Can President Trump Really Send In The Troops To Chicago And Other Cities?

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedWe have previously discussed how President Donald Trump has repeatedly asserted constitutional authority that he does not have in dealing with the pandemic.  The President routinely ignored the principles of federalism in such claims of control over states in their internal health and policing decisions. He is not alone.  Cities like Portland have demanded that federal officers leave the city and stop making arrested.  While there are legitimate questions raised about the conduct of federal officers in putting people into custody and the use of force in Portland, those concerns related to the use of federal powers, not the basis for those powers. The federal government has full authority to protect federal buildings and to carry out arrests for federal crimes in any city. Current reports coming out of the White House appear to refer to surging law enforcement personnel, not sending military personnel.  That would be constitutional if used for protect federal assets or enforce federal laws. That is the flip side of federalism.  But how about the recent claims that the President is about to take over policing from cities like Chicago? The answer is that such a federal deployment without a request from the governors would be unwise but would be legal.  However, there are practical and legal reasons why such any massive deployment is unlikely.

President Trump has declared that he will send in federal forces to quell the violence in cities like New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore and Oakland, California.  He has used these threats to highlight what he calls the poor records of  “liberal Democrats” like Chicago’s Mayor Lori Lightfoot.  The constant reference to the party affiliation of the mayors by the President only diminishes the position of the federal government is taking any action in these cities.

As many on this blog know, I am from Chicago and most of my family still lives there.  I am devastated by the violence shown every night on television. However, President Trump is suggesting an unprecedented deployment if he is serious in saying  “We’re sending law enforcement. We can’t let this happen to the cities.”

What he can clearly do is what he did in Portland. Send in federal forces to protect federal buildings and arrest those who commit federal offenses.  That can lead to an expanding presence.  As more protesters respond to the federal presence, the federal forces can be expanded at their discretion to meet that challenge.  It can become a cause-and-effect controversy like the one being raised in Portland.  However, a judge who orders the federal forces reduced or out of the city would face a rapid appeal and reversal in my view.

That type of deployment to protect federal enclaves and buildings can be done without any special proclamations or orders. It is part of the inherent authority vested in the federal government. Indeed, it does not even require a special executive order.  The Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security may deployed federal officials to protect buildings, support law enforcement activities, or carry out arrests. These are not military troops, but law enforcement personnel being assigned law enforcement duties.  The fact that the cities have not requested additional federal law enforcement personnel is relevant to their legality of their deployment.

440px-37_Lyndon_Johnson_3x4President Trump’s rhetoric suggests something far more robust. He is referring to rising shootings and criminal acts in these cities.  To combat such crime, the federal deployment would have to be massive.  First there is the question of simple practicality in such claims. Sending in a couple hundred federal officers will do little to quell the violence in the neighborhoods of Chicago — far removed from federal buildings. On a practical level, it is hard to see how even a military force could do so short of imposing martial law over millions of Americans.  Most of these shootings have occurred in neighborhoods far removed from riots or protests. The Chicago Police Department has roughly 12,000 officers.  The First Army Division is roughly 18,000 soldiers.  It would take a division or more to substantially increase patrolling in actual neighborhoods as opposed to hotspots like those around federal buildings.  Of course, that is what President Lyndon Johnson did in 1967 when he sent in the 82nd and the 101st Airborne Divisions to Detroit to quell riots after the assassination of Martin Luther King.

Second, there is the authority.  We previously discussed this issue in relation to Washington, D.C. and Seattle where I criticized the President for exaggerating his authority in threatening to send in troops.  I also criticized the respective mayors in those cities for their own statements.

As I have previously stated. police powers in the United States 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.”

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. The Insurrection Act also allows for unilateral action for cases of unlawful obstruction, assemblies, or rebellion against the United States.

President Trump does have unilateral authority under the law. Indeed, the recent efforts in the House by Democratic members like Rep. David N. Cicilline to limit the Insurrection Act acknowledges that he does have the ability to make such a unilateral proclamation.  It can be challenged as unwarranted but, once again, Congress has written a law that gives largely unfettered authority in declaring such unlawful obstruction, assemblies, or rebellion against the United States.

The law simply states:

“Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.”

440px-George_H._W._Bush,_President_of_the_United_States,_1989_official_portraitThis power has been used repeatedly by presidents since Thomas Jefferson. The last president to do so was President George H.W. Bush during the 1992 riots in Los Angeles, an obvious historical precedent that the Trump White House would cite to handle riots in cities like Portland.  While the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prevents the use of the United States military in law enforcement, this Act is an exception to that rule large enough to drive an Army division through.

