Incitement Or Free Speech? Comey Calls For the Republican Party To Be “Burned Down”

There is an interesting interview this week with former FBI Director James Comey.  He states that he now believes that the infamous alleged “pee tape” may be real and makes other surprising statements while pitching his new book.  One statement, however, stood out: “The Republican party needs to be burned down … It’s just not a healthy political organization.” Since the Republican National Committee was targeted with a pipe bomb in the recent riots, some could argue that this is incitement to arson or violence. I would not. I would call it free speech and hyperbole. The question is where the line is drawn given the impeachment of Donald Trump based on his speech and the allegations that others who used such hyperbolic language are actually guilty of incitement.

As I have previously stated, I condemned Trump’s speech in a series of tweets while it was being given and I called for a bipartisan vote of censure over his responsibility in the riots. However, I opposed the use of a snap impeachment by the House and raised concerns over the framing of the article of impeachment as an “incitement to insurrection.” Despite the chorus of legal experts insisting that the speech would constitute a strong case for criminal incitement (and the DC Attorney General said he may charge Trump), I believe such a prosecution would eventually collapse on free speech grounds if based solely on this speech and Trump’s other public statements.

Comey is not alone in the use of such rhetoric in today’s super-heated political environment. We previously discussed how 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 question is whether Comey would be charged under this same logic if the RNC building was attacked again and actually burned down. That would be obviously ridiculous. However, where is the line drawn?  Free speech demands bright lines and those are being erased in our cancel culture from universities to the media to Congress.

The interview also had this remarkable statement on the allegation in the Christopher Steele dossier that the Russian government had a video of Trump watching sex workers urinate on each other in a Moscow hotel room in 2013:

“It came to us in late September. We had information since the summer with which it was consistent and I didn’t know what to make of it, but, because it was from a source who had a track record with the FBI, our team dove into it to see if they could replicate it. I still don’t know. I actually think the Senate intelligence committee report, coupled with [former Trump lawyer] Michael Cohen’s account in his book, probably makes the ‘pee tape’ stuff more likely than it was when I was fired.”

That is an extraordinary assertion based on a widely discredited dossier and the equally discredited Michael Cohen. Comey does not cite what in the Senate intelligence report gives credence to the allegation. 

Comey does make a point that I agree with. He does not understand how the rioters gained access to the Capitol and he wants an investigation. I voiced the same suspicion the day of the riot. All of these questions should be answered in a full and transparent way.

The call for a commission is far more constructive than Comey’s version of the “burn baby burn” mantra.

405 thoughts on “Incitement Or Free Speech? Comey Calls For the Republican Party To Be “Burned Down””

  1. You know what’s dangerous for a democracy?

    who pretend to be unbiased but are partisan advocates.

    It is gasoline to a fire.

  2. The bright red line all voters, especially Trump supporters, should adhere to is that: the U.S. Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) has the final authority to interpret Article VI (Sections 2 & 3) and the remaining clauses of the U.S. Constitution. So if you truly support the U.S. Constitution, you also must read U.S. Supreme Court rulings every year to be a loyal patriotic American.

    Why this matters: the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of 2nd Amendment guns rights is not exactly the same as many gun owners. Many thought Obama would take away gun rights and many organizations made much money scaring voters. The U.S. Supreme Court actually expanded gun rights under Obama.

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of 14th Amendment rights for African-Americans, LGBT-Americans and all Americans is not exactly the same interpretation as the police, FBI, some governors or local officials. The U.S. Supreme Court is the final word on constitutionality.

    Simply following the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings on constitutionality would help unify the nation when some (not all) politicians try to divide us for partisan ends. Sometimes the high court gets it wrong, that is solved with constitutional lawsuits – not insurrection.

    1. SCOTUS being the final word on what the Constitution means was created by SCOTUS themselves, and everyone else just follows along. It is not in the Constitution at all. It has so far worked pretty well, but SCOTUS (especially Roberts) is very aware that if they get too radical then they will lose respect and lose that power. SCOTUS is full of justices that have clear biases one way or other other, and many of their decisions are highly debatable. The makeup of SCOTUS is also quite out of line with the American electorate.

  3. Analogy can be a very effective tool of argumentation when used properly. Unfortunately, Prof. Turley’s attempt in this instance is embarrassingly silly. First, expressing the view that a political ideology needs to be “burned down” would not lead any rational person to conclude that the speaker is encouraging arson. A political party cannot be “burned down” for the same reason that birtherism cannot be executed by a firing squad. Therefore, asserting that Mr. Comey’s comment is his “version of the ‘burn baby burn’ mantra” is nonsensical in the literal sense of that word.

    Second, as much as some people might prefer a theory of free speech demarcated by “bright lines,” that is neither possible nor desirable. It is not possible because the varieties of speech are not amenable to simple rules. It is not desirable for the same reason.

    Over the more than 10 years that I have been commenting on this blog, I have repeatedly expressed my disdain for efforts to curb free speech. I have criticized speech codes, blasphemy laws, safe zones, hate crime legislation, censorship and other misguided efforts to dictate what people may see, read, say or think. However, the desire to incite violent acts is a human trait that any of us can fall prey to under the right circumstances. In assessing whether unlawful incitement has occurred in a particular case, context, history and the position of the speaker are essential elements in the analysis. That analysis is not aided by resort to ridiculous comparisons or similar logical fallacies.

      1. There are no bright lines between colors just a color continuum, but you can still distinguish red from yellow as “varieties” of color.

        1. “There are no bright lines between colors just a color continuum . . .”

          So that continuum, taken as a whole, as a set of incremental changes — that is *not* a bright line separating, say, red from yellow?

          That’s bizarre.

          Just because you can separate a clear break into smaller pieces (the continuum), does not wipe out the fact that there are clear breaks in reality.

            1. So a continuum, taken as a whole, is a fuzzy line? A dim line? Not a line, at all — but a circle? And there are no clean breaks between the shades in the continuum?

              And that brick wall separating my property from my neighbor’s — that, too, is not a bright line because the bricks can be broken up into smaller pieces?

              And that line separating two columns of numbers — that, too, is not a bright line? It’s merely an illusion?

              Infinity is potential, not actual. You’re committing Zeno’s fallacy.

    1. If you can not provide bright lines you can not restrict speech PERIOD.

      If people can not know what the law is CLEARLY in order to follow it – we are lawless and probably tyranical.

      We do not need bright lines throughout our lives.

      But everything regarding the use of force must be as clear as humanly possible.
      You may not use force – as in the power of government against another without justification.

      1. Put another way. The U.S. Supreme Court defines what “incitement to violence” and “insurrection” means – where the legal and constitutional out-of-bounds are. This is the final authority in the United States – the “Judicial Branch” courts. Congress is required to stay within these constitutional lines or laws created by Congress can be overturned in court.

        If an “Executive Branch” official arrests or prosecutes someone, the “Defendant” (or accused) appears in front of a “Judicial Branch” court. Every judge, in every court, in America, is legally required to follow U.S. Supreme Court rulings (or interpretations) on constitutionality.

        Bottom line, no president (Executive Branch) – not even Trump – has the authority to supersede “Judicial Branch” interpretations of individual constitutional rights. Trump doesn’t have the legal authority to order his supporters to participate in incitement or insurrection.

        Lesson Learned: stay educated on U.S. Supreme Court rulings if you want to stay out of jail. Presidents have no such authority.

        1. While your post is interesting – it has errors – some philosophical, and some real world.

          One of the lessons of this election that needed relearned is that courts are not the final authority on anything – the people are.

          it is incredibly rare for people to overrule the courts – in the US. But the power to do so when the courts fail exists. And that is demonstated by this election and its fallout.

          It was the duty of the courts – not to give Trump what he wanted but to STOP the lawlessness in this election – which they failed miserably at. And their duty to restore the trust of the people in govenrment – which they failed miserably at.

          So much for the final authority of the courts. The people are the final authority with respect to government.

          1. The people are the final authority only when they act lawfully, such as by amending the Constitution or voting for members of Congress who’ll pass new laws.

            The people who stormed the Capitol do not represent the will of all Americans and did not act lawfully. They should be charged and convicted.

            1. “The people are the final authority only when they act lawfully, such as by amending the Constitution or voting for members of Congress who’ll pass new laws.”

              Nope, the people are the final authority PERIOD. You have things reversed – people are only allowed to act violently toward govenrment when government has lost the trust of the people. Typically that occurs when government is lawless. It is especially bad when government is lawless or appears to allow fraud in elections.

              The minutemen were acting unlawfully.

              You raised amending the constitution and voting for members of congress – and when government is trustworthy and lawful, violence against government is not justified.

              What is the remedy when government is lawless – when the constitution – amended or otherwise is not followed ?

              “The people who stormed the Capitol do not represent the will of all Americans and did not act lawfully. They should be charged and convicted.”

              The minutemen did not represent the will of all americans and did not act lawfully. The british attempted to charge them and would have convicted them if they could.

              The convictions and draconian punishments of capital protestors are a foregone conclusion – DC controls this.

              But you are stupid to keep escalating this.

              There is no doubt you have lost the trust of very large portions of the people. And about 1/2 of those support violence at the capital.

              Keep it up and it will get worse. Successfully supress the capital protestors and instead you will get another Timothy McVeigh.

              There is only one way out – restore trust in government. Part of that is not conducting lawless elections.
              You raised amending the constitutions. 28 states require secret ballots. We did not have that in 2020 – inarguably those states constitutions were violated. As you said – change the constitution.
              But if government fails to follow the law and constitution – the courts are supposed to be our first line of defense.
              They are not the last time. The courts are the final authority on the constitution – when they have the peoples trust. They lost it.
              That is huge and you do not grasp how important it is.

              Without Trust government is illegitimate.

              1. “Keep it up and it will get worse. Successfully suppress the capital protestors and instead you will get another Timothy McVeigh”

                true and yet false

                true in the sense that free speech is a safety value, which allows people to vent and thereby dissipate their anger, reducing the pressure which might otherwise lead to rebellion

                false in the sense that McVeigh was almost certainly known to government as a potential bad actor, well in advance of events at OKC.
                they either let him do it, or quite possibly, encouraged him. hence he was to some degree, a creation of the government, not the least of which, was the military
                he was a “lone nut” no more than Oswald was

                OPERATION PATCON was a sordid Clinton era FBI plan to “take down militias” which we are seeing reborn today– and its primary tools were informants and provocateurs recruited from genuine patriot dissenters, who were encouraged to do bad things, partly by the powers that be, and partly be nonsensical propaganda that activates all the usual naïve tropes of American mythology– “citizen self rule,” “democracy” “free speech” “the second amendment” “revolution” and leadership by virtuous rich men who would take the helm and set things right. these patriot types, which type can be seen in today’s III’er militia, were at top of the list for government to suppress, just as now.

                all these slogans were and are shibboleths, tropes, delusions. a new Republican party should awaken to the importance of class confli
                ct. specifically, the class conflict between American workers and middle class, versus our own American billionaire overlords, and their ever-ready lumpenprole agitators and countless bureaucratic and political mercenaries. If Republicans break free of the control of billionaires, by fully embracing the explicit economic interests of its base as against the billionaires who control the political process, then it has a future

                if they do not, if they remain mired in the false beliefs which have hobbled conservatives since the end of WW II, then it will just be what it was before Trump, a permanent minority party that only validates the system and does not challenge it

                the change has to be cultural and emotional., but, the policy implications, would have to be worked out. there is nobody doing heavy lifting here. the situation is grim.

                i think it’s very likely that the Democrat leadership will find itself in a very strong political situation for the next 2 years, and will aggressively implement policies both designed and desired by globalist billionaires, such as Bill Gates, with all his socalled global health schemes that explicitly aim for depopulation, and there is very little in the way to stop them.

                And the western populations are in the cross hairs. The herd will be culled by our masters. That’s what’s coming. We have been watching it unfold for a year now and worse comes

                Saloth Sar

                1. “true in the sense that free speech is a safety value,”
                  Free speech is more than a safety valve and what happened at the capital is more than speech it was a reflection of the loss of trust in government.

                  “false in the sense that McVeigh was almost certainly known to government as a potential bad actor, well in advance of events at OKC.
                  they either let him do it, or quite possibly, encouraged him.”

                  You have far more beleif in the competence and omniscience of government than I.

                  There are myriads of potential mcVeighs, they are not all on governments radar.

                  “OPERATION PATCON was a sordid Clinton era FBI plan to “take down militias””
                  Is not possible today.

                  The Clinton era was divorced from Vietnam by 20 years, GWI was brief, the militia culture in the US during the clinton era was shy on actual military people. It was smaller and more abnormal than today.

                  Today the fringe is far smaller and possibly wackier. But the militant right is far larger and far closer to normal people.

                  We have two decades of vets that populate it. Do you think it is some accident that Biden is trying to purge the military ?
                  The Brass is vigorusly anti-trump. The grunts are strongly pro-trump.

                  I do expect a rebirth of this witch hunt – another stupid move of the left. You can get away with terrorizing survivalist wing nuts that live in the woods. How well do you think it goes when you suspect half the vets of the past 20 years ? And what of police – having spent the summer pissing over them – how many of them are now part of the militant right fringe – that is not so fringe today.

                  The left has repeatedly made the mistake of demonizing groups that are far too large.

                  1. John Say,
                    “ Free speech is more than a safety valve and what happened at the capital is more than speech it was a reflection of the loss of trust in government.”

                    Interesting how you put it. You justify the violence and mayhem at the Capitol as speech, as a reflection of the loss of trust in government.

                    I find that statement quite ironic. The BLM movement’s violence and rioting can be considered exactly the same.

                    They too lost trust in government when justice had been sorely lacking for years for them. The murder of George Floyd and government failing to hold police accountable for the disparity of treatment between the two which was starkly evident during the Capitol riots.

                    Are you willing to concede that the BLM movement’s protester were just as justified in their behavior because as you just described it, speech reflecting loss of trust in government? That’s quite an interesting statement.

                    1. “ Free speech is more than a safety valve and what happened at the capital is more than speech it was a reflection of the loss of trust in government.”

                      “Interesting how you put it. You justify the violence and mayhem at the Capitol as speech, as a reflection of the loss of trust in government.”

                      I have not addressed whether it was justified. Justified or not – it happened, and it happened as a consequence of the loss of trust in government.

                      Timothy McVeigh’s actions were not justified. But they were foreseable.
                      Regardless, those on the left either figure out how to restore trust in government – and that is not accomplished by demonizing half the country and running roughshod over the law and constitution, or they face mounting opposition. Supress the opposition and you will get violence. The greater the supression the more egregious the violence will be.

                      This is not an expression of support. It is a prediction of consequences.

                      “I find that statement quite ironic. The BLM movement’s violence and rioting can be considered exactly the same.”
                      They can – but BLM protestors undermined their own arguments.

                      Distrust of government is not a basis for the destruction of private property.

                      There is likely a broad concensus in the country that we need changes to our justice system.
                      I fully support BLM’s demand to end qualified immunity – that is ludicrously stupid judge made law – as is standing and laches.

                      “They too lost trust in government when justice had been sorely lacking for years for them.”
                      So protest GOVERNMENT. The BLM issue was policing – go to City Hall.

                      BLM is making an argument that because they do not trust policing in cities with large minority populations that they will burn and loot private businesses until the federal government gives them what they want.

                      Protests like those at the capital often have message confusion. But that of BLM is far worse than what occurred at the capital.

                      As I noted – I support ending qualified immunity.
                      I also fully support empowering local communities with respect to controling their own policing.

                      “The murder of George Floyd”
                      Alishi Bennet was murdered. At best the police failed a duty of care to Floyd. He had overdosed on Fentayl and was having a very bad reaction BEFORE the police arrived. He was shouting “I can not breathe” when no one was arround. The police tried to calm him down peacefully before arresting him. The handcuffed him and put him in a cruiser – where his behavior got worse. They then removed him from the cruiser. In hind sight I am sure they wish they had just left him ranting in the back of the cruiser.

                      Is there some culpability on the part of the police ? Sure. Is this a justification for burning down the country – Nope.

                      “and government failing to hold police accountable for the disparity of treatment between the two which was starkly evident during the Capitol riots.”
                      What are you talking about ? The officers involved in the floyd death are being investigated.

                      All BLM protests were not violent. But many were far more violent than the capital protests.
                      Those that were violent frequently involved extensive burning and looting of private property.
                      The overwhelming majority arrested at BLM protests were bailed out by the left, and never prosecuted.
                      Do you doubt that capital protestors are not only going to be prosecuted. They are going to be severely punished for relatively minor or even non-existant offenses.

                      “Are you willing to concede that the BLM movement’s protester were just as justified in their behavior because as you just described it, speech reflecting loss of trust in government? That’s quite an interesting statement.”

                      First as noted about I am not discussing justification. that is separate.
                      Were PROTESTS by BLM etc perfectly fine – absolutely – even if I thought they were wrong, they are still free speech, free assembly.
                      But you petition government at the institutions of government – not Macy’s or Target. The looting, arson, and violations of private property are all crimes that should be fully prosecuted.
                      You do not petition government by burning Target.

                      Further, BLM’s was trying to make a national issue of a local problem. There is no federal general police power.
                      Defund the police in Mineapolis if you want.
                      Again I have no problems with the people in Mineapolis determining how their cities are to be policed.

                  2. MacVeigh was GW I
                    my information on him is all open source, it is not faith. you are free to think what you want. i think he was well known to law enforcement specifically because of ATF informant Rebecca Howe but probably other active informations emplaced in the “midwestern bank robber” gang too. But that is old news that nobody cares about any more than WTC 7.

                    to your other points:
                    there were plenty of RVN vets involved in the late 80s early 90s militias

                    there are more vets today, that point is fair, but there are more precise and efficient means of control

                    FB twitter etc are all privately run intelligence services and then there is the deeper and stronger signals intelligence infrastructure
                    so i would suggest it would be easier for them to do PATCON all over again and indeed it seems to me, it is underway

                    sal sar

                    1. “MacVeigh was GW I”
                      So ?

                      “my information on him is all open source, it is not faith. you are free to think what you want.”
                      So ?

                      “i think he was well known to law enforcement specifically because of ATF informant Rebecca Howe but probably other active informations emplaced in the “midwestern bank robber” gang too. But that is old news that nobody cares about any more than WTC 7.”
                      It is nearly impossible for law enforcement to prevent criminal acts that have not occurred.

                      “there were plenty of RVN vets involved in the late 80s early 90s militias”
                      There were far more wanna be’s. People are less likely to participate in militias as they age.

                      One of the things that should scare the shit out of congress is that the average age of the protestors was far older than those involved in BLM (or other) protests. And please – I do know that those entering the capital were on the whole younger – especially those engaged in violence.

                      “there are more vets today, that point is fair, but there are more precise and efficient means of control”
                      What do you mean ?

                      If you are saying that the capital police had the means to both control this and to respect the first amendment rights of protestors – absolutely. There are 2400 capital police. That is more than sufficient to establish a perimiter, and allow protestors into the capital building, without weapons and in reasonable numbers. If it is not sufficient – they could have gotten help.

                      But Protestors had the absolute right to enter the capital and chant and rant and rave and demand that senators and representatives refuse to certify the election. Further a government short on trust denying that right is inevitably going to result in violence.

                      Was the violence justified ? that is not clear. What is clear is that we are moving closer and closer to where it is.

              2. John say, you keep using huge false equivalencies in your arguments. The minutemen did act unlawfully against their government, a government backed by the military in its tyranny. It’s a huge difference between actions of the minutemen and the rioters at the Capitol.

                The majority of colonial citizens despised the British government’s heavy handed and arbitrary style of governance. There was no deception about the treatment and what they experienced.

                The rioters in the Capitol were a small minority who has been lied to constantly about the legitimacy of the election without proof of the claims against that legitimacy. The president didn’t have the support of the military in overturning the election. The president constantly accused governors and state election officials of fraud without proof and spewed rhetoric suggesting his election was being stolen. Again with no credible and verifiable proof.

                The people GAVE the courts the authority to have the last word on constitutional questions.

                The biggest hole in your arguments is that the law was not followed. All the evidence points to the fact that your claim is categorically false. It’s as simple as that.

                1. the huge difference svelaz is mostly that the minutemen were well organized, & deeply supported by the rich men, in america if not England, instead of hated by them

                  and they won

                  Sal Sar

                  1. Anonymous (saloth sar), the rioters at the Capitol were not hated. They were understood to be a mob of people who had been taken for a ride by the President’s false claims. Simply put, a bunch of people who thought they were being patriotic instead of gullible idiots they really were.

