Rep. Cicilline Demands The Censuring Of Colleagues For The “Mischaracterization” Of The Jan. 6th Riot

We have been discussing the effort in Congress to punish dissenting viewpoints among members on issues ranging from the Jan. 6th riot to the pandemic to racism. This has included sweeping calls for members to be disbarred or expelled for their criticism of the 2020 election or continued questioning of election irregularities. Rep. David Cicilline (D., R.I.) has been one of those calling for punishment of members who have the temerity to disagree with his view of the election or the riot.  Now, Cicilline is asking Democratic colleagues to sign on to a resolution to censure three House Republicans who are accused mischaracterizing the Jan. 6 riot, including refusing to call it an “insurrection.” It is the latest attempt to regulate how members and others discuss issues, dictating viewpoints by controlling speech used to express views.

Cicilline is demanding a resolution to censure Republican Reps. Andrew Clyde (Ga.), Jody Hice (Ga.) and Paul Gosar (Ariz.) for remarks that he felt downplayed the violent attack on the Capitol during a House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing this week. This included the failure to use the seemingly mandatory reference to the riot as an “insurrection”:

“The members who testified that January 6th was ‘not an insurrection’ and undermined the damage that was done put their own political agendas above their country. In doing so, they recklessly disregarded the future harm they could cause by legitimizing a violent attack on our democratic institutions – a conscious and harmful decision calling into question their dedication to their role as Representatives'”

The obvious problem is that rejecting the term “insurrection” is not “legitimizing a violent attack.” Many of us refer to the violence as a “riot” because it makes fewer assumptions as to the motivations of all of those present. It is not to downplay the violence or its implications for our country.  I condemned Donald Trump’s speech while he was still giving it and condemned the violence as it was unfolding. However, there were thousands of people at the protest and most were not violent and did not enter the Capitol. Those who did enter the Capitol revealed a mix of motives and actions as reflected in the charges brought by the Justice Department. Some meandered around the Capitol while others engaged in violent and destructive acts.  There was clearly a core of determined and violent individuals who engaged in a premeditated efforts to stop the certification of the votes from the election.  Recognizing such varied motives and actions does not legitimize the violence or dismiss the seriousness of the attack. As I have previously written, even if this was not technically an insurrection, it was a desecration of our constitutional process.

The most important point is that people of good faith can differ on how to characterize or understand what occurred on January 6th while still condemning the violence. The comments of Clyde received the most attention in the press. Here is what he said in pertinent part:

CLYDE: Thank you, Madam Chair. This hearing is called the Capitol Insurrectionlet‘s be honest with the American people. It was not an insurrection, and we cannot call it that and be truthful. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines an insurrection as, and I quote, “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence” and then from the Century Dictionary, “the act of rising against civil authority or governmental restraint specifically the armed resistance of a number of persons to the power of the state.”

As one of the members who stayed in the Capitol and on the House floor who with other Republican colleagues helped barricade the door until almost 3 PM that day from the mob who tried to enter I can tell you the House floor was never breached, and it was not an insurrection. This is the truth.

There was an undisciplined mob; there were some rioters and some who committed acts of vandalism but let me clear, there was no insurrection, and to call it an insurrection, in my opinion, is a bold-faced lie. Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes taking videos and picturesYou know, if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.

There were no firearms confiscated from anyone who breached the Capitol. Also, the only shot fired on January 6th was from a Capitol Police officer who killed an unarmed protester, Ashli Babbitt, in what will probably be eventually be determined to be a needless display of lethal force.

Notably, Clyde then undermined his distinction between a riot and an insurrection by stating that the real insurrection was the Russian collusion scandal:

I agree with that 100 percent, you know, but the only insurrection that I have witnessed in my lifetime was the one conducted by members of the FBI with participants from the DOJ and other agencies under the banner Russia, Russia, Russia. High-ranking employees from these federal agencies and members of an independent counsel coordinated and fed a false narrative for over two years that the 2016 election was stolen and illegitimate.

Democrats were on the news almost every night saying the evidence is there, and the mainstream media amplified the fake news. This was indeed a very coordinated and well-funded effort by a determined group of people to overthrow our duly elected President Donald J Trump.

The statement taken as a whole is self-contradictory and ultimately incoherent.  However, Clyde was not defending the rioters but objecting to the characterization of their criminal conduct as an insurrection.  Members like all citizens are allowed to draw such a distinction. I disagreed with the challenge on the floor and the claims over the authority of Vice President Pence to “send back” the votes.  However, members reflects different constituencies and viewpoints.  They have a right to voice those views. Indeed, members are protected in doing such by not just the First Amendment but the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution.

Clearly, the Congress has the right to censure any member. Under Article I, Section 5  “[e]ach House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” However, to do so over such a question is an abusive of the legislative process.

Rep. Hice focused on defending former President Donald Trump from allegations that he incited an insurrection, the basis for his second impeachment. That is an issue that still divides this country with good arguments on both sides.

As for Rep. Gosar, he criticized the handling of the investigations and prosecutions by the Justice Department as excessive and pointed out how the lead prosecutor boasted on television that they sought to hit defendants so hard as to create “shock and awe” to deter others. He specifically questioned the handling of the investigation into the death of Ashli Babbitt, a case that raised concerns for many including myself.

Again, I do not agree with some of the characterizations or rhetoric of these members.  However, the attempt to censure colleagues for holding such opposing views is a disgraceful use of legislative authority.  Cicilline wrote:

“These three members dangerously mischaracterized what happened that day and showed more sympathy for the domestic terrorists than the Capitol police officers who died during the attack…These members cannot be allowed to rewrite history at their convenience by disrespecting the sacrifices made by Capitol police officers and downplaying the violent, destructive intent that rioters carried into this sacred building,” Cicilline added. ‘The January 6th insurrection was an attack on our democracy that we must continue to defend against today.’”

Read that over a few times. Cicilline wants to censure colleagues for “dangerous mischaracterizations [of] what happened that day.” Putting aside the irony given challenges to Cicilline’s own often over-hearted rhetoric (including as a House impeachment manager), he is seeking to punish colleagues for holding an opposing view of what occurred on that day.

As support for this abusive measure, Cicilline cited the expulsion of 17 members of Congress during the Civil War for “disloyalty to the United States.”  Cicilline is historically correct about the expulsions but absurdly off-base in his analogy to the current controversy.

The move to expel these members occurred on March 1861. That was a month after the start of the war with the firing on Fort Sumpter. On April 15, President Lincoln declared an insurrection. By that time, most Southern members rushed back to support the Confederacy, leaving vacancies in Congress. Maine Sen. William Pitt Fessenden thought it was insane to hold the seats for members who left the Senate to join a rebellion.  The Senate agreed and struck the names of the senators.  In July 1861, The 10 senators were expelled in July 1861 for being engaged “in a conspiracy against the peace and union of the United States Government” for their support of the Confederacy, according to the Senate.  Keep in mind that the first Battle of Bull Run occurred on July 21, 1861.

One senator was expelled on Dec. 4, 1861 because John Breckinridge, of Kentucky, had waited to see if Civil War could be avoided but then “joined the enemies of his country, and is now in arms against the Government he had sworn the support.” What is interesting is that, in October 1861, Breckinridge sent a formal letter of resignation to the Senate but months later Michigan Sen. Zachariah Chandler still moved to expel him. Ultimately, 14 senators were expelled.

Those were members who supported a civil war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives, including some like Breckinridge who took up arms in the Confederate forces. Cicilline sees no distinction with colleagues who condemned the violence but characterized it as a riot rather than an insurrection. Again, Cicilline insisted “We cannot allow this abhorrent mischaracterization to go unchecked.”

Just as our Constitution protects against the tyranny of the few, it also protects against the tyranny of the majority. As Madison said, “It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”

While a censure is unlikely to prompt judicial review (which is why it likely appears to Cicilline), it is still an offense to our constitutional values.  The Cicilline resolution should be condemned by members of both parties as an abuse of legislative authority and inimical to the legislative process.  He would open a Pandora’s Box of politically retaliatory measures that would see no end in our age of rage. There remain members on both sides who continue to fuel our divisions and capitalize on our tragedies for political purposes. No party owns the rights to Jan. 6th or the national pain caused by the attack. It remains an open wound for our nation as a whole. We will continue to debate the causes and the characterization of that attack on Congress. However, members cannot dictate how others reference or interpret these events.

 

325 thoughts on “Rep. Cicilline Demands The Censuring Of Colleagues For The “Mischaracterization” Of The Jan. 6th Riot”

  1. Turley,

    I for one would actually love to see the Democrats move forward on this.
    Here, they would clearly lose because under the US Code 3, their actions are prescribed.

    However… it would open the door to question the limited immunity that members of Congress have enjoyed.
    Omar/Talib making antisemitic statements or inciting riots or violence … oh wait that was Maxine Waters.

    It would also put Swallwell and Schiff on very thin ice for their dubious claims against Trump which now even the NYT are saying there never was any evidence of Russian collusion.

    So yeah. Bring it on.

    1. The problem is that the lawlessness of democrats is one sided.

      I oppose the lawless acts of democrats today.

