Yesterday, the media erupted with the latest bombshell stories of how President Donald Trump is discussing plans for martial law and the appointment of former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell as a Special Counsel. It was a familiar bomb and bust pattern. A fair basis for coverage on the meeting quickly mutated into what bordered on panic coverage on the threat of a military takeover. This morning Jake Tapper headlined his show with “Conspiracy in the Oval Office” on how Trump discussed imposing martial law. He asked “How scared should we be?” The answer is not very on either count. President Trump publicly denied the report as “fake news.”
Tapper was right to describe the idea as “deranged.” He added that this is “alarming and scary.” I do not question the validity of the story, just the implications of the story. It is not as scary as the headline would suggest however.
This story has “sources” – the anonymous aides who have given virtually instantaneous leaks in the last four years from meetings in the Oval Office. In this case, within hours of a meeting, the sources apparently told various news outlets on Friday night Trump was discussing martial law and the appointment of controversial former campaign counsel Sidney Powell as a special counsel to investigate the 2020 election. The meeting was described as heated with various aides pushing back on the statements of both Powell and Gen. Michael Flynn, who was recently pardoned by President Trump.
There is every possibility that martial law and the special counsel were raised. The meeting was described as an informal gathering with Powell and Flynn. It would be no surprise that Flynn repeated his view. I criticized Flynn recently for suggesting that martial law would be appropriate given the election controversy. It was an outrageous and reckless statement that was tantamount to a call for tyranny. For those of us who defended Flynn over his abusive prosecution, it was also a disappointment that someone who has long defended this country would embrace such an anti-democratic call. Frankly, Trump should have reminded Flynn that he is speaking to the President of the United States in the Oval Office and such a suggestion is wildly offensive and unhinged.
Yet, having such a suggestion raised does not make this a conspiracy in the works. There are lots of looney and disturbing things said in the Oval Office. Some actually made it to the planning stage like nuking the Moon under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The point is that there is no basis for the declaration of martial law and neither the courts nor Congress (including many Republican members) would stand for it. However, the stories brushed over the fact that accounts indicated that it was raised by Flynn and not some agenda item of a meeting of the Trump Trilateral Commission. Despite his alarming rhetoric, Trump has complied consistently with court decisions and worked within the legal system. If he or his successor ever defied the court, they would be removed from office.
Flynn repeating his reckless comment in the Oval Office does not make a conspiracy. It is an embarrassment. Even if Trump lost his mind, he would have to carry out a martial rule without the military. The military has said to leave it out of such bizarre discussions.
The suggested appointment of Powell does sound like vintage Trump. However, a Powell appointment is only slightly more feasible than a military takeover. The problem is that Powell would be barred from such an appointment on a myriad of grounds. Let’s just name three.
First, a special counsel is appointed by the Justice Department. Trump recently pushed into Attorney General Bill Barr an early departure from the Department after Barr stated that he had not seen evidence of widespread voting fraud and followed Department ethical rules in not disclosing the Hunter Biden investigation before the election. Barr would clearly not make such an appointment and, even if he did, he clearly would not appoint Powell. It is unlikely that acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen would be any more inclined to do so.
Under the Justice Department regulations, such an appointment must not only be in the public interest but based on a finding that that is a need for additional criminal investigation and “[t]hat investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances.” There has been no such findings by the Justice Department despite Barr making it easier for federal prosecutors to investigate election fraud allegations. To the contrary, courts have uniformly rejected the allegations.
Second, even if a special counsel were considered, Powell could not be ethically appointed. Powell served as counsel to the Trump campaign before she was severed by the Trump campaign after making controversial conspiracy theories. (For the record, I was one of the many people critical of the press conference held with Powell and the sweeping conspiracy theories). It would be unprecedented and unethical to appoint a former Trump campaign lawyer as special counsel under regulations designed to avoid conflicts of interest.
Third, and most importantly, no one at the Justice Department would do it. If President Trump ordered Rosen to appoint Powell, Rosen should (and hopefully would) resign. I have faith that the President would have to fire his way down to the DOJ motor pool before he found anyone willing to make such a clearly unethical and inappropriate appointment.
What is most striking is that such an appointment would doom the well-based investigations set into protective amber by Barr. As I have previously discussed, Barr effectively guaranteed that the investigations of both the Russian investigation and Hunter Biden could be completed even in a Biden Administration. By making Durham special counsel, Barr left Biden and the Democrats in a muddle. Trump may have discussed firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller but he never did it. Biden would have to do what Trump ultimately did not do. On the Hunter Biden investigation, Barr waited until after the election to allow the investigation to be made public. That will make it hard for Biden to even replace the Delaware U.S. Attorney until after the investigation. By waiting until after the election, Barr preserved the integrity of both the investigations and the Department from accusations of political motivations.
If Trump were to appoint Powell, it would be the excuse that Democrats are looking for to terminate all three investigations. Indeed, even the discussion of such an appointment undermines the strong position left by Barr on these investigations.
These are just three reasons why it is unlikely to happen. I do not blame the media for writing about the meeting if it has valid sources. I just wish it would show equal interest in confirmed investigations involving the Russian collusion investigation and the Hunter Biden scandal. Those are not chimerical but real. So is the allegations of sexual misconduct by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo make by a former staff member who was not anonymous.
It is all part of the withdrawal symptoms for a post-Trump media. This was one last sensational story to discuss while burying less popular or convenient stories. There is an alternative. You can honestly and fully cover them all like an independent media.
The greater problem is that, after the President pushed Barr out of office early, he has lost the critical stabilizing force of his Administration. He now lacks that fire wall and source of mature and measured advice. That role will now fall entirely on the shoulders of White House Counsel Pat Cipollone.
Trump’s Election Claims Have Ushered A New Age
Power Now Comes From Loyal Base Willing To Parrot Claims
“The fact is that President Trump was reelected by what will be known soon to be a landslide victory unparalleled in this country,” said L. Lin Wood, a Georgia lawyer and Trump ally who has filed unsuccessful lawsuits on the president’s behalf.
Wood said he spoke to the president in a phone call earlier this month, encouraging him not to concede in what he described as “a battle between good and evil.”
Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Stanford Law School and co-director of the Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project, said that kind of rhetoric has emboldened some in the country to doubt the results merely because their preferred candidate lost.
“We’re entering a very dangerous phase where a sizable share of the population has no faith in the basic mechanics of the democracy,” Persily said. Millions of voters, he added, now see the fight over who should lead the country as a function of “the willingness to exert power as opposed to playing by fair rules of the game.”
Edited from: “How Trump Drove The Lie That The Election Was Stolen–”
Today’s Washington Post
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
With these false claims of election rigging, Donald Trump creates a playbook that become the death of democracy. A loser simply claims the election was rigged and encourages supporters to keep repeating the claims with bogus outrage.
Even if Trump leaves office, voluntarily, on January 20, a dangerous precedent has been set. 12 years from now it could be a ‘Leftist’ wanna-be dictator following Trump’s playbook. It could be a genuine communist with an unusually devoted base. They keep insisting they really won while followers keep marching in the streets. At that point it’s curtains for democracy.
Biden in May 2019:
“Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said Wednesday night that China was “not competition” for the U.S., prompting blowback from prominent members of both political parties.
At an event in Iowa City, Biden was explaining why he believes concerns that China could eventually surpass the U.S. as a world superpower and economic force are overstated.
“China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man,” the former vice president said.
“I mean, you know, they’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They’re not competition for us,” he added.
“This will not age well,” tweeted Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, referring to another tweet quoting Biden’s remarks. Romney, during his 2012 run, had called China a top “geopolitical foe” of the United States.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-s-comments-downplaying-china-threat-u-s-fires-pols-n1001236
China in November 2020:
“Report: Prominent Chinese Prof Says a Biden Presidency Will Reconnect China to ‘Core Circle Inside America’s Real Power’
Red alert: Chinese boast of operatives ‘inside America’s core circle of power’
hina influenced American policies for decades through a covert network of “old friends” — sympathizers and agents — who had penetrated the highest levels of the U.S. government and financial institutions before the Trump administration, according to an academic linked to the Chinese government.
Di Dongsheng, a professor and associate dean of the School of International Studies at Renmin University in Beijing, also suggested in a Nov. 28 speech that China’s Communist Party helped Hunter Biden, a son of presumptive President-elect Joseph R. Biden, obtain Chinese business deals.
On influencing the United States, Mr. Di said, he could not provide further details about the work of Chinese agents without compromising their identities. However, he said President Trump’s trade war with China upset decades of close ties between Washington and Beijing that the agent network facilitated.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/6/china-agents-us-government-helped-influence-policy/
Anonymous, let’s go with this. Let’s say China is, undoubtedly, our foremost rival. And Biden is in denial for downplaying China’s status. If all this is true Donald Trump should have strengthened NATO. Instead Trump did the opposite; alienating NATO. How dumb!
America needs NATO as a strong, credible partner. But Trump mucked that up deliberately. So did Brexit, which Trump endorsed from afar.
America’s power since WWII is based on relationships. The fact that Germany hosts U.S. bases long after the Cold War gives the U.S. great prestige. Our bases in England and Italy are vital to power. Yet Trump mindlessly sought to fracture these relationships.
And now Trump’s linking Biden to China. While a massive hack by Russian Intel unfolds! A development Donald Trump tells us to ignore while shaking up the Pentagon. All this is really happening and it doesn’t bode well.
Anyone with any level of basic cynicism knows Donald Trump won’t go peacefully. Trump wants to instigate a cycle of violence. He would see himself as the victim. That’s how Trump thinks.
100,000 deaths, from civil violence, would hardly faze Donald Trump. Trump would simply blame someone else; promoting conspiracies to link political enemies. Trump will spin conspiracies into his 80’s. A one-man lost cause taking down America.
” If all this is true Donald Trump should have strengthened NATO.”
Assuming there was merit to this statement: Firstly Trump has strengthened NATO. He has made the member nations more committed to NATO. Nations that simply exist and do nothing don’t make good allies. Second NATO’s purpose is to prevent Russian aggression.You are in the wrong location of the world.
The threat from China is two fold. The lesser threat at this time is conventional war. The greater threat is economic and disruption of American society along with theft and control over needed goods, minerals etc. How did Nato stop China from taking over Hong Kong? How is Nato going to stop China from taking over Taiwan which could possibly occur within 5 years?
“America’s power since WWII is based on relationships.”
Why don’t you explain that vague statement. Everyone depends on relationships. Weak allies are not good allies. Most of America’s power since WW2 is based on America’s hard and soft power which is very dependent on its economy that many in Congress are destroying.
You live in a fantasy world fed by an inadequate news media and inadequate curiosity..
NATO has nothing at all to do with China – are you a complete idiot ?
NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Trump HAS worked with India, Japan, Tiawan, Philipines, Australia, and even Vietnam to contain China.
As to NATO – Trump has gotten NATO countries to commit to and start delivering on a 2% of GDP defense commitment.
This is substantially strenghtening NATO which increasingly is NOT relying on US forces as a tripwire against Russian agression.
An actually stronger NATO – not one that is a US pawn, is incredibly important for the security of Europe.
John Say, we need all the friends we can gather into tight alliances. We can’t blow off allies because Trump is having a tantrum. Trump has hassled South Korea which is near China.
Our allies respect and / or fear Trump. They laugh at you and your third rate attempts to steal an election.
ROK is very happy Trump left the Korean peninsula alone for a while. They are less afraid of Rocket man than they are of bigger powers scheming to destabilize the DPRK into a posture which actually could lead to him using the nukes instead of just intimidating people with them
Trump’s Korea policy was one of his best. DPRK will never give up nukes and it’s best to just engage in peaceful diplomacy
Anyways eventually both the ROK and DPRK are going to slide back into China’s orbit like it or not. It was for countless centuries and probably will be soon enough again.
This is because of size, geographic proximity, economics, and trends that none of us can change. It’s best to not invest too much into the fantasy of America controlling East Asia forever. We need to put our own house in order!
Saloth Sar
“John Say, we need all the friends we can gather into tight alliances. We can’t blow off allies because Trump is having a tantrum. Trump has hassled South Korea which is near China.”
I do not agree with everything that Trump has done. Nor did I expect to. I am not going to end up with a personal clone in the white house.
I can however measure Trump by his failures and accomplishments.
In foreign policy there are few failures and lots of accomplishments.
I did not expect that Pres. Trump would prove any good at Foreign policy. But he was incredibly good.
Most everything he touched turned to gold. Further he did so with the resistance of many in the executive. Even many of his own appointments.
Nor are those accomplishments in a single region. Not merely the US but the entire world is better off for 4 years of Trump.
Contra the left, Russia, has been contained – by NATO with the US providing the energy guarantees necescary to make that possible.
The Mideast is must more peaceful – because Russia and Iran have been contained, Because ISIS has been defeated.
US soldiers are no longer trapped in fighting in the mideast.
President Carter managed a key mideast peace deal – that was more important than all of Trump’s deals. But no president except carter can claim to have accomplished anything meanful in the mideast – except Trump.
In fact for the first time since President Carter A US president has not invaded another country.
In asia Trump confronted a beligerant and bullying regime with Xi that is throwing arround its military and economic might to threaten its neighbors. Trump has circled China with wary competitors who are containing Xi.
Tiawan, Japan, Philipines, Austrailia, Vietnam, and India – atleast.
With little fanfare the US conducted joint military exercises with India – that has not happened since Indian independence.
Trump’s foreign policy accomplishments are beyond anything I could have imagined in 2016.
I do not know what it is that you are complaining about regarding South Korea – I have not seen our relationship with them worsen.
Trump did not get the deal he wanted with North Korea. But he has improved issues regarding the Koreas.
He bought sufficient time for US ABM’s to deal with the ICBM/Nuclear threat from North Korea.
Which BTW also nueters Iran.
All this from a president that no one had any reason to expect was any good at foriegn policy and all done with the oppostion of the US foreign policy establishment.
Reagan did not accomoplish anything like this, Bush I did not, Clinton did no, Bush II did not, nor did Obama.
Further Trump inherited from Obama a foreign policy mess.
No US power since WWII has NOT been based on relationships – it has been based on leadership.
Under Democrats the US was a follower and the world was increasingly LESS safe.
Trump has LEAD the world – the result is contra your nonsense an actually stronger NATO that is a serious bulwark to Russian agression,
and the containment of China which is now surrounded by hostile competitors.
Tiawan has a stronger military. Japan has a stronger military. India has a stronger military.
All of these and the US have been actively confronting China for the past 4 years while you have been fixating on the Collusion Delusion.
The only deaths we have seen from civil violence thus far have been those killed by the left.
This is not about claims.
The actual election laws were not followed.
That is an actual FACT – not a claim.
Democrats did not follow the law.
Had democrats done so – and the outcome been the same, which is highly unlikely, then the pushback would have been far smaller.
Regardless, The left did not accept the results of a perfectly legitimate election conducted without consequential lawlessness of fraud for 4 years.
Why do you expect the rest of us to roll over when you failed to abide by the law ?
I would repeat – that over the past 4 (12) years – you, the left, democrats and the press have burned your integrity and credibility over myriads of faux conspiracy theories. And now you act lawlessly in an election.
Why should anyone trust you ?
Of course people should doubt the results of the election – that is the legitimate consequence of years of lying and lawlessness by the left.
It is a good thing. Because you, the left, Democrats, Biden, are not trustworthy.
Why should it surprise you that you are not beleived ?
Early after the election Biden and democrats could have called for real scrutiny of the election. That would have gone a long way to restore trust.
But you did not – instead fighting tooth and nail against scrutiny and transparency every step of the way.
It is a fact that the election laws were disregarded.
Additionally there are many credible allegations of smaller and larger scale fraud – while most are not proven, most are plausible.
Nearly every single audit or inquiry that has been allowed has resulted in Trump gains. In something like 50 adjustments that have been made since election day – 98% of those have been in Trump’s favor. While not nearly enough to change the results, this alone should be very disturbing. One of the reasons that recounts rarely change outcomes is that honest errors tend to be balanced. The fact that nearly all errors, mistakes, missed ballots are for Trump is damning evidence of bias in those running the election.
There are a few claims that would ordinarily be more dubious. But the credibility of those making the claims, as well as the unwillingness to allow scrutiny which would be easy makes even the suspicious claims more dubious.
Why should anyone care what those who bought the collusion delusion think ?
Is there anything that you have been selling about the past 4 years (or 12) that has been true ?
Even the “extremists” on the right are tame compared to claims made by democratic senators, representatives, and leaders over the past 4 years. They are tame compared to the lies of the prior administration, of the DOJ, of the FBI, of the IC.
Before the election we were told by purportedly reputable people in the Intelligence community that the Biden laptop smacked of “russian disinformation” – please tell me why that is no tinfoil hat conspiracy nonsense ?
Is Tony Bobulinsky a russian agent ? Wasn’t Eric Swallwell sleeping with a chinese agent ?
Now it turns out that US banks following US banking laws reported Biden to the IRS as early as 2014.
And Joes brother is being investigated for medicare fraud.
The evidence is from the Biden’s themselves, from FOIA requests to DOJ, FBI, and the State department.
So who is it that is STILL selling tinfoil hat conspiracy theories ?
It is now near certain that VP Biden threatened the Ukraine to thwart an investigation into Burisma so that his son could get a big payoff.
Trust in government has been undermined – by the left, by democrats, by the Biden’s. By all the democratic leaders who have been selling conspiratorial garbage for more than a decade.
There is no integrity is US elections. None. All recent elections should be cancelled and done anew by manual ballot.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/12/13/with_runoffs_near_georgias_not_prosecuting_its_unprecedented_number_of_double_voters_126356.html
With U.S. Senate Runoffs Near, Georgia’s Not Prosecuting Its Unprecedented Number of Double Voters
More than 1,700 Georgians were singled out for illegally casting two ballots in 2020 elections — including last month’s hotly contested presidential race — but their fraudulent votes weren’t canceled out, according to state election officials. And so far, none of the cheaters has been prosecuted, raising concerns about continued fraud as Georgia prepares to vote again in twin U.S. Senate runoff elections next month.
The majority of double voters were Democrats who cast an absentee ballot either by mail or drop box and also voted in person on Election Day, officials said, which is a felony under state law.
The highest share of offenders were from Fulton County, which includes Atlanta — many of whom were allowed to cast a second ballot by poll workers, officials said.
Hundreds of workers assigned to county poll sites were recruited and trained by the Democrat-run Georgia chapter of the ACLU and a minority-owned temp agency run by Democrat donors, according to documents obtained by RealClearInvestigations. Most of them were young and inexperienced.
Before the election, the ACLU urged anyone “threatened with prosecution” over double-voting allegations to contact the chapter for legal assistance. It is now signing up poll workers for the Jan. 5 runoff races. And the temp agency, Happy Faces Personnel Group, remains under contract with the county to supply workers for that critical election, despite complaints from poll managers and poll watchers that its recruits were “poorly trained” and “highly partisan.” The Georgia runoffs will determine control of the Senate.
Though the number of suspected double-voting felons is the largest in state history, RealClearInvestigations has learned that no cases have been referred to the state attorney general for criminal investigation.
“This office does not have any referrals on double voting cases so far from the State Election Board related to the June 2020 primary or November 2020 general [election],” said Katie Byrd, spokesperson for Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, a Republican.
The lack of action undercuts Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s promise last month “to prosecute those who try to undermine our elections to the fullest extent of the law.”
Fraud cases are referred to the attorney general by the election board, which is chaired by Raffensperger, a Republican who has taken heat from President Trump for not doing more to investigate claims of fraud in the Nov. 3 election.
Some local officials had hoped at least some double voters would be prosecuted and made examples of ahead of the Senate runoffs next month to deter other cheaters from committing fraud.
“I am terribly disappointed in the lack of enforcement of our election laws,” said Forsyth County Commissioner Dennis Brown, a Republican. “We are asking for the same outcome in January during the runoffs if something is not done soon.”
Raffensperger faced a backlash from liberal voting-rights groups over his warnings about fraud following the June primary, when more than 150,000 voters tried to vote twice but reportedly were unsuccessful. (The system is supposed to catch double-voters, but at least 1,000 still slipped through safeguards.) The groups, led by Democratic activist Stacey Abrams’ well-funded Fair Fight Action, have maintained that claims of fraud could have a chilling effect on absentee voting and effectively suppress black voters in the state who disproportionately prefer that method of voting
Raffensberger referred cases to the GA Bureau of Investigations for assistance –
https://www.ajc.com/politics/election/gbi-to-aid-georgia-voting-fraud-investigations/JX77G2JGEFFK3F3MZGTKT6VUDQ/
Trump has filed for a writ of cert at SCOTUS, in a case against PA:
https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-files/press_assets/trump-v-boockvar-petition.pdf
Marc Elias: “11th Circuit REJECTS @NRSC, @Perduesenate & @KLoeffler’s latest appeal to disenfranchise Georgia voters in the upcoming Senate runoff election. Victory for voting rights and Georgia voters!”
https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1340756128792252418 (ruling attached)
Thank you for another insightful post, Professor Turley.
Americans have much to fear, in this life and the afterlife. But with courage and repentance, a future in the promised land may still be our reward.
As Secretary-General Guterres turns northeastward to the Bundestag for light in a time of darkness, US Intelligence heroically wrestles with external and internal stressors that threaten to drive the world’s most powerful military economy, and with it the whole of the United Nations, into a dangerous abyss of thinly veiled despair:
http://webtv.un.org/watch/75th-anniversary-of-the-united-nations-un-at-the-german-bundestag/6217090887001/
With all due respect for the core contributions of our brilliant European partners, rescue from this abyss largely depends on credible worldwide faith in the best intentions of both President Trump and President-elect Biden. At a time when US Intelligence is reeling from Russian, Chinese and Western European push-back on its 4-year experiment with a less hegemonic foreign policy, with a more resilient national economy, and with normalization of ties between Israel and its Arab neighbors, external attacks on the outgoing Trump administration are profoundly counterproductive.
Internally, President Trump and his supporters may genuinely believe in 2020 election irregularities without obstructing the peaceful transition to a Biden administration.
President-elect Biden and his supporters can facilitate this peaceful transition in four ways. First, prominent Biden supporters can recognize President Trump’s right to highlight election irregularities up until and including a possible final debate in Congress on 6 January 2021. Second, the Biden administration can signal a willingness to endure two new AG Rosen-appointed Special Counsels. Third, President-elect Biden can disavow any attempted reversal of Trump’s closing pardons, including a possible self-pardon. Finally, President-elect Biden can promise continued Secret Service protection for the Trump family without harassment from the new White House and without tolerance of extremist Democratic attempts to eject the Trumps from a hypocritically ungrateful country.
President Trump, for his part, can also do four things to prevent the US from sliding into the abyss. First, as he has already begun to do on Twitter, he can forcefully reassure the country that he will not attempt to implement martial law. Second, he can announce plans to officially concede after 6 January and after AG Rosen appoints a Special Counsel to investigate election irregularities. Third, he can pardon Hunter Biden. Fourth, he can consistently remind his supporters that respect for a peaceful transition of power is in the best long-term interests of the nation and of humanity.
I don’t know any Democrats who want the Trumps “ejected” from the country. Some of us do want an ethical USAG and the NY (and possibly FL) AG to consider whether they should be indicted and tried.
If Trump attempts to pardon himself, that should absolutely be challenged in court. No one should be above the law. Trump can make his argument in court.
Hunter Biden hasn’t been indicted for anything, but if he’s indicted, he should either plead out or go to trial. The Bidens should not be above the law, just as the Trumps should not be above the law.
Investigate via Special Counsel Hunter, James, Joe, Jill Biden and those who enabled them (Pelosi, Schumer, et al) be prosecuted. Fully
CTDHD – on what basis do you want “Trumps” investigated ?
I found Turley’s analysis of an SC appoint very interesting – specifically because none of that was done when Mueller was appointed.
At the moment there is sufficient basis to investigate The Biden Crime family. And contra Turley the conditions requiring a special counsel ARE met. The allegations involve the entire Biden Family – including Joe Biden. DOJ under Biden would be conflicted in overseeing that election.
A Biden DOJ would also be conflicted in investigating election fraud in an election where that Fraud benefited Biden.
These are real claims that really require an SC.
I am unaware of any actual allegations of crimes by Trump.
No one is above the law.
If you have a credible allegation – make it, and if it is actually credible it can be investigated.
But no more of this collusion delusion nonsense.
Let me make this clear – If Biden investigates Trump with no basis stronger than the Steele Dossier – and at this moment you have nothing even that credible – then Biden Should be immediately impeached and removed.
That is unlikely to happen as Democrats control the house for the moment.
But the conduct of the Obama administration MUST NEVER BE REPEATED.
Obama used DOJ, FBI, IRS is ways that Nixon only dreamed of.
Trump has been credibly accused of tax fraud and NY state is investigating.
Can you provide the details or is this just your typical smoke? His tax records have been checked by the IRS over and over again. What did the IRS miss?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/19/nyregion/trump-fraud-investigations-taxes.html
As usual, no answer. A citation that is worthless.
Are you stating that the IRS didn’t do its job? Anyone can open an investigation even if one was done and not pursued in court. Anyone can misuse their power for political gain. Anyone can slur someone over and over again by bringing false charges as we have seen for the past four years.
Now tell us what they found that the IRS doesn’t know about?
Tell us what “according to people with knowledge of the matter.” means. I know the junkie down the block is a continuous source of information, but is it reliable? You seem to think so.
You asked for details, and that article has some details. If you want more details, you can read the NY State brief in the lawsuit seeking Trump’s federal returns that the Supreme Court ruled on. Or Google trump tax fraud
And Why does NY State need Trump’s federal returns ?
NY does not enforce federal tax law – the IRS does.
NY does enforce state taxes – and Trump provided NY with State tax returns.
Further the NY AG can supeona Trump business records – presuming that the AG can meet the probable cause standard required to do so.
If the NY AG can do so – he does not need Trump’s federal taxes.
If he can not – he is not entitled to Trump’s federal taxes.
Again NY enforces NY law – not federal law.
If you want to know, read their suit and subpoena for yourself.
“If you want to know, read their suit and subpoena for yourself.”
Why should he read something already known to be bogus?
Why do you presume there is a legitimate basis for something that can not have a legitimate basis ?
The NY AG enforces NY laws – not Federal laws.
I would further note that the NY AG and the SDNY both have an abysmal modern record of ultimately unsuccessful political prosecutions.
We have heard you, democrats, the left, the media rant about successfully prosecuting Trump and others for fake crimes for years.
You have failed miserably.
You continue to believe that anyone who you do not like politically must be a criminal.
When the only actual evidence of criminality comes from your own.
It remains true that Obama is the only president thus far who is known to have sucessfully used the IRS, CIA, DOJ, FBI for political purposes.
Not Trump.
It is was clear to anyone with a brain that there was a legitimate basis to ask Ukraine to investigate the conduct of the biden’s and the DNC in Ukraine. Subsequently it has become even clearer – House democrats were not engaged in the excercise of their constitutional duties they were busy trying to use federal power to accuse Trump of what they had actually done themselves.
Do you have the slightest doubt that if there was the kind of evidence that exists regarding Hunter, Joe, Obama, Clinton against Don Jr. Pence, Trump or Pompeo that they would all be wearing orange jumpsuits ?
In your world if you are not on the left you are guilty of any accusation no matter how ridiculous.
If you are on the left, you are guilty of nothing no matter how great the proof.
You are not credible. You have no integrity, and no morality.
John Say, Obama did not use the IRS, CIA, DOJ, FBI for political purposes.
Are you capable of writing more than 3 paragraphs without stating easily disproven lies?
Don’t make me have to embarrass you again.
The IRS openly targeted groups based on their political viewpoint – that is unconstitutional
BATF sold guns to drug dealers that were ultimately used to kill a US DEA agent. There are so many things wrong with that.
CIA and NSA spied on US Senators – including Diane Feinstein.
FBI spied on numerous journalists – including Sharyl Atkinson.
CIA spied on the Trump campaign – as an established fact Halper and Turk spied on Papadolis and Page. Thoguh there are numerous other credible allegations. ‘
The IC was manipulated by Brennan into the now obviously false report claiming that Putin favored Trump – even Comey did not buy that.
Regardless, there is now plenty of evidence that Putin was working against Trump and actually colluding with Clinton – and the CIA knew it.
Please disprove these.
In reply to John Say asking for proof of my flatly denying his charge that Obama “used the IRS, CIA, DOJ, FBI for political purposes.” .
In context. John Say makes no mention of Trump’s repeated public demands that some of these agencies be used specifically for criminal investigations and even jailings of political opponents. Nor does malfeasance by any of the tens of thousands of federal employees in an administration mean the President is personally responsible – as John Say alleges – though he would be institutionally responsible.
Thanks for another opportunity to demonstrate what a sloppy, irresponsible, pontificating blowhard you are John
IRS: ” In January 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced that it had found no evidence warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the affair. The FBI stated it found no evidence of “enemy hunting” of the kind that had been suspected, but that the investigation did reveal the IRS to be a mismanaged bureaucracy enforcing rules that IRS personnel did not fully understand. …..
In late September 2017, an exhaustive report by the Treasury Department’s inspector general found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny, blunting claims that the issue had been an Obama-era partisan scandal.[2][3] The 115 page report confirmed the findings of the prior 2013 report that some conservative organizations had been unfairly targeted, but also found that the pattern of misconduct had been ongoing since 2004 and was non-partisan in nature….” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy#Investigations
CIA – So, you allege Obama used the CIA for political purposes by siccing it on Sen Feinstein? Say what?
FBI – Attkisson: “RICHMOND, Va. (CN) – The Fourth Circuit on Friday upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a former CBS News investigative reporter claiming she was spied on by the Obama administration…..” https://www.courthousenews.com/reporters-surveillance-claims-rejected-by-fourth-circuit/
CIA and Trump: IG Horowitz found no evidence of “spying” on the Trump campaign or on Trump.
CTMirror 12/11/2019
“In his report and during his congressional testimony on Wednesday, Horowitz said that while he found significant errors and omissions by the FBI during the course of its investigation, he uncovered no evidence of spying…..Blumenthal asked Horowitz if “the FBI put spies in the Trump campaign.”
“I’m going to speak to the terminology used at the department that we oversee, which is ‘confidential human sources,’” Horowitz answered. “We did not find evidence that the FBI sought to place confidential human sources in the campaign or plant them inside the campaign.”….Under questioning by Blumenthal, the inspector general also said that he showed Barr a copy of the report before it was released, but the attorney general made no changes to it. “
“In context. John Say makes no mention of Trump’s repeated public demands that some of these agencies be used specifically for criminal investigations and even jailings of political opponents.”
Have those things actually occured ? Again i do not care what Trump or Obama SAY, I care what they DO.
You can not seem to distinguish between political rhetoric and actual abuse of power.
If you have actual evidence of Trump abusing power – raise it.
Regardless, your allegations regarding Trump have ZERO bearing on the Obama administrations ACTUAL conduct.
If Trump has used government agencies to actually violate peoples rights – I will join you in condemning those.
“Nor does malfeasance by any of the tens of thousands of federal employees in an administration mean the President is personally responsible – as John Say alleges – though he would be institutionally responsible.”
The fish rots from the head.
Regardless, atleast you are appearing to cede that malfeasance occurred during the obama administraition.
It needs to be investigated and prosecuted. Those responsible need consequences. At the very least anyone even tangentially involved should never work in the government again. Other consequences are approriate for more serious malfeasance. In some instances criminal penalties may apply.
Does this link to Obama ? You are correct that has not be proven as an absolute fact. Though we KNOW that Obama and Biden were personally involved in CrossFire Huricane – we have notes from whitehouse meetings.
It is reasonable to assume that if Obama was hands on in one politically and criminally corrupt endevor he was a party to the others.
But determining that is what actual investigations are for.
“IRS: ” In January 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced that it had found no evidence warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the affair.”
Lets see you think one corrupt federal agency washing the hand of another is an exhoneration ?
Grow up Joe. There is no question here. The IRS engaged in viewpoint discrimination. This is not a matter of speculation, it is a FACT.
It is a violation of the first amendment.
Further the IRS as well as the left actually DEFENDED these actions – trying to claim that Viewpoint descrimation was acceptable, even laudable.
And infact even through today you continue to do the same thing. Why exactly are we supposed to beleive YOU or the left or the media, when you celebrate viewpoint discrimination constantly ?
“The FBI stated it found no evidence of “enemy hunting” of the kind that had been suspected, but that the investigation did reveal the IRS to be a mismanaged bureaucracy enforcing rules that IRS personnel did not fully understand. …..”
Correct – those on the left – even in government are so badly educated that they do not grasp they can not use the power of the federal government to violate first amendment rights.
Ignorance of the law, of the constitution, of civics, is not a justification for lawless actions, for abuse of power.
This is not merely a failure to know and understand the rules. It is a fundimental abuse of power and failure of government.
If you do not understand that you can not use the power of government to infringe on the rights of others – you should not be in government.
That is not mismanagement – that is political corruption. You do not get off that easy.
This is more of the lefts ends justifies the means BS.
“In late September 2017, an exhaustive report by the Treasury Department’s inspector general found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny, blunting claims that the issue had been an Obama-era partisan scandal”
First this is irelevant – you can not engage in Viewpoint discrimination – not of the right, not of the left.
The Treasuring IG report is also hillarious – “Liberal” keywords were not used. But a tiny number of left wing groups were briefly tied up.
The “keywords” that were used were things like liberty, patriot, freedom. These are terms that would NORMALLY be viewed as NOT PARTSIAN. These are terms that NORMALLY would be viewed as core american values.
It is really disturbing that only a few on the left today consider words like freedom, liberty, or patriotism core american values.
“The 115 page report confirmed the findings of the prior 2013 report that some conservative organizations had been unfairly targeted, but also found that the pattern of misconduct had been ongoing since 2004 and was non-partisan in nature….”
Please – hundreds of conservative groups were stalled for YEARS by the IRS during Obama.
Absolutely if this went on during Bush – chase it down and punish those involved.
But you do not get off the hook for violating peoples rights by saying – “others did it too”
BTW Wikipedia is not a credible source for anything even slightly political.
“CIA – So, you allege Obama used the CIA for political purposes by siccing it on Sen Feinstein? Say what?”
Yup, actually occured. It has been reported. The IC even appologized to the senate for spying on them.
In one instance the IC provided the Senate with computer systems to allow them to examine classified information, and then tracked who was searching and what they were searching for.
“FBI – Attkisson: “RICHMOND, Va. (CN)”
Please read the actual lawsuit. The FBI admitted that they spied on Atkinson and others.
The lawsuit is ongoing. Atkinson has been thwarted because even though she can prove the FBI spied on her – and they admitted it.
“CIA and Trump: IG Horowitz found no evidence of “spying” on the Trump campaign or on Trump.”
Right, Again you use your pretense of what someone else said in leiu of the FACTS.
Horowitz’s investigation was limited to the FBI – not CIA, NSA or the IC. Regardless in his testimony Horowitz ceded that the actions of the FBI constituted SPYING.
Turk and Halper spied on members of the Trump campaign.
There is zero question of that.
Precisely which US government agency they worked for is still an open question.
Did the FBI spy on the Trump campaign absolutely – despite your bogus refutation.
Regardless your response is a straw man. The major claim was that the IC spied on the Trump campaign. That is undeniably true.
Halper was paid by US intelligence agencies, and he and Turk spied on Papadoulis and Page.
That is undeniably true.
We still have not established who Mifsud was working for – except that if it was the Russians – then the US and UK intelligence communites were penetrated at the highest levels.
Horowitz found no evidence that Mifsud was workign for FBI – he had no ability to go outside the FBI.
Why are you still arguing this nonsense ?
All you do is prove your own ignorance.
Getting the truth out has been like prying teeth.
The Horowitz report was damning – but it barely scratches the surface.
Many many documents that have been subsequently declassified demonstrate that even Horowitz was lied to repeatedly.
It appears you can’t provide the pertinent details from the article so I that must mean you have none unless it’s something like, the cat ate my homework. That would also be an insufficient explanation.
Molly had nothing and you don’t either.
John Say, I accept your surrender due to your inability to counter the facts I presented with anything but your opinions, which of course we all have.
As to Trump’s demand for the arrest of his political opponents, he did it numerous times through Tweets and interviews in the last few months, this on Fox:
“Unless Bill Barr indicts these people for crimes,” declared the president, “the greatest political crime in the history of our country, then we’re gonna get little satisfaction unless I win. Because I won’t forget it. But these people should be indicted, this was the greatest political crime in the history of our country. And that includes Obama, and that includes Biden; these are people that spied on my campaign, and we have everything….”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-bill-barr-arrests-fox-news-clinton-obama-biden-obamagate-b885971.html
“counter the facts I presented ”
When have you presented FACTS ?
You keep citing nonsense.
You do not directly address ANY facts.
You cite oppinions.
You cite anonymoused sources claims by the media.
You cite no primary sources on anything.
These are not facts.
“As to Trump’s demand for the arrest of his political opponents, he did it numerous times through Tweets and interviews in the last few months”
Again not hear to defend what Trump “Says”.
As I have said repeatedly ACTS, not words.
When has Trump improperly sought to use the power of govenrment against political enemies.
To be clear – merely being Trump’s enemy is not carte blanche to commit crimes.
There is legitimate reason to investigate the lawless and possibly fraudulent actions in this election.
There is legitimate reason to investigate the conduct of Hunter Biden as well as his father’s involvement.
It is pretty hard to deny that Hunter Biden was not being paid for his own skills, but for what his father could do.
That is abuse of power.
There are lots of things that Trump has demanded investigations legitimately.
I do not support everything Trump has said or how he has said it.
But I have little problems with what he has done.
Conversely Obama/Biden spoke silken words. But acted lawlessly.
You have fought with me over the collusion delusion.
The problem is not that FBI etc investigated the Trump campaign.
It is that they did so unlawfully.
Even Horowitz did not know that the CIA told the FBI and Obama that Clinton was working with Russia to frame Trump for Russian collusion in June of 2016.
The FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was without legitimate foundation.
The investigations of Biden clearly have a firm foundation.
The investigation of this election has a firm foundation.
The investigation into the conduct of China and Russia has a solid foundation.
The Durham investigation has a solid foundation.
It is not demanding an investigation that is a problem.
It is going forward with an illegitimate one.
With respect to your claimed comment from Trump.
The only problem I have with it is Trump’s fixation on himself.
Those people who have acted criminally in this election should be indicted and prosecuted.
It is not about “who wins” – it is about trust in government.
A part of trust in government is that the laws will be enforced – especially those laws that dictate the conduct of government.
John previously went on a rant and claimed Obama used various federal agencies against opponents, but here obviously does not GAF when Trump blatantly and publicly tries to have his opponents arrested. Clearly John is a man of primitive impulse, not principle, and also not very smart.
Joe – here is a simple principle you should be concerned about – if you are smart enough to understand
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,”
That is where you are headed.
This nonsense that Trump is going to pardon himself is as ludicrous as this marshall law claim.
It is a left wing nut delusion.
I know of know way that Trump can pardon himself – because he has not committed a crime.
The constitutions pardon power is for crimes. Trump can not grant himself a general pardon for anything future democrats might make up.
Further just about the stupidest thing that Biden could do right now is open up a broad investigation of Trump.
Do you really want Trump in the news for the next 4 years ? Do you really want the Senate investigating DOJ and FBI for the next 4 years ? Do you really want the 2022 Republican house to be investigating the DOJ and FBI for the next 4 years ?
Do you really want Collusion Delusion II ?
Absolutely – if you have something REAL – go ahead.
“ Do you really want Trump in the news for the next 4 years ?”
We wont last as a country for 12 months.
Antifa riots were amateurs. The real deal is picking up momentum day by day. Fun times
President Trump’s campaign team on Sunday filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to reverse several cases by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to change the state’s mail ballot law before and after the 2020 presidential election.
The president’s campaign alleged in a statement that the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court’s changing of the law was a violation of Article II of the U.S. Constitution and Bush v. Gore.
The petition cites a “related Pennsylvania case” where Justice Samuel Alito and two other justices observed the constitutionality of the state court’s decision to extend the statutory deadline for receipt of mail ballots from 8 p.m. on Election Day to 5 p.m. three days later
Trump has been right on the law and the constitution – but SCOTUS is not going to respond.
The courts as a whole have been actively seeking delay everything as long as possible.
What most people fail to grasp is that Trump has NOT lost most of these election cases.
He has lost expedited reviews. Many of these cases are proceeding – incredibly slowly.
We will ultimately know – if anyone is paying attention of the scale of the fraud and lawlessness.
If Acting AG Rosen follows AG Barr’s lead, the Biden team will not face additional Special Counsels:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/12/21/barr-no-reason-special-counsels-hunter-biden-election-fraud/3991548001/
Turley tweets: “The Senate is likely to continue its investigations and the U.S. Attorney has been pursuing the Biden investigation. If Barr were to yield, it would give Democratic senators what they need to call for the dismissal of all of the investigations as politically compromised.”
A Trump pardon of Hunter Biden seems unlikely but may nonetheless be in the national interest.
I agree a Trump self-pardon would likely be tested in court.
More comedy from Turley. He insists “the media erupted” over Trump’s former national security adviser recommending Trump declare martial law & order new elections in swing states which Biden won. This after JT erupted over a Democratic Senator saying Republicans who refuse to accept the Electoral College certification of Biden as the president-elect are bordering on sedition & treason.
I wish JT would show equal interest in the allegations of sexual misconduct by Trump which is currently before the courts & Trump suppressing his infidelities to voters by paying off a porn star & a playmate in the lead up to the 2016 election & Trump calling recent reports of Russia’s massive cyberattack on US Federal agencies “fake news” despite it being verified by Pompeo & our national intelligence agencies.
No big deal about the White House weighing out whether to declare martial law & order new elections right JT?
In Final Hour Of Trump’s Presidency..
We’re Back To Square One..
With Trump Denying Russian Hacks!
A massive hack by Russian Intel has compromised U.S. Security to such an extent that it could take weeks, or months, to learn the full totality of this breach. Yet here is Donald Trump contradicting his loyal Secretary of State by casting doubt on Russian involvement. Not only is Trump not concerned, but he continues promoting false election claims to further polarize the country at this sensitive moment.
Trump’s behavior would be a red flag to any beat cop. “There was no robbery”, one witness claimed; contradicting 10 others. Any cop worth his badge would consider that witness a possible accomplice.
Jeeze, Phkin dumb bunnies!
The Vault 7 data dump showed the world that CIA & other us intel can spoof IP addresses, like blame it on the Ruskkies again.
Yeah FBI after 4 years of sitting on Seth Riches PC let your bosses, the Citizens see what “Was” in it!!!
Trump didn’t deny that the hacks could be Russian. You need to either learn to read or get better reading material. Probably both.
Trump denies we know for sure it’s Russia; suggesting it could be China instead. Yet Trump is the only one in government making that suggestion. All the Security Experts have identified Russia as the culprit.
Totally wrong. Many of the experts have openly stated they cannot be sure where the cyber attack came from. The attack may not have been from ope party alone.
“All the Security Experts have identified Russia as the culprit.”
All the security experts at the Washington Post may have concluded that but the Washington Post is filled with people that can write copy but know little about world affairs or security. To draw the conclusions that have been drawn by some is quite naive and endangers the security of the US.
Anonymous, there is only doubt in Trump-safe rightwing media.
Instead of making blanket statements that tell others about what you don’t know why don’t you tell us what the anonymous above you said that was wrong. Include some type of logic or proof. It is well known that there is no certainty where that attack came from.
Yes, those of us not on the left have doubts.
Why ? Because we live in the real world and have learned that the “experts” are often wrong – that they even lie.
Do I need to make a long list of the assorted claims that experts have been wrong about ?
Were the 50 “experts” that claimed the Biden Ukraine mess was russian disinformation right ?
Were the experts ranting about the collusion delusion right ?
Were the ‘experts” right about Covid ? About pretty much anything about Covid ?
Were they right about China, Russia, Iran, the mideast ?
What have they been right about ? Ever ?
And what have “all the experts” been correct about so far ?
Were they correct when they said Sadam had Nukes ?
Were they correct when they said the Biden info was “russian disinformation” ?
Were they correct when they said that the Steele Dossier was credible ?
What have those experts been credible about ?
BTW I can continue going backwards to the 50’s if you wish ? Were they correct about the coup they staged in Iran ?
The long term track record of US intelligence has been pathetic.
Trump may be wrong. But the US intelligence community has no credibility.
So what ?
It appears the Russians infiltrated the network gear of a major US network provider.
That is not a good thing.
Russians are also likely behind the hack of the Chinese.
We should do our best to thwart Russian hacking, and chinese hacking and spying and north korean hacking. and ….
We are also engage in hacking and spying ourselves.
We expect the US government to prevent US hacking and to the successful throughout the world.
We should not be surprised that other govenrments have the same expectations.
Trump is a Russian asset who’s said more in criticism of Jeff Session.. Putin has his balls mounted on the wall at his dacha.
Russian GDP is currently at 1.6T about the same as that of Texas, the US is 22T,
So you are claiming that Putin wanted the US to drive energy prices down globally ?
That he wanted the US to guarantee Europe’s energy supply – eliminating the only leverage that Russia and the mid-east had over Europe ?
That Putin wanted the NATO to take responsibility for their own defense – surrounding Russia with NATO forces now capable of thwarting Russian ambitions ?
Are you completely clueless ?
Like most of those on the left, you conflate words and acts.
It is not what you say that matters – it is what you do.
John Say, Russian oil prices from 2011 to 2020:
https://www.americanactionforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Oil_Price_Comparison_Chart.jpg
NATO:
Under pressure from Obama, NATO countries pledged to spend 2% of their GDP on defense by 2024.
https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm
Can you read a graph ?
There is no such thing as the price of Russian oil – only the price of oil.
But you will note the wide gap that opened between the rubble price and the $ price.
As you are clueless, that means that The value of the Ruble tanked – and it STAYED tanked under Trump.
Obama is not the first president to get NATO countries to SAY they were paying for their own defense.
Trump is the first president to get them to DO IT.
The ACTUAL defense spending of NATO countries shot up by 5.7% in 2017 – that is double the increase in the last two years of Obama COMBINED, and the increase has been atleast 4%/year every year since.
Except 2015 and 2016 Nato spending DECREASED every year Obama was president.
BTW the initial trigger causing NATO to increase defense spending was Russia’s invasion of Crimea – NOT Obama.
The gap widen in 2015. The price tanked in 2015 and began rising in 2017.
NATO – Less than 5% in 2018 and no, it did not decrease during Obama. Yes, Crimea and ISIS impacted European countries.
https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/NATO-Graph-1.png
Again you can not read your own graphs.
You do not seem to grasp that the rising price in rubles with a near flat price in dollars means …. Inflation.
That occured primarily during Trump.
Yes Obama did ask NATO to increase defense expendatures.
But BEFORE Obama asked Russia invaded Crimea and NATO contries started to increase those expenditures.
But according to your own graph those increases were not consequential until 2017.
Do you know what the difference between a -1% decline and 1 5% increase is ?
NATO has increased spending for every year under Trump by atleast 4% – do you understand what 4% compounded over 4 years is ?
Let me give you a clue – it is massive. Obama did not even manage to get real NATO spending up the the level it was when he took office.
I would note – here is the NATO defense spending by country under Obama.
Look at the countries with increases – this is not France, or Germany. Until Trump the only NATO countries increasing spending were those bordering Russia.
https://admin.govexec.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/deltadefensespending.png
Please. That graph just shows that a barrel of oil is worth more, relatively speaking in rubles than dollars.. Sort of a sideways look at a rubles/dollar spread (of which there are none on the CBOT/CME). There are spread contracts on the pound, the euro and the aussie dollar as the they relate to the USD — but no rubles.
I’m always impressed with John Say’s lack of critical thinking and tendency to get caught in the scientific weeds as he looks at the world through his shaded trumpy glasses.
Elvis Bug
JF’s graph shows the price of a barrel of oil in Rubles and in Dollars diverging dramatically over time.
The Graph could be of the price of donuts, the meaning would be the same.
The value of the ruble is declining. that is called inflation and it is economically destructive.
I would further note – though not part of that graph that Oil is a central part of the Russian economy.
I beleive it is about 1/3 of Russian GDP.
your argument then diverges into other unrelated areas.
You then rant about a lack of critical thinking – while failing at critical thinking.
Whatever argument is in your post – if any is completely lost in rambling on about meaningless tangents.
Where does your jump to Aussie dollars or the Euro come from ? You do not provide any actual information about either, much less demonstrate how that non-existant information would change the debate.
JF’s graph demonstrates serious problems in the Russian economy – which has been very weak for more than a decade.
Did Obama stand up to Russia ? Each of us can look at the evidence and decide for ourselves.
Is there any truth to the claim that Trump is Putin’s patsy ? For that to be true you would have to beleive Putin sought to harm his own country.
Before you rant about critical thinking – you might want to learn what it is.
Which weeds would those be Elvis ?
Where have I been wrong about science ?
I have been challenged here on many many things. No one is perfect and on very rare occasions I have made mistakes and when they were identified corrected them.
I am always open to that possibility.
Ar the same time, that is a rare occurrence. I am not a left wing nut who tries to conform reality to my ideology.
BTW still not republican. and still did not vote for Trump – Twice.
JF ranted about some of Trump’s remarks – skipping the fact that I would never trust JF to accurately report Trump’s words – and he did not let me down in his inability to accurately restate Trump’s remarks, I am bothered by some things Trump says.
If Trump was threatening to jail people purely because they were political enemies – and getting the FBI to follow through – I would be looking to impeach Trump personally. but that has not occurred.
The conduct of the obama regime was real and unacceptable.
What Conduct of Trump’s are you opposed to ?
Your inability to understand that immunity from corona viruses only lasts 3-9 months is a classic John Say getting caught in the weeds misunderstanding as you railed on endlessly about herd immunity with Covid. Other side of the coin, your constant citing Sweden’s attempt at gaining herd immunity is being proven wrong yet further as that government openly admits their approach was mistaken and they suffered just as much economic damage as any surrounding country. Classic missing the forest for the trees thinking.
Equally misguided around the issue of climate change.
What conduct/policy of trump’s am i opposed to?
-his (lack of) covid policy
-ditto climate change
-his devastating trade policy and the effects it’s had on agricultural reality in the States
-his treating the office as president as a cash cow
-his jailing of kids on the border
-his foreign policy
-his extortion of Ukraine for dirt on his eventual election opponent, understandle on the one hand since that candidate kicked his ass in the election, but still, just plain illegal behavior.
I could go on, but truthfully don’t want to come back and read some insanely long throw spaghetti at the wall posts.
Elvis Bug
“Your inability to understand that immunity from corona viruses only lasts 3-9 months is a classic John Say getting caught in the weeds misunderstanding as you railed on endlessly about herd immunity with Covid.”
Oh, you know how long immunity lasts ? That is pretty amazing since no one else does. Please cite ANY study that demonstrates that ?
So far everything I have encountered says the opposite.
There are several credible studies that normal levels of Vitamid D provide 77% immunity and that even if you get C19 the higher your Vitamin D levels they less serious Covid will be for you.
Further Vitamin D analogs have a near 100% cure rate even for serious cases.
Go find the studies. unlike your claims – those are real.
Further in September they discovered that the MMR vaccine is highly effective at preventing Covid – and that is after as much as 3 decades. There are also studies suggesting having a similar corona virus based cold within the past 2 years confers immunity to C19.
Put simply – we know that it is possible to acquire immunity that lasts a LONG Time.
But why should anyone expect credible information from you – what is it that you have been right about ?
“Other side of the coin, your constant citing Sweden’s attempt at gaining herd immunity is being proven wrong yet further as that government openly admits their approach was mistaken and they suffered just as much economic damage as any surrounding country. Classic missing the forest for the trees thinking.”
Where do you get your idiocy ?
Sweden did not “attempt” to get herd immunity.
They are still doing better than most of Europe.
There mortality rate per million is lower than the US, Belgium. France, and much of the rest of Europe.
No they did not escape economic harm – no one can, Frankly the US lockdowns alone screw up the entire world – the US is 1/4 of the entire world economy – so when left wing nuts like you screw up the US economy – you harm people all over the world.
Regardless Sweden’s 2Q 2020 economic collapse was about 1/3 that of the US, and there 3Q recovery was 5% – lower than the US, but they were not hit as hard.
Right now much of the world would be happy with economic results like those of Sweden.
“Equally misguided around the issue of climate change.”
2020 MIGHT be the warmest year in the past 22 years – if so and that is still not determined, it will beat out 1998 – 22 years ago by about 0.02C – at that rate we will be what 0.1C warmer by 2100 ?
The actual warming trend – as opposed to fixating on peak years – is SLIGHTLY more freindly to warmist idiots like yourself.
The Trend in the past 2 decades is 0.12C/decade – just slightly higher than the 0.11C/decade of the past 200+ years.
At that rate we Might get almost 1C warmer by 2100.
Regardless, in my 60+ year lifetime there has been no observable impact of warming – just as there was none in my parents lifetime, and their parents lifetime – and the past several generations that have seen the same 0.11C/decade warming trend.
Put simply the real world has falsified Warmists – grow up and get over it.
The world is not coming to an end, you are going to have to live through the embarrasment of being wrong about a stupid malthusian claim – just like the myriads of other false end of the world claims though my lifetime.
“What conduct/policy of trump’s am i opposed to?”
“-his (lack of) covid policy”
Did the policy of the UK work better ? or France or Belgium or Italy ?
Again grow up Covid has LAUGHED at your experts attempts to control it via Policy.
I would like to blame the policies of Governors like Cuomo for NY’s abysmal C19 death rates – but unfortunately those are more the consequence of demographics and geography than Cuomo’s incompetence.
Regardless through today, the states with the highest deaths per million are STILL Blue states that imposed draconian policies.
Your claim that Trump failed on Covid is not plausible unless you can cite places that have actually succeeded.
Sweden BTW currently has a 20% less deaths/million than the US.
“-ditto climate change”
He has had an excellent policy on climate change – ignore it, It does not matter, and we could not do anything about it if we wanted to.
Frankly if the earth does get to be 1C warmer by 2100 – that will be a better world.
3 Times more people are killed by cold weatrher than warm weather throughout the world.
A warmer planet – expecially one with more C02 is one with more food.
“-his devastating trade policy and the effects it’s had on agricultural reality in the States”
And yet the BEA says that those states are doing fine – and they voted heavily for Trump.
“-his treating the office as president as a cash cow”
And yet he has actually lost millions according to Forbes.
How exactly is it that you think he is using the presidency as a cash cow ?
Russian Oligarchs and Chinese Billionaires are not lavishing millions on him and his family like the Bidens ?
You seem to have confused Trump with a democrat. It is the Pelosi’s and Kerry’s and Biden’s that are profiting from public office.
“-his jailing of kids on the border”
That would be Obama – and you said nothing then.
Trump has substantially reduced border crossings, primarily by getting other countries to stop illegals before they get to our borders.
“-his foreign policy”
Is possibly the best of any president ever. Certainly better than any in my life time.
“-his extortion of Ukraine for dirt on his eventual election opponent,”
Really ? Trump did not ask for Dirt on Biden. He asked the Ukraine to investigate – and unlike the Obama investigation of Trump, there is plenty of good reason for an investigation. The IRS sure though so and so did the FBI/DOJ.
“understandle on the one hand since that candidate kicked his ass in the election, but still, just plain illegal behavior.”
There is no doubt at the moment that VP Joe Biden interfered in the government of the Ukraine to the personal benefit of his family.
That would be illegal behavior. Asking to investigate that behaviour is the obligation of the president of the united states.
“I could go on,”
Please do – you have done pretty badly so far.
A completely fact free tirade of nonsense.
” but truthfully don’t want to come back and read some insanely long throw spaghetti at the wall posts.”
No spaghetti – just the facts. Something you are clueless about.
But let me ask you some questions:
If you think Trump has done badly on climate – what is it you think that Obama accomplished or that Biden will accomplish ?
If the Warmists were actually correct – even the draconian measures of Newsome are far to little too late.
Obama took part in a fake treaty that none one beleives will acomplish anything.
If you really belive in CAGW – then you should be taking draconian personal steps NOW.
Yet, you are not. Have you given up your car ? Have you given up fossil fuels – even electric cars are primarily powered by fossil fuels ?
Have you cut back on heat and light ?
Put simply have you behaved as if CAGW is actually real ?
Why should anyone beleive you about climate change if you do not behave as if you beleive it ?
You ranted about Trump’s foreign policy.
How many wars did Trump start ? How many countries did he invade ?
Do you know when the last time we had a US president that did not invade some country or start some new conflict was ?
Try Jimmy Carter.
Biden is already talking about staying in Afghanistan even longer. Is that your idea of good foreign policy ?
Is there a sane person on the planet that thinks getting into bed with Iran is a good thing ?
You ranted over Trump and the Turks and the kurds.
China is actually engaged in Genocide against the Uigurs. Are you going to support Biden getting back into bed with China ?
I am not personally hostile to China. But I am strongly opposed to the current Chinese government – prior to Xi China was SLOWLY moving towards greater individual liberty for its people – and that was good for China and the world.
Under Xi China has become more militaristic, and more threatening to its neighbors, and worse for its own people.
So are you going to be happy if Biden goes back to that ?
Finally – I asked you what ACTIONS of Trump you had problems with.
Your responses were wrong atleast 3 ways:
You are wrong about the facts.
You did not actually cite ACTS (or facts)
And in each instance Trump did better than Obama.
“The world is not coming to an end, you are going to have to live through the embarrasment of being wrong about a stupid malthusian claim”
Say, what makes you think that ignorance causes any embarrassment among this group of people. They have displayed there ignorance for years and nothing phases them. That is what true ignorance is. They are unable to learn.
I posted a direct quote from Trump with the link. John Say describes that as my rant that he can’t trust then justifies Trump using the DOJ against political opponents – the false charge he leveled against Obama. John clearly has no principles and is either not very bright or not very honest or some of both. He decides what he wants to believe and discounts what doesn’t fit, including facts – see my linked quote – and the statements of experts much smarter and experienced than him.
“I posted a direct quote from Trump with the link. ”
You do not seem to grasp – you have no credibility and no integrity. Maybe you did post an accurate quote.
But you have a reputation for false accusations, so there is no reason I would trust anything you port.
And the link you posted was NOT to Trump saying something – it was to a news story – and the MSM has no credibility either.
“John Say describes that as my rant that he can’t trust”
You are responsible for your own reputation.
I did not burn your integrity or credibility – you did that to yourself, and you continue to do so.
It is possible that SOME of what you post is accurate – but without doing an enormous amount of work I can not trust what you post.
and often I am not going to do that.
“then justifies Trump using the DOJ against political opponents ”
Trump did not use the DIJ against political opponents. The impeachment nonsense was about requesting an investigation from a foreign government – again as you can not get your facts straight you destroy your own credibility.
You also frame the claim incorrectly. Trump’s request of the Ukraine was legitimate – because reasonable suspicion of misconduct with respect to the behaviour of the Biden’s exists. Contra the nonsense of the left and the media – the issues regarding the Biden’s are NOT russian disinformation. If you had a clue you would know that the source of much of the information is FOIA requests in the US of the State department and other US government agencies. Absolutely there is information from other sources – such as Ukraine, but that is corroborated by documents and emails obtained from places like the US state department. Further the DOJ/IRS investigations were not triggered by Trump at all. They were triggered by banks complying with federal reporting laws for large transactions – especially foreign transactions. Laws that Joe Biden helped to craft. More recently the case against Biden was substantially strengthened when the repair shop turned over Hunter Biden’s laptop to the FBI. The only russians in this drama – are those paying off the Bidens.
DOJ is obligated to enforce US laws regardless of who that might target. There is no exemption from investigation because one is in politics. There is however a requirement that ALL government investigations require reasonable suspicion of a crime.
There was never reasonable suspicion of the collusion delusion.
Joe Biden’s own public remarks meet the reasonable suspicion standard regarding Ukraine.
With respect to Obama’s other misconduct – viewpoint discrimination is by definition NOT reasonable suspicion – it is a violation of the first amendment. The IRS can not use political keywords to subject any group – not left, not right to greater scrutiny. Your Treasury IG claim that their conduct was somehow innocent because it involved both the left and the right is false on two levels. First because the first amendment does not have an exception for bipartisan viewpoint discrimination – Government may not discriminate based on viewpoints PERIOD – not left or right, not communist, not anarchist – no one. And second because by a factor of more than 10:1 the targets were conservative.
You are blind to myriads of other misconduct during the Obama administration.
AGAIN – if you have evidence that any agency of the US govenrment (or foreign government) has started an investigation of anyone without reasonable suspicion as a result of a rant by Trump – please provide that.
I will be actually impeach and remove him for that. I will do so even if the target is NOT a political opponent.
If you have evidence that Trump has ACTED outside the constraints of the constitution – I am 100% behind impeaching removing and prosecuting him.
But I have not seen anything that approaches that yet. While there are numerous examples of such misconduct by Obama and Biden.
“the false charge he leveled against Obama.”
The charges against Obama are not false – I noted IRSGATE – the IRS did engage in viewpoint discrimination. Even your IG report – though attempting cover for it did not deny that. There is not a poor training exception to the requirement to abide by the first amendment. An understanding of free speech rights is supposed to be something you learned in elementary school. IF not then much more than Obama has failed you. The FACT that no one was prosecuted, fired, or disciplined is damning. That is another failure of the Obama administration – Holder and Lynch covered for the misconduct of the Biden administration.
There is no work around the fact that Fast & Furious was a collosal mistake that resulted in the death of a US DEA agent – and certainly many many others.
There is no work around to the fact that Rice and Clinton publicly lied about Benghazi.
There is no doubt that the FBI spied on Rosen and Atkinson and many other journalists.
They have not only admitted to doing so – they asked for and received warrants to spy on journalists without probable cause.
This is well documented. The case was not dismssed because the claim was false.
” John clearly has no principles and is either not very bright or not very honest or some of both.”
Then you should be able to provide evidence of that. And yet you repeatedly fail.
You constantly excuse egregious conduct on the part of Obama, the Biden’s, the media, democrats, and then your exagerate claims about Trump – often with misquotes or lies and conflating words with acts.
I have asked you repeatedly what has trump DONE. Not what has he said. While I do not trust you to even get what he says correct,
I am concerned about actions far more than words.
I cited actual ACTIONS that occured during the Obama administration.
I am sometimes offended by Trump’s words – as noted repeatedly – I did not vote for him.
But I do not conflate words with acts.
But I am going to go one step further – there is sufficient cause and has been for several years for an investigation – not merely of Hunter Biden and Joe. But of all kinds of bad conduct by democrats in government in the Ukraine. There is credible evidence that members of the DNC participated in either creating or pushing a forged ledger targeting Paul Manafort – the Biden’s do not appear to have anything to do with that.
There is ALWAYS a reasonable basis to investigate efforts by Russia, and Iran and China to interfere in the internal affairs of this country.
Whenever those investigations lead to US persons and the appropriate standards are met – investigations of those US persons are justified.
Had CrossFire Huricane started with an investigation of Russia that lead to the Trump campaign – it would be legitimate. It did not.
If there was actual credible evidence that Americans were knowlingly assisting Russians in improper actions – that would be legitimate.
If there was actual evidence of abuse of power by americans in foreign dealings – investigations would be legitimate.
If is not the politics of a target that protects them from investigation – it is the same constitutional constraints that protect you and I from unjustified investigation.
“He decides what he wants to believe and discounts what doesn’t fit”
Nope. I rely on facts.
“including facts – see my linked quote”
You do not seem to grasp that a quote is only a fact with respect to proof of what was said – and even then you have a credibility problem.
Trump has said lots of things he should not have said. Those are not crimes.
Ignoring the fact that I can not trust you to provide and accurate quote or a source for one, do you have evidence that this alleged requests resulted in unjustified actions ?
It is legitimate for DOJ to be investigating the Biden’s. It is legitimate for them to investigate election fraud – though I would note that much of the misconduct in the 2020 election is a violation of state law – not federal law. Barr could have phrased things better – regardless investigating signature matching or other instances where election officials failed to follow their own laws is NOT a DOJ/FBI matter.
The best Federal issue is the one TX raised – and that issue can ONLY be constitutionally raised by the states – which is why SCOTUS’s standing decision was nonsense.
“and the statements of experts”
You should grasp by now that I do not place religious faith in experts. Nor should you – but that is your choice.
I am responsible for my own life – you are responsible for yours. If you follow the advice of experts and get Covid – you have no one to blame but yourself. Experts are not entitled to control your life – that responsibility belongs solely to you. They are not obligated to protect you. That obligation is yours. No amount of nonsensical leftist idelogy alters the fact that your life is ultimately your own responsibilty – no one else’s.
I do not know how old you are – your views are adolescent and I would guess your experience of the real world is limited. Regardless, though I have never placed trust in random experts, a long life has provided myriads of examples demonstrating the failure of experts.
At some point the scales may fall off your eyes and you will realize that experts have failed us with respect to Covid – they never were able to give you what you wanted.
“much smarter and experienced than him.”
I do not need to toot my own horn.
I would just point out that on issue after issue I have done far better than your “experts”.
One huge factor is that I grasp that by default all malthusian prognositications are with near certainty false.
If the planet was easy to destroy – it would be long gone. That life exists on this planet is miraculous and against long odds.
One reasons the odds against are so large is that a billlion years of life requires a robust anti-fragile system.
If it was easy to wipe out life – there would be none.
When purported experts rant about the end of the world – they are with certainty wrong.
I grew up with the threat of nuclear winter – it never came. With mass global starvation – the planet has twice the population of 1965 and 4 times the food. No one on earth today starves because we can not produce enough food. No country in the world is not capable of feeding its own people – absent war and politics. We have not run out of oil or other fossil fuels – and we will not.
We may change to other forms of energy – as we changed from wood and dung to coal, and coal to oil and oil to gas. Chosing to pay more for something we liked better.
We will never run out of a single natural resource.
I would suggest reviewing the work of Prof. Simon which is now available for free on the web.
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/
Since you like experts.
Four years of fake investigations into Russian Collusion proved exactly one thing – that the people within the Trump campaign were nearly the ONLY people in DC who were NOT actively colluding with Russians.
Given that the first of the Russia hoax / failed coup has already plead guilty in Federal court, it takes a spectacularly special kind of fool to keep trying to pump air into that burst balloon.
You also say that Flynn was innocent despite pleading guilty. I guess a person who pleads guilty is only guilty if you agree.
“You also say that Flynn was innocent despite pleading guilty.”
He plead “guilty” to lying about something irrelevant to an officer conducting an illegal investigation and violating Flynn’s Constitutional rights under duress – however, that is not, and never has been, an actual crime, dunce. Perhaps you would be happier living back in the motherland, Boris.
Lying to the FBI” is only valid if all of the following are true:
1. The investigation has a legal basis. We now know there was never any evidence of wrongdoing upon which the investigation started. Fail.
2. The alleged lie is RELEVANT to the focus of said legal investigation. It was not. You can lie all you want to the agent with respect to boffing his wife, and as long as wife boffing is not the subject of the investigation, it is not a crime.
3. The lie was MATERIAL to the subject of the investigation. It was not. You can say, “I bought 4 cups of coffee while talking to the Russian agent” when in fact you bought only one, it is not a crime.
4. The lie was an intentional one meant to deflect from the subject of the legitimate investigation. It was not. Forgetting is not a crime.
5. The lie was not made under undue / improper duress. It was not. They blackmailed Flynn in a Star Chamber, just as thugs do in every 3rd world banana Republic.
General Flynn was and remains an honest patriot persecuted by treasonous political hacks. They all belong at the end of a rope, and people like you who support their treasonous activities should join them.
Plenty of innocent people plead guilty – it happens all the time.
Every single one of the over 2000 people on the exonerated list confessed to the crime they were accused of. Many plead guilty.
Yet every single one was ultimately found innocent – not “not guilty”, but actually innocent of the crime they were convicted of.
These are not people who got out on legal loopholes. These are people who were ultimately – often decades afterwords able to prove beyond any doubt they did not commit the crime they were convicted of.
With specific respect to Flynn, any defendant can withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing.
I do not recall anyone anywhere ever being charged with falsely pleading guilty.
Ultimately Flynn withdrew his guilty plea.
Regardless the indisputable fact is that Flynn did not and could not have committed the alleged crime.
Why ? Because there was no actual investigation at the time he was questioned.
Contra left wing nuts – lying to the FBI is not a crime. Lying to a federal agent about a material fact in a legitimate investigation is.
That did not occur. It could not occur.
The only actual crime here is that the FBI leaked a classified document to interfere with the incoming administration.
Inarguably those involved in accusing Flynn were implicated in that actual crime.
“Plenty of innocent people plead guilty – it happens all the time. ”
Nor is a plea of guilty necessarily criminal. Lying to the FBI is fine unless MANY conditions are met – NONE of which were in the Flynn case.
Lying to the FBI accidentally (forgetting), for reasons irrelevant (lying about sleeping with the agent’s wife) or immaterial (saying you bought 2 bagels instead of one when you witnessed a murder), or when the subject of the case itself is baseless (no underlying crime initiated the bogus investigation).
Judge Sullivan and every single person involved in the Flynn “investigation” and prosecution violated his constitutional rights. Each violation carries a sentence of up to 10 years in Federal prison. Justice will not be served unless every one of them serves 50 years.
This is one place I actually agree with the protests of this summer.
End Qualified immunity – that not only protects lawless police officers – but also prosecutors and judges.
Qualified immunity (like Standing) is a fake legal doctrine created by the courts. Neither exist in the constitution.
I absolutely agree with ending qualified immunity for judges and prosecutors and mayors. However, we absolutely cannot end it for police for the same reasons articles of war shield solders from most wartime liabilities, with the exception of specific war crimes as agreed to by international treaties. Without it, you would never find anyone foolish enough to wear the badge.
Our Constitution guarantees us a “Republican form of government,” and among other things that we have a right to be safe from “domestic violence.” This means it is criminal for mayors, police chiefs, DAs, etc. to simply refuse to uphold the law against rioters and violent offenders of any sort. The problem is that politicians have spent centuries creating laws to shield themselves and very little to shield us. Refusing to uphold your oath of office as an elected official should swiftly bring a decades long prison sentence, if not the death penalty.
QI is not constitutional.
It is not necescary for police.
What will happen if you eliminate QI is that municipalities will end up paying more for insurance – especially if their police forces are reckless. Ultimately insurance companies and voters will force better standards on the police.
Further ending QI is ALL you really need to do.
Far too many people on the left and the right do not understand that markets plus the ordinary rule of law are fundimentally self regulating.
Laws, regulations do not dynamically adjust – markets do.
If the police find better ways to do their job – markets will lower insurance costs.
If they go the other way – they will raise them.
There is no actual instance in a free market where any regulation ever has bent the curve. Has changed pre-existing trend lines.
The left rants about CAGW – which is a load of BS. Regardless their goal is to lower C02, yet the US is one of few countries actually meeting the requirements of the Paris accords – because fracking reduces CO2 emissions and results in a cleaner environment.
“QI is not constitutional.”
No, it is not. The issue has come before SCOTUS many times, and their rulings (back before the left became the utterly insane left) were bipartisan and well considered. You cannot be held guilty of “murder” for killing a suspect in the line of duty.
In all things in life, there is always a balance. By every metric around the world, our police are exemplary and the few cases of true criminal violation of that limited immunity are extraordinarily rare. In a system in which the accused is supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, this is absolutely essential for front line law enforcement as well as for our military. Absent that, our courts would be absolutely choked with pointless lawsuits against our police. And, the immunity truly IS “limited” – true lawbreakers are stripped of it and prosecuted.
CAGW is simply a scam. I long ago got tired of listening to the politicized rants from both sides. “The science is bunk!” “The world will catch fire!” All rubbish. So, I read the IPCC report. Do you know how many “scientific findings” it contains? Just 1 – that being that, “all other things remaining equal” (which they certainly do not), there is an approximately linear relationship between the total amount of atmospheric CO2 and the approximate stability point for global temperatures. Doesn’t say doom. Doesn’t say anything bad at all unless we continue our projected use of fossil fuels through the year 2100. Well, will we? Climate science says nothing of that, becomes mysteriously mute among its adherents. We have to look at the trends in alternative energy for the answer. The 70 year trend for the prices of solar power per kWh and battery storage per kWh have been almost perfect exponentially declining curves – which costly subsidies did not change measurably. Plotting the curve, and comparing with other major technological changes in history, we see it is virtually impossible there will still be any meaningful use of fossil fuels for energy by 2050. We are sorry to announce that the much anticipated Armageddon was never going to happen.
Many many SCOTUS decisions are CLEARLY unconstitutional – whether they are decisions of those on the right, the left or both.
Qualified immunity has no basis in the constitution – nor is it the only court created nonsense.
There is no constitutional basis for decisions on standing.
To be clear – there is a constitutional basis to bar a lawsuit where there is no case or controversy, or where there is no harm to one of the parties. The SCOTUS TX standing decisions was absolutely egregiously unconstitutional.
Lawsuits between the states – particularly over election issues are EXCLUSIVELY the domain of the supreme court.
It is one of very few instances where the supreme court is a trial court – a court of original jurisdiction.
The TX claim can not be brought by any other party, nor before any other court.
Further there is an absolutely crystal clear case and controversies. The TX claim at heart is a breach of contract claim, and the contract breached is the constitution itself. The formation of govenrment is “the social contract” – the constitution itself is a compact between the states. There is no “united states” if some states go rougue and lawless and other states have no remedy.
The right of states to “go their own way” at the expense of other states was decided by the civil war. Those states that failed to follow their own laws were as lawless as southern states ceceding from the Union. Those states failing to abide by their own laws, were engaged in a form of lawless insurection. While Trump would be wise not to heed the arguments of those who want him to invoke the insuraction act or Marshall law – the fact still is that those states failing to follow their own laws in an election have breached their constitutional duties.
Only states are parties to the constitution as a contract. SCOTUS was required to hear the TX lawsuit, and would have been wise to do so.
“ Qualified immunity has no basis in the constitution – nor is it the only court created nonsense.”
Nonsense. Government is by definition force, and force cannot be applied without some level of qualified immunity. Executive privilege is qualified immunity. The permission to use force to arrest a resisting subject is qualified immunity. Heck, the Constitution is a qualified immunity document. You are merely arguing a matter of degree. Again, I will point out that our law enforcement is probably the least abusive in the world. As we are now seeing in certain cities, you cannot attract good officers when they can only expect to be hounded and attacked because the CITIZENS have been granted immunity. But, such limited immunity must be limited solely to those whose jobs literally require them to employ force as part of their jobs, not politicians who would hide behind such immunity to protect their power to abuse.
All of that said, we agree SCOTUS should have heard the Texas case. In fact, it should have heard the merits of every plausible case – for there is nothing more central to the validity of the courts themselves than the legitimacy of the elections.
“Government is by definition force”
Yes
“force cannot be applied without some level of qualified immunity.”
Nope, Force requires justification. That is all.
If your use of force is justified – it is legitimate, If not it is a crime.
That simple. No immunity required.
“Executive privilege is qualified immunity.”
Whether executive privileged is real or constitutional, it has nothing to do with qualified immunity.
Executive priviledge is the concept that the executive can receive advice without advisors fearing retribution for the advice they may consider.
The executive can consider all options – without threat of recrimination.
But only those that are justified can be acted on.
“The permission to use force to arrest a resisting subject”
Nope – if law enforcement has sufficient justification to make an arrest, then their use of force is legitimate.
If not law enforcement itself is acting criminally.
“the Constitution is a qualified immunity document.”
Nope. The constitution defines the legitimate domain of the federal government. In what areas the federal government can act.
The actions of government – FORCE, must STILL be justified.
I would further note – that while I generally respect the constitution – and we should absolutely follow it – even where it is wrong, until we can change it. The constitution is NOT stone tablets from mount sinia. It is not the infallible word of god.
The constitution is an attempt to acheive legitimate government.
It is good to the extent it acheives that and bad to the extent it does not.
“You are merely arguing a matter of degree. ”
No we are not arguing in the same universe.
“I will point out that our law enforcement is probably the least abusive in the world.”
I agree, that does not mean qualified immunity is necessary.
I would specifically note QI is unneeded to protect good officiers doing their duty.
It is not even necescary to protect honest mistakes.
QI protects those in government when they either knowingly or recklessly use the power of govenrment to violate peoples rights.
QI is only applicable when the use of force is UNjustified.
“As we are now seeing in certain cities, you cannot attract good officers”
I am not defending Antifa, or BLM or defunding the police or villifying them.
Nor am I disagreeing that we have generally excellent law enforcement, that there is no systemic racism.
I do not even think that improving policing is our highest priority.
But that does not alter the fact that QI is unnecescary – not for the police or anyone else in government
that it is not constitutional, that it is immoral.
Anything that excuses the unjustified use of force is inherently immoral.
We can and should give the police the benefit of every doubt – that is not QI.
QI is where we allow a violation of rights where there is no doubt,
and that is the problem.
“when they can only expect to be hounded and attacked”
Different problem.
“because the CITIZENS have been granted immunity.”
You have a language problem. A failure to prosecute is not a grant of immunity – it is a lawless act by government.
“But, such limited immunity must be limited solely to those whose jobs literally require them to employ force as part of their jobs,”
Again language problem. The use of force must be justified. even when it is part of the job. Police have a tough job.
They are entitled to the benefit of any doubts. That is not QI – that is supposed to be a normal part of our justice system.
“not politicians who would hide behind such immunity to protect their power to abuse.”
Someone say I am a fan of politicians.
Regardless QI does not typically apply to politicians.
Beyond police it applies to all other government agents – such as regulators, as well as prosecutors and judges.
“All of that said, we agree SCOTUS should have heard the Texas case. In fact, it should have heard the merits of every plausible case – for there is nothing more central to the validity of the courts themselves than the legitimacy of the elections.”
First, it is beyond dispute that laws were not followed in this election.
The courts are OBLIGATED to address that – failing to do so leaves us lawless and undermines government.
There is a separate problem of remedy.
The proper remedy would be to correct the lawlessness. That was possible when cases were first brought to the courts.
PA SCOTUS could have found ACT 77 unconstitutional. The PA constitution requires secret ballots – Mailin voting is not secret ballots.
A secret ballot is not BTW merely a right of the voter. It is a right of the electorate as a whole.
I am entitled to be assured that YOUR ballot was secret, because otherwise others could have coerced or induced your vote.
Secret ballots are NOT like privacy – which is one directional. I am not entitled to know how you voted AND you are not entitled to allow others to know how you voted. You can SAY how you voted, but you can not be able to prove it, otherwise you can be coerced or induced.
Secret ballot provisions made it into most state constitutions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a result of decades of experience with voter fraud through buying votes or threatening voters.
PA SCOTUS could also have found ACt 77 unconstitutional because it permits no excuse required absentee voting.
The PA constitution expressly prohibits that. The Constitution requires that voting be done on election day EXCEPT where there is one of a few valid reasons that you can not do that.
Finallly both the PA constitution and the US constitution require that the laws regarding voting be set by the legislature – not the executive.
While there is a general problem well beyond voting here – we have routinely allowed legislatures to delegate lawmaking power to executives – both at the state and federal level – which the constitution does not permit. In the specific case of elections all constitutional power is explicitly delegated to the state legislatures legislatures – with a congressional override, NOT governors of the executive or the courts.
“If your use of force is justified – it is legitimate,”
Everyone who uses force feels it was justified. The law defining the circumstances under which force is acceptable IS qualified immunity.
Merry Christmas!
“Everyone who uses force feels it was justified.”
True and irrelevant.
What you FEEL has nothing to do with whether you are justified.
“The law defining the circumstances under which force is acceptable IS qualified immunity.”
Nope.
You clearly do not know much about QI.
QI has absolutely no bearing at all except when the use of force – the violation of rights has already been established to be unjustified.
QI can be best thought of as a judge created legal doctrine that government gets one free civil rights violation before they are subject to consequences.
In reality it ends up being MANY free civil rights violations – because the immunity is specific to the federal circuit, and QI is interpreted such that tiny differences in a violation distinguish it from prior violations such that one free violation becomes many free violations.
Regardless, QI only applies to conduct that is not legally justified.
Any conduct by police that is legally justified is automatically lawful.
You seem to beleive that QI protects the government when it is acting lawfully.
It does not. It applies ONLY when government has acted outside the law.
“Qualified immunity has no basis in the constitution ”
John, I don’t want to get involved in this discussion but when we are talking about police we are not in the federal realm and therefore mostly outside of federal constitutional issues.
“John, I don’t want to get involved in this discussion but when we are talking about police we are not in the federal realm and therefore mostly outside of federal constitutional issues.”
It is a Constitutional issue at both State and Federal levels (ATF, FBI, etc.). The original objection by the first poster was:
“Qualified immunity has no basis in the constitution – nor is it the only court created nonsense.”
My point is, EVERY government MUST have some form of qualified immunity for its enforcers, or it cannot govern – period. It is implied as part of the essence of government. If police (or FBI or ATF) were sued for every single arrest, government simply could not function.
Apart from that, I am 100% in agreement with the OP that elected officials, prosecutors, investigators, judges, mayors, etc. should have far less in the form of immunities. When a mayor / prosecutor / judge violates the Constitutional rights of every person in the jurisdiction, that person should have no legal protections whatsoever.
“My point is, EVERY government MUST have some form of qualified immunity for its enforcers, or it cannot govern”
Agreed. I had this argument with John before. I would like such immunity limited and would prefer to adjust other things. I also believe that licensed persons or persons placed in positions of trust should, when convicted of violating those things they are entrusted with, pay a bigger penalty than they would have had that trusted or licensed position not been involved.
“I also believe that licensed persons or persons placed in positions of trust should, when convicted of violating those things they are entrusted with, pay a bigger penalty than they would have had that trusted or licensed position not been involved.”
By at least an order of magnitude – you’re preaching to the choir.
Unless a few heads literally roll every generation, these ingrates believe (with far to much justification) that they will never be held accountable for their egregious abuses.
There is no requirement that a government must have qualified immunity – I do not recall debating that with you,. But regardless Galt is wrong as are you if you want QI.
For nearly half of US history – we had no police, no FBI. For almost all of US history we had no QI.
It is a modern creation of the courts. it is self evidently unnecescary -we did fine without it.
Nor is the absence of QI in some way minarchist. QI is not necescary in socialist states either
It is a bad idea created by the courts in 1967 – not 1787.
” I do not recall debating that with you,. But regardless Galt is wrong as are you if you want QI.”
We debated this question for quite awhile. You were wrong then like you are wrong now. I personally don’t like QI but I would have to deal with it on a case by case basis while at the same time seeing if certain changes to the legal system could alleviate the need.
As long as there is “government, then there is QI else a soldier shooting the enemy would be always guilty of murder. Government IS QI – all that remains is to fine tune the degree allowed.
JG, I totally agree. I don’t know how one divorces any type of justified government force from QI. I would prefer that force to be as limited as possible. In part a significant reduction in QI would require changes to our legal system to reduce suits. In the end both methodologies do approximately the same thing. It’s a matter of balance.
You provided three wonderful ideas in three sentences concisely proving your case and my opinion as well. Bravo for the brevity.
100% agree!
Merry Christmas!
Neither you nor JG seem to have a clue what QI is.
The first huge error you both make is failling to grasp that QI only applies to government.
Any use of force that is legitimate for an individual is legitimate for government.
That covers ALL legitimate uses of force.
QI only applies when someone in government has violated a persons rights WITHOUT justification.
If the rights violation was justified – there is the same absolute immunity that applies to ordinary people.
You are both off on a nonsensical tangent, confusing the absolute immunity for justifiable uses of force with QI which only applies when the government or government actors are being sued for UNJUSTIFIED uses of force.
Justification is an ABSOLUTE, not “qualified” immunity.
And it applies to everyone – government or not.
“Neither you nor JG seem to have a clue what QI is.”
John, I hope you realize that is your opinion not a fact.
“QI only applies when someone in government has violated a persons rights WITHOUT justification.”
What are the parameters?
Back to fuzziness and definitions. In those definitions and fuzziness lie a reason for QI.
The fourth amendment uses the terms: “against unreasonable searches and seizures, “probable cause”, “particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized”.
All of these are things backed up by force of government, but ask two different people the permissible extent of any of these terms and one will get different answers. In fact different police departments might have different answers. You certainly have your answers but you keep telling people to stop reading your mind. QI is essentially describing limits, but in the end the courts have the final say. Those limits make it safer and easier for the state’s use of force. A major reason behind them is to prevent suit so one of the ways to reduce QI is to change the way the court system functions. The other reason is to protect society by making it clear to the enforcers what those limits are. This is not a perfect world.
We are not dealing with something that is a universal principle – no matter how much JG claims it is.
The courts created QI, They have defined it. That is the meaning I am using.
JG is quite litterally making the same error that the harvard prof claiming 2 + 2 = 5 is.
He is absolutely and compellingly defending (most of the time) 2 + 2 = 4 while SAYING 2 + 2 = 5.
QI is 5, 2 + 2 is 4. We can not punish people (whether in government or not) for justified uses of force.
That is NOT QI,
If we wee to call it any form of immunity – it would be absolute immunity.
JG is arguing about a universal principle. But he is mislabeling it.
That would be like my arguing with you about force, but calling it bilogrogy.
Both of you are making the same error in several arguments of trying to reason from words to reality.
The implication is fundamentally one way.
“The courts created QI, They have defined it. That is the meaning I am using.”
If the courts defined QI then let us hear their definition. A judicial decision is not really a definition that can be managed by most people. When you provide their definition you can demonstrate the differences between their’s and Galt’s. None of us commenters are presuming we will be offered a position on the Supreme Court though with a Biden administration if we get the right diversity who cares about the law.
“If the courts defined QI then let us hear their definition. ”
Google is your friend.
“A judicial decision is not really a definition that can be managed by most people. When you provide their definition you can demonstrate the differences between their’s and Galt’s. None of us commenters are presuming we will be offered a position on the Supreme Court though with a Biden administration if we get the right diversity who cares about the law.”
Any debate on eliminating QI with respect to police or government necescarily rests on the courts defintion of QI,
Aside from the fact that what JG is describing is not Qualified, it is absolute.
It is also not what the courts meant when they concocted QI, and not what anyone is talking about when they wish to eliminate it.
2 + 2 != 5.
Whatever you think about Judicial defintions, eliminating QI means eliminating what the courts call QI.
“All of these are things backed up by force of government, but ask two different people the permissible extent of any of these terms and one will get different answers.”
Possibly. But ask 100 people and draw a ven diagram of their answers and find that region that i in common for about 89% of people and you will have a good approximation of what constitutes justifiable uses of force.”
That area of overlap might be small, but it does exist and it covers the actually justified uses of force.
Venture outside that region and you are entering dubiously justifiable uses of force.
“In fact different police departments might have different answers.”
So what ?
You consistently presume that where there are two or more opinions that all are equally valid.
They aren’t – that is reality.
Do I need to remind you the argument that all ideas are equal is fundimentally leftist – in fact is is straight out of postmodernism.
To be clear leftism need not be logically consistent – so all ideas can simulateously be equally valid, while some ideas can be rejected for the hell of it. If that sounds like something out of animal farm or 1984 that is because the modern left is channelling the same core ideas that make animal farm and 1984 dysopias.
“You certainly have your answers but you keep telling people to stop reading your mind.”
Does that argument make sense to you ?
“QI is essentially describing limits,”
Back to “2 + 2 = 5”
“but in the end the courts have the final say.”
Nope. Courts are important. But all government institutions share the same vulnerability – when the disjunction between their edicts and the rights of the people becomes to large they lose the consent of the governed, and government becomes powerless.
That is quite litterally what our institutions are doing to themselves right now.
Trust in the media, trust in government, trust in courts, is at all time lows.
That is extremely dangerous. When institutions are sufficiently at odds with those they serve – that is the times when revolutions, violence, even dictators arrise. Sometimes – such as the american revolution – the results are actually positive. But far more often such as the french revolution, or the Wiemar republic the results are bad.
“This is not a perfect world.”
Correct, and irrelevant.
QI has nothing to do with justified use of force. It is entirely about the unjustified use of force.
Even the courts define it that way.
Back to the discussion since you are stating my beliefs inaccurately it’s too difficult to correct your opinion. I’ll skip all that philosophy that may or may not exist along with the ever widening and confusing debate suggesting the following.
John Galt gave his definition of QI. We can put that definition and yours on the same page and discuss it from there.
“John Galt gave his definition of QI.”
Not my opinion, it is the definition straight from Cambridge Law with citation. You’ve quibbled your opinion ad nauseum, they provided theirs, I’ve accepted theirs as more authoritative so please stop trying to drag me back into this utterly pointless squabbling. I’ve got better things to do than quibble about the meanings of a misunderstood word.
J.Galt, your email is directed to me so I am not sure if it is to me or to John S. If it is to me I am not dragging you in though I don’t think it is directed to me. I liked the definition you provided which originally was from Cornell https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity. The address is copied from your response to John. I gave Merriam Webster’s definition but liked yours best. I wanted John to provide his own to see if it adds anything to the authoritative definitions.
JG did not copy the Cornell defintion – he copied quote that is essentially a justification of QI.
That quote is a poor argument. There is no balancing of interests.
There is no instance in which we should not hold public officials accountable for abusing the civil rights of citizens.
Nor is QI necescary to accomplish what JG’s quite says the goal is.
Neither you nor he seem to know what QI actually is.
Nor how it works. Nor anything about its history.
QI was created to block Section 1983 – which was a reconstruction era stature to hold government actions by KKK members accountable essentially as Tort claims.
There is absolutely no sane reason that government officials should not be subject to tort claims for their actions when their actions are not lawful.
If their actions are lawful – they have ABSOLUTE immunity.
Both you and JG are pretending that QI is something that it is not.
John S, the Merriam Webster definition is:
“law : immunity from civil liability that is conditioned or limited (as by a requirement of good faith or due care)
especially : immunity from lawsuits that is granted to public officials (such as police officers) for acts that violate someone’s civil rights if it can be shown that the acts do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would be aware”
Unless you can find a more acceptable definition for the term that is the one that must stand. J. Galt provided a more in-depth understanding.
You can continue to throw pot shots at the definitions provided by others, but I haven’t seen a definition provided by you. Merriam Webster stands. Debating the merits is another issue. If one is using the Merriam Webster definition you cannot say they are wrong without a better definition.
AGAIN. I am specifically refering to what the COURTS call QI.
What is QI in every single court case where someone sews the government for violating their rights.
I do not give a crap what JG or Websters says.
Neither JG nor Websters decides these cases.
I absolutely beleive the courts are wrong – and I have strongly argued WHY that is so.
But what the courts call QI is defined by the courts.
“But what the courts call QI is defined by the courts.”
Right. How does Websters conflict with what the court says?
I do not care whether they are similar or different.
AGAIN, what matters is the courts.
However I noted that Websters is Flawed as it inverts the burden of proof.
That is not as large an issue as the way QI is applied in practice with the courts,
But it is a huge problem.
The use of force is presumed illegitimate except where it is justified or where it is lawful.
Whether you are the police or an individual.
If you are being accused of violating a persons rights, you have an affirmative defense that your violation is lawful or justified that in the vast majority of instances should result in a rapid outright dismissal.
It is immoral to require those whose rights have been violated by force that that specific use of force was unreasonable or that the actually have the right they claim was violated – that standard is also at odds with the constitution, specifically the 9th amendment.
Both you and JG should look at the actual history of QI cases.
There are pretty much NONE were government agents were protected by QI that their use of force was reasonable, lawful, or justified.
“However I noted that Websters is Flawed as it inverts the burden of proof.”
I can see disputes coming before the court but I don’t think Websters definition is bad working definition. We have to recognize that you haven’t provided your own in the form of a definition instead of court decisions. There is wiggle room on both sides. It’s definition includes: “if it can be shown that the acts do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would be aware.”
“I can see disputes coming before the court but I don’t think Websters definition is bad working definition”
Of course it is. It SOUNDS reasonable – but it inverts the burden of proof.
As I have said repeatedly ALL USES OF FORCE are presumptively illegitimate – that is actually a requirement for the rule of law.
A legitimate use of force is one that is justified. We can debate what that means in moral terms, but ultimately with respect to prosecution and government it means one that is lawful. The law specifically permits the use of force for specific reasons only.
There is no independent reasonable person standard – the presumption is that the law reflects what a reasonable person deems as justified use of force.
“We have to recognize that you haven’t provided your own in the form of a definition instead of court decisions.”
Why am I obligated to provide a defintion – I want QI gone completely. Law enforcement is entitled to immunity for justified uses of force PERIOD – that is absolute, not qualified immunity.
WE can debate whether absolute immunity applies to a government agents actions – i.e. was the offficer acting within the law, or did the officers actions exceed those that are lawful. There is often debate there and we typically give government agents the benefit of all doubts. But that is not QI. That is absolute immunity – if the officer is acting within the law their actions are covered by absolute immunity.
If we are not sure – they are covered by absolute immuntiy.
But if there actions are outside the law – there is no immunity for them of any kind.
There is no wiggle room.
“If it can be shown that the acts do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would be aware.”
There are so many weasel words in there it should be trivial to grasp this is a bad defintion.
Why a reasonable person standard – if a police officers actions are outside the law – that should be the end of it.
The 9th amendment pretty much states that constitutional rights do NOT have to be clearly established.
Government powers must be clearly established.
The same is true of the law – the use of force is not justified EXCEPT when it is clearly lawless. It is justified ONLY when it is clearly lawful.
We should never be looking to err on the side of MORE use of force.
The entire purpose of government is to reduce the use of force not expand it.
“There is no independent reasonable person standard – the presumption is that the law reflects what a reasonable person deems as justified use of force.”
OK, to date you have not provided your definition of QI. At present you are opting for people to interpret QI in different manners where the courts are the final arbitrators.
We now have a new definition because you are complaining of an inversion of the law. You seem not to like the reasonable person standard.
Provide your alternate method of determining reasonable force without leaving it in the mind of the beholder, you.
“Why am I obligated to provide a defintion – I want QI gone completely.”
That definition tells us what you want gone. You are unable to attach ideas revolving around force with simple words and concepts understandable to most. You have them in your head but that is not a reasonable standard because it is in your head and not necessarily in the head of anyone else. That is one of the reasons for the use of the words reasonable person standard.
You are running around the issue and not facing it directly.
“Why a reasonable person standard – if a police officers actions are outside the law – that should be the end of it.”
Because no one rule covers all circumstances.
“The same is true of the law – the use of force is not justified EXCEPT when it is clearly lawless. It is justified ONLY when it is clearly lawful.“
Unfortunately, what is lawful involves the reasonable person standard unless you have a different standard that can be put into words and understood by most people.
S. Meyer.
Let go of this fixation on defintions – it is NOT an argument.
QI was created by the courts, it was defined by the courts, it is applied by the courts – and it is applied more broadly than the courts unconstitutional definition.
I am not arguing about the defintion of QI – There is no such legitimate thing. The courts action in creating QI violated the constitution – specifically the 9th amendment, and with certainty other provisions. It also violated the social contract – the Purpose of Government uses of Force is to protect – as the declaration says “secure” our rights – not to infringe on them.
The lawful actions of a government agent are ALWAYS protected – you can call that absolute immunity or any other name you want.
The government agent like anyone else is entitled to the benefit of the doubt if we are in your “grey” or “Fuzy” areas – those are long existing standards. A government agent will and should with near certainty get more of the benefit of the doubt than an ordinary person.
Again all of this has nothing to do with QI. And all of this is ALL the protections a government agent needs.
When a government agent acts outside their lawful powers – they are completely responsible for violating the rights of others.
One of the problems with your “websters” defintion is that it presumes that rights are limited and government powers are not – pretty much the opposite of legitimate government. You confuse a the use of the word “reasonable” – with actually reasonable.
Rights are presumed and near infinite. Government powers are defined by the law and limited by the constitution.
They are also limited by morality and by practicality.
In the above I have “defined” when government agents can be prosecuted or sued for violating others rights – when their use of force is lawful. PERIOD.
If is possible that a lawful use of force is also an immoral or improper one – but that is outside the scope of the responsibility of the government agent.
Presuming a proper legitimate government that follows the constitution, we can change bad laws. We can change them either through public demand, or by finding them unconstitutional – when they actually are.
Above the only times I have used QI was to disparage it. The Term QI – defined anyway you like, is completely unnecescary to determine when government agents can be prosecuted or sued.
I would note that QI does not actually apply to criminal prosecutions. So QI creates an arrangement that should never exist in law, but unfortunately does all too often today – where it is easier to criminally prosecute a government actor, than to hold them accountable in any lessor way.
I do not care how QI is defined – it is not necesscary.
Regardless, to the extent the defintion of QI matters the only relevant defintion is that which corresponds to reality – which is how the Courts define QI – not in words – though that defintion is immoral, but in actions – AS APPLIED.
As I keep telling you over and over and you miss – words and their defintions exist to accurately describe reality. That is a ONE WAY mapping.
The purpose of definitions is to help us more accurately communicate reality. Not to change it.
This is the error the Harvard prof makes with the assertion that “2 + 2 = 5” is valid.
It is – but only if you change the definition of 5 to match reality. And changing the meaning of fundimental symbols has far reaching consequences.
“Let go of this fixation on defintions – it is NOT an argument.”
John. definitions are not arguments. They are a means of communication.
“I am not arguing about the defintion of QI”
Then the argument is moot.
“John. definitions are not arguments. They are a means of communication.”
No they are not – what you are doing is actually destroying communications.
QI is “defined” by the real world application by the court – not websters – not even court defintions..
That is the ONLY actual meaning of QI.
And it is both unconstitutional, immoral and wrong.
““I am not arguing about the defintion of QI”
Then the argument is moot.”
Nope – QI exists in the real world as a consequence of court decisions.
It is a specific real thing. It is precisely what it is – regardless of how you JG or websters define it.
It is very much NOT moot.
JG’s QI is a moot argument – as it is a debate about something that is either not real – does not actually exist, or something that is not QI.
JG is essentially calling Absolute Immunity Qualified Immunity.
Debating Websters defintion is also moot – because what matters is not Websters definition but actual QI as applied by the courts.
YOU keep trying to make this a debate about defintions.
Which you have done before.
As noted repeatedly – we go from reality to definitions – not the other way arround.
QI has a reality that is not congruent with Websters defintion – though sharing some of the same flaws.
We know – or can know what QI is in reality by following the QI decisions of the courts.
We can not know much about QI by reading websters.
The failure to communicate is yours.
>>“John. definitions are not arguments. They are a means of communication.”
>No they are not – what you are doing is actually destroying communications.”
