A Question Of Intent: How The Trump Trial Is Designed To Enrage But Not Convict

Below is my column in the Hill on the trial briefs filed by the House and the Trump team for the second Trump impeachment trial.  The brief of the House promises an emotionally charged but legally insufficient case for conviction. Indeed, there is no evidence that the “prosecution” is designed to win the trial since the House offers little on the issue of intent. Conversely, if Donald Trump insists on arguing election fraud, he could conceivably engineer his own conviction.  Rather the strategy on both sides seems to be to enrage the emotions of viewers rather than prove an actual case for incitement to insurrection.

Here is the column:

NPS photo

I don’t believe Punxsutawney Phil said anything about winter this year. Phil’s handlers claim to speak “Groundhogese,” but there are just some things that should come from the marmot himself. If you’re a groundhog skeptic like me, you will be equally unsatisfied by the filings for the second Trump impeachment by House impeachment managers and the Trump team.

The House brief outlines what will be a highly emotive case but one conspicuously lacking evidence of a critical element: intent. Likewise, the case laid out by Trump’s new counsel may be equally disconnected from the allegations. In this trial, we will hear a lot about how the groundhog appeared, what people thought he said, and even where he went afterward — but little from the groundhog himself.

The House

The House brief is built around how Trump’s speech was interpreted rather than intended. The House reportedly plans to show video clips from the riot and statements of the rioters referring to Trump and his speech. That would show how the speech was received, but not how it was meant.

The House is, in many ways, a captive of its own excess. After refusing to hold a single hearing to look at the language and implications of impeachment, House leaders pushed through an article for “incitement of insurrection.” The ill-conceived, poorly crafted article guaranteed that few Republicans could support it. It also refers to a crime that would be difficult to prove in a court of law; the president’s speech likely would be found to be protected by the First Amendment, if not at trial then on appeal. The Supreme Court has routinely protected speech absent clear advocacy of violence.

Trump’s speech would not satisfy the standard laid out in cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio. Calling on one’s supporters to march on federal or state capitals is common in politics. In his speech, Trump told supporters to “peacefully” walk to the Capitol to show support for his election challenge and opposition to those refusing to back it. However, there is a difference between reckless and criminal rhetoric.

The House filing raises more questions than answers, particularly on the relative passivity of the House to create any record — a “snap impeachment” without hearing, testimony or investigation, which I have criticized. There was no chance that the trial would occur for weeks after Trump left office and, under its own theory, the House could impeach a former president in days or years after leaving office. Yet, it refused to hold even one hearing.

While demanding witnesses in the Senate, the House could have called witnesses before its own committee to lock in their testimony for weeks and create a public record that could be referenced in the Senate trial. As I have previously noted, there are at least ten key witnesses who could be called, including many who have spoken publicly. Those witnesses include former Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller and his two closest aides, Kashyap “Kash” Patel and Ezra Cohen. Some are referenced in this filing, but the House has declined to put them under oath. Why? These witnesses could answer questions on whether Trump impeded or delayed the deployment of the National Guard. Indeed, the House is clearly in possession of information on when the Guard was first offered and interactions with the administration on its deployment. Moreover, while Trump — like prior presidents — is unlikely to testify, others have recounted meetings with him before and after his Jan. 6 speech.

Instead, the House suggests that when Trump later tweeted around 2:30 p.m. to his supporters to “stay peaceful” and “support our Capitol Police and law enforcement,” he didn’t mean it. In this, the House seems to prefer to keep the trial on the level of speculation — trying Trump on how his words were received rather than intended. While the impeachment article refers to a crime of incitement to insurrection, it reads like an impeachment for negligence.

 

The Trump team

Trump’s original legal team reportedly resigned after he insisted that they focus on allegations of electoral fraud. If so, it could prove a case of Trump snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Trump currently is set to secure a second acquittal by close to the same margin as in his first impeachment trial. Converting this trial into an argument over electoral fraud would be viewed as a sign of contempt by some senators who have lost patience with him.

Trump’s filing does address his claim of a stolen election but states, rather obliquely, that “Insufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that the 45th president’s statements were accurate or not, and he therefore denies they were false.”

Trump’s view of election fraud certainly is germane, since it is referenced in the impeachment article. However, it is the worst possible defense to advance before the Senate. It doesn’t matter if Trump was right about fraud; it only matters whether he sought a rebellion rather than a recount.

Beyond the constitutional challenge, the second-best argument is that this is not incitement but protected speech, which is raised in Trump’s filing. The House emphasized Trump’s use of language like “fight much harder,” “stop the steal” and “take back our country.” Yet, that language not only is consistent with previous Trump speeches but is similar to language used by Democrats. Indeed, Democrats have challenged electoral votes in the past, and many denied the legitimacy of Trump’s election on his inauguration day as violent protests erupted in Washington.

Finally, Trump can argue that he has been denied due process by this snap impeachment. Since the House maintains that it could impeach Trump at any time after leaving office, it could have afforded him an opportunity to respond and for witnesses to be heard in the House. But those defenses will be lost if Trump wants to make this a trial on election fraud.

Both sides’ filings bode poorly for this trial, which could become a raw reflection of our age of rage. No minds will be changed — just more weeks of political winter.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law with George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He was called by House Republicans as an expert witness for the impeachment hearings of Presidents Clinton and Trump, and he has consulted Senate Republicans on the historic and legal precedents of impeachment in advance of the current Senate trial. Follow him with Twitter @JonathanTurley.

252 thoughts on “A Question Of Intent: How The Trump Trial Is Designed To Enrage But Not Convict”

  1. “. . . The Trump Trial Is Designed To Enrage But Not Convict”

    And to smear all Republicans as “political ‘extremists'” (whatever the hell that means) and potential “domestic terrorists” — i.e., as “enemies of the state.”

    After 9/11, those two words — “extremists” and ‘terrorists” — (whether defined or not, whether accurate or not) — those two words are all that’s needed to unleash the government’s surveillance and police forces. This time, against its own citizens.

  2. You are on target. Trump’s intent is the issue. If one’s words alone is sufficient to find guilt of incitement, then filmmakers like Spike Lee or Quinton Tarantino should be charged with inciting arson, vandalism, torture, and murder.

  3. ‘for those keeping score: the party of science has told us this past week that triple masking makes sense, there’s no difference between guys and girls playing sports, schools can’t reopen despite CDC guidance, and private jet flights are necessary to fight climate change.’

    @loganclarkhall

  4. Leftists are the bigoted, thuggish, lying, self-aggrandizing racist thieves of our lives, our liberties, our freedoms and our vote.

    1. MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell purchased airtime on One American News (AON). At the beginning of the 2h long show you will find a 80s epic disclaimer (which is missing in Mr Lindell’s HP) basicly saying that the statements and claims expressed are presented as opinions only and are not intended to be taken or interpreted by the viewer as established facts.After 4′ Mr Lindell presented several charts of 2020 presidential election results in some battleground states with possible margin of errors and the number of ballots demanding further investigation (Mr. Lindell didn’t mentioned this in his oral comments). Eg the chart for Nevada (Timer: 6′) shows a possible margin of error of approx 212K votes (former President Trump lost the state by approx 34K votes). Here is (one of many) opinions why President Biden won Nevada: https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/if-it-wasnt-voter-fraud-why-did-trump-lose-nevada.

      1. Most info’s Mike Lindell presented in his show are heard before (and rejected) except the part offered by Mary Fanning via phone (Timer: 1h36′ to 1h50′): She showed spread sheets documenting how many votes were flipped because of computer attacks from abroad. However, she didn’ elaborate from where she obtained data but said she came from voting machines.

        Ballot injections under suspicious circumstances:
        https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/exclusive-tcf-center-election-fraud-newly-recovered-video-shows-late-night-deliveries-tens-thousands-illegal-ballots-michigan-arena/
        https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/ruby-breaking-crooked-democrat-filmed-pulling-suitcases-ballots-georgia-identified/

      2. Bad news for you, Barbara.

        All of the forensic IT data that has been gathered on the Dominion/Smartmatic machines clearly shows that the fraud was massive and undeniable.

        https://www.deepcapture.com/2021/01/how-djt-lost-the-white-house-chapter-2-was-there-foreign-interference-in-this-election-you-make-the-call/

        Excel: https://www.deepcapture.com/wp-content/uploads/US-Election-Fraud-2020_General.xlsx

        By the time the fraudulent runoffs occurred in Georgia they were able to gather all of the data in real time unbeknownst to the criminal fraudsters.

        That will be released as well. The exposure of the election fraud will be thorough and laid out very clearly in the Courts.

        1. “All of the forensic IT data that has been gathered on the Dominion/Smartmatic machines clearly shows that the fraud was massive and undeniable.”

          “The cyber-specialists to whom I refer, who has access to such tools (and even more arcane ones), has documented vote-flipping in the Problematic 6 states amounting to 299,567 votes, just enough in each state to flip the election. 43% of that activity came from China.” (from the article you linked to)

          I have long argued on this blog (with ample documentation) that *the* issue in the 2020 election is the corruptibility of those machines. It is inspiring to know that those with the technical skills and resources have been on the case. They provide detailed and comprehensive technical evidence of exactly how those machines were corrupted in the 2020 election.

          It is stunning. Thank you.

          “Dominion Voting Systems and related companies are owned or heavily controlled and influenced by foreign agents, countries, and interests.” (from the same report)

          I have also long argued that, via UBS Securities LLC and HSBC bank, there is sufficient evidence to investigate China’s investment in and control over Dominion. I feared that with investigative journalism on life support, those leads would never be seriously investigated. Happily, I was wrong. Whoever is investigating those financial ties, knows exactly what to look for and how to unearth documentary evidence. Please thank for me whoever that is.

          And please do provide further updates.

          1. Sam, according to his reflexions, Patrick M Byrne said to then President Trump on 12/18/20: “[…] I must tell you, I do not think you are being well-served by many people in the White House. I can bring in young staffers who will tell you that some of your senior leadership don’t want you to win. They want you to concede. […] <I hear people are getting signals that if they’re good boys and get you out the door, there will be jobs waiting for them. But if they don’t, they won’t be getting offers from the right law firms, they won’t be getting invitations from the right country clubs, they won’t be getting invited to the socialite parties on Manhattan. […] In your White House leadership is telling junior staff this everywhere. I am told that this fellow Pat Cipollone has been telling people since November 4, ‘Just help us get the President to concede.’ And for the last couple of weeks, Mark Meadows has been telling staff, ‘Help get the President into transition mode* […] in 30 minutes I can have a number of staffers from within your White House here to tell you that those are quotes from Pat Cipollone and Mark Meadows. This guy is lying to you through his teeth. They want you to lose."

            Patrick later: "I wish to emphasize that at no point in the evening or in any segment of the discussion was there mention of martial law, or Insurrection Act, or anything of the sort. All claims to the contrary are lies, propagated (I would imagine) by Pat Cipollone, who (according to multiple sources) regularly leaks to Maggie Haberman of the NYT. Even cursory review of Haberman’s writings on the White House, which never fail to give stroke to Cipollone, would support that claim."

            https://www.deepcapture.com/2021/02/how-djt-lost-the-white-house-chapter-3-crashing-the-white-house-december-18/

        2. The Watcher, I am aware of the work of Patrick M. Byrne. He also described why his reasearch didn’t find the path to former President Trump*s leading lawyer Major Rudy Giuliani and the failing attempt to convince POTUS to appoint Sidney Powell as “Special Councel” (see als: https://www.axios.com/trump-oval-office-meeting-sidney-powell-a8e1e466-2e42-42d0-9cf1-26eb267f8723.html). Consequently it was a missed opportunity in the Courts.

  5. Jonathan: In Trump’s second impeachment trial his legal team is going to dodge the question whether Trump incited the insurrection (he did) in favor of the arguments that Trump cannot be convicted because he is the ex-president and that Trump’s speech before the storming of the of the Capitol is protected by the First Amendment–an argument you have made in Trump’s defense. On the first issue the 1876 case of William Belknap should be dispositive. The Senate has jurisdiction to try an official even after leaving office. Otherwise an official, like Trump, could resign after impeachment by the House to avoid a Senate trial.

    On Friday 140 constitutional lawyers and scholars, who often disagree on questions of constitutional interpretation, weighed in on the First Amendment claim and said: “…we all agree that any First Amendment defense raised by President Trump’s attorneys would be legally frivolous…” They went on to argue: “The First Amendment is no defense to an article of impeachment …because the president does not have a First Amendment right to incite a mob and then sit back and do nothing as the hostile mob invades the Capitol and terrorizes Congress;…” So where are the 140 constitutional scholars that support your defense of Trump’s actions when you need them?

    My friend in Germany tells me that neo-Nazi and other right-wing extremist groups in Europe view the storming of the Capitol and Trump’s likely acquittal by the Senate as a “victory” for 21st century fascism. That should cause you to pause and reflect on your continued defense of Trump’s actions that have emboldened our own home grown extremists,

    1. Your “friend in Germany” says that Nazis and fascists far far away are doing little Hitler jigs. I call BS on everything you said over that brain fart.

    2. I know a lot of people who ask questions but don’t like the answer they get. Then they are under the impression their question was dodged::Within the 14 pages document (a point-by-point response to the article of impeachment) the lawyers also denied that the 45th President incited the Capitol riots, and asserted that his statements about the election were protected by the First Amendment. In addition,his lawyer Bill Castor revealed that part of former President Trump’s defense will also include videos of Democrats encouraging political violence.If so, I doubt you will see them on ABC/CBS/CNN/(M)NBC.

      1. ABC/CBS/CNN/(M)NBC are un-American, anti-American, anti-Constitution and irredeemably communist.

        They are mortal enemies of the Constitution, America and Americans.

    3. My fascist liberals friends say that the conviction of Trump will just be the beginning of “show trials” against conservatives.

    4. No person who incites to riot is ever going to occupy high office and effect it on a stage, in front of thousands of people in the public, and in front of a microphone a few feet from the venue.

      President (i.e. Real President, per Time magazine) Donald J. Trump encouraged Americans to vote and to speak with their voices, with the hope that those voices would be heard, as all politicians do.

      Your statements are not plausible and are patently false.

      All America needs now is a judicial branch to include a Supreme Court.

      When America obtains that constitutional entity, all you communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) and your entire communist welfare state will vanish in a heartbeat; a nanosecond.

    5. “Otherwise an official, like Trump, could resign after impeachment by the House to avoid a Senate trial.”

      So what? the intended purpose of impeachment is to remove from office.

      I think that has got to rank high as one of the stupidest remarks I have read on this blog. And that is saying a lot given the quantity of stupid remarks herein.

      1. The purpose of conviction in an impeachment trial is to remove the person from office AND potentially to disqualify the person from holding office again.

        Disqualification always occurs after the person is out of office, as it occurs after the removal vote. Are you saying that someone subject to a removal vote can avoid it by resigning?

        1. If disqualification can be a standalone purpose for impeaching someone, can the House vote to impeach someone *before* they ever run for office? That must be true if impeachment is not tethered to the purpose of removal. As a result, the House can vote to disqualify future candidates.

    6. Dennis, do you really want the videos of Democrats inciting violence to be played before the nation? It will all be on the record and replayed before the next election. Bad things happen when the slope is steep and you get out over your skis. Break a leg.

    7. Denise, you just told us that your friends in Germany are buddying up with the Nazis to get the inside scoop. You tell us of 140 lawyers are saying that Senate has jurisdiction then you jump to some antidotal evidence from who knows who in Germany. How hard would it be to find 140 Democratic lawyers in Washington D. C.? They always find this big number to feed to the little fishes. They eat it hook line a sinker every time. Do you ever run your reasoning past a brain wave or two before your fingers hit the keys.

      1. “Denise [sic], you just told us that your friends in Germany are buddying up with the Nazis”

        No, he didn’t. Are you lying, or just bad at reading? You should ask yourself “Do you ever run your reasoning past a brain wave or two before your fingers hit the keys” instead of asking him that.

      2. The headline in The NY Times should have read: Many Lawyers That Did not Vote For Trump Say His First Amendment Defense is Frivolous.”

    8. Denise, how many Democratic lawyers are in academia and Washington D.C.?. Their must be thousands. It then must follow that thousand did not sign the letter. Thousands of Democratic lawyers refused to be involved with a letter making an unfounded argument. Thank you for presenting such a plain argument exposing an exercise in mental masturbation.

  6. NEWSFLASH

    “Supreme Court Knocks Down California’s Ban On Indoor Church Services”

    The United States Supreme Court ruled late Friday that California can not enforce its ban on indoor worship services, asserting the ban was discriminatory because it applied more stringent standards to places of worship than to retail stores and other businesses, although the Court did say the state could limit indoor attendance at services to 25% of building capacity.

    – Forbes
    _______

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

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

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

    – Alexander Hamilton
    ________________

    The freedom of religion and “…the free exercise thereof;…” is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute.

    The Supreme Court has no power to legislate or modify legislation; it has merely the power to read the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.

    Justices of the Supreme Court must be impeached for blatant abuse and usurpation of power, and gross dereliction of duty for limiting church attendance and “…the free exercise thereof;….”

    No powers of “pandemic” or “quarantine” real or imagined, are delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

    Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended except in a condition of rebellion or invasion.

    Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the people*…or to the states.

    Healthcare is not a provided for in the Constitution and is not a function or power of government.

    Healthcare is a private concern of individuals and healthcare provision occurs in the free markets of the private sector; individuals must protect themselves from disease.

    Healthcare regulation must be funded and conducted by the healthcare industry.

    Article 1, Section 8, directly or by omission, does not provide States any power of tyranny*, or any power to nullify constitutional rights, freedoms, privileges or immunities.

    States do not have any power to legislate against having a cold or the flu, or to designate pathologies and diseases as crimes.

    States have the power to legislate and codify statutes against crimes of bodily injury and property damage.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    1st Amendment

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
    ______________________________________________

    *

    10 Amendment

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

  7. Professor, I like your header: “A question of Intent” and here is my plain and simple answer: To ban 45th President from running again! In exchange, let me ask about your take on this one: tinyurl.com/3lbckoue

  8. I can name that tune in two notes: The House Dims are alegal idiots and they want everyone else to be. It won’t end well for them – as usual.

  9. The House should pass an Article of Impeachment against Bill Clinton for having sex with Monica. That’s a misdemeanor. And send it on to the Senate for trial. He is out of office but so is Trump.

    1. And Lyndon Johnson. He’s just dead. Does the reason really matter? It’s the work of idiots.

      1. mespo727272
        Lyndon is not dead. He is just away, but he said to wish you much enjoyment and hopes your team wins tomorrow.

      1. So true.

        And now, the constitutional period for impeachment and conviction has lapsed.

        Biden is “THE” president (however illegitimate) and the “FORMER” president is the “FORMER” president, and the “FORMER” president is not “THE” president.

        Additionally, no impeachment trial is legal, legitimate or, otherwise, constitutional without the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding.

        This impeachment trial is a crime.

        The Congressional Managers and all Senators who vote in this illegal and unconstitutional trial are complicit in and accomplices to the crime that is this impeachment trial.

        1. George – I don’t know why they like to pick on Trump. Besides using the presidency to enrich himself and his fine family, what did he do to deserve this negativity? He DIDN’T get us involved in a war with North Korea, protected /advanced the interests of Putin and Bibi. What’s the big woof?

          1. Now do the Biden Cabal. China Joe, Hunter and China Joes Brothers should made some pretty penny selling out America, but that’s okay because it was a Career crook from DC.

  10. These bizarre proceedings make me wonder if the Democrats are keeping up their mud rasslin because they are worried that in the fullness of time it will become evident that Trump won after all.

    Then what do we do? Ask the National Guard to turn and point their guns the other way?

    What a disgraceful mess.

    1. I don’t think they want to impeach him as much as ban him from running again. They’re scared he’ll come back (and they should be). But, he never learned that you cannot win a game in which your opponents (of both parties) set the rules. He should come back in a game where they can’t do that. I’d like to see a tv show (on the net is fine) co-hosted by Trump and Michael Flynn called “Hot Seat” where each week they use private investigators to dig dirt on these congressional elite scumbags and highlight their misdeeds and ill-gotten gains. Let’s film their homes, their rides, where their kids go to school, where they shop, interview their maids, butlers, drivers, nannies, etc. Let’s get at some of that info that they hide about congressional sexual harassment funds, etc. Entertaining? You bet. C’mon guys, get into a game other than politics where you can actually fight back.

      1. They are taking the law into their own hands.

        “THE” president is distinctly not a “FORMER” president.

        The Chief Justice presiding, distinctly, cannot be accomplished by some random legal hack.

        They are nullifying and, therefore, violating fundamental law.

        They are committing crimes of high office including, but not limited to, abuse of power, usurpation of power, prosecution with malice aforethought, negligence and gross dereliction.

        First spying pre-election, a coup d’etat attempt during President Trump’s term and now wholly unconstitutional, malicious prosecution post facto.

        The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) must be prosecuted en masse for crimes of high office against the state; the Constitution.

