What Did You Say?

Tagged with:

Americans’ Trust in Media Hits Historic Low Ahead of Election, Poll Finds

By: Ireland Owens | October 15, 2024

The blurring of the lines between news and opinion has eroded the public’s trust in the legacy media. (Maria Vonotna/iStock/ Getty Images)

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Americans’ trust in the mass media has fallen to a record low leading up to the November election, according to a new survey released by Gallup on Monday. About 36% of those surveyed said that they have “no trust at all” in the mass media, while only 31% expressed a “great deal” or “fair amount” of confidence, and 33% expressed “not very much” confidence, according to the Gallup survey.

The low trust in the media comes as mainstream outlets are being criticized over accusations of bias, such as with the lack of coverage of President Joe Biden’s mental acuity before his debate against former President Donald Trump.

Americans’ confidence in the mainstream media previously dropped to a previous low of 32% in 2016, which was matched in 2023, according to previous Gallup surveys.

Democrats expressed the highest amount of confidence in the mass media being able to report news “fully, accurately, and fairly,” with 54% saying they trust it, according to the survey. Age gaps also made a difference in the ratings, with 74% of Democrats aged 65 and older having a fair or great amount of confidence in the media, compared with just 31% of Democrats aged 18 to 29.

Republicans and independents expressed much lower confidence in the mass media, compared with Democrats, with only 12% of Republicans and 27% of independents saying they have a great or fair amount of media trust, according to the survey.

The U.S. legislative branch was also rated poorly, with only 34% of people saying they trusted it.

ABC journalists Linsey Davis and David Muir came under fire after they moderated the ABC News presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris on Sept. 10, as many debate viewers thought it was unfairly rigged against Trump. Viewers expressed outrage over Trump being fact-checked multiple times by the debate moderators, while Harris was largely not challenged on her claims.

CBS News was recently criticized for editing footage of Harris’ response to a question about the ongoing Israel-Hamas war in a “60 Minutes” interview Oct. 7

While many people expressed concern over Biden’s mental acuity following his appearance in the June 27 presidential debate against Trump, several corporate news outlets tried to blame Biden’s debate performance on his having a cold.

Gallup’s poll was conducted between Sept. 3 and Sept. 15 and surveyed a random sample of 1,007 adults from all U.S. states, with a plus-or-minus 4 percentage point margin of error.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

Category:

Tagged with:

Walzing Around Free Speech: How A Walz Interview Became a Dizzying Dance of Distraction

By: Jonathan Turley | October 15, 2024

Below is my column in the New York Post on the recent interview of Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Gov. Tim Walz defending his record on free speech. The interview with Fox host Shannon Bream only magnified concerns over what I previously described as the most anti-free speech ticket in centuries.

Here is the column:

Roughly five centuries ago, a new dance first reported in Augsburg, Germany was promptly dubbed the “waltz” after the German term for “to roll or revolve.” Today, there is no nimbler performer of that dizzying dance than Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz.

Indeed, “Walzing” has become the Minnesota governor’s signature political two-step after his controversial statements on his allegedly socialist views, eliminating the electoral college and other topics. On Sunday, Walz’s dance partner was Fox News host Shannon Bream, who seemed to be fighting vertigo as the candidate tried to deflect his shocking prior statements on free speech.

Bream asked Walz about his prior declaration that there is “no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech”— a statement that runs counter to decades of Supreme Court decisions. Walz notably did not deny or retract his statement. Instead, his interview ironically became itself a flagrant example of misinformation.

First of all, misinformation and hate speech are not exceptions to the First Amendment: Whether it is the cross burnings of infamous figures like KKK leader Clarence Brandenburg or the Nazis who marched in Skokie, Ill., hate speech is protected. Yet both Harris and Walz are true believers in the righteousness of censorship for disinformation, misinformation and malinformation.

The Biden administration defines misinformation as “false, but not created or shared with the intention of causing harm” — meaning it would subject you to censorship even if you are not intending harm. It defines malinformation as “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” So, you can post “true facts,” but would still be subject to censorship if you are viewed as misleading others with your pesky truth-telling.

Furthermore, “book bans” are not equivalent to the Harris-Walz censorship policies. After years of supporting censorship and blacklisting, Democrats are attempting to deflect questions by claiming that the GOP is the greater threat.

“We’re seeing censorship coming in the form of book banning’s in different places,” Walz told Bream. “We’re seeing attempts in schools.”

First, a reality check: The Biden-Harris administration has helped fund and actively support the largest censorship system in our history, a system described by one federal court as “Orwellian.” These are actual and unrelenting efforts to target individuals and groups for opposing views on subjects ranging from gender identity to climate change to COVID to election fraud. While Walz and others rarely specifically reference the book bans in question, Florida is one state whose laws concern age limits on access to graphic or sexual material in schools.

School districts have always been given wide latitude in making such decisions on curriculum or library policies. Indeed, while rarely mentioned by the media, the left has demanded the banning or alteration of a number of classic books, including “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “Of Mice and Men,” under diversity or equity rationales.

I have long opposed actual book bans perpetrated by both the left and the right. However, school districts have always made such access and curriculum decisions.

Finally, Walz and others often sell censorship by citing the dangers of child pornography or of threats made against individuals. Walz on Sunday followed Hillary Clinton’s recent pro-censorship campaign as he employed such misdirection.

“The issue on this was the hate speech and the protected hate speech — speech that’s aimed at creating violence, speech that’s aimed at threats to individuals,” he claimed. “That’s what we’re talking about in this.”

First, he’d said there is no protected hate speech. Second, the law already provides ample protections against threats toward individuals. What’s most striking is that, after years of unapologetically embracing censorship (often under the Orwellian term “content moderation”), the left does not seem to want to discuss it in this election.

Democrats in Congress opposed every major effort to investigate the role of the Biden administration in the social-media censorship system it constructed. Many denied any such connection. Elon Musk ended much of that debate with the release of the Twitter Files showing thousands of emails from the administration targeting individuals and groups with opposing views.

Now the public is being asked to vote for the most anti-free speech ticket in centuries — but neither Harris nor Walz want to talk about it in any detail. The result may be the largest bait-and-switch in history. Walz, Clinton and others also falsely claim they are simply trying to stop things like child pornography — which is already covered by existing criminal laws.

But what many on the left want is to regain what Clinton called their loss of “control” over what we are allowed to say or hear on social media.

Make no mistake about it: The “Walzing” of free speech is one dance you would be wise to decline. Otherwise, do not be surprised if, when the music stops, you find yourself without both your partner and your free speech.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Free Speech, Media, Political

Tagged with:

Liberals are Losing their Minds over Elon Musk

By: Jonathan Turley | October 14, 2024

Below is my column in The Hill on the Musk mania now sweeping over the media with pundits and politicians unleashing unhinged attacks on the billionaire. In an Age of Rage, Musk is now eclipsing Donald Trump as Public Enemy No. 1. It began with his stance against censorship.

Here is the column:

This week, Elton John publicly renounced the Rocket Man — no, not the 1972 song, but Elon Musk, whom he called an “a**hole” in an awards ceremony. Sir Elton, 77, is only the latest among celebrities and pundits to denounce Musk for his support of former president Donald Trump and his opposition to censorship. Musk-mania is so overwhelming that some are calling for his arrest, deportation and debarment from federal contracts.

This week, the California Coastal Commission rejected a request from the Air Force for additional launches from Vandenberg Air Force Base. It is not because the military agency did not need the launches. It was not because the nation and the community would not benefit from them. Rather, it was reportedly because, according to one commissioner, Musk has “aggressively injected himself into the presidential race.” By a 6-4 vote, the California Coastal Commission rejected the military’s plan to let SpaceX launch up to 50 rockets per year from the base in Santa Barbara County.

Musk’s SpaceX is becoming a critical part of national security programs. It will even be launching a rescue mission for two astronauts stranded in space. The advances of SpaceX under Musk are legendary. The Air Force wanted to waive the requirement for separate permits for SpaceX in carrying out these critical missions.

To the disappointment of many, SpaceX is now valued at over $200 billion and just signed a new $1 billion contract with NASA. Yet neither the national security value nor the demands for SpaceX services appear to hold much interest for officials like Commissioner Gretchen Newsom (no relation to California’s governor, Gavin Newsom): “Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking FEMA while claiming his desire to help the hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet.”

Newsom is the former political director for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 569. It did not seem to matter to her that increased launches meant more work for electrical workers and others. Rather, it’s all about politics.

Commission Chair Caryl Hart added “here we’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race and he’s managed a company in a way that was just described by Commissioner Newsom that I find to be very disturbing.”

In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss how Musk became persona non grata when he bought Twitter and announced that he was dismantling the company’s massive censorship apparatus. He then outraged many on the left by releasing the Twitter Files, showing the extensive coordination of the company with the government in a censorship system described by a federal court as “Orwellian.”

After the purchase, former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton called upon Europeans to force Musk to censor her fellow Americans under the notorious Digital Services Act. Clinton has even suggested the arrest of those responsible for views that she considers disinformation.

Silicon Valley investor Roger McNamee called for Musk’s arrest and said that, as a condition of getting government contracts, officials should “require him to moderate his speech in the interest of national security.”

Former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich wants Musk arrested for simply refusing to censor other people.

Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann called for Musk to be deported and all federal contracts cancelled with this company. As with many in the “Save Democracy” movement, Olbermann was unconcerned with the denial of free speech or constitutional protections. “If we can’t do that by conventional means, President Biden, you have presidential immunity. Get Elon Musk the F out of our country and do it now.”

Of course, none of these figures are even slightly bothered about other business leaders with political opinions, so long as, like McNamee, they are supporting Harris or at least denouncing Trump. Musk has failed to yield to a movement infamous for cancel campaigns and coercion. The usual alliance of media, academia, government and corporate forces hit Musk, his companies and even advertisers on X.

Other corporate officials collapsed like a house of cards to demands for censorship — see, for example, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg. Musk, in contrast, responded by courageously releasing the Twitter Files and exposing the largest censorship system in our history. That is why I describe Musk as arguably the single most important figure in this generation in defense of free speech. The intense hatred for Musk is due to the fact that he was the immovable object in the path of their formerly unstoppable force.

The left will now kill jobs, cancel national security programs and gut the Constitution in its unrelenting campaign to get Musk. His very existence undermines the power of the anti-free speech movement. In a culture of groupthink, Musk is viewed as a type of free-thought contagion that must be eliminated.

Their frustration became anger, which became rage. As Elton John put it in “Rocket Man,” he was supposed to be “burning out his fuse up here alone.”

Yet here he remains.

George Bernard Shaw once said “a reasonable man adjusts himself to the world. An unreasonable man expects the world to adjust itself to him. Therefore, all progress is made by unreasonable people.”

With all of his idiosyncrasies and eccentricities, Elon Musk just might be that brilliantly unreasonable person.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Tagged with:

Adversarial Process or Oppo Research? Judge Agrees to Release More Trump Material Before the Election

By: Jonathan Turley | October 11, 2024

It appears that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan and Special Counsel Jack Smith are not done yet in releasing material in advance of the election. In a previous column, I criticized the release of Smith’s 180-page brief before the election as procedurally irregular and politically biased, a criticism shared by CNN’s senior legal analyst and other law professors. Nevertheless, on Thursday, Judge Chutkan agreed to a request from Smith to unseal exhibits and evidence in advance of the election. The brief clearly contains damning allegations, including witness accounts, for Trump. The objection to the release of the brief was not a defense of any actions taken on January 6th by the former president or others, but rather an objection to what even the court admitted was an “irregular” process.

As discussed earlier, Smith has been unrelenting in his demands for a trial before the election. He has even demanded that Donald Trump be barred from standard appellate options in order to expedite his trial. Smith never fully explained the necessity of holding a trial before the election beyond suggesting that voters should see the trial and the results — assaulting the very premise of the Justice Department’s rule against such actions just before elections.

To avoid allegations of political manipulation of cases, the Justice Department has long followed a policy against making potentially influential filings within 60 or 90 days of an election. One section of the Justice Department manual states “Federal prosecutors… may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.”

Even if one argues that this provision is not directly controlling or purely discretionary, the spirit of the policy is to avoid precisely the appearance in this case: the effort to manipulate or influence an election through court filings.

With no trial date for 2025, there is no reason why Smith or Chutkan would adopt such an irregular process. The court could have slightly delayed these filings until after the approaching election or it could have sealed the filings.

If there is one time where a court should err on the side of avoiding an “irregular” process, it is before a national election. What may look like simply an adversarial process to some looks like oppo research to others. Delaying the release would have avoided any appearance of such bias.

For Smith, the election has long been the focus of his filings and demands for an expedited process. Smith knows that this election is developing into the largest jury verdict in history. Many citizens, even those who do not like Trump, want to see an end to the weaponization of the legal system, including Smith’s D.C. prosecution. Trump has to lose the election for Smith to be guaranteed a trial in the case.

Chutkan has given the Trump team just seven days to oppose her order. That would still allow the material to make it into the public (and be immediately employed by the media and Harris campaign) just days before the election. The move will only increase criticism that this looks like a docket in the pocket of the DNC.

It is telling that, once again, the timing just works out to the way that is most politically impactful. Many are left with a Ned Flanders moment of “well, if that don’t put the “dink” in co-inky-dink.”

Category:

Crime, Law, Media, Political

Tagged with:

Deadspin Loses Major Motion in Defamation Case Over Blackface Column

By: Jonathan Turley | October 9, 2024

We previously discussed the defamation lawsuit against Deadspin and writer Carron Phillips over an article claiming that nine-year-old Holden Armenta appeared at a Chiefs game in 2023 in black face. I noted in a prior column that I believed that the court would view this as a matter that had to go to a jury. It now has. Superior Court Judge Sean Lugg this week rejected Deadspin’s motion to dismiss.

Phillips posted a side image of Holden at a game of the Kansas City Chiefs against the Las Vegas Raiders, showing his face painted black. The 9-year-old was wearing a headdress while doing the signature “Tomahawk Chop.”

Phillips went into full attack mode.

The senior Deadspin writer had a Pavlovian response in a scathing article on the boy’s “racist” and “disrespectful” appearance.

“It takes a lot to disrespect two groups of people at once. But on Sunday afternoon in Las Vegas, a Kansas City Chiefs fan found a way to hate black people and the native Americans at the same time…Despite their age, who taught that person that what they were wearing was appropriate?”

Phillips also denounced the NFL for “relentlessly participating in prejudice.” In a now-deleted tweet, Phillips later called people “idiots” for “treating this as some harmless act.”

Of course, the full picture showed that Armenta had the other half of his face painted in red paint — the Chiefs colors. It also turns out that he is Native American. Indeed, his grandfather is serving on the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.

Deadspin obviously valued Phillips’ take on race as do other journalists and columnists. Despite his past controversial writings, he was selected as the 2019 & 2020 National Association of Black Journalists Award Winner.

Deadspin was sold to Lineup Publishing after the lawsuit by Holden’s parents Raul Jr. and Shannon. However, they appear to have retained Phillips who is still on their website.

In Armenta v. G/O Media, Inc. Lugg wrote that “[h]aving reviewed the complaint, the court concludes that Deadspin’s statements accusing [Holden] of wearing black face and Native headdress ‘to hate black people and the Native American at the same time,’ and that he was taught this hatred by his parents, are provable false assertions of fact and are therefore actionable.”

The opinion turned on whether this could be treated as opinion as opposed to a statement of fact. California law applied in the case and the court focused on two opinions that held that claims of racism can be statements of fact. Lugg wrote:

Generally, statements labeling a person as racist are not actionable. “A term like racist, while exceptionally negative, insulting, and highly charged—is not actionable under defamation-type claims because it is a word that lacks precise meaning and can imply many different kinds of fact.”…

Deadspin argues that the statements alleging H.A. wore Black face are nonactionable for the same reasons that calling him racist would be non-actionable. {“Blackface is used to mock or ridicule Black people; it is considered deeply offensive.” Deadspin, in recasting Black face as “culturally insensitive face paint” in the December 7 Update, recognizes the negative understanding of the descriptive term.} … But there is a legally significant distinction between a statement calling someone a racist and a statement accusing someone of engaging in racist conduct; expressions of opinion are not protected if they imply an assertion of an objective, defamatory fact. Two recent decisions applying California law, Overhill Farms, Inc. v. Lopez (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) and La Liberte v. Reid (2d Cir. 2020), assist in clarifying this distinction.

The Court in Overhill Farms held that “a claim of racially motivated employment termination is a provably false fact.” In that case, a group of employees accused their employer of engaging in racist firings of Hispanic workers as a pretext to hide racist and discriminatory abuse against Latina women immigrants. After the employer sued for defamation, the employees moved to dismiss, arguing that their statements were non-actionable opinions. The California Court of Appeals denied the employees’ motion, reasoning:

[D]efendants did not merely accuse [their employer] of being “racist” in some abstract sense …. [I]n almost every instance, defendants’ characterization of [their employer] as “racist” is supported by a specific reference to its decision to terminate the employment of a large group of Latino immigrant workers. The assertion of racism, when viewed in that specific factual context, is not merely a hyperbolic characterization of [the employer’s] black corporate heart—it represents an accusation of concrete, wrongful conduct…. [T]he statements reflected in defendants’ written press release, leaflets and flyers accused Overhill of more than harboring racist attitudes; they accused Overhill of engaging in a mass employment termination based upon racist and ageist motivations. Such a contention is clearly a “provable fact;” indeed an employer’s motivation for terminating employment is a fact plaintiffs attempt to prove routinely in wrongful termination cases.

In La Liberte v. Reid, a community activist brought suit after a television host republished two photographs of her at a pro-immigration rally with captions alleging racist conduct. The first caption accused the plaintiff of screaming “You are going to be first deported … dirty Mexican!” at a 14-year-old boy. The second caption compared a photograph of the plaintiff to white Americans yelling at the Little Rock Nine. The television host moved to dismiss the activist’s defamation claims, arguing that her statements were “nonactionable statements of opinion.” The trial court agreed and granted dismissal. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, explaining:

A reader could interpret the juxtaposition of the Photograph with the 1957 Little Rock image to mean that [plaintiff] likewise screamed at a child out of racial animus—particularly in light of [defendant’s] comment that “[h]istory sometimes repeats.” That interpretation is bolstered by [defendant’s] description of the white woman in the Little Rock photograph as a “person screaming at a child, with [her] face twisted in rage” and [her] comment that it was “inevitable” that the photos would be juxtaposed. [Defendant] thus portrayed [plaintiff] as a latter-day counterpart of the white woman in 1957 who verbally assaulted a minority child. Like the defendants in Overhill Farms, [defendant] “did not merely accuse [plaintiff] of being ‘racist’ in some abstract sense.” Rather, her July 1 Post could be understood as an “accusation of concrete, wrongful conduct,” which can be proved to be either true or false. That makes it potentially defamatory.

The Armentas contend that the Original Article and its Updates involve defamatory statements regarding conduct that is provably false and, therefore, this Court should be guided by Overhill Farms and La Liberte. These statements include:

(1) H.A. was wearing “Black face;”

(2) H.A.’s conduct in wearing “Black face” was motivated by his hatred of Black people;

(3) H.A.’s wearing of a Native headdress resulted from his hatred of Native Americans;

(4) H.A. is part of a “future generation[ ]” of racists who had “recreate[d] racism better than before”; and

(5) Raul and Shannon Armenta “taught” their son, H.A., “racism and hate” in their home.

Deadspin’s audience could understand its portrayal of H.A. to mean that his entire face was painted black and, because his entire face was painted black, it was H.A.’s intent to disrespect and hate African Americans. The publication went beyond an expression of opinion and flatly stated H.A.’s motivation for appearing as he did.

Similarly, a reader could be left with the belief that H.A. wore a Native American headdress as a signal of disrespect to that population. Any doubt as to the thrust of these representations is resolved in the opening line of the article, where the author unequivocally asserts, “It takes a lot to disrespect two groups of people at once. But on Sunday afternoon in Las Vegas, a Kansas City Chiefs fan found a way to hate Black people and the Native American at the same time.”

While arguably couched as opinion, the author devotes substantial time to describing H.A. and attributing negative racial motivation to him. Further, the article may be reasonably viewed as derogating those who may have taught him—his parents. A reader might not, as Deadspin contends, interpret this assertion as a reflection of the author’s opinion. To say one is a racist may be considered opinion, but to plainly state that one’s attire, presentation, or upbringing demonstrates their learned hatred for identifiable groups is actionable. A reader may reasonably interpret the Article’s assertion that H.A. was wearing Black face as fact….

The CBS broadcast showed H.A. for approximately three seconds. In those three seconds, viewers could see that H.A.’s face was painted two colors: black and red. Deadspin published an image of H.A. that displayed only the portion of H.A.’s face painted black and presented it as a factual assertion that there was a “Chiefs fan in Black face” at the game. The complaint asserts facts that, reasonably interpreted, establish Deadspin’s Original Article and its Updates as provably false assertions of fact….

Deadspin contends that La Liberte and Overhill Farms stand as outliers from decisions recognizing that accusations of racist behavior are “inherently subjective and therefore non-actionable[.]” Not so. They reflect reasoned assessments of the lines between protected and actionable speech and offer a paradigm for identifying and assessing provably false allegations of racial animus. This Court may grant Deadspin’s motion under Rule 12(b)(6) only if “under no reasonable interpretation of the facts alleged could the complaint state a claim for which relief might be granted.” Applying the analytical framework of La Liberte and Overhill Farms to the facts here, the Armentas maintain a “possibility of recovery.” …

This is a well-constructed and well-supported decision that could have lasting importance. In an age of rage, including race-baiting columns like the one in this case, the opinion is a shot across the bow for publications like Deadspin.

We have seen a series of major rulings allowing public figures to go forward in other defamation lawsuits against media companies. In addition to alienating much of their markets with echo journalism, these outlets are now facing mounting legal costs due to attack pieces like this one. The bill is now coming due.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Tagged with:

MSNBC Producer: ‘Network Is Indistinguishable’ From Democrat Party, Makes Viewers ‘Dumber’

By: Eddie Scarry | October 04, 2024

It’s not exactly breaking news that MSNBC is dedicated to advancing Democrat Party power, but it is truly fascinating to witness one of its producers so openly disdain the channel and its viewers.

On Thursday journalist James O’Keefe released another sting operation-style video that shows a man identified as MSNBC producer Basel Hamden chatting with a woman who is surreptitiously recording the conversation. Hamden talks at length about MSNBC as less of a news operation and more of a hype machine for the national Democrat agenda, with amplifying party messaging as its sole purpose.

When asked about the ways MSNBC has been able to “help” Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign, Hamden says, “They’re doing all they can,” adding, “What her message of the day is, is their message of the day.”

He says MSNBC’s reporters and anchors are “often saying the same exact things” as Democrat Party leaders. “This news network is indistinguishable from the party,” he says. When Hamden’s undercover interlocutor calls that “bad journalism,” he replies, “They’ve made their viewers dumber over the years.”

BREAKING: @MSNBC Producer Admits MSNBC Is 'Doing All They Can to Help’ the Harris Campaign

During an undercover date with an OMG journalist, Basel Hamdan (@BaselYHamdan), a writer and producer for MSNBC’s show “Ayman,” (@AymanMSNBC) was asked what the network has done to assist… pic.twitter.com/y9Yk8o1UX7
— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 3, 2024

To be fair to the poor schlub, he showed some loyalty to his employer by accusing MSNBC’s competitor, Fox News, of producing “racist propaganda.” So at least he has that going for him.

I’m sure this is a highly embarrassing affair for Hamden, but he should know that he’s done a good thing, even if it was unintentional. He told the truth out loud about MSNBC’s real purpose (aiding Democrats) and the real consequence of its programming (dumber viewers).

Eddie Scarry is the D.C. columnist at The Federalist and author of “Liberal Misery: How the Hateful Left Sucks Joy Out of Everything and Everyone.”

Author Eddie Scarry profile

Eddie Scarry

Visit on Twitter@eScarry

Category:

Tagged with:

Court Refuses to Throw Out the Defamation Lawsuit Against MSNBC Legal Analyst Andrew Weissmann

By: Jonathan Turley | October 2, 2024

We previously discussed the defamation case against NYU Law Professor and MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann. He is being sued by lawyer Stefan Passantino after Weissmann said that he coached former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson to “lie” to Congress. At the time, I wrote that “it is hard to see how Weissmann can avoid a trial.” U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan apparently agrees. She just rejected Weissmann’s motion to dismiss the case.

The controversial former aide to Special Counsel Robert Mueller (and NYU law professor) is being sued after declaring that attorney Stefan Passantino (who represented Hutchinson before Congress) told her to lie.

Weissmann’s controversial commentary was not a surprise to many critics.

Many of us questioned Mueller hiring Weissmann given his reputation for stretching legal authority and perceived political bias. Weissmann reportedly congratulated acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she ordered the Justice Department not to assist President Donald Trump on his immigration ban. The Supreme Court would ultimately affirm Trump’s underlying authority, but Yates refused to allow the Justice Department to assist a sitting president in defending that authority. Weissmann gushed in an email to her, writing “I am so proud. And in awe. Thank you so much.”

As noted earlier, Weissmann seemed to respond to those criticisms by aggressively proving them true. Weissmann has only become more controversial as an MSNBC analyst. He called on Justice Department officials to refuse to assist in the investigation of abuses in the Russian collusion investigation. While opposing investigations involving Democrats, he has seemingly supported every possible charge against Trump or his associates.

What Weissmann often lacked in precedent, he made up for in hyperbole. That signature is at the heart of the current lawsuit. On September 13, 2023, Weissmann was referring to Judy Hunt and noted on Twitter (now X) that “Hunt also is Cassidy Hutchinson’s good lawyer. (Not the one who coached her to lie).”

In making this claim against Passantino, Weissmann actually triggered the “per se” defamation standard twice. These are categories that have been treated as defamatory per se. The allegation against Passantino would not only constitute criminal conduct but also unethical professional conduct. Passantino denounces the statement as an “insidious lie” and “smear.”

AliKahn noted that “At her fifth deposition, Ms. Hutchinson discussed a line of questioning from her first deposition about the January 6 incident in the Presidential limousine,” AliKhan wrote. “She explained that, during a break after facing repeated questions on the topic, she had told Mr. Passantino in private, ‘I’m f*****. I just lied.’ Mr. Passantino responded, ‘You didn’t lie. . . . They don’t know what you know, Cassidy. They don’t know that you can recall some of these things. So, you [sic] saying ‘I don’t recall’ is an entirely acceptable response to this.’”