It is certainly true that President have largely used the Act at the invitation of local and state authorities. However, that is not required and that has not always been the case.

Presidents have used the act repeatedly to fight the Ku Klux Klan, enforce desegregation, and protect African American students. This has been done without approval of the state officials as when in 1962, President John F. Kennedy sent in federal marshals to Mississippi to allow black students to enroll in classes at the University of Mississippi at Oxford.  It has been used repeatedly to quell rioting and looting.

Thus, it could be used by President Trump to quell rioting in these cities.  That does not mean that it would be the right move. In my view, it would not.  The shootings that President Trump is referencing in the killing of young children are the result of criminal acts rather than the rioting or looting.  We have not seen the use of this Act to try to quell a crime wave.  The Act does not allow for much room for judicial review, but the use of the Act to deal with rising crime could present some novel issues for a court.  Nevertheless, the language of the Act favors the President.

There are other possible challenges that are more conventional. Once again, I have great concern over the allegations of citizens being picked up by federal authorities and held for hours before being released without charges. There are serious questions of due process raised in these allegations and their impact on protected free speech activities cannot be denied. There has been considerable violence in Portland from protesters but most are not violent. There should be an investigation into the conduct of the federal officers to confirm the basis for these arrests and how these individuals were treated while in federal custody. It is not per se unlawful to use unmarked cars for arrests. Indeed, it happens all the time. However, local officials and protesters are alleging that people have been effectively snatched off the streets and taken away blindfolded — only to be released hours later. The federal officials deny these allegations and insist that these were individual suspects taken into custody on specific alleged federal crimes. They also note that the officers were clearly marked as police and insist that they told the suspects who they were.  Thus, we have a conflicted record.  That is why we need an independent investigation.

I recently testified in Congress on the Lafayette protest controversy. I identified two primary areas of possible unlawful conduct (including a clearly unjustified attack on a media crew) and suggested a series of inquiries to confirm the facts.  I also stated that I believed that the order to clear the park area to allow for the establishment of a new fence line was lawful and that the federal forces complied with the guidelines for three clear warnings to disperse.  There also is now evidence that appears to refute the widespread claims that the plan was related to the Trump photo op in front of the church.  The point is that many of the initial allegations (widely reported as fact) have not been established and indeed have now been contradicted. That does not mean that unlawful conduct by the federal forces did not occur. I told Congress that I expect the investigation ultimately to narrow to the charge of the police line rather than the plan or authority to clear the area. In reviewing the videotapes of the charging of the line of officers, I believe that it was unlikely unwarranted and unlawful in the use of force.

I expect we will find the same results in the Portland controversy.  Like the D.C. protests, it is clearly untrue to portray the Portland protests are peaceful.  There have been serious injuries to a large number of officers and considerable property damage, including arson.  The police have a right to protect themselves and courts generally allow the use of nonlethal force in such circumstances.  Yet, like most people, I was shocked by the image of an individual being hit in the head with a projectile from the courthouse across the street.  Such excessive use of force can occur in any operation but it is important for us to determine if there is a pattern of such conduct.  Any broad injunctive relief would require more than a few incidents. It would require a pattern of clearly excessive conduct.

I still believe that a massive deployment of troops would be a mistake.  Under our system of federalism, state and local officials have the primary responsibility to address crime in the streets. There is ample reason to criticize the actions, or lack of action, from majors in Seattle, Portland, and Chicago.  However, they are the elected officials given this authority by their voters.  Moreover, marching into these cities with large federal forces would inflame the situation and would not likely impact actual crime through cities like Chicago.

254 thoughts on “Can President Trump Really Send In The Troops To Chicago And Other Cities?”

  1. Mr. Turley: As always, I am interested in your views on the constitutionality of various governmental actions. You state, for instance, that taking over policing in Chicago would be “unwise but constitutional.” As to the latter, fair enough.

    But as a Trump supporter — and I imagine many others feel this way — why should I care if you think it is unwise? When you are elected President, you may exercise your wisdom as you see fit. Until then, give the guy a break.


    Professor Turley referenced Detroit in 1967

    “Of course, that is what President Lyndon Johnson did in 1967 when he sent in the 82nd and the 101st Airborne Divisions to Detroit to quell riots after the assassination of Martin Luther King”.

    In the summer of 1967 there were very serious riots in Detroit and Newark. However Dr M.L. King wasn’t assassinated until the spring of 1968. King’s death was followed by serious riots in Chicago and Washington.

