“Like A Needle Pulling A Thread”: Kim Gardner Kicked Off McCloskey Case

YouTube Screenshot

I have been skeptical in the past of the charges brought against Mark and Patricia McCloskey by Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner given the countervailing rights of gun possession and home protection in Missouri. I felt that a case could be maintained as a charging matter but I still fail to see how such charges could be proven at trial or sustained on appeal.  Now, a court has removed Gardner as prosecutor for fundraising on the case.

The couple challenged Gardner’s participation after learning that she used the case to attract donors. It was a disturbing pitch for contributions since critics allege that Gardner dropped charges against the protesters and prosecuted the homeowner to curry favor with liberal voters and activists.

Circuit Judge Thomas Clark II ruled that Gardner had undermined the integrity of the case and left the appearance of having “initiated a criminal prosecution for political purposes.” He wrote that “[l]ike a needle pulling thread, she links the defendant and his conduct to her critics. These emails are tailored to use the June 28 incident to solicit money by positioning her against defendant and her more vocal critics.”

The entire case seems to be now equal measures of law and politics.  Republican Missouri Gov. Mike Parson has stated he would pardon the McCloskeys if they are ultimately convicted. Frankly, it would be useful to have the underlying issues resolved in the courts.

As discussed earlier, it is not unlawful to be outside of one’s home on your property with a lawful weapon. This is particularly an important defense for Mark McCloskey  if he is not shown pointing the weapon intentionally at any individual.  Indeed, we have seen the same type of weapon displayed in public in rallies (like those against the lock-down orders) and protests (like some in the “autonomous” zone in Seattle).  Existing footage shows Patricia McCloskey pointing the weapon.

However, a complicating factor is that Missouri is a state with a Castle Doctrine law and these guns were lawfully possessed.  The law states, in subsection 3,  that deadly force cannot be used unless “[s]uch force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual.” However, no lethal force was used here. It was threatened.

That raises two questions.  Is the law triggered by entry on the property as opposed to entry without the home?  Also, does the law implicitly support the show of force to deter entry.

Some have cited the 2016 case of State v. Whipple, which interpreted subsection 3 is not giving  “the occupier, owner, or lessee authority to stand his ground and use deadly force without having a reasonable belief that such force is necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force.” However, the McCloskeys are alleging that they were threatened directly, the protesters were already trespassing, and that the breaking of the gate constitutes a reasonable basis for their fear.

None of this excuses the display of weaponry in the case by the McCloskeys, but the ambiguity and conflicts between the applicable laws would have led many prosecutors to decline prosecution. The pursuit of felony (rather than misdemeanor) charges further fueled criticism that Gardner used the case for political purposes before her recent reelection.

The problem in the Gardner matter is recurring for both state prosecutors and judges who run for office. They appeal to voters based on their records but that can easily cross the line in the use of criminal cases for popular appeal. That is particularly the case with a pending case. Few prosecutors would have done what Gardner did in using a current case to raise money for herself in the election.

 

106 thoughts on ““Like A Needle Pulling A Thread”: Kim Gardner Kicked Off McCloskey Case”

  1. ” Kicked Off McCloskley Case”

    About time. Gardner shouldn’t be a prosecutor. She doesn’t have moral and ethical boundaries sufficient for the job

  2. I am going to give the McCloskeys an armed Missouri bear. He can guard the yard while they sleep at night. Second Amendment:Right To Arm Bears!

  3. Anonymous Fact:, George Bush lost all of his court cases except for one and he then won in the Supreme Court. Fact: Half of the people in the country believe the election was flawed that is the highest percentage in the history of the country.

    1. George Bush didn’t lose 55 cases in multiple states. Bad analogy.

      Half of the people in the country believe the election was flawed because Trump and his partisan shills are lying to them about it, and they’re in an insulated bubble that protects them from the truth.

      1. Anonymous makes himself or herself or itself feel better by stating that people can’t think for themselves.

  4. Jonathan, GFY you phony concern troll. This isn’t a one street you’re looking at, and aiming one column after another at Democrats while adding a throw away line about how much you oppose all violent rhetoric – and more than rhetoric with the Michigan right wing – is propaganda. No, you don’t condemn all violent rhetoric, just the side that gets you on Fox News again.

    1. Friday:

      “…GFY you phony concern troll.”

      There in a nutshell is the modus operandi of the left: make offensive statements while hiding behind a pseudonym.

