“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. The worst thing is that Democrats still don’t get it. Neither does the press. They continue to call this some sort of extremist right wing insurrection. The facts are that many of these “rioters, ” or “insurrectionists,” if you are anal retentive, were just normal folks that are upset. I read an article in “DefenseOne,” a few weeks back that made the case that these are a new breed of extremists. They went on to talk about how they are a little bit older than normal extremists, they are not all from red states or even particularly red portions of blue states. They have jobs, homes, and children. The absurdity of the peice is that the author basically said these “extremists” are so dangerous because they are hard to spot. They look just like normal Americans… It never even crossed the authors mind that these people are different from other extremists because most really weren’t. They are completely different because they ARE normal Americans.

    For decades we have seen the left get upset over just about everything. Now it is so absurd that they seem to make up things to be mad about. They have “occupy,” “BLM,” “ANITFA,” environmental extremists, social justice warriors, etc etc. We expect the left to always be mad and the media lives in a leftist wonderland bubble. They don’t seem to realize that 74 million people didn’t vote for them (unless they are pushing their “racist nation,” nonsense). The most “anger” they have seen from the right is decades ago abortion bombings, and the “Tea Party,” who was NOT violent and actually took their complaints and turned it into electing candidates with their values. So if people on the right suddenly get upset they are immediately dubbed “extremists hiding in plain sight.”

    Mr, Turley can call this some sort of “Pearl Harbor” if he wants but he too lives in the bubbles of both cable news and academia. As noble as a believe Mr. Turley can be because he separates his politics from analysing legal issues, he is still admittedly on the left side of the political aisle, is employed in a job dominated by the left, and spends his time near the establishment of both parties, neither of which seems to represent anyone else but themselves. What we saw on Jan. 6th would be better described as the ill fated practice run of D-Day that got soldiers and sailors killed when a few German torpedo boats just happened to find themselves by pure coincedence, at the site, caused confusion, fired torpedos, and had friendly ships shooting at each other. D-Day however has not hit. Just like the German high command, our politicians, pundits, and media are not aware of what they stumbled upon and are making the problem worse!

    Right now the left is on a blitz in the wrong direction. Instead of understanding the powder keg they are sitting on, they are building a fire. They are pushing harder left, any coming together was never going to happen, and they somehow think 74million Americans are white supremacy extremists.They are not. They are just angry at what they see. They are angry at the hypocrisy they see, and angry that establishment Republicans, all of the left, our media, and our pundits are completely blind to the anger and frustration of people that don’t see any of these people, in their bubble, that represent any of us. I don’t care about social justice or racial equality measures that seem a whole lot like racism. No, I don’t want schools or military bases renamed. We want to enforce our borders and immigration laws. Pay for your own damn abortions, and I don’t want billions of dollars to other countries while us average Americans get tax hikes. Those of us that didn’t take out student loans or already paid them back don’t want to pay for other peoples student loans. I am a veteran, and I have no interest in fighting a forever war, The US military are not policeman and no Military General should be hired to investigated the police. If a Newspaper fires an editor for printing a Senators op ed suggesting the military should be used to put down leftwing riots that lasted for months, then they damn sure should be firing any journalist that thinks the occupation of the Capitol by the National Guard is warranted because of a few hours of a rightwing riot. If you want to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal you should move to and live in Israel so you can see the result screaming toward you in a the form of rockets. Yes, I demand kids go back to school, and if you tell my kid to admit his/her white privilege or his/her whiteness I might give you a black eye. Equality means treating all Americans as Americans, anything else just don’t fly. I don’t believe in belittling black Americans for their race, nor do I think belittling white school children is a constructive endeavor. People are just angry but for some reason the right is not allowed to be. We are always supposed to sit down and shut up.

    So Democrats and the media can keep pushing things that make no sense, only hurt, not help the country, and pursecute the right. Then you can spent 50 years talking about not seeing the warning signs of a real D-Day, but us average everyday normal Americans will have a leg up on the new revisionist writers of history. We saw it coming, we even warned you one Jan. 6th. None of it was a surprise and the only reason the people that pretend to be experts didn’t see it was because they never see anything that the average everyday normal America does. On top of that the hypocrisy we see is astounding. If Katie Couric is the Princess of stupidity she appears to be when she suggests that 74 million people are somehow evil racists, insurrectionists etc, it points to a problem not with Americans but people like her, Anderson Cooper, and others that told lies pfr four years and now expect that Trump and anyone who supports them should be locked up or “re-educated.”

    1. Here’s a list of people who’ve been charged so far and what they’ve been charged for –

      You really think those actions are “normal”?

      I don’t think normal people commit those crimes.

      “they somehow think 74million Americans are white supremacy extremists.They are not.”

      Some aren’t. Others are. Can you admit that some of them are?

      1. Yes. most of the people there were normal folks. If these were people on the left, Democrats would decry the political prosecutions. In fact they called it a human rights and Constitutional violation to clear protestors after the President was forced into a White House bunker by the secret service. The press said Trump was a coward but now AOC who wasn’t even in the Capitol building is some brave hero for telling her harrowing story and being one of only 535 Congress people to survive the Great Insurrection of Jan. 6th…

        1. yes another fantastic example of FBI provocation and entrapment. awful abuse

          Merrick Garland has more of that planned for us, if today’s radio commentary on his confirmation is to be believed

          Sal Sar

          1. Kurtz: “….if today’s radio commentary on his confirmation is to be believed.”

            Say what? What “radio commentary”/ Some of it? All of it? WTF

            1. well its funny i listen to npr more than you do prolly. try and pry your ears away from fox radio anonjf

              here is the key


              merrick garland brags on his OKC investigation and prosecutions. promises to give us another big azz whuppin on domestic terror.

              but let’s go back to the federal prosecution of OKC a moment. is this really something Mr Garland should be proud of?

              It took several years to be confirmed from, FOIA and civil suits, but, years after ward a rumor was factually confirmed but the government never bothered to explain.

              The ATF office in OKC had several weeks advance PRIOR warning from ATF informant Carol Howe who identified certain persons who were known to and have been confirmed to have been connected to McVeigh as plotting to attack the Murrah building. so they had network, plotters, operations location, and targeting. Angela Graham was the name of the atf agent who took the information. and yet they “missed” it.

              I’m not making this up, if you want to go down the rabbit hole, the proof of the informant and her report prior to the incident are out there.

              So why did the government never acknowledge this, bury the story, dismiss the informant report, brand the informant as unreliable, etc?

              this calls for a little speculation now. my hypothesis: the network of mcveigh was an infested rat’s nest of federal operatives, and probably Carol Howe was not the only informant, there were several. The government has never wanted to “go there” because it would embarass them even more than Carol Howe has done.

              And not only did the further social network of mcveigh included various people who were active federal informants themselves….there’s worse.

              and possibly one person at least, who was an intelligence agent of one or more foreign nations. NATO members or at least allies, I don’t mean “russians.” I mean Germany and/ or Israel. That comes from McVeigh’s lawyer who tried to go there in discovery, but the judge richard Matsch shut it down.

              So, it’s my belief that the government’s case that McVeigh was a “lone wolf,” was factually wrong, and not just by accident, but by design. It’s my belief that there were “others unknown” as his lawyer entitled his book, besides Fortier and Nichols, and those persons were the ones identified to ATF by Carol Howe and they were part of a nest of informants including the “Midwestern bank robbers gang.”

              nothing i am saying here comes from own personal knowledge. this is all open source information. there are numerous books by responsible authors that cover the ground in this comment.

              analytically, the bottom line is that FBI was up to its eyeballs with informants in among the “militias” and “white supremists” of the days of Operation Patcon and they were either incredibly incompetent, if you consider all the disasters and failures — or incredibly competent, if you consider that they may have actually intended their seemingly poor results. if merrick garland was a major nexus than THAT is a bigger reason to mistrust him than anything.

              Sal Sar

              1. FBI were apparently in on the murders of Fred Hampton of the Black Panthers as well as Malcolm X, too. So people don’t think that the FBI political apparatchiks responsible for misusing the Agency like an American KGBZ are not equal opportunity persecutors.

          2. You know, Kurtz Sar, you could listen to Garland himself instead of listening to radio commentary. C-Span has the entire hearing.

      2. That the same analogy you can make about the Pedophile Joe Biden…Some Democrats are, some aren’t. Dumb…and dumber. I do know that white Liberals are the most racist people in America, and that is a FACT!!!

        1. Some Democrats and independents and Republicans are pedophiles, sad but true, and others aren’t.

          See, I have no problem agreeing that some are.

          Now, can YOU agree that some Trump supporters are white supremacists?

          “I do know that white Liberals are the most racist people in America, and that is a FACT”

          It isn’t a fact, it’s only what you believe. Go ahead: produce proof of your claim, explain how you determined the level of racism in diverse groups and what other groups you measured.

          1. “Now, can YOU agree that some Trump supporters are white supremacists?”

