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. Great News.

    Trump and Pence Hold Oval Office Meeting, ‘Pledge to Continue the Work on Behalf of the Country for the Remainder of Their Term’

    President Trump and Vice President Pence met in the Oval Office Monday evening, according to reports and a statement by a senior administration official. They reportedly said they will finish out the remainder of their term in office, effectively ruling out Trump resigning or Pence invoking the 25th Amendment. This was reported to be the first time the two men have spoken since before Wednesday’s storming of the Capitol.

    White House reporters have been reporting the same statement from a “senior administration official.” Via NBC News:

    “The two had a good conversation, discussing the week ahead and reflecting on the last four years of the administration’s work and accomplishments. They reiterated that those who broke the law and stormed the Capitol last week do not represent the America first movement backed by 75 million Americans, and pledged to continue the work on behalf of the country for the remainder of their term.”

    Bloomberg’s Jennifer Jacobs had the same quote on the meeting, “Trump and Mike Pence, spoke today, I’m told — the 1st time since his supporters rioted at the US Capitol while the @VP was presiding over formal certification of the president’s re-election defeat…Pence and Trump in mtg today “reiterated that those who broke the law and stormed the Capitol last week do not represent the America first movement backed by 75 million Americans, and pledged to continue the work on behalf of the country for the remainder of their term,” SAO says”

    Gateway Pundit

    1. Joe Biden
      Democratic Party


      Donald Trump
      Republican Party



      74,223.733 does not equal 75 million

      1. It is close enough.

        How many of the Biden votes are actually people ?
        Lets see, there is Hunter, and Joe, and Jill- that is 3.

    1. I have watched these video’s several times – and what the reporter claims is not evident in the video.

      It is NYT and Wapo – why should that surprise me.

      And interestingly everyone refuses to show how this started.

    1. It’s a wonder YouTube has not removed that video.

      Search for ANTIFA on YT and all you will find is Proud Boys. Sinister mofo

      1. The video also shows people who look like typical Trump supporters trying to protect the officer. My guess the officer was being attacked by Antifa/BLM thugs. They’ve being doing it all year.

        1. “My guess the officer was being attacked by Antifa/BLM thugs.”

          Not a surprise, coming from Young, who can’t admit that there are goons and thugs on both the right and the left.

        2. Young that is something people have to reckon with. Who has been rioting all over the nation for months? Antifa/BLM thugs. Who has been peaceful and even cleaned up after themselves? Trump supporters.

          We know crazy people of all stripes will do horrible things, but who had a plan to do horrible things all over the US? Antifa/BLM. Who is most likely to act in such a riotous fashion and plan to blame it on someone else, Antifa/BLM. We saw that in the Tea Party movement where leftists pretended to be Tea Party members and acted like themselves. I saw that first hand. It isn’t a stretch to think that Anitfa and BLM were involved in the riot. I think they already have at least one identified as a leader of one of those two groups. We have to remember that when the riot started Trump had not finished his speech and was a good walk away.

          Anonymous the Stupid doesn’t think of these things. Do you know why? Because he is Anonymous the Stupid.

          Picture of Anonymous the Stupid pushing a van.

          1. S. Myer– Yes, if everytime there is a stink you see a skunk when there is a stink and you don’t see a critter you don’t think ‘dog’.

            Almost certainly Antifa/BLM thugs were doing the same thing they have always done. They are Fascist street goons.

              1. Most of them were.

                Alishi is certainly a “very fine person” by all accounts.

                The officer who murdered her clearly erred.

            1. Democrats are now acting in a fascistic manner. Antifa/BLM are their stormtroopers while they utilize the criminal class to increase their numbers and damage caused. The large companies are wielding a lot of power as they deprive certain good Americans of their livelihoods and threaten them.

              Do you remember The President’s Analyst with James Coburn? It was not the political party in power that was controlling America. It was the telephone company. That is coming to life with the social media companies. Stupid people that cheer on these things don’t know their history. Some like Anonymous the Stupid don’t even know that such a thing is happening.

                1. This is an odd argument.

                  It would only have meaning if we did not havve antifa/BLM rioting with arson and looting.
                  If we did not have a press that turned all straight news into opinion peices.
                  Growing censorship of the views those in power deem inappropriate.

                  1. “This is an odd argument.”

                    Thank you John.

                    That is not only an odd statement by Anonymous the Stupid but stupid as well. For the most part I am focused on ideas even those I disagree with, but as we can see Anonymous the stupid is focussed on “Allan / S. Meyer” without a single valid idea in his head.

                    One of my thoughts is to focus on the stupidity of Anonymous the Stupid and use him as a vehicle to tell others not to be stupid like Anonymous the Stupid. It’s not good enough to focus on the facts produced every day. There needs to be a focus on the stupidity that is produced every day as well. One can do that by highlighting Anonymous the Stupid who everyone can recognize is clearly stupid.

          2. Alan, the typical Antifa member is in their early 20’s. They wouldn’t fit in amongst all those sacks of lard. And it’s ridiculous that you are calling anyone ‘stupid’ while promoting baseless conspiracies.

            1. Peter Shill, are you in competition with Anonymous the Stupid because you are a close runner up.

              Compare the ages of the Antifa/BLM rioters to those that showed up in DC to support the President. The latter were much older. Some crazies did a bad thing and likely they included BLM, Antifa, the undefinable crazies, and some Trump supporters that forgot how to act. (One can look around the country and see that Trump protestors have been peaceful and even cleaned up after themselves. I am sure there is a rotten apple in every bunch but in your Antifa BLM riots that rotten apple was the rule and the ready to eat apple a rarity.)

              Also take note that Trump was speaking a good walk away from the rioters and hadn’t finished or even said the words that offended people like Anonymous the Stupid and you. The riot preceded any words that were supposed to have caused the riots.

              You can insult or accuse Allan of anything you wish. I won’t bother to respond because it makes you look Stupider than you already are. If on the other hand you are adding something with significant content I might respond.

