How A Snap Impeachment Could Shatter Our Constitutional Balance

Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on my concerns over the planned “snap impeachment” this year.  In my view, impeaching on the speech alone would raise serious concerns over the use of impeachment in the future. Many Democrats, including members of Congress, refused to accept Trump as the legitimate president when he was elected and refused to do so as rioting broke out at the inauguration.  Many of the same members have used the same type of rhetoric to “take back the country” and “fight for the country.”  The concern is that this impeachment will not only create precedent for an expedited pathway of “snap impeachments” but allow future Congresses to impeach presidents for actions of their supporters.  The point of this column is to call for greater caution and deliberation before we take this step to consider the basis and implications of this impeachment.  As with the calls to use the 25th Amendment, there are real dangers to any opportunistic or hurried use of this option.  There is also the alternative of a joint and bipartisan condemnation of both houses, which would be both justified and unassailable.

As I have said, there could be evidence to support impeachment on the proposed incitement article but it would have to be found before or after the speech to show an intent to spark rioting or to allow it to continue.  As with the 25th Amendment claim, such evidence would be found from within the White House and through a traditional impeachment inquiry.

Here is the column:

Author Franz Kafka once wrote, “My guiding principle is this: Guilt is never to be doubted.” Congressional Democrats appear close to adopting that Kafkaesque standard into the Constitution as they prepare for a second impeachment of President Trump. In seeking his removal for “incitement,” Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but free speech, all in a mad rush to remove Trump just days before the end of his term.

Democrats are seeking to remove Trump on the basis of his speech to supporters before the Jan. 6 rioting at the U.S. Capitol. Like many, I condemned that speech as it was still being given, calling it reckless and wrong. I also opposed the challenges to electoral votes in Congress. However, Trump’s speech does not meet the definition of incitement under the U.S. criminal code. Indeed, it would be considered protected speech by the Supreme Court.

When I testified in both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings, I noted that an article of impeachment does not have to be based on a clear crime but that Congress historically has looked to the criminal code to weigh impeachment offenses. In this current controversy, any such comparison would quickly dispel claims of criminal incitement. Despite widespread, justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Such electoral-vote challenges have been made by Democrats in past elections under the Electoral Count Act, and Trump was pressing Republican lawmakers to join the effort on his behalf. He stated: “Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy…And after this, we’re going to walk down – and I’ll be there with you – we’re going to walk down … to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

He ended his speech by saying a protest at the Capitol was meant to “try and give our Republicans, the weak ones … the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.” Such marches are common — on both federal and state capitols — to protest or to support actions occurring inside.

The governing legal standard for violent speech is found in Brandenburg v. Ohio. As a free speech advocate, I have long criticized that 1969 case and what I consider its dangerously vague standard. However, even Brandenburg would treat Trump’s speech as protected by the First Amendment. Under that case, the government can criminalize speech that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

There was no call for lawless action by Trump. Instead, there was a call for a protest at the Capitol. Moreover, violence was not imminent; the vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters present were not violent before the march, and most did not riot inside the Capitol. Like many violent protests we have witnessed over the last four years, including Trump’s 2017 inauguration, the criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators. Capitol police knew of the planned march but declined an offer of National Guard personnel because they did not view violence as likely.

Thus, Congress is about to seek the impeachment of a president for a speech that is protected under the First Amendment. It would create precedent for the impeachment of any president who can be blamed for the violent acts of others after the use of reckless or inflammatory language.

What is even more unnerving are the few cases that would support this type of action. The most obvious is the 1918 prosecution of socialist Eugene Debs, who spoke passionately against the draft in World War I and led figures like President Wilson to declare him a “traitor to his country.” Debs was arrested and charged with sedition, the new favorite term of today’s Democratic leaders to denounce Trump and Republican members who challenged the Biden victory.

In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote for a unanimous bench in one of the most infamous decisions to issue from the Supreme Court. The court dismissed Debs’ free speech rights and held that it was sufficient that his words had the “natural tendency and reasonably probable effect” of deterring people from supporting the war.

That decision was a disgrace — but Democrats are now arguing something even more extreme as the basis for impeachment. Under their theory, any president could be removed for rhetoric deemed to have the “natural tendency” to encourage others to act in a riotous fashion. Even a call for supporters to protest peacefully would not be a defense. It would be as if Debs first denounced the war but also encouraged people to enlist. This standard would allow for a type of vicarious impeachment — attributing conduct of third parties to a president for the purposes of removal.

Democrats are pushing this dangerously vague standard while objecting to their own statements being given incriminating meaning by critics. For example, conservatives have pointed to Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) calling for people to confront Republican  leaders in restaurants; Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) insisted during 2020’s violent protests that “there needs to be unrest in the streets,” while then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said “protesters should not let up” even as many protests were turning violent. They can all legitimately argue that their rhetoric was not meant to be a call for violence, but this is a standard fraught with subjectivity.

The damage caused by this week’s rioting was enormous — but it will pale in comparison to the damage from a new precedent of a “snap impeachment” for speech protected under the First Amendment. It is the very danger that the Framers sought to avoid in crafting the impeachment standard. In a process meant to require deliberative, not impulsive, judgments, the very reference to a “snap impeachment” is a contradiction in constitutional terms. In this new system, guilt is not to be doubted and innocence is not to be deliberated. It would do to the Constitution what the rioters did to the Capitol: Leave it in tatters.

704 thoughts on “How A Snap Impeachment Could Shatter Our Constitutional Balance”

  1. The Democrats don’t care about the constitutional order. They care about winning and crushing the enemy, i.e., Trump and his supporters.

  2. As the bodies pile up on 5th Avenue and Trump standing there with a almost full drum magazine assault rifle. Turley says well, we should not be in quick judgement whether Trump will empty the whole magazine, so lets hold off and wait and see if he pulls the trigger again.

    1. Do you recall Nancy Pelosi and all Democrat lawmakers claiming all over the airwaves and social media that the 2016 election was hijacked? Do you recall Democrat lawmakers and left-leaning pundits claiming for YEARS that the election was hijacked and Trump was a Russian spy? They all got away with those lies. To this day they are still lying about 2016.