Hutchinson repeatedly confirmed that Passantino “never told me to lie,” “didn’t tell me to lie,” and “He told me not to lie.”

While Judge AliKhan on Monday tossed out the second count in the complaint as lacking foundation for the claim of financial harm, she refused to dismiss Passantino’s defamation claim and moved the case forward toward trial. That could prove embarrassing as Passantino’s team searches for evidence of malice in his emails and other communications.

Here is the opinion: Passantino v. Weissmann

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Tagged with:

The Supreme Crisis of Chief Justice John Roberts

By: Jonathan Turley | September 24, 2024

Below is my column in The Hill on a growing crisis at the Supreme Court for Chief Justice John Roberts. A new breach of confidentiality shows cultural crisis at the Court. While the earlier leaking of the Dobbs decision could have come from a clerk, much of the recent information could only have originated with a justice.

Here is the column:

Chief Justice John Roberts has always been “a man more sinned against than sinning.” That line from Shakespeare’s “King Lear” seems increasingly apt for the head of our highest court. Roberts was installed almost exactly 20 years ago and soon found himself grappling with a series of controversies that have rocked the court as an institution. He is now faced with another monumental scandal, after the New York Times published leaked confidential information that could only have come from one of the nine members of the court.

By most accounts, Roberts is popular with his colleagues and someone with an unquestioning institutional knowledge and loyalty. He is, in many respects, the ideal chief justice: engaging, empathetic, and unfailingly respectful of the court’s justices and staff. Roberts has been chief justice during some of the court’s most contentious times. Major decisions like overturning Roe v. Wade (which Roberts sought to avoid) have galvanized many against the court.

According to recent polling, fewer than half of Americans (47 percent) hold a favorable opinion of the court (51 percent have an unfavorable view). Of course, that level of support should inspire envy in the court’s critics in Congress (18 percent approval) and the media (which only 32 percent trust).

Some, however, want to express their dissatisfaction more directly and even permanently. This week, Alaskan Panos Anastasiou, 76, was indicted with 22 federal charges for threatening to torture and kill the six conservative justices. Another man, Nicolas Roske, 28, will go on trial next June for attempting to assassinate Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

In the meantime, law professors have rallied the mob, calling for them to be more aggressive against the conservative justices and even calling for Congress to cut off their air conditioning to make them retire.

Politicians have also fueled the rage against the court. On one infamous occasion, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared in front of the Supreme Court, “I want to tell you, [Neil] Gorsuch, I want to tell you, [Brett] Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”

Yet, it is what has occurred inside the court that should be most troubling for Roberts. On May 2, 2022, someone inside the court leaked to Politico a copy of the draft of the opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturning Roe v. Wade. It was one of the greatest breaches of ethics in the court’s history. The subsequent investigation failed to produce any charges for the culprit or culprits.

Now, the New York Times has published highly detailed accounts of the internal deliberations of the court. The account seemed largely directed at the conservative justices and Roberts. Some of the information on deliberations in three cases (Trump v. Anderson, Fischer v. United States, and Trump v. United States) had to come either directly or indirectly from a justice. Some of these deliberations were confined to members of the court.

Seeing a pattern in this and past leaks, one law professor, Josh Blackmun, even went so far as to suggest that it is “likely that [Justice Elena] Kagan, or at least Kagan surrogates, are behind these leaks.” That remains pure speculation. Yet after the earlier Dobbs leak, Roberts is now dealing with leaks coming out of the confidential conference sessions and memoranda of the justices. This occurs after Roberts pledged that security protocols had been strengthened to protect confidentiality.

The disclosure of this information to third parties violates Canon 4(D)(5) of judicial ethics: “A judge should not disclose or use nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to the judge’s official duties.”

Roberts and the court have long maintained that judicial ethics rules that apply to other federal judges are merely advisory for them. However, some in Congress are now pushing for new binding ethics rules that could make fundamental changes to the court. Justice Kagan is supporting the ethical changes, which would allow lower court judges to render judgment on the justices. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also declared publicly that she does not “have any problem” with an enforceable ethics code for the Supreme Court.

A truly “enforceable” code would presumably allow the lower court judges appointed by the chief justice to compel the removal of a justice from a given case. That could flip the outcome on a closely divided court.

Given the latest leak, what would such a panel do with a justice who has breached the confidentiality of internal judicial deliberations? Under the Constitution, a justice can be removed by Congress only through impeachment. Impeachment of a justice has happened only once, in 1805, when Associate Justice Samuel Chase was acquitted.

Roberts has the demeanor and decency of a great chief justice. Despite those strengths, however, some are now wondering if he has the drive and determination to confront his colleagues on a worsening situation at the court. Many years ago, I believed that Roberts erred in failing to publicly rebuke Justice Samuel Alito for publicly displaying disagreement with President Barack Obama during a State of the Union address. Although I was sympathetic with Alito’s objections to Obama’s misleading statements about the Citizens United ruling, it was still a breach of judicial decorum.

Roberts is a good chief in bad times. He can hardly be blamed for the alleged abandonment of the most fundamental ethical principles by justices or clerks. Yet, the court is now in an undeniable crisis of faith. For decades, institutional faith and fealty have maintained confidentiality and civility. Once again, that tradition has been shattered by the reckless and self-serving conduct of those entrusted with the court’s business.

For a man who truly reveres the court, it is an almost Lear-like betrayal of an isolated and even tragic figure. It is time for an institutional reckoning for Roberts in calling his colleagues to account.

While there have been a few prior leaks, the Supreme Court has been largely immune from the weaponized leaks so characteristic of Washington. In a city that floats on leaks, the court was an island of integrity. And more has been lost at the court than just confidentiality. There is a loss of confidence, even innocence, at an institution that once aspired to be something more than a source for the New York Times.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).

Category:

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

Tagged with:

“A Better Deterrence”: Hillary Clinton Calls for the Arrest of Americans Spreading Disinformation

By Jonathan Turley | September 18, 2024

Speaking on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show this week, Clinton was asked about continued allegations of Russian efforts to disseminate Russian propaganda in the United States. Clinton responded:

Hillary Clinton has long been one of the most anti-free speech figures in American politics, including calling upon European officials to force Elon Musk to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA). She is now suggesting the arrest of Americans who spread what she considers disinformation. It is a crushingly ironic moment since it was her campaign that funded the infamous Steele dossier and spread false stories of Russian collusion during her presidential campaign. Presumably, that disinformation would not be treated as criminal viewpoints.

“I think it’s important to indict the Russians, just as Muller indicted a lot of Russians who were engaged in direct election interference and boosting Trump back in 2016. But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda. And whether they should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrence, because the Russians are unlikely, except in a very few cases, to ever stand trial in the United States.”

The interview was chillingly consistent with Clinton long antagonism toward free speech.

START AROUND THE 9TH MINUTE. SHE WANTS AMERICANS LIKE ME PROSECUTED FOR PUBLISHING THE TRUTH.

Clinton, of course, was not challenged by Maddow on the fact that her campaign was the conduit for disinformation linked to Russian intelligence services. Not only did U.S. intelligence believe that the Clinton campaign was used to make the debunked claims, but it was clearly done for purely political purposes.

Clinton efforts were so obvious by July 2016 that former CIA Director John Brennan briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged “plan” to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” The Russian investigation was launched days after this briefing.

Her general counsel, Marc Elias, his former partner Michael Sussmann, and the campaign were later found involved in not just spreading the false claims from the Steele dossier but other false stories like the Alfa Bank conspiracy claim.

It was Elias who managed the legal budget for the campaign. We now know that the campaign hid the funding of the Steele dossier as a legal expense.

New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said that Elias denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said that Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”

Elias was also seated next to John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, when he was asked about the role of the campaign, he denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Even assuming that Podesta was kept in the dark, the Durham Report clearly shows that Elias knew and played an active role in pushing this effort.

The Clinton campaign lied to the media, spread false claims of Russian disinformation, and was accused of being a conduit for Russian intelligence. So, would the “better deterrence” have been for Clinton herself to be arrested?

Sussmann ultimately did stand trial but was acquitted. Notably, John Durham noted that “no one at Fusion GPS … would agree to voluntarily speak with the Office” while both the DNC and Clinton campaign invoked privileges to refuse to answer certain questions.

For a person who is on her fourth memoir, Clinton is remarkably hostile to free speech. Notably, in all of these memoirs, she does not address her prominent role in calling for the censorship and now arrest of those with opposing views. She also does not discuss how her campaign lied to the media and funded the Steele dossier. Perhaps that is coming in the fifth memoir. What is clear is that Clinton herself has no fear that such prosecution would ever await her. She is one of those who may silence others but not be silenced. The public is to be protected from views that she deemed disinformation, misinformation, or malinformation.

To that end, as one of the guardians of truth, Clinton chastised the media for not being more consistently anti-Trump, a daunting prospect since the media has been accused of running almost 90 percent negative stories on Trump. Nevertheless, shortly after the second assassination attack on Trump, Clinton called Trump a danger to the world and added that “I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for the press to have a consistent narrative about how dangerous Trump is.”

Ideally, between the arrests of those accused of disinformation and an effective state media, Clinton hopes to rein in errant thoughts and viewpoints.

In the interview, Maddow did not have even a slight objection to the implications of arresting people with criminal viewpoints. Censorship and criminal prosecutions are such mainstream concepts that they are as unsurprising as a fourth Clinton memoir.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).

Category:

censorship, Crime, General, Law, Political

Tagged with:

Hillary Clinton Condemns Media for Their Coverage of Trump

By: Aaron Hedlund | September 17, 2024

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at the Democratic National Convention at the United Center in Chicago on Aug. 19, 2024. (Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images)

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday condemned the media for not sufficiently covering the peril she believes former President Donald Trump poses to the planet while calling on Americans to be “outraged by what he represents.”

Clinton’s remarks follow federal and local officials confirming Sunday the arrest of 58-year-old Ryan Wesley Routh for allegedly attempting to assassinate the former president the same day, with Trump blaming Democrats’ “rhetoric” for the attempt during a Monday interview. The former Democratic presidential nominee, on “The Rachel Maddow Show,” did not tamp down her rhetoric against Trump, repeatedly characterizing the former president as “dangerous” in the span of a few minutes.

“Sadly, the press is still not able to cover Trump the way that they should. They careen from one outrage to the next. What was outrageous three days ago is no longer on the front pages, even though it threatens the physical safety of so many people, particularly, as you point out, immigrants that he and [Sen. JD] Vance have decided to demonize,” Clinton said. “And I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for the press to have a consistent narrative about how dangerous Trump is. The late great journalist Harry Evans one time said that journalists should really try to achieve objectivity, and by that, he said, I mean they should cover the object. Well, the object in this case is Donald Trump. His demagoguery, his danger to our country and the world. And stick with it.”

“I believe Donald Trump has disqualified himself over and over and over again to be a presidential candidate, let alone a president … Part of what Trump is counting on is for people to get desensitized … Well, Americans need to understand that they have to take Trump both seriously and literally,” she added. “He has said what he wants to do. He and his allies with Project 2025, his desire to be a dictator at least on Day One. All of that is in the public record. And I believe that more Americans have to be willing to endure what, frankly, is discomforting and to some extent kind of painful, to take him at his word and to be outraged by what he represents.”

Trump asserted on Truth Social in July that he has no knowledge of Project 2025 and no involvement in it. The former president also condemned some of the document’s contents.

One of Routh’s social media posts mirrored Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden’s repeated claim that “democracy is on the ballot,” according to reports. CNN’s Dana Bash on Monday claimed that Routh’s anti-Trump social media posts have “nothing to do with Kamala Harris and Joe Biden.”

“The hopeful side of this is that I do think more and more Americans are rejecting the kind of chaos that he represents. We can’t go back. That’s what the Harris campaign says all the time,” Clinton said. “We’re not going back to … what he failed to do to protect American lives during COVID, we’re not going back to the romance with dictators that puts innocent lives at risk and America’s security in danger. We can’t go back and give this very dangerous man another chance to do harm to our country and the world.”

Clinton said in April that she believes Trump is “modeling himself” after dictators like Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Putin does what [Trump] would like to do,” she said. “Kill his opposition, imprison his opposition, drive journalists into exile, rule without any check or balance. That’s what Trump really wants.”

Category:

Tagged with:

Well-Known Antifa Member Sentenced to Jail Despite Journalism Defense

By: Jonathan Turley | September 13, 2024

Alissa Eleanor Azar, a well-known Antifa activist, was sentenced to jail recently in Oregon after being convicted of felony riot and disorderly conduct. What is notable about the case was the journalism defense put forward by Azar, who claims that she was not a participant but press. That assertion is belied by not just videotapes of Azar assaulting members of the far-right group The Proud Boys but her long record of violence.

The court rejected the journalism defense after reviewing videotapes showing Azar organizing with Antifa and then engaging in the attacks. Ironically, while arguing for press freedom, her counsel attempted to bar media from the courtroom, seeking an order to block the conservative outlet Post Millennial, which has dedicated much coverage to Antifa.

As discussed in my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I explore the history of Antifa as a movement that began in Germany:

“Antifa originated with European anarchist and Marxist groups from the 1920s, particularly Antifaschistische Aktion, a Communist group from the Weimar Republic before World War II. Its name resulted from the shortening of the German word antifaschistisch. In the United States, the modern movement emerged through the Anti- Racist Action (ARA) groups, which were dominated by anarchists and Marxists. It has an association with the anarchist organization Love and Rage, which was founded by former Trotsky and Marxist followers as well as offshoots like Mexico’s Amor Y Rabia. The oldest U.S. group is likely the Rose City Antifa (RCA) in Portland, Oregon, which would become the center of violent riots during the Trump years. The anarchist roots of the group give it the same organizational profile as such groups in the early twentieth century with uncertain leadership and undefined structures.”

Despite the denial of its existence by figures like Rep. Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.), I have long written and spoken about the threat of Antifa to free speech on our campuses and in our communities. This includes testimony before Congress on Antifa’s central role in the anti-free speech movement nationally.

As I have previously written, it has long been the “Keyser Söze” of the anti-free speech movement, a loosely aligned group that employs measures to avoid easy detection or association. Yet, FBI Director Chris Wray has repeatedly pushed back on the denials of Antifa’s work or violence. In one hearing, Wray stated “And we have quite a number” — and “Antifa is a real thing. It’s not a fiction.”

We have continued to follow the attacks and arrests of Antifa followers across the country, including attacks on journalists.

Some Democrats have played a dangerous game in supporting or excusing the work of Antifa. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence and its website was banned in Germany. Ellison’s son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer. During a prior hearing, Democratic senators refused to clearly denounce Antifa and falsely suggested that the far right was the primary cause of recent violence. Likewise, Joe Biden has dismissed objections to Antifa as just “an idea.”

It is at its base a movement at war with free speech, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. That purpose is evident in what is called the “bible” of the Antifa movement: Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.

Bray admits that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists… From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”

Antifa has often targeted journalists or critics for violent attacks. The conservative site Hot Air showed attacks by Antifa supporters after the hearing.

Judge Todd L. Van Rysselberghe for the 5th Judicial District Circuit Court of Oregon sentenced her to 14 days in a local jail, followed by 36 months of supervised probation and GPS monitoring. That short stint was still more than courts and prosecutors have been willing to impose in past cases involving Antifa violence.

Previously, Azar was charged with violence in the Portland riots. However, as with other district attorneys, Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt dropped those and other charges despite massive property damage and injuries associated with those riots.

The use of media credentials by Antifa activists has dangerously blurred the line of press and protesters for police. That puts real journalists at greater risk.

In the meantime, Antifa (the group that supposedly does not exist) has elected members to legislative offices in Europe as more radical parties make inroads both in the United States and around the world.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).

Category:

Crime

Tagged with:

“Perceived Criticism”: CEO Katherine Mayer Defends NPR’s Coverage and Culture

By: Jonathan Turley | September 10, 2024

National Public Radio has had a rough go in the last few years with declining audiences, financial shortfalls, and the recent exposure of its political bias by longtime editor Uri Berliner. However, if you tuned into the comments of NPR CEO Katherine Maher this week at the Texas Tribune Festival, you would think that the only challenging decision for NPR is picking the design of the next pledge drive tote bag. Despite comments that were repeatedly evasive and misleading, a room full of journalists seemed to just nod like William Safire’s “nattering nabobs.”

Mayer led with what many former employees like Berliner may have seen as a literal punchline: “I stand here to defend the integrity of the newsroom and to defend the integrity of the reporting and to say that every single day our folks get up, and they want to stand there and make sure that they are serving the American public in the best possible way from a nonpartisan perspective.”

NPR, however, has lost much of the public. Ironically, it is now more liberal and whiter than ever with relatively few minority, male, or conservative listeners. NPR’s audience has been declining for years. Indeed, that trend has been most pronounced since 2017 — the period when Berliner said the company began to openly pursue a political narrative and agenda to counter Donald Trump. The company has reported falling advertising revenue and, like many outlets, has made deep staff cuts to deal with budget shortfalls.

As she has in the past, Maher portrayed Berliner as pushing a false political agenda in claiming any bias at NPR. She denounced his criticism as an “affront to the individual journalists who work incredibly hard to report the news and report the news well and report the news with integrity … in a nonpartisan way.”

The portrayal of NPR as unbiased and balanced is laughingly absurd. Indeed, many of us objected to Maher’s selection after years of declining audiences and increasing criticism. Maher had a long record of far-left public statements against Republicans, Trump, and others.

As I have stated in the past, I am not suggesting that NPR does not have a right to slanted coverage. Many outlets today have such bias. However, they do not have a right to receive public subsidies. In a competitive media market, the government has elected to subsidize a selective media outlet. Moreover, this is not the media organization that many citizens would choose. While tacking aggressively to the left and openly supporting narratives (including some false stories) from Democratic sources, NPR and its allies still expect citizens to subsidize its work. That includes roughly half of the country with viewpoints now effectively banished from its airwaves.

While local PBS stations are supported “by listeners like you,” NPR itself continues to maintain that “federal funding is essential” to its work. If NPR is truly relying on federal funds for only 1 percent of its budget, why not make a clean break from the public dole? NPR would then have to compete with every other radio and media outlet on equal terms. And it would likely do well in such a competition, given its loyal base and excellent programming.

Maher and NPR want to continue to offer slanted coverage but require all Americans (including most who do not listen to NPR due to the bias) to pay for it.

Maher’s talk was a litany of faux expressions of concern with no indication of a willingness to change a thing at NPR. Maher expressed a heart-felt need to face “perceived criticism.” Putting aside that there is nothing “perceived” in the criticism, it is clear that she rejects the very premise of the obvious bias of the outlet.

When finally asked by Fox New Digital about voter registration records in 2021 showing an astonishing disparity between Democrats and Republicans in the NPR newsroom, Maher dismissed the data. Berliner found 87 registered Democrats and zero Republicans. However, Maher said that there were many employees not part of those stats. That is like dismissing a poll because not every American was contacted. There is no reason to expect that those self-reporting are hugely skewed toward Democrats without a single Republican participating.

She added that they are not allowed to hire employees based on political affiliation. It was again transparently evasive. No one is suggesting a political litmus test based on party registrations. The problem is the hiring of people who are uniformly left and Democratic in their outlooks and values.

Maher said that she believes that “it’s incredibly important for us to have people of diverse viewpoints in the newsroom, and the totality of the lived experience.” However, they clearly are not doing that in their hiring process. It is not an accident when you lack a single Republican in hiring.

We face the same rationalization in academia.

A survey conducted by the Harvard Crimson shows that more than three-quarters of Harvard Arts and Sciences and School of Engineering and Applied Sciences faculty respondents identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.” Only 2.5% identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”

Likewise, a study by Georgetown University’s Kevin Tobia and MIT’s Eric Martinez found that only nine percent of law school professors identify as conservative at the top 50 law schools. Notably, a 2017 study found 15 percent of faculties were conservative. Another study found that 33 out of 65 departments lacked a single conservative faculty member.

When pressed, administrators and academics express the same befuddlement why their faculties are exclusively liberal. It is just a mystery. It cannot be due to their own bias in hiring people with clearly liberal or far left views.

Maher was clearly singing to the choir in this event. She noted that some of her viewers want NPR to be harder on Trump. That is hardly surprising. While taking federal funds from the entire country, NPR currently has a shrinking audience of largely liberal, older, white, female Democrats. “Balance” is viewed by many as considering whether Trump is an existential threat to democracy or to humanity.

The falling audience and revenue shows that Maher and NPR are not appealing to a larger audience. Once again, they should not have to do so. If they want a smaller audience while maintaining the current one-sided coverage, that is entirely between them and their donors. What they do not have a right to is a public subsidy for that slanted coverage.

It is time for NPR to operate entirely in the free market like all of its competitors from CBS Radio to Fox Radio. If it is truly offering a broad and balanced news source, Maher will have little difficulty thriving without public funding.

Category:

Free Speech, Media, Political

Tagged with:

The Ghost of Richard Daley: Democrats Aren’t Creating Disorder; They’re Preserving it

By: Jonathan Turley | September 9, 2024

Below is my column in the Hill on the effort of Democratic officials to keep Robert Kennedy on the ballot in swing states after seeking to block actual candidates from the same ballots. It is all in the name of democracy.

Here is the column:

In 1968, in the midst of Democratic convention riots, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley famously declared, “The policeman isn’t there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder.”

Democratic state election officials appear to have adopted a similar approach to the upcoming election. In states such as North Carolina and Michigan, Democrats are fighting to keep the name of Robert Kennedy, Jr. on the ballot even though he withdrew from the race and endorsed former president Donald Trump. These are key states where the misplacement of even 1 percent of votes could turn the outcome of not just the state but the entire election.

In Michigan, Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson recently fought to keep third-party candidate Cornel West off the ballot. Unlike Kennedy, who is viewed as likely to drain votes from Trump, West is viewed as pulling votes from Vice President Kamala Harris, particularly among those opposed to her policies toward Israel.

A court ruled against Benson and said that she was adopting an artificially narrow interpretation to keep Kennedy on the ballot.

In North Carolina, where Trump and Harris are in a statistical tie, Democrats also refused to remove Kennedy’s name. An appellate court this week ordered them to do so to avoid the obvious confusion for voters.

Recently, the same Democratic officials sought to block West from the ballot due to his campaign causing “partisan mischief.”

These efforts are being pursued in other states such as Wisconsin (another key state), where Democrats on the election board blocked a Republican effort to remove Kennedy’s name.

In Michigan and North Carolina, officials have the distinction of fighting to keep a popular candidate from the ballot while fighting to retain a non-existent candidate.

It is all in the name of protecting democracy from itself.

Previously, Democrats in Florida and North Carolina fought to block other Democrats from appearing on primary ballots. Candidates like Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), author Marianne Williamson and commentator Cenk Uygur faced concerted campaigns by election officials and advocates to prevent voters from having a choice in the primary.

After preventing a meaningful primary and securing the nomination for President Biden, Democrats later handed the nomination to Harris without a single vote from a single primary voter.

Democratic activists are now calling it an election by “acclamation,” like a political version of the immaculate conception in which a candidate is simply conceived by the party elite. It is enough to make the Chinese Central Committee blush.

Harris was then walled off from the media to avoid any unscripted interactions, including by putting earbuds in her ears in what many called a clearly fake call to avoid press questions.

At the same time, Democratic supporters are now arguing that it is not necessary for Harris to offer detailed plans or agree to interviews in a campaign that is selling “joy” and “good vibes” like political valium. Others appear to believe that saving democracy means holding Harris to a different, more deferential standard. New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” to defend treating Harris differently: “I think the challenge, not just for journalists, but really for the country, is that not only is Donald Trump a threat, but, you know, it lowers the bar. So, I don’t think it’s unacceptable,” she said.

Somewhere in that double negative, journalism perished. In my new book, I discuss how journalists are now sometimes taught to dispense with both neutrality and objectivity in favor of framing the news for viewers and readers. You see, it is all about saving democracy. Gay explained: “The context is difficult because of the extremism of the Republican Party, because of how extreme Donald Trump is, it’s hard to hold both candidates accountable equally, because one is committed to democracy and is functioning as a normal candidate from a normal American party, and the other is not.”

This was echoed by “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough, who said that life as we know it would end unless Harris is elected, telling viewers that the “autocrat” Trump would throw opponents in jail and take media outlets off the air: “So, yeah, the threats to democracy are real,” he said. “But [so are] the threats to the free market, the threats to free enterprise, to our economy.”

Other guests amplified that dire message further and criticized people for covering how Harris is changing her positions and refusing to offer details on policies. It appears that this election is simply too important for substantive debate. After all, Harris has said that 2024 “genuinely could be” the last democratic election in America’s history. The last thing we need is a substantive election at this precarious time.

The omitted details include Harris’s support for policies that many of us view as a direct threat to our constitutional system, including censorship and court packing.

Both candidates have much to address that they would prefer to ignore. The media is correct to press Trump on many of these issues. Yet, the success of any democratic system is dependent on three key elements: participation, information and choice. Getting the vote out takes on a menacing meaning if voters are being protected from the distractions of facts. Winning at any cost is no virtue in a democracy, even when claiming to be a defender of democracy.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Free Speech, International Politics, Media

Tagged with:

“That Has to Stop”: Harris Denounces Unfettered Free Speech in 2019 CNN Interview

By: Jonathan Turley | September 4, 2024

I previously wrote how a Harris-Walz Administration would be a nightmare for free speech. Both candidates have shown pronounced anti-free speech values. Now, X owner Elon Musk and former independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have posted a Harris interview to show the depths of the hostility of Harris to unfettered free speech. I have long argued that Trump and the third-party candidates should make free speech a central issue in this campaign. That has not happened. Kennedy was the only candidate who was substantially and regularly talking about free speech in this election. Yet, Musk and Kennedy are still trying to raise the chilling potential of a Harris-Walz Administration.

In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss how the Biden-Harris Administration has proven to be the most anti-free speech administration since John Adams. That includes a massive censorship system described by one federal judge as perfectly “Orwellian.”

In the CNN interview, Harris displays many of the anti-free speech inclinations discussed earlier. She strongly suggests that X should be shut down if it does not yield to demands for speech regulation.