              Now you can go with Anonymous the Stupid and shack up together.

              1. It has already been confirmed that one “john Sullivan” – a left wing nut now charged in the capital events was actively inviting a riot.
                He was calling on people to burn, riot, steal, and damage.

                He is very real, and he was near the lead in much of this.
                He was right there what Alishi was shot.

                In time we will find more.

                1. Yes, but that will be tomorrow or next week and forgotten about. We will have Anonymous the Stupid and a bunch of other stupid people not ever realizing what actually happened while they continue to spout the nonsense we are so accustomed to.

                  1. Yes, but that will be tomorrow or next week and forgotten about. We will have S, Meyer/Allan the Stupid and a bunch of other stupid people not ever realizing what actually happened while they continue to spout the nonsense we are so accustomed to.

                  1. He appears to be the person with the long video moving through the capital and one of the video’s outside the Speakers Lobby showing the shooting of Alishi.

                    One his own video he can be heard inciting violence as well as telling the police to back down because he saw other police officers get beat up – which he did not.

                    Regardless, he is a left wing nut. Not a Trump supporter, and he ACTUALLY incited violence.

      2. “Videos show pro-Trump rioters . . .”

        That is how you, the media, and talking heads destroy your credibility. How many times during the Antifa/BLM mayhem did the MSM use the description: “Pro-Biden rioters?”

        1. Sam, Antifa is not pro-Biden. They are primarily anarchists , some of whom might have been for Sanders, but very few.

          1. Antifa is not Pro-Biden.

            And they are still here. They were somewhat quiet for the election. But they have not gone away.

            Right now it is a coin toss whether the spring will be full of protests – possibly degenerating to violence from Trump supporters, or from Antifa – or both.

            I hope and beleive that the right will be mostly peaceful – for a while.
            That the most immediate threat is the Democrats own left wing, which can not be made happy and will resort to violence if they do not get what they want.

            But that is a beleif. The anger of those on the right over the lawlessness of the left – not just the election, but all the idiocy of people like you, is greater than ever before.

            The media, the democrats, spent the past 4 years inflaming their own base.
            They have concurrently roused a sleeping giant.

            The capital protests may be just the first yawn.

            Please, show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful,” he said. “Because I can show you that outraged citizens are what made the country what she is and led to any major milestone. To be honest, this is not a tranquil time.”

            “Too many see the protests as the problem,” he said. “No, the problem is what forced your fellow citizens to take the streets. Persistent and poisonous inequities and injustice.”
            Chris Cuomo.

            I would note that Cuomo is actually right.

            Violence against lawless government is justified.
            Cuomo’s error is that the left was not railing against actual lawless government.
            The right is.

        2. They were carrying Trump flags and took down our flag to put up “their” flag. They were marching at his request to overturn the election.

          BLM protesters were not carrying flags that said Biden, nor would they.

          But “two sides” and all that.

            1. It is amazing the party claiming to be so opposed to dirty money in politics is drowning in dirty money.

              1. When the rules allow targeting or over the back, that’s how you play.

                The Democrats consistently and uniformly have favored and enacted and appointed judges favoring limiting money in campaigns while the GOP with exceptions like McCain have opposed it. If you care about limiting big spenders dominating campaign finances vote Democratic.

                That’s a no brainer.

                1. So the ends justify the means ?

                  Regardless, you are clueless if you think that Biden’s campaign debts are not going to have to be repaid.
                  I mean the money he received from all those the left claims to hate.

                  Democrats are inarguably the party of big business, big tech, Billionaires and wall street.

              2. I can’t figure out if you really believe everything you are saying or if you are just trolling people. At the end of the day, there were violent people who supported Trump, were incited by Trump and his claque, and were funded by Trump supporters who violently broke into the Capitol, killing one policeman and injuring many others, and put up the Trump flag, taking down the American flag and brandishing the Confederate flag. They threatened Congress and the VP and it appears that the rioters me were to try to get Congress to overturn the popular electoral victory of President-Elect Biden for Trump. It was un-American and the worst thing I have seen on American soil.

                You can send another 200 replies and misstatements and fanciful rewrites but those are some basic facts that can’t be changed. If you are sincere, I am surely very sorry about that. It is terrifying for our country that so many people claim to believe things that are preposterously false and I am completely persuaded by you that we will have more right wing violence going forward, and more attempts to impose minority rule on the majority of the country.

                Please do not feel the need to reply—we are obviously talking past each other.

                1. “I can’t figure out if you really believe everything you are saying or if you are just trolling people. ”
                  If I write it, it is a fact or if an oppinion, what I beleive – excluding rare sarcasm.

                  “At the end of the day, there were violent people who supported Trump”
                  Yes, there are violent people who support ever candidate that ever was.

                  “were incited by Trump”
                  Nope. Provide a remark by Trump that is actual incitement to violence.

                  “and his claque”
                  I have no idea what that means.
                  If you can cite a person and remark that is actual incitement – then prosecute. We can start with people like Pelosi, AOC and Maxine waters.

                  “and were funded by Trump supporters”
                  ActBlue and Sorros funded BLM and that resulted in $2B+ in destruction.

                  “who violently broke into the Capitol”
                  You can not thwart the right to petition government by locking the doors to the capital – that is inciting violence.

                  “killing one policeman and injuring many others”
                  Prosecute those who did so.
                  Also prosecute the police who murdered Alishi and those that obeyed unconstituional orders to lockdown the capital while in session.

                  “and put up the Trump flag, taking down the American flag”
                  I did not see this – but there were far more people carrying american flags than anything else.

                  “and brandishing the Confederate flag.”
                  Not that I saw.

                  I saw Trump/Pence flags, US flags, Gadsen flags.

                  “They threatened Congress and the VP”
                  Anyone who actually threatened another person with violence should be prosecuted.

