Democratic Member Accuses Colleagues Of Conducting “Surveillance” For Capitol Rioters

As reported by Newsweek, Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D., N.J.) has gone public with an extraordinary allegation against some of her colleagues that they conducted secret surveillance in a conspiracy with rioters at the Capitol. If true, those members could be criminally charged and expelled from the House. Conversely, if Sherrill has no such evidence, she could (and should) face a resolution of censure or resolution.

Sherrill said in a Tuesday night Facebook live address to her constituents that she witnessed the surveillance personally. She said unidentified members of Congress “had groups coming through the Capitol” in “a reconnaissance for the next day.” Sherrill pledged to see those lawmakers “are held accountable, and if necessary, ensure that they don’t serve in Congress.”

You can watch the whole taped discussion here and the statement comes near the end around 1215 mark.

That is an unambiguous allegation of criminal conduct against colleagues.  Once she names a member, she could also be the subject of a defamation action. This was a statement made off of the floor and not protected under the Speech and Debate Clause.  It is coming from a member who was a former Navy pilot and a federal prosecutor.  In fairness to Sherrill the reference to helping do “reconnaissance” came in a list of pledges. She could clarify that she was not alleging that these members helped in such reconnaissance. She she stands by the apparent allegation, it could leave Congress to two and equally unpleasant inquiries.

Article I, Section 5, the Constitution says, “Each House (of Congress) may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.”  The House may discipline members for violations of both unlawful conduct as well as any conduct which the House of Representatives finds has reflected discredit upon the institution. In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 669-670 (1897). A House Select Committee in 1967 stated:

Censure of a Member has been deemed appropriate in cases of a breach of the privileges of the House. There are two classes of privilege, the one, affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings; and the other, affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of Members, individually. Most cases of censure have involved the use of unparliamentary language, assaults upon a Member or insults to the House by introductions of offensive resolutions, but in five cases in the House and one in the Senate [as of 1967] censure was based on corrupt acts by a Member, and in another Senate case censure was based upon noncooperation with and abuse of Senate committees.

Censure or reprimand is not the only possible response if this allegation is found to be without basis.  The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, they must show actual knowledge or reckless disregard of the alleged falsity.  Obviously, truth remains a defense. Under Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974) and its progeny of cases, the Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.”

If members did conspire as alleged by Rep. Sherrill, they could be expelled for that criminal act.  They would also face prosecution.  It would be a betrayal of not just Congress but the country.

Thus far, Sherrill has not named names but pledged to seek accountability. The question is whether she will now identify members who she has accused of a criminal conspiracy.  Indeed, one would think that she would have already gone to the FBI and filed a criminal complaint.  Absent naming the members, any defamation action would have to be based on the highly difficult basis for a group libel claim of all Republican members. Such an action would be highly unlikely to succeed.  In Neiman-Marcus v. Lait (1952), a New York federal district court addressed a defamation claim arising from the publication of the book “U.S.A. Confidential.” The author wrote that “some” models and “all” saleswomen at the Neiman-Marcus department store in Dallas were “call girls.” It also claimed that “most” of the salesmen in the men’s store were “faggots.” The store had nine models, 382 saleswomen and 25 salesmen. The court found the size of the group of women was too big to satisfy a group libel standard. However, the size of the group of salesmen was viewed as sufficiently small to go to trial.

The Sherrill controversy arises as another member has deleted a tweet calling for the expulsion of a colleague based on her alleged connection to rioters.  Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., called for the expulsion of Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., after a tweet falsely claiming that Boebert was shown in a 2019 photo with people who were among those who rioted in the Capitol.

This is clearly something that the House must investigate.  Either Sherrill has evidence of a criminal conspiracy or has made an outrageous (and defamatory) allegation against her colleagues. Either possibility is unsettling.  Thus, Sherrill should reveal the House members who she believes conspired with rioters, which presumably she has already given to legal authorities.

 

188 thoughts on “Democratic Member Accuses Colleagues Of Conducting “Surveillance” For Capitol Rioters”

  1. This will be interesting. Her name is now recognized by more people. Let’s see in the coming days if she provides names and facts.

  2. Ahead of the ?????? (View answer below) election, we’re hearing reports that internet service providers are being ordered to block social media and messaging apps.—

    We strongly condemn internet shutdowns-they are hugely harmful, violate basic human rights and the principles of the #Openinternet.

    Twitter Public Policy @ Policy posted 10:22Am January 12, 2021

    The answer to the question above is Ugandan. And another Twitter Public Policy post just a short time ago; “Access to information and freedom of expression, including the public conversation on Twitter, is never more important than during democratic processes, particularly elections”

    TALK ABOUT TWO FACED DECEIT, or stated differently “do as I say, not as I do”. Typical Democrat, float an accusation in hopes the Lie will become a story that will be believed. If in doubt (uncertain) just read the responses from the lefties on this subject. Plato associated the left with evil and criminality, and Psychologist Stekel believed right handed people signified righteousness, and left handed crime.

    “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.” James Madison

  3. Good for her.

    She’s ex military so she knows the logistics of what it will take to carry through her observation, and the resistance to it. I actually think your blog post may be part of an organized campaign to intimidate her, all Fox news style. It’s definitely weighted toward the defamation possibility way more than the possible accuracy of her what she saw.

    How does it feel to be an active participant in something like this, Turley?

    Elvis Bug

    1. She either has the evidence or she does not. If she does she should have revealed it before she made inflammatory accusations against other members of Congress.

      1. She applied a broad brush wide enough to throw falsities at another group (if not true), but not wide enough to get her in trouble.

        Did she learn from the Harry Reid School of Sliming?

        1. But, did she notify the FBI? Before or after? If before she still should have withheld what she said to give the FBI a chance to investigate. A quick check might have been to see who was taken in and when. When the arrangements were made and all sorts of things like that. They might have dispelled the thoughts she was purveying.

          You are pointing in the direction that she shouldn’t have done what she did.

  4. There is nothing even remotely unusual about Congressmen and Senators of any political Party taking Constituents on tours of the Capitol building. It’s like getting a backstage pass for a concert where you are accompanied by one of the band members.

    Years ago, I went on a tour of the Capitol building with my mother and father accompanied by a Congressman who represented the District. Obviously there were a lot of Republicans in DC the day ahead of the pro-Trump demonstration. So, there’s nothing suspicious about them being taken on tours of the building by their Congressman or Representative on Jan 5th.

    As Rep. Sherrill knows, that happens on a daily basis. So it’s obvious that she is feeling very emboldened right now, and therefore she thinks there will be no repercussions for spouting this type of BS on her FB page.

  5. Teacher! Teacher! I declare!
    We can see your underwear!

    A “professor” is just a dumb teacher standing on higher sneakers.

  6. If Rep. Mikie Sherrill claims are valid, undoubtedly the FBI already contacted her. If not, then why not?. This would be a very urgent matter that demands immediate attention.

    Each and everyone that took part in the assault must be held accountable. Likewise, each and everyone that makes false statements or allegations must be held accountable. This country does not need more hate and inflammatory language. Representatives looking to take advantage of this tragedy are just as guilty as those that breached.

    Hosting a Facebook event instead of publicly denouncing the individuals shows that the Representative is looking for exposure and fame. It is irresponsible not to expose those that she claims conducted secret surveillance. This is a matter of National Security and not social media games. Name those colleagues now.

      1. No, we know that’s not true because it’s an utterly ridiculous suggestion. Why would she withhold names while the FBI investigates? It serves no legal or other purpose except protecting from defamation liability — which she wouldn’t have to worry about if telling the truth..

    1. Each and everyone that took part in the assault must be held accountable.

      If you don’t want to be held accountable, burn down a police station and trash someone’s auto parts store.

      1. Art– That reminds me, what happened to Jucy Smollett, or the wealthy girl who threw a firebomb at a police car, or the two privileged ‘lawyers of color’ who hurled fire bombs in NYC?

        No press about those people that I have seen.

            1. True. DuckDuckGo.

              This is just another little wad in the sh!tstorm. The smart money says it will be forgotten in a few days along with all the other flotsam and jetsam. It may be used by crooked federal prosecutors (is there any other kind?) to bankrupt a couple of Republican members of Congress with Andrew Weissmann style ‘creative’ prosecution.