            Anonymous the Stupid some of the most prominent white nationalists and racists voted for Biden.

            That is your problem. Your rhetoric is Stupid.

    2. No. The worst thing is that Trumpsters think that The Proud Boys, White Supremacists and Oath Keepers, among other degenerates who fawn over Trump are “normal folks who are upset”. No they aren’t. How many “normal folks” wear animal horns and bray like an elk, break in the U.S. Capitol, pee and poop in offices of members of Congress, strut around wearing Auschwitz t-shirts, or attack police officers because they believe a chronic, habitual liar who told them to “fight like hell or they wouldn’t have a country any more”? How many “normal folks” believe a lying narcissist former television host over 50 Secretaries of State, 60+ courts and election officials in all 50 states? This is more of the ultra right wing media assuring you faithful that you are all OK, that you are in the right and everyone else is the “Left”, “Dems” and “Libs” who are all bad. They reassure you that you are the true patriots, and everyone else who opposes Trump is wrong and immoral. No. You are gullible. They are pandering to your gullibility just like Trump did. You refuse to believe that Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, that he never got even a 50% approval rating in 4 years’ time, and that the polls that predicted his loss were all true. That’s because of the pro-Trump media that feeds you lies which you want to believe.

      Turley’s piece is, once more, a sad but well-compensated effort to defend Trump by the lame argument that if there had been more security January 6th wouldn’t have happened, so it’s the fault of Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats. Turley complains that Chuck Schumer is engaging in hyperbole by comparing the Trump Insurrection to December 7th, 1941. In the case of Pearl Harbor, the attack was from the outside. In the case of January 6th, the attack was by Americans who had been conditioned to accept the lies of a total failure of a man with a massive ego who knew for months that he would be losing re-election. He began inciting his faithful racist disciples long before Election Day and engaged in unprecedented efforts to disenfranchise the majority of Americans who never approved of him, didn’t vote for him in 2016 and who wanted him gone. The tragedy of the Trump Insurrection is indeed unique, because never before had Americans been incited to attack Congress to try to force it to award an election to someone who lost after all appeals and challenges had been exhausted. Never before did an American President go an “Stop the Steal” tours, lying to his faithful disciples that they had to join him on January 6th to try to stop Congress from accepting the certified vote totals. January 6th is, indeed, a date that will live in infamy.

        1. If you believe that “There are no white supremacists in this country,” you’re the one who needs a sanity check.

            1. It’s a conditional statement, Allan. Do you understand how those work?
              If you’re suggesting that the condition is true, then you disagree with William that “There are no white supremacists in this country.”

              1. Anonymous the Stupid, I didn’t comment on any type of supremacy. I commented on your insult. JD can take care of himself. HE has made you look like a fool many times.

                1. What you’re calling an “insult,” Allan the Abusive, was a conditional statement. Do you understand how conditional statements work?

      1. To answer Natacha’s too many words rant, what part of “peacefully and patriotically protest” does she not understand. Somehow in a corner of her brain she sees that “peacefully and patriotically protest” are code words for take no prisoners, kill them all. There is another word that she does not understand the meaning of. The word is delusional.

  2. Infamy?
    A crowd got out of hand, and a lot of frightened politicians scurried to their nearest safe space with the help of the police, who shot and killed one unarmed woman, while some of their colleagues battled outside and others apparently let protesters into the building.
    Where was the outrage in 2011 when protesters stormed and occupied the state capitol for much longer than a day? Then, the protest was portrayed as righteous anger. Now, protest is infamy?
    Come on, Professor, you can do better than that.
    The Capitol in DC is the seat of government, not the Vatican or Hagia Sofia. That the crowd got out of hand, that windows were broken and people hurt was unfortunate, and certainly tragic in one case, but the subsequent hyperbole and lies by the media and the Democrats and their enablers got even more out of hand, and using “infamy” is as hyperbolic as it gets. Had the Americans shot a Japanese pilot and had some office equipment broken during the raid, and that was the sum total of the damage in 1941, then there is a comparison. Otherwise, everything is partisan rhetoric.

    Here is what one of the local papers wrote in 2011 about the Wisconsin occupation (or should that be insurrection?).
    “The impulse to enter came from the immense symbolism of the Capitol itself. There was an intense compulsion, sometimes even below the level of rational reflection, to be inside self-government. Taking possession of that house of the people, even if only temporarily and symbolically, was a way of trying to make the ideal of self-government real.”

    Nancy Pelosi was supportive of invading a sacred space in 2011, but not ten years later. (Okay, it’s Fox news, but the tweet is hers).
    @WeGotEd @thelastword I stand with the students & workers of #WI, impressive show of democracy in action #solidarityWI
    So, “an impressive show of democracy in action” for the invasion and lengthy occupation of Wisconsin’s capitol to protest a bill by a Republican governor, but a “day of infamy” for the brief foray into the capitol in DC by those who believed the election had been stolen by the Democrats.
    To paraphrase Pelosi, people will think what they think, and sometimes that leads them to do what they do.
    But infamy?

    1. Yeah, but AOC is a hero for telling her scary story and being one of only 535 members of Congress to survive the Great Insurrection…

  3. Ya want to know about infamy? Wait till the American public finds out what Trump has been hiding on his taxes. Turley make sure you bill the Trump team for the overtime.

    1. Why would anyone care about anything it Trump’s taxs? I’ll let you in on a little secret. No one that stands in line to have someone look at their taxes goes in and demands tax preparers make sure they pay as much taxes as possible. and H&R Block does not advertise that they will make you pay as much as you possibly can. The only people that care about Trump’s taxes are bitter pill Democrats that are angry he beat Hillary in 2016 and that the collusion hoax failed.

      1. “Why would anyone care about anything it Trump’s taxs?”

        If they show that he’s engaged in fraud, as alleged, will you care?

  4. Trump can shoulder his share of responsibility even if others have a share too. Is your objective truth and accountability or to bury one man? None of the investigations over the last five years have been about finding out what happened. They’ve all bee about finding out or creating how Trump is responsible….

  5. I’m glad the Democrats chose the Great Pterodactyl to remain House Speaker. Makes 2022 easier for us.

  6. “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.”

    Here is a video of Charles Schumer stoking violence against members of today’s Supreme Court. Included also is an account of his despicable racism against African Americans. The later starts around <5 minutes, the former is before. Other violent Democrats are included in the video.

    1. S. Meyer — Thanks for the illuminating post. The Democrats are “the bad guys” here.

      In the nanosecond that I thought it would be fun to hear President Trump speak at the Capital I rejected the idea instantly because I was nearly certain that the Antifa and BLM and DNC domestic terrorists who rioted during Trump’s inauguration would show up to attack and riot again while the police stood by and did nothing. I didn’t want to be anywhere near that.

      Everyone with sense knew that that was likely but Pelosi and the half-wit mayor rejected sensible proposals to beef up protections. Why???

      1. “Why???”

        Young, Pelosi has incited riot for years. She comes from a corrupt family and copies the totalitarian socialists such as Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. They frequently created events to blame on other people. In this case we know she is lying because there was no impartial investigation and Judicial Watch has to sue to get the documents and reports involving the rioting that are normally available. We cannot forget that there were leftists in the crowd and they are used for incitement.

        I have seen such actions by leftists with my own eyes as they push relatively peaceful crowds into a violent action. All they need is one naive youngster to break lines and get hit by a police officer. To them, the more damage the better and if the youngster dies that will hit the headlines which is the desired effect.

  7. There is only one scandle. THE STOLEN ELECTION. Everything derives from that ONE point. They stole the election then brought in their regime at GUNPOINT. Their traitorous Gestapo DOJ FIB CIA NSA and propaganda media gave them cover. There is no 2022 2024 as long as they own the Gestapo and election system and have their propaganda media to to distract and distort everything.

      1. It is my belief that there was an abundance of cheating, which has been proven by a large number of affidavits. However, I will take AG Barr at his word, that the cheating would not have reversed the outcome

        AG Barr did not say there was no cheating. — he just said it was not deteriminative of the outcome

        “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” were his precise words

        This is NOT to say there was no fraud.

        But, the lying mass media, pretends that there was none. And the social media censors any dissent. This is America, 2021
        Where the narrative is strictly controlled by billionaire owners of mass media and social media,
        and the fake left apologizes for their billionaire masters with glee


        1. That someone asserts something in an affidavit doesn’t make it true.

          Some of the affidavits are nothing but hearsay.
          Some of the affidavits complain about things that are legal.
          Some of the affidavits have been shown to be false.

          There was clearly some election fraud. Some people have already been arrested for election fraud, like Robert Lynn, a guy in PA who tried to obtain and use a ballot in his dead mother’s name. When you claim “the lying mass media, pretends that there was none,” that’s not true. There was plenty of reporting about Lynn’s arrest and the charges, and they’ve done the same for other people arrested for election fraud.

