Ethics Alarms Award Nominee

No, John Brown Is NOT a Role Model For “Social Justice Reformers,” and Anyone Who Says So —Like Hakeem Jeffries’s Brother—Is Both Unethical and Dangerous

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

I co-wrote a book about Clarence Darrow (you can buy it here: it’s cheap), and one of the points I made in the Introduction was that the U.S.’s most famous trial lawyer also believed in terrorism. Well, Darrow had his quirks, and he frequently argued that one of his murderer clients should be acquitted because the murder was justified (it worked, too!). He was ethically and morally wrong about Brown, as I asserted here in a post that republished a shortened version of Darrow’s famous eulogy for the anti-slavery vigilante. It was written long after Brown’s death, of course; Darrow used to deliver the speech on anniversaries of Brown’s birthday on May 8. The most famous section of Darrow’s passionate speech:

“The radical of today is the conservative of tomorrow, and other martyrs take up the work through other nights, and the dumb and stupid world plants its weary feet upon the slippery sand, soaked by their blood, and the world moves on.”

Darrow was an early progressive when the movement began, on the extreme end. In his “ends justifies the means” glorification of violence as a means of social change, we can see the seeds of where modern progressives have gone off the metaphorical rails and become a genuine threat to the rule of law and democracy. In Darrow’s time (he was active from 1890 to 1932) there were few progressives who would go as far as Darrow, though the anarchists did. They were the terrorists of the day, but Darrow defended labor leaders who also believed that murdering the exploitive capitalist here and there as well as their political enablers was the right thing to do.

Thus Darrow defended “Big Bill” Haywood (February 4, 1869 – May 18, 1928), an American labor organizer, a founding member and leader of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and a member of the executive committee of the Socialist Party of America. “Big Bill” was indicted for engineering the booby-trap murder of Frank Steunenberg, a former governor of Idaho. Darrow got “Big Bill” off (Just look at this guy! You just know he did it.)…

….but by arguing that even if he was guilty, its shouldn’t matter because he was on the right side. Fortunately, Darrow’s arguments in favor of just murder were confined to the courtroom and his John Brown eulogy once a year.

This week, Hasan Kwame Jeffries , an Ohio State University history professor and the brother of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, declared in a social media post that “John Brown understood that the only way to free Americans from the scourge of white supremacy was to get rid of white supremacists by any means necessary. He was right then. He is right now.” Gee, do you think Prof. Jeffries is at odds with his brother in this appeal to violence? I doubt it.

Prof. Turley has called out the Democratic House minority leader for encouraging violence on the Left, and lionizing John Brown is literally a justification of violence. If Republicans and the news media don’t confront Democrats and the party’s leaders with Prof. Jeffries’s words, they are being negligent and irresponsible.

Pages: 1 2

More on the President’s Unethical and Collusive $1.8 Billion IRS ‘Slush Fund’ Settlement 

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Or in other words,

If you can process this whole astounding ethics debacle and come out anything but but disgusted and disillusioned, you apparently are capable of rationalizing anything.

Hint: This is not a good thing.

In this post, I wrote about the gob-smacking, unprecedented settlement of President Donald Trump’s lawsuit over the leaking of his tax returns. My conclusion yesterday: “[T]his deal stinks, and should be challenged ethically if not legally. The whole Justice Department and the Treasury Department too had irresolvable conflicts, and should not have been allowed to make a settlement with their own boss.”

I learned of this revolting development two days ago, when a Trump Deranged relative asked me why my ethicist head wasn’t exploding over “Trump’s corrupt deal with the IRS that gave him a billion dollars to pay his militia, the J-6 rioters.” I had no idea what she was talking about. See, she only watches MSNow for news, and of course they were all over the story, as were all the Axis news platforms. The last few days I have been less than diligent in my bi-partisan news searches, mostly checking websites. However, that potentially exaggerated description of what two Executive cabinet departments and their employees who Trump can fire at will agreed to in settlement of a lawsuit that almost certainly would have been tossed by any judge who could beat Justice Jackson in Scrabble turned out to be shockingly accurate.

