“Aid and Comfort” To the Enemy: Speaker Pelosi Ramps Up Attacks On Republican Colleagues Amidst Calls For Expulsions

Speaker Nancy Pelosi ramped up the attacks on members of her own house this week, accusing them of giving “aid and comfort” to those who want to destroy the nation.  The comments came after Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., denied a public accusation by Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., that she personally took rioters around the capitol for a tour before the attack on January 6th.  Boebert pointed out that the “rioters” were her family members and she has never given such tours. Rather than encouraging colleagues to avoid baseless and inflammatory accusations pending review of what occurred on January 6th, Pelosi threw gasoline on the fire and accused her colleagues of giving “aid and comfort” to those who were trying to destroy the Constitution and the country.  It is, in my view, another failure of leadership by the Speaker in her duties to the institution as a whole.

Like many, I support a commission to look into how these rioters gained such rapid entry into the Capitol Hill.  However, Democratic members have claimed that Republican members were actual co-conspirators in the riot in supplying access to the building to plan out the attack. Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D., N.J.) went public with an extraordinary allegation against some of her colleagues that they conducted secret surveillance in a conspiracy with rioters at the Capitol. Sherrill stated in a Facebook live address to her constituents that she witnessed the surveillance personally. She said unidentified members of Congress “had groups coming through the Capitol” in “a reconnaissance for the next day.”

Sherill has still not supplied any of the names of her colleagues to who worked as inside co-conspirators. As noted earlier, this is an unambiguous allegation of criminal conduct against colleagues.  Either members were conspiring in a crime or Sherill unfairly defamed her colleagues. Article I, Section 5, the Constitution says, “Each House (of Congress) may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.”  The House may discipline members for violations of both unlawful conduct as well as any conduct which the House of Representatives finds has reflected discredit upon the institution. In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 669-670 (1897). A House Select Committee in 1967 stated:

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

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

One would think that this rising level of acrimony would prompt a Speaker to calm her members and call for an investigation. Speaker Pelosi however proceeded to ramp up the rhetoric. She started out well by stating, “You have to have evidence for what has happened.” She then took a shot at Republicans and stated “There is no question that there were members in this body who gave aid and comfort to those with the idea that they were embracing a lie — a lie perpetrated by the president of the United States that the election did not have legitimacy.” The language comes from the treason language in the Constitution Article III, Section 3 states: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or, in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

In the context of alleged criminal conspiracy by members, the use of this language clearly suggested members were more than just politically at fault for their positions. It suggested that they were traitors.

These attacks are coming as some members are calling for the possible expulsion of members for challenging the electoral votes, an act expressly allowed under federal law and repeatedly done by Democrats in prior elections.  It is an example of the rage-filled politics that continues to build in our country, including calls for blacklists and punitive measures against anyone deemed supportive of Trump.  As I noted in today’s column, it is a crisis of leadership in this country when we desperately need leaders who can unite us rather than capitalize on our divisions.

194 thoughts on ““Aid and Comfort” To the Enemy: Speaker Pelosi Ramps Up Attacks On Republican Colleagues Amidst Calls For Expulsions”

  1. If Pelosi spoke to anyone 1/6 about the violence, what did they say? it looks like she spent 4 years concentrating on destroying this country. I loved today’s picture of her holding up something. With her and the two behind her all in masks, they looked like fugitives.

  2. Today’s Democrat Party is the greatest threat to democracy our country has ever faced. Nancy Pelosi is the evil face of that Party. Period.

  3. “You’re forgetting who you are! You’re forgetting who you are as a journalist if you think there’s only one side!” Go Rand Paul!

    1. Excellent video. Rand Paul showed what the MSM is like and GS proved it when he said “There are not two sides to the story.”

      1. Stephanopolous was given a chance to establish himself as a serious purveyor of discussion and topical commentary. He didn’t take the opportunity and it’s a reasonable wager that ABC was so far gone when they hired him that they wanted him to continue to be a Clinton crony on the air. (See Brent Bozell on how differently the written press and the broadcast press covered the Clintons ca. 1997).