    1. Back then Chicago had a mayor with balls. Now, not at all. Not in any sense at all.

    2. 49 officers injured by mob trying to vandalize and destroy public property

      they used frozen water bottles — hard and heavy as rocks– and shot commercial fireworks directly at cops

      Do you want to take a 2 inch mortar in the face? that’s socalled “peaceful protesters” using lethal force.
      they should have been shot. THE RIOTERS THAT IS

      it’s chaos. Lightfoot is a failed mayor.

  3. One of the strengths of federalism is, as a check on abdication of responsibility at any level of government, another level of government exists and can step in to fill the gap, even if more awkwardly.

    Take the example of Chicago. The black drug gangs are operating as last-mile distributors for the Mexican Cartels. This criminal association triggers strong federal jurisdiction in smashing these gangs, and cutting off the head of the Mexican smuggling organizers. It’s not clear that Mayor Lightfoot is taking her responsibility seriously in protecting public safety. The ideal would be for her to have CPD working closely with FBI, DHS, CBP, ATF to aggressively dismantle these criminal organizations, and especially smash the black market in weapons it provides to the gangs.

    If the Mayor refuses to utilize all the law enforcement resources being offered her under federalism, and in doing so subjects her constituents to public gun violence that is preventable with stronger law enforcement, then I believe there is ample justification for the President to declare the Mexican cartel + black gang violence a civil insurrection against the people of the United States, and force Lightfoot into a more cooperative position.

    1. This is so true. The black gangs fight over control of the drugs. Stop the cartels, stop most of the murder. But always keep in mind, inner cities by definition are 3rd world. So good luck? In my opinion I do not care that these “people” kill each other, but a word to the wise, “STAY AWAY FROM ME”

      1. The black gangs fight over control of the drugs. Stop the cartels, stop most of the murder. B

        Not true. With some exceptions, homicide is generated by banal inter-personal disputes or by robberies.

        1. Absurd is right. The drug gangs are a factor but will not elimate it.

          Since we last spoke, 15 people shot in the last day in chicago, in an attack on a funderal

          We may infer that the funeral was a majority black event, since, white people are under covid restrictions of funderals may not have more than 10 persons in Illinois. I provided the legal citation yesterday and need not repeat it. Of course in theory it applies to all residents not just whites –but we KNOW that it is only BLACKS who are free to flaunt the COVID restrictions.

          And so we may also infer, that like many similar incidents, it was likely a black on black “drive by ” as we used to call them in the 80s.

          This is, in the mind of Democrats, young black men killing each other because of — get this, brace yourselves for a laugh: “white racism”

          chicago, long now called “CHIRAQ” by the black folks there. Look it up.

  4. The danger with Trump, as always, is that even when he is legally correct, he reacts to critics as if it’s a personal challenge to prove he’s right. His critics know that he will, and he can’t help escalating his previously lawful claims until he hurts his position. With the Insurrection Act, he’ll be seen as pushing the situation to that point. Citizens will get hurt, but he’s OK with that! That’s why it’s time for the GOP to openly call him out. He’s already left the Presidency, so they should try to keep the Senate. It’s the only way to preserve Liberty.

    1. when there is anarchy, that is not liberty. liberty means ordered lawful liberty, not mob rule, not chaos

      no law and order, there is per se, no liberty

      government can, does, and always will use lethal and nonlethal force to maintain order.
      if now is not the time to send help to save the citizens of places like Chicago from further decay into anarchy, then when?

  5. A ‘Fart’ in an elevator leads to mouth a bad taste for all, so be it same with all groups, the stench of a few bring all under eye of disgust be they law enforcement or protesters . . .

  6. For legal analysis of these issues that’s more informative:
    See, for example, the following articles:
    * DHS Authorizes Domestic Surveillance to Protect Statues and Monuments
    * What the Heck are Federal Law Enforcement Officers Doing in Portland?
    * Can Law Enforcement Officers Refuse to Identify Themselves?
    See, for example, the following articles:
    * Bill Barr’s Playbook: His False Claims About Prior Military Force on U.S. Soil
    * Portland’s Pretext: Barr’s Long History Manipulating Law to Put Federal Forces on U.S. Streets

    Mean while, Turley is also silent about illegal acts by the federal LE in Portland, like their attack on Navy vet Christopher David, where one fed whales on him with a baton for no reason, breaking bones in his hand, and another sprays him directly in the fact with pepper gas, after he simply approached them to remind them “that you take the oath to the Constitution; you don’t take the oath to a particular person”:

    1. For wisdom, intellect and spiritual insight consider these:

      The Way > Character > Chap. 1

      1. Don’t let your life be barren. Be useful. Make yourself felt. Shine forth with the torch of your faith and your love.
      With your apostolic life, wipe out the trail of filth and slime left by the corrupt sowers of hatred. And set aflame all the ways of the earth with the fire of Christ that you bear in your heart.

