I previously discussed the free speech lawsuit of Peter Strzok, expressing skepticism over his claims that the Justice Department violated his First Amendment and privacy rights in firing him. On Tuesday, Judge Amy Berman Jackson agreed and dismissed the lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson noted how Strzok’s filings were filled with “considerable indignation,” but noted that
“Each of the FBI officials deposed maintained that given plaintiff’s rank and his role in the two investigations, and the appearance of bias that permeated the messages, the situation was unprecedented, and there were no comparators.”
She ruled that “the FBI’s imposition of the sanction of termination comported with the Constitution.” She dismissed the case after finding that “the Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that would preclude the entry of summary judgment in the defendants’ favor and that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be denied.”
It is not surprising that Strzok’s filings showed “considerable indignation” given his signature texts and emails. What was missing was considerable support for his legal claims. He could appeal but this shellacking is unlikely to be reversed.
Here is the decision: Strzok v. Garland.
Speaking of free speech. I suspect this will be Professor Turley’s next column.
“Judge reinstates South Dakota professor who called Charlie Kirk a ‘hate spreading Nazi’”
“Explaining her temporary ruling in Hook’s favor Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier reasoned that the professor’s speech “is entitled to First Amendment protection” and that the school failed to produce “any evidence of disruption” in response to Hook’s post. Such evidence wouldn’t necessarily justify his firing, but it would add a layer to the analysis that the Clinton appointee determined she didn’t have to examine here.
Hook wrote in his Sept. 10 post, which he made while at home and not working:
Okay. I don’t give a flying f*** about this Kirk person. Apparently he was a hate spreading Nazi. I wasn’t paying close enough attention to the idiotic right fringe to even know who he was. I’m sorry for his family that he was a hate spreading Nazi and got killed. I’m sure they deserved better. Maybe good people could now enter their lives. But geez, where was all this concern when the politicians in Minnesota were shot? And the school shootings? And Capitol Police? I have no thoughts or prayers for this hate spreading Nazi. A shrug, maybe. “
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/charlie-kirk-social-media-professor-fired-south-dakota-rcna233718
The aftermath of the MAGA rage is starting to show up. Will the professor get his job back?
This is right up Professor Turley’s alley. Will he defend the court’s decision or claim some obscure excuse?
X
I have said several times that SOME of these firings will be overturned.
I would be careful about presuming this particular case is over. The judges ruling is temporary and as you noted she opened the possibility that the college could provide sufficient basis for the firing in a fuller hearing.
Regardless public schools and colleges are going to have different first amendment analysis.
When the govenrment – or a govenrment agent is the employer – first amendment analysis gets messy and complicated.
The best sollution would be where ever possible to get govenrment out of the private sector – such as education, completely. It has no need to be there.
Though even that does not complete resolve things.
Employment in universities often includes “academic freedom” as a contract right.
That is NOT the same as first amendment free speech – it is a CONTRACT RIGHT, not a natural or constitutional right.
While I think some of the judges analysis is flawed. The cases wherre academic freedom or Government as an employer are an issue will be more complicated and some of these firings will be reversed.
Former FBI Director James Comey To Be Indicted ‘In Days’: Reports
With a five-year statute of limitations about to expire next Tuesday, Former FBI Director James Comey is expected to be indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia for lying to Congress during his Sept. 30, 2020 testimony, several outlets have reported.
The news comes days after President Donald Trump knocked AG Pam Bondi for inaction against perpetrators of the ‘Russia hoax.’
By:Tyler Durden ~ 9/25/2025
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/former-fbi-director-james-comey-be-indicted-days-reports
Don’t Touch That Dial – Stay Tuned!
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barack Obama
____________________
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
_____________________________________________
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
_____________________________________________
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI parmour Lisa Page
____________________________________________
“People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this [Trump] server.”
– Bill Priestap
________________
“I had a discussion with the case team and we believe there to be predication to include former President of the United States Donald J. Trump as a predicated subject.”
– Timothy Thibault to John Crabb, U.S. Attorney’s Office, D.C.
___________________________________________________________________
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history. The co-conspirators are:
Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,
James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Sally Yates,
James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove,
Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper,
Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power,
Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, Gen. Milley, George Soros, John McCain,
Marc Elias, Igor Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Charles H. Dolan, Jake Sullivan, Strobe Talbot,
Cody Shear, Victoria Nuland, Ray “Red Hat” Epps, Don Berlin, Kathy Ruemmler, Rodney Joffe,
Paul Vixie, L. Jean Camp, Andrew Whitney, Lisa O. Monaco, Fani Willis, Alvin Bragg,
Matthew Colangelo, Merrick Garland, Juan Merchan, Timothy Thibault et al.
If there is an open investigation of the offense doesn’t the SOL go away, isn’t the clock stopped! Where are the lawyers on this site?
It is interesting that the Memorandum does not name the “government attorney” or “lawyer,” Lisa Page, nor note their relationship, but then that was not necessarily relevant to the issue of Strzok’s claims. As for Strzok, his bias included outright xenophobia, texting her in July 2016, at the start of the Trump-Russia investigation, “f*** the cheating motherf***ing Russians…bas****s…I hate them…I think they’re probably the worst. F***ing conniving cheating savages.” For her part, Page testified to Congress in July 2018: ‘It is my opinion that with respect to Western ideals and who it is and what it is we stand for as Americans, Russia poses the most dangerous threat to that way of life.’”
Imagine the reaction of many Democrats if Trump Administration officials or personnel made such comments about one of their favored demographics. Of course, certain of them have made statements along the xenophobia continuum too.
Those ancient intra Slavic hatreds are really something to behold!
Dear Mr. Turley, the rogue FBI agent, Peter Strock, got what he deserved. He should be thankful he is not looking through the bars of a prison cell.
This Guy’s sickening, He and Lisa already received a Golden Parachute (prior $ Judgment), Now he’s back at the trough for more. The Ruling was right and justified.
He typifies the kind self-righteous Pigs in the Government Agencies.
Fidelity Bravery Integrity, Peter Strzok failed all three of these and the People.
Conspiracy to overthrow the Government – He did his part alright.
This clown got over a million dollars from the previous Biden crew. This time, his posse was gone. So, no payday this time. Remember conservatives, this is the sub-human who said he ‘could smell Trump voters at WalMart’.
Well, for a little sophistication, let me add: 🙂
Peter and Lisa
Ha! there comes he, with sweat, with blood of Romans,
And with dust of the fight all stained! O, never
Saw I Peter so lovely!
Never such fire in his eyes!
Come! I tremble for joy; hand me the Eagle,
And the red, dripping sword! come, breathe, and rest thee;
Rest thee here in my bosom;
Rest from the terrible fight!
Rest thee, while from thy brow I wipe the big drops,
And the blood from thy cheek! — that cheek, how glowing!
Peter! Peter! Lisa
Never so loved thee before!
No, not then when thou first, in old oak-shadows,
With that manly brown arm didst wildly grasp me!
Spell-bound I read in thy look
That immortality, then,
Which thou now hast won. Tell to the forests,
Great Augustus, with trembling, amidst his gods now,
Drinks his nectar; for Peter,
Peter immortal is found!
“Wherefore curl’st thou my hair? Lies not our father
Cold and silent in death? O, had Augustus
Only headed his army, —
He should lie bloodier there!”
Let me lift up thy hair; ’tis sinking, Peter;
Proudly thy locks should curl above the crown now!
Sigmar is with the immortals!
Follow, and mourn him no more!
(Analysis (ai): The poem depicts a triumphant warrior returning from battle, celebrated by his female companion. The speaker expresses admiration for the warrior’s appearance and bravery, praising his strength, determination, and heroism. The poem emphasizes the warrior’s victory over a formidable foe and his newfound status as an immortal.)
I was thinking more of Ethan Frome.
Yes, that was a sad tale. Originally, it was called Frome, Here to Eternity – but copyright. Anyway, for good theatrics and histrionisch, you can’t beat Klopstock. That would have made a hell of an Opera! Imagine Callas as Thusnelda!
Thusnelda:
Ha, dort kömmt er, mit Schweiß, mit Römerblut,
Mit dem Staube der Schlacht bedeckt! So schön war
Hermann niemals! So hat’s ihm
Nie von dem Auge geflammt.
Komm, o komm, ich bebe vor Lust, reich’ mir den Adler
Und das triefende Schwert! Komm, atm’ und ruh’
Hier aus in meiner Umarmung
Von der zu schrecklichen Schlacht.
Ruh’ hier, dass ich den Schweiß von der Stirn’ abtrockne
Und der Wange das Blut! Wie glüht die Wange!
Hermann, Hermann, so hat dich
Niemals Thusnelda geliebt!
Selbst nicht, als du zuerst im Eichenschatten
Mit dem bräunlichen Arm mich wilder umfasstest!