      Make those same statements to Turley face-to-face.

      Or at least have the courage to sign your name.

      You claim that you come here to debate.

      No, you come here to spew your bile publicly while hiding your name.

      You are not a debater, you are bully.

      1. monumentcolorado, look around you. There are plenty of conservatives here who make offensive statements here while hiding behind a pseudonym. They come to spew their bile publicly while hiding their names.

        1. John G.

          Haven’t made an analysis of the postings (who has that much time for a blog?), but it seems to me that most of the “hateful” comments are from the left.

          There are a few righties who are crass/ugly, but my reproaches apply to them too.

          We (the posters who want this blog to stay civil) need to speak up about the vile postings or normal people will move away, leaving the blog to the trolls.

          We would all be the poorer for that.

          1. monumentcolorado, lots of regulars on the right (mespo, Rhodes, Allan, George, etc.) post insults every day. Calling them out hasn’t changed their behavior.

          2. monument: “We (the posters who want this blog to stay civil) need to speak up about the vile postings or normal people will move away, leaving the blog to the trolls.”

            Hear, hear!

            Just as bad money pushes out good, so bad people push out the good.

            And, yes, I know that the uncivilized behavior comes from both sides. However, it’s a bit childish to rationalize such behavior by saying: “But he does it, too.”

            “You’re a troll.”

            “Oh yeah, you’re a double-troll.”

            Do you really think that such vitriol adds anything to your argument? Are you not concerned about polluting your own mind and spirit — let alone the atmosphere the rest of us breathe? Is your motivation to convince, or just to vent? (If the latter, please at least have the decency to not do it in public.)

      2. OK “monumentcolorad”. Are you in the phonebook?

        I’d love to say that to Turley’s face, but you know, not with “Michigan militia” guys there.

        1. Friday:

          I have signed my name several times when I make offensive comments to people on this blog – any reader who sees my comment knows who made them and can look me up – especially the recipient of my offensive comments.

          If any of us want to make offensive comments, then we need to be prepared for the consequences.

          If we are scared, then we should shut up and not snipe from the bushes. That is the coward’s way and just destroys the blog.

          1. Monument, forgive my skepticism as I address you by “monumentcolorado”. As to my language, I am sorry if swearing and obscenity bother you and I won’t try to justify it. I will question your concern however, since – like Turley’s – it’s in one direction only, and ignores the real ugly words of racism and bigotry quite a few of your fellow “conservatives” employ here regularly. This morning a poster with a Jewish sounding name was attacked by another on that ground, while Judge Sullivan was attacked for his race. Overt racism is displayed here by some of the regulars – Young, Squeaky, Rhodes, etc – and all this without your objection. While I do swear and will probably continue to, I generally take comments seriously and without rancor unless they are so loaded, and i don’t mind firing back.

            If you have something serious to say, I’ll try to answer in the spirit it’s offered. My respect for Turley is gone and I see no need to pretend otherwise. My swearing will always be accompanied with reason and facts, and unlike you and most of your “conservative” brethren, I will not try to define all of a given political position as defective humans, except to the extent they individually act out bad behavior in a specific act. Try that sometime.

            1. Joe, check out twitter, today Turley is praising Barr against the right wing who is angry at him for covering up the Hunter Biden investigation and various other embarrassments to Democrat leadership.

      3. And here is the modus operandi of the vast majority of commenters from the right on this blog>> bring information from the right wing bubble, attach it to a Turley post, when factual antithesis is brought to bear on the comment demand a citation that can easily be looked up, when said citation is supplied personally attack the commenter, attribute your own flaws to that commenter and generally exist in an up is down world straight out of 1984.

        Look, my worst fears going into trump’s term would be that he would so botch his ‘build the wall’ scam that he’d end up putting a proxy war directly on our border with Mexico. I was shortsighted. Instead (or in addition to) the proxy war, trump’s term has literally proven how to take the U.S. down. A pandemic.

        Who would’ve ever thought a thoroughly financially transactional wanna be autocrat could’ve been so beta as to give the travel directions to any number of global powers or power collectives as to how to engineer, transport, introduce, spread and politicize a pandemic such that it takes out an empire???

        Good thing trump also brings a fair amount of incompentence and ineptitude to the table otherwise the U.S. could’ve gone down in, literally, in one presidential term. If trump got another term it would not surprise me to see an actual physical invasion of the U.S. on the heels of the next newly introduced pandemic.