                  “and it appears that the rioters me were to try to get Congress to overturn the popular electoral victory of President-Elect Biden for Trump.”
                  Or properly sated tried to get congress to overturn a lawless election.

                  BTW there is no such thing as a popular electoral victory.
                  A plurality of people still beleive – with very good reason that the election was stolen.
                  That is not especially popular.

                  “It was un-American and the worst thing I have seen on American soil.”
                  I would suggest reading about the Harris-Tilden election.
                  None of this was new.
                  Nor is it un-amercian.

                  I would presume that early in your education you were taught of the “american revolution” – the boston tea party, lexington and concord, bunker hill. These were all violent protests against the government. People even got killed – deliberately.
                  Read the declaration of independence. Government exists only at the consent of the governed, and it is ALWAYS the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

                  “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
                  Thomas Jefferson

                  “You can send another 200 replies and misstatements and fanciful rewrites but those are some basic facts that can’t be changed.”
                  Some of your facts are correct. Some are not. Most of your analysis is poor.

                  “It is terrifying for our country that so many people claim to believe things that are preposterously false”
                  That is correct. Check the mirror you will find one.

                  “I am completely persuaded by you that we will have more right wing violence going forward”
                  I strongly suspect that is the case.

                  You have two choices – either do not lock down the government – accept that people disagree with you and have a right to be heard and you would not likely have had the violence that you decry, or thwart peoples rights to assemble, protest, free speech and petition the government – even when you do not like what they are asking and you will have little violence, or take peoples rights and you will get far more violence from a very small portion of people.

                  As we move forward I do not know whether the violence from the left or the right will be greater.
                  I honestly hope I am wrong and there will be no violence. But I doubt it. We had massive left wing violence all summer – and to those engaged in it, it was effective. When Biden does not give them what they want they are likely to respond with violence again.
                  Those on the right saw the same violent summer – and they got the same message – that violence is the means to get what you want.
                  What is suprising about the protest at the capital was how little violence there was.

                  “and more attempts to impose minority rule on the majority of the country.”
                  There is no right of to impose your will on others by force – whether you are in the majority or the minority.
                  All uses of force – and that means all actions of government must be justified.
                  When the use of force can not be justified – it is immoral – whether by the right or the left.

                  Most – but not all uses of force are not jusitifable. Some are – violence opposing tyranny and lawlessness is justified.
                  The 2020 election was lawless. That is indisputable. If you are arguing otherise you are blind to reality.
                  It was also fraud ridden – likely enhanced by the lawlessness. Whether that fraud was sufficient to alter the outcome is not certain.
                  But the lawlessness is unquestionable.

                  As important a plurality of people do not trust the result. Even if you beleive they are wrong – you still must respect that.
                  Government exists ONLY at the consent of the governed. If the election results are not trusted – even by a minority of people – then government is not legitimate. That is what the capital protestors were saying – albeit less articulately.

                  You want legitimate government – you MUST remedy that lack of trust. Possibly through persuasion.
                  You tried ramming it down their throat with court decisions that were dismissive of their concerns. That did not work.
                  That is YOUR failure not theirs. It is YOUR obligation to get their consent – not their to give it.
                  It is not necescary for them to like the outcome, only to accept it as legitimate – you failed at that.
                  That failure has consequences.

                  You had many opportunities to correct this.
                  The election could have been conducted lawfully.
                  Or even just less lawlessly.
                  The lawlessness of this election is not ignoring one law or constitutional provision – but innumerable ones.
                  Each act of lawlessness compounds the lack of trust.

                  You might have gotten away with mailin elections – which are unconstitutional in 28 states.
                  But that was compounded by removing election observers, depriving them of any meaningful means of objecting,
                  ignoring Voter ID laws, ignoring election deadlines. ignoring signature validation laws, ignoring, custody requirements for ballots.
                  and on and on.
                  Even at this point you might have managed to eek by – had you atleast agreed to a real investigation. Instead you lied and fought tooth and nail to hide everything you could.
                  Worse you did this after 4 years of similar lying and hiding of illegitimate and often illegal activities with the full complicity of the press.
                  Step by step you destroyed the trust of voters.

                  There are people who sincerely beleive Trump won california.
                  That did not happen.
                  But they beleive that – because government, the left, the state, the media, the courts have lied to them so much they have no trust.
                  Constant lying has consequences – those who lie are not trusted. Those who lie over and over are not even listened to.

                  If you want peace – you have to earn trust. That is going to be incredibly difficult.
                  But the media, the left, democrats, …. are not even trying.
                  One way or the other that near certainly means further violence.

                  Whether you like it or not, untrusted government results in violence.

                  Finally the minority has the absolute right to impose their will on the majority – when the majority seeks to infringe on their liberty.
                  The default when we can not agree is liberty, not the tyranny of the majority.

                  Biden will be inaugurated shortly.
                  A first step in restoring trust and civility is for a Biden administration to do absolutely nothing that infringes on the rights of the minority.
                  You can do anything you want that does not further infringe on liberty – that is not very much.
                  You can undo anything you want that increases actual liberty.
                  But you can not decrease liberty without consent and legitimacy you do not have.

          1. There were more american flags among Trump supporters than anywhere else.

            There were also Gadsen flags – and american flag during the revolution.

        3. Of course Anonymous the Stupid doesn’t consider his credibility and destroys it all the time. Many people have noted and proven that. Do you know why he doesn’t care about his credibility? Because he is Anonymous the Stupid.

        4. No those were “mostly peaceful protests” that did $2B in damage.

          “Too late. They are not peaceful- because you are not about peace. You can’t control what you caused.”

          Please, show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful,” he said. “Because I can show you that outraged citizens are what made the country what she is and led to any major milestone. To be honest, this is not a tranquil time.”

          “Too many see the protests as the problem,” he said. “No, the problem is what forced your fellow citizens to take the streets. Persistent and poisonous inequities and injustice.”

          Cuomo on BLm/Antifa riots.

