Chopped: Will Seattle Officials Now Claim Immunity From Lawsuits After Opposing Such Defenses For Police Officers?

Below is my column in The Hill on the new lawsuit against Seattle for its allowing the establishment of an autonomous zone within the city called CHOP.  According to the compliant, what Mayor Jenny Durkan called “a summer of love” proved instead to be a month of mayhem resulting in deaths, robberies and sexual assaults. Now the city may be relying an immunity defense despite leaders opposing such defenses for individual police officers.

Here is the column:

A year ago, Seattle was in the midst of what its mayor, Jenny Durkan, called a “summer of love” with the establishment of an “autonomous zone” called “Capitol Hill Occupied Protest,” or “CHOP.” Rioters took over a police station and were allowed to occupy an entire section of the city. At the time, I wrote that if someone sued over the resulting mayhem, Durkan and Seattle could find themselves clinging to the very legal doctrine they denounced in police brutality cases: immunity.

That has now happened with a number of state and federal lawsuits. In the latest, a suit by the mother of a young man killed during the reign of CHOP, the city is likely to argue that it has immunity for its discretionary decision-making, including abandoning parts of the city to a mob.

Donnitta Sinclair lost her son, Horace Lorenzo Anderson, across from Cal Anderson Park, which was a focus of the mob’s “re-imagining” government. City officials did nothing as the park and surrounding area became rife with crime and drugs. On June 20, Anderson, who had graduated the day before from an alternative youth-education program, was allegedly gunned down by Marcel Long, 18, after an altercation.

Due to the autonomy granted to CHOP by Durkan and the city, emergency treatment for Anderson was delayed since medical crews were treated as “foreign” in the occupied zone. Eventually, the dying Anderson was placed in a private vehicle to try to get him out of CHOP. Sinclair’s suit alleges that a “Medic One ambulance was about a block and a half away from where Anderson lay bleeding” and its crew repeatedly radioed for permission to enter the autonomous zone. When police and medical teams tried to gain entrance, they reported being met by protesters asserting their sovereign rights.

The violence in CHOP continued. A little over a week later in another shooting, a 16-year-old boy was killed, and a 14-year-old was seriously wounded. Crimes in CHOP included homicides, shootings, robberies and sexual assaults — as city officials watched and did nothing.

While first celebrated in the media as a fun “block party” with colorful art and gathering places like the “No Cop Café,” the truth about CHOP soon became clear and less popular. Durkan then belatedly ordered the police to restore control of the area.

For police officers, the city’s defense may seem as familiar as it is frustrating. This is the flip side to lethal-force cases such as last month’s shooting of Ma’Khia Bryant, 16, in Columbus, Ohio, in which Officer Nicholas Reardon used lethal force to stop the stabbing of another girl. In the case of CHOP, Durkan and other Seattle officials decided not to act despite deaths, sexual assaults and other crimes. They will now argue that their inaction was a well-intended but admittedly unsuccessful attempt at de-escalation.

The difference, however, is that they made their decision over weeks, as victims mounted — while, in Columbus, Officer Reardon literally had seconds to decide.

As Seattle council members and Durkan were praising CHOP, there also were calls by council members to defund the police, to fire white officers, and to repeal the immunity doctrine protecting police officers. Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Seattle City Council President Lorena González, council members Teresa Mosqueda, Tammy Morales and Kshama Sawant, and other elected officials in the state all called for an end to the immunity defense for police officers.

They are not alone. New York City’s council voted to end the practice, and President Biden is pushing for the U.S. Senate to enact the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which includes the elimination of qualified immunity for police officers.

The immunity doctrine protects government officials from lawsuits over their discretionary decisions and actions. In 1982, in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court ruled that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

How “established” is abandoning a whole section of a city to mob rule as a social experiment? A similar question could face a court if, as expected, Seattle claims it cannot be sued over deaths caused by Durkan’s decision to abandon the CHOP area.

Fortunately for Durkan, no leader previously has been so open in ceding territory to a mob. And no one had reason to state the obvious — that the first obligation of a government is to actually govern.

Some past “sovereign immunity” cases turn on the “public duty doctrine” that shields government from liability when it refuses to act to enforce laws. This applies not just figuratively but literally to citizens held hostage due to the inaction of public officials. In 1855, the Supreme Court ruled in South v. Maryland that a sheriff was not liable after allowing a gang to hold a man hostage over unpaid money; the court held that the sheriff owed his duty to the public rather than to individual citizens.

While sovereign immunity claims and “public duty” defenses have been curtailed in some states, there remain ample protections for governments and government officials in carrying out discretionary duties. Even without immunity, the standard of negligence affords protection for officials in not just “re-imagining policing” but in re-imagining governing.

Then again, we have never encountered the likes of CHOP, or a city that wanted to imagine itself out of existence. This was not just some hostage-taking that lasted a few hours but a weeks-long self-proclaimed, government-recognized occupation by a mob. Trapped within that ceded zone were some citizens who labored under the quaint notion that the government is required to afford them basic protections and not choose between them and a popular mob.

If Seattle gets chopped in court, it will be due not to a failure of government but to a failure to govern.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

129 thoughts on “Chopped: Will Seattle Officials Now Claim Immunity From Lawsuits After Opposing Such Defenses For Police Officers?”

  1. A sixteen year old boy was shot in the chop zone and commenters here tell us that there was murder happening there before so no big deal. They conveniently leave out the part where the ambulance was blocked from getting to the boy by the chop leaders. If the ambulance could have gotten to him he might be alive today. We have commenters hear who tell us about how important George Floyd’s life was but they couldn’t care less about the life of a sixteen year old black kid. They use every excuse under the sun to justify the mostly peaceful protest that murdered, set fires, raped and destroyed the lives of the business owners. While looking for a small amount of compassion for those made victims through no fault of their own we only find many here stuck in their everyday groove of excuses. They could care less as long as it wasn’t their son who was bleeding out waiting for an ambulance that never came. They have no imagination for his or his mother’s pain.

    1. Thinkitthrough, there’s more to the story than Turley states. They weren’t blocked by the protesters or those on the zone.

      “ The statement published Sunday explains why fire department units did not enter the zone, saying “our crews do not have training to go into a volatile situation to extract patients, which is why we have instructed people to walk or bring the patients to the perimeter of the crowd or transport in a private vehicle to the hospital to expedite medical treatment.”

      https://www.firerescue1.com/firefighter-safety/articles/seattle-fd-issues-statement-on-shooting-at-protest-zone-NOwXxzK5EiZmJZDT/

      Then this happened,

      “ After Monday’s shooting, a protester told the Seattle Times he tried to drive one of the victims out of the zone to an ambulance, but that the rig drove away from him, leading several protesters to chase the ambulance on foot to its staging location.