        Do I think the Chinese tried this time around? No. I think, like an autocratic society would do, something blew up on their soil and they just tried to squash the information. But they stumbled on to a plan that *would* work, especially with such an ass clown in the oval office.

        How would he stay there? Well, you see that everyday on this blog…, it would just take someone intuitively gifted enough at marketing to realize there is a good chunk of the U.S. population willing enough to surrender democracy just so they can see the people they hate the most punnished. Easy peasy. That population wouldn’t even require the monetary pay off that trump would.

        So I look forward to completely ignoring all the right wing f&*k head nonsense sure to be channeled my way for my observations. I’ll not spend a second concerned with whatever vile commentary from the cheap seats appears.

        Elvis Bug

        1. “. . . spread and politicize a pandemic such that it takes out an empire???”

          The only things taking down this empire are the liberty- and life-destroying diktats, issued by petty tyrants. (See Cuomo, Newsom, Whitmer, et al.) Power-lusters always use “emergencies” (real or imagined) to rationalize their oppressive policies.

          “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” (Lord Acton)

        2. Aninny:

          “So I look forward to completely ignoring all the right wing f&*k head nonsense sure to be channeled my way for my observations. I’ll not spend a second concerned with whatever vile commentary from the cheap seats appears.”
          ***************************************
          So you spend six paragraphs and countless hours whining about it. Irony is dead and you shot him. lol

          1. Ha. Just couldn’t help from jumping in the f&*k head pool could ya, Big Mess. LMAO.

            Elvis Bug

        3. Just relax & take your vaccines. you’ll be fine afterwards.

          Dr Fauci & Bill/Melinda Gates loves you people.

            1. here bill gates says, we need less population because of global warming. ok, maybe there is overpopulation. i accept there is global warming and people exhale co2 and farts, both greenhouse gasses. so.

              but he also says, vaccines will help lower population, near end of clip– watch it and see. not a mistake, very carefully spoken

              but gee, i didn’t know that’s what they were for. I thought they were to help people– not sterlize or kill them– i mean, how else would vaccines help limit population>? one would think vaccines would actually operate to increase population

              unless the crazy anti vaxxers are right and they actually do operate to sterilize and kill us

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc16H3uHKOA&feature=emb_title

              you guys feel free to test that covid vaccine out first, I’ll wait for later

              Saloth Sar

              1. I hear ya, Saloth.

                Not really best policy to be on the front end of any new drug — but some situations differ. For me, this might be one of them just because i consider it more a a social responsibility to the group. I’ll be using all my herbal knowledge and practice to counterbalance any side effects that present, certainly.

                But those billionaires you speak of? They’re the ones who are going to hog up as much vaccine as they can.

                Elvis Bug

                1. Your Mafioso Padrinos living in Democrat Governors Mansions are doing a bang up job bankrupting small businesses, decimating families, cities, private organizations and economies in their states, bringing Americans to the brink of suicide and abusing children of all ages in depriving them of an education, socialization and squashing any hope. Joseph Stalin wishes he had had the evil genius of your Democrats in High Places. The fatality rates from the SARS-CoV-2 virus (0.26%) is nothing compared to the deaths created by Democrat Governors. Would that they bring a vaccine to market to inoculate us from Democrats power grabs.

                  Virginia to impose nightly curfew, limit social gatherings to 10 people, tighten mask rules
                  https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/watch-now-virginia-to-impose-nightly-curfew-limit-social-gatherings-to-10-people-tighten-mask/article_4f77d9a2-2fb4-5c17-9d7e-61544567d1bd.html

                2. Elvis, I saw a story about how the one percenters are lining up for it. Of course 1% doesnt even come close to those top 70, they are like the top 1% of the top 1%.

                  I am not normally critical about vaccines, I have never refused one in my life and habitually get flu shots with no problem. I have never had side effects and they’ve always worked as promised.

                  This one– Im taking a pass

                  Im also troubled at how NPR a month ago was saying Robert Kennedy Jr was literally in bed with German neonzis and Russian agents and antivaxxers just because he gave some speech in Berlin. Really, RFK Jr is a Russian agent now too?

                  they’re laying it on a little too thick for me to trust them. Not that I did very much before 2020, but I never worried about vaccines until now.

