For years, some of us have argued that President Donald Trump’s January 6th speech was protected under the First Amendment and that any prosecution would collapse under governing precedent, including Brandenburg v. Ohio. I was regularly attacked as an apologist for my criticism of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s “war on free speech.” I wrote about his history of ignoring such constitutional protections in his efforts to prosecute targets at any cost. I also wrote how Smith’s second indictment (which the Post supported) was a direct assault on the First Amendment. Now, years later, the Washington Post has acknowledged that Trump’s speech was protected and that Smith “would have blown a hole in the First Amendment.”
In this appearance before Congress, Smith’s contempt for the First Amendment was on full display. During his testimony, he was asked by Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) whether Trump was entitled to First Amendment protections for his speech.
Smith replied: “Absolutely not. If they are made to target a lawful government function and they are made with knowing falsity, no, they are not. That was my point about fraud not being protected by the First Amendment.”
The comment is entirely and shockingly wrong. Smith shows a complete lack of understanding of the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.
First, the Supreme Court has held that knowingly false statements are protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act. In United States v. Alvarez, the Court held 6-3 that it is unconstitutional to criminalize lies — in that case involving “stolen valor” claims. Likewise, spewing hate-filled lies is protected. In Snyder v. Phelps, also in 2011, the Court said the hateful protests of Westboro Baptist Church were protected.
Second, calling such claims “fraud” does not convert protected speech into criminal speech. Trump was speaking at a rally about his belief that the election was stolen and should not be certified. Many citizens supported that view. It was clearly protected political speech.
As I discuss in The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” Smith’s prosecution was on a collision course with controlling Supreme Court precedent.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Smith would have lost, but he has a history of ignoring such constitutional protections. That was the case when his conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell was unanimously reversed as overextending another law.
Trump was never charged with inciting the riot despite pledges of Democratic D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine to investigate Trump for that crime.
The reason is simple. It was not criminal incitement and Trump’s speech was protected under the First Amendment.
Nevertheless, the Post and other papers ran the same experts, who assured the public that no such protections existed. For example, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe has made a litany of such claims, including his declaration that President Donald Trump could be charged (“without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt”) with the attempted murder of former Vice President Michael Pence.
The Post has now recognized that Trump does indeed enjoy First Amendment protections and that Smith was a constitutional menace. The change reflects a commendable shift in the Post’s editorial staff under owner Jeff Bezos and his new team at the paper.
The Post wrote:
Political speech — including speech about elections, no matter how odious — is strongly protected by the First Amendment. It’s not unusual for politicians to take factual liberties. The main check on such misdirection is public scrutiny, not criminal prosecution.
Of course fraud is a crime. But that almost always involves dissembling for money, not political advantage. Smith’s attempt to distinguish speech that targets ‘a lawful government function’ doesn’t work. Most political speech is aimed at influencing government functions.
Smith might think his First Amendment exception applies only to brazen and destructive falsehoods like the ones Trump told after losing the 2020 election. But once an exception is created to the First Amendment, it will inevitably be exploited by prosecutors with different priorities. Imagine what kind of oppositional speech the Trump Justice Department would claim belongs in Smith’s unprotected category.
Smith also said he makes ‘no apologies’ for the gag order he tried to impose on Trump during the prosecution. The decision to criminally charge a leading presidential candidate meant the charges would feature in the 2024 campaign. Yet Smith fought to broadly limit Trump’s ability to criticize him or the prosecution in general, claiming such statements would interfere with the legal process.
Bravo.
This is precisely the argument that some of us have been making for years, while being relentlessly pursued by the media.
This is not meant as a criticism of the Post. At least the Post is now making a serious attempt to restore objectivity and accuracy to its coverage and editorials. As for Smith, his testimony confirms the worst assessments of his view of free speech. The only thing more chilling than his lack of knowledge of constitutional doctrine is his contempt for constitutional values.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Renee Good may have been trying to avoid paying taxes since this is tax season.
By the way, taking a dirt nape is not an IRS sanctioned tax haven.
Now, we know why there was such an effort to destroy, attack, attempt to assassinate, impeach, harass The President of the United States with gloves off and below the belt if necessary. The powers that be are deeply corrupt and in fear of being exposed and stopped. They could not (and have not changed) care less about the wellbeing of America and Americans. Their sole purpose, as it is becoming apparent, is to gain power and keep it by force, deception, and by all means necessary. They have a seating hate for this nation and what it stands for, the right of the individual citizen to think for themselves and by their wit and hard work, flourish outside of the influence of government.
Look at the widespread, insidious fraud this is now being discovered!
A third grader could figure this out.
A widely ignored Rasmussen Reports/Heartland Institute national survey (conducted Nov 30–Dec 6, 2023) asked respondents about their behavior in the 2020 presidential election.
Question: “During the 2020 election, did you fill out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child?”
Result: 21% yes (78% no, 0% not sure).
The reason this happened, you’ll recall, was because of the widespread practice that year, justified by Covid restrictions, and often in violation of state election laws, of mailing a ballot to every registered voter, most with prepaid return postage.
If 21% admitted to doing it, I bet the actual percentage was much higher. The only justification I have heard for dismissing this survey is that it wasn’t necessarily illegal, as long as the person named on the ballot actually signed it.
But no matter how you slice it, you can’t convince me that at least 20% of the voters in the 2020 presidential election didn’t vote twice (or more!). The vote tally in 2020 was less of a matter of numbers and more of a matter of passion and flexible morals. The most passionate people got more than one vote, and those of us with inflexible morals were disenfranchised.
Rasmussen is MAGA and has no credibility.
Neither did the 2024 election, right, Karl?
Does that monotonous leftist echo interfere with your hearing-aids ??? You fools are insufferable.
It is a poll stupid.
Regardless Rassmussen is just about the most accurate pollster there is.
But your response is typical of the left – any response that conflicts with your ideology – can be discounted because you do not like it.
Other pollsters did not conduct similar polls – they do not want to know the results.
In states that have secret Ballot Constitutional amendments – your ballot is invalid if the results of your voting were accessible to anyone.
That is 38 states. No one – not election officials not family not employers not neighbors can KNOW with certainty – i.e. by seeing your ballot how you voted. This is also why cell phones are usually not alloved in polling places and you can not take a selfie with your ballot.
The moment that it can be verified how you voted – that means that you can be coercced or indiced to vote in a specific way.
This was rampant in the 19th century which is why nearly all states have secret ballot constitutional amendments.
The respondents to Rassmussen are Republicans. Which matches that Republicans have been convicted of election fraud. In the year since the 2024 election and five years since the 2020 election Trump has failed to find any Democrats who engaged in fraud.
“The respondents to Rassmussen are Republicans.”
False nearly all Rassmussen polls have more democrats than republicans.
You can go look up the specific poll and find the crosstabs and find the percent of democrats who answered these questions and how they answered the,
“Which matches that Republicans have been convicted of election fraud. In the year since the 2024 election and five years since the 2020 election Trump has failed to find any Democrats who engaged in fraud.”
In AZ the mericopa county audit found that 13500 people voted 48000 times – that is fraud.
Bravo????? Are you kidding me? After the complicity demonstrated by the corporate media for 10 years if Trump hatred, they will get NO applause from me.
More interestingly, why now? Has Trump won over the Media, Inc because he is now firmly aligned with the neoconiest of the neocons, Lindsey Graham? Or with some special foreign interest, say, Israel?
Have they seen the NYC Mamdani Future and need an ally?
Hmmmm…
There is contempt for the 14th Amendment, as well.
Every act of Lincoln and his successors subsequent to Lincoln’s unconstitutional denial of unprohibited and fully constitutional secession is similarly unconstitutional, including, and with emphasis on, the “Reconstruction Amendments,” that very reconstruction being the thesis of Karl Marx related in his letter to Lincoln, 1865.
Unconstitutional constitution.
Unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments.”
“The workingmen of Europe…consider…that it fell to…Abraham Lincoln…to lead his country through…the RECONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL WORLD.”
– Karl Marx Letter to Abraham Lincoln, 1865
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
X says: “The workingmen of Europe…consider…that it fell to…Abraham Lincoln…to lead his country through…the RECONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL WORLD.”
– Karl Marx Letter to Abraham Lincoln, 1865
The old question… what’s in a name? Answered at https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm :
“Why don’t you have works by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?”/b>
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active.
