debate at the Virginia Military Institute on the same question on Sept. 30).
In fairness to Professor Klarman, these remarks should be considered in their proper context. Below is a link to the debate.
I appeared that Professor Turley relied on logic while Professor Klarman relied on emotion. Both are equally powerful! However, being a Society based on laws, I tend to favor Professor Turley’s approach in a Court of Law.
Good news
Ryan Routh found guilty in Trump golf course assassination attempt
He tried suicide upon hearing conviction. This guy is exemplary of the mental illness of these politicized nuts. It’s lack of purpose, should he have had a family, home, a loving stable woman and anchored in faith perhaps he would have been stable. Instead, it’s booze, the chronic, fentanyl, meth, cocaine, xanax in support of their delusional self perceptions of being someone or something they are not. Open your eyes America, this is liberalism.
He should have hired Prof Klarman as his defense counel. They would probably both have been sent to the gallows.
Excellent, Jonathan, you kept your poise, made one essential point after the other, and avoided getting into all the exaggerations of your opponent’s points.
“•”Many [republicans] are very uninformed…many do not read newspapers…” Mr. Klarman.
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you read the newspaper you are misinformed.” Mark Twain
Guess who is correct? It ain’t Klarman.
gracefullyinternetad: Great tongue-in-cheek addition to today’s discussion, thanks.
John Milton: ‘Areopagitica’
“….the discouragement of all learning and the stop of truth, not only by disexercising and blunting our abilities in what we know already, but by hindering and cropping the discovery that might be yet further made both in religious and civil wisdom.”
“Nevertheless, there being three principal things without which all praising is but courtship and flattery. First, when that only is praised which is solidly worth praise; next, when greatest likelihoods are brought that such things are truly and really in those persons to whom they are ascribed; the other, when he who praises, by showing that such his actual persuasion is of whom he writes, can demonstrate that he flatters not.”
What I hear when a leftist speaks, Blasphemy with libelous under tones.
A quick couple of quotes from Euripides:
“When one with honeyed words but evil mind Persuades the mob, great woes befall the state.”
“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish”.
I watched the debate and it was informative but most importantly – respectful. That is the crux of the problems today – we lack respect for each other and for each others opinions. It is time to quit putting labels on people just because you do not like what they say. Charlie Kirk challenged people – “prove me wrong”. He challenged people to think! I also think that many of today’s issues are because many do not want to be responsible for what they say or what they do. Everything’s your fault – you made me do it! No! – we must hold each other accountable, and responsible for the actions we do and the words we say. We have become a spoiled brat nation and have come to detest accountability. It is time to grow up.
Does anyone read newspapers anymore? Almost everything is digital, more like a facsimile of a newspaper or a rag
MSNBC (MsNow), CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC are not newspapers either.
NY Times -jury still out on that one. Wash Post trying to become a newspaper again.
Just got back and getting ready to watch the debate.
I do (via Postal mail and sometimes a month after publishing) – to the subject of the return of Paper: Home delivery, Newsstand, Street News Boxes would all be complicated by the economic cost of physical distribution cost. The instantaneous transmission of news copy is hard to compete with. But the hand-off is that a Paper is much bigger than a Cell Phone, Tablet, or Monitor. It also has a tactical property of touch and smell. There is something about a Paper that is a preferred ‘taste’. News Letters are also a good medium. We get Farm Week (Illinois farm bureau) that comes weekly and I can look at the E-Edition when away (farmweeknow.com/).
Daily Printing will have a much higher cost, that said, an Economy of Scale such as a Big City is necessary to make it cash flow. Even a Sunday Only subscription may not be enough to make ends meet.
Crain’s Business Journals and BizJournals are still published weekly. Local Rags to meet Legal reporting/announcement requirements are still available.
Riding the Metra into Randolph Station on the morning commute without a Newspaper to bury your head into, is quite a necessary thing.
This is a better post than many by Professor Turley. But I am very disappointed in both Left and Right that they focus on criticizing the other side rather than examining their own actions and their plans to make life in the Country better. When Person X makes a false argument against me it it does not provide support for my position. It is a null, with no implication for either side. We are not responsible for mistaken people who choose to argue on our side.
At least when the target of the critique is in power it makes sense. We critiqued Biden rightfully on many issues like censorship, lawfare, and playing fast and loose with The Constitution. But when the Left rightfully makes analogous arguments against Trump, we laugh them off. Our critiques were performative and nobody is left whose principle concern is the common good.
