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.

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

  1. This lack of confidence preceded a report that was just released which claims the Pennsylvania numbers do not add up. Numerous PA state legislators sponsored an analysis of the Pennsylvania voting statistics. The analysis reveled 202,377 more ballots were counted than persons who voted. Biden is said to have won Pennsylvania by only 80,555 votes.

      1. Nope – the numbers do not add up.

        There is a quazi plausible explanation – All counties have not reported yet – you KNOW which ones are outstanding!

        But that answer creates other questions.

        Like Why 2+ months after the election are several PA counties unable to report on their elections ?

        95% of PA did within a day.

        Incompetence or fraud.

        Neither is a reason to trust the election.

      1. Learn to fact check the fact checkers.

        The numbers are from PA Dept. of state.
        There MIGHT be an explanation – but it just trades one form of fraud and incompetence for another.

        Regardless, web fact check organizations are nearly useless. They are not fact checkers they are just modern day zampolit

    1. There is some possibility that gap will narrow.

      Final voter Reports from some democrat counties have STILL not come in.

      But that alone should undermine your confidence.

      95% of the state had 100% reporting by midnight election day.
      They had certified voter information to the state within a day or two.

      Yet 2 or 3 counties sill do not have final information to the state – and the state certified the outcome of the election ?

      I would also note there is likely a reason that these counties have not reported yet.

      One of the claims is that many illegitimate voters voted.
      The data the State has not received is WHO voted.

      That is made public after it is recieved.

      The claims that dead people or out of state people or …. voted are based on voter registration rolls or ballot requests.

      We do not have the full data on WHO voted.

      Regardless, either we have incompetence or malice.

  2. Despite extensive claims that this was the safest election in U.S. history, recent polling demonstrates that 59% of Americans lack confidence in the integrity of the 2020 election.

    1. Same percentage think trump should be removed from office immediately.

      Problem with quoting the stat you did is it’s too broad and includes those who think there’s no way McConnell and Graham could’ve won their elections too.

      Elvis Bug

      1. Most of What Trump and others have demanded of this election should be the NORM for ALL elections.

        If you want Trust you MUST verify.

        Trump/Biden, McConnell/Graham.

        I do not care.

        I am not as much interested in who won as how the election was conducted.

        And this election failed before it started.

        First it was conducted lawlessly in atleast several key states.

        Then the courts refused to correct that before the election and then did not have the courage after.

        FIRST FOLLOW THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION.

        Until you do that – there is no reason to trust anything else – NOTHING – not the president, not the senate, not the representatives.

  3. The capitol was in “tatters”? Come on. I doubt very seriously if you went there today, you’d have any idea anything had happened at all

    1. I mean, after the bodies were taken to the morgue and dozens of police were taken to the hospital and they cleaned up all the blood….

      1. There were no ‘dozens’ of police taken to the hospital. As to the ‘bodies’, one person died of a stroke, one person died of a heart attack; one person fell, had someone fall on her, was stepped on, and had some sort of cardiac event before or after; and no one knows yet what killed Ofc. Sicknick because we haven’t seen the autopsy or the security camera footage. As for ‘all the blood’, the source of that was a Capitol Police officer who fired into a scrum of people seemingly at random.

        1. The officer who shot Ashli Babbitt didn’t fire at random. She was attempting to climb through a window over a door into the Speaker’s Lobby, which adjoins the House floor, while there were still members of Congress there. It was his job to protect them.

          Video here –
          https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/01/08/the-journey-of-ashli-babbitt/

          U.S. Capitol Police Chief Sund said more than 50 police officers of his force and D.C. police were injured.

          1. It was a girl, fool; an unarmed girl.

            Who here hasn’t suffered a girl going through PMS?

            This was beyond the pale.

            At some point, rational people are going to give up.

            Sometimes, they just give up.

            To wit,
            _____

            “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.”

            – Declaration of Independence, George Washington et al.

            1. She was a woman, George, not a girl, and she was a criminal who was attempting to break onto the House floor while there were Representatives there.

              1. “She was a woman”
                Yes,

                “she was a criminal”

                Nope

                ” who was attempting to break onto the House floor while there were Representatives there.”
                Nope and not relevant.
                Even if true that has happened before – and we do not murder people for it.

                  1. “She was a criminal.”
                    Because you say so ?

                    We have been over this repeatedly.

                    “If she hadn’t been killed, she’d be charged with the same crimes that others in that room have been charged with.”
                    57 total people have been charged last I checked. Most of those in that room have not been charged.
                    Though the left wing nut captuting one of the video’s and inciting others to riot has been.
                    OOPS

                    “Whether it’s relevant is up to those investigating her killing.”
                    Nope.

                    You still do not understand law and government.
                    The law must be a reflection of the will of the people – not the other way arround.

                    “Maybe she was murdered, maybe she wasn’t.”

                    Nope, she was murdered. Maybe he murderer will be charged and convicted – but probably not.

                1. “She was a criminal. If she hadn’t been killed, she’d be charged with the same crimes that others in that room have been charged with.”

                  Take note how she is called a criminal and George Floyd a violent criminal was praised by this nutcase Anonymous the Stupid.

                    1. Everyone knows what S. Meyer stands for, the Constitution and our democratic republic. He is on the record calling George Floyd a criminal. Anonymous the Stupid likes to hide who he is so he can hide his stupidity. If the left-wing sites says something, it must be true according to Anonymous the Stupid. Anonymous the stupid isn’t credible and being Anonymous cannot claim any different. After all that is why he hides under a generic name and icon.

                      S. Meyer doesn’t lie about other commenters, but Anonymous the Stupid has no compunction against lying.

                    2. S. Meyer/Allan the Stupid lies about other commenters.

                      If the right-wing site says something, it must be true according to S. Meyer/Allan the Stupid.

                      S. Meyer/Allan the Stupid isn’t credible, in spite of what he believes.

          2. Anon, the officer couldn’t stop her without shooting her. I must have missed the part about her being an Olympic weight lifter. The house members were in danger because of her super human strength. If she was brandishing a weapon I could understand the officers actions. No evidence of a weapon has been brought forward. Anon is surely organizing a peaceful looting in protest of her death.

            1. TIT, this is yet another example of you trying to twist what was said.

              I’ll wait for the investigation of the shooting to be completed before I conclude whether her killing was or wasn’t justified. But it’s a fact that she had already committed criminal acts to arrive at that door, and it’s a fact that that door opens into the Speaker’s Lobby, which in turn opens onto the House floor, and Representatives were still there. See the link I posted earlier for details.

              I do not support looting and have said so previously. Why do you choose to make up crap like this?

              1. “But it’s a fact that she had already committed criminal acts to arrive at that door”
                Nope.

                “and it’s a fact that that door opens into the Speaker’s Lobby, which in turn opens onto the House floor, and Representatives were still there.”
                And if they weren;t there, then they were certainly somewhere int he capital, or DC, or the US, or earth, so no matter what the officer was protecting them from citizens trying to petition government.

                Even if this was a home invasion – you can not shoot someone to protect others 100 yards away from a non-threat.

                “I do not support looting and have said so previously.”

                As you are posting as anonymous – you can not make that argument.
                Only you can be certain what you posted before.
                No one else can know that for certain.

          3. “The officer who shot Ashli Babbitt didn’t fire at random”
            Correct – he took careful aim.

            “She was attempting to climb through a window over a door into the Speaker’s Lobby, which adjoins the House floor”
            I have heard that claim repeatedly I have watched several videos from different angles.
            None of them show Alishi in the window. There are a few people with hands throught the window – but no one tried to climb through it.

            To be clear – absent the murder of Alishi – the door was going to be breached.

            “while there were still members of Congress there.”
            False – every single video shows the lobby empty by the time the officer fired.

            “It was his job to protect them.”
            From the people ?

            There was no clear threat to any member of congress – beyond having to deal with voters who were angry over their efforts to certify a lawless election.

            These protestors were clear what they wanted.

            “Video here –
            https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/01/08/the-journey-of-ashli-babbitt/

            I found no video there and nothing to confirm anything you wrote.

            Regardless, you seem to beleive that your FEELINGS are a justification for the use of deadly force.

            They are not.

            The legitimate use of deadly forces requires the imminent threat of death or bodily harm to yourself or another.

            That did not occur.

            I would suggest considering Trump’s response to the Iraninan shootdown of a US Drone.

            That shootdown was clearly an act of War. John Bolton went home that night to change clothes expecting to return with the US at war with Iran.

            Instead Trump backed down. He decided that he could not kill Iranian soldiers over an act of destruction of an object.

            Excatly the same was True in the US capital. You do not murder people over broken windows.