There are several reasons for this: (1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and (2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also, (3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
Who else other than international and Democrat communists would be hanging out at the Marxists’s website. Particularly one of their most prolific communist writers who goes by the username “X” here…
Every act of Lincoln and his successors subsequent to Lincoln’s unconstitutional denial of unprohibited and fully constitutional secession
Confederate Democrat Kluxxer X forgot his login credentials and had to do that weekly copy and post under his Anonymous Confederate Kluxxer personna:
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)
Affirming the perpetual nature of American federalism, and that the USA is an indestructible union from which no state can unilaterally secede.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/
The Union of the States was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and
character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to “be
perpetual.” And, when these Articles of Confederation were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country,
the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union:. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an
indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.
When those states became one of the United States, they entered into an indissoluble relationship. The union
between individual states and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union
between the original States.
There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of all the States
to amend the Constitution.
Jack Smith Shows His Contempt For The First Amendment
So does every liberal troll on this site.
What does a desire to silence comedians demonstrate?
Like Rosanne Barr and Shane Gillis getting canceled for expressing opinions that were not ultra-left wing?
Where was the humor in falsely claiming that Charlie Kirk’s killer was a right-winger, when his mother’s revelation that he was a leftist living with a transwoman had been front page news in the NYT that morning?
This was misinformation, pure and simple.
Smith replied: “Absolutely not. If they are made to target a lawful government function and they are made with knowing falsity, no, they are not.
Orwellian. Speech for me but not for thee.
To wit,
Today, the meaning of words is ever more fluid, and the concepts they represent are increasingly ambiguous. Language is no longer the preferred means by which human beings come to know and encounter one another. Moreover, in the contortions of semantic ambiguity, language is becoming more and more a weapon with which to deceive, or to strike and offend opponents. We need words once again to express distinct and clear realities unequivocally. Only in this way can authentic dialogue resume without misunderstandings. This should happen in our homes and public spaces, in politics, in the media and on social media. It should likewise occur in the context of international relations and multilateralism, so that the latter can regain the strength needed for undertaking its role of encounter and mediation. This is indeed necessary for preventing conflicts, and for ensuring that no one is tempted to prevail over others with the mindset of force, whether verbal, physical or military.
We should also note the paradox that this weakening of language is often invoked in the name of freedom of expression itself. However, on closer inspection, the opposite is true, for freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed precisely by the certainty of language and the fact that every term is anchored in the truth. It is painful to see how, especially in the West, the space for genuine freedom of expression is rapidly shrinking. At the same time, a new Orwellian-style language is developing which, in an attempt to be increasingly inclusive, ends up excluding those who do not conform to the ideologies that are fueling it.
ADDRESS OF POPE LEO XIV
TO MEMBERS OF THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS ACCREDITED TO THE HOLY SEE
Hall of Benediction
Friday, 9 January 2026
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/speeches/2026/january/documents/20260109-corpo-diplomatico.html
Never have so many words been written that communicate nothing.
Not so.
“Orwellian. Speech for me but not for thee…..To wit, ‘Today, the meaning of words is ever more fluid, and the concepts they represent are increasingly ambiguous.’”
Estovir’s point, so lost on you, is that without shared and understood agreement on certain absolutes (like laws), and no conscience toward that goal (thus, ambiguity), you are losing your moral compass, while creating disunity.
The issue at hand is denotation and semantics: words (and by extension, laws) mean exactly what they say or they have no ability to communicate. This understanding is pivotal to the civility of neighbors and government.
When judicious words “communicate nothing,” the hearer is willfully deaf—and quite dumb.
Moral? 3rd worlds don’t have them.
Can you imagine what this has become. Tragedy, oh excuse me but 3rd world has been replaced by undeveloped and emerging. Maduro feels better with that language.
Defamation et al. laws are unconstitutional.
Speech shall not be abridged.
__________________________________
“False speech is still speech. The First Amendment draws no distinction between true and false expression. Any law that punishes speech because of its content abridges the freedom of speech. Reputation is defended by counter-speech and evidence, not by government power. A free people must accept the risk of lies, because the alternative is censorship.”
– ChatGPT
_____________
People must adapt to the outcomes of freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to people.
Dictatorship does.
______________________
The judicial power shall be vested in a Supreme Court.
Judges and Justices have the power to judge or “form an opinion.”
Judges and Justices enjoy NO legislative or executive power.
Judges and Justices have NO power to modify, amend, or modify by “interpretation” the Constitution.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
judge
verb
1: to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
You’re presenting a false dichotomy. We’ve had defamation law practiced in this country for 250 years. How has that led to govt. censorship? I don’t recall a connection ever being drawn. You’re stuck in a dichotomization trap.
Private lawsuit (the Founders countermeasure for public falsehoods of consequence) does NOT enable govt. censorship. It is the free citizen (you or I) who decides who to sue, when, and for what purpose. It is a Jury who decides who’s telling the truth vs. falsehood. And consequences rule out imprisonment — limited to monetary judgments.
There’s genius in that architecture, as it entrusts power to ordinary citizens to protect public squares from inauthenticity and deceitful infowarfare. Defamation is usually always done to dupe the public. The Founders thought that vice morally repugnant, because their Christian faith taught them that truth is superior to lies — sincerity and trustworthiness need an advantage over skullduggery to maintain a healthy civilization. But they recognized that government prosecution would be putting too much power over information in too few hands — that’s the brilliance of 1A.
But, the Founders did not leave The People powerless to challenge deliberate fabrications. Giving nobody that power hands over the public square to the most compelling liars. That’s not our history. That’s not our system of law.
Thank you, Einstein.
The law is not comprised of some random and immaterial aspect of history; the law is comprised of the “manifest tenor” of the verbatim Constitution and Bill of Rights.
See if you can read this; it’s simple.
Let me see if I can help you, it says, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Yep. I’m right!
__________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.
Did the founders have a court of any kind where some promise is made to tell the truth? An oath may abridge speech?
Is there such? False witness in a court of law?
Just wondering…
Try to use the word “comprised” correctly some time.
Profound contribution, Einstein!
____________________________________
Merriam-Webster
comprise
verb
2: to make up or form : compose, constitute
Nine players comprise a baseball team.
… a misconception as to what comprises a literary generation.—
William Styron
The Board is comprised of teachers, parents, community members, and representatives from local businesses.—
Thomas Gase
Profound contribution, Einstein!
____________________________________
Merriam-Webster
comprise
verb
2: to make up or form : compose, constitute
Nine players comprise a baseball team.
… a misconception as to what comprises a literary generation.—
William Styron
The Board is comprised of teachers, parents, community members, and representatives from local businesses.—
Thomas Gase
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
It has been unconstitutional to practice defamation law et al. for 250 years.
No English common law that violated the Constitution or Bill of Rights may have been adopted.
Most recently, abortion stood as a federal and constitutional right for 50 years until it was rightly struck down and returned to the states for disposition as legal or criminal.
Anon, gives it to juries to decide , you say? The founders may not have imagined corrupt juries with contempt for law?
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….
Courts must try cases without perjury laws and without swearing a person to tell the truth.
No person shall be…compelled…to be a witness against himself….
Nearly 100% of cases begin with a not guilty plea.
Nearly 100% of cases begin with perjury, a false statement, or a lie, which is the point at which the perjury begins.
If Congress did make a law abridging the freedom of speech, it would be ineffective.
The jury exists to determine the truth.
4% of the time the jury nullifies the case.
_____________________________________________
People must adapt to the outcomes of freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to people.
Dictatorship does.
A “private” lawsuit?
Who hires the judges?
Who empanels the juries?
Who builds the courthouses?
It’s GOVERNMENT that says some speech is permissible while some is not. Else there could be no “private lawsuits.”
Please cite the Constitution for the government-dictates-speech clause.
Alternatively, the government makes law without abridging speech, however odious and unacceptable to government that is.
Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech….
You may dictate whatever you like as long as you do not abridge the freedom of speech.
“In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Smith would have lost, but he has a history of ignoring such constitutional protections.”
Turley is wrong on this one. Smith would have not lost. Words matter in the law. “Imminent lawless action AND it LIKELY to incite OR produce such action”.
Trump’s speech was not just a political protestation it was a call to his supporters to disrupt a lawful election process by falsely claiming it was stolen after all legal avenues failed. Trump was priming his supporters for that moment for months. The context of the whole speech was about unleashing a mob to disrupt a legal process under the guise of a “peaceful protest”. The Proud Boys, were already planning to follow Trump’s lead and ‘help’ him get the crowd to go past mere anger and into full on rioting. They were already pushing the crowd to act and to push past barriers. Trumps call to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell”. Many MAGAs cling to the one part of the speech to cover for the obvious. A very hollow sounding “Peacefully” in a speech full of rage and anger.
Smith was not attacking free speech in the context Turley falsely characterizes it. He cites United States v. Alvarez stolen valor case and omitted a key point. That quote emphasizes that false statements made to interfere with government functions, especially with knowing falsity (i.e., lying deliberately), are not protected speech under the First Amendment, distinguishing them from protected truthful speech or mere opinion, and framing such actions as criminal fraud, as discussed in relation to President Trump’s election challenges in legal contexts like those involving Special Counsel Jack Smith.
The government had pointed to federal statutes, such as § 1001, false statements to a governmental official, and § 1623, perjury, as supporting its argument that false statements are not protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court responded that those statutes don’t merely restrict false speech; they are designed to uphold the integrity of the federal trial system and protect the integrity of government processes. The statement in Alvarez that really caught our attention concerned § 1001. The Supreme Court cautioned that § 1001’s prohibition did not lead to the broader proposition that false statements are unprotected when made to any person, at any time, in any context.
Statements of Falsity ARE not entirely protected under the 1st amendment. Including intentional. Lying to a federal official is a not protected speech. Just as lying to a police officer is not protected under the 1st amendment. You can still be charged with a crime for lying to a cop. If you can be charged with lying to a cop then it is not true that intentionally lying is protected speech. Turley makes a very broad claim that is not backed by the facts.
Speech shall not be abridged.
Wrongful, unjust, harmful or adverse ACTS may be criminalized.
________________________________________________________________________
Criminal law governs wrongful acts, not wrongful thoughts or words.
– ChatGPT
So the mafia Don who suggests to an underling the “person X must be gone” (ie. orders a hit) is protected by the 1st Amendment? Only the hitman committed murder?
The law has never worked that way. Coaching or subborning another under one’s influence to commit a crime makes the influencer a principal actor responsible for the crime. One Supreme Court decision alone isn’t going to fog this moral clarity.
That said, the use of the dark web and closed chat-rooms to anonymously influence strangers toward criminal or self-harming acts hangs like a black cloud over pre-internet standards of legal accountability.
Wouldn’t that be conspiracy and complicity?
The Constitution and Bill of Rights constitute American fundamental law.
Please cite it in your fanciful argument.
The freedom of speech shall not be abridged, your mental and emotional meanderings notwithstanding.
When you’re done ideating, America will enforce its fundamental law.
Points pbinca
I don’t see that—”pbinca abridges speech”—in the Constitution.
pbinca – A mafia don saying some person “must be gone” is not a crime – unless There is an agreement between the killer and the Mafia don – a contract – written or verbal – an order to a person that is paid to obey your orders.
asking to kill someone is not alone sufficient.
X says Turley is wrong on this one.
Coles Notes version: “EVERY DAY TURLEY IS WRONG AND EVERY DAY I AM RIGHT!!!!”
sigh… we noticed your claim X/Anonymous/George/Svelez, we noticed. How could we not?
355 days left in 2026 for daily cringeworthy personal failure, X.
Funny how you never seem to have a rebuttal. Turley is often wrong or more accurately he’s misleading. It’s not hard to spot his misleading claims. A few others have already pointed out the serious flaws his Jack Smith “analysis”.
are those “few others” the “our” you referred to in your sentence “The statement in Alvarez that really caught our attention concerned § 1001.”
Who is “our?”^^^^ Mr. X.
Who are you referring to?
Who did you copy and paste from?
Or are you and your “like” upvote the same person?
Or a Saturday shift partner?
X-
People often rebute you. I’ve done it more than once. But your ignorance is just exhausting.
Turley is right about Brandonburg. Even most liberal news outlets have acknowledged Trump’s speech was calling for peaceful protest.
No matter how you spin it or what buzz words you use, the US still respects free speech. The Dems have chipped away at it but the first amendment is still robust, no matter how much you want the US to become Canada, western Europe, or Australia.
No one should ever rebut Svelaz unless if double gloving. Refute, yes, but never let his butt next to your dog
Rebute? Sure. I hope you meant rebut.
Most liberal news outlets also made the point that Trump also told the mob to “fight like hell”. The tone of his speech was no mild call for peacefully marching. He was speaking in an angry demanding tone. Even Turley was criticizing it as he was making it. Turley knew Trump was agitating the crowd and the ensuing rioting and Trump not doing anything to stop it pretty much made it clear he wanted the mob to do what it was doing. He wasn’t calling them off or calling them to be peaceful multiple times. Right?
Nobody is saying or has said Trump was not allowed to say what he said. It’s what he did that is the problem and even Turley acknowledges that conduct is NOT protected by the 1st amendment. Which is exactly what Smith was telling Congress and is exactly what Turley left out of his cherry-picked quote of Smith.
274 undercover FBI agents, operatives, and provocateurs deliberately conspired, incited, and created a riot as a false flag event, escorting many of the Trump protestors into the Capitol Building and directing others with megaphones to actively disturb the peace.
“Most liberal news outlets also made the point that Trump also told the mob to “fight like hell”.”
And left wing nuts call on their supporters to “fight like h311” to get in peoples faces,
to target them, to bring a gun to a knife fight and on and on.
MLK fopught for civil rights – are we going to lock him up ?
“The tone of his speech was no mild call for peacefully marching. ”
It is idiotic claims like this that are precisely why the exceptions to the 1st amendment are so narrow.
The criteria for speach that incites violence is NOT subjective.
It is not up to the political whims of judges prosecutors or juries what the “tone” of speech was.
The first amended does not allow you to criminalize speech you claim is “coded”.
The requirements for unprotected speech are the explicit advocacy of IMMEDIATE violence and as the courts have said – that judged can not be subjective or reflect hindsight.
Brandenburg called for violence – he called for TEACHING violence as a means to acheive a political end.
And SCOTUS decided that his speech was protected.
Actually read the cases and the facts of the case.
“He was speaking in an angry demanding tone.”
So – you speak in an angry and demanding tone all the time
YOu make unconstitutional and lawless demands and you want them right now.
The “Tone” of Gov Walz’s recent remarks are angry – even violent.
The “Tone” of the Mineapolis Mayor are even worse.
With certainty left wing nut minesotans will read that as a call for violence and we will see more violent atacks on ICE – we already have. Should we appoint a US attorney to go after Walz and the mayor for their speech ?
Schumer incredibly angrilly threatened the supreme court and an assassin went after KAvnaugh – can we jail Schumer ?
“Even Turley was criticizing it as he was making it.”
Yes, Turley criticizes alot ot Trump’s remarks – but he does not call them crimes.
The question is not whether you like what Trump says – OBVIOUSLY many people do and many people don’t.
It is whether Trump advocted violence. He clearly didn;t.
Nor was the violence that occured the result of Trump’s speech.
The primary cause was incompetence on the part of the CP at the west tunnel entrance
Tear gassing themselves and then the crowd.
But there were also agitators present – certainly Antifa who intended to cause violence.
There was also numerous FBI CI’s – who were inserted into “right wing ” groups but were advocating for violence.
Ray Epps was CLEARLY advocating for violence – even on J5. Epps was also an FBI informant.
Were there people who were not “outside agitators” who incited violence ?
Possibly, but the Garland, Wray and DOJ fought so hard to hide their own agents and CHS’s that it is probably impossible to be sure if there were any REAL trump supported “advocating for actual violence”.
“Turley knew Trump was agitating the crowd”
Correct – Trump wanted a fired up crowd – as does everyone leading a protest.
“Trump not doing anything to stop it”
So debunked and you know it.
Trump WANTED the NG there – that is beyond any doubt
and as a result of Trump’s orders DAYS before the NG was at the armory at 7am on J6 waiting for pelosi’s call.
“pretty much made it clear he wanted the mob to do what it was doing. ”
Exactly the opposite – he wanted them marking arround the capital while Senators and house members voted.
He wants Republicans to be aware that there would be a high political price to pay if they voted to certify.
There was a well organized plan already in place with a number of republican sanators and house members committed to demanding that investigations into the voting in key states. Atleast 6 senators had announced they were going to object to specific states and a couple of dozen members of the house. At the very lease it would have taken 2-3 days to get through the certification – Every single objection – where there is a house member and a senator that agrees to it, Must result in a Vote on the certification of that state and potentially Hours of debate. The Cruz plan – as opposed to the Trump plan was to get Congress to agree to a 10 day delay and send the NG to count the ballots in contested states.
“He wasn’t calling them off or calling them to be peaceful multiple times. Right?”
I have no idea what you mean – and that is the point – The STANDARD is that criminal speech MUST not be subjective.
You can – and did impeach Trump over this.
I disagree with Turley on impeachment – it was extremely unwise for democrats to go beyond “high crimes and msidemeanors” which they have done repeatedly. But the constitution provides for no review of an impeachment.