      Seattle Fire Department Spokesperson Kristin Tinley said in an email to the Times that two ambulances had been en route to the staging location when they saw the vehicle “driving erratically towards them with someone riding on top of the vehicle.

      Tinley said the crew perceived vehicle “as a threat” and did not know that the patient was in the vehicle, and added that the area had not yet been secured by police. The ambulances continued to their staging location where crews were ultimately able to begin treating the victim. ”

      “ The department also explained that its safety policies preclude personnel from responding within the zone without a police escort.”

      https://www.ems1.com/safety/articles/seattle-fd-explains-ambulance-retreat-after-2nd-fatal-protest-zone-shooting-cgItpByqZOwLVHGS/

    2. Thinkitthrough, this is what Turley said,

      “ Eventually, the dying Anderson was placed in a private vehicle to try to get him out of CHOP. Sinclair’s suit alleges that a “Medic One ambulance was about a block and a half away from where Anderson lay bleeding” and its crew repeatedly radioed for permission to enter the autonomous zone. When police and medical teams tried to gain entrance, they reported being met by protesters asserting their sovereign rights.”

      Turley LIED. The ambulance wasn’t met by protesters asserting their sovereign rights. They were trying to take the victim TO the ambulance which it saw as a group of people chasing it away.

      Ambulances were allowed in, what stopped them was a policy the fire department had about not being trained to enter in such situations.

      Turley claims an ambulance would have been treated as “foreign” without any proof of fact. I just posted the actual incident and how it played out. Turley is being a little too liberal with the facts here.

  2. OT: REVEALED: Chauvin juror who promised judge impartiality now says people should join juries ‘to spark some change’, wore BLM shirt in 2020

    A juror on the Derek Chauvin trial who told the court that he had no prior knowledge of the George Floyd civil case was photographed last August wearing a shirt that read “Get your knee off our necks” and “BLM.” He stated last week that he saw jury duty as a means to “spark some change.”

    https://thepostmillennial.com/chauvin-trial-juror-spark-some-change

  3. “Then again, we have never encountered the likes of CHOP, or a city that wanted to imagine itself out of existence. This was not just some hostage-taking that lasted a few hours but a weeks-long self-proclaimed, government-recognized occupation by a mob. Trapped within that ceded zone were some citizens who labored under the quaint notion that the government is required to afford them basic protections and not choose between them and a popular mob.”
    ********************************************************
    Lest anyone ever doubt the sagacity of Thomas Hobbes, you can read his prediction of the state of nature known as CHOP in 1651: “Where there is no common power, there is no law” … “Life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

  4. OT:

    “Oregon GOP Rep. Mike Nearman has just been charged with two crimes after video shows him leaving his seat in the middle of an emergency closed-door session on covid relief in Dec. to let insurrectionists into the building. He then went back in at a different entrance.”

    video of him letting insurrectionists into the Oregon Capitol in December –
    https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1388819542990852099

    1. Good for Oregon for pushing through with that arrest. I can just hear the guy now…, ‘oh i didn’t know they weren’t the caterers’ or something like that. Once again, actual footage cuts through the denial.

      EB

  5. Two reforms governors, mayors, police chiefs, police unions and taxpayers might support is INCREASING funding for “constitutional practices” (constitutionality as determined by the Judicial Branch courts) and defunding unconstitutional practices. Congress, state legislatures and town councils could do this today. Rank & file officers take orders from superiors. If those orders are “unconstitutional” the low level officer is placed at legal risk of lawsuits, jail time or other penalties. If lower level officers refuse illegal orders that lose their livelihood and ability to pay rent or a mortgage. Why should they be placed in that situation to begin with?

    A 2nd reform would be requiring a police department to have a minimal revenue stream (not based on tickets and fines) to deter policing-for-profit. Without firing any officers, the tiny police departments would become part of a larger police department (state police or next largest city). The “Ferguson Report” published by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2014 (available online to anyone) lists “lack of revenue” as a major reason some smaller police departments prey on their own fellow citizens using excessive fines and other gimmicks to raise cash. The First reform would help this problem also.

    1. Mespo, there is no hypocrisy. Turley is being disingenuous with his portrayal of what happened inside the zone. It was no different than before it was created. Notice how Turley doesn’t offer a comparison of before CHOP or CHAZ was created. Seattle experienced 34 homicides in 2018. The violence was still there even with police.

      1. Sorry, but as you know, those are facts and they will not listen to facts or the truth. but thanks for trying.

        1. Fact is they are shielding themselves with the same law they seek to deny to cops, the differences in CHOP notwithstanding. Textbook hypocrisy.

          1. Mespo, it’s not hypocrisy. Police officers who violate people’s constitutional rights are not protected by qualified immunity. City officials didn’t violate anyone’s constitutional rights. Nobody has a constitutional right to be protected by the police or have an ambulance take you to the hospital if you’re hurt.

            Police officers abuse their privilege of qualified immunity far more than government officials such as council members and legislators. There’s a distinction. Even the Supreme Court is not opposed to reviewing qualified immunity for police officers.

            https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5275816002

      2. anarchy is what happened inside the chop and it shows that anarchy is barbarism

        anarchy should be crushed and eradicated with law and order, for the good of society

            1. Fish, of course it is hilarious to you. You don’t have the slightest idea what these words mean.

              SM

              1. I don’t understand your specific kind of crazy but I do admire your total commitment to it.

                1. Understanding is your problem. Crazy is what the insane call the staff that watches over them.

                  SM

  6. As I understand it qualified immunity was created to specifically protect government officials; deny the police, deny officials, imo. We’ve also created an environment where not only can a perp sue the police but the police, likewise, can sue the perp. And they should: Every time there is injury associated with arrest, 4th Amendment search and seizure, the police should sue, definitely. And then the public should sue the perp for their costs and injury.

  7. Hard to tell which blatant falsehood to begin with, JT. Let’s start with this one…

    “Crimes in CHOP included homicides, shootings, robberies and sexual assaults — as city officials watched and did nothing.”

    And unfortunately it’s your thematic for the whole article. Curious if you’d let one of your students pull off that level of disingenuousness and lazy rhetorical nonsense in your class before sending them back to try again. Or would you say something along the lines of ‘build a base for that shaky rhetoric with even more shaky rhetoric it’s all good!’

    And here: “Then again, we have never encountered the likes of CHOP, or a city that wanted to imagine itself out of existence. This was not just some hostage-taking that lasted a few hours but a weeks-long self-proclaimed, government-recognized occupation by a mob. Trapped within that ceded zone were some citizens who labored under the quaint notion that the government is required to afford them basic protections and not choose between them and a popular mob.”…

    Seatle treated the protests like Occupy Wall Street, which not only happened previously, but happened just a relative handful of years before. And since I look at the organizing principle of most of your blog posts as being deflections from other, bigger stories that your employer at Fox doesn’t want in the news, this ‘look squirel!’ venture channels away from Januarye 6th and the convictions that are beginning to roll in from that little party.