What is most chilling is how censorship and closure are Harris’s default positions when faced with unfettered speech. She declares to CNN that such unregulated free speech “has to stop” and that there is a danger to the country when people are allowed to “directly speak[] to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight and regulation.”

Harris discussed her view that then-President Trump’s Twitter account should be shut down because the public had to be protected from harmful viewpoints.

“And when you’re talking about Donald Trump, he has 65 million Twitter followers, he has proven himself to be willing to obstruct justice – just ask Bob Mueller. You can look at the manifesto from the shooter in El Paso to know that what Donald Trump says on Twitter impacts peoples’ perceptions about what they should and should not do.”

Harris demanded that Trump’s account “should be taken down” and that there be uniformity in the censorship of American citizens:

“And the bottom line is that you can’t say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power… They are speaking to millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.”

In other words, free speech should be set to the lowest common denominator of speech regulation to protect citizens from dangerous viewpoints. Harris’s views have been echoed by many Democratic leaders, including Hillary Clinton who (after Musk purchased Twitter) called upon European censors to force him to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA).

Other Democratic leaders have praised Brazil for banning X after Musk balked at censoring conservatives at the demand of the socialist government. Brazil is where this anti-free speech movement is clearly heading and could prove a critical testing ground for national bans on sites which refuse to engage in comprehensive censorship. As Harris clearly states in the CNN interview, there cannot be “one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter.” Rather, everyone must censor or face imminent government shutdowns.

The “joy” being sold by Harris includes the promise of the removal of viewpoints that many on the left feel are intolerable or triggering on social media. Where Biden was viewed as an opportunist in embracing censorship, Harris is a true believer. Like Walz, she has long espoused a shockingly narrow view of free speech that is reflective of the wider anti-free speech movement in higher education.

Harris often speaks of free speech as if it is a privilege bestowed by the government like a license and that you can be taken off the road if you are viewed as a reckless driver.

Trump and the third-party candidates are clearly not forcing Harris to address her record on free speech. Yet, polls show that the majority of Americans still oppose censorship and favor free speech.

In my book, I propose various steps to restore free speech in America, including a law that would bar federal funds for censorship, including grants and other funding that target individuals and sites over the content of their views. The government can still speak in its own voice, and it can still prosecute those who commit crimes on the Internet or engage in criminal conspiracies. Harris should be asked if she would oppose such legislation.

For free speech advocates, the 2024 election is looking strikingly similar to the election of 1800. One of the greatest villains in our history discussed in my book was President John Adams, who used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his political opponents – including journalists, members of Congress and others. Many of those prosecuted by the Adams administration were Jeffersonians. In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson ran on the issue and defeated Adams.

It was the only presidential election in our history where free speech was a central issue for voters. It should be again. While democracy is really not on the ballot this election, free speech is.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Free Speech, Law, Media, Political

Tagged with:

Brazilians to be Fined $9000 a Day for Receiving News from X

By: Jonathan Turley | September 3, 2024

Brazil has not just banned X (formerly Twitter) from the entire country, but citizens will now be fined $9000 a day (more than the average salary in the country) for using VPNs to access the platform. X is the main source of news for Brazilians, who will now be left with government-approved sources or face financial ruin in seeking unfettered information.

The Guardian is reporting that the confiscatory fines are part of a comprehensive crackdown on efforts to get news through X, including ordering all Apple stores to remove X from new phones. The move puts Brazil with China in the effort to create a wall of censorship between citizens and unregulated information. For the anti-free speech movement, Brazil is a key testing ground for where the movement is heading next. European censors are arresting CEOs like Pavel Durov while threatening Elon Musk.

However, it is Brazil that foreshadows the brave new world of censorship where entire nations will block access to sites committed to free speech values or unfettered news. If successful, the Brazilian model is likely to be replicated by other countries.

The reason is that censorship is not working. As discussed in my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” we have never seen the current alliance of government, corporate, academic, and media interest against free speech. Yet, citizens are not buying it. Despite unrelenting attacks and demonizing media coverage, citizens are still using X and resisting censorship. That was certainly the case in Brazil where citizens preferred X to regulated news sources. The solution is now to threaten citizens with utter ruin if they seek unfettered news.

The question is whether Brazil’s leftist government can get away with this. The conflict began with demands to censor supporters of the conservative former president Jair Bolsonaro. When X refused the sweeping demands for censorship, including the demand to name a legal representative who could be arrested for refusing to censor users, the courts moved toward this national ban.

The man behind the effort is Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who has aggressively used censorship to combat anything that he or the government deems “fake news” or disinformation. With Socialist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, they are the dream team of the anti-free speech movement.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison responded to the ban with a posting declaring “Obrigado Brasil!” or “Thanks, Brazil!” Ironically, he did so on X.

Ellison previously praised the virulently anti-free speech group Antifa and promised that it would “strike fear in the heart” of Donald Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence and its website was banned in Germany. It is at its base a movement at war with free speech, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. That purpose is evident in what is called the “bible” of the Antifa movement: Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.

Bray emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’” Bray admits that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists… From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”

The question is whether Brazil will become a nightmare for free speech around the world as other nations seek to force citizens to read and hear news from approved, state-monitored sites.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).

Category:

Tagged with:

Why Musk’s Lawsuit Against Media Matters . . . Matters

By: Jonathan Turley | September 2, 2024

Below is my column in the Hill on the victory of Elon Musk last week against the liberal media outlet, Media Matters. This follows similar recent victories by others against CNN and the New York Times to clear paths to trials. For those who have embraced advocacy journalism as the new model for media, a bill is coming due in the form of defamation and disparagement lawsuits.

Here is the column:

This week, a federal judge ruled that a lawsuit by Elon Musk against Media Matters can move forward in what could prove a significant case not just for the liberal outlet but the entire media industry. The decision comes at the same time as other court wins for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) against the New York Times and a Navy veteran against CNN.

For years, media organizations and journalism schools have expressly abandoned objectivity in favor of advocacy journalism. This abandonment of neutrality has coincided, unsurprisingly, with a drop in public faith in media to record lows.

Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University journalism professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones has been lionized for declaring that “all journalism is activism.” Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, similarly announced that “Objectivity has got to go.”

“J-Schools” have been teaching students for years to discard old-fashioned ideas of simply reporting facts and as stated at the University of Texas at Austin, to “leave neutrality behind.”

In a series of interviews with more than 75 media leaders, Leonard Downie Jr., former Washington Post executive editor, and Andrew Heyward, former CBS News president, reaffirmed this new vision of journalism. Downie explained that objectivity is viewed as a trap and reporters “feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”

As the public abandons mainstream media for alternative news sources, news organizations are now facing the added costs of bias in the form of defamation and disparagement lawsuits. Media lawyers are citing protections secured by the “old media” while their clients are publicly espousing their intention to frame the news to advance political and social agendas.

CNN, for example, is now facing a trial in a lawsuit by Navy veteran Zachary Young, the subject of an alleged hit piece over his work to extract endangered people from Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover. In a Nov. 11, 2021, segment on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” the host tells his audience ominously how CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt discovered “Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success.” Marquardt named Young and his company in claiming that “desperate Afghans are being exploited” and need to pay “exorbitant, often impossible amounts” to flee the country.

Discovery revealed how Marquardt said that he wanted to “nail this Zachary Young mfucker.” After promising to “nail” Young, CNN editor Matthew Philips responded: “gonna hold you to that cowboy!” That sentiment was echoed by other CNN staff. In allowing the case to go to trial, a judge found not just evidence of actual malice by CNN but grounds for potential punitive damages.

Likewise, Palin recently won a major appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which found that Palin was denied a fair trial in a case against the New York Times.

In 2017, liberal activist and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) supporter James T. Hodgkinson attempted to massacre Republican members of Congress on a baseball diamond, nearly killing Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.). The New York Times, eager to shift the narrative, ran an editorial suggesting that Palin had inspired or incited Jared Loughner’s 2011 shooting of then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).

The Times’ editors stated that SarahPAC, Palin’s political action committee, had posted a graphic that put a crosshair on a U.S. map representing Giffords’ district before she was shot, suggesting that this was direct incitement to violence. In reality, Palin’s graphic “targeting” about 20 vulnerable House Democrats all across the country is typical of graphics used in political campaigns by both parties for many decades. No evidence has ever been offered that Giffords’ deranged shooter even saw it.

But Musk’s lawsuit may be the most defining for our age of advocacy journalism. He is suing Media Matters, the left-wing outlet founded by David Brock, whom Time described as “one of the most influential operatives in the Democratic Party.” Although Brock is no longer with the site, Media Matters has long been accused of being a weaponized media outlet for the left. After Musk dismantled the censorship system at Twitter, he became something of an obsession for Media Matters, which targeted his revenue sources. The outlet ran a report suggesting that advertisements of major corporations were being posted next to pro-Nazi posts or otherwise hateful content on the platform. As I discuss in my new book, this effort mirrored similar moves by the anti-free speech movement against Musk to force him to restore censorship systems.

Companies including Apple, IBM, Comcast and Lionsgate Entertainment quickly joined the effective boycott to squeeze Musk. The problem is that it is hard to squeeze the world’s richest man financially. Musk told the companies to pound sand and told his lawyers to file suit.

The allegations in the lawsuit read like a textbook on advocacy journalism. Media Matters is accused of knowingly misrepresenting the real user experience by manipulating the algorithms to produce the pairing alleged in its story.

The complaint accuses Media Matters of running its manipulation to produce extremely unlikely pairings, such that one toxic match appeared for “only one viewer (out of more than 500 million) on all of X: Media Matters.” In other words, the organization wanted to write a hit piece connecting X to pro-Nazi material and proceeded to artificially create pairings between that material and corporate advertisements. It then ran the story as news.

Indeed, two defendant employees of Media Matters did not deny that they were aware of the alleged manipulation and that they were seeking to poison the well for advertisers in order to drain advertising revenues for X.

Although the media covered another judge blocking an effort by state officials to sue Media Matters over the anti-Musk effort, there has been comparably less coverage of the green light for the lawsuit in Texas.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas rejected an effort to dismiss the case on jurisdictional and other grounds. Musk will be able to continue his claims of tortious interference with existing contracts, business disparagement and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.

Musk is also suing the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which also targeted advertisers to choke off targeted sites.

Not surprisingly, although the media has heralded lawsuits like the one by Dominion Voting System against Fox News (which led to a large settlement), they are overwhelmingly hostile toward the Musk lawsuits. It is not hard to see why. The Media Matters lawsuit directly challenges the ability of media outlets to create false narratives to advance a political agenda. As with the CNN and New York Times cases, it can expose how the media first decides on a conclusion and then frames or even invents the facts to support it.

While rejecting the longstanding principles of journalism such as objectivity, these media outlets are citing the cases and defenses secured by those now-outdated media organizations. They want to be advocates, but they also want to be protected as journalists.

These cases still face tough challenges, including challenging jury pools in places like New York. However, they are exposing the bias that now characterizes much of American journalism.

In the age of advocacy journalism, a bill has come due. That is why Musk’s lawsuit against Media Matters . . . well . . . matters.

Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).

Category:

Business, censorship, Crime, Law, Media, Political

Tagged with:

The CNN Interview Reminded People of What Has Always Been True About Kamala

By: Eddie Scarry | August 30, 2024

Author Eddie Scarry profile

Eddie Scarry

Visit on Twitter@eScarry

News coverage following Thursday night’s CNN interview with Vice President Kamala Harris predictably recast the episode in ways that were unfamiliar to anyone who watched live and who has even just loosely followed her career in national politics.

New York Times reporter Reid Epstein said Kamala “parried questions from Dana Bash on Thursday without causing herself political harm or providing herself a significant boost.” Aaron Blake at The Washington Post said she “didn’t really stumble or seem to do anything that might hamper her momentum.” Politico’s popular morning “Playbook” newsletter gleaned that the interview “suggested to us how tough Donald Trump’s job is now …”

These are supposed to be the big “takeaways” from the event, but any fair-minded person who watched knows that the reality wasn’t so forgiving. What the taped interview with Nancy Pelosi’s favorite journalist did was reinforce the Kamala we all knew before we were told one day two months ago that she’s a beloved sex symbol — the Kamala who’s in over her head, has no vision for the country, and has no interest in governance.

There’s a reason that Democrats and the media have forced an amorphous, ever-shifting concept of “joy” to be the animating force of Kamala’s campaign. This interview, containing not a single unexpected question, illustrates perfectly why they’ve done so. (Here’s a link to the full CNN transcript for reference.)

Kamala can’t withstand scrutiny.

She implied that she’s never been in favor of banning fracking but when confronted with her position when she ran for president in 2020, she skated past the question to only say she has “made very clear” she’s not in favor of it. In that exchange alone, she used the word “clear” five times. Much like the constant hammering with messages about how average and dad-like Tim Walz is unpersuasive, if you have to repeatedly state how “clear” you’ve been, nobody is convinced.

Kamala can’t articulate an argument for herself.

Confronted with her on-record position to decriminalize unauthorized crossings at the southern border, she started talking about climate policy. “My values have not changed,” she said. “You mentioned the Green New Deal. I have always believed, and I have worked on it, that the climate crisis is real, that it is an urgent matter to which we should apply metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time. We did that with the Inflation Reduction Act.” (Yes, Kamala admitted the “inflation reduction” bill was actually about funding the electric cars scam.)

Kamala can’t even fake a fundamental grasp of critical foreign policy issues.

The war in Israel is just one of two violent global conflicts to break out under the Kamala-Biden administration, and in the almost year since it started, the closest she could come to explaining her depth of understanding about it or how to bring it to an end was to repeat in frustration, “We have to get a deal done.”

— “We have got to get a deal done.”

— “We — we were in Doha. We have to get a deal done.”

— “This war must end.”

— “And we must get a deal that is about getting the hostages out.”

— “Let’s get the ceasefire done.”

— “We have to get a deal done.”

— “Dana, we have to get a deal done.”

— “A deal is not only the right thing to do to end this war but will unlock so much of what must happen next.”

Look at all that joy! Damn, that’s a lot of joy!

Kamala looked tired. Admittedly, she’s vice president and simultaneously running for president on a platform that ignores she’s currently in the White House. Oh, and joy. I’d be exhausted, too.

We’re finally getting to see again the Kamala we knew all along.

Eddie Scarry is the D.C. columnist at The Federalist and author of “Liberal Misery: How the Hateful Left Sucks Joy Out of Everything and Everyone.”

Category:

Tagged with:

Poetic License: How Press and Pundits are Reframing Personalities to Fit Our Politics

By: Jonathan Turley | August 26, 2024

Below is my column in The Hill on the sudden embrace of bipartisanship in Washington … by some of the most partisan figures in our political system. Press and pundits are suddenly reframing Vice President Kamala Harris as a moderate while heralding Justice Amy Coney Barrett for her independence. It is enough to give you vertigo from the media and political spin.

Here is the column:

The late New York Gov. Mario Cuomo once famously observed that “you campaign in poetry; you govern in prose.“ One of the greatest poetic licenses in this election has been the claim of bipartisanship from some of the most rigid partisans in our politics.

Many in the media are reinventing history to appeal to citizens who want more moderation in government. This theme was picked up by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz in his speech before the Democratic National Convention, when he claimed that Vice President Harris was not just a moderate but “never hesitated to reach across that aisle if it meant improving your lives, and she’s always done it with energy, with passion and with joy.”

Harris was one of the most liberal members of the Senate and was never viewed as someone likely to form a compromise on key votes. She was not one of the Democrats commonly referenced as moderates in that body on close votes. Harris was even rated to the left of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). After her ranking by GovTrack was cited widely in the media as showing her as the most liberal member of the Senate, the site took down the page, which had been up for years. Harris is now to be portrayed as a moderate, whether it is true or not.

What was so striking is that Harris was valued by supporters precisely for being so uncompromising and consistently voting with the left. In her prior unsuccessful presidential run, she moved even further left. Harris was the only candidate other than Sanders to say that she wanted to abolish private insurance plans, a position which, like so many others, she has now recanted.

These same advocates of bipartisanship are lionizing Republicans who support Harris while demonizing Robert Kennedy Jr. for doing the same for Trump. To them, one is a profile of courage, the other a profile of corruption.

The poetry of politics was also evident this week after Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the three liberal justices in voting in dissent in a case involving Arizona’s voter identification law. Barrett was praised for opposing the ruling to set aside a lower court order blocking enforcement of a 2022 law requiring registered voters to provide proof of citizenship. The majority (with the liberal justices) also blocked a provision that would have prevented tens of thousands of prior voters in Arizona from voting.

Conservatives were irate at Barrett, particularly after Virginia claimed to have found hundreds of non-citizens on its voting rolls. Other states such as Georgia found a smaller number of non-citizens registering to vote, but polls show widespread support for voter ID laws. None of that seemed to matter to Barrett, who ruled based on her conscience and understanding of the law. The left’s response to Barrett’s vote was the most telling. Her willingness to cross the ideological divide was celebrated. These are some of the same voices who denounced Barrett in her confirmation hearing as a robotic conservative stooge.

Few Democrats were willing to vote for this obviously qualified nominee. That included the newly minted moderate Harris, who voted “nay.”

While some of us at the time challenged this media narrative, given Barrett’s impressive scholarship and proven independence, she was denounced by senators, and her home was even targeted by protesters. Bloody dolls were thrown on her lawn with her young children inside after the location was revealed by activists. Some of these activists might even take credit for Barrett’s repeated votes with the left of the court. But it is not their coercion, but Barrett’s convictions that led to these votes. She has always been a jurist who shows a willingness to follow her principles wherever they take her.

Barrett continues (with Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh) to moderate many decisions with three colleagues on both ends of rulings. Roberts and Kavanaugh routinely rank as the most likely to vote with the majority of the court. This brings us back to the poetry. In her confirmation hearings, senators such as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) attacked her nomination in the same way that they attacked the nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch. Whitehouse portrayed both nominees as adding guaranteed votes for a conservative agenda, reading off the many decisions where conservatives voted as a block.

As I stated in my own testimony in the Gorsuch confirmation hearing, Whitehouse and his colleagues often seem to ignore that the liberal justices in those cases also voted like a block. Justice Sotomayor shows the same low percentage of voting with the opposite end of the court as do her colleagues Justices Alito and Thomas. Yet in her case, the pattern of voting was not viewed as partisan, but as simply getting cases right.

Both Gorsuch and Barrett have routinely voted with their liberal colleagues in major cases, despite the attacks of critics on their independence and integrity.

Most cases before the Supreme Court do not break along ideological lines, despite the portrayal in the media. Indeed, most are resolved unanimously (roughly half) or nearly unanimously by the court.

Take the 2023 cases. Only half of the 6-3 splits featured the six conservative and three liberal justices on opposite sides. Only eight percent (five of 57 cases) were decided 6-3 with the six Republican appointee/three Democratic split. The rest mixed up alliances. The least likely to join the majority of their colleagues were the three liberal justices, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson.

The liberal justices, however, are rarely portrayed as ideologues in the media, which consistently portrays the court as controlled by a six-conservative block of rigid partisans. In reality, they are all conscientious jurists trying to get cases right from their jurisprudential viewpoints. The consistency in voting reflects their adherence to their fundamental principles.

Politicians and pundits, ignoring the facts, continue to claim that the court is dysfunctional and ideologically divided. When elections or nominations come along, Democrats attack those on the other side as refusing to compromise or “cross the aisle.”

Many value the poetry of bipartisanship in politics but demand the prose of strict partisanship in governance. Calling Harris a moderate and Barrett a partisan is just part of the poetic license of American politics.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).

Category:

Tagged with:

CNN Loses Another Motion in Defamation Case as Court Orders Tapper to Appear

By: Jonathan Turley | August 16, 2024

We previously discussed the defamation lawsuit against CNN and the curious effort to use Taliban law to dismiss the lawsuit by Navy veteran Zachary Young. The litigation has not been going well for the network and it just lost another key motion to block an effort to depose Jake Tapper. Worse yet, the court appears to have questioned the veracity of the host in a sworn deposition on his lack of knowledge over the financial subject matter of the deposition.

CNN recently lost a recent major ruling when the court found that there was evidence of malice by CNN to support the higher standard needed for defamation. The evidence in the case is remarkably bad for the network after discovery of internal memoranda and emails.

The report at the heart of the case aired on a Nov. 11, 2021, segment on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” and was shared on social media and (a different version) on CNN’s website. In the segment, Tapper tells his audience ominously how CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt discovered “Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success.”

Marquardt piled on in the segment, claiming that “desperate Afghans are being exploited” and need to pay “exorbitant, often impossible amounts” to flee the country. He then named Young and his company as the example of that startling claim.

The damages in the case could be massive but Young had to satisfy the higher New York Times v. Sullivan standard of “actual malice” with a showing of knowing falsehood or a reckless disregard of the truth. Judge Roberts found that “Young sufficiently proffered evidence of actual malice, express malice, and a level of conduct outrageous enough to open the door for him to seek punitive damages.”

The evidence included messages from Marquardt that he wanted to “nail this Zachary Young mfucker” and thought the story would be Young’s “funeral.” After promising to “nail” Young, CNN editor Matthew Philips responded: “gonna hold you to that cowboy!” Likewise, CNN senior editor Fuzz Hogan described Young as “a shit.”

As is often done by media, CNN allegedly gave Young only two hours to respond before the story ran. It is a typical ploy of the press to claim that they waited for a response while giving the target the smallest possible window. In this case, Young was able to respond in the short time and Marquardt messaged a colleague, “fucking Young just texted.”

The case now appears to have moved into a second discovery period over CNN’s finances. The plaintiff’s counsel wants to depose Tapper. I can certainly understand Tapper’s counsel in trying to block the deposition on finances. I am not sure how much Tapper would know about the finances, but the court clearly did not take well to his declaration.

NewsBusters previously reported, CNN had filed a motion for a protective order in which CNN counsel Allison Lovelady insisted that the Plaintiff only wanted a deposition so they could use it to “harass CNN and Mr. Tapper.” However, the court shot down the effort and reportedly stated “I kind of have a hard time believing what Mr. Tapper put in that declaration.” Since that is a sworn declaration made under penalty of perjury, it was a stinging rebuke.

Unlike the earlier depositions, this stage is confined to finances and possible penalties. The defense team clearly believes the deposition is an effort to re-open fact deposition testimony that should be now foreclosed. There is always a risk to any witness from the added exposure to renewed questioning. However, it is hard to get a protective order on conclusory assurances of no relevant knowledge. The court clearly believes that Tapper could have some relevant information since he holds one of the most lucrative contracts at CNN and is familiar with the corporate finances in relation to his show.

Tapper’s counsel also attempted other “Hail Mary” motions seeking to delay any deposition until rulings on other cases dealing with punitive damages. CNN lost a critical motion in seeking to bar punitive damages. That is, of course, the big-ticket item for the network in this type of case. To limit Young to compensatory damages would make any damages manageable for the company, even if a verdict would damage its reputation.

In one tense exchange, the counsel argued over a motion to force Young to appear personally for settlement discussions. His counsel explained that it was difficult for him because of an injury he sustained while in the Navy, which made it difficult to sit for long periods. CNN’s lead counsel Deanna K. Shullman shot back “So do I, your Honor!” “I have to leave the State of Florida to get to Bay County. CNN has to travel from the state of Georgia.” CNN prevailed on that and one other motion on an extension of time. CNN is trying to delay the January trial date, but Young’s counsel has indicated that it wants to stick with that date and has little interest in settlement.

Tapper, however, will now have to appear on the financial questions in the ongoing litigation.

Category:

Tagged with:

“An America Issue”: Washington Post Reporter Calls on White House to Censor Trump for America

BY: Jonathan Turley | August 14, 2024

In my new book on free speech, I discuss at length how the mainstream media has joined an alliance with the government and corporations in favor of censorship and blacklisting. The Washington Post, however, appears to be taking its anti-free speech campaign to a new level with open calls for a crackdown. The newspaper offered no objection or even qualification after its reporter, Cleve Wootson Jr., appeared to call upon the White House to censor the interview of Elon Musk with former President Donald Trump. Under the guise of a question, Wootson told White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that censoring its leading political opponent is “an America issue.”

During Monday’s press briefing, the Washington Post’s Cleve Wootson Jr. flagged the interview and said “I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue…it’s an America issue.” After making that affirmative statement, Wootson then asked

“…What role does the White House, or the president have in sort of stopping that or stopping the spread of that or sort of intervening in that? Some of that was about campaign misinformation, but, you know, it’s a wider thing, right?”

Note how his question was really a political statement. Wootson begins by stating as a fact that Musk and X are engaging in disinformation, and it is a threat to the country. He then asks a perfunctory softball question at the end to maintain appearances. Jean-Pierre’s response was equally telling. While noting that this is a private company, she praised the Washington Post for calling for action, saying “[i]t is incredibly important to call that out, as you’re doing. I just don’t have any specifics on what we have been doing internally.”

So, let’s recap. The Washington Post used a White House presser to call for censorship of one of the leading candidates for the White House and then demanded to know what the White House would do about it. The censorship was framed as an “America issue.”

There was a time when a reporter calling for censorship of a political opponent would have been a matter for immediate termination in the media. Instead, the newspaper that prides itself on the slogan “Democracy dies in Darkness,” has been entirely silent. No correction. No qualification. The Washington Post has long run columns supporting censorship of information that it deems disinformation or misinformation. For many of us in the free speech community, it has become one of the most hostile newspapers to free speech values.

Now censorship has become “an America issue” for the Washington Post. The collapse of any semblance of support for free speech is complete.

The call for censorship for disinformation is ironic given the Post’s publication of a series of false stories and conspiracy theories. When confronted about columnists with demonstrably false statements, the Post simply shrugged. One of the most striking examples was after its columnist Philip Bump had a meltdown in an interview when confronted over past false claims. After I wrote a column about the litany of such false claims, the Post surprised many of us by issuing a statement that they stood by all of Bump’s reporting, including false columns on the Lafayette Park protests, Hunter Biden laptop and other stories. That was long after other media debunked the claims, but the Post stood by the false reporting.