                1. Why do you expect anything recent?

                  One expects news reports when something occurs (charges, trial date being set, a ruling, a new filing, etc.)

                  You asked “what happened to …?” You should be able to determine the status with an appropriate search.

                  Here’s an example of an article from 2 months ago –
                  https://www.law360.com/articles/1327069

            2. Young, you are absolutely correct. Anonymous the Stupid, despite any facility he has with computers, is unable to think clearly. I don’t think he believes that possible despite what we have seen. Do you know why it is so hard for him to think clearly? Because Anonymous the Stupid is Stupid.

        1. Well, media don’t have much manpower, so you do not see follow-up stories. In any case, dwelling on it is inconvenient to their objects. I don’t think New York courts have public databases of pending cases. So, you might say those cases are Paddocked.

        2. What about the assault by Schumer against the Supreme Court and the words he used during the Kavenaugh hearings?

  7. No Turley column on Trump accusing everyone, including Republican state officials, of breaking the law, stealing votes, and even threatening one with criminal prosecution if he didn’t find votes for him, but hey, let a Democrat say she has the goods and he’s on her to deliver or else.

    What a f..king party hack this guy is.

    1. Whoops! I’m sure Turely’s retraction will be forthcoming, along with his apology to contributing the “voter fraud” stampede that never happened.

  8. It doesn’t matter. Just have to throw the falsehood out there and it will be picked up by the Democrat-propaganda media and become truth.

  9. Ha! So I guess the professor is willing to make the exact same argument against Republican members of Congress and the Senate who accused the entire Democratic Party of a criminal conspiracy to steal the election. Good to know. And our first witness against the Republicans will be Bill Barr, who repeatedly said there’s no fraud or malfeasance, and who the professor had assuredly us is a wonderful and honorable man. There have already been published stories with screen shots of the freshman congresswoman live tweeting Nancy Pelosi’s location as she was moved by security during the riots. I wonder if this is what’s being referenced. Anyway, I’m waiting with baited breath for the professor’s condemnation of the Republicans for calling their Democratic colleagues criminals…(sound of crickets). “Stop The Steel!” Some “Anonymous” character calls me a communist in 3…2…1…

    1. No Seamus, he’s not and never will be. Has to get on Hannity you know and that doesn’t fly there.

  10. We don’t know the truth, but Ms. Sherrill made a divisive and inflammatory statement.

    The equivalent of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

    Must be investigated; if true, punish the Repubs.

    If false, Ms. Sherrill has to be punished.

    What cannot happen is that she makes the accusation, gets the publicity, sows more discord, blackens Repubs, and then the matter drops.

    1. Interesting – I was thinking she was possibly pointing the finger at her *Democrat* colleagues for being the ones that allowed the rioters in so easily? I don’t see how this would have benefitted any Republican lawmakers?

      1. “ It says Sherrill accuses her colleagues of surveilling the rioters, but I don’t see how fiat is particularly criminal.”

        That’s the way that I took it myself. And I posted a comment about it and then I had to wind up correctly. Because several people commented to me letting me know that it’s actually about certain Republicans that let various soon-to-be-infamous-thugs in…

        So they could be given a good tour/layout of the joint. So they would know who’s office goes with whom. And they should raid it and take as much info as possible. Laptops/files etc. any all that would be sooooooo incriminating to each Democrat that had there office plundered.

    2. Monumentcolorado, “ What cannot happen is that she makes the accusation, gets the publicity, sows more discord, blackens Repubs, and then the matter drops.”

      If you don’t recognize the sheer irony of that statement given how we got to the point of right wing rioters invading the Capitol.

      Republican lawmakers, the president, and his staff all made accusations, got publicity, sowed discord, and blackened democrats, and then play poor victims because the consequences of their accusations have an impact.

      No accountability at all. Just crying foul, and sudden victimhood. Please.

      The party of personal responsibility never accepts responsibility for messes if their own making.

      All these excuses of violation of free speech to blaming others such as antifa, all is about avoiding…personal responsibility.

    3. I’m sure you also want to punish Republicans making false inflammatory claims about the election being stolen, right?

  11. She’ll get her 15 minutes (or more, depending on the network) of fame and then try to parley that into a higher position. If true, then tell the whole tale, without embellishment. Any malefactors should be punished accordingly. If false, she should at a minimum, be censured, investigated by her state bar, and subjected to a civil action for defamation

  12. Why would a “secret” surveillance of the capital be needed. The Capital is a public building after all and not a place where surveillance seems to be necessary. So, I am puzzled by anyone “conspiring” with any rioters by a “surveillance” of the capital. Sounds crazy to me…am I wrong?

    1. Yes, you’re wrong. There are many parts of the Capitol that are not open to the public unless they are accompanied. There are parts of the Capitol that many staffers can’t even access unless accompanied.

  13. So, Turley is Johnnie Sheriff when a Democrat might have (he’s not sure) crossed one of his lines – nothing new here, all his attack column are about Democrats – but has exonerated other House members and the President for their incendiary statements about a fantasy stolen elections and the need to use strength to reverse it.

    GTH with the crocodile tears. He doesn’t care about the House, he cares about getting on Fox News.

    1. Joe Friday used to say “the facts and nothing but the facts.” It seems that you are using the wrong handle for your posts, since you don’t seem to be interested in “the facts.” Prof. Turley does not “create the facts,” he only states them.

      1. We don’t know the facts Questionable and neither does Turley. As is always the case here, monumental and historic events are transpiring, all involving legal questions, and out of them all Turley finds something unsettled to irrelevant so he can attack a Democrat or TV network that is not Fox while ignoring those large issues. It works. He gets on Fox and he draws a crazier and crazier group of right wing posters to his blog.

    2. This is yet another example of the imbecilic trolling nature of the joe friday hack…

      NOTICE TO EVERYONE ON THIS BLOG!

      FYI: Read this.

      Joe Friday, your gig is up and you have been exposed.

      You all can choose to openly engage with this Joe Friday, who is likely a foreign agent, if you like; as for me there will be no conversations just a rhetorical hammer beating down a foreign agent troll.

      1. Yes indeed, Steve’s convenient fantasy about who I am – it allows him to avoid getting his a.s kicked in another argument – has been exposed. Dude, I know who won the World Series, where Yankee Stadium is, where to buy hay and fence staples and who has the straightest 2x4s as well as the best book store still in business in my area. I’ve probably lived in more states than you and in both the biggest cities and the most rural areas, and have worked a wider variety of jobs than you, from cutting and baling hay, digging sweet potatoes, nailing shingles, to writing 20 page contracts (my own).

        I hope you don’t normally operate by making things up about people you couldn’t possibly know, or if you do, your clients don’t end up paying the penalty.

        Others, I’m game for all arguments or discussion if we have points of agreement. Steve can hide out with those he agrees with and they can do whatever it is that makes them feel good.

        1. Anonymous wrote, “He’s not a foreign agent. You simply disagree with him Steve.”

          Differences of opinion have got absolutely nothing to do with this. This is based on evidence.

          If you take the couple of minutes to follow the link I provided above and read what I wrote back on November 19, 2020 and followed the link in that comment to the irrefutable and unchallenged evidence that supports my claim you would at the very least understand the argument that I presented whether you agreed with it or not.

          P.S. Joe Friday’s argument above with the list of things he knows and has done is a huge nonsensical deflection, anyone with an internet connection can claim the same things. In fact I have an old foreign exchange student High School buddy that’s now living Malaysia that can make the exact same claims that Joe Friday just made. It’s a smoke screen from an internet troll. Joe Friday has shown himself to be an internet troll regardless if he is a foreign agent, gender challenged or a friggin Poodle.

          1. Steve, please post the link. I’m really interested in your form of mental illness. I mean neurosis is one thing but actual delusions another.

              1. I mean where we can you know click them without spending time on a search. You know where they are, we don’t. They aren’t on this page.

                  1. OK, thanks, I did not catch the red ink “this” though I ran my cursor around looking for a link. My bad.

                1. joe wrote, “I mean where we can you know click them without spending time on a search. You know where they are, we don’t. They aren’t on this page.”

                  Hogwash! Only a damn fool would post such drivel. But to satisfy the fool here you go…

                  The comment I posted above…

                  https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/13/democratic-member-accuses-colleagues-of-conducting-surveillance-for-capitol-rioters/#comment-2047754

                  There is a link attached to the word “this” in the sentence “FYI: Read this.”

                  In the comment that that link takes you to there is a link in the comment that’s so painfully obvious that my 5 year old grandson knows how to use it.

                  1. Steve, I have no idea what it is you found. I don’t use WordPress that I know of and don’t know what it does., I don’t know what or how it would somehow assign a name to my post that is false, but that is what it appears to be doing. I’ve never left the North American continent, let alone being from some where else. I do use a VPN browser because I am otherwise thrown off here regularly by the supposed “free speech” hosts moderator and maybe that is the source, but then what’s with the “name”. In any case, I don’t care what you think or call me, my opinion of you is probably no better. I’ll just continue kicking your a.s and you can respond or not.

                    See you in the trenches comrade. That’s Ukrainian for “good buddy”.

          2. I don’t have to follow the link. I read the comments you’re referring to when they were first posted, and I called them out then too. I’ve also seen you call other people trolls when they’re not trolling. You’ve called more than one person a troll simply because you disagree with them.

            1. Anonymous wrote, “I don’t have to follow the link. I read the comments you’re referring to when they were first posted, and I called them out then too.”

              You are mistaken. You did not “call them out then too”, in fact absolutely no one replied to what I originally wrote, follow the link and prove it for yourself.

              Anonymous wrote, “I’ve also seen you call other people trolls when they’re not trolling. You’ve called more than one person a troll simply because you disagree with them.”

              That is a false statement.

              Troll: is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.

              I reserve using the words troll or trolling for those that fit the definition above. Disagree with the commenter is not part of the definition of troll.

              1. He does behave like a paid troll, though I’ve seen worse. One of his signatures is posting a profanity laden outburst when the moderator broaches a topic he finds inconvenient.

              2. You’re right, I didn’t read that one. I read and responded to other comments you made about him.

                Are you trolling when you post insults?

        1. Rhodes wrote, “Joe Friday is a ChiCom troll.”

          I submitted my evidence to support my claim, where is your evidence to support your claim about Joe Friday being a ChiCom troll?

            1. Anonymous asked, “Steve, are you one of those Q idiots?”

              I’m not completely sure what a “Q idiot” is but if you’re referring to Qanon I’ve got absolutely nothing to do with that or any other organization. Plus, with all my friends all over the USA, to my knowledge, I don’t even know anyone who is involved with Qanon.

              Did that answer your question.

              P.S. I refuse to be part of any politically based organization or advocacy groups. I’m a strong advocate for the 2nd Amendment but I categorically refuse to be part of NRA.

              1. So you not a Q idiot. Great.

                You’re just a guy who has beliefs but takes no part in organizations that would advance your beliefs

                Well I guess that speaks for itself. Funny how you seem proud of that.

                1. Anonymous wrote, “You’re just a guy who has beliefs but takes no part in organizations that would advance your beliefs

                  Well I guess that speaks for itself. Funny how you seem proud of that.

                  It doesn’t surprise me that you wouldn’t understand, you don’t appear to be independent. That’s fine.

                  Yes I am proud of my independence. You simply cannot remain independent if you delve into membership you inherently end up being a drone for the organization. I’m not a Republican, I’m not a Democrat, I’m not a Libertarian, no NRA, no AARP, no x-military groups and I am x-military, no unions, no longer on non-profit boards, etc, etc. Being independent is a way of life right down to your bones but that doesn’t mean that I won’t participate in things that groups or organizations do. I’ll go to select events right up to the point that they veer off on some tangent that I don’t agree with and I simply stand up, voice my opposition and walk away.

                  In the 21st century it’s becoming more and more evident that independence from direct affiliation with groups, parties and organizations should be preferred over being swallowed whole in the extreme divisions created by blind adherence to the group “hive” mind.

                  Independence is a choice; choose independence.

      2. Joe Friday is one of several sock puppets used by a man in Gainesville, Florida to spew his own opinions and those of his son, who works in the US attorney’s office is Frisco.

        1. “and those of his son, who works in the US attorney’s office is Frisco.”

          If you don’t mind I would like to ask you a few questions.

          1. Do you really believe his son is a “Federal, US Attorney??”

          2. About how many different names he’s going by here on Jonathan Turley’s website/?? (The reason I ask I have seen some other good conservative guys say they have counted up to 16. I’ve seen 7. )

          3. So he actually post comments that he says, his son has said and then tells daddy to post them on here for him???? this just sounds truly crazy if this guy is doing this. My question to him would be why can’t your son do it? Considering the fact that he is a US attorney if he actually is I’m sure many of us would enjoy reading his legal beagle comments. What say you??

          4. How old do you think this guy is? i’ve seen some other fellas say everything from 14 to 75. I put him no older then 30.

          5. I really don’t believe for a second that he lives in Greenwich Connecticut and has a beach house in Panama City Florida. Do you?
          (Neither does anybody else. For that matter)

          1. In the past he’s used JanF and Anon. Currently, he’s using Joe Friday, CommittmenttoHonestDiscussion, Elvis Bug, &c. He is 75 years old and has a building business in Alachua County. His son is (IIRC) a graduate of the law school at Tulane, was admitted to the bar in 1996, and has been an employee of the Department of Justice pretty much his whole career. He’s had stints in Washington and Frisco (and maybe some other place I’ve forgotten).

              1. It looks like Anonymous is trying to engage Art Deco. The intellects are vastly different. Art is a pretty smart guy and Anonymous the Stupid is stupid.

            1. I dont think Joe and Elvis Bug are the same person. To me they seem to have a different narrative voice. If they are, then that guy has got some major personality issues.

              Sal Sar

                1. We should focus more on the content of user’s remarks and less on personalities. Of course we imagine personalities for both those we like and dislike, because we are human, and our genes were formed in a three dimensional world of small bands, and not in a digital mess of atomized voices

                  They say that the “Turing Test” has been passed by various robot programs who can now fool people into thinking they’re talking to a person and not a bot. How sad we have all become interacting constantly with machines, addicted to likes for the dopamine hit, and leaving so much of the world of real people of flesh and blood behind. Are we better off?

                  Certainly Silicon Valley is, at least, financially.

                  Sal Sar

                  1. “We should focus more on the content of user’s remarks and less on personalities. ”

                    Sal, we gather a person’s credibility and a whole host of other things based on who he is (personality) along with what he says. I know who you are at least as an alias where one gets to learn a small part of a personality. That makes it easier to communicate.

      3. Joe Friday is often annoying and I disagree with him frequently.

        He “trolls” in the same sense that many of us do including me.

        He is no foreign agent. That is nuts. I accept his shared biographical information as true. And I don’t need to know more to believe him.

        Steve, please say something relevant.

        Saloth Sar

      4. Witherspoon, we know who Joe is. He’s been on this blog about 2 years. But we have no idea ‘who’ you are.

      5. Witherspoon. Joe Friday has commented on this blog for 2 years now. But we don’t you from sh_t. So I don’t know what legitimacy you think you have.

    3. To that end, the comments on this blog are probably now squarely in the middle of FBI surveillance since the events of last wednesday have at least accomplished one thing: the aggrieved white priviliged have managed to put themselves squarely in front of intelligence. One of the most staggeringly stupid tactical moves of all time. Like a moth to a flame, a…bug….to a bug zapper. Hehe.

      Notice this…, the regulars who’ve been talking insurgency for awile here are clamming up. The newbies and incorrigible trolls from the right will continue to pop off, but to their own disadvantage. There’s always the time where the mop flops.

      And of course, Allan and Rhodesy will continue to be themselves as morons just gotta keep being morons.

      Fascinating watching from the cheap seats.

      Elvis Bug

      1. Americans love the idea of “Revolution.” It’s in the cultural dna

        They also like the idea of “collapse” or “devolution,” Rememer Devo? Whip it good

        That’s what all the zombie movies are about. The idea of social collapse and rebirth

        And it’s not just Americans. Apocalypse is central not only to Christianity but also Islam, old pagan religions, all the way back to Egypt

        Society reinvents itself, and has an organic communal live that transcends our own.

        You may be familiar with these notions but let me recommend a text that used to be considered a good one: Decline of the West, by Oswald Spengler

        https://www.amazon.com/Decline-West-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0195066340

        Saloth Sar

      2. +10 to Elvis Bug @ 1:51, including this:

        “And of course, Allan and Rhodesy will continue to be themselves as morons just gotta keep being morons.”

        They’re a fun group to analyze.

  14. I need to correct my comment. And I really should’ve read it before I sent it. I’m hoping that it’s not true! I personally don’t feel that it is true. I don’t believe that any Republican serving would do something like this. But I do believe there are several Democrats that are much younger would do something like this.

    I also believe that ANTIFA/BLM Members took part in the storming of the capital by hiding under the disguise of being Trump supporters. Journalists Andy Ngo has already been reporting on this and he has the evidence of a few. He has facial pictures of them at them inside the Capital and mugshots of when they got arrested over the last two years.

    No I’m not saying that every person that took part in it was members of either one of these terrorist groups that have been terrorizing people for far too long and no Democrats have stood up to stop it or say anything. But I do believe a lot of them was members of either group.

  15. “Conversely, if Sherrill has no such evidence, she could (and should) face a censure resolution.”

    LOLOL Can you imagine democrats censuring another democrat for making false accusations???

    Me neither.

  16. Jonathan wrote, “This is clearly something that the House must investigate. Either Sherrill has evidence of a criminal conspiracy or has made an outrageous (and defamatory) allegation against her colleagues. Either possibility is unsettling. Thus, Sherrill should reveal the House members who she believes conspired with rioters, which presumably she has already given to legal authorities.”

    I completely agree.

  17. This is absolutely astounding!! and I am hoping that it’s true. In closing, I am so glad I signed up to receive these emails from you. I was one of those that supported the president and voted for him and I did again. But I did not support the storming of the capital and I never would. And I don’t hold with anybody that believes that he is completely responsible for these people that stormed the capital.

    Nobody’s words has ever swayed me to do anything. Not ever. Well, I stand corrected, when my father told me to do things I had damn well better get it done. When he told me, “it’s time to cut the grass” and he wants it done by the time he gets back I had better have it done. 😊. My parents words always swayed me. 😀

    1. Storming the Capitol… Honestly. A hundred or so idiots out of hundreds of thousands, and the incident was dealt with in hours. You’d think what happened was equivalent to storming the Bastille. Law and order prevailed. Miscreants face prosecution. The system works.

      1. I really didn’t know what else to use. I couldn’t say something like, they vigorously walked in. And took over 😊 I didn’t suggest reading my second comment where I corrected something.

      2. They were looking for Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi to assassinate them. An officer killed and many other officers injured. Theft and destruction of property. In the US Capitol!

        Your effort to minimize what occurred is disgusting.

          1. “Hi Anonymous. I’m curious to know why, why are you “Anonymous?” ”

            He is anonymous because his postings are embarrassing enough that he would stand out even more if he had a name but occasionally he uses names, icons and other pure anonymous labels to congratulate himself or give himself support.

            Do you know why anonymous does these things? Because he is Anonymous the Stupid and that is a label he should carry every time there is a discussion with him.

    2. montanaman60 wrote, “I am hoping that it’s true.”

      You actually hope it’s true that members of Congress participated in a conspiracy to overrun the United States capitol building?

      I would hope that it is NOT true and that Sherrill has somehow misinterpreted something she saw.

      Why the hell do you hope it’s true?

        1. No problem Steve. No problem. That’s what I get for not checking my comment before I send it. I do most of my commenting by talking into my iPad Pro 12.9. I had a 2018 model and one of our sons bought me the latest one. And I tell ya, it is absolutely outstanding. It does make a mistake. Now and then. And it truly can type words far far faster then I ever will.

          Being a baby boomer when I went to school bus guys did not learn how to type. Took shop and belonged to our Montana FFA. Many of my fellow Conservatives on the coast and in bigger towns in many states have posted comments how shop was taken out some years back. That is terrible. I’m so glad they still do it at our little school here in Northwest Montana. Town of Eureka.

    3. I must be dense today, but in reading this and no further research, I don’t fully understand the allegation.
      It says Sherrill accuses her colleagues of surveilling the rioters, but I don’t see how fiat is particularly criminal.
      Is the implication here that they conspired with members of the rioters to riot the next day, and to document it so it could be spun for the media more effectively? Our that it was in fact planned by them to disgrace the president?
      I am not sure what is being said.

Leave a Reply