            You claim Alishi was climbing through the window. Every video I have seen is at odds with that.
            But even if there were true – it is not justification for Murder.

            You claim there were congressmen in the hall at the time of the shooting.
            There are several clear videos of the hall immediately before the shooting – the hall had been emptied.

            But even if you were correct – there was no imminent threat of death or bodily harm to any congressmen or the officer.

            You note that one officer was killed and some injured – correct – those who physically attacked protestors.

            There is plenty of video showing that when capital police did not use violence protestors did not either.

            When you release riot squads against protestors – you get riots and people get hurt.

            You say 50 Officers were hurt. How many were shot ? None. Some of these protestors had guns.

            Yet no protestor shot anyone. The only shooting done was by Capital police.

            In the shooting of Alishi – immediately after the officer fired – several in the crowd pulled weapons – DESPITE the officer murdering Alishi – none fired back.

            After the officer shot Alishi – the protesters did have good reason to beleive they and those with them faced and immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm. Yet protestors backed down. None fired.

            You should consider that seriously – Many of these protestors were armed. Yet no protestor shot anyone.
            The only person who shot someone was a cop.

            These protestors had far better disipline – including gun discipline than the police.

            “U.S. Capitol Police Chief Sund said more than 50 police officers of his force and D.C. police were injured.”

            How many broken bones ?

            Regardless, why were the capital police trying to stop protestors from protesting in a public government building ?

            Thwarting free speech, thwarting free assembly, Thwarting petitioning government is an unjustified use of government force.

            1. I’m not going to bother reading all your crap, John, much less responding to it when you’re too incompetent to even find the video in the link I gave, about 3/4’s of the way down the page, titled “Synchronised videos showing the shooting of Ashli Babbitt,” which shows her clearly falling from the window ~5 seconds in.

              1. I have played every video link you provided that was not behind a paywall.

                None have shown what you claim.

                Maybe there is one – I have not seen it.

                Mostly it only matters with respect to YOUR credibility.

                It would not change anything if she was.
                But I have seen this from atleast 3 angles including 1 where anyone going through the window would be obvious.
                Several people put hands through. Some tried to push furniture on the other side out of the way.
                I have not seen anything with anyone much less Alishi going through the window.

                I think you are engaged in wishful viewing.

          4. it’s illegal to use lethal force to merely protect property or tresspass. that goes for police as well as civilians. this is basic law

            she was unarmed and climbing through a window slowly. there was no physical threat that justified her killing

            it’s odd that all the people who were so outraged that blacks got killed by police are silent when it’s a white woman

        2. “5. Up to 60 police officers were injured and 15 were hospitalized, according to The Hill. One officer required hospitalization after being pulled into a crowd and assaulted, while another suffered “significant facial injuries” after being hit by an object, Mr. Contee III told reporters during a Jan. 6 briefing, according to the Post. Other injuries were less severe.” -from the following article

          Arty, the great smoke-blower, said:

          “There were no ‘dozens’ of police taken to the hospital.”

          https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/patient-safety-outcomes/dc-hospitals-treat-victims-of-capitol-riot-5-things-to-know.html

          Excerpt:

          “Seven things to know:

          1. Ashlie Babbitt, 35, an Air Force veteran from California, was fatally shot inside the Capitol building and pronounced dead at a local hospital, her ex-husband told The Washington Post. Police have not confirmed Ms. Babbitt’s identity or details of her shooting, but D.C. Police Chief Robert J. Contee III said a member of the U.S. Capitol Police fired the fatal shot, according to the Post.

          2. Alabama native Kevin Greeson, 55, died after experiencing a heart attack outside the Capitol, reports The New York Times. Benjamin Philips, 50, of Ringtown, Pa., and Rosanne Boyland, 34, of Kennesaw, Ga., also died of unknown medical emergencies during the rioting, according to CNN.

          3. Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick died the night of Jan. 7 from injuries he sustained “while physically engaging” with rioters, according to a separate report from the Times. His death marks the fifth linked to the Capitol event.

          4. Injuries ranged from cardiac arrest to multiple fractures after someone fell off scaffolding near the Captiol’s West end, Douglas Buchanan, chief of communications for D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services, told CNN. Two people taken to the hospital received CPR, according to the Post.

          5. Up to 60 police officers were injured and 15 were hospitalized, according to The Hill. One officer required hospitalization after being pulled into a crowd and assaulted, while another suffered “significant facial injuries” after being hit by an object, Mr. Contee III told reporters during a Jan. 6 briefing, according to the Post. Other injuries were less severe.

          6. MedStar Georgetown University Hospital treated six patients involved in the incident in its emergency department Jan. 6, a spokesperson confirmed to Becker’s. Sibley Memorial Hospital received and treated one patient who has since been released, a spokesperson said.

          7. Ambulance teams in Arlington, Va., were told to avoid transporting patients to hospitals in Washington, D.C., the afternoon of Jan. 6, reports arlnow.com.”

          Let’s highlight this one — again — for Arty::

          “5. Up to 60 police officers were injured and 15 were hospitalized, according to The Hill. One officer required hospitalization after being pulled into a crowd and assaulted, while another suffered “significant facial injuries” after being hit by an object, Mr. Contee III told reporters during a Jan. 6 briefing, according to the Post. Other injuries were less severe.”

          1. I would note that you cite multiple items – all of which are very specific – except one.

            We know exactly what happened in each of these other instances.
            And if we doubt we can check video’s and eyewitness accounts.

            We know absolutely nothing about this other claim. No details of any kind.

            We do not even know that the reporter did not just make it up.
            And sadly that has happened far too much when dealing with left wing nut reporters.

            The only actual conflict I have seen between police and protestors was the one in which Ofc. Sicknick was killed.
            That was a melee. and we do not have how it started.

            I have seen no other violence by protestors inside the capital.
            Only violence by police.

        3. Thereis video of the Sicknick incident.

          It is not perfectly clear what is going on – but it is clear that the Capital police group he was a part of was not following the rules of engagement and was attacking protestors who attacked back.

          If you watch other videos you will notice that the officers int eh capital engaged in delaying actions – they did not fight with protestors and protestors did not fight with the capital police.

          Even where the navy vet was murdered – there was no violence involving the capital police – until the office murdered the protestor.

          Sicknicks team got into a meley with protestors.

          That does not exonerate those involved.

          But none of this would have happened had the capital not been locked down for this vote – I do not beleive it has ever locked down before, it did not for Kavanaugh.

          Protestors would have entered the capital orderly through the doors, they would have passed through metal detectors.
          They would have been allowed in public spaces – which is almost everywhere they actually went.

          They would have yelled and chanted and that would have been it.

          1. Protestors would have entered the capital orderly through the doors, they would have passed through metal detectors.

            They would have been allowed in public spaces – which is almost everywhere they actually went.

            They would have yelled and chanted and that would have been it. –John-Boy

            _____

            Wishful thinking and mere speculation.

            1. You are obligated to presume lawful conduct of those who have not previously acted lawlessly.

              You do not get to presume lawlessness just because you do not like someone politics.

              You do not even have much after the fact evidence of lawless conduct as the capital lockdown was unconstitutional, therefore breaching it is not lawless.

      2. BTW I have seen lots of video. I have not seen any video of a police officer being hurt by capital protestors.
        I do not doubt that somethings happened.

        But I do not trust the media to properly report anything – so where is the video of all of this ?

        Everything I have seen was peaceful – until the capital police murdered a protestor.

          1. The video you linked to shows an officer being dragged out from the capital entrance.

            Presuming this is Sicknick – he was clearly engaged in fighting with the protestors.

            The media reported he was hit by someone with a fire extinguisher – it that is on this video it is not clear to me.

            What is clear is that after he was removed from the entrance to the capital protestors actually protected him and got him help.

            I have no problems with the protestors physically removing officers preventing them from getting into the capital.

            I would note that the affadavit you provided – I thought hearsay affadavits were not evidence ? specifically notes the capital was locked down while congress was in session.

            That is a violation of the constitutional right to petition government.

            Congress can search people for weapons prior to entering the capital. They can remove those actually engaged in looting or arson or violence. But they can not restrict constitutional rights. Government and the capital are not the property of congress, it is the property of the people.

  4. I always thought that from the founding of the nation freedom of speech was like the valve on a pressure cooker that decreased the pressure and the likelihood of violence. The left is intent on taking away free speech from those that do not agree with them. This will end badly.

    1. good insight red anonymous

      and they intend precisely this out come so they can ignite a real conflict and use it as a pretext to impose totalitarian rule by the Democrats

      we have to be ready — make choices like our ancestors did of old – maybe prepare to meet them in Valhalla

      did you want to live forever?

      1. Democrats can not manage totalitarian rule. The only thing they agree on is Trump hatred.
        Biden can manage to get his left foot and his right foot to agree.

        Democrats much impeach Trump – several more times if possible.
        Otherwise they might have to do something and there is nothing they can do that won’t piss off half of their own.

  5. Get ready, Jonathan. Maybe this is your time to shine.

    “Trump considering legal team led by Giuliani in possible impeachment hearings l GMA”

  6. Some FACTS:

    ‘During the #BlackLivesMatter “peaceful protests,” officers were injured at the White House and the president had to be moved to a bunker. There was an air of insurrection. Hours later Kamala Harris *joined* the protest. Joe Biden mocked Trump for having been moved to the bunker.’ @joelpollak

    1. Trump didn’t have to be moved into the bunker.

      Trump wanted to go into the bunker because he’s a wuss and was scared.

      1. Anon, so Trump is a wuss because he went to the bunker. It is the responsibility of the Secret Service to make the call on the security of the President. As usual you are the master of the Trumpian cheap shot and shallow thought. By the way. Isn’t the use of the word wuss sexist. You should remove your post. You never can tell if it might be used against you in the Woke Courts of the future.

        1. One might ask why Anonymous the Stupid said what he did. It was stupid and lacked knowledge that he didn’t have the intelligence to even consider. Do you know why he didn’t consider the obvious? Because Anonymous the Stupid is stupid.

          1. Allan aka S. Meyer has been decompensating these past few days. He’s back with his AtS garbage.

            He needs to get the help that he so clearly needs.

      2. The capital did not have to be shutdown

        Had it stayed open – protestors would have entered orderly.
        They would have had to go through metal detectors and check guns.

        They would have been free to go to the offices of senators and representatives and make demand – just like the Kavanaugh protestors.
        They would have been free to enter the house and senate galleries – limited by the capacity and would have been jremoved if they were disruptive.
        No Capital police officer would have shot a protestor.

        Our Elected representatives wanted to vote without being answerable to the people because they are wuss’s and were scared.

        Unlike the whitehouse which has very limited public functions – the capital is a public building – most of it – including the chambers and the congressmens offices are public spaces. They are supposed to be open to the public.

        When congress is affraid of the people – the problem is with congress not the people.

    2. Those on the left are blind to their own hypocracy.

      Regardless all of this does nto matter. The left long ago jumped the shark.

      The left’s conduct will just get more egregious and more authoritarian until finally people are fed up.

      If possible they will be voted out.
      If not, there will be revolution.

      As Chris Cuomo noted – this country was born of a violent insurection against tryany.

      Give me liberty or give me death.

  7. Quick change of topic. Jon, Clinton purposelessly ignored the information coming out of Africa describing a holocaust in Rwanda in 1994. Had Clinton asked the U.N. to send in peacekeepers, tens of thousands would have survived. IOW, Clinton contribituted to the genocide. He could be prosecuted today, couldn’t he?

    1. Alcie / Estovir:

      There were U.N. Peacekeeprs in Rwanda. They were helpless to stop the violence. What’s more, the U.N. can act on its without consent from the U.S. President. This is one of your stupider talking points.

      1. UN Peacekeepers have had greater success spreading cholera, sex abuse and child molestation than peace.

      2. Your desire to see peace in the world is commendable. I suppose that means that you very much support President Trump for promoting peace in the middle east by getting treaties between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Moreover I am sure you are very supportive of President Trumps actions in helping to make peace between Croatia and Serbia along with being one of only a few Presidents that didn’t start a new war during his presidency.

        1. The thing about Trump’s foreign policy — it was all over the map. In many areas/locations he just carried on Obama policy. In others he’d make broad proclamations/ threats to withdraw troops, etc. that he’d later backtrack on and quietly not honor.

          One of my best friends growing up went on to become career State Dept., working across the Clinton, Bush jr., Obama and early Trump administrations…, he and many other careerists just couldn’t stomach trump and they retired. My friend said he knew it was time when he was negotiating over a Hungarian prison and their brutal policy with releasing Syrian refugees back into Serbia and Croatia…, and the Hungarians said ‘you can’t tell us what to do anymore because you guys now jail children on your border’.

          No more moral high ground, whatever there was before is now gone. Granted it’s been waning for quite awile. But under trump it was like driving a bus off the cliff.

          Elvis Bug

          1. Anon, if you can’t answer honestly about Trumps foreign policy successes you deflect to some antidotal evidence by some friend of yours in government. Maybe like two peas in a pod. If you would just once give credit where credit is due we might allow some credence to your opinions. It was declared by you and your compatriots that Trump policies in the Middle East would result in terrible wars. I understand. If you were to once agree with a Trump policy you would no longer be accepted among your woke friends. I can understand your most serious attempts at self preservation. The wine tasting event with Nancy is coming up. Honor be damned.

          2. Anon, “jail children at the border”? The children shown in cages were from the Obama administration in 2012. This was pointed out and never disputed. You owe it to yourself not to let yourself be spoon fed phony info for you to pass on to those with itching ears waiting for the continuation of the drivel. There are two other options to consider. Are you innocent beyond belief or do you know things are untrue and you say them anyway. Your comment history offers us some evidence.

          3. ” it was all over the map. ”

            You can make the same characterizations of all Presidents. They can only do so much and have to deal with the cards they are dealt. Obama had an overall policy that I thought had good features. He failed to effectuate his good ideas and he ended up doing a lot of bad things.

            Trump’s policy was relatively consistent, but he had to deal with political realities here and abroad. The Democrats hindered his foreign policy significantly. Russia is not our most dangerous enemy, China is. Look and see how the Congress handled themselves. Poorly.

            “Hungarians said ‘you can’t tell us what to do anymore because you guys now jail children on your border’.”

            Whether upper level officials of the Hungarian government actually said that is in question. If it was true you would probably have the name and the quote. You don’t. However they are right. We have no right to tell them how to protect their sovereignty.

            What could be more moral high ground than bringing peace to the Mideast after almost 75 years of on and off war. Or a deal between Croatia and Serbia. Or recognizing the danger of China. Or stopping the Russians from taking more of the Ukraine. Or reducing our need for foreign oil and starving the
            Russian enemy. Or stopping a Russian effort to impose their will on European countries based on the oil pipeline. I could go on, but all of these things demonstrate how Trump dealt with our enemies and yes, he didn’t start a new war.

            If you want to respond please do so with facts that are meaningful. I limit my posting and don’t wish to get involved in superficial things.

          4. “The thing about Trump’s foreign policy — it was all over the map. In many areas/locations he just carried on Obama policy.”
            Really ?

            Iran ?
            North Korea ?
            China ?
            Tiawan ?
            India ?
            Philipines ?
            Japan ?
            I have lost count of the number of mideastern countries that he go to sign peace deals with Israel.

            How many did Obama Get ? Bush ? Clinton ? Bush ? Reagan ?

            From nearly Day one Trump started freedom of navigation excersizes in the south china Sea.
            That was a huge deal and benefited everyone in the region – except China.

            Why do you think Trump was able to strike deals with India, Philipines, Japan ?

            Do you even know about those ?

            Do you know the US is headed back to Subic Bay ?

            Do you know how important that is ?

            Do you know that the US and Japan are forward deploying forces 600km closer to China from Okinawa ?

            That essentially means China can not defend the south china sea. That Chinese ships can not survive their during a conflict an that the US does not have to risk an aircraft carrier.

            “In others he’d make broad proclamations/ threats to withdraw troops, etc. that he’d later backtrack on and quietly not honor.”
            Thjere are substantially less troops in the mideast than Obama left. There would be far less still – but DoD was actually lying to Trump about troop strenght and deployment.

            “One of my best friends growing up went on to become career State Dept., working across the Clinton, Bush jr., Obama and early Trump administrations…, he and many other careerists just couldn’t stomach trump and they retired. My friend said he knew it was time when he was negotiating over a Hungarian prison and their brutal policy with releasing Syrian refugees back into Serbia and Croatia…, and the Hungarians said ‘you can’t tell us what to do anymore because you guys now jail children on your border’.”

            That started under Obama – why didn’t he quit then ?

            “No more moral high ground, whatever there was before is now gone.”
            Absolutely – Bush and Obama ceded the moral high ground all over.

      3. You are clearly unfamiliar with Rwandan Genocide.

        There were “peacekeepers” there – they were told to stand down – Both the EU and the US lead that decision.

        It is near certain that had they acted the genocide would have stopped.

        Whether the peacekeepers were militarily capable of stopping the genocide – the Huttu’s could not survive the murder of UN peaceheepers.