      1. Every intelligence agency reported there was Russian interferences with the election, including the republican led Senate Committee. The Mueller report made it very clear that there was interactions with the Russians and the Trump team. And you must be slipping, you forgot…BUT….BUT…..Hillary.

        1. Not actually true.

          The Brennan architected IC report which was constructed outside of normal channels said that.

          The actual intelligence which we now have has Russia favoring Clinton not trump and Clinton colluding with a russian agent – and the CIA knowing that in June 2016.


          1. John say, “The actual intelligence which we now have has Russia favoring Clinton not trump and Clinton colluding with a russian agent – and the CIA knowing that in June 2016.


            Where is your proof of this assertion?

            1. Numerous declassified documents as well as briefings given to Obama and Comey.

              That is the proof.

              But anyone with a brain should have been able to figure that out from the start.

              Trump’s policies have been bad for Russia.
              Clinton’s/Obama’s/Biden’s benefit Russia.

              Russia gave the clinton’s/Biden’s massive amounts of Money.
              Trump got stiffed on the Trump Tower Moscow.

              It is reasonable to assume that Putin favors those he ACTUALLY favors – like by giving them money.
              And disfavors those he ACTUALLY disfavors – like by foreclosing deals.

              Those of you on the left claim to be smart – why did not need the CIA to figure this out for you ?

              Most of you have college degrees, Some advanced college degrees.

              I will make this really simple. If LONG Before the Declassied documentation proved not only that Putin favors Clinton,
              But that Clinton was trying to frame Trump, that she was working with a russian spy and a russian dupe to do so, and that Putin KNEW this and likely approved. And that the CIA, FBI, and Obama KNEW all of this.

              If LONG before learning those things you were unable to figure out that Brennan’s bogus ICA was a peice of Crap and that
              Putin favored Clinton. If you could not figure that our – without “experts”. If you could not figure that out from information that has been readily made public. Then whatever degrees you have are garbage and you should demand your money back from the colleges you attended.

              If you were unable to figure that out on your own. You do not have the intelligence required to be given any job that requires intelligence.
              You should go get a job as a factory worker doing some rote task, Because you are either too stupid or too poorly educated to do any job requiring intelligence.

              I would further note that the ordinary blue collar worker figured this out LONG before you

              Finally – if you bought the Putin favored Trump nonsense EVER. Your analysis on ANYTHING else is untrustworthy.

              To those offering a few paragraphs of nonsense from the Senate report – whover wrote that should be permanently denied any job of intellectual trust anywhere. Not only is nearly all of it demonstrably false. Most of it never made any sense at all.

            2. Actual intelligence that has been declassified within the past 2 years.

              That is the proof.

              That said – anyone with an IQ over dirt that has paid the slightest attention to the facts should have been able to figure it out easily on their own.

              One of the most disturbing things about those of you on the left is that you try to sell total complete nonsense – and most of you beleive it yourselves.

              I have no doubt if some “expert” published a study that said carrot tops were violent sociopaths – you would unquestioningly accept it and start ranting that we must remove Trump because his hair proves he is a violent sociopath.

              You have no ability to critically think. The ordinary blue collar worker has 100 times more common sense than most of you.

              You are either idiots or incredibly poorly educated.

        2. No the Mueller report did not make that clear.

          The Mueller report makes claims of intentions without evidence, and makes no claims of actual interaction.

          In fact Mueller was not even able to actually convict the Russians he brought to court.
          The court limited him to allegations he could prove and the case fell appart.

  3. Yeah Professor but this is Donald Trump who we are speaking about and after all anything Trump does is bad and anything to stop him is good. That is the logic and it seems to be pervasive and getting louder each day. Can you please tell us what logic has to do with anything the democrats are planning? Can you tell us that they really care about the Constitution? Can you tell me with any certainty that if I were to publicly advocate that I support President Trump on and make that advocacy across the street from the White House that I would not myself be assaulted? Can you tell me with any degree of certainty that the Metro Police or the Capitol Police or the Parks Police would even attempt to locate and prosecute my assailant? I suggest that you can not answer any one of my questions in the affirmative because you know as well as I know the answer. Can you also honestly tell me that you thought the Appeals Court actually held a hearing on the Flynn case without having known in advance exactly how they were going to vote? and by that I mean each individual judge? I will at least excuse the three who heard the first appeal on mandamus as their opinions were already a matter or record, yet if I knew exactly how each of them would vote why didnt you?

  4. Num nuts the constitutional balance is already broken and deliberately. With no FORENSIC AUDIT the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION was a humorless farce.

    1. What other presidential elections were followed by a forensic audit John.

      By the way, not asking for evidence, but can you even describe the scenario of how the votes in 6 states were rigged, and then only affecting the presidential line, but not those down ballot races? There would have to be hundred if not thousands of local election workers and officials of both parties involved, so catching them should not be all that hard.

      How could this have worked? Now, if you can come up with a believable scenario (no Venezuelan plots please) the next question, OK where’s the evidence for this happening.

      1. In what other election did the executive unilaterally ignore the laws and constitution of the states to conduct an election experiment that had never been done before.

        BTW ALL elections should have an independent audit as the NORM.

        It is incredibly important that the results of an election are trusted by everyone – espeicially the losers.

        Government is not legitimate because of the results of the election.

        It is legitimate because of the consent of the governed.
        That consent is the consequence of a trusted election.

        A plurality of americans beleive the election was likely stolen.

        That is something you are REQUIRED to fix.,

        That has NEVER happened before.

        It does nto matter whether you beleive that is true.
        It does not matter if it is false.
        If does matter that much of the country beleives it is true.

        If you want the country even further divided – you will continue as you are.

        In fact i would encourage you to do all the things you are currently doing – as you WILL have an ACTUAL insurection quite soon if you continue.

        You had better learn to respect those you disagree with, They are not going away.

        1. A “plurality” means the largest number when there are three or more options, and none of the options received over 50%. A (significant) MAJORITY believes it was fair and honest and a MINORITY believe that it was not. (The best number from a Reuters Ipsos poll is that 28% of those asked thought that the election involved illegal voting or was rigged) So not a plurality in any sense. Just sayin’.

          If something that is false is believed by a large number of people, the only way to fix it is to tell them the truth. Every single investigation into this election shows that it was fair. Period. Professor Turley has said that he believes that it was fair. Period. In two months a team of lawyers has not brought forth any convincing evidence to the contrary and a whole bunch of Trump-appointed judges have agreed with that. I don’t know how else to “fix it” except to just keep telling you that you have to believe in the real facts, and at this point those facts are beyond dispute.

          It’s kind of like in football. There is a close play, and a dispute call, and the officials confer on the field, and then there is a video review of the play, and then there is a ruling. And a larger number of people in the stands think the ruling is wrong. But guess what. The game goes on. You take the ruling, and you continue to play.

          There will be another election in 2 years, and another 2 years after that. If you don’t like the outcome in this win, just go out and win the next.

          As far as your last line, well, I think the election was fair and honest, which is the belief of the majority, so while I would never put it this way because it sounds, you know, kind of threatening, to quote your language “you had better learn to respect those you disagree with, they are not going away..”

          1. “A “plurality” means the largest number when there are three or more options, and none of the options received over 50%.”
            “A (significant) MAJORITY believes it was fair and honest and a MINORITY believe that it was not.”

            “(The best number from a Reuters Ipsos poll is that 28% of those asked thought that the election involved illegal voting or was rigged) So not a plurality in any sense. Just sayin’.”
            No, Reuters is just the poll you like.

            You are free to cite whatever poll you want – but I would note that the most accurate polls regarding the 2020 and 2016 election are the onse saying that a plurality belecte there was sufficient fraud to turn the election.

            As to your Reuters poll – anyone who beleive there was no illegal voting – they are complete idiots.

            There is illegal voting in EVERY election. The only question is HOW MUCH.
            VTW that is the 3rd option you miss.

            46% – enough to probably change the outcome.
            45% – not enough.
            the balance – not sure.

            “If something that is false is believed by a large number of people, the only way to fix it is to tell them the truth. ”

            No the way to fix it is to FIND the truth. You have not bothered to look for the truth. You have gone out of your way to hide the truth – whatever it is – you do not want to know.

            “Every single investigation into this election shows that it was fair.”
            Absolutely false – and you either know it or you are willfully blind.

            The election quite obviously was not lawful – there is no such thing as “fair but unlawful” PERIOD.

            You have never addressed the fact that in 5 of the 6 key states – mailin voting is unconstitutional.
            There is no way to get arround that.
            When a state violates its own constitution – it is lawless. When the courts condone that – they are part of the lawlessness.

            If the PA supreme court decided that the state need not prosecute rape tomorow – and the US supreme court decided that was OK.

            That would not make it lawful or moral.

            This past 6 months our courts have done an excellent job of demonstrating exactly what is wrong with them.

            You wonder why protestors do not trust government or the courts ?

            Because they have behaved lawlessly and without trust.

            You say that you can fix this by “telling the truth”.

            But you are not “telling the truth” – you are pretending that truth is just a matter of oppinion – and because someone in authority shares yours – that makes it “the truth”.

            That leads immediately to totalitarianism.

            You wonder what those protesting at the capital were angry – because you are NOT “telling the truth”.

            “In two months a team of lawyers has not brought forth any convincing evidence to the contrary ”
            False and again you know it. We can argue about evidence of Fraud – there is plenty of it. The statistical evidence is about 10 times more than what would be needed if we were trying to prove discrimination based on race.
            But there is first person evidence of actual fraud.

            But the fraud is not the biggest issue – the lawlessness is.
            Without the rule of law – when government does not follow its own laws, there is no trust. PERIOD.

            It does not matter how much those in government try to tell us – “do not look behind the curtain, our lawlessness did not matter”
            Because it DOES, it always does.

            “I don’t know how else to “fix it” except to just keep telling you that you have to believe in the real facts”
            Yes, real facts – the election was conducted in violation of the laws and constitutions in each fo the key states (and many other states).
            That is the actual facts. Readily apparent to those willing to see.

            “It’s kind of like in football. There is a close play, and a dispute call, and the officials confer on the field, and then there is a video review of the play, and then there is a ruling. And a larger number of people in the stands think the ruling is wrong. But guess what. The game goes on. You take the ruling, and you continue to play.”

            When the officials on the feild get the ruling wrong – they are FIRED.
            And you KNOW that periodically they get the ruling wrong.

            I would further note – that in a football game when it is all over – the winning side does not get to pick the pocket of the losers.
            They go home with a trophy to do their own thing. Those on the left have made clear their intention when they “win” is to steal from some and give it to others. That is immoral and illegal – even if you actually “win”.

            “There will be another election in 2 years”
            Ans so long as it is conducted outside the law the results can not be trusted.

            You do not seem to grasp that is FUNDIMENTAL.

            The core issue here is not really the fraud. It is the lawless manner in which the election was conducted.
            You used the football analogy – how long do you think that football would last if it become clear to fans that the umpires were not following the rules ? Do you think the NFL would last very long if 25% of fans quite watching the game because the umpires were bent ?

            Ultimately whether the rules were actually followed is decided by the fans not the umpires. The game can survive a bad call or two now and then. It can not survive if fans beleive that the umpires are bent, not merely occasionaly wrong.

            You do not grasp the difference between a mistake and lawlessness.
            We can forgive mistakes. Real mistakes ultimately tend to balance out.

            One of the other problems that those ont he left have in this election is that more than 9 of 10 (I think it is closer to 99 of 100) corrections to this eleciton AFTER the election favored Trump. While 99 of 100 adjustments to the election DURING the election favored Biden.

            Do you know how astronomical the odds against that are.

            The GA recount – which you have touted – picked up several thousand Trump votes that were missed accross the state.
            It picked up something like 30 Biden votes in one place.

            Turley has noted before that recounts very rarely alter the outcome. Why ? Because they goes as the House seat in NY went.
            100 votes one way, 75 the other 20 votes one way, 50 the other. There may be lots of adjustments and they MIGHT change the outcome if the race is razor thin. But errors found in counting the vote always come close to balancing. When the errors are far from balancing – you are not seeing error, you are seeing fraud.

            The errors made by honest umpires tend to balance and fans will tolerate a small amount of error. They will even tolerate an occasional game lost due to error. But when there is a pattern and trhe errors all go the same way – no one trusts the umpires anymore.

            “and another 2 years after that. If you don’t like the outcome in this win, just go out and win the next.”
            And so long as the elections are conucted lawlessly – there is no expectation that the outcome will ever change unless you cheat bigger than the other side.

            Regardless, as i have pointed out – you think there was no fraud ? You are happy with the way the rules are right now ?
            It is trivial for an unscrupulous republican to game the next election using the rules in place today.
            If I can figure out how to do so without getting caught – do you think that Pail manafort or Roger Stone or whoever can not ?

            I can pretty trivially assure that 20% of the vote in every major democratic city is obliterated.

            “As far as your last line, well, I think the election was fair and honest”
            That does not matter.

            “which is the belief of the majority”
            False an irrelevant.

            The majority in 1787 thought that Slavery was OK.
            The majority of the supreme court thought in 1857 that it was OK for anyone of african descent to be considered property.

            Morality, fairness and the rule of law are not determined by the majority.

            The most rights you give those you hate the most – those are the most rights that you can be sure that you have yourself.

            “so while I would never put it this way because it sounds, you know, kind of threatening”
            It is threatening.
            You do not seem to get it.


            “you had better learn to respect those you disagree with, they are not going away..”
            Do you honestly think that the people who voted for Trump are scared of you ?

            1. Excellent John. You made several very astute points that are not generally made. I hope everyone who is turned off by long responses reads this one in particular and look at some of the arguments that are clear and should be intuitive to all but aren’t.

              1. One point that I did not make is that the argument over numbers is not important.

                I beleive it is claimed that strong support fo the revolutionary war never exceeded 17% of the country.

                There is data that no government can survive if as little as 11% of the people are vigorously opposed.

                There are 900,000 people in law enforcement in this country. There are about 1.3M active duty soldiers, and about 800K reserves.

                That is not enough forces to resist 75M people or 35M or even 10M who were serious.

                Worse still it is not likely that most of those Police, and Military would be willing to fight their fellow citizens.

                One of the reasons that government fails as it grows is that the resources do not exist to enforce the laws and more and more discretion must be excercised, and that weakens the perception of the rule of law.

                While the left is entirely wrong about the lawlessness and fraud in this election – it would not matter if they were right.

                46% of the country does not trust the election, and does not trust the government.

                This was actually a problem for Trump in 2017 – far too many people beleived the Russia nonsense.
                It did not matter that it was stupid. Government is weak when sufficient numbers do not trust it.

                But the mistrust seeded by the left and the press and the deep state in 2017 ultimately backfired.
                The left has cried wolf too many times. No one beleives them.

                JF, and Elvis and Svelaz do not seem to grasp that more and more people are not even listening to them at all.

                The arguments of those on the left need refuted less and less – the press is not beleived. The govenrment is not beleived, the courts are not beleived.

                Without the trust of the governed things are going to get progressively worse.
                And the left is blind to the need to earn peoples trust.

                1. “There is data that no government can survive if as little as 11% of the people are vigorously opposed.”

                  John, I don’t know if that is correct or not, but vigorous opposition causes people to get their hands dirty even if the dirt is totally legal and non-violent. How many conservatives are willing to get their hands dirty?

                  I have been criticized by more than one conservative for getting my hands dirty and getting in the mud for the most trifling of things. No big deal. That at least means some are at least listening to the alternatives.

                  We hear conservatives criticizing Trump for being rude and we might be hearing that it is rude to call Anonymous the Stupid, stupid. It is rude to an extent but an idea conservatives have to adopt. If they don’t we have to wait until those on the left who are more willing to get their hands dirty are burned. Then the numbers have a chance of reaching your goal

                  Unfortunately by that time the Constitution and the Republic are essentially gone and the revolts like most in history take a nation from one despot to another or in the more democratic nations one oligarchy to another.

                  A constitutional republic based on natural rights is a rarity. In fact I can’t think of one large country with a large population ever that came close to what we see in the United States that has lasted more than a pitiful amount of time. That is why I do not have the optimistic views that you seem to have.

                  1. I try to stick to calling arguments and opinions stupid rather than people.
                    But nearly all of the posts by those on the left are nothing more than defamation, and it gets hard not to snap back when you are relentlessly called a stupid racist, hateful hating hater. Both my children are minorities and they have experienced real racism – most often NOT from white people. Regardless, I have a clue about racism and am particularly sensitive to accusations by those who do not.

                    Regardless, 1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale – not a howto manual.

                    I do not know if this is correct – but purportedly big tech has lost $51B in value over the past few days.

                    The 11% figure I cited is specifically those who are willing to get their hands dirty.

                    If a law has 89% public support and the remaining 11% are not prepared to “get their hands dirty” – the law will survive and government will survive.

                    All of us obey stupid laws all the time – we are not willing to fight over them.

                    But when as little as 11% of people will not obey a law – government fails.

                    Th declarations statement that government exists only at the consent of the governed is not an aspiration.

                    Government can not exist if doing so requires the active use of force against 11% of the population.

                    1. “I try to stick to calling arguments and opinions stupid rather than people”

                      That is fine John, but some people are actually stupid like Anonymous the Stupid. When a stupid guy calls me, my friends or people that think like me, racists, I call them stupid. The same for any type of defamation. Years ago such things could have led to a dual with one party dying but we have evolved and no longer dual. But we can evolve to a point of extinction when conservatives are unwilling or unable to dirty their hands.

                      I would say worse about Anonymous the Stupid than I do but I am a polite person who is accustomed to being around intelligent and sociable people. Yet my very polite friends, more polite than I, would never put up with garbage like Anonymous the Stupid and few other prominent members on the blog.

                      “Both my children are minorities and they have experienced real racism – most often NOT from white people. “

                      Members of my family have faced racism here and death or torture elsewhere. When I meet a “racist” who won’t deal because of racism, I love him because if he doesn’t want to kill me. He just doesn’t want to deal with me and lets me deal with whoever will. That is his choice and I respect it because in no way is he trying to harm me. Instead he is trying to peacefully separate himself from me. Many of these same people have later become friends.