                    1. Gullibe perhaps but not idiots. Just people. Mistaken ones.

                      No revolution ever succeeds without deep organization and mature leadership and logistical support

                      Street rebellions that lack these always fail, but are often useful to those who prime the pump for them.
                      These are rarely seen out front, they are puppet masters playing their marionettes on tv

                      Sal Sar

                    2. I guess it is not surprising that an idelogy that highly values political indoctrination beleives that all those it opposes are indoctrinated.

                      The protestors at the capital – like BLM and ANTIFA all acted of their own individual free will.

                      They are all personally responsible for their acts. They were not “taken for a ride”.

                      These protestors were all adults, with minds of their own, their personal beleifs were flawed – as are those of all people. But much less than yours.

                      BTW demanding trustworthy elections IS patriotic.

                      Regardless, patriotism is not highly valued by the left and very highly valued by the right.

                2. “John say, you keep using huge false equivalencies in your arguments. The minutemen did act unlawfully against their government, a government backed by the military in its tyranny. It’s a huge difference between actions of the minutemen and the rioters at the Capitol.”
                  Nope.

                  “The majority of colonial citizens despised the British government’s heavy handed and arbitrary style of governance. There was no deception about the treatment and what they experienced.”
                  Nope – please learn history. About 1/3 of colonists supported rebellion. About 1/3 opposed and about 1/3 were ambivalient.

                  “The rioters in the Capitol were a small minority”
                  Far more numerous than the minute men.

                  “who has been lied to constantly about the legitimacy of the election without proof of the claims against that legitimacy.”
                  46% of american – a plurality think the election was stolen. over 50% think it was rife with fraud.
                  That is not a small minority.

                  “The president didn’t have the support of the military in overturning the election.”
                  Correct – he did not ask for it. Pelosi is the only one who contacted the military – she arguable tried to instigate a coup.

                  “The president constantly accused governors and state election officials of fraud”
                  Yup.

                  “without proof and spewed rhetoric suggesting his election was being stolen.”
                  Nope.
                  “Again with no credible and verifiable proof.”

                  Wrong but it still does not matter – it is the responsibility of government to conduct the elections such that people trust them.
                  They failed.

                  “The people GAVE the courts the authority to have the last word on constitutional questions.”
                  And they took it back.

                  You have a massive logical fallacy – you have concocted a self legitimizing government.

                  “The biggest hole in your arguments is that the law was not followed. All the evidence points to the fact that your claim is categorically false. It’s as simple as that.”

                  read the state constitutions – ordinary people are capable of that. Why not you ?
                  Read PA Act 77 as an example – the language is plain and simple and was not followed.

                  You expect people to trust courts and experts more than their own eyes.

                  This is a typical failure of the left.

                  Do you need a long list of the lies and failures of the left and experts and government ?

                  I keep telling you – when you burn your own trust and credibility that has consequences.

                  Why are people to beleive the courts ? They have seen inumerable stupid and unconstitutional court decisions.

                  We mostly agreed on clear law and bright lines. But you fail to grasp that the guy with an IQ of 80 or 90 is only capable of bright lines.

                  He reads the law or constitution and notes what it plainly says. When a Judge tells him it says the opposite – he is certain they are full of schiff.

                  I would note that your argument failed at the opposite end too. Those with IQs of 140 and up can also read the law and they know they are smarter than the judges and lawyers.

                  The law MUST be read as written – when the courts diverge they destroy their own credibility.

                  BTW they did that BEFORE the election.

                  Most people are not stupid. They understand the mess we had could have been avoided. That the laws and rules and norms could have been followed.

                  You do not understand the amount of damage the left did to itself by trying to game the law and the election.

                  Maybe it did not change the results. But it most certainly changed peoples perception.

                  We saw democratic governors accross the country change the rules to favor Biden – and not in small ways.
                  in ways that violated election laws and state constitutions. And we saw the courts cover for them.

                  Democrats traded the benefit of the doubt, trust, for political advantage. They got votes at the expense of trust.

                  Most people grasp that – it is not that hard.

                  1. John say, again your rationales are just plain flawed.

                    “ 46% of american – a plurality think the election was stolen. over 50% think it was rife with fraud.
                    That is not a small minority

                    Public opinion does not constitute proof or fact. Not when proof has not been shown to be credible in court. Using your own logic 56% of American think trump should be removed from office, thus impeachment is warranted.

                    “ read the state constitutions – ordinary people are capable of that. Why not you ?
                    Read PA Act 77 as an example – the language is plain and simple and was not followed.”

                    I’ve read the PA act 77 both of them. The amended version and the original. It was followed. I’be also read the entire court opinion on the claims and they made it clear the law was followed. Point to one of the claims you believe was not followed and I can show you that it was.

                    “ I would note that your argument failed at the opposite end too. Those with IQs of 140 and up can also read the law and they know they are smarter than the judges and lawyers.

                    The law MUST be read as written – when the courts diverge they destroy their own credibility.”

                    That’s false. Those with IQ’s of 140 and up can also pick up nuances in the law’s intent.

                    “The law MUST be read as written…”

                    That’s not point. The everything must be read as written. But the job of the courts is also about interpreting the law. Interpretation requires the recognition that words change meaning over time. What a word meant 100 years ago or even 50 years ago may mean something else today. Your view would require that the idea the 2nd amendment individuals the rights to bear arms is invalid. The amendment doesn’t specify an individual right. Currently that right is inferred.

                    The PA court never diverged in reading the law. Where do you believe it diverged? Specifically.

                    “ We saw democratic governors accross the country change the rules to favor Biden – and not in small ways.
                    in ways that violated election laws and state constitutions. And we saw the courts cover for them.”

                    That’s false. Governors signed legislation amended by their representatives. Others had the power to change the rules as granted to them by their respective legislatures.

                    You keep saying they didn’t follow the law, but provide no examples.

                    1. “Public opinion does not constitute proof or fact. ”
                      Of course it does. That is just plain idiocy.

                      You can argue that a poll does nto accurately reflect the thinking of people or the strength of that thinking.
                      But you can not argue that the poll is not a fact, nor that people do not have thoughts and oppinions.

                      Further with respect to this issue – there are multiple polls on multiple issues that dovetail.

                      There is massive evidence that trust in government is critically low.

                      Finally – you can close your eyes and lug your ears but government is still only legitimate with the conset of the governed and that consent is very very low.

                      “Not when proof has not been shown to be credible in court.”
                      Did the minutemen go to court ?

                      ” Using your own logic 56% of American think trump should be removed from office, thus impeachment is warranted.”
                      You are confusing direct democracy with the consent of the governed.

                      This is not about individual issues – and it is only about polls to the extent that they help us tell if government has the support of the people.

                      There were no polls taken before the american revolution. But that revolution happened because the British colonial people lost the trust of the people.

                      “I’ve read the PA act 77 both of them. The amended version and the original. It was followed.”
                      Nope.

                      “I’be also read the entire court opinion on the claims and they made it clear the law was followed.”
                      Nope.

                      “Point to one of the claims you believe was not followed and I can show you that it was.”
                      I do not need to, and you can not. This is not even a close call – the courts oppinion – and your claim are acts of self delusion.

                      The court acted as legislator and it was pretty open about that – Courts may not do that. They may not expand laws EVER.

                    2. “That’s false. Those with IQ’s of 140 and up can also pick up nuances in the law’s intent.”
                      You are demonstrating EXACTLY what is wrong with the PA SCOTUS decision. That is precisely what the court may not do.

                      In fact this is BROADLY an area of error on the part of the left.

                      In the context of government we CAN NOT make determinations based on intent. Humans are lousy at discerning intent.
                      It is highly subjective. You can fixate on intent in your personal life. You may not use force based on your guess as to the intentions of others.

                      As I said this is one of the major areas of failure on the part of the left is this fixation on intent.

                      The left determines that the police are systemically racist – because blacks are arrested disproportionately to whites – that is purportedly proof of racist intent. Yet police are responding to crime reports mostly by blacks. So are blacks racist ? Are police only supposed to respond to half the reports of murders by black assailants ?

                      You listen to Trump speeches and find violence and racism and …. – and yet if you read the words – none of that is present.

                      Many right wing comics have fun by going to seattle and NYC and reading remarks by Obama or Schumer or Pelosi and telling people they are by Trump – and getting those on the left to label them racist or violent.

                      If I listed 10 remarks half by Trump and half by prominent democrats. Without using google, I doubt you could get more than a few right.

                      You find intent where it is not present. And that is precisely the problem with fixating on intent.

                      You can run your own life that way – if your judgement is good, you will benefit, if it is bad you will reap the consequences.

                      But you can not govern that way – and neither can the courts.
                      Doing say is a moral and ethical violation.

                    3. ““The law MUST be read as written…”

                      That’s not point.”
                      It is precisely the point.

                      “The everything must be read as written.”
                      Nope, we are expected to let our imaginations run wild with fiction and poetry.

                      Nor is there a MUST with regard to private choices and actions that do not involve force.

                      If you fail to read your employers policy manual correctly – you may lose your job.

                      Further your BOSS or anyone interacting with you privately is free to judge your intentions.

                      I can hire you because I have a sense that you are a good person, or a sense that you will work hard.
                      I can reject your application because I have a sense that your intentions are bad.

                      But I can not kill you because my guess is your intentions are bad.

                      “But the job of the courts is also about interpreting the law”
                      Actually no. We are not very far from the point that AI could replace judges.
                      Legal “interpretation” is a rote process, it is not about intuition.

                      ” Interpretation requires the recognition that words change meaning over time. What a word meant 100 years ago or even 50 years ago may mean something else today.”
                      It is extremely rare that changes in the meaning of words are relevant. Act 77 was written in 2019. The meaning of “8pm on election day” has not changed since then. The meaning of “non-severable” in act 77 has not changed.

                      “Your view would require that the idea the 2nd amendment individuals the rights to bear arms is invalid. The amendment doesn’t specify an individual right. Currently that right is inferred.”

                      “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
                      “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

                      Both individual rights. You are just plain wrong.

                      “The PA court never diverged in reading the law. Where do you believe it diverged? Specifically.”
                      Asked and answered. We are well past that.

                      “ We saw democratic governors accross the country change the rules to favor Biden – and not in small ways.
                      in ways that violated election laws and state constitutions. And we saw the courts cover for them.”

                      “That’s false.”
                      Nope it is absolutely true – SOMETIMES the courts found that the emergency powers of governors allowed that. That is not at all the same as the executive operating inside the law.

                      PA constitution

                      “Sec. 14. Absentee voting.

                      (a) The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which … qualified electors who … are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability … may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the district in which they respectively reside.”

                      That clause requires voting at a poll except for illness or physical disability.

                      Ҥ 4. Method of elections; secrecy in voting.

                      All elections by the citizens shall be by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law: Provided, That secrecy in voting be preserved.”

                      5 of the 6 contested states have the same or similar constitutional provision. There is no secrecy in a ballot mailed to a person.
                      Mailin voting is unconstitutional in 28 states – it should be in all.

                      These are just two of the provisions of the State constitution that the courts have ignored.

                      These provisions do not exist without reason. They are key requirements of the state constitution because they increase trust int he results of elections.

                      “Governors signed legislation amended by their representatives. Others had the power to change the rules as granted to them by their respective legislatures.”

                      Act 77 is an amendment to the PA election code. Act 77 was not itself amended after final passage – this is another fraudulent left wing claim that is even repeated on the State of PA election website.

                      “You keep saying they didn’t follow the law, but provide no examples.”
                      Asked and answerred.

                      Svelaz – this argument is just stupid. I cited two provisions of the PA constutiton that were violated – by the court, the legislature, and the governor.

                      I would further note that Act 77 was a compromise between Republicans that have controlled the PA legisilature for decades and a democratic governor. The provisions of Act 77 that SCOTUS gutted were most of the provisions that the Legislature wanted as part of the compromise to assure that the fraud they feared from mailin voting would be limited. that is also why Act 77 had a non-separability clause that the court ignored. The legislature not only made clear that these things MUST be done, but also that if the courts rejected those provisions that the entire law would be invalidated.

                      You can claim to have read the PA SCOTUS decision – but if you think it reflect the law – you are incapable of critical thinking.

                      I would further note that in PA and the rest of these states you have pretty much assured that legislatures will not cooperate with the executive so long as democrats control the executive.

                      This is another of the stupid things that the left has been doing arround the country.

                      They compromise to get half what they want, Then they accomplish the rest by fiat. They refuse to follow norms. They result is chaos and lawlessness. Further the unwilliness of the left to stick to agreements to behave honestly – ultimately results int he right behaving the same.

                      What is accomplished will be accomplished as a result of power moves that will just piss people off.

                    4. I have noted that you do not have the consent of the governed. But equally important your behavior is slowly destroying what you have.

                      Inevitably I will end up railing about Biden’s actions as we debate them here.

                      But mostly it does not matter – Democrats will continue to undermine trust in government. They will continue to overreach.

                      It is only a question of time before that explodes in their faces.

                      The election of Trump was a warning that you did not heed.
                      The protests at the capital are another.

                      So long as democrats continue to act radically support for government will decline.

                3. Aside from the election – trust in government is at an all time low – both by democrats and republicans.
                  Trust in the media is only slightly better.
                  Universally – democrats and republicans trust their employers more than government or the media.

                  So why did you think that people were going to trust the elections – especially when conducted them lawlessly.

                  Things even someone with an IQ of 80 can understand – mailin voting is highly prone to fraud.

                  If you justify it by Covid, then you must TIGHTEN all the rules to improve trust – not relax them.

                  You say “there is no proof”, But it is govenrment that must get our trust – not the other way arround.

                  You say we must accept the judgement of the courts – Why ?

                  When they make decisions that even those with an IQ of 80 can tell are wrong, when they have spent years undermining their credibility and ramped things up just before the election.

                  You think you understand power – but you do not grasp it comes from the trust of the people.

                  1. John Say, “So why did you think that people were going to trust the elections – especially when conducted them lawlessly. ” First there’s the fallacy that the elections were conducted lawlessly. That has already been proven to be false.

                    Trump sowed distrust in the elections long before it started. By seeding the idea that the election would be rigged he believed he would increase his chances of winning. Obviously that didn’t work because his claims lacked proof and when presented in court where he had to provide evidence he failed. The trust didn’t come from a vacuum, trump’s constant lying and false claims provided the distrust you speak of.

                    “If you justify it by Covid, then you must TIGHTEN all the rules to improve trust – not relax them. ”

                    Incorrect. Covid necessitated easier access to voting. Ballot boxes and mail in voting were the best solutions to the problem. There is nothing unconstitutional about voting by mail and thanks to trump’s own claims no evidence of massive voter fraud thru the mailed materialized. He only proved it is just as effective as in person voting. The safeguards that were in place actually caught the few instances of “fraud” or just simple mistakes disingenuously characterized proof of voter fraud.

                    “You say we must accept the judgement of the courts – Why ?”

                    Because in the courts all the evidence or the lack of it was reviewed. You day people lost trust in government. That is true, but not because of the courts or the left. Because the president has been sowing doubt for months leading to the election.

                    “You say “there is no proof”, But it is govenrment that must get our trust – not the other way arround. ”

                    Incorrect. The absence of proof is not proof of fraud. It was the government (trump administration) claiming election fraud. When trump or republican lawyers stood before a judge to argue their claims they either not able to provide the proof or only provided hearsay as proof. It was THEIR burden to show that they could be trusted with the claims the government was making. Obviously they were proving in court that their claims were false or not credible. You can’t trust government when it cannot prove it’s own claims. You would think that would be obvious wouldn’t you?

                    Power comes from being able to have the trust of the people. Here trump was not being honest.

                    1. “First there’s the fallacy that the elections were conducted lawlessly.”

                      Which fallacy would that be ? Svelaz – you do not know what a fallacy is.

                      “That has already been proven to be false.”
                      Not to the satisfaction of the majority of people.
                      In fact not at all.

                      Regardless – the laws and constitutions were not followed – ranting endlessly that they were despite the plain language of the law and constitution being disregarded is willful blindness.

                      The fact that the courts blessed the lawlessness – merely damns the courts making it all worse.

                      Your argument is much like the claim that “2 + 2 = 5”

                      You can claim anything if there is no requirement that words have common meaning.

                      People are not drones. We tend to defer to authority. We are not obligated to do so. We defer to authority, to experts to courts when they have a track record for accuracy and integrity. When they do not we properly reject them.

                    2. In Feb 2020, the majority of americans did not trust US elections.

                      I have been fighting for election integrity long before Trump was on the stage.

                      We have had numerous elections that have hinged on small numbers of votes in the past 20 years.
                      And we are likely to have ever more in the future.

                      2016 hinged on 77,000 votes. 2020 hinged on 40,000, Myriads of house elections on 100 votes or less.
                      2000 hinged on less than 500 votes.

                      These results are all inside the margin of error. I.e. even if there was no fraud and they were done properly, innocent errors in counting etc are large enough to alter results. We saw numerous errors in 2020 – 4 states “found” 5000 + Trump votes that had been lost.
                      Errors in counting millions of votes are commonplace. But the odds that it is more than innocent error skyrocket when the corrections all go one way. There is plenty of reason to distrust our elections. It is likely that a serious inquiry into election fraud would find more than 40,000 fraudulent votes in every state in every election – even in person elections. Mostly we tolerate that and do nothing about it because we expect that frauds balance – like errors. but that is an assumption.

                      Most fraud can be eliminated or caught easily. The actual amount of effort to do dramatically better than we currently do is SMALL.
                      Far less than we have spent fighting over it.

                      Though I would note at this time that government by digging in its heels and refusing to look into fraud has made it much harder to restore confidence.

                      The claims regarding DVS systems are easily dealt with. The machines are out there. The ballots are out there, the scans are supposed to be out there. allow independent experts to validate them. Not one expert, not bipartisan experts, but numerous experts. Let each use their own methodolgoy to validate the systems and the election.

                      With respect to illegal voting – crowdsource that. Scan all the ballot envelopes and let everyone on the internet identify the fraudulent ones.

                      You want trust – that requires transparency.

                    3. You keep repeating the same error.

                      There is no right for govenrment to exist. There is no right to legitimacy for an existing government.

                      Trust is ALWAYS something that must be earned – over and over.

                      It is not my burden to prove that you or government or my neighor are untrustoworthy. It is ALWAYS the burden of those seeking trust to prove they are trustworthy.

                      If you do not trust your bank – you withdraw your money.

                      The bank can not say – but you must prove we are not trustworthy first.

                    4. “Trump sowed distrust in the elections long before it started”
                      You are allowed to do that – do you need video of Obama, Biden, Pelosi complaining about the problems with mailin elections ?
                      Ir making other complaints about elections ?

                      “By seeding the idea that the election would be rigged he believed he would increase his chances of winning.”
                      Pretty much the opposite is true. arguing that the elevtion would be rigged demoralizes your own voters and engerizes those who would vote against you.

                      “Obviously that didn’t work”
                      Because that is not what he did.

                      “because his claims lacked proof”
                      When you are making claims to the people the standard is the people.
                      The peoples trust in elections has been declining long before Trump.

                      “when presented in court”
                      Did not happen. Nearly all decisions were based on legal issues, There were fewer hearings on the merits, those are ongoing.

                      There is no instance where Trump lost where witnesses were questioned and actual evidence presented and examined in court.
                      There were not court hearings.

                      “where he had to provide evidence he failed.”
                      Did not happen.

                      “The trust didn’t come from a vacuum”
                      Correct – it did not come at all. The government is not trusted, the elections are not trusted.

                      “Trump’s constant lying and false claims provided the distrust you speak of.”
                      Absolutely the press has succedded in painting Trump as untrustworthy to those like yourself in the left wing nut bubble who are blind to reality”

                      But in doing so the press has destroyed its own trust and further erroded trust in government – why – because the press has been caught lying, the left has been caught lying, democrats have been caught lying. To many many people Trump is trusted because everyone else has been caught in so many lies about him.

                      You do not seem to grasp the danger to your own credibility of rushing to call others liars with weak or no support.

                      “If you justify it by Covid, then you must TIGHTEN all the rules to improve trust – not relax them. ”

                      “Incorrect. Covid necessitated easier access to voting”
                      Nope. There is no such logical conclusion.
                      You may wish that to occur, but that is not a requirement.

                      “Ballot boxes and mail in voting were the best solutions to the problem.”
                      This is more evidence of the failures of the left. You see a problem, you jump to a solution, and you presume it is the best, and that it works.

                      There is absolutely no reason that in person voting must be more risky that mailin voting.
                      Further you are behaving as if this is the 1918 Flu – it is not.
                      Remember Washington fought a war in the midst of a small pox epidemic,

                      Most of the non-left wing nut experts who are not seeking personal power or glory have told us what was obvious from the beginning – that there is pretty much nothing that you can do to stop a respiratory virus with a transmission rate of 2.4-3.8.