          “the fake left apologizes for their billionaire masters with glee”

          You apologize for your billionaire master Trump with glee, so it’s hard for me to take you seriously.

          1. affidavits are competent evidence. they can be attacked– if a judge will allow a matter to proceed

            the cases were mostly all dismissed on procedural grounds. so they were not allowed to see the light of day

            I guess we will never know — and you will like it that way

            Sal Sar

            1. “affidavits are competent evidence.”

              They’re evidence of a sort. They might or might not be competent.

              “the cases were mostly all dismissed on procedural grounds”

              Most of the cases were dismissed on procedural grounds. But several were not. They were dismissed on the merits because the plaintiffs couldn’t provide evidence of the crimes they were alleging.

              And if you think that procedural grounds don’t matter, do you really want anyone who wants to be able to sue, no matter whether they have standing?

              “I guess we will never know — and you will like it that way”

              Take your puke-y words out of my mouth. If you like puke, put it in your own mouth.

              I think it would be great for Congress to have a full investigation, one that includes the Dominion and Smartmatic allegations and ALSO includes the allegations of misuse of power by Trump (as with his call to Raffensperger to “find” votes for him).

        2. “However, I will take AG Barr at his word, that the cheating would not have reversed the outcome”

          Barr is a lifelong swamp rat.

          Why you would take him at his word about anything?

          Do you remember his “word” regarding the investigation into Epstein’s alleged suicide?

          How’d that turn out?

          Then there is what he did to John Durham.

          1. Walworth apparently you missed my point

            By saying “we have not seen fraud on a scale ..” he implicitly admitted YES THEY HAD SEEN FRAUD

            just not enough to overcome the gap

            my point was that the billionaire owned and financed mass media and social media are pretending there was no fraud when in fact there is an abundance of evidence about an abundance of incidents. being swept under rug. likely not enough to cover the gap, but a lot.


        3. Perhaps Sal Sar.

          In funnier moments, I think one of the reasons trump was so shocked by his loss is because his campaign sought to rig the election from the beginning with voter suppression certainly, but also by seeking to get the courts to override the popular vote and its relation to the EC. Added to his extorting of the Ukrainians (and probably others) for dirt on Biden. And possibly, even in voter harvesting efforts of their own.

          Trump is notorious for getting caught at something and immediately pointing at his accusers and blaming them for the same thing. A true top to bottom investigation into all things electoral is, literally, the last thing the trump campaign truly wants.


        1. “Anonymous isn’t anyone.”

          He many not be anyone, but he is Stupid. That is why the very Stupid comments made by that one character, who wants to make believe he is more than one, would be best called Anonymous the Stupid.

  8. Glenn Greenwald (an actual Journalist) covered it all extensively:

    “The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot

    Insisting on factual accuracy does not make one an apologist for the protesters. False reporting is never justified, especially to inflate threat and fear levels.”

    “All this matters because it inherently matters if the media is recklessly circulating falsehoods about the most inflammatory and significant news stories. As was true for their series of Russiagate debacles, even if each “mistake” standing alone can be dismissed as relatively insignificant or understandable, when they pile up — always in the same narrative direction — people rightly conclude the propaganda is deliberate and trust in journalism erodes further.”

      1. Because he actually practices investigative journalism backed up with facts, instead of parroting the prescribed propaganda narrative.

        Of course, based on your inane posts, you wouldn’t know the difference.

        1. Nice non answer. But back to the question: given that there is more than one investigative journalist in the world, why is Greenwald an ‘actual’ journalist rather than just one of many?

          And oddly, what you’re saying speaks to Greenwald’s resignation from the Intercept over a refusal to be edited on factual grounds. I’ll post the Intercept’s statement on his resignation in a bit…, but, as in the article you posted here, Greenwald is more of an op ed writer these days than investigative journalist. Greenwald posits doubt about the ‘official’ story about Sicknick’s death while posting no fact to counterbalance, or prove, his hypothesis. Doesn’t mean he’s not right, ultimately. It does mean he’s travelling in the world of opinion rather than established fact though.

          So, if you can see fit to answer the question without resorting to personal attack right out of the gate: maybe try answering the question with something more than just generality?


            1. Elvis Bug, this was the reply by Greenwald. You might not agree with his opinion or even some of the facts that many might question. Why don’t you show where Greenwald lied? I would say he made a great case against the Intercept link you provided that had almost no substance.

              I would love to have a discussion of this open to all points of view.

                1. In other words Elvis Bug, you can’t even defend your own citation taken from the Intercept much less show where Greenwald was wrong in his own defense.

                  It demonstrates a total lack of knowledge along with an inability to deal with facts and opinion. Your answer only exposes your ignorance.


          1. EB, list more than a dozen investigative journalists–meaning true investigative journalists, not ones without a bias.

            1. You can google as well as i can. Here’s a start, most of them foreign to the States. My favorite in the U.S. is David Farenthold.


              Of course we should stipulate that opinions about bias are subject to bias. Also, it’s become quite the op ed technique these days to couch opinion as unbiased journalism…, but ‘facts’ in such articles do reveal themselves to be glorified generalities.


    1. False reporting is sometimes justified, if it’s false because of a mistake (not knowingly false), and the reporter is doing his best to avoid mistaken info, and he corrects the mistake promptly. Sometimes there is a situation with rapidly evolving info, and the choice is between possibly including some mistaken info and not reporting. In that case, the reporter should note that information is still being gathered and the initial report may turn out to include some false information, and then correct a mistake when it becomes clear that it’s a mistake. It is not possible for anyone to entirely avoid making mistakes.

      It would be better for Greenwald to say that a reporter knowingly making false claims is never justified and that mistakes should be corrected as soon as they’re identified.

      Greenwald himself makes false claims at times. He doesn’t always correct them. He made some mistakes in the article you’re quoting from.

      1. Greenwald is a champ. We know that Democrat cheerleaders and neoliberals hate him for his genuine integrity.

        Glenn is what I would call, an authentic leftist, and not a mental captive of the billionaires narrative


        1. I don’t hate anyone who has genuine integrity.

          I don’t hate Greenwald for making false claims. I don’t hate him for not correcting his false claims, but his unwillingness to correct all of his false claims does concern me, and it shows that he doesn’t have genuine integrity. Part of genuine integrity is correcting your mistakes.

          1. I don’t hate him for not correcting his false claims, but his unwillingness to correct all of his false claims does concern me, and it shows that he doesn’t have genuine integrity.

            Genuine integrity, huh? Here’s your opportunity to identify Greenwald’s false claims. You know, to demonstrate your commitment to genuine integrity.

            Ready. Go.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid seldom does. That is one way of distinguishing him from others that use the name, Anonymous the Stupid.

                  1. Anonymous the Stupid never stops linking. His problem is that generally he doesn’t understand what the link means.

                    1. Allan the Abusive continues to respond with insults. Abusers shouldn’t be indulged as if they’re trying to engage in good faith.

                    2. Tough luck Anonymous the Stupid. You can hide under an anonymous icon but you can’t escape from the fact that you are stupid.

              1. I stopped reading Commit to Lying by Omission long before the election.

                You are the one that asserted Greenwald made false assertions and thus lacks genuine integrity. IIRC, Greenwald was pointing out the lie that Munchel brought the zip ties into the Capitol building. Greenwald’s point was accurate. He also has written many other articles. Clearly there’s enough there for you to identify on balance, that he lacks genuine integrity.

                Come on, you can do better than that, right?

                1. Olly, if you think any omission constitutes lying, then you lie all the time by omission.

                  “Greenwald was pointing out the lie that Munchel brought the zip ties into the Capitol building.”

                  Is it a lie, or only a mistake?

                  “You are the one that asserted Greenwald made false assertions and thus lacks genuine integrity.”

                  No, I pointed out that EVERYONE makes mistakes, and the problem is Greenwald’s “unwillingness to correct all of his false claims.” Do you understand the difference between what I said and your false substitution?

                  As for Greenwald’s false statements, I’ll copy a relevant excerpt here of what CTHD already pointed out to you –

                  “That court filing — https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.85025/gov.uscourts.tnmd.85025.8.0.pdf — says that when Munchel took them, he said “‘Zipties. I need to get me some of them motherf***ers,’ and grabs several white plastic handcuffs from on top of a cabinet (but leaves many others).” That contradicts Greenwald’s claim that he “took them to prevent their use by the police.” If he were doing the latter, he wouldn’t have left any, and he wouldn’t have said he needed them. It also contradicts Greenwald’s claim that Munchel “just found them on a table by happenstance and, according to his own prosecutors, grabbed them with benign intent” (Greenwald’s italics, my bold), since the prosecutors didn’t say his intent was benign. If Greenwald weren’t so lazy, he’d have read the actual court filing instead of relying on a quote from a new story. It’s especially ironic given that he’s criticizing the unreliability of some of the news reporting about it.”