      3. Still linking an article that says something different from the video.

        Again NYT and WaPo why is that not surprising.

        Regardless, when I can see what happened, when I can listen to what people said, I do not need a reporter to leftsplain it too me.

        There is a violent melee on the stairs to this public entrance to the capital that is supposed to be opened when congress is in session.

        We have a congress terrified that it might have to hear protests from the Prols over what it is trying to do behind their backs.

        Congress hung the capital police out to dry. With rules of engagement that do not work for a locked public building that is supposed to be opened.

        I would note that the Police in this video are far more violent than protestors.

  2. I’m a fan of Turley and I remain hopeful that one day he will wake up to the true nature of who and what we are dealing with here but right now he’s just spitting into a very strong wind. At what point does he realize that the United States is a complete and utter fraud on its citizens? The recent SCOTUS and other court actions are clear and concise evidence of this. You would think Turley would be honest with himself about that.

    1. “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, July 4, 1776, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson et al.

  3. The Supreme Court has declined to hear cases relating to election fraud on an expedited basis. That means they will be considered well after the inauguration.

    Why even bother?

    They can say there isn’t enough evidence to support the suits.

    They can say they are moot because the inauguration has already taken place.

    They can decide the election was a fraud and demand a remedy. We know they won’t do that and we know that even if they do their decision will be ignored.

    The Democrats and their Tech Lords are demonstrating exactly what they think of America and the Constitution with startling rapidity. They want to crush any non-conforming opinion and they are doing it in a high-tech fashion that would make Hitler and Stalin salivate with envy. They certainly won’t let a cowardly Supreme Court bench stop them.

    When Obamacare was up for consideration Obama signaled he might ignore the Court’s decision because, as he said, the justices were just a bunch of unelected old folks in black robes, to paraphrase. And many wonder if the powers in the shadows had a special message for Roberts that turned his brain into a Mobius strip.

    The Left has the will and inclination to apply the heel of a jackboot to the Court when it gets out of line and I suspect the justices know it. Don’t look for legal wisdom in their cases on political issues; look for cowardice.

    Meanwhile, I suspect that close to half the population is decoupling to some degree. I wonder how that will play out?

      1. billionaires and their controlled big corporations particularly Silicon Valley are responsible for much of our woes and they will be responsible for the ones coming down the pike

        the Federal Reserve system is the worst evilest American quasi governmental agency of all of them all

        they bankroll the enemies of the people, they have made them even richer as we all got sick, loney, and poor

        now this disgusting weasel Jack Dorsey thinks he is the boss. wow!

        remember that stuff kids because we may go into a major blackout soon. SHTF even harder in 2021

        billionaires are the enemy of the people

    1. Excerpt from the following article:

      As is the court’s custom, the orders gave no reasons. There were no dissents noted.

      Mr. Trump had hoped that the court, which includes three of his appointees, would overturn the results of the election. But the court, notably in a terse order rejecting an audacious lawsuit in which Texas sought to sue four other states, has consistently rejected the requests.

      — Adam Liptak

          1. Credibility starts with “the man in the mirror”

            All of us make occasional mistakes. Worse the sources we have to rely on flat out suck.
            You can not trust the MSM at all about anything anymore. If they tell you the time of day – it is probably wrong.
            You can not trust anyone in government. Not even about mundane things.
            You can not trust the so called experts.

            Much of this lack of trust is not because these people make mistakes. In far too many instances it is because they flay out lie.

            Our ethical and moral standards have degraded so far that for far too many of us lying is exceptable if it is in the service of a cause we beleive to be good.

            Grow up – if you have to do evil to accomplish good – you are not going to accomplish good.

            When we are not outright lying – we are exagerating. Everything is not treason. Everything is not a coup. Everything is not incitement. Everything is not sedition.

            The hystrionincs are far worse from the left – but they are present everywhere.

            Worse when exagerate we even come to beleive the exagerations.

      1. the reality is John Roberts was yelling at the other Justices behind closed doors telling them to disregard Bush v Gore as precedent

        The SCOTUS knows civil war is incipient, or rather perhaps just a slaughter, of the red part of the country, and Roberts decided to stay out of it, he chickened out

        the fact is various state agencies exceeded and broke their own election laws with all that vote by mail stuff and we all know it. that was the real big steal, not all the many individual incidents of vote fraud. those were little things, the state agencies shotgunning out the mail in ballots was the big thing. SCOTUS chickened out

        but law doesnt matter much now especially to the Democrat leadership
        and won’t matter much going forward. not until we rewrite the laws and get a new government capable of enforcing them

        1. The laws do not for the most part need rewritten.
          They just need followed.

          When they are not – there is no trust in government and government ceases to exist.

      2. The court decided on the basis of standing.

        Standing is another of those judge made legal constructs like Qualified immunity -it does not exist in the constutiton or statory law.

        Article III Section 2 makes cases and controversies betweent eh states the original jusrisdiction of the court.

        They are required to hear such cases, Further ONLY SCOTUS can hear such cases.
        Standing is automatic.

        SCOTUS ducked. There is no means to force them to do what they are constitutionally required to do.

        Very nearly the same case was raised by Trump in the federal courts at nearly the same time.
        Though Trump ultimately lost that case – on another manufactured legal doctrine. that court actually looked at the standing issue and found that Trump did have standing. Technically I think that judge was actually wrong – specifically because the case had to br brought by one state against another in SCOTUS. But that is a bit to the side. Either the Wisconsin Federal court is wrong about Standing – or SCOTUS is.

        But what is really true is not that these claims have merit. It is that the courts are terrified that they DO have merit.

        The courts HAD to address this before the election. Afterwords the problems are just too large. No matter what millions of people get disenfranchised.

        I am merely guessing, but I strongly suspect that the courts are going to take a very hard line requiring states to follow their own laws in the future, as it is now crystal clear to them that failing to do so BEFORE the election creates an irresolvable mess after.

        I would also suggest you strongly read the TX case.

