Is Eric Swalwell The Answer To Trump’s Prayers?

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the complaint filed by Rep. Eric Swalwell against former president Donald Trump. Swalwell just filed a complaint that could prove to be the vindication that Trump has long sought in the riot in the Capitol on January 6th.

Here is the column.

French philosopher Voltaire said he had only one prayer in life — “O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous” — and that it was uniformly granted by God. The answer to Donald Trump’s prayers may be Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.). It is not because of Swalwell’s relationship with a Chinese agent or the bizarre defenses of him, including one Democrat insisting he deserved the Medal of Honor. It is because Swalwell’s lawsuit against the former president could offer Trump the ultimate vindication over his role in the Jan. 6 riot on Capitol Hill.

Swalwell’s 64-page complaint against Trump — along with son Donald Jr., Rudy Giuliani, and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) — alleges nine counts for relief, from negligent emotional distress suffered by Swalwell to negligence in the “incitement to riot.” One might think this would be a lead-pipe cinch of a case. After all, an array of legal experts has insisted for months that this was clear criminal incitement, not an exercise of free speech. As a civil lawsuit, it should be even easier to win, since the standard of proof is lower for civil cases.

Yet, for more than four years, many of these same experts claimed a long list of “clear” crimes by Trump that were never prosecuted or used as a basis for impeachment. Likewise, despite similar claims of criminal incitement, roughly three months have passed without a criminal charge against Trump. District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine insisted weeks ago that Trump’s alleged crime would be investigated. Yet any such prosecution likely would collapse at trial or on appeal, and people like Racine are not eager to prove Trump’s case.

Enter Swalwell, who has long exhibited a willingness to rush in where wiser Democrats fear to tread, with what may be his costliest misstep yet.

First, his lawsuit will force a court to determine if the defendants’ speeches were protected political speech. As if to guarantee failure, Swalwell picked the very tort — emotional distress — that was previously rejected by the Supreme Court. In 2011, the court ruled 8-1 in favor of Westboro Baptist Church, an infamous group of zealots who engaged in homophobic protests at the funerals of slain American troops. In rejecting a suit against the church on constitutional grounds, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Roberts distinguished our country from hateful figures like the Westboro group, noting that “as a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

Second, Swalwell must show that Trump was the factual and legal cause of his claimed injuries. Swalwell and others have expressly argued that, if not for Trump, the riot would not have occurred. But a trial will allow the defense to offer “superseding intervening forces” on that question — acts of others that may have caused or contributed to the breaching of the Capitol. A court could rule that Trump was not the “but for” cause of the riot before even getting to any legal causation or constitutional questions.

Claims of blame would have been easier to make before the House refused to hold hearings on Trump’s impeachment, including weeks after its “snap impeachment.” Now, facts have emerged that implicate Congress itself in the failure to take adequate precautions against rioters, despite advance warnings. Former House officials claimed an FBI warning was sent only in an email, a day before the riot — but FBI Director Christopher Wray has testified that a warning of plans to storm the Capitol was sent on all of the channels created for sharing such intelligence. Moreover, former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund testified that he asked for National Guard support but was refused six times; one key official, Sund said, did not like “the optics” of troops guarding Congress. Delays at both the Capitol and the Pentagon allegedly left the Capitol woefully understaffed. And Trump has been quoted by former Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller as warning him the day before the riot that “You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do. You’re going to need 10,000 (troops).”

There also is a growing problem with the riot’s time line. Swalwell’s complaint alleges a failure by Trump to act as violence unfolded. But as more information has been released, the time period has shrunk to a difference of minutes between the breach and Trump’s call for law and order. Trump ended his speech at 1:10 p.m. The first rioter entered the Capitol at 2:12 p.m. Eight minutes later, Trump had a heated call with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who told him of the breach. Then at 2:26 p.m., Trump mistakenly called Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) instead of Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.). Lee reportedly said Trump did not appear to realize the extent of the rioting. Finally, at 2:38 p.m., Trump called for his followers to be peaceful and to support police. That was roughly 30 minutes after the first protester entered the Capitol. Trump’s defense team will likely emphasize that the he not only told followers to go “peacefully” to the Capitol but made the call to obey law enforcement roughly 30 minutes after the first rioters entered the Capitol.

Many people think Trump should have spoken earlier. Indeed, I condemned his speech while he was giving it. Yet, various people took actions (or failed to take actions) that left the Capitol vulnerable. And, at trial, a comparison could be drawn to the violence around the White House during the previous summer: Fearing a breach of that complex, overwhelming force was used to create an expanded security perimeter — but the use of National Guard troops then was denounced by congressional Democrats, D.C.’s mayor, and the media.

Finally, Swalwell’s complaint accuses Trump of reckless rhetoric — but Swalwell could find himself on the witness stand having to answer for his own rhetoric. Those comments include his mocking of threats against Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Swalwell, who now claims severe emotional trauma from the Capitol riot, dismissively tweeted “Boo hoo hoo” when angry protesters surrounded Collins’s home in 2018.

Swalwell’s complaint is timed beautifully to collapse on appeal just before the 2024 election, giving Trump and Republicans the ultimate repudiation of prior Democratic claims. Voltaire also famously said that “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.” Luckily for Trump, Swalwell not only already exists, but he may be the very answer to Trump’s political prayers.

761 thoughts on “Is Eric Swalwell The Answer To Trump’s Prayers?”

      1. Swalwell is not the answers to Trump’s or Republican’s prayers.

        But his actions are stupid. Presuming this goes foreward it will likely be a further embarassment to democrats.

        It is extremely unwise for democrats to continue to fixate on Jan. 6th.

        They got away with alot of lies early on. But time and further attention is NOT their friend.

        Turley points out SOME of the false naratives, but there are far more.

        the ofc. Sickman story has come apart. No one has been charged in his death. It is increasingly certain that his death was NOT the direct consequence of something that occured at the capital.

        The FBI has testified that – protestors fired no shots. No one at the capital has been charged with gun crimes, that no protestor drew a weapon. That todate there is no evidence that any protestors inside the capital had weapons.

        That only a single gun shot was actually fired at the capital – and that was by the officer who murdered Alishi.

        The plasticuff’s story has come apart – no protestors brought plasticuffs to the capital.

        1. “todate there is no evidence that any protestors inside the capital had weapons.”

          You’re willfully ignorant John. Multiple people have been charged with weapons violations inside the Capitol on 1/6. If you want to read the charges, just do a text search on “weapon” –
          https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

          “the officer who murdered Alishi”

          You might want to learn how to spell her name. Ashli Babbitt was killed but the officer hasn’t been charged with murder. Babbitt was trying to climb into the Speaker’s Lobby while members of Congress were still on the House floor.

          “no protestors brought plasticuffs to the capital”

          You don’t know that. All you know is that the two people charged with being in possession of them claimed to have found them inside.

          1. John say, “ That todate there is no evidence that any protestors inside the capital had weapons.”

            That’s false. Anything that can be used to cause injury or harm is a weapon. People using flag poles as weapons, chairs, sticks, shields, etc. All are considered weapons under the law. The definition of weapons is not limited to firearms. A vehicle can be classified as a deadly weapon during a riot if someone uses it to injure others.

            Rioters did bring plasticuffs inside the Capitol there’s actually photographic proof.

            https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/5ffb8146ce7920e477178a04/960×0.jpg?cropX1=798&cropX2=6448&cropY1=522&cropY2=3702

              1. Phlinn, thank you for the new information. It certainly was a more rational explanation. However it doesn’t help the fact that however these events on their own portray a different intent. The overall portrait still makes it look very bad. The media can only judge what transpires in real time without context or a thorough explanation. The “zip tie guy” may have had a different intention, but in recent FBI reports there certainly was a coordinated effort to intimidate lawmakers and this picture reinforces that truth even if it was an entirely different intent. That’s a consequence of participating in an illegal breach of government property.

                The armed insurrection claim still remains valid. The definition of a weapon is not exclusive to a firearm. Anything that can be used to injure or cause harm can be legally deemed a weapon. Especially when used to “beat” someone with.

                1. Amazing – you are correct – and completely unaware of it.

                  Absolutely – Spin is different from reality.

                  And here you have stated that – without the slightest self awareness.

                  The reality is that what happened at the capital was inconsequential.

                  It does not rise to the level of the mess that occurred every night in portland all summer.

                  But the PERCEPTION was quite different.

                  What those on the left SAW – was not what happened – but proof of the threat that they fear.

                  And please after the past 4 years – you are not going to get anywhere trying to sell FBI reports.

                  The FBI has NEVER been a trustworthy organization. They certainly are not today.

                  But I will throw you a bone

                  OF COURSE there was an organized effort to intimidate lawmakers.

                  That happens every single day – it is called POLITICS.

                  Do you think that BLM and Antifa are not efforts to intimidate lawmakers ?

                  Do you think Voting is not an effort to intimidate lawmakers ?

                  Do you think that every single protest ever is not an effort to intimidate lawmakers ?

                  You are litterally trying to criminalize politics – though only that of your opponents.

                  Regardless, you should be happy that Trump did NOT incite an armed insurection.

                  Had he – he would have prevailed and Biden would not be president.

                  Had there been something on the order of 250 actually armed and organized protestors on Jan. 6th – the election results would not have been certified and a real audit likely would have occured.

                1. I think his integrity and awareness has been so badly damaged here and in the recent postings that he will again soon change his alias.

                  1. “…his integrity and awareness has been so badly damaged…that he will again soon change his alias.” -S. Meyer

                    S. Meyer is telling us why he changed his own alias from Allan to S. Meyer, after the election.

            1. “John say, “ That todate there is no evidence that any protestors inside the capital had weapons.”

              That’s false.”
              Nope.

              “Anything that can be used to cause injury or harm is a weapon.”
              According to the PA SCOTUS – that you love so much – an egg is a deadly weapon, and a bed room slipper is a deadly weapon.

              I am refering specifically to items designed for the purpose of being a weapon. Guns, Knives, that people brought with them INSIDE the capital bulting.

              “People using flag poles as weapons”
              Actually they used it to break windows and doors.

              “chairs, sticks, shields, etc. All are considered weapons under the law. The definition of weapons is not limited to firearms. A vehicle can be classified as a deadly weapon during a riot if someone uses it to injure others.”

              As I said before bedroom slippers have been classified by the courts as weapons.

              All that and your argument does is prove your and the courts stupidity.

              “Rioters did bring plasticuffs inside the Capitol there’s actually photographic proof.”

              Your picture shows someone inside the capital in possession of Plasticuffs.

              It has already been documented that the cuffs were found INSIDE the capital, not brought inside.

              Let me try an analogy.

              If the protestors entered the capital building and found a suitcase nuclear weapon there.

              That would NOT mean the protestors brought a nuclear weapon to the capital.

            2. Just to be clear – your “everything is a weapon because the courts say so” argument is a sign of great weakness.

              I bet 99% of protestors wore shoes into the capital.

              Courts have found shoes to be deadly weapons.

              All you are doing is changing the debate from – protestors brought weapons – into every human is in posession of weapons all the time.

              That makes any claim regarding weapons nonsense.

              Regardless, I will freely admit that nearly every protestor wore shoes and that courts have found shoes to be deadly weapons on occasion.

              Are you prepared to accept that means YOUR definition of weapon means everyone is armed nearly all the time ?

              Making all claims about “armed insurection” complete nonsense.

              The minutemen at Lexington and Concord were ARMED.

              The reason that the Capital is surrounded by concertina wire and defended by thousands of national guards is because the left is terrified of an ARMED INSURECTION

              It also means you are terrified that you did NOT win the election and that people will realize that.

              Regardless, our government should ALWAYS be afraid of the people.

              https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-tree-of-liberty-must-be-refreshed-from-time-to-time-with-the-blood-of-patriots-and-thomas-jefferson-14-56-49.jpg

          2. “”todate there is no evidence that any protestors inside the capital had weapons.”

            You’re willfully ignorant John.”

            No according to the FBI. A senior FBI (Jill Sanborn) official in the Biden administration testified that todate they have no evidence of any firearms, knives or similar weapons within the capital building. That none have been recovered by the FBI.

            There are instances in which people outside the building were found to have weapons in their hotel rooms or within DC – but not INSIDE the capital. Firearms were found in a car parked on the mall.

            This FBI official ALSO testified that there is no evidence todate that there was any firearm discharge in the capital by anyone except the officer who shot Alishi.

            “You might want to learn how to spell”
            Ah, the spelling police.

            Let me be clear – I do not care.

            “Babbitt was trying to climb into the Speaker’s Lobby while members of Congress were still on the House floor.”
            Doubly false.

            I have watched myriads of videos of the event.

            1).. Babbit was NOT trying to climb through the window in any of them.
            2). Members of Congress were no longer in the lobby at the time of the shooting.

            I would further note that even if both of your claims were true – this would still be murder.

            The federal law that covers the capital opolice and other government agents ONLY allows the use of deadly force under specific circumstances.

            Hopefully we can accept that the nuclear threat provisions of the law do not apply.

            That leaves defense of self or others from the threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm.

            If Babbit was climbing through the door AND congressmen were present AND she had a firearm – all of which are false.

            It STILL would be murder – unless she was actually aiming a firearm at someone at the time the officer shot her.

            ““no protestors brought plasticuffs to the capital”

            You don’t know that. All you know is that the two people charged with being in possession of them claimed to have found them inside”

            You seem to misunderstand the burden of proof – BTW there is video on both of these.
            They did not bring the Plastifuffs into the capital.