      1. The U.N. mandate was limited. They could not use weapons. Their appeal to use force was denied. Under U.S. law Clinton was obligated to intervene in case of a holocaust. In ’98 he apologized at the airport in Rwanda for doing nothing. He explained he was not informed about the deterioration taking place. Later, it was learned through the FOIA that he was lying. He had been informed in detail. People in responsible positions inside and outside the goernment repeatedly asked Clinton for help.
        He is guilty of war crimes and must be prosecuted and put in prison.

      2. i am fully informed. clinton is guilty of war crimes and must be punished. you who accuse trump of violence have no idea what stacked body parts of 800,000 people look like

    2. It was not necescary to send in peacekeepers – they were already there.
      They were ordered to stand down – over their own objections.

      It is near certain the fenocide would have stopped immediately had the peace keepers intervened – partly because they could have stopped much of it. But partly because it is highly unlikely that the Hutu’s would be willing to kill European peacekeepers to get to Tuttsi’s.

      This is ALWAYS the role of “peacekeepers” – it is not to win in a fight. it is their williness to defend – and even die to protect others that prevents attacks.

      No peacekeeping force anywhere has actually been strong enough to keep peace.

  8. It seems like the last time the Capitol was invaded was the War of 1812 – over 200 years ago. It has never been invaded before by the President’s supporters, where the President failed to protect it.

    If we have a snap impeachment every time the Capitol is invaded by the President’s supporters when the President fails to protect it – well, I would be okay with that precedent.

    1. WhatPrecedent, in your mind the Capitol does not include the White House. D.C. is known as the nations Capitol. I am sure that you will appreciate my educating you on this point. Stay with me. The White House is part of the nations Capitol. It is a fact that an attempt to invade the White House grounds was made. A little more current than 1812. Are you following along or should I go slower.

    2. It may seem that way to you – but that would be incorrect.

      The capital was “invaded” in 2018 during the Kavanaugh hearings.
      Unlike 2021 – the Capital was not “locked down” – therefore the left wing nuts were able to get everywhere they wanted in the capital.
      They got to many senators offices – because those are public.

      Over 200 were arrested. That is 4 Times the number arrested in 2021.

      Why – because the 2018 protestors were FAR more lawless.

      In 2021 – two people were killed – Why ?
      Because the capital police get into fights with protestors – unlike 2018.

      Not protestors were Mudered by capitol police for trying to get to their representatives offices – because they were allowed to go to their representatives offices.

      Not only did protestors get to Senators – but several changed their votes.

      Those on the left seem to think that only they are allowed to bully elected officials.

      I would strongly suggest taking a step back – the left long ago jumped the shark – this is NOT going to end well for the left.

      Regardless – you have all the rope you need – you are free to go hang yourself.

  9. Look at it this way in terms of intent. What is Trump’s intent in continuing to hold rallies and protests several weeks after the electoral college voted, and after he lost 60 court cases, and he lost the election. Why did he keep saying he might still be inaugurated, even after it was clear he would not through the courts or the Congress? Why did he keep wanting Senators to delay the certification? I mean, at that point, the only avenue for him to still win is violent revolution; and that is exactly what was attempted, or, as Trump’s lawyer said at the rally “trial by combat.”

    It seems to me his only chance left was violent revolution – maybe enough Democrats are killed by the rioters that he wins. But if he did nothing he lost.

    Or do you think his continuing rhetoric that he might be sworn in was simply a fundraising scam to dupe his followers some more?

      1. His lawyer said at the same rally “let’s have trial by combat.” Lawyers speak for their clients.

        1. That “lawyer” did not say, imply or, otherwise, claim that the President said, “Let’s have trial by combat” or anything like that and you are charlatan and an insidious and malicious fraud who has deliberately misrepresented the facts.

          Did I get that about right?

        2. I have no idea whether someone actually said what you claim. And you are not trustworthy so I am not accepting a claim without proof.

          Regardless, Lawyers are NOT hand puppets. They are personally responsible for their words – NOT their clients.
          There is no transitive theory of crime. If your lawyer commits a crime – that does not make you culpable.

          Nor does “lets have trial by combat ” meet the standard of proscribed speech.

      2. The left beleives that only left wing nuts are permitted to make demands of their congress critters.

    1. This apparently is too much reality and clarity for Turley now. Its clear he stated he was still going to be inaugurated, he said the peaceful power handover would be to HIS administration. He called his followers, the mob, to the White House, told them to march to the capitol and stop the vote. He promised he’d be there with them. Obviously he was planning on law enforcement and some of the Senate to side with him, at least enough so that he could claim the need for martial law and stop the process. Then he retired to his chambers to watch it play out, and when he saw he didn’t have enough support he fell back on the tired “well I didn’t mean for that to happen” song and dance that Turley is now singing and shuffling to here, trying to sound like Rudy Giuliani’s smarter cousin.

      If Trump inciting them to go stop the vote, and them doing so murdering a police officer in the process WITHIN AN HOUR isn’t incitement, then nothing is. Brandenburg v Ohio set the precedent. If its “future” violence then the President would have had a defense. But it was IMMEDIATE violence, they acted immediately on his instructions, and murdered a police officer in the process. There is no defense for this.

      But men like Jonathan Turley, men who should know better, are helping downplay and softpedal it as men like Turley have always done for despots and tyrants. Despots and tyrants couldn’t exist, if it weren’t for men like Jonathan Turley.

      1. Your right Anon. Get right up in Turley’s face. Find him at a restaurant. Kick those Republicans when their down. Please tell us exactly where they should be kicked Rahm Emmanuel. The teeth? The crotch? A more detailed instruction would be helpful. We and Anon await your command. Ours is justified incitement to violence. I know you mentioned to say peacefully kick them when they’re down. Surely the call for peaceful protest must be in there somewhere.

        1. I’ll tell you what I told the other POS. I ain’t no liberal, you two bit twit of a troll. When I want your opinion, I’ll give it to you.

      2. Clinton will be the first u.s. president tried for war crimes and found guilty. if you compare the evil caused by trump to the 800,000 men, women and children who were hacked to death because slick refused to lift a finger, well you know clinton needs prison.

        i see that those who thought they had a leg to stand on have hopped away. i don’t blame them

      3. this narrative about incitement does not violate either the sedition statute nor the solicitition of violence statute

        you fake news people are fabricating law as you go, disregarding Brandenberg v Ohio and many other cases

        we are entering a phase of open conflict where the outcome is decided the old fashioned way, oh well let it come

      4. “Its clear he stated”
        Or you can read his words.

        “he was still going to be inaugurated, he said the peaceful power handover would be to HIS administration. He called his followers, the mob, to the White House, told them to march to the capitol and stop the vote. He promised he’d be there with them. Obviously he was planning on law enforcement and some of the Senate to side with him, at least enough so that he could claim the need for martial law and stop the process. Then he retired to his chambers to watch it play out, and when he saw he didn’t have enough support he fell back on the tired “well I didn’t mean for that to happen” song and dance”

        Nearly everything you say is incorrect. BUT even it if were all true – it would be legal.

        People are free to try to stop the vote in congress. They are also free to demand their representatives vote as they please.

        It is called free speech. It is called the right to assemble, it is called the right to petition government.

        It is our govenment idiot.

        The core problem is that YOU conducted a lawless election. The courts failed to thwart that ahead of time – when it was easy.
        They were scared of left wing nut mobs after it occured.

        Do you really think there would not be arson, rioting, looting and mayhem accross the country had a single court ruled for Trump ?

        Do you think there would not be arson, rioting, looting and mayhem accross the country had Trump won the election ?

        BTW Gulliani seems pretty smart – after all that “russian disinformation” all proves to be the truth.

        There might be tiny doubts as to whether Hunter Biden is a criminal – I would note the evidence against him is the same or worse than that against Manafort. There is zero doubt that Hunter Biden was selling influence globally – the influence of his father, and quite lucratively. And it appears going to a fair amount of trouble to hide the proceeds from the IRS.

        Or do you have a better explanation of why all those Russians and Chinese were paying Hunter ?

        We heard for 4 years how Trump was Putin’s sock puppet – soon we will have a president that actually is – and Xi’s too.

        Gulliani got all this over a year ago – Guliani is clearly quite smart.
        You are clearly an idiot.

        “If Trump inciting them to go stop the vote,”
        Did not happen – but perfectly legal if it did.

        “and them doing so murdering a police officer in the process WITHIN AN HOUR isn’t incitement”
        False claims and wrong on the law.

        “Brandenburg v Ohio set the precedent”
        Yes, you have to explicitly ASK for VIOLENCE – it is not enough for idiots like you to pretend that it is a dog whistle.
        It is not even enough to ask for conduct you do not like. You must ask specifically for VIOLENCE, and you must ask for it NOW.

        I would note that there are cases after Brandenburg that spell this out further.

        I will also note that if as you claim Trump is guilty of incitement to violence – then nearly the entire democratic congress is too.
        WE have violent protests throughout this country this summer – and democrats all over called them “mostly peaceful” and called for them to be continued.

        Some such as Chris Cuomo explicitly recognized the violence and asserted that political violence is justified.

        If you wish to prosecute Trump – then you are required to prosecute every idiot democrat who egged on the “mostly peacefull” protests this summer.

    2. Fundraising scam that he later began to believe because he cut himself off from solid expertise and guidance through his own impulsiveness and cruelty. In fact, one of the biggest possible cases to make against trump is his knowingly using false information to engage in fraudulent fundraising from his followers. Standard trump playbook dating back years — it’s exactly why his foundation got shut down & he’s banned from starting another.

      Elvis Bug

      1. If there are Trump supporters who claim they were defrauded – they can sue.
        I have not seen that.

        I am not interested in idiots claiming that people who were perfectly happy to contribute were somehow defrauded – because you do not think they should have contributed.

        Regardless, 2020 should be the end of the idiocy that Republicans are the party of big business.
        Democrats raised over 11B and they did not get it from “the little guy”.

        Billionaires, Wall Street, Big Tech, Corporations.

        Democrats have massive political debts now due.

        I thought you were all opposed to all that dirty money ?

      2. Your tall tales are evolving into mistruths about things that occurred.

        One thing you said that is laughable was “false information to engage in fraudulent fundraising from his followers.”. I donated to him and after things cleared I donated more and then more. I’m happy and would donate to him tomorrow. Apparently you do not know what you are talking about.

        Darlene

    3. “Look at it this way in terms of intent. ”

      WHY?

      My interest in YOUR intent or TRUMP’s intent is purely speculative.

      Ultumately regardless of intent it is your actions that matter.

      If you INTEND world peace – and your method of bringing that about is through violence and war.

      “What is Trump’s intent in continuing to hold rallies and protests several weeks after the electoral college voted, and after he lost 60 court cases, and he lost the election. Why did he keep saying he might still be inaugurated, even after it was clear he would not through the courts or the Congress? Why did he keep wanting Senators to delay the certification?”

      Why do you care ? You seem to beleive that on the basis of a lawless election that a plurality of people beleive was fraudulent that you are not only entitled to a specific outcome, but that everyone is obligated to shutup and agree with you.

      And you are FORCIBLY acting precisely that way.

      It Trump wants to hold a rally – what business is that of yours ?
      If he wishes to continue to claim fraud – something a substantial portion of people agree with – what business is that of yours ?
      If he and others beleive the courts erred – what business is that of yours ?

      You seem to beleive that you have some right to silence those who do not agree with you.

      Violent revolution is not the only avenue open to Trump – nor would it be relevant if it were.

      Violent revolution is actually a legitimate reponse to lawless government – please read the declaration of independence.

      You really do not grasp that by holding a lawless and possibly fraudulent election you are responsible for the lack of trust and potentially even violence that may result.

      We are not on the verge of revolution at the moment. But we are a giant step closer because of the lawless and untrustworthy election in 2020.

      The left – democrat made a choice between a trustworthy election that they might lose and a lawless one they were more likely to win.
      Then they made a choice to thwart inquiry rather than the transparent inquiry that would be needed to restore trust.

      You should not be surprised that people are pissed.

      You do not resolve anger by telling people to shutup and accept a process that they do not trust – expecially when they have good reason to.

      This is not about winning. This is about lawlessness and fraud.

      It is interesting that YOU keep framing it as about winning.

      You seem to beleive that if you win – it does not matter if that was through lawlessness and fraud.

    4. Or maybe his intention is to serve as a spokesperson for the voters who were effectively disenfranchised by lawlessness and possible fraud.

  10. 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.

    Democrats play Calvinball. Pretty much all the time.

  11. 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.

    The Capitol’s not in tatters. Just some broken windows, a missing lectern, and a missing laptop.

      1. One suicide – sorry not counting that.

        More of this snowflake culture. If you take your own life – that is on you.

        And one murder – by the capital police.

        That is one more than all the protestors killed by police all summer.

        1. The officer who killed Ashli Babbitt hasn’t been charged with murder, just like the officer who killed protester Jorge Gomez hasn’t been charged with murder.

          1. And he won’t be. He was guarding the “Speaker’s Lobby” which is the hall behind and open to the House floor and which moments before was filled with House members and staff. The woman who was shot was leaping through the sidelight window just broken by her mob and unless she could hang in mid air could not be responsive to a “Stop or I’ll shoot” order. It was a tragedy but she was cranked up beyondreason.

            1. Woman killed doing a home invasion. Sad for sure, but hey crawl through a broken window to rage on the speaker of the house with a cop pointing a gun at you…, well, not rocket science to guess what might happen.

              Elvis Bug

              1. not a home, a public place

                does not meet the definition of any law called “home invasion” anywhere

                unarmed and got killed for trespassing, basically. an illegal shooting like any other, except you appear to be gloating over it. sick!

                1. It was not tresspassing. It was improper to lockdown the capital while congress was in seession.

                  That is a violation of the constitution, it is a restriction on the right to petition govenrment.

                  The capital is where you do that.

              2. This was not a home invasion.

                In some – but not all states the use of deadly force is justified to protect your own property.
                But not in federal law, and not to protect federal property.

                Thus far all video I have seen is at odds with what you claim are facts.
                But that does not matter.

                Even as you describe events – the Officer murdered Alishi according to federal law.

            2. “And he won’t be.”
              Because that does not suit the left.

              “He was guarding the “Speaker’s Lobby””
              Deadly force can not be used by law enforcement to guard property.
              Please read the law.

              “which is the hall behind and open to the House floor and which moments before was filled with House members and staff.”
              At the time of the shooting it was empty.

              But even if it was not – absent a protestor pointing a gun at someone the presence of house members is sufficient.
              Please read the law. I cited it before.

              ” The woman who was shot was leaping through the sidelight window just broken by her mob and unless she could hang in mid air could not be responsive to a “Stop or I’ll shoot” order.”

              Not relevant, and not correct. I have seen many video’s of this. None show her breaking the glass. None show her climbing through the window.

              And even if true – not relevant. Shooting “stop or I’ll shoot” does not make a shooting justified.

              “It was a tragedy but she was cranked up beyond reason.”

              False and irrelevant. You do not know her mental state.

              Regardless, the use of deadly force is justified by the immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm – not “cranked up beyond reason”

              Serious bodily harm nearly always means someone with a weapon – a gun, a knife, a baseball bat.
              Alishi was not a threat of death or serious bodily harm to anyone.

              The shooting was unjustified
              It was unjustified by the facts as we actually know them.
              It was unjustified even by the incorrect claims that you have made.
              It was unjustified if members of congress were present.
              It was unjustified if Alishi was climbing through the window.
              It was unjustified if the officer shouted “stop or I will shoot” and she failed to stop.

              Neither the officer nor any other faced a threat of death or serious bodily injury.

              The use of deadly force must be to protect yourself or others from imminent deadly force.
              Fear alone is not sufficient.
              Speculation is not sufficient.
              Your mind reading of others is not sufficient.

            3. BTW, one of those who video’d this event has now been confirmed as a LEFT WING ACTIVIST, and he has been charged.

              If you wish to know what actual incitement to violence is – listen to John Sullivan’s remarks in his own video.

          2. There is video of Mr. Gomez brandishing a weapon in front of a courthouse, and some evidence that he fired that weapon prior to being shot.

            If you have the same with Alishi – then her shooting is not murder.

            The real law is not partisan and should not be applied through a partisan lens.

            I do not know Mr. Gomez – but if the facts were the same or similar enough – then he two was murdered and the officer should have been prosecuted.

            From what I know – there is enough evidence for an inquiry into the shooting of Mr. Gomez. Merely legally carrying weapons is not sufficient to justify the use of deadly force.

      1. We have all seen the videos. Everything in the capital is expensive. But it should be obvious to everyone that there was very little damage. I have seen NO graffetti. NO arson, NO destruction of statues and art. One person ran off with a lecturn – which I beleive was recovered. There are a small number of broken windows.

        As Best as I can tell there is less total damage than caused by about a dozen BLM protestors in my small city who set several dumpsters on fire, and smashed all the windows on the police station as well as a couple of police cars.

        The primary damage is one police officer and one woman shot by the police.