Fliehend blieb ich und sah dir
Schon die Unsterblichkeit an,
Die nun dein ist! Erzählt’s in allen Hainen,
Dass Augustus nun bang’ mit seinen Göttern
Nektar trinket! Erzählt es in allen Hainen,
Dass Hermann unsterblicher ist!
Hermann:
Warum lockst du mein Haar? Liegt nicht der stumme
Tote Vater vor uns? O, hätt’ Augustus
Seine Heere geführt, er
Läge noch blutiger da!
Thusnelda:
Lass dein sinkendes Haar mich, Hermann, heben,
Dass es über dem Kranz in Locken drohe!
Siegmar ist bei den Göttern!
Folge du, und wein’ ihm nicht nach![5]
I think that Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock would have enjoyed it as would his British contemporary, Edmund Burke.
Well, slap me and call me Suzie!, but Handel did do an opera on this! Live and learn!
Strzok and Page engaged in highly unprofessional behavior, and an affront to their Constitutional oaths. These 2 knew from their training that the federal intel community is NOT allowed to involve itself in domestic politics. Part of that is because of the advanced training in infowarfare techniques they receive at Quantico and Langley — which are ONLY to be used to thwart foreign actors attempting to interfere with or influence domestic politics.
Crossfire Hurricane, and later the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, were brazen domestic propaganda operations waged by actors at the highest levels of the intel community (FBI, CIA).
I have been warning ardent free speech advocates that manipulative infowarriors (who don’t share their policy interests) are eager for their fabrications and clever false-narratives to be protected by the 1st Amendment, in essence held as legally indistinguishable from objective truth delivered with authenticity and civility.
Just as predicted, Peter Strzok went to federal court arguing an extremely permissive interpretation of free speech which would allow him to wage deceptive infowarfare on the American people — from an official office — and applying taxpayer-paid training in PsyOps.
Thankfully, a Federal Judge holds a common sense, grounded notion of free speech, and is willing to shut down outrageous extrapolations of it.
it is regrettable that you upvote your own comments. lucky for you our host is a free speech absolutist and allows you to upvote your own absolutist free speech bullchips
I didn’t upvote. I don’t use that feature.
As far as Prof. Turley being an ‘free speech absolutist”, he’s willing to make an exception for defamation lawsuits. As far as the status of duping the public for political power-seeking, he won’t address that issue directly, but my estimate (after reading his book) is he classifies deliberate propaganda as “speech I don’t like” and “refute lies with truth” (Justice Brandeis). To him, not even civil lawsuit should be permitted to contest the most outrageous political whoppers pushed out in the weeks before a Presidential election (toward the fairness of the election). The Brandeis mantra ignores the reality of delay in getting the truth out, and irreversable impacts of the lies in the interim, such as rigging an election via voter opinion-shaping.
On the issue of children, and the right of parents to exert control over what their children are exposed to — pitted against the extravagant free speech claims of porn operators, foreign terrorists, and CCP propagandists to have access to US children — Turley is silent.
On the issue of militant intimidation, for example shouting down speakers on campus, doxxing, cancelling,
Turley supports laws against death threats (which are virtually unenforced) and tire slashing, but hasn’t directly spoken for or against establishing legal consequences for doxxing and cancelling.
Bottom line, Prof. Turley is a leading voice against censorship, but seems reticent to speak about reasonable limits or responsibilities, perhaps because nuance would be thrown back in his face as equivocation.
“Bottom line, Prof. Turley is a leading voice against censorship, but seems reticent to speak about reasonable limits or responsibilities, perhaps because nuance would be thrown back in his face as equivocation.”
Reasonable limits is left speak for – I want to impose my views by FORCE and I hope calling them “reasonable”
will hide the fact I am using force.
There is very little Nuance to the first amendment – restrictions on First amendment speech must pass strict scrutiny. That means those limits are bright lines, not nuanced. Combining speech with conduct that is not itself purely expressive does not convert the conduct into protected speech. Writing “Fascist catch” on a bullet does not make assassination free speech.
With limited exceptions – Government can not restrict speech PERIOD.
Your issue about delay is irrelevant. People with a few brain cells to rub together grasp that claims made without the oportunity to be rebutted should be taken with a grain of salt.
Regardless, restrictions on speech in the context of an election is the very worst thing you could possibly do.
Attempts at political persusion not only require first amendment protection – but you litterally can not have free and fair elections is you empower those in government to decide what can or can not be said in the context of an election.
I disagree with Turley on defamation – I think the free market deals with defamation just fine. IO think it would do so even better without defamation laws. I understand that people who are lied about want to lash back at the liars. But if we eliminate defamation as a civil claim, that will increase the likelyhood that people will NOT beleive potentially defamatory claims without evidence.
We have seen over the past decade how one political party can lie, and lie and lie – and though the process has been slow – we have also seen that ordinary people slowly get that.
When you lie repeatedly – people chose not to trust you. We see that even HERE all the time.
Those who have striven to be truthful in their posts are still here and still posting under the same names.
While those who have repeatedly lied, are constantly changing their names or posting as anonymous.
Anyone is free to change their name or post as anonymous.
But it is also true that reputations for truth have value
While with few exceptions FORCE aka Government can not be used to restrict speech, outside of government you can do as you please.
Your employer can fire you for really any reason, but definitely for whatever you have said.
A job is not a right – free speech is.
You can not say whatever you want in someone else’s home,
again – you have the right to free speech, you do not have the right to tresspass.
Things get complicated when government moves into the private domain.
As I have noted for innumerable reasons – we should not have government entanglement in the private sphere.
We should not have public schools, or govenrment funding of education.
That creates unnecescary situations where we have to sort out whether government is acting as an employer or as government. That is Nuanced and it is better to avoid entirely. Nor is free speech the only issue of rights that gets messy when govenrment starts acting privately.
You attempt to delve into the free speech rights of teachers and students and conflicts with parents.
Those go away if you disentangle government. Schools are then just employers and can fire teachers for any reasons. Parents are just consumers and can boycott schools that do not meet there needs. Students have the same power with respect to schools – When they are able to provide for their own education.
How can you tell who “Liked” a comment ??
pbinca, I agree. This is why even Ted Cruz is vehemently opposed to what Trump is doing with his free speech attacks on late-night TV hosts and the false narrative that Kimmel said something defamatory or lied. You can see how quickly the false rumor gains footing when it’s not challenged or held in check by…Ted Cruz.
X,
Cruz is correct. Carr’s threat to ABC was abuse of power.
However, Kimmel did lie.
Kimmel is kibble.
No Cruz opposed FCC’s Carr even hinting that he might do the same things as Democratic presidents have done since the 60’s.
YOU have failed to address that – recently under Biden the FCC cancelled 22 FCC licenses of Sinclair over political speech they did not like.
The media did not even report that. Those on the left ACTUALLY restricting free speech gets ZERO attention from the left MSM and you. While Carr hinting that the FCC MIGHT do something becomes a huge deal for you.
Cruz is correct – the FCC should just be eliminated entirely. Republicans should focus on that, not on weilding FCC power in the same way that Democrats have for decades.
Regardless it is ACTS of those in govenrment that violate peoples rights – not words.
That is important – because it is only in action that we can fully evaluate whether the ACT is actually an infringement on rights.
Right now Trump has made it clear that he wants James and Comey prosecuted.
To determine whether that is a violation of Rights – an abuse of power, it is NOT the fact that James and Comey are political enemies that matters. What matters is whether there was reasonable suspicion to investigate them, and whether there is probable cause to indict and prosecute them.
Trump did not become more popular as a consequence of the 2024 lawfare because he was prosecuted.
He became more popular because people evaluated the claims against him and determined they were bogus.
Those with govenrment power have a DUTY to prosecute those who violate the law.
They also have a DUTY to be RIGHT about those violations when they do so.
One of the huge problems those of you on the left have – is that the majority of people – not just MAGA do NOT see the world as you do – they see the REAL world, not your idiotic one.
Some grasped the Colusion delusion was idiocy from the start – others took time, but ultimately and overwhelmingly they grasp that it was a HOAX – those in power abusing power.
The same is true of issue after issue.
Further – catching you lying about one issue – crying wolf,
Makes it less likely you will be believed on the next.
Carr and Trump can say whatever they wish about Kimmel and ABC – that is free speech.
Trump can fire Carr for his speech if he wishes – but I doubt that will happen.
There is no abuse of power until the FCC acts, and then ONLY if they act outside the law.
Trump can call for Comey’s prosecution if he wishes – Obama totally ended presidents keeping silent about criminal prosecutions. Trump can – as jefferson did ORDER the prosecution of a political rival.
What he can not do – is order the investigation of someone without reasonable suspicion of a crime, or the prosecution without probable cause. If those are not present – he will be judged harshly.