      Should Republicans decide that turn about is fair play when they hold the reigns of power – I will oppose that too.

      But I do not expect that. While Republicans are far from moral, or ethical. They are head and shoulders more moral and ethical than democrats.

  2. OT: https://justthenews.com/accountability/whistleblowers/w-judge-orders-irs-reveal-if-it-criminally-investigated-clinton?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

    Judge orders IRS to reveal if it criminally investigated Clinton Foundation, citing records ‘gap’

    Tax court refuses to dismiss whistleblowers’ case involving famous political family charity, remands case back to agency to fill in blanks.

    A U.S. Tax Court judge has ordered the Internal Revenue Service to reveal if it criminally investigated the Clinton Foundation, directing the agency to cure a mysterious “gap” in its records in the case.

  3. EB says: “The Trump horde, while siding with Turley now, will turn on him the nanosecond he doestn’t complain about a Trump conviction.”

    Exactly my point. You will note that Turley covered his a$$ by acknowledging what Trump could be found guilty in both impeachments if the accusations were proven true, but threw a lifeline to the Trumpists that the Democrats botched both efforts by not gaining sufficient evidence for a conviction. Thus, on the one hand, he agreed with the Democrats in principle that Trump’s conduct was impeachable, but on the other hand, he agreed with the Republicans that as a practical matter Trump should not have been convicted.

    As you point out, however, a state prosecution of Trump will not proceed unless the evidence is overwhelming – well beyond any reasonable doubt- because the stakes could not be higher. Turley will not be able to appeal to both sides of the divide as he has in the past. He will have to choose. He will not discard a lifetime of teaching that no man is above the law by placating the Trumpists who undoubtedly will reject the jury’s verdict and fashion some conspiracy theory to explain away the outcome.

    To paraphrase H.L. Mencken:

    “Trumpism is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”

    1. Jeff, you make a great point about Turley saying that Trump could have been convicted “if the evidence was found to be true”? If the presentation of the evidence by the Democrats was presented flimsily it was because the evidence was flimsy. They told us it was a slam dunk. There tiny little hands and tiny little feet couldn’t reach the rim of the basket when Trump urged his followers to peacefully protest. The operative phrase is “if found to be true”. Guess you missed that part.

      1. Think,

        Needless to say, but l’ll say it anyway, I disagree that there was insufficient facts to prove the allegations of impeachable misconduct. Turley, to my knowledge, has never stated WHY he was not convinced by the evidence presented. Rather, he just re-iterated that more witnesses should have been interviewed by the *House* in both impeachments in contradiction of his earlier views on the matter:

        https://www.cato.org/blog/jonathan-turley-then-now

        In my opinion, Turley’s approval of the Democrats on the law but his agreement with the Republicans on the facts, was a disingenuous attempt to straddle the controversy.

        He won’t be able to do so in the context of a Trump trial. There will be no wiggle room for him to appeal to both sides. He will be faced with his own “Liz Cheney moment” where he will be forced to stand up and be counted among those who denounce the Trumpists’ belief in a “Deep State” conspiracy to frame Trump. Mark my words. That day is coming. It’s only a matter of time before Turley is thrown under the bus by the Turley Trumpists on this blog.

        1. @Jeff,

          Sorry to jump in late..
          But sorry no…

          The Muller investigation was a sham. Mueller should have shut it down earlier if he were an honest man, not a lawyers trying to game the system and get as many billable hours while he pursued an agenda to nail Trump by hook or by crook.

          The investigation raised dubious legal theories in an effort to give a plausible excuse to impeach him. (Didn’t work, did it?)
          Trump didn’t obstruct.

          In the second impeachment… Trump didn’t break any laws. Hunter Biden clearly broke the law and was attempting to sell influence.
          Biden bragged about it… even if his bragging wasn’t true. It was enough to call for an investigation into Hunter and Biden’s actions because the appearance was real.

          Turley won’t be thrown under the bus because there is no bus to be thrown under.

        2. Why was Turley not convinced by evidence presented ?

          Because no actual evidence was presented.

          The more we find out about what little the democrats did gather in Faux impeachment I and Faux impeachment redux, the more clear it is that they never had anything and never cared.

          They constructed false naratives. The entire argument in both cases is – Trust us – there must be more here, so convict.

          If you wish to discuss actual evidence – raise it. We can discuss it.

          What is it that YOU think should convince anyone ?