        The gist of it is that the constitution is a contract between the states. With each state agreeing to the constitution as well as to abide by its own laws.
        TX – and 28 other states are accusing 6 states of failing to follow the constution – their own constitutions, and their own laws.

        By Denying standing SCOTUS is saying that states can behave lawlessly and no one can do anything about it.

        1. One state trying to make another change it’s election results to conform to theirs is not a legitimate dispute between states.

          Do you really need that explained to you?

          1. “One state trying to make another change it’s election results to conform to theirs is not a legitimate dispute between states.”

            Clearly you have not read the TX suit. It is about breach of the constitutional contract, and equal protection.

            A claim that a state did not follow its own laws and constitution in a federal election thereby disenfranchising the voters of all other states is about as legitimate a dispute between the states as is possible.

            States MIGHT be free to do as they please on matters that do not directly effect other states. But when the lawlessness of one state disenfranchises voters in other states, that is a legitmate claim.

            One of the big issues that both you and the courts continuously fail to grasp is that while the remedy that Trump, TX have asked for absolutely disenfranchises legitimate voters, so does doing nothing,

            If there are 100,000 fraudulent or lawless mailin votes in PA – striking all the mailin votes disenfranchises about a million lawful voters.
            But NOT striking the mailin ballots disenfranchises a larger number of lawful voters.
            Further when the state ran the election lawlessly – it assumed the risk that otherwise lawful votes would be struck.
            When voters cast their votes by unconstitutional means they assumed the same risk.

            I voted in person in PA. I had plenty of oppertunity to vote by Mail (many times and as many people) – I did not. I considered it and decided that the risk that my vote might not be counted was too high. I voted in person.
            I have no sympathy for those who did not who should have had their votes stricken.
            They knew the risk they were taking.

            As I noted before, A Wisconsin Federal court already reviewed a Trump claim near identical to the TX claim and decided that Trump had standing. There is no way Trump had standing but a state did not.

            As a matter of law – there is no right to be president. The right to a lawful election si NOT a right of the candidates.
            It is a right of the citizens. And in a federal election for a nationwide office it is a right of the citizens of other states and their state acting on their behalf.

    2. One thing the left can be counted on is to overstep.

      Trust in government is at an all time low.

      The likelyhood of avoiding future violence is small.
      The only question is who does what next.

    1. So ?

      Pence was always an effort by Trump to bring evangelicals who really did not like him – but also did not like Clinton to his side.
      He could not win without them.

      Otherwise Pence and Trump were never an especially good fit.
      There are plenty of such Vice Presidents.
      Bush was a SOP so that reagan could get the support of establishment republicans.
      They were never a good fit.

      Pence never had a significant future past VP.
      I do not think he will even run for president ever.

      I think he is a basicially good guy.
      But that does not make him right.

    1. Democrats like Biden and Kamala bailed these thugs out of jail

      Portland Antifa Rioters Set Precinct on Fire, Throw Road Signs at Cops, Leave Post-Apocalyptic Scene

      During the 87th night of violent antifa riots in Portland, rioters threw rocks, ceramic, paintballs, uprooted road signs, and a balloon filled with feces at cops near the North Precinct police station. They successfully lit the station’s awning on fire. After police finally put the fire out and cleared the area, rioters left a post-apocalyptic landscape in their wake.

      A mob of more than 200 rioters, outfitted with armor, helmets, gas masks, black-bloc clothing, and shields, began the march at around 9:41 p.m. The antifa rioters marched to the North Precinct building, where rioters had previously attempted to burn down the station while trapping officers inside. As police blocked the streets, rioters lit a dumpster fire and pushed to toward the intersection. They also set a flatbed trailer up on its side as a shield.

      Instead, rioters threw a commercial firework at the cops. They chucked bottles, paint bombs, rocks, and heavy metal screws at police vehicles. At least one rioter used a wrist-rocket-style slingshot to fire marbles at police. They pelted cops with paint bombs and rocks. Some rioters even uprooted traffic signs from the ground and threw them at police.

      Patriot Daily Press

    2. amazingf the Wapo description does not match the actual video.

      I saw a clash between violent cops and protestors.

      The protestors were trying to get into what is supposed to be a public government building while congress was in session – which is supposed to be public.

      I do not recall the George Washington surrounding independence hall with continental soldiers while the constitution was being written.

      I would suggest reading about Andrew Jacksons inauguration.

  4. Inaugaration safety:. 1). Build fence around the site. 2) several hundred guards with automatic weapons, tasers, and a large number of firehouses. 3) Helicopters with thousands of pounds of cow poop fly overhead and drop poop on the rioters. 4). Firehouse those who approach the fence. 5) Tase all who climb it breach the fence. 6) Shoot with firearms those who move beyond the fence.

    1. Also post signs on the streets two blocks from the fence that anyone who approaches may be shot and pooped on. Bulldozers near by to remove bodies.

      1. We did not have enough armed defenders. Our framers of the Second Amendment declared the need for a well regulated militia. The original wording said …the right to arm bears. Not the right to bear arms. We need a squad of North Carolina brown bears armed with machine guns to be joined with the Capitol Police on Inauguration day.

      1. So Biden is going to have the snake poop inaugural ?

        You do not seem to understand that Biden must have an innaugural that is as open as possible if he is to have even the slightest hope of legitimacy and he must hope for limited protests.

        Biden loses no matter what if there is conflict.

    2. That should have been done to antifa sociopaths/psychopaths. It would have been enjoyable to watch, although not in an olfactory sort of way.

    3. Will it be BLM types looking to score some of the Bling in the Gift Bags for the VIP’s that will be the ones being shot?

      Cmon Man….get real!

      Who do you think is going to show up to the thing?

    4. I am sure that is just how Biden would like to start his presidency.

      I would absolutely encourage everyone to refrain from violence. and even to mute protests.

      There should be protests – this is an illegitimate president.

      But those protests should be respectful – for NOW!