Now we are learning that the deal is even worse than it first appeared to be. This account is straight from Politico. I will not make a habit of the lazy Instapundit-Althouse blogging practice of posting a long quote or article and asking readers, “What do you think?”, but the ethics horror here is pretty straightforward, and I would just be rewording the item unnecessarily:

Pages: 1 2

Unethical Quote of the Week: Rep. Thomas Massie (R.-KY)

/ Jack Marshall / 56 Comments

I would’ve come out sooner, but I had to call my opponent and concede. And it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv.”

—Rep Thomas Massie, (R-Ky) after losing his primary against a Trump-endorsed candidate.

I would have more respect for Massie if he just came right out and called his opponent a “Jew-lover.”

Nothing could more emphatically validate President Trump’s decision to oppose Massie, who has cemented undying infamy at Ethics Alarms by insulting a victorious opponent in his concession speech. Such lack of civility, respect and decorum only exacerbates the decline of civic comity in Washington, and there is no excuse for it. Being a poor loser shows poor character, and an inability to meet one of the key markers of virtue in Rudyard Kipling’s “If”: “Meet with Triumph and Disaster and treat those two impostors just the same.”

Naturally the Washington Post lionizes Massie in defeat, saying his lost primary was because of his “consistent unwillingness to go along to get along,” and that “Massie’s independence earned the enmity of President Donald Trump, who deployed his political machine to crush Massie and recruited primary winner Ed Gallrein. Yet the quixotic congressman, for better or worse, always seemed more driven by ideas than personalities.”

Yeah. One of those keen “ideas” was anti-Semitism. Burying the lede, the Post’s long sigh regarding Massie’s loss culminates in this admission:

“He was the only House Republican to vote against a resolution condemning antisemitism. Reasonable people might oppose U.S. aid to Israel, but Massie too often did so with over-the-top, even conspiratorial, rhetoric.”

Well nobody’s perfect.

Post Script: You want unethical “advocacy journalism”? Read the MSNow spin on Massie’s loss. Trump’s “revenge,” “a huge cost,” the whole event is presented as a platform for more Trump-bashing. No mention of Massie’s anti-Semitism, which all by itself justifies, indeed mandates, his loss. But then the MSNow gang is angry about all those dog-rapes…

Ethics Dunce: D.C. Bar Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Jack Metzler

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

As I often say (or think) in such situations, “Yikes!”

I’m going to send you to a thorough exposé over at Signal, a conservative website, which means its thorough coverage of this example of irresponsible conduct in a position of trust as well as a stunning “bias makes you stupid” display will be brushed off by some as just a partisan attack. I’m certain some ideological hostility helped prompt the piece, but it is accurate, which means that Signal has flagged a genuine ethics problem. Good for Signal.

D.C. Bar Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Jack Metzler has posted dozens of inflammatory, openly partisan, politically-motivated comments on social media for years,. He has mocked, insulted and attacked conservative Supreme Court Justices (but never the liberal minority). He has reposted with favor attacks on Donald Trump and Elon Musk (for his conservative views.) It appears someone finally told him, “Hey, moron, what are you doing?” and he’s taken down the worst of the tweets. The internet is forever, though. And Metzler has moved to BlueSky, the Twitter/”X” alternative for progressives who can’t tolerate people and opinions that don’t toe the woke line. I regard that as signature significance for Trump Derangement and partisan indoctrination.

Pages: 1 2

The Israelis Have Trained Dogs To Rape Hamas Prisoners of War! Right. “A Bias Makes You Stupid ” Classic From the NYT’s Nick Kristof

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

Wow. I used to think Nick Kristof was the best and most trustworthy in Times’ generally unethical stable of pundits. Now I learn that he is nuts, or so biased against Israel that his brain sneaked out of his skull while he was sleeping.

This insane “report,” which his paper dutifully published because it no longer operates as a professional news source when politics are involved, is based entirely on second hand sources that have been anti-Israel and pro-Hamas from the beginning of the 2023 war Hamas began with a surprise terror attack on Israel’s civilians. Kristof cites only the claims of Palestinians, and sources that base their reports on the same. His main source is Sami al-Sai, a “free-lance journalist who has been painting Hamas and Gaza as victims of “genocide” since the war began. That is not an independent source. Neither is the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, also an anti-Israel group, or the United Nations, which has supported Palestinian propganda since the war began. At one point, Kristof even writes, “There is no evidence that Israeli leaders order rapes.” There is also no evidence that the alleged rapes occurred.