Robert Lewis, a British media executive who joined the Post earlier this year, reportedly got into a “heated exchange” with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake:

“We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis said. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”

Other staffers could not get beyond the gender and race of those who would be overseeing them. One staffer complained “we now have four White men running three newsrooms.” The Post has been buying out staff to avoid mass layoffs, but reporters are up in arms over the effort to turn the newspaper around. Yet, in this case, a reporter openly advocated for censorship and pushed the White House to take action against X and Trump; to use government authority to “intervene” to stop Trump from being able to make certain claims on social media.

We have previously written how the level of advocacy and bias in the press has created a danger of a de facto state media in the United States. It is possible to have such a system by consent rather than coercion. The Biden White House has become more open in its marching orders to media, including a letter drafted by the Biden White House Legal Counsel’s Office calling for major media to “ramp up their scrutiny” of House Republicans. President Biden has even instructed reporters “[t]hat is not the judgment of the press” when asked tough questions.

To the credit of the Post, it is not killing “democracy in the darkness.” This incident occurred in the light of day for all to see as its reporter pushed the White House for the censoring of political opponents.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).

Category:

Tagged with:

“Illegal Under Taliban Law”: CNN Seeks Summary Judgment Under a Curious Claim in Defamation Case

By: Jonathan Turley | August 6, 2024

CNN has been fighting a defamation case brought after a segment by Jake Tapper that accused Zachary Young and his company Nemex Enterprises Inc. of preying on people seeking to flee Afghanistan, even suggesting that he was a type of human trafficker. CNN’s new motion for summary judgment raised eyebrows in citing Sharia law to say that what Young was doing in rescuing people was unlawful under Islamic restrictions.

CNN recently lost a recent major ruling from Judge L. Clayton Roberts in which he found that there was evidence of malice by CNN to support the higher standard needed for defamation. The evidence in the case is remarkably bad for the network after discovery of internal memoranda and emails.

The report at the heart of the case aired on Nov. 11, 2021, segment on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” and was shared on social media and (a different version on) CNN’s website. In the segment, Tapper tells his audience ominously how CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt discovered “Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success.”

In this case, Young was able to respond in the short time and Marquardt messaged a colleague, “f__king Young just texted.”

After losing the earlier motion on malice, CNN’s lead counsel Deanna K. Shullman surprised many in the motion of summary judgment by turning to Sharia law in defense of CNN. She argued that

“this entire defamation case centers on Young’s accusation that CNN implied he engaged in illegal conduct when he arranged, for a substantial fee, to have women smuggled out of Afghanistan…[D]iscovery has indicated that those activities he orchestrated and funded, which involved moving women out of Afghanistan, almost certainly were illegal under Taliban rule.”

Young’s counsel objected and noted that the allegations were never that “what Young and other private operators were doing was illegal under Taliban law.”

It is hard to see how CNN would prevail on this summary judgment motion. At most, this would seem a question that requires a finding of fact from a jury. I would be surprised if jurors agree with CNN that the outrage expressed by the network was based on the violation of the draconian, oppressive laws of the Taliban. Those were the very laws that these people were desperately trying to escape.

The case could not come at a worse time for CNN which has been struggling with low ratings, layoffs, and failing revenue.

Category:

Law, Media

Tagged with:

A Shield or Sword? A Response to NewsGuard

By: Jonathan Turley | July 29, 2024

I hope that our readers have read the response of NewsGuard’s Gordon Crovitz to my recent criticism of the company’s rating system for news sites. He makes important points, including the fact that the company has given high ratings to conservative sites and low ratings to some liberal sites. I have mutual friends of both Gordon and his co-founder Steve Brill, who have always sworn by their integrity and motivations. I do not question Gordon’s account of past ratings for sites.

However, I also welcome the opportunity to further this discussion over media rating systems and to explain why I remain unconvinced by his defense. It is a long overdue debate on the use and potential misuse of such systems.

As a threshold matter, I want to note that I am aware of conservative sites reviewed by NewsGuard that have been given favorable ratings. That is a valid distinction from past rating sites like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI).

Moreover, while I noted that NewsGuard has been accused of bias by conservatives and is being investigated in Congress, my primary objections are to rating systems as a concept for media sites. Before addressing that opposition, I should note that I still have concerns over bias from the email that was sent me, particularly just after a column criticizing the company.

Now to the main concern.

A Shield or a Sword?

In his response to me, Gordon argues that “I would have thought, including based on your recent book, that you’d especially welcome an accountable market alternative to censorship.”

I disagree with Gordon’s suggested dichotomy. As I argue in the column, rating systems are arguably the most effective means to silence opposing voices or sites. These systems are used to target revenue sources and have been weaponized by the current anti-free speech movement. They are used more as a sword than a shield by those who want to marginalize or demonetize a site.

We have seen such campaigns targeting various sites and individuals, led by political groups opposed to their viewpoints, including figures such as Joe Rogan. This includes Elon Musk and X after the reduction of censorship systems and the release of the “Twitter Files.” After being targeted by these campaigns for years, rating systems have been denounced by Musk as part of an “online censorship racket.”

Moreover, the use of private entities like NewsGuard is precisely what makes the current movement so insidious and dangerous. Whether by design or by default, rating systems are effective components of what I have described as a system of “censorship by surrogate.”

What NewsGuard is attempting is potentially far more impactful for the funding and viability of websites. Rather than an alternative, it can be an avenue for censorship.

I have also written about my concerns with the Global Alliance for Responsible Media and its use of rating systems to deter advertisers for targeted sites. The group states that it “unites marketers, media agencies, media platforms, industry associations, and advertising technology solutions providers to safeguard the potential of digital media by reducing the availability and monetization of harmful content online.”

As the column discusses, NewsGuard seeks to position itself as a type of Standard & Poor’s rating system for media. The role would give the company unprecedented influence over the journalistic and political speech in America. The rating can be used to discourage advertisers and revenue sources for targeted sites. Just as S&P scores can kill a business, a media rating could kill a blog or website.

That is an enormous amount of power to be wielded by any organization, let alone a for-profit enterprise started by two self-appointed monitors of media. That is not meant to disparage Gordon and Steve, but to acknowledge that this is not just a hugely profitable but a hugely powerful enterprise.

It is also not a criticism of the founding principles. We have seen many organizations that began as faithful to principles of neutrality only to see those principles corrupted with time. Indeed, as we have previously discussed, the very principles of objectivity and neutrality are now rejected in many journalism schools.

The Criteria

While NewsGuard insists that its criteria is completely objective and neutral, that does not appear to be the case. The site’s standards include key determinations on whether some sites run statements that NewsGuard considers “clearly and significantly false or egregiously misleading.” (That appears part of the most heavily weighted criteria for credibility at 22 points).

The staff will determine if it believes that a site shows a tendency to “egregiously distort or misrepresent information.”

The staff decides if information is false and, if it is considered false by NewsGuard, whether the site “identifies errors and publishes clarifications and corrections, transparently acknowledges errors, and does not regularly leave significant false content uncorrected.” Thus, if you disagree with the claims of falsity or view the statement as opinion, the failure to correct the statement will result in additional penalties.

The site will also determine if it finds the sources used by a site to be “credible” and whether “they … egregiously distort or misrepresent information to make an argument or report on a subject.”

If the site decides that there are errors, it will lower ratings if the site does not “transparently acknowledges errors, and does not regularly leave significant false content uncorrected.”

The company pledges to combat “misinformation” and “false narratives.”

We have seen mainstream media use these very terms to engage in highly biased coverages, including labeling true stories or viewpoints “disinformation.”

Given these terms and the history of their use in the media, NewsGuards assurances boil down to “trust us we’re NewsGuard.” GDI made the same assurances.

This is not to say that some of these criteria cannot be helpful for sites. However, the overall rating of media sites is different from Standard & Poor’s. Financial ratings are based on hard figures of assets, earnings, and liabilities. “Liquidity” is far more concrete and objective than “credibility.” What NewsGuard does is fraught with subjectivity regardless of the motivations or intentions of individual raters.

The Res Ipsa Review

The inquiry sent to this blog reflects those concerns. The timing of the inquiry was itself chilling. I had just criticized NewsGuard roughly a week earlier. It is not known if this played any role in the sudden notice of a review of Res Ipsa.

One inquiry particularly stood out for me. The reviewer informed me:

“I cannot find any information on the site that would signal to readers that the site’s content reflects a conservative or libertarian perspective, as is evident in your articles. Why is this perspective not disclosed to give readers a sense of the site’s point of view?”

The effort of NewsGuard to label sites can have an impact on its ratings on credibility and transparency. Yet, sites may disagree with the conclusions of NewsGuard on their view of the content. What may seem conservative to a NewsGuard reviewer may be less clearly ideological to the host or blog.

Moreover, despite noting that it asked MSNBC to state its liberal bias, it is not clear if the company has suggested such a notice from many other sites from NPR to the New Republic. For example, is Above the Law supposed to warn readers that it takes a liberal perspective and regularly attacks conservatives? What about other academic blogs like Balkinization?

The point is not to say that they should be required to label their own views (though some sites choose to do so) but to ask whether all sites are asked to do so. If not, when is this demand made for sites? For some reviewers, a liberal perspective may simply seem like stating the obvious or unassailable truth.

Labeling

In fairness to NewsGuard, we all often engage in labeling as part of our discussions — both labeling ourselves and others. For example, I often acknowledge that I hold many libertarian views. However, I continue to write columns that run across the ideological spectrum and I continue to be attacked from both the right and the left for those columns.

Identifying yourself as a libertarian does not convey much information for readers. Many readers have erroneous views of libertarians as a monolithic group. (The public high school teacher of one of my kids told the class that libertarians were just conservatives who did not want to call themselves Republicans). In actuality, it is a group that runs from liberal to conservative figures who maximize individual rights. Labeling your site as libertarian is about as helpful as saying that it is utilitarian.

The suggestion in the email is that readers should be informed that anything they read is coming from a libertarian or conservative on the site. Yet, most law professor blogs are very liberal, but do not make the same type of warning.

We often discuss these labels in judging the diversity of faculties. Yet, that is based largely on surveys of professors self-identifying or the political registration of academics. It is admittedly a blunt tool, but there is little debate that faculties around the country are overwhelmingly liberal. Indeed, even sites like Above the Law have strived to defend “predominantly liberal faculties” as just reflecting the fact that most conservatives are simply wrong on the law.

There is always an overgeneralization in the use of such labels, but we try to take that into consideration in discussing the overall lack of diversity of viewpoints on campuses today.

Conclusion

Rating media sites is vastly different. You are often relying on the views of the reviewers that may be challenged by the site. Postings that challenge popular narratives are often denounced as false or disinformation by critics.

I am particularly concerned over the reported government contracts given to NewsGuard by the Biden Administration as well as agreements with teacher unions to help filter or rate sites. The Twitter Files have shown an extensive system of funding and coordination between agencies and these companies. The funding of such private rating or targeting operations is precisely what I have warned about in congressional testimony as a type of “censorship by surrogate.” The government has been attempting to achieve forms of censorship indirectly that it is barred from achieving directly under the First Amendment.

Consider those bloggers and scientists who were censored and denounced for voicing support for the lab theory on Covid 19 and other subjects from the efficacy of masks to the need to shutdown schools. They spent years having mainstream media figures denouncing them for refusing to admit that they were spreading disinformation or conforming to general views on these issues.

The Washington Post declared this a “debunked” coronavirus “conspiracy theory.” The New York Times’ Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was calling any mention of the lab theory “racist.”

Political and legal commentary are rife with contested opinion over the facts and their implications. Having a company sit in judgment on what is fact and what is opinion is a troubling role, particularly when the rating is used to influence advertisers and financial supporters.

Once again, there are many people on the other side of this debate who have good-faith reasons for wanting a standardized set of criteria for news sources and commentary sites. I simply believe that this is a degree of influence that is dangerously concentrated in a small number of groups like NewsGuard.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).

N.B.: After this response ran, NewsGuard wrote me that Above The Law actually was marked down for failing to clearly delineate between news and opinion. It further said that the New Republic acknowledges its liberal take, so there is no issue on labeling. What is not clear is whether every site, including academic blogs, are asked to label themselves and who makes that decision on what label should apply.

Also, other sites have responded to the controversy with their own complaints or concerns about what one conservative site called “trolling” from analysts.

Category:

Tagged with:

The Most Chilling Words Today: I’m from NewsGuard and I am Here to Rate you

By: Jonathan Turley | July 29, 2024

Below is my column in The Hill on the recent notice that this blog is now being formally “reviewed” by NewsGuard, a company that I just criticized in a prior Hill column as a threat to free speech. The questions from NewsGuard were revealing and concerning. Today, I have posted the response of NewsGuard’s co-founder Gordon Crovitz as well as my response to his arguments.

Here are is the column:

Recently, I wrote a Hill column criticizing NewsGuard, a rating operation being used to warn users, advertisers, educators and funders away from media outlets based on how it views the outlets’ “credibility and transparency.” Roughly a week later, NewsGuard came knocking at my door. My blog, Res Ipsa (jonathanturley.org), is now being reviewed and the questions sent by NewsGuard were alarming, but not surprising.

I do not know whether the sudden interest in my site was prompted by my column. I have previously criticized NewsGuard as one of the most sophisticated operations being used to “white list” and “black list” sites. My new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” details how such sites fit into a massive censorship system that one federal court called “Orwellian.”

For any site criticizing the media or the Biden administration, the most chilling words today are “I’m from NewsGuard and I am here to rate you.”

Conservatives have long accused the company of targeting conservative and libertarian sites and carrying out the agenda of its co-founder Steven Brill. Conversely, many media outlets have heralded his efforts to identify disinformation sites for advertisers and agencies.

Brill and his co-founder, L. Gordon Crovitz, want their company to be the media version of the Standard & Poor’s rating for financial institutions. However, unlike the S&P, which looks at financial reports, NewsGuard rates highly subjective judgments like “credibility” based on whether they publish “clearly and significantly false or egregiously misleading” information. They even offer a “Nutrition Label” for consumers of information.

Of course, what Brill considers nutritious may not be the preferred diet of many in the country. But they might not get a choice since the goal is to allow other companies and carriers to use the ratings to disfavor or censor non-nutritious sites.

The rating of sites is arguably the most effective way of silencing or marginalizing opposing views. I previously wrote about other sites supported by the Biden administration that performed a similar function, including the Global Disinformation Index (GDI). GDI then released a list of the 10 most dangerous sites, all of which are popular with conservatives, libertarians and independents. GDI warned advertisers that they were accepting “reputational and brand risk” by “financially supporting disinformation online.” The blacklisted sites included Reason, a respected libertarian-oriented source of news and commentary about the government. However, HuffPost, a far left media outlet, was included among the 10 sites at lowest risk of spreading disinformation.

When NewsGuard came looking for Res Ipsa, the questions sounded like they came directly from CGI. I was first asked for information on the financial or revenue sources used to support my blog, on which I republish my opinion pieces from various newspapers and publish original blog columns.

Given NewsGuard’s reputation, the email would ordinarily trigger panic on many sites. But I pay not to have advertising, and the closest I come to financial support would be my wife, since we live in a community property state. If NewsGuard wants to blacklist me with my wife, it is a bit late. Trust me, she knows.

NewsGuard also claimed that it could not find a single correction on my site. In fact, there is a location for readers marked “corrections” to register objections and corrections to postings on the site. I also occasionally post corrections, changes and clarifications.

NewsGuard also made bizarre inquiries, including about why I called my blog “Res Ipsa Liquitur [sic] – the thing itself speaks. Could you explain the reason to this non-lawyer?” Res ipsa loquitur is defined in the header as “The thing itself speaks,” which I think speaks for itself.

But one concern was particularly illuminating:

“I cannot find any information on the site that would signal to readers that the site’s content reflects a conservative or libertarian perspective, as is evident in your articles. Why is this perspective not disclosed to give readers a sense of the site’s point of view?”

I have historically been criticized as a liberal, conservative or a libertarian depending on the particular op-eds. I certainly admit to libertarian viewpoints, though I hold many traditional liberal views. For example, I have been outspoken for decades in favor same-sex marriage, environmental protection, free speech and other individual rights. I am a registered Democrat who has defended reporters, activists and academics on the left for years in both courts and columns.

The blog has thousands of postings that cut across the ideological spectrum. What I have not done is suspend my legal judgment when cases touch on the interests of conservatives or Donald Trump. While I have criticized Trump in the past, I have also objected to some of the efforts to impeach or convict him on dubious legal theories.

Yet, NewsGuard appears to believe that I should label myself as conservative or libertarian as a warning or notice to any innocent strays who may wander on to my blog. It does not appear that NewsGuard makes the same objection to HuffPost or the New Republic, which run overwhelmingly liberal posts. Yet, alleged conservative or libertarian sites are expected to post a warning as if they were porn sites.

NewsGuard is not alone in employing this technique. Mainstream media outlets often label me as a “conservative professor” in reporting my viewpoints. They do not ordinarily label professors with pronounced liberal views or anti-Trump writings as “liberal.”

Studies show that the vast majority of law professors run from the left to the far left. A study found that only 9 percent of law school professors at the top 50 law schools identify as conservative. A 2017 study found only 15 percent of faculties overall were conservative.

It is rare for the media to identify those professors as “liberal,” including many professors on the far left who regularly denounce conservatives or Republicans. It is simply treated as not worth mentioning. Yet, anyone libertarian or right of center gets the moniker as a warning that their viewpoint should considered in weighing their conclusions. Yet, NewsGuard is in the business of labeling people . . . and warning advertisers. It considers my writings to be conservative or libertarian and wants to know “Why is this perspective not disclosed to give readers a sense of the site’s point of view?”

It does not matter that my views cut across the ideological spectrum or that I do not agree with NewsGuard’s label. Indeed, while I clearly hold libertarian views, libertarians run a spectrum from liberal to conservative. The common article of faith is the maximization of individual rights, while there is considerable disagreement on many policies. Steven Brill is considered a diehard liberal. Would it be fair to add a notice or qualifier of “liberal” to any of his columns or opinions?

It does not matter. Apparently from where NewsGuard reviewers sit, I am a de facto conservative or libertarian who needs to wear a digital bell to warn others.

It is a system that includes what Elon Musk correctly called “the advertising boycott racket.” Musk was responding to another such group pushing a rating system as an euphemism for blacklisting. For targeted sites, NewsGuard is now the leading racketeer in that system. It makes millions of dollars by rating sites — a new and profitable enterprise with dozens of other academic and for-profit groups. They have commoditized free speech in blacklisting and potentially silencing others. If you are the Standard & Poor’s of political discourse, you can rate sites out of existence by making them a type of junk bond blog.

Yet, the fact that I have no advertisers or sponsors to scare off does not mean that NewsGuard cannot undermine the site. The company has reportedly received federal contracts, which some in Congress have sought to block. It is also allied with organizations like Turnitin to control what teachers and students will read or use in schools. The powerful American Federation of Teachers, which has been criticized for its far left political alliances with Democratic candidates, has also pushed NewsGuard for schools.

This is why my book calls for a number of reforms, including barring federal funds for groups engaged in censoring, rating or blacklisting sites. NewsGuard shows that such legislation cannot come soon enough.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).

N.B.: The original version of this column included MSNBC as an example of liberal sites that do not post their own ideological bent or label. I later heard from NewsGuard that they did indeed mark down MSNBC for failing to make such a disclosure, so I removed it from this blog column. I posted a response today on why I continue to oppose rating systems such as NewsGuard.

NewsGuard’s Gordon Crovitz Responds to Turley Column

By: Jonathan Turley | July 29, 2024

On the weekend, I ran a column critical of NewsGuard and its recent notification of this blog that it was being “rated.” NewsGuard co-founder Gordon Crovitz responded to that column the next day. We have previously exchanged emails on my concerns over rating systems generally, including the Global Disinformation Index (which is not related to NewsGuard). I noted the concerns over bias from conservatives and members of Congress, but my primary concern remains with the concept of a rating system for media sites and blogs. While NewsGuard has given high ratings to some conservative sites, I generally oppose media rating systems due to free speech concerns and the use of these systems by the current anti-free speech movement.

I have always found Gordon to be open and frank about these subjects and I wanted readers on the blog to hear the opposing view from him directly. He was kind enough to consent to my posting the following. I will be posting a response to Gordon separately in the hopes that we can use this controversy as a foundation for a much needed discussion of rating systems and their impact on free speech.

Here is his response:

Jonathan:

We welcome the publicity, but your complaints in your July 27 commentary in the Hill about NewsGuard seem based on some misunderstandings.

First, we launched NewsGuard in 2018 as an alternative either to the Silicon Valley platforms secretly putting their thumbs on the scale for news and information sites or for calls to have the government censor social media and other online speech. Digital platforms were (and are) secretly rating news and information websites, with no disclosure about their criteria and no way for the people running the websites even to find out how they were rated. The only other entity rating news and information sites at the time we launched was GDI, which as you have written is a left-wing advocacy group–which like the digital platforms does not disclose its criteria or let publishers know how they are rated (except when information escapes such as the top 10 list of “risky” sites, which as you noted are all conservative or libertarian sites).

As I have written as a (libertarian-leaning) conservative former publisher, including in this recent Washington Examiner article https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3091369/advertisers-fear-supporting-journalism-heres-how-to-fix-that/, I wouldn’t trust the platforms or a left-wing advocacy group either. We launched NewsGuard as the transparent and apolitical alternative, with the goal of giving news consumers basic information about websites they encounter online.

We reach out to the people running news and information websites for several purposes. We want to be sure we correctly assess sites based on our nine criteria. We’re a journalistic enterprise, so would always reach out for comment before concluding a site fails any of our criteria. We often quote the people running websites to provide more context about their site, whether they fail any criteria or not. More than a quarter of the websites we’ve rated have taken steps, usually relating to greater transparency, to get higher ratings.

In your column, you asserted that NewsGuard treats liberal sites preferentially compared with how we treat conservative or libertarian sites. This is false, as the many high scores for conservative and libertarian sites–and low scores for liberal sites–makes clear. You’ll see examples in the Washington Examiner article I linked to above. (There are right-wing sites like OAN that get low ratings such as for its Dominion Voting Systems claims, and there are left-wing sites that get low ratings for false claims such as about Donald Trump.)

In your Hill article, you claimed that “it does not appear” that we expect left-wing sites to disclose their point of view to readers. You gave the example of MSNBC. I am attaching our publicly available rating for this website. You will see it fails our criterion relating to news/opinion for failing to disclose its orientation. The MSNBC website scores lower than Fox News using our criteria because MSNBC fails to disclose its orientation whereas the website for Fox News does disclose its. (MSNBC also fails our criterion for gathering and presenting responsibly due to claims it made about Trump, Ron DeSantis, Steve Bannon and others.)

We also anticipated even back when we launched that there would be calls for government censorship if secret and partisan ratings were the only ones available in the market. I would have thought, including based on your recent book, that you’d especially welcome an accountable market alternative to censorship.

Finally, I appreciated your obituary for Bob Zimmer and your calls for the Chicago Principles to be widely adopted. (Whether our UChicago fully lives up to them is a topic for another day–I prefer the more energetic approach of Ed Levi to today’s more appeasing practices.) More information about websites is an exercise of free speech, and when done with transparent apolitical criteria equally applied seems to me a market solution you should support, not criticize or fear.

Regards,

Gordon

Category:

Tagged with:

The Media Won’t Tell You Political Corruption Defined Kamala Harris’ Affair with Willie Brown

BY: MARK HEMINGWAY | JULY 26, 2024

Kamala Harris speaks and points her finger

Author Mark Hemingway profile

MARK HEMINGWAY

VISIT ON TWITTER@HEMINATOR

Kamala Harris hasn’t been the presumptive Democrat nominee for even a week, and already the press is desperately trying to insist perfectly valid criticisms of her are illegitimate. If you think the media were complicit in attempting and failing to hide Joe Biden’s senility, the attempt to retcon her political career into something that resembles respectable and competent is even more brazen.

“She was never the border czar.”

“She was never considered the most liberal senator.”

“She was never a DEI hire.”

“She doesn’t owe her political career to her powerful boyfriend.”

Oh, but she was, she was, she was, and she does.

The dishonesty surrounding all of these issues is worth highlighting, but let’s focus on that last point involving Harris’ relationship with California’s powerful political boss Wille Brown, for no other reason than The New York Times has provided a terrific example of how the lies are coming in hot.

The Times’ “On Politics” newsletter Wednesday — think of it as political talking points for affluent wine moms, a.k.a. the Democrats’ base — was dedicated to combatting “the sexist and racist rumors that have followed Harris for years” with “the facts behind several conspiracy theories and misleading claims about Harris that have spread widely in recent days.”

Nearly the whole thing is an orgiastic recitation of errant nonsense, starting with the fact that the Times is quoting disgraced “disinformation expert” Nina Jankowicz to make the case that Harris is the victim of a disproportionate amount of online attacks. (Harris’ competitor in the presidential race was shot in the head less than two weeks ago, and, unsurprisingly, there’s been a dearth of media handwringing about the rhetorical climate that may have enabled an actual assassination attempt. That’s because an honest discussion about hateful rhetoric would involve asking basic questions such as, “Why did The New York Times win a Pulitzer for stories based on the false premise that Donald Trump stole an election by treasonously colluding with Russia?”)

But I digress. Again, the real lowlight of the Times article is its discussion of Kamala Harris’ relationship with Willie Brown. One of my favorite things “fact checkers” do is introduce a proposition as false and then try to confirm that falsity by desperately spinning a bunch of inconvenient facts that confirm the proposition is actually true. The entire section on Harris and Willie Brown is a textbook example:

The sexist insinuations point in part to her brief relationship in the 1990s with Willie Brown, who was 60 and the speaker of the California Assembly when Harris was 29 and rising in the Bay Area legal scene. He appointed Harris to two well-paid state board positions and introduced her to his political connections.

When she was campaigning to be San Francisco’s district attorney in 2003, her opponents repeatedly commented on her link to Brown — references that she told The New York Times in 2019 were “frustrating” and “designed to degrade, frankly, the conversation about why we needed a new D.A.”

During the 2003 race, which she won, she told SF Weekly that there was nothing improper about benefiting from her ties to Brown, although she described the relationship as an “albatross hanging around my neck.” She said she “brought a level of life knowledge and common sense” to the board roles, adding that “whether you agree or disagree with the system, I did the work.”

She said that she had “no doubt that I am independent of him” and that “I do not owe him a thing.”