  5. Very sad:

    “Capitol Police officer who was on duty during the riot has died by suicide, his family says”

    Two Capitol police officers who responded to the assault have died. Forty-two-year-old Brian Sicknick was injured in the melee and died a day later.

    And a few days after responding to the riots, Officer Howard Liebengood died by suicide, a lawyer for his family confirmed. “His death is a tragedy that has deprived all of us a dedicated public servant. His family has suffered a devastating loss and asks that they be given space to grieve in private,” the Liebengoods’ attorney, Barry Pollack said in a statement.

    Former Capitol Police Chief Terry Gainer characterized his death as a “line of duty casualty,” and stated that it had been no less of a line-of-duty casualty than Sicknick’s death.

    -Washington Post

    1. Saying it is line of duty does not make it so.

      I am sorry for the officers death.

      But people do not commit suicide over this – especially adults.

      Though I would note that suicide rates have skyrocketed for young adults and teens.

      This is a clear failure of our modern education and child rearing.

      We should look at what we changed that has made young people more prone to suicide.

      Regardless you do not get to blame your suicide on others.
      Each of us is responsible for our own lives.

  6. Impeachment is about exacting political vengeance, not protecting the country from an imminent national security threat.

    1. “Anonymous says:January 11, 2021 at 6:11 PM
      Impeachment is about exacting political vengeance”

      No It isn’t.

      1. “No It isn’t.”

        Do you know why Anonymous didn’t bring in reasons for his opinion along with fact. Because Anonymous the Stupid is stupid. Anonymous the Stupid was responding to an interesting thought, “Impeachment is about exacting political vengeance”. All he could say was no and two other words. Sometimes that is acceptable but with Anonymous the Stupid it is too frequently used because he has almost no content.

      2. is that why she tried to stage a coup by calling General Milley to scold him about the nuclear codes, when this is totally outside her constitutional authority, and a blatant act of interference in the constitutional chain of command.? she’s the coup planner come to think about it and boldy reported it to the news media which slavishly praised her for it

      3. Of course it is.

        Hiding under the rug is the fact that Hunter Biden is just the tip of the ice berg. There are numerous adult children of out ruling political elites engaged in exactly the same deeply offensive behavior. Some littlerally working with Hunter Biden.

        Investigation of Hunter Biden was not merely a threat to Joe Biden, but to Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry and myriads of prominent democrats and many prominent republicans families.

  7. Impeachment should never be based on personal nor political considerations, nor be used as a tool of punishment.

      1. Actual sedition would. Sedition is defined as a specific form of incitement to violence.
        There was no incitement to violence, there is no sedition.

        What we have is a left terrified that people see they have no cloths – they ran a lawless election and Trump has thrown the light on their nakedness.

  8. Jonathan: Call me an optimist but I hoped Trump would give a different speech at his rally last Wednesday. I prayed he would say something like: “To all of you patriots out there. I appreciate your support. While I will never concede we have to recognize that I will be forced to leave office on January 20. I see a lot of you have guns, ropes, tear gas, molotov cocktails and other weapons. This is not the time for violence. Leave here in peace. We will have another opportunity in 2024 to show who are the true Americans.” Or words to that effect. But that was not the speech Trump gave. I knew it was going to be a long afternoon when Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Al0 got up angrily yelling: “Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass”. Trump followed with a fiery speech repeating his false claims about the election and said: “You’ll never take beck our country with weakness. You have to show strength. You have to be strong…You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about”. This is the part of Trump’s speech you conveniently didn’t quote. Trump was followed on the dais by his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani who called the crowd to a “trial by combat”. It is quite clear from the above quotes and others that Trump, Giuliani and Brooks had one plan: To stop the Senate and House from counting the Electoral College votes at any cost. At the end of the rally and the crowd stated toward the Capitol building Trump returned to the White House to watch what was happening on TV. Aides say Trump was “delighted” by those who were breaking into the Capitol. Trump loves violence when committed against his opponents. He applauded when federal agents clubbed, used rubber bullets and tear gas against BLM and Antifa protesters last summer. Trump knew what was likely to happen when he spoke at the “Save America” rally. Trump’s incendiary rhetoric was the accelerant that ignited the insurrection that followed.

    What is remarkable is that you would defend Trump call to invade the Capitol as just an exercise in “free speech” guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. Trump’s inflammatory language was sedition, an attempted coup d’etat. That’s not protected by the Constitution. Trump needs to be held accountable. But it is unlikely Pence will invoke the 25th Amendment because he doesn’t have the cajones for that task. Your recommendation of a joint bipartisan resolution of “censure” would be toothless when it comes to Trump. The only alternative is another impeachment because Trump needs to be banished from ever holding elective office again. The real danger is that Trump is not finished. By whatever means is available to him, now that he has been permanently banned from Twitter and Facebook. he will try to rally his supporters to show up before on on January 20 to cause further chaos. Chaos is in Trump’s DNA. It’s pathetic you would try to defend Trump’s attempts to overthrow our democracy.

    1. Hey Folks…..we found Adam Schiff’s speech writer…..there is enough fiction being published in the media….we sure don’t. need anymore here!

    2. Americans were hoping Hillary would be graceful, elegant, courteous or deferential in her humiliating defeat but alas she paid Russians to spy on Trump, Barry O and Uncle Joe joined the fray and…well, why present facts to you.

      Back to your sing along. Follow the bouncing Molotov cocktail


    3. What is remarkable is that you would call protestors efforts to petition government an invasion.

      The govenrment belongs to the people – not congress.

      Congress expected protests – as they did with Kavanaugh 2 years earlier.

      In 2018 the continued business as usual. Protestors entered the capital, they burst into hearing rooms and into Senators offices.
      Most were given the opportunity to speak their mind.
      They even changed the vote of a few senators.

      Those (200) that were actually violent were arrested and removed.
      No one called that an invasion.

