What counts as evidence?

Turley of course is a Trump shill who pretends to be something else, but this kind of thing is endemic.

Donald Trump’s statements regarding the truth or falsity of any controversial matter have quite literally zero evidentiary value. If you don’t understand why this is the case hit yourself hard with a brick on the forehead a few dozen times until you get some sort of cognitive re-set.

Trump isn’t even capable of “lying” in the conventional sense of the word, since to be a liar you have to care about the truth enough to try to assert the opposite. Trump is utterly indifferent to truth and falsehood, and continuing to treat him after all this time — as much of the mainstream media still does — as somebody whose statements have potentially some sort of autonomous evidentiary value is just journalistic malpractice.

A broader point here is that characterizing off the record denials from known liars as “pushback” against public sworn testimony is nearly as irresponsible as treating Trump’s statements as having some sort of evidentiary value.

Speaking of which, the administration at Turley’s law school has issued the usual pablum about why it’s going to keep paying Clarence Thomas:

“Debate is an essential part of our university’s academic and educational mission,” it said in a statement addressed to “the George Washington University Community.”

GWU has “received requests from some members of the university” and others that they fire Thomas, an adjunct professor who teaches a constitutional law seminar, the statement said.

“Just as we affirm our commitment to academic freedom, we affirm the right of all members of our communities to voice their opinions,” the statement said.

However, the university added, the justice’s views don’t represent those of the school.

A little quasi-Socratic colloquy:

People who actually want to fight fascism: Don’t platform fascists.

People who actually don’t: Platform fascists.

Law school and university administrators: We don’t engage in content discrimination or censorship, so we’re going to platform some fascists. That’s just the liberal celebration of all ideas as being worthy of a hearing.

Fascists: Once we win this little debate, no ideas will be worthy of a hearing except ours.

Dum dum centrists, institutionalist liberals, etc.: We don’t see the problem here.

Guy who runs the endowment: Cha-ching!