            1. Again, John, you’re willfully ignorant. I literally gave you a link to DOJ page with the names and charges against people involved in the riot and pointed out that you could do a text search to see which had been charged with weapons offenses. You can also go through them individually to check that some were inside the Capitol.

              “A senior FBI (Jill Sanborn) official in the Biden administration testified that todate they have no evidence of any firearms, knives or similar weapons within the capital building.”

              False. You’re again ignorant and/or inattentive to details, or else you’re purposefully lying.

              This was the actual exchange according to C-Span –

              Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.): “How many firearms were confiscated in the Capitol or on Capitol grounds during that day?”
              Jill Sanborn: “To my knowledge we’ve not recovered any on that day from any of the arrests at the scene at this point, but I don’t want to speak on behalf of Metro and Capitol Police, but to my knowledge none.”

              Notice that Johnson did not ask her about weapons in general but only about firearms, and Johnson did not ask whether people had firearms (your claim: “todate there is no evidence that any protestors inside the capital had weapons”) but about how many were confiscated on Jan. 6. Notice that Sanborn explicitly limited her statement to her personal knowledge.

              “Nothing in those charges specifies the discharge of or posession of a Firearm INSIDE the capital.”

              BS. As a simple example, Zachary Alam, the guy in the Canada Goose hat who broke the window that Ashli Babbitt tried to climb through has been charged with a weapons violation.

              The DOJ page I linked to shows that your claim is false, and you should now see why your own evidence doesn’t back up your claim, so I’ll ask you again: can you admit that you were wrong?

              “Babbit was NOT trying to climb through the window in any of them.”

              Then you haven’t watched the ones where it’s clear, even though I’ve previously given you a link to them. Here are four sychronized videos, and if you stop the video at 5 seconds, you’ll see her inside the window, then the gunshot, and she falls at 6 seconds –
              https://twitter.com/bellingcat/status/1347253404012261377
              They give a still shot of her inside the window in the next comment in that thread. It’s from the upper left video of the 4. The lower left one also shows her falling from the window above the door.

              “Members of Congress were no longer in the lobby at the time of the shooting.”

              I said the floor of the House, not just the lobby (so once again, you’re either inattentive to details or purposefully trying to move the goalposts), but your claim is false too –
              https://twitter.com/RiegerReport/status/1347608590639636483

              “even if both of your claims were true – this would still be murder.”

              That’s your personal opinion. Don’t confuse it with a fact. The officer has not been charged.

              “You seem to misunderstand the burden of proof”

              No, my understanding is good. You seem fond of false claims.

              “They [the two people charged with being in possession] did not bring the Plastifuffs into the capital.”

              Notice how you’ve again moved the goalposts. What you originally said and what I was responding to was your much broader claim that “no protestors brought plasticuffs to the capital.” You’re smart enough to understand that that’s a claim about thousands of people, not just the two you’re now focusing on.

              “You seem to be under the delusion that you can claim whatever you want happened on Jan. 6th and everyone else is obligated to disprove you.”

              You seem to be under the delusion that you’re correct. You are not. I have the burden of proof for my claims, and you have the burden of proof for your claims. Neither of us has a burden to disprove the other’s claims. That notwithstanding, I’ve disproved a number of your claims above.

              You seem to be under the delusion that you don’t have a burden of proof for your own claims.

              “Your list of charges does not support that.”

              You’re ignorant or lying.

              1. I’m correcting a mistake in what I wrote. Re: “Nothing in those charges specifies the discharge of or posession of a Firearm INSIDE the capital,” Alam as an example of someone with a weapon inside the Capitol, but not a firearm. Again, your original claim was about weapons, and you don’t get to move the goalposts.

                1. It is virtually impossible for John not to move the goal posts. Laundry list (inaccurate) kvetching is where he begins.

                  1. The goal posts have been the same from the start

                    Exposing the lie that the capital protest was an armed insurection.

                    You the left, the media, democrats lied repeatedly about that.

                    I have always refered to “INSIDE the capital” – in my comments on this as that is what Sanburns testimony reflected.

                    We can discuss OUTISIDE if you want.

                    There was insuficient firearms recovered OUTSIDE the capital to support a claim of armed insurection.
                    But that is not what Sanborn was asked to testify about.

                    This exchange was driven by Sanborns testimony and the “goalposts” are determined by that testimony – not me, with respect to this particular debate.

                    We can have a broader debate, but Sandorn’s tesimony is of less value there.

                2. I do not care about the niggling distinctions between firearms and weapons.

                  The claim by YOU the left, the media, democrats was that this was an ARMED insurrection.

                  The common understanding would be FIREARMS.
                  The common understanding would be that those engaged in an ARMED insurrection – CAME with weapons.

                  Those claiming this was an ARMED insurrection – were NOT claiming that protesters arrived at the capital with the intention of attacking legislators with bedroom slippers.

                  The claim of ARMED insurection REQUIRES protestors to bring weapons with them – otherwise any violence is rioting – not armed insurection. Further it REQUIRES bringing weapons of CONSEQUENCE – with them – guns, swords, nunchucks, chains, offensive knives.
                  And it REQUIRES doing so on a consequential scale.

                  A half dozen people inside the capital building with firearms – would not be an armed insurrection – but you have NONE.
                  Half a dozen people with real weapons – not things like bedroom slippers that the courts have declared weapons – would not be an armed insurrection.
                  People inside the capital building with weapons of any kind they found in or at the capital building would not be an armed insurection.

                  My point is this is NOT a debate over what is a weapon or what is a firearm.

                  It is a debate over what is an armed insurection. We look at firearms is evidence to support the claim of “armed insurection”
                  Zero to half a dozen firearms – is NOT an armed insurection.
                  Todate you have ZERO.
                  Sanborns lack of knowledge of what DC police have does not mean they have ONE much less hundreds of weapons.

                  The correction that you owe all of us – is the false claim that there was an armed insurection.

              2. Testimony under oath has substantially higher credibility than DOJ websites and charging documents.

                Regardless, as is typical YOU are engaged in a shell game.

                Nothing you linked demonstrates that anyone CHARGED had a gun INSIDE the capital.

                I am careful with my words – you should be with yours.

                Misuse of words – is often LYING, regardless it is a failure to communicate and a distortion of the truth.

                And you continue to distort the truth.

                Todate there is no consequential evidence that anyone broaght firearms into the capital building, or discharged them – except the capital police.

                I have not claimed and do not dispute that some people likely brought firearms to DC.

                Todate the evidence does NOT suport that occuring on a significant scale. DESPITE it being legal to do so.

                There have been CHARGES brought for a FEW alleged firearms violations OUTSIDE the capital building.

                These ALL appear to be “possession” charges – and unless the person charged is a fellon – the charges violate Heller – i.e. they are unconstitutional.

                So what you have is a tiny number of unproven and likely unconstitutional firearms charges regarding weapons OUTSIDE the capital building, and this is your idea of a refutation ?

                Sorry Svelaz – you are proving my point – both about the fats and about yourself.

                You misrepresent reality.

                I would note that the issue is NOT about Firearms. It is about the lying media and left.

                I would have had no problem with an armed protest – there is no constitutional prohibition of armed protest.

                I would not have had a problem with protestors shooting the officer who shot Alishi – defence of others against an immediate threat of serious or deadly force is a legitimate use of deadly force.

                But that did not occur.

                It appears that protestors did not take firearms into the capital. it appears they did not discharge firearms anywhere.

                Yet the media FALSELY reported otherwise.

                I would further note that the House impeachment managers – used this and other FALSE stories as evidence in the senate Trial.

                As an example the impeachment managers used the now debunked news reports regarding Trump’s conversations with GA election officials as evidence.

                You seem to have no problem with presenting FALSE evidence.

                The FBI official testifying before congress was under oath – atleast in theory the consequences of lying would be severe.

                Conversely the standard for filing charges is ‘beleif and information” – that is a very low standard.

                While the standard for lawyers presenting false evidence in a proceding is supposed to be very high – yet no one is prosecuting the house impeachment managers for inumerable instances of presenting as true factual claims that are false.

                1. “Testimony under oath has substantially higher credibility than DOJ websites and charging documents.”

                  The charging documents ARE generally made under oath or penalty of perjury. You would know that if you had bothered to read them (e.g., “Attested to by the applicant in accordance with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 4 .1 by telephone,” where Rule 4.1 includes “The judge must place under oath — and may examine — the applicant”). Others are indictments based on testimony under oath before a grand jury.

                  “Nothing you linked demonstrates that anyone CHARGED had a gun INSIDE the capital.”

                  I didn’t claim that anyone had a gun inside the Capitol (except for one place where I said that by mistake in response to something you wrote, and I then corrected myself, noting that the weapon used was not a gun). Once again, YOU said “todate there is no evidence that any protestors inside the capital had weapons” (you wrote that in a comment posted on March 8, 2021 at 11:38 AM).

                  I wouldn’t think that I’d need to point this out yet again, but “weapons” are not limited to “guns.”

                  WEAPONS. That’s YOUR word, which is why it’s in the quote from YOU that I’ve now highlighted for you more than once.

                  Until you can bring yourself to admit that YOU made a claim about WEAPONS, not limited to guns, we cannot make progress. Your claim about WEAPONS was false, and if you were trying to have a truthful discussion, you’d just admit that you were wrong.

                  “you continue to distort the truth.”

                  You’ve provided no evidence of that. In fact, in your entire response, you didn’t quote anything from me.

                  “You seem to have no problem with presenting FALSE evidence.”

                  You’ve provide no evidence of this either. I’ll remind you that you said “We establish the truth of claims by evidence. The party making the claim bears the obligation to prove their claim.” Yet here you are making claims about me without proving your claims with evidence.

                  “Of course the protestors entered the capital with “weapons””

                  Do you accept that that contradicts your claim “todate there is no evidence that any protestors inside the capital had weapons”? Are you now willing to admit that your March 8, 2021 at 11:38 AM comment included a false claim?

                  “atleast some came wearing shoes.”

                  None of the weapons charges involve shoes. How about you deal with the actual weapons charges, which involve things like tasers, bear spray, stun guns, batons, hockey sticks, and baseball bats.

                  “You cited chairs and other things that were found in or outside the capital. ”

                  No, Svelaz said that, not me. You apparently can’t even keep straight who you’re having an exchange with and who said what.

                  “You do not seem to understand – as is typical – the burden of proof.”

                  No, John, YOU do not seem to understand that. YOU are the one making false claims, YOU are the one ignoring the evidence I’ve presented, and YOU are the one making claims without presenting actual evidence to back them up.

                  “You LIED ”

                  You haven’t presented any evidence of this. You have the burden of proof for your claims. If you think I lied, QUOTE IT. Make sure that you’re quoting me and not someone else like Svelaz.

                  “You did not KNOW there were guns – you assumed it.”

                  No, I didn’t assume that. I’ve been quite clear all along that there were WEAPONS, and I didn’t assume GUNS. I knew that there were weapons because there’s evidence of it in the charging documents submitted under oath. You’re lying about me, and if you were ethical, you’d correct your false claims. But I doubt you will.

                  “You continue to make irrelevant distinctions between firearms and “weapons”.”

                  It’s your personal opinion that the distinction is irrelevant. Your opinion is not a fact. Sen. Johnson made that distinction in his question, maybe you think he’s making irrelevant distinctions too? Our laws sometimes distinguish between firearms and other weapons. Do you want to tell the legislators that they’re making irrelevant distinctions?

                  “My claim is that YOU, the LEFT, Democrats, the media, LIED. I have proven that.”

                  No, you haven’t proven that I’ve lied. You haven’t even quoted anything from me that’s false. And don’t play a stupid game that I am responsible for things said by others (“the LEFT, Democrats, the media”). I am not. If you cannot prove that I lied about anything, then act like an ethical person and don’t falsely claim that I did.

                  “You misstate the burden of proof.”

                  Once again, you present no proof that I’ve misstated anything. Proof would — as a start — involve you QUOTING what I said that you’re claiming is a misstatement.

                  “All I need prove is that what you said at the time was either FALSE. or that you did not actually know it to be true when you said it.”

                  So DO it!
                  Get off your butt and QUOTE whatever you’re referring to.

                  1. I am never going to apologize or correct any confusion with respect to anonymous posts.

                    You are free to post as anonymous – that is a right.
                    You are free to be offended if you FELL you are misrepresented.

                    You are not entitled to presume that anyone else knows which anonymous posts are from the same person.

                    You are not even entitled to be viewed as a distinct person.
                    At the same time – you are not entitled to anyone caring if you claim that you are being confused with another poster anonymous or otherwise.

                    You have chose to be without identity – any confusion or error that causes – is your problem and you are not ever entitled to an appology from anyone for it.

                    If you wish to not be confused with Svelaz or someone else or a different anonymous – then choose and identity and stick to it.

                    Are you capable of understanding that it is not even possible to appologize or correct confusion over identity regarding anonymous posts.

                    Because it is not even possible to know that an error has been made.

                    As an example if I have confused you with Svelaz – only you and Svelaz – if you are distinct can know that.
                    No one else can. Nor can anyone – you and Svelaz included ever prove an error was made.

                    Anonymous posting come at cost – this is one of those costs.

                    1. Your claim was false, John. I quoted it, and I gave you evidence that it was false, and you’re not adult enough to admit it.