      In 2021 congress locked their doors. They tried to keep people out of the peoples house.
      They tried to run and hide from their constituents.
      They tried to thwart the efforts of people to assembly, free speech and petition the government.

      Congress does not have to act as people demand. But it is required to allow them to speak, to accept their petition, to allow them to assemble. When congress tries to shut the people down to thwart their voices – it increases the perception of government lawlessness.

      If the 538 members of congress are incapable of being in a room together with a bunch of Prols the country is in bad shape.

      Congresses failure has brought us closer to violence.

      We should resolve our differences non-violently. But contra the left, that is not a requirement.
      We are not obligated to surrender out rights peacefully – even if the election actually was lawfull and legitimate – which it was not.

      When we can not resolve our differences peacefully – we can not do so by force. That means government can not forceably impose the will of the majority over that of the majority.

      It does not matter all that much who is president. What matters is that government is not the tool of a small majority to forcefully require the rest of us to do as we are told. That will result in violence.


      purge coming in the armed forces

      they are projecting a real insurrection and readying for war against the people

      probably the FBI etc are lining up all their informants and provocateurs now to gin up major trouble on impeachment and that will be the pretext for a Patriot Act type law against Americans

      it will include gun control, you can be sure of that

      the forces of repression are all in on this one

      1. WE should also check out all members of the Biden administration for BLM/Antifa affiliation and bad those from public service.

        Oops, that would leave DC empty.

          1. Of What ?

            Are you saying that those with BLM/Antifa affiliation should be allowed in government ?

            Or are you saying there are none ?

          2. I have said I correct my factual errors.
            While MOST people grasp the remark that DC would be empty was sarcasm.
            Just to clarify – there must be one person in DC that is not affiliated with BLM or Antifa.

            In the future I am NOT going to correct obvious sarcasm.
            I am going to ridicule anyone who does not recognize sarcasm.

            It is not my fault that the left has no sense of humor.

        1. John, The one that supports lying, cheating and stealing wants you to provide evidence. He has been consistently wrong on almost everything. Right now we are seeing a rise in the number of leftists discovered that rioted at the Capitol and Congresswoman who just a short while ago wanted to defund the police now are praising them while calling supporters of Trump white racists.

          Anonymous the Stupid doesn’t realize that one group is dehumanizing another. That is what the Nazi’s first did , but he is too stupid to understand fascism and nazism. In another response this nincompoop said he liked fascists because they were good for the little people.(ask the Italians how good it was for them)

          Unfortunately dehumanization leads to the ability to cause pain in others through the loss of jobs and all sorts of things. In Nazi Germany it went from pain to the Holocaust and now in (I think ) Minnesota they are trying to end teaching the Holocaust in public schools. It’s not as large a step as some think to actually killing people. The left has been supporting that for years starting with their belief in eugenics and placing baby killing centers near densely populated black areas.

          1. S. Meyer/Allan the Stupid doesn’t realize that one group is dehumanizing another. That is what the Nazi’s first did , but he is too stupid to understand fascism and nazism. In another response this nincompoop said he liked fascists because they were good for the little people.(ask the Italians how good it was for them)

            (S.. Meyer/Allan the Stupid consistently lies about others.)

            1. This is an example of Anonymous the Stupid lying. No more need be said. He has proven himself a liar.

                  1. Now we are speculating about people parents ?

                    What hubris. You seem to think you are as omniscient as god.

                    Stick to knowable facts.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, are you sending people on wild goose chases again. Most of the time it proves you wrong or a dud. Why don’t you argue your point… too stupid?

                  1. Allan/S. Meyer the Stupid, no one is sending people on wild goose chases.

                    Only a dud couldn’t connect the dots. Why don’t you try connecting them… too stupid?

  9. When the U.S. delegation to the United Nations, acting on instructions from Clarke, informed the council that they favored closing the mission, they faced sharp opposition. The U.S. mission to the United Nations warned that the United States lacked the votes required in the 15-nation Security Council to push through a resolution shuttering the Rwanda mission. Britain’s and Nigeria’s envoys convinced Albright to seek new instructions, which she did. But the United States prevailed in ushering through a resolution scaling down a force of more than 2,500 to a skeletal presence of 270. The move, combined with the evacuation of U.S. and other foreign nationals, sent a message to the Hutu killers that they had an essentially free hand, according to Cameron Hudson, the director of the Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Center for the Prevention of Genocide.

    “If you look at the first two weeks of the genocide, as violence was increasing exponentially, the focus of the U.S. government was the evacuation of U.S. diplomats and Westerners,” Hudson said.“If you look at the first two weeks of the genocide, as violence was increasing exponentially, the focus of the U.S. government was the evacuation of U.S. diplomats and Westerners,” Hudson said. “So while there was a very small window to double down and stop the violence, we sent the opposite signal: We greenlighted genocide by saying, ‘We are going to get out of your way while you kill each other.’”
    The lesson of Rwanda has pushed the United States — which since has developed an Atrocities Prevention Board to detect early warning signs — to place a greater emphasis on conflict prevention.

  10. Nearly two weeks into the 1994 mass killings in Rwanda that would ultimately be called genocide, Eric P. Schwartz, a human rights specialist on the National Security Council, wrote a memorandum to his White House colleagues voicing alarm over reports of tens of thousands of slaughtered ethnic Tutsis.

    Human rights groups were pleading for the Clinton administration to help keep 2,500 U.N. peacekeepers on the scene in the Central African country. Human Rights Watch, the New York-based advocacy group, was warning that “Rwandans will quickly become victims of genocide.”

    “Is this true?” Schwartz asked Susan Rice, at the time a 29-year-old director of international organizations and peacekeeping on the National Security Council (NSC), and Donald Steinberg, then the NSC’s new director for African affairs, according to a recently declassified White House memo dated April 19, 1994. “If so, shouldn’t it be a major factor informing high-level decision-making on this issue? Has it been?”