      2. How I wish your bearing and conversation were such that, on seeing or hearing you, people would say: This man reads the life of Jesus Christ.

      3. Maturity. Stop acting the child; drop that affectation that only suits a silly girl. Let your outward conduct reflect the peace and order of your soul.

      4. Don’t say: ‘That’s the way I’m made… it’s my character’. It’s your lack of character: Be a man.

      1. Estovir, since you opened this page on a public forum, I advise you quit wasting your time and life trying to please imaginary supernatural beings. If they exist, they probably know how to get in touch with us, and logically would do so unequivocally so we would clearly know how to do their will – assuming we judged that a worthy use of our limited time. Saying that “faith”, i.e., accepting otherwise unbelievable and unprovable assertions on next to zero data, is a virtue sounds like a con to me, and rewards the gullible for being gullible.

      2. I’m a woman, and I find it offensive that you think having character means “be a man.”

        I’m not Christian, and I have no desire to follow Christ. If you’re Christian, then take your god’s commandments seriously, including “thou shalt not bear false witness.”

      3. Opus Dei on Professor Turley’s blog! What a treat.
        Please post more of this: it is a great balance to the muck people comment on here.

        God Bless you!

    2. They need more feds just to defend federal property. ANTIFA is instigating a civil war
      BLM is hand in glove with antifa

      where’s the vaunted “Security state” now? they cant even defend a courthouse. It looks like hell

      I just saw another vid where five geeks in black knocked down a federal policeman

      never in my life until now have i ever seen anybody swing on a federal marshall at a courthouse. this is incredible stuff, total chaos happening now–

      and all of you who apologize for it are traitors to law order and the country of your birth

      1. Kurtz– Thanks for that comment. Agree entirely. I never imagined a federal marshal being attacked by anyone less than Jesse James. These hoodlums need to be put down and put down hard.

    3. Mean while, Turley is also silent about illegal acts by the federal LE in Portland, like their attack on Navy vet Christopher David, where one fed whales on him with a baton for no reason,

      He’s silent because he not so stupid or dishonest to take accounts about particular cases without a grain of salt.

  7. These people are protesting decades of police brutality and racism, which is and has been quite illegal. The police have not had any interest in policing themselves. But you all (the commentators here and elsewhere) have no interest in that at all. It is very hollow to scram “law and order” at the protesters while ignoring the crimes of the police. And your calls for more brutality against the protesters shows just why those protests are needed.

    1. MollyG, how does arson and widespread rioting and graffiti support the cause of the “protestors?” And do you have actual data regarding the “decades of police brutality and racism?” Does Antifa attacking motorists for the last several years also support the cause of the “protestors?”

      1. The acts of a few do not in anyway speak for, nor negate the message of the many. That is a false argument, no different then saying the entire pro-life movement is illegitimate because a few people attacked clinics and doctors.

        1. this was not a few BLM protesters it was probably ten thousand on the march and then a thousand involved in the coordinated, felonious assault on Chicago police which injured 49 cops.

          and now the anarchists slap the police in the face after literally bombing them with commercial grade fireworks, by filing complaints on them

          this is textbook insurgency in action. the federal government must act before the Illinois becomes a failed state and collapses. it’s already teetering on bankruptcy

        2. The acts of a few do not in anyway speak for, nor negate the message of the many.

          With that being said, you obviously agree that that the efforts to weaken law enforcement around the country is not justified.

        3. The message of the many is completely worthless and the ‘peaceful’ protesters and the rioters exist in a symbiotic relationship.

    2. “These people are protesting decades of police brutality and racism”

      You assert that is if it’s a fact.

      It’s a fact that they have been protesting and rioting, but there is no evidence of institutional racism and brutality directed at blacks by the police in the US.

      However, there is clear evidence that black community leaders have been lying about this for decades and teaching people in these communities that their problems are due to race rather than their own leader’s corruption and deceit.

    3. Most of the protestors are white, college-age, priviledged people who have no reason to protest anything. A description that I suspect includes you.