Just so we’re clear, The New York Times is confirming Harris did in fact have a relationship with Willie Brown, who was 31 years older (and, for what it’s worth, still married at the time). Harris herself admits her career benefited significantly from said relationship. Other Democrats shared the perception she did not earn her positions. And Harris, a lawyer who initially failed the bar exam, can only say that she “brought a level of life knowledge and common sense” rather than actual qualifications to the jobs Brown appointed her to. But it’s a sexist insinuation to insist these facts are rather unflattering to Kamala!

And this is just what The New York Times is admitting. In actuality, the details are far worse than the Times is letting on. Peter Schweizer, an investigative journalist who has worked with The New York Times in the past, details quite a bit on the corrupt nature of the Harris/Brown relationship in his book, Profiles in Corruption, which has been out for four and a half years. And the facts as he lays them out are damning.

Brown, who was repeatedly investigated by the FBI for corruption, was far more involved in Harris’ career ascent than appointing her to two board positions. He was a kingmaker in California, and he was heavily involved in helping Harris get elected as San Francisco district attorney. Brown didn’t do this entirely out of the goodness of his heart. Harris was working for the previous district attorney, Terence Hallinan, and quit when she got passed over for the No. 2 position in the DA’s office.

Hallinan found himself as the subject of criticism from other city officials, but others suggested the controversy was manufactured. “This whole thing is about Kamala Harris,” a source close to Brown told the San Francisco Chronicle. “Cross one of Willie’s friends and there will be hell to pay.” Eventually, Harris ran for DA with Brown’s powerful backing — a former Brown aide managed her campaign, and Brown played a key role in her fundraising, which was incredibly successful. After starting the race polling a distant third, she won the election.

Once in office, Harris then dropped or pled out corruption charges against friends of Willie Brown that Hallinan had been pursuing. There were a number of Brown’s friends let off the hook, but most notably this included a sweetheart plea deal for a notorious city contractor caught defrauding the city by using inferior recycled concrete in sensitive projects such as parking garages and the Bay Bridge. This compromised the structural integrity of those projects and endangered lives. But Harris dropped all the fraud charges and accepted a guilty plea on a single count involving an environmental violation.

“Harris’ office had no explanation for why it dropped the concrete case,” reported the Chronicle. A better explanation is that the contractor in question was generous with campaign donations and had previously been popped for making an illegal $2,000 donation to, yup, Willie Brown.

Anyway, there’s a lot more alarming reporting in Schweizer’s book that’s worth revisiting, and it’s not a stretch to say Kamala Harris has engaged in outright corruption in her career. Suffice to say, when The New York Times takes Kamala Harris at her word that her relationship with Willie Brown was not “improper,” they’re erasing the functional difference between lying and profound ignorance. And when she’s credulously quoted saying, “I do not owe him a thing,” it’s journalistic malpractice to believe her.

To say that Kamala Harris had an affair with a man more than twice her age, leveraged his fundraising prowess and connections to launch her political career, and once in office did his corrupt bidding isn’t sexist. It’s well-grounded in fact.

But facts aren’t something The New York Times is much interested in. Kamala Harris’ late entry into the presidential race means they don’t have much time to use what’s left of their institutional clout to try to dishonestly sway a presidential race.

Mark Hemingway is the Book Editor at The Federalist, and was formerly a senior writer at The Weekly Standard. Follow him on Twitter at @heminator

Category:

corruption, Political

Tagged with:

Former CNN Anchor Leads Major Challenge In Defense of the Second Amendment

BY: Jonathan Turley | July 26, 2024

For years, former CNN Anchor Lynne Russell was the familiar face of Headline News for the country. She may soon be making headlines again as the lead plaintiff in what could prove a major Second Amendment challenge in Washington, D.C. Russell is challenging the city’s prohibition on “off-body” carrying of weapons, including keeping a handgun in a purse. That type of off-body carry is precisely what may have saved Russell’s life in a shootout with an armed assailant in 2015. Russell’s nightmare began when the armed assailant grabbed her outside of their motel in Albuquerque, New Mexico and forced her into her room. He then threw her across the room on to the bed as her husband, Chuck De Caro, a former CNN correspondent, was coming out of the shower.

Russell then had the amazing calmness and control to suggest to her husband that there might be something in her purse that the man would want. Inside was her gun and De Caro pulled it out and exchanged fire with the man. He was shot three times but survived. The assailant did not.

Both Russell and De Caro showed amazing courage. The fact that De Caro could come out of a shower naked and immediately engage a gunman in a shootout is worthy of a Die Hard sequel.

Russell is now leading the fight for others, particularly women, who use off-body carry for self-protection. For many women, a holster is not a convenient option with dresses and other outfits. Indeed, there are guns and purses specifically designed for women to blend into clothing styles.

Under D.C. Municipal Regulation § 24-2344.1 and § 24-2344.2, citizens are instructed:

2344.1A licensee shall carry any pistol in a manner that it is entirely hidden from view of the public when carried on or about a person, or when in a vehicle in such a way as it is entirely hidden from view of the public.

2344.2A licensee shall carry any pistol in a holster on their person in a firmly secure manner that is reasonably designed to prevent loss, theft, or accidental discharge of the pistol.

It is not just a matter of style. A holster on a dress outfit is more likely to stand out and could serve as an attraction for felons who are seeking to steal a weapon.

The Russell challenge seems quite strong to me. Under the post-Bruen jurisprudence, it will be difficult for the District to show historical support for limiting gun rights to on-body-carry situations. While the District is citing a contemporary New Jersey law, that is not quite the historical support that the Court has previously demanded. The Court held that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” To overcome that presumption “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

It is doubtful that any early gun laws barred carrying weapons off body. Indeed, the most common weapons like muskets necessarily were carried on horseback or kept at arm’s reach.

I have previously written how New York, D.C., and Chicago are examples of Democratic cities that routinely commit lasting self-inflicted wounds to gun control efforts with poorly conceived and poorly drafted measures. In 2008, the District of Columbia brought us District of Columbia v. Heller, the watershed decision declaring that the Second Amendment protects the individual right of gun possession. In 2010, Chicago brought us McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the Court declared that that right is incorporated against state and local government.

These cities are the gifts that keep on giving for gun rights advocates. Politically, local officials are heralded for any gun control legislation, and they are rarely blamed for major losses that come later in the courts — losses that often expand the reach of prior cases.

The case is Russell et.al. v. District of Columbia et.al. Case number 2024-cv-1820.

Category:

Tagged with:

By The Way, Kamala Harris Is A Dangerous Authoritarian

BY: DAVID HARSANYI | JULY 23, 2024

Author David Harsanyi profile

DAVID HARSANYI

VISIT ON TWITTER@DAVIDHARSANYI

With some hard work, pluck, the right boyfriend, and a bit of genetic luck, Kamala Harris has found her way onto the presidential ballot without having to secure a single primary vote. Don’t tell me the American Dream is dead.

Sure, Harris is a demagogue who speaks in cringy, swirling, impenetrable platitudes. And sure, according to Joe Biden, Kamala was an identity hire. But “Morning Joe” says we’re not supposed to talk about any of that. So, let’s discuss her record and stated positions.

It seems like a lifetime ago that Biden named Harris his running mate. What you may not recall is that the media tried to gaslight us into believing the California senator was another apolitical dealmaker.

Former Clinton fixer George Stephanopoulos said Harris was “the middle-of-the-road, moderate wing of the Democratic Party.” The New York Times called her a “pragmatic moderate,” while the Associated Press focused on her “centrist record.” And so on.

A “small c conservative,” one Washington Post columnist wrote. The only problem was, according to GovTrack, Harris’ record in the Senate was to the left of red-diaper baby Bernie Sanders. She was least likely of any senator to join in any bipartisan bills.

That’s fine. Bipartisan bills are the pits. Harris wasn’t handed a Senate seat by her former beau and California political kingpin Willie Brown to waste her time legislating with a bunch of pinheads. She was there to run for the presidency. In her truncated first term, few excelled more at smearing their political opponents. Remember when Harris moderately accused Brett Kavanaugh of gang rape?

This false perception of moderation stems from Harris’ time as prosecutor and AG. Harris liked to brag about using “a huge stick” as a prosecutor in San Francisco, where she regularly threatened poor parents with jail time in her efforts to craft social policy — which wasn’t her job. It’s true that Harris threw a lot of people in jail to bolster her political fortunes. Some of them likely innocent. And judging from her disposition, she would throw a lot of more people into jail, if she could.

When pro-life journalist David Daleiden published videos of Planned Parenthood executives nonchalantly discussing the selling of body parts, Harris had his home raided, seized evidence, and then tried to throw him in prison. She later teamed up with the abortion mill to write legislation that would squash the free speech rights of other pro-lifers.

Like any good authoritarian, Harris enforces whatever laws she sees fit to enforce whenever she sees fit. One of the reasons Kamala allegedly opposed the nomination of Neil Gorsuch was that the judge “consistently valued legalisms” — which is to say, respected the Constitution — “over real lives.”

Kamala was never one for legalism. When candidate Biden argued that Harris’ promise to issue an executive order unilaterally banning access to certain guns would be unconstitutional, she retorted: “I would just say: Hey, Joe, instead of saying ‘No we can’t,’ let’s say yes, we can,’” before cackling at the very notion that presidents couldn’t do whatever they wanted.

As a national candidate, Kamala said she believed immigration laws should be treated as civil, rather than criminal, offenses. So, of course, Biden gave Kamala the job of border czar — she did not perform admirably, to say the least — where she noted that one of the “root causes” of the problem was a “lack of climate resilience,” before sending corrupt regimes hundreds of millions of dollars.

As a candidate, Harris supported abolishing private health insurance — “Let’s eliminate all of that. Let’s move on,” she told CNN. In addition to nationalizing health care and education, Kamala wants the government to control the manufacturing sector, the auto industry, food … and any industry that emits carbon.

Four minutes of Kamala. I defy you to listen to it without cracking a molar… pic.twitter.com/ylqmEDcxsu
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) June 28, 2024

Harris was in favor of getting rid of the filibuster to overturn state voting laws, nationalizing abortion on demand until birth, and passing the Green New Deal — an authoritarian takeover of the economy written by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, which would not only ban all fossil fuels force Americans to retrofit every building in in the country, eliminate air travel and meat, create government-guaranteed jobs, among many other authoritarian measures.

Perhaps the only thing that grosses out the vice president more than individual rights are practicing Catholics.

Kamala is the kind of person who will raise money to bail out race rioters out of prison but try to stop orthodox Catholics from serving on the bench. “Are you or have you ever been a member of the Knights of Columbus?” is basically what Kamala asked Brian Buescher, a Trump judicial nominee.

It wasn’t a big jump for a senator who treats charitable Christian organizations as fifth columnists to co-sponsor of the “Equality Act,” which would have compelled religious hospitals to perform gender transition surgeries and shut down religious foster care organizations, among other things.

On foreign policy, we don’t really know, though we can guess. This week, Harris wouldn’t even greet Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. She reportedly won’t sit behind him during his speech to Congress. A few weeks ago, the same Kamala said antisemitic pro-Hamas campus protesters showed “exactly what the human emotion should be.” In the past she has openly protested with Islamic Republic propagandists from the National Iranian American Council. To be fair, in some ways her disposition comports more with the latter than the former.

When I say Harris is an authoritarian, I’m not contending she’s Hitler. I am saying she is a fan of obedience to authority, especially of Democrat-run government, at the expense of personal freedom in ways that are deeply un-American. That’s a bad trend in politics, in general, but it’s difficult to think of many politicians more wedded to the idea than Kamala Harris.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist, a nationally syndicated columnist, and author of six books—the most recent, The The Rise of BlueAnon: How the Democrats Became a Party of Conspiracy Theorists. Follow him on Twitter, @davidharsanyi.

Category:

Tagged with:

Succession by Defenestration: How Biden’s Withdrawal May Trigger a 25th Amendment Fight

By: Jonathan Turley | July 22, 2024

Below is my column in the Hill on the withdrawal of President Joe Biden from the 2024 election. After weeks of Democrats and the media raising the alarm of his mental capacity, Biden finally gave up his public refusal to step aside. Harris will now be the nominee through succession by defenestration or being tossed from a window. Yet, there remains a lingering question of Biden’s capacity to serve for another six months as president.

Here is the column:

President Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw as the Democratic Party’s nominee solved an immediate problem for his party. Biden has plummeted in the polls as the vast majority of voters concluded that he is too diminished by age to serve another term. Yet, it has now created several new problems, including the obvious problem of a president who is viewed as incapable of running for an office that he continues to hold.

The Democratic Party essentially created its own political version of the 25th Amendment in forcing Biden off the ticket. This decision was about as voluntary as leaving a building by way of a window on the 46th floor. That is particularly the case when you are thrown out of the window by your closest friends.

The unseemly image of succession by defenestration will soon be whitewashed by a media that will praise Biden after weeks of declaring him incompetent and enfeebled.

That, however, leaves the lingering question after the fall. How can Biden remain in office when he is incapable of running for the office? Biden is notably vague about the reason for his withdrawal after maintaining for days that he will be the party’s nominee. He simply says that it is in the best interests of the country.

The Democratic establishment has two equally unappealing options.

First, it could argue that Biden was withdrawing out of recognition that he is no longer politically viable. But that makes a mockery out of the democratic process. Millions of people went through the primary elections to select him as their nominee. Now he would be set aside and replaced by a vote of the party establishment like a shift in the Russian politburo.

Second, it could admit that Biden was, as stated for weeks in the media and by figures like Special Counsel Robert Hur, greatly diminished both mentally and physically. However, that makes this withdrawal an admission that could trigger a fight under the 25th Amendment. The development could create a new constitutional controversy. The 25th Amendment was written with largely physical disabilities in mind. If a president is comatose, the incapacity is obvious and Section 4 allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to sign a declaration to Congress that a president is incapable of holding office.

However, Harris is eager to avoid the image of Brutus in the dispatching of the president. To support such a declaration would risk Biden proclaiming “Et tu, Kamala?” to the nation. The key to succession by defenestration is not to be seen as the hand that pushes the president out the window. Politics follows the same rules as the mafia for capo di tutti i capi: Kill a don, never be a don. While sometimes honored in the breach in the mob, it is hardly an auspicious path for a politician.

There is, however, another intriguing possibility.

Section 4 provides that a president’s fitness can be put before Congress when the “Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or such other body as Congress may by law provide.”

Previously Democrats have cited that language to suggest that they could create their own body to force former President Donald Trump out of office. Indeed, Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-Md.) sponsored legislation called the Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity Act to create a commission empowered to examine a president to Congress on the president’s capacity. It would circumvent the necessity of getting Harris to be the primary hand that dispatched a president.

The question is whether Congress will now make this decision to warrant an investigation or even a Raskin-like bill. This is different than President Lyndon Johnson’s decision on March 31, 1968, that “I shall not seek, and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your president.” That was before any primaries. In this case, Biden won a primary in which the Democratic Party obstructed anyone who would challenge him and barred any debate.

Millions voted for him, and tens of millions of dollars were contributed to his campaign. He is now withdrawing weeks before accepting the nomination. That unprecedented decision alone would warrant a House investigation into Biden’s continuing capacity to serve in an office that he no longer believes he can run to occupy after January 2025.

Before this decision, a special counsel cited President Biden’s diminished faculties as a reason not to indict him for unlawfully retaining and handling classified material. Now, the president is effectively saying that, in addition to being allegedly too diminished to be prosecuted, he is too diminished to run for the office that he currently holds.

The question is whether Biden has ended the fight to retain his nomination only to trigger a fight to retain his office.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).

Category:

Tagged with:

Elon Musk is Right: End the Online Censorship Racket

By: Jonathan Turley | July 15, 2024

Below is my column in the Hill on the recent report of the House Judiciary Committee and the disclosure of yet another effort to silence opposing viewpoints by squeezing the revenue of individuals or groups, including Elon Musk and Joe Rogan.

Here is the column:

Few Americans have ever heard of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, let alone understand how it shapes what they read and hear in news and commentary. That may soon change.

An alarming new report of the House Judiciary Committee details this organization’s work to censor conservative and opposing viewpoints in the media by targeting figures such as Joe Rogan and entire social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter).

It is part of a massive censorship system that a federal court recently described as “Orwellian.” The sophistication of this system makes authoritarian regimes like China’s and Iran’s look like mere amateurs in censorship and blacklisting.

In my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in the Age of Rage,” I discuss our history of speech crackdowns and how this is arguably the most dangerous anti-free speech period that we have faced as a nation. The reason is an unprecedented alliance of government, corporate, academic and media institutions supporting censorship and the targeting of largely conservative viewpoints.

As discussed in the book, there is a crushing irony to the current anti-free speech movement. During the Red Scare and the McCarthy period, it was the left that was targeted with blacklisting, censorship and arrests. It is now the left that has constructed a global censorship system that exceeds anything that Joe McCarthy even dreamt of in the control of news and commentary.

Through the years, I have testified repeatedly in Congress on this system supported enthusiastically by President Biden and his administration. It has proven to be a frustrating game of whack-a-mole for civil libertarians. The Democrats in Congress have uniformly opposed any investigation or action on censorship while denying for years that there was a coordinated effort between government and corporations. When we were successful in uncovering components of this system, they were often quickly shut down as the work shifted to other components and assets.

One of the most insidious efforts has been to strangle the financial life out of conservative or libertarian sites by targeting their donors and advertisers. This is where the left has excelled beyond anything that has come before in speech crackdowns. Years ago, I wrote about the Biden administration supporting efforts like the Global Disinformation Index to discourage advertisers from supporting certain sites. All of the 10 riskiest sites targeted by the index were popular with conservatives, libertarians and independents. That included Reason.org and a group of libertarian and conservative law professors who simply write about cases and legal controversies. The Global Disinformation Index warned advertisers against “financially supporting disinformation online.” At the same time, HuffPost, a far-left media outlet, was included among the 10 sites at lowest risk of spreading disinformation.

Once that index’s work and bias was disclosed, government officials quickly disavowed the funding. It was a familiar pattern. Within a few years, we found that the work had been shifted instead to groups like the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which is the same thing on steroids. It is the creation of a powerful and largely unknown group called the World Federation of Advertisers, which has huge sway over the advertising industry and was quickly used by liberal activists to silence opposing views and sites by cutting off their revenue streams.

These censorship groups typically proclaim that they are merely trying to promote “brand safety” when they target for suppression the same sites that challenge the political and media establishment. The group states that it “unites marketers, media agencies, media platforms, industry associations, and advertising technology solutions providers to safeguard the potential of digital media by reducing the availability and monetization of harmful content online.”

That “harmful content” seems to be the very same sites long targeted by the Biden administration and its allies in business, the media and academia.

The internal communications of these censorship groups demonstrate their contributors’ underlying agenda. In one conversation between Global Alliance for Responsible Media co-founder Rob Rakowitz and individuals with an associated “GroupM,” two executives explained to Rakowitz how they identified sites that they did not like and simply monitored them until they could find something that crossed the line. An example is the Daily Wire, a site hated by liberals for its conservative viewpoints and critiques of mainstream media.

In describing how they work to bag such sites, John Montgomery, executive vice president of Global Brand Safety, explained: “There is an interesting parallel here with Breitbart. Before Breitbart crossed the line and started spouting blatant misinformation, we had long discussions about whether we should include them on our exclusion lists. As much as we hated their ideology and bulls–t, we couldn’t really justify blocking them for misguided opinion. We watched them very carefully and it didn’t take long for them to cross the line.”

In other words, they preselected the sites and then followed their every move like a patrol unit following a car to wait for them to go one mile per hour over the limit. This is called “deplatforming,” a favorite term from higher education, whereby liberal groups organize to shout down and block speakers with opposing views. The Global Alliance for Responsible Media is too sophisticated to simply bullhorn groups into silence. Instead, it strangles them financially.

Those who do not yield, from Elon Musk’s X to mega-podcaster Joe Rogan, were quickly added to the list to be deplatformed. Musk is particularly dangerous because he was responsible for blowing the lid off the censorship system by releasing the “Twitter Files,” detailing coordination between government and social media companies to silence citizens and groups. To this day, companies like Facebook continue to fight efforts to disclose their own censorship files.

Musk has threatened to sue in light of the report. “Having seen the evidence unearthed today by Congress, X has no choice but to file suit against the perpetrators and collaborators in the advertising boycott racket,” he said.

A lawsuit would be difficult to maintain. These groups have a right to organize to silence opposing views just as book burners have a right to burn books. However, deplatforming, book burning and blacklisting have long been anathema to free speech values. They are efforts to prevent opposing views from being heard rather than to respond to such views on the merits.

And Musk is right in describing this as a “racket.” There is now a disinformation cottage industry where a wide array of academic and private groups are raking in a fortune targeting individuals and other groups for blacklisting, banning and censorship.

There are other groups working in tandem in this effort. For example, Newsguard was created by to Chief Executive Officers Steven Brill and Gordon Crovitz to monitor and effectively blacklist media that they deemed misinformative or false. The site uses mainstream journalists to rate news sites, even though many of these sites have challenged the bias of the mainstream media.

Once again, the apparatus serves to shield that bias in targeting disfavored sites. The Biden administration has extended contracts with Newsguard to incorporate the system, and it is even being used in schools, despite complaints that it shows the very same pro-Democrat and left-wing bias.

There is a reason why projects such as the Global Disinformation Index have been largely concealed from public view. There is a reason Facebook and other companies have fought mightily to conceal their own censorship files. The anti-free speech movement is not a popular movement.

A majority of the public continues to oppose censorship. This is a movement that came from higher education and has been pushed by the political and media establishment, not the public.

That is why many of us in the free speech community are hoping that the 2024 election will become a referendum on censorship. Biden has given a full-throated endorsement of these efforts, even to the point of claiming that companies that do not censor American citizens are “killing people.” He presides over the most anti-free speech administration since John Adams.

So now, let him defend it with voters.

In 1800, that did not work out well for Adams, who was defeated by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson had run on restoring freedom of speech. The public can now flip the script. It is time to defund and deplatform America’s censors.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).

Category:

Tagged with:

NBC Loses Major Motion in Defamation Trial by Doctor Called the “Uterus Collector”

BY: Jonathan Turley | July 11, 2024

NBCUniversal lost a major motion in the defamation lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Dr. Mahendra Amin, an obstetrician gynecologist who was accused by MSNBC hosts, including Rachel Maddow and Nicolle Wallace, of performing unnecessary hysterectomies at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) center. The case will now go forward to trial on the claim that Maddow and Wallace made “verifiably false” statements on air.

Defamation lawsuits are fairly common for major media, including like the recent settlements of Fox with Dominion and NBC and various outlets with high school student Nicholas Sandmann.

The Supreme Court has given the press added “breathing room” with the higher standard of proof found in cases such as New York Times v. Sullivan. Under that standard, a plaintiff must show that a statement was knowingly false or published with reckless disregard of the truth. The complaint alleges that NBC reporters Jacob Soboroff and Julia Ainsley developed the story on whistleblower’s claims despite initial skepticism from the network’s standards department.

MSNBC quickly followed with a series of on-air reports in which the doctor was often referred to as the “uterus collector.” The story was based on allegations by “a former nurse at the facility named Dawn Wooten.” Wooten is quoted extensively in the opinion:

We’ve questioned among ourselves like goodness he’s taking everybody’s stuff out …. That’s his specialty, he’s the uterus collector. I know that’s ugly … is he collecting these things or something[?] … Everybody he sees, he’s taking all their uteruses out or he’s taken their tubes out.

Despite misgivings about Wooten’s credibility, MSNBC went forward with stories that portrayed Dr. Amin as a virtual Dr. Mengele. Critics charged that the story was irresistible for the channel in bringing together reproductive health issues, immigration, and social equity issues. Whatever the reason, hosts and executives set aside their doubts and ran stories that made Dr. Amin an infamous figure throughout the country.

Judge Lisa Godbey Wood (S.D. Ga.) found that the stories were false in claiming that Dr. Amin performed “hysterectomies that were unnecessary, unauthorized, or even botched.” She also found that MSNBC may have published the reports knowing that the allegations were false or with reckless disregard of the truth.

In granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Amin, Judge Wood wrote:

Multiple statements are verifiably false. The undisputed evidence has established that: (1) there were no mass hysterectomies or high numbers of hysterectomies at the facility; (2) Dr. Amin performed only two hysterectomies on female detainees from the ICDC; and (3) Dr. Amin is not a “uterus collector.” The Court must look to each of the statements in the context of the entire broadcast or social media post to assess the construction placed upon it by the average viewer. Doing so, the undisputed evidence establishes that multiple NBC statements are false.

The Court emphasized that “it does not matter that NBC did not make these accusations directly, but only republished the whistleblower letter’s allegations. If accusations against a plaintiff are “based entirely on hearsay,” “[t]he fact that the charges made were based upon hearsay in no manner relieves the defendant of liability. Charges based upon hearsay are the equivalent in law to direct charges.”

That can be a chilling standard for the media, which often reports on the fact of allegations that are newsworthy. However, Judge Wood said that NBC went well beyond such a role in this case:

…the focus of these three broadcasts was not on unnecessary or unconsented-to “medical procedures.” The focus was on “mass hysterectomies” and “high numbers of hysterectomies,” performed without necessity and consent, at the facility. This is reinforced by MSNBC’s own headlines: “WHISTLEBLOWER: HIGH NUMBER OF HYSTERECTOMIES AT ICE DETENTION CTR.” and “COMPLAINT: MASS HYSTERECTOMIES PERFORMED ON WOMEN AT ICE FACILITY.”

The court noted that “[w]hile opinions and hyperbole are typically non-actionable, they become actionable when they are capable of being proved false.” That includes MSNBC referring to Dr. Amin as someone known to be a “uterus collector” and “taking everybody’s stuff out” state facts that can be proved false. Judge Wood held that “[t]hese statements are not mere subjective assessments of Plaintiff over which reasonable minds could differ. They are also not simply rhetorical hyperbole or obviously exaggerated statements that are unprovable…”

Under Georgia law, the court held that this met the “actual malice” standard. What makes the case particularly damaging is the use of MSNBC’s own hosts, lawyers, and fact-checkers to show knowingly false or reckless publication:

Plaintiff has presented evidence that NBC’s statements were inherently implausible. The allegations that there were “mass hysterectomies,” Plaintiff was a “uterus collector” or collected uteri, Plaintiff performed hysterectomies “for which no medical indication existed,” and that Plaintiff performed hysterectomies on all or nearly all his patients are so implausible that a jury could infer actual malice. The implausibility of these statements is clear, given that NBC found evidence of only two hysterectomies. NBC’s investigation did not yield evidence of more than two hysterectomies. Wooten told NBC she did not know how many women had had hysterectomies.