The oneness and wholeness of human relationships (ie. the ‘common good’) is the foundation of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
>”But when the Left rightfully makes analogous arguments against Trump, we laugh them off.”
Whose laughing? There is nothing in the constitution about the ‘Left’ or right. It’s all in your mind. A made-up construct, a program of political manufactured consent designed to pull the wool over our eyes and blind us from the ugly truth. .. pick a card, any card.
The constitution is fine and dandy .. . but if the ‘Left’ don’t get you, the right will.
*depending, of course, upon whose desk the buck stops.
I suspect the “debate” Professor Turley chose to participate in was because his debate opponent is not really worthy of his caliber. It seems to make it easy for him to look more “poised”. Turley should debate people with real debate experience, someone like Medhi Hassan for example. That would be more to the level Turley would find intellectually challenging and more up his alley.
George: Why do you like to assign motive and purpose to others’ words or conduct? Particularly those whose positions you disagree with, although you are not in the same class as they?
I would suspect that the most meaningful “other” debates Turley has participated in were against combative members of Congressional committees, many of whom are lawyers and scholars. Also, just the last 12 months, Turley has publicly participated in separate debates with Professors Farbman, Kennedy, as well as privacy expert and former University of Kansas adjunct professor/U.S. Attorney Laura Clark Fey.
Was this your way of admitting that Turley is in demand? Or, conversely, do you believe he has hired an agent to go shop around for public appearances/visibility?
(Sorry, I forgot to ask the pivotal question, George: Are you saying that these other professors/experts that I mention were “not really worthy of his caliber” so that “It seems to make it easy for him to look more ‘poised?” Did these othersnot have “real debate experience?”
Lin, George actually said that Jonathan should debate someone better and more qualified to debate, someone like Mehdi Hassan???? How do we have a discussion with someone that thinks the sky is green and grass is blue? Hassan is just a nutter (sorry, I am currently watching a lot of Britbox) that was too radical for MSNBC. That puts him in the Keith Olberman and Joy Reid category.
hullbobby: Wish I could substantively comment but I am not familiar with Hassan.
Is Britbox critical of him? I do know that MSNBC hired another Muslim journalist to replace him, which puts to rest Ilhan Omar’s allegation that Hassan was fired for being Muslim. I laughed at your Olberman/Reid category.
p.s. love british comedy (British being my paternal ancestry/heritage)
like “Keeping Up Appearances.” (e.g. favorite episode, “What to Wear When Yachting,”
https://watch.plex.tv/show/keeping-up-appearances/season/3/episode/7 ) Watch it, you’ll laugh for sure.
“What to Wear When Yachting,”
That was hilarious. (Thank you.)
“Use the brake, Richard.”
And that is why I don’t go out on weekends.
JT’s “debate opponent is not really worthy of his caliber.”
Professor Klarman holds a *named chair* at Harvard Law. A university awards a named chair to those faculty it considers excellent — those of outstanding achievement.
If you’re right (and for once you are), what does awarding that named chair to Klarman say about Harvard?
A very enjoyable debate. It seems as though the Harvard professor forgot what the topic was to be addressed.
No, Klarman didn’t forget the topic. Klarman is a political hack, not a scholar. He’s far from a scholar. And as a political hack, he only knows one way to speak. That is, Klarman simply presents his preprepared IslamoCommuNazi talking points no matter what the question or topic is. As a dedicated legal flack for the Democrat (i.e., IslamoCommuNazi) Party, Klarman doesn’t know how to to think or reason. But he does have a good memory of his preprepared IslamoCommuNazi talking points.
Colgate’s topic ask comes at a time when politics uses crisis so much that we’re put to find it in the haystack. If the topic were instead a grant of cert. from SCOTUS, would you brief it and tell them what the crisis is, and how they can provide a remedy? Or would you throw up your hands and say this crisis has no constitutional solution? Or would you tell them keep sorting things out case by case under their cases arising jurisdiction? If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
I just listened/viewed the entire debate/video.
I regret one thing. The audience was an undergraduate class, not law school students.
Professor Turley was considerably more cerebral, with references to specific cases (e.g., “Citizens United”) -which I suspect the majority of audience knew nothing about), –while Karlman was much more limbic, plugging in forceful and fiery suggestive words like, “fascists,” “ICE thugs” and a whole list of alleged wrongs by Trump and Republicans taken straight from Media headlines.