  8. Remove the Federal police force from protecting the citizens and their property! Frankly, remove all Federal support!

    Remove all Federal support from every jurisdiction that fails to stop thugs and criminals from destroying lives and property, that refuses to cooperate with ICE, that declares itself a ‘Sanctuary City’. Close the US Post office. No FAA service at the local airport. No Department of Education funding to the local schools, no HHS funding to the hospitals, no FDIC protection for people’s money deposited at the local banks, no USDA food stamps or agricultural subsidies to local farmers. No Social Security or Medicare to local residents.

    Our nation was not founded on the principle of ‘We obey only the laws we want to obey’.

    1. “we obey only the laws we want to obey”…..Please tell that to the Trump administration.

    2. “We obey only the laws we want to obey.”
      Sounds like the very definition of an Autonomous Zone.

      1. Poll: Biden Leading In Several Key Battleground Cemeteries

        U.S.—A new CNN poll released Monday found that Joe Biden was leading in several key battleground cemeteries.

        84% of the respondents said they would be voting for the Democratic challenger, while 2% said they would support incumbent Donald Trump. 14% just moaned, “BRAAAAAINS!” and reached their rotting arms out in front of them while shambling around looking for something, presumably brains.

        “Biden has a real edge when we look at key battleground cemeteries all across the nation,” said a visibly gleeful CNN anchor. “This is excellent news! Wait — I’m not supposed to root for a side — sorry, sometimes I forget. Anyway, good for Biden and I really hope he wins.”

        “This could be the end for Trump. The walls are closing in. This is the beginning of the end. He is done for. Kaput. The woman of significant size has begun to sing.”

        Some of the poll respondents then broke into CNN’s studios and shambled around looking for brains but left emptyhanded.

  9. “On a practical level, it is hard to see how even a military force could do so short of imposing martial law over millions of Americans.”

    Just use Swalwell’s plan for confiscating 300 million weapons from law abiding citizens: Nuke ’em from orbit.

    1. Wait a minute, didn’t Obama take everybody’s guns? I heard he ordered black helicopters and everything. Maybe he had Federal police with no markings on their camo take them away, that way nobody could see them. Anyway, must have been a hoax, cause there are wanna-be fascist out there with micro genitalia syndrome on street corners and state houses with AR-15’s.

  10. I don’t believe the Antifa scum represent the majority of Seattle’s or Portland’s residents but those people are probably too afraid to say anything. So in the meantime, keep calm and

    1. Portland is a seat of the reprobate revolution at least in part. searching out pe do issues in the internet will reveal a strong undercurrent of depravity in Portland. If a person on power, wealth or position is against trump its because they are a repro bate ped o… someone should ask . Sen Graham to come out of the closet

  11. Legalities aside, the issue is that people voted for those Democratic administrations.

    Let those people learn that elections have consequences.

    Though liberal voters didn’t understand it, they were voting to allow mobs to sh*t in their backyards.

    So let them live with those piles.

    No reason that they should be rescued from the consequences of their votes.

    Plus sending in Federal forces just obscures the facts.

    1. I agree wholeheartedly. Let the cities rot from the inside. Use Federal forces to protect assets WE paid for and let the cities pay for their own damage. Most reasonable folks will relocate when needed and they should learn a lesson that elections have consequences, just like they told us just a few short years ago. The cities will become vacant while the bills pile up. When they bankrupt themselves, they won’t be able to say they weren’t warned. If I am expected to pay for the damage, it will be a very big deal to me.

    2. Monument– I have begun to wonder if the people did vote for these lunatic state officials. Seeing what the mobs are doing in the streets with the encouragement of politicians is it likely they would burn a courthouse but not commit voter fraud? The election system needs a thorough investigation. Maybe the takeover isn’t due to stupid voters. Maybe it is nonexistent voters.

  12. “The federal officials deny these allegations and insists that these were individual suspects taken into custody on specific alleged federal crimes. That is why we need an independent investigation.”

    No we don’t. That is like saying, “We need to appoint a blue-ribbon committee to look into something.” It just wastes time. Police need to maintain law and order and there simply isn’t enough time and money to investigate everything. Like Justice Jackson said, “the Bill of Rights isn’t a suicide pact.”

    Plus, think for a moment about the Mueller Investigation. Did it resolve the issue. Nope, not for Democrats. They are still hollering Russia, Russia, Russia.

    As you noted, there is EVIDENCE which supports Trump’s version of the church thingy. Does it matter to the Democrats and the MSM. Nope. Sooo, why call for another investigation??? Pointless.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. The police need to follow the law also. If they don’t then they need to be held accountable.