                  Saloth Sar

  5. Prof. Turley, you made a statement, intentionally or by way of Freudian slip, that is profoundly disconcerting: “I felt that a case could be maintained as a charging matter but I still fail to see how such charges could be proven at trial or sustained on appeal.” The statement demonstrates an acceptance of misuse, indeed abuse, of prosecutorial discretion because, as you know as well as I do, there mere instituting, much less the maintenance, of a criminal prosecution for the intended purposes of only lodging, without the intention of proving, criminal accusations and charges at trial, is itself (self-evidently) a seriously disturbing abuse of prosecutorial discretion. For starters, the time and expense as well as mental costs to a presumptively innocent person that such governmental conduct wrecks upon a presumptively innocent person is astronomical, potentially incalculable to the point of life ruining. Such abuse of governmental conduct against one or more of its citizens (what with the incredible, almost inexhaustible resources and machinery of the government at the abuser’s disposal and backing that abuse, certainly rises to the level a civil tort (intentional infliction of emotional distress), unquestionably a civil rights violation under 42 USC 1983 and Bivens (as well as a state constitutional tort (aka a state Bivens action)), likely a crime in itself (harassment) and certainly a violation of rules of professional conduct (legal ethics), Yet your statement quoted above shows that you, in very least implicitly, accept this practice, or have become so accustomed to its practice, as to unwittingly accept it as legal permissible and within the bounds of minimally acceptable morals and social norms. Please, clarify whether you accept or reject this practice and explain your reasoning. Thank you.

  6. This case has been a mess from the start. It has a political feel and now it is proven to be just that. Maybe it gets dismissed. While I am very glad nobody ends up shot, I still wonder why homeowners get charged for defending their home but not those that break into property. My question for this case is does the Castle Doctrine allow for the outside grounds as compared to entering the home.

    Knowing only what has been reported, this feels like it should be dropped and if it goes to trial, I think acquittal is likely.

  7. I lived in St. Louis for 43 years. Gardner is a total disgrace to the legal profession. It is typical and just one of the reasons the US is so divided. How many times do we talk about cities run by far left liberal democrats? BLM rules, high taxes, always broke. poverty, filthy, high crime/ murder rates. St. Louis city is only known for an Arch and a good baseball team. Jonathan would you live in North STL city or Southside Chicago or Harlem NYC or skid row LA. NO of course not.

  8. Precisely, Monumentcolorado! Facebook’s platform. Facebook rules. Fake news and blatant Trump lies are not permitted!

      1. Mespo, now that there is Parler, the Trump lies and conspiracy theories can flourish there! Please do shut me down. Honestly, you would be doing me a favor. I’ve wasted enough time in this rigged marketplace.

        1. “Mespo, now that there is Parler, the Trump lies and conspiracy theories can flourish there! Please do shut me down. Honestly, you would be doing me a favor. I’ve wasted enough time in this rigged marketplace.”
          *************************
          Oh no, not shut your down here. Just make you sit in the dark a few nights. I like the softballs to intellect you serve up. Keeps my timing intact.

      2. The top-performing link posts by U.S. Facebook pages in the last 24 hours are from:

        1. Dan Bongino
        2. Newsmax
        3. Dinesh D’Souza
        4. Dan Bongino
        5. Ben Shapiro
        6. CNN
        7. Donald Trump For President
        8. Newsmax
        9. Ben Shapiro
        10. Fox News

  9. Some facts are ignored in the article. The McCloskeys and their fellow home owners on Portland Place own the gate, the street, the sidewalk in front of the homes and of course their respective front yards and homes.
    The intruding humans who broke the locks on the gate to enter Portland Place were criminals and all person’s who intruded right behind the gate breakers were criminals. Then the criminals were shouting and at least one showed a pistol. They were going west up Portland Place and intruding farther.
    Had this been the fenced and locked gated
    Lot of a grocery store the people who consider these issues would be more in favor of an armed guard trying to stop them.

    The prosecutor is a joint conspirator with the intruding criminals.

    The prosecutor will have a hard time explaining this to Saint Peter some time when she gets her interview at the Pearly Gates. She will be sent to Hell in a handbasket.