    1. And if they had left the capital open to the public as they normally do – after all it is the “peoples house” and allowed protestors in to speak their peice, not one would have been hurt.

      Every single bit of violence is connected to Congress trying to avoid hearing from those they did not wish to.

      Those in congress need not listen to the prols. But they MUST give them a hearing. They did not.

      1. You’re deluded if you think that the people who were violent were forced to become violent by Congress.

        1. “You’re deluded if you think that the people who were violent were forced to become violent by Congress.”

          Misrepresentation.

          Whether you like it or not”
          BLM may protest in county seats, state houses and capitals, that are open to the public when government is in session.
          Kavanaugh protestors may do the same.
          As can those challenging the election.

          You may not lock any of them out – not BLM, Not Kavauagh protestors, Not Stop the Steel protestors.

          When government locks people out of the public administration of government – it is the right of the people to break in.

          You can not stop free speech. free assembly, and petitioning the government by locking the doors.

          When government attempts to thwart peoples actual rights by force – it is the right of the people to resist with FORCE.

          Please read the declaration of independence.

          So you are clear – there is no blanket prohibition against violence.

          There is a prohibition against the unjustified use of force.

          The use of force against lawless government is often justified.

          This country was born of an insurection, of a violent revolt against an untrusted and lawless government.

          You do not seem to grasp that government may not do whatever it pleases to thwart political dissent and to accomplish its goals.
          It may not even do so with the support of the majority of people.

          Congress must conduct its actions in public – it is OUR government – not theirs.

          It must not only act in public, it must allow peaceful protest. It can not pre-emptorially lock down because it fears protest may not be peaceful. Congress can act to ensure safety and order – but NOT in any way it pleases.

          Congress could act such that the capital remained open and sufficient resources been brought in to assure that protests would remain peaceful. It could refuse entry to those with guns and weapons. It could not close and continue to do business.

          Congress is not entitled to conduct its business in underground chambers free from the dissenting voices of the people.
          Whether those voices are a majority or a minority.

          Closing the capital to the public proved to be a public relations coup for the left.

          but in the end it was still a lawless action of government – one which can justifiably be opposed by force.

  12. Turley left the realm of credibility long ago, and, sadly, continues down the same path of carrying water for the most-unfit person ever to occupy the White House. Some facts: 1. Trump accepted help from Russia to cheat to win the Electoral College. To my knowledge, no other US President has done that. 2. When Mueller attempted to investigate, Trump obstructed justice. He refused to sit for an interview or deposition, he refused to produce documents and he procured the lack of cooperation of witnesses. Still, Mueller got dozens of indictments, guilty pleas and convictions. Turley has misrepresented Mueller’s findings. Trump was not exonerated, and couldn’t be when he obstructed justice. 3. Trump tried to leverage aid to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine falslely claiming Joe Biden was under investigation. He was impeached for that, and if he had been removed from office then, 5 people wouldn’t be dead (that’s just from the Trump insurrection, not counting the botched COVID response). 4. When polls consistently showed him losing to Biden, and long before Election Day, Trump began setting the stage for claiming that the election was “rigged”. He fired Chris Krebs when Krebs refused to lie and consistently said that the election was the most-secure in US history. He fired Bill Barr when Barr refused to go along with the “stolen election” lie. Nevertheless, he tried everything he could to try to defeat the will of the American people–pressuring and then threatening election officials and governors to change the vote or declare the vote invalid–tried to get Pence to declare the vote invalid, which Pence had no power to do. Also, kept lying and making up facts: that Pennsylvania election officials unconstitutionally allowed mail balloting. Even after the PA Supreme Court struck down that argument, Trumpsters still continue to make this claim. Multiple other lies about election irregularities, all of which have been rejected by court after court. And yet, he keeps on lying to the dumbasses who are his faithful disciples, telling them the election was stolen, encouraging them to come to Washington to fight to stop Congress from certifying Biden’s victory, and promising that January 6th would be “wild”. Well, it was “wild”, all right.

    Trump incited a violent insurrection by lying to his disciples, telling them that their votes were stolen, and encouraging them to try to stop certification of the Electoral College. They stormed the Capitol Building, breaking windows, beating a Capitol Police officer to death, invaded offices, stole 5 laptops and documents, desecrated property, and a woman was shot to death. They erected a gallows, complete with a noose, with the intention of lynching Pence, and some were carrying plastic handcuffs, intending to take Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress into custody, and/or murder them. There were pipe bombs placed in front of the DNC and RNC, and some Trump’s faithful followers had cars with Molotov cocktails. Trump is said to have watched this shocking display with glee and excitement. It proved his power. It proved he was loved. He let it go on for a long time before listlessly telling his disciples to go home, and that he loved them. Shockingly, most of them were simply allowed to leave. And, for reasons that will eventually be discovered, despite notice from the NYPD and FBI, the Capitol Police were unprepared. The Maryland National Guard was ready to go, but didn’t get approval for several hours. This stinks to high heaven.

    Trump cannot be allowed to simply walk away from these crimes as a disgraced former President. This was a violent insurrection–attack on America’s Capitol–fomented by the US. President. This is far worse than what Nixon did. He must be held to account for the enormity of his crime against America to have any meaning. He should already be under arrest for inciting an insurrection. Any Republican who refuses to vote for impeachment should, themselves, be impeached and removed from office. This isn’t a snap reaction–every member of Congress was there and experienced the tear gas, chaos, and fear first-hand. It is truly remarkable that more people weren’t killed and that Pence didn’t get lynched. To this day, the fat hero Turley supports still hasn’t spoken to Pence to even inquire about how he is doing. And, Turley, there is really no excuse for you.

    1. This stinks to high heaven. We agree!

      You said: “And, for reasons that will eventually be discovered, despite notice from the NYPD and FBI, the Capitol Police were unprepared. The Maryland National Guard was ready to go, but didn’t get approval for several hours. This stinks to high heaven.”

      Yep, it stinks. Like this question….every time there has been a Trump rally or gathering, there was a large and visible Antifa counter-protest presence. Every time. This was a massive Trump rallly. Where was Antifa? FBI says, Antifa was not there infitrating the MAGA protest? Really, FBI? How could you know this so quickly with such a massive chaotic protest crowd? So the question remains: Where was Antifa? Answer: Antifa was there in the MAGA crowd. This was a setup.

      And I disagree with what you said: “for reasons that will eventually be discovered…” Nope. These ‘reasons’ will be memory-holed in The Vault.

      1. The issue is not that they were unprepared, it is that the made the WRONG choice.

        If you are going to lock down the capital – first you need far more justification than a protest.
        And if you do you are shutting down congress too.

        You can not say we are going to conduct government away from the people because “emergency’.

        The business of govenrment particularly that of the house and senate must be open to the public.

        We deliberately allow protests. If you wish to be elected – you had better be able to deal with a few protestors.

        What damage to the capital that occur came because the capital police locked down the capital – closed it to the public.

        And if you are going to do that – you need more resources.

        But the simplest solution was to do nothing unusual.

        The protestors would have come in,. They would have chanted.
        They might have disrupted congress – which if it had no balls could have left.
        And eventually they would have left.

        So long as they were peacefull they are allowed in the capital.

        BTW there is every evidence they were peacefull.

        There was no graffetti, not tearing down of statues.
        The only damage was to barriers that should not have been there at all.

        The only violence was when the police violated the rules of engagement and engaged protestors.

        1. I’m sure you say the same during the State of the Union. Peaceful protesters should be allowed in to speak, right?

          You are the king of hypocrisy.

          1. Again misrepresentation.

            All government actions are not public. Nearly all acts of congress are.

            We can quibble over precisely what is allowed with respect to specific aspects of government.

            You may not bar the public from congress because you are afraid.
            Congress may take SOME actions to keep itself safe. It can not take whatever actions it pleases merely because it is afraid.

            Government is force – and the use of force must always be justified.

            There are few if any instances where the use of force to exclude the public from legislative votes is justified.
            The unjustified use of force can be resisted by force.

            With specific respect to the SOTU – there is no constitutional requirement that the President speak to congress.
            The SOTU is not an act of govenrment it is the president announcing his agenda.

            we have government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

    2. Natasha, well done. You properly stated, with every detailed proof what you learned at the ministry of truth. Your dedication to no deviation has been noticed and a promotion is surely in your future.

    3. +10

      And this hasn’t been touched on much but I feel like it’s completely obvious for those who’ve known the true trump for years now…, these Capitol invaders were ‘wilding’, Exactly what trump falsely accused those kids in Harlem of in the Central Park jogger rape. Hell, he even took out a full page NYT ad calling for their execution.