      1. Yes, the police need to follow the law but at the moment it is not the police who are destroying and sacking cities like barbarian invaders.

        1. The police are continuing their brutality and are so confident they can get away with it they are doing it on national TV.

      2. Yes the police need to follow the law but at the moment it is not the police who are sacking and destroying cities like barbarian invaders.

      3. If they don’t protect the public from rioters, anarchists, and insurrectionists, then they are part of the problem

        the lines are being drawn. you will not be able to keep on scolding cops for long. you will need them when the black clad lunatics come for you

    2. “there is EVIDENCE which” contradicts “Trump’s version of the church thingy. Does it matter to” Squeeky? “Nope.”

      Good thing that it’s not up to Squeeky whether things are investigated.
      There are two lawsuits pending against Trump et al. for violating the protesters’ First Amendment rights, and hopefully the facts will come out in the trials.

      There’s also a lawsuit pending in Oregon, filed by the Oregon A.G. against several federal LE organizations:

      And people are continuing to note that Trump is allying himself with Russia against U.S. interests because that’s what he’s doing. If you cared more about the country, you’d be calling Trump out for that too.

      1. You’re a fraud and a liar CTHD.

        I watch RT from time to time. Seems like now Russia loves what the BLM are doing to destroy our country,. Just as they loved you crazy Democrats exagerrating their influence operations effects and making Putin into a thousand times the bogeyman he really is. He couldn’t have dreamed of a better outcome on his tiny little Facebook ad spend, than what the Democrats have given him over the past 3 years.

        People, identify who among your friends and neighbors whined and lied about Trump for the past 3 years. dont forget who they were.
        They are not good team members when the SHTF. They are parasites, naysayers, free riders, and outside any competent circle of trust.
        And if Biden wins in November, they will be looking for jobs as petty tyrant block leaders for the Democrat one party state.

        1. Kurtz do you watch RT because Trumpy bear likes to rim uncle Vlad from time to time?

          1. No, I watch RT for years now, over a decade. They’ve had a lot of hotties
            Abby Martin was one. She is a communist basically, but very hot


            They still have a lot of good shows, Max Keiser is interesting for example, still there, but they’re gloating over all this “civil unrest”
            I suppose that is to be expected because yes they are a rival and an adversary, to a degree

            Now, instead of trying to troll me, which doesn’t work, as I freely admit that I admire Putin, and I only chuckle at gross remarks, they dont offend me; instead perhaps you could face the reality that the Democrat leadership, picked up the “influence operation” ball and made a mountain out of molehill? And failed in their effort to unseat Trump, while simultaneously damaging American law enforcement institution of the FBI with their false Russiagate narrative, and ruined public confidence in our electoral process more than the Russians ever deemed possible?

            You know Putin is a judoka, and he used a) a forked attack, by helping both candidates a little, baiting a trap for both– whomever lost could use the “Russian interference” against whomever won– but little did he know that Hillary’s faction would take the bait and push ahead so hard with it!

            let me introduce you to a little move called tomonage, you may remember Captain Kirk doing it on tv–

            this was the Russian influence operation, sucked in Hillary’s faction, and they went flying head over heals making an ass out of America in the process


            this is what Putin’s influence operation did to America. but it was only possible because the Hillary faction couldn’t resist pushing so hard, to find an excuse for why she lost! It just HAD to be Putin! Thus magnifying the trip into a tumble

        2. You call me a “liar,” but you don’t quote anything I’ve said that’s false, providing evidence that it’s false, much less have you provided evidence that I’ve lied, purposefully saying something false rather than mistakenly saying it (I do sometimes say false things by mistake, but when I become aware of it, I try to acknowledge the mistake). Are you going to provide any evidence that I’ve lied?

          And I have no idea why you call me a “fraud.” Just what do you think is fraudulent about me?

          1. Hey committohonestbullsh!t, you would have been more believable if you had dropped and shown us 20 pushups.
            You’re just a lying, dog-face pony solider

          2. you’re also a troll CTHD and I don’t answer your questions just because you fart them out of your foul mouth

            go think up some more BS for someone else time waster

            1. Kurtz, absent a coherent response on your part, why bother. Commit called you out and your failing to deliver is obvious.