    1. Liberty2nd, thank you for supplying those missing facts. Facts still matter to some of us. Does anybody in this thread dispute these facts? If so, state which facts you dispute and supply the facts to support your dispute. I had a feeling there was more to this story beyond the obvious politicization of it. Also, as a pure matter of law, under the statute, the two questions [of law] which Prof. Turley, not the law, raises are so easily and readily resolved, which further, demonstrates Prosecutor Kim Gardner’s, egregiously sinister and inexcusable conduct, itself criminal and legally unethical, in charging Mark and Patricia McCloskey criminally. Gardner’s conduct going so further beyond the pale in not only maintaining the criminal prosecution but to actively and publicly boast such conduct in an effort to solicit financial contributions to her re-election shows this purely evil woman knows no limits and wouldn’t recognize morality if it bit her in the ass. She should be prosecuted and put in prison along with those she has imprisoned herself – perhaps, in large suite shared with those particularly familiar with her legal tactics? Anyway, back to the two questions of law raised by the Prof:

      “Is the law triggered by entry on the property as opposed to entry without the home? Also, does the law implicitly support the show of force to deter entry?”

      1. Entry to Property triggers statute.
      The statute, by its plain and unambiguous language, is triggered by the unlawful entry on to the private property. For obvious reasons, aside from the plain and unambiguous statutory language, entry to the home is not required for the statute to apply, but certainly would apply under such facts. (BTW, curiously funny choice of words: “triggered” as opposed to “apply.” Freudian slip #2, Prof.!)

      2. Yes, the law implicitly authorizes the show of force to deter [unlawful] entry.
      As cited in the article, the “2016 case of State v. Whipple, which interpreted subsection 3 is not giving “the occupier, owner, or lessee authority to stand his ground and use deadly force without having a reasonable belief that such force is necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force.” Stripped of Turley’s use of double negatives, the answer to question #2 is provided by the very statement quoted: Provided the occupier, owner, or lessee reasonable believes the imminent, but yet employed, use of unlawful force against himself or a third person, and provided he reasonably believes lethal force is necessary to protect himself or a third person from that THREAT of IMMENENT BUT YET EMPLOYED unlawful force, he is statutorily authorized to then use lethal force to protect himself against such threat. Accordingly, as a matter of logic and pure common sense (and therefore, as a matter of law, notwithstanding the anticipated legal cynics “out there”), “the occupier, owner, or lessee” is naturally authorized to use something less than lethal force to deter the unlawful entry – i.e. the the show of force or THREAT of lethal force.

  10. NEW UN AMBASSADOR BRINGS DECADES OF AFRICAN, CARRIBEAN AND HR EXPERIENCE
    -Appointment is historic victory in fight for Diversity and Inclusion; supports Justice for Black Farmers Act

    NEW YORK CITY – The Party today announced the appointment of Linda Thomas-Greenfield as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In her new role, Ms. Thomas-Greenfield brings broad global perspectives from decades of experience in African and Caribbean affairs. She has also served the Party in a critical human resources role.

    “As Assistant Secretary for the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield led the development and management of U.S. policy toward sub-Saharan Africa. Her distinguished Foreign Service career includes an ambassadorship to Liberia and postings in Kenya, the Gambia, Nigeria, and Jamaica,” said Vice President Kamala Harris. “She also served for almost two years as the State Department’s HR chief under President Obama,” Harris added.

    Harris continued, “The UN Ambassadorship is the Party’s most visible foreign relations role. Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield will be on the front lines fighting for my administration’s strategic priorities. This is an important step to erase the shameful, racist legacies of predecessors such as Adlai Stevenson, George H.W. Bush, and Andrew Young. This is a truly historic appointment.”

    Cory Booker, Party Senator from New Jersey, added, “Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield has first-hand, practical experience from the front lines of the highly successful land-use reforms pioneered by President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe after that country threw off the yoke of colonial racism. She was also the top State Department official in charge of African policy during the Ebola crisis. Her experience will be invaluable as we implement the Zimbabwean model in the US through the Justice for Black Farmers Act, which I recently introduced in the Senate.”

    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield’s full biography is available here: https://www.academyofdiplomacy.org/member/linda-thomas-greenfield/

    —-

    Immediate implementation of these guidelines is authorized under previously approved directives adopted in response to the COVID-19 emergency. Further information on these guidelines will be communicated as circumstances dictate.

    1. Cory Booker is in favor of implementing the Zimbabwean model (of starvation) here in the US. Why doesn’t that surprise me.

  11. Here we go Jeffery. Stay away from Rhode’s women. He has a hard enough time as it is.

    Amazing collection of low-lifes on the professor’s blog.