IG Horowitz determined that Reasonable suspicion for Crossfire Huricane just barely existed from the Summer of 2016 through December of 2016. I disagree – but the standard is low and it is a close call.
But there was not reasonable suspicion after Danchenko confirmed to the FBI in early december that the Steel Dossier was nothing more than made up nonsense and Gossip from the DNC, that there was not a shred of evidence for any claim in it. And IG Horowitz confirmed that. Crossfire Huricane could not constitutionally continue after mid december 2016. The actions to preserve it after that were all Abuse of power. For a full month that was the abuse of power by lame duck president Obama. After Jan 21, 2017 it was abuse of power by those in the FBI and DOJ.
I can go on and on with myriads of examples of lies that turned into abuse of power and bad conduct by those on the left.
But more importantly – the overwhelming majority of people have come to agree.
Those of you on the left are not to be trusted.
you believe the ends justify the means.
It is not your words that are the problem – though you have lied over and over.
It is your actions.
John Say:
“The media did not even report that. Those on the left ACTUALLY restricting free speech gets ZERO attention from the left MSM and you.”
That, my friend, is the real, the most palpable problem in America.
Correct, but it is also the reason that the left wing nut MSM is failing.
I personally could care less if ABC keeps Kimmel or not.
Judgement on that is up to Disney customers and Disney shareholders.
Igers job is not to defend free speech or democracy.
It is to make money for shareholders, and that requires delivering value to customers.
The free market – not the FCC should judge Igers decisions.
We will se what they decide about THIS decision over time.
But there judgment of the MSM is crystal clear – the networks have lost massive numbers of viewers.
And they have done so at a time in which people are MORE interested in the news that ever before.
They are just NOT interested in what the MSM has to say.
Most everyone here – left and right knows that NYT, WaPo are struggling to survive.
They only continue to exist because billionaires are footing the bill to allow left wing nut children to lecture the rest of us. One of those – Bezos has been trying to send signals – NOT to change their politics, but to attract more readers or lose your job. What is true is there just are not enough far left readers to attract.
The same is true of the networks. The MSM got a brief repreive from 2017-2020 as their attacks on Trump brought up their ratings. But they tanked again in 2021, and in 2025 they have NOT had the same benefit from attacking Trump – ratings are continuing to decline – even with Trump as president.
You and I can lecture that the media should be truthful, and unbiased.
But what they MUST do is profit for shareholders and that means reaching enough viewers to cover their costs of operation and to profit.
I think it is obvious they are failing to do so because they are biased and have lost peoples trust.
But deciphering WHY they are losing money – is their CEO’s business – not mine – though I an free to offer my 0.02.
Whatever the reason people are NOT happy with the MSM and the media must figure out how to change that or shrink to the point where the small number of customers they still have con profitably support them.
Lin, the Media did not report that because it never happened.
I searched for what he was talking about and this is what seems to be what John is talking about.
“Eleven Democratic senators and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote their request in a letter to Pai Thursday that highlighted the local television media conglomerate’s recent move to force its anchors in dozens of U.S. cities to read a scripted, uniform segment blasting “fake news” and media bias that favors liberals.”
…”Pai rejected their request via a letter of his own Thursday, saying the FCC could not revoke licenses over the contents of a particular newscast. That statement tracked with comments he made last year when President Donald Trump questioned whether the FCC should consider revoking NBC News’ license.
Right wing news site Breitbart News first reported on Pai’s letter.”
https://rollcall.com/2018/04/13/fcc-rejects-democrats-request-to-review-sinclair-license/
It seems John’s memory of the event is a bit rusty and incorrect. Biden’s FCC correctly did its job. Trump’s FCC threatened to revoke licenses if broadcasters didn’t do something about Kimmel’s comments. That’s a huge distinction.
No FCC licenses, let alone 22, were canceled by Biden. John is wrong. His claim is false.
X you have absolutely proven that
Democrats in congress sought to force the FCC to act to censor political speech.
And that in the instances you cite – the FCC refused.
But that was NOT my claim.
i would note that the cancelation of Sinclair licenses – which did happen is NOT the only misconduct of the Biden FCC.
But it is hard to google FCC misconduct by democrats – because the media does not report it, and
google etc provide only information that is reported.
Nor was this nonsense restricted to Biden. It occured under Obama, Clinton and Johsnon.
In fact it was stated by Johnson.
I am not aware of it happening under Carter – but I have no researched that much.
I would further note that Nixon – the most left leaning Republican to be president,
Also used the FCC against political enemies – using the tools that Johnson provided.
“I searched for what he was talking about and this is what seems to be what John is talking about.”
Where – up your a$$ ?
You still can not find where Kimmel claimed the Kirk shooter was MAGA.
No one trusts much of anything you say.
“It seems John’s memory of the event is a bit rusty and incorrect.”
Nope, but as is typical – left wing nuts attempt to disprove the truth by offering a red herring.
“Trump’s FCC threatened to revoke licenses if broadcasters didn’t do something about Kimmel’s comments. That’s a huge distinction.”
Again a Lie. Left wing nuts have CLAIMED that the FCC MIGHT revoke licenses or refuse to permit mergers. But The FCC did no such thing. The FCC took absolutely no action at all with respect to Kimmel.
FCC Chair Carr – ONE of 5 votes in the FCC when asked about Kimmel on a podcast, made the remark that
“ABC could do this the easy way or the hard way” – he made no reference at all to any kind of action by anyone. He did not specificy that the FCC would revoke licenses, he did not mention refusing to approve a merger. He did not even specify whether the the “hard way” would involve the FCC at all.
YOU and those on the left have SPECULATED what he meant – but he never said.
Further he is ONE vote of 5. He needs two more to do anything. So even an explicit threat by Carr is Nothing more than Free speech.
John Say: WIsh I had seen your response before my comment to Geo, but what matter involved FCC revocation of Sinclair licenses? Are you referring to what I cited in my response to Geo? Otherwise, I have no idea what. Thanks
(And I agree with you that FCC rejected the Democrat Senators’ petition.)
George:
(1) Thanks for expounding on the matter with details,
(2) I did respond to John Say’s comment at face value; this is because I vaguely remembered that earlier case you just mentioned but had no personal interest in following the case or its outcome.
Actually, John may have been referring to this “recent” matter:
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-88A1.pdf (see para 52)
But this case does not involve “political” content so I am not sure. Perhaps he will offer details.
Lin, I still have no idea what John was referring to. Becuse the case you cited was about fines. Not license cancellations and nobody’s license was taken away.
I still think the closest case, the one I mentioned matches more closely with what John is alluding. It’s still does not support his claims that 22 stations had their licenses cancellled because of political content. I suspect he “heard” about it on some other blog or forum and thought It was true. The fact that it is not reported by the media at all leads me to believe it never happened, not the way he thinks it did.
Lin, looks like John is talking about the Sinclair-Tribune merger back in 2017. There were issues with Sinclair’s plans to offload several TV stations to satisfy the FCC’s concerns about the potential monopoly from Sinclair.
I suspect John is confusing this with the calls from 12 Democrats asking, not demanding licenses be revoked. Trump at the time demanded the FCC to revoke NBC’s broadcast license because they were spreading fake news.
Biden’s FCC chair was far more competent and knew the law better than Carr does.
I would strongly suggest that you do not speculate – as you have historically been abysmal at it.
Outside the far left MSM there is a long list of FCC actions targeting the right – all the way back to Read Lion vs FCC that has been brought forward – the license cancellation that I refereed is but one of many such FCC actions.
The Sanders letter that you dug up is pretty damning to – but mostly because it is evidence that Democrats actually beleive the FCC will do the job of politically censoring the right if they ask for it.
It is frankly surprising that the FCC did not do as Sanders asked.
Sanders did not ask for something the FCC can not do or has not in the past,
And those in the administration rarely turn down the requests of senators – especially senators from their own party when their party controls congress.
It is a letter much like this that got Sen. McCain in trouble in the “Keating 5” scandal.
But then the media only covers political corruption by republicans.
I would note that the left wing nut claim that there was a threat by the FCC to oppose a proposed merger is laughably off base.
Broadcast networks are in a fight with providers like ABC, NBC, CBS etc.
Existing FCC rules severely limit their ownership of stations – which severely restricts their ability to negotiate with major networks. The Nexstar Sinclair refusal to carry Kimmel removes him from Most broadcast networks in the country – but it still only impacts 30% of his audience – as most people do not get ABC through broadcast stations – but through cable – there are more complexities to this than that as Cable networks often rebroadcast OTA stations.
Regardless, Most of the OTA networks are owned by conservatives. Most of the networks are owned by left wing nuts.
The FCC approving proposed mergers shifts the balance of power in the media more in favor of the broadcast carriers than the MSM.
But the recent merger request REQUIRES the FCC to change existing rules. If the FCC does not act to change the rules the merger can not be approved.
There is absolutely ZERO reason for Trump/Carr to threaten to block a merger that would empower conservative broadcasters and disempower the MSM.
The reverse is true – approving the merger would make it even easier for Broadcasters to strong arm ABC to remove defamatory content.
John Say,
“YOU have failed to address that – recently under Biden the FCC cancelled 22 FCC licenses of Sinclair over political speech they did not like.
The media did not even report that.”
If they didn’t report that then what is your source for the claim?
If you know it was specifically 22 licenses cancelled I assume you have a source you can share.
If what you’re saying is true that the media did not even report it it must not have been what you claim it is.
Does the sun rise if the MSM does not report it ?
Lots of very real things happen in the world that do not get covered by the media.
Do you know that a man was arrested for trying to assassinate Trump a few days ago ?
He hit Marine One with a Laser.
News is not covering it.
John, you’re citing a rumor at best. It’s more likely you THINK you saw what you say you did when in fact it’s what I found. It makes no sense that because it was not reported it means the MSM is colluding to deny the public this important information. I think you either jumped into a conspiracy theory, or it really did not happen at all.
Think about it. The story I cited most likely to match your claim does mention Democrats, 12 of them demanding the FCC take away the licenses of some stations for false news reporting. The Biden FCC correctly declined to do so because they were competent and knew the law did not allow for that. If your claim is to be true and it happened under Biden it does not make sense that Biden’s FCC which denied the request would allow it for this vague claim you make.
“ Do you know that a man was arrested for trying to assassinate Trump a few days ago ?
He hit Marine One with a Laser.“
I read that story. I see how you misinterpret news into whatever you want it to be.
The man was not trying to assassinate Trump. None of the stories reporting the incident say that. So that’s a false claim. What IS being reported is a man, one with obvious mental issues, was seen walking the streets pointing a laser pointer at various things and people. It was your run-of the-mill red laser pointer, like those used to entertain your pet.
Marine One was leaving the White House grounds en route to take Trump to Andrews for his trip out of town and as reported it is common for Marine One to fly very low upon leaving the White House grounds. This disturbed, possibly homeless man, saw the helicopter and pointed his laser at it. Marine One has very sensitive laser detectors used to defend against laser guided missles. Pilots likely reported the alarm and perhaps saw the laser itself and relayed the infor to local authorities.
The reporting details the man and his mental state and his jabbering about something while pointing the laser at the aircraft. It was not an assassination attempt. It was some crazy homelss dude pointing a toy laser at the presidential helicopter.
You saw an assassination attempt because you wanted to instead of reading the full story and learning that it was some crazy guy, doing stupid things like pointing a laser at random things of interest.
SOME news covered it. That’s how you know about it. But it was not the kind of news that grabs headlines if it was just some random tweeker or bored mentally ill homelssman playing with a laser pointer. Trump was never in any danger and his flight proceeded as normal. But you went and assumed the most extreme possible scenario because it fits your need to make everything either a leftist plot or something more sinister.
By the way if you google “laser pointed at Marine One” you can see that the new did cover it, quite a bit.
“ As reported by CBS News, the individual concerned, named by the authorities as Jacob Samuel Winkler, 33, was spotted by a uniformed Secret Service officer, shirtless and talking to himself while standing on the sidewalk near the White House on the date in question. Following a verbal challenge from the officer, who also shone a torch in Winkler’s direction, Winkler was reported to have retaliated by flashing a red laser beam in the direction of the officer’s face.“
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/man-laser-pointer-marine-one-trump-charged/amp?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=%F0%9F%A4%9D+Air+France-KLM+Group+and+SAS+transatlantic+tie-up&utm_campaign=NEW+AeroTime+News+%2F+September+23%2C+2025+%28Copy%29&vgo_ee=Dn1lmrH2rR5TashMQVR%2BBtDInL5QG59%2B4oWc3B2yEj72ioF5KSf%2Fug%3D%3D%3AC%2F71sBv6WumylXvZorUL%2FR9Ogc7C%2BdDc
It was not an assassination attempt. Just some nut job without a shirt talking to himself.
John Say,
“No Cruz opposed FCC’s Carr even hinting that he might do the same things as Democratic presidents have done since the 60’s.”
What exactly have they done? The vague allegations without one example. I suspect you’re conflating two very different things and claiming them to be the same.
Way too long a list
Start with Red Lion Vs FCC – that is what enabled it all.
They try reading
“The Good Guys the Bad Guts and the first amendment ”
That will get you through 10 years of Bad FCC behavior.
Next there is Caroline Kennedy’s book on the constitution – there is a chapter in that on the misdeeds of the FCC
As I said – the FCC has been engaged in political censorship since the 60’s.
Are you so much of a cretin that you do not grasp that the president who’s targeting of the FBI, DOJ, ATF at the right lead to Ruby Ridge, Wacco and the retaliation of OKC was not also abusing the FCC ?
BTW Ruby Ridge and Wacco are just the targeting that went wildly wrong.
Do you think that Obama who used BLM and FBI (with shoot to kill orders) against the Bundy’s would not also use the FCC ? I will bet you do know know that the Feds LOST the lawsuits against them involving Weaver and the Bundies. And would have lost against Koresch – except that the Davidians were all murdered – no one to sue that way.
John Say, Red Lion vs FCC? The case where the supreme court upheld the fairness doctrine? That was an abuse of power?
Waco and Ruby Ridge? How did the FCC censor those events? Everyone knows about it. How were they censored? You don’t mention that.
“Do you think that Obama who used BLM and FBI (with shoot to kill orders) against the Bundy’s would not also use the FCC ? ”
What? Did he use the FCC? You claimed the demcrats have been using the FCC to censor others. But your exmaples show none of that. You’re offering theoretical scenarios. Not real abuses of the FCC by Democrats as far back as the 60’s. You really don’t have any evidence to support your claims at all. You’re just offering probable scenarios.
John Say,
“Carr and Trump can say whatever they wish about Kimmel and ABC – that is free speech.”
Are you sure John? Trump and Carr are the government. You have often said the government has no free speech rights. Are you changing your position on that issue?
“There is no abuse of power until the FCC acts, and then ONLY if they act outside the law.”
Huh? That’s ridiculous. There is abuse of power when you threaten to use that power to get what you want. Extortion and blackmail are crimes and an abuse of power if the government is doing the threats and implying extortion and blackmail like Carr did. Ted Cruz made some hilarious, but accurate examples of what Carr did.
No Trump and Carr are NOT Government – they are people in Government.
As individuals they have the same right to free speech as the rest of us.
What they may not do is use the power of government to infringe on the rights of others.
“You have often said the government has no free speech rights.”
Correct – I said that when you made idiotic claims that the Government was free to propogandize all of us.
It can’t
Individuals who are also in Government have individuals rights to free speech.
But like anyone else, they can be fired for their speech. Trump can Fire Carr for his remarks – but that is unlikely. You can impeach Trump for his speech or vote against him.
Elected officials can not be fired.
As is typical of a left wing nut you expand or contract EVERYTHING – even where the limits are obvious, to attempt to make your point.
But it does not matter what you decide the rules are – if they do not follow obvious limits – they will not work.
If you do not accept a difference between an individual and government then you can not make ANY system work.
But again typical of a left wing nut. push everything one way – when it favors you, and push it the opposite when it does not.
Rather than live in this ideological roller coaster where the rules and your understanding of them change based on who is in power or who is criticising who.
Join the real world where we strive to follow logic and reason and come up with rules and systems that actually work.
Trumps words are free speech – mostly they are just wolf whisles targeted at left wing loons like you.
Trump understands that every time you whig out and scream Nazi, Nazi when there are no Nazis – you lose a few more votes – forever.
Can you identify and actual ACT by Trump that violates he first amendment.
ACT as in actually DO something.
Carr’s remarks are more problematic. There is an implied threat – but it is not clear what the threat is.
As I have been checking the news – aparently the FCC is down to two members the other one is a democrat and the FCC can’t do much of anything until that changes – So Carr can threaten FCC action all he wants, it is not possible. Regardless YOU concluded that Carrs remarks mean FCC action. Maybe when 2 more republicans are confirm Carr MIGHT act in a way that violates the first amendment. But that is not anytime Soon.
“Are you changing your position on that issue?”
Not at all. Trump is only government when he ACTS using the power of government – as president – giving orders is acting and if those orders violate the first amendment they are unconstitutional.
Regardless, addressing actual government Free Speech – Trump or Biden can be ProTrans or AntiTrans.
But there is no free speech right for USAID to fund Trans operas in Columbia.
You can try to argue that Congress mandated that spending. But there is no first amendment argument that canceling govenment spending on speech violates the first amendment – it does not – there is no govenrment right to speech. That does not mean that governemtn can not speak. It just means that it is not a right.