Methinks much of the “debate” went right over many heads; that is to say, which part of the brain in students do you believe is more active, responsive to incoming information with regard to big topics like “constitutional crisis?”
This is a typical distinction with progressives today.
They start with a long list of “facts” like Karlman some of which are just completely false and most of which are extreme distortions of reality.
They kling to these “facts” even when they have been thoroughly discredited.
These “Facts” are used to support two naratives
The first is that anyone opposed to them is evil and wrong and not even worth listening to.
The second is that their own actions and positions whether lawful or not, are both moral and justified.
John Say: While I agree with your comment, I think it is more than “a typical distinction with progressives.” I think it is a knowing and tactical M.O., delivered to John Q. Public and John Q. Student in hopes of appealing to limbic rather than rational response.
I think it is both, a strategy and the way these halfwits think.
OK, I give you that, both of you.
But hullbobby! I said “more than,” -so that could mean 55to45, meaning I give credence to both, n’est ce pas?
(I give 55 to limbic gestures appealing to a broader audience of prospective Party voters.)
let’s ask George, who knows people’s motives. What is their motive, George?
2x = 1/2. Ha ha!
Absolutely
Klarman said puhnomenal with the hard p as in pull. He also said biolence and not violence. Are these secret code words, triggers?
John say,
“ They start with a long list of “facts” like Karlman some of which are just completely false and most of which are extreme distortions of reality.”
The irony. John Say does this every time he posts without realizing it. Cognitive dissonance is real.
“ They start with a long list of “facts” like Karlman some of which are just completely false and most of which are extreme distortions of reality.”
Oh, the irony.
John Say does this every time he posts. The long-running diatribes are chock full of false and distorted reality. Projection perhaps or just plain ol’ cognitive dissonance?
Boy did I have my eyes open ,your opponent was full of rage.
Thanks,
Tom Thorsen
Typical debate in our society today, one guy shows up with facts and reason, and the other with feelings and vitriol, and then he chooses to ignore the underlying question. Professor Turley, you have WAY more patience than I do in the face of this crap; thank you for being a principled man. Sadly, our Supreme Court suffers from the same situation.
Cicero, first of all kudos for your name and also your point about the SCOTUS is right on the money. The conservatives argue case law, statutory authority, SCOTUS precedence and of course the Constitution while the liberals argue for an ends justified decision no matter what hoops they need to jump through to get there.
Please consider the writings and thought process of ACB vs KBJ and you will see how vapid the left is and how bankrupt their legal “reasoning” is. Jackson wants to be on Broadway and cares not a whit about any of the legal reasoning I cited above. Sotomayor is an empty shmatta (a dumpy dress in Yiddish). Kagan will always side with the left but the only difference with her is that she knows she is wrong it is just that being a liberal means never having to say you’re sorry.
I actually kinda like Kagan, who is more respectful/professional and reasoned in her dissents and opinions, and does cause me to consider what she says. I wish the other two were more like her.
Jonathan: Breaking News! Disney just announced it is bringing back Jimmy Kimmel. DJT is beside himself. Q: Why did Disney do a 180? Could it be because of worldwide outrage and the mass cancellations of subs to Disney and Hulu? Even MAGA Senator Ted Cruz and Howard Stern were outraged. Cruz compared Disney’s suspension of Kimmel to the Mafia: “That’s right out of a mafioso coming into a bar and going ‘Nice bar you have here. It’d be a shame if something happened to it'”.
The next Q is how long before CBS is forced to reinstate Steven Colbert?
You add nothing of value to the conversation.
@Roger
That is the point, and the only reason they post anything at all.
Roger
Or to this world for that matter, fixed it for ya!
Remember citizens, spay and neuter your pets…
Liberals were fine with 20 years of cancellations, deplatforming, and debanking of conservatives, much of it with governmental support or coercion, and all to censor responsible conservative opinion such as on the pandemic, which proves in retrospect to have been right. Liberals were fine with the “Joe Biden” administration institutionalizing censorship through a Ministry of Truth run by Scary Poppins.
Now their unfunny liar misses four days for telling the most abhorrent lies, and they cry like babies.
The Scat Francisco radical nut case Scott Weiner is arguing that the government needs to break up Sinclair broadcasting for NOT bringing Kimmel back. Fascist????
debanking is a financial institution decision, not a political one. Banks don’t care what people believe, they care about how much money they can make and how much risk they can avoid. If what conservatives are trying is a risk, it’s for what they are trying and not for being conservative that gets them the boot.