                  Can you agree that the prosecutors did NOT say that Munchel “grabbed them with benign intent,” so that was a false statement by Greenwald?

                  Can you agree that the evidence contradicts Greenwald’s claim that Munchel “took them to prevent their use by the police,” so that was a false statement by Greenwald?

                  1. From the court filing: Lastly, as MUNCHEL and Eisenhart are attempting to leave, Eisenhart says words to the effect of, “Don’t carry the zip ties, just get ‘em out of their hand, out of [unintelligible] get ‘em out of our hands.”

                    So they are recorded as saying not to carry the zip ties they found inside, but they took them so that law enforcement wouldn’t have them.

                    Regardless, if Greenwald concluded that to benign intent, then ask him if that’s why he wrote that. I don’t really care.

                    Now, Greenwald has written many articles, what else you got?

                    1. Munchel and Eisenhart are different people. Eisenhart saying something doesn’t tell us Munchel’s intent. For Munchel’s intent, focus on what Munchel said. Also, Eisenhart is “she,” not “they” (or are you telling us that she’s someone who self-identifies as they/their rather than she/her?).

                      “if Greenwald concluded that to benign intent, then ask him if that’s why he wrote that”

                      I have no need to ask him. You asked me for evidence of him making false statements and not correcting them. I gave you evidence you requested.

                      “Greenwald has written many articles, what else you got?”

                      Here’s a detailed discussion of some of his other uncorrected false claims –

                      If you don’t want to read it, that’s up to you, but I’m not going to copy excerpts for you.

              2. “Why don’t we start with that one?”

                Because Anonymous the Stupid you didn’t provide the statements that pertained nor the comment. Typical Anonymous the Stupid.

            1. Genuine integrity is using a distinct alias. Anonymous the Stupid doesn’t have such integrity.

              Anonymous the Stupid also cannot judge whether or not a person is lying because he has yet to recognize the difference between fact and opinion. That is the problem on this blog. Those with the least facts lie about them and state others are lying when those others provide opinion.

          2. “all of his false claims”

            Congrats. You just made a false claim.

            That’s because you can’t find any.

            1. I just pointed one out that was already identified by someone else here yesterday.

              “You just made a false claim.”

              That’s clearly false. Will you correct your false claim?

              1. Anonymous the Stupid, you are always linking to some site or someone else because you are unable to demonstrate these false claims. When on the rare occasion you provide the information you are proven wrong. That is fairly consistent.

                1. Allan, you’re a dishonest and insulting troll who regularly projects his own faults onto others. I consider it a badge of honor that you attack me.

                  1. ” I consider it a badge of honor that you attack me.”

                    That another should even recognize your existence Anonymous the Stupid should be a badge of honor for such a Stupid and worthless person.

                    1. Elvis Bug, why would you agree with Anonymous the Stupid? Are you trying to be just like him? This is why you complain that so many people are misinterpreting what you have to say. If you think I lie go ahead and say it at the time so the issue can be resolved.


  9. This Capital disorder could be compared to the malfeasance and neglect that led to Pearl Harbor and I enjoyed Professor Turley’s interesting article.

    But I have a suspicion that this was more dangerous than Pearl Harbor over the long term. I worry that the Reichstag Fire might be more apt. That fire, started by a political dissident, was used by the Nazis to impose totalitarian government in Germany and the Capital disorder is being used to impose autocratic suppression of political opponents in this country.

    But this is different from the Reichstag Fire in one respect. The fire was an unexpected incident exploited by the Nazis. The Capital disorder appears more and more likely to have been a setup by Pelosi and her allies.

    Nothing was more likely than that the fanatics who have been destroying American cities for years would show up for a Trump rally as they have been doing for years. But obvious protections were offered to and refused by Democrat politicians. Why??

    And now the professional trolls are out again in force to protect the ‘Trump Did it” Narrative. Why???

    1. “The Capital disorder appears more and more likely to have been a setup by Pelosi and her allies.”

      Several Oath Keepers who participated in the Capitol insurrection have been charged with conspiracy. You think Pelosi is part of that alleged conspiracy?

      One of these Oath Keepers claims she was given VIP pass to the Trump rally on Jan. 6, met with Secret Service agents, and was providing security for VIPs –
      “Watkins’ defense attorney, Michelle Peterson, wrote on Saturday that her client and other supporters of Trump had believed the then-President would invoke the Insurrection Act to use the military to overturn what he falsely said was the fraudulent election of Joe Biden. And Watkins and others believed “they would have a role if this were to happen,” the filing said.”
      You think Pelosi is the one who gave her a VIP pass and introduced her to Secret Service agents?

      1. I note that one of the high profile leaders of the Proud Boys has been an FBI informant for years

        It is not Pelosi who i suspect of setting up the riot and tresspass, but rather the usual informants, grassers, snitches, undercovers, and false flaggers, who are emplaced into every sort of popular organization that plans protests, all across the political spectrum. and they are usually working for law enforcement or closely aligned “watchdog organizations” who are paid big money to spy on people by billionaires

        sal sar

        1. Sal: “I note that one of the high profile leaders of the Proud Boys has been an FBI informant for years.”

          Probably a lot more than just one of them. If you join a political group the biggest loud mouths or those usually urging over-the-top and illegal activity is likely your FBI guys trying to create a case they can ‘solve’.

          By the way, what’s going on with the people who were alleged to have planned to kidnap Crazy Governor Whitmer? Not much news on her lately.

            1. I am lazy. I like it when I can get you to do research for me.

              I don’t trust wikipedia on political issues.

              Could you find something more honest for me?

              1. “I am lazy.”

                That could explain why you get so much wrong.

                No one is asking you to trust Wikipedia, your Laziness. If you’re too lazy to even follow their links to the references, that’s your choice.

                1. It’s laughable when Anonymous the Stupid insults Young. The former has a pea for a brain, a very small one. The latter is well read and smart.

                    1. “Young is the one who said about himself “I am lazy.” Do you think he was lying?

                      I think Young was telling the truth. He is lazy when it comes to dealing with a Stupid fellow like you. Young probably reads more in a day than you read in a month or perhaps a year. Anonymous the Stupid, not everyone wants to deal with your Stupidity so yes, Young is lazy when he refuses to waste his time on a worthless person who cannot think.

                      On the other hand John Say corrected your Stupidity, post after post. You won’t be able to handle what he said because most of it was true. The rest was opinion based on a sound foundation.

                      Anonymous the Stupid, you look like cr-p when you deal with others on this blog. That seems to be the reason you resort to insult that is absent content.

                  1. No, Allan, if you worked on your reading comprehension, you’d know that Young admitted to being lazy in searching for the answer to his own question, “what’s going on with the people who were alleged to have planned to kidnap Crazy Governor Whitmer?”

                    Young doesn’t agree with you. He says he’s too lazy to do research.

                    1. Anonymous the Stupid, the research had to do with you. You can think what you want but that is why you are known as Anonymous the Stupid.

                    2. “the research had to do with you.”

                      No, Allan, it didn’t. But of course it’s not surprising that you lie, since you often do that. And every time you call someone “stupid,” it only communicates your anxiety about your own inadequate intellect.

                    3. Anonymous the Stupid, it had to do with who he was talking to. You are too Stupid to understand that.

                    4. “the research had to do with you.” “it had to do with who he was talking to.”

                      If you weren’t so inattentive, Allan, you’d know that Young was talking to Sal when he asked the question –

                      It had nothing to do with me. Of course, you cannot admit when you’re wrong, so no doubt you’ll respond with yet another insult.

                    5. Anonymous the Stupid, you are too Stupid. You were talking to Young when he responded that he was lazy. Your brain must be made of cement.

  10. This hyperbole illustrates how Democrats have no solutions and are unable to govern without vile, ad hominem rhetoric. Schumer, Pelosi, and the rest of the Dems have created an insurreciton for 4 yrs against the Trump administration and the American people and are not at all concerned about the toll on America, the hatred they have stoked, the destruction they led in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Atlanta, St. Louis. Here are Democrat lies that have been told and parroted by the Press:

    Democrat/Press Lie #1 – President Trump told protesters to storm the Capitol.
    Democrat/Press Lie #2 – Antifa like John Sullivan wasn’t at the Capitol.
    Democrat/Press Lie #3 – Ofc Sicknick was “struck in the head with a fire extinguisher and died from his injuries”
    Democrat/Press Lie #4 – Pipe bombs were planted by Trump supporters. (Antifa much??)
    Democrat/Press Lie #5 – 5 people died bc of the riots. (FALSE)
    Democrat/Press Lie #6 – President Trump pre-planned and coordinated the riot.
    Democrat/Press Lie #7 – During an impeachment you can lie, as Raskin did.

    Lies are the way Democrats govern. Look at so many of Biden’s policies and statements and you will see they are all based on lies. Here are some of Biden’s LIES in just 4 weeks:
    BIDEN LIES – Short list
    – There was no vaccine available and no plan to have “vaccinators”
    – Buying foreign oil, shipping it over oceans and higher oil prices is more environmentally safe than a pipeline- Being energy independent is bad
    – Illegal immigrants have more rights than US citizen
    – Hunter Biden and the rest of the Biden family didn’t use the Biden name to get rich
    – The Chinese government is just another culture we shouldn’t worry about their totalitarianism
    – Boys are girls and science says that they should participate in girl’s sports.
    – One day of school means schools are open
    – Borders don’t matter
    – The US can rely on only sun and wind in 10years and not impoverish our people:
    – John Kerry is the only person who can fly on private jets
    – The WHO works for the benefit of the citizens of the US.

    Anyone who voted for Biden is now stuck with a President Biden who lies constantly and a Press that obsequiously distributes those lies.

    1. Thanks, now I don’t have to write anything today. I don’t think any normal person can understand the dynamic of such liars or such lying. They appear to have gone barking mad, and yet, I strongly suspect like in the Cambodian genocide, that it is a minority of people with a lot of megaphones. The media, of course, playing the part of the megaphones.

  11. Jonathan Turley accuses Nancy Pelosi of framing a scandal…, as he frames a scandal.

    Case in point: “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.”

    They obviously weren’t notified in a way that underlined the seriousness of the situation, especially when the president and a couple senators were actively whipping up the crowd.

    Turley, carrying trump’s water is what you’ve become.

    Elvis Bug

    1. “They obviously weren’t notified in a way that underlined the seriousness of the situation…”

      Bug, you don’t have the meeting minutes. Nothing is obvious yet.

    2. They obviously weren’t notified in a way that underlined the seriousness of the situation,

      Hmm? In what way were they notified? A postit note from Sund to House sergeant at arms Paul Irving stating: maybe we should have some guard troops here to hold up flags. And so Irving made the command decision to not have them? Without briefing his boss? Of course the security threat was known. And the security posture accomplished exactly what was desired; a breach of the building. There’s even video of capitol police effectively escorting protestors and chatting them up. It would be like air traffic controllers at Hickam in Pearl Harbor adjusting the Japanese pilots approach for maximum effect. Damn!

      1. Olly: “There’s even video of capitol police effectively escorting protestors and chatting them up. It would be like air traffic controllers at Hickam in Pearl Harbor adjusting the Japanese pilots approach for maximum effect. Damn!”


        Exactly! Pelosi and Deep State wanted their own Reichstag Fire and they handed out matches and gasoline.

      2. And just think: Why were there 1 Million/1.2 Million Americans show up on a cold as hell DC day to Peacefully Demand VP Pence & the Senate grant just a Legal 10 day audit investigation of just a half a dozen or so of States & their large Metro areas vote counts.

        With just a 100-200 paid/un-paid instigators/trouble makers Coup Plotting Traitors Pelosi/McCarty/McConnell/Schumer/etc., stopped Trump supporters Peaceful Request.

  12. Turley writes:

    ” I previously condemned Trump’s speech and his reckless role in this riot..”

    No he didn’t. Show us that column.

    He’s been too busy first propping up Trump’s “election fraud” story and calls for an investigation, and writing his daily attack columns on Democrats, CNN, and MSNBC.

    1. AnonJF, Turley will criticize Trump only for his rhetoric on 1/6. He conveniently ignores the several months of the Big Lie because it directly implicates his boss, Fox News. But for Fox, there would not have been a storming of the Capitol. Those terrorists arrived prepared to kill Pence and Pelosi and would have done so had Trump not attended the rally to further embolden and instigate them.

      One of these days, Turley will appear in a public forum, and he will have to answer for his trying to shift the blame away from his Fox News. No doubt he will continue to do its bidding by trying to spread the blame around and discrediting the upcoming 1/6 commission. It won’t work. Turley regrettably will be remembered as the Roy Cohn of Trumpism.

      1. Jeffrey, I counted eight statements in this screed of yours, and only one was demonstrably true. The rest were wild speculation about the future or other’s motives.

        Stop fortunetelling and stick to the facts.

    2. Joe Friday, here are two instances in previous blogs where JT explicitly denounces Trump’s January 6th speech:

      There are probably more. It didn’t take long to find these, but I don’t want to spend all day on this.

      1. Diogenes:

        Reading Silberman, EB, and Joe Friday, I realize that they are invincibly stupid (worse, the are willfully ignorant and crass in their insulting our host)

        Those three (and others) do not want to debate; they come here to insult and aggravate.

        We should probably not waste time responding to them.

        I am reminded of the old advice:

        “Never wrestle with a pig; you get dirty and he has fun.”

          1. There is an old saying that a liar can make up ten new lies in the time it takes to refute one.

            Logically, one should mostly ignore liars and put effort into projecting more truth rather than trying to keep up with their lies

            Sal Sar

              1. See how effortlessly I ignored?

                Here is comedian Jimmy Dore and a guest discussing the slavish media acceptance of the “leadership” of global billionaire Bill Gates


                1. Dude, you slavishly accepted the leadership of Trump, a world class a..hole and self dealing lying braggart and somehow thought he cared about anything or anyone but himself.. He ripped off his pwn charity! WTF are you talking about?

                  Of course you’ll ignore it. What’s the option?

                  1. See folks this is what trolling looks like. This fellow uses the word “slavish” because he rightly believes it will trigger me. Of course it is is false, one can support the leadership and policies of a POTUS without being slavish. It is offensive, and yet no matter how courteously I reply to him over the course of years, he will not exempt me from his provocative remarks, because he takes his enterprise seriously. He is above petty things like courtesy or civility. So he will jab me too with an offensive remark. This is not because he is onery, it is because he has a specific agenda to advance, and he advances it through habitual rudeness and conflict.

                    How much like the bogeyman Trump, eh? That they claim was so awful and hateful and provocative etc. Constantly trolling and such. Well yes Trump did quite a bit of trolling and by now we should have learned some lessons about how to respond to it. Habitually, one should simply ignore it. Hey, its not personal, it’s just business!


                    1. Doofus, I quoted you when I used “slavish”. You can pretend I’m a troll and you aren’t. Weeds are plants we don;t like,

                      In short, you were Kurtz,, a Trump true believer, and then reappeared as some new persona after you lost the election,with an “agenda” as – quoting you again – a working class hero fighting the billionaires, except of course, your billionaire – or so he claims – who inherited his bucks, unlike the ones you rail against with simple minded determination.

                      Of course we mostly all have an agenda. Unlike your cult leader, I have one based on consistent beliefs and values and I also don’t change them with each election (like you). Glad you at least acknowledge Trump is a troll, the other thing besides being an a..hole in which he is world class, and which is his main appeal – it’s not inspirational and principled leadership and vision, it’s put downs and threats. It’s not calls for sacrifice for the good, patriotism, or the promise of a better America that gets them cheering. It’s “Lock her up!” “Send her back” and “Lebron sucks!” that are the crowd pleasers.

                      If that’s not trolling, what is?

                    2. here anonjf seeks to prove that trump is a troll which was already conceded, we all get that. that item is not in dispute. why discuss it? duh

                      ps my favorite billionaire is now elon. but the group of billionaires as such was is and remains, a very big problem for society. Sal.

              2. Bill Gates is a sinister billionaire who controls mass media and the socalled debate on public health. Sal

                1. Donald Trump is a “billionaire” who prefers gold toilets and Saudi princesses and is a selfless self sacrificing leader for lunch pail workers like the attorneys on Turley’s blog, Sal Sar

                  1. Here we can see that this fellow is obsessed with Trump, for whatever reasons, politics presumably. Though one may speculate that it is because Trump so effectively used the rude tactic of trolling that only fellows like AnonJF presume they own as their own patented methods. Sal

                  2. IN a 2010 Ted Talk, billionaire Bill Gates said:

                    ““The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent.”


                    15% of 6.8 billion is 1.02 billion.

                    How will better health care and vaccines translate into a DECREASE in population of a BILLION SOULS?

                    This is the kind of question that Anonjf has no interest. He would rather talk about Trump’s gold toilet.

                    Meanwhile, I am hoping that “bill gates improved vaccines” do not end up including ME in that number who have been so blessed by improved health care services, that they cease to exist!

                    And of course, the good news is, a billion less people exhaling co2 and farts, stinking up Bill Gates’ global atmosphere! And indeed– that’s what the Ted Talk was precisely about


                    Sal Sar


                      The same way that it has in every other country where the birth rate has dropped: families have fewer children when health care improves to the point that most children survive to adulthood, when women have access to birth control, when girls’ education is valued, when child labor isn’t used, … Better health care is one of the factors.

                    2. Kurtz, it is well established that longevity, good health (incl for kids), and reproductive health services lead to lowered birth rates. Gates may be guilty of optimism but what else are you implying? Vaccines are secretly poisonous?


                    3. “The same way that it has in every other country where the birth rate has dropped: families have fewer children when health care improves to the point that most children survive to adulthood, when women have access to birth control, when girls’ education is valued, when child labor isn’t used, … Better health care is one of the factors.”

                      to whomever wrote that, this is precisely what Melinda Gates said in her 60 minutes interview. in theory perhaps. certainly over long decades, industrialization does come hand in hand with lower infant mortality, better health care, lower fertility by choice. that is true., over long decades.

                      but. observe that it also goes hand in hand with longer lifespans.

                      so, it actually does not translate into lower population. on the contrary. look at Japan. a greying nation, but a very populous one

                      Bill Gates said — DECREASE in population. No, a DECREASE would entail– something more than the usual process, even accelerated such as it has been by the Gates Foundation

                      Sal Sar

                    4. ANONJF said: “Kurtz, it is well established that longevity, good health (incl for kids), and reproductive health services lead to lowered birth rates”

                      yes precisely my point. industrialization, better health care, better “vaccines,” lower infant mortality, lead to lower per family rates of reproduction

                      but as you said, they also lead to higher LONGEVITY



                      so, it’s not up to me to explain what the devil they are up to with their global schemes. it’s up to them. this is a subtle point and right now a lot of “fact checkers” have tried to debunk the concern which was elicited by these remarks he made at Ted in 2010, and I have read them. they like the usual incompetent fact checkers, fail to appreciate that better health care, lower family size, can and usually still lead to population growth, because of LONGEVITY’

                      ergo, I think Bill gates let something else slip. He did not finish university, but he can do math. Better health care is not going to lead to lower population. It may lead to slower population growth over many decades, but in the context of global warming, guys like Bill are CALLING FOR DEPOPULATION not just slower population growth. well, you can watch the ted for yourself.

                      it does not compute. I could care less how melinda explained it or what the fact checkers say. better vaccines and health care will not lead to a die off. (depopulation). which is what would be needed to reduce CO2 emissions significantly. slowing population growth over 2 decades will not accomplish diddly to decrease emissions from africa, . in fact, by giving more access to westernized medicine, co2 emissions in Africa probably will go up.

                      Sal Sar

                    5. Funny s..t.

                      Kurtz/Sal Sar thinks the guy who inherited his moneyand is obviously a lying braggart and con man who ripped off his own charity is worthy of his adoration and loyalty, while a guy who made his own wealth and has donated time and serious money (estimated $45 billion) to efforts to benefit the poorest on earth as well as to figure out problems threatening us all is a monster who is ….. what? Poisoning vaccines? Spiking the anti-biotics?

                      Sure, Kurtz. We need your advice.

                    6. thanks for the Japan population chart. it proves my point. the socalled population decline in japan over fifteen years is a couple million. the difference is slight in a population of 125 millions or so. bill gates promised a 10-15% population decline.

                      well, you folks feel free to believe billionaire bill. he’s got your best interests at heart, right?


                      PS I could turn the proposition upside down and likewise argue that he is not serious about reducing carbon emissions. if my belief is correct that improved health care in africa will not cause depopulation, then certainly more co2 emitting people are not going to help reduce global emissions.

                      and all those clinics being built out of concrete blocks…. the roads being built.. the refrigerators running 24/7 on electricity powered by what? nuclear? um don’t think so. not in africa. the diesel the trucks full of medical supplies… so explain again, how will billionaire bill reduce co2 emissions by building out the health care infrastructure of africa? hmmmm maybe bill is conning you one way, or both ways, at the same time

                    7. Kurtz, if you can’t even admit you were wrong when you said “it actually does not translate into lower population,” and “THE NET EFFECT IS NOT TO DECREASE POPULATION,” then you should work on becoming more honest.

                      “bill gates promised a 10-15% population decline”

                      No, he didn’t. You’re simply a liar.

                      Your quote above from him was “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent.”

                      First, he was not talking about lowering the current total. He was talking about lowering the projected increase. There are two ways of interpreting “lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent,” since the referent of “that” is ambiguous. One interpretation is that he meant instead of increasing by 2.2 billion (increasing to 9 billion), the increase would be 10-15% smaller: perhaps only increasing to ~8.7 billion. The other interpretation would be that he was talking about lowering the 9 billion projection by 10-15%, ending somewhere in the 7.7- 8.1 billion range. We’re already at 7.8 billion.

                      Second, he didn’t promise anything. He said “IF we do a really great job …, we COULD lower that by, PERHAPS, 10 or 15 percent.”

                      Why do you choose to be a liar rather than an honest person?

                      Do you find it entertaining?
                      Do you care. more about. some other goal than about honesty?


          2. an example of sound tactical reply to these sorts of lies, is that every time you see one, you introduce five new interesting bits of information around it, thus swamping their little negative talking point, rather than focusing on it

            thereby, to control the page with new content, rather than reinforcing their rhetorical aim with disputation

            this is the tried and true method of how to handle trolls.


            1. Aha…, this is also the trump tactic for controlling the news cycle pre twitter removal. A variation of divide and conquer.


        1. Dio:

          “Reading Silberman, EB, and Joe Friday, I realize that they are invincibly stupid (worse, the are willfully ignorant and crass in their insulting our host)
          Add “aninny” and you’ve got The Four Horse’ s Arses of the Apocalypse to be sure.

        2. Debate you or anyone else here anytime monument. I won’t start by calling you names, but that’s pretty much you’re only strategy.

          Let’s start with an easy one:

          Resolved – Trump effectively stopped being President on Nov 4 when he did nothing to fulfill his duties – we were in the middle of a pandemic at it’s mostly deadly – except try to steal the election away from the voters who went against him in certain swing states.

          1. oopss…you got fooled again by “news”..

            every single significant factor of the pandemic is down by 70% globally.

            are you aware if this?

            how do you explain this?

            how do you explain MSM (apparently the source that drives your facts), don’t mention this.?

            lets talk about it.

            here are some questions, that are important:

            first let start with the facts.

            70% decrease in positive tests, severity of symptoms, and death, and of “new” cases.

            all in literally a blink of an eye.

            in statistics we call this anamolous…more precisely, we call this more than two standard deviations from the mean…benford’s suggests it is unresonable.

            science considers it unreliable.

            but there it is..70 percent plummet..across the board..worldwide figures mind you.

            take a mental picture: this virus just took one big instantaneous vacation..poof!

            there is ONE single article written about these official numbers (70% drop) and it’s conveniently located in the opinion section of the NYT! and of course ignored….completely.

            now, lets talk about some other facts.

            in pandemics, particularly with the data we have and at the stage we are at, one would expect that there would be a very long tail distribution ….this is normal…what we would never see, is one big massive drop of 70%..it just doesn’t happen. Well, actually is does…but not with this virus…It “would” in local areas impacted by some pathogen like EBOLA…where the incubation is short, and the death toll is fast and the mortality rate is close to 100 percent for everyone in that region…because it kills everyone…so data would be expected to have a 70% plummet quite rapidly for something like EBOLA>….and the next time you take a graph, it’s closer to 100 percent, until everyone is dead…But this virus isn’t Ebola…it has long incubation, it transmits efficiently, but the severity and mortality rates are rare…you could say, this c-19 virus has staying power as a consequence. We would never expect that it should just go on holiday…around the world AT THE SAME TIME! (are you paying attention?)

            so what could explain the drop in the data?

            herd immunity all of a sudden, around the world, all at the same time? nope…same problem with that theory…just isn’t going to every happen that way.

            vaccine effects….ah, glad you asked…given that this data is about 60 days old, vaccines haven’t nearly crossed prior to 30 days (with an additional 1-2 injection regime, separated by 20-28 days, PLUS the expected time to arrive at antibody production (immuniity) AND the additional dwell time for herd immunity to be achieved at scale, NO, it’s not from vaccines…and it couldn’t be either that, for the simple reason that vaccines aren’t in enough arms to make that kind of a difference.

            so where does this sharp impossible drop come from?

            did they just stop counting dead bodies?
            did they just stop taking tests?
            is the math wrong?
            are virologists and pandemic statisticians ona crack binge?

            what is the MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION for such a statistically impossible drop in every single important factor of this virus across the world all at one single moment?

            yes, this is not a dream….you are awake…this is not some weird scifi b movie. this is your reality.

            this is happening..right now.

            how do you explain it?

            could it be, that the pandemic hysteria has served it purpose and now it’s time to move on and “recover”…to “heal” as they say?

            I’m a huge fan of data…data…with a healthy dose of critical thinking gets you alot of truth.

            and the truth right now, is quite informative…alarming..and terrible.

            right now, the data is showing the truth..

            and STILL the media is willfully ignoring that truth..narrating precisely opposite to that truth….steering you away from noticing it?

            why would the media conspire to ignore this truth?

            after all, science right..that’s what they built this narrative on…science…experts…

            where is the CDC? NIH? FDA?

            where is the WH officials advising POTUS?

            the data is telling the truth…

            are you prepared to understand what the truth is telling you about reality?

            Some people refer to me and others like me as conspirators…fringe..nuts…crackpots…

            most people also just don’t like uncomfortable truths that have the risk of making them foolish.

            which kind of explains how well and easy it is to control people.

            HW wells would be so pleased..

            1. “oopss…you got fooled again by “news”..”

              Good post. JF, Anonymous the Stupid and a bunch of others don’t like think for themselves if they are able to.

              In light of what you wrote you might be interested in the WSJ article a few days back.

              We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April
              Covid cases have dropped 77% in six weeks. Experts should level with the public about the good news.


            2. Just from a technical chart reading standpoint, the ‘market’ (c 19) is consolidating for another bump up, which will actually test, or exceed the highs of a couple months back before coming back down. At this point it will be possible to assess vaccination effects.

              Enjoy. Keep your mask on. Don’t be a rat licker.

              1. other than the fact that every single study shows that chart “readers” lose money consistently and at a rate that approaches 100 percent (even statisticians get nervous with that number absolute)…

                even IF your statements about a technical market feature chart is true (it isn’t)…

                you have STILL HAVE NOT EXPLAINED a reason for “consolidation” as you like to refer to it.

                and that’s the problem with your brand of thinking…It like simple round pegs in round simple holes…and only the rules that have manufactured for you are available. You are the worst kind of muppet. The easiest mark. Easily misled, because you insist that other do your thinking for you….insist that accepting you HAVE been misled is some kind of reality you are never going to acknowledge…

                again, proving my point. you lack comprehension skill..the capacity to understand how to make meaning of a chart. TO understand what the data is actually tell you. Otherwise known as a simple cat…chasing a laser point…and about the level of consciousness of a house cat..

                and then arguing…it’s what you should be doing. everyone should do it….we were told to chase the cat.

                spoiler: you are never going to catch the laser point. ..you got fooled..

                spoiler number 2: even house cats eventually give up chasing laser pointers…not because they suddenly have epiphany…nope…they just realize they are not rewarded at all….the “hunt” you see, isn’t as cracked up to be what it seems to be. So the chase ends. Why bother? It’s not old age….(and that is what your brand of chart readers would allege, not understand with context the reality of why cats eventually stop chasing laser…)

                as you will learn…chasing your pandemic will eventually wear you out..not because you didn’t catch it…But because you realize you were never rewarded…it’s just that simple..long after it stops getting fun…and in your final days, you will be remembered a the fool who chased laser pointers…

                even when explained ad naseum you were getting fooled all along. Chased it and chased it, and failed to see there was never going to be a reward.

                I’m not sure I feel sad about your predicament.

                and that’s another truth…One I learned long ago.

                now, it’s just fun to mock the cat….

              1. it’s understandable how easy you are fooled…you insist on it.


                DO we question why the cat refuses to give up the chase? Why would we? It’s OUR entertainment value…we really don’t have a moral problem quitting the game..it’s amusing…as is, watching you awkwardly demand that laser pointers are legit…and MUST be chased. The entertainment value is high, but the reward is never within your reach…..

                here is the quote from the article..from the data that matter the most..the data, that every single laser chasing cat just refusing to acknowledge. true cat like reflexes…quick…but desperately hopelessly committed to non rewarding chases that end “the game”. You are such a cat…pursuing what can never be achieved, for purposes that serve no reward, silly games for pure entertainment. You are a show cat. a performer…a hero of an unremarkable circus act. Behold, the great a might cat, who chases laser points. Stay tuned, as he attempts to climb a vertical wall in another attempt to grasp the unachievable. Some sport eh?

                “But the consistent and rapid decline in daily cases since Jan. 8 can be explained only by natural immunity. Behavior didn’t suddenly improve over the holidays; Americans traveled more over Christmas than they had since March. Vaccines also don’t explain the steep decline in January. Vaccination rates were low and they take weeks to kick in.”

                don’t be a fraidy cat, look at the data..and stop chasing laser points….that’s just lazy…and we have cats that are made to do it.

                get a cat…stop acting like one.

                1. Well regitiger, one opinion piece not agreed to by other experts must be right and no doubt about that. Fortunately there has been little wishful thinking by Trump and his fans – like you – since this began a year ago and so he and you must be right!

                  1. again…just can’t refuse to chase those laser points?

                    protip: data…look at it….stop chasing laser points…just look at the data….now, if you aren’t up to the task of comprehending what the data is showing you..which is a very strong possibility. I can offer no remedy…but you have plenty of company if that is some consolation.

                    spoiler: it should not be consoling that you lack comprehension NOR should it be a good feel you have so much company who lack even intermediate skills when dealing with data.

                    but please, just give up the laser chasing in public. Do it in private…Show some pride.

                    1. You know, regitiger, Allan (S. Meyer) just criticized someone else, saying “You wish to throw barbs rather than discuss,” and it describes you too.

                      As was already noted, Makary’s claim that “the consistent and rapid decline in daily cases since Jan. 8 can be explained only by natural immunity” is false, as that’s not the only explanation, and there are likely multiple contributing factors, not the single-factor explanation he prefers. Some of the other possible factors are discussed here –

                      Are you ready to have a real discussion, or are you only going to throw barbs?

                2. Why Are COVID-19 Case Numbers Dropping?

                  I stress the importance of being humble about not knowing why the cases are dropping simply because reliance on one of these factors over another could get us into trouble. For example, this week Dr. Marty Makary, writing in the Wall Street Journal, posited that we are already close to herd immunity, making this bold prediction: ‘There is reason to think the country is racing toward an extremely low level of infection. As more people have been infected, most of whom have mild or no symptoms, there are fewer Americans left to be infected. At the current trajectory, I expect Covid will be mostly gone by April, allowing Americans to resume normal life.’

                  Warning — if anyone tells you with confidence that they know precisely why cases are dropping, and that they have an accurate crystal ball showing that by April we’ll be safely out of this pandemic — please view it with the appropriate scientific skepticism it deserves.


            3. “I’m a huge fan of data”

              Then you should link to the data sources for your claims instead of expecting us to take your word for it.

              “70% decrease in positive tests, severity of symptoms, and death, and of “new” cases.”

              These data contradict your claim –

              Those data are from The COVID Tracking Project. Their data are broadly used. Background here about their data sources –

              1. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases

                and just to be clear, there are MANY “sources” of data you can collect and make your own charts and analysis…which I STRONGLY encourage you to do….consider it homework…something that you probably should have already been doing, since you have so much interest…(or is it that you prefer to get your facts neatly packaged and gift wrapped for you? like so many others?)

                at any rate, I link the above with a few obvious caveats:

                1 JH was and continues to be the first and most comprehensive data collecting authority since day one.
                2 JH has not adjusted it’s statistical algorithms since day one. They HAVE created various models and there is some weighting, but mostly the metrics they use are standard practice..
                3 JH is perhaps the MOST peer reviewed and thus respected authority on reporting data…
                4 the media, unsuprisingly, rarely, IF EVERY have referenced JH data.
                5 the media offers no explanation for the obvious 70 percent instant collapse in trend…
                6 the media in fact IGNORES this 70 percent anomaly…
                7 the media has in fact created during this same period JUST THE OPPOSITE NARRATIVE that this data clearly shows is false, meaning it has no scientific basis. Essentially, the media is conspiring to claim opinion over science.

                Dr. Markay is using his authority as an expert in this field and it trying to make sense of what this data is showing. He is NOT suggesting ANY of this data shows fraud, or that this virus is NOT dangerous. In fact, if you read his work, he is very consistent and has the integrity to to allow bias or even the obvious spectre of media narratives. He is simply saying: something is amis. BIG TIME!

                I linked his work and opinion as a means to demonstrate the fraud and corrupt and plainly political nature of messaging in the media. This does not require a conspiracy theory to notice it. It exists. We don’t HAVE TO KNOW why the media is making this huge mistake..Only to NOTICE IT.

                and that should make you stop and reconsider ANY position you may have about depending on the media and other “experts” on this matter..and arguably, many other subjects.

                the data is showing something very anomalous. In fact, if you really drill down you find that anomalous event, is significant with US data! So again, what would cause the US and the US alone to go from peak numbers…and then just collapse in record time? and yet, the same kinds of mitigation taking place worldwide, not only do NOT follow that trend and anomaly, but are in fact reasonable?

                see the problem?


                I am NOT going to do your homework for you. I can imagine if you need held, you are smart enough to ask someone who will help you out. But I’ve read your comments for long enough to know, I would rather you just collect yourself up and put the work in….obviously, you have never done this..instead being lazy with chasing laser pointers …and apparently to anyone who is willing to whistle the tune that tickles your fancy.

                put your own work in….challenge yourself…and if you come to the same conclusion…then we can have THAT debate.

                until then, you are among the millions of people in this country who are screwing themselves out of a opportunity to build credibility and intelligence.

                scoot…you have work to do..

                1. Yes, there are many sources of data. I turn to reliable ones, including JHU.

                  JHU is the most comprehensive source for international data, but not for US data. If you’d bothered to look at JHUs data sources for the US, you’d find that much of JHU’s US data comes from the source I cited, the COVID Tracking Project. For example, on various pages within the coronavirus.jhu.edu domain, they state “US state-level recovered cases are from COVID Tracking Project.” “The “total test results” are equal to “Total test results (Positive + Negative)” from COVID Tracking Project.” “Testing data from The COVID Tracking Project.” “Our data provider, The Covid Tracking Project, is in the process of changing how it maps states’ data to the categories we use for our positivity calculations.”

                  “consider it homework”

                  I don’t take orders from anyone here, especially not when you suggest that JHU’s data are better than the COVID Tracking Project without knowing that JHU uses COVID Tracking Project data.

                  “the media, unsuprisingly, rarely, IF EVERY have referenced JH data.”

                  Nonsense. The media frequently cite JHU data. If you Google “Covid” “Johns Hopkins” and then limit the result to “news,” there are over 17M results. Not all involve JHU data, but many do.

                  “the media in fact IGNORES this 70 percent anomaly”

                  More nonsense. Some of the results from the above search result in news articles about Makary’s op-ed, discussed in diverse media (Yahoo News, Business Insider, NBC and multiple affiliates, USA Today, the NY Post, Fox, …).

                  You’d claimed a “70% decrease in positive tests, severity of symptoms, and death, and of “new” cases,” but the link you gave only addresses the last of those, which presumably is also what you meant by “positive tests.” I wasn’t contesting that one, as should be clear from the data I linked to. I was contesting your claim about a 70% decrease in deaths and in severe symptoms as measured by hospitalization. Since you like the JHU site, have you bothered looking at their mortality data? For the past week, they say “New Deaths: 13,565, Record high: 23,259 Jan 10–Jan 16, 2021” That’s a drop of ~42%, not a 70% drop.

                  “Dr. Markay is using his authority as an expert in this field and it trying to make sense of what this data is showing.”

                  Yes, but that doesn’t guarantee that his analysis is correct, and others who are experts in the field are critiquing his claims. I cited one earlier. The analysis I linked to was written by Paul Sax, on the faculty at Harvard Medical School, and the discussion was published in the New England Journal of Medicine’s online Journal Watch section.

                  “what would cause the US and the US alone to go from peak numbers…and then just collapse in record time?”

                  Neither Makary nor you have presented evidence that this is occurring in the US alone, much less that it’s occurring in record time. Take a look at the data from Israel, for example. Their weekly rate of new deaths has dropped more than ours during the same period.

                  As for your many insults, I consider them both childish and counterproductive. Figure out how to have an adult discussion, and don’t assume things that you have no basis for, such as your false assumption that I don’t know just as much about this data as you do, and perhaps more.

      2. Diogenes, Turley writes entire columns on – including these 2 you link above – about insignificant BS and allegations about back benchers. The President incites a riot at the capital based on his big lie about the election and Turley doesn’t write a column. He says crap like “many of us have criticized Trump for …………, but Nancy Pelosi/Sen Schumer are drowning puppies in the Mall pond.”

        JT is a dishonest hack for Trump and the right. End of story. All any of us need to know about him.

        1. LOL! Joe, you have succeeded in getting me in trouble with my colleagues for responding to your claims. Nice try, but I’m not taking the bait, again.

          You guys are a hoot today.

  13. Turley: “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.”

    Yet you have refused to acknowledge the undeniable fact of the BIG LIE that the “election was stolen”. The ground work of which was laid by Trump even before the election and repeated countless times by him, his political enablers and your employer, Fox News. Fox News shares a large amount of the blame for 1/6 as you do by your presence as a legal contributor on that network. Your legitimizing that network by accepting its employment is no less disgraceful than had you worked for Newsmax or Infowars. You never should have associated yourself with a network which has done more to polarize this country with its hateful rhetoric- which rage you hypocritically denounce at CNN and MSNBC without EVER pointing the finger at Fox! Despicable! Fox News is finally being held accountable for its lying program hosts by virtue of the 2.7 billion dollar defamation lawsuit which you have not said ONE word… pathetic…

    1. And reliably, Silberman and AnonJF attack Turley.

      Attack the messenger, the time honored method of the wrong.

      By the way. AnonJF, why did you change your name?

      1. Monumentcolorado, well at least you got my name right this time. Bravo!

        Yeah, well, I’m going to keep pointing out to all the newbies on this blog of Turley’s hypocrisy and disingenuousness. If you don’t like it, tough.

        1. Instead of attacking Turley for anything he has to say….why not just simply debate the issues?

          You have an issue with something he said….provide your proof of why he is wrong….or is the lack of proof what leaves you to have to resort to the personal attacks as you do?

          As it is you come across as being yet another Troll that yaps from under the bridge.

          1. RalphChappell,

            I refer you to my earlier answer to Monumentcolorado. If you don’t like my posts, don’t read them because I do intend to continue to point out Turley’s willful blindness to the conduct of his employer on account of his non-disparagement clause in his contract with Fox News as well as the shame of his association with such a disreputable network.

    2. You can poke fun at Alex Jones and call him a nutter but the past few years has seen confirmation of any number of formerly unbelievable “conspiracy theories”

      Here is one from last week– used to be called “chemtrails”

      Suddenly, the New Yorker is warning us against “atmospheric hacking” .. see link below

      That;’s what it’s called now. Back when Prince was telling people this was a dangerous coming technology, yes, Purple Rain Prince, said it on Arenio, maybe 20 years ago, they called it “chemtrails” and we were assured it was nonsense

      Not so much anymore… see link below

      So, Silverman, are for or against, “atmospheric hacking” to control climate change?

      Sal Sar


  14. The Coup Plotting Traitors like Pelosi, McCarty, McConnell, Schumer need to get their stories straight before the rest of the citizens hear the truth.

    What did they know & when did they know it???

    Democrats Confess To Staging Jan 6th Capitol Attack

    Feb 21, 2021
    The Alex Jones Show
    The Alex Jones Show

    Newly revealed footage of ANTIFA leader John Sullivan admitting to organizing the January 6th riot directly contradicts the Washington Post article blaming Alex Jones and Roger Stone


  15. They were warned in advance based on several reports from DHS, White House, former head of Capitol hill Police. They were offered National Guard and Capitol Police Chief asked for added help but the Sergeant of Arms, under Pelosi refused. Interesting? Why did they refuse? What did thy know? Lots of questions and a real honest investigation may shine the light on the real reasons for refusal and who is really responsible? Then Antifa had a role, that is confirmed. They are using it to go after Trump. Just like the Russia Russia Scandal that was made up

    1. “A real honest investigation” done by Nancy Pelosi using surrogates led by a Black hater who talks of things being “high order of white privilege”…….yeah right!

      This shall be just like Pearl Harbor, the Warren Commission, the 9-11 Investigation, and the Russia Collusion Investigation…..with the same kind of results.

      Congressional investigations are only to place blame on others and not on the real culprits or to make public any wrong doing by politicians.

      A real investigation would see the end of many careers, people sent to prison, and a genuine house cleaning.

      The Democrats have a problem….they Impeached one Man and laid it all at his feet….now how do they turn it around and point the fingers at others?

      They had no proof for the Impeachment but that did not stop them from blaming one Man.

      Now you think they can turn around and blame everyone but Pelosi and McConnell…..oh wait…..both “Leaders” of the two houses of Congress were involved in the decision making.

      How do they pick off McConnell but protect Pelosi.

      Yep….this is Pearl Harbor…..without the massive death and resulting War……or is that War just slow to happen?

  16. When you combine political expediency and raw hatred, you get lies.

    Dems like to lie to us, and they like to lie to each other.

    The difference is that we recognize those lies, while the Dems eagerly lap them up.

    And expect the lefty bloggers to repeat those lies in their comments.

    Suggestion for the gullible; try thinking.

    1. The Dem cheerleaders work harder at spreading their message, whatever the degree of mixture of lies and truth

      What their rivals should do, is work harder than them, spreading the word

      The problem is conservative types are individualistic and abosorbed in their own lives and unlike the handful of active conservatives here, most do not bother to spread the world about political issues.

      So, let’s give them credit for working hard at their team, and work harder in reply

      My message is this. really we regular citizens are all in it together, and the genuine enemy is the group of the billionaires.

      their mercenaries can be flipped with the right inducements. in the end, we need to see this as a warlike conflict that flows across many venues, and information warfare is only one. but a very, very important one, if not the most important.

      Sal Sar

  17. “Infamy” is an odd word. We had some SDS President back in 1941 who employed that word. He was a snotty East Coast guy. SDS is for Shit Don’t Stink. January 6th is a date which will live in DC. Not referring to Dumb Catholics.

Comments are closed.