                    2. I was not taking a pot shot at you.

                      As I noted – sometimes I feel compelled to call another poster – rather than a post stupid.
                      Further I have called others dishonest. I reserve that primarily for those who call others liars and then fail to prove that.
                      Incorrectly accusing someone of error is a mistake, incorrectly accusing someone of moral failure is immoral.

                      Regardless, I was noting guides that I try to follow for myself – not what others are obligated to do.

                    3. “I was not taking a pot shot at you.”

                      John, I didn’t think you were. I’m happy with what you do. It affords others and myself to learn a few additional things. I agree with everything you say in this recent post.

                      You talk about error and morality. The person we respond to does not exist so his personhood is dependent on what he says or doesn’t say. When one is doing the following,

                      ” Incorrectly accusing someone of error is a mistake, incorrectly accusing someone of moral failure is immoral. ”

                      One is accusing the alias and in that case Anonymous the Stupid is stupid. If however one is using a real identity then one might be a bit more circumspect. That is the advantage of a blog of this nature using real names or at least only one alias per person.

                    4. I do not have a problem with people posting anonymously. It is a right.

                      But whether they understand it or not, doing so comes at a price. You can not build a reputation or trust.

                      Each anonymous post must stand alone. Yes, we probably can somewhat accurately sort one anonymous poster from another.
                      But we can never be sure, and we are not obligated to do so.

                      I do not presume that I can identify which anonymous is which. At most I assume that if I am being responded to repeatedly by anonymous in a thread it is the same one.

                      I raised the issue of correcting errors. Obviously we should adjust our own thinking when we discover error.
                      But we should also raise our own errors publicly because doing so increases our trust and credibilty.

                      Anonymous provided a link to what he called a self correction. But you can not self correct as anonymous. We have no means of knowing that the post was actually his.

                      You can not build a reputation as anonymous.

                      I try to assure that my own posts are under my psuedonym – but several times a day I err and my post goes in as anonymous.
                      I have to assume that happens to others. That is fine, but that too is a reason that one can not build a reputation as anonymous.

                      Psuedonyms come at a smaller cost to credibility. We are always more credible and trustworthy we we speak under our own name.

                      Many people hear try to dox those posting under a pseudonym. Some have tried to dox me. If you have minimal skills that is not difficult to do. If I wanted to make it impossible I could. If you want to go to the trouble of finding my real world identity – go ahead.
                      If you search hard enough you will find posts in other forums where I have identified myself and made it possible contact me.

                      I use a psuedonym to thwart a specific technology illiterate sociopathic family member who has a track record of interfering in my business and personal life.

                      My point is that different means of speaking have benefits and consequences.

                      If you post as anonymous you can not build a reputation and you can not claim one.

                    5. You have adopted a principle that most evangelicals claim to follow – “hate the sin, but love the sinner”.

                      The left today hates people usually on the basis of false claims of moral failure.

                      The left today is racist, sexist, hateful intolerant, and ignorant.

                      We have listened to the recent rantings of the left over the capital protest.

                      I cited the Kavanaugh protests – which were worse.

                      But elsewhere someone listed a number of much much worse truly violent protests at the capital – including an attempted bombing and an armed attack. Further the perpitrators of one of these were pardoned by Clinton and the other by Obama.

                    6. “You have adopted a principle that most evangelicals ”

                      I didn’t know I was an evangelical. 🙂

                    7. I did not claim you were an evangelist. Only that the principle of loving the sinner but hating the sin is morally sound.

                      Some christians do not practice it – Rev. Fred Phelps and WBC comes to mind. But some do.

                      It is a sound moral principle completely absent in the leftist religion.

                      The left is arrogant, hypocritical, intolerant and hateful. They make Joe MacCarthy look benign.

                      I recently heard Robert Barnes assert that we should be optomistic, that in the US these powerseeking, arrogant, hypocritical. intolerant and hateful movements have ALWAYS failed.

                      Trump was a backlash against this. That backlash will survive – and grow despite setbacks.

                      The left is their own worst enemy. Their intolerance is so great they constantly attack their own.

                      Twitter purges conservatives – but allows totalitarians through out the world.

                      But these intolerant left wing nuts do not only purge conservatives. They have also purged outspoken liberals who have diverged from orthodoxy – Navaratolova, Rowling. myriads of left college professors who have said little more than I am not sure the data supports X, or maybe we should think a moment.

                      I think that hard Trump won this election – and there is a reasonable probability that he did, that would have been the collapse of the left.
                      Instead we have been setback a year or two.

                    8. “Instead we have been setback a year or two.”

                      John, it’s not a matter of which party wins rather which direction the parties head toward. two steps backward and 1 step forward is not attractive to me.

                      Take note of the direction of the nation for many decades and then do the same for education, basic freedom, etc.

                    9. I would suggest, this moment is gettysburg, Biden is Lee and democrats are the confederacy.

                      separately – I suspect we could agree on a long list of liberties that have gone slowly backwards over the past 50 years.

                      But hiding in that is the fact that liberty as a whole has actually increased significantly.
                      rising standard of living increase freedom and oportunity faster that failed government has taken it away.

                      I expect deep state freindly and neocon replicans to be driven from the party.

                      Liz Cheney won her seat in 2020 by 68%, she is already expected to face a tough primary and may have weak at best support from here state party. The future of the GOP in policies and people is set, and it is Trumpian. There may be small fractures among the existing GOP politicians – but not in the base. If republicans do not continue with fundimentally trumpian politics with only minor modifications they will ne be able to get elected dog catcher. A substantial portion of the Trump vote is people who will sit out elections before they will vote for Rhinos. Contra the media – the Republican party is united – now and for the near future. Democrats may have eaked out a lawless victory.
                      but they are deeply divided.

                      Democrats can not help themselves but screw up. The news merely reporting on their proposals is terrifying people – people who did not vote republican.

                      Further the actions of democrats and allies are driving republicans as well as many many others to things that republicans have previously opposed.

                      Republicans lead the charge on the war on terror – now millions of republicans are wondering if the FBI is about to put them on no fly lists or domestic terrorism lists – and democrats are doing everything to hype those fears. The war between Trump and the deep state have moved the GOP. George Bush headed the CIA. Today most republicans see the CIA, FBI, NSA – much of the federal govenrment as dangerous enemies.

                      Democrats have made Peer2Peer and Crypto Currencies things that Republicans are increasingly likely to favor rather than oppose.