    Carry on then. It’s funny on some level that you’ve seen fit to stoop to this. Really sad another.

    EB

    1. Turley seems to conflate qualified immunity with the immunity doctrine. Both apply differently to each group.

      Qualified immunity for police officers allowed them to abuse the privilage. The immunity doctrine hasn’t been abused by city officials.

      They didn’t violate people’s constitutional rights, people were free to come and go from the zone. Nobody was held against their will or were “trapped”.

      Those who were killed were there by their own choice. They knew the consequences of being there. Unfortunately some ended up paying a price for that choice.

      It’s funny how this CHOP zone is being portrayed as a lawless zone with overly exaggerated depictions of what went on in there. What Turley doesn’t mention is that the violence and sexual assaults are not new in that area. It’s a popular night life section of the city and prior to CHOP these things still occurred.

      Vox gives a better insight on what happened inside the zone

      “ At the same time, McCartney said, there’s a rift between people who have lived in the area for a while and the tech workers who have moved in recently. “I feel a lot of the current ‘it’s not safe’ stuff comes from either people who aren’t living in the neighborhood itself or from affluent new arrivals, or from business owners.”

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2020/7/2/21310109/chop-chaz-cleared-violence-explained

      1. “Turley seems to conflate qualified immunity with the immunity doctrine. Both apply differently to each group.”

        Svelaz, define “The immunity doctrine” and “Qualified immunity” and then tell us how you relate the two. Tell us how Turley conflated “qualified immunity with the immunity doctrine” and provide his quote.

        SM

        1. Anonymous, you’re correct. I was wrong. Both phrasings are about qualified immunity.

          HOWEVER, Turley’s depiction of government officials relying on it against lawsuits is a false equivalency. Seattle city officials didn’t deprive people of their constitutional rights by grafting the zone. Nobody has a constitutional right to police protections. That’s why we have the 2nd amendment, right? So you can defend yourself.

          Furthermore Turley’s use of violence in the zone as being caused by the lack of police is not only a gross misrepresentation it is a disingenuous attempt to paint the experiment as the reason. Seattle experienced a record number of homicides in 2020 and the majority happened outside that zone where police were available. Sexual assaults were recorded all over the city and it was not more prominent in the CHOP zone.

          https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattlepi.com/local/seattlenews/amp/2020-crime-Seattle-highest-homicide-rate-15864266.php

          1. “Anonymous, you’re correct. I was wrong.”

            But now you add, “Seattle city officials didn’t deprive people of their constitutional rights by grafting the zone.”

            You didn’t bother to state which constitution you were talking about and I think this statement is wrong as well since there is generally a stated duty to protect the public. By not protecting the pubic and permitting an illegal entity to take over the enforcement of the law likely was an abrogation of duty. The man dying in the street was denied the services of legitimate police officers and emergency rescue services because of the city’s abrogation of its duties.

            “That’s why we have the 2nd amendment, right? So you can defend yourself.”

            You are again confused between the constitutional rights provided by state constitutions and the federal constitution. Those state constitutions derive in part from the federal constitution and our federalist system.

            The rest of what you say is off the wall and typical of one who either doesn’t think or is unable to think before putting words into sentences.

            SM

            1. Anonymous SM,

              “ You didn’t bother to state which constitution you were talking about and I think this statement is wrong as well since there is generally a stated duty to protect the public.”

              Really? I didn’t bother to state which constitution I was talking about because I thought you were smart enough to figure it out on your own. Obviously I was wrong, you’re clearly not smart enough. Let me help you. THE constitution S. Meyers. The one that governs our country. Citing the 2nd amendment was not a big enough clue for you? Not surprised. The supreme law of the land. Does that help?

              You said most state constitutions are derived from the federal one. That’s correct. However neither gives you the right to be protected by the police or to an ambulance. All the constitution requires is that governments create an army (militia) to protect the borders from foreign enemies. No constitution gives a right to be protected by police.

              1. “Really? I didn’t bother to state which constitution I was talking about because I thought you were smart enough to figure it out on your own.”

                I guess you don’t know states have their own constitutions and the federal constitution grants the states and people those things not government by the federal constitution. I guess your eyes have tunnel vision and your brain follows suit.

                “However neither gives you the right to be protected by the police or to an ambulance.”

                That depends on what the specific constitution says. But there is more than just the right to service. Does the city have the right to partition one part off denying the ability of those within that partition to utilize services necessary to life and limb. Other things are at issue as well. I don’t have the answer because I am not an attorney and I don’t know what the state constitution says. You ignorantly believe that without even knowing what is in the state constitution that you know all the answers.

                That is the height of ignorance.

                SM

                1. Anonymous SM, Jesus man, you really are not very smart. If you can’t figure it out on your own and everything needs to be spelled out to you obviously you’re not going to be able to understand. Being a dumba$$ is not a virtue.

                  Neither state or federal constitutions give you the right to police protection or the right to an ambulance.

                  Your comprehension skills are atrocious. No wonder everyone needs to specify everything down to the simplest denominator in order for you to understand.

                  1. “Neither state or federal constitutions give you the right to police protection or the right to an ambulance.”

                    Svelaz, the fact is that I explained to you that the issue is different from what you think. Stupidity prevents you from reading further and recognizing that states have constitutions as well as the federal government. It is obvious you didn’t get that far in your education.

                    The question then becomes what the state constitution says. Your talking points didn’t get there so you are left demonstrating your stupidity as usual. The question I raised was whether the city has the right to partition one part off denying the ability of those within that partition to utilize services necessary to life and limb. Other things are at issue as well.

                    Now you can be ignorant again and repeat yourself. Someone said you are the most ignorant person on the blog and it appears whoever said it was right.

                    SM

                    1. Anonymous SM. “The question then becomes what the state constitution says. Your talking points didn’t get there so you are left demonstrating your stupidity as usual. The question I raised was whether the city has the right to partition one part off denying the ability of those within that partition to utilize services necessary to life and limb. Other things are at issue as well. ”

                      No dumba$$, YOU posed that question Not I. The point I made to you was that neither the state or federal constitution gave anyone a right to police protection or the right to an ambulance. Which is what the original argument was about. You squirmed your way into a totally irrelevant point in order to avoid looking like a dumba$$, but unfortunately it was too late. That is why you’re digressing into trivial questions and stupid points having nothing to do with the original point of the argument. This is why one “repeats themselves” because YOU are meandering from one irrelevant point to another and splitting hairs over. You deflected, because you don’t have an argument to make anymore.

                    2. “The point I made to you was that neither the state or federal constitution gave anyone a right to police protection or the right to an ambulance. “

                      That was the point you made because you weren’t smart enough to recognize the other things that had to be considered. After I added to the points and explained it so a six year old could understand you still are standing there looking dumb.

                      SM

            1. Mespo, at least I CAN admit when I’m wrong. Unlike dumba$$ SM who seems to suffer from a serious case of cognitive dissonance.

              1. “Mespo, at least I CAN admit when I’m wrong”

                No Svelaz you can’t because you can only see what is in front of you after it is pointed out by someone else. You miss everything else that normal people get right away.

                SM

        1. Anonymous, “ Svez says Turley conflates? Please. Grow up kid.”

          As a grown up who can admit his mistakes i at least acknowledge it. In my post. Something clearly you’re not capable of.

          “ Anonymous, you’re correct. I was wrong. Both phrasings are about qualified immunity.”

  8. OT: The left never stops lying. Is Biden proving himself to be Liar and Chief?

    “In October 2019, then-candidate Joe Biden pledged that, if he were elected president, no one in his family would “have any business relationship with anyone that relates to a foreign corporation or a foreign country … Period. End of story.”

    Hunter still “holds a 10% equity stake in BHR Partners through his company, Skaneateles LLC,”

    https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/report-after-100-days-biden-admin-hunter-biden-still-owns-shares-chinese?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

    1. His “Daddy” is now in a position to grant amnesty for Hunter’s crimes and make it all go away.

    2. S. Meyer, why are you so concerned about lying? Obviously you have no real problem with lying given all the leeway you gave Trump and his incessant lying. You don’t really care about lying. That much is obvious.

      So what if hunter Biden still owns shares in that private equity firm. It’s not illegal and he’s not really obligated to do so. Trump’s own children engaged in similar endeavors.

      Trump promised to release his tax returns multiple times and every time he had an opportunity to do so he kept making poor excuses. He lied, but obviously that wasn’t really an issue with you or his supporters. Lying was not enough to call him out on it. Lying was accepted by Trump’s supporters and you, stating “Trump is Trump”. So complaining about Biden lying is a hollow complaint.

      1. “You don’t really care about lying. That much is obvious.”

        Svelaz, you are an illiterate ignorant boor. I have stated over and over again that my claim was not that Trump never made a mistake, used puffery or lied, only that Trump lied less than his predecessors and was more transparent.

        Your ignorance hasn’t gotten any better with this newest identity you carry. Since you made a statement, back it up. Tell us some of the mosts important lies Trump made that were significant to his Presidential duties. Then we can discuss the lies. Unfortunately your ignorance extends to the point that you do not know the difference between opinion and fact.

        SM

        1. S. Meyer, “ Svelaz, you are an illiterate ignorant boor. I have stated over and over again that my claim was not that Trump never made a mistake, used puffery or lied, only that Trump lied less than his predecessors and was more transparent.”

          That’s hilarious. Trump lied less? That itself is a lie. Trump lied more, in fact it was a daily occurrence.

          As I pointed out you don’t really care about the lying. You’re just moaning about it out of spite because apparently it’s not good that a president lies according to you, BUT it IS ok with you because you didn’t go off on Trump for lying as you are for Biden. Did Trump lie S. Meyer? Did you criticize him for it? His kids? Nope. So your caterwauling about Biden lying is just whining about something you really don’t care about.

          1. “That’s hilarious. Trump lied less? That itself is a lie. Trump lied more, in fact it was a daily occurrence. “

            Very little is being asked of you. Prove it based on the criteria I provided that defines what I believe.

            ” Trump lied more”

            That is an opinion not a fact. That is why I stated you didn’t know the difference between opinion and fact. Your ignorance is not erased by a name change.

            I’m waiting for your facts but that is like watching grass grow long after the grass died.

            SM

            1. Anonymous SM, “ ” Trump lied more”

              That is an opinion not a fact. That is why I stated you didn’t know the difference between opinion and fact. ”

              No, it’s a fact.

              “In his first 100 days, President Trump had 29 statements assessed by PolitiFact (17 false) compared to 12 statements from President Obama (1 false) and 4 statements from President Biden (2 false). As a raw count, Trump told more falsehoods than Biden and Obama combined.

              We can also look at these data as a percent of all fact-checked statements per president, during each 100-day period.

              Still, President Trump told more false statements than President Biden and President Obama during their first 100 days. President Obama was the most honest president in the first 100 days compared to Presidents Biden and Trump.”

              https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/davidmarkowitz/2021/04/30/who-lied-more-during-their-first-100-days-biden-trump-or-obama/amp/

              1. That is not a fact. That is not a reliable study. The selection process is at work to get the desired result. What is a fact is that such and such said whatever they said.

                It is their opinion based on creating artificial criteria and the manipulation of data.

                I can’t believe that you cannot recognize these things that are clearly evident.

                SM

                1. That is a fact SM. You just don’t want to admit it. It was based on VERIFIABLE statements made.

                  The selection process was choosing verified statements which are direct quotes from the president himself. You can’t fake or manipulate that.

                  Quotes made thru Twitter, video, and interviews.

                  You’re only proving to everyone else that you really don’t know fact from fiction.

                  Here’s one, Trump said multiple times Mexico will pay for the wall. He promised. Did mexico pay for the wall S. Meyer? No. That was a lie.

                  Trump promised to release his tax returns. Did he do it? No, because he lied.

                  There’s literally hundreds to choose from.

                  1. No Mexico did not pay for the wall, but they activated 27,000 troops to prevent unauthorized travel to the US. They didn’t pay for the wall but they agreed to keep people awaiting determination of entry status on Mexicos side of the border. How much is that worth? The significant promise was to reduce illegal immigration which is exactly what Trump did despite Democrat resistance.

                    Today despite what Biden has said we have more illegals crossing the border, more children in camps packed like sardines, more criminals coming across the border, more Covid being spread to the interior of our nation, etc. To you that is good government. To sane people that is terrible.

                    I take note that you go back to the tax issue which has nothing to do with his duties as President. Not only that but it is insignificant because his money was earned privately not though government influence as we have seen with the Biden family.

                    Now let us hear more of your trite answers. Since those are the two you mentioned they must be the best you have. That makes your claims laughable.

                    SM

                    1. LMAO at Allan’s either inability to to recognize lies or complete dedication to furthering them. He’s a study in cognitive dissonance at best.

                      EB

                    2. “inability to to recognize lies”

                      Bug, let me separate each statement with a different line and number to help you improve your reading skills. Tell me which line is wrong. You can use the number and tell me why.