That the constitution is not infringed on when the speech of govenrment is restricted.
“That’s ridiculous.”
No it is quite litterally SCOTUS’s multiple decisions on government censorship.
“There is abuse of power when you threaten to use that power to get what you want.”
Why is it that the simplest of things have to be explained to you ?
Why is it that you constantly revert to the vast over simplifictions of a 4 year old ?
That is not what you said when the Biden administration did it.
Regardless again you play with words – broad or narrow as suits your argument.
Threats are not protected by the first amendment – BUT there are requirements that must be met for a Threat to lose first amendment protection.
The threat must be specific
it must be plausible
it must be immediate
it must be clear
and it must be a threat to do something that is either illegal or unconstitutional.
When AZ HObbs threatened to prosecute independnet election board members if they did not perform their jobs in the way SHE desired – that was extortion. She was not permitted to do so.
She had the power to go to court and argue to a court that IT should order them to do something.
But she threatend to use her government power to FORCE them to obey an order from her she did not have the authority to give and that if they did not – they would lose their liberty.
More recently Trump is alleged to have threatened to fire a prosecutor if they did not move forward on prosecuting Comey. The president has the power to hire and fire AUSAs
He also has the power to decide who should be prosecuted or not.
It appears that late Yesteday a GJ did indict Comey – I have only one source for that so maybe that is not true,
regardless, if it is – Trump did NOT threaten the GJ – he has no power to do that.
With respect to Carr – you alleged threat does not come close to any lines.
There is no mention of govenment action – therefore it is impossible to judge if that unmentioned government action is an abuse of power.
Those of you on the left claimed that Trump/Carr were threatening not to approve a Merger that Sinclair/Nexstar want. But that merger is not at a state that the FCC can act on it.
Carr is only one vote of 5 – and there is only one other currently serving member of the FCC,
The FCC can not act, it can not approve or disapprove and more importantly it can not make the rule change that is required for the merger to take place.
And finally – Conseratives want that merger and want that rule change.
Only left wing nuts can persuade themselves that Conservatives would threaten to cut off their noses to spite their faces. This is like the lunatic claims that Putin wanted Trump or that Robinson was a Gropyer
not in theory completely impossible but highly unlikely.
So Carr issued a vague threat that no one knows what means.
He should not have done that.
But it is not even close to a crime,
and even your speculative versions would be both legal and constitutional.
No all threats are not extortion or blackmail.
When a parent tells their kids “eat your peas or you can not get up from the table”
That is a threat, it is not a crime.
“Extortion and blackmail are crimes and an abuse of power”
Correct – and again – every threat is not blackmail or extortion.
Nor is everything that you call extortion or blackmail extortion or blackmail.
“if the government is doing the threats and implying extortion and blackmail like Carr did.”
So what is the threat ?
Joe Biden threatened to take Trump behind the gym and beat him up.
Was that a crime ?
You left wing nuts never think your arguments through.
Litterally your nonsense is specifically why we have the right to free speech.
It is not because it is important for Kimmel to be able to defame half the country.
It is because without free speech – there is no one to dismantle idiotic arguments such as yours.
John Say,
“No Trump and Carr are NOT Government – they are people in Government.”.
A distinction without a difference.
They are the Government no matter how you want to parse it and according to you goverment does not have free speech rights.
“Carr’s remarks are more problematic. There is an implied threat – but it is not clear what the threat is.”
There was no implied threat. It was explicit. Everyone understood what Carr meant to do. That is why there was so much backlash from both the right and the left. Ted Cruz understood it, Tucker Carlson understood, Candace Ownens, and even Joe Rogan. It was very clear what the threat was.
Carr’s threat wasn’t vague at all. You’re trying to minize the gravity of what Carr said because it’s damning proof that he was threatening the licenses of broadasters at the behest of Trump. Remember Trump has always been demanding the revocation of broacasters licenses because he doesn’t like what they say about him. This goes all the way back to 2017.
Carr’s comments are problematic because they are very clear about what he meant and everyone knows what he meant.
John, your arguments are not very good. If you have to use 1000 words to make an argument that is flawed from the beginning you have already lost.
“You have often said the government has no free speech rights. Are you changing your position on that issue?”
That’s rich.
When Biden’s bureaucrats were putting the screws to social media companies, you claimed that those bureaucrats have free speech rights.
Are you now abandoning that “conviction?”
Just as a side question; What would the difference be between a NDA and a condition of employment? If the claims that are being proffered by the progs is that ANY stifling of speech is an abridgement to the 1rst amendment, couldn’t anyone who has signed a NDA be free to disclose whatever just because that NDA abridged their free speech? Where does accountability to an agreement (whether a NDA or an contract/oath of employment) end and free speech begin?
Whims
An NDA is a contract and condition of employment. If you execute the agreement you are now bound by the conditions. If you disagree, don’t sign and don’t get the job, simple. I would believe its use could be seen as a parallel to governments handling of classified information.
Further, it is not stifling free speech, its use is restricting proprietary information and/or personal information that you are now privy to due to your employment from being made public. This could be expanded to morality clauses and making public statements deemed harmful to the image of your employer.
Confidentiality, the fine line is common sense and accountability for speech.
But you already know this…
I don’t think it’s quite that simple. When the employer has engaged in lawless behavior, and then uses NDAs to muzzle employees reporting the crime and/or cooperating with investigations, those NDAs are null and void, since their intent is obstruction of justice.
Here’s another one. I’ve been offered employment contracts where I waive my rights under the FCRA (Federal Credit Reporting Act) to receive copies of any derrogatory information dug up while vetting my employability.
Those clauses are null and void, because the rights conferred under FCRA cannot legally be nullified contractually.
Bottom line, NDAs are meaningful contracts, but not when in conflict with law, or used to cover-up lawbreaking. That makes NDAs a complex instrument legally.
You can not contract away an obligation to report a crime.
There are SOME other rights you can not contract away – you can not sell yourself into slavery.
Your FCRA example however is almost certainly incorrect. There is no crime in not sharing with you information that is uncovered as a result of an employer vetting you.
Classified information in government is not parallel to NDA’s it is identical.
Certain jobs require a security clearance. No clearance no job.
A security clearance REQUIRES the employee to sign a contract that they will abide by the rules for handling classified information.
You have an absolute right to free speech. You have no right to employment.
Further Free speech is a right that you can contract away in return for something you value more.
An NDA is a contract in which you agree to limit a right in return for the right to something else.
All contracts involve an exchange of one right for another.
We have had lots of people fired – many from left wing schools and colleges for revolting speech.
It is likely many will sue – and some will win. And they should.
IF and ONLY IFF the firing violated the actual conditions of their contract.
Most colleges promise academic freedom to both students and teachers.
That is a contract. It generally is NOT understood as a contract right to say absolutely anything.
But it is a contractual right to free speech that does not normally exist in employment.
These cases will be decided based on whether their CONTRACTUAL right to free speech has been violated – not
Whether their first amendment right was violated.
Fire has won a significant number of cases dealing with colleges and schools on this basis.
Separately public schools and colleges that accept federal funds are to SOME extent subject to the first amendment.
This is a clumsy mess that could be avoided – by getting govenrment out of education.
Regardless, public schools and colleges often are legally evaluated as govenrment agents – not private employers.
And it is possible that those fired may win their cases on that ground also.
The possibility that they win their cases – does not make them any less vile, nor mean they should not be fired.
Only that in THEIR specific case they can not legally be fired for speech.
John Say,
“You can impeach Trump for his speech”
No you can’t. You’ve said it yourself. President’s have free speech rights. Impeachment is when the president commits high crimes and misdeamenors or bribery. Not speech.
Andrew Beckett: What do you call a thousand
lawyersBiden DOJ / FBI staffers chained together at the bottom of the ocean?Joe Miller: I don’t know.
Andrew Beckett: A good start
Philadelphia film, 1993
Director: Jonathan Demme
Stars: Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Roberta Maxwell, Buzz Kilman, Karen Finley
Is this newsworthy? Really? President Trump attacks free speech and uses government to silence critics and Professor Turley muses on a case that has been in litigation for years. Wow.
You can almost feel Professor Turley’s trepidation about diving in on Trump’s clear attempts to silence dissent by force of government. It is not just Liberals and Democrats who are calling out Trump’s blatant violations of the 1st amendment it’s also Conservatives, Republicans, and MAGA talking heads like Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, and even Ted Cruz who pointed out just how bad Trump messed up. He made Kimmel more popular than ever and put a spotlight on Trump’s obsession with silencing critics.
The Irony of bringing up Peter Strzok’s freedom of speech case and ignoring the biggest attack on free speech occurring right in front of Professor’s face is jarring to say the least.
Trump’s FCC attempted to silence a late-night TV host by threatening to revoke broadcast licenses like Trump wanted and has demanded multiple times everytime he got upset about the mockery he is getting. Professor Turley’s failure to defend free speech in the face of Trump’s blatant attempt to use government to silence critics is astounding. Does Fox News have him on a tight leash? Will Fox News cancel his contract if he even dares to join other conservatives and prominent MAGA commentators exposing Trump’s attack on free speech. Come on Professor. You’re missing a golden opportunity to establish your free speech bona fides and show the world you defend free speech no matter who is attacking it.
These columns avoiding the obvious are seen as poor deflections from the biggest free speech issues facing the nation right now, this moment, and you diddling away on nonsense about a case nobody cares about except those wanting to ignore the obvious reality around them.
“biggest attack on free speech occurring right in front of Professor’s face is jarring to say the least.” No it is not.
And what is the “avoiding the obvious “pray tell?
Did you ever consider that there more news worthy items in the public sphere than your fixation attacking Turleys’ intellectual capacity and reputation.
At least the man has a reputation, and you? Amateur gadfly perhaps?
Maybe you should take on the big boys media empire, get a show, maybe as be Kimmel’s sidekick. Or with Colbert?
“No it is not.
And what is the “avoiding the obvious “pray tell?”
T. Moore, if you have to ask you have have not been paying attention. Denial is strong among Trump supporters and that is what Ted Cruz and other MAGA figures are pointing out. It’s the idea that if Trump can do it, so can the next Democratic President and Conservatives will be on the receiving end of the same treatment. It’s not a good idea to silence dissent. What makes Trump’s attempt especially worrysome by conservatives and MAGA talking-heads is the open and callous nature of how he’s doing it.
Turley’s reputation is taking a hit for sure. He’s failing to do the one thing he can do without worrying about MAGA backlash or conservative ire because they too are voicing opposition to Trump’s bumbling attemp to silence his critics. Turley has cover to openly criticize Trump and he is still reluctant to give a full throated defense of free speech in light of Kimmel’s suspension after Trump’s FCC directly threatened broadcasters licesnses if they didn’t do anything about Kimmel’s statements.
Trump already has doubled down on his threats against ABC for reinstating Kimmel. Trump hates dissent and he and his Republican and MAGA acolytes are demanding punishment and retribution for the mockery and critcism he’s getting. Turley should be front and center defending Kimmel’s remarks. Nothing he said was defamatory or a lie. Nobody, and I mean nobody including John Say has been able to articulate exactly what was it that Kimmel said was defamatory or a lie.
MAGA, because it’s composed of illiterate nut jobs and context deficient perceived his comments to mean something no english teacher would agree it means. Not a single one. They are really looking for an excuse to justify a blatant violation of Kimmel’s free speech rights by the President and his FCC chair. What they did manage to do is make Kimmel into a martyr for free speech and paint Trump as a thin skinned incompetent boob who tried to use government to silence an alleged offensive opinion he did not like. Turyley failed miserably and as long as he doesn’t address the obvious attack on free speech he wil continue to lose crediblity and importance among free speech defenders. If MAGA and Republicans are saying Trump and his FCC are wrong and went too far, Turley should be joining them in pointing it out.
X, while I agree with you that comments by Carr and Trump were implicit threats and therefore violated the 1st Amendment IMHO you also distort the facts when you claim that nothing Kimmel said was a lie.
This is the exact quote of what he said:
“Many in MAGA-land are working very hard to capitalize on the murder of Charlie Kirk. . . . We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.”
This is a demonstrable lie, and part of a pattern from the left of falsely claiming that Kirk’s killer had to be a right-winger and couldn’t possibly be motivated by ideas and impulses of the left side. And if no English teacher would agree what it means it would just show how low our education has sunk.
I don’t have to lie to defend Kimmel’s first amendment rights, you shouldn’t either
Vincord, This is the Quote in it’s entirety that is being used by MAGA,
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,”
They were indeed doing everything to score political points from it. Trump jumped at the chance to do that when he claimed long before any evidence or investigation started that the radical-left lunatics were responsible. His comments snowballed into cacophonhy of similar claims and calls to punish and claim Democrats are violent crazies. Kirk’s murder was used to fundraise before his body got cold. Nothing Kimmel said was a lie.
MAGA was desperate to paint the shooter as a leftist before any evidence or motive was known. Kimmel was right. But MAGA read it to mean Robinson was MAGA. He never said that. MAGA wanted to see it that way regardless of the evidence. Even ABC executives admitted they saw nothing controversial in Kimmel’s statement. MAGA was in a state of hysterics over anything deregatory about Kirk and naturally they were losing their minds at anything, even a benign mention of his own comments as evidence that he was no saint.
“ I don’t have to lie to defend Kimmel’s first amendment rights, you shouldn’t either“
Contra your claim, you’re the one lying about Kimmel said. The FCC’s chair described Kimmel’s comments as sick and disgusting and offensive. Nothing he said approached that. He was cleary engaging in hypberbole and insinuation to rile up MAGA and it’s ire on anything they deemed a smear against Kirk who they immediately deifyied as a saint and martyr. He was just another shooting vicitm in what passes as normal in this country. That should be offensive.
“Many in MAGA-land are working very hard to capitalize on the murder of Charlie Kirk. . . .”
He did not say that part. You added something he did not say. Now who is being dishonest here?
X
Vincrod ACCURATELY Quoted the most offensive part of Kimmels speech.
You – as left wing nuts typically do – either cited a different section or deceptively edited out the defamatory part of Kimmels remarks.
Maybe if Vincrod, Myself and many others had not provided you with the accurate cite,
Maybe if google and youtube did not exist, and maybe if you had not been given the correct remark dozens of times – you could be given the benefit of the doubt.
But all those things are True – and therefore you are lying.
Worse you are Crazy lying.
And yes Kimmel said what you claim Vincrod added – I beleive he said it again in his appology.
Regardless – Google exists, Youtube exists.
Your just crazy lying.
I would further note – not only has Kimmel said that the assassin was MAGA – but YOU have said that repeatedly here.
John Say, your disingeniousness is amazing.
Everyone, including MAGA has been quoting the same statement.
Not the one Vincord quoted. You never quoted that either. Not once.
Nothing Kimmel said was defamatory or a lie. The FCC chair never claimed he lied. MAGA who was losing it’s mind and going hysterical over what Kimmel said wants to believe he said what they claim he said, just as you do.
“I would further note – not only has Kimmel said that the assassin was MAGA”
Where did he say that John. cite the sentence that proves Kimmel said Robinson was MAGA. Evvery time you make that claim you fail to cite the specific sentence that YOU think Kimmel said Robinson was MAGA. Nobody has been able to show it or explain what part of the quote you interpret as Kimmel saying Robinson was MAGA.
“ And yes Kimmel said what you claim Vincrod added – I beleive he said it again in his appology.“
You believe he said it again? You don’t even know? Did YOU confirm it to be sure? This why you find yourself making claims without being able to back them up.
“Maybe if Vincrod, Myself and many others had not provided you with the accurate cite,
Maybe if google and youtube did not exist, and maybe if you had not been given the correct remark dozens of times – you could be given the benefit of the doubt.
But all those things are True – and therefore you are lying.”
John, Maybe if you spent less time writing long worded rants and stick to short clear responses you would be in a position to back up your claims with citations and sources. You make up the lack of sources and citations with long drawn out spiels that diverge and converge on irrelevant points just to say a single one. You flood your response with a giant word salad to make it more difficult to challenge or rebut your claims and assertions. It’s an old debate tactic often used to prevent your opponent from focusing on the subject being discussed.
“Everyone, including MAGA has been quoting the same statement.”
Both False and irrelevant.
Vincrod and I and others here have quoted the FULL statement – more than half a dozen times.
Are we not part of Everyone ?
Regardless, it is entirerly irrelevant what you claim other people have said that Kimmel said.
That is a totally bizzare arument – it is a red herring at the very least. It is also a straw man.
You have probably managed to hit half of all informal fallacies in a single statement.
What matters – the ONLY thing that matters is what Kimmel said.
“Nothing Kimmel said was defamatory or a lie. ”
Of course it is – back to the crazy lying I see.
Regardless, you lost that argument long ago.
“The FCC chair never claimed he lied.”
I would not trust what you claim no matter what.
But that does not matter. Kimmel lied PERIOD.
“MAGA who was losing it’s mind and going hysterical over what Kimmel said wants to believe he said what they claim he said, just as you do.”
Nope – you keep saying MAGA this and MAGA that – and yet in the real world that is false.
Are some people on the right saying Kimmel should be fired – sure. Buy the actual hysteria is exclusively from the left.
And that is easy to tell – The left like YOU, keeps speculating – worse they keep doing so in a very crazy fashion that predictably proves wrong.
Ben Shapiro did not rush our and say Robinson was a Gropyer ?
YOU did, and Kimmel echoed that idiocy
That type of nonsense is the signs of hysteria.
Those who are saying little on a subject
those that are near certainly right when they do speculate.
Those who are proven right
Are NOT hysterical.
It is the idiots throwing every stupid claim out there they can in the hopes something sticks.
We have had two weeks of LEFT WING NUT murder and violence. Capping 9 months of actual hysteria from the left and repeated acts of left wing violence.
During that time – we have had numerous left wing riots.
What is the right doing ? What is MAGA doing ?
TPUSA is back to their business.
They have lost Charlie, but they have returned to campuses and are continuing Prove me wrong events.
They have not staged protests – they had memorials and a funeral.
You and the rest or the left ARE hysterical and terrified – because according to YOUR
ideology – MAGA is entitled to respond to YOU with violence.
“Where did he say that John”
Back top the crazy lying.
“You believe he said it again? You don’t even know? Did YOU confirm it to be sure? This why you find yourself making claims without being able to back them up.”
I listened to his appology and I specifically recall him saying that.
But I am not going to go back to Youtube and look up his appology and listen to that garbage again
just to have you start this idiocy AGAIN Claiming that Kimmel did NOT say what he plainly said.
Look it up yourself.
Or not, your not going to admit the truth no matter what.
“Maybe if you spent less time ”
If you did not crazy lie so much – I would not has so much to correct.
“back up your claims with citations and sources.”
I did – over and over – and you just kept lying over and over.
I do not actually owe YOU – who has zero credibility cites and sources.
But often I provide them regardless.
You tell crazy lies – and you are lazy.
You rant about cites and sources – you have provided no sources and the rare occasions you have provided cites – they are out of context and deceptively editted – which BTW proves that you are aware of the entirety of what was actually said.
Again – the crazy lying.
With respect to your idiotic claim that MAGA was trying to use the assassination to defame the left.
With few exceptions that too is FALSE. MAGA was in mourning. It was preparing memorials and funerals.
It was prepared to wait for law enforcement to make the definatice statement on Kirks assassin.
It was left wing nuts who from the very begining were trying to spin this any which way they could except for the most probable outcome.
When the writings on the bullets came out – YOU tried to manufacture some idiotic nonsense that made zero sense that somehow the killer was a gropyer. YOU drug Fuentes into this – duentes had absolutely nothing at all to do with this. If you proved that Fuentes was a Nazi – he STILL had nothing to do with Kirks murder – and that was OBVIOUS.
As more and more information came out – all pointing in the direction that was likely from the start – that Kirk was murdered by someone on the left – you denied you denied, you denied.
MAGA was not speaking – the EVIDENCE was.
MAGA was not censoring teachers and college professors – left wing nut colleges were.
MAGA was not censoring Kimmel – Disney was, Sinclair still is, Nexstar still is.
MAGA was perfectly entitled to blame the left – this was clearly a left wing motivated political assassination. But the efforts to control the narative on this were entirely from the left.
From idiots like you.
Further – while I disagree with Turley that “rage rhetoric” is a big problem.
I may not seek to blame YOU for Robinson’s murder of Kirk.
YOU are absolutely positively personally responsible for all the violence nonsense you have sprayed about Kirk, about his murder and about his murderer.
John,
“With respect to your idiotic claim that MAGA was trying to use the assassination to defame the left.
With few exceptions that too is FALSE. MAGA was in mourning. It was preparing memorials and funerals.
It was prepared to wait for law enforcement to make the definatice statement on Kirks assassin.”
ROLF!
MAGA was not trying, it was indeed using the assassination to defame the left. Even Trump was making the effort before any evidence and motive was revealed to defame the left.
MAGA was hysterical and thirsty for revenge. You and the rest were already calling out the left at fault before Kirk’s body got cold. Everyone in MAGA world including TV personalities were calling for war and retribution.
It’s amazing how hard you try to revise history once the evidence was finally coming out. The projection is out of this world.
“MAGA was not censoring Kimmel – Disney was, Sinclair still is, Nexstar still is.”
Under threat by the FCC. You conveniently keep leaving that out. I know you oppose the FCC, but you know that what the FCC did was wrong and it did what Trump wanted.
” it was indeed using the assassination to defame the left.”
George Svelaz, you are a liar whose sole reason for existence on the blog is to waste the time of your betters.
“Charlie Kirk’s assassination is latest evidence that US is suffering an epidemic of leftist violence
We are suffering through an epidemic of leftist violence.
The ruthless assassination of conservative youth leader Charlie Kirk, 31, at a crowded campus event in Utah on Wednesday is the latest manifestation of the hateful rhetoric aimed at President Trump and his MAGA movement.
It’s a sad irony that Kirk’s shockingly public murder happened the day before the trial begins of Ryan Routh, one of the alleged assassins who tried to rub out Trump during the 2024 campaign.
cont: https://nypost.com/2025/09/11/opinion/charlie-kirks-assassination-latest-example-us-is-suffering-an-epidemic-of-leftist-violence-miranda-devine/?utm_campaign=devineonline&utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20250918&lctg=62680bbe38a279b1870b18c5&utm_term=NYP%20-%20Devine%20Online
“We are suffering through an epidemic of leftist violence.”
Wrong, we are suffering through an epidemic of gun violence. Kirk was just another school shooting vicitm. On the same day two kids got shot at a school in Colorado by a right-wing Neo Nazi. What is truly sad is the right is so fixated on blaming the left for things they have no control over and because they don’t know how to address the fact that it is normal to have mass shootings and killings every day.
George Svelaz, at best, you are very sloppy and a liar. At worst, totally ignorant, a fool, and a liar.
“Colorado by a right-wing Neo Nazi.”
In American constitutional language, right-wing is a term that is misused and is a throwback to the 1930s European terminology. That is not part of American constitutional language. In the American constitutional parlance. Classical liberalism is rejected by communism and fascism, while the left has adopted in part or in full many of the characteristics of the authoritarian regimes of the fascists and communists (socialists).
Let us look at the American left and what they support
Big government
Government restrictions on property rights
suppression of speech
censorship
These are all hallmarks of communism and fascism.
I left out Authoritarian government because authoritarianism is on the way toward communism. Fascism is authoritarian from the start. The classical liberal, which you call the right, believes in limited government.
At best, your Colorado shooter had no political identity or was a leftist and who, like the left, was an antisemite.
Vincord – implicit or explicit threats are NOT violations of the first amendment.
Violating the first amendment requires a threat to use the power of government to censor speech.
Carr dances close to the edge of that – as it is arguable that his “we can do this the easy way or the hard way” as FCC chair means that he intends to use the power of the FCC – but he is still only a single vote on a 5 member board.
Trump should not have used the FCC to go after ABC. He should have used the Navy Seals.
You remain clueless.
Absultely there is a conflict inside the GOP over whether Republicans should merely use the same laws that Democrats passed that have been found constitutional to punish democrats in the same way that every democrat president ever has punished republicans.
Or whether they should take the high road and do what is ACTUALLY constitutionally correct – not what SCOTUS eroneously decided that allows the political weaponization of the FCC.
I am With Cruz – Republicans should not be hypocrits.
But those of you on the left have no leg to stand on.
Virtually no one wants to hear you whining that your speech is being infringed by Trump and Carr HINTING that they might use the FCC in exactly the same way that YOU have as recently as the biden administration.
Those of you on the left have only recently given a crap about free speech and only when you have been called out on YOUR atrocious speech.
Idiots like you have said that “Hate speech: is not protected – well the speech you, Kimmel and others are facing consequences for is clearly hate speech.
I am here to defend YOUR right to speak odious and hateful speech.
I am NOT here to pretend you can do so without judgement.
I am not here to pretend that I care the slightest about you or what you say, or that I beleive you,
Only that you should not be censored.
But you should be scorned and vilified and fired and boycotted, and avoided and no reasonable person should want to have anything to do with you.
Trump is perfectly free to speak ill of you or of Kimmel. You deserve it.
FCC’s Carr is also perfectly free to speak ill of you – again you deserve it.
The FCC is unfortunately according to SCOTUS free to censor you
It was the left wing nut Warren court that decided that, and it was Democrat FCC’s that since the 60’s have been doing EXACTLY that – but not to you, but republicans.
Many many people who reject the FCC’s power to censor political speech – still can not help but smiling as YOU are threatened with your comeupance. One that you richly deserve.
Many are arguing that those on the left will NOT learn the critical importance of free speech until they lose theirs.
I completely agree with that. Your ability to learn without consequences is absymal.
Should democrats win election in 2028 – YOU will be leading the charge to censor anyone you do not like – even among your own and concoct spurious and ludicrously stupid reasons to violate their rights – even imprison them.
You were perfectly happy to see thousands who were exercising multiple first amendment rights gagged and prosecuted – because you did not like what they were saying.
You had no problems spying on prolife or catholics, or the parents of students demanding accountability from schools. You had no problems censoring expression you did not like on social media. You had no problem with government paying left wing nut groups to search the internet for content you did not like and demand its censorship.
I agree with those that say YOU will not learn until you are gagged.
But this is not about you. It is not about YOU getting the comeuppance that you so richly deserve.
It is not even about your rights being violated – You rejected those rights in others, your not entitled to them in yourself.
It is about what is right.
Trump and Carr are free to speak as they have.
They are not free to act as they have spoken.
The fact that you richly deserve to be silenced as you have done others does not make it right or constitutional.
Even if the law and constitution say otherwise.
Cruz did not claim that you DESERVE free speech.
Cruz’s demand was that republicans must be BETTER than YOU.
That we MUST protect the free speach of vile hatemongers like you.
Even if SCOTUS does not.
Cruz is demanding that Republicans choose NOT to behave as YOU do.
It is not even about the next Democrat president.
Barring massive changes in the democratic party, there is absolutely no doubt that no matter what Trump does, what republicans do, that if democrats ever regain power they will return to the same vile behavior they have engaged in before. You and Democrats have made no secret of this.
I would separately note – Trump does not hate dissent – he absolutely loves it.
Every time YOU say something stupid – it gives him the oportunity to slam you for it.
Or just to smile as you wallow in the shit you have dug yourself into.
Trump never stood the slightest chance of being elected – but for the stupidity of those like you – his enemies.
Trump NEEDS you.
Go read Agenda 47 – from start to finish it is entirely about undoing the incredible stupidity that you have foist on the country.
No matter what you say – Trump does not actually want you silenced.
He absolutely WANTS you to keep saying stupid things.
Nothing would make Trump happier or give him more power than to slap back at stupid things that Kimmel and those like you say all the time.
“Republican and MAGA acolytes are demanding punishment and retribution for”
For idiocy and lies.
Even Cruz is fully in agreement that YOU are fully deserving of punishment.
The only disagreement – and really only a small one is that your punishment must be imposed by the people, not the government.
“Nobody, and I mean nobody including John Say has been able to articulate exactly what was it that Kimmel said was defamatory or a lie.”
ROFL
I have posted what Kimmel said REPEATEDLY.
I have explained why it was a lie and defamatory REPEATEDLY – though that should not be necescary it was so obvious – but then again idiots like you are STILL trying to claim absurdly that Kirks assassination was an act of red on red violence.
I would also suggest that you go listen to Kimmel’s “appology” – while he refused to admit that what he said was CLEARLY a Lie and CLEARLY defamatory – he openly admitted not only that it could be understood that way but that if the shoes were reversed HE would be offended.
It was one of the most bizare combinations of admitting and denying in the same remarks I have ever seen.
But it is typical of the disemmbling of the left.
Kimmel Lied and Kimmel defamed half the country.
I and others have explained what is obvious to you multiple times.
Though the lies and defamation were so obvious – no explanation is necescary.
Regardless, you are operating out of Goebbells play book – deny, deny, deny – no matter how crazy the denials are.
But then of course you live in alternate 1984 reality where words mean whatever you want to for the moment.
John Say,
“I have posted what Kimmel said REPEATEDLY.”
Don’t start lying now John. You didn’t post what Kimmel said repeatedly. You have been asked repeatedly to provide the quote.
You’re trying to save face by pretending to have done what I asked. Nothing Kimmel said was defamatory or a lie. You’ve concocted that out of pure hate of the left.
Kimmel didn’t need to apologize for telling the truth. MAGA is upset and angry because they don’t like the truth.
Have you found the source of your claim that Biden canceled the licenses of 22 Sinclair stations yet? You’ve said the media didn’t report it. It’s because it never happened.
Too stupid: Didn’t read
HullBobby,
Just scroll past. Not worth reading the village idiot.
That is what I do, it’s why I changed TL:DR to Too Stupid: Didn’t Read.
how would you classify the use of governmental pressure on media to cancel/negate the speech of the conservatives, the anti-vax covid people, the sane concept of only 2 genders, the validity of CRT etc? Is not that exactly what obama/autopen guy did while they had the power. Even the media is confessing to being pressured to abridge free speech and you have the gall to throw shade on Trump?
Clearly TDS and prog indoctrination removes the ability to use logic and data and replaces that with a jihadi-like adherence to a cult that bridges no deviation from belief. You are a sad thing to experience here since you are the ultimate victim of prog brainwashing and you remain ignorant of your own ignorance – willfully.
Is this newsworthy?
Bwahahahahahaha! Thank you for not burying the lede. I’m certain whatever else followed was more of your propaganda shite, so no need to read further. You really are not very good at this law and politics opinion stuff. Keep losing like this and you’ll once again need to change your user ID. Try LOSER!
Trump had nothing to do with Kimmel’s 5 day paid vacation from his show. If he did, do you really think he’d be back on air within 5 days? Please. He got yanked of the air for a blatant lie. A lie that slandered half the nation, that was broadly known to be a lie, even by Kimmel before he even went on the air that night. ABC affiliate BROADCAST STATIONS that are under rules different than those of CABLE stations, have refused to air his show, even now, due to the lie slandering more than half the nation mourning the loss of a beloved young husband and father to two babies. It was not just a nasty lie, it was an indecent insult to his wife and small children, made before Charlie Kirk was even cold. The only reason Disney let him back so soon is because some whack job leftist attacked an ABC affiliate studio, shooting into the building. I don’t care if Kimmel is or is not on the air. He’s not funny, his guests are all the same, spewing the same mindless propaganda, and his show is boring. What I do care about is the fact that Kimmel stood on stage, lied and slandered over half of the Americans in this country who were and still are in shock and mourning, ESPECIALLY his young wife and babies, still in shock and disbelief that their husband and Dad is now gone, never coming home again; and a mean nasty man told heartless, soulless lies, relishing in his own ugly words; blaming those who loved him best!
Good!!! He’s one of the worst-of-the-worst!!
Didn’t we see Strzok and page at a Coldplay concert?
When these two moles were revealed I can imagine they had the same level of impending doom as the Coldplay couple.
How did Biden not give him a medal of Freedom? Emblematic of the entire 2015-2020 era Fedocratic-Swamp-DeepState Resistance to democracy and the populist, interloper Republican candidate & Chief Executive. At least he was acting on his own and wasn’t following orders or part of a higher Grand Conspiracy.
My hopes are that Bondi gives him the metal of the loss of freedom award for his unpatriotic actions as both a conspirator and as the despicable adulterous cockroach he is. I believe 15-20 would be good while dissolving his $1.2 million back into the pockets of the defense attorneys.
I have never seen a government employee with such a ferocious ego, and this includes Comey.
The Biden Administration still gave him $1.2 million as a parting gift. Probably can’t get that back. Any trial of this “agent” would have been in D.C. which means you would likely never get a conviction. Just need to keep turning over his rock to make sure little snakes are not being hatched there. I would keep an open file on this guy. He’ll likely pop up again.
Lets just hope that he spent much of his 1 million on legal fees.
A millions isn’t a lot of representation in D.C. Parking costs more. But you knew that, didn’t you?
Poor Strzok … he can now SMELL the Trump support everywhere. He has no place to go.
No place to goo…. he sure does, home.
I guess he must turn the Paige…
I sense that this guy and his paramour will show up again when and if the Marxist party gains control again. The milk from government positions is addictive.
why isn’t this guy in jail
Treason doesn’t have a statue of limitation!
He didn’t commit treason, as defined by the Constitution.
Good one Mrs. Adams. Anon, he sued for loss of job.
A Seditious conspiracy to subvert an election, said conspiracy continued subsequent to the 2016 election moving forward as an organized effort of sedition and subversion of a duly elected President. As close to treason as it gets, people forget that almost immediately following Obama’s election, James Clyburn put forth a bill to remove the death penalty for treason. They were already preparing for the collapse of our country.
None of that is treason. It’s not even close to treason. The constitution defines treason, and no one has the right to redefine it.
I would believe that they have met the requirements of Article 3,section 3. This was an attempt to overthrow the government subverting the ability of a duly elected President to lead, in coordinated efforts to fundamentally change our country, provably treasonous. Specifically if it in the morphing of our Constitutional Republic into a Socialist Democracy, to the benefit of our enemies.
Sweet… the little cockroach lost.
Look who’s calling Strzok a cockroach.
I sure am… Bet that drives you crazy. Like most libs.
Wow Dusty 9 up votes and climbing!
Great comment, that smug little DB, he’s getting what he deserves. I bet he can’t leave his Roach motel without a disguise.