      2. Setting aside the fact, as a former basketball player and coach, that this phrase made me giggle hard: There tiny little hands and tiny little feet couldn’t reach the rim of the basket when Trump urged his followers to peacefully protest (starts off with a basic misspelling, and then strays into references to basketball ‘geography’ that basketball players just, well, laugh at, attempt at alluding to Randy Neuman notwithstanding)…

        Actually the part you missed, TIT, is that in both impeachments Republicans didn’t dispute the facts in either case, often being quoted as such. Their issue, supposedly, in the first impeachment was that there was an election coming up and there was no need to convict that close to said election because the ‘people’ would sort it out. And then in the second impeachment, there was Mitch McConnell’s ‘push the trial down the road’ tactic that many of them cited as pushing that particular impeachment out of the realm of consideration because Trump was no longer president. The glaring double standard is evident, no? Since many of those same Republicans were actively questioning the results of the election it’s not hard to see the blatant hypocrisy.

        And since trump’s lawyers *never* actually challenged the results of the election in all those 60 some cases they lost state to state and before the SCOTUS because they were bound by perjury guidelines — again we saw a blatant double standard being played out in mutltiple election ‘process’ cases challenging voting rules mostly put in place by Republican state legislatures….

        At the very least it makes me howl in laughter when I see all the idiotic sentiment in these blog comments about how Dems and the left are the most dishonest characters — it’s true 1984 material, often while bending the very same rhetoric back towards the left. A remnant of the trump age, actually…, the first grade tactic of getting caught at something and then immediately blaming your accuser of doing the very same thing. Trump pilfered the expression ‘fake news’ from the pizza place shooting incident and then accused Dems and the left of doing every single thing he got caught doing in his term…

        The fact people buy his schtick is beyond me, especially being someone who lived in NY once upon a time and knew the reputation trump had there. Hell, I even experienced a guy I subcontracted for get ripped off by trump in the sleaziest of trumpy ways and that translate into me not getting paid for quite awhile after I did some work for him.

        So, best to step off of the belief of flimsy evidence against trump. There was more evidence against him than there was against any president ever. He just had a corrupt AG doing his bidding by actively squashing cases against him and a compliant Senate that wasn’t going to convict him no matter the case and evidence against him.

        EB

        1. “The fact people buy his schtick is beyond me, especially being someone who lived in NY once upon a time and knew the reputation trump had there. “

          The logic doesn’t follow Buggies thinking process. If his reputation was what you say it was then no one would do business with him, but business people, investors and banks knew they made money with him. So did the contractors. People wanted to be in business with him and do business with him. Reality runs contrary to most things that you say.

          SM

          1. “If his reputation was what you say it was then no one would do business with him, but business people, investors and banks knew they made money with him.”

            Actually trump got to the point no one would do business with him because he bailed on so many loans and had to lean on his father until he died (when trump got an alzheimer ridden trump sr. to change his will and cut out other family members). Deutche Bank was the only bank left that would touch him, which makes the supoened material from them some of the most fascinating in investigations in NY state. Notable that as soon as Deutche Bank was compelled to give up its records on their workings with trump that the two people managing those loans both resigned because, in a public relations sense, it’s shows the beginnings of a campaign to cut ties with trump publicly in order to save face. To me this was a striking occurence because it happened just prior to the election last year, and coupled with the later resignation of Bill Barr in December (probably when he got wind that trump was in the midst of inciting an actual uprising at the Capitol) I knew the worm had turned for L’Orange.

            The “business people” you speak of will turn out to Russian organized crime who the Trump organization laundered money for.

            C’mon, keep up Allan. These things are a matter of public record. Or rather ignore them, drop into a shame spiral after the election and begin posting under another identity on the site. Oops, that’s what you did, my bad.

            EB

            1. Bug, as is usual, you provide a bunch of garbage demonstrating a mind that fills itself up on LEFTIST OPINION but doesn’t have the intellect to deal with facts.

              “Actually trump got to the point no one would do business with him ”

              Yet, Trump continued to do business and expand where more and more people invested in his ventures. You are saying the opposite. That makes you factually wrong.

              “Deutche Bank was the only bank left that would touch him”

              Trump received a loan from Deutche Bank, but that doesn’t mean they were the only bank left. That was the bank with the best terms for both. Money is virtually always available. What changes are the interest rates and terms. You should know that, but you don’t.

              “The “business people” you speak of will turn out to Russian organized crime who the Trump organization laundered money for.”

              That is an outright lie. You don’t know who I speak of. You made a statement out of the blue, which is quite stupid and makes you look foolish.

              “C’mon, keep up Allan. These things are a matter of public record.”

              The public record is not hit opinion pieces. Once again, you use your unfounded and ignorant personal opinion rather than fact.

              Provide the facts.

                1. Bug, much like your own responses, there are many words in this NYT article with paraphrases of significant statements, but it lacks facts and spins the ideas.

                  It actually says very little, but you seemed to have gotten a lot out of it. That demonstrates you are too ignorant to know the difference between opinion and fact, twisted paraphrased material and actual quotes in context.

                  It’s a sad day when one recognizes that you had all the advantages of education but never could become educated.

                  Over and over, you have provided such stories about Trump where almost all of them have been wrong.

                  You are little more than a fool. As a child, you were probably coddled too much, and as an adult, you have become a nonthinking individual.

                  Your article provided two facts of interest. According to the report, Trump borrowed two billion dollars. Deutsche Bank is a 1.5 trillion dollar entity at the time of the article. That means Trump is a tiny part of the bank’s interests, not a big part. If Deutsche Bank was reckless in providing better terms than usual, that might reflect poorly on Deutsche Bank but not Trump. Trump would be looking for the best terms. I think that concept might be too much for a limited intellect to understand. The author was writing for the NYT, so he probably understands better, but he writes to satisfy the narrative of the NYT, not the news or the truth in context.

                  Buggie Boy, keep wrapping yourself in long links that you do not understand or maybe didn’t even read. You are a fool by your own choosing.

                  1. Oh my. The delusion is maniacal in this one. Guess we just have to see how L’Orange fares legally in NY state. I see another name change in Allan’s future.

                    EB

                    1. Buggie Boy, I guess you didn’t read what was written.

                      Bug, much like your own responses, there are many words in this NYT article with paraphrases of significant statements, but it lacks facts and spins the ideas.

                      It actually says very little, but you seemed to have gotten a lot out of it. That demonstrates you are too ignorant to know the difference between opinion and fact, twisted paraphrased material and actual quotes in context.

                      It’s a sad day when one recognizes that you had all the advantages of education but never could become educated.

                      Over and over, you have provided such stories about Trump where almost all of them have been wrong.

                      You are little more than a fool. As a child, you were probably coddled too much, and as an adult, you have become a nonthinking individual.

                      Your article provided two facts of interest. According to the report, Trump borrowed two billion dollars. Deutsche Bank is a 1.5 trillion dollar entity at the time of the article. That means Trump is a tiny part of the bank’s interests, not a big part. If Deutsche Bank was reckless in providing better terms than usual, that might reflect poorly on Deutsche Bank but not Trump. Trump would be looking for the best terms. I think that concept might be too much for a limited intellect to understand. The author was writing for the NYT, so he probably understands better, but he writes to satisfy the narrative of the NYT, not the news or the truth in context.

                      Buggie Boy, keep wrapping yourself in long links that you do not understand or maybe didn’t even read. You are a fool by your own choosing.

                      SM

                    2. And that name shall be: Allanonmyous of the drool bucket, worshipper of L’Orange the alpacca warrior.

                      EB

                    3. You have yet to make an argument.

                      Every attempt at a discussion with you devolves into fallacy and ad hominem.

                      Your insults do not even make sense.

                      What are you Four ?

                      Grow up. Please. For your own good.

                    4. You are CONSTANTLY presumimng that the state – at your whim is entitled to anally probe whoever it wishes,

                      Unless NY AG has a solid prima fascia case of criminality already – they should have been shot down by the courts on 4th amendment grounds.

                      We saw this nonsense with the whole collusion delusion nonsense.

                      The Warrant regarding Carter Page was garbage – based on known fraudulent nonsense.

                      Carter Page never did anything wrong – and NEVER should have been spied on or investigated.

                      YOU are not free to investigate people because they are political enemies.

                      Papadoulis and Stone, and Van Der Zandr and others were convicted – not of wrong doing,
                      But of getting tripped up by Government investigators who themselves were BREAKING THE LAW – Violating peoples rights.
                      Conducting an investigation for which they had no foundation.

                    5. You say we shall see.

                      Why must we wait ?

                      If there is an investigation there MUST be sufficient evidence to have an investigation.

                      PRODUCE THAT !

                      This is not the USSR. We are not supposed to have “star chambers”.

                      You spent 4 years diffing and found NOTHING.

                      Every left wing nut prosecutor in the country took their shot.
                      The nut jobs in the FBI, and Mueller SC took their shot.

                      They all violeated the law and the constitutional and the rights of many people repeatedly in the process.

                      And they found NOTHING.

                      Sorry EB – your done.

                      Only the idiots in Wokestan are interested in your nonsense.

                      The NY AG will find nothing real.

                      Nor will whatever nonsense they make up convince anyone differently than they already beleive.

                      Because that is what happens when you burn everyone’s trust.

                      I do not expect the NY AG to get anywhere.