A rule with no means to enforce is not a rule.
The hous can impeach for any reason they want.
Including legal acts and constitutionally protected speech.
Faux SC Jack Smith can not.
Your subjective claims are WRONG – but that only matters with respect to SC Smith and the law.
You are constitutionally free to be WRONG.
You are free to WRONGLY impeach Trump
If you can get the votes – you are free to REMOVE him Wrongly.
But you are not free to prosecute him for protested speech.
“Nobody is saying or has said Trump was not allowed to say what he said.”
But that is exactly what you have said and what Smith has said.
“It’s what he did that is the problem”
Actually your claim as YOU keep expressing it is a false claim regarding what he allegedly did NOT do.
Even if True – not a crime – but it is not true.
“even Turley acknowledges that conduct is NOT protected by the 1st amendment.”
Correct – false claims regarding What Trump did not do are not protected by the First Amendment.
Buty Smith is making a claim that it is Trumps speech that is a crime.
And you are making a claim that it is Trmp’s failure to speek that is a crime.
That is never flying with SCOTUS either.
Funny how you completely ignore the obliteration of your idiotic claims all the time.
SCOTUS ruled that far more obvious political speech overtly advocating interfernce with the law was constitutionally protected.
You want to interpret the holding in Brandenberg in a way that would have resulted in Brandonberg conviction being upheld – but it wasn;t
Clearly SCOTUS did NOT intend the bent reading of their holding that you have come up with.
Smith is wildly wrong – as are you.
Further – your claims not only run affoul of brandemburg – but of pretty much all SCOTUS free speech cases.
X says: Funny how you never seem to have a rebuttal.
354 days left in 2026 for daily cringeworthy personal failure, X. Predictable that you would hope at least that lie would fly: that I never rebutt your posts and lies. In various ways that include pointing out the ones that are blatant lies – not just pointing out your unchanging: “Turley is always wrong and I use his blog like a parasite, to proclaim I am always right”.
But here’s some of that good Marxist stuff of yours X:
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm
Why don’t you have works by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this: (1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and (2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also, (3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
Same old lies. They aren’t working. You should be worried about Walz using the National Guards to war with the Federal government. That is treason.
Does Walz have a brain?
EVERYONE READ THIS!
Georgie, your (and your upvotes) understanding of applicable law is wholly misguided, so I assume you and your fellow fakes are not lawyers. EVEN IF Trump “fraudulently” conveyed facts during his speech “to fraudulently” gain reelection, you are making a case that was never made. Trump was impeached for incitement. Turley correctly addresses this.
And there was a reason for that.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, georgie, is this an amazing AHA Oprah moment? ? ? ? ? !!!!!!!!!!!
You just stated above, “The statement in Alvarez that really caught our attention concerned § 1001.”
Who is “our,” georgie? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Who are you referring to when you say “caught out intention?”
Are they your partners who upvote you?
Or did you lift copy and paste text from elsewhere, which you have been frequently caught doing? ? ? ? ? ?
Whose opinion or argument are you actually quoting, georgie? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? It certainly does not appear to be your own.
“caught our intention”
ha ha! “caught our attention” says X. but caught our intention is a good follow-up
You must be jealous of upvotes.
Is that your rebuttal? Whining about a point that DOES refute Turley’s misleading claim?
People make typos all the time, even your response had one.
“Who is “our,” georgie? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Who are you referring to when you say “caught out intention?”
“Out”? Who is Georgie? You must be high or something.
deflect, deflect, deflect. You got caught. Admit it. You clearly said, “that really caught our attention.”
THAT IS NOT A “TYPO,” LYING CLOWN. YOU GOT CAUGHT IN YOUR OWN FOOTPRINT. ADMIT IT.
ROFL!! You’re paranoid. Yikes!
X says: You must be jealous of upvotes.
You can’t even get your fellow Marxists from the Marxist website to upvote you, X:
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm
Why don’t you have works by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this: (1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and (2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also, (3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
354 days left in 2026 for daily cringeworthy personal failure, X.
EVERYONE – DO NOT READ THIS RUBBISH!
In your 1st section regarding imminent, you’ve made a good argument for charges in the Good case, spouse yelled, drive baby drive. Renee did. Renee had broken laws and was to be arrested but decided to incur more lawlessness including assault and battery, attempted harm or death with a deadly weapon.
Renee’s wife will be charged according to Brandenburg, X.
“…especially with knowing falsity (i.e., lying deliberately), are not protected speech under the First Amendment…”
Your argument is based on Trump “lying deliberately.” How would anybody ever know the totality of what went on during the election? I still do not know, nor do you. Any statement would be mere opinion.
Anyone can lie but then Somalis will say f u , you’re a liar to CHP when pulled over in big rigs.
You’ll just be a liar.
X – you and smith are full of schiff.
First – All speech – particularly Political speech encouraging others to act lawlessly is protected speech.
The only exception to that is speech that meets the brandonberg test of inciting VIOLENCE.
The supreme court has NEVER said and will NEVER say that speech attempting to persuade others to act lawlessly is not protected.
Such speech happens all the time – those of you on the left spoke, protested, even rioted to try to get Biden to nullify student loan debt. ‘
That was first amendment speech seeking to get an elected person to violate their oath of office – and it is constitutionally protected.
But Trump was not seeking to get protestors or congressmen to do anything illegal – though he is completely free to do so.
He was asking for them to do something perfectly legal and refuse to certify the EC vote in states were there ere significant credible allegations of fraud.
We now know that Fulton county counted 315,000 illegal votes. We know that Maricpoa county counted 48,000 illegal votes.
These are both True beyond any doubt. There are myriads of other allegations of lawlessness that range from equally proven to dubious – but contra YOUR claims – these were not investigated, and they were not actually heard by the courts.
Please find me the court ruling were the Courts explicityly said that Fulton County is free to count 315,000 illegal votes ?
Or that maricapoa county was free to count 45,000 ballots received from only 13,500 people ?
In all the court cases you have against Trump – not ONE actually ruled on the speciic claims of lawlessness or Fraud that we now know are true or the claims that have not been fully investigated such as these.
Whether you like it or not – Congressmen are free to refuse to certify the EC vote in specific states – really for any reason, but certainly because they beleive they are lawless of fraudulent.
If congressmen have the power to do something – and Democratic Congressmen have objected to the certification of various states in EVERY election a republican has won, then people outside of congress are free to advocate for congressmen to refuse to certify.
Smith was not merely trying to rewrite the first amendment – he was trying to rewrite the constitution with respect to elections.
Turley says what Turley is paid to say. I guess it just isn’t in the form of an RV.
ATS – stupid argument.
Commenting for FOX is ONE job he has – he is also a GW professor.
And a sucessful author and he is paid as an expert – not just by Fox by by myriads of others.
He is not paid – because he says what people like.
He is paid because people can rely on the accuracy oif his analysis.
He has – and still periodically does give opinion in places other than Fox.
But that is less common because the left MSM has for a long time not wanted to hear views it does not like.
Fox does not always like what Turley says – they still call him back.
he may not always be right, but he is trustworthy, honest, and has integrity.
He does not spin his opinnions to suit his audience.
He almost never says exactly what Fox wants.
What he says is almost always what is right – or nearly so.
That is why you do not like him.
Fox deserves respect because they do.
Under that very there are dozens of Democrats that could be arrested and charged for inciting riots and violence with their attacks on ice agents, claiming they are like the Gestapo round shirts, their former proud boys and both keepers that were pardoned by Trump.,They’re disappearing people, etc.
“Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating “crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform,” as well as assembling “with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.”
Question
Did Ohio’s criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg’s right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
The Court’s Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg’s right to free speech.”
Read that again – SCOTUS found the LAW unconstitutional.
It did not find that Brandenburgs actions fit through the window of protected speech, it found that laws restricting speech had to be far more narrow.
One of the core points to Brandenburg is that speech advocating for lawless actions can not be criminalized except where they are IMMEDIATE
efforts to INCITE VIOLENCE.
“Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute for
“advocat[ing] . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform”
While this is NOT what Trump actually did – it is exactly what YOU and Smith accuse him of.
And SCOTUS found such laws in violation of the first amendment.
The real show of treasonous lies starts this coming Tuesday and Wednesday, if & when Bill and Hillary Clinton appear before the House Oversight Committee’s.
Bill and Hillary Clinton face contempt of Congress for dodging on Epstein subpoenas again
By: Emily Goodin ~ Jan. 9, 2026
https://nypost.com/2026/01/09/us-news/bill-and-hillary-clinton-face-contempt-of-congress-for-dodging-on-epstein-subpoenas-again/
Where’s George “I-Realy-Like-Ghislaine-Maxwell” Clooney?
George Clowny and wife Amal beat feet to France escaping pending lawsuits after Virginia Guifree reveal in book?
Of course, in his MAGA zeal, Turley deliberately distorts Smith’s testimony, by selectively and incompletely quoting Smith.
In his testimony Smith said, “As we said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election. He was even free to say falsely that he won the election.”
But Smith did not try to indict Trump for what he SAID.
As Smith also said in his testimony, “But what he was not free to do was violate Federal law and use knowing – knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function.”
Smith wanted to indict him for what he DID, which was to conspire with his co-conspirators to generate fake government documents – namely, certificates falsely stating that certain states’ electoral voters had been cast for Donald Trump rather than Joe Biden.
In other words, Smith alleged a classic fraud on the government – the submission of false documents to try to interfere with a government process. And in this case, Trump sought to interfere with a government process for a big personal gain: the most powerful office in the world.
The Supreme Court has been unequivocal for decades that there is no First Amendment right to commit fraud. In Illinois v. Telemarketing Associates (2003), it stated that the “First Amendment does not shield fraud.” In United States v. Stevens (2010), it observed “the prevention and punishment of” fraud has “never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.” And in United States v. Hansen Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that “fraudulent representations through speech for personal gain” are “not protected by the First Amendment.”
Other defenders of the former president are suggesting that Trump’s speech was also protected under the First Amendment right to “petition the government for redress of grievances.” But the Supreme Court has not made any allowances for acts of fraud committed in the name of a petition for redress of grievance, either.
Look to McDonald v. Smith. The Supreme Court recognized that the First Amendment’s Petition Clause “was inspired by the same ideals of liberty and democracy that gave us the freedoms to speak, publish, and assemble,” and therefore, there is “no sound basis for granting greater constitutional protection to statements made in a petition . . . than other First Amendment expressions.” As a result, the Supreme Court’s recognition that fraud falls outside the protections of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech is equally fatal to any claim that there’s a right to submit fraudulent petitions to the federal government.
The concept that acts of fraud fall outside of the First Amendment has been affirmed in multiple Supreme Court decisions joined by Republican-appointed justices that have stood for decades. While there are many difficult constitutional questions about the First Amendment, the question of whether there’s a First Amendment right to defraud the United States is very simple.
THERE IS NOT !!!!!!
Excellent point!
X/Anonymous/George/Svelez holding a narcissistic self-admiration session with himself:
X says: Of course, in his MAGA zeal, Turley deliberately distorts Smith’s testimony
Anonymous immediately replies: Excellent point!
355 days of pathetic abject failure (or perverted masochistic sexual pleasure) left for you in 2026, X/Anonymous/George/Svelez…
Speaking of narcissists, you’re the Snoop Doggy Dog of decompensating pathological narcissists in extremis.
Take off your mask and take your meds, Mrs. Lecter.
X is wrong: your point is made, but it lacks the excellence of testing or provability since Pence’s legal right to call the election into question never took place, and includes the exacerbating circumstances brought about by the Biden administration’s internal operation (DOJ/FBI plants and paid agitators).
Notwithstanding, fraud vitiates, you have your frame of reference all wrong: putting your claim/accusation in the context of FRAUD, you certainly give the the extreme accusation a flair of criminality, which is to be expected from seasoned haters and those who imagine what they want to be true.
First of all, you have no idea how many times the people of the United states have been defrauded, and 2) how many times democrats have done the same and called for presidential elections to be disallowed, redressed. What you call fraud is common practice when democrats have lost presidential elections, so the procedure that was established and readily available would have been followed. And no fraud would have been involved.
Dianna Bec, Trump was relying on Pence to something he had no authority to do. Then he tried to use the rioting mob and calling him a “pussy” to pressure him to something illegal.
Smith HAD the proof he needed. All that was left was to go to trial. Trump had judge Cannon helping him avoid going to trial. It helps to have corrupt judges on your side when things are not going your way as a billionaire.
That is why Trump tried so hard to prevent Smith from getting to trial. He had the evidence to prove Trump unlawfully tried to reverse the election and stole classified documents that were not his to take.
Look, we certainly don’t know the full extent of Smith’s possible case, and the evidence you say he had, but it is within reason to surmise that much of it was legal contortions, so your claims are plausible, thought not provable. By the very same token [plausible claims and evidence], the counterpoint is that Trump was not trying to “reverse the election outcome,” but to address the visible and huge fraud involved in that outcome, as these brazen acts of tyranny and outright insurrection took place—>
– Democrat election workers covered windows to hide acts of malfeasance
– Voting-machines were programmed to over-and-under count certain ballots
– Voting-machines were repeatedly fed and re-fed the same ballots,
– Unsecured drop boxes were placed in strategic areas with paid-mules stuffing them
– Trucks hauled prepared ballots across state lines….and the countless other serious acts of election interference
Along the lines of the Pence/Certification, the National Constitution Center has this to say about a disputed presidential election:
“The procedures for handling a disputed presidential election that reaches Congress are regrettably, and embarrassingly, deficient,” Foley wrote in 2019 for the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal. The Electoral Count Act of 1887 [Hayes/Tilden], which Foley calls “astonishingly messy,” could lead to competing interpretations within Congress of what actions it can take on January 6. Foley also notes there are some historical arguments parts of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 that are unconstitutional and there could a role for the Supreme Court to settle these disputes before January 20, 2021, when the Constitution’s 20th Amendment requires the new President to take the oath of office.”
In so many words, Smith may have constructed a winning case, maybe not, but his interpretations (and evidence) may not have been sufficient.
“Look, we certainly don’t know the full extent of Smith’s possible case”
We do, he filed charges and provided what he claimed was evidence – that is a requirement to indict, it is a requirement to start a Criminal trial.
Further he has testified to congress.
He had nothing.
Who says pence had no authority. The Eastman memo outlined a potential legal theory and Trump had every legal right to argue his case in court. He simply wanted pence to delay the count to give him time
Also, the protestors started their actions at the capitol well before Trump finished his speech so it’s hard to incite someone who never even heard you
“Trump was relying on Pence to something he had no authority to do.”
False and a stupid argument. The VP presents the EC votes – they have complete constitutional control of how they do that.
But Pence does NOT control whether Congress certifies each state.
“Then he tried to use the rioting mob and calling him a “pussy” to pressure him to something illegal.”
First nothing about the process is legal or illegal. Even the constitution dictates that the task falls to Congress.
Eslewhere the constitution explicitly dictates that congress gets to make its own rules – and they are unreveiwable.
SOME things that Congress might do are unconstitutional.
Nothing Congress does is illegal – that is literally impossible.
There is nothing the VP can do with respect to counting votes that Congress can not alter.
Pence Refused to do What VP Nixon did in 1960 – and request that Congress vote to accept the correct EC vote for a state rather than the one certified by the States SoS. He refused to do what was done in 1876 that flipped the election.
That was his choice.
But the claim he could not do so is just idiocy.
His own claim that what he was asked to do was unconstitutional displays ignorance of US hisotyr and the constitution.
Your claim that there was some crime in this is further stupidity.
“Smith HAD the proof he needed.”
Not in anything he has made public or testified to in congress.
And there is no scret magic bullet
Smith was shooting blanks from the start.
” All that was left was to go to trial.”
He was years away for any trial starting.
“Trump had judge Cannon helping him avoid going to trial.”
Judge Cannon followed the law and the constitution.
YOU have claimed that Haligan was improperly appointed – every single flaw in Haligans appointment – and a dozen others are present in Smiths. He was not appointed by the president. He was not confirmed by the Senate, nor is their actual Law regarding the appointment of SC’s – though even if there was it would have to follow the appointments clause.
” It helps to have corrupt judges on your side”
Correct – as we are seeing with the efforts to impeded Trump.
“when things are not going your way as a billionaire.”
Are you claiming Cannon was paid off ? Where is your evidence ?
“That is why Trump tried so hard to prevent Smith from getting to trial.”
Every criminal defendant ever tried to avoid Trial.
Normally prosecutors do not rush either.
The only thing unusually was the rush that those of you on the left engaged in.
“He had the evidence to prove Trump unlawfully tried to reverse the election and stole classified documents that were not his to take.”
Both false – and the latter Smith was not even trying to try.
Smith’s charge against Trump was illegal posession – NOT Theft.
That was deliberate. Any claim of Theft would have failed instantly due to the article II powers of the president and the PRA.