                      Nothing will advance disruptive freedom enhancing technology than nearly half the country beleiving they need it to protect themselves from an oppressive government.

                      I think that the Big Tech Censorship and take down of Parler are incredibly good things for the country, for the GOP.

                      Not because they are litterally good – they are extremely bad. But they accomplish two things. They provide the impetus to circumvent these attacks. AND they draw bright lines as to how is on which sides. We are in the midst of a likely short lived new MacCarthy era, and it is democrats and Big Tech who have doffed the cape of big brother. Further this is worse than the MacCarthy era. It was had to sell many democrats that efforts to root out communists were a personal threat to their own liberties. SM, MSM, and the left are not hiding the fact they hate and are going after nearly all republicans.

                      I am a 62 year old white male libertarian, who has never done anything violent in my life. I did not vote for Trump in 2016 and 2020, I have asian children, the only protests I have ever been in were protesting Nazi’s marching through my city – AFTER petitioning to allow the march. Yet I would not be surprised that some of my posts hear might attract the attention of the NSA and FBI.
                      Nor am I alone. a significant portion of 75M americans are likely to be much more concerned that the federal government might label them domestic terrorists. The actual odds of that are small, The FBI does not have the power to monitor 7,500 americans much less 75M but democrats are doing everything in their power to scare them into beleiving that. We have AOC talking about re-education camps for southern republicans. If there was any legitimacy in theis election at all it was the belief that democrats – and Biden in particular could bring about normalacy, reconcliliation. Yet at a time when a plurality beleives the election was stolen and has no interest in reconcilliation the democrats are either ranting that reconcilliation is not possible or that the price for it is silence and KowTowing. Neurotic white leftist women kowtow. Republicans and particularly Trump supporters do not.

                      The left has spent years ratcheting everything up as an existential threat to the nation.
                      They have succeeded in persuading us of that – but none THEY are the threat.

                      Finally I have this feeling that we are in a pregnant moment right now.
                      I do not know what we are about to give birth to. But I do know that it is unlikely that democrats will like it.

                      My read of the crystal ball. For what it is worth.

                    10. John, uncharacteristically you are looking at the political situation from a left right perspective believing the left will pay big.

                      I don’t see it that way. The left may pay big and the right might win seats, but the country is getting bigger not smaller, less free, not more free. We are moving in a fascistic direction whether left or right. Trump was pulling in the opposite direction. Today we are copying what has already been done to people in China and that is repression on a major scale.

                    11. Absolutely politic is more complex than left right.

                      Though I would note that the more polarized we become the the more hollowed out the center will become and the more everything will divide close to clear left right – not necescarily on perfect ideological lines.

                      Trumpism as an example is not purist conservatism.

                      But the right is not for the most part fighting among itself because it is being threaten by the left.

                      Regardless, I offered my crystal ball prediction.

                      I do not think it depends on nuances between groups on the left and right.

                      I do not as an example think the far left is the power int he democratic party right now.
                      The power is with what I would call “deep state” democrats. These are somewhat moderate. They are power for powers sake.
                      But the agenda is being set by the far left. They also have control of social media and much of MSM.
                      And they are dangerous and out of control.

                      They are going to continue to do very stupid things, and possibly more important Scare the majority of the country into the belief they could do very stupid things.

                      The left “generally” thinks it has defeated “the right”. But it has actually empowered them.

                      I know there are alot of people – even on the right who think what happened at the capital was a bad thing (politically).

                      I am not so sure it was. The left has normalized political violence. And the response of the left has normalized it further.

                      Do those people who are now afraid of being silenced on Social Media – or worse – investigated by the FBI or put on no fly lists – do they get pushed towards supporting political violence on the right or do they kowtow in fear to the left.

                      The left’s claim that the courts all fell universally against Trump is actually very bad for the left.

                      One of Trump’s great accomplishments was supposed to have been restoring law to the courts.

                      Contra the left wing nuts here – the lawlessness of the election is self evident to the vast majority of americans.
                      I have been arguing lawlessness more than fraud – because lawlessness is much more important.
                      The lawlessness was UNIQUE – the degree of government election lawlessness in 2020 has not occured in over 100 years.
                      Further it was inarguably to a single end – electing Biden.
                      Everyone knows that. The courts know that.

                      The fact that all courts ruled against Trump despite the self evidence lawlessness of the election means that a huge portion of people do not trust the courts.

                      Those on the left seem to be clueless that often winning is losing.
                      They have won an election by destroying trust in government.

                      I told you that I was surprised at how high Republican support for the capital protests was.

                      That is the canary in the coal mine.

                      Mostly the left seems blind to what they have done – but not completely – the presence of 25,000 troops for the inauguration is a big sign of fear. As is the tiny “free speech zones”. The entire concept of a “free speech zone” is leftist hypocracy.

                      That was done at charlottesville. but it was not done for any BLM protests/riots.

                      The left is clueless to understand that putting a tiny number of protestors in a cage to protest is not a good image.

      2. Scenario, hmmm, no Venezuelan plots, evidence that’s A tough one. 1 the fake news in march of 2017 acquired an un-redacted FISA warrant and KNEW that the Steele dossiers was the lynch pin, knew the names of his informants and lied about it for years. 2. If your an American you know that Adams (you figure out which one) went to the taverns, bought free drinks and incited the rabble of the Boston tea party. looking back to say to the period of time between 2008 and 2016 and comparing it to 2016_to 2020 the number of “innocent unarmed blacks” murdered by the police dropped dramatically but Obama got the noble peace prize and President Trump got Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Who supported these communist organizations? I’m willing to wager you did. Let’s see does the name Zuckenberger and $500,000,000 ring any bells. Let’s see what were they doing at the morning briefings of CNN besides mastubating. Marc Elias ring any bells. Oh yah the evidence , the shredding of ballots which by federal law must be preserved ,which were saved and then seized by the FBI and then completely destroyed. Thousands of radicalized democrats and 20 or thirty Republican observers you think that’s fair. Caught on video the order shutting down and sending people home and then that same person is on video with four or five other people running the machines for hours. And of course the running of the same ballots over and over thru the machines. And then we have false statements made by the sec. Of state of Georgia Supreme court that this never happened. A forensic audit of Georgia paper ballots ,oops over 400,000 with no chain of custody. A forensic audit by (I personally trust Pulitzer) of the Dominion machine. Who could ever believe the Nazi could come to power in Germany. I stand by my admittedly outsider civilian observations I only know what the fake news and demon party release for public consumption. Have you never heard of the big lie. With no forensic audit we lose our country. This is off the top of my head, I can list another 10 or twenty facts. Not my facts but use the sworn testimony before congress. Oh explain why Klobacher and Warren ,two Democrat presidential contenders rejected dominion voting machines.