If people do not agree on what the definition of a word is, there is no end to the discussion. That is why this discussion has gone on for so long. You make a statement where the definitions are in your head. I use Merriam Webster and you disagree. I ask you for your definition and you refuse to provide one because to you it is obvious. It isn’t obvious because many people disagree with your definition and agree with Merriam Webster. On and on we go and each time you try to promote your philosophy which apparently has to be accepted in order for the person’s definition to agree with yours. If that happens we have two John Says that differ from others but neither is willing to provide the definition.
At other times you say “I am not arguing about the definition of QI”. That makes the argument moot. You respond in the same fashion again promoting your philosophy which will lead everyone in agreement so there is no need for definitions to exist.That doesn’t happen so we go onto the next argument.
Another approach of yours is the definition of QI doesn’t matter because what counts is the opinion of the courts. Of course you then say the courts are wrong but we still don’t have a definition.
Finally after refusing to provide your opinion what QI is you blame the failure to communicate on the other person. I don’t think so and I don’t think anyone else thinks so either.
“If people do not agree on what the definition of a word is, there is no end to the discussion.”
I guess people talked endlessly before the 1600’s ?
“I guess people talked endlessly before the 1600’s ?”
There is only a need for definitions when there is disagreement that cannot be worked out whether it be with the word or what the other person is saying. Most people agree with the basic definition provided by Merriam Webster. You don’t.
There were no disagreements that could not be worked prior to the 1600’s ?
Defintions are a tool – and important one.
“Most people agree with the basic definition provided by Merriam Webster.”
If most people agreed the sun would not rise tomorow that would not change the fact it will.
Regardless – this is not about agreeing or disagreeing with defitions. \
It is not about what should or should not be.
Though I would note that the fact that you can not grasp that the websters defintions inversion of the burden of proof may sound appealing but it is quite radical.
What ulitmately matters is the courts.
If you want to know what QI means look at the court cases – not what is said, but the outcomes.
You can judge a tree by its fruit.
That is reality.
That is what matters.
“Defintions are a tool – and important one.”
That is it. Leave it there.
“That is why this discussion has gone on for so long. You make a statement where the definitions are in your head.”
Nope QI was created by the courts – they own it. It is party what they say it is, but mostly what they make it.
Reality – in the form of the courts defines QI.
You keep trying to duck this.
“Nope QI was created by the courts – they own it. It is party what they say it is, but mostly what they make it.”
But you disagree with the courts and common definitions.
You have a definition you expect all others to agree to but you are unwilling to present it.
I have not said that the courts definition of QI is incorrect – I have said that it is WRONG – that it is Bad, evil. immoral.
The courts have repeatedly allowed those who have egregiously, knowingly or recklessly violated the rights of others to do so without consequence.
That is wrong, it is bad, it is evil, it is immoral.
All of that is true regardless of how you define QI
“All of that is true regardless of how you define QI”
That is good as well though people may differ as to how they view what the courts have decided
“I use Merriam Webster and you disagree.”
No, I do not care. Websters defintion is flawed – and I have explained why.
Regardless it is at best similar to QI in reality, not congruent.
“I ask you for your definition and you refuse to provide one”
Yes, QI is not what I say it is, it is what the Courts make of it.
“because to you it is obvious.”
Yes, reality trumps definitions.
“Yes, reality trumps definitions.”
People perceive reality differently so before a conclusion is reached by both there needs to be a meeting of the minds.
Nope, reality does not care if we agree.
Nor does reality change if we agree but are wrong.
Again there is no disagreement.
No we do not have a new definition – there is only one relevant “defintion” of QI – that is as applied by the courts.
That is called REALITY.
BTW I have not ever used the phrase “reasonable force”. I have used either lawful or justified force.
Fromm the context of a government agent – those are one and the same. We do not hold government actors accountable for lawful uses of force that are unjustified. We hold government accountable for unjustified laws.
There is no “mind of the beholder” in lawful use of force. That is about as objective as is possible.
” there is only one relevant “defintion” of QI – that is as applied by the courts.”
Then turn that into a definition.
I do not need to. Failing to understand the courts application of QI is your problem – not mine.
Further framing the application of the courts into a definition does not alter the fact that QI is still what the courts say it is – not my attempt to convert the courts application into words.
You still do not grasp – it is reality that is important.
Definitions exist solely to improve communications.
After all the comments and the philosophy you state:
“Definitions exist solely to improve communications.”
That is basically what I have said in most of my responses.
And yet you continue to try to work from definitions to reality.
QI is what the courts make it. Not what websters says it is. not what JG says it is.
Websters defintion has problems. But debating it is pointless. As it is does not accurately define the reality of QI as created by the courts.
JG appears to be redefining QI as absolute Imuntity – by doing so he is confusing both himself and others.
I do not think anyone has a problem with law enfrcement being protected when they act withing the law. Nor does anyone have a problem with giving law enforcement the benefit of the doubt when that is not certain.
But that is not the reality of the Courts QI.
It is only the reality of QI as imposed by the courts that matters.
Nor am I going to make the mistake JG has and pretend that I can define QI and solve the problem.
It is not what I say QI is or should be that matters. It is reality that matters.
“QI is what the courts make it. Not what websters says it is. not what JG says it is.”
Definitions are not fixed. They are a starting point. There is no starting point when you don’t provide your definition and say that all the other definitions are wrong.
You are free to come up with a defintion of QI that matches what the courts actually do.
I doubt you can.
I am not engaging in that – because it accomplishes nothing.
The courts do not care about our agreement.
“You are free to come up with a defintion of QI that matches what the courts actually do. I doubt you can.”
I don’t think I could because the decisions are long and involved along with ever changing, but for a quick look I’ll look at Merriam Webster or another source.
The differences will have to be worked out by individuals but at least they will have an idea of what QI is.
Please re-read your own argument.
Your websters definition as well as that of the court EXPLICITLY is a “mind of the beholder” – or “reasonable person” standard.
My standard is simple – lawful. Was the government agents actions inside or outside the law ? If they were outside, then they have abused their authority and are responsible.
“Your websters definition as well as that of the court EXPLICITLY is a “mind of the beholder” – or “reasonable person” standard.
My standard is simple – lawful. “
Lawful is a start, but even there the mind of the beholder and reasonable person standard exist.
Nope. We apply the law as written. To the extent there is ambiguity it always favors the accused – which is usually not the government – though in the case of police officers it is.
That is a reasonable statement but doesn’t permit a conclusion to the basic question.
Actually it does answer the “basic question”.
What I described is the standard proccess without QI.
It is the same process we use for everyone forced to justify their actions in court.
It is all that is necessary.
There is no “basic question” regarding QI – because QI is a tangent, ancilliary, however you define it – if it changes that norm for justifying force – it is wrong.
“There is no “basic question” regarding QI ”
Then don’t use the words.
Which words ?
The courts chose the words QI.
The courts determined what QI is by their actions.
They are wrong.
“The courts chose the words QI.”
I didn’t know the courts coined the phrase, qualified immunity. Are you sure?
If so do you have a copy of the paragraph where it was first used?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Ray
” first introduced the justification for qualified immunity for police officers ”
That is different from actually coining the phrase. That is where the court set perimeters to the use of qualified immunity and that is where people might differ.
Read the case.
“Read the case.”
John, the point is on the level of pettiness but my question was to understand a time frame. Your own citation indicates that the question of QI was brought before the courts. Therefore the SC didn’t coin the term QI. We do not disagree that the courts set parameters.
I do not know what your point is.
I do not know precisely which court first used the term QI.
I strongly suspect a legal debate regarding QI preceded action by any court.
Regardless ultimately some lower court converted QI from legal debate into a real thing.
And ultimate SCOTUS affirmed it.
Further, regardless of who called it “QI”, they courts in particular SCOTUS defined it – party by littlerlly defining it, more impoartly by deciding cases.
QI is whatever the courts make of it.
And what they make of it is WRONG.
It is only weakly tied to websters bad defintion and not at all to JG’s
John, if I remember correctly you had said the phrase QI came from the courts. That didn’t seem likely to me but with your present response “I strongly suspect a legal debate regarding QI preceded action by any court.” I think the question has been answered.
“Because no one rule covers all circumstances.”
Wrong. In fact VERY wrong. Every single rule or law in existance completely covers all circumstances within its domain.
That is how law works. You are not entitled to one free murder.
Law can be wrong – but if it is unclear it is unconstitutional.
>>“Because no one rule covers all circumstances.”
>Wrong.”
Ok, I’ll revise it. Because no one rule adequately covers all circumstances.
“In fact VERY wrong. Every single rule or law in existance completely covers all circumstances within its domain.”
I added the word adequately to qualify my statement. You added a different qualifier ” within its domain.” they are both fudge factors because almost everything is fuzzy around the edges.
You are correct – there is no single rule to cover absolutely everything.
But there are specific single rules to cover specific circumstances.
A domain is not a fudge factor – rape is not murder, The law regarding rape applies to rape. The law regarding murder applies to murder.
Sometimes multiple crimes are committed and multiple laws are implicated – but each is evaluated independently.
This is not especially grey or a fudge factor.
Did you go to a fertility clinic because it seems that every set of postings seem to lead to many more responses.
Because every one of your replies as multiple issues.
Do you want one long response with many many points, or many short ones ?
Regardless I am only responding to some of your posts.
This discussion is interesting, but it is not the most important one we face now.
“Because every one of your replies as multiple issues.”
You have a tendency to inject your political philosophy all over the response which increases the number of points there are. I have no complaint with that. You are free to expand or contract the discussion at will.
“You have a tendency to inject your political philosophy all over the response which increases the number of points there are.”
Possibly. I would note that if you claimed murder is good – I would respond with numerous practical and philosophical arguments.
“I have no complaint with that.”
But you did complain.
>>”I have no complaint with that.”
>But you did complain.”
Did I complain? I don’t think so. That was in response to your statement
“Because every one of your replies as multiple issues.”
Was that a complaint as well? 🙂
Almost everything is fuzzy at the edges.
To the extent humanly possible we are required to reduce or eliminate as much of that as possible when dealing with force.
If you are not sure a use of force is justified – you must assume it isn’t.
“I have trued repeatedly to get through to you that reality is ALWAYS what matters – not defintions.”
What is proven is that you can’t define the reality you believe exists. Instead you are using circular reasoning and always coming back to the same point, which is in your head, but you cannot put in words.
A definition is a starting point and in our society we use courts to determine the final answer which isn’t always so final.
All forms of OCD are a broken logic loop…
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
Whetehr I can define reality is irrelevant.
A is A.
Reality is.
My reasoning is not circular – though I have made several independent arguments – all of which are correct, but only one of which needs to be.
Reality is the starting point PERIOD. The purpose of definitions is to enable us to communicate about a shared reality.
It is not to alter reality. Reality drives definitions not the other way arround.
Once again you are arguing straight into 1984, animal farm and just about every dystopia that ever was.
The most effective tool to power is to pervert communications such that people have difficultly perceiving reality.
“Whetehr I can define reality is irrelevant.”
It is not whether. …You can’t.
“Reality is the starting point PERIOD. The purpose of definitions is to enable us to communicate about a shared reality.”
You are starting to get the point.
“Once again you are arguing straight into 1984, animal farm and just about every dystopia that ever was.”
Requesting definitions doesn’t make dystopia more likely rather it spreads light over dystopian ideas.
“The most effective tool to power is to pervert communications such that people have difficultly perceiving reality.”
That is why definitions that ensure proper communication are so valuable.
“You are starting to get the point.”
But you are not. Much of your arguments are not wrong. They are just not applicable or relevant.
There is no need for your entire debate and fixation on defintions – when we are dealing with something – QI that is “defined” by its real world invocation by the courts.
The decisions of the courts are the reality of QI. It is desireable to express that clearly in words.
But that is a convenience not a requirement. QI is what the courts do in practice.
>>“You are starting to get the point.”
>But you are not.
One cannot come to an agreement without agreeing on what the terms being used mean.
“One cannot come to an agreement without agreeing on what the terms being used mean.”
False
While that is the preference, and certainly makes things easier – it is not absolute.
Quite often agreement can be as simple is to not act where there is insufficient common understanding.
In fact that is the default.
And it is precisely what is wrong with respect to this past election.
Who would care whether democrats or republicans controlled congress if we all accepted that there is sufficient disagreement that government power can not be expanded ?
“”One cannot come to an agreement without agreeing on what the terms being used mean.”
“False While that is the preference, and certainly makes things easier – it is not absolute.””
You are wrong about it being false. The only way it becomes possible to get to an agreement iis by using different words.
You keep demanding a defintion for things that are established in reality.
You behave as if defining them will change them.
You ask me for a defintion of QI – I concoct one – it is good but does not perfectly match QI as applied.
That error is mine, and is purely definitional. It changes nothing about the legitimacy of QI.
You can manipulate the defintions of QI to your hearts content, or challenge mine.
That does not change the fact that whetehr we can properly define QI – it exists – and it is what the courts apply.
Any fuzzyness to that is just inconsistency on the part of the court.
There is still only one reality.
“You keep demanding a defintion for things that are established in reality.”
Humans perceive reality differently so their definitions of what a reality is may be starkly different. One does the best they can with definitions until they have a meeting of the mind.
Reality does not care about our differences in perception.
I would further note that if we do not perceive reality the same – defintions will not correct that.
If we do not fundimentally share the same perception of reality – we can not share the same understanding of the meaning of words.
AS I keep saying – reality must ALWAYS come first.
“Reality does not care about our differences in perception.”
But, you apparently do.
“I would further note that if we do not perceive reality the same – defintions will not correct that.”
They may not but agreeable definitions bring them closer.
When you demand a definition you change the debate from an argument about reality to one about words.
We both know or can know QI in reality.
“J.Galt, your email is directed to me so I am not sure if it is to me or to John S. If it is to me …”
Whups, you QUOTED him. Disregard. I’m done with this nonsensical topic, let him quibble to himself.
JG – what you provided was NOT a defitnion.
Regardless, as I have noted over and over.
QI is a creation of the court – without any constitutional, or statutory basis. The only defintion of QI that has any meaning is that of the court. Not yours (which appears to be Absolute immunity, not qualified immunity). not mine.
And the deep error in the courts is that it inverts all moral foundations regarding the use of force by government.
The use of force is presumed unjustified. It is only reasonable when it is justified. We can debate what constituties justified,
But there is no argument that if you use force against your neighbor YOU must justifiy that use of force – your Neighbor is NOT burdened with disproving the presumptive legitimacy of your use of force.
The courts defintion of QI presumes that all use of force by government is justified until it is proven by the victim to be unjustified.
The courts defintion presumes that the violation of individual rights by government is presumptively justified. That it is the person who’s rights were violated’s burden to prove the use of force was unjustified.
Police are ALWAYS going to get the benefit of the doubt by juries not overrun by Antifa members. There is no need for any further protection.
Further the courts can ALWAYS unilaterally toss any claim where the use of force was lawful or justified.
That is absolute immunity not QI
There is NEVER a case where QI matters that the use of force was lawful or justified.
JG’s defintion of QI is irrelevant.
QI was concocted by the courts. It is not in the constitution, it is not even in legislation. The only definition that matters is that applied by the courts – not My definition, not yours, not JG’s.
If a police officer is violates a persons rights, the determination as to whether that violation can have civil consequences is made by the courts – not Me, Not JG, Not You. And it is made on the basis of THEIR definition – not yours, not mine, not JG’s.
I have no problem with protecting government agents from liability for the constitutional and lawful uses of force that they might engage in daily. That is not QI as the Courts have definied it – that is Absolute Immunity.
“The only definition that matters is that applied by the courts – not My definition, not yours, not JG’s.”
In the end where litigation may take place the courts do decide what the law will be in that case. However, the definition in lay terms is written in Merriam Webster or other suitable dictionaries. If it is a legal definition Black’s law or another similar dictionary might fit the need.
I provided the Merriam Webster definition and for better understanding Galt provided a citation from Cornell law. You provided no definition that could be taken from your mind and put on paper.
To use your guess as to what a court decided or might decide 10 or 50 years down the road as definition for normal discussion is fanciful.
In this instance the defintion of QI is the one the courts used when they created it.
No court goes to websters to define a term that SCOTUS has already defined.
Unless and until the court comes to the blog, I will use Websters. If you wish to provide an alternate proprietary meaning in discussion tn order to explain us why you believe something, that is fine. Just make sure it is consistent. We may differ as to definitions but at least we will know what you are talking about.
You can read court decisions.
They Trump websters on law.
John, we all recognize the courts make the final decision unless the laws are changed.
You are the one fixated on defintions.
I will be happy to have a debate on what the courts SHOULD do – and in fact I have.
But I have also stick to what the courts actually do in terms of the meaningful “defintion”.
As I have said reality drives the defintion of words – not the other way arround.
QI was litterally created by and therefore defined by the courts. The way the Courts use QI that is reality – and in reality they do not actually follow their own definition.
“You are the one fixated on defintions.”
In discussion it’s helpful to be in agreement on the definitions.
Again the REALITY is that QI was created by the courts and is defined by the courts – both in an actual definition and in the way that it is applied.
The only defintion of QI that matters is that reflected int he DECISIONS of the courts.
Not Webster’s Not JG;s, your or mine.
Reality is the final authority, and with QI reality is the actions of the courts.
I have trued repeatedly to get through to you that reality is ALWAYS what matters – not defintions.
And you keep coming back to defintions.
I can critique the errors in Websters Definition – but that critique is meaningless.
I can critique JG’s defintion – but that critique too is meaningless.
What matters is what drives the courts actions. And that is not websters or JG. Frankly it is not even their own erroneous definition.
In application the courts pretty much never find an egregious act of government is not covered by QI,
According to current judicial standards a specific act with perfectly matching fact patterns must have been determined by the courts to be a heinous violation of rights in the same federal court district in the past to not be covered By QI.
Basically to prevail against a QI claim someone else must have brought the identical claim in the same federal district courts previously and prevailed on the merits but had the Claimed dismissed on QI grounds.
Fact patterns almost never match sufficiently well, and as noted the burden of proof is completely reversed.
In practice QI has reprehensible results.
If you are raped by a teacher in school – you have no civil claim against either the teacher or the school – unless someone else who was raped by a teacher in your federal district has brought a claim and lost SOLELY on QI grounds.
You would think that a “reasonable person” would know that rape is NOT an acceptable violation of someones rights that government agents are immune from responsibility for ?
I am seeing in my own community that for a variety of reasons – including QI and egregious public employee union contracts that it is easier to convict government agents of a crime than to get civil damages or terminate their employement for cause.
I am not using a guess. refarding the court.
The oppinions are readily available and SCOTUS defines QI in those oppinions.
Please read the court decsions defining QI – that is the only defintion that matters in this instance.
John, we are discussing a definition not an explanation of why such a decision was made.
And SCOTUS defined QI.
BTW they had to. They created it.
They provided a two part test.
Good. Produce their definition of that phrase. If the SC defined it then there is no problem with QI in police departments. They can be taken to court based on that definition. Of course that creates the argument of compliance where you can take one side and the department the other.
You are capable of looking up a SCOTUS decision aren’t you ?
Yes, if I have a need to.
“As long as there is “government, then there is QI else a soldier shooting the enemy would be always guilty of murder. Government IS QI – all that remains is to fine tune the degree allowed.”
You keep repeating this false claim. Your statement is a fundimental misunderstanding of what QI is.
The justified use of force – whether by government or others is subject to ABSOLUTE immunity.
QI only applies to unjustified uses of force.
Your examples are generally examples of Absolute immunity.
Though I would note that even soldiers in war do not have qualified immunity.
If you shoot an enemy that is unarmed and surrendering – that is murder.
To be legitimate the use of force must ALWAYS be justified.
“We debated this question for quite awhile.”
Again I do not recall debating QI with you.
“You were wrong then like you are wrong now. ”
Because you say so ?
As of yet I have not heard a single decent argument for QI from anyone.
Galt claims “we need it” – without any support.
If the police are acting inside the law – QI is irrelevant.
If they are not violating peoples rights – QI is irrelevant.
QI only applies when the police have knowingly or recklessly violated a persons rights.
That is precisely the circumstance in which they should NOT be protected.
As Best as I can tell you and Galt think QI protects police under circumstances they do not need protection.
Just as anyone else the police need no protection for the lawful or justified uses of force.
“I personally don’t like QI”
It is irrelevant whether you like it or not.
This is not a popularity contest.
It has no support in the constitution and none in statutory law.
It is judge made law of the worst sort.
It has not existed for most of our history.
“but I would have to deal with it on a case by case basis”
Nope, we do not deal with rights violations on a “case by case basis”.
Either you improperly violated someones rights and you are subject to consequences or you did not.
QI only applies when it has already been determined that the conduct of a government agent is either a reckless or knowing violation of someones rights.
Both you and Galt seem to be completely ignorant of how QI works in the real world.
“while at the same time seeing if certain changes to the legal system could alleviate the need.”
You have it completely backwards – eliminate QI and the other problems will take care of themselves.
Fundimentally QI is not a protection for police officers, it is a protection for government itself.
QI has nothing to do with criminal complaints against the police. It only applies to civil complaints.
QI is raised when a person claims that their rights have been violated by an agent of government and they are entitled to compensation.
In a CIVIL lawsuit against the officer and the municipality. Without QI any damages will come from the municipality.
The effect of QI is to disincentivize municipalities from preventing civil rights abuses.
The entire concept is stupid. We expect ordinary people to respect the rights of others because if they do not they will be subject to criminal and civil penalites.
Why would we be so stupid as to protect governments from the civil consequences of their own misconduct ?
Eliminate QI and municiplaities will have to “police” their own. They will be incentivized to fire or reign in those who abuse the rights of citizens.
QI is one of many stupidities. By failing to subject those in government to civil penatlies we find more and more instances where people demand that criminal penalites be applied.
This is not strictly QI – but in my state (and most states) it is nearly impossible to fire a teacher (or a police officer) – even for cause we have had innumerable instances of misconduct by teachers that should have resulted in their firing.
Ultimately these escalate and become criminal matters. Teachers end up being charged with sexual assault for conduct that is wrong but not criminal, because they can not be fired.
QI acts exactly the same way within policing – and in fact often applies to teachers.
It protects governments and those in government from civil consequences for misconduct, and results in more criminal conduct and more criminal charges.
Nearly every single police shooting incident that has resulted in protests and violence has NOT be an example of criminal conduct on the part of law enforcement. But many – most of them DID involve conduct by the officers that should have gotten them fired, and often should have resulted in civil damages.
QI Sometimes prevents that from happening.
I would further note that QI is not a shield. It does NOT say – the police can not be sued for X.
All QI effectively does is say that in any given federal circuit the government can get away with each individual specific type of civil rights violation ONCE without consequence.
It is a bit more complex than that as the courts have bent over backwards to find minor differences between instances such that QI ends up protecting government multiple times for nearly identical rights violations.
Regardless, neither you nor Galt seem to have a clue how QI actually works.
“As of yet I have not heard a single decent argument for QI from anyone.
Galt claims “we need it” – without any support.”
Government is force. Law itself is qualified immunity. If you can’t wrap your head around that, then you don’t understand what government fundamentally is.
“Government is force.”
Yes
“Law itself is qualified immunity.”
No.
“If you can’t wrap your head around that, then you don’t understand what government fundamentally is.”
This is not about what government is – we agree on that.
Law is NOT qualified immunity – you are just playing a stupid leftist word game.
There is a specific meaning to QI as used by the courts – and I have no interest in your bizarre personal defintion.
I am not interested in a leftist argument that “2 + 2 = 5”.
As used by the Courts, QI inverts the constitution – and specifically the 9th amendment.
QI requires proving that some freedom is a broadly recognized right before those in government can be held accountable for unjustifiably violating it.
The 9th amendment says that everything not given to government is a right of the people that can not unjustifiably be infringed.
Regardless, Both I an the courts, and the police and nearly everyone else means something radically different than you do when speaking of QI.
I am not enemy of the police. I fully support the justifiable use of force to do their jobs. I even support the use for force to enforce bad and unconstitutional laws – it is not the job of the police to enquire into the constitutionality of the laws they are enforcing.
That said any unjustified use of force by government is not protected. PERIOD.
All force – used by government or individuals requires justification or it is illegitimate and probably criminal.
One defintion of crime is the unjustified use of force.
The definition of qualified immunity: “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity
That inherent in the very nature of government – it must be, or it cannot operate. Calling me names in pique won’t change the fact. You can have the last word, I’ve already won.
The cite you provided is NOT a definition.
Worse still it is pablum. QI almost never results in holding government accountable.
Finally, the “balance” that Cornell posits exists in ALL efforts to hold people accountable.
We want to punish criminals but not harrass the innocent – yet there is no QI for grime.
We want to hold people accountable for the actual harms they cause, but not harrass ordinary people – yet there is no QI for torts.
The Cornell cite is not a defintion and it is WRONG.
We manage criminal prosecutions, contract claims and torts claims all of which have balancing of interests, and all without QI.
The balance that Cornell’s QI purports can be acheived in the same way as it is with the rest of the law. By dismissing cases without merit.