An attorney source, Sarah Owings, told NBC that her team was not finding evidence of mass hysterectomies. Another attorney source, Ben Osorio, told NBC that one client had had a hysterectomy that medical records revealed was medically necessary and another client believed she had had a hysterectomy, but no evidence supported this claim. NBC’s own reporter, Julia Ainsley, reinforced these facts when she texted her colleague: “But only two hysterectomies?” The attorney who told NBC that there were more than two hysterectomies, Andrew Free, also told NBC that those reports had not been confirmed and were still being vetted. Free even explicitly told NBC that he could confirm only one hysterectomy.

Nevertheless, NBC published statements that Plaintiff performed mass hysterectomies. Although NBC’s own sources told it that there was evidence of only one hysterectomy, NBC stated as fact: “five different women … had a hysterectomy done”; “as many as 15 immigrant women were given full or partial hysterectomies”; and “[e]verybody this doctor sees has a hysterectomy, just about everybody.” These statements contradict information known to NBC at the time of reporting. The same applies to the accusations that Plaintiff was a “uterus collector” or that detainees referred to him as such. Aside from Wooten’s allegation, NBC lacked any evidence that could support the accusation that Plaintiff collected uteri or was known as the “uterus collector” at the ICDC. A jury could conclude that NBC knew these allegations were false.

Plaintiff has presented evidence that there were obvious reasons to doubt Wooten’s reliability, credibility, and accuracy. In her interview with NBC, Wooten could not name Plaintiff, did not know what happened when detainees visited Plaintiff, and did not know how many women had received gynecological procedures, even acknowledged this herself. Wooten could not provide a number for how many women she had spoken to about gynecological care at the facility. She told NBC that she had spoken to “several women” in the eight years she worked at the ICDC. In essence, Wooten could provide only hearsay evidence to support her allegations. NBC’s reporter, Jacob Soboroff, texted his colleague that one source had “heard mixed things about Wooten.” NBC’s deputy head of Standards was critical of Wooten because she “provide[d] no evidence to back up her claims,” had “no direct knowledge of what she’s claiming,” and she could not “name the doctor involved.”

MSNBC’s hosts also voiced concerns over Wooten’s reliability. Rachel Maddow believed Wooten’s whistleblower letter jumped to conclusions and “didn’t want to assume it’s true.” Chris Hayes also criticized Wooten’s letter because it was based on secondhand information and Wooten had “no factual, firsthand knowledge.” Not only did NBC have reasons to doubt Wooten, but NBC actually doubted her.

…

Here, there is evidence of just that. The deputy head of NBC’s Standards, Chris Scholl, said that the whistleblower letter “boils down to a single source—with an agenda—telling us things we have no basis to believe are true.” He also later said that Wooten “has a beef” and “a whole separate agenda.” As detailed above, Scholl interspersed these observations of Wooten’s bias with doubts about the truth of Wooten’s story. While only a jury can determine whether Wooten was a credible or believable source, Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence that would enable a jury to find that she was not….

The court also details how top executives ran the story despite their own reservations.

Chris Scholl approved the initial news article written by Ainsley and Soboroff. He also worked on MSNBC’s broadcasts of the statements. As detailed above, Scholl expressed concerns over the veracity of the statements. He pointed out the lack of evidence to support the accusations, doubted Wooten as a credible source, and said that NBC had been unable to verify the accusations. Scholl even explicitly stated: “We don’t know the truth.” A jury could determine that Scholl expressed serious doubts.

Judge Wood notes that Maddow “is responsible for the content of her show,” but ran the story despite expressing the fact that she had “serious doubt” about the account of the whistleblower.

She also noted that Hayes said that the story went viral because it recalled Nazi Germany or the Jim Crow South, but, in reality, that was “not the case here.”

While the court acknowledges that NBC could well convince a jury at trial, he held:

Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence that could enable a jury to find actual malice. A jury could also conclude that NBC did not act with actual malice given the evidence that it published opposing information. This duel of conflicting evidence must be resolved by a jury….

The case is Amin v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC.

N.B.: For full disclosure, while I worked twice for NBC/MSNBC, I now work as a legal analyst for Fox Corp.

Category:

Law, Media

Tagged with:

Antifa Radicals Elected to the French and European Parliaments

By: Jonathan Turley | July 9, 2024

For many years, I have testified and written about Antifa and its growing anti-free speech philosophy. Some Democratic leaders have embraced this violent movement, which continues to gain strength on campuses and its cities across the nation. It is also a global movement. That is reflected in the alarming election of Antifa candidates to the French National Assembly as well as the European Parliament. That is quite an accomplishment for a movement that President Joe Biden dismissed as “just an idea.”

As discussed in my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I explore the history of Antifa as a movement that began in Germany:

“Antifa originated with European anarchist and Marxist groups from the 1920s, particularly Antifaschistische Aktion, a Communist group from the Weimar Republic before World War II. Its name resulted from the shortening of the German word antifaschistisch. In the United States, the modern movement emerged through the Anti- Racist Action (ARA) groups, which were dominated by anarchists and Marxists. It has an association with the anarchist organization Love and Rage, which was founded by former Trotsky and Marxist followers as well as offshoots like Mexico’s Amor Y Rabia. The oldest U.S. group is likely the Rose City Antifa (RCA) in Portland, Oregon, which would become the center of violent riots during the Trump years. The anarchist roots of the group give it the same organizational profile as such groups in the early twentieth century with uncertain leadership and undefined structures.”

As I have previously written, it has long been the “Keyser Söze” of the anti-free speech movement, a loosely aligned group that employs measures to avoid easy detection or association. Yet, FBI Director Chris Wray has repeatedly pushed back on the denials of Antifa’s work or violence. In one hearing, Wray stated “And we have quite a number” — and “Antifa is a real thing. It’s not a fiction.”

We have continued to follow the attacks and arrests of Antifa followers across the country, including attacks on journalists.

Some Democrats have played a dangerous game in supporting or excusing the work of Antifa. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence and its website was banned in Germany. Ellison’s son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer. During a prior hearing, Democratic senators refused to clearly denounce Antifa and falsely suggested that the far right was the primary cause of recent violence. Likewise, Joe Biden has dismissed objections to Antifa as just “an idea.”

Bray emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’”

Bray admits that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists… From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”

The movement continues to take hold among parties on the left. An Antifa leader who is on France’s national security watchlist was elected to the National Assembly as a member of the New Popular Front leftist bloc. Raphaël Arnault will represent Vaucluse in Provence in the French parliament after winning with 54.98 per cent of the vote, according to Le Figaro.

French President Emmanuel Macron and his moderate party worked with the New Popular Front in a power deal to defeat conservatives. Antifa was part of that front.

In Italy, Ilaria Salis, a schoolteacher by trade from Milan, Italy, has been elected to the European Parliament despite being arrested in 2023 in Budapest for allegedly taking part in the organized attack by Antifa on attendees of an event commemorating the anniversary of the siege of the Buda castle by the Soviet forces in 1945. Salis’ far-left green alliance Alleanza Verdi e Sinistra (AVS) succeeded in securing the seat with the backing of far-left Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise (LFI) party — a member of the New Popular Front alliance.

These two milestones were secured only with the help of mainstream parties and leaders who continue to delude themselves about Antifa and its true agenda. While convenient allies now to win elections, these same leaders could soon find themselves the next reactionaries denounced by these same radical groups as they gain greater power.

Category:

Crime, Culture, Political

Tagged with:

Post Poll: More Citizens Trust Trump Over Biden to Protect Democracy

By: Jonathan Turley | June 28, 2024

The debate last night was chilling for many citizens as President Joe Biden clearly struggled to stay focused and responsive. It appeared to put on display what Special Counsel Robert Hur saw in his interview before concluding that Biden’s loss of mental capacity would make a prosecution difficult. What may be equally troubling for Democrats and the media is a poll that came out just before the debate that shows more swing-state voters see former President Donald Trump rather than President Joe Biden as protecting democracy.

According to a new poll from the Washington Post and the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, if “democracy is on the ballot,” the majority of the public believes that threat comes from elsewhere, including possibly Biden himself.

Over half of the respondents told the Washington Post that threats to democracy are extremely important to their vote for president. However, 44% said they think Trump would do a better job at handling those threats. Only 33% of respondents said they believe Biden would be better for democracy.

Many citizens are alarmed by prosecutions like the one in Manhattan where the legal system seems to have been weaponized against political opponents.

The poll not only shows the diminishing faith in the President but also in the press. The media has been unrelenting in pushing the narrative that this election is a choice between democracy and tyranny. The public is clearly tuning out the media message. This is only the latest example of that widening gap. Indeed, the whole “Let’s Go Brandon” chant is as much a criticism of the media as it is President Biden.

I have previously written that democracy is not on the ballot, but free speech is. The Biden Administration has chilling analogies to the Adams Administration in the weaponization of the legal system and the crackdown on free speech. What should most concern Biden is the possibility of another aspect of history repeating itself: a defeat like the one in 1800.

As I discuss in my new book, The Indispensable Right, President John Adams, used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his political opponents – including journalists, members of Congress and others. Many of those prosecuted by the Adams administration were Jeffersonians. In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson ran on the issue and defeated Adams.

The anti-free speech movement has flourished largely in the echo chambers of academia and the media. It is time for the public to render its judgment. Free speech is again on the ballot. It is time for the public to decide.

Category:

Tagged with:

Want to Defeat Joe Biden? Look to the 1800 Election and Make Free Speech the Key Issue in 2024

By: Jonathan Turley | June 27, 2024

Below is my column in USA Today on why the opponents of President Joe Biden should make free speech the focus of this election. With the Supreme Court taking an off ramp in Murthy v. Missouri on Internet censorship, the free speech community is left, for now, with the political process to protect free speech. It is a potentially unifying issue for many Americans who are alarmed by the current anti-free speech movement. I have previously written that the Biden Administration has chilling analogies to the Adams Administration in the weaponization of the legal system and the crackdown on free speech. What should most concern Biden is the possibility of another aspect of history repeating itself: a defeat like the one in 1800.

Here is the column:

Since his dystopian speech outside of Independence Hall in 2022, President Joe Biden has made “democracy is on the ballot” his campaign theme. Pundits have repeated the mantra, claiming that if Biden is not elected, American democracy will perish. While some of us have challenged these predictions, the other presidential candidates are missing a far more compelling argument going into this election. While democracy is not on the ballot this election, free speech is.

The 2024 election is looking strikingly similar to the election of 1800 and, if so, it does not bode well for Biden. In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” released last week, I discuss our long struggle with free speech as a nation. It is an unvarnished history with powerful stories of our heroes and villains in the struggle to define what Justice Louis Brandeis called our “indispensable right.”

One of the greatest villains in that history was President John Adams, who used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his political opponents – including journalists, members of Congress and others. Many of those prosecuted by the Adams administration were Jeffersonians. In the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson ran on the issue and defeated Adams.

Government efforts to limit free speech are Orwellian

We are now seeing what is arguably the most dangerous anti-free speech movement in our history. President Joe Biden is, in my view, the most anti-free speech president since Adams. Under his administration, we have seen a massive censorship system funded and directed by the government. A federal judge described the system as “Orwellian” in its scope and impact.

Biden has repeatedly called for greater censorship and accused social media companies of “killing people” by not silencing more dissenting voices. Other Democrats such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts have pushed for restrictions on “unacceptable” speech. The Biden administration seeks to censor even true statements as disinformation.

For example, I testified before Congress last year on how Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, extended her agency’s mandate over critical infrastructure to include “our cognitive infrastructure.” The resulting censorship efforts included combating “malinformation” – described as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”

The left has picked up the cudgels of censorship and blacklisting once used against them. During the McCarthy period, liberals were called “communist sympathizers.” Now, conservative justices are called “insurrectionist sympathizers.”

Candidates should call out Biden on censorship

In this election, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jill Stein, Donald Trump and Cornel West should talk about the threats against free speech at every debate and stump speech. They will have to overcome a news media that has been complicit in the attacks on free speech, but these candidates can break through by raising it as a key issue dividing Biden from the rest of the field.

Democrats and the news media have hammered away at cracking down on those accused of “disinformation.” The public, however, has not been won over by those seeking to limit their right of free speech or the push to amend the First Amendment because it’s too “aggressively individualistic.”

So far, the anti-free speech movement has flourished largely in the echo chambers of academia and the media. It is time for the public to render its judgment.

As discussed in my book, we are hardwired for free speech. It is in our DNA. Despite these periods of crackdowns on free speech, we have always rejected those who wanted to regulate the views of others. Jefferson called the Federalists “the reign of the witches.” (Ironically, Jefferson would himself prosecute critics, though not to the same extent as Adams).

Attacks on free speech have returned with a vengeance before another presidential election. After fighting in the courts and in the public to expand censorship, Biden should now have to defend it with the voters. Let’s have at it, as we did in 1800.

Free speech is again on the ballot. It is time for the public to decide.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

corruption, Law, Political

Tagged with:

Poll: Only 28 Percent of the Public Has “High Confidence” in Higher Education

By: Jonathan Turley | June 18, 2024

A new poll conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago (commissioned by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) shows that only 28% of Americans have a lot of trust in higher education. Academia has continued to alienate much of the country as an orthodox echo chamber. As with media outlets, the result has been falling interest and trust in these institutions. The poll asked, “How much confidence, if any, do you have in U.S. colleges and universities?”

Only 28% said they had a “great deal of confidence in colleges and universities.” Not surprisingly, given the ideological balance at most schools, the highest levels of trust came from Democrats and liberals. However, even this group only showed a 40% high confidence rate. Among Republicans, it drops to 12% and among independents it drops to 28%.

For most businesses, such negative reactions would be viewed as catastrophic. For academia, it will not matter a whit.

It is still personally beneficial for professors and administrators to push ideological agendas and maintain the lack of intellectual diversity on campuses. These professors are not challenged in their writings or their statements. They dominate publications, awards, and associations. In the meantime, these schools still receive sufficient support from alumni and, in the case of public universities, public funding.

This could not come at a worse time as many decide that college is simply not worth the money. At the same time, falling birthrates are impacting dropping applications. Others have little interest in going to institutions where they must hide their political viewpoints or values.

We have seen the same phenomenon in the media where media outlets are collapsing in viewership or readership, but reporters are resisting every effort to return to a more neutral and objective basis for coverage. Recently, the Washington Post’s new publisher and CEO William Lewis dropped a truth bomb on his writers by telling them “Let’s not sugarcoat it…We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”

The response from the media has been a campaign against Lewis and another editor tasked with saving the newspaper from itself. The New York Times, National Public Radio, and other outlets have piled on Lewis with a series of attack pieces. This is being actively and openly supported by reporters at the Post and could well work in pressuring owner Jeff Bezos. The result will be to stay the course of plunging trust and readership at a paper that is hemorrhaging money and readers.

We need great universities and great newspapers as a nation. We need Princeton and the Post. That is why this trend is so alarming. These are hardened silos that seem impenetrable to efforts to restore trust in their product.

Category:

Education, Media

Tagged with:

Capitol Vapors: The Faux Outrage Over the Alito Flags and Tapes

By: Jonathan Turley | June 14, 2024

Below is my column in The Hill on the renewed attacks on Justice Samuel Alito after a liberal activist secretly taped a dinner conversation with him and his wife. The feigned outrage of pundits and politicians is absurdly unconnected to anything even remotely surprising or unethical in the comments.

Here is the column:

In a world of moral relativism, Lauren Windsor may reign supreme. The Democratic activist recently lied to justices in order to record answers at a dinner.

In an interview with CNN, the filmmaker (who has been lionized by many in the media for her dishonesty) cheerfully explained that she lies to “elicit truths that serve the greater public good.” The “greater good” is to contribute to a campaign of harassment and attacks on Supreme Court justices by academics, the media and Democratic members. The chief target of these efforts lately has been the author of the decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito.

For years, the left has maintained a well-funded, unrelenting campaign against the court and its conservative majority. This has included an effort by such figures as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) to pack the court immediately with a liberal majority. Warren declared that the court must be packed because it is daring to oppose “widely held public opinion.”

The statement, of course, ignores that the court was designed to resist public pressure (and even members of Congress) in order to protect the constitutional rights and liberties of minority groups.

Unsurprisingly, the usual suspects have assembled again to call for resignations and impeachments after Windsor’s surreptitious taping of both Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. That includes Warren, who declared that “Alito is an extremist who is out of touch with mainstream America. His rising power on the Supreme Court is a threat to our democracy.”

It did not matter that what Windsor captured on her secret recording was neither surprising nor unethical. Pretending to be a religious conservative at a dinner of the Supreme Court Historical Society, Windsor successfully induced the deeply religious Alito to say . . . wait for it . . . that he believes the country should return to a place of “godliness.”

It was an otherworldly moment as this notoriously anti-conservative activist asked an unsuspecting Alito why the nation was so filled with rage. In the recording, Alito laments the divisions in the country, stating, “I wish I knew. I don’t know. It’s easy to blame the media, but I do blame them because they do nothing but criticize us. And so, they have really eroded trust in the court…American citizens in general need to work on this to heal this polarization because it’s very dangerous.”

When pushed on what the court can do, Alito again answered honestly: “I don’t think it’s something we can do. We have a very defined role, and we need to do what we’re supposed to do. But this is a bigger problem. This is way above us.”

There is nothing even slightly controversial there. But the quote being repeated, often in isolation, was when Alito acknowledged that, while “there can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully…it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So, it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”

Warren and others already prove that very point on the left, as do many on the right. Again, this is not at all controversial. We are divided because people hold irreconcilable beliefs on which they are unwilling to compromise. Imagine the reaction of liberals if Justice Sonia Sotomayor suddenly “compromised” on abortion rights.

But pundits and politicians have since lined up, feigning vapors at the thought of a justice saying privately that he believed in “godliness” and had little hope of “compromise” on many issues.

Warren seemed beside herself with shock, acting as if Alito’s bland, obvious observation were some clear sign of political bias: “I am most concerned about the appearance that Justice Alito has prejudged cases that will come before him. That is one of the biggest sins that a judge or justice can commit.” Bear in mind, these are the words of a senator seeking to pack the court with an ideological majority to give predictable rulings on major cases.

Likewise, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) declared the tape to be proof that Alito is “a movement activist,” while Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D.-Conn.) denounced Alito’s “outrageous” behavior. Of course, the lying democratic activist was not outrageous, but the justice was outrageous in sharing his observation in a private conversation that the nation is irreconcilably divided on major issues.

Warren, Whitehouse, Blumenthal and many of the same pundits were strangely silent when liberal justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg engaged in actual partisanship, as when she openly opposed the election of Donald Trump and discussed cases and controversies that might come before her. There was no demand for a resignation when Justice Sonia Sotomayor called upon students to politically oppose pro-life laws after acknowledging, “they tell me I shouldn’t.” There were no vapors at the thought of justices expressing their political sentiments from the left.

Media even cleaned up interviews for liberal justices. Katie Couric famously deleted disparaging comments made by Ginsburg about players kneeling during the National Anthem at NFL games, even though that matter could have ended up before the Supreme Court.

What is most galling is the pile-on over not just this manufactured controversy, but the earlier controversy over flags. Years ago, one of the best reporters at the Washington Post investigated a report that the Alitos had flown an upside-down American flag, to see if it was a political statement associated with Trump. Robert Barnes interviewed neighbors and concluded that it was not Justice Alito but his wife Martha-Ann who had hoisted the flag. Mrs. Alito, he learned, was responding to an ongoing spat with a neighbor.

Barnes and the Post responsibly decided not to run the story. That type of journalistic restraint is now anathema in our age of rage, with reporters denouncing the Post for failing to run a “blockbuster” story.

This was then amplified when the public was told that Mrs. Alito had also hoisted at one of their properties the Revolutionary War-era “Appeal to Heaven” flag, which has enjoyed something of a revival since it featured in the introductory sequence of the acclaimed 2008 miniseries on the career of President John Adams.

It is not clear how that story was a “blockbuster” — that a justice has a wife with a flag fetish, which includes flying the historic Pine Tree Flag. (Tellingly and amusingly, after the left added that flag to its list of Alito’s transgressions, Democratic politicians suddenly had to scramble to remove it from their own buildings to clear the way for the outrage.)

Of course, Windsor also targeted Mrs. Alito in her secret recordings at the dinner. The media again pounced on a line where she complained of “feminazi” critics and added, “Don’t get angry. Get even!”

That statement followed her suggestion that they may sue for defamation, and that “there’s a five-year defamation statute of limitations.” She also added that her husband had tried to keep her from flying her flags and getting into neighborhood spats, but that “he never controls me.” Indeed, she said he had prevailed on her not to fly a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag, but that she was not giving up the ghost even on that flag.

Windsor generously allowed that a Supreme Court spouse “certainly” has a right to speak, before adding that expected “but!” Such liberty, she asserted, may not apply to Mrs. Alito “when your spouse is one of the most powerful men in the country, you know, with his fingers on the scale, literally, of justice. I mean, are we going to say that we are going to do away with impartiality, the bedrock principle of our democracy, of our jurisprudence? Is it okay?”

Well, the answer is yes, Miss Windsor. It is okay.

We do not require justices to divorce outspoken or irascible spouses. We do not punish them for speaking freely in private conversations with bottom-feeding gotcha activists who secretly record them at dinners. Justices are even allowed to have strong opinions about controversial issues in dinner conversations. Strong personal opinions do not on their own constitute conflicts of interest.

None of this will matter, of course. Democrats will continue to chase Alito around the Beltway like a scene out of Lord of the Flies. The absurd demands for meetings with justices and threats of subpoenas will continue to thrill liberal voters. It is all part of the threats made by Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on the steps of the Supreme Court. Schumer threatened the conservative justices, “You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

It is an extension of the pledge by activists to change the court “by any means necessary.” While thankfully denouncing the attempted assassination of Justice Bret Kavanaugh, liberals have proposed “more aggressive” targeting of justices at their homes, bribing conservatives to retire, and literally cutting off the justices’ air conditioning.

As Windsor explained, it is all just for “the greater good.”

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School. He is the author of The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage (Simon & Schuster 2024)

Category:

Tagged with:

Laptop Deniers in Delaware: The Media Shrugs as the Biden Laptop is Authenticated in Federal Court

By: Jonathan Turley | June 7, 2024

Below is my column in Fox.com on the authentication of Hunter Biden’s laptop in the Delaware trial. The government has denounced the Russian disinformation claims as a “conspiracy theory” and put on evidence that there is no evidence of tampering with the laptop. The FBI declared the laptop to be “real” and “authentic” and the court agreed. It was introduced as evidence before many reporters who previously embraced the debunked “conspiracy theory.” As discussed below, Houdini’s elephant was just revealed on stage and most of the audience looked away.

Here is the column:

Watching the coverage this week out of Delaware was like finding oneself in a parallel universe. There were ABC, NBC, CBS, the Washington Post and other news outlets reporting matter-of-factly that the Hunter Biden laptop showed no evidence of tampering and was both real and authentic.

These are the same outlets, and some of the same reporters, who eagerly spread the false claims that the laptop was “Russian disinformation.”

Yet, what followed the testimony of FBI agent Erika Jensen was absolute crickets. There was no effort to track down the signatories of the now-debunked letter from former intelligence officials just before the election. In the letter, figures such as Leon Panetta, former CIA director in the Obama administration, claimed that the laptop had all the markings of a Russian disinformation effort by intelligence services. (Panetta continued to make the assertion even in late 2023 in pushing what the federal government is now calling a “conspiracy theory.”)

There was no attempt by the media to confront associates of the Biden campaign (including now Secretary of State Antony Blinken) who pushed a long effort to get former intelligence officials to sign a letter.

There was no attempt to question President Joe Biden, who made this false claim in the presidential election to deflect any questions about the evidence of corrupt influence peddling on the laptop.

Years ago, I wrote that the Biden campaign had pulled off the single greatest political trick in history. As I wrote back then, the key to this Houdini-esque trick was to get the media to invest in the deception like audience members called to the stage.

Houdini used to make his elephant Jennifer disappear on stage every night because he knew that the audience wanted her to disappear. They were part of the act. The Bidens made the media part of the act, and these reporters have to back the illusion or admit that they were part of the deception. They are all laptop deniers, but they know that there are few who will call them to account for their conspiracy theory. Rather, it is social media where readers can see videos of leading media claiming that the laptop is the work of Russian intelligence.

In 2020, CBS News’ Lesley Stahl literally laughed mockingly at then-President Donald Trump when he raised the Hunter Biden laptop and what it revealed about the Bidens.

Figures like former Chief of Staff at the CIA and Department of Defense Jeremy Bash, who told MSNBC that the laptop “looked like Russian intelligence” and “walked like Russian intelligence.” He dismissed the relevance of the laptop before the election by declaring that “this effort by Rudy Giuliani and the New York Post and Steve Bannon to cook up supposed dirt on Joe Biden looks like a classic, Russian playbook disinformation campaign.”

Bash added that it made Trump an effective agent of Russian intelligence since he kept referencing the laptop: “[when] Rudy Giuliani suddenly comes forward with these mysteriously created emails, probably hacked through a Russian intelligence operation, we have to acknowledge the fact that the President of the United States is supporting, is condoning, is welcoming a Russian intelligence operation in 2020. … This is collusion in plain sight.”

Bash, like others behind the conspiracy theory, was later given an intelligence position by Biden.

The New York Times and The Washington Post both eventually verified Hunter Biden’s laptop after big tech dismissed the New York Post’s bombshell reporting during the 2020 presidential election. The Post reporting was famously censored by Twitter ahead of the 2020 election.

CNN’s Alex Marquardt told viewers, “We do know it is a very active Russian campaign.”

Indeed, the Washington Post has continued to suggest that this reporting was accurate. One of the leading purveyors of this false story was the Post’s Philip Bump, who slammed the New York Post for its now proven Hunter Biden laptop story.