                      “Are you capable of understanding that it is not even possible to appologize or correct confusion over identity regarding anonymous posts.”

                      Svelaz’s comments weren’t anonymous. You are making excuses for you confusing me with someone who posts under a fixed name, and you’re not adult enough to admit it.

                      “it is not even possible to know that an error has been made.”

                      Sure it is: Svelaz != Anonymous.

                      What a puerile response on your end.

                    2. “Your claim was false, John.”
                      Nope.

                      “I quoted it”
                      No you misquoted it – you ommitted what followed. You pretended that 3 words was something in its entirety.

                      “and I gave you evidence that it was false, and you’re not adult enough to admit it.”
                      No, you profvided the evidence that you are dishonest. That you misrepresent others.

                      “Svelaz’s comments weren’t anonymous.”
                      No they were not.
                      Are you Svelaz ?

                      I can only hope so – that would provide even more amunition.

                      Regardless, I have addressed Svelaz, with Svelaz. I stand behind my responses to him.

                      “You are making excuses for you confusing me with someone who posts under a fixed name”
                      No excuses – there is absolutely no means to know which posts on this board are yours.

                      Even if you were to identify them – all of us would have to trust you – and when you post as anonymous you have no trust.

                      I am not going to appologize because you think I may have confused you with another.

                      You are posting as anonymous – you gave up the right to an identity.

                      No one EVER owes an apology to anonymous.

                      If I called you a peodophile – that would not be defamation – there is no identifiable person to defame.

                      When you post as anonymous you shed the right to a reputation.

                      “and you’re not adult enough to admit it.”
                      When you decide to post as a real person I will afford you the rights and priviledges of a real person.

                      You are always free to post as anonymous – you have an absolute right to do so. But it comes at a cost.

                      You respond here as if you were harmed by something I have said of you.
                      I have little concern for the feelings of real people when they are on the wrong side of the facts.
                      But I have NONE for anoymous.

                      It is not possible to defame anonymous. It is not possible to lie about anonymous.

                      Because there is no anonymous. You are a chimera. You exist for one post and you are gone.

                      Even now I am making a possibly false assumption that posts aside from the one I am replying to are you.

                      I do not care if you post as anonymous – but when you do, you are not entitled to the respect, trust, etc of a real person.
                      That is your choice.

                      ““it is not even possible to know that an error has been made.”
                      Sure it is: Svelaz != Anonymous.”

                      That may be True – I am not claiming it is not. But it is not knowable.
                      It is not even possible to establish the probability that it is true.

                      Nor are the rest of us obligated to assume that it is either true or false.

                      You do not seem to grasp – when you post as anonymous you give up everything that comes with an identity.

                      You give up the right to claim you are lied about – because there is no YOU.

                      “What a puerile response on your end.”
                      You do not seem to grasp – so long as you post as anonymous – you do not have the right to be offended – you do not exist.

                      In a prior post you asked I prove that you lied about something.

                      That is what provoked this. It is impossible to prove or disprove that you have lied – so long as you post as anonymous.

                      It is not possible to look at any other post then the last one you made and know with certainty it is you.

                      It is not possible to know you are or aren’t JF or Svelaz, or Nutacha. It is not possible to know which of the numerous anonymous posts are you.

                      Again you are free to post as anonymous – I do so sometimes by accident.
                      But when you do you do so without history, without reputation, without credibility, without identity, essentially without any rights at all.
                      Because anonymous is not a person.

                  2. You and others on the left are constantly making claims of parity, equality.

                    You presume infinite varieties of equality as if they are foundational principles.

                    Equality is NOT a principle – we are not equal. Assumptions of equality in nearly anything are error.

                    More specifically – as I have noted many times before – burdens of proof are not equal.

                    Those with a reputation of falsehood have the highest burden of proof.

                    Anonymous claims are the next highest.

                    Even between those with the same credibility – burdens are not equal.

                    Claims of fact have a lower burden of proof than claims of moral failure.

                    Even claims of moral failure do not have equal burdens of proof.

                    If you accuse someone of moral failure – the burden of proof is on you.

                    If you fail to prove moral failure – others may call you a liar – without any burden of proof.

                    A failed claim of moral failure is a presumptive lie – there is no burden of proof there.
                    The failure of the person making the failed moral claim is the proof.

                    The above is primarily about burden of proof, but my broader argument – that assumptions of equality are nearly always wrong – either factually or logically is a broader point.
                    All ideas are not equal, all people are not equal.

                    We aspire to equal opportunity or equality before the law.

                    We do not aspire to equal intelligence – who wants to be average ?

                    1. John, your order of burden of proof is a good response.

                      #1) “Those with a reputation of falsehood have the highest burden of proof.”
                      #2) “Anonymous claims are the next highest.”

                      Anonymous the Stupid fails both ‘with honors’.

                      Then comes moral failure. Morality is mostly absent where Anonymous the Stupid is concerned.

                      Anonymous the Stupid fails virtually every test of decency.

                    2. The burden of proof observation is just a permutation of “everything is not equal”.

                      I have repeatedly attacked statist, socialist, and central planned systems.

                      Most if not all of these are “egalitarian”. Philosophically and pragmatically egalitarian systems are evil.

                      We are not equal. That is a fact. We do not, and likely never will have the means to raise those who are less able in some way to those who are most able. We are at best able to disable the able to make them equal to the worst off.

                      That is ultimately the result of egalitarian systems.

                      Read Thomas Paine’s “The Rights of Man” – it is an excellent book. It was written at the precipice of the French revolution.
                      The French revolution was massively influenced by the american revolution. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man
                      closely mirrors the US Bill of rights.

                      But there is a difference.

                      The “motto” of the american revolution – was “give me liberty or give me death”
                      That of the french revoltuiion was “Liberté, égalité, fraternité”

                      Efforts to acheive equality ALWAYS lead to bloodshed.

                      We are NOT equal and can not be made equal by force.

                      The most equality we can strive for is equality before the law, and equality of opportunity.

                      We can not even acheive either of those – though we can hold them as aspirations.
                      But we need to be careful not to over emphasize either – even as aspirations – as codifying equality Leeds to failure and usually blood.

                  3. “Testimony under oath has substantially higher credibility than DOJ websites and charging documents.”

                    “The charging documents ARE generally made under oath or penalty of perjury.”
                    False. They are not subject to perjury penalties.
                    They are made based on “information or beleif” – that is a very low standard.
                    They are not obligated to be true, just not knowingly false.

                    “Others are indictments based on testimony under oath before a grand jury.”
                    You have not linked GJ indictments or testimony.

                    1. “‘The charging documents ARE generally made under oath or penalty of perjury.’ False. They are not subject to perjury penalties.”

                      FFS, John, I literally QUOTED to you that the some of the statements are signed “Attested to by the applicant in accordance with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 4 .1 by telephone,” where Rule 4.1 includes “The judge must place under oath — and may examine — the applicant,” and you ignore it. You are not trying to have a truthful discussion.

                      “You have not linked GJ indictments or testimony.”

                      You’re lying again, or just lazy and ignorant. The very first link I gave you to the DOJ page — https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases — includes almost 100 indictments, which you can easily find with a text search on “indictment.”

                      “no one else can know with certainty what you have or have not claimed. You are among those claiming there was an armed insurection”

                      LMAO that in your attempt to wriggle out of your own failures to present evidence and your other argumentative errors, you directly contradict yourself in those two sentences. If you can’t know with certainty what was posted by an anonymous commenter, then don’t make claims about it; if you’re going to make claims about it, back it up with evidence.

                      Since you are unwilling to do this, I will not respond to you further. Expect me to ignore your vomitous responses from now on. You are a boring discussant, full of yourself, unwilling to deal honestly with evidence, and so are a waste of time.

                    2. Yes, you quoted from the documents – the word perjury is nowhere in the quotes.

                      You do not seem to grasp there are myriads of forms of sworn and unsworn falsification.
                      They have different penatlies – most have none or nearly none.

                      Clinesmith plead guilty to a far more serious sworn falsification than anything here.
                      He litterally altered evidence presented under a more serious oath to change it to mean the opposite.
                      And he received a slap on the wrist. He was not fired, he was not disbarred.

                      The standard for charges is “belief and information”.
                      I do not have a problem with that standard – but it is FAR from “this is proven fact”.

                      Can you cite a single example anywhere ever of an officer being prosecuted for false statements in a charging document ?

                      I am sure it must have happened somewhere, atleast once – though i could be wrong.
                      Regardless it is incredibly rare.

                      Further the “beleif and information” standard is incredibly low.
                      Information is essentially hearsay – you know that stuff you and your ilk were ranting about in the election context.
                      Of course much of what you called hearsay – wasn’t – and you do not grasp that much hearsay is admissible in court.
                      Further hearsay is an acceptable basis to start an investigation and to even charge someone.
                      Yet it was not sufficient for lawless courts to allow further inquiry. Hmm.

                      In the context of the election the courts were presented with evidence in the form of affadavits – these are STRONGER than anything your charging documents assert. While it is rare to prosecute someone for false statements in an affadavit – it is not unheard of.
                      I am not away of anyone be charged for false statements in a charging document – the standard “beleif and information” is just too low.

                      In the cases you are citing the officer is claiming that as a result of his investigation and what he has seen or been told “hearsay” by others he BELEIVES that the charges he is presenting are true. That is NOT knows.

                      Regardless, please do not tell me that I must treat a charging document as FACT when you are unwilling to treat an AFADAVIT as fact.

                      Again I would refer you back to my post on “burden of proof”.

                      A charging document is not proof – it is an allegation. It is not evidence – though it is hopefully supported by evidence.
                      You can not cross examine a charging document.

                      An afadavit is evidence and it is proof. It is sometimes weak evidence.
                      If a case is allowed to proceed – you can cross examine the person who provided an affidavit.

                      Of course the courts failed to proceed far enough to allow cross examination.
                      They failed in their duty to uphold the constitution and the law – including state constitutions and duly enacted election laws.
                      The courts were LAWLESS. They undermined the public trust.

                    3. Yes, here is one of your laughable indictments – I note no reference to a Grand Jury.

                      Regardlessm, the counts are

                      1). Being at the capital.
                      2). Attempting to disrupt government.
                      3). Disturbing the orderly conduct of a session of congress.
                      4). Parading, demonstrating or picketing the capital.

                      https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1364756/download

                      High crimes there.

                      When government is lawless – disrupting it is a duty.

                      Can you please cite a count above that does not apply to anyone who has ever protested at the capital ?

                      I fully expect Thomas Baranyi to be convicted and face the full weight of the DC courts.
                      Because he is the wrong color, gender, and politics, and he dared challenge the high and mighty.

                      He is a minion and needs to know his place and be made an example of.

                      Regardless – this is the nonsense that you are supporting ?

                    4. You logic is broken.

                      You continue to argue that as anonymous – you have the same rights as real people.

                      You do not. that is the price of being anonymous.

                      You say provide evidence – but that is not possible. I can find posts by anonymous that are lies.

                      But I can not go back more than one post and “prove” that lying anonymous is you.

                      You are free to disown any post by anonymous or anyone else. Whether you made them or not.

                      That is part and parcel of posting as anonymous – it is how it works.

                      By the same token – you CAN NOT demand proof regarding YOUR past posts – because it can not be provided.

                      You can disown whatever you wish – and you are posting as anonymous – so you are not entitled to trust that you will honestly identify your own posts.

                      I am not going to play that game with you.

                      You are trying to claim you have extra rights – a right to have claims against you proven, when you have detroyed any ability to do so.
                      That is not your right.

                      As you can not be defamed – you are entitled to no protection from defamation – there is no you to harm, no reputation that can be harmed.
                      I can call you a peodophile if I want, without consequence.

                      While I have not made claims that are unsupportable – such as that you are a peodophile.
                      I am not getting suckered into trying to nail jello to the wall.

                      So long as you are posting as anonymous – there is no burden of proof with regard to plausible claims against you.

                      You are a liar hiding in the shadows.

                      I am not going to search Turley to find the posts that prove that anonymous made repeated false moral claims
                      only to have you disown them.

                      But I invite everyone to review the posts of anonymous and decide for themselves whether anonymous posts are rife with lies.
                      That is the best I can do, and that is all you are entitled to.

                      And please do not trot out this chestnut that I or anyone else is subject to the same burden of proof as you are – that is complete nonsense.

                      We are not equal.
                      We are not equally inteligent, honest, trustworthy. or beleivable.
                      When you post as anonymous you deprive yourself of any presumption of intelligence, honestly, trustworthyness, or beleive ability.

                      You are always free to post as anonymous. You are not free to expect to be treated with the same trust, respect, credibility or burden of proof as those who do not.

                    5. “If you can’t know with certainty what was posted by an anonymous commenter, then don’t make claims about it;”
                      False.

                      You are presuming that by posting as anonymous you can hold others to an impossible standard.
                      The opposite is true – by posting as anonymous you can NOT hold anyone to any standard of proof regarding claims against you.

                      Posting as anonymous strips you of rights and others of duties to you.
                      It does not increase your rights and create impossible duties for others.

                      Think about it ATS – you are littleraly arguing that no one may ever accuse you of lying – or anything else – because your choice to post anonymously precludes proof of any claim.

                      The burden of proof for claims of moral failure is high – because such claims are a real harm to a real person,

                      You are not a real person, and there is no real harm. There is no burden of proof.

                      You keep getting hung up in these idiotic presumptions that everything is equal.

                      It simply is not.