              1. that’s right. i can see a time waster & troll. viz the bogus name that describes exactly what he is not, is typical for this kind of internet parasite

                see an honest discussion is actually an admirable possibility on the internet, which endures in spite of it being ever more locked down by censors.

                and, it’s to be expected, that in these venues where such is still possible, troll will be coming to suck up all the oxygen and gobble up screen space

                I thought Seth was like that until we got this guy.

                we need more people who speak from the heart with sincerity and feeling, even if it’s sentiments we do not share

                sterile “Debate” presuming to tout figures and statistics all the time reveals nothing except more lame attempts at wonkery

                1. SMH that in the same thread where I pointed out that I’m a woman, you refer to me as “he” and “this guy.”

                  You want to call me a liar without providing any proof, and you’ve added other insults.

                  I care about evidence. You apparently don’t and even consider it a “time waster.” Unfortunately, I encounter a lot of people who don’t care about evidence because it gets in the way of them believing what they want to believe. Instead of changing their minds in response to evidence, they’d rather hold fast to their beliefs even when they’re wrong.

                    1. If you smell something, odds are that it came from you. Or have you developed some magical internet app that allows you to smell things over an internet connection?

                2. Kurtz you just typed 12 lines of jibberish which calls your intelligence into question, when you might better have demonstrated any claim to superior knowledge, reasoning, and principle by proving commit wrong in fewer words. He did nothing to warrant your hostility, but hey if that;’s where you are going, at least be clever about it.

                  1. It’s a she Book. Respect the pronouns.

                    Yes I know it was dumb of me not to ignore. You got me again. My intelligence is questionable for sure. agreed

          3. You call me a “liar,” but you don’t quote anything I’ve said that’s false,

            It’s not anyone’s job to disprove your fantasies. It’s your job to substantiate what you say.

            1. SMH that you tell me “It’s your job to substantiate what you say,” but don’t say the same to Kurtz. Do you agree that it’s also his “job to substantiate what [he] say[s]” when he’s asked to do so? Or do you instead have double standards, depending on whether you agree or disagree with someone?

              For the record, I haven’t asked anyone to “disprove [my] fantasies.”

              1. See this is how the time waster does it. We are challenged to provide statistics etc. This is a fool’s errand. If we did provide the statistics, then they would just explain them away. Like i could say black men are about 9% of the population in the USA but a huge percentage of the homicide perps, year after year.


                but see that would be explained away as whitey’s fault, racism, legacy of slavery, etc

                so there is no point in talking to some of these people who challenge for this and that. challenge my foot!

                it’s all just a big time waster to fog up the window into reality that emerges so clearly in stories like this:


                that’s the only “discussion” here. we know it is lawful and we know it is licit.

                the only question, actually, is, whether it is wise. on that point, reasonable minds could differ and we could have a “honest discussion” among diverse viewpoints

                but she does not want that because it is another one of these people bent to the task assigned to it, her, whatever, by a well oiled sense of teamwork among Democrat cheerleaders

                and this is the point of me addressing this: Republicans need to learn from time wasters like her. go on out to the CNN comments section if they have one, and gin up a bunch of fake debates about statistics to slow down the propaganda effluent pouring out of sewers like that.

                See they have identified this blog and targeted it for “obsucrantist” operations. simple as that.

                1. Kurtz, you claim “We are challenged to provide statistics etc.” and accuse me of “gin[ning] up a bunch of fake debates about statistics,” but I didn’t ask you for any statistics anywhere in this thread.

                  You called me a “liar,” and I noted that if you’re going to call me a “liar,” you should quote something I’ve said that’s false and provide evidence that it’s false. Quotes aren’t statistics.

                2. Irrelevant or not, Squeaky brought up Russia and commit was responding to her.

                  Getting back to the subject of the thread, the issue is federal forces used against citizens, and surprisingly those who usually hate the feds – absurd yesterday justified executing judges and prosecutors – are cheering them on, while those usually seeking federal help against perceived injustices, decry it.

                  I am not well versed in the protests in Portland but generally not supportive – hey, are 52 days not enough, have to do 53 and more, given there are virtually zero black people in Portland to matter – and the Seattle situation is not one to emulate. Still, that is not cause for a military like attempt to take over the situation by the WH. This is politics, not problem solving, and the problem is even hyped – no Kurtz, the cities are not burning – you’re too young to remember when they were – and white people are not under assault, or if they are, it’s by mostly middle class white kids with no jobs while school is out.