In 2021, when media organizations were finally admitting that the laptop was authentic, Bump was still declaring that it was a “conspiracy theory.” Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Bump continued to suggest that “the laptop was seeded by Russian intelligence.”

After Bump had a meltdown in an interview when confronted over past false claims, I wrote a column about the litany of such false claims. The Post surprised many of us by issuing a statement that they stood by all of Bump’s reporting, including the laptop conspiracy theory. That was in August 2023.

Of course, this trick would not have been possible without the assistance of 50 former intelligence officials who were reportedly organized through Clinton campaign associates to issue the infamous letter. These figures then continued to spread the false claim.

Former CIA Director John Brennan, one of the 50 who signed the letter, also claimed that the laptop bore “the hallmarks of Russian disinformation.”

James Clapper, a former director of National Intelligence and CNN analyst, said the laptop was “classic, textbook Soviet, Russian tradecraft at work.”

Members of Congress also repeated the false claims, including Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., who told the media not to join Giuliani as a “vehicle for Russian disinformation.”

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, insisted that the laptop was clearly “Kremlin propaganda.”

This long-debunked claim was even recently repeated in Congress by Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., who claimed that the laptop could not be authenticated even though it was just authenticated and introduced in a federal prosecution.

All of those who pushed what the U.S. government is now calling a false “conspiracy theory” have flourished in the wake of Biden’s victory. Intelligence officials like Bash received plum positions while others like Clapper were given media contracts. Schiff is expected to be elected to the Senate and is running, ironically enough, on his record with intelligence investigations of Trump.

Conversely, the New York Post and reporters like Miranda Devine have received no recognition for their work in disclosing the contents and defying attacks from politicians and media alike. While reporters were given a Pulitzer for reporting the now debunked Russian collusion story, Devine and others will never receive a Pulitzer for uncovering the true story behind the laptop.

Devine, the New York Post, and others simply refused to get in on the trick. As is often said, there are some facts simply “too good to check” in the media. The Hunter Biden laptop disappeared from the stage like Houdini’s elephant because the media wanted it to disappear.

The reappearance of the laptop in a Delaware courtroom might be awkward for most people, but not the media or intelligence officials or politicians who pushed the conspiracy theory. After all, they were all in on the trick. It was the voters who were played for chumps.

Category:

Tagged with:

Report: J6 Committee Delayed Secret Service Driver From Refuting False Limo Story

By: Jonathan Turley | June 5, 2024

Just the News is reporting that the January 6th Committee rebuffed repeated efforts from a Secret Service agent to refute the false story related by Cassidy Hutchinson alleging a violent episode with Trump in the presidential limousine during the Capitol riots. The J6 Committee staff repeatedly delayed the testimony of the agent to disprove the widely reported allegation.

Rep. Barry Loudermilk, the chairman of the House subcommittee that is investigating the Jan. 6 riot, has obtained a transcript of the driver’s interview that was conducted months after he first offered to testify. However, it turns out that committee staff were asked repeatedly by counsel for the agent to let him present evidence debunking the claim. Despite being reported by virtually every news outlet, the Committee slow walked his appearance as the story went viral.

The transcript of the driver’s testimony contains express objections by the lawyer that his client had offered to testify in July, August and September of 2022, but was “rebuffed” by the committee.

The account reaffirms a major criticism of the committee. After Democrats refused to allow the GOP to pick its members (as a long-accepted practice in the House), the Democrats selected two anti-Trump Republicans who did little to push for a full and fair display of witnesses and facts. The Committee was chaired by Rep. Benny Thompson, a Democrat, with Rep. Liz Cheney, as Vice Chairwoman.

Cheney and the committee members clearly knew that Hutchinson’s account was debunked by the very driver who allegedly struggled with Trump. Yet, they allowed the media to report the incident for months while rebuffing the requests of the driver. Loudermilk is quoted as saying “We’re talking about the driver of the limousine, and the head of the entire protective detail. They were brought in by the select committee to testify, but they weren’t brought in until November.”

The false account was given by Hutchinson in June of that year.

The Secret Service driver testified Trump never tried to reach for or grab the wheel of the SUV.

Notably, the transcript shows Cheney trying to explain the delay as due to the need for the Secret Service to produce all documents in the January 6 investigation.

Yet, she had no problem with making the false story public through Hutchinson before such supporting material was supplied. She also did not suggest any countervailing testimony or witnesses on the issue as the media ran with the account. Instead, Cheney publicly teased the claim that they had much more evidence of crimes against Trump, which never materialized. Cheney ended one hearing by calling for more officials to come forward and noting that Trump family members and former officials have now come forward with their own public “confessions.”

Many of us support the effort to bring greater transparency to what occurred on Jan. 6th and these hearings have offered a great deal of important new information. Indeed, it has proven gut-wrenching in the accounts of lawyers and staff trying to combat baseless theories and to protect the constitutional process.

Yet, the heavy-handed approach to framing the evidence by the Committee was both unnecessary and at times counterproductive. The strength of some of this evidence would not have been diminished by a more balanced committee or investigation.

We previously discussed the highly scripted and entirely one-sided presentation of evidence in the Committee. Indeed, witnesses were primarily used to present what Speaker Nancy Pelosi referred to as “the narrative” where their prior videotaped testimony was shown, and they were given narrow follow-up questions. They at times seemed more like props than witnesses — called effectively to recite prior statements between well-crafted, impactful video clips. It had the feel of a news package, which may be the result of the decision to bring in a former ABC executive to produce the hearings.

That framing led to glaring omissions. The Committee routinely edited videotapes and crafted presentations to eliminate alternative explanations or opposing viewpoints like repeatedly editing out Trump telling his supporters to go to the Capitol peacefully.

What is striking was that offering a more balanced account, including allowing the Republicans to appoint their own members (in accordance with long-standing tradition), would not have lessened much of this stunning testimony. Yet, allowing Republicans to pick their members (yes, including Rep. Jim Jordan) would have prevented allegations of a highly choreographed show trial. It would have added credibility to the process.

If the Committee had a single member with a dissenting or even skeptical viewpoint, testimony on issues like the fight in the presidential limo could have been challenged before it was thrown before the world.

That was clearly not in the interests of the J6 Committee or the media, which eagerly spread this false account.

Category:

Tagged with:

“Let’s Not Sugarcoat it … People are Not Reading Your Stuff:” Publisher Drops Truth Bomb at Post

By: Jonathan Turley | June 4, 2024

Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis is being denounced this week after the end of the short-lived tenure of Executive Editor Sally Buzbee and delivering a truth bomb to the staff. Lewis told them that they have lost their audience and “people are not reading your stuff.” It was a shot of reality in the echo chambered news outlet and the response was predictable. However, Lewis just might save this venerable newspaper if he follows his frank talk with meaningful reforms to bring balance back to the Post.

As someone who once wrote for the Washington Post regularly, I have long lamented the decline of the paper following a pronounced shift toward partisan and advocacy journalism. There was a time when the Post valued diversity of thought and steadfastly demanded staff write not as advocates but reporters. That began to change rapidly in the first Trump term.

Suddenly, I found editors would slow walk copy, contest every line of your column, and make unfounded claims. In the meantime, they were increasingly running unsupported legal columns and even false statements from authors on the left. When confronted about columnists with demonstrably false statements, the Post simply shrugged.

One of the most striking examples was after its columnist Philip Bump had a meltdown in an interview when confronted over past false claims. After I wrote a column about the litany of such false claims, the Post surprised many of us by issuing a statement that they stood by all of Bump’s reporting, including false columns on the Lafayette Park protests, Hunter Biden laptop and other stories. That was long after other media debunked the claims, but the Post stood by the false reporting.

The decline of the Post has followed a familiar pattern. The editors and reporters simply wrote off half of their audience and became a publication for largely liberal and Democratic readers. In these difficult economic times with limited revenue sources, it is a lethal decision. Yet, for editors and reporters, it is still professionally beneficial to embrace advocacy journalism even if it is reducing the readership of your own newspaper.

Lewis, a British media executive who joined the Post earlier this year, reportedly got into a “heated exchange” with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake:

“We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis said. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”

Other staffers could not get beyond the gender and race of those who would be overseeing them. One staffer complained “we now have four White men running three newsrooms.”

The Post has been buying out staff to avoid mass layoffs, but reporters are up in arms over the effort to turn the newspaper around.

The question is whether, after years of creating a culture of advocacy journalism and woke reporting, the Post is still capable of reaching a larger audience. If you want to read about certain stories, you are not likely to go to the Post, NPR or other outlets.

Likewise, with reporters referring to the January 6th riot as an “insurrection,” there is little doubt for the reader that the coverage is a form of advocacy. Again, such stories can affirm the bona fides for reporters, but they also affirm the bias for readers.

I truly do hope that the Washington Post can recover. The newspaper has played a critical role in our history and a towering example of journalism at its very best from the Pentagon Papers to Watergate. If you want people to “read your stuff,” you need to return to being reporters and not advocates; you need to start reaching an audience larger than yourself and your friends.

As I previously wrote, the mantra “Let’s Go Brandon!” was embraced by millions as a criticism as much of the media as President Biden. It derives from an Oct. 2 interview with race-car driver Brandon Brown after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavast’s questions were drowned out by loud-and-clear chants of “F*** Joe Biden.” Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go, Brandon!’”

Stavast’s denial or misinterpretation of the obvious instantly became a symbol of what many Americans perceive as media bias in favor of the Biden administration. Indeed, some in the media immediately praised Stavast for her “smooth save” and being a “quick-thinking reporter.” The media’s reaction has fulfilled the underlying narrative, too, with commentators growing increasingly shrill in denouncing its use. NPR denounced the chant as “vulgar,” while writers at the Washington Post and other newspapers condemned it as offensive; CNN’s John Avalon called it “not patriotic,” while CNN political analyst Joe Lockhart compared it to coded rhetoric from Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and ISIS.

The more the media has cried foul, however, the more people picked up the chant.

It was the public response to how many in the media have embraced advocacy journalism and rejected objectivity in reporting; in their view, readers and viewers are now to be educated rather than merely informed. That included the rejection of “both-sidesism,” the need to offer a balanced account of the news.

Many of us hope that Lewis will rescue the Post from itself in the coming months. It will not be easy after years of orthodoxy and advocacy in the ranks. Yet, the Washington Post is a national treasure worth fighting for. People are still longing for old-fashioned, reliable news. As with the Field of Dreams, if you re-build it, “they will come” back to the Post.

Category:

Tagged with:

Robert De Niro Goes Full Travis Bickle: The Biden Campaign’s Court Presser Turns into a Sad Spectacle

By: Jonathan Turley | May 29, 2024

In the movie A Bronx Tale, the character played by Robert De Niro tells his son that “the saddest thing in life is wasted talent.” Yesterday, the actor appeared to have forgotten his own cinematic advice in a bizarre press conference organized by the Biden campaign in front of the Manhattan courthouse during the trial of former President Donald Trump. In a raving, disconnected press conference, De Niro predicted the end of democracy and then the world if Trump is not stopped in New York. De Niro offered a rambling monologue and exposed the danger of an actor speaking without a script:

It’s a good time to reflect on how Americans fought and died so that we may enjoy the freedoms guaranteed to us by a democratic government, a government that as President Lincoln said of the people by the people for the people shall not perish from the earth.

Under Trump this kind of government will perish from the earth.

I don’t mean to scare you.

No, no, wait, maybe I do mean to scare you.

If Trump returns to the White House, you can kiss these freedoms goodbye that we all take for granted.

And elections, forget about it.

That’s over. That’s done if he gets in, I can tell you right now, he will never leave, he will never leave. You know that he will never leave.

De Niro has gone full Travis Bickle. However, now 80, it came across as De Niro screaming at the courthouse for Trump to get off his lawn.

The diatribe is consistent with the messaging of Democrats, including President Biden, that “democracy is on the ballot” and that this may be our last election. De Niro was not satisfied with that alarmist message and decided to take it to an apocalyptic level in predicting a global meltdown.

As I have previously written, it is a narrative that ignores our history and our values. To suggest that this may be our last democratic election is to suggest that both branches (and the population at large) would stand idly by as a president assumed tyrannical powers. That did not occur, even when this country was united by wars and national emergencies. With the nation now divided right down the middle, it is even less likely.

That is why the “democracy is on the ballot” claims border on defamation against our Constitution. We have the most successful and stable democratic system in history. The success of that system is not measured by those who would riot or challenge our values. It is measured by how the system responds. Our system works because it was not only written for times of relative unity and calm, it also was written for times like these.

What was particularly weird is that the Biden campaign succeeded in reinforcing the view of this case as lawfare, an effort to stop Trump at any cost. That message was also reaffirmed by President Biden stating that he will hold a press conference on the verdict. After the third highest ranking official in the Biden Justice Department joined the prosecution to bring the case, the announcement only magnified the view of a case that is being used for political purposes.

De Niro walked away pursued by hecklers and proceeded to exchange profanities.

The question for the Biden campaign lingered as to what was achieved by the chaotic scene outside of the courthouse. I am a great fan of De Niro’s artistic work, a legacy of great movies that are now an indelible part of our culture. That is precisely why, as I watched from the Fox camera location near his presser, I was more sad than surprised by the spectacle. As another De Niro character said in the movie Stardust, “reputations, you know, a lifetime to build, seconds to destroy.”

Category:

Law

Tagged with:

The Lawrence O’Donnell Factor: Will the Trump Jury Exercise Blind Justice or Willful Blindness?

By: Jonathan Turley | May 24, 2024

Below is my column on Fox.com on the closure of the government and defense cases in the Trump trial. It is clear that the government is going to achieve its objective in avoiding a direct verdict and giving this matter to the jury, which it hopes that the paucity of direct evidence of a crime will be overcome with an abundance of hostility to Donald Trump. As I previously have written, I am still hopeful that these jurors will vindicate the New York legal system with at least a hung jury. In the end, we will see if a Manhattan jury will exercise blind justice or willful blindness.

Here is the column:

With closing arguments scheduled for Tuesday, May 28, the prosecution of former President Donald Trump will finally head to a jury. Judge Juan Merchan has refused every opportunity to bring an end to this politically manufactured prosecution. Now it will be up to 12 New Yorkers to do what neither the court nor the prosecutors were willing to do: adhere to the rule of law regardless of the identity of the defendant.

Merchan has allowed the government to bring back into life a dead misdemeanor and convert it into 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. To accomplish this legal regeneration, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has vaguely referenced a variety of crimes that Trump allegedly was trying to conceal through the business record violations.

The problem is that he has left the secondary crime mired in uncertainty to the point that experts on various networks are still debating what the underlying theory is in the case.

Indeed, Bragg is expected to finally state with clarity what he is alleging… at the closing arguments of the case.

In the meantime, the prosecution is pushing to make it easier for the jury to convict. First, they have vaguely referenced a variety of possible offenses from tax to election violations. Bragg initially laid out four possible predicate crimes. It is down to three – a tax crime and violations of state or federal election law.

Merchan has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what crimes were being covered up so the jury could literally have three different views of what happened in the case and still convict Trump.

Prosecutors are also seeking to effectively shorten the playing field by allowing the jurors to convict on a lower standard of proof for the key term in using “unlawful means.” The defense wants the jury instructed that it must find that such use of “unlawful means” was done with willful intent.

The prosecutors do not want to use that higher standard. For the defense, it is effectively reducing the field to the end zone to make it easier for the prosecution to score.

In the last few days, the Bragg strategy has come into sharper focus in one respect. Bragg is not counting on the evidence or the law. He is counting on the jury. Call it the Lawrence O’Donnell factor.

After Michael Cohen imploded on the stand in the trial, even experts and hosts on MSNBC and CNN stated that his admissions and contradictions were devastating. Cohen is not only accused of committing perjury in his testimony, but he matter-of-factly detailed how he stole tens of thousands of dollars from the Trump organization.

After being disbarred and convicted as a serial perjurer, Cohen waited for the statute of limitations to run on larceny to admit that he stole as much as $50,000 by pocketing money intended for a contractor.

Liberal commentators acknowledged the fact that Cohen had committed a far more serious offense than the converted misdemeanor against Trump (but was never charged). Yet, one figure stepped forward to assure the public that all was well.

MSNBC host O’Donnell said that he watched the testimony, and that Cohen did wonderfully. Keep in mind that Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche asked Cohen point blank: “So you stole from the Trump organization, right?” Cohen answered unequivocally: “Yes, sir.”

O’Donnell, however, rushed outside to declare that Cohen was merely acquiring a bonus that he thought that he deserved as a type of “self-help”:

“Cohen [was trying] to rebalance the bonus he thought he deserved. And it still came out as less than the bonus he thought he deserved and the bonus he had gotten the year before.”

In other words, he first determined that his employer should pay him more and then elected to lie to his employer and steal the money. It is akin to New Jersey Democrat Sen. Bob Menendez claiming, in his nearby trial, that the gold bars and cash found in his home were just his effort to secure a well-deserved bonus for his public service.

O’Donnell was widely mocked for his galactic spin. However, he reflects the greatest danger for the Trump team. O’Donnell was showing a type of willful blindness; a refusal to acknowledge even the most shocking disclosures in the trial.

Some of the jurors admitted that MSNBC is one on their news sources and they exhibit the same all-consuming O’Donnell obsession with Trump. If so, they could listen to contradiction to contradiction and simply not recognize them like the MSNBC host. For some, Cohen could burst into flames on the stand, but their eyes will not move from the person behind the defense table.

Many viewers have been raised in an echo chamber of news coverage where they avoid opposing facts on both the left and the right. They actively tailor their news to fulfill a narrative or viewpoint. A jury of O’Donnell’s peers would convict Trump even if the Angel Gabriel appeared at trial as a defense character witness.

It is the ultimate jury instruction not from the court but from the community. With jurors “back in the world” for six days and going to holiday cookouts and events, they will likely hear much of that social judgment and the need to “rebalance” the political ledger through this case.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a practicing criminal defense attorney. He is a Fox News contributor.

Category:

Law, Media

Tagged with:

Last Dog in the Fight: Lawrence O’Donnell Mocked Over Pathetic Defense of Michael Cohen

By: JonathanTurley.org | May 21, 2024

After his disastrous testimony in Manhattan, Michael Cohen lost even hosts and legal analysts at MSNBC and CNN. MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin described Cohen as a “fabricator, liar or forgetful person.” CNN’s Anderson Cooper discussed how the testimony was “devastating for Michael Cohen’s credibility.” CNN’s legal analyst Elie Honig said that Cohen had his “knees chopped out” by the defense. All of that was before Cohen admitted that he committed grand larceny in stealing tens of thousands from the Trump company. Most analysts honestly expressed disgust at the admission and expressed shock that he was not prosecuted. The question is whether anyone could find a way to excuse grand larceny to spare viewers in the echo chamber. That is when host Lawrence O’Donnell stepped forward.

So, to recap. Here is what Cohen said under oath under questioning by Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche:

Blanche: “So you stole from the Trump Organization, right?”

Cohen: “Yes, sir.”

Not much ambiguity but Cohen went on to explain that he intentionally inflated costs to just pocket tens of thousands of dollars. He admitted it was theft, plain and simple.

For O’Donnell, it is not that simple. He rushed outside to assure MSNBC viewers that everything is fine and that this is just a form of what Cohen laughingly called “self-help.”

“Cohen [was trying] to rebalance the bonus he thought he deserved, & it still came out as less than the bonus he thought he deserved & the bonus he had gotten the year before.”

It would have been more convincing if O’Donnell, a self-proclaimed socialist, had just called it a redistribution effort from the super-rich to the rich. However, there was a sense of desperation in O’Donnell’s interview in offering viewers an assuring alternative explanation. Larceny did not fit with the past coverage lionizing Cohen. For many viewers, O’Donnell’s account relieved them of the need to question the basis for the prosecution of Trump.

We will have to wait to see if O’Donnell’s defense is picked up in the nearby trial of Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.). It appears that taking those gold bars and other gifts may have been just an effort of Menendez to secure a bonus that he believed was warranted from his public service. It would also mean that anyone who was denied a bonus or received less from their employer can simply steal the difference.

There is a serious aspect to the O’Donnell statement. It is not clear if O’Donnell actually believes that Cohen was justified in stealing this money. However, he does show the level of self-delusion or denial that is common with many citizens who cannot see beyond the identity of the defendant. These are the same citizens who elected candidates like Letitia James as state attorney on a pledge to bag Trump for something, for anything. These are the same citizens who voted roughly 90 percent against Trump in Manhattan. These are the same citizens that are likely represented by some on this jury.

That may explain why the Trump team decided to take the risk of a “kill shot” witness like Robert Costello. Some of us believe that this case is already fatally flawed and that no reasonable jury could convict Trump. Indeed, I cannot see how any reasonable judge could deny a directed verdict. However, the Trump team does not want to wait for a long appeal. Costello comes with a risk of opening up issues on cross examination, particularly the involvement of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

The fact is that the jury has MSNBC viewers and some who likely hold the same bias as O’Donnell. For them, what most of us see unfolding in Manhattan may not be what they see. They may only see one person in the courtroom, and it is not any witness.

Category:

Media

Tagged with:

The New York Times Denounces Cancel Culture . . . After Fueling Cancel Culture for Years

By: Jonatan Turley | May 12, 2024

For those of us who have criticized the cancel culture in higher education for years, the attacks and shunning have been unrelenting. The media has played a role in that culture and none more prominently than the New York Times. Recently, however, the mob came for liberal professors and media who have remained silent for years as conservatives and others were targeted on campus. Suddenly, there is a new interest in free speech and academic freedom, including by the Times editors who blamed cancel culture for the recent demonstrations and disruptions on campus.

Until good liberals were targeted on campus, cancel culture was treated as free speech. It did not matter that preventing others from speaking or being heard is the very antithesis of free speech.

The New York Times reached true infamy in the controversy over publishing Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R., Ark.) op-ed where he argued for the possible use of national guard to quell violent riots around the White House. It was one of the lowest points in the history of modern American journalism. Cotton was calling for the use of the troops to restore order in Washington after days of rioting around the White House. While Congress would “call in the troops” six months later to quell the rioting at the Capitol on January 6th, New York Times reporters and columnists called the column historically inaccurate and politically inciteful.

Reporters insisted that Cotton was even endangering them by suggesting the use of troops and insisted that the newspaper cannot feature people who advocate political violence. One year later, the New York Times published a column by an academic who had previously declared that there is nothing wrong with murdering conservatives and Republicans.

Later, former editors came forward to denounce the cancel culture at the Times and the censorship of opposing views. At the same time, the Times has embraced “advocacy journalism.” Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University Journalism Professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones is a leading voice for advocacy journalism. Indeed, Hannah-Jones has declared “all journalism is activism.”

Now, however, liberal professors and writers are being targeted. After years of turning a blind eye to conservative and libertarian figures being purged from faculties or canceled in events, the Times is alarmed that …students and other demonstrators disrupting college campuses this spring are being taught the wrong lesson — for as admirable as it can be to stand up for your beliefs, there are no guarantees that doing so will be without consequence.

What is most striking is how the editors chastise administrators for lacking the courage that they have not shown for years in standing up to their cultural warriors:

For several years, many university leaders have failed to act as their students and faculty have shown ever greater readiness to block an expanding range of views that they deem wrong or beyond the pale. Some scholars report that this has had a chilling effect on their work, making them less willing to participate in the academy or in the wider world of public discourse. The price of pushing boundaries, particularly with more conservative ideas, has become higher and higher…

It has not gone unnoticed — on campuses but also by members of Congress and by the public writ large — that many of those who are now demanding the right to protest have previously sought to curtail the speech of those whom they declared hateful.

It is certainly good to see the “Old Gray Lady” have second thoughts about cancel culture. However, she might want to look inwardly before casting more cultural stones.

Category:

Education, Law, Media, Political

Tagged with:

CNN Flips Out Over GOP Rep. Scott Perry Highlighting Democrats’ KKK History

BY: TRISTAN JUSTICE | MAY 09, 2024

Author Tristan Justice profile

TRISTAN JUSTICE

VISIT ON TWITTER@JUSTICETRISTAN

This week CNN published information from what it says is a secret recording to frame Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Scott Perry as — what else? — a racist conspiracy theorist. On Wednesday, the network published quotes from what it says was an audio recording of a closed-door meeting on antisemitism wherein Perry notes the Ku Klux Klan was “the military wing of the Democratic Party.”

“The KKK in modern times, a lot of young people think somehow it’s a right-wing organization when it is the military wing of the Democratic Party. Decidedly, unabashedly, racist and antisemitic,” Perry said.

“The KKK is not affiliated in any way with the modern Democratic Party,” CNN added in its “news” article. Perhaps CNN was so eager to absolve the Democrat Party of any relationship to the KKK, which was founded by Democrats, that the network refused to even consider the legitimacy of Perry’s comments.

The hit, based on a supposedly off-the-record meeting between staff and lawmakers, generated hostile coverage against the Republican lawmaker from the New Republic, the Daily Beast, and the Philadelphia Inquirer.

If the racist agitators from the 2017 Charlottesville protests had set up antisemitic encampments on college campuses across the country after months of preparations paid for by dark money groups on the far right, the corporate press would be publishing an avalanche of screeds indicting the Republican Party as an infiltrated vehicle of the KKK. While the media will often point to former Klan leader David Duke’s support for Donald Trump as evidence of supposed GOP racism, Richard Spencer, who organized the Charlottesville race riots, endorsed President Joe Biden in 2020.

The Democratic Party includes an increasing number of supporters of antisemitism, which the Klan also promoted more than 150 years ago. The antisemitic protests that broke out after the Oct. 7 Israeli massacre by Palestinian terrorists have featured swastika symbols, which the KKK also embraced. The pro-Palestinian demonstrators are acting like the KKK while using some of the same symbols to terrorize Jewish students and shut down college campuses.

Pro-Hamas supporter flashed an image of a Swastika to Jews in Times Square. pic.twitter.com/UkYWC3JJxL
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) October 8, 2023

In 2020, USA Today (an official Facebook fact-checker), sought to absolve the Democratic Party of its long history with the KKK in an article titled, “Fact check: Democratic Party did not found the KKK, did not start the Civil War.”

“The KKK was founded by Democrats, but not the party,” USA Today concluded. “We rate the claim that the Democratic Party started the Civil War to preserve slavery and founded the KKK as FALSE because it is not supported by our research.”

Jarrett Stepman, author of “The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past,” found the fact-check amusing.

