Search the Lounge


« Equality Law Scholars' Forum at UC Davis Tomorrow | Main | Paul Butterfield »

November 16, 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Perhaps this story is not pushed by the "television news media" because any semblance of fair and objective reporting would include the extent to which the US is willing to answer for its activities in the world in foreign courts.

ALso, I seem to remember the issue of claims against Iran came up last administration, including the use of frozen assets to satisfy those claims. How was that resolved?

Perhaps we should look at cases not in isolation, but in terms of the constitution, applicable law, precedent and principles of fairness (which entail consistency and equality).

The Law Offcies of Kavanaugh Thomas, LLC, PC, LTD, Chartered, AV Rated

The DNC should interplead the Republican Party to determine who really meddled the most....either through voter suppression or false propaganda. I never thought in a million years the Republicans would get in bed with the Russians. The damages are incalculable. A ruined environment, mass shootings on a weekly basis, emboldened white nationalists, trillions added to a budget deficit during a strongish economy....


The ultimate issue with respect to the "Russian interference" is this: can the very utterance of words, based SOLELY on WHO is doing the speaking, be lawfully banned in this country? Only an Orwellian (and intellectually dishonest) ideologue could answer yes, in what purports to be a free country.

A while back, someone on this site posted a link to Frank Zappa on CNN's Crossfire.

The "progressives" (who have always fought against freedom of speech, see, e.g., the Wilson era and today) should listen to what Frank said.


Let's make is even easier to understand: If you believe that the US can prosecute a Russian, for being a Russian who has said something that an American could have said with no fear of criminal liability, then you do not support the First Amendment, and don't understand its spirit and purpose.

Worse, if you believe that foreign nationals from countries OTHER THAN RUSSIA can publish inflammatory statements intended to influence elections in this country, while simultaneously advocating the punishment of "Russians" for attempting to "influence an election" than, once again, who are you kidding? Yourself, only.

Finally, the argument that there is a difference between "state sponsored" speech and speech can't be applied, and no one is even trying to do that. References to "Russians" are enough for most "progressives." Moreover, if we inquired, I believe we'd find that other foreign nationals who speak in this country to influence our elections are often supported by their governments, in one way or another.

The Law Offcies of Kavanaugh Thomas, LLC, PC, LTD, Chartered, AV Rated

^^^Well said. However, the problem is "I just looked into his eyes" Putin.

J. Bogart

Seems like a lot of argument being presented for one not submitting to the jurisdiction of the court.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad