“A Date Which Will Live In Infamy”: The Other Scandal From The Capitol Riot

Below is my column in the Hill on the lingering questions over decisions made in Congress before the Capitol riot on January 6th.  The analogy to Pearl Harbor drawn by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer may be more telling than intended.

Here is the column:

Majority Leader Charles Schumer captured the outrage of many citizens when he declared the Capitol riot last month to be the Pearl Harbor of this generation that “will live forever in infamy.” It was certainly infamous, but some doubt whether the two events are comparable, given the 2,400 Americans killed in the 1941 attack that forced our entry into World War Two. Schumer’s analogy may be more apt than he might wish, however. Part of Pearl Harbor’s tragedy was that the United States had ample warning and failed to take precautions. That failure was largely covered up during the war, lost in the anger directed at the Japanese.

History may show that, due to a lack of preparation, the Capitol riot indeed was a new Pearl Harbor.

Many Americans are familiar with the negligence of Pearl Harbor’s military leaders after being warned to expect an attack. Aircraft were parked wingtip to wingtip, no torpedo nets were deployed, and “Battleship Row” was so jammed that it would be hard for a dive-bomber to miss a target.

Moreover, this was actually the third such “attack.” On Feb. 7, 1932, United States Admiral Harry Yarnell carried out virtually the same attack to demonstrate Pearl Harbor’s vulnerability, using aircraft carriers, radio silence, radar evasion and the same basic routes — even attacking on a Sunday, when he knew the Navy would be most off-guard. (The one group that paid attention was the Japanese War College, which studied Yarnell’s plan.) Another mock carrier attack in 1938 produced similar results.

Like the prior “Pearl Harbors,” the Capitol has long trained for large protests and possible breaches. Indeed, law enforcement was on edge due to violent protests in Washington the previous summer, including a protest that forced the first family to shelter briefly in the White House bunker. For that reason, as the Capitol riot unfolded, many of us were amazed by the ease and speed of the breach.

Any questions, however, were quickly shoved aside by the second Trump impeachment. Democrats insisted this was an actual insurrection led by Trump. House leaders refused to hold a single hearing before their snap impeachment and refused to call witnesses for weeks before the Senate trial that could have confirmed critical facts on the warnings and preparations leading up to the riot.

Almost two months later, few facts are confirmed but they raise troubling questions. Congress was warned repeatedly of possible violence on Jan. 6 by the Trump administration and law enforcement agencies. National Guard troops were offered to the Capitol days beforehand but declined. While large numbers of protesters were expected, Capitol Police deployed a ridiculously small force, with roughly 1,800 officers facing more than 8,000 rioters. District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser reportedly limited a Guard presence before the protests to help with traffic and crowd control.

We also have contradictions on the record. Resigned Capitol Police chief Steven Sund said he requested Guard troops six times but was denied the support. He said House sergeant at arms Paul Irving felt such troops would pose bad “optics.” In demanding Sund’s resignation on Jan. 6, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said he “hasn’t called us since this happened” — but Sund insists he personally briefed her twice on Jan. 6. And there are accounts of a critical delay in a request for additional support during the riot, as police waited for approval from congressional officials.

Sund and Senate sergeant at arms Michael Stenger were forced to resign with other officials. They may be the Capitol riot’s versions of Admiral Husband Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short, the commanders tagged with the Pearl Harbor disaster despite rumors that powerful figures in Washington shared the responsibility. (In 1999, the Senate voted to clear their names in the 1941 calamity.)

Pelosi has added to concerns over transparency and accountability with her selection of retired General Russel Honoré to lead an investigation of Capitol security. She acted without consulting others — and few Republicans would have supported her choice, since Honoré is a longtime critic of Trump and various Republicans. He appeared immediately to reach conclusions on responsibility for the attack that paralleled Pelosi’s views.

In an interview two days after the attack, without any facts to support his conclusions, Honoré declared on MSNBC that “I think once this all gets uncovered, it was complicit actions by Capitol Police” and “people need to go to jail.” He condemned Sund as “complicit along with the sergeant-at-arms in the House and the Senate.” Responding to calls to expel Sen. Josh Hawley and others for allegedly supporting the riot, Honoré tweeted: “This little peace [sic] of shit with his @Yale law degree should be run out of DC and Disbarred ASAP @HawleyMO @tedcruz aaa hats [sic]. These @Yale and @Harvard law grads is high order white privilege.”

This from the man who Pelosi appointed to give an unbiased, nonpartisan review. Of course, for many Americans, any inquiry may seem unnecessary. The second Trump impeachment drilled home a narrative that the riot was primarily the fault of one man, Donald Trump, and by implication not the fault of others. Pelosi told MSNBC’s Joy Reid that Trump should be charged as “an accessory” to murder “because he instigated that insurrection that caused those deaths and this destruction.”

If framing scandals in Washington is an art form, then Pelosi is our resident Rembrandt. History has shown that truth and responsibility are rarely so unequivocal or exclusive. None of this would relieve Trump of his own responsibility on January 6th. I previously condemned Trump’s speech and his reckless role in this riot. However, there is ample evidence to suggest that the vulnerabilities exposed on Jan. 6 may have been due to Congress itself. So Schumer may be right that Jan. 6 is a date that will live infamy — but few in Washington seem too eager to confirm the full list of the infamous.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law with George Washington University. He was called by House Republicans as a witness in the impeachment hearings for Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, and has also consulted Senate Republicans on the legal precedents of impeachment in advance of the latest trial. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.


337 thoughts on ““A Date Which Will Live In Infamy”: The Other Scandal From The Capitol Riot”

  1. Since both the Cuomo and the Capitol Hill situation has clearly been laid to blame at the feet of the Socialist Party when are the impeachments going ito start against these enemies of the nation creatures? Now we add a second name of a senior officer who violated his oath of office some courts martial should also be in the news.

  2. Can’t get the vaccine unless you fill out the form. At the site is the print outs for the form and complete article.


    Discrimination In Vaccine Distribution

    Why does the State of Minnesota need to know your race, “gender” and sexual preference before scheduling you for a covid shot? There are only two possibilities: either the state intends to use this information to discriminate in distributing the vaccine, or else it is collecting irrelevant information for some collateral and likely nefarious purpose.

    That question was answered earlier today when the Tim Walz administration “announced plans to expand vaccination efforts to low-income groups and minority communities,” i.e., its intention to discriminate. And while it apparently wasn’t covered in today’s announcement, it is reasonable to conclude that the Walz administration intends to discriminate in favor of gay and transgender residents as well. Otherwise, why ask the question?

    It isn’t easy to lower my opinion of the Walz administration, but its invidious discrimination in the distribution of the covid vaccine did just that.

    1. I’m encouraging all the Democrats here to go get the vaccine. Surely, it is safe and effective……shirley….


    March 20, 2020

    “Fourteen months ago, January 20, 2020 – a date which will live in infamy – the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the Communist People’s Republic of China.

    “The United States was at peace with that nation and, wittingly or unwittingly, through criminal dereliction and negligence and attempting to obtain the cloak of plausible deniability, the People’s Republic of China released on the world the “China Flu, 2020” biological weapon.

    “China has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the World. The Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy has directed his entire Cabinet that all measures be taken for the defense of the United States.

    “With confidence in the United States Center For Disease Control and with the unbounding determination of the American people the Untied States will gain the inevitable triumph so help us God.

    “Congress must declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by China on January 20, 2020, a state of war has existed between the United States and China.”

    – President Donald J. Trump

    1. If the release by China was not a deliberate military attack, or criminal assault, it was actionable dereliction and gross negligence – say $25 trillion worth globally? Where the hell are all the ambulance chasers; the rainmakers? There should be incessant ads on TV instructing all those adversely affected by “China Flu, 2020” to call the 800 number. If China cannot be sued in the International Court, sue it in Peoria Municipal; anywhere, just sue ’em and start collection by cancelling U.S./ex-U.S. debt or other means with “teeth.” The world must be made whole.

    2. The virus was in the US before Jan. 20, 2020, so Trump demonstrates his ignorance by claiming that on “January 20, 2020 – a date which will live in infamy – the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the Communist People’s Republic of China.”

      That he is so ignorant over a year later, when he had access to experts as President, only shows his disinterest in informing himself.

      He presents no evidence that the US was “deliberately attacked” by China. None.

      1. Anonymous the Stupid has a problem interpreting words in a speech unless the speech is written for idiots.

  4. On that date — “A Date Which Will Live In Infamy” — we were led a President who was cogent through the entire address.
    All we have now is a non-cogent President that can’t spend more than fifteen minutes without needing a trip off-stage or
    reading canned messages passed on thru somebody(s) more cogent that our he.

    ‘Nuff Said.

    1. You should know that you’re lying, since Biden didn’t do either of what you list during any of the debates.

      ‘Nuff said.

  5. President Trump consistently called for ‘peaceful protests’; a First Amendment right. Democrats not only encouraged violence, they created a social tinderbox then poured gas all over it, and created the environment for it to explode. Has anyone noticed that BLM/ANTIFA have all but vanished? They are merely rent-a-mobs for the Communist Left.

    America is on the precipice of Civil War 2.0 and it’s not because of President Trump, who should rightfully still be in the Oval.

    History will reflect reality in due time, and we must never forget what the Left did to strengthen its grip on power.

    1. If you think ANTIFA has all but disappeared, you aren’t paying attention to what is still happening in Washington and Oregon.

      1. Young, you are probably right. He has shock troops and they know where people are actually telling the truth.

        1. That was me, S. Meyer. You know it, everyone else knows it except for Anonymous the Stupid. He will have a stroke thinking he got me because I forgot to put in my name.

    1. Instead of referring people to misleading garbage, you should read up on what Biden is actually doing –

      This doesn’t reduce the supply in the US. The US government has already purchased 600 million doses for people in the US. Contributing funds towards the purchase of vaccine for people in poor countries is not only morally right, but helps to protect Americans in the long run from variants that will continue to evolve if the disease isn’t treated globally.

      1. USA today is probably less credible than Dick Morris. So far we don’t have enough vaccine and most of the country hasn’t been vaccinated. I can’t be sure one way or the other but Morris makes a strong case. You don’t. That is why you are known as Anonymous the Stupid.

        1. LMAO, Allan, that you’re so lazy you can’t even bring yourself to click on the second link, which is a direct link to the program that the funding is for.

          “I can’t be sure one way or the other”

          That’s an understatement. In this case, because you’re too lazy to read about it. The funding was approved by Congress in December, in a larger bill that passed the House by 359-53 vote and the Senate by a 92-6 vote. But yep, blame Biden. You’re not stupid, Allan, just ignorant, lazy, and psychologically ill.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, first learn to read and comprehend. My statement was ”
            “but if Biden is sending Covid vaccine abroad”. This administration didn’t start off with an honest record and they don’t respond well to questions. We have to wait to see what actually happens, but the American public has to be prepared for all sorts of things due to this administration starting with job loss, increased taxes and a lower standard of living. A well prepared public can deal with things of this nature than a Stupid public of the likes of Anonymous the Stupid.

            Secondly, you talk about laziness, but you post links that too frequently don’t say what you think they say. You expect others to read it for you. You are a fool.

            1. Allan the Abusive, if you’d bothered educating yourself, you’d know that your “if” clause is false. It’s funding that’s being sent, not vaccines.

              You’re clearly a sociopath. No wonder you like Trump.

              1. “you’d know that your “if” clause is false. ”

                If I didn’t listen to what he said carefully I wouldn’t have used the word “if”. He is like a canary in the mine. Sometimes canaries die of old age, however, this canary had a point that needed to be considered. We have already had leftists advocating that we share the vaccine we presently don’t have. We have seen leftists providing vaccine to younger teachers rather than following the science and giving it to the elderly most in need. We have also heard some leftists suggesting that the vaccine be distributed on the basis of race.

                All these things are in the news so what Morris is saying is out in nowhere land, but you are too stupid to integrate all the things that have been said. Do you know why? Because you are Anonymous the Stupid.

              2. “You’re clearly a sociopath. No wonder you like Trump.’

                Now to deal with a bit more Stupidity from Anonymous the Stupid. Stalin may have been a sociopath. He killed a lot of people and you have some of the attributes credited to Stalin but not his brains. Based on that maybe we should refer to you as a sociopath. Trump isn’t.

                However, you are claiming mental abnormalities here and elsewhere. The quantity of these back and forth posts are not normal for anyone. So when you claim abnormalities on my side you are actually claiming such abnormalities exist in your own body because the posts go back and forth in near equal numbers. I have reasons for my actions and am not afraid to use a fixed alias. I also post to learn and discuss things.

                You don’t. You are there almost anytime I post. You post more than I do though one could say I post too much. Your posts lack content and are unintelligent. You run away from discussions. You provide links that sometimes prove nothing, Sometimes they prove the opposite of what you say and sometimes are so out of date it sounds as if you don’t have a brain to guide you in your selection. You are afraid to interpret your own links verbally. Add all that up and then look at how you post anonymously out of intense fear. Add to that you insult almost everyone There are some serious things going on in your head.

                  1. “Your response only underscores your illness.”

                    I guess you didn’t like another to focus on who you really are. It’s frightening to you so I understand your need to shift the discussion to someone else. All your comments tell everyone your fears because you think they will be fearful as well.

                    Anonymous the Stupid, you are not normal. Can I call you ill? No, not on the basis of such discussions, but it is obvious you stray far from normality, while illness always remains a possibility.

      2. More vaccines purchased, more profit for the vaccine companies. Unless they are donating the vaccines, but its
        more likely that the purchase is picked up by US Taxpayers. And remember the pharmaceutical companies also have been given indemnity in the case of negative responses to the jab. Follow the money.

    1. Do you know what loaded questions are, Allan?
      If so, why do you ask them?
      If not, you should educate yourself.

      1. Anonymous the Stupid, it is a loaded question because of the loaded bullet Biden has aimed mostly at younger women. Do you think he has vicarious pleasures from the actions of sexual predators?

    2. Because Biden is a lifelong pedophile, and Hunter is an apple that fell directly to the bottom of that tree.

      Of course, the trolls here with severe cognitive partisan bias syndrome, could care less.

      1. Fifty percent correct there, Walworths. I don’t care, but not about what you think I don’t care about. I just don’t care what you have to say.

        1. “I don’t care”

          Anonymous the Stupid making a true statement. He wallows at the bottom of the bowl and doesn’t care.


    “Everyone beware. Because they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop before election day in November and they’re not gonna stop after election day.”

    – Kamala Harris

      1. According to Forbes, as of June 8, 2020, at least 19 people died during the protests.
        Location: United States; (sporadic protests in o…
        Death(s): 19+
        Date: May 26, 2020 – present

        – Wiki

    1. Her answer was in response to his comment about “protests”, not riots, not insurrections.

      Of the over 10k protests across America over the Floyd and other police/black incidents, 95% were peaceful and 5% became violent:

      “Between 24 May and 22 August, ACLED records more than 10,600 demonstration events across the country. Over 10,100 of these — or nearly 95% — involve peaceful protesters. Fewer than 570 — or approximately 5% — involve demonstrators engaging in violence. Well over 80% of all demonstrations are connected to the Black Lives Matter movement or the COVID-19 pandemic. …”


      1. BEWARE of the “peaceful protestors” as people are killed and cities are burned down.


        Herrrrrre’s yer sign!!!

      2. So Kamala said protests and its okay. Trump says peaceful protest and it’s incitement. Kamala new the results of the riots. Joefriday doesn’t care who he defends as long as theirs a “D” after her name

      3. Hey JoeFriday the mostly peaceful protests with fire in the background stick doesn’t fly. Your attempt at don’t believe your lying eyes flim flam has died a greatfull death long ago. Off course if your eyes have been successfully blinded by your propagandist you no longer posses the ability to comprehend.

      4. “involve peaceful protesters” who killed 33 police officers, injured over 700 police officers, and repeatedly set fire to occupied buildings in major cities all over the country while blocking the exits to keep people from escaping.

        If you actually believe that went unnoticed by the American public, you live in a dream world of your own creation.

        Even some Democrats realized that “Defund the Police” was a massive political mistake.

  7. If Administration Knew Of Possible Violence..

    Why Did Trump Escalate Situation???

    Professor Turley writes:

    “Congress was warned repeatedly of possible violence on Jan. 6 by the Trump administration and law enforcement agencies”.

    Here Turley tells us straight-up that agencies of the Executive Branch were well aware that violence was a real possibility on January 6. Donald Trump obviously knew this, assuming he read daily intelligence briefs.

    Therefore Trump was totally negligent, as Commander In Chief, to keep promoting false election claims in the run-up to these riots. Trump had a responsibility to persuade his supporters to stay home. He never should have addressed the mobs. Trump should have Tweeted repeatedly that safety and security were his main concerns, “So stay home and be safe”, he could have said.

    But Trump did just the opposite. Instead of telling the mobs to stay home, he kept egging them on; actively promoting the insurrection that occurred. Yet Johnathan Turley would have us believe that Nancy Pelosi, of all people, was somehow negligent. This reasoning makes no sense at all. However conservative regulars of this blog are bound to miss the irony.

    1. Your logic isn’t logical at all cuz Trump didn’t incite a riot. He did use incendiary political rhetoric to motivate his base to be loud and clear and aggressive in making their case – as the Left does every day. You twist the story to meet your ideological, partisan priors and think it’s clever, lol. You are trying way too hard, lol.

      1. scribbllerg, Trump clearly incited the riot. The rioters said so, wore his gear and waved his flags. You might claim it was a mistake and he did not mean to incite them – BS, but go ahead and claim it – but incite them he did. That is not up for debate.

    2. Anonymous points out that the possibility of violence was known. The responsibility of responding to possible violence is part of Pelosi’s job description. She was informed of the danger well in advance and she did nothing. Kamala Harris could have told the summer rioters to go home but she didn’t. Her response was to say that the riots should continue. Let’s do a comparison that a third grader would understand. Kamala Harris: “the riots should continue”. Donald Trump: “peacefully and patriotically protest”. Anonymous, I know it’s hard but try to regain the common sense you had back in your third grade class.

    3. Here Turley tells us straight-up that agencies of the Executive Branch were well aware that violence was a real possibility on January 6. Donald Trump obviously knew this, assuming he read daily intelligence briefs.

      The executive branch has ZERO power to protect DC or the Capital and its grounds. That power rests with the Mayor, and Congress respectfully.


    March 20, 2020

    “Fourteen months ago, January 20, 2020 – a date which will live in infamy – the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the Communist People’s Republic of China.

    “The United States was at peace with that nation and, wittingly or unwittingly, through criminal dereliction and negligence and attempting to obtain the cloak of plausible deniability, the People’s Republic of China released on the world the “China Flu, 2020” biological weapon.

    “China has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the World. The Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy has directed his entire Cabinet that all measures be taken for the defense of the United States.

    “With confidence in the United States Center For Disease Control and with the unbounding determination of the American people the Untied States will gain the inevitable triumph so help us God.

    “Congress must declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by China on January 20, 2020, a state of war has existed between the United States and China.”

    – President Donald J. Trump

    1. If the release by China was not a deliberate military attack, or criminal assault, it was actionable dereliction and gross negligence – say $25 trillion worth globally? Where the hell are all the ambulance chasers; the rainmakers? There should be incessant ads on TV instructing all those adversely affected by “China Flu, 2020” to call the 800 number. If China cannot be sued in the International Court, sue it in Peoria Municipal; anywhere, just sue ’em and start collection by cancelling U.S./ex-U.S. debt or other means with “teeth.” The world must be made whole.

  9. Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog: “As part of routine order list issued today, #SCOTUS denies plea from former President Donald Trump to block subpoena from Manhattan grand jury for his financial records.” (Trump v. Vance)

    If all proceeds normally, NY State should finally get the records it has subpoenaed, and we’ll see where it goes from there.

    Trump and his siblings are also facing a separate suit from their niece, Mary Trump, for estate fraud.

    1. And Biden is likely facing a mental competency exam.

      BTW, what are the chances that anyone in the WH Press Coven will ask for a follow-up on the Sky News program saying Biden obviously has dementia?

      More likely they will ask what he had for breakfast. Jill will answer. Biden won’t remember having breakfast.

      1. The MSM isn’t interested in fact and truth. Intelligence wise our nation has accepted less than mediocrity from the MSM. One has to read the facts themselves. They are there.

        Elvis Bug writes that Greenwald lied and said he would prove it. He tried to prove it by linking to the Intercept’s explanation as to why one of the founders, Greenwald, of the Intercept quit. Of course there were no facts there to prove anything about Greenwald, but it did prove Elvis Bug doesn’t know what he is talking about. He didn’t bother to deal with Greenwald’s response which stated why he quit. The Intercept didn’t want significant facts or opinion written against Biden.

        Greenwald was being honest, the Intercept was trying to be sneaky and Elvis Bug showed himself to be ignorant.

        1. Don’t try to put my words in your lying mouth, Allan. You don’t understand them. You mischaracterize them. You attribute things to me that I never said.

          No idea why you don’t get kicked off this site for abusive behavior.


          1. “Don’t try to put my words in your lying mouth”

            You can always correct what I said if you think it isn’t true. You pointed to the Intercept’s statement with regard to Greenwald’s leaving. Why did Greenwald leave? You made some statements. What did Greenwald write to demonstrate he wasn’t stating the truth?

            You open yourself up to people interpreting you in a way you don’t like because your words are loose and too frequently wrong. You should be criticized and I understand why you don’t like what people say about you. You don’t like the truth.

            In any event, following the excuse from the Intercept, with little fact if any, you didn’t bother with Greenwald’s explanation as to why he left the Intercept where he had a guarantee of no censorship. After all he was a co-founder of the Intercept.

            Maybe you want to restate what you believe about Greenwald and his resignation. We can discuss both responses, but that is something you apparently are unable to do.

            As far as who should get kicked off, apparently that has happened to you before so maybe there are reasons for you to be kicked off but not for me.


            1. What statements do you think I made about Greenwald? You’ve maintained I said something I didn’t say, which means you’re confused. Tell me your interpretation of what I said that led you to interpret falsely….

              Because i did say something about Greenwald and before going down the rabbit hole into Allan world and seeking to reason with you I need to know if you’re within ten area codes of being able to ascertain what I actually said. Otherwise the importance of the discussion would be lower than road dirt and will just prove to be a worthless venture into the often traumatized, delusional and disingenuous sub reasoning of an abusive troll.


              1. Elvis Bug, you leave a distinct impression based on all your postings. You believe I misinterpreted what you said. I don’t think I misinterpreted what you were trying to say but your words aren’t that clear.

                The solution is for you to say what you were trying to get across in the first place and start from there. If you can’t do that then I have to believe my initial thoughts were correct as will others.

                Your evidence was an empty excuse by the Intercept. It contained little information, certainly nothing to clarify the event. Glen Greenwald provided a lot more information, none of which is disputed with facts by the Intercept.

                Understand EB, I might be siding with Greenwald at this moment because in this instance Greenwald and I are both trying to protect the freedom of ideas. IMO, you are trying to side with the Intercept in order to squelch ideas.


                1. Except I already said what i meant. I need to know what your interpretation was before continuing because this is your game, Allan. Not playing it with you. It’s a complete waste of time evidenced just by the misinterpretation contained in this last post of yours, let alone with what I’d said before.

                  Look, I get it. You aspire to talk about issues in a way you consider educated and well grounded, but the right wing media tactics so clearly infused in your manner pull you down in ways you can’t even recognize on your own. It’s striking, even a little pathetic, or a lot pathetic…, and I’d actually feel sorry for you if you weren’t so obsessive and insulting with your dialogue.

                  Suggestion: whenever you think you’ve understood something, immediately doubt your interpretation because it’s often quite deluded and skewed by basic rhetoric you’ve latched on to. So do a double take, ask whether something that rubs the wrong way on you if you’re actually seeing reality. It’ll prove helpful.


                  1. “Except I already said what i meant.”

                    Fine EB. I understand you loud and clear and probably many others do as well. No explanation from you is necessary. You already have my interpretation loud and clear but you say it is a ‘misinterpretation’, yet you ask for it again.(” I need to know what your interpretation was”)

                    I’m not interested in right wing or left wing like you are. I am interested in principles and application of principles. That might be too difficult for you.

                    “Suggestion: whenever you think you’ve understood something, immediately doubt your interpretation”

                    Suggestion: Think before you write.

                    1. You’re right. I should realize there are some basic things that I assume you know, but clearly don’t. I don’t think about about that before I write.

                      I asked Walworths (or whatever) why Greenwald is an “actual” journalist versus just one of many journalists. He responded that Greenwald is an investigative journalist and that I couldn’t possibly understand what that meant based on my previous “inane” responses. (Actually, right out of college I did a bit of investigative journalism, both individually and as part of a team)…

                      I pointed out that I think of Greenwald as more of an op ed writer these days than as an investigative journalist, using his resignation from the Intercept, as well as the response of the Intercept to his resignation as backing to my assertion that Greenwald is more of an op ed writer than investigative journalist.

                      I even complimented Greenwald on his op ed writing in another post to Sal Kurtz.

                      Here is where you come in…, you jumped into the thread maintaining that I’m somehow ‘against’ Greenwald and the response I posted from the Intercept “proves nothing”. This, of course, is an incorrect interpretation on your end in two respects right away. One: I’m not maintaining a for or against position against Greenwald. And two: I never asserted the response by the Intercept to be ‘proof’ of anything, but rather that it was his former teammates reaction to his resignation, aligning it with what I was saying about Greenwald being more of an op ed writer these days.

                      This does not have to be absolute truth as neither I, or you, personally know Greenwald.

                      True to form though, you jumped in with insults immediately, which as I maintain, are due to intense insecurity on your end mixed with black and white thinking.

                      Here is where you could be benefited going forward: rather than jumping in and putting words in someone’s mouth, if something confuses you, ask a question. Don’t make an accusation. Now…, I’ve spent a minute here explaining this, as I’ve done on other issues in the past. My belief is you won’t respect the answer and you’ll come back in with more hostile accusations which has in the past made me wonder why I even spend the time because it’s rather clear, even blatantly obvious, that with myself or any of the other commenters here from the progressive side that you aren’t at all ‘bargaining’ in good faith. Rather you’re terrified of being made to look not intelligent. Let me put that concern to rest for you…, no one cares, and no one is really looking other than to witness a slow motion train wreck in process.


                    2. What is it EB that you know and think I don’t know? I recognize you think you know certain facts I don’t know, but those aren’t facts. They are errors, opinions, or meaningless statements intended to sway opinion without being compared to reality.

                      Greenwald is an investigative writer and an opinion writer. If that is what you believe then we agree. Posting the Intercept’s excuse of what happened wasn’t your best moment.

                      Don’t try to shift the discussion claiming insult You may have felt insulted because another person didn’t agree with what you said, but that is not an insult. You immediately became insulting and aggressive afterward.

                      “And two: I never asserted the response by the Intercept to be ‘proof’ of anything, but rather that it was his former teammate’s reaction to his resignation, “

                      That is not exactly true. You said something about further information, and you may even have used the word proof (I don’t remember). Then you posted only the link without explanation. I am writing from memory so if you have a different recollection let us in on it and you can cite the discussion.

                      Outside of the insults we may or may not agree about Greenwald. This is the only meaningful point that is left on the table. “Greenwald is an investigative writer and an opinion writer.” You either agree or you don’t.

                    3. My original point was Greenwald is more of an op ed writer these days than an investigative journalist. I commented to that end re the article Walworths posted. I said it in my commentary. And then I posted Greenwald’s former team’s commentary on his resignation as a means of making my point but not claiming ‘proof’ of anything.

                      So given your choice A & B I clearly choose C, because if you read the post of Greenwald’s former partners they maintain Glen’s investigative journalist chops have waned, certainly, with his refusal to be edited. But primarily I go with my own experience of knowing what to look for in determining whether a piece of work is mostly opinion vs. being more journalistic as the trend has certainly been under way for awhile now to frame opinion as journalistically as possible. It’s in fact spurred a whole new form of copywriting that is trained as such these days. We’ve even discussed this very subject several times in the past on this blog, Allan. I take your troubles understanding the delineation between the two to be indicative of a hefty dose of confusion on the subject.

                      So yes, I agree Greenwald is both an opinion writer and investigative journalist — but as i said to begin in the thread, I believe him to be more of op ed writer these days and find myself in agreement with his former cohorts and teammates at the Intercept.

                      As to what I know that you don’t, I’m going to venture to say I recognize the writing tactics involved with op ed writing vs. the ones more journalistic. Full stop. In fact I’ve found your insight in those respects to be remedial at best. But it’s absolutely your right to engage with the craft in any way you would like.

                      Elvis Bug

                    4. “My original point was Greenwald is more of an op ed writer these days than an investigative journalist.”

                      Elvis Bug you have a lot of original points that seem to change with time. I don’t know that Greenwald was more of an investigative journalist in the past. He is a mixture, but those that have followed him closely could probably provide a better answer. The Intercept didn’t like Greenwald’s statements about Biden whether based on opinion, fact or disputed fact. There is no question that the Intercept wanted to inappropriately censure him. The owner is a billionaire leftist.

                      “Allan. I take your troubles understanding the delineation between the two to be indicative of a hefty dose of confusion on the subject.”

                      You wish to throw barbs rather than discuss. I am not confused by what I read on the split between Greenwald and the Intercept. I read both explanations and the Intercept’s was laughable. I too have listened to you just like you have listened to me except your criticism holds little water because you have been unable to prove a significant point against me while I have proven multiple against you.


                    5. “You wish to throw barbs rather than discuss.”

                      Once again, Allan projects his own weaknesses onto others. Throwing barbs is clearly Allan’s favorite pastime.

                    6. “Throwing barbs”

                      Anonymous the Stupid, learn the difference between content, barbs and insult. You practice insult. I mostly practice content with an occasional barb. Any discussion with the dummy, Anonymous the Stupid, doesn’t count.

                    7. “Sure you did”

                      EB Sure you did…What? I can think of a lot of things I did that might pertain to you. Talk in full sentences. Use nouns. This is one way of being misinterpreted. Don’t go all Anonymous the Stupid on us.


                    8. “Allan is a diesel powered idiot troll. Lol.”

                      Elvis Bug, I guess the discussion was too much for you so you went full Anonymous the Stupid. Try again another day.


        1. Why should WH press follow up on claims by an Australian conservative politician turned commentator?

          A drunk aussie relating a story about late night drinking tales was enough for the FBI to spay on the President of the United States

            1. Anonymous the Stupid is being insulting again along with lying or twisting the truth. Do we hold Anonymous the Stupid to his words? No, because he never says anything of value. That is because he is Anonymous the Stupid.

    2. Mary will drop her suit now as it was a paid political stunt and had no merit. As for the rest, you are going to be very disappointed. Trump’s taxes are prepared by world class public accounting firms and lawyers – they go to jail too and accordingly, don’t do tax fraud generally. But you do get what a fascistic thug you are yes? You just know you’ll find a crime so you just keep looking – but that’s how justice works in communist countries. Here in the U.S., you’ve got to have an actual crime and some evidence to believe it occurred. What is your actual accusation against Trump that warrants an investigation?

      1. I have to laugh that you think I’m a “thug” for reporting that the Supreme Court is allowing NY’s subpoena of Trump’s financial records to proceed.

        If you want to know the basis for the NY subpoena, look it up for yourself. It’s *their* allegation, not mine, and I’m not your unpaid tutor.

        I have no expectation that Mary Trump will drop her suit, but if you’re just patient, we’ll find out.

        1. CTHD– Key word, “Allegation”.

          Trump has been audited almost continuously by unfriendly bureaucrats for years. If there were something there it would have been seen by now.

          This is like the Stasi-like harassment of True the Vote. With the stolen election we know why Obama and others wanted to squash any organization dedicated to making the vote honest.

          1. The election wasn’t stolen.

            You can believe that “If there were something there it would have been seen by now,” but you don’t KNOW this, and a lot of new info about Trump’s likely financial fraud came out in just the last year, which is why they’re seeking his financial documents. If you’re right, Trump has nothing to fear from the subpoena.

          2. False. The IRS cannot afford to counter the banks of accountants and lawyers the rich can throw at them and now focus on lower level returns.

            “…IRS is struggling: According to Vox, Americans owe a cumulative $131 billion in unpaid taxes, enough to completely fund the Department of Education for two years. The bulk of that money is owed by the wealthiest people in the country, yet the IRS isn’t attempting to collect it from them. Instead, as IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig confirmed in a letter to Congress recently, the agency literally can’t afford to audit the rich, so it’s pursuing the poor instead….”


    3. There is a possibility that something irregular may be found in Trumps taxes. So there may be questions that need to be answered. There is one question that we know the answer to. Hunter Biden was paid millions be Burisma for having no background in energy. One would think that some curiosity by CommitToHonestDiscussion would apply to all possible acts of corruption. Hard to see how honest has anything to do with it.

      1. Window dressing Thinkit, and while money for nothing, it’s not illegal or corrupt. You really think Nick Saban knows about insurance?

    4. estate fraud… probably the longest shot and hardest case among all the suits against trump out there. but don’t count on the news to decipher that. sal

  10. The Supreme Court has declined to hear the most recent cases on election misconduct.

    Now it is moot. The election is over.

    Previously cases were dumped because they were too early. As the song goes, ‘find me an acre of land between the salt water and the sea strand.’

    Months ago I posted on this site that the indications of electoral fraud were probably too big for remedy in the courts.

    That has been proven true time and again. But despite my prediction, I am a little surprised at how cowardly the courts [and the Court] have been in hiding from the issues. I suspect half the country now looks on the courts with varying degrees of bemused contempt. They now seem like frightened peasants dressed up as oracles at a carnival. But, like any carnival act they can tell you your future–it isn’t good.

    They still have nice buildings. Too bad we can’t find judges like Marshall or Coke or Bracton to fill them.

    In the meantime, our law schools appear not to be concerned about merit these days. See this on Yale:


    1. SC ruling, we Citizens/States have No Standing & We’re “Moot”:

      At this time Nullification of the courts & DC seems the only Rightful Remedy left for the injuries parties, the States & more importantly the People.

      That in every legal way we can people should stop being cooperative & excepting of TPTB & press our state leadership to do the same

  11. A small technical point regarding the use of radar during the test attack on Pearl Harbor in 1932 by Admiral Harry Yarnell: radar had not been deployed yet. One of the great radar ironies is that the newly operational Army radar units on Oahu on the morning of December 7, 1941 detected a large flight of aircraft out of the north. Higher headquarters concluded that the sighting was Army Air Corp bombers on a flight from the mainland to Hawaii. Flying out of the north, the Japanese attacked around 7:50 a.m.

    1. True and very interesting. I can’t fault the conclusion that the large flight was identified as an expected flight of B-17 bombers. It is hard not to see what you expect to see and what has been predicted to be there. One of the many paths to tragedy that fate took this country down.

    2. A little history:

      – FDR goaded Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor and he wasn’t about to use radar to defeat his plan to use Pearl Harbor as its rationale for entering the 2nd war.

      – The Deep Deep State as LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, the Secret Service, FBI, CIA, JCS, Italian Mob, Cuban exiles, Texas oilmen et al., assassinated JFK, not Oswald.

      – The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was based on a “fake,” false flag and staged event.

      – MLK and RFK were assassinated by the very same Deep Deep State; the same “executive action.”

      – Flight 800 was brought down by a naval training missile, not a “spontaneous fuel tank explosion” and “Slick Willy” Clinton’s could not counter that disaster three months before his re-election attempt.

      – 9/11 was a “controlled demolition” of three WTC buildings, not a terrorist attack by crazy Saudis run by Mossad to allow George W. Bush to finally and conclusively reshape the Middle East.

      – “China Flu, 2020” was a biological weapon deployed by China from China for the benefit of democrats and global communism in order to cause President Donald J. Trump to lose the 2020 election as he was on the verge of winning a massive landslide victory.

      – The inexorable, massive Trump landslide victory in the 2020 election was stolen by 160 years of illegal immigration, the total elimination of election controls, clear violation of state election laws, vote-by-mail, ballot harvesting, defeat of election observers, vote tampering through inscrutable computers and programs, massive campaigns of censorship and interdiction by mainstream media, social media platforms, etc. – death by a thousand cuts – and the judicial branch was derelict and negligent in refusing to hear evidence; not to mention the vice president, electoral college and state legislatures failing to take imperative corrective action.

      1. Excellent, however I correct you on the 911 agenda. It had nothing to do with reshaping the Middle East. It was all about reshaping the agenda of the USIC, which immediately turned inwards and started collecting (spying) on American citizens. Over the last 5 years we just witnessed how successful they were..

  12. Comparing January 6 to the Pearl Harbor attacks is nothing but hyperbole. Honore’ is just one more idiot who got promoted to high rank because of his political conditions and skin color that make up much of the modern military. If Pelosi really wanted to investigate, she’d have appointed someone who is an investigator, not a blabbermouth. I’ve read Sunk’s letter and the man seems to be deluded. He continually refers to the protestors as “armed” when they weren’t. He must be referring to the pipe bombs found at the political party headquarters that no one knows who placed them and the weapons found in a truck. By the way, although the Pearl Harbor attacks were used as political propaganda to stir up enthusiasm for Roosevelt’s plans for war – which he intended or Europe, not the Pacific – they were actually a failure. The Japanese failed to catch their real targets in port and those carriers lucked out and sank most of the Japanese carrier force at Midway six months later. As for the damage at Pearl Harbor, nearly every one of the sunken ships were raised and put back in service within a year or so. As for the battleships, there was only one battleship action by US battleships in the entire war. They ended up serving mostly as offshore artillery.

      1. Mespo,et al:

        As I understand the My Pillow’s Mike Lindell piece is mostly creditable until close to the end but needs corrected for complete creditably.

        I haven’t seen it yet. I think the problem is with the claims about Dominon. I think these concerns were raised by one of the 3 Math PHD’s that all 3 have shown the clear election fraud. It was said like blaming someone like Microsoft for the problem when the problem was someone Hacked the computers software. Or like blaming Master-lock for the theft with the Election Fraud when it was the Thieves showed up & cut the Lock.

        1. Oky1:

          I think I told you I defended a libel case one time several years ago. The Plaintiff claimed that he was defrauded out of a racing prize (trophy and money) by the sponsoring body that published a magazine stating that the racer was disqualified for utilizing “non-conforming equipment” on the car. When we got into discovery it came out that the racer had “appropriated” the offending parts from an unwitting lender trackside. Thus, the case exploded when the “unwitting lender” found out where all his “parts went to.” The Plaintiff still pressed on and we had jury trial. The verdict came back after I tell you less than 10 minutes for the Plaintiff!!!

          They awarded $1.00 that we paid at lunch to opposing counsel the next day. Smart folks those jurors. Oh and author Leon Uris move over. “QBVII’s” got nothing on us. lol

          1. LOL, Dominon may panic at the thought of dicovery.

            BTW: I guess you seen the latest questions/concerns about Virginia’s 11/3/20 election?

            I think it was up on The Gateway Pundit last week.

      2. In all of the Dominion suits I’ve read, there’s no mention of their alleged financial ties to China. Is that because Dominion is trying to avoid that topic in discovery? Something else?

        In this Complaint, as opposed to previous ones, they dropped all references to their Chief of Security (former?) and to their (alleged) ties to Venezuela. Is that because those two are not elements of this alleged defamation? .

        P.S. Nice analysis of Dominion’s Lindell Complaint.

  13. The dead giveaway that the entire faux “invasion” of the capitol building on Jan 6th was a planned PsyOp:

    A) The fact that there are multiple videos that clearly show Trump supporters (and anyone else with them) being welcomed into the building.

    B) The fact that there were no counter protestors (aka/Antifa) at the event harassing Trump supporters.

    1. I pointed out to you yesterday that some protesters entered freely, but others broke windows and climbed through them or rammed police. Here, again, is a video of the former. One of the men who breaks a window is Proud Boy named Dominic “Spaz” Pezzola. He has been charged with “Conspiracy; Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers; Civil Disorder; Government Property or Contracts; Obstruction of an Official Proceeding; Robbery of Personal Property of the United States; Restricted Building or Grounds; Aiding and Abetting” (https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases):

      1. There was one window broken. Most of the Capitol visitors entered through the doors, which appear to have been opened from the inside. Actually, opening the doors was a bold strategic move that prevented a real riot.

        1. The one opened from the inside looked like a fire door. Yes, it was opened by a capitol policeman and those who entered passed through a hallway with more capital police on both sides. Not one of them lifted a finger to stop them in what was for that building a very narrow hallway. I did copy it but it was removed from YouTube and haven’t seen it since then.

        2. In the video above, you can see two windows broken, and those were not the only windows that were broken.

          People also forced themselves in through some doorways where police were trying to block the insurrectionists’ entrance, as in this video, where Officer Hodges was injured:

Leave a Reply