    1. And you beleive that it is an insurection when congressmen barricade themselves in the capital hiding from their constituents and they have to break in and get shot.

      Please there are plenty of lunatics – How are the Collusion delusion remarks of Adam Schiff any more credible than those in your video ?

      And weren’t left wing nuts trying to tell us that Russia rigged the last election ? How is the General any less (or more) credible ?

      Bat$hit is bat$hit and there is an incredible amount of guano from the left.

      Ultimately much more will come out about this election.

      You can confront the problems head on in the open. or you can spend the next couple of years having Google and the media try to censor it as evidence of fraud comes out.

      The more you hide – the more credible the nonsense in the video above appears.

      You do not seem to grasp that when you attempt to silence and hide from things – you make them appear even more credible.

      Regardless, what are you afraid of ? Sunlight ?

      1. John Say, Ron A. Hoffman is that you? The twisted logic and style of argument is quite similar. I wouldn’t be surprised.

        1. I do not know who Ron A. Hoffman is.

          I have several occupations. One of which is almost entirely programing logic systems.

          My logic is not twisted – nor does it matter.

          A correct logical proof is true whether it takes 3 lines or 500 pages.

          The entirety of science rests on math and math rests on logic.

  5. Paul, Harris not only defended the rioting this Summer for 100 days. She encouraged and incited them by saying “They should continue to take to the streets.” Hundreds of businesses were destroyed and 25 people died over 100 days but I’m sure you are going to condone that.

  6. John Brennan says we must now denounce President Trump… and you still deny that that Democrats aren’t communists and using the little red book to take down America… fools.

  7. Absent from Turley’s writing – typically – is what the GOP should be doing about this deranged and dangerous demagogue they – and Turley – have been defending and enabling for over 4 years. This sin;t the Democrats mess to clean up, it’s Turley’s and the GOP’s. They had their chance to dump him a year ago and only Sen Romney answered the bell. Neither Turley of the GOP have standing to criticize the Democrats for hauling the trash from their party. If they don;t step up – I suggest they tell Trump to resign and then move to censure him or else they’re on board for the 2nd impeachment – they’ll have to take what they get and the hell with their feelings or the legal nitpicking Turley excels at when his side is in trouble. He has the intellect and moral compass of Albert Speer.

      1. Judith, you let us know when “they” come for people who didn’t break into the capital while Congress was in session. In the meantime I understand you and others think you’re being persecuted and tortured by having to lose an election. Poor you!

    1. Turley makes reasoned well thought out legal arguments based on the law and the Constitution. You do no cite any law, any legal argument but use terms such as “hauling the trash….’ Look in the mirror and reflect. You dont like someone so you advocate for impeachment. One mans “legal nitpicking” is another man’s Constitution right. But why allow rights to get in the way of a good old fashioned lynching. My guess is that if someone gave you a short rope, you’d find a tall tree, wrap the rope around Trumps neck and toss the other end over the tallest branch you could find.

    2. That I believe is either a back handed compliment or further evidence of stupidity on your part. Come on and except for orange man bad, cite one law President Trump has broken. oh ya obstruction of justice of a phony investigation of a crime the democrats committed. I remember loony tune Sally Yates refusing the Muslim travel ban which finally surprise surprise was constitutional. We do have freedom of religious beliefs in this country, but you idiots can’t possibly support Cannibalism or keeping a harem as part of a religion. The constitution protects religious beliefs that conform to to constraints placed human behaviors by the constitution in dealing with each other.

    3. Why is it you are still fixated on Trump ?

      Your fear of Trump even now – makes YOU look crazy ?

      He will no longer be president in 10 days.

      And you are STILL ranting about the 25th amendment and impeachment.

      If you actually beleive you won the election – why do you care ?

      Why are you so scared of Trump ?

      What is unusual about Trump’s presidency is the bat$hit crazy conduct of the left.

    4. Albert Speer ? Really ? More Nazi crap ?

      Who is engaged in censorship ? Trump ? Republicans ?
      Who is pushing socialism ? Trump ? Republicans ?
      Who is pushing big Government ? Trump ? Republicans ?

      Who is looking to expand the US into other teritories ?
      Who has become the party of continuous war ?

      Grow up JF – Neither Trump nor his 75M voters are nazi’s.

      And if you keep up the idiocy you WILL get an actual insurection.

      When you misuse terms – when you shout hyperbole about everything.
      when you make mountains out of molehills
      When you cry wolf when there is no wolf.

      No one will listen when the real wolf comes.

  8. I read some comments that accuse Dr. Turley of being a shill for Donald Trump or refusing to say anything that would alienate him from “his employer Fox News.” But having read and listened to him over the years, I always historically considered him a moderate left-of-center Democrat and only within about the last year or so I detect more of a tendency for his opinions to come down slightly on the right side of the political spectrum. But I honestly don’t think the Professor’s inclinations have changed, but rather that he has strong libertarian and constitutionalist bent, which has a strong influence on how his opinions will come down. I am reminded of Ronald Reagan, who historically was a Democrat and strong supporter of FDR during the 1930’s. When asked why the change in his views in later years that resulted in him becoming a conservative, he said (I paraphrase) that his views hadn’t changed – rather it was the Democrats who had moved to the left. I think that is the situation of things now, only more so. Regardless of one’s instinctive liking or disliking of Donald Trump, he has been regarded with such irrational hostility by his political opponents that the result is people who are trying to view him more objectively in effect become somewhat sympathetic to him.