                      1) No Mexico did not pay for the wall, but
                      2) they activated 27,000 troops to prevent unauthorized travel to the US.
                      3)They didn’t pay for the wall but
                      4)they agreed to keep people awaiting determination of entry status on Mexicos side of the border.
                      5)How much is that worth?
                      6)The significant promise was to reduce illegal immigration which is exactly what Trump did despite Democrat resistance.

                      Twice I said Mexico didn’t pay for the wall, but they gave us things #2 and #4 that helped Trump achieve the American goal #6.

                      I’ve spelled it out in multiple ways. Where are the lies? Do you need this translated into a different language or can you only understand baby talk? You seem only interested in process, not results. Your type of methodology doesn’t lead to success, but leads to the foolishness you produce that is well known.

                      SM

                    3. Anonymous Sm, your words, “ No Mexico did not pay for the wall,…”

                      Trump PROMISED Mexico would pay for the wall. It didn’t happen. Trump lied. You can’t bring yourself to admit trump lied. Instead you segue over to other excuses that have nothing to do with his lie.

                      “ I take note that you go back to the tax issue which has nothing to do with his duties as President. Not only that but it is insignificant because his money was earned privately not though government influence as we have seen with the Biden family.”

                      Again, Trump PROMISED he would release his tax returns. He lied. Whether he was required to or not is irrelevant to the promise he made. Just like Biden made a pledge that is not really part of his presidential duties. You call Biden a liar despite trump engaging in the exact same action of making a promise and breaking it, that is defined by YOU as lying.

                      These two were mentioned because they are the most well known and most obvious lies he made. There’s literally thousands of lies he made.

                      You really do suffer from seriously massive cognitive dissonance. You should be in a clinic being studied.

                    4. “Trump PROMISED Mexico would pay for the wall. It didn’t happen. Trump lied.”

                      Boy, you are stupid.

                      definition of pay: “to give in return for goods or service”

                      Trump was given the service of 27,000 Mexicans in the Mexican army and the service of using Mexico rather than the US to hold illegals. His significant promise (that Biden has failed to do) was to reduce illegal immigration which is exactly what Trump did despite Democrat resistance.

                      I think that was a great deal and was worth more than the billions Trump spent on the wall. You don’t. That is your opinion, stupid. The fact is that Trump got services from the Mexicans and got the wall built succeeding in the significant promise.

                      Was that significant to his Presidency? No, only stupid people believe it is. If you want to play by the exact rules of your stupid game, Trump didn’t say whey he would release the tax returns so one can say he hasn’t lied. He said audits interfered with his ability to do so. That is true.

                      You have produced two insignificant things losing sight of what Trump actually promised. How many times did Joe Biden lie about his son, his son’s computer etc. Virtually every comment he made on the subject and they weren’t few in number contained at least one lie, sometimes many lies. That is on one issue where his office has been used improperly and perhaps illegally by the Biden Family Group which includes Joe Biden.

                      So far you haven’t produced any significant or actual lies Trump made in the performance of his Presidential duties. He said he would stop illegals from entering the country and he did just that though Democrats not caring about American citizens did nothing but hinder those efforts.

                      Svelaz, you need to get educated and that will not occur in the nail salon.

                      SM

                    5. The lies are in your separating sentences into clauses, Allan. You’ve taken Trumps lies about who was going to pay for the wall and then inserted ‘justifications’ for the lies in following clauses. On the blog, I’ve seen you cite the good influence your mother had on you. No doubt, or hopefully anyway, she told you when you were younger that two wrongs don’t make a right. If she did, it would be a good idea to heed that advice.

                      EB

                    6. “The lies are in your separating sentences into clauses, Allan. You’ve taken Trumps lies…”

                      The promise was to fix the border crisis. That is exactly what Trump did. That is something Biden is destroying while placing children into sardine cages.

                      Trump had to fight Democrats who impaired his ability to act but he succeeded and the American people were better off with a less porous border decreasing drugs, slavery, killings, violent criminals in the US, and Covid transmission.

                      Democrats are putting all that back and Democrats are increasing drugs across the border, increasing slavery, increasing killings, increasing violent criminals in the US, and increasing Covid transmission all at tremendous cost to the taxpayer. So much for the Bug having any concern for citizens of the United States.

                      Trump mentioned many ways to accomplish the project. Mexico paying for the wall was one way but Bug has a problem understanding what paying for the wall could mean. He doesn’t know the definition of the word pay, “to give in return for goods or service”. That is exactly what happened 27,000 troops and the use of Mexican territory for illegals is a service the Mexicans provided the US. That wasn’t the promise. Solving the immigration crisis was and Trump solved it.

                      “The lies are in your separating sentences into clauses,”

                      A fool once provided with the information in paragraphs complains because it was also broken up into clauses. Either way, you make a fool of yourself and a double fool for blaming a separation of sentences when everything existed in both forms.

                      My mother would look at you with kind eyes but she would immediately recognize the BS you provide. She would then wonder where your parents were when you grew up and why you didn’t get a better education.

                      SM

                    7. No, Allan. Because every president has endeavoured to “fix the border crisis”, the promise (reapetedly documented) by Trump was to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it. Full stop. Anything less on his end is a lie.

                      Awful and ineffectual policy from the beginning, yes. But that is beside the point as well.

                      Trump a) repeatedly lied about who would pay for the wall, b) acknowledged to the Mexican president in a phone call that he was, indeed, lying.

                      EB

                    8. “No, Allan. Because every president has endeavoured to “fix the border crisis””

                      You are not too smart Bug. Trump “endeavoured to “fix the border crisis” (sic). He then stated many different things he would or could do to fulfill the promise. Trump fulfilled the promise made. Building a wall is not the issue. Biden might have built a 1 foot concrete block wall that wouldn’t “fix the border crisis” because Biden is unable to think. The border crisis was not the issue (though those intellectually deficient have difficulty understanding that), fixing the border crisis was. Along with building a wall he described many walls and many ways of building the wall. Diplomacy was one of those ways. Though not direct cash, the payment made was to help “fix the border crisis” faster which was accomplished. Trump exceeded expectations and that is why the left and angry stupid people are so upset.

                      I can’t help it that you do not understand negotiation. That is why you have a job where people tell you what to do.

                      SM

              2. President Obama was the most honest president in the first 100 days compared to Presidents Biden and Trump.”

                The president that used the resources of the Intelligence Community and the FBI to spy an a political rival campaign, and continue the spying into the transition phase of an incoming administration? That’s the metric you use to determine honest?

                1. Iowan2, actually that is one of Trump’s many verifiable lies. There was no spying. The multiple republican investigations into that “spying” confirmed that there was no spying done at all.