      Trump’s mind works like this: ‘hey, I accused those kids and they ‘got away with it’ (even though he called for the execution of innocent children)>>> let’s try it here because it works so well. This *is* trump logic.

      Elvis Bug

      1. “who’ve known the true trump for years now”
        Like you know the True Trump ?

        Regardless this is nonsense. Trump has been by far the most public accessible president ever.

        Trump is exactly as he appears – there is no secret Trump that only you know.

        “these Capitol invaders were ‘wilding’”
        Please watch video from ANY night in portland.

        Congress for the first time in my knowledge closed the capital to the public despite no actual threat – beyond the prols coming to the capital and expressing their displeasure at a lawless election.

        “Exactly what trump falsely accused those kids in Harlem of in the Central Park jogger rape.”
        Trump F’d up the central park case – as did myriads of others – MOST of New York – which is certainly not republican.

        “Trump’s mind works like this”
        I would stick to trying to figure out how your own mind works.

    4. If Trump has actually committed a crime – DOJ can prosecute.

      Your real fear is that he is NOT a disgraced former president, but the person almost half the country thinks won the election,
      and the person likely to thrash Biden in 2024.

      If you beleive that Biden won the election – they why are you behaving so terrified ?

      If you beleive Biden won the election – REALLY audit the election – independent third party audit in public.

      Do it properly – and nearly everyone will accept the results. If you wanted legitimacy that is what you needed to do.

      You do not seem to grasp that you can not just ignore those who disagree with you and bully through dictating how they live their lives and what they must beleive.

      1. No quantum of proof will ever convince Trump that he really, truly lost. Logic tells any sensible person he couldn’t win: he lost the popular vote in 2016, he fell below 50% in every approval poll for 4 years, which is a record, and polls predicted he would lose again in 2020. He botched the economy, the pandemic, and unemployment and the trade deficit have set records. Yet, he still thinks he not only won–but by a landslide! He tried to bully governors and secretaries of state to ignore the voters’ choices and award him their electors, and they told him there was no fraud. How many recounts have there been? In Georgia, they even painstakingly did a signature match, and found no fraud. No matter what proof is produced, the faithful disciples will not believe it until or unless Trump admits he lost, and that will never happen. No one is “terrified”. Elections are run by the various states, and all of the voting and ballots were heavily-monitored by both Republicans and Democrats from the time the voter showed his/her ID up to the point when the Electoral College certifications were handed to Congress. This was the most-secure election in US history. The only reason 40% or so of Americans have any doubt is because of Trump’s lying. He IS lying–did you hear him try to bully Brad Raffensberger, and ignore him when he said there was no fraud? The problem is that you have been brainwashed to doubt the legitimacy of the election. People like you refuse to believe Secretaries of State and Governors, even Republican ones, when they tell you, repeatedly, there was no fraud. The votes have been counted, recounted, and audited, all under the observation of Trump watchers. That’s still not enough for you. Nothing ever will be because Trump won’t stop lying due to his mental illness.

        1. “No quantum of proof will ever convince Trump that he really, truly lost.”
          It is not trump you need to convince – it is the plurality of americans who think the election was stolen.

          “Logic tells any sensible person he couldn’t win:”
          Please do not speak of logic, you have no clue about logic.

          “he lost the popular vote in 2016,”
          Not how elections are won.

          “he fell below 50% in every approval poll for 4 years”
          His job approval nearly perfectly mirrors Obama’s, and Obama was re-elected.

          “which is a record”
          Nope, pretty much the same as Obama’s/

          “and polls predicted he would lose again in 2020”
          And the polls were way way way off.

          “He botched the economy”
          Nope – he was int he midst of a V shaped recovery – you tanked that.

          “the pandemic”
          Really ? I am assuming that we should then be burning the democratic governors that have had the worst perfomance of any states int he country ?

          “and unemployment”
          Isnt it democratic states that locked down ?
          Unemployment is not that bad in red states.

          “and the trade deficit have set records.”

          Trade deficits are irrelevant – whether you say so, or Trump says so.
          Anyone understanding economics knows they are meaningless.

          Does NY have a trade deficit with PA ? Should something be done about that ?

          “Yet, he still thinks he not only won–but by a landslide!”
          It is plausible that he won 5 of the 6 contested states – that would be an electoral college landslide.

          You ignore the voters’ choices
          Actual voters – not non-existent people.
          Do you honestly think that over time it will not be established how many underage, out of state, dead, non-existant voters voted.
          Those are the votes you are so desparate to count.

          “they told him there was no fraud”
          We already know that those running the elections in all these states have lied repeatedly.

          BTW there was certainly fraud – anyone who claims otherwise is an idiot or a liar.
          What is not established is how much.

          “How many recounts have there been?”
          One in Antrim county.

          “In Georgia, they even painstakingly did a signature match, and found no fraud.”
          Incorrect, they only did a random sample in cobb county – 5000 envelopes. They found almost 400 that would have failed signature matching and likely, and atleast 30 that were outright fraud. And Cobb county is an affluent light blue county where fraud is unlikely.
          They refused to look at Fulton county. BTW the 400/5000 rejection rate in Cobb county if applied to the entire state (or just Fulton county) would have flipped the election.

          “No matter what proof is produced”
          Plenty of proof has been found.

          The Cobb county signature match results were not dramatic – but they were sufficient to flip the election.
          And it is near certain that Fulton county was worse.

          You claimed GA did a recount – yes, A machine recount of the post adjudication scanned ballot images.
          That proves a common computer term GIGI – garbage in Garbage out.

          Natacha – if you really beleive Biden won – then why are you lying about what was actually done ?

          Why not have a real audit ? It is not all that hard.

          Testing the claims regarding DVS is trivial. There are only 6 counties that flipped this election. Though if there is fraud there – there is likely fraud elsewhere.

          Regardless, we have the ballot envelopes – if left wing nuts have not illegally destroyed them.
          Some of the court cases Trump lost – were merely trying to get acces to scans of those envelopes.
          Ultimately they will be available to the public anyway Trump merely wanted access BEFORE the election is certified.
          And the courts stopped that. Why do you support that ?

          The envelopes provide the names and addresses of those who actually voted – the Trump campaign and anyone else who wants it already has those names and addresses – from public voter registration records. But the Trump campaign can not prove that the illegitmate names on the voter registration rolls actually voted without access to the list of those who voted. Again that will be public eventually.

          So lets check the envelopes. We can put them all up on the internet and we can crowdsource verifying them. Democrats Republicans whoever can challenge or defend the legitimacy of any voter they want.

          NEXT, we have the actual paper ballots. We can verify that the number of ballots match the number of people who voted.
          More than a very small error, and you must accept there is fraud.

          In state after state these numbers do not match – they are off in PA by 250K – there MAY be explanations for that.
          But there is no explanation for why it is taking so long to get right. All delay in producing results in elections is evidence of fraud.
          Regardless if you want trust – the numbers must match – not just accross the state but within counties and precincts.

          I would note – these are not 2020 specific requirements – much of this should happen automatically EVERY election.

          Validation of the legitimacy of electors should be done BEFORE the votes are counted. But we can not fix that now.

          We already know from data from Antrim and Fulton county – that Dominion voting systems is kicking ballots to adjudication at rates close to or above 70%. That is just plain not acceptable. That essentially means 70% of the vote is hand counted without oversight at all, and with no audit trail.

          Regardless, we can ACTUALLY independently hand count the PAPER mailin ballots at each of these 6 contested counties, and we can quickly determine if the high error rate of DVS machines is consistent, and if the adjudicators are acting with bias.
          The poor audit trails unfortunately means we can not ascertain WHO committed fraud if there is significant fraud.
          But we can actually determine if it occured – nor is it hard.

          I have no problems going beyond these 6 counties that are the center of fraud allegations, But if you want to restore trust in the election – you start there.

          Further the task is easy, it would only take about 3 days – or less. There is atleast one expert that claims using the techniques that banks use he can determine the extent of fraud in less than 12 hours for a single county. And he claims that solely with fresh scans of the paper ballots he can detect or rule out just about every possible form of ballot fraud (except invalid voters). He can detect counterfeit ballots. He can detect biased adjudication, he can detect ballots counted multiple times.

          Again why aren’t these processes the NORM.

          You do not instill trust through court battles that will nearly always be viewed as partisan.

          You instill trust through processes that are either fraud resistant or near certain to catch fraud.

          If fraud is possible and getting caught unlikely – YOU WILL HAVE FRAUD.
          It is not hard to make it difficult.
          It is not hard to catch – if you really want to.

          It is not hard to create a process that people will trust.

          We do not have that.

          Trump may be wrong – but contra your assertions – that is not known. In fact no serious investigation of fraud or error has occured.

          If you want people to trust elections – not just this election – you must do that.

          “No one is “terrified””.
          Of course you are.
          You are behaving as if Trump won and you are trying hard to hide that.

          “Elections are run by the various states, and all of the voting and ballots were heavily-monitored by both Republicans and Democrats from the time the voter showed his/her ID up to the point when the Electoral College certifications were handed to Congress. ”
          False. Republican monitors were chased out of all six of the key cities in the key states at very nearly the same time, and all counting for about 8 hours during the night was done without any observation.

          Further even when republican observers were present, they were kept sufficiently distant they could not observe. Democrats lost court cases on this – but it was already too late by the time the courts ordered election officials to allow observation.

          In person elections in these states did meet the criteria you claim. But mailing ballots did not.

          “This was the most-secure election in US history.”
          Not a chance at all.

          That is a ludicrously stupid statement that Krebs was legitimately fired for.

          No mailin election can EVER be secure. PERIOD, it is not possible.
          No election where there are not secret ballots can be secure – that is the reason that 28 states (including 5 of the 6 contested states) require secret ballots in their constitutions. Mailin ballots are not secret ballots and nothing can be done to fix that.

          “The only reason 40% or so of Americans have any doubt is because of Trump’s lying.”
          It is 46%, not 40%, only 43% beleive there was no fraud, the balance are unsure.
          A plurality of INDEPENDENTS – not democrats or republicans beleve the election was stolen.

          I did not vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020 – I voted libertarian. I do not KNOW that the election was stolen. Though I think it is more likely than not.

          I do know the election was lawless – that the election laws and constitution of these states was not followed and that it is near certain that if they were – Biden not only would have lost, but may have lost the popular vote.
          As I noted mailin voting is constitutionally prohibited in 28 states. Not only would the elimination of mailin voting have reduced fraud radically, with near certainty 20-40% of Biden mailin voters would not have voted in person. It is likely they would not have voted in persn EVEN if there was no pandemic. While Biden maintained a lead in the polls from January – the commitment of Biden voters was less than half of Trump voters. Absent coddling them – they many would not have voted. Those on the left constantly rail about low information voters.
          Voters who can not be bothered to get up from their couches and go to the polls are about as low information as you can get.

          “He IS lying–did you hear him try to bully Brad Raffensberger, and ignore him when he said there was no fraud?”

          Natacha – anyone who says there was no fraud is lying PERIOD that is a stupid argument and making it makes you look stupid.
          The only question is the scale of the fraud, and right now that is not known.

          Further Raffensberger has a problem with voters – not Trump. He publicly said he would do several things – things you report that he did.
          But he did NOT do those things. There was not an actual hand recount of paper ballots in GA, There was not a random audit, and there was not state wide signature verficiation, Merely a random sample from Cobb county that demostrated enough error to flipp the election.

          “The problem is that you have been brainwashed to doubt the legitimacy of the election.”
          Or you have to be familiar with the facts.

          I have been fighting election fraud since 2001. I opposed the stupid computerized voting terminals that Bush pushed – they are a bad idea, they are not transparent and they can not be fixed.

          Everysingle objection I have made to this election – I made previously.

          “People like you refuse to believe Secretaries of State and Governors, even Republican ones, when they tell you, repeatedly, there was no fraud.”
          That is correct. I am not taking anyone – democrat or republican on faith. Those in government are NOT entitled to be beleived.

          In elections even more so than anything else govenrment does – elections must be conducted to ensure that they will be trusted.
          We should NEVER be expected to accept the word of those in government that the election was lawful and fraud free.

          It is not hard to design process that will reduce and catch nearly all fraud.
          It is also not hard to follow the law.

          Most elections unfortunately do neither. But 2020 far and above all the rest fails on both counts.

          The lawlessness is not fixable. We must never do that again.

          “The votes have been counted, recounted, and audited, all under the observation of Trump watchers.”
          Nearly everything in this statement is false. That you do not know that is very disturbing.

          How poorly are you informed.

          “That’s still not enough for you.”
          Some problems with this election can not be fixed.
          In several states the election was lawless. I live in PA I know that PA’s lawlessness was especially egregious.
          Neither the state constitution was followed.
          Nor was Act 77 – a compromise measure between democrats and republicans that traded mailin voting for voter ID and rigorous standards for ballots, counting and rigourous deadlines.
          But when it came time to conduct the election – PA did mass mailin voting and completely ignored all the anti-fraud measures that were part of the law – and the Democratic PA supreme court allowed them.

  13. You may praise impeachment. You may praise censorship. The result of your actions is the current rise of a number one selling book on Amazon. The book is “1984”. This is a result of your exposure of who you really are. You tell us more and more with your daily comments about your true nature. The book is a short read. Maybe you should take a chance at some new knowledge. Or you can remain like the captured in “The Cave” by Plato. Another short read, but this may be asking to much.

  14. This piece has some good points and made me rethink my position. The issue for me, though, is not whether any particular series of words that Trump uttered on January 6 might legally qualify as incitement to violence. The issue is whether or not Trump bears some of the blame for that violence. Obviously most of the blame can be placed on the rioters themselves, but I think it violates my sense of fairness to place all of the blame on Trump supporters who may have honestly believed they were stopping a coup attempt. The comparison to statements made by Democratic politicians in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests is laughable. Trump attacked a coequal branch of government that was set to follow the will of the people and ensure a peaceful transfer of power. This is entirely different than making ambiguous statements about semi-violent protests for equal police treatment of black people.

    If a politician’s attack on the democratic process results in his supporters taking violent action, and that politician can’t be held accountable, I’m not sure what recourse Congress has.

    1. The violence is minimal.

      One protestor was murdered – that falls on the Capital police.
      One police officer who violated protocals and started a fight with a protestor was unfortunately killed.

      No statues were destroyed – a few windows were damaged.

      The fast majority of the “lawlessness” was the conseqence of Congresses decision to lockdown the capital.

      Sorry but if they can stay open for Kavanaugh hearings they can certtify the election in public.

      Like it or not the constitution permits petiotioning the government.

      That means marching to the capital and demanding that senators and representatives hear you.
      They are not obligated to listen. But they are not free to lock you out.

      Had the protestors “occupied” the capital and shutr it down – that still would have been legitimate protest and petitioning government.

      We had 9 months of Antifa-BLM violence. This was tame and done very close to perfectly.

      The big problem was Congresses unwilling ness to dirty their hands with contact with Prols.

    2. “If a politician’s attack on the democratic process results in his supporters taking violent action, and that politician can’t be held accountable, I’m not sure what recourse Congress has.”

      That is correct – congress has no recourse.

      Incitement to violence is deliberately extremelly narrow.

      We are all responsible for what we say NOT what others do with it.

      If you wish to impeach Trump – then every democrat in congress in 2018 must go over the Anti-Kavanaugh invasion of the capital.

      Many democrats must go over the summer riots.

      I am told that 93% of BLM protests were not violent – of course there was $2B+ in damage and many dead – though police did not shoot a single protestor.

      I beleive about 5000 people went into the capital. 50 have been charged. Only one seriously. That is 99% violence free.

      .

  15. STALIN EXECUTED 1.2 MILLION ACCUSED OF BE DISLOYAL
    _________________________________________________

    “In 1924, as Lenin lay dying, suffering from incessant headaches, Joseph Stalin usurped power, even circulating a fake photo doctored to have him sitting next to Lenin.”

    “Stalin then ruled as an absolute dictator of the Soviet Union.

    “Franklin Roosevelt, ‘The Soviet Union … is run by a dictatorship as absolute as any other dictatorship in the world.’

    “Stalin’s ‘Great Purge of 1936-38’ executed an estimated 1.2 million Communist Party members, government officials, military leaders, and peasants who were accused of being disloyal.

    “Simply a rumor of holding politically incorrect views or associating with “enemies of the people,” could result in someone losing their job, being arrested and executed, or being one of the 4.5 million sentenced to ‘gulag’ labor camps.

    “One of those arrested was Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who was born in Russia on DECEMBER 11, 1918.

    “Solzhenitsyn was detained for writing a letter criticizing Joseph Stalin.”

    – Self Educated American

    1. George, good post. The importance of Solzhenitsyn’s work was that it was the first exposure of the concentration camp system in the Soviet Union. The name of his famous tome is “The Gulag Archipelago”. His work will be scarce in the libraries of the socialist who voice their opinions here. Spoiling the party is not allowed especially in the defense of freedom.

  16. Nancy Pelosi is angry about her office being trashed. Here’s the fix:

    Melania Trump should present an amicable offer to clean Nancy’s office for 2 weeks. Be brave, be best.

Leave a Reply