There is definitive evidence that the Hamas terrorists raped Israeli women, however. Kristof’s fantasy appears to be a deliberate rationalization (#2. Whataboutism, or “They’re Just as Bad“) to excuse Hamas/Gaza/ Palestinians for starting the bloody conflict. Coincidentally (?) an extensive, genuinely sourced report was released today documenting Hamas’s attack, including the rapes, and sexual assaults against the kidnapped hostages. One commenter on “X’ wrote, “If you do not believe @nytimes knew EXACTLY what they were doing with the timing of the Kristof “opinion” piece [ie, trying to preempt justified outrage at Hamas’s sexual crimes by suggesting that Israel similarly engages in such crimes] I have a nice bridge to sell you.”

The Kristof piece seems like smoking gun evidence that the Times is filled with anti-Semites, or, in the alternative, people too stupid to put on their shoes after their socks. At very least, I would expect the Times to find a dog training expert to explain how the hell you would train a dog to rape a human being. Spuds (above) laughed when I told him about the article.

As Jack Nicholson says in “A Few Good Men,” this isn’t funny, it’s tragic. The American Left is embracing anti-Semitism to an extent that hasn’t been seen since the Thirties. David Bernstein wrote today, after an attack on a Jewish neighborhood in New York City, which elected a pro-Hamas mayor, “We are getting closer to an actual pogrom like Crown Heights 1991. Seriously time for Brooklyn Jews to arm themselves.”

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Update On the Axis Freakout Over Virginia and Tennessee’s Redistricting Results

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

[Note: I apologize for the funky formatting here, but it’s not my fault: WordPress again messed with its (terrible) “block system” with no warning and I’m trying to figure it out.]

I’m posting the graphic above again because it is res ipsa loquitur, rebutting on its face what so many of the hysterical Democrats, elected officials, pundits and partisan reporters are screaming as they survey the results of their own corruption and hypocrisy.

As Ethics Alarms has been asserting (and proving) for a decade now, the Left cheats. Its “they go low, we go high” mantra has always been cynical gaslighting, but the somnolent Right allowed them to escape accountability (and their just desserts) far too long. Donald Trump, whatever his ethical flaws may be, has always understood the concept of fighting back. This time it really paid off, and all Americans should be grateful. Yes: we should fervently seek fair districting in every state. Maybe the current chaos will eventually lead to that. However, letting one party rig the system unanswered while the other party just sits and shrugs is worse than the chaos.

Scott Greenfield, defense lawyer, blogger, Jack-hater and progressive legal pundit, deserves praise for a nearly completely ethical and unbiased analysis of the Virginia Supreme Court decision striking down the dastardly gerrymandering trick Virginia’s “moderate” governor and its corrupt Democrats tried to inflict on half the state’s voters. He writes in part,

“The confluence of a few unfortunate circumstances resulted in the Virginia Supreme Court holding that the state constitutional amendment to allow the redistricting plan as a counterbalance to other states’ legislative redistricting plans to eliminate congressional districts deemed “safely” Democratic was unconstitutional. Wags and cynics will imagine this ruling to be the product of radical rightist activists. It was not…Neither the majority nor dissent took unprincipled positions, both having some merit to their position, but the point of a ruling is to reach a determination. The Virginia Supreme Court did so, in a principled fashion, and it ruled the redistricting amendment unconstitutional under the state Constitution. It was a crushing defeat for Democrats, but that doesn’t make it partisan or radical. Sometimes, you lose. While the combination of the Supreme Court’s Callais decision and this Virginia ruling has set in motion a partisan war that serves to make congressional elections a by-product of widespread cynical gerrymandering rather than a reflection of the will of the voters, perhaps one of the most noxiously anti-democratic efforts to rig an election possible, don’t blame the Virginia Supreme Court for “losing” safe districts for Democrats. The court did its job and its ruling, no matter what outcome you would have preferred, was grounded in a principled reading of the state Constitution.”

Good for Scott. He is still, however, a Trump Deranged, biased progressive (like most trial lawyers), so he also wrote…

“If you want to find blame, it’s in the legislatures that decided to sell out their citizens, their voters, at the open and notorious behest of Trump. For all his baseless bluster about rigged elections, we’re finally going to have one and Trump demanded the rigging.”