                  “The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence to support President Donald Trump’s claim that the FBI spied on his 2016 presidential campaign while investigating whether the campaign was conspiring with the Russian government to interfere in the election, The New York Times reported on Wednesday, citing people familiar with a draft of the report.”

                  https://www.businessinsider.com/justice-department-finds-fbi-didnt-spy-on-trump-2016-2019-11

              3. “Trump told more falsehoods than Biden and Obama combined.”

                Svelaz, let me just share with you a few of the distortions seen in Biden’s speech and the response. I don’t have a site for this handy but I will provide a few and maybe a few more at a later date. These are not mine. They are from another.

                BIDEN SAID: We inherited a nation in crisis. The worst pandemic in a century.The worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.

                TRUTH: You inherited a pandemic that had largely run its course. You inherited an economy that had already replaced half the jobs we lost during the plague. And the mob of misfits that stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, armed only with Trump banners, was a bit less of an “attack on our democracy” than Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and the Lincoln and the Kennedy assassinations.

                BIDEN SAID: “After I promised 100 million COVID-19 vaccine shots in 100 days – we will have provided over 220 million COVID shots in 100 days.”

                TRUTH: Trump developed, produced, and got approval for the vaccines. Biden has presided over the full inoculation of only 30% of American adults.

                BIDEN SAID: We’re making one of the largest one-time investments ever in improving health care for veterans.

                TRUTH: While pumping more money into the VA, Biden still severely limits the ability of vets to get private medical care despite the long lines at the VA.

                BIDEN SAID: We are on track to cut child poverty in America in half this year.

                TRUTH: When President Trump entered office, the poverty rate was 15%. When he left, it was 10%.

                BIDEN SAID: “The economy created more than 1.3 million new jobs in 100 days.”

                TRUTH: Under Trump, from May-December of 2020, the economy created 12.1 million jobs.

                BIDEN SAID: “Throughout our history, public investments and infrastructure have transformed America.”

                SM

        2. Trump lied more than any previous president. He averaged 3.5 false claims per day across his term. Not a surprise to those of us who had to do business with him, directly or indirectly, previous to that term.

          EB

          1. You know where that “average of false claims” comes from?

            Because Trump talked the press almost daily, answering their questions on the fly, and always being transparent and available for questions.

            This is the polar opposite of how Joe Biden hides from answering questions from the Biden-friendly-media.

            They kiss his ass and Biden still avoids them!

            1. Actually, where that average comes from is…, wait for it…, demonstrably lying in public 3.5 times a day.

              EB

              1. Biden State of the Union Address:

                BIDEN SAID: This program would “create jobs by building a modern power grid. Our grids are vulnerable to storms, hacks, and catastrophic failures – with tragic results as we saw in Texas and elsewhere during winter storms.”

                TRUTH: The power outages in Texas were largely caused by the failure of renewable resources in solar and wind generation failed.

                BIDEN SAID: “There’s no reason the blades for wind turbines can’t be built in Pittsburgh instead of Beijing. No reason why American workers can’t lead the world in the production of electric vehicles and batteries.”

                TRUTH: Electric batteries and wind turbines rely on rare earth minerals. While the US had a virtual monopoly on these minerals, it now has to import 80% of them from China because UN regulation put our rare earth mineral mines out of business.

                BIDEN SAID: “I’m calling on Congress to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act – the PRO Act — and send it to my desk to support the right to unionize.”

                TRUTH: The PRO act eliminates the right of workers to vote on whether or not a union should represent them, requires everyone in the workplace to join a union once it is formed, and makes it basically impossible to be self-employed.

                SM

                1. Thanks for posting some posting some easlly documentable lies about the topic of…, ummm, lying.

                  EB

                    1. Your point? Bug, do you like to post links that you haven’t read or don’t yet understand? I’m sure there is a point there, but unfortunately you haven’t grasped it yet. That is why you didn’t provide your own argument.

                      SM

                    2. Not only have I read the article, but I understand the issue first hand re windmills as where i live is powered by the first offshore windmills in the U.S. Hint: it gets really cold here in the winter and the windmills work just fine as they’ve been built to fit the conditions.

                      But I knew this would be your response since it never varies from your normal response on this comment section when counter evidence is presented is response to your lies and half truths and outright deceptions. Cue now the protestations that you discredit the source. That you’re the only one to understand ‘the truth’, etc.

                      You’re actually more comical than annoying, Allan. Hopefully you’re able to catch on to this at some point.

                      EB

                    3. “Not only have I read the article, but I understand the issue first hand re windmills as where i live is powered”

                      Bug, all that is very nice, but what is your point with regard to what I said? That is the problem. You talk a lot and say very little on point.

                      SM

                    4. I directly addressed this from what you posted…

                      “BIDEN SAID: This program would “create jobs by building a modern power grid. Our grids are vulnerable to storms, hacks, and catastrophic failures – with tragic results as we saw in Texas and elsewhere during winter storms.”

                      TRUTH: The power outages in Texas were largely caused by the failure of renewable resources in solar and wind generation failed.”

                      Specifically, I addressed your claim of supposed sustainable energy failure in Texas with the Reuters article. Maybe it’s time you review issues you posit as truth, Allan. But I don’t suspect you will, or are even capable of it since I’ve not yet seen you exhibit that capability to date…, so I guess we’ll have to stay with this pattern: Allan lies. He gets called on one of his lies. He scrambles to assign blame somehow to those holding him accountable for lying.

                      Carry on.

                      EB

                    5. Bug, that might mean something to you, but the fact that you cannot summarize it to demonstrate your point indicates that you don’t have the ability to respond directly. You use links instead of your brain. You don’t focus on issues rather you focus on loose generalizations that mean nothing with regard to the discussion, but do tell us you don’t know what you are talking about.

                      SM

                    6. Bug, if one provides a dumb response and they are told why it is dumb, generally a person doesn’t post it again. You do. You have given us key information, as to why your comments make so little sense.

                      SM

                  1. Bug, when you are ignorant as you are you need a lot of help understanding things. Here are some more from the State of the Union.

                    BIDEN SAID: This program would “create jobs by building a modern power grid. Our grids are vulnerable to storms, hacks, and catastrophic failures – with tragic results as we saw in Texas and elsewhere during winter storms.”

                    TRUTH: The power outages in Texas were largely caused by the failure of renewable resources in solar and wind generation failed.

                    BIDEN SAID: “There’s no reason the blades for wind turbines can’t be built in Pittsburgh instead of Beijing. No reason why American workers can’t lead the world in the production of electric vehicles and batteries.”

                    TRUTH: Electric batteries and wind turbines rely on rare earth minerals. While the US had a virtual monopoly on these minerals, it now has to import 80% of them from China because UN regulation put our rare earth mineral mines out of business.