  11. The brief of the House promises an emotionally charged but legally insufficient case for conviction. Indeed, there is no evidence that the “prosecution” is designed to win the trial since the House offers little on the issue of intent.

    It appears this is also Biden’s M.O.: it is all emotion and no evidence for his reign of terror. Wow. Quite terrifying really

    https://netny.tv/episodes/currents/at-national-prayer-breakfast-president-biden-calls-for-unity-confronts-political-extremism/

    At National Prayer Breakfast, President Biden Calls for Unity, Confronts ‘Political Extremism’

    The pandemic moved the annual National Prayer Breakfast to an online event for the first time in its 69-year history. On Feb. 4, President Joe Biden addressed the lives lost to COVID-19, food disparities, racial justice and appealed for unity among Americans.

    “We know this time is different,” Biden said. “Over 400,000 of our fellow Americans have lost their lives to a deadly virus. Millions are out of work. We see long lines for food at food banks that stretch for miles. We hear the call for racial justice some 400 years in the making and we know the dream and more important the reality of justice for all cannot be deferred any longer. We see the existential threat of climate crisis that poses to our planet and everywhere we turn with more severe floods, stronger hurricanes and more intense wildfires.”

    The nation’s second Catholic president also addressed the Jan. 6 Capitol riot as an “assault on our democracy” and referenced the “political extremism” that propelled the siege.

    “We know now that we must confront and defeat political extremism, white supremacy and domestic terrorism,” he said.

    Biden didn’t shy away from talking about his vision of faith as a force for good.

    “Where do we turn? Faith,” Biden said. “For me in the darkest moments, faith provides hope and solace, provides clarity and purpose as well. It shows the way forward.”

    Scandalous. May God have mercy on him and his enablers.

  12. It’s Black History Month so it is time to add something that is never included in the endless praise.

    Blacks are about 13% of the population.

    Blacks commit about 54% of the homicides.

    Also a question: If it is bad to say All Lives Matter, which lives don’t matter?

      1. Because I keep hearing about Black History from every direction and because I want to.

        Why are you asking?

          1. https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/about

            All this because of a virus? We’ve had viruses before. Pay attention to what is going on now. Pitbull says if you’re not ‘part of the narrative’ they gonna ‘take you offline’ and that is exactly what’s happening. And that all of this “smells like Communism” which is what his family fled from Cuba.

            Wake up, people. Do not go back to sleep.

            1. Notice how the “scientists” who share different opinions about Covid and how to treat it, that don’t align with the stated “narrative,” are being “taken offline” and censored, and/or stripped of certain memberships or other professional positions.

              Those who say “trust the science” are all “masking up!” with 2 masks now. Because Dr. Fauci said so.

              Are you paying attention yet?

              1. Even Joe Biden shows up wearing two masks. Because science. Listen to the “experts” like Fauci.

                Really?

                If all of this feels a bit “insane” to you, it’s because it is.

                1. Because the 2 identified newer strains, which are gaining more traction in the US are more contagious, it is recommended that we wear 2 masks or one of the N95 type.

                  How is that “insane”?

                  PS Who spends more than 10 seconds listening to some kid and Pitbull about anything?

                2. “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

                  – William Casey, CIA Director

              2. Anon, Fauci has now walked the two mask thing back. The Biden administration jumped on his two masks recommendation. He now says there is no additional benefit. The problem that he causes is that people don’t know what to believe. Is he telling us the truth about the vaccine? I sent him the definition of pander.

          2. Thanks for posting this. Aside from the fact that Pitbull is an eye sore to Cubans (inarticulate, gutter English, peddles in smut “music”, crass, etc) I was surprised he could somehow communicate a plausible idea (Communism is evil) in spite of his English being embarrassing. He was born in America not Cuba.

            Otherwise the kid sponsoring the YouTube video was refreshing in his ability to reference the Communist Manifest, quote from it extensively and apply critical reasoning skills therein. While he is a tad heavy on the conspiracy fear mongering (just like Pelosi, Biden, Democrats, MSM) the kid shows promise. He likely has few peers his equal

            But, lo, Virginia’s Gov. Ralph “Blackface” Northam now feels schools in VA should return to in-person instruction by the Ides of March. To appreciate the significance of that date, you’d have to have read Shakespeare and since the Bard was cancelled, ……

            We are seeing an evil and Godless dictatorship taking over an otherwise Godless nation

            Hail Mary, full of Grace…..

            Northam tells school districts to offer in-person learning by March 15
            https://richmond.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/updated-northam-tells-school-districts-to-offer-in-person-learning-by-march-15/article_2795371b-daa6-5d57-a531-4b03d95a9d55.html

            1. If Northam keeps it up he will be cancelled by Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube at the request of the teachers Union.

      2. Here’s some black history you may be unaware of:

        “Earlier Resettlement Plans”

        The view that America’s apparently intractable racial problem should be solved by removing Blacks from this country and resettling them elsewhere — “colonization” or “repatriation” — was not a new one. As early as 1714 a New Jersey man proposed sending Blacks to Africa. In 1777 a Virginia legislature committee, headed by future President Thomas Jefferson (himself a major slave owner), proposed a plan of gradual emancipation and resettlement of the state’s slaves. In 1815, an enterprising free Black from Massachusetts named Paul Cuffe transported, at his own expense, 38 free blacks to West Africa. His undertaking showed that at least some free Blacks were eager to resettle in a country of their own, and suggested what might be possible with public and even government support.7

        In December 1816, a group of distinguished Americans met in Washington, DC, to establish an organization to promote the cause of Black resettlement. The “American Colonization Society” soon won backing from some of the young nation’s most prominent citizens. Henry Clay, Francis Scott Key, John Randolph, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, Millard Fillmore, John Marshall, Roger B. Taney, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen A. Douglas, and Abraham Lincoln were members. Clay presided at the group’s first meeting.8

        Measures to resettle Blacks in Africa were soon undertaken. Society member Charles Fenton Mercer played an important role in getting Congress to pass the Anti-Slave Trading Act of March 1819, which appropriated $100,000 to transport Blacks to Africa. In enforcing the Act, Mercer suggested to President James Monroe that if Blacks were simply returned to the coast of Africa and released, they would probably be re-enslaved, and possibly some returned to the United States. Accordingly, and in cooperation with the Society, Monroe sent agents to acquire territory on Africa’s West coast — a step that led to the founding of the country now known as Liberia. Its capital city was named Monrovia in honor of the American President.9

        With crucial Society backing, Black settlers began arriving from the United States in 1822. While only free Blacks were at first brought over, after 1827, slaves were freed expressly for the purpose of transporting them to Liberia. In 1847, Black settlers declared Liberia an independent republic, with an American-style flag and constitution.10

        By 1832 the legislatures of more than a dozen states (at that time there were only 24), had given official approval to the Society, including at least three slave-holding states.11 Indiana’s legislature, for example, passed the following joint resolution on January 16, 1850:12

        Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana: That our Senators and Representatives in Congress be, and they are hereby requested, in the name of the State of Indiana, to call for a change of national policy on the subject of the African Slave Trade, and that they require a settlement of the coast of Africa with colored men from the United States, and procure such changes in our relations with England as will permit us to transport colored men from this country to Africa, with whom to effect said settlement.

        In January 1858, Missouri Congressman Francis P. Blair, Jr., introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to set up a committee

        to inquire into the expediency of providing for the acquisition of territory either in the Central or South American states, to be colonized with colored persons from the United States who are now free, or who may hereafter become free, and who may be willing to settle in such territory as a dependency of the United States, with ample guarantees of their personal and political rights.

        Blair, quoting Thomas Jefferson, stated that Blacks could never be accepted as the equals of Whites, and, consequently, urged support for a dual policy of emancipation and deportation, similar to Spain’s expulsion of the Moors. Blair went on to argue that the territory acquired for the purpose would also serve as a bulwark against any further encroachment by England in the Central and South American regions.13

        – Robert Morgan

    1. Blacks are about 52% of the victims of homicides.

      Men are about 49% of the population. Men commit about 88% of homicides and are the victims about 78% of the time.

      I bet whites commit a disproportionate amount of white collar crime.

      1. “I bet whites commit a disproportionate amount of white collar crime.”
        ****

        Probably true. White collar crime usually requires some literacy.

      2. FBI stats show about 62% white for embezzlement and 35% black. Having a job is likely a factor in that crime.

      3. Anon: “Men commit about 88% of homicides”
        ****
        That makes it more interesting, given that about half the population is male.

        About 7 0r 8% of the population [about half the blacks] are responsible for 94% of the homicides in the country.

        That is shocking but don’t expect to see it heralded in Black History Month.

Leave a Reply