In the real world using the courts defintion of QI it ONLY applies when a case actually has merrit – precisely when it should not.
“Calling me names in pique won’t change the fact.”
I compared your false argument to those made by the left.
That is an insult to your argument, not you.
It is also correct.
“This is not strictly QI – but in my state (and most states) it is nearly impossible to fire a teacher (or a police officer) – even for cause we have had innumerable instances of misconduct by teachers that should have resulted in their firing.”
I haven’t found a way to edit posts on this site. My previous reply, out of context, may have been read a couple of ways. Just to clarify, the fact that we have a different understanding of what constitutes QI does not mean that I disagree with any of the examples you have given of abuses of QI.
It comes down to principles. Since non-combat and other individuals within government cannot, in theory, ever have a justifiable reason for violating another’s rights, they should have no shield whatsoever. For those who may be expect to engage in acts which could CONCEIVABLY be construed as “violating someone’s rights,” there must be some heightened level of the benefit of the doubt else in practice they become ineffective, unduly vulnerable, and demoralized. This happened to soldiers in Vietnam given a crushing burden of Rules of Engagement which literally endangered their lives daily.
The law itself is QI, in as much it DOES specifically authorize acts by government agents which might ordinarily be considered rights violations. It is a system of carve outs. However, such laws themselves become a violation of our rights whenever they go beyond what is specifically necessary for a civil society. You are clearly of a more Libertarian bent than the average person, as am I. Our threshold of outrage at systems rigged to encourage abuses is far lower than most of those who, having never seen such abuses in practice, blithely trust government persons to act civilly. Anyone with a modest grasp of history ought to know better. In every generation, a certain percentage are obsessively obsessed with power and domination, the act of abusing that power being their sole life’s satisfaction.
“The law itself is QI,”
Nope
You are nearly alone in that definition.
It is not what the courts use.
If you are acting within the law you have absolute immunity – not qualified immunity.
Or atleast you are supposed to.
So long as you claiming that “Law is QI”
Further discussion is not possible.
That is no different from arguing that “2 + 2 = 5”
In some hypothetical world that could be true.
Not this one.
I have many problems with the definitions that courts often use.
But I have no problems with proving them wrong using their own defintions.
>>”“You were wrong then like you are wrong now. ”
>Because you say so ?”
Yes, because that is one argument you continuously use with those words or others.
“As of yet I have not heard a single decent argument for QI from anyone.”
John, you have been provided many arguments. You just haven’t listened.
“QI only applies when the police have knowingly or recklessly violated a persons rights.”
That is false.
“As Best as I can tell you and Galt think QI protects police under circumstances they do not need protection.”
“Just as anyone else the police need no protection for the lawful or justified uses of force. “
These are false as well.
>>”“I personally don’t like QI”
>It is irrelevant whether you like it or not.
This is not a popularity contest”
It is relevant because sometimes we don’t want to do what is necessary so we do things that one personally doesn’t like. I don’t think most soldiers like to kill people. As a soldier who might have to kill someone I would want people to know that I don’t like killing so they better understand the different situations that exist along with the fact that killing is sometimes my job.
“It is judge made law of the worst sort.”
In some cases, possibly, but judges are interpreting whether or not the actions lived up to the rules, laws, standard behavior or whatever.
“It has not existed for most of our history. “
For most of our history stop lights have not existed, but I think it has.
“Either you improperly violated someones rights and you are subject to consequences or you did not.”
What protection do the police or the individual policemen have if they behaved under the law as you perceive? Then we would be in front of a judge who you said “made law of the worst sort.” There is an adjudication process and in a way QI shortens the undetermined nature of the complaint (good or bad) so it doesn’t have to take 10 years to get to the Supreme Court for each different complaint.
“QI only applies when it has already been determined that the conduct of a government agent is either a reckless or knowing violation of someones rights.”
One cannot divine the future.
“Both you and Galt seem to be completely ignorant of how QI works in the real world.”
I am very aware of that and that is why I said I don’t like QI and also said that I would utilize other remedies where applicable to constrain QI. However, you said that what I liked wasn’t important.
“You have it completely backwards – eliminate QI and the other problems will take care of themselves.”
Prove it.
“Fundimentally QI is not a protection for police officers, it is a protection for government itself.”
Yes, it is that as well. J. Galt brought up some important points that I will copy verbatim.
“Everyone who uses force feels it was justified. The law defining the circumstances under which force is acceptable IS qualified immunity.”
“Of course we did. How could our soldiers kill people and not be guilty of murder? Government IS QI.”
“As long as there is “government, then there is QI else a soldier shooting the enemy would be always guilty of murder. Government IS QI – all that remains is to fine tune the degree allowed.”
I think those three points he made prove our point and you have done little to dispel the meaning and truthfulness of those points. I’ll stop there because I think the post has gotten too long and further length will make the discussion non-productive.
Repitition is not error.
“Repitition is not error.”
No, but does it move the discussion forward?
Repetition is sometimes necescary for some people to learn somethings.
Judges did not create stop lights out of thin air.
They did with QI
Judges did not create stop lights out of thin air.
They did with QI”
That is part of progress.
Are you accepting that QI is judge created ?
To be clear that is a rejection of JG’s argument which postualtes QI as intrinsic to government.
What JG keeps calling QI is most accurately described as Absolute immunity and it applies to any justified use of force.
““You have it completely backwards – eliminate QI and the other problems will take care of themselves.”
Prove it.”
Simple – QI eliminates the disincentive for government misconduct.
By the logic that QI is valid – all torts must be invalid. If police and government are not answerable for their own harmful misconduct – why is anyone else ?
If you elimated torts – would people be more reckless ?
If you think torts reduces recklessness, then QI must increase it.
If you are unwilling to get rid of torts then you must get rid of QI
“Simple – QI eliminates the disincentive for government misconduct.”
There are two sides to the balance scale.
“By the logic that QI is valid – all torts must be invalid. If police and government are not answerable for their own harmful misconduct – why is anyone else ?”
What is harmful and avoidable have to be defined.
The logic that follows in the narrative doesn’t logically follow.
““Simple – QI eliminates the disincentive for government misconduct.”
There are two sides to the balance scale.”
Everything is not a balance.
Nor is everything that needs to be balanced magically ballanced by adding whatever you are arguing for.
““By the logic that QI is valid – all torts must be invalid. If police and government are not answerable for their own harmful misconduct – why is anyone else ?”
What is harmful and avoidable have to be defined.”
The parameters of Tort law are all defined. You are free to look them up.
Regardless, review the question – changing the defintions of harmful and avoidable does not alter the question, or the answer.
“The logic that follows in the narrative doesn’t logically follow.”
Yes it does. Do I need to rephrase it as symbolic logic ?
If all elements of a set have a property – then some elements of the set also have that property.
“The parameters of Tort law are all defined. You are free to look them up.”
QI was defined by Galt using Cornell Law, by me using Merriam Webster. The only thing missing is your acceptable definition.
QI is what the courts say it is – because in the real world that is where government is held accountable or not.
Websters definition has exactly the same flaw as the courts – it “sounds” reasonable, but it is not. It inverts the standard and the burden of proof. Force must ALWAYS be justified. Grey areas must be non-existant or alteast incredibly narrow. Webster and the courts make them Huge and make the burden of proof rest with those who force is applied to rather than those who use force.
I do not care what people “feel” regarding force.
Feelings have no place in the use of force or government.
“I do not care what people “feel” regarding force. Feelings have no place in the use of force or government.”
The problem is that many people do whether they are right or wrong.
You can not justify force by feelings – doing so is a moral failure.
There is no amount of anger that justifies murder. No amount of fear, disgust ….
“You can not justify force by feelings – doing so is a moral failure.
There is no amount of anger that justifies murder. No amount of fear, disgust ….”
These words require definition and context.
““You can not justify force by feelings – doing so is a moral failure.
There is no amount of anger that justifies murder. No amount of fear, disgust ….”
These words require definition and context.”
What part of what I said is unclear to you ?
There is no context in which feelings justify force.
You can not overcome what I said with defintions without radically altering what I said.
John, because you frequently use your own proprietary definitions of significant words one cannot adequately respond until you make a statement that is annotated with explanation and your proprietary definition.
Law is not Qualified immunity – it is absolute immunity.
As defined and applied by the courts today QI means that government can infringe on any right as it please without justification, so long as that particular infringement is the first time in that specific judicial circuit, with that specific fact pattern.
And the courts never find two fact patterns similar enough to vitiate QI.
I am not interested in JG’s “2 + 2 = 5” argument.
QI is neither universal nor a principle,. It is a concept created by the courts in 1967 and expanded in 1982.
It is not in the constitution. And it is an overt rejection of the 9th amendment.
AS I said earlier, we are dealing with a balance scale.
“AS I said earlier, we are dealing with a balance scale.”
And you were wrong.
You can not presume that anything is a balanced binary.
You must prove it.
You can not presume that just because something requires balance that your claims acheive balance – you must prove it.
Merely asserting a requirement for balance is logicially insufficient, and more often than not wrong.
In proper context, as an example: While protecting civil liberties we need to balance safety with the individual’s ability to sue the police.
“While protecting civil liberties we need to balance safety with the individual’s ability to sue the police.”
You complain about my terms – when I strive to use words that are near universally understood, and then use muddy mush like this yourself.
The motto of most police is “to protect and serve”. It is US they protect and serve – not themselves. It is OUR safety that is paramount – not theirs. We give the police extraordinary deference and respect BECAUSE they have chosen a job that is supposed to put OUR needs and safety above their own.
Their JOB is to protect our rights. Your claim of balance is recursively wrong.
You can not sue the police (or anyone) when:
Their use of force justified.
They are acting inside the law.
That is it. There is no “balance”.
“For almost half of US history we had no QI”
Of course we did. How could our soldiers kill people and not be guilty of murder?
Government IS QI.
Merry Christmas!
““For almost half of US history we had no QI”
Of course we did. How could our soldiers kill people and not be guilty of murder?
Government IS QI.”
All completely false.
QI has absolutely no application outside of government.
Yet, you are still free to kill people who are trying to kill you or others.
The use of force is legitimate is justified. There is no immunity qualified or otherwise for illegitimate use of force.
The first application of QI by the courts was in 1967 and it was extremely narrow. In 1982 it was greatly expanded.
QI is a recent invention of the courts.
It did not exist before – it did not need to.
There is absolute immunity for justified uses of force.
QI only applies were the use is NOT justified.
“My point is, EVERY government MUST have some form of qualified immunity for its enforcers, or it cannot govern – period”
False. Anyone using force legitimately must justify that use of force. PERIOD.
The requirements for justification are the same for individuals as government.
For the first almost 100 years of this country there was no police force, no FBI, no ATF.
Again QI only applies to UNJUSTIFIED uses of force. If the police use force with justification – there is no need for QI.
EVen when they make and honest error – there is no need for QI.
QI specifically applies only when individual rights were violated without justification and a jury would consider that use of force illegitimate.
Look at the actual instances where QI applies. It is NEVER for justifiable uses of force.
“ Anyone using force legitimately …”
Governments are a creation of men. The notion of “legitimate use of force” is an abstract creation of man – a qualified immunity. You are arguing merely about a matter of degree.
Merry Christmas!
“Governments are a creation of men. The notion of “legitimate use of force” is an abstract creation of man”
Not another of these stupid left wing nut arguments.
Can those of us not in left wing nut world please stop using nonsensical leftist arguments against each other.
Yes, the “legitimate use of force” is a creation of man.
It is “The social contract”.
What constitutes legitimate use of force is not especially “abstract” and more importantly it is necescarily invariant.
Government exists to punish the illegitimate use of force.
Absent near universal agreement as to what constitutes “justified use of force”, there is no social contract, there is no government all we have is anarchy.
This is no different than the ludicrously stupid Harvard professors argument that “2 + 2 = 5” because it is just symbols and the meaning of symbols can be whatever we want. The professor – just like you is both absolutely correct and completely wrong.
We do get to choose what symbols mean. But we do not get to do so abritrarily or as the mood suites us.
Near universal acceptance of the meaning of symbols is a requirement to escape anarchy.
If we allow 2 + 2 = 5, then everything that depends on 2 + 2 = 4 instantly fails – which is pretty much all of modern life that depends on the immutability of math.
Further merely changing the meaning of the symbols DOES NOT change the underlying reality.
Changing the label for a pile of rocks from 4 rocks to 5 rocks does not change the actual number of rocks.
“Not another of these stupid left wing nut arguments.”
If you believe I am left wing, you are as crazy as you suggest I am. All your hand waving does not equate to a meaningful difference between your narrow / arbitrary definition of QI and my definition of it as a universal principle. When the law authorizes the use of force by government generally prohibited to everyone else, that is QI – no matter what that carve out looks like.
Now, be civil.
“If you believe I am left wing,”
i don’t.
But you are making a very stupid left wing argument.
“All your hand waving does not equate to a meaningful difference between your narrow / arbitrary definition of QI and my definition of it as a universal principle.”
False. The Courts created and defined QI. That is the defintion I am using.
QI is NOT a universal principle.
“When the law authorizes the use of force by government generally prohibited to everyone else”
When would that be ? I am hard pressed to think of a legitimate use of force by government that is not available to the rest of us.
“everyone else” can not steal, murder or assault others – re you saying government can ?
Every single use of force that is justified to me as an individual is justified to government actors.
For much of US history we had no police. Only citizens enforcing the law. Even today though discouraged, ordinary people can enforce the law much as police.
Don;t use left wing nut arguments and I will not have to call you out on them.
If you want to call something a universal principle – it must be both universal and a principle.
Your equating QI with the law is neither.
“Governments are a creation of men. The notion of “legitimate use of force” is an abstract creation of man – a qualified immunity.”
What constitutes the legitmate use of force is not an abstraction it is concrete, but it is a near universal shared concept.
The legitimate use of force is not “qalified immunity” – it is absolute immunity.
QI only applies to illlegitimate uses of force.
You have a fundimental misunderstanding of QI
Plese refer to the section on “How Qualified immuntiy works”
https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/pros-vs-cons-of-qualified-immunity–both-sides-of-debate.html
Regardless, the problematic part is “Did the officer know that their actions violated a “clearly established right”?”
This is an inverted standard. It essentially says that all use of force by government is justified except what is explicitly prohibited.
Rights are not “clearly established”.
9th amendment
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
It is not nececary to “clearly establish” a right.
It is necescary to “clearly establish” a justified use of force.
All uses of force – justified or otherwise violate a persons rights.
All actions of government violate a persons rights.
The question is NOT did the actor know they were violating anothers rights – that is a given. All force violates the rights of others.
The ONLY question is was the use of force justified.
This is the same standard that applies to ordinary people.
When you use force against another person – you need not evaluate whether you are violating a “clearly established right” – you are using force, you are clearly violating another person;s rights – ALWAYS. The relevant question is whether your use of force is justified.
That is ALWAYS the question, and the ONLY question.
QI is a creation of federal courts. It is a specific exemption from the obligation of lew enforcement and govenrment to respect the civil rights of citizens. It is absolutely a federal constitutional issue.
The first amendment does not say – you can not infringe on Free speech – unless you are a police officer.
“The first amendment does not say – you can not infringe on Free speech – unless you are a police officer.”
John, what does the first amendment have to do with QI?
Pick any amendment the results are the same.
Qulaified Immunity has no meaning unless a government agent has infringed on the rights of a citizen.
Free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, warrantless searches.
Qualified Immunity does not come up unless someone’s rights are violated.
“Qulaified Immunity has no meaning unless a government agent has infringed on the rights of a citizen.”
I think this discussion is nit-picking and once again definitional.
A police officer searches a home with a warrant that states exactly what he is able to search and how. Police manuals further describe how searches are able to be done. The rules that do not conflict with the Constitution provide a degree of protection for the officer and the police department. That by itself can be considered qualified immunity.
The principle transcends his limited definition of the word. Honest (and dishonest) objections will always to otherwise legitimate use of force by police (I do not agree with protection for government employees who need not routinely get into situations where rights violations might occur in the course of their regular duties). Without a bias towards the fair intent of officers, they will become ineffective, vulnerable, and demoralized by constant nuisance charges. Use of deadly force is ALWAYS stressful and prone to mistake. Our cops are the best in the world because we have struck a good balance between the rights of cops and the rights of everyone else.
“The principle transcends his limited definition of the word.”
O am using the defintion the courts used when they created it.
“Honest (and dishonest) objections will always to otherwise legitimate use of force by police (I do not agree with protection for government employees who need not routinely get into situations where rights violations might occur in the course of their regular duties). Without a bias towards the fair intent of officers, they will become ineffective, vulnerable, and demoralized by constant nuisance charges. Use of deadly force is ALWAYS stressful and prone to mistake. ”
There is none of this I disaggree with – but that is NOT QI.
“Our cops are the best in the world because we have struck a good balance between the rights of cops and the rights of everyone else.”
Government and those in it have no rights – they have powers. Rights belong to individuals.
There is also no balance here. The use of force is justified – or it is not. This is not a balancing act.
WE can give the police the benefit of the doubt where things are not clear – that is not a balance either. That is merely the presumption of innocence – another actual principle.
The discussion is defintional.
The courts have defined what QI means – not John Galt.
My arguments rest independently on several things.
Constitutionally:
There is no QI in the constitution.
QI inverts the 9th amendment
Philosphically (and legally)
All use of force whether by an individual or government must be justified.
If it is there is absolute immunity.
If there is not it is likely a crime.
The definition of crime is unjustified use of force.
“The courts have defined what QI means – not John Galt.”
The courts are always refining what they do, but to date Galt has provided the best definition that can be understood by many and used in discussion. Of course I have open ears to a better definition.
“There is no QI in the constitution.”
The Constitution only rules federally (the politicians and courts impose that will on the states.). State Constitutions manage state concerns.
JG is correct in much of his arguments – except for one thing. The term for what he calls QI is not QI.
That is a consequential error.
He is wrong – because it is not the meaning that courts use for QI – which is what is relevant in any discussion of eliminating QI.
And he is wrong because what he described is not qulaified immunity by any reasonable defintion.
It is closer to absolute immunity. Any of us are absolutely immune when our use of force is justified.
I don’t think Galt’s definition provided represents absolute immunity. You could have added to his definition what you wanted.
Merriam Webster again has an answer: “law : immunity from civil liability that is conditioned or limited (as by a requirement of good faith or due care) especially : immunity from lawsuits that is granted to public officials (such as police officers) for acts that violate someone’s civil rights if it can be shown that the acts do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would be aware”
“I don’t think Galt’s definition provided represents absolute immunity.”
What you think and JG’s defintion are irrelevant.
QI quite litterally si what the court says it is. That is NOT what JG is ranting about.
“Merriam Webster again has an answer:
False and perfectly making my point. QI is a creation of the courts without foundation in either the constitution or statute.
BTW Webster’s defintion ALSO has the same flaw as the the courts.
“do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights” – this is the most relevant phrase – and quite close to what the courts use. As faux “reasonable” as this sounds – it completely vitiates the 9th amendment.
Further it completely inverts the most fundimental standard regarding individuals relationship to govenrment. As well as the use of force – whether by individuals or government.
Force is only allowed when clearly justified – not prohibited only when clearly unjustified. Yopu fixate on “grey areas” – the websters and Courts definition gives government all the grey areas and requires the individual to justify their rights. That is backwards.
Rights are ALWAYS presumed, Infringement must ALWAYS be justified – whether by government or individuals.
Any other placement of the bright line will ultimately degrade to tyrany on the part of governnment and anarchy in individuals.
>>“I don’t think Galt’s definition provided represents absolute immunity.”
>What you think and JG’s defintion are irrelevant. “
OK what anyone thinks, you included, is irrelevant. End of discussion.
John, you should work on your memory and your search skills. It took me less than a minute to find a previous debate between you and Allan (who is now posting at S. Meyer, among other names) about qualified immunity.
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/24/wheres-the-police-when-you-need-them-d-c-delegate-asks-the-right-question-after-bizarre-incident-near-white-house/
Thanks, Allan, for again demonstrating that S. Meyer is one of your post-election sock accounts.
Seriously ?
I have no reason to assume that S. Meyer is Allan.
Maybe he is. Maybe he isn’t.
Regardless, I do not recall debating QI with S.Meyer before and that remains correct.
And this is all very stupid coming from someone who will not even post under an alias.
Wow, John, you have no reason to assume that S. Meyer is Allan?!?
You’ve spent more time talking to Allan than any other person on this site, he’s one of the few people on this site who’ll actually have a conversation with you, but you don’t know his conversational style and views after all this time?!?
If not, that’s a really sad reflection on you as a person.
Maybe S.Meyer is Allan. Maybe not. That is not an established fact.
And even if it might be true it is not an assumption that can be jumped to.
My sense is that S.Meyer’s style is not the same as Allan’s but even that does not matter – I am sure there are thousands of people on the internet whose style is not distinguishable from Allan’s.
Why are you posting as anonymous if you are so certain we can all identify posters under different names purely by style ?
Galt is right
Here John is showing his anarcho-liberterian doctrinal errors
At least the one we may presume to be an Objectivist still understands the basic integral building blocks of functional government. I mean a minimally functioning government at least.
I’ll use a little Galtian talk here to define our corrupt federal regime controlled by billiionaires.
They are “political entrepreneurs” and “looters” who have wrecked our nation and both the regime and its billionaire masters deserve to be replaced.
But Ayn Rand had one thing profoundly wrong.
There is nothing inexorable about the errors of the system which means that it must fall. Actually, if it keeps on extending its wicked power, it can go on for many lifetimes
The corrupt regime and its masters only falls if enough people will it and take action to make it happen
This can start with the peaceful and nonviolent means of massive tax resistance. And it should
The people are Atlas and that is how they can really shrug
Sal Sar
“But Ayn Rand had one thing profoundly wrong.
There is nothing inexorable about the errors of the system which means that it must fall. Actually, if it keeps on extending its wicked power, it can go on for many lifetimes”
I met Ayn at one of her last public appearances. She was still whip smart, but a bitter old woman. The topic was “Global Balkanization,” much of which ended up being rather prophetic.
She was not wrong on that, as you imply. That in fact is why a group of like minded people eventually left and built their own nation – because the rot of the rest of the world could not be “fixed.”
Ayn wrote in absolutes, black and white. Life tends to be messier, even when dealing with a group of essentially like-minded people (which this country certainly is no longer an example of). Perhaps the biggest reason so many tyrannies fell over the past few centuries was because America stood as an example of the alternative – giving people ideas. If the Xiden stolen election is allowed to stand, nowhere in the world will there be a counter-example against which a person in an oppressive country might look, see it is better, become dissatisfied with the status quo, and work to better his or her own country.
Marxism is simply neo-Feudalism with lipstick.
Rand was wrong about other things.
This was not one of those.
Nor was she alone in the claim that statism must ultimately fail. Myriads of classical liberals from Locke, though friedman and coase have found the same.
Both history and simple facts make the failure of statism inevitable – though there may be much suffering first.
uIltimately statism runs afoul of the laws of physics. It consumes more than it produces and it is unsustainable.
More government, more laws, means more law enforcement, more force which means less production and less growth and lower standards of living. Statists ultimately either can not enforce their own laws and degenate to anarchy or they strive to and move to an unsustainable totalitarian poverty.
“uIltimately statism runs afoul of the laws of physics. It consumes more than it produces and it is unsustainable.”
I wish that were true. Egypt survived as a slave-based theocracy for many millennia. China is giving them a good run for the money. In fact, most totalitarian states fail because of competition for the crown or simple insanity of the leadership. The instances of nations based on freedom are few and far between. And, sadly, with greater productivity there can be even MORE waste yet the State survive.
People are “selfish” (focused primarily on self-interest). Unless brought up in a home and society that instills within them that there is self-interest in civil order, the result is Lord of the Flies.
“uIltimately statism runs afoul of the laws of physics. It consumes more than it produces and it is unsustainable.”
“I wish that were true.”
It is.
“Egypt survived as a slave-based theocracy for many millennia. China is giving them a good run for the money.”
Egypt and China are totalitarian. They are not actually statist. The scale of government in Egypt relative to the population was tiny.
Even in China the scale of Government is 1/2 that of the US as a percent of GDP.
Please note. I did not argue about the FORM of government – statism is about the SCALE of government.
The US can remain a faux republic and still fail if government becomes too large.
“In fact, most totalitarian states fail because of competition for the crown or simple insanity of the leadership. ”
Iften True – but totalitarian and statist are not the same.
I would further note that most failed governments fail for multiple reasons.
“The instances of nations based on freedom are few and far between.”
Atleast partly True. But also tangent to my argument. As noted above there is not a binary choice between statism and minarchy.
There are many forms of oppresive government that are also small.
“And, sadly, with greater productivity there can be even MORE waste yet the State survive.”
Also true. Any nation can sustain more oppressive government the more it is able to produce.
Though there is some feedback – as govenrment grows increases in productivity are ever harder to acheive.