                    BIDEN SAID: “I’m calling on Congress to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act – the PRO Act — and send it to my desk to support the right to unionize.”

                    TRUTH: The PRO act eliminates the right of workers to vote on whether or not a union should represent them, requires everyone in the workplace to join a union once it is formed, and makes it basically impossible to be self-employed.

                    BIDEN SAID: “By the way – let’s also pass the $15 minimum wage. No one should work 40 hours a week and still live below the poverty line.”

                    TRUTH: The Congressional Budget Office says that raising the minimum wage to $15 will eliminate 1.4 million jobs by 2025. And the Earned Income Tax Credit — paid only to those who work full time — has lifted 9 million Americans out of poverty without costing a single job.

                    BIDEN SAID: “To win the 21st Century.we also need to make a once-in-a-generation investment in our families – in our children.”

                    TRUTH: Money won’t solve the problems with our schools. The two jurisdictions that spend the most per pupil are DC and New York City. But DC ranks 50th (dead last) in reading scores and 47th in math. New York ranks 36th in reading and 37th in math

          2. And if they tallied the whopper lies told by Joe Biden on the few occasions he actually does answer press questions, then there is no comparison.

            Biden is a pathological liar every time he opens his mouth, he lies. But the media spin it and lie to you so you have no idea what a dishonest liar Joe Biden is and has always been.

      2. “So what if hunter Biden still owns shares in that private equity firm. It’s not illegal and he’s not really obligated to do so. “

        “In October 2019, then-candidate Joe Biden pledged that, if he were elected president, no one in his family would “have any business relationship with anyone that relates to a foreign corporation or a foreign country … Period. End of story.”

        Are you too dumb to understand the pledge made by Joe Biden?

        “Trump’s own children engaged in similar endeavors.”

        Provide the details of those endeavors that occurred while Trump was a politician. Hunter relied on his politician father. Trump’s children were in private enterprise as was Trump.

        “Trump promised to release his tax returns “

        He is not required to do so and that doesn’t involve Presidential duties. In any event the most interesting parts of his tax returns were released illegally and that altered nothing.

        SM

        1. Allan, I have to apologize for Svelaz. There’s nothing in that sombrero, but Svelaz refuses to concede that fact.

          1. Diogenes:

            Sevvy is one of the dumbest commenters I’ve ever seen. Somehow he thinks we don’t see through it. That’d be the essence of dumb,

        2. Anonymous SM, you’re hilarious.

          Trump PROMISED to release his tax returns. When the opportunity came, he refused and made multiple excuses. So it was a lie and you are ok with that broken promise.

          Biden made a pledge to which his son didn’t adhere to just like Trump. Yet you’re losing your Sh!T over Biden’s unimportant pledge. It’s not illegal for hunter Biden to have that. So why withdraw that pledge really matter. It didn’t matter to you if trump did it so why would it matter if Biden did. Neither is an obligation as you say.

          1. Not many dispute that fact, but Trump was not required to release the tax data and it didn’t involve his Presidential duties. His tax data was released during his Presidency.

            Now provide some things relevant to his presidential duties that are significant.

            When we talk about Biden we are talking about a politician in office who permitted the appearance of impropriety and likely was wrong. Biden pledged to end all such things as president. He didn’t do that. Influence peddling affects the presidency and such actions injure American interests. He has made so many lies of significance one has difficulty remembering all of them. Those lies are not opinions. The lies you mentioned earlier are based on faulty reporting, opinion, etc. and for the most part didn’t represent lies.

            SM

            1. Anonymous SM, “Not many dispute that fact, but Trump was not required to release the tax data and it didn’t involve his Presidential duties. His tax data was released during his Presidency.” Whether he was required or not the point is he promised to release them. Just as Biden pledged to not have his kids involved in foreign companies. You admit trump lied too, but because he was really not obligated to release his tax returns it wasn’t really a “lie”. Obviously Hunter Biden’s business associations are not really illegal and he’s not really obligated to divest himself of them isn’t really an issue either. His tax data was released, not by trump. But by someone else. He still didn’t keep his promise.

              “When we talk about Biden we are talking about a politician in office who permitted the appearance of impropriety and likely was wrong. Biden pledged to end all such things as president. He didn’t do that. Influence peddling affects the presidency and such actions injure American interests.”

              Trump was a “businessman” who also permitted the appearance of impropriety by not really divesting himself from his companies and his son’s running the business while he still could talk to his sons about business. Trump also pledged such things But obviously he didn’t. He had more family members in his staff as “advisors” than any other president. Ivanka Trump got favorable treatment by the Chinese because his dad was president. Ashton Kushner got special deals with his real estate business because of his dad’s position.

              “He has made so many lies of significance one has difficulty remembering all of them. Those lies are not opinions. The lies you mentioned earlier are based on faulty reporting, opinion, etc. and for the most part didn’t represent lies.”

              S. Meyer, You defend Trump’s own lying by making lies yourself. That’s not surprising. Blaming it on “faulty reporting” when you can’t prove they were not lies. All of Trump’s lying is verified.

              Trump lied about Mexico paying for the wall. Was that “faulty reporting”? Trump kept making the claim multiple times. When trump’s phone call to the Mexican president leaked obviously he was too cowardly to demand Mexico pay for the wall. Remember that? Trump was literally begging the Mexican president to go along with his lie. Clearly he refused. That was an embarrassment.

              1. “S. Meyer, You defend Trump’s own lying by making lies yourself. ”

                Svelaz, I do not defend Trump. I simply correct your consistent errors and place things in the right context. You are an on / off switch where everything has equal weight. You don’t understand incremental reasoning.

                The public knew Trump could not divest his company of everything because Trump was not a sole owner. They voted for him. He won. He did nothing wrong. However Biden engaged in influence peddling and made a significant promise about stopping that type of nonsense as President. He lied on a significant issue.

                You are still on the same two issues, so I guess your meter is on empty. However, you did add a new part to the discussion in your accusation, ” by making lies yourself.”

                What lies did I make? None, but you engage in character assassination without knowing what you are talking about. State the lies or apologize.

                SM

                1. S. Meyer, “Svelaz, I do not defend Trump. I simply correct your consistent errors and place things in the right context. You are an on / off switch where everything has equal weight. You don’t understand incremental reasoning.”

                  No, what you are simply doing is engaging in incremental BS. You certainly try hard not to admit what you already show everyone every time you contradict yourself.

                  “The public knew Trump could not divest his company of everything because Trump was not a sole owner. ”

                  Like Trump, you just keep on piling on the lies. Geez Meyer, ‘The public knew trump couldn’t divest his company?” You don’t know that divest means. Trump had to divest FROM his company. Not the company itself dumba$$. He has controlling interest in his company which is why he needed to divest from his company.