    In the end, the fate of Rwanda’s victims hardly figured at all in U.S. calculations about the international community’s response to what turned out to be the worst mass killing since the HolocaustIn the end, the fate of Rwanda’s victims hardly figured at all in U.S. calculations about the international community’s response to what turned out to be the worst mass killing since the Holocaust, according to hundreds of pages of internal White House memos.

    1. Does this relate to a constitutional treaty in full force and effect? Please cite an Article and Section.

  11. Trump is a guy who tweets constantly about wanting people to lock up his political enemies. He is someone who calls up the Georgia Secretary of State and other Republican officials asks them to find more votes for him. He is someone who calls up the Ukrainian President and asks him to announce an investigation into Hunter Biden. He pardons people who obstruct investigations for him, and fires people who tell the truth about him to investigators.

    He is someone who tells a crowd something was stolen from them – points to the other building where he says the criminals were hiding – and sends a crowd to that building and makes sure there is not enough police to stop them.

    And if anyone happens to do what Trump clearly instructed them to do – well, Turley is there to defend Trump.

      1. That is a stupid comment Anonymous the Stupid made about Turley. He wishes to impugn Turley’s character because Avenatti was a student of his who appeared to be smart. He never stated any of the things Avenatti did later were good. He doesn’t choose his students. Nor is he responsible for what they do after they graduate. If one teaches enough students one will turn out to be a killer. Anonymous doesn’t realize all of this. Do you know why? Because Anonymous the Stupid is stupid and is very short so he hits below the belt.


      If inciting a deadly invasion of The Capitol isn’t enough to warrant impeachment, Turley should explain ‘why’ it isn’t.

      Starting with his primary campaign in 2016, Donald Trump has repeatedly crossed every boundary of acceptable behavior for both a candidate and president. And never, ever has the GOP or rightwing media held Trump accountable in any way whatsoever.

      Back in the first debate of 2016 Primary, Trump made perverted jokes about Moderator Megan Kelly’s menstrual cycle. In a normal America that should have been the END of Trump’s campaign. In a normal America the Republican National Committee should have issued a statement that next day saying that Trump would be delisted from all Republican ballots. Fox News should have issued a statement saying that Trump was insulting to women and profoundly immature. But instead Fox News embraced Trump after he insulted one of its best-known personalities. And the Republican Party was complicit with its silence; allowing a man with serious maturity issues to get the party’s nomination.

      Since that insult against Kelly, Trump has crossed so many boundaries that it would be seriously difficult to chart a full list. Republicans have essentially said, “No matter what Trump says and does we stand behind him all the way”. Which brings us to ‘now’, days after Trump incited a mob to invade The Capitol. Even ‘now’ the Republican Party, and Trump defenders like Johnathan Turley, are telling us that even ‘this’ incident isn’t reason enough to impeach Donald Trump.

      1. Aninny:

        “If inciting a deadly invasion of The Capitol isn’t enough to warrant impeachment, Turley should explain ‘why’ it isn’t.”
        He did explain it — in detail. You just didn’t read it or you’re functionally illiterate. (I’m going with the latter cause no one lazy can toss that big a word salad). And while you’re fumbling through the flash cards, try looking up circular reasoning, since assuming the conclusion in your whining question makes you more than just ignorant; you’ve entered the knuckle draggers zone. On a personal note, are you home again watching The Bachelor on tv?

      2. That capital was not invaded.

        I know that you think flyover country is another nation – but it is actually part of the US.

        These were protestors. Using the left’s statistics – they were 99.98% peaceful.

        In 9 months of BLM/Antifa actual riots – not a single protestor was killed by police.

        But murdering protestors on the right is OK with you ?

        The last time the capital was burned was 1814. Can Portland or many other US cities say the same.

        These people were engaged in free speech, right of assembly, and the right to petition the government.

        You do that at the capital – not in macy’s with a molotov cocktail.

        You are terrified that they might have persuafed enough representatives and senators to agree to audit the election.

        WHY are you so affraid of that.

        Locking the capital down from protestors while in session is a violation of the first amendment – the right to petition government.

      3. Trump has made some offensive remarks.

        This is the actual Kelly comment.

        “Kelly gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions. You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever. In my opinion, she was off base.”

        I am glad that you are sure that you know what a “Wherever” is.

    2. “Trump is a guy who tweets constantly about wanting people to lock up his political enemies. ”
      And yet he has not.

      “He is someone who calls up the Georgia Secretary of State and other Republican officials asks them to find more votes for him.”
      Please read the transcript.

      “He is someone who calls up the Ukrainian President and asks him to announce an investigation into Hunter Biden.”
      Duh! We do not investigate crooks ?

      Are you STILL selling the nonsense that All the Biden Ukraine stuff is “russian disinformation” ?


      “He pardons people who obstruct investigations for him”
      Nope. The instruction was illlegitmate from the start.
      Even the FBI found there was nothing to investigate and was closing it down on Jan 4, 2017.

      Nothing new emerged after that. Rosenstein initiated an investicgation would a legal predicate.
      You can not obstruct a crime.

      “and fires people who tell the truth about him to investigators.”
      He can fire anyone he wants and he should have fired many many more.
      Regardless, we know that all the leaks were lies. So much that is false has been printed – the media is not even good toilet paper.
      Yet you beleive.

      “He is someone who tells a crowd something was stolen from them”
      They already know that – the election was lawless.

      “points to the other building where he says the criminals were hiding”
      Wrong analogy. He pointed them at the building where the police were and asked them to go and make them do their job.
      Which they tried.

      “and sends a crowd to that building and makes sure there is not enough police to stop them.”
      The capital police dealt with 4 times as manhy people during the kavanagh riots. and they did not kill anyone.

      1. What Would it Take to lose Turley’s Support?’ asked a question that was answered in detail by Say. Will that poster

        1) respond in kind to Say and defend his position?
        2) Be bit enough to say John Say had some good points?
        3) Run away only to repeat the same words under a different name somewhere else?

Leave a Reply