Bad Scott. Bad. Look at the damn chart above. Democrats had already rigged Congressional elections. Did you wonder why the predicted “red wave” in 2022 never materialized? Wonder no more. Nine Democrat-dominated state legislatures made it virtually impossible for Republicans to get elected. President Trump, that kingly fascist, had the sense and combative instincts to get his party to try to even the odds. The “red” states that did that through redistricting (gerrymandering) followed their constitutions. Virginia did not. Naturally, the losers blame Trump.

Former DNC chairwoman and current ABC contributor Donna Brazile naturally took the same dishonest path. Remember, Brazile was the Democrat who first tipped me off to her party’s cheating ways: as a paid CNN “contributor” in 2016, she used her insider status to tip-off Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton regarding the questions she would be asked at a CNN “town meeting.” This was so unethical even CNN couldn’t tolerate it, and she was fired. Yesterday Brazile joined GOP Rep. Dan Crenshaw and HBO’s “Real Time” host Bill Maher to give a masterclass on double standards and leftist gaslighting. Republican redistricting efforts are, she said, “immoral,” while Democratic efforts are what “voters decided.”

Voters in Virginia “decided” on the gerrymandered map based on the referendum’s false statement, indeed exactly the opposite of reality, that the new map would “restore fairness.” Remember?

“Restore fairness” by making sure that a 50-50 party split would be represented by a 10-1 Democrat district map. Sure.

Then Brazile played the race card, as Democrats inevitably do when the facts aren’t in their favor. “I come from one of those states that all of a sudden, the Supreme Court said, ‘Well, we don’t like partisan gerrymandering. No, we don’t like racial gerrymandering.’ So, one out of three voters in Louisiana is a black voter. One out of three. And they are now thinking of eradicating. So, that says people from some parts of Louisiana can represent New Orleans better than the folks who are representing—or Baton Rouge. It is wrong, it is immoral, and it is unjustified.”

Well-said, mush-mouth. “They” are thinking of “eradicating” black voters? I think Donna was trying to say that the Jim Crow laws that were still in effect de facto if not de jure in Southern states in the early Sixties justifies “good racial discrimination” in 2026, 60 years later. You can read her logic- and law-free rant here.This is, however, apparently the fake narrative the Axis has decided to run with, proving with its attempted cover-up just how desperate and unprincipled it is.

On yesterday’s MSNOW propaganda-fest “The Weekend,” Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY) compared the 1857 Dred Scott ruling to the SCOTUS decision that the 1965 Voting Rights Act could no longer justify anti-white discrimination in the Southern states, and declared the Roberts Court “one of the most racist courts in American history.”Got it. If the Court doesn’t allow the Democrats to rig its Congressional maps to pack the House with as many blacks as possible, it’s racist. Morelle also parroted the “will of the voters” lie in attacking the Virginia Supreme Court’s rejection of redistricting referendum. Did the MSNOW host point out for its viewers that Morelle was misrepresenting both decisions? Is a bear Catholic? Does the Pope shit in the woods?

This how House minority leader Hakeem Jeffreys reacted to his party being foiled in its unconstitutional, dishonest power-grab in Virginia:

Pages: 1 2

The New York Times Is Shocked—SHOCKED!—That Anyone Would Think It Discriminates Against White Males!

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

A white male New York ‘Times’ employee has filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging the paper had discriminated against him by not giving him a promotion despite his superior qualifications, because he is a white male. Yesterday the EEOC filed a civil-rights lawsuit against the ‘Times’ arguing that the paper’s pledge to satisfy its DEI goals are being translated into “unlawful employment practices.”

Which, of course, they are, if the color of one’s skin and one’s pronouns are considered as crucial in determining promotions.

The Times was first to break the news of the suit but did not name the employee who made the complaint. “Reporters at the paper have been scrambling to figure out the employee’s identity, driven in part by bafflement that one of their own colleagues would sell out the paper to the administration, which has used tools of the federal government to attack the press,” says New York Magazine.