                  1. Svelaz, I am waiting to hear the lies I wrote. You intimate things but are very careless when doing so. Let’s hear it straight. You can’t because as usual you don’t know what you are talking about.

                    Let’s compare the two Presidents with what we have.

                    Trump, didn’t reveal his taxes though as President he did. There was no legal or ethical need to release his taxes. His taxes had nothing to do with what occurred while he was President.

                    Biden, influence peddling. Son likely involved in some type of criminal activity but for some reason hasn’t been fully investigated. Biden promises there will be no influence peddling and the family would separate from the results of such. The influence peddling and or results of it continues.

                    SM

                    1. Anonymous SM, “ Svelaz, I am waiting to hear the lies I wrote. ”

                      “Trump lied less than Biden”. Lie #1
                      See my post refuting this lie. Followed by your post lying about fake studies.

                      “ Trump, didn’t reveal his taxes though as President he did. ” lie #2. Trump never revealed his taxes himself. They were leaked by someone else.

                      “ Biden, influence peddling. Son likely involved in some type of criminal activity but for some reason hasn’t been fully investigated. ” lie #3.

                      “Likely involved..”. Here your insinuating something with no evidence. That’s a lie.

                      Yup. Anonymous SM. You’re lying like Trump. You keep digging to yourself into a deeper hole with more lying. Seek help Allan.

                    2. ““Trump lied less than Biden”. Lie #1”

                      So far you have listed 2 items in your game of lies but in that game it has been proven that he didn’t lie either time based on your crazy rules.

                      Biden has lied over and over again. He lied about keeping the number of immigrants permitted and just raised them to 62,500. He lied about circumstances on the border. He lied about wanting to unite the nation. He lied about his son. He lied about his son’s computer. He lies most of the time.

                      Biden can’t help himself but lie and you can’t help yourself to even prove 2 insignificant items, one not having anything to do with Presidential responsibilities and the other where the President succeeded in doing what he promised to do though you assumed the mechanism would be slightly different. That is because you are Stupid and can only think in limited ways. Trump did it a better way.

                      ““Likely involved..”. Here your insinuating something with no evidence. That’s a lie.”

                      You become more Stupid by the minute. Likely doesn’t mean involved. It is an adjective to explain the world involved. positively. Therefore, the statement cannot be a lie. Learn the difference between a lie and an opinion. Learn the difference between significant and insignificant. Learn how to read.

                      You are back to square one. I will no longer ask for the proof of any lies anyone made because you don’t know what a lie is. From now on I will ask the more pertinent question. How much stupider can you get on this blog?

                      SM

  9. Qualified Immunity or Sovereign Immunity should begin and end for “constitutional” activities by public officials – that is the Oath of Office that all public officials agree to – to protect everyone’s “constitutional” rights within their jurisdiction.

    For example: if you have 1 million BLM peaceful protesters and one guy (out of 1 million) uses violence, you arrest the one guy, you don’t beat up or punish the peaceful protesters operating legally within the law and within the First Amendment. That is NOT probable cause to search the entire group. That same standard could be used for Trump supporters that tried to overturn a “constitutional” election – you go after the individuals (not the group) that actually broke the law.

    The only exception are groups with a publicly advertised mission that is “constitutionally-subversive” – where every member that joins the group knowing the group’s goal is to subvert America’s “constitutional democratic republic” model of government. The only non-subversive means to do this is with a “constitutional-amendment” process, not subverting the U.S. Constitution.

    Following this American model would make it illegal, for any police or official, to search, harass or punish 99% of BLM supporters, NRA members, LGBT groups or any other non-subversive organization.

    As far as inaction by officials during anarchy, the U.S. Constitution does have emergency clauses already in place such a “temporary” suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus until that anarchy is restored.

    Bottom line, this not a black & white issue and should be viewed on an “individual” basis, not guilt-by-association of entire groups. It starts with the constitutionally oath-sworn public officials (top management) following their own Oath of Office.

    1. Absolutely spot on comment….fully agree to the very letter and word of it.

      What is fair for the Goose should be fair for the Gander…..even Steven…and all like that applies.

      Formal term might be “Due Process”.

      1. Formal term might be “Due Process”. That’s in direct opposition to “Prosecutorial Discretion”

  10. This mob violence has got to stop. Government neglecting to enforce the law is insane. These officials should be held accountable for the results of their actions. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
    WHEN THERE IS NO LAW THERE IS NO ORDER

  11. My take is that the state lawsuits will go nowhere, given the state’s political bent. Federal lawsuits likewise, notwithstanding the changes at the Circuit Court level, until/unless it gets to SCOTUS.

    Ah, the irony of it all

    1. I fear you’re right, Whig. Wish we could sue BLM, Antifa, Soros, and Hollywood, too. They funded and promoted the chaos, knowing it was chaos.

  12. He is pathetic, but look at the numbers of innocents Anonymous the Stupid has attacked over the years with his stupidity denying the blog its rightful place as an intellectual community.

  13. Glad that time is showing the stupidity of the Lefty officials who acquiesced to the mobs.

    But both the officials and the media will continue to evade responsibility.

    Returning to Anonymous and his compulsive posting.

    I felt irritation when he dominated the blog.

    On reflection, I was not charitable.

    Imagine how empty his life must be if he sits at his computer hitting the refresh button every few minutes in the hope that somebody has posted and he can react, comment, and interact.

    Anonymous is a stalker, but he is also pathetic.

    Let’s pity him rather than attack him.

    Let him post into the void and we just carry on with our lives.

    1. In my humble opinion, I would say they facilitated the chaos, not acquiesced to the mob.

      1. Yes. I responded to one last night and endured hours are uninterrupted, sophomore pettifogging.

    2. Good advice. Besides, as in his latest comment, Anonymous never posts counter facts (because he doesn’t have any) — he just posts assertions and insults. A simple Google search will bring up the news about the homicides and other crimes in CHOP that Anonymous denies, but never counters with alternative facts. Maybe Turley keeps him around for comic relief.

      1. giocon1, a simple google search will also show that the crimes committed in the CHOP zone are no different than those committed outside of it where police are present. Seattle experienced a record number of homicides in 2020 and the majority occurred outside the zone. Nobody is denying that crimes occurred inside that zone. What is significant is that it is not due to the zone being there. it is the status quo for Seattle. Turley doesn’t cite the statistics only because he wants to misrepresent the CHOP zone as some sort of lawless wasteland. It wasn’t it was no different than when police were present.

    3. Multiple people comment anonymously, as is obvious to anyone who reads the anonymous comments.

Leave a Reply