Smith’s entire argument was that the Classified documents arrived at MAL long before the end of Trump’s term LEGALLY,
That they remained at MAL essentially accidentally, and that Trump did not return them when he was obligated to do so.
That was his attempt to thread they needle and avoid the problems with the PRA and the presidents Article II powers.
If Smith claimed that Trump removed them deliberately at the end of his term – they were declassified by the presidents article II poawers,
AND classified or not WH papers are the property of former presidents.
The DOJ had a procedure — perhaps codified in the CFR — for appointing Special Counsel. But the statutory authority for that procedure expired in 1999, when the statute did.
John Eastman laid out the plan, and told Trump it was legal.
Trump is not a lawyer, so had to rely on a lawyer’s opinion.
And believing Eastman’s plan was legal negates criminal intent.l
As President, President Trump had the right to take classified documents home with him. You can’t steal that which you lawfully possess. When I check books out of the library, I am not stealing them. But, like Trump’s presidential docs, there is an expectation that I will return them within a reasonable time.
Have yourself another heaping teaspoon of affirmative action; you’ll finally be a real person!
It’s all yours for the taking, right, comradette?
Points Bec
MAGA zeal? Mr. Turely is a Democrat. Though an unusual Democrat as he respects the Constitution, unlike the majority of Democrats.
Wah wah, I still believe andthink 2020 was fraudulent even if it was merely based on fraudulent census. Anyone elected 2020 is bunk.
I must be guilty, too.
Beyond being a “constitutional menace,” Smith is perhaps better described as being just evil. He is, after all, a Democrat intent on crippling the Republic.
He’s a communist
A foundational tenet of leftist power acquisition is the cultivation of useful idiots by incessant use of various modes of propaganda, much of that in the character of “big lies”. This strategy repeatedly demonstrates its effectiveness such as where they garner support for their grotesquely unconstitutional behavior by deflecting the labeling of that behavior onto their political opponents
Prof. Turley rightfully can take a bow for his passionate and relentless defense of the American right to freedom of speech. The Washington Post editorial is proof that some people get it. The Jack Smiths of the world are a hopeless cause though.
“Smith replied: “Absolutely not. If they are made to target a lawful government function and they are made with knowing falsity, no, they are not. That was my point about fraud not being protected by the First Amendment….The comment is entirely and shockingly wrong.”
Not only is Smiths opinion “shockingly-wrong,” it is thoroughly informed, inspired, and emboldened by the new AUTHORITARIAN mindset (of the far-left) in which constitutional understandings, i.e., the normal standards of law and civility, have been turned upside down to empower the state….
and they say POTUS and the supporting “right” are the authoritarians because they adhere to moral standards; all the while they are the true authoritarians, spouting the zeitgeist of totalitarianism because they adhere to no standards, but the state’s (extralegal interpretations). The strange twisting logic and facts, has created an alternate universe in which these beings have no moral compass. We must fight hard against these depreciators.
Hey Bec. .. you’ve got your parties muddled again.
Presently, the worthless, useless and incestuously inbred Democrats do’t amount to a hill of beans or a fart in the wind.
*Trump, otoh, can shoot a girl in Minneapolis and his MAGA mob cult zombies will rally around him like the Second Coming
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Listen, dg, I can appreciate the verse, and even see how its message reveals and indicts many facets of “both sides,” but let’s disabuse you of the many more fallacies you are now peddling:
* the lesbian woman in no way represents the innocence and stupidity of a young “girl”
* the woman was a rabid political activist, begging for trouble
* the woman was repeatedly instructed to stand down
* the woman and “her wife” were maliciously impeding legal proceedings
* Trump, otoh, did not “shoot a girl”—the ICE agent, on site, took action against the threat she forcefully initiated against his person and safety
Can’t you see how twisting the story, as you have done in this post, incites these “incestuously inbred democrats” to do their worst, thinking they can get away with it because of [misplaced] righteous indignation? Cant you see how you feed that narrative by calling the malicious protester simply “a girl,” thus emboldening that kind of action on the streets?
Please wake up, and tell your constituents to find a better way to protest administrative policy and laws.
Listen Bec. I call every female under the age of 46yr. a ‘girl’. .. no offense intended.
– even ‘lesbians’ can be innocent .. . it’s not against the law as far as I know (& frankly it’s NOMB.)
– the girl was not rabid or ‘begging for trouble’.
– the girl was given conflicting ‘orders’ . .. that’s because ICE is grossly unqualified for domestic law enforcement (I’m not sure they have any constitutional authority over U.S. citizens.)
– the girl’s ‘wife’ is definitely NOMB. .. it’s a stupid argument.
– Trump, otoh, has commended ICE for shooting the girl dead.
It seems Trump, VP JD and ICE Barbie’s entire defense is the ICE agent ‘feared for his life’.. . Who do you think feared more for their life: the heavily armed ICE agent or the defenseless girl?
*Can’t you see how twisting the story, as you have done in this post, incites these “incestuously inbred democrats” to do their worst, thinking they can get away with it because of [misplaced] righteous indignation?
Bull DG
She cut off the ICE truck to impend it. She broke the law. She was told to get out of her car and under arrest. She didn’t follow his lawful orders. (he is a officer of the law )
She hit the gas as her lady friend told her too.
Now she is dead.
I agree she is dead. .. the question still remains why did they kill her.
*the entire official defense of the killing seems to be the ICE agent ‘feared for his life’ .. . now that’ BS dusty.
That officer was a quick draw and sharpshooter in under one second.
Why is she dead DG. Simple. She refused to follow the lawful orders from a law-enforcement officer.
She made the choice.
Imminent lawless 🤔
– the girl was given conflicting ‘orders’ . .. that’s because ICE is grossly unqualified for domestic law enforcement (I’m not sure they have any constitutional authority over U.S. citizens.)
Watch the videos again. There is no conflicting order from ICE. She was ordered to vacate the vehicle three times, she refused. Instead, she followed the orders of her wife, he ordered her to drive forward, headless of the federal agent in front of her vehicle.
As a part of the Dept of Homeland Security, ICE has the same authority to enforce the law under the constitution as the FBI and ATF.
As I understand it, she was told to leave prior to being killed. .. and, I’m guessing, that may be why her car was sideways in the road.
There is no doubt she was protesting ICE. Many people do. That’s protected speech under the constitution.
Not sure if ICE has the same authority as the FBI or ATF. Hard to determine exactly what their authorities are.
As far as I can tell, ICE is limited to immigration enforcement. To the degree this girl interfered with that mandate ICE clearly does have some authority to fulfill their orders .. . but no law enforcement agency has any authority to shoot unarmed ‘fleeing suspects’ who pose no risk.
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/exclusive-ice-is-okay-with-renee
“As I understand it, she was told to leave prior to being killed. .. and, I’m guessing, that may be why her car was sideways in the road.”
You’re mixing up the timeline. She was told to leave. She refused. Time passed. Then, because she had refused to leave, they then ordered her to get out of the vehicle. Her car was not sideways because she had been told to leave. Her car was sideways because she was trying to block the road to obstruct federal officers.
“no law enforcement agency has any authority to shoot unarmed ‘fleeing suspects’ who pose no risk.”
She deliberately rammed her car into the officer. The videos from multiple angles prove it. She backed up, turned the wheel towards the officer and gunned the engine. We can see, in high-def, that the officer is struck by the SUV before he fires. The only reason the officer wasn’t sent flying was that the presence of ice on the road inhibited full acceleration. (You can see the tires spin as she puts the hammer down, and once the tires have cleared the ice, you can see just how much the SUV accelerates) Additionally, the bullet holes are the front wind shield, which means that the officer had to be in front of the vehicle when the shots were fired.
While ICE’s remit is immigration, all agents are law officers under the department of homeland security. There aren’t separate laws for obstructing the ATF vs. obstructing the FBI or ICE or any other department.
as I understand it you’re a moron
DG
that may be why her car was sideways in the road.
___________________________________
Bull you liar.
If you watched the video from the beginning, she pulls around the ICE trucks and cuts it off. That is way the ICE officer got out of the truck and told her she was under arrest From many reports about her. This was not her first rodeo.
She made the choice to NOT follow the officers orders.
Now she paid the price for listening to her husband and not the officer.
Interesting (and utterly disappointing) that you have gone sideways and latched onto the descriptor of the woman and her wife–NOMB, and the innocence of being a lesbian—when none of that was implied (and was not meant as argument), but rather stated as a descriptor of the woman’s adult-life (NOT girlhood), thus pointing up her adult and rogue style of decision-making—too many far-leftist agitators are of this woman’s type and character, and that is the only point to be made about her “orientation,” which again is off topic. Please stay on topic!
“Begging for trouble” is indeed an apt descriptor of someone who blocks a public road with a vehicle, then taunts (as she and her wife did), and hits the gas, so you’re assertion is not only vacuous, but silly, given her brazen act and what came from it.
“Given conflicting orders”—we’ve heard that before??? This leftist claim has not only become STOCK, it is hearsay. If you’re intelligent, you ought to do better, dg
NO ONE at all has “commended” the unfortunate shooting. No one. You make things up to soothe and prioritize your ideology with it’s constant need to justify brazen wrongdoings and outright illegalities!
Who feared for his/her life more? None of us can claim to KNOW, but here’s the sad truth: she was smirking the whole time. If an SUV accelerated toward you or me, we’d be alarmed and reactive, and rightly seek to quickly protect ourselves. What often comes of these sudden tragedies is the product of surprise, not commending shooting….
Stop using so much disingenuous and overblown emotional rhetoric to absolve illegalities, dg, and deal with logic and facts….
If you’d simply take another tack and encourage your fellow leftist-protesters to follow the law, they wouldn’t get hurt. But i’ts more scintillating and dramatic if you fan the flames of damaging disinformation by calling a hellion of a grown woman a “girl,” huh?
Just shut up and do what you’re told .. . that sounds like my ex wife Bec (you ain’t her, are you?).
Rest assured I would have told this girl to shut up and not move a muscle .. . but, alas, the kids don’t listen to me anymore.
Let me cut to the chase: No Law Enforcement agency has the authority to use ‘deadly force’ on unarmed fleeing suspects who pose no risk. .. and that’s exactly what happened here.
*proper domestic law enforcement is an incredibly complicated, challenging and dangerous job .. . ICE is NOT qualified.
Fleeing??? She was ENGAGING!—Aggressively!
You are delusional, and, it appears, you provide no point for response, but I’ll go one more round for logic and sanity:
Your takeaway (from what I actually said) is way-off and bizarre. The take away is not to “shut up and do what your told;” it is to act wisely, to protest (go against) within the accepted norms of logic and safety, which extends to removing yourself from threat and harm, not ramming into it. Civil disobedience is allowed and encouraged—it’s the American way—but not when one uses a vehicle as weapon of voice and force.
Drive, Baby, Drive!!!
Go ahead, baby, drive—all the way to the funeral home…..Mere primitive-brain dunces, leftist ideologues do not value life.
A danger to themselves and others. Certainly Minnesota is a very dangerous place.
Civil disobedience involves breaking laws? That’s unwise unless prepared for consequences. Mangione was protesting medical insurance.
One leo slipped on the ice. Lucky she wasn’t fishtailing …
Her wife called her baby, drive baby drive…
😂 you lose , dg, defenseless girl had a two ton weapon.
Warriors of civil disobedience AG Bondi has warned you of the red line. The warriors demand to be a 2nd world, a sad economy, a government in disarray.
Self punishing
ddgsnowden says Hey Bec. .. you’ve got your parties muddled again.
Got your priorities and stories carefully calibrated to defend Obama, Biden and Smith’s police state fascism. Goosestepping in lock step with your mentors at Obama’s Young Turks!!!
If they’re recruiting for a new po,ice state fascist to join their Marxist Useless Idiots, you’ve probably got a shot.
The video from the federal agent’s cellphone has been leaked. Watch it. It clearly shows that the car strikes the agent BEFORE he fires, corraborating the wide angle shot from the front that shows the car clearly hitting him. This was attempted murder by the far left anarchist, and the agent acted appropriately.
You’re willfully blind in one eye and can’t see out the other.
Author?
If Smith had used the word malice would that make a difference? Isn’t there still a Gingles matrix in place? Public figures? Proof?
Target implies malice. These are public personalities. Pence sees his role as rubber stamp. He did so.
Another example of democrats finding a law after the fact to attack Trump. The whole argument had always been insurrection yet smith, years later, comes out of left field with fraud, not insurrection
Dear Prof Turley,
It’s still a free country .. . Trump can say what he wants.
Trump’s J6 ‘stop the steal’ protest was an impeachable offense under high crimes and misdemeanors. .. unlike Trump’s first impeachment for merely questioning the Biden’s prior profitable sins in Ukraine.
*note. anybody, other than Federal authorities, who attended Trump’s J6 stop the steal rally were crazier than the Q.non Shaman.
Indeed, Trump was impeached. Alas, it was what some called a ‘snap impeachment’ given Trump only had 5 days left in office. It was an open&shut case of Executive abuse of power, but, alas, Trump’s sycophants in congress came to his rescue .. . and extracted a heavy price on Trump for doing so, imho.
And that’s where we are today.
dgsnowden says Trump’s J6 ‘stop the steal’ protest was an impeachable offense under high crimes and misdemeanors. ..
That’s EXACTLY the same police state fascist theory attacking the First Amendment that your mentors you follow at Obama’s Young Turks push!
*Note: not all fascist bat shyte crazy thinking can be explained as being the result of chronic day drinking.
**Police state fascists with the same version of facts stick together like the slime they are.
Quite piggy .. . are you a stupid person?
Trump’s stupid J6 ‘stop the steal’ rally was an abuse of Executive power that got a lot of stupid people hurt. .. Needlessly.
*that seems to be a feature .. . not a bug.
If you think the events of J-6 are at the roots of getting people hurt “needlessly,” you surely have not understood the political winds brought about by the socilaist-democrat calamity of control and refusing to respect the vote—
never forget the provable factors of covering windows to hide malfeasance, the machines that were easily programmed to over-and-under count ballots, voting-machines that were repeatedly fed prepared ballots, the unsecured drop boxes with paid-mules stuffing them, the trucks hauling prepared ballots across state lines, and the countless other acts of election interference—these warranted protest on many levels. Our government was being usurped more openly and brazenly than ever, with INBRED democrat machinations and support! This is not how the “democracy” of a sound Republic works!
And YES, many people got hurt, all of which were the conservatives (liberals, centrists, and independents), not any democrat operatives (strategically-placed instigators), like Ray Epps. Those who attended, with the full right to speak out, were geo-fenced and persecuted, sans proper habeas corpus, put in solitary confinement without cause or trial, abused in jail, and forced to plead to bogus charges.
The REAL feature here was the uncivilized power of the state, the illegal/democrat-control of the corrupt Biden Administration.
We must be talking cross-purposes again Bec.
It was a TRAP .. . there were probably more undercover Feds there than legitimate protestors.
*I, personally, intervened to prevent some drunk party-going friends from attended Trump’s stupid stop the steal rally.
It’s not cross-purposes when you call the “stop the steal” rally stupid, when you know that these facts represent the serious overturning of our government’s free and fair elections, so basic to the right function of our Republic:
– Democrat election workers covered windows to hide acts of malfeasance
– Voting-machines were programmed to over-and-under count ballots
– Voting-machines were repeatedly fed and re-fed same prepared ballots,
– Unsecured drop boxes were placed in strategic areas with paid-mules stuffing them
– Trucks hauled prepared ballots across state lines….and the countless other serious acts of election interference
—these brazen acts of tyranny and outright insurrection warranted earnest protest on many levels [just as much, if not more so, than your current arguments defending the MORE-STUPID acts of protesters in their own version of “stop the ICE.”
Lets call it one big ‘hanging chad’ and split the difference Bec. .. i’m trying to watch the big ‘anti-ICE’ protest in DC.
*personally, I thought the Biden/DNC big wigs stole the election from Bernie Bro. .. who didn’t complain very much.
Bernie, a Millionaire who never held a proletarian’s job—too funny…..
Stealing elections is nothing new, but the shallow bench of the socialist-democrats put a more controllable nitwit in the White House, which set the stage for all of this maniacal protection of illegal-immigrants.
Since “protesting” is the leftist’s LARP-Du Jour, it’s no wonder it is entertainment tonight. The whole group of you all is mentally ill, from demented/sleepy presidents, to UN-American foreign-born House representatives, to old-girls running riot with SUV’s.
dgs – You are trying to argue against superior logic and facts ……… again, “put the shovel down.”
Just a reminder of how leftist behavior is ultimately destructive in nature.
https://politifix.com/summer-of-love-looting-and-murder
You must have me confused with someone else.
dgsnowden said: <Quite piggy .. . are you a stupid person?
Babble on you lecherous police state fascist drunk.
1. You are the avatar of police state fascist stupidity thinking that, even if you were sober, you could sell Obama, Biden and Smith’s police state fascism here.
Second, if you’re hoping for a hot date with some hot Democrat Furry the idea is to get them drunk so they don’t notice your lack of human appeal – rather than drinking all the booze yourself.