    2. Stephanapoulus correctly states that there are not 2 sides to the facts and the facts are – as he stated – that there have been no serious allegations of election irregularities significant enough to have changed the result. Paul responded by constantly trying to speak over him before he could complete his statements and by raising already disproved allegations about Wisconsin and Pennsylvania absentee ballots. He also incorrectly repeated the same BS about courts not hearing evidence.

      Paul is a Trump stooge embarrassment. Why you would cheer his ignorant and embarrassing appearance is beyond me Prairie. Journalists have an obligation to call guests on the facts. There are not 2 sides to whether the earth is round either.

      1. Joe Friday,
        I’d say it was George Stephanopolous who did not address the facts of the matter. The dismissed suits were apparently dismissed for lack of standing, which means that the merits of the suit was not even examined. Here are issues regarding standing (yes, it’s Wikipedia, but since I’m not lawyer, this was a quick way to get an overview):

        “In 2011, in Bond v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant charged with violating a federal statute does have standing to challenge the constitutionality of that statute under the Tenth Amendment.[41]

        Standing requirements
        There are three standing requirements:

        Injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract).[42] The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or both.

        Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.[43]

        Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.[44]
        Prudential limitations

        Additionally, there are three major prudential (judicially created) standing principles. Congress can override these principles via statute:

        Prohibition of Third-party standing: A party may only assert his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of a third party who is not before the court; exceptions exist where the third party has interchangeable economic interests with the injured party, or a person unprotected by a particular law sues to challenge the oversweeping of the law into the rights of others. For example, a party suing over a law prohibiting certain types of visual material, may sue because the 1st Amendment rights of theirs, and others engaged in similar displays, might be damaged.

        Additionally, third parties who do not have standing may be able to sue under the next friend doctrine if the third party is an infant, mentally handicapped, or not a party to a contract. One example of a statutory exception to the prohibition of third party standing exists in the qui tam provision of the Civil False Claims Act.[45]

        Prohibition of generalized grievances: A plaintiff cannot sue if the injury is widely shared in an undifferentiated way with many people. For example, the general rule is that there is no federal taxpayer standing, as complaints about the spending of federal funds are too remote from the process of acquiring them. Such grievances are ordinarily more appropriately addressed in the representative branches.
        Zone of interest test: There are in fact two tests used by the United States Supreme Court for the zone of interest
        Zone of injury: The injury is the kind of injury that Congress expected might be addressed under the statute.[46]
        Zone of interests: The party is arguably within the zone of interest protected by the statute or constitutional provision”

        I trust Rand Paul and Dan Crenshaw far more than the media. Yes, I need to now learn more about law in order to better understand what exactly is going on the courts and what happened with the dismissed lawsuits. The rule of law is important and if there was fraud it needs to actually be investigated–the merits of lawsuits should be examined. If those are then found to be faulty or no rules were found to be broken, then that will go a long way to reassuring people that the election was fair and free from corruption. If there was fraud that occurred, even if it ends up being inadequate to change the election, it, too, should be dealt with so that protocols can be put into place to prevent such things from happening in the future. Gotta build a better mousetrap. And, let the sunshine in.

        1. Prairie, apparently your problem is trusting Rand Paul who proved his hackery in that interview and Crenshaw who produced a ridiculous and infantile video starring him as an action hero going to Georgia to kick liberal a.s before the Senate run offs. I’d link, but given what BS Trumpsters fall for, they’d probably love this one too, no doubt macho demagogue in making Crenshaw’s intent.

          Yes, you should know the facts better, and especially before sounding off on a matter of fact. Paul repeats the dead ender mantra on those lost cases being rejected for standing only.. That’s not true. Judges of both parties reviewed evidence in most of those cases and threw them out or ruled against them for insufficient to non-existent evidence. I cannot find a count on how many cases were thrown out for standing, but probably very few. Overall reviews of the cases discuss rulings based on judgments of the facts, cases being thrown out for lack of evidence, and the fact that Guiliani in one case said it was not about fraud. Here’s a typical article from Forbes in December:


          In short, and to put it politely, Paul is full of s..t and is only interested in carrying Trump water, not getting to the truth. Stephanpolous was having none of that. Good for him

          1. Neither Paul or Crenshaw carry water for Trump.

            And, I don’t think I’m going to get the “facts” of the matter from the media. I would have to read the actual lawsuit and reasons for dismissal.

            Also, George Stephanapolous should not be the counter to Rand Paul. He should have been the voice asking astute questions of two individuals. To be fair, Amy Klobuchar was intended to be that person but something went haywire. In any case, the journalist is supposed to ask dispassionate questions and let information unfold.

            1. Paul is definitely carrying Trump water and I just told you how and Crenshaw is an idiot demagogue in the making with his pretend Mission Accomplished asskicking of other Americans.

              Prairie, if you don;t get your facts from the “media”, where are you getting it? From Rand Paul’;s butt? Jesus, I thought you had a brain.

              Stephanopolous did his job perfectly, which is to not let politicians spinning BS hide from the facts.

              1. Joe Friday,
                “I don’t think I’m going to get the “facts” of the matter from the media.”

                It is a problem that I find the media so untrustworthy that I would rather bypass them and go straight to the source and take the extra time to sort out what is going on. It’s annoying that they have sabotaged their reputation so badly that my time gets eaten up doing what is purportedly *their* job–to report the actual facts of the matter in an unbiased manner. Maybe it’s a good thing, though, because maybe people will have finally realized that they have to read the news very critically and decide that there is probably some other undercurrent with every story that has been twisted or invented.

                “Prairie, if you don;t get your facts from the “media”, where are you getting it?”

                I already said I’d have to track down the actual lawsuits and their reasons for dismissal. I’d probably have to go to wikipedia, look at the source links, and track those down at the various court webpages.

                I also end up looking at a ton of news sources from all manner of perspectives in the hopes I can piece together some kind of understanding of what, maybe, might be going on. It’s a pain in the @$$. Far too many journalists have an agenda and a superiority complex. Power corrupts and they have a lot of power with the delivery of information. “It’s all about the information, Marty!”

                [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0UB3LD2EoA&w=773&h=435%5D

                1. I another words Prairie, you’re rendered completely uninformed about an issue you are talking about as if you weren’t.

                  I don;t know when in human history you thought the “media” was pure and true, but it has always been the work of imperfect humans with presses owned by other humans who knew the powerful, and maybe were in turn owned by them. I recommend reading multiple sources who’s product is known for accuracy, not opinions. That means that they have to be reasonably accurate to keep selling product. The NYTs and WSJ are both known for this quality even though both have highly charged opinion pages. Think of it as getting news from people you know. Some of them you would believe and others not. Compared to periods in our history when we thought demons caused our aunt to get sick, there were no competing voices reporting events, and you couldn’t go to original sources at your desk or pocket, we live in a golden age of information were the weakness in the system are those reading it and making poor choices on what to believe. Many get their news from talk radio, 24/7 cable news, or some nut on Youtube or Facebook. Conspiracy mongering is run amok – BS for weak minds who can’t accept the complexity of real life – and our prized democracy gave a toxic creep like Trump the presidency, even if by the EC, not the vote. But hey, how does someone like that get even close? It wasn’t lack of information, it was too much bad information.

                  1. Joe Friday,
                    “I another words Prairie, you’re rendered completely uninformed about an issue you are talking about as if you weren’t.”
                    I disagree.

                    “I don;t know when in human history you thought the “media” was pure and true, but it has always been the work of imperfect humans with presses owned by other humans who knew the powerful, and maybe were in turn owned by them.”
                    I am well aware of this. Remember the Maine.

                    “I recommend reading multiple sources who’s product is known for accuracy, not opinions.”
                    I do.

                    “That means that they have to be reasonably accurate to keep selling product.”

                    Not exactly. They can deliver information that is made up out of whole cloth and if people don’t realize it is such, then the paper continues to sell. Perhaps consider it as a ratio of factual, accurate news to malinformation/disinformation/misinformation. A paper could have a great local section, great sports section, super home and garden section, not to mention the funnies, but the US and World news could have a lower percentage of accuracy, a lower percentage of news that wasn’t distorted in some way and people could very potentially miss it–especially if it is from an unfamiliar place or it’s a well-written piece of propaganda or manipulation or the paper depends on feeding people’s biases or depends on the trust of its audience or perhaps on their average ability to analyze text. I try to be careful not to let myself get swayed by confirmation bias, but that’s not even remotely on a lot of people’s radar. There are some rhetorical techniques that catch people, too–even well-educated people. Max Weber was not ignorant, but he still got himself swayed by the Nazis.