    1. Maybe Turley hasn’t changed. Maybe he is just responding with the same bent he has always had to the political climate that has so drastically changed around him.
      People used to love smoking and wearing watches made with uranium that glowed in the dark. Then they found out that these things could kill them. Many still like a good smoke and those cool old stylish glowing watches from the 19430’s and 40’s, but they like playing with their grandchildren, working hard at what the love, holidays, getting a new puppy, good wine over dinner with close friends, hobbies, and everything else life has to offer more.
      Their cost benefit analysis of uranium watches and nicotine has changed.

      1. Dawn, but I’m not aware that the Constitution has changed, much less are most of us (sadly I can’t say all Americans these days) willing to abandon the principles our Founding Fathers, and the core American values of integrity, fairness and justice that have made America the greatest country in history over the last 245 years. And in a relative blink of an eye, we have factions – extremists on both sides but also Demograts in a new “woke” world tearing our democracy – and the fabric of American greatness – at the seams. Instead of rising all ships, as conservatives have long advocated, the Democrats would rather sink our instututions and our history, in the name of protecting and ‘restituting’ those permavictims (reliably democrate base whom keeps them in power) who may have been left behind. I’m am deeply, terribly saddened by what I’m seeing happening, consciously, recklessly and by accellerating motion, to our great country.

        1. You’re right. The Constitution hasn’t changed. It’s been revoked for 80%of the People of this country.
          The Constitution has been replaced by the left via carefully crafted media propaganda and social media indoctrination, by the Rule of Fiat, the Rule of Whatever it takes to seize and hold power as the governing document of The 21st Century United States by using the tried and true method of successful coups, acting “as if.”
          Elected and appointed officials, illegally, illicitly seizing and comandeering power, rights and authority they do not have, and exercising their will and agenda as if they do, while aggressively upping the ante of violence, hate and fear against anyone who questions, challenges them or objects.
          The Constitution has been hijacked and replaced with a hollow impostor that is being used against The American to fundementally transform America into a New combination of The Fourth Reich and A Stalinist/Maoist Utopia because, one, facist, totalitarian death cult political system just isn’t enough to embrace and incorporate the depth and caliber of evil the Democrats have planned for The United States.
          All because the prissy, gutless, sniveling, quaking Neville Chamberlain cowards in government, handed Constitutional power over piece by piece to treasonous criminal strong arming coup extortionists like Czechoslovakia was handed over to Hitler, in exchange for faux peace, a fake veneer of safety, for not rattling their self righteous polarized hypocritical moral self image by accusing them, for not calling them names, not threatening their jobs, not labeling them racist and not outing them for being the like minded collaborators they really are.
          These despicable cowards are unwilling and uncapable if honoring their pledge, their Oath and fulfilling their duty to use their legitimate Constitutional Authorty to do something.
          This is how the “as if” becomes the “is now.” Because no one stops them when they can.
          No dictatorship in history EVER seized absolute power and established itself with the intention of coexisting with anyone they deem a threat to their securing and preserving their hold on power and the Democrat left has made it clear they are not going to change that basic tenet of tyranny now.
          The People have the Right to Self Defense.
          When the Law and those whose duty it is to preserve protect and defend The Constitutional Republic and It’s People fail, then it’s The Peoples duty to take matters into their own hands.
          This moment in American History, is what the guns are for.

          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

        2. Democrats are slowly losing their permanent victim base.
          Myriads of those are learning that oportunity is better than being trapped in permanent squalor which is the price of entitlements.

    2. The democratic party, the media, Big Tech have all been taken over by whinny Generation X’er’s who are clueless, badly educated and ignorant of the long history of bloody failure of the things they advocate.

      These people are slowly alienating everyone.

      Is there anyone who doubts that absent a lawless mailin election Biden would have lost ?

      I am not personally concerned right now.

      The efforts to impeach or remove Trump via the 25th amendment are ludicrously stupid.
      They make the left look even more bat$hit and even more like they are hiding something.

      The sudden coordinated ramping up of Big Tech censorship will backfire spectacularly.

      Who now will trust putting their business on Amazon ? You could be shutdown without notice.

      Parlor will come back – or people will move to an alternative.

      Further this will push the development of P2P social media which would be a nightmare of FB, Twitter, Google, ….

      These companies have shown they can not be trusted – and trust is the fundimental value of the free market.

      It is unlikely that the Tech Giants will collapse quickly, but we are at the begining of their end.

      And the same is true of the regular media and the democratic party.

      Sometimes the gods punish you by giving you what you want.

    3. Well said.

      Professor Turley is the only sane person left in D.C. He doesn’t hate Trump, he loves the law. That that is so confounding to so many people has been eroding my faith in a brighter future for the country for which I spent 20 years serving in the military.

      1. The liberal left has slowly been separating itself from the illiberal left.

        This is a major problem for democrats.

        How many of these moderate democrats int he house do you think are going to remain democrats as the Omar;s and AOC;s take over ?

        They are unlikely to be re-elected as democrats in 2022.

        1. “The liberal left has slowly been separating itself from the illiberal left.” Ron A. Hoffman, it IS you. That slant is unmistakable.

          1. I am not Mr. Hoffman. I do not know a Mr. Hoffman. I do not recall seeing his posts.

            If you are desparate to dox me it is not all that hard. I have only posted under 3 names ever accross the entire internet for more than a decade. JBSAY,. ASMITH, and my real name.

            I have been posting under the name jbsay for over a decade.
            If I post as anonymous it is an accident.

            I have written as a libertarian for decades.

            Next, why does it matter ? I do not know this Mr. Hoffman – but if you think my posts are similar to his – he must be a smart person.

            Regardless, why not focus on the argument rather than the person.

            If an argument is valid – it is valid no matter who posts it.

            We use reputation to decide how thoroughly we test an argument, and to decide how much proof we need.
            Those with a reputation for credibility, integrity and correcting mistakes need to provide less proof for their arguments than those who have a long record of failure and who are still pushing old falsehoods.

  9. If Trump can be impeached for his comments, then Biden should be impeached for his adding fuel to the fire by claiming that if the protestors had been black (which BTW, some of them were!), that they would have been treated differently (which I presume, he meant treated worse). Yet, black “protestors,” rioters, arsonists and killers included, were treated with kid gloves by police officers who were told to stand down as they were assaulted by these black (and white-guilt-laden) “protestors.”

Leave a Reply