“They came up with all these various caveats – ‘Well, you know, it wasn’t all Democrats; it was only most Democrats in the South,’” Stepman told The Federalist. “I’m thinking, if this was literally any other institution, if this was the name of a street, or if this was a statue, it would have been immediately canceled. It might have even been ripe for being torn down by a mob.”

The House Oversight hearing about Washington D.C.’s response to the current antisemitic demonstrations was canceled Wednesday morning after police cleared a protester encampment at George Washington University. More than 30 people were arrested, according to the Associated Press. More than 2,800 demonstrators have been arrested on college campuses nationwide.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist and the author of Social Justice Redux, a conservative newsletter on culture, health, and wellness. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com. Sign up for Tristan’s email newsletter here.

Category:

Tagged with:

Poll: Majority of Americans Distrust in the Media

By: Jonathan Turley | May 2, 2024

A poll from the American Press Institute and The Associated Press-NORC Center has found that a majority of Americans are extremely worried or very concerned about bias in the media and the reporting of false or misleading information. Only 48% of Republicans and 34% of independents still receive their news from national news outlets and expressed the greatest trust of the media.

The poll shows that 47% of Americans have serious concern that news outlets would report information that has not been confirmed or verified, and 44% worry that accurate information will be presented in a way that favors one side or another.

For years, the journalists have sawed on the branch upon which they are sitting. Even National Public Radio, which receives federal funding, is unrepentant in the face of criticism over its overt political bias.

Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University journalism professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones declared recently that “all journalism is activism.” Advocacy journalism is all the rage in journalism schools and on major media platforms. A recent series of interviews with over 75 media leaders by Leonard Downie Jr., former Washington Post executive editor, and Andrew Heyward, former CBS News president, reaffirmed this shift. As Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, stated: “Objectivity has got to go.” But that objective seems to depend heavily upon what ideology you are advocating.

The result is that the mainstream media is increasingly speaking to itself and a dwindling number of viewers and readers. NPR is again a good example. NPR’s audience has been declining. Indeed, that trend has been most pronounced since 2017. The company has also reported falling advertising revenue and, like many outlets, has made deep staff cuts to deal with budget shortfalls.

Yet, while tacking aggressively to the left and openly supporting narratives (including some false stories) from Democratic sources, NPR and its allies still expect citizens to subsidize its work. That includes roughly half of the country with viewpoints now effectively banished from its airwaves.

The result is that about half of Americans rely on social media for their primary source of news. That is why it is not surprising that the censorship of social media has been a priority among many liberal groups. The effort is to eliminate sources of information and regulate what citizens see and read.

Despite this effort, the trend is likely to continue. Recently at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the host Colin Jost remarked how he could not believe the race was tied despite all of the bad coverage of Trump. At events like the dinner, there is disbelief that citizens are not just following their narrative and shaping of the news. The fact is that many are no longer listening or watching. The MSM is “playing to the house,” not to the public at large.

So, we are left with the variation of a common Zen-like question: if the media reports and no one is listening, does it still make a noise?

Category:

Media

Tagged with:

Weissmann: “One Vote Away from … the End of Democracy”

By: Jonathan Turley | May 1, 2024

When Robert Mueller appointed Andrew Weissmann as one of his top advisers, many of us warned that it was a poor choice. Weissmann seemed intent to prove those objections correct in increasingly unhinged and partisan statements. This week, he ratcheted up the rhetoric even further in claiming that the nation is “one vote away” from the end of democracy if the Supreme Court does not embrace the sweeping claims of Special Counsel Jack Smith.

At the time of his appointment, many Republicans objected to Weissmann’s status as a democratic donor, including his reported attendance of the election night party for Hillary Clinton in 2016. My objection was not to his political affiliations but to his professional history, which included extreme interpretations that were ultimately rejected by courts. Weissmann was responsible for the overextension of an obstruction provision in a jury instruction that led the Supreme Court to reverse the conviction in the Arthur Andersen case in 2005.

Weissmann then became a MSNBC analyst and a “professor of practice” at New York University. In his book, he attacked prosecutors for refusing to take on his extreme views. Weissmann called on prosecutors to refuse to assist John Durham in his investigation.

Now he is predicting the end of democracy if the Court remand the immunity case for further proceedings. Weissmann told MSNBC anchor Jen Psaki on Sunday:

I think that it’s important to remember that at the outset, the court had already given Donald Trump the win that he was seeking, which is the delay of the DC trial.

So going into this, this was all upside for him. I mean, I think he had to be thinking, I’m making this really outlandish argument, with ramifications that couldn’t possibly be squared with the text and history. The text of the Constitution or the history of the presidency? So, it’s all upside if the court would actually bite on this. And so, what was surprising is that there were justices who actually were taking this seriously. And it just was, frankly, shocking.

Remember, going into this, the given was that private conduct was certainly not, immunized from criminal liability. What everyone’s talking about now is, hey, maybe they think that some of this is private and they can go forward, but that was what was given going into this. And the reason people are thinking that is because there seem to be four justices who were really taking Donald Trump’s claim of criminal immunity seriously. And we are.

I mean, I know it sounds like hyperbole, but I think your opening is so correct that we are essentially, as Neil put it, one vote away from sort of the end of democracy as we know it with checks and balances. And to say it’s an imperial presidency that would be created is, it’s frankly saying it would be a king, he would be criminally immune. And that that is what is so shocking is how close we are.

And we are really on the razor’s edge of that kind of result. But for the chief justice.

Just for the record, it sounds less “like hyperbole” than hysteria. The justices were exploring the implications of the sweeping arguments on both sides of the immunity question. What they were not willing to do (as does Weissmann) is simply dismiss any arguments of official status on the part of the accused. That would establish a dangerous ambiguity for the future as prosecutors claim that political statements are private matters for the purpose of prosecution.

Ironically, Weissmann’s lack of concern for the implications of such an interpretation is reminiscent of his prior sweeping arguments as a prosecutor that led to the stinging defeat in the Anderson case.

Of course, there is another possibility is that the justices were not seeking the end of democracy. The Court was honestly trying to get this standard correct not just for this case but future cases. To do so, it will require a record on the underlying actions rather than the categorical threshold judgment made by the district court. The argument showed justices exploring how to avoid a parade of horribles on either extreme with a more moderate approach.

As I previously noted, it has been almost 50 years since the high court ruled presidents have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. That protection applied to acts taken “within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.”

Apparently, that immunity did not endanger democracy.

In United States v. Nixon, the court also ruled a president is not immune from a criminal subpoena. Nixon was forced to comply with a subpoena for his White House tapes in the Watergate scandal from special counsel Leon Jaworski. Since then, the court has avoided any significant ruling on the extension of immunity to a criminal case — until now.

There are cliffs on both sides of this case. If the court were to embrace special counsel Jack Smith’s arguments, a president would have no immunity from criminal charges, even for official acts taken in his presidency. It would leave a president without protection from endless charges from politically motivated prosecutors.

If the court were to embrace Trump counsel’s arguments, a president would have complete immunity. It would leave a president largely unaccountable under the criminal code for any criminal acts.

The first cliff is made obvious by the lower-court opinion. While the media have largely focused on extreme examples of president-ordered assassinations and coups, the justices are clearly as concerned with the sweeping implications of the DC Circuit opinion.

Chief Justice John Roberts noted the DC Circuit failed to make any “focused” analysis of the underlying acts, instead offering little more than a judicial shrug. Roberts read its statement that “a former president can be prosecuted for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former president has acted in defiance of the laws” and noted it sounds like “a former president can be prosecuted because he is being prosecuted.”

The other cliff is more than obvious from the other proceedings occurring as these arguments were made. Trump’s best attorney proved to be Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg — the very personification of the danger immunity is meant to avoid..

Weissmann is not concerned with the clear politicization of the criminal justice system by Bragg just before one of the most consequential elections in our history.

No, the threat is that justices may want to balance the interests over immunity by rejecting the extreme arguments on both sides. They may try to pursue a course that allows for immunity for official acts or functions while rejecting immunity for non-official acts. Some or all of Trump’s actions or statements could well fall into the unprotected category.

The sense of alarm expressed by legal experts is that the Court would not simply sign off on the absolutist arguments of Smith and, most importantly, allow for a trial before the election.

So how will democracy end if the Court adopts a middle road on immunity? It appears to come down to the loss of a possible conviction to influence the outcome of the election.

At the same time, MSNBC guests are also calling, again, for the packing of the Supreme Court. While conservative justices have repeatedly voted with the Biden Administration, it does not matter. They want the Court packed to guarantee outcomes with the appointment of reliable liberal justices. All of this is being defended in the name of democracy, as was ballot cleansing.

The problem with the escalating rhetoric is that there is not much room for further hysterics. Where does Weissmann and others go from here after predicting the imminent death of democracy?

Pundits have now predicted the creation of camps for democrats, killing journalists and homosexuals, the death of the free press, and tyranny. That leaves only systemic mutilations and Roman decimation. For lawyers to fuel this hysteria is a sad commentary on the state of our country. Whether a true crisis of faith or simple opportunism, it disregards centuries of constitutional history in overcoming every threat and obstacle. We have the oldest and most stable constitutional system in the world. To suddenly embrace tyranny would require all three branches, and the citizens as a whole, to shred an elaborate system of checks and balances.

We are better than that . . . and these inflammatory predictions.

Category:

Tagged with:

MSNBC’s Wallace: “All of the Conspiracy Theorists are Republicans.”

JonathanTurley.org | April 30, 2024

There has been a notable shift toward more and more extreme rhetoric in the media from predicting that democracy will end with this election to “disappearing” journalists and gays to ending all rights for everyone. On Monday, MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace added to this litany with a claim that “as with racists, all of the conspiracy theorists are Republicans.”

After discussing how GOP candidates have stated that they believe that the last election was “stolen,” Wallace added “It is not accurate to say everyone in the Republican Party is a conspiracy theorist but as with racists, all of the conspiracy theorists are Republicans.”

It was a crushingly ironic moment. Wallace has been repeatedly criticized for spreading false news. For example, the “Deadline: White House” host told viewers that they should not take the Hunter Biden laptop seriously: “We shouldn’t look at it as anything other than a Russian disinformation operation.”

Wallace heralded the Mueller investigation while pushing the now debunked Russian collusion claims. However, on the Durham investigation, she told viewers that they could ignore it despite the fact that the report stands uncontradicted:

“Durham’s whole thing is predicated on it’s like a rabbit hole conspiracy that suggests that the Trump-Barr paranoia infected his ability to stand back and evaluate whether the probe yielded guilty convictions of people who would have had nothing to do with any of these questions he looked at.”

Wallace and MSNBC also pushed false claims about Bill Barr clearing Lafayette Park for a Trump “photo op.”

On August 5th, 2019, MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace falsely claimed that Trump had talked about “exterminating Latinos.”

Wallace and MSNBC pushed the false story of border agents whipping migrants in Texas.

Wallace claimed that the lab theory of the Covid 19 was a “conspiracy theory.” It has been embraced by various federal agencies despite being called racist by many experts.

Many on the left now routinely call opposing views as spreaders of disinformation or conspiracy theories. The Biden Administration has funded various groups to blacklist or bar those with opposing views as disinformation, malinformation, or misinformation. Indeed, new groups are being formed before the election to echo these claims, including one headed by the former “Disinformation Czar.”

Category:

Tagged with:

NPR Suspends Editor Who Objected to Bias and Lack of Diversity at Company

JonathanTurley.org | April 16, 2024

NPR has been faced with a torrent of criticism over its bias and intolerance for opposing views in programming, including a stinging criticism from award-winning editor Uri Berliner. In response, NPR appears eager to fulfill that narrative and has suspended Berliner for speaking with the media. It appears that Berliner’s objections to NPR’s “absence of viewpoint diversity” is a bit too much for NPR to bear.

After Berliner wrote his piece in the Free Press, NPR CEO Katherine Maher attacked Berliner and made clear that NPR had no intention to change its one-sided editorial staff or its coverage. Others at NPR also went public with their criticism of him and falsely portrayed his criticism as opposed to actual racial and other diversity of the staff.

In his article, NPR’s David Folkenflik acknowledges that the Berliner criticism “angered many of his colleagues.”

Berliner gave Folkenflik a copy of the formal rebuke, which told Berliner that the letter was a “final warning”, and Berliner would be fired if he violated NPR’s policy again. However, NPR did not cite reportedly specific appearances as violations. The letter lacks specificity on that point, but Berliner will not contest the five-day suspension.

It is clear that NPR and Maher want prior approval of any future discussions with outside media. With a whistleblower, that could present an obvious chokepoint and invite further bias.

I have criticized NPR’s editors of playing such a role in other areas. NPR announced that reporters could participate in activities that advocate for “freedom and dignity of human beings” on social media and in real life. Reporters just need approval over what are deemed freedom or dignity enhancing causes. Presumably, that does not include pro-life or gun rights rallies.

The suspension may satisfy the anger of NPR editors and reporters over Berliner’s detailed accounts of their bias. In conjunction with Maher’s attacks, it is clear that the problem is viewed as Berliner, not the underlying bias. He is one of the few remaining “old guard” journalists at NPR who want greater balance at the outlet. Even that singular voice is too much for the staff. Again, it is reminiscent of what we have seen in higher education where faculties have been purged of conservative, libertarian, or dissenting voices.

NPR obviously has a right to be slanted and bias. It does not have a right to public funding in presenting such coverage.

Category:

Tagged with:

“Support Your Local Antifa”: Alabama Man Arrested in Alleged Political Bombing

By: JonathanTurley.org | April 12, 2024

Kyle Benjamin Douglas Calvert, 26, has become the latest Antifa member arrested for alleged political violence. Calvert is accused in the explosion of an IED device outside of Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall’s office in downtown Montgomery at around 3:42 a.m. on February 24. For years, Democratic politicians and the media have downplayed the violence of Antifa, even questioning its very existence. These photos may help them come to grips with the reality of Antifa.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Calvert has been charged with the malicious use of an explosive and possession of an unregistered destructive device. If convicted, Calvert faces a mandatory minimum of five years and a maximum of 20 years in prison, according to the DOJ.

Before the explosion, Calvert put up stickers, including those promoting Antifa, including stickers reading “Support your local antifa.”

Calvert, who reportedly identifies as transgender and nonbinary, expressed his “belief that violence should be directed against the government, and he has described his inability to control his own violent, aggressive impulses,” according to the DOJ. It supplied pictures of the nails and other evidence used in the construction of the bomb.

As I have written, it has long been the “Keyser Söze” of the anti-free speech movement, a loosely aligned group that employs measures to avoid easy detection or association. Yet, FBI Director Chris Wray has repeatedly pushed back on the denials of Antifa’s work or violence. In one hearing, Wray stated “And we have quite a number — and “Antifa is a real thing. It’s not a fiction.”

Some Democrats have played a dangerous game in supporting or excusing the work of Antifa. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence and its website was banned in Germany. His own son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer. During a prior hearing, Democratic senators refused to clearly denounce Antifa and falsely suggested that the far right was the primary cause of recent violence. Likewise, Joe Biden has dismissed objections to Antifa as just “an idea.”

Bray emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’”

Bray admits that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists… From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.” It is an illusion designed to promote what Antifa is resisting “white supremacy, hetero-patriarchy, ultra-nationalism, authoritarianism, and genocide.” Thus, all of these opposing figures are deemed fascistic and thus unworthy of being heard.

Bray quotes one Antifa member as summing up their approach to free speech as a “nonargument . . . you have the right to speak but you also have the right to be shut up.”

Hopefully, if found guilty, Calvert will actually face punishment. We previously discussed the case involving another Antifa member who was convicted after taking an ax to the door of Sen. John Hoeven’s office in Fargo. He was given no jail time, and the FBI even returned his ax. He later mocked the government by posting on social media “Look what the FBI were kind enough to give back to me!”

This case will no doubt be different . . . there is no bomb to give back to Calvert.

Category:

Tagged with:

NPR Editor Blasts the Public-Funded Company for Political Bias and Activism

By: JonathanTurley.org | April 11, 2024

In a scathing account from within National Public Radio (NPR), Senior Editor Uri Berliner blasted the company for open political bias and activism. Berliner, who says that he is liberal politically, wrote about how NPR went from a left-leaning media outlet to a virtual Democratic operation echoing narratives from figures like Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.). The objections have long been voiced, including on this blog, but this account is coming from a long-standing and respected editor from within the company.

Beliner details how NPR, like many media outlets, became openly activist after the election of Donald Trump to the point that the company now employs 87 registered Democrats in editorial positions but not a single Republican in its Washington, DC, headquarters. In his essay for The Free Press, Berliner notes that after Trump’s election in 2016, the most notable change was shutting down any skepticism or even curiosity about the truth of Democratic talking points in scandals like Russiagate. Berliner said that NPR “hitched our wagon” to Schiff and his now debunked claims.

Berliner says that he was rebuffed in seeking a modicum of balance in the coverage about the coronavirus “lab leak theory,” the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and the 2016 Russia hoax.

As discussed on this blog, NPR repeated false stories like the claims from the Lafayette Park riot. Berliner gives an account that is strikingly familiar for many of us who have raised the purging of conservative or libertarian voices from our faculties in higher education:

“So, on May 3, 2021, I presented the findings at an all-hands editorial staff meeting. When I suggested we had a diversity problem with a score of 87 Democrats and zero Republicans, the response wasn’t hostile. It was worse. It was met with profound indifference. I got a few messages from surprised, curious colleagues. But the messages were of the “oh wow, that’s weird” variety, as if the lopsided tally was a random anomaly rather than a critical failure of our diversity North Star.

In a follow-up email exchange, a top NPR news executive told me that she had been “skewered” for bringing up diversity of thought when she arrived at NPR. So, she said, “I want to be careful how we discuss this publicly.”

For years, I have been persistent. When I believe our coverage has gone off the rails, I have written regular emails to top news leaders, sometimes even having one-on-one sessions with them. On March 10, 2022, I wrote to a top news executive about the numerous times we described the controversial education bill in Florida as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill when it didn’t even use the word gay. I pushed to set the record straight, and wrote another time to ask why we keep using that word that many Hispanics hate—Latinx. On March 31, 2022, I was invited to a managers’ meeting to present my observations”

Former NPR analyst Juan Williams stated in an interview this week that, as a strong liberal voice (now at Fox), he found the same bias at NPR. Williams was fired by NPR as this shift seemed to go into high gear toward greater intolerance for opposing views. Despite these criticisms, NPR has doubled down on its activism. For example, when it came time to select a new CEO, NPR could have tacked to the center to address the growing criticism. Instead, the new CEO became instant news over social media postings that she deleted before the recent announcement of her selection. Katherine Maher is the former CEO of Wikipedia and sought to remove controversial postings on subjects ranging from looters to Trump. Those deleted postings included a 2018 declaration that “Donald Trump is a racist” and a variety of race-based commentary. They also included a statement that appeared to excuse looting.

NPR has abandoned core policies on neutrality as its newsroom has become more activist and strident. For example, NPR declared that it would allow employees to participate in political protests when the editors believe the causes advance the “freedom and dignity of human beings.” The rule itself shows how impressionistic and unprofessional media has become in the woke era. NPR does not try to define what causes constitute advocacy for the “freedom and dignity of human beings.” How about climate change and environmental protection? Would it be prohibited to protest for a forest but okay if it is framed as “environmental justice”?

NPR seems to intentionally keep such questions vague while only citing such good causes as Black Lives Matter and gay rights:

“Is it OK to march in a demonstration and say, ‘Black lives matter’? What about a Pride parade? In theory, the answer today is, “Yes.” But in practice, NPR journalists will have to discuss specific decisions with their bosses, who in turn will have to ask a lot of questions.”

So the editors will have the power to choose between acceptable and unacceptable causes. The bias seemed to snowball into a type of willful blindness in the coverage of the outlet, which is supported by federal funds.

After the New York Post first reported on Hunter Biden’s laptop in 2020, NPR declared that it would not cover the story. It actually issued a statement that seemed to proudly refuse to pursue the story, which was found to be legitimate:

“We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”

Berliner’s account is reminiscent of the recent disclosures from within the New York Times. Former editors have described that same open intolerance for opposing views and a refusal to balance coverage. Former New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet has finally spoken publicly about his role in one of the most disgraceful chapters in American journalism: the Times’ cringing apology for running a 2020 column by Sen. Tom Cotton. Bennet said publisher AG Sulzberger “set me on fire and threw me in the garbage” to appease the mob.

Former New York Times editor Adam Rubenstein also wrote a lengthy essay at The Atlantic that pulled back the curtain on the newspaper and its alleged bias in its coverage. The essay follows similar pieces from former editors and writers that range from Bari Weiss to his former colleague James Bennet. The essay describes a similar work environment where even his passing reference to liking Chick-Fil-A sandwiches led to a condemnation of shocked colleagues.

None of this is likely to change the culture at NPR any more than such discussions have changed faculties in higher education. Raising the virtual elimination of conservative or Republican voices on faculties is met by the same forced expressions of disbelief. While mild concern is expressed, it is often over the “perception” of those of us who view universities as intolerant or orthodox.

Of course, there remains the question of why the public should give huge amounts of money to a media outlet that is so politically biased. News outlets have every right to pursue such political agendas, but none but NPR claim public support, including from half of the country that embraces the viewpoints that it routinely omits from its airways.

Category:

Read ore at https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/12/turns-out-biden-lied-about-hur-beau-and-why-he-pilfered-classified-documents/

Tagged with:

Turns Out Biden Lied About Hur, Beau, And Why He Pilfered Classified Documents

BY: DAVID HARSANYI | MARCH 12, 2024

Author David Harsanyi profile

DAVID HARSANYI

VISIT ON TWITTER@DAVIDHARSANYI

One of the big takeaways from the newly released transcript of Joe Biden’s two-day interview with Robert Hur is that the special counsel was being exceedingly generous when describing the president as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

Much of the conversation with Hur is littered with barely incoherent answers and spiraling word salads. Though, the reader is occasionally entertained by Biden’s blowhard-y non-sequiturs. We learn about Biden’s Corvette — twice. We learn that the president is a frustrated architect but an excellent archer. Biden jokes that there might be risqué pictures of Dr. First Lady Jill Biden.

Then again, the fact that the entire two-day interview isn’t a giant nonsensical rant is not as impressive as his defenders might believe. The president is, indeed, completely coherent at times. And those are the times he’s probably lying.

When Hur released his report last month, for example, it noted that Biden couldn’t recall the year his son died. This is not the kind of event that typically slips a healthy person’s mind — not even one who is constantly trying to emotionally manipulate the public with misleading claims about the cause of his son’s death.

Recall that Biden feigned great anger about this interaction. “There’s even a reference that I don’t remember when my son died,” he barked at reporters when the report was released. “How in the hell dare he raise that? Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself: It wasn’t any of their damn business.”

The transcript shows that it was Biden who brought up his late son Beau, not Hur. The president claimed he believed Beau had died in 2017 or 2018 when he had tragically died of brain cancer in 2015.

Who knows? Maybe Biden forgot what he said? Reading the full context of his answer, and considering the president’s lifelong fabulism, it is not entirely out of the question that the president purposely floated the wrong date to try and justify his pilfering of classified documents. Either way, it’s bad.

Here is the key interaction:

MR. HUR: So, during this time when you were living at Chain Bridge Road and there were documents relating to the Penn Biden Center, or the Biden Institute, or the Cancer Moonshot, or your book, where did you keep papers that related to those things that you were actively working on?

PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, um .. . I , I, I, I, I don’ t know. This is, what, 2017, 2018, that area?

MR. HUR: Yes, sir.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: Remember, in this timeframe, my son is either been deployed or is dying, and, and so it was and by the way, there were still a lot of people at the time when I got out of the Senate that were encouraging me to run in this period, except the President. I’m not — and not a mean thing to say. He just thought that she had a better shot of winning the presidency than I did. And so I hadn’t, I hadn’t, at this point — even though I’m at Penn, I hadn’t walked away from the idea that I may run for office again. But if I ran again, I’d be running for President. And, and so what was happening, though – what month did Beau die? Oh, God, May 30th –

MS. COTTON: 2015.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: 2015.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: Was it 2015 he had died?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: It was May of 2015.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: It was 2015.

By the way, just as Beau did not die in Iraq, Joe was never “at Penn,” not in any real way. The outgoing vice president was bequeathed an honorary professor position at the school, which the Philadelphia Inquirer noted in 2019 was “a vaguely defined role that involved no regular classes and around a dozen public appearances on campus, mostly in big, ticketed events.”

More importantly, Biden also contradicted himself when speaking about the documents themselves.

When Hur asked the president about the classified papers in his possession, the president contended that he “had no purpose for them, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to keep clearly classified documents.” But Hur, in his prepared testimony for Congress, says: “We also identified other recorded conversations during which Mr. Biden read classified information aloud to his ghostwriter.”

So, the documents did have a very specific purpose. Those files were used, according to Amtrak Joe, to help earn $8 million writing a book after leaving the Obama administration. Yet, when the Hur report was released, the left wing did what they always do when confronted with bad news: they feigned a meltdown. They smeared the messenger. They concoct conspiracy theories. They denied reality. They’re doing the same right now.

The media continues to frame Hur’s findings as an exoneration of Biden to head off the (correct) perception that there is a stark, selective prosecution when it comes to the hoarding of classified documents. Donald Trump, yes. Biden and Hillary Clinton, no.

In The New York Times, Charlie Savage begins the paper’s story on the leaked transcripts by misleading readers with the contention that Hur had found “insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Biden.” This is not true. Hur’s report concluded that Biden came off as too feeble-minded to be convicted by a jury for his decades-long mishandling of classified information. According to the special counsel, the president had “willfully retained classified information.” And he had done it for years before winning the presidency.

During today’s hearing Democrats falsely used the word “exoneration” a number of times. Hur noted that the word “does not appear anywhere in my report, and that is not my conclusion.”

So, the fact remains that there are two ways to look at the Hur report. Either the president lacks the mental acuity to be charged for breaking the law, or he should be charged for breaking the law. Pick one.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist, a nationally syndicated columnist, a Happy Warrior columnist at National Review, and author of five books—the most recent, Eurotrash: Why America Must Reject the Failed Ideas of a Dying Continent. Follow him on Twitter, @davidharsanyi.

Category: