Columns, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Media, Politics, Uncategorized

Chopped: How Seattle Is Defining Leadership In Seattle And Washington

Jenny_Durkandonald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedBelow is my column in the Hill on the controversy over the creation of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, better known as Chaz.  Well, it was Chaz. “The autonomous zone formerly known as CHAZ” is now the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP). As W.C. Fields said “It ain’t what they call you, it’s what you answer to.” The problem is that Chief Best said no one is answering their calls.  Chief Carmen Best stated today that the name had apparently changed but that they have yet to identify people who will speak for CHAZ or CHOP. She also noted that there appears to be widely different demands. That presents a serious barrier to a resolution.

RIP CHAZ. All Hail CHOP, but the question of leadership remains.  Here is the column:

In Seattle, the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, better known as Chaz, seeks to create a communal experiment in governing free of cops. With raucous meetings in the Seattle People Department, formerly known as the Seattle Police Department in the East Precinct, Chaz is a work in progress covered in graffiti. Beyond its barricaded border, however, Chaz is already defining governance. In Seattle, Mayor Jenny Durkan is dismissing the concept for leadership. In Washington, President Trump is claiming authority he does not have to retake the district. It is a tale of two very different cities, with one official abdicating her authority and the other exaggerating his.

Officials struggled to ignore that people have taken control of one police precinct and six blocks of the largest city in Washington state. Governor Jay Inslee was ridiculed for denying he was aware of the takeover, which has been the focus of every major network and newspaper for days now. As Inslee struggled with denial, Durkan swiftly moved to acceptance.

Despite images of men walking around Chaz with weapons and extensive property damage, Durkan shrugged off suggestions that she might have a responsibility to regain control of the area. In an interview, she described the takeover as nothing more than a block party. Pressed about when she may act, Durkan said she may simply abandon the area and allow for what she called a summer of love. Nonetheless, both Durkan and Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best denied giving the order to abandon the precinct.

In a way, that is the greatest achievement of some of the anarchist and socialist groups in the movement: Government seems to have melted away, not just inside CHAZ but in Seattle.  Indeed, they are witnessing what Frederick Engels once envisioned: “The state is not ‘abolished’, it withers away.”

The support from Durkan for their “desire to build a better world” ignores that she was elected to govern the entire city of Seattle. Withdrawing the police and giving in to mob control of even one small area is antithetical to the most basic concepts of governance. Indeed, unwilling citizens of Chaz could sue over that decision to surrender control of their precinct. The city could also be sued for damages caused by abandonment.

The irony is that Durkan and the city can be protected by the very thing the denizens of Chaz, and Democratic leaders, have called to eliminate, which is immunity. Police have won lawsuits over the failure to prevent injuries or respond to calls as the discretionary decisions left for a city. Some of those cases turned on the “public duty doctrine” that shields governments from liability when it refuses to act to enforce laws.

In the 19th century, the Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit against a sheriff who allowed a gang of working men to basically hold a man hostage over unpaid money. The Supreme Court ruled that the sheriff owed his duty to the public rather than to individual citizens. Durkan can rely on the same antebellum precedent to excuse her own refusal to act with Chaz.

As Durkan abandons her duties, Trump is threatening to exceed his own. He tweeted that the “anarchist takeover” in Seattle is a case of domestic terrorism. Whatever Chaz is, it is certainly not terrorism. The mayhem is mostly peaceful, if also destructive, and the habit of Trump of calling his critics “traitors” is unnerving. But he went further, telling Seattle officials to take back the city or he would do it himself. This assertion of power is as radically overstated as that of Durkan is radically understated.

Under our federalist system, police powers mostly reside with the states. The Constitution gives Congress authority to overcome disturbances. It can “provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” Yet the disorder in Seattle is not an insurrection or a challenge to federal authority. It is rather a local protest that has now been allowed to continue by city officials.

With the Insurrection Act, Congress authorized presidents to use troops in response to rioting that “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” The president may intervene if requested by a state legislature to suppress an insurrection. In the case of Chaz, there is neither a rebellion nor a request. The Insurrection Act also allows for unilateral action for cases of unlawful obstruction, assemblies, or rebellion against the United States.

However, there is no challenge to federal authority when city officials have allowed the local protest to continue. Furthermore, the law grants federal authority on conditions that “make it impracticable to enforce the laws” in any state with “the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” The reason is that, as long as the courts are operating, the rule of law can be enforced, and Chaz does not prevent the courts in Seattle from meeting.

While Trump has said he will seek “force with compassion” in Chaz, that would still exceed any design by the Constitution. As with his erroneous claims that he could order the opening of states in the pandemic, Trump is certainly exceeding his power as the president. By comparison, Chaz has been functioning as was intended by not functioning at all.

Activists demand abolition of the police, the criminal justice system, the gentrification of cities, and a growing line of other actions, notably calls for the resignation of Durkan and the jailing of Trump. It is the talk of the town where citizens are pushing for the free delivery of everything from lotion to cigarettes and basking in the relative clarity of anarchy.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

136 thoughts on “Chopped: How Seattle Is Defining Leadership In Seattle And Washington”

  1. How many Americans have been killed by police?

    Why does the MSM focus solely on Africans killed by police?

    America has propaganda not journalism.

  3. Reminds me of the Bundy standoff in Oregon a few years back where some rural white guys just wanted the US to leave them alone and got all shot up. Funny how the narrative evolves based on race.

    1. They took over and trashed the headquarters of the wildlife refuge, also wrecking archaeological remains.

      The prosecution was unable to successfully complete the trials, more is the pity.

  4. Chopped: How Seattle Is Defining Leadership In Seattle And Washington

    It reads like a whole lot of people (eg government, protesters) playing with matches.

    What a highly combustible situation screaming for a rational solution.

    Unfortunately in the US today rational solutions between opposing ideologies are rarer than the element Astatine.

  7. Sorry Professor, you are obviously confusing, if not conflating, free speech with actions in your critique of Trump:

    “As with his erroneous claims that he could order the opening of states in the pandemic, Trump is certainly exceeding his power as the president. “

    No words, or tweets, by the President or anybody else, are “certainly exceeding” their power. Saying it is legal to do something that is not legal, is not doing something illegal.

    If Trump does order in the military to restore, you could then claim that Trump is exceeding his [legitimate] power. Similarly, if Trump put out an Executive Order to open the state in the pandemic, you could claim it was excessive.

    Of course the accurate critique is much less strong: IF Trump orders in the military, he WOULD be exceeding his power. But he hasn’t, yet, so he’s NOT YET exceeding his authority.
    His words about what his power is are certainly NOT exceeding his power.

      1. Mespo:

        Well, all these rioters have proven without a doubt why we need the 2nd Amendment. Politicians pull police off the streets, and even make them abandon precincts. That Seattle police chief said on camera that they have not been able to respond to 911 reports of rape and robbery.

        There are times and places where everyone is on their own. That is a very scary place to be with no means to defend yourself.

        Democrats have been saying for years that individuals don’t need guns. Just call the police. Exhibit A: CHAZ. Exhibit B: The burning Minneapolis police precinct. Exhibit C: cops in Democrat strongholds being told not to upset the rioters, as they loot and burn.

        They made our point for us.

      2. mespo727272 — Nope and nope again. Learn to read with comprehension.

      3. Benson’s got group of people and they are coming for your guns Mespo but don’t be scared. He’s bringing the Seattle police with him. 🙂

  10. Yet the disorder in Seattle is not an insurrection or a challenge to federal authority. It is rather a local protest that has now been allowed to continue by city officials.

    Well that’s a relief. Yes, Seattle has cancer, but it’s still only Stage 1. Yes, the “doctors” are absolutely incompetent and are violating their Hippocratic Oath by leaving the cancer untreated. But the rest of Seattle hasn’t been impacted to any degree by this cancer. According to JT, other cities, counties and states have a constitutional right to have a cancer within their own jurisdiction, as long as that body is able to function. Does our federalist system mean we aren’t all connected in what is commonly called a “body” politic? How many cities have to develop their own cancer before treatment by the county “doctors” is justified? How many counties have to develop cancer before treatment by the state “doctors” is justified? How many states have to develop cancer before treatment is justified by our federal “doctors”? At what point should people in “cancer-free” parts of our body politic demand treatment of the cancer before it metastasizes and becomes untreatable?

  11. 1992 Ruby Ridge
    1993 Wacco
    1996 Montana Freeman
    1997 The Republic of Texas
    2007 The Browns
    2014 Bundies

    Seems to me like Trump has more than enough authority.

    Or are we saying all of the above actions were outside the authority of the federal government at the time ?

    I would absolutely suggest that Trump tone down the rhetoric.
    And that we should let this play out.

    But can we quit rewriting federal authority ?

  12. I think Trump should tone down is rhetoric and let this play out.

    A protracted mess in Seattle is to his political advantage.
    Asserting that he has the authority to act and will do so, creates an expectation that he will act which makes him look weak – particularly to his own voters if he does not.

    And i wish everyone would quit calling everyone traitors. But given that Trump is maligned as treasonous constantly by the left and the media, it is hard to fault him for responding in kind.

    That said Turley seems obviously wrong on the law.

    Turley notes that the actual residents of this area might have a claim against their government for failure to protect and failure to enforce the law.

    While CHAZ might appears “peaceful” at the moment – they are in open rebellion, and that is not secret. The courts do not operate within their bounds, Neither federal nor state law are enforced. Armed men are preventing that.

    While I do not thing Trump SHOULD act. I can see zero doubt that he CAN act.

    How is this different from the Whiskey Rebellion ?

    How is it different from the civil war ?

    The south Succeeded. They withdrew themselves from federal authority.

    By Turley’s argument had the South not taken fort Sumter Lincoln would have no authority to act.

    We are at this moment trashing Confederates, yet Turley’s reading of the law would allow any state to succeed – so long as it did not attack any federal troops.

    This is NOT the same as OWS, that was essentially just mass tresspassing.

    CHAZ has claimed they are the legal authority for the land they occupy, They claim to be their own law.

    The obvious failure is local.

    I would note that libertarains have been trying for decades to find a peacefull way of doing exactly this – but without stealing anyone’s property, and without claiming authority over the sovereign territory of another country.

    In every instance they have been met by force.

    The US government under Obama pushed the Thai government to invade and arrest libertarians living in anchored floating pods more than 13miles of the coast of Thailand.

    If the federal government will not tolerate a handful of libertarians who are not hurting anyone and not in anyones soveriegn space and have not stolen anything from anyone, and were not even armed, then how is Trump saying Act or I will more deranged or less rooted in authority than Obama’s actions ?

    I would further note – there are numerous crimes that have been committed here – including federal ones.

    Clinton was OK to send the FBI in to raid Ruby Ridge over a single sawed off shotgun.

    Then he sent all kinds of federal forces to Wacco.

    1. “The US government under Obama pushed the Thai government to invade and arrest libertarians living in anchored floating pods more than 13miles of the coast of Thailand.”

      John, I know about the Vietnamese boat people and the rohingya boat peole but I am not sure about the Thai boat people.

    2. Democrats are special. Notice how rioters and looters in New York City were allowed to roam the streets with no interferance. But Governor Cuomo got a spine when it came to law abiding people when he got complaints about the lack of social distancing. What if we all decided to start throwing bricks through windows?

  13. Mr. Turley, I think your article entirely misses a great number of points:
    1. The headline should rightly describe the issue as “Followship” instead of “Leadership.”
    2. By stating that no effective spokesperson and “widely different demands,” you assume these “serious barriers to resolution” imply any desire by CHAZ/CHOP to *seek* resolution when that clearly is not their intention.
    3. CHAZ is simply and decidedly NOT “a communal experiment in governing free of cops.” It is an armed insurrection, by any objective definition, which is using force to instill a (false) utopian idea of “autonomy” as a euphemism for complete lack of any form of law-based governance.
    4. In passing, I find it amusing that one of the first actions the clamoring horde undertook was the establishment and protection of borders. It’s almost as if they tacitly agree that walls (excuse me: barricades) can be effective. Hmmm…
    5. You do rightly criticize Mayor Durkan for her complete abdication of authority and her responsibility to restore order, but do not include due criticism of the Governor of complicity accompanying such abdication. Where local authority is clearly lacking the desire and wherewithal, the next higher authority “needs must” intercede.
    6. Therefore, the incredible, “melting” government extends well past Seattle to also include Salem.
    7. Indeed, “[w]ithdrawing the police and giving in to mob control of even one small area is antithetical to the most basic concepts of governance.” Further, it is equally—if not more so– offensive to the most basic concepts of a society that declares it is a nation of laws.
    8. I would posit that the abdication of authority greatly diminishes any immunity based on “public duty doctrine” where the public duty has been demonstrably abandoned—particularly so when the government not only “refuses to act to enforce laws,” but actively works to refuse to act *at all* to enforce lawfulness.
    9. I question your use of scare quotes to describe the anarchist takeover: what other kind of takeover would you describe it as? Why do you also consider it domestic terrorism: physical violence?? Is it not the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims – the very definition of terrorism???
    10. Mr. Trump’s name calling notwithstanding, how can you possibly describe “destructive” “mayhem” as being “peaceful”—mostly, or otherwise? The terms are the very picture of mutually exclusive.
    11. CHAZ is absolutely not confined to being “a local protest that has now been allowed to continue by city officials.” It is, in point of fact, “an insurrection or a challenge to federal authority” unless you define insurrection differently than being a violent uprising against an authority or government. Do you agree with the Mayor that it is, instead, a block party—a summer of love?
    12. Do you seriously contend that CHAZ is not “rioting that ‘opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws’”? If so, based on what??
    13. How can you declare that no Federal crimes are being committed, thus creating “challenge[s] to federal authority”?
    14. How can you possible overlook that, while the conditions inside of CHAZ prevent active, rightful law enforcement, the A) the courts are operating as intended, and B) the rule of law is being enforced? There *is* neither law nor order. How is that to be construed as “the ordinary course of judicial proceedings”???
    15. Mr. Trump is NOT exceeding any authority by tweeting opinions and withholding a Federal response.
    16. By stating “Chaz has been functioning as was intended by not functioning at all,” you affirm that Seattle and Washington state are in breech of their Constitutional obligations to faithfully execute the local, state, and federal laws and constitutions. As a constitutional schoolar, where is your outrage over those explicit wrongs, contrasted to perceived or feared wrongs by the President?
    17. “Activists” certainly demand things. Armed, violent mobs invade, destroy, and occupy property. That should be the basis for your “relative clarity of anarchy.” Please stop providing any semblance of cover for these egregious evils being committed by lawless invaders. They deserve condemnation and derision, not intellectual and academic support.

    1. Egad – I feel like Seth Warner, et. al for posting such a wall of text. But I believe Mr. Turley is utterly on the wrong side of this issue.

      1. I’m pretty sure Mr. Turley does not read the comments here. Practically speaking, when would he ever have the time?

        1. Even if he doesn’t, I do appreciate his providing a forum for discussion.

    2. Also, I realized that Olympia is the capital rather than Salem (point #6). The Editor apologizes for teh oversight. 🙂

  14. U.S. Constitution
    ______________

    Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2

    The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
    ________

    Article 4, Section 4

    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature can-not be convened) against domestic Violence.

  15. Supreme Court Let’s Stand California’s Sanctuary Law

    The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up California’s “sanctuary” law that forbids local law enforcement in most cases from cooperating with aggressive federal action to identify and deport undocumented immigrants.

    The court let stand the law passed after President Trump took office and challenged by his administration. The most significant measure limits police from sharing information unless the immigrants have been convicted of violent or serious crimes.

    Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas indicated they would have heard the administration’s appeal.

    Solicitor General Noel Francisco had asked the Supreme Court to take the case, saying the law intrudes on what is a federal responsibility.

    “The federal government has exclusive authority over the presence of aliens in the United States, including ‘which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so,’ ” Francisco told the court in a brief. He was quoting from a 2012 Supreme Court opinion in which the court struck down an Arizona law that attempted to give police a greater role in detaining immigrants.

    What was good for Arizona must also be right for California, he wrote.

    California responded that it is not hampering federal authority, it has simply chosen not to volunteer for service.

    The law is “consistent with the longstanding principle that the Constitution allows states to decline to use their own resources to carry out federal regulatory programs,” state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in his brief to the court.

    Becerra said the state legislature decided it would make local law enforcement’s job building trust in immigrant communities and solving crimes more difficult if police were seen as immigration enforcement agents.

    The most significant restraint is on informing federal agents when most immigrants are being released from custody.

    A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed with a district judge who said the choice was California’s to make.

    “The laws make enforcement more burdensome than it would be if state and local law enforcement provided immigration officers with their assistance,” wrote U.S. District Judge John Mendez. “But refusing to help is not the same as impeding. If such were the rule, obstacle preemption could be used to commandeer state resources and subvert Tenth Amendment principles.”

    Edited from: “Supreme Court Let’s Stand California’s Sanctuary Law On Undocumented Immigrants”

    Today’s Washington Post

  16. Republicans Have Gleefully Defunded Law Enforcement

    Republican leaders would have us believe they love law enforcement and cops, but that is belied by an unmentioned fact: These are the same greedheads who have eagerly pushed to defund the police charged with protecting us from the world’s most dangerous and powerful criminals.

    Specifically, they have pushed to defund:

    • The US Chemical Safety Board, which polices major industrial accidents.

    • The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which polices corporations’ compliance with civil rights laws.

    • The Consumer Products Safety Commission, which polices industries to make sure their products don’t harm or kill people. The agency now acknowledges that its “funding level has been insufficient to keep pace with the evolving consumer product marketplace.”

    • The Internal Revenue Service, which polices the tax system and which is responsible for making sure the wealthy and large corporations pay the taxes they owe. Thanks to this successful effort to defund the police, the agency “conducted 675,000 fewer audits in 2017 than it did in 2010, a drop in the audit rate of 42 percent,” according to ProPublica. With 30,000 fewer tax cops on the beat, a recent Treasury Department report found that 800,000 high-income households have not paid more than $45 billion in owed taxes.

    • The Department of Labor, which polices employers and makes sure they aren’t stealing wages, breaking workplace safety rules, ignoring overtime laws, and/or violating workers’ union rights. Amid this particular Republican effort to defund the police, there are now fewer cops scrutinizing employers than ever before and workplace inspections have plummeted – as workplace injuries, deaths and disasters have increased.

    • The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which polices the accounting industry.

    • The Securities and Exchange Commission’s reserve fund, which was established after the financial crisis to bolster the agency’s work policing Wall Street. The agency reports that the number of law enforcement staff “supporting our investigation and litigation efforts remained almost 9 percent lower” today than it was at the start of Trump’s term – and now white collar prosecutions have hit a historic low.

    Edited From: “Republicans Are Hypocrites. They Happily Defunded The Police We Actually Need”

    Today’s Guardian

    1. Regarding Above:

      Trump Wants ‘No’ Policing Of Trillion Dollar Bailout”

      The Trump administration’s intensifying efforts to block oversight of its coronavirus-related bailout programs is raising new alarms with government watchdogs and lawmakers from both parties amid concerns about the anonymity of companies receiving unprecedented levels of taxpayer funds.

      Government watchdogs warned members of Congress last week that previously unknown Trump administration legal decisions could substantially block their ability to oversee more than $1 trillion in spending related to the coronavirus pandemic.

      In a letter to four congressional committee chairs Thursday, two officials in charge of a new government watchdog entity revealed that the Trump administration had issued legal rulings curtailing independent oversight of more than $1 trillion in Cares Act funding.

      Edited From: “Inspectors Generals Warn That Trump Administration Is Blocking Scrutiny Of Coronavirus Bailout Programs”

      Today’s Washington Post

      1. There will be people policing the money. Trump just wants to prevent another group of criminals from being appointed by the left. Do you think Mueller could balance his own bank account much less something of this nature?

        1. Trump just wants to prevent another group of criminals from being appointed by the left. Do you think Mueller could balance his own bank account much less something of this nature?
          _______________________________________________________
          I’m sure Mueller can’t do much but he can and did follow orders from the Trump DOJ

          Mueller was appointed by the Trump administration.
          The law says that only the acting AG can appoint a Special Counsel and thus Trump had to wait 2 months for his acting AG to get confirmed by the Senate before he could shut down the FBI Russia investigation and take it over by appointing Mueller.

            1. You don’t know the difference between facts and opinions

              The effect of hiring Mueller was to shut down the FBI Russia investigation and reopen a new Russia investigation under the Direct control of the Trump DOJ.

              Mueller was offered the job as Special Counsel 3 days before Trump met with Mueller and Rosenstein in a secret meeting in the oval office on May 16, 2017. After Trump gave his approval, It was announced to the world that Mueller would be Special Counsel on May 17. Hours later trump tweeted that it was a witch hunt and a coup attempt to fool the knuckle dragging morons into believing that the Mueller investigation was a legitimate threat to Trump when in fact it was nothing but one phony controversy after another.

              Mueller was the pied piper that led all the stupid Democratic children off into the weeds to follow one phony controversy after another.

              1. “You don’t know the difference between facts and opinions”

                You are repeating what has been told to you. You mix truth, lie and opinion all together and think you have come up with something great. That is laubhable. I won’t even bother wasting my time asking you for proof.

                1. I won’t even bother wasting my time asking you for proof.
                  _______________________________________
                  Ha Ha Ha. Of course you don’t want proof. You are scared to death of the facts. They destroy your little bubble of reality.

                  The reality is that the FBI had already reached a conclusion that there was nothing to the Trump/Russia collusion thing but Trump could not let it die. It was a gold mine for whipping up support from his followers and for creating a harmless diversion his opponents could endlessly chase but never catch. And so he managed to keep the charade going for years past its expiration date.

                  1. Since you want to do this take your preceding response and separate your facts and opinions proving your facts to be valid.

                    I’ll engage if you do that with the entire response that we are talking about.

                    1. Since you want to do this take your preceding response and separate your facts and opinions
                      _____________________________________

                      I see you still haven’t learned the difference between fact and opinion.

                      If you want some evidence and since you are very fond of Page/Strzok texts. Here is what Peter Strzok texted Lisa Page about his desire to be transferred to the Mueller Team , May 2017

                      “You and I both know the odds are nothing.
                      If I thought it was likely, I’d be there, no question. I hesitate, in part, because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

                      In other words Strzok and Page have already concluded that the Russia collusion investigation is a nothing burger even before Mueller investigation starts.

                      This is Lisa Page’s testimony about how she got on the Mueller team:

                      ” And at the end of the briefing, he [Mueller] went to Mr. McCabe, who at the time was the acting director, and said, who was that woman? And he said, that’s Lisa, she works for me. And he said, I want her on the team. And Andy said, okay.
                      And so he came to me and said, Bob wants you to join the team. And I said, I don’t want to. And he said, well, you don’t say no to Bob Mueller. “

                    2. Once again you are all mixed up. You need to take your phrases and separate out fact from opinion and then prove your facts. You didsn’t do that but went on to self serving statements by the guilty party. You are even more mixed up than I assumed.

                    3. then prove your facts.You didn’t do that but went on to self serving statements by the guilty party.
                      _____________________________________________

                      The claim that I provided evidence for was that the FBI agents who were investigating the Trump Russia collusion allegations had arrived at the conclusion that there was no there there. This was before the Trump administration shut down that FBI’s investigation and took control of Russia investigation by hiring Mueller to run it.

                      As for “self serving statements” those were private statements that the public only knows about because the Trump administration was eavesdropping on their private text messages and then released those private conversations to the public. If any other administration had done anything like that you would be having a feces fit about violations of the right to privacy.

        2. Alan, Trump wants NO ONE policing that money and Trump has made that clear.

          1. There are always people policing the money. In this case you want more people like Comey, Strzok, McCabe and other criminals to make sure the DNC can both act politically against the President while at the same time stealing the money. That is your nature. WE know that, That is why you said the Steele Dossier was true and that the DNC and Hillary had nothing to do with it. Now information is coming out that they were dealing with the Russians and paying.

            We can’t trust them or you. One can easily see that by the number of aliases you have used on this blog sometimes using several at a time pretending to agree with one another. That is the type of dishonesty you promote. IMO You should have been permanently evicted from the blog for such dishonesty but you are still here. That is the right of the owner of the blog though at one time you came close.

              2. There was no tape on the site. However he apparently said ‘I’ll be the oversight’ and I felt much better because if he handed it over to the Democrats there would be a lot of theft.

                If you think the money is spent without accountants and plenty of overseers you are crazy, but a lot of them are Democrats so count on that money being stolen unless Trump keeps a close eye. Look at the Democrat states that steal money from the people all the time. Even the people’s pensions aren’t secure. What happens when a senior trusts a Democrat to make sure they get good care at the nursing home? They wake up the following morning and find out that their new roomate has Covid.

                You still believe Democrats should be trusted? How foolish can you be.

                1. Alan, here’s an article from 3 days ago about the administration resisting oversight of bailout funds.

                  2. WE are all tired of the Comey’s, the Muelle’rs, the Mc cabe’s, the Weissman’s, the Strzok’s and all the other garbage the Democrats have unleashed on society. We are sick and tired of Democrat thievery. We don’t like Sharfton’s techniques of raising money and we want our cities to be safe and law abiding.

                    2. This so happens to be of interest and something I will follow. Right now there is very little information and I have difficulty trusting any MSM as they spin too much. Just look at how they spun the Steele Dossier. That is the problem they now face. When something of interest pops up one can’t trust them and has to wait for more information.

                      You immediately associate dark rationals for the lack of transparency never thinking that there might be a good reason. I was not on board with the decision to spend all this money in such a way which had to be negotiated with Democrats that always destroys good intentions.

    2. Are you seriously quoting The Washington Post or the Guardian? Sigh. I have no doubt that you are about a million miles away from the chaos, both metaphorically and literally. Spare us. This is a space for honest discussion. when your neighborhood gets wrecked and you can’t call the cops, let us know.

      1. James, my neighborhood did get wrecked. So F O with your self-righteousness crap.

        1. Seth – are you still by WeHo? It’s been crazy. I was thinking about you while watching the news coverage from down there. We argue all the time on here, but I hoped you were OK. My husband had to drive down to a different part of LA county than you, and had to get out of the area and away from a bunch of looters. Don’t you think the police are a good idea? Why do you seem to be defending the dissolution of police?

          If we stopped spending billions on a vacation train gift to big union donors to Democrats, we’d have money to pay for important things, like a Super Scooper, reservoirs, and perhaps sending along mental health professionals along with police.

          Defunding is a punishment to police across the nation in response to Chauvin murdering Floyd on camera. Chauvin has been arrested and charged, so this isn’t about justice. And it isn’t about being ignored. It’s about protecting and enabling the criminal element. Fighting with the police is encouraged, and if people get hurt, the cop is racist. For example, that man in Atlanta fought 2 cops, stole a cop’s taser and tried to taser him while escaping, all because he didn’t want to go to jail for DUI. DUI kills people all across America, but he felt entitled to drive drunk with impunity. What would he have done to the cops if he’d tasered them? They’d be lying there, helpless, with a criminal who’d just proven himself violent. The cop who shot him has been fired and charged with murder.

          Getting rid of law enforcement and just asking people to play nice is going to turn this state into more of a dystopian movie than it already is. And during a pandemic, no less, when looting and shoplifting is already driving businesses under.

          This is not good, Seth. I cannot for the life of me understand how you can live in Los Angeles County and think this is a good idea. This could lead to a real life Civil War, where people feel they have to fight the anarchy of the Left. People on the Left and Right don’t share common ground anymore. Families divide. Teens post videos of screaming obscenities at their conservative parents, or sob into the camera that their Republican parents are so unwoke. If we don’t turn this around there will be a tipping point. Conservatives don’t want CHAZ in their town. They don’t want looting and rioting and burning. We live in a fire state, Seth. We can’t have this. I go outside now and hear target practice nearly every day in the hills. Yucaipa is not the only place not having it. What is the logical conclusion going to be of laying siege to city blocks, looting with impunity, and this effort to defund or even dissolve the police? Is it going to unify the country? East tensions? If the Left lawlessness doesn’t stop, what is going to happen?

          Meanwhile, Russia, China, Iran, and Turkey are having a grand time making world plans while America eats itself.

          1. Karen, I’m fine with cops. Worked with them for years. I’ve been having countless arguments with Bernie Bros on Facebook with regards to looting. Looters came within 6 blocks of my building. My neighborhood was also the site of ANTIFA marches 7 nights in a row. And last night I was coming home on the Hollywood Freeway when a bunch of @sshole protesters halted traffic by running onto the road.

            1. Stay safe, Seth. Do you have a plan in case looters ever do get to your building, or if there is a fire? With streets closed, a lot of people’s escape plans go out the window. If you have a pet at home, do you have someone who can get them out if you are at work? One of my friends lives in Los Angeles, and was up all night listening to gun shots, screaming, bull horns. He had to keep an ear open to make sure they didn’t set fire to his building.

              I think people are just getting more entrenched. I know I’m a lot less open than I used to be, which makes me sad. I want truth more than being right, and don’t want to lose that.

              Perhaps if the Bernie Bros were looted they would get it? I have a conservative black friend who is about coming unglued at all the excuses for lawlessness. Doesn’t like how it reflects so poorly on the black community, or how they are all portrayed now as being anti cop. The cameras love the riots and crime, but that’s not how he is. But if you follow the law, you’re boring, and the camera will never film.

              These people we see on TV marching on freeways are insane. Didn’t they learn as toddlers not to play in the street? And you say they did this at night? There’s could be a bad accident. Our CA freeways curve and drivers don’t expect a bunch of lemmings on the road.

              I’ve always been wary of brush fires in CA, especially with all the horses we’d have to evacuate. I’m pretty nervous about all this unrest as fire season progresses. We had all that late rain.

              The world’s gone crazy. It’s heartbreaking. I want to scream at these protestors. If they’d just look around them, the country WAS united that George Floyd was murdered. What happened to him was wrong. Why’d they have to screw that all up and riot, loot, and burn? During a pandemic! They had this unity and threw it all away. Once they started looting and demanding the police be disbanded, they lost millions of Americans. America doesn’t hate them. They hate the crime and the looting.

              OK. Rant done.

    3. Uh, Seth, none of those are the police. Combating over regulation and the weaponization of the government alphabet soup is not like dissolving the police.

      Democrats have taken control of many of these agencies, so that each of their goals are indistinguishable from each other. Government agencies are reorganized all the time. False equivalency/ false logic. Oppose Democrat national domination of government, and be accused of the same as defunding police. People get raped and murdered, and the perpetrators walk free, without police. Does anyone get raped with impunity if the EPA gets reorganized under a less biased umbrella and changes its name, protecting the environment while balancing the needs of landowners? No. The comparison is ludicrous.

      Please clarify: Do you think we don’t need the police AND we don’t need the 2nd Amendment AND you don’t want vigilantism? Cops have told me that many are considering quitting. They have said that defunding the police means longer 911 wait times, and fewer cops on the street. I know cops that have been doxxed, so that their families require police protection.

      “Defund the police” is the logical extension of the Democrats’ love affair with crime. If you break the law, you are their darling, with illegal immigration one its favorites. There is a high rate of crime in black neighborhoods, but the high incarceration rate is deemed racist. There is no argument that individual cases were framed. No. If the numbers of inmates don’t correlate with the percentage of population, it’s racist. Eventually, this was going to lead to lawlessness. Many of us have said it. It was blown off as right wing fake news. And then CHAZ happened, and no one could ignore this trend in supporting crime. We saw looting and burning, and we watched Democrats excuse it. They’re just mad. A lot of people are in prison because they did something when they were mad.

      Judge a movement by its fruits. A city under siege. Precincts abandoned or burnt. Identity politics where you are valued based on your race. Reparation, or a pale skin tax. The intensity of the hate for conservatives. All across social media, the demand for a loyalty oath to the BLM matter we can see demanding the police be abolished. Pledge your oath or be run out. No dissent tolerated. Women raped and police can’t respond because they have been run out of parts of Seattle.

      These are rotten fruits.

      1. Wrong, Karen. All those agencies are supposed to be policing the public interest but Republicans want ‘no’ accountability. Tax Cheats, for instance, are reaping the dividends of budget cutbacks by Republicans.

        1. “Policing the public interest” – that’s a false equivalence. The IRS doesn’t catch rapists and murderers, Seth. You can call for reform in the politicized IRS while still supporting the police and law and order. Removing the politicization of the IRS does not lead to murder. This is an example of demonizing your opponent. Oppose contradictory regulations? You’re just as bad as those who want to get rid of police!

          Did you know that sometimes regulatory agencies duel with each other? One regulation will require your door to open in. Another can require the same door to open out.

          But if you want reform, it’s the same as wanting to dissolve the police?

          It’s a false equivalence, and Congress controls the purse.

          I can’t believe I’m arguing with you about wanting to keep the police!!!

          At some point, you might convince me. If politicians are going to gut the police, then cut all the taxes that used to go to law enforcement. We’ll use that money to hire them back as a private security force, and contract with private forensics labs. If government abdicates its core responsibility of law and order, then it’s up to the people.

          https://youtu.be/JFsAkxzTFEs

            1. I’m kind of laughing, because I’m in the middle of arguing with you, and then we pause. Do you have a dog at home, with a plan to get him out in an emergency? Are you safe? OK, good. Then I can relax and argue with you again!

              And, happy to hear you’re not on board with the whole defund the police trend. That train needs to derail.

              1. Karen, I think the looting is over for now.

                During the 1992 riots, I had to stay at work all night. When I drove home the next morning, I found the manager of my building and his teenage son sitting on the front steps with shotguns! Looters had come within 3 blocks that time. The ’92 Riots was the scariest event I ever lived through.

                I hope no fires threaten your horses. Fires are the ‘last’ thing we need at this point.

                1. Thanks for the best wishes for the horses. CARB decreed our rig cannot be registered this year. On top of the pandemic, and economic slowdown, if we want to legally haul our horses, we have to come up with a ton of money to get something to replace it. CARB took a let-them-eat-cake attitude by snapping its unelected fingers and making heavy trucks obsolete. Those trucks are still on the road, though, as they’re sold out of state. So there is no environmental benefit, and people are financially punished for nothing. Can’t haul stock in a Prius. This is bad as we like to practice hauling from time to time to make sure everyone remembers how to load. It’s really sucky when there’s an emergency and one of them decides there are monsters in the trailer.

                  It’s 2020. I’m getting fatalistic that there are just more dystopian hurdles on the horizon. I don’t even know if we’re going to have reliable power this summer, or if the electric company will keep shutting it off, hoping to get lawsuit protection and bailouts from the state.

                  Yeah, the Rodney King riots were bad. This is becoming a trend. African Americans are the only ethnic group that I can think of that has this reputation for rioting. When the Latinos protest in favor of illegal immigration, I don’t ever remember them looting. The Asians certainly don’t, nor the Indians, Europeans, Canadians…I really can’t think of any other group that riots and loots because society does not hold them to the same standard. Antifa is a non ethnic group with a bad reputation for violence. Historically they haven’t run amuck for long at a time, but CHAZ has probably emboldened them.

                  There is this lack of values in the African American broken home subculture, on horrifying display right now. The nuclear family has been statistically destroyed, and then activists keep preaching how there is no personal responsibility. No standards. Conservative values are the purview of whites. And then you end up seeing this trend in rioting and looting.

                  This is embarrassing to conservative, law abiding African Americans and African immigrants. They don’t much appreciate those who claim to protest racial profiling, while going out there solidifying a reputation for dangerous lawlessness. The whole point is to claim how unfair the stereotypes are, and then the cameras spend weeks zooming in on stereotypes. There is also a trend to jump to conclusions without waiting for an investigation. It’s like people are getting brainwashed to believe if they are a member of this group, social standards just don’t apply to them. For some reason, African Americans are viewed as this monolithic group, who all are supposed to think, act, and vote the same. Be down with the culture. Anything not ghetto is considered acting white. Anything Republican or conservative is acting white. It’s like peer pressure to be a failure and socially maladapted. This has been absolutely terrible for the entire African American community. There are plenty of conservative African Americans who don’t act this way at all. But the cameras don’t capture them obeying the law, working, and acting boring.

                  Our society has got to stop treating African Americans like they don’t have to abide by the same social standards as everyone else or be contributing members of society. It’s insulting. No other group could get away with this. Definitely not conservatives. We need to stop lowering the bar. It’s the bigotry of low expectations. This rioting wouldn’t keep happening if it was universally condemned. Same is true of Antifa.

                  We also need to stop treating African Americans like they are a monolithic group because of their skin color. They are a varied group, just like anyone else. You don’t assume 2 whites vote the same, think the same, or like the same thing. Why does society do this to blacks? Why is it assumed that BLM speaks for all blacks, or you aren’t black enough if you disagree? Or you’re not really black if you don’t vote Democrat. It’s not right.

  18. Who needs leadership when this movement has taken on a life of its own.

  19. Occasionally Trump is a total DH. This is one of those times.

Comments are closed.