You can’t get even the basic depravity right.
dgs – Your relentless parading of TDS symptoms is so tiresome. Failing to realize your own willful ignorance of the facts, you would benefit greatly if you simply “put the shovel down.” Clinging to manufactured leftist narratives about J6 isn’t serving you well, but there’s hope out there ….. and facts -https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/01/08/jan-6-5-years-later-were-we-played/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=see-for-yourself-one-video-blows-up-countless-media-narratives-about-minnesota-ice-shooting&_bhlid=dc4927999a086da6597cf602896204169cd04a8f
Reviewed the linked article. Trump was impeached on Jan. 13. The actual trial was Feb. 13 .. . indeed after Trump left office.
I have never thought J6 was a ‘coup’ or an ‘insurrection’. I’ve been in the middle of a few ‘coups/insurrections’, J6 was not that.
I think president Trump’s J6 ‘stop the steal’ rally was an impeachable abuse of power for more mundane reasons. Inciting a riot on the day congress ‘transferred’ power, endangering the lives of people who attended Trump’s well-advertised rally and extremely poor judgment would probably top that list.
I think the Post editorial does a better job than Professor Turley in dealing with Smith’s indictment and arguments (like fraud and Trump activities leading up to Jan 6) while Turley’s first amendment analysis seems to focus only on the Jan 6 speech part of the case and he also brings up irrelevant things with a negative tone about Smith and his past and Professor Tribe.
Irrelevant??? Seems you haven’t noticed, but the extreme-left-democrats have done nothing but endlessly focus, whine, spout, and scream about the “Trump activities leading up to Jan 6.” ….You seem to be absolutely tone-deaf about what is negative and “irrelevant.”
I don’t see how Democrats whining etc about Trump activities leading up to Jan 6 is relevant to (1) whether Smith’s indictment and arguments are in violation of or inconsistent with the first amendment or (2) my criticism of what Professor Turley wrote.
Well, the crux of Smiths querulous argument is premised precisely upon DJT’s first amendment right to speak out (or not, as Smith contorts the issue).
This factor (Trump’s J-6 speech?) has also served as the base of very incessant and strongly-worded accusations that Trump’s speech was “inciting to riot,” of which the left has never stopped flouting, both legally and emotionally. Trump’s right to speak as he did on January 6, 2021, is most definitely at core of what Smith was prosecuting —with Tribe confirming—and, in Turley’s opinion, a bogus premise.
Your criticism, that Turley was too negative toward Smith is out of kilter because of the core issue (1st Amendment confirmed on Trumps behalf). If you want to discuss what you call the “irrelevant” things about Turley’s essay, name them; otherwise, your comment is just too truncated to be understood correctly.
See Turley’s discussion (and links) to Smith’s McDonnell case, Karl Rancine, and Professor Tribe.
If JT’s interpretation of the Stolen Valor case decision (the 1st Amendment protects outright deceitful fabrication), then can someone explain why laws against perjury are not also unconstitutional? Or laws against identity fraud? Or, committing fraud on your tax return? Or, making unsubstantiated claims for a drug or medical device?
My interpretation is more friendly to the core American tradition that the community has the right to uphold values of honesty and decency in the public square, and not surrender its shared values to the militant, hedonistic individuals at the moral periphery of society.
The 1st Amendment precludes govt. PROSECUTION (and imprisonment) as a general tool for upholding public standards of speech conduct. It leaves to The People civil lawsuit as a countermeasure. We have seen it applied effectively in many recent attempts to deceive the public (Alex Jones selling the Sandy Hook massacre as a faked event, WaPo / CNN’s ugly false portrayal of Nick Sandmann, Fox News’ hopping on baseless accusations against Dominion Voting Systems throwing the 2020 election.
Remember when Joe Biden, Tony Blinken and Mile Morrell duped the electorate (with help from the MSM) that Hunter Biden’s laptop was a Russian intel op? Did that whopper intending to sway an election through fraud enjoy 1st Amendment protection? Only superficially, in that such an affront to the deceive the voters would not be grounds for prosecution. Those 3 con-artists should have been sued on the spot for public electioneering fraud. There is nothing about 1A that precludes that public response to being cynically manipulated. And it would have changed the course of the election had the Biden campaign and the spies that lied (as well as media surrogates) had been sued immediately, and subjected to compelled depositions.
The moral foundation of our nation rests in the hands of The People, and their right to uphold what is authentic and decent in the public square. Prof. Turley is totally wrong that the Stolen Valor case strips The People of that power.
We retain it through civil lawsuit, and should be demanding fast court processes so that Juries can decide these public fraud cases at the pace of the internet, empowered with the tools of subpoena and deposition to blast through the veil of secrecy behind which the skilled infowarrior operates.
pbinca says My interpretation is more friendly to the core American tradition that the community has the right to uphold
Your friendly interpretation of the Bill of Right’s Second Amendment is a mirror of Mamdani’s compassionate socialism. YOU claim a right to decide what young American women will be allowed to own. Your interpretation is based on what YOU decide is best for all Americans.
You are a dishonest fraud. California communism on regular display.
You’re wrong…. I despise Mamdani. Anyway, is that your idea of a meritocratic argument?…trying to associate me with Mamdani?
I’m about ideas that can improve our country, while appreciating the many great things about it.
I’m looking for other positive thinkers with ideas, and they don’t have to agree with mine.
“You are a dishonest fraud” — how petty and vacuuos. That’s your contribution?
Pbinca says Anyway, is that your idea of a meritocratic argument?
That’s my way of illustrating you are a selective hypcritical Democrat fraud.
First is your belief that young adult women wanting to purchase and carry a handgun for self defense as the Second Amendment should guarantee should be denied – until they’ve successfully completed an apprenticeship with a group of what you call “mature citizens”.
Go ahead and make a meritocratic defense of that version of the Second Amendment – the only one felt sufficiently important to include the words “shall not be infringed”.
After you’ve done that, then you can explain why you say Trump is the one with The Big Lie when he says the 2020 election was corrupt due to the actions of Democrats and Marc Elias doing things like unconstitutionally changing states’ voting laws,
The Big Lie, pbinca, is Democrats like Biden and you saying that was the most transparent and fair election ever?
Go ahead, defend both those claims of yours, you fraud.
There was a famous LA restaurateur who claimed for years he was a scion of the Russian imperial family. No one had any standing to sue him. The same is true of the Stolen Valor cases.
Parents are free to tell their kids about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and even the Easter Bunny.
Lies, all lies.
You’re confusing private exchanges with information put out into the public square. America has always held public speech to a higher standard of authenticity and honesty. What parents tell their kids is held to a much lower standard.
That was Michael Romanoff. But he made great food so people humored him.
Thank you for the piece and thank you for your integrity, Professor Turley. We are at a point where the madness, lies, and chicanery of the modern left just this past decade are incalculable. Our 1A is more important than ever.
You are ceding to the left the power to employ tools of deception to dupe the public (or a substantial slice of it, including youth). Don’t you realize that?
The remedy for bad speech is more speech, not enforced silence.– Justice Louis Brandeis
1A does not protect people who engage in attempted coups.
Circular reasoning is circular. A good example of the logical fallacy of begging the question.
@Anonymous
Ten words. This about right? $$$$$$$$$$. At least your Starbuck’s is covered today.
“Coup” isn’t a magic word that nullifies the First Amendment. Incitement has a legal test, and political speech doesn’t fail it just because it’s unpopular.
1A does not protect people to do coups, just like it is not a protection from chargers of murder-for-hire, extortion, fraud, blackmail, and many other crimes.
That’s not speech that’s action(s). You really e begging the question.
The Democrat Borg’s definition of what a coup is existed from January 6th 2020 to January 6th 2020. Everything Obama and his DoJ/FBI using Jack Smith did before that, and everything Biden and his puppeteers did with their DoJ/FBI and Jack Smith afterwards was different.
That was merely “protecting their democracy”. With Jack Smith serving as their Lavarentiy Beria. “Show me your political enemies and I’ll find you their crimes… or change the law to create their crimes.
Including what appears to have been Smith providing the FBI with classified documents that he (not Trump) had to strew on the floor at Mar a Lago and take pictures of them. That is a crime and Smith needs to be indicted not just interviewed by Congress.
Anon, does that involve media colluding with a political party, planned with education, federal level judges, politicians, foreign nations, religious people, and other engaged in propaganda as free speech to cause the fall of a nation? Yes, it’s treason fir citizens and sedition for noncitizens? RICO? The US does that, yes? Foreign nations,yes? Is it malice? Yes.
The citizenry is easily duped.