“People are “selfish” (focused primarily on self-interest). Unless brought up in a home and society that instills within them that there is self-interest in civil order, the result is Lord of the Flies.”
Partly true partly false.
“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream – the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism”
RR
“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream – the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism”
Once again, to some point I believe you are arguing a difference without a difference. While it is true that a relatively small government can be quite dictatorial and oppressive while retaining some freedoms (Mussolini), I would submit that, like a calculus problem, freedom approaches zero as the state becomes everything. But, yes, the left-right scale is preposterous propaganda.
The only true political scale is between absolute individual freedom and absolute State power. Our political left always screams, “Fascist!” and declares that fascism is a “right wing ideology.” It is nonsense of course, simply a trick to create a false moral equivalence between left and right (“see – both sides seek absolute power, just for different ends.”). Like all propaganda, it is a lie. Better to call it what it is – those who want bigger, more meddlesome government vs those who want smaller, constrained government.when you succeed in controlling language you win the propaganda war.
I have minor quibbles with your post – Politics is multidimensional. Not single dimensional.
Otherwise an excellent post.
Returning to our debate – I am specifically arguing about QI as defined by the courts.
The courts defintion SOUNDS resonable – until you grasp that it is a complete inversion of the 9th amendment.
QI presumes that nothing is a right until it has been infringed on atleast once per circuit, and even then each and every such right has a narrow fact patter such that minor deviations start the whole process over.
The 9th amendment asserts that legitimate government has a limited domain and all else is free to the individual.
John, the political economy of no nation is pure. The purity you are looking for is a dream just like the purity of socialism.
Can you name any nation that survived with the purity you are requiring?
“ John (Say), the political economy of no nation is pure. The purity you are looking for is a dream just like the purity of socialism.
Can you name any nation that survived with the purity you are requiring?”
Yep. He is using an argument identical to those used by leftists to denounce Ayn Rand, who terrifies them because her characters like my namesake posit reason and personal responsibility. Rand wrote in stark absolutes as a literary device to espouse ideals, which are literally impossible in real life. When I met her in 1976, she was still whip smart – but a bitter and lonely woman.
However, if attaining an ideal is never fully possible, does that mean we should not strive to get as close as possible? If all laws were first examined against the principles put forth in our Declaration and Constitution before being allowed a vote, most would never have passed and this would be a greater country.
See there are things we can agree on.
You have eloquently defended logically pure arguments in a world where in application that is rare.
I have stated repeatedly that I agree with you on many things. If QI is one of your personal OCD “things,” it only means you are human… 😉
Nearly everyone who wishes to deprive the police (or government) or QI is specifically refering to QI as created/defined by SCOTUS in 1967 and 1982 – not your personal definition.
When I say that QI should be eliminated – I mean that which the courts have called QI.
As does most everyone else who wants it eliminated.
When most others (except you) say QI should not be eliminated. they are presumed to be using the meaning the courts have picked.
I am not interested in a defintional argument.
If it makes you happy – use the term giggledyspork for what the court created.
Regardless the debate is not over words of defintions, it is over an underlying reality.
Regardless, the courts concept of QI is that any right can be violated, until the courts decide that it can’t.
The default position is that the violation of a right is presumed immune to remedy.
That runs affoul of the 9th amendment.
“Yep. He is using an argument identical to those used by leftists to denounce Ayn Rand”
“I have a dream” is what some live by because one doesn’t know the unknown of the dream only what one believes will happen. Therefore the good in the dream is inflated and the bad (outcome) is seldom known.
I like John and most of his responses but the pure like snow attitude lacks the reality of life. He is promoting an academic view where pragmatism, warts and other indignities need not exist.
J. Galt, if you have something special about Ayn Rand, a most interesting individual, perhaps you will let us in on a few tidbits.
What you call my pure like snow attitude works incredibly well pragmatically.
In the “Real world” the greater freedom, the greater the standard of living. “The Real World” means that is what data tells us.
“What you call my pure like snow attitude works incredibly well pragmatically.”
It’s a good attempt at demonstrating what you feel a perfect world should look like but it is not pragmatic.
““What you call my pure like snow attitude works incredibly well pragmatically.”
It’s a good attempt at demonstrating what you feel a perfect world should look like but it is not pragmatic.”
Because you say so ?
As I noted before – there is overwhelming and near unversal evidence that the rate of rise in standard of living correlates incredibly strongly to both the extent of individual liberty and inversly to the scale of govenrment (statism).
Are you saying that some principle that clearly works, and works better there more it is followed is NOT pretty much be defintion ALSO pragmatic ?
Yes, I argue for the clear as “pure” as possible application of principle – because the closer we get to “pure” the better off we will be.
That is by the EVIDENCE – i.e, pragmatism
Webster
pragmatism: an American movement in philosophy founded by C. S. Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrines that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief
Libertarianism is the only ideology where principle and practical are not at odds.
>>”It’s a good attempt at demonstrating what you feel a perfect world should look like but it is not pragmatic.”
>Because you say so ?”
Because it is true.
“That is by the EVIDENCE – i.e, pragmatism”
Merriam Webster: “: a practical approach to problems and affairs
tried to strike a balance between principles and pragmatism”
“John, the political economy of no nation is pure. The purity you are looking for is a dream just like the purity of socialism.
Can you name any nation that survived with the purity you are requiring?”
So ?
More freedom -> greater prosperity.
I have an ideology that works to the extent you apply it – if you do so 80% you do better than nations that do so 30% and worse than those that do so 90%.
There is no either economic scheme that works better the more purely you apply it.
I argue here for the closest we can get to minarchy. For the closest we can get to purity.
I argue that because it is logically defensible.
There is not midway position that is logically defensible.
You can claim 80% free is better than 40%. But you can not claim that it is optimal.
I am prepared to compromise to get any significant shift in the right direction.
That will not stop me from demanding more, or criticizing the weakness and failure of any compromise I agree to
Nor am I ever going to argue that a compromise position is a goal rather than a way point.
You keep trying to argue that the political difficulty of doing better, somehow means that some waypoint is optimal.
It is not. It is also not logically defensible.
“I argue here for the closest we can get to minarchy. For the closest we can get to purity.”
Correct. Freedom is messy. Nothing is ever perfect. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do our best to strive for perfection.
>>”Can you name any nation that survived with the purity you are requiring?”
>So ?
John, I guess you can’t name one. Dreams are not reality.
>>”More freedom -> greater prosperity.”
For the most part true, but reality interferes in even approaching perfect.
“I am prepared to compromise to get any significant shift in the right direction.”
I was uncertain about Trump. I could have voted for another or not voted at all. I voted for the one that had the best chance to shift the nation in the right direction, and he did. However, that is not what the elites and the billionaires want and they are developing or have developed oligarchic power.
“Here John is showing his anarcho-liberterian doctrinal errors”
I am not aware that John Locke was “anarcho-libertarian”
Or Thomas Paine ? Or Adam Smith ?
“At least the one we may presume to be an Objectivist still understands the basic integral building blocks of functional government. I mean a minimally functioning government at least.”
Minarchy does not require qualified immunity.
Even Socialism does not require qualified immunity.
The entire argument for Qualified immunity is unrelated to ideology, it is just error, plain and simple.
“But Ayn Rand had one thing profoundly wrong.
There is nothing inexorable about the errors of the system which means that it must fall. Actually, if it keeps on extending its wicked power, it can go on for many lifetimes”
And yet socialism and statism has always and everywhere eventually failed. Rand was right, Friedman was right, Hayek was right,
Myriads of others demonstrating in many ways why growing government plants the seeds of its own destruction.
“The corrupt regime and its masters only falls if enough people will it and take action to make it happen”
That is the prefered way to end corrupt regimes – but quite often they litterally just fail.
Jonathan, the GOP led Senate Intell Committee does not agree with you that Trump campaign collusion with the Russians during the 2016 election was a hoax.
Here’s their report, released this August. The facts are laid out early in it so not too much to read.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf
We have heard this claim from you before.
A few cherry picked claims from a 500 page report is not meaningful.
Regardless AGAIN, Facts Trump words.
What Russia ACTUALLY did is FACTS that are available to all of us – we do not need to be the senate intelligence committee to know there was no collusion, and russian efforts were inconsequential and if anything favored Clinton.
You lost this fight to the Facts Joe.
Maybe you can cite a brookings study – you know the democrat think tank that the primary source (russian agent) for the steele dossier worked for.
The only actual collusion involved the Clinton campaign.
The Senate Intel Comm that wrote the report is controlled by the GOP. The facts of Russian/Putin intent and actions, as well as Trump campaign operatives knowing and voluntary interactions with Russian agents all documented in the first dozen pages or so.
Enjoy.
You keep making this nonsensical argument that YOU interpretation of someone else’s words is more meaningful than facts.
If the Senate had found as you claimed – which they did not, that would still be meaningless.
Words in Senate reports do not trump facts.
You continuously do not seem to get this.
We are dealing with the fundimental issue that is dividing the country – that is the lies of those in power and the left.
The ends do not justify the means.
We already have the leftist power brokers of the world openly plotting the “great reset” – basically a government takeover of everything justified by the absolutely stupid nonsense of CAGW and even stupider nonsense of Covid.
It appears that just maybe 2020 will prove to be the warmest year in the last century. It that proves true it will be by a mere 0.01C
Essentially there has been no statistically significant warming for 22years.
Ordinary people are not stupid. We have not seen the world bake to a crisp in our lifetimes.
We have heard promise after promise of disaster by warmists fade to nonsense.
The Icecaps have not melted – Antarctica is growing not shrinking.
The Arctic is no more navigable in summer than it was during WWII and not at all during winter.
Put simply Warmists have lied.
In doing so they have errorded trust in science.
Nor is CAGW the only fake science the left has tried to sell.
This years nonsense is Covid.
We are told that unless government takes over everything we will all die.
Yet the highest death rates remain in those places controlled by the left.
Accross the country and the world the data is clear – nothing government has demanded of any of us has worked.
80% of americans have been masked since August or before – and still we are told we must lockdown again.
All this for a virus no worse than the 1968 flu – where government did nothing, and we held woodstock right in the middle.
Per capita deaths were as high or higher.
But what HAS actually worked ? Free markets have produced billions of dollars of PPE – whether needed or not.
We have not exceeded 60% of hospital capacity anywhere – despite the ranting of the left.
Total deaths todate – including Covid are the same as prior years. While 300,000 people have died of Covid in 10 months.
300,000 people have not died of something else. Put simply C19 has had no statistically significant effect on overall US deaths.
For the most part it has killed peoole who were dying of something else.
But the left – the experts have lied to us about that.
Just as they lied about CAGW.
Just as they lied about the collusion delusion.
Just as they lied about this election.
Just as they lie about everything.
And you wonder why you are not beleived ?
“Still crazy after all these years”
And yet there are so many of those fools.
And having lied and cheated, having falsely accused others of lying, when they themselves were the ones lying. they expect the rest of us to beleive that a lawlessly conducted election is legitimate ?
Why is anyone to beleive anything from those who have been lying to us all for years ?
Looking forward to reading Turley’s next blog post:
“I have often criticized the President and his advisors for discussing the question of how to martial law in the oval office. But even the President has free speech rights. There is nothing to be concerned about when the president discusses the possibility of imposing martial law to overturn the result of an election, just as there is nothing to be concerned about when the president discusses the possibility of dropping “nucular” bombs on hurricanes.
Of course, I’m reserving my harshest criticism for the prospective appointees of Biden who use nasty language to describe Republicans, illiterate intelligentsia such as certain university presidents who don’t understand how the pardon power works, and anyone who impugns the motives of attorneys who rely on faulty logic and non-existent evidence in an effort to overturn an election. These are grave threats to the ability to have proper public discourse.”
Hear hear!
The thing writes itself, Turley’s too!
Me above.
Just to attempt to help out Prof T, the one piece of a sentence he was parsley;) correct on was: ” I have faith that the President would have to fire his way down to the DOJ motor pool before he found anyone” to likely find anyone that isn’t corrupt in the DOJ.
American Hating Commie/Fascist types azzholes thick as hell in most every Alphabet agencies across the nation.
If Trump was to ever grab a puzzy he’d better reach down & grab his inner own for the sake of the US.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/actually-close-president-trump-discusses-ongoing-efforts-turn-election-around-dr-maria-ryan-giuliani-audio/
‘State reps are saying they want to do something about our broken election but are afraid Antifa will come after their families.
This is why Biden and Kamala protect them.
Spent 4 years warning this would happen.’ @jackposobiec
Antifamovie.com
“This is the hill to die on!”
– Mark Steyn
‘The corporate media is caught in their own contradictions: they keep insisting that there’s no fraud in the 2020 election but they don’t want the Dominion machines impounded. They don’t want audits. They don’t want any signature verification.
Because they’re lying.’ @emeraldrobinson
Anonymous, please list the number of media sources unrelated to any corporation.
media sources include thousands of citizen journalists, like the good Julian Assange, but mass media hired by billionaires pretend they are the Ministry of Truth!
Saloth Sar
Jonathan: Every day Trump remains in office he is a threat to our democracy. So the meeting in the Oval Office on Friday with Michael Flynn, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell fits the pattern. Flynn wants Trump to stage a military coup. Giuliani urged his client to seize voting machines in a fruitless effort to find evidence of voter fraud. And Powell continued to support Trump’s claim the election was stolen from him. It appears the “three stooges” had Trump’s attentive ears. White House counsel Pat Cipollone and Chief of Staff Mark Meadows were the only adults in the room and reminded the attendees that the actions urged on Trump would be unconstitutional. Never mind. Trump is so desperate to hold on to power he is willing to entertain almost any nefarious scheme. The only possible scenario is that Trump might try to appoint Powel as special counsel to investigate the 2020 election.
What is more problematic is that you seem more concerned by the possible nomination of Sidney Powell because that could jeopardize the two DOJ Hunter Biden investigations and Bill Barr’s legacy. You falsely claim the Hunter Biden investigations are not based on any “political motivations”. That’s not true. In the Pittsburgh case this investigation was opened by US Attorney Scott Brady after a meeting with Rudy Giuliani. No doubt Bill Barr gave his approval. Brady is a staunch Trump supporter and eagerly signed on to the Trump/Giuliani agenda of trying to find dirt on the Bidens. This investigation and the one in Delaware are all about politics. For you the danger is: “If Trump were to appoint Powell, it could be the excuse that Democrats are looking for to terminate all three investigations”. That’s something you don’t want to see happen because it would take the wind out of your sails in trying to undermine the incoming Biden administration. A sad commentary on your priorities.
In the end the plots being considered by Trump and his cabal of supporters will probably go nowhere. Trump doesn’t have the cajones to actually stage a coup d’etat. He’s basically a coward who will continue to rant and rave but will quietly sneak out of the White House on or before January 20. But Trump faces an uncertain future. Besides all the lawsuits he is facing in New York he may face a lawsuit by his Mar-a-Lago neighbors who don’t want him as a neighbor and are insisting that Palm Beach enforce the 1993 agreement Trump signed that prevents Mar-a-Lago from being used as Trump’s permanent residence. Poor Donald. He may end up roaming the world looking for a place that will accept him. Trump had apparently even thought at one time of moving to Germany–his grandfather’s ancestral home. But Germany and Trump’s distant relatives don’t want him either. His distant cousin Peter, who is a farmer in Essen and looks just like Donald including the hair, doesn’t want any part of his American cousin. I relish the idea of Trump having to find lodging somewhere other than Mar-a-Lago. This also fits the pattern. In 1885 Donald’s grandfather, Friedrick Trump, fled Germany for the US to avoid Germany’s military conscription. Donald did something similar. But he avoided the draft by claiming “bone spurs” and didn’t have to flee to Canada. Friedrick became rich in America but became homesick and moved back to Germany and wrote several letters asking to regain residency. Because he had not served compulsory military service the Prince Regent of Bavaria refused. So Friedrick and his family had to return to America. As Karl Marx said: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce”.
Every day Trump remains in office he is a threat to our democracy.
Well duh. We support Trump in his effort to reject your brand of democracy. He may leave office, but millions of people will remain as a threat to all you domestic enemies.
Olly, your frame of mind is Civil War. Which means you believe any unhinged claim Trump makes.
Nope. It’s to honor my oath. Civil War is just an extreme option to deal with our domestic enemies.
Olly, here are some study questions.
1) In 2016 Trump declared, weeks before the election, that said election would be “rigged” by Hillary. Did Trump ever provide the media with any evidence to back up his ‘rigged’ claim??
2) After his freak ‘victory’ in 2016, Trump took office declaring that Hillary’s Popular Vote victory was attributable to “millions of illegal aliens”. Trump then demanded that a vote fraud commission be impaneled to investigate his claims. Democrats indulged Trump on this but the commission never found ‘any’ evidence of vote fraud. The commission went nowhere whatsoever and fell apart without any report even being filed. No investigations of any kind supported Trump’s claims ..So why should Trump be believed this time..??
3) Early this year, as the Covid 19 Pandemic fanned out from China, Trump repeatedly dismissed the possibility that Covid would become a problem here in the U.S. Nevertheless, Covid outbreaks in the U.S. became too numerous to ignore by early March. At that point Trump very reluctantly acknowledged the pandemic. But by the end of April, Trump was undermining his own administration’s effort to curb the virus. Trump even tweeted to militias to “liberate” the capitols of three states. Considering Trump’s response to the virus, is it not plausible he really lost the election?? ..And how much credibility should Trump logically have at this point..??
Olly is a self described domestic enemy of the Constitution, democracy, and our country, He’s announced his hatred for fellow Americans who disagree with his politics – that would be more than half of them – and advocates for insurrection when his side loses an election. I have suggested he move to someplace more in tune with his politics – Russia, Hungary, Saudia Arabia, and Syria come to mind.
The tens of millions who are concerned about this election can be easily placated.
Follow the law when you conduct an election.
Act in the sunlight, not the shadows.
Do not fight scrutiny at every step.
Develop a reputation for integrity and trust – but not spending the past 4 years lying constantly about everything.
You do not seem to grasp that Trust, integrity, credibility are EARNED – and you have not earned them.
Do I have to again enumerate the long list of things you have been wrong about ?
The instances you have falsely accused others of lying ?
Why do you expect to be trusted ?
I have noted repeatedly – as the TX lawsuit did, that this past election was conducted lawlessly.
States openly did not follow their own election laws.
That is not conduct that is trustworthy.
Maybe the lawlessness altered the outcome – maybe it did not.
but it most definitely further destroyed any trust in democrats.
You rant about insurrection – that is where you are driving things.
That is one remedy to lawless usurpations of power.
But I do not think we are going there – YET.
But you have absolutely destroyed what little incentive there is to cooperate.
Do you think that the legislatures that came to agreements with democratic governors over elections, are going to be able to agree in the future, given that they now know that those governors will not honor those agreements and follow the law, and the courts will not hold them to the law ?
You really do not seem to grasp that your conduct has a cost.
I have tried to get you to recognize this for some time.
When you get caught lying, you are no longer trusted.
If you want to be trusted, you must not betray trust. You must not lie constantly.
The ends do not justify the means.
The law was followed, the challenged votes confirmed, often by Republicans, and The Loser was awarded hid day in court – often in front of his own judicial appointees – and all legal challenges. He is still The Loser.
“The law was followed”
Nope, In Pa please read Act 77, that is the bipartisan voting law passed in 2019 by the Republican legislature and signed by Democratic governor Wolf.
It requires that no ballots will be accepted after 8pm on election day. PERIOD.
That all mailin and absentee ballots must have a signature – and the signature must match the voter registration signature.
Additionally that to conform to PA voter ID law, all mailin and absentee ballots must have a DL or state ID # provided by the voter to assure that the person submitting the ballot is who they claim to be. Failure to do so can not be “cured” – the information must come from the VOTER – not election officials. PA law also requires that all election processes must be subject to observation as a means to eliminate the oportunity for Fraud.
Every one of these provisions of Act 77 was ignored in Philadelphia. Many of them on the advice of the Wolf Executive.
That is lawlessness.
It can not be remedied by the courts.
You do not seem to grasp that you can not get a meaningful court ruling that changes whether the sun rose this morning.
” the challenged votes confirmed”
False – election observers had no opportunity to challenge ballots. They were denied the ability to challenge. what few they were able to make were ignored, and the courts ruled that once the ballots were separated from their envelopes and counted that it was not possible to remedy invalid ballots. There has been no court finding at all that no invalid ballots were counted.
“often by Republicans”
Still not a republican.
“The Loser was awarded hid day in court”
Not true and not relevant – this is not about Trump.
This is about trust in government.
Neither Trump nor Biden has a right to be president.
But we the voters have a right to an election that follows the law.
We did not get that. And the courts have failed.
They did not fail Trump – they failed US – the people.
If you want Biden to be accepted as a legitimate president, he must win an election that at the bare minimum is conducted lawfully.
That did not happen.
You continue to be under the delusion this is about Trump.
It is not.
It is about trust in government.
When the govenrment acts outside the law – it is not legitimate.
When an election is conducted outside the law – the govenrment is not legitimate.
We already know the election was conducted lawlessly.
No court can change that.
“The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an effort to overturn the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania, signaling the high court would not go along with President Trump’s unprecedented efforts to win another term despite a decisive defeat in the popular vote and Electoral College.
The lawsuit was brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a 2019 state law authorizing universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional and that all ballots cast by mail in the general election in Pennsylvania should be thrown out.
“The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied,” said the court’s one-sentence order, which did not suggest any dissent among the nine justices.
Kelly, along with several others, filed the lawsuit on Nov. 21 and requested Pennsylvania either reject the more than 2.5 million ballots cast by mail or allow state lawmakers to select presidential electors. Republicans control Pennsylvania’s Legislature…”
John Say’s claim was tossed without objection or dissent by Judges Clarence Thomas, Barret, Kavanaugh, Goresuch,, Alito, Roberts, Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor.
“John Say’s claim was tossed without objection or dissent by Judges Clarence Thomas, Barret, Kavanaugh, Goresuch,, Alito, Roberts, Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor.”
Correct. The SCOTUS will not likely bother to hear more than 1 case on Election fraud – that will be the one which overturns the electoral votes of the swing states.
guess what. they’re not gonna hear that one either
if you think SCOTUS is going to sort this mess out, you’re crazy
this will only be resolved via politics, not judiciary
politics by other means, or not at all
Saloth Sar
Sorry Galt.
SCOTUS has already telegraphed they are hiding under their robes. They are unable to make tough decisions.
The best case for SCOTUS to here was the TX lawsuit. Contra their claim they were OBLIGATED to hear the case.
In fact no other court can hear the lawsuit of one state against another.
Further TX has standing because the constitution is actually a contract between the states – and TX was credibly alleging a violation of that contract.
SCOTUS was not hearing the TX case because there was only one possible outcome if they did – blocking the certification of the election in those states that failed to abide by their own election laws.
The courts are fearfull – many people are fearful – because if Trump were to win his election challenges and this was kicked to congress and Trump were to win we would likely have rioting that would make this summer look like kindergarten.
But cowardice and violent children are not a basis for failing to follow the law and constitution.
Regardless, they are only postponing the inevitable.
We have gone beyond the lawless left, and we now have the lawless democratic party.
This can not continue. The behaviour of the left gets ever more bat$hit crazy.
One way or another lawlessness will be ended.
SCOTUS well may hide under their robes at a time in our history when Constitutional justice could truly be an existential threat to our Republic. However, the Texas case is not evidence of that. The same case, same facts, etc. brought to SCOTUS by POTUS would in fact have clear standing. Trump now has a case pending against PA. Winning that would set the groundwork to claim systemic cheating.
In fact, SCOTUS is only one road to victory by Trump and the American people. But now, when things seem darkest, we must have faith in the process – at least until such time as all legal avenues for justice have been illegitimately denied.
SCOTUS already dismissed the same case and facts brought by POTUS.
In the long run I expect the courts to do something – but they are going to wait until well after Biden takes office.
There is an excellent case in GA that is likely to prevail. But the federal courts are slow walking the case.
One of the things the courts do not grasp is that lawlessness by government can not be remedied unless their are consequences.
The courts saying to the states you must follow your own laws 6 months from now with a tongue lashing is not going to accomplish anything.
The PA SCOTUS openly admitted they knew they were acting unconstitutionally regarding the PA constitution when they extended mailin voting ballot receipts.
I finally got to read the PA constitution regarding voting – and mailin balloting is unconstitutional in PA – that is likely true in most other states.
The US is one of few countries in the world that has done mailin voting.
The gold standard for voting – and the law in most countries is secret ballots – the so called Austrialian system.
This requires a person to be given a blank ballot and to vote it under supervision of election officials, but in secret.
And then turn it in to be counted.
This prevents by far the most common form of election fraud – inducement and coercion.
You can not buy votes if you can not be sure how those whose votes you buy are voting.
“One of the things the courts do not grasp is that lawlessness by government can not be remedied unless their are consequences. ”
It is certainly true that everyone in DC has worked for decades to insure there are no consequences. Yet, I am not convinced Xiden will in fact be anointed. We shall see.
I actually hope you are right. But I beleive the odds of Trump prevailing are ZERO.
That does not mean that he should not prevail, just that he will not.
In the long run most of these election lawsuits will be won against the states or local election officials.
But that will be long after Biden is inaugurated, and it will mostly happen quietly.
Further the courts will find that election officials behaved lawlessly. But they will not provide a remedy – it will be too late, and that is what they will rule – some already have.
SCOTUS has been particularly egregious in this – first refusing to here the suit against PA Before the election when the decision would have had meaningful impact – not just in PA but accross the country. and then after the election bailing because it was too late.
SCOTUS itself bears significant reponsibility for the mess we are in. In august or sooner they should have required states to follow their own state constitutions and stat laws requarding elections and laws. They failed before the election – by hoping there would be no issue after the election they put themselves uiunto a position where they would have to acept lawlessness or reject hunddreds of thousands of legitimat votes to get rid of 10’s of thousands of illegitimate ones.
That is an impossible ask of a court.
History is not clear on the outcome. Yes, many times the usurpers prevail. If Xiden is anointed, I have zero faith any of the lawsuits will prevail.
For 150 years leftists have sought every possible Avenue to overturn our Constitution. They cannot win on the merits of their idiotology, even morons won’t vote for tyranny when their noses are rubbed in what they are truly selling. They believe they are being clever this time, saying, “unless you prove every single illegal vote in the courts in 60 days, we get to keep what we stole.” It is a childish argument at best, and when it comes to such behavior the correct answer is firing squads – or surrender. They honestly believe enough will surrender. They may be right.
I am not especially concerned one way or the other.
If Biden is inaugurated There are many possibilities.
But NONE of those include moving the nation left and succeeding.
SCOTUS isn’t going to overturn the electoral votes in the swing states Allan.
Your multiple personalities since the election indicate that your psychological problems are getting worse. Is it the stress of Trump’s loss? Maybe a therapist can help you. But you’ll have to be honest and tell him about the joy you take in trolling and how you’re using these multiple personalities in an effort to troll more effectively.
Still another post from anonymous accusing another poster as Allan. You sound a bit disturbed. Try not to go over the edge and calm down.Your anger is quite apparent.
FYI – you appear as “Anonymous” too. Getting hard to tell you all apart.
Yes, Jonathan it is true, but this anonymous talking to you isn’t a crazed nutcase like leftist anonymous’ we see, This anonymous has too much time on his hands so instead of reading Atlas Shrugged for the fourth time engages with the crazed nut case.
Your comments are very much on target even though you have been accused of being Allan. You know the truth but that nut crazed anonymous doesn’t.
Of course they “know” the truth, and will even spill bits of it from time to time when it can be twisted to fit their narrative. But, when your entire cult idiotology is based on a steaming mountain of lies, contemplating actual truth makes their heads hurt.
The idiotology prevails. We are on a downswing. I think I will read about the French Revolution which has been removed from the idiotology’s library.
“SCOTUS isn’t going to overturn the electoral votes in the swing states Allan.”
No they are not. Democrats have created a scenario where the only options are unpalletable.
No one wants to reject millions of valid votes to weed out thousands of invalid ones.
But failing to do so means that millions of other valid votes are discounted – one way or the other large numbers of voters get screwed.
Further the violence of the left this summer has made it clear to the courts that if they do not give the left what they want there will be blood in the streets.
Do you doubt that if SCOTUS accepted the TX case as they were obligated to do that there would be rioting by the left ?
What the courts and the left fail to realize is that in the long run they are in a no win situation.
This lawless power grab is a one time thing. Every action has a reaction.
CA Ballot harvesting paid a one time dividend. Democrats obliterating the fillibuster did not even have a significant one time benefit.
If the lawlessness of the 2020 election is not addressed by the courts – it will be in many many otherways.
The most egregious of which will be actual violence from the right. I suspect we will see more of that now. Probably not alot, but atleast a little.
As noted before Ruby Ridge was the trigger of the OKC bombing. The one did not justify the other – but the government lawlessness at ruby ridge did result in the OKC bombing.
Further there are myriads of less egregious options available. – We saw armed lockdown protestors in May.
I suspect we may see armed occupation of state capitals and government mansions soon enough.
Antifa and the left is not the only people able to use the threat of violence to get their way.
Only right wing armed protestors and not the idiots those ont he left are – they actually know what they want.
They are not seeking some mythical utopia. Just a restoration of the rule of law.
But beyond protest armed or otherwise, when the courts allow fraud from the left, they also allow fraud from the right.
If democrats are not going to follow voting laws, then neither will republicans. But do not presume that republican lawlessness need take exactly the same form as that of democrats.
It is fairly trivial to force big city democrats to properly review mailin ballots – or to get rid of mailin ballots entirely.
Flood democratic cities with hundreds of thousands of illegitimate republican ballots.
If you want to play this “count all the votes” nonsense – then count all the votes – the fraudulent GOP ones as well as the democratic ones. Or you can just vet the ballots properly.
Regardless, one you open up to lawlessness – you grant permission for everyone else to be lawless.
“Your multiple personalities since the election indicate that your psychological problems are getting worse.”
Do you have evidence of this ?
Is this an actual argument ?
I have seen no evidence that whoever you are ranting at is schizophrenic – but even if they were, why does that matter ?
The fact do not care about your mental health.
Truth is truth regardless of who speaks it.
“Is it the stress of Trump’s loss?”
Who is stressed ? Not only do you constantly mind read, you do so badly.
What I see on the right is anger and determination – not stress.
You have two huge problems moving forward – the first is that nearly 40% of the country thinks you cheated.
That seriously undermines the credibility an power of government.
That is what you tried and failed to do to Trump – but you have done it to yourself.
Biden is impotent if elected.
The 2nd is you are slowly building an army of committed opponents.
Whether democrats won legitimately or not, they did so by getting couch potatoes who are barely committed to vote.
The people who vote republican are committed. They are not going away. They are a growing and determined army.
Your lawlessness makes them all the more resolute. The left has no real equivalent of this.
Snowflakes are fragile. You do not have what it takes in the long run.
“Maybe a therapist can help you. But you’ll have to be honest and tell him about the joy you take in trolling and how you’re using these multiple personalities in an effort to troll more effectively.”
IS there any part of that that is relevant ? You rant about trolling and then spew multiple sentences of trollish nonsense.
What business is the mental health of other poster here of yours ?
Where do yo get off presuming to know it ?
How is it relevant to public discourse ? to any consequential issue ?
How is it that your remark does not tell us more about your childish unfitness to ever have any kind of power
than anything about those you attack ?
JF,
Why do you think your claims are meaningful ?
The inability of the courts to act – does not alter the facts.
The election was not conducted lawfully.
I do not know whether the PA constitution prohibits mailin voting.
Many many state constitutions require secret ballots, and mailin elections CAN NOT meet that requirement.
Unfortunately that is a state issue not a federal issue – the US constitution does not require a secret ballot – though it should.
The PA SCOTUS openly admitted they were not following the constitution in their decision extending ballot deadlines.
Regardless, you continue to assert falsely that these challenges were rejected on their merits.
They have not been.
Kelley asked for an injuction, most of the cases so far sought injuctions or TRO’s.
Those are very difficult to get – though some should have been granted.
The SCOTUS TX decisions was egregiously wrong and defies supreme court precident.
SCOTUS is not only required to here lawsuits between the states it is constitutionally the ONLY court that can do so.
SCOTUS’s standing nonsense is absolutely ludicrous, because some party must ALWAYS have standing, and in the instance of TX ONLY A state can make the claim to SCOTUS that TX made.
Regardless, you should read the TX claim as well as the amicii – Even Dershorwitz found it compelling.
IF states do not conduct federal elections following their own laws – we have no legitimate election.
If no one has the right to challenge the lawless conduct of a state – then we have no legitimate govenrment.
You do not understand the consequences of where all this is leading.
You think this is about Trump – it is not. It is about government deliberately failing to follow the law.
There will be consequences one way or another.
I would note we had exactly this kind of nonsense leading up to the american revolution.
The courts failing to hold crown appointed governors to the law.
That did not turn out that well
JF – what is your remedy for lawlessness ? To ignore it ? To hide from it ?
In the instances of the states being challeneged this is all very simple.
Either those states can demonstrate that they followed the law,
or they can find some means after the fact to follow the law (it is way too late unfortunately),
or the entire results of the election must be tossed.
This was YOUR choice. You played chicken with an election.
While you appear to be winning in court, you further damage your own credibility in doing so.
I do not know whether PA’s mailin ballot law violates the PA constitution. If PA has a secret ballot provision -then it does.
I do know that if the government refuses to follow the election laws, and does so in a way that the choices become all or nothing – that either potentially thousands of illegitimate votes are counted along with millions of legitimate ones, or none are counted at all, the only valid choice is that NONE may be counted.
I know alot about PA – I live in PA. It sounds to me like AZ, GA, WI, and MI are in similar situations – from what i read GA is worse – their election laws are more rigorous than PA’s.
Regardless, for an election to be valid it must follow the law.
It is failure to follow the law that invalidated millions of votes – not the challenge to the lawlessness.
FOLLOW THE LAW.
If you do not, ultimately you do not have legitimate government.
It is that simple.
This is not something you or the courts – not even SCOTUS can refute.
Lawless govenrment is not government, it is thugerry.
“ Lawless govenrment is not government, it is thugerry.”
Exactly. And, when government does not follow the law, there IS no law – and the citizens are then not only entitled but obligated to take things into their own hands.
I do not think we are there yet – but we are getting there.
“I do not think we are there yet – but we are getting there.”
I certainly hope not. When I was much, much younger I spent time in two such countries. I’m too old for that nonsense.
I agree, but you and I do not control that. We went through the entire 21st century thus far with no consequential act of purportedly right wing violence.
But we should not forget that McViegh’s justification for the OKC Bombing was ruby ridge.
This lawless election has many on the right that I do not consider as wacky as McVeigh prepared to engage in armed – though not violent protest. But other McVeigh’s exist – and the less trustworthy government is the more likely right wing violence actually is.
FURTHER, the as government behaves lawlessly – ultimately violence on the part of citizens becomes justified.
The OKC bombing was never justifiable – but an armed occupation of a state capital or governors mansion is plausibly justified.
Further the left has spent the past year sewing the seeds of justifiable violence as part of protest.
WE were told over and over again that $2B+ in arson and other violence was somehow justified by protestors anger with police.
Regardless, we have had violence from the left from day one of the Trump administration – protestors were burning and looting before the inauguration. Every day througout the country people have been beaten and robbed for carrying Trump signs or wearing Trump hats.
The left has ranted about purported mythical right wing violence for years – but the less legitimate government recourse exists the more likely people are to resort to violence. I am surprised we have so far seen very little. Regardless, keep this lawless government up and violence from the right is coming – and much of it may be justified.
Hopefully we will avoid that – but control of that is in the hands of the left – not the right.
The more the left undermines government – the more likely violence is.
Yep.
Challenges to the election results by Trump and associates are now at 1-60 with the only “win” procedural. Clearly the courts had ample opportunity to consider the charge of lawlessness alleged by John Say and Jonathan Galt and clearly do not agree. Many of those judges were not only Republicans, but Trump appointees.
Given his access to the courts, the only “lawlessness” has been the presidents attempts to strong arm state legislators in an effort to get them to overturn the voters decision in their state.
“Challenges to the election results by Trump and associates ”
Cowardly responses do not constitute justice. We see this all over the world where judges are more interested in their survival than truth. In the past 20 years or so we have been seeing that in this country more and more. So far no court has decided on the illegalities that have occurred. They have skirted their duty for whatever reasons they may have had.
“Challenges to the election results by Trump and associates are now at 1-60 with the only “win” procedural. ”
“Clearly the courts had ample opportunity to consider the charge of lawlessness”
The courts have thus far not addressed any claims on the merrits. They are unlikely to do so for some time.
They do not want to do so.
As I noted before, you, the left, democrats have pushed the country into a gigantic game of chicken – the courts are left with tossing all the ballots or atleast all mailin ballots are accepting all of them. Your lawlessness has deprived them of the oportunity to distinguish between lawfull and illegitmate ballots.
You play this nonsenical game that the lawless conduct does not matter.
You fail to grasp that just like CA Ballot harvesting, and the Fillibuster and …. that even if the courts fully uphold this mess you have made – you ultimately lose. Ultimately the courts must constrain the lawless conduct of this election. If they do not – there will be more in the future.
The ballot harvesting operations of republicans in California are immoral, improper and should be illegal – but they are not. And since democrats have engaged in them republicans must to.
The same will be true of your election nonsense. You have jumped the shark on this election. Either the courts will remedy it or we will get even more fraud in the next election – and you are an idiot if you do not think ?republicans are as capable of election fraud as democrats.
What are you going to do if in 2022 or 2024 millions of mailin ballots voting straight GOP show up in Philadelphia or atlanta ?
Voter registration rolls are public do you honestly think it is hard to force election officals to sort out actually invalid ballots ?
Or what if in 2022 or even Jan 5th 2021, a couple of hundred armed protestors show up at the atlanta convention center to observe vote counting ? Do you think the Atlanta police will do anything – after you pissed on them all summer ?
Do you think they can ?
You created the new rules that require that government not interfere with peaceful protestors – even those occupying and destroying government buildings.
What if “peaceful protestors” in atlanta or philadelphia decide to burn all the mailin ballots before they are counted ?
These are just a few of the LESS likely means of addressing your lawlessness.
You do not seem to grasp that once you undermine the rule of law – you can not expect that lawlessness will be confined to only one side.
“Many of those judges were not only Republicans, but Trump appointees.”
So ?
“Given his access to the courts”
What access – so far no claims have been adjudicated on their merrits.
To my knowledge there is no yet a single election lawsuit that has gotten to actual hearings on the evidence.
Trump and others have sought TRO’s – and that is why they are losing = the burden for those is high.
But eventually cases will procede on the merits – there will be discovery.
We are seeing republicans in Maricopa county resisting legislative subpoenas to produce public record information to legislators.
How exactly is that lawful ? On election official there has been quoted as saying that while he knows he will eventually lose, he will stall this as along as possible. That is your idea of lawful ?
Ultimately this is all coming out.
The PA constitution Article VII section 4 requires secret ballots – mailin voting in PA is unconstitutional.
Section 14 permits absentee ballots – but only For cause – no excuse absentee balloting – and therefore mailin balloting is also unconstitutional in PA.
Most states have similar provisions.
If you do not like the law – change it. If you do not like the state of federal constitution – change it.
But the executive is not allowed to change the law and the constitution at whim.
“the only “lawlessness” has been the presidents attempts to strong arm state legislators in an effort to get them to overturn the voters decision in their state.”
Actually that is about the only lawful thing done in this election. Again whether you like it or not the federal constitution delegates the choice of electors to the state legislators – not the state as a whole and not voters.
There are state laws that require the electors to be appointed based on the public vote – but those laws are no different from the laws requiring that mailin ballots have signatures and drivers licesnse numbers and that these be verified.
If the executive is going to ignore one set of state laws the legislature is free to ignore another.
Regardless, despite your claims Trump is not strong arming legislators – what power does Trump have over PA state senators ?
These republican legislators are doing all this willingly – because they are pissed – not over biden or trump. But over the fact that they worked with democratic governors to pass bipartisan legislation and then those democratic governors ignored them and acted lawlessly.
Legislators are doing things that are improper and probably illegal – because governors have done things that are improper and illegal.
Regardless, I would not expect the legislatures in these states to work with democratic governors between now and 2022.
More so than ordinary people you have pissed off state legislators. Nor are they pissed just about the election – most of these states have had governors making up their own laws for Covid for 10 months now. As another federal judge ruled in PA months ago – if these edicts of governors were ever constitutional on an emergency basis they are not many months later. Laws are passed by legislatures – not governors. We are not a dictatorship.
Democratic governors have both in elections and in Covid handling acted lawlessly. And they have angered their legislatures in doing so.
Something on the order of 77% of republicans think this election was stolen – even 25% of independents do.
That is not a majority – but it is an incredibly large number of people.
It is more people than ever beleived the collusion delusion nonsense.
Further absent the actual inquiry which has not occured – that mistrust is not going to change.
Democrats are likely to experience – not just at a federal level – but thoughout the country the same illegitimacy they sought to impose on Trump. Only the oportunity to deflate this balloon is passing rapidly.
I am hearing from people in California that beleive Trump actually won CA – that is a dubious claim – but there are lots of them and they beleive it and they are very angry.
The media’s efforts at censorship have slowed the spread of information – but they have no stopped it. Worse by trying to put a lid on things, the result is that all determinations become partisan – those on the left have not heard, or have heard poorly framed rumours they do not beleive, while those on the right are certain that because a story is supressed that it must be true no matter how whacky it is.
As Justice Brandeis noted a century ago – we deal with speech with think is wrong with more speech – sunlight. Not enforced darkness.
The left rants over things like Qanon – failing to realize that YOU created that. As I stated before there are people who beleive CA turned red in 2020. Lots of them – that is the result of your failure to follow the law and failure to allow inquiry into things.
LOL, nice projection. Your challenge, that will go unaddressed, is proving your allegation. Good luck.
politics is a continuum of group competition and force
there is nothing special about contemplating possibility of Civil war
it is also perfectly legal for Americans to discuss its possibilities under existing First Amendment case law. sorry.
it’s gonna be discussed like it or not
See, Brandenberg V Ohio. and other cases
Saloth Sar
Bill Binney, Constitutional Patriot
@Bill_Binney
(39)With 212Million registered voters and 66.2% voting,140.344 M voted. Now if Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden. These numbers don’t add up to what we are being told. Lies and more Lies!
Binney’s numbers are wrong.
Binney is so bad at math the NSA had him running their whole data collection program prior to 9/11 when the billionaire quisling Porter Goss was installed who then decided to dragnet all our private data instead. Binney’s a patriot who left NSA and told us what was happening, consequently got smeared, a true whistleblower. He knows how to add and we do too
Saloth Sar
Has Pelosi removed Swalwell from the Intelligence Committee yet? What’s taking her so long?
Fang was a “bundler” for Eric Swalwell and other Democrat candidates but it was also believed the Chinese spy and honeypot had an intimate relationship with Swalwell.
Rep. Swalwell however refused to confirm if he had an intimate relationship with Fang Fang.
On Friday, a source on Capitol Hill confirmed to the Federalist that Swalwell indeed had a sexual relationship with Fang Fang.
“A source on Capitol Hill confirmed to @FDRLST today that Rep. Eric Swalwell had a sexual relationship with communist Chinese spy Fang Fang.
The FBI finally briefed congressional leaders today on the details of Fang Fang’s interactions with lawmakers on behalf of communist China.”
– Via Federalist co-founder Sean Davis.
Turley Describes Flynn’s Idea As ‘Deranged’
But Assures Us We Have Nothing To Worry About
This column typifies the gymnastics Turley has performed so many times on this blog. Once again Donald Trump is entertaining ideas that are profoundly disturbing to any American concerned with democracy. Yet Turley dismisses the obvious dangers while admitting the lunacy. Turley even tells us that mainstream media reports regarding this meeting would be more justified if mainstream gave equal weight to ‘scandals’ ginned-up by rightwing media.
The following passages, from above, accurately indicate how readers should really feel about the meeting.
1) President Trump publicly denied the report as “fake news.”
2) Tapper was right to describe the idea as “deranged.”
3) Trump should have reminded Flynn that he is speaking to the President of the United States in the Oval Office and such a suggestion is wildly offensive and unhinged.
4) Despite his alarming rhetoric, Trump has complied consistently with court decisions and worked within the legal system.
5) Flynn repeating his reckless comment in the Oval Office does not make a conspiracy.
6) The greater problem is that, after the President pushed Barr out of office early, he has lost the critical stabilizing force of his Administration. He now lacks that fire wall and source of mature and measured advice.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
# 3 stands out as darkly comical: “Trump should have reminded Flynn that he is speaking to the President of the United States in the Oval Office and such a suggestion is wildly offensive and unhinged”.
Professor Turley, Flynn was invited to the meeting ‘because’ Trump was obviously keen on the suggestion. Trump has been unhinged for several years. Therefore Trump would be the last person in that room to speak those words to Flynn.
The professor ends this column by telling us that William Barr was the “fire wall and source of mature and measured advice”.
Professor, you know damn well that William Barr is leaving the administration this week. That means there will be ‘no fire wall or mature advice’ during the final month of Trump’s presidency. That is ‘not’ comforting to note.
The stupid side of anonymous.
1) President Trump publicly denied the report as “fake news.”
Why would the discussion continue. He said he wouldn’t. I guess the MSM has to make up stories as do you. That is how we get to 2 following number 1. Your lack of ability is astounding.
“2) Tapper was right to describe the idea as “deranged.”
Trump calls a lot of things “fake news” that are real news.
The accuracy of Trump is far greater than the MSM.
Hahahahahahaha!!
The laughter only tells everyone that you have looked at one side of the coin. If you actually had full knowledge you would have added a counter idea.
Laugh all you want – but there is a price for lies and false accusations.
The MSM is not credible and has no integrity.
Nor does the US Intelligence community.
What of all those who testified in the Trump impeachment hearings ?
What were they actually doing to thwart the Biden’s influence peddling scheme in the Ukraine ?
Why are any of these people still in government ?
Why is Biden bringing any of them back ?
If you want credibility – it is simple – STOP LYING.
Trump is not credible and has no integrity.
You are not credible either.
John Say is incredibly credible and that has been noted by others. I don’t know why you say Trump has no integrity, but I note you didn’t include proof with your comment.
What does that say about your integrity?
Thank you
It is not hard to be credible.
All that is required is to check the facts before making a claim.
that would be actual facts – not the allegations of anonymous sources claiming to be “experts”.
The minimum requirements for integrity are to not make claims of moral failure by others without proof.
It pains me to call out other posters here as liars. Calling anyone a liar is one of the most dangerous claims you can make.
You will note that I do not accuse others of lying about the facts – though clearly many on the left do that all the time.
I only accuse those who have made false moral accusations of others.
That is a moral claim that is self evidently correct.
Good news for OUR Constitution: “President Donald Trump fired back at rumors he would consider martial law to combat election fraud, calling it ‘fake news’ and ‘more knowingly bad reporting.'”
More good news for OUR Constitution: “Pollster John Thomas: Loeffler, Perdue Climbing Ahead in Georgia.”
I’ll sleep better tonight, friends 🙂
Now, if they just don’t steal Georgia, too.
Diogenes, they ‘stole Georgia’, according to the Trump campaign and rightwing media. So by that logic, why should Georgia voters trust state election officials again??
There is so much un*tapped material (get it?) for Fake Jake to *tap* into about Joe Biden’s strange and screwed up family, yet he never ‘goes there’ when it comes to stories that hurt Biden. Why not Fake Jake?
“A source with knowledge of the situation has revealed to TheBlaze that in October 2018, Hunter Biden’s handgun was taken from his vehicle without his knowledge by Hallie Biden — the widow of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s son Beau — and she placed it in a garbage can outside a Delaware supermarket.
But after a subsequent search, the gun couldn’t be found, the source said. And after law enforcement was contacted and both Hunter Biden and Hallie Biden were questioned, the source said no arrests were made and no charges were filed.
Delaware State Police on Thursday told TheBlaze the case was referred for a decision on prosecution to the Delaware Department of Justice, which has not yet returned TheBlaze’s request for comment on this case.
In addition, the source also said agents from the United States Secret Service as well as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives visited the shop where Hunter Biden purchased the gun prior to any report being filed…”
https://www.theblaze.com/news/source-hunter-bidens-gun-was-taken-by-hallie-biden-in-2018-thrown-into-a-supermarket-garbage-can-went-missing-and-no-arrests-were-made
Now is it OK for the media to ask Joe Biden why he sent his Secret Service detail to clean up a gun charge for Hunter?
If your last name is Biden you are above the law. Justice is swift only for the little people.
https://nypost.com/2020/12/19/caroline-biden-gets-no-jail-time-after-dui-guilty-plea/
sorry I dont like bidens but it’s common for first time offender DUIs to get no jail time.
Sal Sar
Amen.
It’s not the lack of jail time. It’s the number of offenders of a multiplicity of things in one family. Is your family like that?
I am not sure it would be illegal for Hunter to have a gun. He is not a convicted felon so what’s the problem
If his wife or paramour stole it from him and threw it away, she would only be charged if Hunter really wanted police to press charges
He is a fool but not that dumb
That is not really a significant story. Just another coke addict lost his piece, A ho hum day at the office for cops, except for the name
The real story is him making influence peddling deals with Chicoms, kicking money upstairs to Joe, failing to declare it, etc. Which is a story the mass media has “cancelled” because they are a fake propaganda ministry owned by evil billlionaires.
Sal Sar