Really! So the Times feels that loyal Times workers should support “good discrimination” and allow the paper to skirt the law, even when they are the victims of illegal employment practices, because to do otherwise is to support the Evil Trump administration.

In World War Eleven such people were called “Good Germans.”

This is one sick culture at the New York Times.

Nikita Stewart — the Times’ then-real-estate editor who has since been promoted to metro editor — “deviated from normal hiring protocol” in January 2025 to hire someone without experience editing real-estate coverage to work as her deputy, the suit alleges. The white man who was bypassed had “considerable experience with real estate news,” a requirement included on the public job listing for the position.

Wow. A female editor named Nikita is at the center of his “to each according to their needs” tale! You can’t make this stuff up.

In 2021 the Times announced a “Call To Action,” which stated that “people of color—and particularly women of color—remain notably underrepresented in its leadership,” the suit claims. A company can address that perceived imbalance by recruitment efforts, but—and I speak from experience—placing a racial and gender thumbs on the metaphorical scales is virtually unavoidable.

Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha called the suit “politically motivated.” Gee, what a surprise. “Our employment practices are merit-based and focused on recruiting and promoting the best talent in the world,’’ Ha said in a statement. “We will defend ourselves vigorously.”

You know…like Harvard denied that admitting black students with lower grades and test scores than Asian applicants was discriminatory.

Does anyone believe that the woke, left-biased, victim-mongering, knee-jerk Democratic New York Times, after declaring that its staff was “too white” and “too male” has not been systematically discriminating against whites and men?

Rueful Observations On A Trump Derangement Outburst…

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

1. Nah, Trump Derangement is a myth!

2. If you want to see this orgy of hate and violence without the annoying commentary, here’s a link I couldn’t embed.

2. How does a mush-mouth like Topping have the gall to host a show of any kind? Jeeeez, whatever your first name is, get a coach! Learn to speak clearly. Slow the hell down. Not only are you hard to understand, your speech pattern is excruciating to listen to. This is malpractice.

Why hasn’t anyone told him?

3. Look at the hate on this crazy old bat’s face! What could possibly justify that?

4. There are several places on the web where one can purchase Trump pinatas. Here, for instance.

5. The onlookers cheering her on epitomize the description “angry mob.” The Axis of Unethical Conduct made them this way, hammering away at “Trump is a Nazi” and related slander and libel, day after day, for ten years. And it has caused brain damage. The remedy to speech is, we have decided as a nation, more speech, and “hate speech” is still protected speech. Inciting riots, however, is not protected speech. Nonetheless, inciting riots in slow motion, over long periods of time, by repeating demonizing and violence-triggering propaganda and rhetoric over and over again until it is embedded in weak minds, is legal. It is also unethical.

6. Do you think the crazy woman doing this while wearing a shirt that extols kindness on the front and the Golden Rule on the back recognizes the double standards she is embracing? It it intentional satire? Is she just an idiot?

7. Democrats cheer on this kind of lunacy while insisting that their “8647” rhetoric plays no part in the repeated assassination attempts. The only President I can find whose avatars were subjected to such vicarious and symbolic violence was Abraham Lincoln during protests like the draft riots in New York. (Confederate equivalents don’t count.) True, he wasn’t…

Oh. Right.

8. I react emotionally to people attacking and defiling images of the President of the United States. just as I do to flag burning. It is an attack on my nation, its institutions, its history and its values. The conduct shows civic disrespect that cannot be rationalized away.

______________

Pointer: Steve Witherspoon

“Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!” Res Ipsa Loquitur: Reuters’ Unethical Headline

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

“Spirit Airlines shuts down, industry’s first Iran war casualty”

Today I was a guest on The Steven Speirer Show, talking about ethics. In the final minutes, Steven, a California lawyer, asked me what I regarded as the greatest ethics issue facing the U.S. today. Without hesitation, I named the corruption of journalism and the collapse of ethics in the journalism profession. Readers here are familiar with that conclusion and why I am confident that it is correct. A republic cannot function with out an informed populace. “Advocacy journalism,” the elevation of the profit motive over integrity, responsibility and honesty, and the increasing intrusion of the techniques of “fake news” into reporting has transformed journalism into a toxic combination of propaganda and indoctrination.

