There is an interesting contrast developing in two controversies. We recently discussed how legal experts demanded that Joe diGenova be disbarred for recently saying that Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency head Chris Krebs should to be “drawn and quartered” for his failure to protect this election. Krebs has filed a legally dubious lawsuit against diGenova. Yet, in Michigan, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and other Democrats have defended Rep. Cynthia Johnson who called out for “soldiers” to “make [Trump supporters] pay” for their criticism and harassment of her. Those who insisted on disbarment and other measures for diGenova are conspicuously silent about such overheated rhetoric from the left.
From the outset, I do not agree that Johnson should have been removed from committee positions. I took her video as yet another example of hyperbolic excess.
The Michigan Attorney General has condemned both Johnson as well as those who threatened her in the past.
For her part, Whitmer called for “a little bit of compassion and grace” for the lawmaker because she “has been through a lot.” She was referring to the highly publicized voter-fraud hearing with Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and having someone close to her contract Covid-19.
The fact is that such rhetoric reflects our rage-filled politics. We need to apply a certain benefit of the doubt on whether such comments are real or hyperbolic demands. In torts, courts developed the doctrine of mitior sensus, which was used to assume the innocent meaning of works in defamation when two different meaning (one harmful and one innocent) is possible.
In this political environment, however, such allowance however is notably denied to those on the right. Mark Zaid declared that “no rational person” who heard diGenova calling for a person to be drawn and quartered and then shot “would have taken it as ‘jest.’” No rational person. The Washington Post’s Randall Eliason seemed to dismiss that this was “just a colorful metaphor.” Professor Steve Vladeck declared “Lawyers who make these kinds of threats should be disbarred. Full stop.”
Johnson is not a lawyer but there is a striking different treatment given such statements. Where Zaid maintains that “no rational person” would think that calling for someone to be “drawn and quarter . . . and shot” is a joke, there is ample understanding afforded Johnson and others who have used alarming rhetoric. Obviously, diGenova was joking. Many of us condemned the comments immediately as reckless, but Zaid’s claim reflects how current debate are often untethered from any legal or factual reality.
I do not think that either Johnson or diGenova were calling for violence. Free speech must allow room at the elbows for reckless or hyperbolic language, but the allowance must be consistently applied.
Mr. Turley,
I generally agree with you on most things because you place reason ahead of political leaning. Not on this. No “reasonable” person would DO either of these things. There are a LOT of unreasonable people in the US these days.
Drawing & quartering haven’t taken place in centuries. It’s a long drawn out process [no pun intended] that can’t be done in secret or from ambush. It was obvious hyperbole.
When I watched Cynthia Johnson’s video, the hairs on the back of my neck stood up; she was speaking to me & mine. I felt threatened and endangered. And I’m a registered Libertarian.
“So, this is just a warning to you Trumpers. Be careful. Walk lightly. We ain’t playing with you. Enough of the shenanigans. Enough is enough. And for those of you who are soldiers, you know how to do it. Do it right. Be in order. Make them pay.” I did NOT hear the words or melody to Onward Christian Soldiers in my head as I listened to her threat.
I’ve seen the former soldiers acting as border guards & security for antifa riots & autonomous zones.
I’ve seen videos of former soldiers training antifa & anarchists.
I’ve seen videos of former soldiers asking other former soldiers to join them in destroying our country & taking it to those that don’t agree with their politics.
Miz Johnson should have been stripped of her committee appointments & she should be removed from office. The fact that someone else who isn’t an elected person has done something similar is irrelevant.
Thank you.
“Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” Henry II of England
Four knights to travel from Normandy to Canterbury, where they killed Thomas Becket.
The phrase is commonly used in modern-day contexts to express a ruler’s [or Michigan Representative’s] wish as a command by his or her subordinates or unreasonable followers.
I would add, It’s entirely plausible to presume violent intent, And expect a violent reaction to, This woman’s words. She represents a violent city, and sides with the thugs who used force and racist intimidation to lock out the GOP election observers in an obscene reenactment of Jim-Crow.
Forget The Court Rulings!
THE GAME TRUMP IS REALLY PLAYING
That first Sunday of Trump’s presidency Kellyanne Conway appeared on “Meet The Press” offering “Alternate Facts” regarding the crowd size at Trump’s inauguration. Host Chuck Todd sputtered with dismay. Shocked that Conway would use such a term on TV’s oldest Sunday show. But it was prophetic moment.
Conway was saying Donald Trump could claim whatever ‘facts’ he wanted. Regardless of the truth. “Presidents don’t have to play by any rules”, is what Conway really meant. And Trump set out to prove that. Never has a president been so utterly disconnected from facts and science. “Forget mainstream media and say whatever you want” is Donald Trump’s reality.
Therefore I don’t believe 70% of Republicans haven’t noticed Trump’s court losses. It couldn’t escape the radar of 124 Congressmen. Or the 16 Republican A G’s supporting Paxton’s suit. Presumably those A G’s know law well enough to grasp Trump lacks evidence. They can’t be so stupid as to think Trump keeps losing with a ‘good case’.
What’s really happening here is millions of people are parroting their leader and repeating a lie. “If we keep repeating it, over and over, we’re going to make it true”. Because that’s Donald Trump. The truth is whatever he says it is.
And that should scare the hell out of any real American. That a failed president, who never won the Popular Vote, would simply refuse to concede defeat. A president, one should note, who never had any experience in public office. A so-called ‘Business genius’ who nearly lost his father’s fortune. Millions are demanding that an election be overturned to accommodate this genius!
Trump makes these demands while the unemployment surges. Million’s of Americans may not have the rent New Year’s Day. But Trump can’t be bothered with them. No push to pass Federal Relief. Mitch doesn’t want it, so why should Donald Trump”
The pandemic is gravely worse now than it was in March as both a health and economic threat. This is no time for Donald Trump to light a wildfire. Yet he is doing exactly that.
The dead giveaway that you are an anti-American, anti-Constitutional communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) is your reference to a phantom popular vote.
Elections in America occur in 50 states and the ultimate vote is of electors resulting from those 50 separate elections, precisely in order that particular states do not dominate.
The American architects were brilliant.
You, by contrast, are not, comrade.
Additionally, the “pandemic” was an election tool deployed in an election year by China, your communist allies and headquarters, to adversely impact the incumbent president and to allow you cover to tamper
with votes.
China released a weapon of mass destruction and the president should have lobbied Congress to, appropriately, declare war.
Congress would never declare war against its greatest ally and command headquarters, China.
China commenced and concluded WWIII, all within the American election year, 2020.
George, your perception of reality is seriously warped. I can’t imagine ‘where’ you really live, or how ‘old’ you really are.
“That dudn’t make any sense!”
– George W. Bush
Anon: “That first Sunday of Trump’s presidency Kellyanne Conway appeared on “Meet The Press” offering “Alternate Facts” regarding the crowd size at Trump’s inauguration. Host Chuck Todd sputtered with dismay. Shocked that Conway would use such a term on TV’s oldest Sunday show. But it was prophetic moment.”
This *intentional* misrepresentation, again?!
You and the media horde keep flogging the expression: “alternative facts.” It does *not* mean what you want it to mean. In the context of the law (and related issues), “alternative facts” has a definite meaning.
It’s a legal term of art denoting: facts to present an alternate explanation or conclusion. As in this usage by Facebook to explain its strategy of “related articles”: “In Facebook’s strategy, Sandberg explained, potentially false content is presented in users’ News Feeds alongside related articles ‘so people can see alternative facts.’”
And as in this usage from _Family Law in Practice_: “Provided the alternative facts or the alternative interpretation you put is reasonable . . . ”
Or from _ Guide to Computer Forensics and Investigations_: “The expression ‘alternative facts’ might seem contradictory, but it simply means competing facts.”
Or _The Art of Lawyering_: “The proof will be in the experts’ ability and willingness to handle alternative facts in their own theories or to apply alternative methods than the ones upon which they rely.”
As a trained lawyer, Conway was well aware of that usage.
Sam, the claims Conway made regarding crowd-sizes at Trump’s inauguration were nakedly false and everyone knew it.
Please do not confuse them with facts.
FACTS ARE THE ENEMY TO THE TRUTH,
Real Americans are shrilled by the “P tape and prostitute” bar room Dossier. Real Americans are sick of the “Mooooler henchman hoax”. Real Americans are flabbergasted by “phone call” impeachments, really!!! Real Americans are tired of the TDS inspired progressive corp media lying lying lying about the Donalds “peace and prosperity” record. Lastly, Real Americans saw with our OWN EYES this election stolen by legislative lawlessness, ballot stuffing, damn the torpedoes strategy of whatever it takes who cares we cant take anymore, Coup Coup Coup at all costs!!!! With all due respect sir, bring on the war from you and your antifa, blm, or whatever else you have sycophants…
The enemy is engaged.
The battle is on.
President Trump will now lead…
or retreat from the enemy and abandon the Constitution, his country and his fellow patriots.
It is time to lead, Mr. President.
SCOTUS SLAMS DOOR ON TEXAS LAWSUIT
REJECTION COMES IN CURT, UNSIGNED ORDER
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an audacious lawsuit by Texas that had asked the court to throw out the presidential election results in four battleground states captured by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.
The court, in a brief unsigned order, said Texas lacked standing to pursue the case, saying it “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”
The move, coupled with a one-sentence order on Tuesday turning away a similar request from Pennsylvania Republicans, signaled that the court has refused to be drawn into President Trump’s losing campaign to overturn the results of the election last month.
There will continue to be scattered litigation brush fires around the nation from Mr. Trump’s allies, but as a practical matter the Supreme Court’s action puts an end to any prospect that Mr. Trump will win in court what he lost at the polls.
Texas’ lawsuit, filed directly in the Supreme Court, challenged election procedures in four battleground states: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It asked the court to bar those states from casting their electoral votes for Mr. Biden and to shift the selection of electors to the states’ legislatures. That would have required the justices to discard millions of votes.
Legal experts almost universally dismissed Texas’ suit as an unbecoming stunt. In invoking the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction,” Texas asked the justices to act as a trial court to settle a dispute between states, a procedure theoretically possible under the Constitution but employed sparingly, typically in cases concerning water rights or boundary disputes.
In a series of briefs filed Thursday, the four states that Texas sought to sue condemned the effort. “The court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated,” a brief for Pennsylvania said.
On Friday morning, Texas’ attorney general, Ken Paxton, responded in a reply brief. “Whatever Pennsylvania’s definition of sedition,” he wrote, “moving this court to cure grave threats to Texas’ right of suffrage in the Senate and its citizens’ rights of suffrage in presidential elections upholds the Constitution, which is the very opposite of sedition.”
Claims that the election was tainted by widespread fraud have been debunked, including by Attorney General William P. Barr, who said this month that the Justice Department had uncovered no voting fraud “on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
Some 20 states led by Democrats, in a brief supporting the four battleground states, urged the Supreme Court “to reject Texas’ last-minute attempt to throw out the results of an election decided by the people and securely overseen and certified by its sister states.”
Georgia, which Mr. Biden won by less than 12,000 votes out of nearly five million cast, said in its brief that it had handled its election with integrity and care. “This election cycle,” the brief said, “Georgia did what the Constitution empowered it to do: it implemented processes for the election, administered the election in the face of logistical challenges brought on by Covid-19, and confirmed and certified the election results — again and again and again. Yet Texas has sued Georgia anyway.”
Edited from: “Supreme Court Rejects Texas Suit Seeking To Subvert Election”
This evening’s New York Times
The Court looked into the abyss and decided to jump in.
So if the States, the parties to the Original Agreement, the USA Constitution, the SC claims states have no standing.
Thus the SC is saying to us Citizens that our Reps have no claims to Anything!
Well, that attitude isn’t going to get the SC very far.
Maybe Prof Turley has some twisted words to make the SC’s claim sound plausible?
Supreme Court rejects Texas lawsuit.
I am not surprised.
I have said for weeks this problem was probably too big for the courts. We didn’t ask the Supreme Court to defend us after Pearl Harbor.
I have a suspicion they’ve gone out of their way to avoid accepting jurisdiction or hearing evidence. Our courts meddle a great deal, but they don’t protect us much.
Deny them taxes. This is “a continuation of politics by other means now”
but the nonviolent means of tax resistance is the most effective tool yet untried
tax resistance to this wicked regime is now moral imperative
Saloth Sar
My thought too. As I have been saying, it is what I expected. They might dress it up but I think it has nothing to do with law. They like to meddle from a safe perch but stepping into something like this is something they avoid. Too bad, because they could have shown some character and saved the country a good bit of trouble. Top to bottom the courts have crapped on their reputation in the last few years and now they have donned the Crap Crown. Massive electronic intervention by a foreign government in our elections isn’t important enough to distract them. I am hoping this was just ‘exhaustion of remedies’ on the part of Trump’s team before he uses the executive to protect the country. And who cares if the Court says it is unconstitutional. The Court had its chance to speak. About half the country looks on it with disdain just now.
oh, it’s more than half. don’t forget progressives. the ones who are focused on the economic fates of the workers, and not just goofy incarnations of one civil rights beef after another, are on fire with anger at the pain and misery of the covid restrictions. the workers suffer and the billionaires grow richer as ever!
see jimmy dore on youtube
who cares if the Court says it is unconstitutional
Patriots do.
That’s one view but not mine. Andy Jackson and Lincoln knew how to deal with the Court when it didn’t see the bigger picture. The Court has no Constitutional duty to protect the country from foreign or domestic interference threatening national security. But the President does.
Art – Look at the comments on the Legal Insurrection site to get a sense of how some feel. It is not good.
Standing is the court’s parachute to avoid unpleasant cases. Here they pulled the rip cord.
I wonder if their parachute will open?
Oh, it’ll open alright, in Beijing, just in time for the champagne popping at the communist party party.
Was there a rip cord on the Constitution?
We have been witnessing the fall of America for decades. Frankly it began by throwing God out of our public squares and denying His sovereignty, as Fr John Courtney Murray SJ made plain back in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.
https://www.library.georgetown.edu/woodstock/Murray/whtt_index
We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition
JOHN COURTNEY MURRAY, S.J.
SHEED AND WARD
From the Preface
The unifying thread of these 13 essays, fashioned over the previous decade, was Murray’s effort to explore, on a high level of reason and rhetoric, America’s public philosophy, the civic consensus whereby a people acquires its identity and sense of purpose. With the Founding Fathers, Murray held that there exists an ensemble of substantive truths that “command the structure and the courses of the political-economic system of the United States” (We Hold These Truths, p. 106), truths that can be known by reason—not indeed self-evident but reached by “careful inquiries” of “the wise and honest” (p.118). Reduced to its skeleton, the consensus affirmed a free people under a limited government, guided by law and ultimately resting on the sovereignty of God.
Does the consensus still exist? Not really, Murray argued. Especially if you combine the consensus with its basis in natural law. “By one cause or another it has been eroded” (p. 86). Influenced by modern rationalism and philosophy, “the American university long since bade a quiet goodbye to the whole notion of an American consensus, as implying that there are truths that we hold in common, and a natural law that makes known to all of us the structure of the moral universe in such wise that all of us are bound by it in a common obedience” (p. 40). For its part, Protestant theology has never been happy with the thesis of a human reason so sheltered from original sin that it can know God unaided by grace. Perhaps the people are wiser than their philosophers and pastors, but such a hope Murray found too “cheerful” for his intellectual comfort. As for Roman Catholics, traditionally their “participation in the American consensus has been full and free, unreserved and unembarrassed, because the contents of this consensus—the ethical and political principles drawn from the tradition of natural law—approve themselves to the Catholic intelligence and conscience” (p. 41). Regrettably, within our philosophically and religiously pluralist society we do not have a common universe of discourse: we do not know what the other is talking about.
https://twitter.com/adamkelsey/status/1337549501507264515/
The @TexasGOP is out with a statement in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, all but calling for secession
“The Supreme Court, in tossing the Texas lawsuit that was joined by seventeen states and 106 congressman, have decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law,” West said in a statement.
“Resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law, while the guilty state suffers no consequences. This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable. This decision will have far reaching ramifications for the future of our constitutional republic,” he continued.
This is when West essentially endorsed secession as a remedy to the broken republic where the justice system has been ravaged.
“Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the Constitution,” West concluded. “The Texas GOP will always stand for the Constitution and rule of law even while others don’t.”
Allen West is an educated black man, a Lt Colonel, an attorney and a conservative. It took a Black man to lead where Whites failed.
This is an attack against the Catholic Church teaching/hypocrisy, not the poster.
Catholicism practices hypocrisy when it claims it is against capital punishment. Screen shot this post to claim and prove Catholic lies whenever convenient.
St. Thomas Aquinas authored the Catholic Church’s alleged “Just War Theory,” to bless, confirm, and endorse war “when there is no other option.” A Priest on “Catholic Answers Radio Show” said the Church blesses war “if an attacking military force shall harm an innocent child or civilian.” Earth to Pope: without exception, every single war orphans children and kills innocent non-combatants, including children and mothers. Christ said about anyone who harms a child: “it is better for that person to have a mill stone tied around their neck and thrown into the sea.” Read “A Perfect Storm” which describes second by second the abject torture to die a drowning death. Few deaths can be worse torture. And Christ wants anyone tortured to death who harms a child.
Aquinas literally translates to: “The Church blesses all war.” The sum total purpose of Aquinas’ Just War Theory was and is to put a happy face on the Catholic Church war mongering.
I asked the Priest: “Does the Catholic Church ever prohibit surrender?” The answer is “no.” Surrender is always a permissible alternative to war, which means Aquinas lied twice.
Christ promoted believers to die at the hands of their enemy; to do so is to mimic Christ’s crucifixion. See the 1st C martyrs. “Feed your enemies. Cloth your enemies. Pray for your enemies. Do not evil that good may result.” IOW there’s no killing to save lives. Christ ordered the Ioudaios to “pray for (their) Babylonian captors,” not to kill them. Christ prohibits killing or injuring even to defend innocents. “To save one’s life is to lose it, to lose one’s life is to save it.” The only thing worth dying for is Christ, by not denying him. If you want to save someone’s life by taking a bullet aimed at them, do so, but don’t kill the shooter.
To harm anyone while defending another human being is a sin. All vs. quoted to defend killing and injuring are from the OT which is closed and fulfilled in Christ.
That said, one can at least know, if they defend themselves or another in a civilian squabble, they have one defense vs. war: defending oneself in a civilian squabble does not have the record of war in which kills 10 civilian non-combatants per each 1 combatant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio
Comparing war to personal civilian self-defense is pure, unadulterated BS. Personal civilian self-defense does not cause routinely increase the # of orphans, starvation, decrease water supply, decrease medical coverage as does every war without exception. When the Church blesses war the church murders 10 innocents to each “bad” combatant.
More proof neede? The Church blesses good Catholics joining the military, for obvious reasons, to kill innocents at the rate described above. Ask the next Catholic apologist this Q: a “good” Catholic pilots a nuclear armed military jet and receives legal orders to drop his nuclear weapons at a location that shall turn the Vatican and all in it to glass, and eventually cause a horrible, tortured death to hundres of thousands from exposure and maybe bring nuclear winter to planet earth (from retaliation bombs).
Explain how that pilot is a “good Catholic.” Pure, utter, unadulterated horse crap.
Young, explain how Texas had standing to overturn elections in 4 other states.
Aninny:
It was a case of original jurisdiction and standing is conferred by that alone. In addition, the injury was sustained by harm to Texas voters in having their laws enforced but other states diluting their vote by unlawful chicanery.
7 of 9 Justices disagree with your interpretation of the requirements of original jurisdiction.
If Texas was concerned about other states’ laws, there’s no excuse for them waiting until after the election to challenge them.
Mespo, I thought ‘you’ were a lawyer. How common is it for one state to intervene in the elections of other states. Give us examples.
We thought you were a fairy. How common is it for fairies on Friday nights to be trolling on political blogs instead of cruising for sex on Grindr? Give us examples
You’re the fairy, Estovir. We’ve known that for some time. Only Closet Queens bring up that crap as frequently as you.
It is ironic that 2 of the more progressive and accomplished journalists, Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi, have turned on the Left, the Democrats, the Deep State, Big Tech and the MSM.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/with-news-of-hunter-bidens-criminal-5e6
With News of Hunter Biden’s Criminal Probe, Recall the Media Outlets That Peddled the “Russian Disinformation”: The now-validated facts about Hunter are precisely those the U.S. media — in tandem with Silicon Valley and the intelligence community — suppressed based on lies.
The revelation that Hunter Biden is being criminally investigated for his business activities in China came on Monday from the investigative target himself, and he predictably and self-servingly depicted it as just a narrow probe about his “tax affairs” by the U.S. Attorney for Delaware. As I wrote last night, that by itself would be significant enough — the documents published in the weeks before the election by The New York Post contained ample information about exactly that matter, yet were widely repressed by a union of mainstream news outlets, the intelligence community and Silicon Valley based on propaganda and lies. But new reporting suggest the investigation has been far broader.
“The federal investigation into President-elect Joe Biden’s son Hunter has been more extensive than a statement from Hunter Biden indicates,” Politico reported Monday night. Specifically, “the securities fraud unit in the Southern District of New York also scrutinized Hunter Biden’s finances”; “investigators in Delaware and Washington were also probing potential money laundering and Hunter Biden’s foreign ties”; and “federal authorities in the Western District of Pennsylvania are conducting a criminal investigation of a hospital business in which Joe Biden’s brother James was involved.” CNN’s Shimon Prokupecz added that “at least one of the matters investigators have examined is a 2017 gift of a 2.8-carat diamond that Hunter Biden received from CEFC [China Energy’]’s founder and former chairman Ye Jianming after a Miami business meeting.”
All of these topics are what the large bulk of the U.S. media, working in concert with the intelligence community and Silicon Valley, suppressed prior to the election. One of the first New York Post articles based on materials from Hunter’s laptop, headlined “Emails reveal how Hunter Biden tried to cash in big on behalf of family with Chinese firm,” described how he “pursued lucrative deals involving China’s largest private energy company — including one that he said would be ‘interesting for me and my family,’” and specifically noted that Hunter “was identified as ‘Chair/Vice Chair depending on agreement with CEFC,’ an apparent reference to the former Shanghai-based conglomerate CEFC China Energy Company
That was the same email that referenced ten percent to be “held by H for the big guy” — which one of Hunter’s business partners on the email chain, Tony Bobulinski, stated categorically referred to Joe Biden. The Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel similarly reviewed numerous laptop documents and reported that “records produced by Mr. Bobulinski show that in 2017, Hunter Biden and James Biden were involved in negotiations about a joint venture with a Chinese energy and finance company called CEFC China Energy,” adding that the documents also “make clear that Hunter Biden saw the family name as a valuable asset, angrily citing his ‘family’s brand’ as a reason he is valuable to the proposed venture.”
Estovir, did rightwing media ever report on Trump’s taxes?? The New York Times did an extensive feature on Trump’s taxes the Sunday before the first Trump / Biden debate. That feature contained many revelations; none of which were flattering to Trump. Did Fox News or The New York Post ever report on that?
There was nothing amiss about Trump’s taxes and his taxes are quite complex.
The NYT showed likely tax fraud. Trump’s niece has also alleged tax fraud.
The sort of ‘expertise’ relied on by the Sulzbergers gets you the 1619 project. They don’t have anyone on their staff who knows anything about tax law, much less someone who can interpret returns as complex as Trump’s. They can sell it to you because you want to be conned in this way.
Anonymous, it’s good to know that you believe any garbage that agrees with you.
Art Deco, you might want to convey that to New York authorities. Trump stands a good chance of being indicted there after January 20th. That story, in fact, could overshadow Hunter Biden in the New Year.
Glenn rocks
Deny this immoral regime your taxes!
Sal Sar
Leona Helmsley tried that. That did not go well for her. But…you do you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVi88apOnA0
https://nwtrcc.org/resist/how-to-resist/
antiwar tax resisters have been ignored for a long time. whens the last time they prosecuted one? answer: they don’t, because they don’t want people to know it happens, FOR FEAR IT WILL CATCH ON. AS IT NOW WILL LIKE IT OR NOT!
we must join them, and if a million join then they will no more arrest us than they did all the people in the mass marches that we saw this year, it was impossible for them to do it and it would have only inflamed the matter, this is the dynamic of nonviolent resistance and the regular people must now apply the lessons themselves
we can topple the evil corrupt regime, by doing this, if enough join and trigger a US debt default. and we should. if it devolves into a fragmented union, the states will remain.
things will be better, dont fear it, embrace the change
there are also many lawful means to reduce and avoid taxes. if these are used and verbal protest against the immoral regime is joined to them loudly, the effect is the same. we tax-slaves of this corrupt state, controlled by billionaires, must resist in a general strike against our tax-masters.
saloth sar
Estovir: “[T]he Media Outlets That Peddled the ‘Russian Disinformation'”
Aided and abetted by this dishonest piece of swill, signed by some 50 intelligence “specialists:”
“Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails”
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000
If we lived in a world that took objectivity and honesty seriously, all 50 would be looking for jobs as dog walkers.
Youtube, Google et al. know that the 2020 election must be considered real and legitimate by all the successfully indoctrinated “Stepford Citizens” because, when the DOJ (i.e. Deep Deep State) is done with the
Bidens, the newly ensconced and completely malleable Commie-Lie Ho-riss will need orders of magnitude more validation, she not being eligible and a “natural born citizen,” and she having obtained not one vote
and not one dollar in the primaries. Commie-Lie Ho-riss is the very definition of false.
___________________________________________________________________
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
– William Casey, CIA Director
Orwellian indeed.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-youtube-ban-is-un-american-wrong
The YouTube Ban Is Un-American, Wrong, and Will Backfire
Silicon Valley couldn’t have designed a better way to further radicalize Trump voters
Start with the headline: Supporting the 2020 U.S. Election. YouTube in its company blog can’t even say, “Banning Election Conspiracy Theories.” They have to employ the Orwellian language of politicians — Healthy Forests, Clear Skies, “Supported” Elections — because Google and YouTube are now political actors, who can’t speak plainly any more than a drunk can walk in a straight line…..
What makes the current situation particularly grotesque is that the DNI warning about this summer stated plainly that a major goal of foreign disruptors was to “undermine the public’s confidence in the Democratic process” by “calling into question the validity of the election results.”
Our own domestic intelligence agencies have been doing exactly that for years now. On nearly a daily basis in the leadup to this past Election Day, they were issuing warnings in the corporate press that you might have reason to mistrust the coming results:
…
Amazing how those stories vanished after Election Day! If you opened any of those pre-vote reports, you’d find law enforcement and intelligence officials warning that everything from state and local governments to “aviation networks” was under attack.
In fact, go back across the last four years and you’ll find a consistent feature of warnings about foreign or domestic “disinformation”: the stern scare quote from a bona fide All-Star ex-spook or State official, from Clint Watts to Victoria Nuland to Frank Figliuzzi to John Brennan to McMullan’s former boss and buddy, ex-CIA chief Michael Hayden. A great many of these figures are now paid contributors to major corporate news organizations.
What do we think the storylines would be right now if Trump had won? What would those aforementioned figures be saying on channels like MSNBC and CNN, about what would they be speculating? Does anyone for a moment imagine that YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook would block efforts from those people to raise doubts about that hypothetical election result?
KEY PASSAGE FROM ESTOVIR’S ARTICLE:
“What do we think the storylines would be right now if Trump had won?”
This passage indicates that writer Mat Taibbi believes Trump ‘lost’.
Can you imagine having to look at that face in the mirror in the morning?
Detroit has had a problem with the calibre of its elected officials for about 50 years now.
You want to talk about birth control just think of the face/body of that gal running again for Gov, Stacy Abrams.
I’ve seen prettier hogs out on farms here in the mid-west.
Art– Yes, very disturbing, but it is the true face of that community, the unveiled Dorian Gray portrait revealing its souls and sins and self-inflcted wounds.
On the other hand, we have Melania, an angel walking the Earth.
50 years ago, Art Deco? Why that was exactly around the time that Blacks became the majority of Detroit population. Funny how your timeline corresponds.
You can go back to Jerome Cavanaugh’s election, or to Coleman Young’s election, or to some point in between. Doesn’t matter to me. When your municipality loses 60% of its population, is carpeted with abandoned buildings rotting away, has to be put under a conservatorship, and has a homicide rate 10x the national mean, your public officials aren’t getting the job done. (Just see how the insiders managed the municipal pension funds).
“The fact is that such rhetoric reflects our rage-filled politics. ”
The rebuttal to Texas from Pennsylvania etc ..is spittle filled?
we should feel hate at our oppressors, and rage at their year of fraud and oppression
let’s make our voice heard in the way the billionaires will not like–
dont pay your alleged income taxes
https://nwtrcc.org/PDFs/template_letter-to-IRS.pdf
Saloth Sar
Anon,
We need to be working on how to get rid of all those immortal 503 tax free that claim to be “Charities” …. AKA Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, AKA the rest of them, Cancer Foundation… ( If they did find a cure that all loose their high paying jobs/power/control etc… aka Cancers in the Vaxxes..)
Further major news is breaking on this on going Covid 1984 & Dr Fauci/Bill&Melinda’s Vaccines.
Remember, on November 20, 1946 the trials started in Nuremberg Germany against Political Leaders & Doctors for making Bio-Weapons & Crimes Against Humanity. After Convictions many of them were taken out & H.ung.
It’s likely what Joe diGenova was addressing about Krebs?
Anyway, Infowars shows have been commenting on the new news on these hazardous new so called vaccines.
Banned.Video will likely archive the interviews a bit later.
Jonathan: I don’t think Joe diGenova was joking when he said Chris Krebs “Should be drawn and quartered. Taken out at dawn and shot” because Krebs spoke truth to power regarding the election. DiGenova’s vile comments were calculated to sow distrust in the election results, reinforce Trump’s false claims that the election was stolen from him and to cause Trump supporters to attack Krebs. As one of Trump’s lawyers deGenova knew or should have known what would happen. Trump supporters sprang into action and Krebs received death threats, had to move out of his house and hire security. Other election officials around the country have also received similar threats. DiGenova’s defense that his inflammatory and inciteful rhetoric was just “hyperbole in a political discourse” doesn’t pass the laugh test. For you to pass off diGenova’s comments as a “joke” ignores the reality that Trump and diGenova are prepared to so almost anything to overturn the election. If one of your critics attacked you and called for you to be “drawn and quartered” and “taken out at dawn and shot” I doubt you would treat such threats so cavalierly!
they aren’t even close to doing everything they can to overturn the fraudulent election
if trump was half the tyrant you guys had made them out to be, then half the 700 billionaires in America would be taking dirt naps by now
he’s too chicken maybe but next time no more mister nice guy
It wasn’t a fraudulent election. In this case, it’s a good thing that Trump isn’t more competent.
Anonymous, empty claims make you appear stupid. Are you not able to say anything meaningful?
Yeah. They’re done.
Elvis Bug
Like Ken Paxton of Texas pitching for a pardon from Trump, likewise Turley seeks a “legal contributor” status for Trump TV.
” Mark Zaid declared that “no rational person” who heard diGenova calling for a person to be drawn and quartered and then shot “would have taken it as ‘jest.’” No rational person. The Washington Post’s Randall Eliason seemed to dismiss that this was “just a colorful metaphor.” Professor Steve Vladeck declared “Lawyers who make these kinds of threats should be disbarred. Full stop.”
Is Turley suggesting only rational people follow right-wing media. How about the gunman who showed up at the pizza joint in New Jersey based on crazed rumors?
James Hodgkinson followed left wing media. He shot up a baseball field full of Republicans.
Certainly there are idiots on the left that believe crazy things and do stupid shit. That doesn’t mean it’s okay to ignore someone “jokingly” soliciting murder because everyone is rational and nobody will act on it. All the top election officials in Georgia are receiving death threats. Who do you think incited them?
You’ll have to forgive me because I’m not as familiar with the far left media because I don’t follow it. The far right media has been staffing the White House so I’m more familiar. In what other administration has saying nice things about the President qualified someone for a job in the administration?
The Deep Deep State removed President John Kennedy through assassination.
JFK lost the election of November 22, 1963.
The Deep Deep State removed President Donald Trump through election tampering and vote corruption.
DJT won the election of November 3, 2020.
__________________________________
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
– William Casey, CIA Director
Professor Steve:
Molon labe!
Saloth Sar
This communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) must be rational:
This author is an affirmative action legend in his own, well, what passes in certain circles for one, anyway, mind.
And He’s A ‘Constitutional Scholar’?
TURLEY CAN’T COMMENT ON LAWSUIT BY TEXAS A G
YET ISSUE DEMANDS ANALYSIS
In blistering language denouncing Republican efforts to subvert the election, the attorneys general for Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to reject a lawsuit that seeks to overturn the victories in those states by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., calling the audacious effort an affront to democracy and the rule of law.
The lawsuit, filed by the Republican attorney general of Texas and backed by his G.O.P. colleagues in 17 other states and 106 Republican members of Congress, represents the most coordinated, politicized attempt to overturn the will of the voters in recent American history. President Trump has asked to intervene in the lawsuit as well in hopes that the Supreme Court will hand him a second term he decisively lost.
The responses by the four states — represented by three Democratic attorneys general and, in Georgia, a Republican one — comprehensively critiqued Texas’s unusual request to have the Supreme Court act as a kind of trial court in examining supposed election irregularities with the goal of throwing out millions of votes.
The briefs said Texas was in no position to tell other states how to run their elections, adding that its filing was littered with falsehoods.
“Texas proposes an extraordinary intrusion into Wisconsin’s and the other defendant states’ elections, a task that the Constitution leaves to each state,” Wisconsin’s brief said. “Wisconsin has conducted its election and its voters have chosen a winning candidate for their state. Texas’s bid to nullify that choice is devoid of a legal foundation or a factual basis.”
The lawsuit was filed by Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general. Mr. Paxton is under indictment in a securities fraud case and facing separate accusations of abusing his office to aid a political donor by several former employees. He has denied the allegations.
According to the briefs filed by the four states that Mr. Biden won, the threshold problem was that the case did not belong in the Supreme Court at all. While the Constitution gives the court “original jurisdiction” to hear disputes between states, it exercises that jurisdiction sparingly, typically in water rights cases and border disputes. One state’s disagreement with how another state chose to conduct its elections should not qualify, the briefs said.
Nor has Texas suffered the sort of injury that would give it standing to sue, the briefs said.
Last year, in ruling that the federal courts may not hear challenges to partisan gerrymandering, the Supreme Court said federal judges should not adjudicate political disputes. “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.
Pennsylvania quoted that decision at the conclusion of its brief. “Accepting Texas’s view,” the brief said, “would do violence to the Constitution and the framers’ vision, and would plunge this court into ‘one of the most intensely partisan aspects of American political life.’”
Wisconsin warned that even a decision to hear the case could undermine faith in democracy.
“Texas asserts that this court’s intervention is necessary to ensure faith in the election,” the brief said. “But it is hard to imagine what could possibly undermine faith in democracy more than this court permitting one state to enlist the court in its attempt to overturn the election results in other states.”
“Merely hearing this case — regardless of the outcome — would generate confusion, lend legitimacy to claims judges across the country have found meritless, and amplify the uncertainty and distrust these false claims have generated,” the brief said.
The Supreme Court is likely to let Texas file a response to Thursday’s briefs before it acts. Such reply briefs are typically submitted very quickly, sometimes within hours, and the justices may decide whether to entertain the suit as soon as Friday.
Edited from: “In Blistering Retort, 4 Battleground States Tell Texas To Butt Out Of Election”
Today’s New York Times
corrupt officials circumvented state voter laws
the lawsuit is valid
The Supreme Court says it isn’t.
That lady was clearly calling for retribution and she meant it at the time she spoke. Just watch the video.
NATIONAL SECURITY LAW – HERE IT COMES!
China, having successfully deployed COVID-19, a weapon of mass destruction, and won WWIII, now proceeds to brutal imposition of NATIONAL SECURITY LAW on a global basis as it begins its move on Taiwan.
The U.S. is now a Chinese satellite state.
The Constitution, free speech and freedom in general are dead.
__________________________________________________
“FBI subpoenas Texas AG Ken Paxton for bribery, abuse of office probe”
– Business Insider
______________
“The FBI has served subpoenas to the office of Texas’ attorney general, Ken Paxton, as part of its investigation into abuse of office and bribery allegations…”
– KHOU
______
“Hong Kong: Anti-Communist Media Mogul Jimmy Lai Facing Decade in Prison”
The owner of Hong Kong anti-communist newspaper Apple Daily, Jimmy Lai, is facing a minimum of a decade in prison after being charged on Friday with violating the city’s new, and illegal, law against “NATIONAL SECURITY” trespasses.”
– Frances Martel
_____________
AG William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray have done nothing in response to four years of the Obama Coup D’etat in America, which has concluded with massive, colossal and historic election tampering and corruption and the conquest of America by Deep Deep State communism.
President Trump must fire Barr, Wray et al.
As did George Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Paine, Hamilton, Madison et al., President Trump must now lead.