                      Nor do I expect you to be honest and admit that you were wrong when they do not.

                      We will have more of this nonsense that there is hints of something there if only ……

                      Nor will their be any apologies for using our criminal justice system as a political weapon.

                      Which democrats have done OPENLY.

                  2. Why would you bother to read it ?

                    It is from the NYT.

                    Do you read Der Strumer ?
                    National Enquirer ?

                    My time is valuable to me.
                    I read ALOT.
                    But I can not read everything.

                    I do not spend much time reading claptrap from woke idiots who think reporting is about advancing an ideology.

                    1. “Why would you bother to read it ?”

                      John, we are dealing with a significant number of limited minds. Knowing where they are coming from can be helpful. That permits one to work backward from the source and the unsaid leftist talking points force-fed to them.

                      Bug, in particular, is a minimal thinker, so he probably only read the headline and possibly a few words. That is not uncommon with these guys.

                      Should one read anything political from a source like the NYT that has proven itself wrong many times? Yes, it helps to understand the errant arguments from the left. Should one pay for the NYT? I don’t.

                      When debating the right or wrong of an issue, what has often been forgotten is that right or wrong is not the issue. The issue is the probability of being right or wrong. Probability requires an open mind not held back by ideology.

                    2. SM,
                      You make several valid points.
                      There is no “answer” nor did I presume there was one.

                      As you note EB fixated on the headline – and probably did not read the article he linked.

                      That is common of leftists,

                      and on occasion I have read thr articles provided and replied with the facts from the article to undermine their claims.

                      But most of the time it is not worth reading claptrap on issues that have already been thrashed out publicly absent some offer of some knew facts.

                      Neither EB nor this headline offered any reason to read it.

                    3. John, I don’t bother to read many links from the likes of Bug or Anonymous the Stupid because the links often have very little to do with the discussion. They always have the opportunity to provide information that the link proves, then a quote, and then the link.

                      They cannot do that type of thing because they do not have the requisite knowledge of the facts or critical thinking skills.

                      I wonder why this blog, except for rare appearances, seems to have no intelligent Liberals responding to the questions at hand. I am sure there are some creative Liberals out there, but we only see those of low intellect. Do you think that bright Liberals are embarrassed because of the diminished intelligence demonstrated by their brethren? Is that why they don’t show up?

                    4. “I wonder why this blog, except for rare appearances, seems to have no intelligent Liberals responding to the questions at hand.”
                      Because they are increasingly rare.

                      Those who are intelligent eventually have to confront the cognative disonance that is the modern left.

                      I would clarify – there are plenty of intelligent “Liberals” – Turley is one, Derschowitz another, I do not think Dave Rubin identifies as Liberal anymore.

                      I am liberal – as in someone who prizes individual liberty. I am not Derschowitz or Turley – I share strongly their civil libertarian values, but not their more socially left values.

                      Regardless, few on the left use Liberal anymore – and I would encourge you not to.

                      Left and Liberal are NOT the same.
                      And if gthe Left is walking away from the term liberal – lets not give it back to them.
                      They are not liberal and do not deserve to be called that.

                      They are leftists. or statists.

                    5. “Those who are intelligent eventually have to confront the cognative disonance that is the modern left.”

                      There are Liberals and liberals, as Bill Buckley would say. The capital L tells the difference for Liberal is more like the name of a party and does not impart the meaning of the word liberal in the classical liberal sense.

                      Decades ago, one might have referred to me as a liberal (small L) or classical liberal. Milton Friedman, at times, declining to label himself, said the closest one could get to his politics (he promoted economics) was classical liberal or libertarian. I doubt his use of libertarian included those on the far side of the spectrum.

                      Dave Rubin stated he no longer considers himself a Liberal any longer, but indeed he belongs to the group of classical liberals as Dershowitz and Turley. In fact, most of the Democrat Party of the past held onto a good deal of those classical liberal ideas. Recently they have made a 180-degree turn in the direction of fascism where speech is tightly controlled by a government-run entity consisting of an oligarchy and the ‘monopolists’ such as FB and Twitter. Funny, how that too is 180 degrees different than the Democrat party of not that long ago.

                      Left is a funny term, as is right-wing. Both contain a spectrum that sometimes makes the terms invalid. That is part of the hard left, Stalinist, Maoist, etc., followers, that pervert the English language so that up is down and down is up.

                      Today the Democrat Party is being run by the hard left. Some are avowed Marxists, if they even know what Marxism is. That ideology has been perverted as well.

                      I usually do not respond to you because you have no identity, and it is difficult to engage in conversation with those lacking an identity. When I engage, it is not worthwhile to seriously engage, so those comments are almost exclusively silly.