                    To what extent, also, are newspapers will participants or originators versus to what extent have they been duped by news they thought was legit? Hard to tease those elements out.

                    “But hey, how does someone like that get even close?”
                    That is a very good question.

                    “It wasn’t lack of information, it was too much bad information.”
                    I don’t think that’s quite it.

                    1. Well Prairie, if that were true, capitalism doesn’t work because people are too stupid to buy better products. The NYTs and WSJ are delivered digitally or on paper to the desks of executives, academics, business leaders, and managers all over the country. They don’t get it because they have juicier editorials than the NY Post or Alex Jone’s newsletter. They get it because they have fair confidence that they will know what is going on if they read or peruse them each day. Like anything else, if you can afford it – and these are not expensive products – buy quality and you won’t regret it.

              2. At the point of stating, “Prairie, if you don;t get your facts from the “media”, where are you getting it? From Rand Paul’;s butt? Jesus, I thought you had a brain.” You lost the argument.

      2. Joe can only think two dimensionally and that is why he can so easily agree with GS that, “There are not two sides to the story.” G.S. was wrong.

        Joe proves it with his analogy. “There are not 2 sides to whether the earth is round either.” Actually Joe, you are wrong. The earth is not round. It’s an an oblate spheroid.

        Invariably there are two sides to a story joe. Your problem is that you don’t want to hear one of them.

      3. “Journalists have an obligation to call guests on the facts.”

        As far as I can tell, far too many journalists are in the business of obscuring or ignoring or twisting facts. Rather than try to refute facts themselves, they should leave that to someone with the counter-argument. At this point, Stephanopolous looks like an extension of the Democrat party than a dispassionate observer of events. I’d rather he be a moderator, fading into the background of the discussion except to bring up important clarifying questions or probing questions.

        There are two sides of the story. Also, “there have been no serious allegations of election irregularities significant enough to have changed the result” –so what? Let’s have the investigation, see what’s up, and if it is indeed, just a bunch of small-time instances of fraud that didn’t actually do anything to change the results–great! That will put people’s hearts at ease. Right now, people feel like something is being swept under the rug as it always seems to get swept under the rug in politics. It just increases people’s anger and distrust of not just government in general but of the ruling parties. Most people are unaffiliated with any particular party–I’m an Independent, for instance–because both parties play games, don’t really follow their so-called platform, don’t represent the people particularly well, don’t stand for liberty particularly well, and seem to be down-right corrupt. A pox on both of them! Sheesh, I feel like it’s the Capulets and the Montagues.

        Also, as far as I understand it, PA has at least 1 still ongoing lawsuit. Why pretend like it’s a done deal, that that lawsuit doesn’t exist? People want to know a real outcome, and that means the merits of the lawsuit(s) are examined. Having it dismissed on standing means that the details haven’t been aired and explored–and that’s what many people want, whether the trial is won or lost. If they lose fair and square, then that is a win towards reunifying the nation and restoring trust in the process. If the nation was so badly damaged by Trump and the distrust sown during his presidency, wouldn’t it be best to heal those wounds and restore trust?

        Paul is most certainly not carrying Trump’s water. He chose to follow the Constitution, as did Dan Crenshaw.

        1. Prairie wrote:

          “There are two sides of the story. Also, “there have been no serious allegations of election irregularities significant enough to have changed the result” –so what?…”

          There not 2 sides to every story and this is one of those. Accept reality and move on.

          As to “So what?” So a bunch of suckers and malignant creeps ran over the capital because Trump and idiots like Paul ran the story that the election had been stolen. Obviously is was not or a believable scenario – hey, show us the complete evidence later – would have been developed in 60 courts. Throw out Pennsylvania – that’s what the GOP wanted to do – and he still lost.

          Crenshaw is an idiot who thinks he’s in an action movie, not the Congress. I’m getting really tired of candidates carrying guns and they’re not hunting. I had a higher opinion of him before that video, but we don;t need more of that.

          1. “Accept reality and move on.”

            The reality that perhaps our elections are not secure? No, I will not move on. I would like to know, more definitively, this answer.

            There are enough shenanigans by the Deep State and the Media and Industry, that I do not trust that there isn’t some funny business. William Binney, who worked for the NSA, noted that we are/were “this close” (almost a pinch) away from a turnkey totalitarian state. Wouldn’t that be so helpful for the powers that be if they could guarantee their chosen candidate would win, not just the DNC or RBC nomination, but also the presidency?

            No, I want transparency and I want self-governance.

            1. Funny you didn’t call for a forensic audits of the 2016 election. You don’t want to know more, you want to know less and seem to be achieving your goal.

              PS There are no “powers that be”. There are plenty of powerful people and they are in competition to have more. We the people in a democracy have the power to choose our leaders and we f..ed it up big time. Take responsibility. No one is making us do this.

              1. I noted in 2016 that it appeared to me that the elites had the high ground (and I included the Gettysburg clip of Buford’s soliloquy). I noted that there seemed to be funny business going on at the DNC and noted that there also had been funny business at the RNC. Plenty of propaganda swirling around then, too. And, yes, there are ‘powers that be’–why else would TARP and the Auto Bailout happen, for example, if there weren’t some backroom deals. They should have to deal with the consequences of poor business decisions just the way Main Street businesses do. And on that point, all businesses are essential to someone–not just places like Walmart, Lowe’s, Target, and other well-heeled, influential corporations.

                “We the people in a democracy have the power to choose our leaders”
                I would like to think so, but I’m not so sure.

                “and we f..ed it up big time. Take responsibility.”
                I agree.

                “No one is making us do this.”
                Do what?

                1. Prairie, the auto bail out worked and saved the economy of the upper mid west. .That’s why it happened. Ever hear of cutting off your nose to spite your face?

                    1. And? Are there fascists in Michigan and Indiana now? I’ve been there since the auto bail out and didn’t notice that. I did notice that the auto industry still exists, along with their suppliers and all the businesses that depend on them and their suppliers.

  4. The Speaker is as divisive as Trump. Another reason to have term limits. We need better people in all offices.

  5. There are some historical similarities between Trump and Malcolm X. Both were pushing a “separatist” vision of America instead of a “United” States of America. Malcolm X and his Black Panther followers were treated vastly different by the DOJ, FBI and our national security agencies (ex: Fred Hampton in Chicago).

    One could make a strong argument that Malcolm X had more integrity than Trump. Malcolm X wanted separate but equal rights as an underdog group and wasn’t acting “under color of law” when inciting violence (more legal than Trump under the First Amendment). Trump doesn’t want equal rights but domination over other Americans.

    Trump supporters may want to follow the role model of Christian pastor Martin Luther King, Jr. King supported a “United” States of America and supported the “constitutional rule of law” system of American government.

    1. I have to admit….there have been many posts I have disagreed with and many I have considered despite their absolutely warped thinking…..but yours has set a new low standard.

      For a start….Trump and Malcolm both were done wrong by the FBI.

      The rest of you post offering l is just yet another variation on the “Orange Man Bad” theme.

      Malcolm and Trump each had vision for America….Trump actually did something to better the Black Community where Malcolm merely talked about it.

      Trump’s economy saw historic Black Employment….which raised many out of poverty and continuous reliance upon handouts from the Federal Government.

      Watch what happens to those same people under Biden and a Democrat Administration.

      How many of those jobs are going to be lost and those folks and/or others fall back into poverty again.

      I am quite sure Malcolm X would not see that as good for the Black Community.

      MLK is a great Man and his message holds true yet today and sadly it is not being remembered by those that should be the very first to embrace it.

    2. There are some historical similarities between Trump and Malcolm X. Both were pushing a “separatist” vision of America instead of a “United” States of America. Malcolm X and his Black Panther followers were treated vastly different by the DOJ, FBI and our national security agencies (ex: Fred Hampton in Chicago).

      Take your meds and leave the sane people alone.

  6. Ute Indian Tribe in Utah strongly supported Biden.

    Now they are outraged that Biden’s new energy diktats are going to destroy their future economy.


    1. Pelosi was to be recovering right about now. Trump’s gone. She can live again. What does she do? She’s off to see the wizard.

      For you hotshot lawyers out there, let me ask you a question. What can be done to return our judiciary to its status as a bastion of integrity and justice, especially for the little guy?

      1. Not a hotshot lawyer. Here’s a suggestion.

        1. Some mix of retention referenda, competitive election, and recall for all judges. Place candidates on the ballot through designating petitions with realistic signature thresh-holds, not through party nomination processes.

        2. Explicit constitutional language which states that a jurisprudence of original understanding is the only legitimate jurisprudence.

        3. Have biennial constituent assemblies in all jurisdictions. The federal assembly would consist of all the state and territorial legislators, proceeding by weighted voting. Each state assembly would consist of all the state’s county boards, proceeding by weighted voting. Among the functions of these assemblies would be to consider disgracing particular judicial opinions, prohibiting them from appearing in reporters or being cited in briefs or other opinions.

        4. Allow any aspirant lawyer to take the bar exam, w/o regard to his formal legal training.

        5. Close extant law schools. The new legal academy prescribed by state legislators would have the following features.

        a. The prerequisite for attendance would be the completion of an arts-and-sciences certificate and a business certificate. The business certificate would be about 24 credits worth of study and could be completed in about six months. It would consist of courses in accounting, finance, insurance, and real estate. The arts-and-sciences certificate could be completed in a calendar year and consist mostly of courses in philosophy and Anglo-American history (with an emphasis on institutional development, not ‘social history’ or politics in general), appended to which might be one course each in rhetoric, political theory, and social psychology.

        b. Law schools would generally offer (1) a working lawyer’s degree that would consist of a 48 course of study which could be completed in a calendar year. (2) certificate programs in specialized areas of law given for generic law firm employees. These could be anything from a three week workshop to a calendar-year degree devoted to tax law. (3) slow-lane certificate courses given at common-and-garden colleges or perhaps community colleges specifically pitched to the hourly staff of law firms.

        c. A selection of law schools would offer a ‘judge’s degree’, 36 credits in length, of a more theoretical bent than the ordinary courses of study. NB a ‘working lawyers’ degree’ and a judges’ degree conjoined would resemble the JD degree currently in use.

        d. A very small corps of law schools would offer a ‘legal scholar’s degree’ intended for aspirant law school faculty (though never a requirement for a law school professorship. It would consist of tutorials and a thesis.

        6. The bulk of the teaching manpower at law schools would consist of clinical faculty – working lawyers who teach on the side.

        7. Law professors would work on multi-year contracts and not be tenured. Any faculty member would be expected to have the skills to slide into regular practice if not employed as a professor.

        8. The number of berths at a state’s public law schools would be a function of the number of working lawyers in said state. The function would be modified only if the nominal compensation of attorneys was increasing more rapidly than the nominal compensation of the generic worker in a given state. These determinations would be made by the state comptroller.

        1. My State just saw eight Judges electedd to the State Appeals Court….one was clearly unqualified based upon that Judge’s legal experience.

          The Judge un question was a State District Court Judge who had been shifted into a Court that handled minor cases, traffic/child custody/ Juvenile / and other similar kinds of cases.

          The Judge had a reputation of borderline incompetence and reversals upon appeals.

          That Judge rode the coat tails of a Republican surge in those races and is now on the Appeals Court deciding cases she has no experience with whatsoever.

          The one hope we have is that the next Election for her Seat shall see her removed by the Voters.

          Likewise…..we had a case where the Democrat Candidate won a seat on the Bench for our County which contains the State Capitol.

          Alas….it was discovered that he did not live in the District as required to be a Candidate.

          He politely resigned upon having to admit he knowingly falsified the Filing Document for that campaign (A Felony Crime under State Law and clearly printed upon the document in a big bold warning.).

          The Democrat Governor (long time Attorney General for the State) then appointed another Democrat known to be grossly unqualified and ignored the election results in which a Republican came second having lost by a mere handful of votes.

          The Governor’s action was not illegal….but plainly was very un-ethical.

          One of our Republican Judges elected to the Appeals Court is the Son of the Majority Leader of the State Senate which would suggest political connections sure help.

          Is there any question why the People might begin to develop a lack of trust and confidence in the Legal System?

        2. Art, Thank you and I would love to have a discussion of these good ideas.

          But I decided to quit wasting energy on good ideas because they are all verboten.

          Here is all you need to know. Billionaires rule as hidden neofeudal kings and we are all serfs


          If the First amendment actually allows this, then we need to change the first amendment

          Sal Sar

          1. No, Pol Pot! We shall not change the First Amendment! Sunlight and better speech is the antidote to such problems.

  7. Speaker Pelosi’s BLATANTLY PARTISAN actions since 2016 belies her dedication to our Nation as a whole!!!

      1. “The National Guard will always hold a special place in the hearts of the Bidens”

        Now after you eat your cookie you can go back to the garage.

      2. This reminds me of McCain handing out cookies in Maidan square in the middle of the Ukrainian insurrection against a lawfully elected Ukrainian government

        They say he may have handed out some cookies to Ukie fascists too. Azov Battalion, by name.
        Not that anybody in the Western mass media seems to have cared. I guess I am considered a Russian bot for recounting these facts.

        Well, here were some liberals that didn’t like it, though they apparently have no pull at all in the Democrat party leadership–
        which seems to have “corporatists” tendencies of its own


        Sal Sar

        1. This reminds me of McCain handing out cookies in Maidan square in the middle of the Ukrainian insurrection against a lawfully elected Ukrainian government

          I think you imagined that.

          The Ukraine has had multiple general elections since 2014 and the Russophile element of the political spectrum does poorly each time. Best give it up.

    1. The plans for the NG in DC were put in place under Trump and his hotel could not come close to holding them all. You can’t expect Biden to fix all of Trumps messes in a day.

      1. So far Biden has created a lot of new messes, lost jobs for Americans, aided the Russian economy, helping to spread Covid, etc. It is amazing how much damage he could do in just 3 days. Then in the House we listen to Pelosi causing further harm to the nation and Schumer who can’t get his erections right.

        1. Biden w/o a doubt is doing squat other than ADL, signing papers put in front of him (marked with little post-it tabs of the sort paralegals use), and trying to memorize the remarks they tell him he’s supposed to deliver. What you’re seeing is the vectors at work in the Democratic Party. You saw that with BO as well, who would check one of three options suggested by his staff and add some inane marginalia; he was good for fundraisers, though. The problem is that the Democratic Party is notably grosser than it was 10 years ago (and it was plenty gross then).


    This soon-to-be-released expose’ reveals at last the boorish yahoo behind all the puppets.  Estovir, we learn, is quite literally a troll.  A hideous physical wreck whose pathetic wife lives a virtual nightmare.  The following passage conveys the infinite anguish of Patsy Estovir.

    Patsy saw the ogre morph over time.  How a silly bumpkin grew morbidly repulsive.  Estovir developed a pig-like double-chin while veins opened around his nostrils.  Beady eyes and baldness further the impression of a disgusting old hog.  

    Last year Patsy posted photos on Facebook from their annual trip to Branson. But Estovir appeared so unsightly, some joker replied with a video of The Beatles song “Piggies”.  No comment was necessary.  Patsy knew that “Piggies” referred to Estovir.

    Their marriage  was a sham from the start.  Estovir bumbled hopelessly in bed.  Patsy knew there would be no children in their future.  Yet Estovir constantly jokes about gays as a form of ‘conversation’.  Patsy knows their marriage is a joke in itself.     

    Patsy’s low self-esteem began with devastating acne.  Her face bears the craters; creating the perception she was hit with a bag of nails.  ‘A pig of a troll is good enough for her’, or so Patsy believes.  Yet 3 churches have asked them not to come back.  

    The New York Times describes Turley’s Troll as a “horrifying glimpse at the lives of genuine Trumpsters”.   The Washington Post believes Turley’s Troll should be required reading for all Political Science majors.    

    “Turley’s Troll: The ‘Real’ Estovir” by Seth Warner, 270 pages.   Mainstream Press, N.Y. N.Y. 

    1. I have finally figured out why Anonymous is always talking about trolls. She actually believes that she so completely destroys the arguments of others that their shame drives them to come back under another name. Of course this must be so. After all, she is a legend in her own mind.

Comments are closed.