              1. Nah, she started in on the Russia nonsense as if that had anything to do with a mob of BLM protesters and anarchist freaks trying to destroy public statuary in Grant Park and throwing ice bottles and shooting incendiaries at Chicago police and wounding 49 of them.

                or, Freaks in Portland attacking the federal courthouse and assaulting federal police. because the cities are totally out of control and yes Trump should be sending in as many federal deputies as possible to quell this anarchy

                that’s the only discussion here. is it wise or unwise and why. everything else is BS, distraction, trolling, time wasting

                Seth for example put up a decent article from Chicago public tv about deindustrialization and its effect on Chicago. that’s the kind of relevant comment i like to see and discuss.

                not Russia Russia Russia. I hear this crap, I m going to call it crap, it stinks. stay relevant for heaven’s sake

                1. Actually, Squeeky is the one who brought up Russia, when she said “They are still hollering Russia, Russia, Russia.” If Squeeky hadn’t brought it up, I wouldn’t have said anything about it in my response to her.

                  So if you think it’s “crap” and not relevant, Squeeky is the one you should be criticizing.

      2. And people are continuing to note that Trump is allying himself with Russia against U.S. interests because that’s what he’s doing.

        Please note the name of the poster. You over promise, and under-deliver. Every single time.

  13. You’re so steeped in pondering legal questions that it doesn’t occur to you that the answers are often not worth a pitcher of warm spit.

  14. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should…

    Funny, that sentiment pretty much applies to anything involved with the Trump administration. Conversely, the list of things the administration should’ve done, but didn’t, is equally long.

    So it goes.

  15. I’m also reminded of Federal Law Enforcement (notably the FBI) involvement in 1964 with the investigation of the three slain Civil Rights workers (James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner) when local Law Enforcement refused to do their jobs.

    1. when local Law Enforcement refused to do their jobs

      The local sheriff and his principal deputy were part of the Klan posse that kidnapped those three men, shot them to death, and buried them in an earthen dike. One reason you’re familiar with the case is that it was unique.

      In ordinary circumstances, the intervention of the state police and state attorney-general’s office should have been sufficient.

      1. It was not unique in the 100 years proceeding.. We knew about it because of pressure from the CR movement and the involvement of the federal government.

        1. It was not unique in the 100 years proceeding.. We knew about it because of pressure from the CR movement and the involvement of the federal government.

          Thanks for the issue of your feelz. Always an education.

          The $PLC lists a handful of cases of people killed by law enforcement during the period between 1953 and 1982. The Neshoba County case is the only one where premeditation was a part of the crime.

          1. oh the SPLC. i don’t follow you guys’ conversation on that historical incident,
            but I love how massively the SPLC fleeces gullible liberals out of their retirement money for a good 30 years now


            the good news is that dees and his clique of enablers is in retirement now, where he can no longer harass the “women and people of color” workers at SPLC

            the even better news is that the SPLC is still on firm footing, it’s half billion dollar endowment secure, and it’s out there vacuuming up more donations every day from money that might actually go into something more harmful than a yellow journalism operation.

            SPLC: keep up the good work!

  16. It’s time to leave town and move to the country. Get a rifle and a snowplow.
    Shoot em and scrape up the bodies.
    The white Klan used to come around in the country but now they’re gone. In cities you have the black and Black Klans Matter.

  17. Hotspots, brightspots and large spots on falls.
    Portraits of truth…hung on the walls.
    There are spaces between Donald and whatever he said.
    Strangers have forced him to live in his head.

    Freedom! Don’t come natural.
    Like a first fart, from a baby!
    Cities live in danger. And people got no sense at all!

    1. someone was high on something, that is for sure. reality had no part of that.

    1. Clarified? I disagree. First the professor writes, “President Donald Trump has repeatedly asserted constitutional authority that he does not have…” then the rest of the opinion is chock full of rationales why, “President Trump does have unilateral authority under the law.”

      He writes, “There has been considerable violence in Portland from protesters but most are not violent.” Huh? Then he remarks, “Like the D.C. protests, it is clearly untrue to portray the Portland protests are peaceful.”

      I found this piece rather confused – not confusing – confused.

        1. One cannot support multiculturalism and still hold an opinion, we should realize democrats are laboring under one heck of a restriction of thought.

    2. can nancy pelosi commit a crime of perjury by designing charges falsified by she and her communist cronies? yes, because lying out of court is an acceptable form of political behavior. So, criminal behavior is just another political tool for lestists……Meanwhile, in the not distant future, the abuse of the constitution by the left is going to be turned on them. The liars like diblasio, cuomo, pelosi, waters, green, mueller, etc etc. will find themselves pointing their fingers at flames and screaming foul. It’s over folks. And now you will have to pay the price for your stupidity over the last sixty years for allowing the left to slash your moral, ethical, and political tires, and then look away.

Comments are closed.