                      Suffice it to say you do not need to tell me how to differentiate the different ideologies.

                      Do not think that Marxists, Maoists, Stalinists, and others, cannot be intelligent. One of the most intelligent Stalinists was David Horowitz, who today is what you would call a right-winger. He learned what those ideologies were all about; Murder and total lack of civil liberties.

                    6. I am not interested in Liberal vs. liberal – as BOTH are increasingly rare.

                      It is not an accident that I talk about leftism.

                      Modern leftism is distinctly ILLIBERAL.

                    7. “I am not interested in Liberal vs. liberal – as BOTH are increasingly rare. “

                      It was posted to anonymous which I think was clear in my response. John, you might not care about the difference and the history, but I do. History is important when thinking about the future.

                      These are my thoughts, not yours, so I will take the liberty of stating what I feel to be pertinent.

                      “Modern leftism is distinctly ILLIBERAL.”

                      It is.

                    8. I am free to disagree with you.
                      I am free to post in response to you when I do.
                      I am free to say “your wrong”

                      Lets not play leftists games.

                    9. “Lets not play leftists games.”

                      John, one has to recognize that not all thought is either left or right. Some thought occupies both spaces. History is important. Logic is important. Continuity is important.

                    10. Few here understand everything is not left right better than I

                      I am libertarian

                      You and I have disagreed frequently
                      I have taken issue with many of George’s posts as well as others in some part of the right

                      These conflicts have often been intense

                      But they have also mostly remained focused on issues

                      Not insults or fallacy

                      The one fundamental conservative principle I agree with is that we should not easily discard what has been inplace for decades or centuries

                      Imperfect but working is better than new and untested

                      There are lots of improvements I support to policing

                      Done carefully and after serious evaluation

                      Until recently we had the best policing in our history

                      Perfect ? No

                      Most change is not improvement
                      As we are seeing

                      I am not at all opposed to change

                      But we must know history
                      And follow facts. Logic and reason if changes is not going to make things worse

                      Most change fails
                      That is the beauty of the free market
                      Lots of failure but on the whole the fastest improvement

                    11. I beleive the post you were responding to was mine.

                      All of us rarely post as anonymous – because we hit Post before remembering to fill in out identity.

                      I do not usually go back and try to correct that with an “its me” post.

                    12. I would suggest Turley as an intelligent liberal.
                      You can also follow Allan Derschowitz.
                      Bret Weinstein and Heather Heyer are on youtube as “DarkHouse” and their podcasts are excellent and thoughtful.

                    13. No, I read the article. I always do…, that’s how I gauge what content would fit best to any post I answer here. Or anywhere else for that matter. To not read an article, and grasp the content, especially when posting in response to something, would be idiotic.

                      Indeed, I am idiotic in some ways — i’d throw the idea that I can respond to people who are closed-minded, hoping there’s an opportunity for less closed-mindedness to be the result to the mix in that respect. But no, not reading, or understanding, public access content is, thankfully, not in that category.

                      EB 25

                    14. “I read the article. I always do…,”
                      Of course you do not. You can’t
                      No one has time to read everything published.

                      Did you read this article ?

                      I have no reason to beleive you.

                      You talk about reading the article – but you say nothing that demonstrates you have.

                      You say that posting withing reading would be idiotic – that is correct, but it happens here all the time.

                      Regardless, you have provided no reason to read the article.
                      No reason to beleive it is any different from the dozens of similar bits of yellow journalism that have been repeatedly debunked.

                      So why should I read what you link ?

                      No emotional appeals.
                      Tell me some actual evidence that goes beyond the myriads of debunked claims we have dealt with over the years.

                      “Indeed, I am idiotic in some ways — i’d throw the idea that I can respond to people who are closed-minded, hoping there’s an opportunity for less closed-mindedness to be the result to the mix in that respect. But no, not reading, or understanding, public access content is, thankfully, not in that category.”

                      My mind is completely closed to appeals to emotion, to running streams of fallacies, to promises without evidence.

                      If you expect me to change my mind about anything – facts, logic reason.

                      I have been persuaded by those many many times in my life.

                      I have seen no evidence here that you even consider facts, logic, or reason that conflicts with your ideological position.

                      Nor are you being honest. It is your mind that is closed.

                    15. For clarification purposes, John Say: when I say I read the article I post in response, I mean I’ve read ‘the’ article — not ‘every’ article. Basic singular/ plural dynamic there.