Censoring conservative opinion is tough; I know this because I’ve seen the same conservatives on a dozen platforms, all telling about how they can’t get their message out.
If by right, on the topic of the pandemic, that not wearing masks and not keeping some distance will not stop the pandemic, the conservatives were correct. They coughed in large groups and spread it as fast as they could. The bible says to pray in private and not make a public spectacle of it, and conservatives decided to all crowd together and pray for a solution – the one that Jesus already gave them. Sigh.
Why was Kimmel removed – because Disney decided to remove him.
Why is Kimmel back – because Disney decided to bring him back.
Anything you claim beyond that is mind reading and speculation.
No Cruz did NOt compare Disney’s suspension of Kimmel to the Mafia – you are dong Exactly the same stupidity that Prof. Karlman did in the debate.
Cruz’s attack was on FCC Chair Carr’s remarks that suggested that the FCC could use its power to remove Kimmel.
Was Kimmel (and Colbert) removed because they are losing money ? That is up to their respective employers.
Disney is free to lose money on Kimmel for as long as they want.
But Businesses rarely do that.
I doubt Kimmel will last long if he can not operate the show profitably.
Was Kimmel fired because Nexstar and Sinclair threatened to pull him and pull out of a deal ?
It is public record that they threatened to Pull Kimmel themselves long before Carr said anything.
They may have changed their minds, or they may actually have pulled Kimmel from their broadcasts.
Nexstar and Sinclair are Over The Air Broadcast networks – is there someone here with an OTA TV that can verify that Kimmel was broadcast OTA – Cable is different.
The reporting I am seeing is that Sinclair and Nexstar are pre-empting Kimmel with other content. Forbes is reporting that the Kimmel show is NOT being carried by 30% of ABC.
It is also being reported that subscriptions to Hulu and Disney+ are being canceled over Kimmel
Nexstar and Sinclair were also after a public apology – did Kimmel apologize ?
I have zero interest in watching – but I would be shocked if an apology by Kimmel did not occur or is not pending.
Disney has enormous exposure in a defamation lawsuit if there isn’t one.
An apology and correction would limit Disney’s exposure to punative damages – and that would be the core of any defamation case – in the Alex Jones case the Punatives were nearly $1B.
But it is a mostly free market – and Disney gets to make its own choices – and reap the rewards or damages from those decisions.
I personally do not care much – I never liked Kimmel. Colbert was actually once funny, he is not anymore.
That is NOT about politics – John Stewart is atleast as far left as Colbert and Kimmel and he mostly remains funny.
You can insult people in your humor – but the remarks have to still be funny and that usually requires atleast a small grain of truth. Colbert used to be funny – now not so much. Kimmel was never funny.
Completely separately – left wing nut media is shrinking – that is why all of it is losing money.
Network media generally is shrinking – Even Fox is subject to some pressure. But the losses on the left dwarf everything else. It is unlikely that the networks die. It is unlikely that the left networks disappear.
But they are already vastly smaller than they once were, and their revnues are far too small for the expenses they currently incurr. Something MUST give. That means shows will be canceled and people will be fired.
Kimmel may have gotten a short repreive. But I doubt that lasts.
The media MUST either raise revenues or cut costs. I beleive WaPo has already announced that absent increases in subscriptions – 50% of staff will be Riffed. Attiah’s remarks merely made her among the first to go.
Left wing nuts are getting a lesson in the free market.
Your Job – every single job on the planet is to produce value for your employer – but ultimately for consumers.
There is only so much need in the media for journalists who appeal to the leftmost 10% of the country.
Why was Kimmel removed – because Disney decided to remove him.
Why is Kimmel back – because Disney decided to bring him back.
Anything you claim beyond that is mind reading and speculation.”
Huh, nope. Facts do matter. Kimmel was removed because the FCC’s Carr explicitly threatened networks with cancellation of their licenses if they didn’t do something about Kimmel.
Then the free market forced Disney’s hand when subscribers were canceling their streaming service with HULU and Disney+. People complained louder about Kimmel’s removal and the FCC’s blatant coercion of networks to silence Kimmel.
“ Nexstar and Sinclair were also after a public apology – did Kimmel apologize ?“
Apologize for what? He didn’t say anything offensive or make false statements. MAGA got offended because they can’t read for comprehension. Kimmel has nothing to apologize for. In fact Nextstar and Sinclair should be apologizing to Kimmel for now towing to Carr’s threats so easily.
