The Big Sleep: CEO Mike Lindell’s Notes Reference Imposition of Martial Law

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell has long been a diehard supporter of President Donald Trump. Indeed, on the day of the infamous speech preceding the riot in the Capitol, Lindell told media that he was confident that the day would bring vindication for the President. The statement left many of us scratching our heads since the certification of the victory of Joe Biden was only hours away. Now, the Washington Post has blown up the notes of Lindell leaving the Oval Office, which appear to refer to the Insurrection Act and the imposition of martial law. Media reports state that President Trump “cut short his meeting with MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell within minutes, after the entrepreneur was spotted at the White House brandishing notes referencing martial law.”

I previously condemned General Michael Flynn for his suggestion of martial law and criticized the President for not promptly throwing him out of the Oval Office.

Lindell reportedly denied that the notes referenced ‘martial law,’ but the picture confirms the reference. One line said “martial law if necessary upon the first hint of any….”  The memo also refers to the use “if necessary upon the first hint of any . . .” Thus, it could have been a reference to the use of martial law with any additional violence but Lindell’s earlier reportedly denial left many wondering about the purpose of such a declaration. Moreover, I criticized an earlier tweet of Lindell referencing martial law. That was before the Capitol rioting.

Notably, it also seems to refer to various firings including White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and CIA Director Gina Haspel. It bizarrely refers to relatively low level replacements for positions by previously unknown figures.  The combination of wholesale replacement of reasonable officials and the imposition of martial law sounds quite tyrannical. 

After an assault on our Capitol during the certification of the presidential election, this is hardly the stuff to give us the “best night’s sleep ever.”

My objection remains the same as with the meeting with Gen. Flynn in the Oval Office.  The President continues to surround himself with figures who appear to harbor extreme views on the use of martial law. If a president could unilaterally declare martial law over his own election, it would not be an invitation to tyranny, it would be tyranny itself.

208 thoughts on “The Big Sleep: CEO Mike Lindell’s Notes Reference Imposition of Martial Law”

      1. Anon, so holding up the bloody head of Trump isn’t an incitement to assassination. The last time I looked assassination was a violent act. I don’t recall Kathy Griffin ever telling us not to take it as she displayed it. Her message was clear. Kill him if that’s what is required. I guess that “Who was violent in response” is the best spin you could put on it. Oh look folks she really didn’t mean anything bad. I gave you an opportunity to condemn such actions and you failed.

        1. If you don’t recall what she said about it, you could use your brain to look up what she said about it. You’d find things like “I sincerely apologize … I’m a comic, I cross the line. I move the line, then I cross it. I went way too far. The image is too disturbing; I understand how it offends people. It wasn’t funny. I get it. … I beg for your forgiveness.”

          Frankly, I can’t imagine that anyone who follows Kathy Griffin, a comedian, took a mask covered with ketchup as incitement to assassination, which is why I asked you who was violent in response. You didn’t answer the question, perhaps because your answer is “no one” and you don’t want to say that.

          1. Anon let’s see. Kathy could have thought it out in advance. Then she gets her butt handed to her and she falls on her sword. How noble. In the south they held up pictures of Black men that had been hung. No incitement to violence to their fellow Democratic Clan members was inferred. Oh my! She exclaimed. I only meant it as a joke. The Klan saw it as funny too. She just found the Trump head laying around. Wait, maybe she had someone manufacture the head on purpose. This is the way it had to be done so she could call for the assassination of a President she haters. I am so convinced that no one out there in a country of over the hundred thousand people could have been badly influenced. Anon, I almost forgot about another celebrity saying “I had a dream about blowing up the White House. Off course no malintent in that statement. These celebrities are known across the nation and their influence is without question. They know that they influence people even if you don’t.

              1. Anon, so when Trump said peaceful protest his followers riot. It seems that his words had no effect on his followers. I guess he’s not so influential after all. I know, the next thing your going to tell us is it’s his hand signals and his code speech that made them do what he did.

                1. It’s striking that you can’t bring yourself to answer the question and instead resort to a fantasy about me.

                2. Trump had been whipping up “his followers” for months: the election was rigged, the vote was stolen, and then — early on the 6th — he tweeted about Pence’s lack of loyalty…

                  I think you need to take a break and “think it through.” You’re clearly not connecting all the dots.

  1. Martial Law exists for a reason, I don’t think the mention of it in the context of one low brow responding to another low brow, who happens to be a highly positioned elected official, proposes she will pull a president out of the White House by his hair, should alarm anyone. These cruder elements of society attract one another.

    Trump showed Lindell the door, Pelosi is in good standing. I would say she’s the one to worry about, since only she has power.

    That’s the context.

    Flynn is another matter, he isn’t alone in wondering if the battle lines as they are drawn today, will shift in the future.

    Professor Turley, as many of us, want civil society to prevail. But there is a lot of evidence we will not prevail.

    We know that what is acceptable in the illiberal camp, what is publicly acceptable speech among their peers, reveal them harboring a desire to drive their political opponents into a second class status by force, not law.

    No existing law permits them to take children from their parents for re-education, so they can only mean force.

    We will now face a few years where we will watch the Left attempt to make themselves the permanent rulers of America.

    Discussions about force, Martial Law and Civil War, those are the natural responses. I don’t like it, but it’s not a surprise, before Trump ever entered the political scene, anyone who listed and took these speakers at face value knew perfectly well that they wanted to use government force to suppress the other half of Americans that they believe should have no representation in government, at all.

  2. “The President continues to surround himself with figures who appear to harbor extreme views on the use of martial law.”

    – Professor Turley

    Abraham Lincoln declared marital law after unconstitutionally denying fully constitutional secession and unconstitutionally suspending Habeas Corpus.

    Abraham Lincoln should have been, by law, impeached, convicted and removed from office for abuse of power, usurpation, dereliction, corruption et al., and would have but for his brutal, unconstitutional seizure and exercise of raw political and military power. Lincoln should have been precluded by the judicial branch (i.e. Supreme Court) from any further acts immediately after his illegal denial of legal secession.

    Lincoln’s only legal and constitutional course was to withdraw his military from foreign soil, appoint diplomats and establish foreign relations with the sovereign foreign nation of the Confederate States of America, which would have ultimately failed and sought reunification. No other nation in history ended slavery by war.

    Secession was obtained by the British colonies in America, Pakistan, West Virginia, Bangladesh, Algeria, East Timor, Uruguay, Greece, Serbia, Panama, Sudan, every nation in the former Soviet Union and many more countries. Lincoln was a criminal of American and International law.

    Slavery must have been abolished employing the legal tools of freedom and free markets such as assembly, peaceful protest, civil disobedience, advocacy, boycotts, divestiture, etc., plans were made as early as 1714 for the compassionate repatriation of freed slaves for their own benefit and to provide a sense of nationhood and individual and national self-esteem.

    Not only was an extreme, unconstitutional and disastrous course taken by Lincoln and America; not only have extreme and unconstitutional actions been taken before, those extreme and unconstitutional actions led to the illegitimate, unconstitutional and incorrigible status of America today, wherein very little of the “manifest tenor” of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights persists.

      1. George ; I agree !!!. I see the laws – especially those governing our elections totally ignored by one particular political bent this last election like a cancer. Rome fell due to it’s cancerous senate that allowed decay and corruption…CANCER. Today we have a goobermint that is onerous , in bed with big tech , sold out to Chinese communists , working for itself to install more one party apparatchiks. The theft , corruption and deceit of this last election is so obvious , so big…it’s the elephant in the room and yet the once free press march to the lies like good lemmings all singing the same tune of azz kissing . The “new” king has no clothes, Darth Biden is a shill a fake senile puppet. But the apparatchik state wants it’s own , in it’s own way…fook the people is their deal. If you are so blind and partisan to not see the truth …. you are part of the cancer.

    1. George, why do you think that the Confederacy would have failed and sought reunification?. Please give us a time line as to how many years it would have taken for this failure to occur? 10 years? 50 years? 75 years? Remember, cotton was king and England was trading with the Confederacy. With the need for cheap labor to pick cotton, how much longer would slavery have lasted in the south? How many generations of Blacks being enslaved before the natural attrition from slavery that you claim might have happened? Lincoln understood that this abscess in the mouth of America had to be removed with one quick twist and a jerk. Painful for sure, but a better course of action then allowing the cavity to fester and destroy the entire body. The stain of slavery remains on the nation to this day. The stain would have been larger and deeper if Lincoln would have failed to act as he did. Those on the left and the right who are now saying that Lincoln was not a leader for his time, but the historical truth of emancipation remains.

      1. Oh, pllllllllease, cite the Constitution wherein the actions Lincoln took were constitutional.

        Lincoln was a murderous criminal whom the judicial branch should have removed.

        I didn’t write the Constitution and I didn’t start slavery; African tribal chiefs did that.

        Interestingly, America had been making plans for compassionate repatriation since 1714.

        How do you run a nation of laws which ignores said laws?

        You’re a logical train wreck.

        The English people, who were the American people, liked slavery, but the American people, who were the English people, didn’t?

        You make no sense, unless you want to have an insane conversation 160 years out of context.

        Self-governance meant that the people (i.e. Congress) decided, sans brute, savage military force.

        Lincoln must have left it to the people, Congress, and likely they would have never suspended Habeas Corpus, imposed martial law or started a war.

        Being an American meant the Constitution held dominion.

        If you agree with a tyrannical despot, you are a tyrannical despot and being a tyrannical despot is not in the Constitution.

        Ironically, Trump was removed by the Deep Deep State with claims that he was a despotic tyrant, but that Lincoln suffered the same fate.

        1. George, did the south secede from the Union. If the south seceded from the Union how was the Congress supposed to have authority over a seceded part of the nation. Once the deed was done they had no authority to apply. The question that arises is should they have just been let go. Lincoln did take on additional powers. Maybe Jefferson Davis would have ended slavery and stoped the collusion with England. If you were Lincoln you would have to asses whether Jefferson Davis would do either one or both things. England was still the enemy. One of the fastest growing English industries at the time was the textile industry. The availability of cotton was very important to their nation. The south had the cotton they needed. Lincoln had to asses the relationship between the South and England. This was a very dangerous alliance with an England still bitter about the revolutionary war. One question would be what would England do if they could control the economy of the Confederacy. The British strongly believed in colonization and they had the largest navy in the world. England was a feared nation. Lincoln had to make his decision based on a very dire situation. If it was just about the north and the south he might just have let them go. With the possibility of the English at the new southern border he had to make his decision to live up to his oath of office and defend his nation. A more modern day comparison would be Soviet missiles in Cuba. Their presence could not be allowed. Both scenarios could have lead to war. Thankfully only one did.

          1. Please read above.

            You implied that Americans and Englishmen were all against slavery. Here’s your solution: boycotts. The CSA would not have lasted long with no customers in America, England and, by extension, Europe. If everyone was for abolition, as you imply, boycotts would have prevailed, ultimately.

            Lincoln was a capital criminal and received capital punishment.

            America suffers the disaster that was Lincoln to this day; the scab that refuses to heal.

            The unconstitutional Emancipation Proclamation, not dissimilar to Obama’s unconstitutional DACA, was a program of mass illegal immigration, as the Naturalization Act of 1802 required that citizens be “…free white person(s)…,” in turn, requiring immediate deportation of freed slaves, which had been planned as early as 1714.

            Immigration policy is critical; essential to every nation. The Emancipation Proclamation constituted “…an injurious tendency…,” per Hamilton.

            To wit,

            “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

            – Alexander Hamilton

  3. Does this mean that Professor Turley has finally realized that Trump is an ignorant and depraved fool and undoubtedly the worst President in American history?

    1. Booming economy, sky-high stock market, record 401Ks, no illegal invasion, snuffing out of enemies, respect (i.e. fear) around the world, Gallup’s Most Admired Man, 2020, China reeling, victory against a treasonous four-year onslaught by anti-American democrats, etc., etc., etc.

      If that’s the “worst,” I’ll take it every time.

      We don’t want their respect, we want their fear.

      We don’t want a nice guy, we want a winner.

      You will likely achieve your desired destruction of America by making America a third-world, banana-republic early in the Biden debacle.

      Bon appetit!

      1. Dude, you left out the $7.8 trillion he added to the national debt, while overseeing an economy that barely exceeded Obama’s yearly GDP growths (and that was with the tax cut stimulus) and slower job growths. We won’t talk about his last year.

        1. The debt is that of the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs).

          Conservatives would carry no debt – speculation through the lever of debt is not rational or legal for government.

          The only legitimate governmental debt is that of war.

          Trump was reducing/eliminating war.

          Ultimately, governmental programs and regulation would have been privatized.

          Retirement plans (i.e. Social Security) and healthcare insurance (Medicare) were created in the free markets of the private sector.

          Charity is industry conducted in the free markets of the private sector.

          Motivated by debilitating litigation, industries regulate themselves as their logical, appropriate primary defense.

          The only hindrance to rational, self-governance in complete alignment with the Constitution is a Congress full of parasites.

        2. JoeFriday, dude you left out the 9 trillion added to the national debt under Obama. This happened even with his tax hikes. His 21.9 percent of gross domestic product was the highest of the last five presidents. Source: PolitiFacts. Can’t let the facts get in the way can we Joe. Joe thinks we’re to stupid to type Google. He must think that no one else is out there.

          1. Think, Obama took office just as the worst crash since 1929 was taking full effect. Trump took office just as the longest recovery since WWII was becoming our longest recovery ever. Large deficits when money and jobs are scarce is sound policy. When the economy is cranking, it is not. Long story short, Obama during that crisis added only $2 trillion more to the debt in 8 years than Trump did in 4. Both added less than Reagan and Bush:


            As to GDP growth:


            2017: +2.3%

            2018: +3%

            2019: +2.2%

            2020: -3.7%


            2009: -2.5%

            2010: +2.6%

            2011: +1.6%

            2012: +2.2%

            2013: +1.8%

            2014: +2.5%

            2015: +3.1%

            2016: +1.7%

        3. JoeFriday, a tax hike brings more money to the government. A tax cut means less money to the government . Even with additional money into the government coffers, Obama had a much higher addition to the federal debt. Obama exclaimed! More money coming in means more money to spend. Yippee Yippee. As much as you want it to Joe two plus two does not equal 3.

    1. “Beeler, from Front Royal, Virginia, presented officers with what was described as an unauthorized inauguration credential.”

      Maybe he got it from MyPillow guy.

      (Just kidding.)

    2. Update –

      Carol Leonnig of the Washington Post says “Va man arrested w Glock had proper Park Police pass but PP [Park Police] had not communicated that to @SecretService, other law enforcement. Man has no extremist ties, cooperated fully with cops and was released, cleared from further investigation”

      Good. Better that it be a failure of communication on the Park Police’s part than that it be a violent person trying to slip in with lots of ammo.


    March, 2019: Professor Johnathan Turley, the famed legal scholar, is lunching with a prominent Republican in Downtown Washington.  

    Their conversation turns to Turley’s blog.  The Republican has noticed certain liberals are a presence on the comment threads.  And they seem to be getting “cockier and cockier”.

    “Yeah”, Turley sighs.  “Too much mainstream media”.

    “You don’t need that on your blog”, the Republican states.

    “No, it’s  annoying”, Turley admits.  “Insulting to conservatives”.  

    “I know a man who gets rid of liberals like that”.

    “Oh yeah?”, Turley beams.

    “He’s a pro-life activist who specializes in confronting liberals”.

    “Er–  Turley hesitates, “The blog isn’t a money maker”.

    “He works at subscription rates.  Two hundred a month, I think”

    “That’s fine”, Turley chimes.

    “Just beware it’s dirty work.  This man will have to post a lot of crazy sh_t”.

    “I don’t want it ‘too’ crazy”, Turley nervously laughs.

    “It has to be dumb to shag the liberals off”.

    “Dumb for how long?”, Turley wonders.

    “A couple months at the most”, the Republican assures. “No liberal with any brains argues with this guy”.

    It was this conversation that altered the blog.  Soon an obnoxious bore of colossal proportions would be a regular fixture on Johnathan Turley’s blog.  

    But the liberals hate this troll so much they decided to stick around out of spite.  Almost 2 years have passed.  And the troll works harder than ever to evict the cocky liberals.  

    Which means the blog keeps sinking deeper into muck.  It’s been a quagmire for Turley; ‘his personal Vietnam’.  

    The troll and his puppets are like a platoon; torching every village with their Zippo lighters.  Still the cocky liberals continue shooting back.  

    1. American Freedom of Speech v Oppression and Tyranny of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

      The Founders anticipated that self-governance would be corrupted and akin to herding cats so they implemented, and required strict adherence to, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

      “courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

      “Without this, all…rights [and] privileges…amount to nothing…”

      “…men…[will] do…what their powers do not authorize,…[and] what they forbid.”

      “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

      – Alexander Hamilton

  5. Yesterday I posted research I did on the election results, and put forward the question, what is an acceptable amount of fraud, and included when does fraud becomes systemic. This morning I looked at what would have been the outcome in 6 battle ground states with a certain amount of fraud. In Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin 1% would have swung the states Electoral Votes to President Trump. In Pennsylvania it would have required 1.2%, Nevada 2.4% and 2.8% in Michigan. The total vote count for these states that would have changed results is (194,239 +/- as minor rounding was used to avoid a third digit in calculations). I have no idea what amount of fraud there was in these states, but there were many affidavits taken from various individuals attesting to their concern of fraud._________
    (Professor Turley and others have stated that there was no evidence of systemic fraud in the election. I wanted to determine if there was enough fraud to swing the election pendulum. My first question was what amount of fraud is acceptable? It seems all parties acknowledge there is fraud but, no one states the percentage of fraud. I went to various web sites to seek information of voter registration numbers, the United States Census site, and confirmed numbers from individual states to verify numbers I retrieved from the web. The findings are interesting. The Census numbers put the total population at 328.2 Million and the population under 18 years of age at 73 Million rendering 255.3 million citizens with the right to vote (rounded numbers). This equals 61.8 percent of the population eligible to vote. Looking further into state by state voter registration numbers there are 174 Million citizen registered to vote, equaling 53 percent of the population. Taking these numbers into consideration I then looked at individual states considering registration to population eligibility and found a high of 81% of the population in Michigan registered to vote and low of 46% in Wyoming. Other states with a disproportional registration to the averages above include Alabama 75%, Colorado 72%, Delaware 75%, Iowa 70%, Kentucky 80%, Maine 80%, New Hampshire and New Jersey at 73%, New York at 70%, North Dakota 76%, Pennsylvania 71%, Road Island 76%, and Vermont 80%. Then I considered the percentage of votes cast to eligible voters (voter turnout). The national average was 73%, with a highest being Minnesota at 91% and the lowest Washington DC at 12%. The majority of States had turnout above the average of 73% only being skewed by lower turnout in a few states. I believe the telling numbers are those representing registration to population eligibility. It’s hard to fathom 81% or even 70% of the population of an individual state is above 18 years of age and have registered to vote none the less. Again I’ll ask what percentage of voter fraud is acceptable and what is the true definition of systemic fraud? )

    1. We in the US have many adult non-citizens living here, with or without visas or green cards. They are not eligible to vote in federal elections although some likely do. In addition, the voter rolls usually include people no longer living at the stated address and people who have died. The extent of the problem varies from jurisidiction to jurisdiction in states and from state to state. Republicans sometimes attempt to strike those who have moved or who are deceased from the rolls and the Democrats always oppose them. Make of that what you will.

    2. You forgot to exclude non-citizens, who are not eligible to vote.

      There is no reason for us to trust your #s. For example, you claim that voter turnout in DC was 12%, but the DC Board of Elections says it was 66.9% –
      They’re using the ratio of votes cast to registered voters rather than votes cast to those eligible to vote (some of whom aren’t registered), but even if you use eligible voters (which is less than the total DC population of ~705K people), it’s much higher than 12%.

      Why would anyone bother to answer your questions when you’re using bogus stats?

      1. You are correct, during input of numbers I input 37,323 votes for President Elect Biden rather than 317,323 votes as cast. Regarding other states of interest Arizona President Trump 1,661,686 President Elect Biden 1,672,143, Georgia 2,461,854 Trump, 2,473,633 Biden, Wisconsin 1,610,184 Trump, 1,630,866 Biden. as examples. You still refused as most do to answer the question what amount of fraud is acceptable, if any..

        1. I’m not going to answer your question, George, because that would be treating you like a rational person, which you clearly aren’t, judging from your endless racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. rants. You call everyone you disagree with a communist. Seek help.

    3. George W, no fraud is actually acceptable. But as it is with every system some fraud will occur. The question should be about how much fraud can really affect an outcome. Some of that fraud often ends up being a misunderstanding about the rules or unintended.

      The level of fraud required to affect an entire election. Involving 50 states is huge. No evidence of that kind of fraud has ever been provided. Claims of massive fraud require proof just as massive.

    4. Not a doubt. The election was stolen. Not a doubt Trump never planned an insurrection. Not a doubt Trump never incited violence. Read the transcript of his speech. He suggested peaceful and patriotic protest. The liberals are experts at character assassination and hypocrisy!

      1. They are also experts at illegal immigration of parasitic communist voters, election law violation, election fraud, vote tampering, “ballot harvesting” and thumb drive insinuation.

  6. Agreed, Turley. There’s a moment when those who attended the party that got way out of hand realize it. The country has realized it with trump. It’s like a white privileged frat realized suddenly they’d gotten hammered and pack raped the Capitol — only it didn’t happen until way too late. Lindell didn’t realize it, but he’s probably a lost cause. He can go off and party with Flynn and speak to MAGA nation and the Q tards going forward.

    Elvis Bug

  7. “After an assault on our Capitol”

    Here’s video of your alleged ‘assault”, Jonathan:

    Personally, I would have no problem sleeping, and apparently the Capitol Police were quite content with letting those people peacefully enter the capitol building in a calm and orderly fashion.

    You suddenly seem to be very afraid not to parrot this patently false narrative.

    That’s going to make you look very foolish. After all, it’s 2021, and everyone has a camera. So bullsh*t walks, when the videos talk.

    As to Marshall Law. Mike Lindell is irrelevant. All that matters is that Trump hasn’t declared Marshall Law, and by your own admission he obviously isn’t going to do so.

      1. This is what our intersections look like now. If you need all this to protect your inauguration from the people, maybe the f***ing people didn’t f***ing elect you!”

  8. “My objection remains the same as with the meeting with Gen. Flynn in the Oval Office. The President continues to surround himself with figures who appear to harbor extreme views on the use of martial law. If a president could unilaterally declare martial law over his own election, it would not be an invitation to tyranny, it would be tyranny itself.”
    George III did much the same in 1774 with the Intolerable Acts but there was a difference. The populace wouldn’t stand for it. Today, I’m not so sure the populace sees Trump as George III. I think increasingly the politically conservative segment of the populace sees the radical Left as every bit as regressive and tyrannical as Mad King George. (Tranny’s in the girl’s bathroom anyone?). We’ll see how far the crazed radicals overplay their hand but there may come a time when failure to impose martial law would be viewed less of a tyranny and more as a nipping of the insurrectionists in the bud. One man’s “extreme views” are another man’s emergency surgery to remove a cancer from the body politic. Indeed, some of the more exuberant populace might coalesce around the 18th Century British sovereign’s famous remark: “We are determined to listen to nothing from the illegal congress,” and POTUS too, they might add. Stay tuned.

    1. The oligarchs are worse than the English aristocracy. At least the King and his men were open about their dominion.

      These creeps like Jack Dorsey pretend they are not far more powerful than them

      Sal Sar

    2. If George Washington abided in the current era, he would be a super-wealthy talk show host with a full agenda and no time for extracurricular activities.

  9. ‘The corporate media & our corrupt elected officials have completely miscalculated the mood of the country. They know how much they are hated.They’ve exhausted their own credibility the last 4 years.

    They don’t really represent the American people anymore & everyone knows it.’


  10. I haven’t slept well at all since I discovered that the Obama NatSec complex would use it’s power to cover up for Hillary Clinton, lie to us about Bengazi and then opened an utterly baseless investigation into Trump-Russia collusion. These same people then ginned up an impeachment of Trump for him asking about an investigation of Hunter Biden’s highly questionable business dealings in the Ukraine – only to find out after the election that Hunter had been under investigation by same NatSec community for said dealings since 2018.

    So I’m sorry, the idea that officials mentioned the possibility of martial law being used – but not actually being used – doesn’t come anywhere near the same universe as actual abuses of power on the scale the Obama admin engaged in. I also note you play the same game with these quotes, utterly stripping them of their context. While I don’t agree with Flynn or Lindell, they were suggesting POTUS be willing to use the Insurrection Act (martial law) should the left decide to rise up against any action from Pence or congress to re-evaluate the electoral counts in certain states.

    I don’t lose sleep over addressing that contingency at all. If the state govts and/or congress had principles, they would have de-certified and at least delayed the count under such questionable circumstances in swing states. The patterns are too glaring if one is willing to just look. We need to adjudicate and investigate – but our gov refuses to, And we know the left will resume their rioting the moment it suits their political purposes and many would be happy to use force to push Donald Trump out of power. None of this is crazy or lacking validity.

    Grow up. We have been overrun by Marxist revolutionaries. Treating them as such is the first step to restoring our nation from this brink of destruction.

    1. Well said. Turley’s clutching his pearls again. Lindell and Flynn are great people. Nobody’s perfect. But talking about martial law doesn’t rise to the level such that Trump needs to end his friendships with them. You know full well Trump wasn’t gonna go along with that idea. C’mon Turley.

  11. The image of the REPORTED document shows “martial law,” and yet Mr. Lindell REPORTEDLY denied the memo was about martial law.

    One could argue that the REPORTED document was taken out of context (most of the REPORTED document was obscured), but given that Mr. Lindell’s REPORTED statement is disputed by the REPORTED image, he needs to refute the media either by producing the full document or claiming the image is a forgery.

    Barring that refutation, the Whitehouse should avoid Mr. Lindell completely.

    No to martial law. Let Nancy Pelosi get us to war. She’s censoring, cancelling, and engaging in congressional witch hunts, so she’s halfway there.

    1. When I say Nancy Pelosi, I mean her and her tech-monopoly allies, the MLB, the NBA, AT&T, AirBNB, etc. You know the ones.

  12. Last week three social media giants had to shut down the Presidents social media accounts for a specific violation of their community standards and guidelines. Specifically, “Inciting violence”.

    Everyone watched as the President of the United states called armed self professed insurrectionists, armed militia groups many on the FBI’s watch and known terrorist group lists, and White Supremists to the White House, charge them up with a fiery speech instructing them to “march to the capitol” where he’d “be with them” and to “FIGHT LIKE HELL”. They did. Immediately.

    They immediately marched to the capitol and “Fought like hell!”. Just as instructed.

    They fought so hard they murdered a capitol police officer. A human being.

    This morning Trump gets to get up, shave, eat breakfast, kiss his children, and go live life. So do you. That capitol police officer? He does not. His life is over. All he’s done, doing or ever going to do, ended in that moment as an angry, charged up mob sent from the White House to the capitol, bashed his head in with a fire extinguisher. And now his family sits in mourning.

    You’ve been in here for months defending the indefensible, pretending with every inciteful untenable statement that he “could mean something else” and persistently ignoring the reality of the President entertaining and promoting armed militia groups, many on FBI terrorist lists and watch lists, as well as white supremist groups, lauding praises on them and encouraging violent behavior. In fact, before he was elected he encouraged his supporters to beat up a 17 year old black girl for standing up to protest him at a rally, they did, they punched and kicked her in the face and head as she was held by security, he cheered it, you said nothing. Each time he follows a distinct and clear pattern of inciting violence you act like its the first time (as you are with this memo) and as if its all just news to you.

    He called armed known militia groups, white supremists and insurrectionist nutjobs to the White House, fired them up in a speech instructing them literally to the capitol and “FIGHT LIKE HELL” and “STOP THE VOTE”. They fought so hard they murdered a capitol Police Officer, and what was your response? You stood by defending it, claiming it was “not incitement” even though you must know it meets the Brandenburg v Ohio (1969) precedent of “immediate reaction” not future actions. I guess Twitter just shuttered his account, costing themselves millions of dollars or more in share trade losses, …because they suddenly “turned into librul trump haters”. All these businesses see his incitement as does the entire planet, but you claim “nuh uh he said be peaceful”. “FIGHT LIKE HELL” is a direct contrast sir, to “be peaceful”. You keep clinging to the one he said “after” the riot. Ignoring all he said before.

    You ignore thousands and thousands of highly educated highly qualified people from the DoD and Military, generals, the joint chiefs, defense secretary’s, …heck even old Dick Cheney came down on the obvious intents here, George W Bush, all seeing his obvious intent here to try to instigate a civil insurrection then seize power. Everyone sees it, but you. Where’s it hiding? As you say, “in plain sight”.

    So yea, bizzarres a great word, especially for the title of your article. Because the Big Sleep in this case is what you’re waking up from apparently as if suddenly what has been apparent to everyone is suddenely news to you. You’ve been actively downplaying his violent rhetoric since he began. As if the three social media giants that blocked his account for Inciting Violence, are really just more trump hating librul wimps or something.

    Maybe the billions around the world who see what he is, and what he’s doing are onto something huh? Maybe “everyone other than trumps followers” isn’t wrong. Maybe the entire rest of the planet, isn’t a bunch of “librul wusses who won’t support our deal glorious leader”.

    Either way, the men and women of the DHS, FBI and Secret Service are preparing once more to put their lives on the line this week to protect against what you have been busy defending and down playing, and now bizarrely acting like you’re just finding out about it.

    1. So you think deconstructing, cherry-picking and then ascribing only the worst, most hysterical interpretation of his language possible to him that you somehow make yourself unique or credible? First, you should hear the political speech the left engages in at public rallies all the time – elected Dem officials. Downright seditious. On the mall, on the stops of the capital. Vitriolic, use of martial rhetoric like saying “fight” – Trump’s speech is unremarkable in that regard. We have well established SCOTUS ruling on this.

      As well, you can show zero actual nexus between trump’s remarks and the QAnon crazies who were the big right wing instigators of the riot. Cuz there is none. It’s also laughable to your position that we now know the attack started just after Trump’s speech began. It was pre-mediated by s small number of folsk who raised a mob and about 300 or so ended up doing bad stuff it looks like. It was under way before Trump made those remarks. In court? I could ask the judge for dismissal as this would undermine the basic elements of the crime being charged.

      You may think his speech was inflammatory. I actually think it was. What you don’t understand is that on the Right, we have the same right to be inflammatory as the Left does. None of that is criminal nor impeachable. Stop clutching your pearls and acting like a fascist.

      I get it, you and many others on the left are scared. You should be. You folks have been inviting something this for a long time. And from my POV, i think you should get that the Right is just getting started. Buckle up buttercup, your chance to prevent a huge counter revolution passed a while back.

      1. First of all half wit, I ain’t a liberal. Second, I ain’t scared. Especially of you. I’ve lived most of my life boy, I can go any time. Its all bonus now. And now I do job daily that risks my life, a job a pencil pushing pansyassed pinhead like you wouldn’t (and couldn’t) even show up for work for. What’s scared is you and the tough talking keyboard clowns like you who’s tough talk is now being called. You’re shaking in your boots, because it ain’t just the liberals standing up to your big mouths. The only thing scumbags like you need to buckle up for is federal prison, where you’ll be heading when you act on your internet tough talk. to join your premature counterparts from last week, aka idiot brigade number one.

        1. Anon, says “I ain’t no liberal”. If it walks like a liberal and it talks like a liberal it must be a duck. Not only that but a duck displaying his toughness by donning boxing gloves. A scary beast indeed. A tough guy on a keyboard saying another guy on a keyboard is a tough guy. Never waste an identity crises. More revealing every day. Priceless.

          1. @Thinkitthrough Another big mouth on his way to a life of making license plates. I don’t get the boxing gloves reference, must be some of that smart lawyerly talk, but you keep on believing what you want troll. Keep believing everyone not on your side must be just liberals. But we all see you sweating. Your internet bluffs been called, we’ll see what you got.

          2. and one more thing troll. I don’t spend my time on a keyboard, I work for a living. A job a two bit keyboard clown like you couldn’t do I know that. I know that because the few times I do wander in here, which can be counted on one hand in a month, I see thousands of your blathering bilgewater plastering the place like cheap wallpaper. You’re a hack. A two bit loud mouth internet troll threatening subtly to murder me and those like me who you believe “must be liberals”, using terms like revolution. Armed revolution. Which means murdering your political opponents. So while I still don’t get the boxing gloves reference, I do see a punk on a keyboard threatening subtly to murder me “some day soon”, ….so yea. I see what you are. And I know what you are. And what I am ain’t a liberal, and it sure as hell ain’t a low life scumbag internet troll, like you.

            1. Anon, so somehow I have now threatened to murder you? I ask all of the readers to look at any comment that I have made that calls for murder in any way shape or form. Just keep refuting their made up dialog and their true nature will rise like the image in the eight ball. The door has truly lost it’s hinges. “To the man afraid everything rustles”. Sophocles.

              1. Tit: “I ask all of the readers to look at any comment that I have made that calls for murder in any way shape or form.”

                Well, to be fair, you did use the word “donning” (“. . . displaying his toughness by donning boxing gloves.”) “Donning,” of course, is a form of “don” — which is akin to “Mafia Don.” And we all know what Mafia Dons do.

            2. C’mon Anon. Your the one who is here every day. Your reveal is that you call everyone that you disagree with a troll and you do it every day. Do you think we don’t see the pattern. Troll, troll, troll, troll marching in and out again and there’s no discharge in the war! My apologies to Kipling in his great poem “Boots”.

    2. Anon, every day you “FIGHT LIKE HELL” to maintain your principles on this forum. No one here is saying that you are inciting violence in your vehemence. As to the whole world seeing Trumps words as a call to the ramparts that must be banned let’s look to the comments of the German Chancellor and the President of Mexico in their condemnation of the censorship imposed by Twitter. We are guessing you found that “whole world” part in one of your re-write volumes. Your book of Proverbs chapter one verse two.

  13. JT: “. . . it would not be an invitation to tyranny, it would be tyranny itself.”

    For a second, I thought you were talking about the police-enforced “lockdowns” and “stay-at-home” orders — aka the wholesale usurpation of rights, the rule by executive fiat, house arrest, and the widespread destruction of wealth and happiness.

    It’s good to be righteously indignant. It’s even better to focus that indignation in the right direction.


      Switzerland to Hold Referendum on Covid-19 Lockdown

      The vote, which could be held as soon as June, tests government’s legal powers and is latest example of Switzerland’s direct democracy

      Switzerland’s system of direct democracy will be put to the test again later this year, this time with a referendum on whether to roll back the government’s powers to impose lockdowns and other measures to slow the Covid-19 pandemic.

      The landlocked Alpine nation of 8.5 million people is unusual in providing its people a say on important policy moves by offering referendums if enough people sign a petition for a vote. Last year, Swiss voted on increasing the stock of low-cost housing, tax allowances for children and hunting wolves.

      The idea is to provide citizens a check on the power of the federal government, and it is a throwback to the fiercely independent patchwork of cantons, or districts, that were meshed in the medieval period.

      Now, the country is set for a referendum on whether to remove the government’s legal authority to order lockdowns and other pandemic restrictions after campaigners submitted a petition of some 86,000 signatures this week—higher than the 50,000 required—triggering a nationwide vote to repeal last year’s Covid-19 Act.

      The ballot could come as soon as June, and it appears set to mirror disputes in the U.S. and elsewhere over how far governments should go to limit social interactions in a pandemic—or whether to lock down at all.

    2. Maybe you should focus some indignation toward people who were willing to capture and assassinate members of Congress and VP Pence –

      From an affidavit submitted in support of the criminal complaint against Dominic Pezzola, aka “Spaz,” by FBI Special Agent Melissa Ammons –
      “W-1 stated that after the events at the Capitol as described above, he or she spoke to an individual he or she knows as “Spaz,” along with other individuals. W-1 stated that during that conversation, “Spaz” bragged about breaking the windows to the Capitol and entering the building. In a subsequent interview, W-1 clarified that “Spaz” said that he used a Capitol Police shield to break the window. W-1 said that “Spaz” can be seen on the cover of many newspapers and recognizes him from those photographs. W-1 stated that other members of the group talked about things they had done during the day, and they said that anyone they got their hands on they would have killed, including Nancy Pelosi. W-1 further stated that members of this group, which included “Spaz,” said that they would have killed [Vice President] Mike Pence if given the chance. According to W-1, the group said it would be returning on the “20th,” which your affiant takes to mean the Presidential Inauguration scheduled for January 20, 2021, and that they plan to kill every single “m-fer” they can.1 W-1 stated the men said they all had firearms or access to firearms.”

      “Federal prosecutors offered an ominous new assessment of last week’s siege of the U.S. Capitol by President Donald Trump’s supporters on Thursday, saying in a court filing that rioters intended ‘to capture and assassinate elected officials.’ Prosecutors offered that view in a filing asking a judge to detain Jacob Chansley, the Arizona man and QAnon conspiracy theorist who was famously photographed wearing horns as he stood at the desk of Vice President Mike Pence in the chamber of the U.S. Senate. The detention memo, written by Justice Department lawyers in Arizona, goes into greater detail about the FBI’s investigation into Chansley, revealing that he left a note for Pence warning that ‘it’s only a matter of time, justice is coming.’ ‘Strong evidence, including Chansley’s own words and actions at the Capitol, supports that the intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials in the United States government,” prosecutors wrote. …”
      His full detention memo –

      1. Anon, you must also be thinking of a Bernie Bro who shot Republican Steve Scalise or the guy who attacked Ron Paul and broke his ribs. You must have evidence of your outrage at these events in your archives. Surely you can go to your laptop and access your previous comments in condemnation of these acts of violence. Oh your hard drive crashed! How convenient.

        1. TIT, you must have failed reading. I’m thinking of the people I discussed, not the people you want to shift the focus to.

          I condemn violence except in immediate self-defense and rare cases of warranted war, such as fighting Nazi Germany. So I condemn the people you want to shift the focus to. How about you, can you condemn the people I discussed, or are you too much of a troll to do that?

          1. I absolutely do condemn the violence, it makes me sick to my stomach for these people to commandeer my affiliation for any justification of their actions. Now I have made my condemnation. Maybe we will be on the same page when you specifically condemn the acts of violence encouraged by the left in this last summer. In a pervious comment I wrote of the shooting of Representative Scalise and Paul’s broken ribs. You simply dismissed these occurrences with the wave of your hand as not relevant to the present conversation. When you write of condemning all violence excuse me if I somehow doubt your veracity.

            1. I condemned it when it happened, I condemned it above, and I don’t care whether you doubt my veracity.

              1. We condemn it. The universe condemns it. Logic, rationality and coherence condemn it. It was doomed before it began. It was morally unacceptable and bound for failure. It was an idiotic suicide mission beyond anyone’s ability to comprehend. Like police departments et al., President Trump should have required psychological assessment before entry into his rallies – a “crazies” booth at the gate.

                Were Bernie and the democrats blamed for the Scalise shooting?

                “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

                – Barack Obama

  14. This makes no sense: Trump supposedly “surrounding himself” with certain figures with “extreme views,” and yet Trump kicked Lindell out of his office quickly. If Turley wants to tar people based on their associates (which admittedly, the “association” can be pretty loose or one-way), then he should tar the Democrats for their BLM and Antifa associates aka enforcers.

    1. DV, “ This makes no sense: Trump supposedly “surrounding himself” with certain figures with “extreme views,” and yet Trump kicked Lindell out of his office quickly. ”

      It makes no sense because that’s not what happened. Trump didn’t kick Lindell out. It was Trump’s White House lawyers that did. Trump wanted to learn more about Lindell’s ideas, he was considering it and directed his lawyers to talk to Lindell. When they heard what he was pitching to the president they didn’t let him speak with the president again. They didn’t want him to give Trump any more stupid ideas because Trump is already unstable and despondent about his losing the election. His lawyers don’t want another fiasco like that inciting an insurrection. They’ve had enough. Trump’s days of getting “intel” from “pillow guys” and “guests” at mar a lago a long gone.

Leave a Reply