                      A large study in denmark just concluded that over the course of 3 months religious mask wearing reduces the likelyhood of getting C19 by 15-20% – over 6months it is half that over a year it is a quarter of that.

                      Again this could be mathematically predicted by the approximate effectiveness of the mask and the number of exposures.

                      Several other studies – both from months ago and recently have found that all public policies accomplish NOTHING. In fact lockdowns appear to increase the likelyhood of getting Covid by about 5%.

                      We will learn more and more over time – though the vast majority of what we learn was predictable and mostly known before C19 appeared.
                      Government policies can not thwart highly infectuous respiratory viruses.

                      So you are trying to justify violating constitutions using preventive measures which we know do not work.

                      Further – constitutions are not subject to a reasonableness qualifier.

                      If you beleive there should be a covid exception for mailin elections – change the constitution. We had months to do so.

                      “There is nothing unconstitutional about voting by mail”
                      Of course there is 28 states made it uncounstitutional in the late 19th or early 20th century.

                      “and thanks to trump’s own claims no evidence of massive voter fraud thru the mailed materialized.”
                      Both false and irrelevant. It was well known long before this election that mailin voting results in massive fraud.
                      Even if you were right in your claim that did not occur this time – ultimately it will.

                      “He only proved it is just as effective as in person voting.”
                      Not even close. Not even within an order of magnitude.

                      “The safeguards that were in place”
                      There were no safeguards in place, pretty much all were removed.
                      You keep claiming fraud was not proven – but the fact is we have no clue how many fraudulent votes were cast.
                      We only know how many fraudulent votes COULD have been cast – and that number is enormous – it is possible that millions of fraudulent votes were cast. It is not likely that high, but it is possible, and nothing that has happened thus far has reduced that possibility.

                      “actually caught the few instances of “fraud””
                      These people were not “caught” by government, or by safeguards. They were typically caught because they told someone and they got reported. People who voted multiple times and kept quiet about it were not caught.

                      “or just simple mistakes disingenuously characterized proof of voter fraud.”
                      Absolutely many of the anti-fraud measures also result in legitimate ballots being tossed. That is unfortunate, but in the real world with mailin voting, you can not acheive perfection – you either have to enable fraud or reject ballots with errors.

                      “You say we must accept the judgement of the courts – Why ?”

                      “Because in the courts all the evidence or the lack of it was reviewed.”
                      Still false. There are instances in which the courts have had evidentiary hearing – those cases are still ongoing,
                      There are no decided election cases that have had evidentiary hearings.

                      There have been evidentiary hearings by state legislatures,. These have demonstrated that the opportunity for fraud is extremely high.

                      “You day people lost trust in government. That is true”
                      What is a “day person” ?

                      Regardless, trust in government has been lost – you have agreed with that, and that is the end of it.
                      Government is not legitimate on its own authority – you keep making that argument and it is false.

                      While there are inumerable good reasons to mistrust government generally and the current government specifically,
                      even if people mistrust government for bad reasons – the government is still illegitimate.

                      “but not because of the courts”
                      They are clearly a factor. Had the courts actually done as you claim they did, and held evidentiary hearings and tested the allegations of fraud and error – public trust would be higher.

                      Please show me the transcripts of testimony regarding this election ? Outside of state legislatures there is almost none, and none in the cases that were lost.

                      ” Because the president has been sowing doubt for months leading to the election.”
                      Again irrelevant.

                      You seem to beleive this is illegitimate, on the countrary it is a GOOD thing. “sewing doubt” forces government to prove trust.
                      It has failed.

                      ““You say “there is no proof”, But it is govenrment that must get our trust – not the other way arround. ””

                      “Incorrect. The absence of proof is not proof of fraud.”
                      Why do you keep repeating this fallacy ?

                      Government is always obligated to prove its own legitimacy.
                      Courts and hearings are A MEANS. They are not THE means.

                      The soviets had trials where courts convicted people – does that mean that the USSR proved its case ?
                      Right now Putin is conducting a show trial – do you trust the results ?

                      Accross the world we have seen courts without credibility render decisions that people laugh at.
                      They may have the force of law, but they do not have the trust of people.

                      And you have added the US to that list.
                      In addition to undermining the government with lawlessness – you have undermined the courts.

                      “It was the government (trump administration) claiming election fraud.”
                      No it was people – Trump and others. thousands of affadavits. Studies produced by people like Jimmy Carter.

                      “It was THEIR burden to show that they could be trusted with the claims the government was making.”
                      Given that you can not even keep straight who the plantifs were, I am not sure how to address this.

                      Regardless, you keep fixating on Trump.

                      The courts owe Trump nothing.

                      It is the people that the government is obligated to prove Trust to.

                      You fixate on court cases. Wow! Trump was denied standing, or foreclosed on some claim because it was too late, or too early. or ….
                      We can debate those choices and decisions with respect to trump.

                      But elections are not about candidates, they are about government securing the trust of the people.
                      The duty of government to conduct trustworthy elections – is a duty to the people – not the candidates.
                      And it is governments burden of proof.

                      Your arguments regarding Trump and election claims are both false and irrelevant. Even if true they would be irrelevant.

                      The duty – not just of the courts, but of government as a whole was to secure the trust of the people.
                      They failed to do so.

                      “Obviously”
                      Nope.

                      “they were proving in court that their claims were false or not credible.You can’t trust government when it cannot prove it’s own claims. You would think that would be obvious wouldn’t you?”

                      Still confusing the plantif. Government was not the plantif in these cases. Candidate Trump is not president Trump is not the DOJ or Federal government.

                      The federal govenrment was not a party to any of these cases. State governments were the defendants, and there were a variety of plantiffs all private.

                      “Power comes from being able to have the trust of the people.”
                      Correct and you do not have it.

            2. History is hard for some to grasp. The American Revolution was the people rising up and overturning British rule. Today we are seeing mob violence from the left that has been yielded to lawlessly by our legislators. The Capitol riot was an unfortunate incident that was lawless and didn’t represent one particular ideology. In fact it appears the instigators and some of the violent ones were coming from a variety of persuasions.

              1. If you fail to see the American revolution as a conspiracy by a native set of aristocrats, with liberal capitalist leanings and a desire to wear the crown even as they pretended not to do so, by unseating the feudal English aristocracy, then you misunderstood it. It was in so sense a random mob or an unplanned phenomenon. Noir was the French revolution either

                No mob ever succeeds unless there is some other organized force waiting to take action behind it. The Capitol event was just a farce

                Saloth sar

              2. The capital protests are complex with many actors involved.

                But they would not have happened as they did but for the lack of trust in government. The same lack of trust that ultimately resulted in the american revolution.

                Do not be confused into believing it was insignificant by the fact that it was messy, and many actors sought to distort it.

          2. John say,

            “ it is incredibly rare for people to overrule the courts – in the US. But the power to do so when the courts fail exists. And that is demonstated by this election and its fallout.”

            What was demonstrated? What is the mechanism you’re referring to?

            “ It was the duty of the courts – not to give Trump what he wanted but to STOP the lawlessness in this election – which they failed miserably at.”

            That’s FALSE.

            The courts did exactly what they were supposed to do. Trump’s lawyers failed to provide proof of their claims and any “proof” they did provide was without merit.

            You often cite the PA SC as an example, but upon reading the ruling it is clear the law was indeed followed. The arguments that the law was not followed was dependent on an extremely narrow and literal reading of the law. The courts are not just charged with interpreting law, they are also charged with interpreting intent and using established tests for determining such things. Every single claim was judged on its merits and it included meticulous explanations why.

            Courts don’t just read the law and apply it’s literal intent. They also read the intent of the law.

            1. ““ it is incredibly rare for people to overrule the courts – in the US. But the power to do so when the courts fail exists. And that is demonstated by this election and its fallout.”

              What was demonstrated? What is the mechanism you’re referring to?”
              46% of people concluded the election was stolen. a majority think it was fraud ridden.

              To be clear that lack of trust is not the product of a few days or a few months or trump speaches. It is the product of decades of slowly accelerating failure of government and of the left.

              I keep stressing that the left and government are not trusted – If you do not grasp that – you do not live in the real world.

              Trust is gone – you must earn it back, that is hard.
              we can quiblle over details, but despite what you claim – very large numbers of people do not trust government or the left or media.
              I beleive that is proveably justified.

              Regardless, it is real.

              ““ It was the duty of the courts – not to give Trump what he wanted but to STOP the lawlessness in this election – which they failed miserably at.”

              That’s FALSE.

              The courts did exactly what they were supposed to do. Trump’s lawyers failed to provide proof of their claims and any “proof” they did provide was without merit.

              You often cite the PA SC as an example, but upon reading the ruling it is clear the law was indeed followed. The arguments that the law was not followed was dependent on an extremely narrow and literal reading of the law. The courts are not just charged with interpreting law, they are also charged with interpreting intent and using established tests for determining such things. Every single claim was judged on its merits and it included meticulous explanations why.

              Courts don’t just read the law and apply it’s literal intent. They also read the intent of the law.”

              Again you are lost int he weeds. There is no law without government, there is no government without the consent and trust of the people.

              It is the first duty of government to maintain that trust and consent.

              I beleive correctly that government does so by following the law, and by foreclosing lawlessness.

              Either you are wrong in claiming they have, or I am wrong in claiming that is sufficient.
              I think the former is more likely than the later. But it does not matter.
              There is insufficient trust, insufficient consent, and that is declining – not just with respect to this election.

              Securing the trust and consent of the governed is the #1 duty of government – it failed. That is inarguable.
              We are debating why – except you missed the failure.

              1. John say, now you’re just splitting hairs here. You keep saying the problem is trust in government. But you ignore the fact that trump IS the source of this mistrust. It is not the left and government. It is trump’s own rhetoric that has sowed this mistrust you speak of. He’s the one who keeps claiming without proof that the election was rigged. He often set the narrative that things are unfair or “something is not right” with out elaborating.

                “Courts don’t just read the law and apply it’s literal intent. They also read the intent of the law.”

                Again you are lost int he weeds. There is no law without government, there is no government without the consent and trust of the people. ” This is clearly a deflection. What you stated has nothing to do with the point that courts DO determine intent. It’s the basis of their role in interpretation. It’s a basic tenet of what the court’s job is.

                The PA SC explained in great detail why they determined the law was followed and they did so with multiple examples and long tested rationales every other court relies on.

                “You are being more rational than normal. Most of your arguments are good.

                what is missing is your blindness to the loss of trust in government.”

                I’ll take that as a compliment despite the mild insult. It is not blindness to the loss. It’s about your singular view that ignores trump’s constant degradation of that trust by insinuating falsely that there is fraud being committed despite no proof. Blaming the courts or the media for that lack of proof is a poor excuse. I point out that even strident trump supporters like Lou Dobbs and Tucker Carlson politely asked for this proof themselves and they got none. They wondered aloud and obliviously why? The answer was the simplest one that everyone else already knew. There was no proof.

                1. “You keep saying the problem is trust in government.”
                  Correct.

                  “But you ignore the fact that trump IS the source of this mistrust.”

                  Again logic eludes you. You confuse words with causes.

                  Again a typical left problem.

                  If I say “your fat” – does that make you fat ?

                  Making false claims undermines Trust in YOU.
                  Making true claims enhances trust in YOU.

                  Conducting lawless elections undermines trust in government.
                  Failure of the courts both before and after to thwart lawlessness – undermines trust in govenrment.
                  Failure to investigate allegations of fraud – undermines trust in government.

                  We still do not know how many people voted in Pennsylvania or who they were – 2 months after the election.
                  Yet we know how many people voted for Trump and how many for Biden.

                  If you do not know the first by now, why should we trust what you say about the 2nd ?

                  You say the courts were correct in their decisions about the law and constitution.
                  Well how could the constitution or laws been written that would have stopped the courts ?

                  You seem to think that it should not be possible for the language of the constitution or law to prevent the left through the courts from doing as it pleases.

                  The PA constitution says voting must be by secret ballot. So how was vote by mail secret ?
                  What words could the constitution have used to require secret ballots that the court could not have LAWLESSLY “reasoned” their way arround ?

                  Act 77 said Ballots received after 8pm Election day could not be counted.
                  Seems pretty clear to me. It is irrelevant whether the PA Supreme court thinks that is not reasonable.
                  If the justices wish to legislate – they should run for seats in the legislature.
                  Certainly the court could strike the law – if that provision violated the PA constitution. But Act 77 had a non-separability clause – strike one provision and the whole law goes. That was done deliberately to thwart exactly this kind of legislation by the courts.

                  You said the opinion of the court was reasonable. But it is not the role of the court to be reasonable – the legislature decides what is reasonable. The courts decided what is legal, and what is constitutional and what is not.

                  Act 77 Also required mailin ballots to be hand delivered or posted to the county elections office.
                  How could the legislature have written the law to mean precisely that.

                  The court on its own converted office to offices to kiosks to unsupervised ballot boxes scattered all over.

                  I know you think that is reasonable – it is a gigantic invitation to fraud. How exactly is an unsupervised ballot box a secret ballot ?
                  How does it meet the requirementes of a law that requires ballots to be delivered in person to the county election office or to be mailed there.

                  And how is it that the courts are free to rewrite legislation ?

                  Again how is it that constitutionas and laws can be written so that courts will not change them as the PA SCOTUS did ?

                  If you can not answer that – they why do we have legislatures and governors at all – why not just have courts.
                  Why have legislation and constitutions ?

                  How are democrats and Biden going to be certain that the federal courts do not do the same to them as the PA SCOTUS did to the state legislatures.

                  After all what stops the supreme court from deciding that a border wall is “reasonable” and just directing the federal govenrment to build one ? How is that different from changing Act 77 or the PA constitution ?

                  If the courts are not required to read the constitutions and laws as written when you do not like these laws and provisions, why are they required to read them as written when you do ?

                  When government is lawless – there is no guarantee that lawlessness will benefit the left rather than the right – or no one at all.

                  And you wonder why Trust in government is at an all time low.

                  “A government that can give you everything you want, is a government that can take away everything that you have.”

                2. “It is not the left and government. It is trump’s own rhetoric that has sowed this mistrust you speak of. He’s the one who keeps claiming without proof that the election was rigged. He often set the narrative that things are unfair or “something is not right” with out elaborating.”
                  False and irrelevant – both you and I are perfectly free to claim government is untrustworthy or that it is incredibly trustworthy.
                  It is called free speech. We are not required to prove what we say is true to be able to say it.
                  Nor are we barred from persuading other – we may do so with facts, and we may do so with lies.

                  I am free to attempt to undermine trust in government, you are free to try to build it.

                  In the end people decide for themselves. They decide for many reasons, the phase of the moon the color of some ones tie.
                  But mostly they decide based on the truth.

                  If the people do not trust government – it is likely that government is not trustworthy. Regardless, it is CERTAIN that government has not earned their trust. Government is not entitled to our trust – nor is Trump or Biden.

                  You say Trump undermined trust in government and the election. That is false. He may have TRIED to do so. And YOU may have concluded that he was not convincing – but people came to their own conclusions. You are free to try to persuade them. You are not free to use force to overrule them. A significant majority of people do not trust government, a smaller majority beleive the election was fraudulent, an plurality beleive that Trump won. You may have succeeded in stuffing the ballot box – but you did not succeed in persuading people.

                  The fact that there were more ballots for Biden, but more PEOPLE beleive Trump won – is pretty much proof that the election was lawless and fraudulent.

                  “”Again you are lost int he weeds. There is no law without government, there is no government without the consent and trust of the people. ” This is clearly a deflection. What you stated has nothing to do with the point that courts DO determine intent. It’s the basis of their role in interpretation. It’s a basic tenet of what the court’s job is.”
                  Nope.
                  The constitution is what it says.
                  The law is what it says.

                  If the court can not find clear meaning in a law – they are obligated to strike it as unconstitutionally vague.
                  The courts are NOT there to figure out what the legislature intended. They are there to figure out what the legislature WROTE.
                  When they can not do so – they MUST send the issue back to the legislature.

                  “The PA SC explained in great detail why they determined the law was followed and they did so with multiple examples and long tested rationales every other court relies on.”

                  They did – and the arguments they made would allow them to change any law ever written and any provision in the constitution.

                  This is pretty trivial – if there is no possible language that would not have resulted in the court changing the meaning of the law – then the court is LAWLESS.

                  It is irrelevant how reasonable the court may sound. Courts are not there to be reasonable. They are there to uphold the law as written.
                  They can strike down laws that are unconstitutional or over broad or vague – they can not rewrite them.
                  Writing legislation is the role of the legislature.

                  The PA SCOTUS decision was LAWLESS – as were the actions of the governors.

                  The courts are not there to give one party or the other what it can not get through the constitutional or legislative process.
                  They are their to assure that the laws and constitution are applied as written.

                  They are not to get out their ouija board to change the plain langage of the law or constitution.

                  This is a no brianer.

                  “You are being more rational than normal. Most of your arguments are good.
                  what is missing is your blindness to the loss of trust in government.”

                  “I’ll take that as a compliment despite the mild insult.”
                  It is not an insult – it is a fact. Are you debating the long term trends of loss of trust in government ?

                  The lawlessness of this election is merely brings us another step closer to sufficient lack of trust to justify violence.

                  “It is not blindness to the loss.”

                  ” It’s about your singular view that ignores trump’s constant degradation of that trust by insinuating falsely that there is fraud being committed despite no proof. Blaming the courts or the media for that lack of proof is a poor excuse.”

                  Another typical leftist fallacy.
                  While you are wrong about your claims of fact, that is irrelevant.
                  AGAIN – anyone is free to speak to persuade people to trust in government, and anyone is free to speak to persuade people to not trust government. People are free to beleive who they please – they can do so based on facts, they can do so based on lies or their mood.

                  We do not agree on what the truth is. There is therefore no means to stop someone from speaking what we beleive are lies or falsehoods.

                  As I see it you have blinders to the lawlessness and evidence of fraud in this election. Am I free to silence you ? If the people had chosen to beleive you rather than Trump can I FORCE them to beleive otherwise – just because I think you are wrong or lying ?

                  Trust in government is established by argument – not by force. If you think Trump is wrong – persuade people.
                  You make bold claims that he has failed to prove fraud. Clearly a majority of people have accepted that Trump proved fraud – or they came to that conclusion on their own.

                  You are correct the courts concluded differently. Though you are incorrect about why. But that does not matter.
                  Trust in government is determined by the people – not by the courts.

                  “I point out that even strident trump supporters like Lou Dobbs and Tucker Carlson politely asked for this proof themselves and they got none. They wondered aloud and obliviously why? The answer was the simplest one that everyone else already knew. There was no proof.”

                  Do you know what a fallacy is ? This is a bad appeal to authority. Neither Dobb’s nor Carlson are actual authorities.
                  I have no idea what Dobbs might have said, nor do I care. I am pretty sure you are misrepresenting Carlson – which undermines my trust in you. But even if you were correct – I do not care.

                  I have presented SOME of the evidence of lawlessness.

                  If the governors and courts not following the law and constitution is not lawlessness – then lawless government is not possible.

                  In 1775 the governors, and courts did what King George wanted – regardless of the laws passed by legislatures.
                  That was lawless and resulted in a revolution.

                  Your argument that government actions must be lawful because the courts says so is false and an appeal to authority.
                  We trust the courts – because they mostly get things right. When they fail to do so – we do not trust them.

                3. If the portion of people who did not trust govenrment was HALF what it currently is – the government would be weak, it would be arguably illegitimate. If only 25% of people thought the election was stolen that would be sufficient to undermine the legitimacy of the government.

                  You say Trump “undermined trust” – the remedy is simple – Truth.

                  The governors could have followed the law – whether they liked the law or not.
                  They could have tried to get the legislature to change the law.
                  The courts could have enforced the law as written.

                  The could have held hearing and allowed evidence to be presented and challenged. But they did not.
                  The decisions that you claim support you were made without evidentiary hearings.
                  The actual evidentiary hearings – mostly conducted by state legislatures – went well for Trump and bad for the left.
                  You can watch them online if you wish – if Youtube has not taken them down.

                  You can also read the affadavits – now over 1000 of them, many with first hand accounts.

                  You seem to like the PA SCOTUS decision.
                  But to prove that a courts interpretation of a law is valid, you must be able to show how using the same reasoning the law and constitution could have been changed to get the opposite outcome.
                  What is clear from the reasoning of PA SCOTUS is that there is no way the PA constitution could have been written to actually require secret ballots.
                  There was no way Act 77 could have been written to end the receipt of ballots at 8pm election day.
                  There was no way Act 77 could have been written to require ballots to be mailed or delivered in person to a specific address.

                  It is not the role of the courts to decide whether ballots must be secret or not, That is accomplished by the law and constitution.
                  It is not the role of the courts to decide at what time receipt of ballots must stop. That is the role of the legislature.
                  It is not the role of the courts to decide where and how ballots are to be delivered. That is the role of the legislature.

                  If we do not follow our laws and constitution – we are lawless.
                  The absence of the rule of law is the absence of legitimate govenrment.

                  1. John say,

                    I like what you write if I have time to read it. I suggest maybe you should put/save some of the writings
                    or audio back for a later time if you can.

                    This is one of those remarkable times in history where much happens in a very short time period.

                    Could be other later might enjoy your rendition of current events.

                    LOL, he*ll the govt was forced viva Snowden they already are saving most everything.

                    1. Thank you for the compliment.

                      I have often considered bringing up my on Blog on http://www.thebrokenwindow.net. I have a huge trove of economics papers and data sources hidden there that I started collecting after the housing bubble burst. This event and subsequent research moved me from an average limited government small business person who mostly wanted to ignore government, to the clear understanding that govenrment economic actions ALWAYS fail. That the only role the government has in the economy is to provide “the rule of law”.

                      The real world data is damning. All a priori government intrusions into the economy are net harmful. PERIOD.

                      Subsequent to that I have slowly become ever more libertarian as thought and the real world have pushed me.

                      Anyway, I have not brought up a blog because I can not find clean simple blogging software that is free from control by big tech.

                      Finally I would suggest looking at Basiat’s That Which is Seen and that which is unseen – and anything else by Bastiat.

                      Most everything is foreseable after the fact. But the vast majority of us are unable to see beyond the first order consequences of actions.

                      As an example – the government, through law and the FED actively pushed home ownership in the 90’s and early 2000’s.
                      That seems like an obvious good thing – we all should be able to agree that more people owning their own homes is a good thing.
                      But it turned out to be a bad thing.

                      Ultimately I found that it was foreseable that it would be a bad thing – though not foreseable exactly how it would be a bad thing.

                      Even free people and free markets usually do not forsee the 2nd order impacts of their decisions. But unlike government they rapidly respond.

            2. You are being more rational than normal. Most of your arguments are good.

              what is missing is your blindness to the loss of trust in government.

          3. John Say, it is not the function of the courts to “stop the lawlessness in this election” or “restore the trust of the people in government.” The function of a court is to provide a framework of due process for the adjudication of a cognizable dispute which falls within the scope of its power to act. It is the duty of lawyers in the first instance to determine that a cognizable claim exists, to properly prepare a request for relief that adequately sets forth the factual and legal basis for that claim and to file it in the proper court. Once these preliminary requirements have been met, it is responsibility of the lawyers to gather and present to the court legally competent evidence which supports the claim and otherwise enables the court (or the jury as the case may be) to determine whether the claim should prevail. Good lawyers know how to do this. In the event of a mistake serious enough to affect the outcome, appellate courts exist to correct it. The failure of the Trump campaign to prevail at either the trial or appellate level in the dozens of cases it filed is not the fault of the courts but a consequence of bad lawyering. If you have taken the time to review any of the court files (confession: I have not personally reviewed all of them), I believe you would agree that some of these folks have been paid extraordinary amounts of money for extraordinarily poor work. Instead, however, you have elected to predicate your criticism upon the conclusion that electoral “lawlessness” occurred. That’s called begging the question. (By the way, I’m still trying to figure out how the President could outsource the packing of the judicial branch to the Federalist Society and conclude that one of those judges would rule that the federal government gets to tell the states how to conduct elections.)

            The “trust of the people in government” requires a government worthy of trust. When politicians endlessly repeat unsubstantiated charges of dead people voting, late night vote dumps, ballot alteration, poll watcher abuse and malware infested tabulating machines over a period of months, judges can hardly be expected to pull wands from the folds of their judicial robes and sprinkle magic truth dust over the misled multitudes.

            Politicians created the mess. They simply don’t have the moral courage to do anything about it.

            1. “John Say, it is not the function of the courts to “stop the lawlessness in this election” ”
              Of course it is – thwarting lawless government is one of the primary roles of the courts.

              “or “restore the trust of the people in government.””
              That is a duty of all of government – including the courts.

              Just to be clear – you can play whatever semantic and ideological games you wish with this.

              If government is lawless – it will ultimately fail.
              If government does not have the trust of the people – it will ultimately fail

              “The “trust of the people in government” requires a government worthy of trust. When politicians endlessly repeat unsubstantiated charges of dead people voting, late night vote dumps, ballot alteration, poll watcher abuse and malware infested tabulating machines over a period of months, judges can hardly be expected to pull wands from the folds of their judicial robes and sprinkle magic truth dust over the misled multitudes.”

              FALSE, it is quite litterally the duty of govenrment not only to make certain that those allegations are not true, but to make certain that elections have been conducted such that people KNOW they are not true.

              It is in theory possible to design a voting system that works over the internet, and is perfectly secure and fraud free.
              But it is not possible to design one such as that that people will trust.

              Government can not throw a black box at us and say – trust us. There are numerous requirements for Trust – one of those is transparency.
              another is systems that are not deeply flawed.
              You do not want to hear about dead people voting – remove dead people from the voter registration roles. Require photo ID to vote.

              Every charge you claim is unsubstantiated – we are all expected to reject on FAITH – well you have lost the trust of the people.
              So they are not taking claims that large numbers of dead people did not vote on faith.

              As I said in other posts – without trust there is no legitimate government – and that is a major factor in the capital protests – lack of trust in government. Government, the left, those in power do not get to say “trust us” – Claims made by some politician are false.
              Maybe they are maybe they aren’t but TRUST IS EARNED. Government is not entitled to it.

              No Trump did not create this mess. If the claims against the election eventually prove false. the responsibility for those who beleived them STILL rests with govenrment – not Trump. The duty to conduct elections that are not only fraud free, but that we BELEIVE are free free rests with government – not those who crticize it.

              BTW dead people have voted in every election in US history.

      2. John say, “ If you can not provide bright lines you can not restrict speech PERIOD.”

        That is mostly true. I don’t disagree with that generalization, but in reality there are nuances and circumstances that justify restricting free speech. No constitutional right or protection is absolute. They never have been.

        “ We do not need bright lines throughout our lives.”

        Again, true, but unfortunately conservatives in general insist on bright lines. Interestingly those who are more religious tend to define issues in such bright lines, but only when it’s in their best interests. Once they are subject to the same criteria, suddenly there are nuances to consider.

        “ If people can not know what the law is CLEARLY in order to follow it – we are lawless and probably tyranical.”

        No, we are just ignorant. The remedy for that is education and a willingness to really understand. People who not know what the law is clearly also are people who are most easily led. Such as Trump supporters.

        1. “John say, “ If you can not provide bright lines you can not restrict speech PERIOD.”

          That is mostly true. I don’t disagree with that generalization”
          Amazing – agreement!!!!

          “but in reality there are nuances and circumstances that justify restricting free speech. No constitutional right or protection is absolute. They never have been.”
          Further agreement. BUT it is important to note that nuances and circumstances do NOT obliterate the requirement for bright lines.
          The merely allow for specific bright line exceptions.

          BTW the fact that a right is not absolute – does not preclude bright lines.

          ““ We do not need bright lines throughout our lives.”

          Again, true, but unfortunately conservatives in general insist on bright lines. Interestingly those who are more religious tend to define issues in such bright lines, but only when it’s in their best interests. Once they are subject to the same criteria, suddenly there are nuances to consider.”
          If this were the 80’s I would agree. Regardless, specific segments of the right have sought and seek to regulate positive morality.

          But it is not the 80’s. The right – even evangelicals were milli-seconds behind democrats in accepting homosexuality. \
          the font of intolerance today is near exclusively from the left.

          There have been numerous failures of religion historically – religion is responsible for enormous amounts of bloodshed – though a drop compared to socialism. Regardless religion is an inherent human trait. You can beleive in deities, or you can invest ideology with religious properties. Left, Right we are all religious – regardless of what we claim. But for all its failures organized religion has been a major factor in developing our moral code over centuries and inculcating it. The religion of ideologies has done neither leaving us with religious fervor with not moral foundations. That is worse. I would further note that for some odd reasons the left has latched onto islam – the most popular religion in the world AND the most backward, intolerant and violent and oddly idolized it. WestBorro Baptist church is tame compared to half the muslims in the mideast.

          As the right – particularly the religious right moved to ever greater tolerance the left because ever more intolerant.
          No institution seeks to meddle more in the private lives of people than the modern left.

          Finally, I am not a conservative – I am libertarian.

          They are different.

          ““ If people can not know what the law is CLEARLY in order to follow it – we are lawless and probably tyranical.”

          No, we are just ignorant. The remedy for that is education and a willingness to really understand. People who not know what the law is clearly also are people who are most easily led. Such as Trump supporters.”

          Absolutely wrong. Have you ever tried to educate a person with an IQ of 80 to do anything ? It takes weeks to teach them a task that ordinary people can learn in 15min.

          There is a limited amount of “education” that must be inculcated to formalize our instinctive understanding of right and wrong.
          Regardless, the law can not exceed the abilities of the least of us to understand – and that is why it must be clear and limited to the greatest extent possible. No amount of education fixes this.

          Government – like everything else must work in the world we have with the people we have – not some wished for utopia.

          There are myriads of govenrment programs that worked incredibly as trail programs. and failed miserably when we implimented them broadly ? One of the reasons is that trial programs are cherry picked – we get the clients who are most likely to succeed and we match them with the best social workers and best socialogists and …

          But we have to make the real world work with the people we have. Not the ones we wish we had.
          That is one of the geniuses of the free market – it dynamically adapts to find very nearly the best use for everything and everyone. It pushes disruptive changes that raise standard of living, but it rapidly adjusts for the disruption.

          Government can not do either well or often at all.

          Regardless, education as you seek to use it is and always will fail. We are not equal. We are not equally educable.

          Bright lines, simple rules that even the least of us can understand. Leave complexity to private life were we get to choose based on our own abilites.

          1. John say, at last some commonality in views.

            “ BUT it is important to note that nuances and circumstances do NOT obliterate the requirement for bright lines.”

            I agree they don’t obliterate the requirements, however as may be for case in thought realistically nuances and circumstances tend to blurr those bright lines due to the human nature of expectation vs. reality. This is especially true in a diverse society with very differing views, beliefs, opinions, and most importantly self interests.

            “ If this were the 80’s I would agree. Regardless, specific segments of the right have sought and seek to regulate positive morality.”

            I disagree, the evangelical movement of the 80’ is still very much a part of today’s political discourse. Same sex marriage, equality, and abortion. They remained a major driving force for republicans throughout the last 30 years.

            The perception that the left has become more intolerant is a misconception. What many on the right see as intolerance is actually pushback on the right’s drive to dictate morality on others. The real intolerance has always been associated with the right. Conservatives always seek to slow down or prevent change as much as they can. That’s always been the case historically.

            Dictating morality by rule of law based on their view that it’s how things should be is ironically what they despise most when it’s applied to them. It reeks of privilege.

            “ Absolutely wrong. Have you ever tried to educate a person with an IQ of 80 to do anything ? It takes weeks to teach them a task that ordinary people can learn in 15min.”

            John say, I disagree. This is an extreme example. But what you used doesn’t mean it isn’t possible. Sure it may take longer to educate those who have a lower intellectual capacity, but that doesn’t mean there’s a majority of people who have such IQ’s. You’re implying that it’s too much work and a waste of time to actually do the difficult job of educating such people. If you ascribe to that attitude we as a society will never progress. To believe that there is a “limited” amount of education that can be inculcated is to put a barrier on pushing progress of society.

            “ No institution seeks to meddle more in the private lives of people than the modern left.”

            That is not true. I disagree. The only institution that seeks to meddle more in the private lives of people are the religious right. From dictating sexual relations in private homes, to dictating women’s choices when it comes to issues such as abortion.

            The right has a much more distinct record on meddling in private lives. I don’t deny the left does too with dictating such as political correctness, and some environmental issues. But meddling in private lives is the bread and butter of the religious right.

            1. Wake up, every government has ‘meddled in private lives.” these are laws and they suit the masters of the day as they please

              The idea you can have a government that ‘Respects privacy” “Truly” is just another false promise.

              They can and they do, but only to a degree, one or another,. but they can’t ever do it as much as somebody who just got pinched would like.

              Sal Sar

            2. “I agree they don’t obliterate the requirements, however as may be for case in thought realistically nuances and circumstances tend to blurr those bright lines due to the human nature of expectation vs. reality. This is especially true in a diverse society with very differing views, beliefs, opinions, and most importantly self interests.”

              Diverse societies require stronger bright lines – and fewer of them.
              Diversity weakens shared experience, values and identity, which weakens our ability to deal with nuance.
              Diverse people are less likely to share the same nuances.

              I am not claiming diversity is bad – only that it requires more limited and more well defined government.

              “I disagree, the evangelical movement of the 80’ is still very much a part of today’s political discourse.”
              How old are you – you seem ignorant about the past.

              “Same sex marriage, equality, and abortion. They remained a major driving force for republicans throughout the last 30 years.”
              And the present.

              If you think that same sex marraige is a major political issue – beyond the desire of evangelicals to be left alone, you are completely ignorant of reality. Were you alive in the 70’s or 80’s or even as recently as the early 2000’s ?

              If you do not grasp that liberals won the culture war – it is over. There are barely a handful on the right still ranting about gay marraige.
              You do not seem to grasp that there is a world of difference between many evangelicals still considering homosexuality a sin – even Catholics still consider it a sin. And there wanting to make it illegal or to restrict actual rights based on orientation.

              If you elevate equality to a principle – you will ultimately become violence. Every single ideology that has focused on equality has been murderous. Look at the french revolution, Stalin, Mao. Pol Pot, ….

              We are not equal. That is a FACT. Further fictional equality is at odds with a principle that works – freedom.
              You can not be free and be equal. Free people amplify their differences – mostly in ways that are beneficial to all.
              Liberty requires that in the limited domain of government that government is blind to most of our differences.
              But outside of government that is not and can not be true.

              You are not going to get a super bowl ring – only a tiny portion of people are that exceptional.

              The left’s fixation on impossible equality is the root of their constant failure.

              BTW this is not a conservative/progressive thing. The conflict between liberty and equality permeates ideology – fascism is fixated in equality, as is socialism and communism.

              If you are specifically fixated on discrimination – look arround you – the most discriminatory group in existance are those on the left.
              Regardless, discrimination means choice and you can not get rid of it.
              but if you are specifically fixated on certain specific forms of discrimination such as race or sex – these are at the lowest levels then they have every been, and the lowest levels inside the US than elsewhere in the world.

              The lefts ranting as if only yesterday all blacks were slaves, is just more of their idiocy.

              Abortion was not primarily a left right issue until very recently – pro-life democrats were quite common until recently.
              Regardless if you think abortion is a simple moral issue – you are an idiot.

              “The perception that the left has become more intolerant is a misconception.”
              Nope – it is an absolute fact – and it gets far worse all the time.

              “What many on the right see as intolerance is actually pushback on the right’s drive to dictate morality on others.”
              Nope, there is very little of that today – you are living in the distant past.
              Today it is the left dictating positive moraltiry to all and trying to impose it by force through government.

              “The real intolerance has always been associated with the right.”
              Nope – that is not even true historically. Wilson was one of our early leftist presidents and he was one of the most racist.

              “Conservatives always seek to slow down or prevent change as much as they can. That’s always been the case historically.”
              That is correct. It is also logically correct.

              At at any given time – the world as it is works. Not perfectly, but it still works. Change CAN be good, but the odds are that most change is bad. This is true not just in politics but throughout everything. Most mutations fail. Most experiments fail. Most busineses fail. Most new ideas fail. We can not improve unless we change – but we must do so carefully – because most change will make things WORSE not better.

              “Dictating morality by rule of law based on their view that it’s how things should be is ironically what they despise most when it’s applied to them. It reeks of privilege.”

              You have a shallow understanding of law and morality. Law is inherently about morality. But there are two types of morality – positive and negative. The golden rule is positive morality – it imposes a positive duty on others to act. It CAN NOT be imposed by force, by law. It is not practical to do so. Law is about negative morality – it imposes a duty to NOT do things – to NOT use force against others.

              You can not divorce law from morality.

              Today it is the left that is by far the busiest trying to force positive morality on all of us.

              ““ Absolutely wrong. Have you ever tried to educate a person with an IQ of 80 to do anything ? It takes weeks to teach them a task that ordinary people can learn in 15min.”

              John say, I disagree.”
              You can disagree all you want but you are on the wrong side of reality.
              We are not equal – not a single one of us. We can not be made equal and efforts to do so are inherently harmful.

              ” This is an extreme example. But what you used doesn’t mean it isn’t possible.”
              Of course it does and it is not an extreme example.
              We can go through every single human atrribute – and none of us share it equally.

              We are not as an example all male – and you can not force that.
              we are not all straight. Further orientation is not even binary, it is on a spectrum.
              We are not all athletic – nor is that binary.
              We are not all capable musically.

              Every single human attribute functions must as intelligence does.
              We are not equal and we can not be made equal.

              That is not the extreme, that is reality.

              “Sure it may take longer to educate those who have a lower intellectual capacity”
              It not merely takes longer – it may be impossible.

              “but that doesn’t mean there’s a majority of people who have such IQ’s”
              IQ is distributed on a bell curve.

              “You’re implying that it’s too much work and a waste of time to actually do the difficult job of educating such people.”
              I have said no such thing. What I am saying is that we are not equal PERIOD.

              “If you ascribe to that attitude we as a society will never progress.”
              The opposite is true – we are not ants, or bees, those are animals where with a few exceptions there is little or no individuation.

              Human differences are a good thing not a bad one – you claim to value diversity – all that means is valuing differences.

              “To believe that there is a “limited” amount of education that can be inculcated is to put a barrier on pushing progress of society.”
              Again you are not reading what I wrote – and you are off in never never land. Further you are litterally arguing that our inequality is equality.

              Each and every one of us is limited in the amount of education that can be inculcated – each of use does not have the same limits.

              With respect to the improvement of society – that is another area the left is off in never never land.
              We know what works. Free people and free markets improves standard of living faster than anything else in 150,000 years of human history. In an even marginally free society and increase in Standard of living of 1% YTY is generally a bad thing.
              But in 99.99% of human history 1% improvement over 100 years was very very rare.
              Improvement in standard of living directly correlates to freedom. No othe ratribute positively correlates to improving standard of living – except proxies for freedom.

              Efforts to improve the value of your fixation – equality NEGATIVELY correlate to standard of living.

              ““ No institution seeks to meddle more in the private lives of people than the modern left.””

              “That is not true.”
              But it is.
              “I disagree.”
              Doesn;t change anything.

              “The only institution that seeks to meddle more in the private lives of people are the religious right. From dictating sexual relations in private homes, to dictating women’s choices when it comes to issues such as abortion.”
              Bowers v hardwick was almost 40 years ago – are you living in the present ?

              “The right has a much more distinct record on meddling in private lives.”
              Has the right – particularly the religious right done so in the past ? Absolutely.
              Has it does so consequentially in the past 30 years ? No!.

              I would also suggest that you learn something about Barry Goldwater – “Mr. Conservative” – read his book “the conscience of a conservative” – that was written almost 60 years ago.
              You will not find this right meddling in peoples private lives – you will find a conservative proto-libertarianism.

              Libertarians have tended to find more common ground with conservatives – specifically because the left’s fixation with equality always comes at the expense of freedom, and is at odds with reality.

              “I don’t deny the left does too with dictating such as political correctness, and some environmental issues. But meddling in private lives is the bread and butter of the religious right.”
              You really seem to be living in the past.

              First I want to distinguish the modern left from liberalism. Alan Derschowitz is liberal. Turley is liberal.
              In the past left and liberal were synonymous. the modern left is ILLIBERAL.

              In the 60’s the left was responsible for the free speech movement at Berkley. Today the same left is destroying free speech at Berkeley and everywhere.

        2. Except it is the stupidity of the Progressives who bowed down to their false God with perfect creases in his pants. You people are pathetic, if you don’t see how ignorant the left has been with their extreme TDS, after 8 years of Obama lies, and 5 years of a fake Russian Collusion lie.

          1. As Biden takes office – The trust of democrats for the media has declined significantly.
            Trust in govenrment is at an all time low. The majority of people beleive the election was fraudulent and lawless and a plurality beleive it was stolen.

            These numbers have remained constant or even worsened amidst a relentless effort by censors to kill anything that contradicts the nonsense that the election was clean.

            If you beleive the capital protests were insurrection – then you should be affraid – because you have brought the country to the edge of insurection.

            Whether you do or not – you had better think about the fact that an enormous portion of these protestors are over 40, 50, even 60.

            When older americans are protesting – the country is in serious trouble,

            Many of these are the “working class”. So the faux communists of the left have lost the constituency that purportedly birthed them.

    2. Mike, why couldn’t Comey have used words such as reorganized or new leadership. Click bait for his book. If you don’t believe that there are people who will take his words literally you have not done much study of the nature of man. You are correct that no “rational” person would consider it a call to violence. Recent events in Washington and Seattle testify to the absence of rationality in the nation. Under your theory there is no Antifa member with a Molotov Cocktail out there who is exclaiming “Hell yea, baby. In effect you dress his words up by dismissing them of having any possible effect. Under this analysis when the Klan said “burn the black church” there was no one who took the command seriously. His true motivation in his statement was to fan the flames. How in the hell did this self serving man become the director if the FBI.

    3. Comey was the director of the FBI during very trying times that continued after he was gone. To hear such partisan words by Comey confirms the negative feelings expressed by others.

      I do not see your problem with Turley’s statements especially when based on the present impeachment based on Trump’s rhetoric which did not call for violence.

      1. Trump did not call for violence. He did call for real people to act – peacefully, and he directed them at the capital.

        Comey explicitly called for violence, and he targeted it at something real – the RNC, But you can not burn down the RNC so his incitement is obviously rhetorical.

        Neitehr meet the bright line requirements of the law. But Comey comes closer to actual incitement.

        But most importantly – Comey not only demonstrates why he never should have been in government.
        But that the problem extends far beyond James Comey.

        Comey was not a recently minted field agent, he was director of the FBI, it is reasonable to expect his values are shared by large portions of the FBI.

        He is clearly not unbiased enough to take cases were political biases matter. Further he casts doubt that much the the FBI is similarly encumbered.

        But we knew that already.

      2. Barb, Turley’s comparisons are false equivalencies. Comey’s statement was a rhetorical as a personal opinion.

        Trumps speech and rhetoric clearly implied what he wanted and the fact that Trump continued to push that line of rhetoric for months shows that he was inciting his supporters. Here Turley is just being disingenuous with his argument.

        1. You keep trying to convert an intention into an act.

          Trump speech must be an ACT of incitement BEFORE you can consider intention.
          If it matters at all.

          An act that is not a crime – is not a crime.

          Trump could have been fantasizing about ransacking the capital as he spoke.

          He did not ask for it. He did not incite. What you the clairvoyant think he might have hoped for is irrelevant.

          1. John Say, “You keep trying to convert an intention into an act.

            Trump speech must be an ACT of incitement BEFORE you can consider intention.
            If it matters at all.

            An act that is not a crime – is not a crime.

            Trump could have been fantasizing about ransacking the capital as he spoke.

            He did not ask for it. He did not incite. What you the clairvoyant think he might have hoped for is irrelevant.”

            That is incorrect. The cumulative effect of trump’s rhetoric in the months leading up to his infamous speech can be considered an act of incitement. “He did not ask for it, He did not incite” Actually he did WANT it. It doesn’t take much to infer that from his various outlandish claims that he wont the election “by a large margin”. His constant attempts to pressure election officials in Georgia and Michigan along with accusations of fraud and crimes being committed by said officials in full view of his supporters is incitement. His intention WAS to eventually have his supporters act on what he wanted. To overturn the election results.

            1. “That is incorrect. The cumulative effect of trump’s rhetoric in the months leading up to his infamous speech can be considered an act of incitement”

              Nope – please read the supreme court cases on this – this is not even close to incitement to violence.

              “He did not ask for it, He did not incite” Actually he did WANT it.
              Your guess and not relevant. What you think he wanted does not matter.
              What he SAID is all that matters.

              “It doesn’t take much to infer that from his various outlandish claims that he wont the election “by a large margin”.”

              Again you are not free to convert mind reading into incitement.

              “His constant attempts to pressure election officials in Georgia and Michigan along with accusations of fraud and crimes being committed by said officials in full view of his supporters is incitement.”
              Nope.

              “His intention WAS to eventually have his supporters act on what he wanted. To overturn the election results.”
              Lets assume for a second that this particular argument was correct – that Trump’s actual intention was to get protestors to go to the capital and pressure congressmen into voting not to certify the election.

              THAT IS NOT INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE!
              That would therefore STILL be protected free speech.

          1. John Say, “Trump has been inciting his supporters for months.
            But not to violence”

            That is false. There is proof that trump does incite, even suggest violence during his rallies. Incitement does not have to be direct in order to send the message across to his supporters.

            “October 23, 2015: After repeatedly being interrupted by protesters at a campaign rally in Miami, Trump warned he’ll “be a little more violent” next time when addressing protesters. “See, the first group, I was nice. ‘Oh, take your time.’ The second group, I was pretty nice. The third group, I’ll be a little more violent. And the fourth group, I’ll say get the hell out of here!” he said.”

            “November 21, 2015: At a rally in Birmingham, Alabama, Trump demanded the removal of Black activist Mercutio Southall Jr. after he yelled, “Black lives matter!” Onstage, Trump exclaimed, “Get him the hell out of here! Get him out of here! Throw him out!” In a video captured by CNN, Southall fell to the ground as Trump made his statements and white men appeared to kick and punch him. As security guards removed Southall from the rally, the crowd chanted, “All lives matter,” according to the Washington Post. Trump told Fox News the next day, “Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing. I have a lot of fans, and they were not happy about it. And this was a very obnoxious guy who was a troublemaker who was looking to make trouble.”

            “February 1, 2016: At a campaign rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Trump told the crowd that his security team informed him there may be somebody throwing tomatoes. “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. There won’t be so much of them because the courts agree with us,” he said.”

            https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-violence-tweets-racist-hate-speech

            These are a few examples out of a multitude of trump inciting crowds. This is what he does.

            1. Again NOT incitement to violence.

              You are permitted to threaten people who are violent with violence.

              “Do not come at me or I will lay you out” is not incitement to violence.

              In fact you can threaten violence in response to non violent but illegal acts.

              “If you tresspass I will punch you”

              You can even threaten illegal acts in response to illegal acts.

              “if you tresspass I will kill you”.

              But you can only actually kill someone in response to a threat of death or serious bodily harm.

              Incitement to violence requires a threat of initiating violence that would be illegitmate if carried out

              If you do not initiate it is not incitement.
              If the threatened violence is legitimate it is not incitement.

              Once again a lack of critical thinking.

        2. You see what you want to see so it is not worth discussing with you. When Turley calls things through his legal lens he generally stands on sound ground.

          The “riot” was gathering up speed before Trump said those words that were a walk from the Capitol. He has never called for violence though we have seen the incoming VP support violence and support the bailing out of violent people.

    4. First, expressing the view that a political ideology needs to be “burned down” would not lead any rational person to conclude that the speaker is encouraging arson.

      Silly, you say. Are you suggesting the people we should be concerned with regarding violence and arson, are rational people? 1.1 million people attended Trump rallies, from labor day leading up to the election. Lot’s and lot’s of arson, looting, vandalism, officers assaulted and so on by these crazy right-wingers. Right? Then on Jan. 6th, apparently Trump spoke in code to these folks and told them to take siege of the Capital building and commit mayhem using the language everyone knows incites that behavior in otherwise rational people…Peacefully and patriotically… Ohhh, that’s right. context, history and position. When a president says to peacefully and patriotically march on the Capital, that incites insurrection from his base, because reasons. But when the former director of the FBI, the man leading an agency that went rogue against the president, who still believes the Trump/Russia narrative, says to burn down the RNC, that is not to be taken literally, because rational people on the Left are well, rational and wouldn’t commit arson for illogical reasons.

      Alrighty then…

  4. “The Republican party needs to be burned down…” __James Comey

    …And yet we were supposed to trust Comey in the management of the Clinton scandals?

  5. “ Despite the chorus of legal experts insisting that the speech would constitute a strong case for criminal incitement (and the DC Attorney General said he may charge Trump), I believe such a prosecution would eventually collapse on free speech grounds if based solely on this speech and Trump’s other public statements.”

    The key word here is “if” as in “if based solely on this speech and Trump’s other public statements.

    What is more important is context. In order to use the charge of ‘incitement’ they would have to prove intent to incite. Since everyone, including Turley and many republicans, recognized what transpired because in the context of the entirety of what culminated that day it was pretty clear what he intended to do. Free speech has its limits and what Trump did was a breach of those limits.

    1. Trump was not granted due process. According to the Constitution he should have been able to at least defend himself. This is the danger of radical one party rule. The party decides whether one is or is not entitled to a defense Constitution be damned.

      1. Defend himself from what?

        There is no due process with respect to allegations.

        Trump can defend himself in a trial, whether it be in the Senate or a court.

    2. Nope. That is not how intent works.

      First the intent required to commit a crime is that the criminal ACT must be intentional.

      Having bad intentions is not a crime. I do not know what is inside Trump’s head – nor do you.
      But if we had a brainscope and it showed that Trump hoped that the capital would burn down with all democrats in ti.

      That would not be a crime.

      A crime such as incitement to violence requires words that actually qualify as inprotected speech meeting the legal test for incitement AND speaking them deliberately for that purpose.

      Speaking innoucous words with evil intentions is not a crime.

      Just as fantazing ways to rob banks or kill people are not crimes.

      Crimes are acts. Sometimes speach is an act.

      There are no ‘though crimes” – yet.

      1. For purposes of impeachment, there is no requirement in the Constitution that a high crime or misdemeanor be a statutory crime under the U.S. Code. In fact, the U.S. Code did not exist when the Constitution was written. It is sufficient that Congress consider an act to be a high crime or misdemeanor, including high crimes or misdemeanors under natural law. Failure to act to safeguard the people in the Capitol while it was under violent attack — the people there including the Vice President and all members of Congress attending the joint session — is a high crime.

        1. Sorry but you are wrong – though in a meaningless way. The constitution does specifically require a high crime or misdemeanor.
          Misdemenors are crimes. The founders explicitly rejected maladministration and the political impeachments of Britian.

          HOWEVER they omitted a mechanism for enforcing the constraints on impeachment. As a result the decision as to what is impeachable ultimately falls to the house. This was an error ont he part of our founders – but they made it.

          So you can impeach on anything. That does not make it wise. The Trump Faux impeachments will inevitably result in constant political impeachments. Can you do this ? Yes, Should you ? No!

          A substantial portion of people will interpret this as an admission that Trump won the election and that you are afraid he will win again in 2024. It will be viewed as vengeful and a sign of weakeness and lack of faith in your own position.

          But impeaching the president is distinct from other forms of impeachment – meaning the constitution has more provisions.
          One of which is that all clauses regarding impeachment of the president are in present tense. There is no impeaching and trying of former presidents.

          This is significant as it is potentially reviewable by the courts. On Jan. 20, 2021 Trump becomes a private citizen again. The senate has no jurisdiction over him.

          1. Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

            As for “A substantial portion of people will interpret this as an admission that Trump won the election and that you are afraid he will win again in 2024,” a substantial portion of people are stupid and mistakenly infer things they shouldn’t.

            Lots of lawyers disagree with you that “There is no impeaching and trying of former presidents.” Turley says that it’s allowed by the Constitution. Trump is free to raise that issue at his trial.

            1. “Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

              On Jan 20, 2021 President Trump will become former president trump. You can not remove someone who has already been removed.

              The entire country grasps that only two things are being served by this impeachment – political vengence – no one makes a secret about that. Even you were correct about everything – Trump lost an election by 40K votes, a miniscule amount – half the narrow margin of clinton and purportedly he is upset about that – particularly because all this appears to hing on democrats changing the rules and ignoring the laws and pulling large numbers of suspicious votes from 6 cities. Even if you are correct – Trump is perfectly free to disbeleive the results.
              Nor is he alone – a plurality of the people don’t/

              So what are you impeaching Trump for ? For being angry about a dubious election ? For having angry supporters also dubious about the election ?

              The courts and congress have given you a victory – move on. But you have not moved on.

              You have moved to revenge – or fear.

              In 2011 thousands stormed the Wisconsin capital – and occupied it.

              https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_260247e0-4ac4-11e0-bfa9-001cc4c03286.html

              And Nancy Pelosi and other democrats fully supported the “protestors” .
              They broke doors and windows and stole things and trashed the place.
              Over 7000 protestors occupied and shutdown the capital for over a week.
              The court ordered them out – they stayed.

              What was different – the police were directed not to fight with the protestors.

              They chanted things like “whose house, out house”

              No one impeached Pelosi for encouraging violent protestors.

              “As for “A substantial portion of people will interpret this as an admission that Trump won the election and that you are afraid he will win again in 2024,” a substantial portion of people are stupid and mistakenly infer things they shouldn’t.”

              Keep making that argument. It is a dead bang loser.

              “Lots of lawyers disagree with you”

              We are way past that. Unless the courts intervene – and they might with regard to the jurisdiction of the senate over a private person.
              Any action once trump is no longer president is a bill of attainder and those are not constitutional.

              Regardless you have made impeachment into a political event – that means you can do as you please.
              It also means people will read it as political.

              Regardless there is only one possible goal at this point – to prevent Trump from running in 2024.

              And that makes you look like you are afraid of Trump, and like you do not beleive yourself.

              https://amgreatness.com/2021/01/18/how-to-restore-faith-in-the-constitution/

              1. Article I, section 3, clause 7 provides further that “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

                Trump can be disqualified. Disqualification occurs after the person is out of office, whether that be by resignation, removal, or end of term.

                “You have moved to revenge – or fear.”

                Disqualification is appropriate punishment, neither revenge nor fear. But that won’t prevent you from alleging otherwise.

                1. Nope, the President can be removed from office and barred from further public office.
                  As of today Trump is not president and the Senate has no jurisdiction.

                  There is no provision of the constitution to allow the Senate to try private persons.

                  I would note even the clause you cited says AND – not OR.
                  That means the senate must remove from office BEFORE they can disqualify.

                  Regardless, why would you want to disqualify a person who LOST the election ?

                  If you really beleive Biden won – then you have nothing to fear from Trump.

                  You are inarguably depriving 75M REAL voters – actual living breathing ones – not paper tigers. the right to vote for someone who may be their prefered choice in 2024.

                  I do not think that Trump is running again.
                  But it is so clear that you are STILL afraid of him.
                  And that only makes sense if you too beleive he won.

                  1. “I do not think that Trump is running again .
                    But it is so clear that you are STILL afraid of him.”

                    I agree John, I also do not think he will run again. However, the left is afraid of the Trump movement which is a movement that exists with or without Trump at the helm It is a diverse group that includes all the races.

                    The left is labelling everyone that doesn’t agree with them as white nationalists. That means if one is white and believes in not judging “by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” one is a white nationalist.

                    The left has become totally racist and doesn’t even know it.

                    1. The left labeling everyone who disagree’s with them as some evil extremist is the achiles heal of the democratic party.

                      You can not accuse half the country of being hateful racists – even if true and win elections, and it is not true.

                      Today the difference in values between a white nationalist – the 3 that still exist and a woke lefty is imperceptable.

                    2. You can not accuse half the country of being hateful racists – even if true and win elections, and it is not true.

                      Rumor has it that the party accusing half the country of being hateful racists are now in control of the Executive and Legislative branches of government. They may not have won the election, in the traditional sense of free and fair elections, but they certainly counted the votes that gave them the election. So yes they can. And they will continue doing it until the other half of the country stops it.

              2. In 2011 the protesters were not out to kill the legislators and did not beat to death any police officers. They were also there to protest a dirty vote, not overthrow a legal election.

                1. Just want to be clear – killing legislators is OK in left wingnut world – but not killing police ?

                  And protesting SOME votes is OK – but not others ?

                1. Allan / S. Meyer, you just keep resorting to some of your go-to strategies for trolling:
                  Insult.
                  Pretend to read someone’s mind and attack the person on the basis of your made up attribution.
                  Attribute your own failings to others.

                  Dershowitz’s argument is laughable. He said “If you can impeach anyone who is not a sitting president, there are no limits to the power of the Congress to try ordinary citizens,” but this isn’t a situation of someone who was impeached while not a sitting president. Trump is currently the sitting president. He was the sitting president both times he was impeached. In addition, the Constitution explicitly limits impeachment to “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States,” so Congress cannot try most citizens. Perhaps if your brain worked better, you’d have noticed those holes in Dershowitz’s claims.

                  1. Anonymous the Stupid, you have no set policy or set of principles. In fact your recent ideas conflict with your past ones with considerable regularity. You are untrustworthy and of course not credible.

                    “Dershowitz’s argument is laughable.”

                    One has to be pretty stupid not to think of the potential long term effects. One also has to be pretty stupid when Dershowitz has been consistent all his life and you have trouble being consistent from one day to another.

                    My guess is that Dershowitz has a better handle on the law than you and has not become crazy defending his own side like some prior experts have done. In fact Trump is on the other side of him. Dershowitz didn’t vote for Trump either time and remains a Democrat supporting a lot of Democrat ideas.

                    It’s amazing that you have the arrogance you do, but that is just part of not being able to see past one’s own nose.

                    1. LMAO, Allan, you’re unable to distinguish among different people if their names don’t distinguish them, and instead of acting like an intelligent adult and simple accepting that you’re unable to do this, you pretend that they’re a single person with “no set policy or set of principles” and you call several different anonymous commenters “Anonymous the Stupid.”

                      It’s unsurprising that you don’t deal with the substance of Dershowitz’s errors. You prefer to project your faults.

                    2. If you wish to be treated as a distinct person with an actual reputation. If you do not wish to be conflated with other anonymous posters – then post under a name.

                      You can not create a problem and demand others fix it.

                    3. It’s awesome when Allan gets his game called, step by step, and then in his very next post exhibits everything he was just accused of.

                    4. Face it Anonymous the Stupid, you didn’t understand what Dershowitz was talking about and had to have it explained to you. You run away from these minimally complex issues lacking the intellect to deal with them.

                      You run away from a Dershowitz argument to something of no significance that you try to blow up with meaningless words. You are a hypocrite and cowardly.

                    5. There is a major problem with all the arguments about Impeachment.

                      While the Constitution is actually very clear with respect to the boundaries of impeachment, the constitution provides no check if congress exceeds those boundaries.

                      Congress can do whatever it wants regarding impeachment – unless the courts step in – which they are highly unlikely to do.
                      Most aspects of impeachment are unreviewable. Meaning the only check on them is at the ballot box – and the left is busy stuffing that.

                      That said there is atleast some reason to beleive the courts may step in if congress tries to punish a private citizen.
                      Trump is not president – he is no longer under the jurisdiction of congress. There are innumerable constitutional problems with a senate trail and any punishment of a private citizen.
                      But that is no guarantee that the Courts will step in.

                      Regardless, Barring congress coming to its senses, impeachment has been substantially diminished in meaning by democrats and that will haunt us for a long time.

                    6. ” atleast some reason to beleive the courts may step in”

                      I believe strongly the courts will step in precisely to define what can be done to a private citizen.

                    7. I do not know about that.

                      However now that Biden has been sworn in there is far less danger of Antifa/BLM riots if a decision goes even slightly wrong for the left.

                      I am not sure what the courts are going to do.

                      It is my hope that they are going to grasp that they have to do something or they will have much the same mess pretty much forever.

                      It is highly unlikely that they will make any decision that vlearly established that Trump would have won.

                      As an example the federal courts can rule that state govenrment must follow their own laws and constitutions, but that challenges must be made before the election (they were) and that errors on the part of courts can not be corrected after the election.

                      They can also rule that laws requiring observers must be followed.

                      There is federal law – and the courts have already ruled that states MUST clean up their voter registration lists.

                      Personally I think we can get rid of voter registration entirely – if State Photo ID sufficiently establishes a persons eligability to vote.
                      Or atleast we can get rid of it for the general election. Party affiliation in voter registration determines eligability to vote in primaries.

                      Regardless, we already have motor voter laws all over the place. And we have voter ID laws requiring a government photo ID.
                      If that ID is sufficient to prove citizenship, and a valid instate address, then there is no need for voter registration.
                      Scan a persons Photo ID and take their when they vote – that will document their address, signature, DOB and photo.
                      Merely scanning those will intimidate people trying to commit fraud. And if you have a legal name, DOB, signature and photo on record, you have enough infomation to post election verify that people are not voting in two states for federal elections.

                      Deal people, and fake people tend not to have valid drivers licenses.

                      The same process can be used for absentee voting – Absentee voting typically requires coming to the courthouse in person and voting.

                      In the event you are going to actually have mailin voting, you CAN NOT cure incorrect ID information – either the Name, DOB, DL# and address MUST match the States DL/State ID data or the ballot must be rejected. The state can not fix that information. At most it can contact the voter and tell them their ballot was rejected and that they must vote in person.

                      Do that and you can lower the threshold for signature matching – there are both valid and invalid reasons that signatures may not match.
                      But other ID information MUST MATCH

                      But this is not something that courts can do on their own. Courts can only require that states enforce the election laws and constitutions that they have.

                    8. Another area that the courts can address is the delegability of election laws.

                      I personally think the claim that the legislatures delegated some rule making authority to the executive is hogwash.

                      I also think there is a valid US constitutional point that much of the authority over federal elections is SOLELY the legislatures – that they can not delegate it and that it is not subject to state court reveiw.

                      But in the event that SCOTUS is not going to go that far, it can determine that elections rules made by the executive must fgo through a formal rule making process to be valid. Just as federal regulations must.

                      The left beat the crap out of the Trump administraion over the administrative procedures act – even in places like DACA that it did not apply.

                      The AP act can not apply to anything that is constitutionally the excludive domain of the executive. It can only apply to delegated authority of congress. – Obama did not follow the AP to create DACA – Tump need not follow it to remove DACA.

                      Trump also made a mistake in dealing with DACA. Instead of just tossing it he should have drafted an EO that granted clemency to a narrow subset of the “dreamer” and ONLY those!

                      Pardons are non-reviewable, and Had Trump pardoned about 1/4 of the potential dreamers, and repealed the rest of DACA in the same EO the courts would have been unlikely to reverse.

                      Regardless, it is time for the courts to at the very least dictate that the legislature can not delelegate election related (or even not election ralated) legislative powers to the executive in an arbitrary fashion – that it has to specify a formal process for rule making and that process must be followed.

                      Though state legislatures can accomplish the same thing on their own.

                      Another action state legislatures can take is to pass something like REIGNS or the CRA in the state.

                      As an example the constitution requires the legislature to certify the election. The claim in 2020 was that the legislature delegated that power to the executive. That also means that the state legislature can take that power back. BTW that has happened in past elections.
                      Apparently there is an incredible resmblence between the 1876 election and that of 2020. I would note that the fraud of the 1876 eleciton resulted in many State constitutional requirements for secret ballots.

                      The left seems to be blind tot he fact that we have had incredibly fraudulent elections in the past – and that we thwarted that fraud with either the same or simmilar laws and constitutional provisions that we ignored in 2020.

                      One of the problems with the claim “there was not fraud” – is that it presumes there never was a need for the constitutional and statutory provisions that were thwarted in 2020.

                      We have more than “legislative history” with respect to secret ballot laws – we have ACTUAL HISTORY – without those laws we have massive fraud in the past. Contra the courts and the left – HISTORY places the burden of proof on those claiming those existing statutory and constitutional provisions are not needed.

                    9. Over and over we have seen the left do what was “laughable” – why should we not beleive they will do so in the future ?

                  2. “unable to distinguish among different people “

                    Anonymous the Stupid, that is what you would like to think, but you are wrong. I don’t answer all of you stupidities just some selected ones. There are plenty more of your stupidities lying around untouched.

                    You don’t have set policies and you don’t even understand the different ideologies. That was proven on several occasions by demonstrating the differences in the isms. You pointed out a couple of insignificant things but if I remember correctly they could go either way. Anytime you wish to intelligently discuss policy or ideologies I’m game. Who knows. Maybe you have something to say but are afraid to say it.

                    —-

                    On another idea, anonymous (note the lack of description), you made a good point but there is more than one element in this impeachment. One is removal from office. The other is preventing a person from ever holding public office again. For Trump to be found guilty and prevented from holding office ever again the conviction would occur while he was a normal citizen and that is what Dershowitz is referring to and that is why he believes the trial to be unconstitutional.

                  3. You are correct Trump has been impeached twice as sitting president.

                    Impeachment is over. What is being considered is a Senate Trial – one that can not remove Trump.
                    Which means the only purpose of the trial is to bar Trump from public office.

                    Dershowitz is hyperbolic, but correct. If the Senate can do this to Citizen Trump, they can do it to anyone.

                2. Personally I hope that the Senate continues forward.

                  It is an absymally stupid idea and it makes the left look scared and weak.

                  I agree with Turley that Trump should not show up. That he should make it clear the senate is acting unconstitutionally and he will challenge it in court.

                  I do not think it matters – with respect to Trump what happens.

                  Whatever anyone might think now – I do not think he is running in 4 years.

                  But I think the fear of the left that he is, demonstrates their own weakness and exposes their own beleif that they can not defeat Trump in a lawful election.

                  1. “Personally I hope that the Senate continues forward.”

                    I hope not. The left is destroying the fabric of the nation and I don’t want to see anymore stupid precedents set.

                    1. “The left is destroying the fabric of the nation and I don’t want to see anymore stupid precedents set.”

                      They are trying. But they have jumped the shark. Trump was a backlash against the left.
                      But they doubled down on stupid.

                      These are only dangerous precedents if we allow this nonsense to continue.

                      Our greatest chance of surviving this disease is to let it run its course to let the left fail on their own which they certainly will.

                      Trump is the leader of a movement. There is a serious issue of succession. No one has the trust of trumps supporters in the way that Trump does. Without him there is some chance of some weakening.

                      But it is the bat$hit crazyness of the left that drives Trumpism – more so that its core values.

                      I am not a trump supporter. But I am an absolute opponent of the modern left. This is one of the most dangerous political movements in US history. The good news is that it is horribly disorganized and self destructive, and un self aware.

                      Let them destroy themselves. They are good at that.

            1. 1). High crime does not exist in US Code.
              2). You have a order fallacy – the constitution came BEFORE the US code. The term high crimes and misdemeanors means what our founders used. Not US Code.

              Regardless, you can read the discussions of out founders. There is a mass of documentation of the construction fo the constitution as well as the public discussions to get it ratified.

              1. “the constitution came BEFORE the US code”

                Correct. Which is why I told you at 12:57 PM that “the U.S. Code did not exist when the Constitution was written.”

                This is one of your verbal tics: telling people something they’ve already said and know, but pretending that they don’t know and you need to point it out to them.

                “The term high crimes and misdemeanors means what our founders used. Not US Code.”

                Correct again. Glad that you agree. Trump was impeached for crimes that the Founders would have considered high crimes. Don’t take my word for it, read Nikolas Bowie’s explanation. He’s the law professor who Dershowitz referenced –
                https://web.archive.org/web/20200127161017/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/impeachment-defense-trump.html

                1. YOU cited the US code – the error is yours not mine.

                  And No, I am not interested in the arguments of some left wing nut professor that were discredited long ago.

                  The founders RADICALLY narrowed impeachment from the english tradition.
                  They discussed and rejected political impeachment. They discussed and rejected incompetence, maladministration and similar failures.

                  The limited impeachment to serious criminal conduct.

                2. This nonsense from those of you on the left is tedious.

                  You waste everyone’s time arguing lunatic stupidity.
                  Worse you have destroyed our institutes of higher education such that arguments that would have gotten you laughed out of accademia are made seriously today. And you wonder why you are not trusted ?

                  The constitution is clear on the criteria for impeachment – high crimes and misdemeanors. That is not even any crime. Only serious crimes.

                  Clinton was not removed specifically because democrats claimed that multiple counts of perjury and witness tampering about private sexual conduct though criminal were not a “high crime or misdemeanor”.

                  Now the idiots on the left and there water carriers in academia want to argue that free speech that offends them is grounds for impeechment.

                  Go ahead – act stupid.

                  What goes arround comes arround.

                  Continue burning the norms and they will not be there to protect you when you need them.

      2. John say, “First the intent required to commit a crime is that the criminal ACT must be intentional.”

        This is false. Most crimes require general intent, meaning that the prosecution must prove only that the accused meant to do an act prohibited by law. Whether the defendant intended the act’s result is irrelevant. Trump already made it clear that his intent is to overturn the results of the election because he believes it was unlawful and stolen from him. Every action he has taken to make that a reality involved pressuring elected officials and making false claims. His intent was clear by the time Trump made his speech. His own supporters understood his intent in his speech. It wasn’t just Trump, Giuliani and several others joined in inciting the crowd with their grievances.

        “‘Trump said to do so’: Accounts of rioters who say the president spurred them to rush the Capitol could be pivotal testimony”

        “A man from Kentucky told the FBI that he and his cousin began marching toward the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 because “President Trump said to do so.” Chanting “Stop the steal,” the two men tramped through the building and snapped a photo of themselves with their middle fingers raised, according to court documents.”

        “A retired firefighter from Pennsylvania who has been charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police officers felt he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, a tipster told the FBI, according to court documents.

        The accounts of people who said they were inspired by the president to take part in the melee inside the Capitol vividly show the impact of Trump’s months-long attack on the integrity of the 2020 election and his exhortations to supporters to “fight” the results.”

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-rioters-testimony/2021/01/16/01b3d5c6-575b-11eb-a931-5b162d0d033d_story.html

        Clearly Trump’s words and those of the other speakers were meant to incite the crowd. The fact that Trump made no effort to stop the mobs from breaking into the capitol until he was pressured to do so shows he clearly intended to have this happen.

        Trump’s speech meets the Brandenburg test for speech to be incitement. ” the defendant’s words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence.” https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/inciting-to-riot-violence-or-insurrection.html

        To cross the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech, the Supreme Court held the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speaker’s words or conduct must be likely to produce such action. These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test. (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).)

        Given that his supporters have stated to the FBI that they clearly understood Trump to be encouraging them to do what they did is in line with “the words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence.”

        1. John say, “First the intent required to commit a crime is that the criminal ACT must be intentional.”

          “This is false.”
          Incorrect.
          ” Most crimes require general intent, meaning that the prosecution must prove only that the accused meant to do an act prohibited by law. Whether the defendant intended the act’s result is irrelevant.”
          Correct – saying the same thing in more words and claiming I am wrong is a logical error.

          “Trump already made it clear that his intent is to overturn the results of the election because he believes it was unlawful and stolen from him. Every action he has taken to make that a reality involved pressuring elected officials and making false claims. His intent was clear by the time Trump made his speech. His own supporters understood his intent in his speech. It wasn’t just Trump, Giuliani and several others joined in inciting the crowd with their grievances.”
          You are both factually wrong and completely off base.

          It is not illegal to attempt to overturn a fraudulent election.
          It is not illegal even if you are wrong.

          Where is the illegal ACT ?

          “‘Trump said to do so’: Accounts of rioters who say the president spurred them to rush the Capitol could be pivotal testimony””

          Nope – we know exactly what Trump said.

          ““A man from Kentucky told the FBI that he and his cousin began marching toward the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 because “President Trump said to do so.” Chanting “Stop the steal,” the two men tramped through the building and snapped a photo of themselves with their middle fingers raised, according to court documents.””

          So ? Trumps speech was legal and nothing you have described above was illegal.

          ““A retired firefighter from Pennsylvania who has been charged with throwing a fire extinguisher at police officers felt he was “instructed” to go to the Capitol by the president, a tipster told the FBI, according to court documents.”
          I thought hearsay was not evidence ? This is worse than hearsay – this is hearsay evidence of telepathy.

          “The accounts of people who said they were inspired by the president to take part in the melee inside the Capitol vividly show the impact of Trump’s months-long attack on the integrity of the 2020 election and his exhortations to supporters to “fight” the results.””

          We all know that you are angry that half the country thinks the election was rife with fraud, and that a plurality thinks it was stolen.

          But you conducted a lawless election – and this is the consequence – you are stuck with a lack of trust and a lack of legitimacy.
          Get over it.

          “Clearly Trump’s words”

          We have Trumps words – we do not need YOU to tell us what they mean – we can listen to them.
          They are clear. They are not incitement to violence.

          “those of the other speakers were meant to incite the crowd.”
          Your back to this stupidity that your guess at someone else’s intention is a crime.
          Nope.
          We have the words of these “others”. No one has been charged with incitement to violence – because they can’t.
          But if someone had – that would have no bearing on Trump.

          “The fact that Trump made no effort to stop the mobs from breaking into the capitol until he was pressured to do so shows he clearly intended to have this happen.”

          False and irrelevant.

          “Trump’s speech meets the Brandenburg test for speech to be incitement”
          Not a chance. Please read the actual case law – Start with Brandenberg.

          In Brandenburg KKK members promised “revenge against the ni##er”, and the forced expulsion of jews and ni##ers.

          SCOTUS has spoken.

          Brandenberg
          “These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

          1) You must advocate for the lawless use of force, and
          2) your advocacy must be directed towards producing imminent lawless action and
          3) your advocacy must be likely to produce lawless action.

          All 3 conditions mus be met.
          Trump’s speech does not meet any of these.

          “To cross the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech, the Supreme Court held the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speaker’s words or conduct must be likely to produce such action. These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test. (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).)”
          So actually read Brandenburg – I have quoted part of the decision above.

          “Given that his supporters have stated to the FBI that they clearly understood Trump to be encouraging them to do what they did is in line with “the words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence.””
          Back to the telepathic hearsay.

          We have Trump’s words.

        2. Given the past 4 years – why are we supposed to beleive anything the FBI says ?

          Isn’t this the organization that has repeatedly leaked and lied – even to the courts under oath ?
          And doctored evidence.

          I have read many of the FBI affadavits – our founders would have laughed at them.
          Only in DC would they be taken seriously.

          And aren’t you the one who said that hearsay is not evidence.

          These FBI affadavits are third party hearsay of telepathy.

          An FBI agent telling us that someone else told him that he FELT that someone else wanted him to commit an illegal act.

          If the FBI has nothing more than what is in most of these affadavits – the cases should be dropped.

          Remember hearsay affadavits are not evidence.

  6. At least I finally know the difference between a chickpea and a garbanzo bean. Nobody ever accused Donald Trump of paying to watch a garbanzo bean in a Russian hotel room.

  7. January 30, 1933 — Hitler appointed Chancellor of Germany
    July 14, 1933 — All parties other than the Nazi party are banned in Germany

    In between came the Reichstag Fire on February 27th followed next day by emergency powers granted to Hitler. That wasn’t enough to root out opposition threatening the state. The Enabling Act was passed by parliament on March 24, granting Hitler dictatorial powers. Already by March 22nd, Dachau had been opened to receive first political dissidents and errant journalists (often the same). And lest we forget, in between the fire and July 14, there were boycotts of Jewish businesses and book burnings. The rest, as the saying goes, is history.

    Yet, we fail to take note of history because, like so many millions in Germany and Italy, nothing bad can happen here. We have the Constitution to protect us.

    Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    1. What a silly comment.

      Of course bad things can and have happened here, including Trump’s election and all the damage he did.

    2. Worse. People are seeing things through a highly charged partisan and ideological lens. They see what they want to see. They rationalize the undermining of our system of governance and our liberties. They are too trusting. The tide is creeping in.

      1. One way to address that is by choosing to engage with people who see things differently than one does, being open to changing one’s mind, and trying to change the minds of people one believes are deluding themselves.

        I don’t always agree with you PR, but you are a reasonable person, not one of the delusional. Unfortunately, some others here have locked their minds shut and thrown away the key.

        1. Anonymous,
          “I don’t always agree with you PR, but you are a reasonable person, not one of the delusional.”

          Thank you. I appreciate that. You are very kind. I like having conversations with many different people here, too.

          “Unfortunately, some others here have locked their minds shut and thrown away the key.”

          This is a bipartisan problem. Currently, in the real world, I am trying to do this:

          “One way to address that is by choosing to engage with people who see things differently than one does, being open to changing one’s mind, and trying to change the minds of people one believes are deluding themselves.”

          It takes two to tango but there are some I am trying to engage with who seem intent on sticking to misinformation and propaganda and straw man arguments. Hard to have a productive discussion when there’s fingerpointing in only one direction and not enough looking in the mirror. As an Independent, I find this troubling. There are too many tangled problems in the world to think one party or another deserves scapegoating. They have both chipped away at liberty.

          I am trying to be patient and meet the people where they are and hear them, but they don’t hear themselves or me or see the conflicts in what is happening and what they say they value. It makes me sad.

      2. It is easy to rationalize undermining government – when government has undermined itself.

        The loss of trust in government goes far deeper that a lawless election and widespread beleif in election fraud.

        Government has lost the trust of large numbers of people – for many many many very good reasons.

        Fixing that will be hard.

        1. John Say,
          “Government has lost the trust of large numbers of people – for many many many very good reasons.”

          I have faith in our system. It is the people who were elected by we the people (and those they hired), they who were entrusted with serving their communities and defending the Constitution that I’ve lost Trust in.

          “Fixing that will be hard.”

          An understatement.

  8. Truly honoring Martin Luther King, Jr, Biden and the Democrats have a once-in-a-century golden opportunity to permanently outlaw Cointelpro style blacklisting tactics. America has never held the Bush DOJ torture attorneys accountable, that green lighted torture and Cointelpro tactics (worst form of torture). In 2021 it’s basically business as usual for this unAmerican “covert” blacklisting tactics that betray the American oath of office. Cointelpro tactics BYPASS “judicial review” authority of checks & balances by the Judicial Branch (“Marbury v. Madison”).

    Although there is much zeal to punish Trump voters, over the long term covert blacklisting tactics disproportionately harm African-Americans, LGBT-Americans and other minority groups. We are creating an unconstitutional weapon used primarily against innocent Americans of both parties.

    The non-partisan libertarian leaning “Reason Magazine” (www.reason.com) wrote an article that actually proved that “authoritarian regimes” destroy and kill more people worldwide than any foreign threat or any terrorist threat. No American official has the authority to practice Cointelpro style blacklisting tactics.

    In 2021, we need a “21st Century Truth Commission on Unconstitutional-Authoritarianism”. It would start by granting immunity from criminal prosecution to Bush DOJ torture attorneys that committed legal practice, Bush torture doctors that committed medical malpractice (violating their Hippocratic oath and others involved in war crimes. In exchange for immunity from criminal prosecution, national security officials would would reveal truth-telling to Congress or federal judges to MANDATE constitutional reforms. Brave whistleblowers like Snowden, Kiriakou, Drake, etc would be redeemed and rewarded for upholding their oath of office when refusing illegal orders from disloyal superiors. If you care about the nation your children and grandchildren will inherit, we can’t let national security officials to exploit this crisis to grab more unconstitutional authority. Every official from police to the FBI to homeland security officials took an oath to follow the U.S. Constitution (a wartime governing charter).

  9. This guy was the number one law enforcement officer in the nation! What are we supposed to think and do? Is he trying to whip up the people on the fringe to commit violent acts so he can paint us all with the same brush? Very scary times ahead as so many on the Left try to demonize and dehumanize Republicans. With the full power of the media, this will never end well. It amounts to an occupation by a hostile enemy. Occupations never end well for the occupiers.

  10. Concerning the “pee tape”, Since watching his behavior for the past 4 years, and especially the past 8 weeks, His behavior is entirely consistent with someone that would do this.

    He is truly, one of the most despicable people to inhabit human form and arise to a position of power in our short United States History.

    1. Pfffft. Says the sexless prude. When did you get laid last? We read that Svelaz is hard up in WeHo. Water sports are all the rage in gay circles

      https://www.out.com/sex/2019/3/07/everything-need-know-about-watersports-golden-showers

      Here’s Everything You Need to Know About Watersports

      Tim, Mr. Michigan Leather 2018

      I would guess I got into watersports about six or seven years ago. It started off when i was playing with a sir and he did a little with it. Some guys have also asked me online to drink my own in videos and stuff. It’s a bit casual for me. It’s not my main kink. I’m more into bondage, but I like the humiliation factor of getting pissed on. Some guys get off on it. My partner loves drinking from the tap [meaning right from the dick] and gets off on the actual act of swallowing it and I know that’s the case for a lot of people.

      Obviously you want to make sure whoever is supplying the piss is well hydrated and drinks a lot of water. Beer and stuff they can do also, but you just want to make sure they’ve been drinking a lot of water to sort of water down the piss. If you take it early in the morning or from someone who is dehydrated, it’ll have a bitter or strong taste. The clearer the piss is, the better for these sorts of things.

      If I’m going to play with someone new, this is all something I might discuss during the “into?” conversation, but if it’s someone I know, it’s something I might bring up during play. I’ve never experienced any sort of stigma. I’m sure that’s out there though. For some people, it’s definitely a turn off, but I haven’t ever gotten anything too dramatic.

        1. Look at all of the LGBT haters.

          From the above Out Magazine link

          Bottom: gay submissive men who enjoy being pissed on by an alpha gay male
          Top: alpha gay male who enjoy pissing on a submissive gay man
          Versatile: goes either way

          Goes to show the Left don’t embrace LGBT and their lifestyle but only for their votes.

          Busted

          https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/09/watersports-10-people-describe-why-theyre-into-it-7530423/

          Watersports goes beyond a golden shower – these people explain why they’re into it

          Contrary to popular belief, ‘watersports’ isn’t just about the art of peeing on someone.

          I say ‘art’ because I’m a girl and, therefore, cannot aim.

          In fact, the term ‘watersports’ can mean a myriad of activities from the humble golden shower to various ways of imbibing one’s own – or other people’s – pee for pleasure

      1. His peeing the bed had nothing to do with sex. It had everything to do with his “superiority” over the black man Obama.

        1. this lie was also told about hitler. in both Hitler and Trump’s case, there is no real evidence that either one of them was interested in such bizarre paraphilias. in short, they may have been bad people, but that was not enough. the propaganda men had to also make them repugnant and gross.

          the author of such slanders, probably in both cases, was some clever government propagandists. the mass media spews these lies and is never corrected.

  11. From Turley’s column above:

    (Comey) I actually think the Senate intelligence committee report, coupled with [former Trump lawyer] Michael Cohen’s account in his book, probably makes the ‘pee tape’ stuff more likely than it was when I was fired.”

    (Turley) That is an extraordinary assertion based on a widely discredited dossier and the equally discredited Michael Cohen. Comey does not cite what in the Senate intelligence report gives credence to the allegation.

    Dude, how about hitting the link within Comey’s statement:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/18/donald-trump-us-senate-report-russia-campaign

    It quotes in detail the Senate Report on the presence at all times of Russian government spies at the hotel Trump stayed at as well as permanent cameras set up in VIP rooms.

    Maybe you’d benefit from actually reading the Senate Intel Comm report, since you often incorrectly claim there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

    https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

  12. Folks, Trump exhorted his audience to go PEACEABLY to the Capitol and protest. Anybody can look up the transcript.

    Don’t believe some of these liars posting here. They know the record, and they are misrepresenting it on purpose.

    BTW, Trump condemned the rioting. Still waiting for Harris to condemn BLM’s violence and racism.

    1. Trump made no attempt to send additional LE while the insurrection was going on at the Capitol. Members of Congress were trying to call him, asking for help, and he wouldn’t take their calls. He was too busy trying to reach new Sen. Tuberville to ask him to delay the Congressional vote accepting the EC votes. Trump didn’t bother to check on his own V.P. the entire time!!!

      You simply can’t accept how sick he is.

      If you’re still waiting for Harris, it’s because you’re not paying attention. She’s said things like “I join Joe Biden in condemning this violence” in Portland and “We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protestors. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter who was arrested for murder. And make no mistake, we will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice.”

      1. https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/31/meet-the-rioting-criminals-kamala-harris-helped-bail-out-of-jail/

        “The Democrats’ vice presidential candidate was a huckster for a bail fund that sought to free violent criminals who were rioting on the streets of Minneapolis, and she was very effective at it. In the wake of deadly fires and looting, Harris asked her five million plus Twitter followers to donate money to bail out the “protesters” arrested in the riots. Let’s meet a few of the beneficiaries of her largesse, shall we? Fox 9 News in Minneapolis did the research for us. Here are a few of the criminals they found Harris did a solid for.

        Among those bailed out by the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) is a suspect who shot at police, a woman accused of killing a friend, and a twice convicted sex offender, according to court records reviewed by the FOX 9 Investigators.

        1. Let me see: if Harris helps raise funds for MFF, and you object to how MMF (not Harris) used the money, you’re going to blame Harris?
          Do you do the same for Trump, holding him accountable for other people’s actions as long as he helps them raise money?

          Here’s what MFF said about it, according to Fox 9 –
          “Greg Lewin, the interim executive director of the fund …. said for MFF it is not about the crime, it’s about the system. In Minnesota, 60 percent of the jail population is waiting for trial, according to an analysis by the Vera Institute of Justice, based on data from 2015. That analysis found Black people are incarcerated in Minnesota jails at 4.7 times the rate of Whites; and, for Native Americans the rate is 11 times the rate for whites. It is considered one of the largest racial disparities in the U.S. “I often don’t even look at a charge when I bail someone out,” Lewin said. “I will see it after I pay the bill because it is not the point. The point is the system we are fighting,” Lewin said.”
          https://www.fox9.com/news/minnesota-nonprofit-with-35m-bails-out-those-accused-of-violent-crimes

          1. Yes, I’ll blame Harris because it was well known MFF was bailing rioters. You’d blame Trump for doing the same thing, and nobody is going to believe you wouldn’t.

            1. There’s nothing wrong with bailing out people arrested during the riots. They hadn’t been convicted of any crime, and wealthy people pay bail all the time. There shouldn’t be a cash bail program in the first place. People should either be jailed while awaiting trial on the basis of the crime they’ve been charged with, or they should be allowed to remain free while awaiting trial (assuming that they’re arrested for no further crimes) on the basis of the crime they’ve been charged with. But jailing the poor while the rich can bail themselves out is wrong.

              No, I wouldn’t blame Trump for doing the same, because I don’t believe that the cash bail program is right in the first place. That you don’t believe this only underscores your desire to project your beliefs onto me.

              1. “There’s nothing wrong with bailing out people arrested during the riots. They hadn’t been convicted of any crime, and wealthy people pay bail all the time.”

                There is nothing legally wrong with it. There is a great deal morally wrong with it.
                Some of these people were arsonists or violent.

                “There shouldn’t be a cash bail program in the first place.”
                We may need bail reform – but experiments with eliminating cash bail have been a disastrous failure.

                “People should either be jailed while awaiting trial on the basis of the crime they’ve been charged with, or they should be allowed to remain free while awaiting trial (assuming that they’re arrested for no further crimes) on the basis of the crime they’ve been charged with. But jailing the poor while the rich can bail themselves out is wrong.”

                The constitution REQUIRES bail. That pretty much means that nearly everyone accused of a crime as the right to be free awaiting trial.
                At the same time the constitution DOES empower government to deeply incentivize showing up for trial.

                The poor/rich thing is a red herring. The rich commit fewer crimes and few do not show up for trial. That is the goal – not some twisted form of equity. There is no rich/power issue. there is merely the constitutional requirement for bail and the rule of law requirement that the accused shows up at trial.

                I am happy to discuss proposals for new means to deal with that – the elimination of cash bail did not work. Offer something else.

                1. John, this is what one has to deal with. Violence and arson in the cities that politicians bail out. It demonstrates that the political left is violent but they let other people commit the violence for them.

                  1. “It demonstrates that the political left is violent but they let other people commit the violence for them.”

                    More of this garbage — brought to you by S.Meyer/Allan.

                    1. It’s a montage dummy so of course the films are cut. The problem is that these things were said and the meaning wasn’t taken out of context. Only Anonymous the Stupid could be so dumb.

                    2. Like his idol, Donald Trump, S. Meyer / Allan likes to stir the pot.

                      If someone disagrees with him, his go-to response is to name-call. Words he often uses to describe others: liar, stupid, coward, violent, and any number of other disparaging terms.

                      Anyone with any sense will ignore S. Meyer / Allan.

                    3. Anonymous the Stupid, your namesake is appropriate based on what you write and your insignificant comments. I’ve learned to ignore most of what you say because most of the anonymous comments are from you and many times you have been caught talking to yourself. In any event the montage is an accurate portrayal of leaders in the Democrat Party.

                      Not only that but you accuse other people of being me. That is fine since you pick out intelligent people and say they are me. They probably think you are stupid as well. The most recent subject of your stupidity hasn’t said anything which I find surprising but you convinced the dummy he was talking to that he is me. That is fine as well.

                  2. You’re cartoonish, S. Meyer / Allan. But, hey, thanks for the laughs.

                    S. Meyer/Allan wrote: “It demonstrates that the political left is violent but they let other people commit the violence for them.”

                    Oh, is that what happened here, cartoon-boy?

                    “Police officer recalls moment Capitol mob yelled: ‘Kill him with his own gun!'”

                    “Officer Michael Fanone feared for his life as he lay injured”

                    “You’re only 30 guys going up against 15,000’”

                    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/15/police-officer-capitol-mob-kill-him-with-his-own-gun

                    These guys are S. Meyer/Allan’s pals. Not the cops. The other guys.

                    1. “You’re cartoonish, S. Meyer”

                      Perhaps I should be thanking you. At times Churchill was a cartoonist figure so I am in good company.

                      Yes Anonymous the Stupid, the left is violent and we have seen that in the cities for many months. The Capitol mob was wrong and anyone that was acting illegally should be jailed. But then we do not know who incited the crowd to be violent and not that many people were violent. What we do know is that one leftist was deeply involved and other leftists are being investigated. Some may have been hoodlums of any political movement and many were probably hoodwinked into acting badly. That is something we have to find out, but the difference is the right is condemning the mob but when the left was violent the mob was praised by the left.

                      You don’t see you own inconsistencies so I doubt you will see this one either. It requires an independent mind that is able to think. You have neither.

                      “These guys are S. Meyer/Allan’s pals. Not the cops. The other guys.”

                      Take note how ignorantly and stupidly Anonymous the Stupid divides people up. Cops are on both sides of the aisle though with leftists making things worse the cops are a bit upset at the left. We should all demonstrate our appreciation to the police for they are the ones that protect us and our homes. You on the other hand only like them when they are doing your bidding. Unfortunately what you are after is tribal warfare and that is something I know a bit about.

      2. I stand corrected to the extent that she did FINALLY condemn BLM’s violence. You criticize Trump for a tardy response. Harris took even longer.

        Harris has yet to acknowledge they are openly racist, and as Gabby pointed out above, Harris hasn’t answered for everything and never will.

        1. I responded to Gabby’s comment, which blames Harris for something she didn’t control.

          I criticize Trump for not protecting his own VP and members of Congress with the National Guard he could have called up while the insurrection was occurring. Harris hasn’t had control over any law enforcement. You focus on words and not actions. Deal with Trump’s failure to ACT.

          Just who are you saying “are openly racist”? All people who went to George Floyd protests around the country?

          1. BLM is openly racist and violent. They are also blatantly hypocritical, Marxist, and defiantly illogical. Defend them all you want.

            1. Lots of people who went to the Floyd protests aren’t BLM members. I’m one of them.

              You still haven’t brought yourself to deal with the fact that Trump did not protect his own VP and members of Congress with the National Guard he could have called up while the insurrection was occurring.

              1. Congress has its own police force.
                They failed to protect themselves.

                Are we going to impeach the entire house and senate ?

                1. Congress didn’t fail to allow the USCP to act during the insurrection.

                  Trump refused to allow the DC National Guard to help the USCP during the insurrection despite being asked by members of Congress to allow this.

                  1. You are clearly ignorant of the facts.

                    The FBI was aware of the planning that was going on.

                    They did not brief Trump, they did not brief congress or the capital police.

                    It is plausible that the FBI wanted this to happen and may have incited it.
                    The FBI is deeply involved with Qanon. Whether it is monitoring or directing is an open question.

                    Regardless they did not let anyone know, Not Trump, not congress.

                    There are 2400 capital police. That was more than enough to handle this had they done so properly from the start.

                    I beleive that the capital police were warned – but not from FBI and they ignored the warnings.

                    “At President @realDonaldTrump’s direction, the National Guard is on the way along with other federal protective services,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany tweeted on Wednesday afternoon.

                    The NG came from VA and MD primarily and though those governors activated them and promised to send them.
                    The authority of governors ends at their states borders. Only the president has national control of the national guard.

                    1. Yes, Kayleigh McEnany tweeted that, but she was lying. She lies a lot. It was not at Trump’s direction. I already presented evidence about this.

                      Whether the USCP should have been able to handle it is irrelevant to whether Trump ordered the DC National Guard to help them. He didn’t.

                    2. “Yes, Kayleigh McEnany tweeted that, but she was lying. She lies a lot.”
                      You own McEnany an apology. What is your proof she is lying ? What is your proof she lies alot ?

                      This is a silly claim. You really want to argue that McEnany publicly announced that Trump had ordered the guard deployed – completely on her own, and that the guard which can only be deployed at the presidents direction suddenly magically appeared ?

                      “It was not at Trump’s direction.”
                      Then it did not happen. No one else can deploy the DC NG, and no one else can allow other State NG’s to act outside their state.

                      “I already presented evidence about this.”
                      Nope, regardless, your claims are not possible.

                      If Trump did not deploy the NG then they could not come.

                      “Whether the USCP should have been able to handle it is irrelevant to whether Trump ordered the DC National Guard to help them.”
                      That is correct. But it is also true that the CP are almost twice the size of the DC NG.

                      “He didn’t.” Then the NG units we saw were a mirage.

                      The District of Columbia Army National Guard … is the only Army National Guard state-level organization activated by the President of the United States for natural and civil emergencies. The Mayor of the District of Columbia may request assistance of the National Guard assets for local purposes after consulting with the President.”

                    3. John Say, “They did not brief Trump, they did not brief congress or the capital police. ”

                      This is false. “WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI warned law enforcement agencies ahead of last week’s breach of the U.S. Capitol about the potential for extremist-driven violence, U.S. officials said, contradicting earlier statements that they were caught off guard by the assault by supporters of President Donald Trump.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-says-it-warned-about-possible-violence-ahead-of-u-s-capitol-riot

                    4. Did you read your own article.

                      “The FBI says”.

                      So who are you going to beleive – those in the DC capital Police ? The white house ? or the FBI ?

                      We do BTW now know that the FBI was aware of, monitoring and possibly instigating the violent elements.

                      But there is no evidence that they told anyone else.

                      Who briefed the Capital police ? Who briefed the white house ?

                      Neither the president nor the congress, nor the Capital police are briefed telepathically.

                      Where is your evidence ? Where are the memo’s, briefing notes, logs of visits to the whitehouse ?

                      Again we are talking about the deep state politically corrupt lying organization that doctored evidence and lied repeatedly to the FISA courts – while leaking completely bogus lies to the press.

                      So why are we to beleive this story ?

                    5. Did you read your own article ?

                      The FBI claims to have produced a memo on Jan. 5th.
                      The claim to have diseminated it to law enforcement agencies – the Whitehouse is never mentioned.

                      Numerous law enforcement agencies – as well as the pentagon claim to have never received this.
                      The Capital police claim to have never received this.

                      Thus far there is no one evidence anyone outside FBI received this – much less that Trump or the Capital police did.

                      And that is all from YOUR story.

                    6. I would further note that the Capital police and the FBI all claim to have been preparing for a non-violent free speech protest.

                      Which begs the question of what was the capital locked down ?

                      You can not lock down the capital without an actual threat.
                      You can not lock down the capital to thwart protests, free assembly and petitioning the government.

                      You can not tresspass when something is open to the public.

                      Why was the capital locked down ?

    2. baby trump also said…
      “Fight like hell, And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
      “They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before.”
      “All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is what they’re doing and stolen by the fake news media. That’s what they’ve done and what they’re doing. We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.”
      “There’s never been anything like this. We will not let them silence your voices. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen.”
      “There’s never been anything like this. It’s a pure theft in American history, everybody knows it.”

      By the say, “everybody knows it”? Nope, he says that all the time and it is not true every single time he says it. He never says “grass is a plant and everyone knows it.” He never uses it for a universal truth, he only uses it when he is lying.

      “Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”

      Notice how he ways “we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you”? Nope, lying again. He encourages them to go, says he will be there with them, then slinks back to his office.

      And there is plenty more.

      1. He also failed to take corrective action after witnessing what was happening at the capital. If it wasn’t what he meant, why wasn’t he broadcasting his opposition and calling for them to stand down or be arrested immediately? He had resources.

        It’s exactly what he wanted and in his delusional state he thought it could somehow work.

        1. How long did it take for Harris to condemn the rioting? How many deaths before she finally said stop? Your outrage is highly selective.

          1. Trump had the DC National Guard under his direct control, and he did not call them.

            Harris did not have any LE under her control.

            Why do you continue to ignore this difference?

            1. “Trump had the DC National Guard under his direct control, and he did not call them.”
              actually he did.

              Regardless you are making Tom Cotton’s argument for Trump to deploy the NG and Military against BLM and Antifa.

              “Harris did not have any LE under her control.”
              Harris in not VP.
              Regardless, there is no general police power in the executive.

              Pelosi did have a 2400 member capital police force. She and they botched this. They actively made things worse by both shutting down and being unprepared.

              Further the FBI bears culpability. We are learning that FBI is quite actively involved in Qanon. There is an open question as to whether they are “monitoring” or whether they are actually engaged in inciting Qanon.

              Regardless, the FBI was aware of the planning of this and did not brief either the president or the capital police.

              1. “actually he did.”

                No, actually, he didn’t –
                https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-trump-call-national-guard-after-rioters-stormed-capitol-1560186

                “there is no general police power in the executive.”

                Which is irrelevant, because the President DOES have control over the DC National Guard –
                https://dc.ng.mil/About-Us/

                You can blame as many other people as you want. The fact remains that Trump had the DC National Guard under his direct control, and he did not call them.

                1. I appreciate the information. Normally, I wouldn’t trust Newsweek to get it right, but this fact check looks plausible. I read it carefully.

                  What the fact check says to me is that Trump left instructions: “During these conversations, the president conveyed to the acting secretary that he should take any necessary steps to support civilian law enforcement requests in securing the Capitol and federal buildings.”

                  These instructions somehow got muffed between the Whitehouse and Pentagon. When they came back to Trump for authorization, some source suggested he doubted the troops were actually needed, and the Pentagon was concerned about the optics of sending the military to the Capitol. The ball got fumbled for a while.

                  Was there deliberate intent to delay the deployment? This Newsweek didn’t really explore that except to opine that Trump typically deployed troops sooner on other occasions.

                  Further investigation will help. If I had to hazard a guess, the delay was probably the fog of war and a typical bureaucratic farce.

                  1. You likely don’t trust CNN either, but they say that Pence was involved in getting the DC Guard to the Capitol, not Trump –
                    https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/pence-national-guard/index.html

                    Whatever else you conclude, Trump clearly lied when he said “I immediately deployed the National Guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders.”
                    They weren’t immediately deployed by anyone. More info here –
                    https://www.factcheck.org/2021/01/timeline-of-national-guard-deployment-to-capitol/

                    The AP says “It took more than two and a half hours for the Guard forces to report to the D.C. armory, get a briefing and their riot gear, and begin moving toward the Capitol to help the overrun law enforcement. Army leaders say the delay in the movement of Guard troops to the Capitol was because the initial agreement largely limited those forces to checkpoints and Metro stations and stipulated they would not go to the Capitol. As a result, authorities had to get approval for the new mission, then call Guard members to the armory, brief them and get them their riot gear, and then send them to the Capitol.”

                    1. Pence was likely involved.
                      But you can not move the NG across state lines without the direction of the president.

                      The president does not have to say “move the NG from Fort Xyz to The capital”.

                      All he has to do is tell the Pentgon or Pence to do what is necescay including using the guard.

                      Did you expect that Trump personally drove them into DC ?

                    2. The DC National Guard was already in DC. Odd that you talk about moving the NG across state lines.

                      “All he has to do is tell the Pentgon or Pence to do what is necescay”

                      But he didn’t.

                    3. False.

                      The DC NG is the only NG unti that can only be activated by the president.
                      The DC mayor can request their help – but ONLY after reciving permission from the president.

                      The presence of the DC NG in anything requires the permission of the president PERIOD.

                      There are currently only 1350 members of the DC guard.

                      All other NG units came from other states.

                      The NG can not be moved accross state lines without the permission of the president.

                      The very fact that the DC guard was deployed or any other NG was active in DC required Trump’s consent.

                      McEnnany publicly stated that the president had already called out the national guard that afternoon.
                      Are you saying she was stupid lying ??

                  2. If the argument is does the government muff orders – sure.

                    But the guard was called into DC and that can not be done without the predsident’s direction.

                    1. The DC National Guard was already in DC.

                      We’ve been discussing my claim that “Trump had the DC National Guard under his direct control, and he did not call them.” and your false response “actually he did.” You keep trying to change the topic to the NG from states. What part of the DC National Guard don’t you understand? The DC National Guard didn’t cross any state lines to go to the Capitol.

                    2. “The DC National Guard was already in DC.”
                      All 1350 of them.

                      “We’ve been discussing my claim that “Trump had the DC National Guard under his direct control, and he did not call them.” and your false response “actually he did.””
                      If Trump did not order the DC guard deployed – they were not deployed – it is that simple. Only the president can deploy the DC NG – PERIOD.

                      “You keep trying to change the topic to the NG from states.”
                      No it is a separate challenge to your claim.

                      There are 1350 DC NG, and only the president can deploy them – if they were deployed, then Trump did so, because no one else can, that is the law.

                      SEPARATELY if the NG from any state was deployed to DC that required the president to direct that. Governors can deploy the State guard within their state – not elsewhere.

                      “What part of the DC National Guard don’t you understand? The DC National Guard didn’t cross any state lines to go to the Capitol.”
                      That is correct. They also could not go to the capital without Trump ordering them to do so.

                      You ignore that.

                      You also ignore that the NG from other states WERE deployed in DC and there is only one way that can occur – if the president directs it.

                      Do you want to argue about whether the sun will rise tomorow ?

                2. Yes, the president can direct the DC NG – as well as the guard of other states.

                  Only the president can direct the NG accross state lines.
                  The crossed – therefore they were directed by the president.

                3. “The fact remains that Trump had the DC National Guard under his direct control . . .”

                  You are mistaken.

                  Authority to activate the DCNG is controlled by the Secretary of Defense. Since this was a ground issue, that authority fell to the Secretary of the Army.

                  1. You are incorrect and undermining your own argument.

                    Even the Sec Def can not issue orders unilaterally. First all constitutional authority is vested in the president.
                    There is absolutely no constitutional ability to act in government outside the policies and directions of the president.
                    This is even more true with the military.

                    Next – even if your claim were true – the logical conclusion is that you can not claim that Trump failed to deploy the NG, because YOU are claiming it was not his authority.

                    Regardless, I am not clear of the lawful chain of command regarding deploying the DC guard, but I am nearly certain it does NOT pass through the Sec. Def. The defense department is certainly responsible for supporting the NG with resources, But the NG generally and the DC NG specifically are not under the command of Sec Def until they are “federalized”.

            2. As John above points out, Trump did call them. I don’t know what Trump knew and when he knew it, so I can’t speak to whether he was deliberately
              dilatory or not. If you have specific information about that, please, present it. We’ll discuss.

              Harris’s support of MFF can’t be justified.

              1. John often claims things that aren’t true, so you shouldn’t rely on his unsubstantiated word for anything.

                Trump did NOT call the DC National Guard to help at the Capitol. In a comment I just posted, I linked to the Newsweek fact check on it.

                You’re free to have any opinion you want about Harris and MFF, but your support for cash bail — which only harms the poor — is telling.

                1. Not only are you incorrect but you are obviously incorrect.

                  The NG in each state are controlled by that state governor WITHIN THE STATE.

                  The DC guard is controlled by the president.

                  Guardsmen were deployed from VA and MD to the capital, Their governors made them available – though Trump could have just taken them.

                  But only the president can order the NG across state lines and only Trump can active the DC NG.

                  Having watched the mess this summer – you should know all of this by now.

                  “At President @realDonaldTrump’s direction, the National Guard is on the way along with other federal protective services,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany tweeted on Wednesday afternoon.

                  1. “The DC guard is controlled by the president.”

                    That’s what I said in my 2:35 PM comment. I also linked to evidence for it. But he is not the one who gave the order. If you think that everything under the President’s control acts only under direct orders from the President himself, you’re mistaken. The entire Executive Branch is under the President’s control. Most of it does not need his direct orders. He is not the one who directed the DC National Guard to the Capitol.

                    I already noted that McEnany says a lot of things that are false. What you quoted is one of them.

                    1. Anonymous, John say is sometimes a bit obtuse when it comes to obvious points. He’s intentionally avoiding acknowledging that the DC national guard was already there. Acknowledging it would mean he was in the wrong about his point. He can’t have that. So he insists on arguing that the NG needs to cross state lines narrative to save face.

                      Maybe he needs to just read this and understand what he is being obtuse about.

                      “Due to the fact that the District of Columbia is not a state, the D.C. National Guard is the only local National Guard with a national mission to protect the Federal Government – a mission reflected in its motto “Capital Guardians.” On October 30, 1802, the D.C. Militia held its first muster.

                    2. “He’s intentionally avoiding acknowledging that the DC national guard was already there.”
                      False about my intention and false about the facts.

                      Obviously members of the NG are SOMEWHERE. They may be in their homes in DC.
                      The may be at the DC Armory. but they are not ever roaming the streets of DC on their own without orders.

                      And they may not respond to emergencies on their own initiative – no National Guard unit can.

                      “Acknowledging it would mean he was in the wrong about his point.”
                      Your point is not relevant – again you are only capable of shallow thinking.

                      The 2400 members of the capital police force where in DC. But most of them were not AT the capital. They were elsewhere or at home. Why ? Because they had not been ordered to be at the capital.

                      Being “there” – in DC is not the same as being ordered to the capital or ordered to restore order in DC.

                      There is substantially more ability for the Capital police to act on their own than the DC NG.
                      But they do not magically appear en masse without being ordered to.
                      Neither does the DC NG.

                      Orders for the DC NG must originate with the president.

                      “He can’t have that.”
                      What I can not have is an actually valid logical argument from you.
                      Or any thought that gets further than the nose on your face.

                      “So he insists on arguing that the NG needs to cross state lines narrative to save face.”
                      State NG’s may act at the direction of state governors WITHIN THOSE STATES.
                      the DC NG may only act at the direction of the president.

                      NO NG regardless of where they are from can act absent the directon of the president in DC.

                      “Maybe he needs to just read this and understand what he is being obtuse about.

                      “Due to the fact that the District of Columbia is not a state, the D.C. National Guard is the only local National Guard with a national mission to protect the Federal Government – a mission reflected in its motto “Capital Guardians.” On October 30, 1802, the D.C. Militia held its first muster.”

                      True – but it has nothing to do with the issue.

                      The DC NG can not be deployed except by order of the president.
                      The DC NG is only 1350 strong. They are small compared to the capital police, There were more NG deployed than that.
                      They can only be deployed in DC at the order of the president.

                      You are as always arguing nonsense that demonstrates an inability to think past the most obvious.

                    3. An order not given by the president to deploy the guard is not legal.

                      We are not dealing with civilan chain of command we are dealing with military chain of command.

                      There is nothing that the military can do without authorization from the president.

                      The orders from the president need no be so specific as – send this platoon to G street, but no one at any level of military chain of command can act or issue orders to others to act without authorization from above them in the chain of command.

                      It is unlikely that Trump ordered the DC NG to the capital – that is not the presidents role. It is more likely that he ordered them to restore order in DC. Broad orders from the top become narrow orders to individual groups at the bottom.

            3. Let’s listen once again to leaders of the Democrat Party supporting violence. Not all that difference from the early German violence that helped bring Hitler to power.

          2. see the double standard indicates to me, that truth in reporting is so obviously dead, that it all comes down to this. they want to liquidate the legacy American population and replace it with whatever else. in that process, it was convenient for them to maintain the fiction that there was journalism, but now it comes to an end. there is only propaganda now, and it is intentionally designed to make the legacy population look bad, and the new Americans to be emboldened.

            they must crush the emotional resistance of the legacy americans to make them ready for a massive cull, the likes of which would have been unimaginable decades ago.

            but take a look at abortion. if in 1960 you would have been told that by 1980 it would be legal everywhere and millions of unborns slaughtered, would you have believed it possible?

            if now I tell you that by 2050 the US will have liquidated its legacy population by the millions, you would not believe me that it is possible.

            I used to think the crazy racists were wrong that we were on the cusp of an antiwhite genocide. i thought that was preposterous. but oh what changes a decade can bring

            now? im not so sure. and if it comes it will be in the name of “public health” i would imagine. well, here, let’s see how the glorious vaccine is doing. is it actually kllling old people?

            https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/california-urges-stop-to-300000-covid-19-vaccines-after-some-fall-ill “some fall ill” was not the news out of norway. it was KILLING people in nursing homes. yes, look it up, Norway Moderna vaccine killed a bunch of elderly. today’s headline also said, “public officials not concerned.” WELL OF COURSE NOT THAT’S THE PLAN!

            https://www.businessinsider.com/norway-raises-concern-of-covid-19-vaccine-on-frail-elderly-2021-1

            maybe all you white liberals should pause for a minute and ask yourselves, will you be spared, just because you are self-abnegating? will you be spared or perhaps you will simply be the last to go. or maybe because you are so weak and self-hating, you will be the first to go. does it matter?

            sal sar.

            1. Sal Kurtz: the true legacy population of North America was drastically “culled” by an active genocide, total war and small pox. While there is not an active genocide directed at who you consider to be the legacy population at this time there is certainly a pandemic.

              Elvis Bug

              1. I agree that the conquest of North America by European states and settlers was by total war and pestilence. I have no problem admitting that. Considering that it took centuries, it may not be genocide in the sense that we use the term today. It certainly was a conquest with devastating consequences on the Indian tribes.

                Of course they were no angels either. They say the Aztecs had “genocided” more than one lesser nearby tribe in their ascent to regional supremacy, long before Cortez showed up onshore. One is tempted to think, looking at history, that such things characterize the history of humanity over millenia, as the rule rather than the exception.

                I believe, that the legacy white population is in the midst of a demographic replacement, by voluntary means of abortion and contraception, which are technological means that are being used worldwide now, so they are not specifically aimed at us even if we were the first populations to suffer demographically from them. Secondly, by mass migrations, which dilute the sense of the nation-state as one of a people in favor of a more diffuse national identity. Again, this process is nothing new, per se, the populations of the Earth have ever migrated since Homo Erectus. However, again technology, mass transportation technology, has made it happen visibly fast.

                Is this intentional? I would say yes, some have certainly intended it, specifically the ultra-rich aka the billionaires. And their predecessors. All the way back to King George!

                The demand for cheap labor has driven American migration policy from day one. The settlers from England were in their own way, surplus labor, ejected from Europe, organized into colonies by the emerging mercantile powers of England at the time. Then it drove slavery, the importation of labor from Africa to the plantations. Then it was the Germans, then the Irish, then the Italians, then the eastern Europeans, then the Hispanics. Then it was all the other populations which have arrived since Reagan’s time, from all over. The capitalist owners of America always want more scab labor and they could care less the color., The fact they have been overwhelmingly white skinned themselves, even today, means nothing to them. They only see green. it’s people who work for wages that have the natural sense of people and tribe and place, native borns of however many generations, that feel oppressed by this process.

                I don’t fault the natives of today who feel it that way any more than I do the Indians, who resisted the process. I freely confess I feel it myself as part of that group, even though I have not really suffered from it that much personally. More a vicarious feeling I get from friends and family, with whom i feel the deepest sympathy. Anyhow, to me it seems there is something incredibly unfair to say that it was OK for Indians to resist this process of demographic eclipse but a whole class of workers and middle class Americans today are BAD because they have the same instincts.

                if we look at it from this perspective, then we can see that considering the racial diversity of today, a genuine migration restriction agenda could serve the interests of not only the legacy white population, but even the legacy black and hispanic populations. The mass media strives hard to paint “nativism” as a strictly racist phenomenon, when it is not always so. Indeed it may be more pervasive among nonwhite natives than people suspect.

                I wonder how America will manage a growing north Asian population. There is a sense in which affirmative action tends to restrict available berths for those among that population which have excellent academic performance. https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/college-beat-higher-education/2020/10/asian-american-students-affirmative-action/? Perhaps some will become “frustrated elites” which in the work of the ecologist ,tends to destabilize “empires” on their way down. I will have to look up this guy’s name. he has been in the news some the past year. He also talks about debt cycles as a big factor. Any way you look at it, the viability of the US over the long term has got some serious threats working against it.

                Sal Sar

                PS i found it– Peter Turchin

                https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/glut-of-frustrated-elites-overlooked-in-west-s-political-turmoil-1.4425588

                1. I heard about it from the Whatifalthist channel on YouTube (a great channel, BTW). Bought it the next day.

            2. As of today, 400,000 Americans have died from Covid. Probably more, if you judge by excess deaths in the last year.

                1. 130,000 americans died of small pox in one year during the revolution.
                  There were only 3M americans at the time.

                2. The hoax was what those in our government imposed on us claiming it would work.

                  It did not,
                  I could not
                  And that was knowable.

              1. And the same number would have died no matter what.
                No nation has managed Covid. even China is seeing it flare up again.
                You can predict Covid infections and deaths solely by demographics and geography.

                As we learn more we increasingly learn that most of what any state or nation has done is ineffective.

      2. Free speech, dude. If you can’t handle it, move to Venezuela. Doesn’t meet the criteria for incitement.

  13. This impeachment is not about one speech on Jan 6. It is about:
    Repeatedly, publicly, and loudly lying about voter fraud for over two months.
    Telling his supporters that the election was stolen from him/them
    Pressuring the various legislatures to overturn the will of their voters and give him the election.
    Pressuring the GA SoS to fraudulently fund votes and declare him the winner.
    Pressuring Pence to unconstitutionally throw out EC votes.
    Telling his supporters to gather in DC on Jan 6 and be wild.
    Along with others, inciting a riot on Jan 6.
    After his supporters entered the Capital, not doing anything to stop it.
    All of this adds up to clearly impeachable conduct.

  14. Turley seems to be just plumb ignorant when it comes to comparisons and not using proper context.

    There’s a major difference between Comey’s comments and Trump’s rhetoric. Trump spent weeks, months spewing lies and unproven accusations about the election being stolen from him. It wasn’t just that lone speech on Jan 6 Thst suddenly triggered the insurrectionist rioting at the Capitol. Trump built up the notion over months, casting doubt and inciting others to believe it was true. Michigan’s governor was the target of a kidnapping plot and overthrowing of Michigan’s government. Trump encouraged his followers to act on the lies he perpetrated. This inciting was months in the making.

    Comey’s opinions don’t have the same effect due to the fact that he has not been constantly instigating those ideas. There is a very sharp distinction that Turley either is ignorant about or is being deliberately ignorant.

    He just wants to deflect from his exposed hypocrisy by his fellow professors pointing out his contradictory opinions.

    That he is a free speech “expert” and portrays this comparison as an equivalent argument reeks of amateurish incompetence at best.

    A point to ponder is Turley clearly recognized Trump’s speech as going too far. He was able to do so because he had to recognize the context in which it was given. Comey’s opinion is not even a good comparison.

    1. Agreed that JT is pretending that they’re analogous when they aren’t, for the reasons you describe.

      Dave Weigel of the Washington Post says “the password for reporters at Trump’s January 4 rally in Georgia was literally “SeeYouJan6!” ”

      Trump tweeted incitement during the insurrection, complaining about Pence while rioters were chanting “hang Mike Pence” and looking for him –
      “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”

      Trump had previously tweeted things like “The “Justice” Department and the FBI have done nothing about the 2020 Presidential Election Voter Fraud, the biggest SCAM in our nation’s history, despite overwhelming evidence. They should be ashamed. History will remember. Never give up. See everyone in D.C. on January 6th” and retweeted comments like “The calvary is coming, Mr. President! JANUARY 6th”

      Many of the people who’ve been arrested have tried to excuse their actions by invoking Trump’s encouragement to be there on the 6th, saying things like “I listen to my president who told me to go to the Capitol” (that’s from TX realtor Jennifer Ryan who flew a private jet to DC for the riot and also asked Trump to pardon all of them).

      1. Sweetheart, who in gawd’s name gives you your talking points!!!? They are terrible! Consider taking a course in Writing Composition, English Literature and make sure to read the classics to learn how to think, be creative and stimulate minds!

        Shakespeare, Salinger, Vonnegut, Harper Lee, John Steinbeck, Orwell, James Joyce….

        You have much reading to do and do not return to these comments until you can convey original ideas

        Bwahahahahahahaahah

    2. Svelaz. Oftentimes, Turley’s articles sound as if written by the same people who write for Fox News hosts. He adopts the same false narratives, e.g., “no collusion,” as if there was nothing untoward about any of the conduct of Trump or his associates. He knows that collusion is not a legal conclusion of the Meuller report, and yet he echoes a Fox talking point. Is it not obvious that Turley is beholden to Fox? I only wish that one day Turley will be asked to justify working for and legitimating TrumpTV. He might as well have worked for Newsmax or One America Network.

      1. silverman and his shallow Democrat cheerleader comments, super tiresome and almost too boring to read

        1. So entertain yourself then. Grab the nearest broom, shove the handle up your a^^ and push it around the room.

  15. Comey – like so many other has-been Washington insiders – is desperately trying to stay in thespotlight.

    They are like cockroachs, they never go away.

  16. I endorse burning down both political parties. The R’s and D’s are nearly identical as well as wholly owned subsidiaries of special interests, the MIC, banksters. Until a political party emerges that is funded exclusively by We the People, folks need to get used to rule by fascist oligarchs and neocons.

  17. Turley: “Free speech demands bright lines…” There can be no bright lines. Obscenity is not protected speech, but there is no bright line. When judging Trump’s January 6th speech which Turley rightly condemns, he ignores the context in which that reckless speech was given. Trump was exceedingly reckless BECAUSE he was exhorting a crowd primed to revolt! Trump’s two previous months of lying is what brought the protestors to D.C. Given that fact, Trump should have known better than to inflame the crowd any further. Turley would have you believe that this crowd was otherwise peaceful and not hell-bent on taking the law into their own hands. He will not hold Fox News’ hosts accountable for being instrumental in echoing Trump’s Big Lie.

    1. Jeffrey +10.

      I made the exact same point. Turley’s is either deliberately or ignorantly leaving out the context. Context IS important. Comparing Comey and Trump’s speech purely on speech without context is a false equivalency.

  18. This is the Democratic Party. You get a view of what partisan Democrats are like from reading your comment boxes. It isn’t pretty.

  19. If he told a violent mob to march on the RNC after telling them to assemble on the day for months and they did burn it down then perhaps he would be charged. As is he’s not speaking before a crowd or with any sense of imminent lawless action. As you know unprotected violent speech is defined by the Supreme Court as “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action”.

    Nothing Comey said here would fit that definition. And if you view the context of his next sentences he clearly meant metaphorically “Something is shifting and I’m hoping it’s the fault breaking apart, a break between the Trumpists and those people who want to try and build a responsible conservative party, because everybody should know that we need one. Who would want to be part of an organisation that at its core is built on lies and racism and know-nothingism? It’s just not a healthy political organisation.”

    He’s right though, the party is imploding: https://apple.news/Aky7hWfToTKWUz6J94RoGSw

    This will be interesting to watch play out over the next 4+ years.

    1. Agreed CK07. Context is everything. It is utterly disingenuous to compare seemingly incendiary statements stripped of their contexts.

    2. CK07, exactly! you would think someone of Turley’s “intellectual” pedigree would recognize such an easy distinction. 🤦‍♂️

      1. This from the WeHo dude (dudette?) who would know how to appreciate these awesome candles!
        Order now!!!

        https://pagesix.com/2020/01/11/gwyneth-paltrow-selling-75-candle-that-smells-like-my-vagina/

        Gwyneth Paltrow selling $75 candle that ‘smells like my vagina’

        Gwyneth Paltrow has plenty of unique items available via her Goop online shop, including a candle with a very unconventional scent.

        “This Smells Like My Vagina” candle from Goop

        The “This Smells Like My Vagina” candle is on sale now for $75, with the product description breaking down how the votive came to be.

        “This candle started as a joke between perfumer Douglas Little and GP,” reads the website. “The two were working on a fragrance, and she blurted out, “Uhhh..this smells like a vagina” — but evolved into a funny, gorgeous, sexy, and beautifully unexpected scent. (That turned out to be perfect as a candle).”

        Scent notes include geranium, citrusy bergamot, and cedar absolutes juxtaposed with Damask rose and ambrette seed.

        The candle is currently sold out, but is expected to be re-stocked

      2. CK07: Of course Turley knows! It is less insulting to accuse him of being disingenuous than being a moron. I can only figure that he needs the money as a Fox contributor, and he knows what his bosses expect. Thus, he bends over backwards to play dumb to those facts that are inimical to Trump TV- Fox News. After all, he has never claimed to be an objective legal expert on this blog. It is unmistakeable that he is not impartial.

        1. I really thought he was impartial at one time. Perhaps it was during the Bush Administration when I first started coming here or back when he was arguing the sister wives case. With Trump at first I thought he was either being contrarian to rational wisdom to distinguish himself or defend his former student Kellyanne. At this point it’s indefensible. I think it’s got to be how you say. He’s found his new audience and is advocating an irrational position to appeal to them. All I can say is I hope that changes while the GOP has it’s internal reckoning during the Biden Administration.

    3. Party’s dead. The country will not make it another 4 years in as a unified nation. So very brilliant of the billionaires holding both the Dems and Republicans on strings like puppets. I feel like I’m living in a James Bond movie and Blofeld has finally killed 007.

      1. Seems my post got removed/moderated for using the slightly vulgar names of Dr. Evil’s cohort from Austin Powers to describe Trump’s crew. Until it shows up I’ll summarize: He’s a “billionaire” who’s more Dr. Evil than Blofield. Complete with goons like Fat Bas**** (Steve Bannon), No. 2 (Barr), Mini-me (Stephen Miller), Goldmember (Giuliani), Scott (Jr.) etc. Not sure what the repubs expected, but the billionaires are scared to death if Kamala takes the white house, with positions endorsed by Warren and Bernie. The dems having the house and senate is the most scared they’ve been since before Reagan cut their taxes and brought trickle down economics prosperity to them.

Leave a Reply