“Professions earn that label by being trustworthy,” I told Steve. “Our news media today cannot be trusted, and those who do trust it are uninformed or misinformed.” My host said that he wished he could disagree, but in good conscience could not.

Then I checked my emails after the session, and saw the link to the Reuters headline above, re-posted on Yahoo! Finance. (Arthur in Maine gets the pointer for the link; my apologies for misidentifying the source in the original version of this post). It’s a classic, typical of how journalism operates today. A story about a company bankruptcy that was long in the works is framed as an indictment of the Iran War, and by extension President Trump.

Pages: 1 2

Yecchh! The DOJ’s Indictment Against James Comey Is As Embarrassing and Unethical As The Democrats’ Lawfare Indoctments Against Trump

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

How embarrassing, irresponsible and incompetent….

Yes, the Trump DOJ really indicted the Deep State’s scumball ex-FBI Director for his obnoxious Instagram post featuring an anti-Trump seashell message he happened upon on the beach (Yeah, I wouldn’t put it past this guy to arrange the seashells himself and then pretend it was made by someone else, but that is unprovable.)

Trump’s DOJ has unsuccessfully indicted Comey once already. That indictment at least had some law and logic to support it: this one does not. I didn’t think the DOJ and FBI could be so wasteful as to have an ongoing investigation of a seashell formation that has taken eleven months, but to be fair, tracking down all those mollusk witnesses and interviewing them must have been quite a chore.

Last year I wrote, after Comey issued his Instagram post,

“James Comey, the partisan, dishonest, unethical former FBI Director whom Trump was right to fire (but he should have fired him earlier) posted on Instagram, with approval, a message that consisted of the numbers 8647, meaning “rub out the 47th President,” Donald Trump, delineated with sea shells. …

 “Nice! It didn’t take long for Comey to realize that this was, to say the least, a tactical error, and he took down the post. In doing so, Comey proved what a mendacious creep he is again by claiming that it never occurred to him that 8647 might be interpreted as a call to have the President of the United States eradicated, offed, murdered, killed…you know assassinated. Never mind that there have been two near misses by the “Kill Trump” club already, that some Democrats and “the resistance” have openly advocated violence, and that for a former head of the FBI to join their ranks is, to put it mildly, unseemly. Comey said he was sorry.

“Not good enough. Not nearly good enough. A former high law enforcement official calling for the assassination of the sitting President is a big deal, attention should be paid, and Comey should suffer more than the indignity of having to channel Emily Litella (“Never mind!”)

“…There is no valid justification for taking criminal action against Comey (who wrote coyly under his shells photo, “Cool shell formation”), but there also is no good reason not to thoroughly humiliate this Ethics Villain either.”

Instead, the crack MAGA lawyers in Trump’s Justice Department decided to thoroughly humiliate themselves instead by using this old, obnoxious, since-deleted Instagram post as the basis for two criminal counts alleging that Comey “ma[d]e a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon, the President of the States”:

DOJ has to prove under the law that “a reasonable recipient“ of the image of “8647” posted by Comey “who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret” the post “as a serious expression of an intent to do harm” to Trump. It can’t. Among other things, the editing term “86” is ambiguous. Because I have been an editor, I know it means “Kill this section” or “throw away this story.” But even in the editing game, 86 doesn’t literally mean “kill” because you can’t kill something that isn’t alive in the first place. Furthermore, most Americans don’t have a clue that “86” means “eliminate/cut/get rid of/trash, etc.” In fact, the DOJ can’t assume or prove that Comey did, so the “knowingly and willfully” requirement is dead in the water, like the previous inhabitants of those shells.

It’s overkill because the indictment is obviously absurd and you shouldn’t have to be a lawyer, a legal scholar or a beach-comber to figure it out, but Alan Rozenshtein and Ben Wittes at Lawfare—a reliably anti-Trump, Axis-allied site, but that doesn’t mean it is always wrong— examined the legal issues regarding Comey’s post and concluded, “James Comey could have gone a lot stronger than ‘8647’ and still not risked jail.”

Absolutely correct. Taking a picture of an ambiguous message on a beach and calling it “cool” can’t conceivably constitute a “true threat.”

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court held “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit [a law] to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” A seashell message on a beach complimented by a fired FBI director is likely to incite violence? Come on.

Pages: 1 2