Trump’s FCC made unconstitutional threats to private companies to silence a late-night show host because President Trump didn’t like what he was saying. The FCC overreached and now it’s trying to save face. Badly.
“It is public record that they threatened to Pull Kimmel themselves long before Carr said anything.”
No, it’s only public record as to when Carr made a public announcement. Trump said Kimmel was next and Carr delivered. You think that phone calls with talking don’t exist? That the two companies haven’t been in contact on a daily basis as part of getting their expensive expansion approved to put control of 80%+ penetration of US markets?
—
News agencies are under a lot of pressure. Fortunately Fox News is not a news agency as attested to by their lawyers. They are an entertainment company masquerading with a news format, but only run propaganda that their owner wants.
—
Try the best advice on writing: “Use fewer words.”
Breaking news: Olbermann Deletes Direct Threat To Jennings: “You’re Next Motherf**ker”
https://modernity.news/2025/09/23/olbermann-deletes-direct-threat-to-jennings-youre-next-motherfcker/
More leftists, calling for more violence. Much more news worthy.
He’s back on Disney, but not necessarily on Sinclair Broadcasting Group or Nexstar Communications Group. Sinclair is owned by a MAGA supporter. Ben Carson is on their board. They have run “grass roots” campaigns where local news leads were forced to read a corporate script as if they had written it. Fun times. Nexstar Communications Group is also refusing to run Kimmel’s program. Both have mergers/acquisitions before the Trump administration; the one from Nexstar runs very far over the normal limits for market control with, apparently, an 80% market reach.
Of Sinclair:
“The company maintained its position in conservative politics during the 2016 presidential election as David Smith told Trump, “We are here to deliver your message,” The Guardian reported in 2018. At the time, Sinclair programming reached around 70 percent of American households.”
Yup – in my market Sinclair is running some garbage news program instead of Kimmel.
Professor Turley, I think that some of these events at Colgate might be open to the public. Some of us who live here in Upstate New York are within driving distance. If you are going to be there, or at any other venues here in lovely Upstate New York, please let us know, i.e. if the event is open to the public. Thank you for sharing the link to the debate. Catherine
Please keep it up libs… Polling for you is NOT looking good.
Democrats dealt nightmare election poll as MSNBC shamefully lies about Tom Homan
Wow, someone this driven by blind ideology and exaggerations is teaching law students at Harvard? This is beyond what I would have expected to see in a South Park parody.
Were I a student of Klarman and espoused opposing views such as those made by Prof Turley, would I be given a voice and equally important would my grade be held hostage until I became “enlightened”, or at least nodded in agreement with his positions like a bobblehead doll?
Klarman was a new law professor when I attend UVA Law School in the late 1980s. That school’s faculty was, by elite law school standards, conservative. That is, they were mostly moderate Democrats. That Klarman was out of place there and ended up at the radical left Harvard is not surprising. He’s a kook. He co-wrote an op-ed calling for us to “ free ourselves from the Constitution “ or “ Constitutionalism.” I don’t recall specifically which word but the meaning was the same. He is a law professor who openly calls for the overthrow of our government and legal system. I thank Harvard for getting him away from my alma mater before he started espousing such garbage publicly.
I appreciate the perspective, Glen. I was in law school in the 1990s (I went mid-career) and nothing of that ilk would have been tolerated. The professors, even the liberal ones, were generally responsible and fact-bound in whatever they expressed. Just as important they did not tolerate the kinds of looseness and personal attacks one sees from this Harvard Law prof. This made the legal education more valuable as the students were required to become disciplined in the way they analyzed and wrote about legal issues.
My wife was at UofP in the same time frame. Most of her professors were on the left – but none were as delusionally disconnected from Reality as Karlman is. Further they were rigorous about the law – and they did not let ideology get in the way of understanding the law and its foundations.
My wife actually took courses from Prof. Elizabeth Warren – and I met Warren at the time. She was actually relatively conservative for UofP lawschool faculty – she taught business law. Sen. Elizabeth Warren is a completely different person.
@Glen
I appreciate the perspective, too. This is seldom an isolated thing for such individuals; it just happens to be more in vogue today, and we need to call them out. Thank you for sharing. This ‘debate’ was a farce, but good on the Professor for showing up with temerity and fairness.
What is most disturbing is the long list of “facts” – most of which Prof Turley did not address as they had nothing to do with the core of the debate. But those “facts” are universally FALSE.
If you are that disconnected from the real world – no matter how intelligent you are, it is impossible to make good decisions.
You can not ignore stop signs because you do not beleive they are real.
I suspect that Tyler Robinson would have made altogether different choices had he spent a few minutes actually Talking with Charlie Kirk before deciding to assassinate him.
John Say,
Well said.
In regards to your, “I suspect that Tyler Robinson would have made altogether different choices had he spent a few minutes actually Talking with Charlie Kirk before deciding to assassinate him.” comment, IF Robinson only watched or followed DNC, leftists talking points, aka lies, yes, we could see why he would come to the decision to assassinate Kirk.
Just take a look at Keith Olbermann’s recent and now deleted comments directed at CNN’s one and only conservative, Scott Jennings, “You’re Next, Motherf*cker”
https://modernity.news/2025/09/23/olbermann-deletes-direct-threat-to-jennings-youre-next-motherfcker/
Oh, my!! Another Democrat leftist, calling for more violence against conservatives? Shocked I say! Shocked am I they would do such a thing!!
Meanwhile, Erika Kirk forgives her husbands murder, before hundred of thousand in attendance and some 100M watching via streaming. That would be something we call leadership, class, empathy, compassion. What do we get from leftist Democrats? More Keith Olbermanns of the country.
Jonathan: You must be giddy. DJT just signed an EO declaring Antifa a “domestic terrorist organization”. FACT CHECK: Antifa is not an “organization”. And, unlike the Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers, it has no leaders. Antifa has its roots in the anti-fascist movements that opposed the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. The Italian word for Antifa is “antifascista”.
On Sunday at the Charlie Kirk funeral DJT said he “hates” his political enemies and is using Kirk’s death to go after them. He even alleges, without any evidence, that Tyler Robinson is part of Antifa. DJT is like most dictators. Hitler used “Kristallnacht” in 1938 to go after the Jews. It was the precursor to the Holocaust. Likewise DJT is using the killing of Charlie Kirk to go after his political enemies. But prosecuting the followers of the Antifa philosophy will prove difficult. That’s because belief in a political philosophy is protected speech under the 1st Amendment!
I had a great uncle who was Antifa. He was in the US Army. He landed at a place called Omaha Beach and fought across France and Germany to defeat Nazi fascism. He and his comrades were all Antifa. Back in July millions of Americans marched in the “No Kings” rallies against the growing fascist policies of DJT. I was there. We were and are all proudly Antifa!
Ano
Jonathan: You must be giddy. DJT just signed an EO declaring Antifa a “domestic terrorist organization”. FACT CHECK: Antifa is not an “organization
***************************
Bull
Tell that to the people of Seattle and Portland.
Not only are they ORGANIZED CELLS [small units that function as local nuclei for the larger political insurgence], they communicate underground, and they have assistance from rich donors.
The cells are localized and “seemingly” leaderless to look and act like they are not part of a larger organization, when in fact they are. It’s called asymmetrical warfare.
And no, your great-uncle was NOT anitfa; he was part of the Allied Forces, American Ranger group….
This disinformation you lefties spout is ALWAYS untrue, but you count on people to be as dumb and lazy as you are to never fact check you.
Were you in Seattle or Portland? They showed up every time and not just one or two 50 to 100 all with the same stuff to hurt others.
I saw it…
Nice
Former Antifa activist Gabriel Nadales reacts to President Donald Trump’s decision to declare the group a domestic terrorist organization and the White House’s vow to crack down on sources funding them
Pathetic
Antifa has local organizations, the most notorious of late being Rose City Antifa (Portland).
Antifa works without centralized national leadership in order to thwart and confuse law enforcement. It uses
grass-roots, invisible leadership. That said, if the FBI can break into encrypted messaging patterns, the next time Antifa Portland launches a mob-action via social media, the mode of secret organization can become exposed, and the agitators and propagandists can be prosecuted.
Another major legal question coming into focus is paid demonstrators. Does the 1st Amendment go so far as to allow money to pay for demonstrations? Clearly, foreign money would entail a FARA violation. Therefore, shouldn’t money transparency be a requirement when demonstrators are paid, the same way political campaigns have to file FEC reports?
@pbinca
I have no doubt this is being worked on. Kirk’s assassin may have been the nascent beginning of a death knell for all of it, though it may take time. We can’t relent now, too much at stake. Expose these cowards and the people that enable them for all to see.
I hope you don’t mean all the blue haired Boomers at those No Kings rallies were members of Antifa, a well known terrorist organization. Or that your great Uncle was a terrorist. Because Antifa is a well known terrorist organization. Of course, it is also true that antifa, as a spurious “political philosophy,” is also a philosophy that is indistinguishable from terrorism. It is alarming to contemplate the terrorists in our midst.
Wrong group. These were well equipped (Antifa) to harm police, reporters and anyone else.
To claim those that landed in Normandy on D-Day to be the modern day Antifa is one of the greatest insults to that generation of soldiers.
To say Antifa is not an organization because it lacks “leaders” is a red herring. It is a worldwide movement advocating violence and the enemy of free speech and are well financed by the usual leftist millionaires and billionaires whose interest is to sow chaos.
Regardless, the article refers to a debate with Prof. Klarsman (Klansman?) in which he continuously lied, something we can always expect from people like him, and Prof Turley is well within his rights to call him on it.
What is scary is that Prof Klarsman (Klansman?) is not a minority on those teaching (indoctrinating) our next generation of lawyers, who will be our future legislators and presidents. I have never been so glad to be old enough I won’t be around to see it but I fret for the nation’s future
@Vincrode
No doubt, but at this point there is virtually no living connection to that time, and when kids are being actively educated away from the truth, and from the experience of people they will never know or see (we are at the point where my wife’s students don’t even know what happened on9/11, and they are not being taught anything about it), it’s tough. We can’t forget, and by all appearances, at least a healthy portion of us will not.
“Antifa is not an organization”
Will Rogers didn’t belong to an organization either–he was a Democrat.
“DJT just signed an EO declaring Antifa a “domestic terrorist organization”.”
Sounds fine to me.
“FACT CHECK: Antifa is not an “organization”. ”
So you think that by avoiding a formal structure that Law Enforcement will not be able to find these people and hold them accountable for the bad acts they perform ?
Antifa members do not magically all decide to show up on the same day and time to engage in bad conduct.
They communicate – and communications and planning with respect to criminal activity is called CONSPIRACY.
And it is a crime.
“And, unlike the Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers, it has no leaders.”
So ?
“Antifa has its roots in the anti-fascist movements that opposed the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. The Italian word for Antifa is “antifascista”.”
Not True and not relevant. Antifa has its roots in Hitlers brownshirts and Musoliini’s black shirts.
Antifa is about as fascist as they come.
But that is irrelevant – What is relevant is that they commit crimes and they conspire to commit crimes, and that is what they will be investigated, and prosecuted for.
Their allegedly decentralized nature MIGHT make things more difficult for law enforcement.
But it does not change the fact that their actions are criminal.
If you are Antifa and you are NOT engaged in committing or planning to commit crimes -you have nothing to be concerned about.
“On Sunday at the Charlie Kirk funeral DJT said he “hates” his political enemies and is using Kirk’s death to go after them.”
Please no one on the planet wants to here your mangled claims regarding Trump’s remarks.
That said – most of us do “Hate” those who beleive political violence is justifiable, and who publicly defend assassination.
Once again the left has jumped the shark. You have tried to paint “hate” as evil – because it often is. Of course you have demanded that people ignore the FACT that you yourself are filled with hatred.
But the fact is that the merits of love and hate are relative to their targets. Loving political assassination is evil.
Hating political assassination is good.
Going after people who do evil – is good.
“He even alleges, without any evidence, that Tyler Robinson is part of Antifa.”
So what ? I doubt it, but the FBI is absolutely investigating Tyler Robinsons life and they are specifically looking at his associations – as they should. While it appears that Robinson acted entirely alone, and that as evil as those who radicalized him are – beliving and selling bad ideas is still not a crime. Regardless, deeper investigation into Robinson is bringing a large number of people under a microscope – and it MIGHT reveal connections to antifa.
Are you actually opposed to finding out if Robinson commited other crimes and/or acted in this assassination or in other illegal activities with the assistance of others ?
It is wrong to presume that Robinson is affiliated with Antifa with out evidence. It is also wrong to stop this investigation with Robinson when it is clear that others radicalized him – while that is NOT in and of itself a crime.
It is a reason to suspect that other crimes might be found.
Kimmel alleges despite proof to the contrary that Robinson was MAGA
“DJT is like most dictators.”
ROFL
Please read Turley’s article – saying stupid things does not make then true.
Trump was mostly lawfully elected – though we still need to fix the fact that states are not conforming to their own election laws.
Trump is the president – he is acting within the constitutional powers of the president more so that any other recent president. If you beleive otherwise – you can join those on the far left challenging his actions in court.
Thus far – lower court rulings against Trump are nearly all overruled – either by appeals courts or the supreme court.
After challenges – Trump’s actions have been found lawful and constitutional.
If you do not like them – change the law or the constitution.
To the extent that was actually possible – Trump has even followed bad court orders by biased judges that were acting outside their jurisdiction and outside the law and constitution – these have ALL ultimately been overturned.
“Hitler used “Kristallnacht” in 1938 to go after the Jews. ”
I do not see MAGA roaming the streets engaged in arson and looting – that would be the left.
“It was the precursor to the Holocaust.”
yes, calling people hateful hating haters, racists, mysoginists is a precursor to assassinating them and murdering them.
“Likewise DJT is using the killing of Charlie Kirk to go after his political enemies.”
Nope, Trump has been going after political enemies that commit crimes since he returned to power.
You have nothing to worry about if you did not commit crimes.
“But prosecuting the followers of the Antifa philosophy will prove difficult. That’s because belief in a political philosophy is protected speech under the 1st Amendment!”
Correct – most do not know nor care about Antifa’s alleged philosphy – Frankly those in antifa for the most part appear to be clueless teens and young adults who are philosophically stunted.
But you are correct – beliving nonsense is not a crime.
Committing Violent acts as well as ‘conspiring with others to do so and aiding in the commission of those acts ARE crimes”
I would further note that law enforcement CAN follow the free speech of followers of a violent ideology to identify them and then to find evidence of ACTS of violence.
“I had a great uncle who was Antifa. He was in the US Army. He landed at a place called Omaha Beach and fought across France and Germany to defeat Nazi fascism. He and his comrades were all Antifa.”
And YOU have betrayed your great uncle. And he has absolutely no ideological connection to the idiots that call themselves Antifa today.
You self evidently have no clue what actual fascism is.
You have no clue when violence is or is not justified.
You have been duped by nonsense – like the faux facts that Prof. Klarman sprayed.
“Back in July millions of Americans marched in the “No Kings” rallies against the growing fascist policies of DJT.”
ROFL
The lefts efforts at consequential organized protests since Trump was elected have been a bust.
No you did not get millions. You did not get a tiny fraction of the protestors that came out over George Floyd – your off in lala land.
“I was there.”
But you are NOT all here. You are disconnected from reality.
“We were and are all proudly Antifa!”
Being proud of Antifa is a symptom of mental delusion – like being proud of having syphilis.
If you have conspired to commit violence – you are at risk of being arrested, tried convicted and going to jail.
It is irrelevant what you call yourself.
It is irrelevant what loony ideology you claim to serve.
But associating yourself with an ideology that has been involved in myriads of acts of violence – and contra to your nonsense many of them organized does create the reasonable suspicion necescary to investigate you.
Oh, look! Dennis is a useful idiot!! Who knew?? 🙂
Antifa has:
email addresses,
social media pages.
physical locations
scheduled meetings
equipment
training sessions
membership lists
Pretty sure the FBI will have little problem investigating them.
Membership verification processes,
fund raisers
and merch
Was Klarman looking for a cogent debate on the question, or was he looking for a soapbox to regurgitate the left’s prevailing, gossip-ridden, and unseasoned dogmas.
Goes to show how far below scholarly standards Harvard has fallen: it is now a treadmill for Marxist-Emo professors churning Mickey Mouse Degrees.
P.S. Thanks for your thoughts, pbinca.
“Instead, he presented a list of grievances against Trump, the MAGA movement, the Supreme Court, Congress, and the media as evidence of the rise of fascism and authoritarianism in America.”
Better question is “why should anyone care about this hateful Harvard
retread?” Theyre as predictable as the drip that accompanies gonnorhea and as contagious to the mind
Though “they” love to say most conservatives have “no degrees” and are “uneducated,” this is not widely true. Most of us who have college degrees KNOW they have openly spewed leftist grievances and dogmas since the 1960’s; we experienced it firsthand, and we recognize the ideology (within critical theory) along with its thought leaders—what we didn’t expect was that critical theory would turn our prized institutions into grievance strongholds and our youth into Marxist mush.
Dianna Bec,
They also seem to equate or should I say, conflate, higher education with intelligence. What they fail to acknowledge or even know, is modern higher education is really just indoctrination. Today, it is better to be uneducated and still have one’s own thoughts and opinions then indoctrinated and have those thoughts and opinions dictated.
Because believing this complete garbage can lead to political assassination.