  12. I believe the show of force by the McCloskey’s may have been the necessary deterrent to keep these individuals from destroying property or causing physical harm. That would certainly be an appropriate “excuse” for the show of force.

  13. Turley: “The law states, in subsection 3, that deadly force cannot be used unless “[s]uch force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual.””

    The Turley asks: “Is the law triggered by entry on the property as opposed to entry without [sic] the home?”

    Not being a lawyer, I cannot understand how that question isn’t silly.

    “None of this excuses the display of weaponry in the case by the McCloskeys…” WHAT?!? Is it my brain that’s broken here or Turley’s?

  14. That this is even a ‘case’ tells you everything you need to know about the dysfunctional political climate in the US.

  15. Trump’s lawsuits are ridiculous. Even his own self-appointed judges have said as much!

  16. Just like Gardner who “initiated a criminal prosecution for political purposes,” Trump initiated these laughable lawsuits to raise campaign cash for 2024. Why don’t you warn your followers, Turley, not to throw good money after bad. That would be the decent thing to do.

  17. The voters of St. Louis put that horrid woman in the district attorney’s chair. Any person of sense will put as much distance between themselves and the voters of St. Louis as they can imagine. If the Missouri Bar was worth anything, Gardner’s law license would be history.

    1. Given the growing indications of vote tampering I am beginning to wonder if the voters really did put this person in office.

      The same might be suspected of the radical prosectors in LA, Portland, Chicago, etc.

  18. Why haven’t you passed judgment on Trump’s scam raising 200+ million asking for contributions for his preposterous legal suits to overturn the election of Biden? The small print to his fund raiser clearly states that he can use the “defense” funds for *political* purposes. He is conning his suckers once again. Nothing say you, Professor?

    1. Why haven’t you passed judgment on Trump’s scam raising 200+ million asking for contributions for his preposterous legal suits to overturn the election of Biden?

      The suits aren’t preposterous. The disposition of partisan Democrats is preposterous.

        1. “The Jews will not replace us! The Jews will not replace us! The Jews will not replace us!” I suppose that I am resigned to counter this anti-Semitic “hate speech” calling me out as a “Jewish leftist” with “good speech” in the “marketplace of ideas” in your forum, Turley? Is that your good idea? What exactly should I say that would convince this anonymous bigot otherwise?

          1. Jeffrey, are you so poorly educated that you don’t realize that you are a classic example of a “bigot”?

          2. The bigotry many of the posters here harbor seeps out the side on occasion Jeffery, and never corrected by fellow travelers.

            1. Not to worry, Joe. According to Free Speech absolutists like Professor Turley, there is no hate speech that good speech can’t cure! The marketplace of ideas will cure all ills. Waiting….

              1. Yeah, except he’s not that either. Let’s hear him bring up our FCC “regulated” radio and TV airwaves, once governed by a Fairness Doctrine gutted by the GOP in the 1980’s. Those are limited airwaves “owned” by the public, unlike the internet.

          3. It wasn’t “hate speech”. And you are supposed to counter that speech by opposing the policies now in place that will result in the genocide (or extinction, if you prefer) of the white race. It’s not complicated.

      1. The suits are preposterous. Trump and his allies are 1-55 in court, with plenty of judges appointed by Republicans ruling against him.

        1. I would suggest reading “the emporer’s new cloths”.

          Reality is what matters – not how many people agree with a falsehood.

          There is substantial evidence of fraud. In many states election laws were violated wholesale.

          If we can not trust those in government to follow their own laws – how do we trust them to determine whether their lawlessness altered the outcome of the election ?

    2. Because there is reason to believe that some voter fraud took place. Republicans won 14 seats in Congress, 63 state legislative chambers and most of their senate races. You must be unfamiliar with ballots left in garbage cans in Kentucky and Pennsylvania’ altered ballots in West Virginia, ballots with no postmark etc. I didn’t see you complaining when Al Gore had his day in Court in 2000 or when Nixon refused to move forward with charges of irregularities in Chicago in 1960. You sound like a typical leftist Jew who watches CNN

      1. I confess I am a Jew, and what is even worse, I date shiksas. You want that I should keep quiet?

    3. Jeffrey:

      Turley’s blog, Turley’s choice.

      Want to control content, start your own blog; until then remember that you are a guest.

      You get into the cheap seats and think that it gives you the right to control what Turley writes about.

      Try suggesting or asking.

      Your peremptory tone suggests a competence or authority that you have not earned.

Comments are closed.