                    6. No contradiction.

                      Though you are now openly admitting the problem – and why you are not entitled to the proof you demand.

                      Something can be both true and not proveable – that is not a contradiction – infact all of mathematics, and science rests on axioms that must be true but can not be proven.

                      You are also making clear why I will not provide you with the proof you are not entitled to, and why I am free to assume it.

                    7. >>“The charging documents ARE generally made under oath or penalty of perjury.”
                      >False. They are not subject to perjury penalties.”

                      I continue to be amazed at how uninformed Anonymous the Stupid is.

                    8. I would further note we are talking the FBI here.

                      This is the same FBI that botched the Clinton email investigation.

                      That started an investigation into the Trump campaign when the KNEW before the start that Clinton AND THE RUSSIANS were behind it.
                      That lied in Warrant applications to the FISA court.

                      And a long list of other recent lies.

                      But it does not end there.
                      This is the same FBI that excuted Randy Weavers family
                      That murdered the followers of David Korsech.

                      These events were Timothy McVeighs justification for the OKC bombing

                      Need I go back to the 60’s for further evidence that the FBI has NEVER been trustworthy ?

                      We have Black Lives Matters demanding that we “defund the police”

                      It is time we cancel the FBI.
                      They are an irredeemably corrupt organization.

                      http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/President-Kennedy1.png

                  4. “I didn’t claim that anyone had a gun inside the Capitol”
                    See post on anonymous posts – no one else can know with certainty what you have or have not claimed.

                    You are among those claiming there was an armed insurection – rather than a disorganized chaotic protest.

                    The distinction between those hinges on FACTS.

                    Firearms violations are a daily event in cities like DC.
                    Further the charges are poor evidence until they are adjudicated – there is an actual right to bear arms – as DC learned in Heller.

                  5. “except for one place where I said that by mistake in response to something you wrote, and I then corrected myself”
                    I am glad you corrected yourself but your fundimental error is not inside/outside. nor firearm/weapon broadly defined.

                    It is that the actual FACTS do not come within a hundred miles of an “Armed insurection”

                  6. “Once again, YOU said “todate there is no evidence that any protestors inside the capital had weapons”
                    Correct. and I am not going to cede this until you demonstrate that a protester had an actual weapon. Not something that some court has at some time found to be a weapon – such as a bedroom slipper. Not something they brought to break down doors or to break windows.

                    Not some item found along the way – such as a chair. But something that a protestor brought with them for the purpose of offensively harming humans.

                    Something that in arguably would be consciously brought to an “armed insurection”

                  7. “I wouldn’t think that I’d need to point this out yet again, but “weapons” are not limited to “guns.””

                    I have major problems with court decsions that have made nearly everything into “deadly weapons” – again the law means what it plainly says. A weapon is something whose primary purpose is to hurt people in a physical conflict.

                    Weapons are not limited to guns, but just because something is capable of hurting people does not make it a weapon.

                    If you stab someone with a knife – that is assault with a deadly weapon. If you whack them with a chair – that is assault.

                    “WEAPONS. That’s YOUR word”
                    It is – but YOU are the one playing word games.

                    As noted in a prior post – were swords recovered by the FBI ?

                    Or do you want to continue to argue that chairs (and bed room slippers) are deadly weapons.

                    You will have the same courts on yourside that can not see a lawless election when they are bitchslapped by it.

                    “which is why it’s in the quote from YOU that I’ve now highlighted for you more than once.”
                    Yes, I know – you keep making yourself look stupid. I will conceed that probably every protestor brought a deadly weapon to the capital – their shoes. But I am still not aware of any protestors carrying nunchucks or crossbows.

                    “Until you can bring yourself to admit that YOU made a claim about WEAPONS, not limited to guns, we cannot make progress.”
                    I have admitted that I made a claim about weapons over and over. I own it, I am not appologizing, it was not an error. Do you have any evidence of REAL weapons ?

                    Brass knuckles ? maces ? Daggers ? Long Bows ? Axes ? Spears ?

                    “Your claim about WEAPONS was false”
                    Nope.

                    “and if you were trying to have a truthful discussion, you’d just admit that you were wrong.”
                    When you produce an actual weapon that was found inside the capital that was brought by protestors.
                    Clue – outside of the courts – chairs are not weapons. They are things people sit on.
                    Anything can be used as a weapon – that does not make it one.

                    Regardless this is about the requirements for “armed insurrection” – does that means that all protestors are armed – because they wear shoes ?
                    Armed insurrection does not require firearms. conversely – you will be deservedly laughed at it you keep offering bear spray.

              3. With respect to your arguments – you have already discredited yourself.

                Anything can be a “weapon” – as I noted the PA SCOTUS has found bedroom slippers to be a deadly weapon.

                Of course the protestors entered the capital with “weapons” – according the the legal meaning – atleast some came wearing shoes.

                But most people would consider claims that an armed horde descended on the capital to be false – if the deadly weapons were shoes.

                You cited chairs and other things that were found in or outside the capital. SO WHAT ?

                By your defintion EVERY protest is by armed protestors.

                Regardless no one debates that SOME protestors broke windows and doors to get into a capital building that was supposed to be open to the public when congress was in session.

                You can not petition government when government barricades itself from you – and this was most definitely an effort to petition government.
                You just do not like the petition.

                A miniscule number of people engaged in theft or destruction unrelated to gaining entry.

                Todate there is no evidence that a firearm was discharged inside the capital – yet the press has claimed otherwise – and I beleive the house impeachment managers did to.

                Todate there is no evidence that a firearm was brought inside the capital – yet the press and impeachment managers have claimed otherwise.

                I would note that bringing firearms into the capital on the 6th – MIGHT have been illegal – but it WAS justifiable.
                I would note that DICHARGING firearms in the capital on the 6th – would have been legal as a response to the Alishi shooting, yet it did not occur.

              4. You do not seem to grasp – this debate is not about what was theoretically possible, or what was justifiable, or even what DID happen.

                It is about what we actually know and the LIES about it.

                Evidence could come out tomorow that a protestor took a gun into the capital. At this time that is not likely. But it is still possible that such evidence could emerge.

                What is inarguably true – is that the left has been touting this as an armed insurrection from the start.

                While I think an armed insurection was JUSTIFIABLE under the circumstances, regardless one did not occur.

                It is self evident that the media, the left, democrats, you and the house impeachment managers have GREATLY exagerated the “narravtive”.

                The fact that there is no evidence of a protestor discharging a firearm. That there is no evidence of a fdirearm being recovered inside the capital, means that you the media, the left, democrats and the impeachment managers have been LYING.

                To be clear – it is a LIE to claim as true something that you do not know as a fact – especially when you are doing so as a moral or legal claim against another. It does not matter if you were to subsequently be proven correct.

                If you say you saw a gun – and there is no evidence that there was a gun – you are LYING – and that is true even if months later it is proven that there was a gun in a backpack that never was brought out.

              5. You do not seem to understand – as is typical – the burden of proof.

                YOU, the PRESS, the LEFT, DEMOCRATS, are the ones making MORAL and LEGAL claims regarding the conduct of the protestors.

                The burden of proof is on YOU.

                You keep trying to play these shell and word games.

                But the fact is that the claims regarding Jan 6. that were offered by the press, the left, YOU, democrats – were a LIE.

                They were a lie because YOU DID NOT and COULD NOT know the things you claimed.

                You do not get to claim an armed insurection – unless you KNOW there were firearms.

                Though I will let you off the hook if you produce evidence of SWORDS.

                Regardless, and armed insurection is not angry people you disagree with.

                You LIED – the true FACTS known at the time did not support the moral and legal claims that you made – and they still don’t.

                You seem to be confused – I am not claiming a narrative of my own. I am PROVING that the narrative you the left, democrats sold was knowingly FALSE at the time you sold it.

                You did not KNOW there were guns – you assumed it.
                You did not know guns were fired – you assumed it.

                Just as you assumed that protestors brought plasticuffs,
                Just as you assume that protestors were intent on killing or harming members of congress.

                What the TESTIMONY provided PROVES – is that you were LYING.

                I am not interested in debates over what constitutes a weapon.

                I am not interested in a TINY number of “belief and information claims” of firearms outside the capital – claims that have not been proven and may not be an actual crime.

                What I am interested in is that on a matter of extremely serious public importance – YOU, the press, DEMOCRATS, the LEFT, told the rest of us a BIG LIE.

                You conflated what you BELEIVED – without evidence, with TRUTH.
                You presented something you clearly did not KNOW as if it was proven fact.

                That is LYING of the worst sort.

                1. “That is LYING of the worst sort.”

                  John, that is in the DNA of Anonymous the Stupid. He knows of no other way to get noticed.

              6. Sanborn was brought in to testify specifically about this.

                While you are correct that her testimony is limited to her knowledge – it is not that knowledge as a direct witness, but as the spokesperson to congress on the FBI’s investigation of the events of Jan 6.

                She was EXPECTED to PERSONALLY know EVERYTHING the FBI knew regarding that event.

                Sanborn was not speaking as an eyewitness, she was speaking as a representative of the FBI charged with informing congress.

              7. You continue to make irrelevant distinctions between firearms and “weapons”.

                Were any swords found ?

                Legally anything can be a deadly weapon. But few people mean chairs or bed room slippers when they use the term Weapons.

                Do you have any evidence that something that most of us would refer to as a “deadly weapon” – nunchucks, chains, knives, guns, were BROUGHT INTO the Capital on the 6th ?

                Do you have any evidence that something most of us would refer to as a weapons was brought to and USED against a person at the capital on the 6th.

                I have ZERO interest in idiotic claims regarding things that were found at the scene and used to break windows.

                In fact I have no interest in anything that was not used against a person.

                Armed insruections are not attacks against buildings with weapons – they are attacks on PERSONS.

                This is not about whetehr everything that occurred at the capital was good or justified – it is about whether YOU are LYING about it.

                Some of what occured at the capital mirrored to a very small extent some of what occurred at BLM riots and Portland.
                That is an independent debate – though I would note we did not impeach anyone for insurrection over that.

              8. “You seem to be under the delusion that you’re correct.:”
                Because I AM.

                My claim is that YOU, the LEFT, Democrats, the media, LIED.

                I have proven that.

                You misstate the burden of proof.

                YOU, the LEFT, Democrats, the media, LIED – made claims of moral and legal failure against others.
                The burden of proof for YOU is high.

                All I need prove is that what you said at the time was either FALSE. or that you did not actually know it to be true when you said it.

                You want to get lost in details – what is a weapon vs. Firearm. Inside the capital vs. outside, What the FBI knows vs. speculation about what other law enforcement might know. “information and beleive” vs. sworn testimony.

                the FACT is that it is obvious – that you made claims that you either Believed or wished to be true, that you did not have sufficient evidence for at the time.

                That you have LIED about protestors, and you have LIED about Trump.

                You word mangling and sentence parsing does not change that.

                The burden of proof you face is HIGH – and you have failed to meet it.

                The burden of proof I face is quite low – it is merely that you made Moral or legal claims that were either not true or that were not knowably true at the time.

                You say that Sanborn only speaks for the FBI – fine. But the Fact that YOU do not KNOW that the Capital police or others have evidence of firearms inside the capital is proof you are lying.

                I am not obligated to prove you are wrong – though I have arguabling done that.
                I am only obligated to prove you have stated as FACT moral and legal claims that you do not know to be true.
                That is OBVIOUSLY the case.

                YOU, the LEFT, Democrats, the media, LIED. And you owe everyone an appology.

              9. No you have not disproved my claim.

                My claim is that you made moral and legal accusations that you did not have evidence of at the time.

                i.e. that you were lying.

                All your word mangling and shell games accomplish nothing.

                You LIED and it is self evident.

                You painted a false narrative as the truth. making numerous false accusations.

                You confused the capital protestors political diasgreement with you, with evil and serious wrong doing.
                And you were wrong.

              10. You provided a very long post.

                But nothing in that post changes the fact that YOU made claims that you did not have evidence for at the time – and do not know.

                An afirmative claim requires affimative evidence.

                The FBI did not provide you with that evidence.

                Your speculation regarding what the capital police might have – is NOT evidence.

                Your hair splitting over the distinction between weapons such as firearms and swords, and those such as bedroom slippers and chairs – does not change that you tried to sell a LIE.

                1. “You provided a very long post.”

                  LMAO, given the length and number of your own posts. If you dislike length, then heal thyself.

                  1. I did not express a view on length.

                    I would note that if you are going to write a book – do not make so many errors, it makes the correction far longer.

          3. You seem to be under the delusion that you can claim whatever you want happened on Jan. 6th and everyone else is obligated to disprove you.

            The FACT is that the opposite is true.

            I was specific in my claims:

            First, my claim is that Jill Sanborn of the FBI TESTIFIED that.

            There was no DISCHARGE of firearms – except by the capital police.

            That no firearms were recovered by the FBI from those arrested for actions INSIDE the capital.

            It is possible that Ms. Sandborn’s testimony is incorrect.

            Regardless, it was under oath and she was expected to know.

            YOU produced a list of charges. Nothing in those charges specifies the discharge of or posession of a Firearm INSIDE the capital.

            I am well aware that guns were recovered from a parked car and a hotel room.

            No one has claimed there we no guns anywhere in the US that day, or none in DC. Or that no protestor owned a gun.

            The “armed insurection” claim REQUIRES many things.

            An actual insurrection – which you do not have.

            And that those participating in the insurrection had weapons in their possesion AT THE TIME.

            I know left wingnuts such as yourself want to claim that every person supporting Trump in the country was somehow involved in an “armed insurrection” But that is false.

            There were possibly several hundred thousand people at the capital on Jan 6.

            I would be surprised in none of them were armed.

            That is not the question.

            YOU are claiming an “armed insurection” – that requires that those who actually entered the capital by force – not just any Trump supporter on the Mall or in the US, had to bring weapons into the capital.

            You have not proven that.

            Your list of charges does not support that.

        2. Hey John, you’ve been given evidence that your claim is false. Can you bring yourself to admit you were wrong?

          1. “Hey John, you’ve been given evidence that your claim is false. ”
            What claim ? What evidence ?

            I have not seen any evidence of anything from you.

            “Can you bring yourself to admit you were wrong?”

            I have corrected myself when I have made errors.

            You have neither identified a claim, nor provided evidence that any claim I have made was incorrect.

            1. “I have not seen any evidence of anything from you.”

              I gave you evidence (for example, here: https://jonathanturley.org/2021/03/08/is-eric-swalwell-the-answer-to-trumps-prayers/comment-page-1/#comment-2070974). If you haven’t seen it, that only reflects your reading habits.

              “I have corrected myself when I have made errors.”

              Sometimes, and other times you haven’t. The errors you made and were corrected on in above are an example of the latter.

              “You have neither identified a claim, nor provided evidence that any claim I have made was incorrect.”

              That’s false. I’ve done both, whether you acknowledge it or not.

              1. “I gave you evidence (for example, here: …. If you haven’t seen it, that only reflects your reading habits.”

                It is not evidence that has anything to do with the discussion we are having.

                It has no more bearing than charge lists of criminal defendants from Bronx today.

                Sanborn’s testimony was sworn under oath. A charge sheet is based on “beleif and information” – it is little more than an allegation.
                Sanborn testified about firearms INSIDE the capital.
                Your “evidence” is about firearms elsewhere.
                Sanborn testified there was no evidence of a discharge
                Your “evidence” does not change that.

                Someone somewhere in DC was arrested and firearms charges were brought is not much int eh way of evidence.

                Even if true – it will not get you to “armed insurection”

                ““I have corrected myself when I have made errors.”

                Sometimes, and other times you haven’t. The errors you made and were corrected on in above are an example of the latter.”
                I have no idea what you are talking about – and I doubt you do either.

                But let me make some things clear about THIS conversation.

                In THIS context – the interchange of “weapon”, “fiream” and “arms” is inconsequential and NOT error.

                I accept that somethings that are not firearms are weapons for the purposes of establishing “armed insurection”.

                But everything that is legally a weapon in some circumstance is NOT “arms” as applies to armed insurection.

                An armed insurection requires
                Planning,
                premeditation.
                Bringing items intended to be used as weapons to the conflict

                Freezing a water bottle for the purpose of throwing at someone to hurt them – meets the requisite criteria for “armed” – in armed insurection.

                Finding a chair and using it as a weapon does not.

                Even bringing a hammer for the purpose of breaking windows – as opposed to bashing peoples heads in – is not “Armed” – as needed for armed insurection.

                Inside vs. outside matters too.

                If those at the capital brought 10.000 AR-15’s with them – but did not take them into the capital – that is NOT armed insurection.

                What MATTERS in this debate is NOT nit picking on your part or stupid claims of moving the goal posts – whis is actually being done by YOU, over inside/outside weapon/firearm or sworn/beleif.

                What matters is when YOU, the LEFT, Democrats, the PRESS, claimed there was an ARMED INSURECTION – was there sufficient evidence to support that claim – or did you LIE.

                The unequivocal answer is – YOU LIED.

                No amount of “moving the goal posts” over inside/outside or weapon/firearm changes that.

                I do not owe you an appolgy or correction for anything I have said on this.

                Inconsequential lacks of precision – on my part are only relevant if that make the difference between an armed insurection claim being a lie or not. niggles over firearms/weapons etc DO NOT.

                But YOUR attempt to weasle out over them REQUIRES correction.

                A couple of “information and beleif” allegations in a DOJ charge list is NOT proof of an Armed insurection.
                It is proof of an ordinary day in Washington. Or New York or Chicago.

                ““You have neither identified a claim, nor provided evidence that any claim I have made was incorrect.””

                Still true.

  1. Swalwell is alleging severe emotional distress.

    Do we get to see his psychiatric reports ‘proving’ his ‘injuries’?

    Normally they are privileged but maybe not when they are the sole evidence of his claimed injury.

    If he hasn’t been to a shrink discovery may order him to one.

  2. Luke 11:45: “Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also.” Luke 11:46: “And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.”

  3. Swallow-well to the rescue. He’s makes Mad Mazie Hrono look smart. Move over Tiltin’ Hank Johnson, you’ve met your match. A complaint like Swallow-well’s is tantamount to a defamation case where the Plaintiff gets put on trial. Imagine snowflake Swaller surrounded by Capitol Police claiming he was traumatized. Oh, the humanity!

  4. Love when, in your capacity as a Repub lawyer, you hastily spike the football, Jon.

    So much going on in this blog post! Primarily, you use the suit as a way to regenerate past grudges with Swalwell publicly. It’s clearly trash talk though and doesn’t shade the fact you’ve never gotten over your exchanges with him in trump’s first impeachment trial.

    Better yet, the post tries to get way too cute by assigning trump potential vindication credit to Swalwell when it’s, indeed, your efforts that have gone toward a trump vindication. Special moment for you…, but all too obvious and on the nose, Jon. Basically it just makes clear your efforts to seed the grounds of defense from this suitt. Probably important to realize *there is no vindication for trump under any circumstances*. Trump is going to have to learn this publicly at every juncture and it looks like he’s going to take you on the same journey.

    Let’s look at what you’re basing your argument on: “Eight minutes later, Trump had a heated call with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who told him of the breach. Then at 2:26 p.m., Trump mistakenly called Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) instead of Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.). Lee reportedly said Trump did not appear to realize the extent of the rioting. ”

    First, you’re leaving off a boatload of essential context about the McCarthy call. McCarthy had to convince trump it was his people doing the invading and not “Antifa”. Trump argued with him. Important point that will be called into doubt when the specifics of the White House blocking National Guard response permission, no?

    And trump’s “mistaken” call to Lee was about trying to get him to mechanically arrange a scenario where the election results could be, formally, called into doubt. He was trying to fix an election and was working in conjunction with an incited attack on the Capitol in a multi front ‘war’ on the election verifying process to get it done….

    Not only that, it leans on ignorance as trump’s only defense. Bad look there, Turley.

    Elvis Bug

    1. “And trump’s “mistaken” call to Lee was about trying to get him to mechanically arrange a scenario where the election results could be, formally, called into doubt. He was trying to fix an election and was working in conjunction with an incited attack on the Capitol in a multi front ‘war’ on the election verifying process to get it done…”
      ************************
      You’ve outdone yourself again, Bug. “Stupidity on Parade” is how I’d title this little masterpiece of a screed. Oh, and ponder this one Socrates: can one really “fix” an already “fixed” election?

    2. Disclaimer: this comment was made by someone who has no grasp of the actual facts of January 6th. It looks as though you’re about to be swept away on a journey with President Trump however that journey will be one self discovery. The main question being answered is of course: how long can one go holding their breath from the sweet oxygen of information made available that will shatter the fragile imaginary world you have created for yourself.

      1. Michael’s Disclaimer:

        this comment was made
        by someone who has no grasp
        of the actual facts

        of January 6th.

        It looks as though
        you’re about to be swept away
        on a journey with President Trump

        however that journey will be one self discovery.

        The main question being answered is

        of course:

        how long can one go
        holding their breath
        from the sweet oxygen

        of information

        made available that will shatter
        the fragile imaginary world…

        you have created for yourself.

        Michael (2021)

        EB

      2. Do you have an argument ?

        Nothing in your post has any context or meaning.

        If someone has a false impression of Jan 6th – what is that impression and how is it wrong ?

        If someone’s perception of reality is flawed – how ? What is it they mispreceive and what are the actual facts ?

        Your post is full of claims of error.
        But not actual evidence.

        It accuses others of error – but does not even assert what the actual error is, much less why it is error

    3. i never read alice in wonder land. perhaps i should. was it the mad hatter who informed alice what words meant ? that is where this banana republik now exists.

      our supremes have already ruled on the matter, STANDING then MOOT

  5. Will Trump testify (and open himself up to committing perjury, given how prone he is to lying), or will he invoke his 5th Amendment rights?

      1. In other words, you have no factual counter to what I asked, so you resort to childish insult.

        1. Pseudo was right. You are plain Stupid, Do you know why? Because you are Anonymous the Stupid.

            1. Anon @ 1:29 (aka S. Meyer) peaked early, in his miserable life, and it’s been all downhill, ever since.

              He has trouble with words like “peak,” just as he struggles with idioms.

              Some of his contributions:

              https://twitter.com/mixedidioms

              1. You provided a peek into your life Anonymous the Stupid. I don’t proofread what I send to Stupid people and it gives you an opportunity to correct spelling errors with your spell check. Unfortunately when it comes down to ideas, logic and common sense, you have nothing to say. Do you know why? Because you are Anonymous the Stupid.

                  1. Anonymous the Stupid, your name fits and anyone reading the comments can recognize that. You can say what you want but my comments speak for themselves.

    1. lying,,,, Aren’t you, suga, mixing the best President with the old rags of pisslosi and biden??? You definitely are!!!

    2. Bug, Thats about as big as your brain gets. How many times has Trump faced lawsuits in the past? Yes, 3500 times! How many times was he charged with perjury during those suits? Yep, Zero. Pretty good, for someone “prone” to lying, eh?

      1. I’m not Bug, and you’ve provided no evidence about the number of times Trump has testified, which not the same as the number of suits filed by or against him.

        Bill Clinton wasn’t charged in federal court with perjury either. But he committed perjury. The failure to prosecute someone for perjury isn’t evidence that they didn’t commit perjury. There’s already evidence that Trump committed perjury in his written responses to Mueller.

        1. Bill Clinton could not be charged with Perjury while he was president.

          In the aftermath he surrendered his law license and paid severely.

          1. None of which changes the fact that Clinton committed perjury but wasn’t charged in federal court with perjury, and the failure to prosecute someone for perjury isn’t evidence that they didn’t commit perjury.

            1. Correct – the fact that someone is not charged with a crime does not mean they did not commit a crime.

              It is however evidence that they did not commit a crime.

              Clinton admitted to perjury as part of the Jones settlement and the sanctions imposed on him by that court.

              Further Clinton’s perjury was about as crystal clear as you can get.

        2. If you have evidence Trump perjured himself to Mueller – present it.

          Mueller did not.

          Given that the Mueller team prosecuted numerous bogus claims, and violated just about every rule of professional ethics there is
          why would they stop at false claims of perjury.

          1. It’s the SSCI report that presented evidence of Trump having engaged in perjury, and Mueller was no longer the Special Counsel at that point.

      2. Yes, Trump sued an old boss of mine to get out of paying him. Which translated to my boss being late in paying me. I’m familiar with trump’s litigious reality. What your point completely misses is that trump knows how to abuse the system. When he gets caught in a vise, he settles…

        witness trumpy bear university.

        EB

        1. there are courts to deal with this.

          Neither you nor your boss are entitled to be paid just because you want to.

          If your boss agreed to something with Trump – both your boss and Trump have a right to expect that each does fully what they promised.

          That is one of the reasons we have courts.

          If your boss agreed to something with YOU – both you and your boss have a right to expect that each does fully what they promised.

          If your boss failed to keep his agreements with you – that is on him – not Trump.

        2. What of Trump university ?

          There was no difference between Trump U and myriads of how to get rich books in every book store.

          They all say the same thing.

          the way to get rich is not secret – take calculated risks and work your ass off.
          They are all correct.

          Trump U provided its students with motivational speakers.

          That is “the secret sauce”

        3. You seem to lack the ability to judge things for what they are, Elvis Bug. Your boss was wrong when he didn’t pay you on time. His dealing with Trump had nothing to do with you so your check should have arrived on time. That demonstrates a character flaw of your boss. Maybe he had another character flaw that led to him being sued by Trump. With such a character flaw he might have also been lying to you about the suit and why your check was late.

          You draw conclusions out of thin air, not a good characteristic. Perhaps it would be better for you to think more and talk less.

          1. “Perhaps it would be better for you to think more and talk less.”

            You should take your own advice, S. Meyer.

    3. “Will Trump testify (and open himself up to committing perjury”

      If you had actually read what JT wrote, you might have discerned that Trump has no reason to perjure himself.

      Swalwell on the other hand has lots of reasons to avoid cross examination.

      1. I did read what JT wrote, and he cannot know what Trump will be asked. Moreover, Trump clearly lies even when he has no need to.

        1. Weird response.

          It is irrelevant what Trump will be asked.
          It is irrelevant whether he purportedly lies.

          What is relevant is the FACTS.

          This is something that YOU and the left have failed to grasp – pretty much forever.

          It is fitting that Swallwell is suing over emotional distress.

          Anyone who cares about Swallwell’s emotional distress is an idiot.

          The relevant issues will be WHO DID WHAT.

          Turley went through SOME of the now known FACTS – they are nearly all damning to any case against Trump.

          Turley missed many many other facts – which only make this much worse – for democrats.

          I would further note that YOU, the left, democrats, the press, Swallwell all have HUGE credibility problems.

          You have lied so often and so much half the country is not listening to you.

          One of the reasons that Trump’s supporters are so loyal is that contra your claims – while Trump spins and egagerates, and often falls short – he does not actually lie.

          But YOU do.

            1. Is this an argument ?

              Presumably you are the “anonymous” who is incensed that S.Meyer referes to you as Anonymous the Stupid.

              Why provide the gun, load it, and put it to your own head ?

              If you do not wish to be called stupid – do not make stupid posts.

              If you do not wish to be treated like a spoiled toddler – do not post like a spoiled toddler.

              Are you and adult or a toddler ?

              “Bahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!”

              Is a response I never would have tolerated from my own children as toddler’s.

              Are you literate ? Have you ever read “Lord of the Flies” ?

              That would be several steps up in mental age from where your responses identify you.

              If you want your oppinion on anything to be respected – do not behave like a toddler.

              Until recently we did not entrust government to toddlers.

              One of the left’s better criticisms of Trump was that his speech was about as self regulated as a toddler.

              So why would you deliberately seek to make yourself look worse ?

          1. John say, those are some bold claims. Trump does not actually lie? There are plenty of examples.

            Trump claimed he had a healthcare plan ready to go. He never did. That’s a lie. Trump claimed he won the election. Again that turned out to be a lie. He obviously lost.

            His own enablers pushed baseless claims that never held up in court. In fact just today the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s appeal for the Wisconsin case.

            The PA Supreme Court correctly ruled that the state did not violate its own constitution when the legislature changed election rules. Claims that a “narrow” interpretation was necessary, but the PA Supreme Court addressed this very point and proved that the phrase, “office of municipal elections” does not mean the actual physical location but the organization as a whole. Similarly to “the office of the president” meaning the entire body that encompasses the president’s staff. Not the physical location.

            Courts have always had the power to interpret any word of phrase in law to determine intent and meaning with context of phrases because words can have different meanings or change meaning over time.

            You make a lot of claims without proof or examples.

            1. The complaint was that the executive had changed the rules in defiance of statutory law.

              1. The executive didn’t change the rules. It exercised the authority given to them by the legislature. They tried to claim the law was violated only by interpreting the law as narrowly and literally as possible. Obviously their argument didn’t fly.

                1. “The executive didn’t change the rules.”
                  They did. And they admit that.

                  “It exercised the authority given to them by the legislature.”
                  Both wrong and false.

                  The authority to make laws rests solely with the legislature.
                  The executive takes an oath to ENFORCE those laws – as written, not as they wish they were.

                  “They tried to claim the law was violated only by interpreting the law as narrowly and literally as possible. Obviously their argument didn’t fly.”
                  That is not a claim, it is a requirement of the rule of law.

                  Your argument and that of the left and expansive courts, is nonsense.

                  The rule of law does not exist when the meaning of the law is not tightly coupled to the words. Were law is not understood narrowly and freedom broadly.

                  The very issue we are debating is central to this.

                  Legitimate government exists only with the consent of the governed.

                  That consent is measured by elections. It is not CAUSED by elections.

                  When you game the election to change the outcome you do NOT change the underlying consent of the governed.

                  A plurality of people as of the last polls I saw beleive the election was stollen. A majority beleive the election was lawless and fraudulent.

                  Less than 40% of people – the lowest ever measured trust government.

                  It is irrelevant what courts say. It is irrelevant how many ballots you think have Biden checked on them.
                  Your arguments about elections and election laws are irrelevant.

                  Why ? Because you have NOT secured the consent of the governed.

                  You rant that Jan 6. was an armed insurection. It was not. But YOUR lawless actions bring us ever closer to precisely that.

                  When government is not perceived as legitimate. When it does not have the trust of the people – that government is not legitimate.

                  When government does not have the peoples trust – all kinds of things are possible – the capital protests – or actual armed insurection.

                  The capital protest scared the crap out of the left.

                  Because though they were a disorganized unfocused effort, they came far too close for the left’s comfort to thwarting the left.

                  We have national guard and razor wire in the capital – to protect democrats from the american people.
                  We have never had that before.

                  We are giving National Guardsmen political purity tests – because democrats are afraid of the very people who are there to protect them.

                  I would remind you that in East Berlin in 1989 the Honecker Government collapsed when the east german people took to the streets and the police and military refused to stop them.

                  I would remind you that THIS country was born on April the 19th in 1775 when the Minitemen took arms against the soldiers of the purported government to thwart them from taking their guns and killed 73 british soldiers.

                  You rant proudly about the decisions of 60 courts.

                  Why are you proud of tyranny ?

                  Not a single one of those courts either looked at or allowed anyone else to look at ballots.

                  You rant about faux recounts and other nonsense. There have been few instances todate where anyone outside of election officials have been permitted to investigate the election. And every single one of those few independent inquiries has found evidence favoring Trump.

                  We have DVS voting machines in a county in NH that started ever democratic candidate with a 300 advantage. We have signature matches in Cobb County GA that found 0.5% of mailin ballot signatures did not meet even the artifically low 40% match threshold – that is TWICE Biden’s margin of victory, and Cobb county is the lest likely democratic county in GA to have mailin voter fraud.
                  We have DVS voting machines in Antrim county that miscountred the vote by 44% with a gain of 6500 votes for Trump in a single county.

                  We have illegally shredded ballots in every major city in every single swing state.

                  We have inumerable examples of votes cast by people who do not exist, are dead, or do not live in the state they voted in.

                  All these votes were COUNTED.

                  You want to know why the laws and powers of govenrment MUST be read NARROWLY and the RIGHTS or the people must be read BROADLY. This is why.

                  Because otherwise you do not have the consent of the governed.
                  You do not have legitimate government.

                  You ranted that Republicans in Georgia would not do anything Trump asked – and they did not.
                  But they are NOW busily revising their election laws to force everything Trump asked for and more in the future.

                  Whether you like it or not – there are an enormous body of very angry people who fully understand that you CHEATED.

                  Either states respond as GA is doing and seriously tighten their election laws

                  AND courts do not undo those actions through your nonsensical broad interpretations, or there will be lawlessness and violence and massive fraud.

                  Democrats have step by step over decades shredded the norms of politics. Bring us slowly step by step closer to lawlessness.

                  With this election they took a giant leap.

                  So tell me – what is to stop others from doing the same things they beleive you did ?

                  If you do not subject the 2020 election – the actual ballots to scrutiny.

                  If you do not provide REAL reassurance to the people that the election counts were honest and correct, that there is no consequential number of forged ballots, that thousands of ballots were not counted multiple times, that thousands of ineligable voters did not vote, that thousands of votes were not cast for people by people other than the actual voter.

                  If you do not allow the scrutiny to establish that these things and others did not occur, then you will justify anyone to engage in election fraud.

                  If you have half a brain you should be able to grasp how trivially easy it would be to wreak havoc on the 2022 election.

                  You ranted about PA. If Ballots can be deposited in unattended drop boxes – how do you intent to prevent someone from dropping in thousands of fraudulent forged ballots ? If signatures are not matched, if ID is not checked – how do you prevent forged ballots from being counted ? Do you think forging a ballot is hard ? Not only is the process used in PA not hard to defraud, it does not even require much resources. A single person with a few thousand dollars could easily forge hundreds of thousands of ballots without anyone else knowing and without every getting caught..

                  You ranted because the fraud convictions in 2020 in PA were not for the 2020 general election. But they were for election officials running ballots through the counters over and over and over. Thousands of times. Over more than a decade of elections.

                  The conviction makes it clear that type of fraud was easy BEFORE 2020. that it is very hard to catch. And that we can not rely on trust election officials. It makes it clear why broad Public oversight of the election process is a necesity.

                  You claim that thwarting that was within the authority of state governments. It was not. But even if it was – so what ?

                  Should the executive act to thwart the integrity of elections – just because they have the power to do so ?

                  Should exectutives turn a blind eye to those who are counting the same ballot thousands of times – because it is inside their authority to do so ?

                  Should we create the opportunity for mass election fraud just because we have the authority to do so ?

            2. “John say, those are some bold claims.”
              I do ? What bold claims ?

              I am responsible for what I write – not the nonsense in your head.

              “Trump does not actually lie?”
              As Dr. House says – “Everyone lies”.

              I have not claimed otherwise for Trump.

              Only that those like you who make FALSE claims enhance Trump’s integrity and credibility at the expense of your own.

              “There are plenty of examples.”

              Cite them.

              “Trump claimed he had a healthcare plan ready to go. He never did.”

              I would suggest reading the 2016 GOP Platform healthcare plan. Not only did this exist – based on a 37 page documment created by Speaker Ryan and House Republicans, but large parts of it were implimented.

              Though there were facets that required legislation, much of the 2016 Plan was to dismantle as much of PPACA as possible through executive action. Not only did Trump have a plan – but to a very large extent he implimented it.
              Under Trump PPACA ws nuetered as much as possible via executive action. Though an actual repeal would have been better, this was fairly effective – i.e. Things would have been worse but for Trump’s healthcare actions. As we shall see because Biden is undoing many – not all of those actions. I will note that Even Obama undid aspects of PPACA – Because it was an absymally bad law that did not work.

              Regardless, you claimed Trump lied about Healthcare. You LIED about that.

              Score -1 for you and +1 for Trump.

              We get that you do not LIKE Trump’s plan. But something does not vanish just because you do not like it.

              Finally – you make my point. You lob off moral accusations with little thought.
              You conflate your distaste for something with error or non-existence – whichever suits you at the moment.

              You are not obligated to agree with others – but you do not get to call something a lie – just because you disagree.

              Obama LIED about Healthcare – not because I disagree with what he actually did.
              But because what he said was objectively false .

            3. “Trump claimed he won the election. Again that turned out to be a lie. He obviously lost.”

              So prove that.

              “His own enablers pushed baseless claims that never held up in court.”

              We would all like it if the courts always got things right – but they quite obviously do not.

              Dred Scott, and Plessey Vs. Fergesson were the law of the land for a long time.
              Few would argue today that they were decided correctly.

              I would further note – and YOU know this, that the fraud claims were never tested by the courts.

              Until quite recently no one outside the election officials inside of various counties have had any access to ballots or voting records.

              No court had examined ballots, or voter registration databases, or lists of actual voters.
              Nor had a court allowed anyone else to do so.

              With respect to PA SCOTUS – no – reading the law broadly is NEVER right.

              If you read law broadly – rights do not exist, government powers are infinite, and it is impossible for any law to be specific.

              With respect to your specific claims – PA SCOTUS;s broad interpretation – so broad it is ludicrous means there is no way for the legisilature to as an example Specifiy that ballots must be mailed to or delivered to any specific place.

              “Courts have always had the power to interpret any word of phrase in law to determine intent and meaning with context of phrases because words can have different meanings or change meaning over time.”

              Only to a very limited extent.

              But I would note your OWN claim here – “intent” is the intent of the authors of the law – the legislature – not the executive. And the PA legislature was quite clear with ACT 77 – they were very concerned that mailin voting would result in wide spread law and the law and legislative history is CLEAR that they were allowing Mailin voting under extremely narrow conditions with the INTENT of limiting fraud.

              The legislature was so clear that they wrote the law such that it was non-severable. That if ANY provisions of the law were found invalid or otherwise changed by the court the entire law would be automatically rescinded.

              PA SCOTUS in broadly interpreting SEVERAL clauses of the law – breached the non-severability clause and invalidated the entire law.

              You do not seem to grasp that when courts go rogue – that is LAWLESSNESS.

              We only have “the rule of law” when ALL the government acts within the law.

              I would further note that YOU are arguing for originalism/textualism – that the law means what its AUTHORS intended, That the words mean what they meant when the law was written.

              I would further note you are misusing the term “interpret”.

              Courts are NOT free to read a law however they wish. It is NOT in their power to reach any conclusion they wish regarding the meaning of a law.

              They are BOUND to follow the INTENT of the authors and the meaning when the law was written.

              In that PA SCOTUS and myriads of other courts FAILED before the election.

              The responsibility for the mess that resulted falls squarely on the courts.

              The recent time article makes it clear that democrats and the left actively sought to bend the law to their advantage in the 2020 election.

              They are free to do so. Republicans are free to do the same.

              We expect COURTS to prevent that from occuring. The courts are not supposed to be a tool of partisan advantage.
              They are supposed to follow the laws AS WRITTEN. We expect litigants – democrats, republicans, etc. to all advocate for their position.
              We expect COURTS to stick to the clear meaning of the law and constitution.

              In 2020 they did not.

              1. https://twitter.com/Thomas_Drake1/status/1369801027982139396

                “Thomas Drake
                @Thomas_Drake1

                Jimmy Carter’s wake US up warning. Promotion of Trumpian Big Lie claims of voter fraud & rigged elections leads to legis-lawfare attempts to devolve democracy & evolve a disinformation nation thru suppression of voter rights & canceling of non-MAGA culture

                Quote Tweet
                Jim Sciutto
                @jimsciutto
                · Mar 9

                —>> Jimmy Carter gets to the heart of the issue on new Georgia voting restrictions: “We must not promote confidence among one segment of the electorate by restricting the participation of others. Our goal always should be to increase, not decrease, voter participation.”

                6:03 PM · Mar 10, 2021·Twitter for iPhone”

                1. We can not promote confidence in elections without having elections that we can actually have confidence in.

                  Carter is incorrect.

                  Confidence in the election must ALWAYS be the primary goal.

                  All efforts to secure and election come at a cost to convenience.

                  Elections SHOULD not be convenient.

                  Separately – the claim that making elections less convenient disenfranchiese people is BUNK.

                  We have been through this garbage with Voter ID laws. Any claim that they are biased against one segment of the electorate is BUNK.

                  Though as is always true the left spews bunk constantly.

                  The only group that is negatively impacted by the current propsed GA laws – which are little more than a return to norms, are couch potatoes.

                  That is ALWAYS the group we should want to vote the least. There is no racial or sex component to being a couch potato.
                  Couch potatos are not a protected class.

                  Pandemic or not – if you can go out to shop at Walmart – you can go out to vote.

                  1. Your problem John Say is that you bought hook, line, and sinker Trump’s lie about a stolen election which he started selling months before the actual vote. Dude, you were had, taken, sold a bill of goods and you’re just embarrassing yourself at this point.

                    1. “Your problem John Say”
                      Still engaged in mind reading.

                      I have not voted for Trump ONCE.

                      I am quite cable of thinking on my own.
                      Something you have a clear problem with.

                      I have primarly focused on the lawlessness of the election.
                      Not the Fraud – though there is plenty of evidence of Fraud.

                      Trump fixated on claims of fraud.

                      A lawless election can not be trusted, and it can not be fixed.

                      Here is a recent loss for YOU in Michigan.

                      https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/15/judge-rules-secretary-state-bensons-ballot-signature-verification-guidance-invalid/4699927001/

                      Expect more over time.
                      The courts have succeeded in evading a Trump presidency.
                      They MOSTLY have decreasing fears of Antifa/BLM riots over decisions that favor Trump,
                      and they have an obligation to correct the election process before we repeat this mess again.

                    2. While it is not possible to correct the lawless nature of 2020.

                      It is relatively easy to correct the widespread perception of fraud.

                      There are records of who voted – that are SUPPOSED to be public.
                      Verify that each person who voted was a live citzen resident eligable to vote.

                      Verify that the number of ballots counted matches closely to the number of voters who voted.

                      Verify that the count of ballots is the same as the actual votes cast.

                      Each of these is relatively easy to do.
                      None of these have been done by the govenrment anywhere yet – though maybe soon in AZ.

                      These are all things that should be done with EVERY election.

                      If there is a discrepancy betweent eh number of legitimate voters and the number of ballots – then we can look for duplicates and forged ballots.

                      We unfortunately can not fix it after the fact if large numbers of illegitimate mailin ballots were cast.

                      But we can correct countin errors and forged ballots, or the same ballots being counted multiple times.

                      Regardless, it is absolutely critical to examine the integrity of the election.

                      While most if not all of the measures such as voter ID are important – even without proof of a problem merely because they improve the perception of trust, should we find problems, those double down the justification for protecting election integrity.

                      Whether Jimmy Carter likes it or not – trust in elections is orders of magnitude more important than ease of voting.

                2. I would firther note that our goal should NOT be to increase voter participation.

                  Though the specific means matters – stable democracy exists where people CAN vote, and for the most part CHOOSE not to – because government is sufficiently limited that which side contrals government is not of consequence.

                  Those nations with high voter turnout are historically unstable.

                  High voter turnout precedes revoultions. It is not a sign of a healthy country.

                  1. “our goal should NOT be to increase voter participation.”

                    That’s your opinion.

                    It’s not a fact.

                    It has no more weight than anyone else’s opinion.

                    1. “It has no more weight than anyone else’s opinion.”

                      Anonymous the Stupid, your opinion has no weight. You provide almost no content, are not credible and you rely on lying.

                    2. “”our goal should NOT be to increase voter participation.”

                      That’s your opinion.

                      It’s not a fact.

                      It has no more weight than anyone else’s opinion.”

                      Refer to post on leftist nonsense about equality.

                      All oppinions are NOT equal. It requires very little to grasp that.

                      It is a FACT that high voter participation correlates strongly to instability.

                      Deliberately seeking instability is BAD – not good.

                      High voter participation further agrevates one of the worst attributes of democracy – Equality.

                      The easier it is to vote – the more votes you get from people who do not care much.
                      Who have no “skin in the game”.

                      Again a common problem of the left. Is the failure to understand that preferences do not have any meaning unless they have a cost.
                      This is why markets work and democracy does not.

            4. “You make a lot of claims without proof or examples.”

              I do not, Further I do not owe you proof or examples.

              You seem to think that everything is equal.

              That all oppinions are equal.

              That all arguments are equal.

              That all claims are equal.

              They are not.

              That is why we look to data,
              And why some people have more credibility than others.
              Why some have more integrity than others.

              You are free to make any claim you wish – without proof or example.

              If you prove correct, your credibility improves. If wrong it declines.

              You have a long way to go, to make claims without backing them up.

              I do not.

              That is a consequence of our past records.

              That is life.

              You can do better in the future.

                  1. Anonymous is once again striking out against his betters and name calling.

                    Anonymous, you are the blowhard, not John

                  2. Please cite a factual claim I have been incorrect about ?

                    Insult is not argument.

                    I do not care what your oppinion is of me.

                    Why would I care about someone without the courage to even put a pen name to their posts ?

                    Regardless, I care about the truth, those are found through Facts,. logic and reason.

                    1. All one has to do to prove the “blowhard” claim is read the many comments that John Say has posted to this one article.

                      “I do not care what your oppinion is of me.” [sic]

                      Likewise, pal.

                    2. If anyone ever wants to know what garbage sounds like, listen to Anonymous the Stupid above.

                    3. Typical leftist nonsense.

                      It is a ludicrously stupid fallacy to argue that the volume of responses is proof of error.

                    4. “Anonymous says:March 18, 2021 at 2:39 PM
                      All one has to do to prove the “blowhard” claim is read the many comments that John Say has posted to this one article.”

                      And the same applies to S. Meyer — also Anon @ 4:40.

                    5. Look above. What do you see? A person demonstrating no intelligence what so ever. You guess it. That Stupidity comes from Anonymous the Stupid.

                    6. Please – encourage people to read my posts, S. Meyer’s, even yours and judge for themselves.

                      I have no worry that those who are not already in the tank leftists will grasp your errors.

        2. “he cannot know what Trump will be asked”

          Yes, he can.

          But apparently that’s an intellectual bridge too far for someone with your limited intellect.

          Perhaps you and EB can form a think tank inside of an empty can of Spam?

            1. Another Stupid comment by Anonymous the Stupid. Anonymous the Stupid is famous for his name and how he acts.

  6. Swalwell is clearly dumber than he looks if he thought a beautiful woman like Fang Fang could ever be interested in him.
    Nothing he does surprises me.

    1. Yup, she was interested in his position within the US government. I would imagine there was a lot of snickering behind his back among her and her spy friends.

    1. The suit was filed against Trump, Trump Jr., Mo Brooks, and Giuliani.

      What’s amusing is that you fancy that makes it better and not worse.

      1. What’s amusing is that you pretend to be a mind reader, when you clearly aren’t one.

      2. ATS: ” This time, he hasn’t even bothered to list all of the defendants.”

        Turley: “Swalwell’s 64-page complaint against Trump — along with son Donald Jr., Rudy Giuliani, and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.)”

        I wonder if ATS is capable of thinking before he writes?

  7. The political Left, its media cronies, and FBI intelligence, routinely make dire predictions of violence whenever right-wing sorts gather, and these predictions routinely fail to materialize. It seems increasingly as if the real reason for the breach of the Capitol is that on this rare occasion, they were actually true, and police were not prepared for such warnings being accurate.

    1. Yes, the Tea Party was a bunch of terrorists who picked up litter when they left leaving the place cleaner than when they arrived. But BLM and Antifa…Just decent little fascist Brown Shirts who leave smoking ruins in their wake.

  8. You might consider creating a link to MeWe for posts in addition to those now available.

  9. His great grandpa came over with the name Swallill. He had a disease and changed the name to protect the innocent.

  10. The claim that “if not for Trump’s speech , the riots would not happen” does not mean that Trump’s speech was a sufficient condition for the riot and does not mean that Trump’s speech caused the riot. This fallacy came up all the time in basic logic classes I taught. There is a logical move from “Not T implies Not R” to “R implies T” (Logical Transposition), but you cannot logically conclude that “T implies R”
    Even the stupidest judge should be able to handle the easy counter examples to this fallacy: ” If Joe hadn’t called me a moron , I would not have shot him, Therefore Joe caused my shooting him.” It may be the reason I shot him but, as we all know, reasons are not deterministic causes in free human beings and blame for behavior does not necessarily attach to reasons.

    1. That’s assuming that a judge hearing this case would based their decisions intelligently, using logic and reason and would pursue the truth impartially, and not succumb to fear and political pressure. But as we’ve seen with the decisions to not hear the substantiated allegations of election fraud in the 2020 election, political pressure from the Left (amplified by the media) is unfortunately a factor in court rulings that might serve to vindicate former President Trump.

    2. You are correct about everything EXCEPT “Even the stupidest judge”.

      Whatever you think of Roger Stone – he should not have been tried much less convicted.

      The case against him was far weaker logically – it was litterally an impossibility.

      Yet a Biased Judge and a partisan Jury convicted.

      The Hunter Biden case is only distinguishable from the Manafort case in that Hunter’s conduct is even more egregious – yet Biden will not likely face a jury and would not be convicted if he was, While Manafort was easily convicted.

      The Flynn case is an absolute Travesty – we now find that it Started with Lies to the FBI by Stephan Halper – no one has prosecuted those. Flynn never should have been sharged. Those involved in prosecuting him should be disbarred for highly unethical conduct.
      Sullivan should have dissmissed the case early on.

      Conversely KlineSmith should have had the book thrown at him. He fabricated evidence. Litterally transforming exculpatory evidence into inculpatory evidence. The consequences of his actions are egregious and were predictable. It would have been a massive failure of the FISA court to grant a warrant to spy on a person who the government KNEW was spying FOR the US on Russia.
      Every bit of the information in the warrant would have meant ssomething entirely different starting with the assumption that Page was a US agent.

      One of Comey’s arguments for not proceding against Hillary was that he could not get a conviction.

      In the DC/Maryland/Birginia area that is true. But conviction would be easy in those parts of the country were logic is not poisoned by politics.

      The FACT is that leftism drives out logical and critical thinking.

      The Left makes hay of the court election decsions against Trump.
      But the fact that there was no real hearing on the merits is a failure of the courts.

      There was clearly significant Fraud. Just in the past few weeks there have been significant election fraud court decsions or convictions.
      Where cases have been persued.

      In one county in NH every single Democratic candidate received a 300 vote advantage – From Domminion Systems.
      In Antrim County Michigan vote tallies were off by 6500 votes – that was a 44% counting Error.

      Accross the country – and every single key city, thousands of ballots have been shredded post election.
      We still do not have vote tallies that actually add up in swing states.
      In Mississippi there was 79% fraud in absentee ballots and a judge has thrown out the election.

      In GA there is an investigation of the Warnock and the Abrams organization for voter Fraud – including forged ballots and registrations.

      And there is a major case involving Fulton county that will eventually go forward.

      Prior to the Election in PA multiple Philadelphia Election officials plead guilty to election fraud in a prior election – feeding the same ballots into voting machines over and over while no one was watching.

      In TX there are several cases of large scale Ballot fraud being prosecuted.

      In NJ There is a criminal investigation of two winning candidates from the 2020 democratic primary.

      The courts failed in the 2020 election. But their primary failure was BEFORE the election.
      It was a failure to stop the lawlessness BEFORE it occured.

      Expecting that courts were going to do so after lawlessness they were complicit in was wishful thinking.

      1. John say,

        “ In TX there are several cases of large scale Ballot fraud being prosecuted.”

        Which cases were those specifically?

        “ Prior to the Election in PA multiple Philadelphia Election officials plead guilty to election fraud in a prior election – feeding the same ballots into voting machines over and over while no one was watching.”

        That’s incorrect. It was only one official. Not multiple officials.

        This was back in 2014, 15, 16, during primaries.

        “ U.S. Attorney William M. McSwain Announces Charges and Guilty Plea of Former Philadelphia Judge of Elections Who Committed Election Fraud”

        https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr/us-attorney-william-m-mcswain-announces-charges-and-guilty-plea-former-philadelphia

        Let’s keep in mind that this was an election official a democrat no less. Not a voter which is what most election fraud measures by republicans are targeted for. Not officials. That is an important distinction.

        1. Why is it everyone elses job to inform you ?

          Are you saying that you are not going to beleive anything that is not reported in NYT ?

          The FACTS are that election fraud is relatively common place – more than sufficient to change the results in close elections.

          That was TRUE even before Advent of mailin voting which is far easier to engage in election fraud and far harder to catch.

          If there was not massive election fraud in 2020 – there will be soon enough if we continue with mailin voting.

          There is no means that mailin voting can ever be secure against fraud.

          There is no means to prevent large scale fraud when Ballots are out of control of election officials.

          We have plenty of experience with large scale election fraud from the 19th century.

          Those on the left pretending that with the oportunity election fraud will not occur are engaged in magical thinking.

          The most fundimental means of limiting election fraud – particularly large scale fraud, is to assure that those who engage in it WILL get caught.

          That requires reducing the number of people who are able to handle ballots unsupervised.
          That requires audit trails and third party audits.
          That requires transparency and public scrutiny of the process.
          That requires meaningful court intervention when fraud is suspected.
          That requires voter ID.

          You fixated on the Philadelphia cases.
          Erroneously claiming I identified them as Nov. 2020 election fraud.

          The Left claims that fraud is rare and small.
          The fraud prosecuted in Philadelphia was substantial and had been going on for many years.

          It was possibly the worst form of fraud – fraud by election judges.

          No Republicans are NOT limiting their claims to election fraud by voters.

          1. John say, when you make the claims without citing any pertinent information it is YOUR responsibility to provide the source.

            You never mentioned the NYT, or which election you were referring to. Making ambiguous claims leaves one without all the information required to further delve into the substance of your claim. The burden of proof remains on the person making the claims.

            Your diatribe on election fraud is still devoid of any proof. It’s the same recurring problem republicans and those making similar claims keep having. Substantive verifiable proof.

            1. “John say, when you make the claims without citing any pertinent information it is YOUR responsibility to provide the source.”
              Incorrect.

              I have not made false claims. When I have made errors, I have corrected them.
              You have the ability to check any claims or arguments I make.
              If you identify actual errors and are correct I will correct my claims.

              I have no obligation at all to provide sources for my claims.

              BTW a claim is true of false based on FACTS, not sources.

              WaPo reported that Trump directed GA election officials to “Find the Fraud” and that they would be “national heros” if they did.
              That story then ran in most of the media – there are hundreds of sources.
              Yesterday WaPo ceded that the story was FALSE – that Trump never said either of those things.

              An infinite number of sources does not make a false claim true or a true claim false.

              But sources do have value. Their value is to increase the credibility of a factual assertion.

              That increase in credibility is a requirement for those who have a track record of error.
              It is not for those who have a track record of credibility, trust and intergrity.

              I have that. Until I destroy that track record I am not obligated to provide you or anyone else sources.
              I do so at my own discretion.

              Conversely you and many others who have bought and sold the collusion delusion and myriads of other false narratives and lies
              You have no credibility, no trust and no intergrity.

              If you expect to be beleived – you must provide sources.

              You seem to beleive we are equal, and that our obligations are equal.

              They are not. We MIGHT have started that way. But you burn your credibility and integrity every day with false and stupid claims.
              Which you never correct.

              I do not. I check things before I post, and I correct mistakes when i am actually wrong.
              You don’t

              My obligations and burdens are not the same as yours.

              The same is true in myriads of other areas.

              I have a long record of reliable fiscla conduct – therefore I have a very high credit rating and the ability to borrow enormous amounts of money should I wish to.

              I am not attacking your credit – I do not know your track record. But I do know that your credit is based on that track record. If you have good credit – it is because your conduct earned it. If you have poor credit you earned that.

              You are not entitled to good credit, you have to earn it.

              The same is true of credibility, Trust and integrity.

              Be careful in what claims you make – avoid errors, and correct them when you make them – and you will be trusted – atleast by those who are capable of good judgement. Fail to do so – and you will not be trusted.

              I do not trust you – with good reason. If you expect me to beleive you – you must provide credible sources.

              You can decide not to trust me without sources – that is your business – I do not care.
              I am actually credible, because I have earned that, and your demands otherwise are irrelevant.

              You have not earned that.

              “You never mentioned the NYT, or which election you were referring to.”
              So ? My statements as I made them are correct.

              “Making ambiguous claims leaves one without all the information required to further delve into the substance of your claim.”
              Every claim I have made has more than sufficient information to “delve into further”. We live in the internet era.

              I probably do 4-5 searches to confirm claims for every post I make.
              I may do several dozen for a long post.

              I may do several dozen to check your claims.

              “The burden of proof remains on the person making the claims.”
              False.

              The burden of proof is only absolutely vested in the author of claims of moral failure.

              The standard for all other claims is ones reputation.

              My wife went to a car dealership to buy a car. They dropped 50-60 pages of paperwork on her. Then they did a credit check.
              They came back picked up all the papers and told her she could leave with any car on the lot – on her signature merely by providing ID that she was who she said she was.

              That is what a record for good financial conduct means.
              The same is true regarding factual claims.

              Only those with no reputation or a bad reputation making implausible claims are required to provide sources.
              That would be you.

              “Your diatribe on election fraud is still devoid of any proof.”
              I have provided you with more than enough to check every single claim I have made.

              “It’s the same recurring problem republicans and those making similar claims keep having. Substantive verifiable proof.”

              Your remark above is a perfect reflection of your own problem.

              First the Burden with respect to Government actions is ALWAYS on government – and it is especially so with elections.

              Government acts by force to limit freedom – ALWAYS. Everything that government may legitimately do requires force and comes at the expense of individual liberty. Government is obligates 100% of the time to justify the use of force and the infringement on liberty.

              The rest of us are NOT obligated to proof action by government is unjustified. The burden is ALWAYS on government.
              Just as the burden for ALL uses of force is ALWAYS on those using it to justify that use of force.

              With respect to elections the burden of proving that the election result is lawful and legitimate is ALWAYS on those conducting the election.
              They are not EVER automatically entitled to our trust. They are especially not when they are the beneficiaries of specific outcomes.

              Republican election officials should never automatically be trusted when they benefit from results.
              Democrats should never be trusted when they benefit.

              This is why election transparency is ALWAYS critical, Why conducting elections according to the law is so critical.

              When you game the law – you destroy trust.

              Fundimentally elections are about Trust. And that is why the failure to properly scrutinize this election is so damning.

              Most of what those challenging the 2020 election demand should ALWAYS happen. It has nothing to do with Trump.

              Elections should ALWAYS be conducted according to the law.
              Elections should ALWAYS be subject to end to end public scrutiny and challenges – transparency.
              Elections should ALWAYS be subject to post election audits.
              Post election ordinary people should ALWAYS have access to the records and information necescary to confirm that all aspects of that election were conducted lawfully and properly.

              I would note ALL of this is the responsibility and burden of GOVERNMENT – not those challenging the election.

              Our election officials failed in 2020. As did our courts. Your evidence that the results are to be trusted are a major part of why they should not.

              We should not need courts to know that elections followed the law, that they were transparent, those things MUST be done ALWAYS.

              Further anyone who provided an affadavit aleging election fraud should ALWAYS trigger a thorough investigation.
              All fraud should be exposed publicly and where prosecutable it should be prosecuted.
              All fraudulent affadavits should also be prosecuted.

              These are all requirements for trustworthy elections.

              Every single reason the courts used to avoid investigation and inquiry into the 2020 election has been obviously bogus.

              Candidate Trump is not entitled to a fair and lawful election – VOTERS ARE, and it is a public duty of the courts to asure that if it does not occur otherwise.

              Government is NOT entitled to be beleived regarding claims about an election. ‘
              Every single thing I said about earning trust – only applies to individuals – NOT government.

              “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,”

              Consent is given by citizens – voting and elections are ONE means of measuring that consent.
              As are protests, election challenges, and even armed insurections.

              The obligation to secure consent falls ALWAYS to government. Granting consent – or withdrawing it is ALWAYS the perogative of citizens.
              While we are mostly obligated to abide by the results of demonstrably lawful and legitimate elections – until the next election, We are not obligated to give our consent to government just because there was an election. We may legitimately withdraw consent at any time from a government that is not the result of a demonstrable lawful and legitimate election.

              While the left’s narratives regarding the events of Jan 6 are notoriously bogus.

              The fact is the 2020 election was a failure. Had there been an actual armed insurection to thwart congressional certification – that would have been justifiable.

              Government did NOT conduct a lawful election. Further it did NOT conduct a transparent and trustworthy election.

              The results of the election should not have been cretified – not be states, not be the federal government, util the burden of proof of lawful and legitimate was met and accepted by a super majority of americans.

              We are not free to reject and election because we do not like the results.

              We are free to do so if govenrment has not compellingly demonstrated to nearly all that the election was lawful and legitimate.
              2020 was not.

              The claim of Russian collusion was a stupid but damaging claim effecting the legitimacy of Trump’s election.
              Uktimately it was thoroighly debunked.

              Biden will not and can not get the same outcome. Democrats have fought inquiry and trransparency tooth and nail.
              That comes at a price – lack of legitimacy.

      2. John say, Roger stone’s case was actually valid. Stone has only himself to blame for violating the judge’s orders and flaunting them.

        Furthermore he was caught threatening a witness which only made things worse for himself.

        Flaunting a judge’s orders even if he/she was biased as you claim without proof, is still an offense punishable at the judge’s discretion.

        1. “John say, Roger stone’s case was actually valid. Stone has only himself to blame for violating the judge’s orders and flaunting them.”

          False – A judge has power over the outside speech of attorney’s in a case.

          Any effort to constrain the speech of non-attorney’s in a case is a violation of the first amendment.

          All you are is demonstrating the lawlessness of the courts and this proceeding in specific.

          “Furthermore he was caught threatening a witness which only made things worse for himself.”

          You are clearly unfamiliar with the actual facts. The purported “threat” was made years earlier – not during the case.
          It was a joke – Stone and Credico traded nixon and godfather jokes in their exchanges all the time.
          Credico TESTIFIED that it was a joke.

          Further you can not threaten a witness when there is no underlying crime.

          “Flaunting a judge’s orders even if he/she was biased as you claim without proof, is still an offense punishable at the judge’s discretion.”

          Actually no.

          It is not wise to antagonize judges. But they have no unilateral power to punish conduct outside the courtroom of anyone other than officers of the court. And certainly not speech.

          Doing so would violate the 6th amendment.

          You seem to be under the delusion that once an accusation is made that all your rights are lost.

    3. RD, the assumption is that Trump’s speech alone incited the mob. That’s not actually the whole story. Trump spent weeks pushing the rhetoric that the election was stolen. He literally tweeted that there would be “a big surprise” on that date. He literally told his followers to “be there” for his speech. He set it up long before his speech. After riling up his supporters with lies about the election being stolen and claiming he did indeed win for weeks he already had the crowd primed to go.

      Even his own supporters DURING the riots told the media they BELIEVED trump told them to do what they did.

      Trump’s speech along with every speaker at the rally was the match that lit the tinder box he created for weeks.

        1. S. Meyer, if you actually understood what substance and context are you wouldn’t be so ignorant in posting your assumptions. Clearly willful ignorance is your preference.

            1. Anonymous SM, aka, S. Meyer, insults are the last resort of those who can’t make a valid argument.

              Ignorance truly is your best virtue.

              1. After a post that lacked fact and proof one takes note of what Svelaz said: “Anonymous SM, aka, S. Meyer, insults are the last resort of those who can’t make a valid argument. Ignorance truly is your best virtue.”

                To which I appropriately responded: “Nice to watch you show everyone else how dumb you truly are”

                Then you complain. The fact is that since day 1 lack of knowledge has led you to display pure ignorance from which you draw your conclusions. That should have told you to keep your mouth closed. You didn’t. Instead you let the whole world know you had nothing upstairs.

                SM

                1. Maybe SMeyer/Allan/AnonSM should explain the rationale for his noxious behavior to Jonathan Turley.

                  1. “Maybe SMeyer/Allan/AnonSM should explain the rationale for his noxious behavior to Jonathan Turley.”

                    Anonymous the Stupid, no such behavior exists. You lied. I so happen to be fond of Turley like I am of Alan Dershowitz despite the fact that i disagree with their politics.

                    You are a simpleton so I do not worry too much about what you say because everyone of import recognizes the fact you are not a credible source.

                  2. The Alternative, Anonymous the Stupid, is to stop being Stupid. It is bad enough that you whine, cry and lie. Stop being Stupid.

      1. Incitement has a specific legal meaning.

        Trump’s speech is not within 1000 miles of that meaning.

        Trump could be impeached for “incitement” – because there is no factual or legal constraints on impeachment.

        But outside the context of impeachment – words have actual meaning.

        Please read Brandenburg v. Ohio

  11. The Congressman should remember this sage advice: “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” Perhaps, however, that train has left the station

  12. Is this law suit just a distraction from the honey trap Swalwell fell into? Trump maybe can’t get out of the way of his own mouth but Swalwell is just smarmy and doesn’t seem to be very smart.

  13. Swalwall is a Court Jester – Nancy Pelosi fooooool- how anyone could take him seriously or even elect home to Congress is amazing but what are dealing with another San Fran fool for a politician. One who slept and hired a Chinese Spy?? But Rump does this to the Left make them act nutty, foolish, stupid and etc. Eric has Trump syndrome – For the next 4 years the DEM’s the MSM and etc. will be talking about Trump, Trump lives in their heads.

    1. Sorry for the spelling errors in my post home should read him and Rump should say Trump – my computer sometimes likes tothink for me when typing and causes errors. But Swalwall is a Nut Case and this is not a mistype

  14. “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” – Alexander Pope
    “Enter Swalwell, who has long exhibited a willingness to rush in where wiser Democrats fear to tread, with what may be his costliest misstep yet.” – Jonathan Turley

  15. As a preliminary matter, in the District of Columbia, negligent infliction of emotional distress requires a special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant whereby the defendant has a duty to look out for the emotional well-being of the plaintiff, like a doctor-patient relationship. Lots of luck proving Trump had a duty to look out for the emotional well-being of Swalwall. Then, too, if Swalwell nevertheless prevails in his negligence claim he has, ipso facto, disproven that Trump intentionally, thereby proving lack of criminal intent.

Leave a Reply