                      As to why I’d post an article, it’s in response, in your and Allan’s case, for an “argument” and/or proof of said argument. A standard way to do that, at least in a rational and ordered way, is to provide source material from an outside source who you might consider authoratative on the matter since I’ll always do it when being questioned/accused of not having any authorative standing. Basic stuff here…

                      It’s not a problem that will come up again though, as aside from this particular entry which I can keep brief, it seems that discussions with you, and certainly, Allan, *never* stay on point and focused. They are a complete waste of time, And they always follow this particular pattern: demand for evidence/argument on your part>>posting of outside source material on my part>>accusation of a) my not ‘understanding’ the source I’ve posted, and b) attack of the source material itself. It’s a really basic pattern that may seem clever and undetectable to you, but is really simple and non-productive to anyone you’re engaged in discussion with.

                      So, in trying to learn from my past mistakes in wasting time that I’ll never be able to reclaim, I won’t be engaging in discussion with you on any topic with the exception of explaining my tactical strategy being questioned in regressive and reductionistic ways. Even that I suspect may be opening up too much access to the disingenuous forces that thrive in this blog comment section.

                      Rock on. But do it away from me, please.

                      EB 25

                    16. Posting an article from a disreputable yellow rag like NYT is “not” a response that I have any intention of contemplating based solely on a link. Aparently SM chose to waste his time reading your article and found it did not advance your claims.

                      If you want just some of the reasons that NYT is a disreputable rag – try Barry Meier’s “Spooked”.
                      Meier’s is a decades long NYT journalist who thoroughtly trashes the NYT, staff, Glenn Simpson, the steele Dossier, and the whole Russian Collusion mess in extensive detail with real inside information showing how many of the same people who thought Simpson was the left wing version of Alex Jones suddenly sacrificed their integrity when going after Trump became the cause.

                      Meier BTW remains a Center Left journalist – though they are heard to find.

                      As to much of what you link to – If you expect me to read it – you are going to have to provide more than a link, especially when you are offering something that appears to be nothing more than long debunked nonsense from the disreputable NYT.

                      What does this article offer that has not aleready been debunked repeatedly ?

                      What does this article offer that gets you over the high hurdle that not only is Trump’s private business conduct none of your or anyone else’s business absent PROOF of misconduct, and misconduct is NOT self evident from your envy ?

                      I have heard absolutely nothing todate that justifies any law enforcement investigation. Much less a subpeona or warrant.

                      I want SCOTUS to restore the 4th amendment – not for Trump, but for ALL OF US.

                      I want people to go to jail over the Crossfire Huricane nonsense.

                      I do not want government sticking its nose into private conduct absent a clearly identifiable crime that actually happened and a high probability that those government is sniffing arround did it.

                      Do you have either ? No!

                      Thus far the Steele Dossier is less farcical than the Trump investigation.

                      I would suggest spooks further because it points out clearly that journalist lie, their government sources lie.
                      It is a crime to leak classified information to the press.
                      It is unfortunately not a crime to leak lies that would be classified if true to the press.
                      NYT no longer seems to grasp that.

                      I would further note – you continue to post as anonymous.
                      Doing so deprives you of any possible presumption of credibility.
                      With every post I assume you do not know what you are talking about.

                      If you had something significant to say – you would do so using a real identity.

                      Everyone is not obligated to assess your posts as i do.
                      But a loss of credibility is the natural consequence of an anonymous post.

                    17. “Posting an article from a disreputable yellow rag like NYT is “not” a response that I have any intention of contemplating based solely on a link. Aparently SM chose to waste his time reading your article and found it did not advance your claims.”

                      John, essentially we are born from the same area of the political spectrum, but we maintain certain attitudes that affect our beliefs and how we manage them.

                      I find your rhetoric excellent, but I don’t always agree. Sometimes I believe you go a bit too far. What is the cause of that slight difference?

                      You believe in right or wrong, up or down, black or white, or at least that is how you portray yourself in an argument with me and others. I generally don’t disagree with the bulk of your opinion, but I’m afraid I have to disagree with its absoluteness. Such absoluteness is not scientific.

                      Science is based on an open mind where even bad ideas such as the NYT article or who is whom on the blog are not fixed. There is doubt. It is not scientific to say the NYT is always wrong, nor is it science to say the NYT is possibly correct. Science tells us that whatever we believe is open to some amount of doubt. Without such an approach, we cannot advance. Without any doubt, all we can do is repeat over and over again what we learned before.

                      Science looks at things based on probability. There is no such word as “always” except to make science more straightforward for those who do not have an adequate grasp of science.

                      A lot of good ideas are hidden behind a lot of harmful rhetoric. The Bug lacks knowledge to such an extent that nothing he says can be considered “probably true” without significant evaluation. His logic is faulty, but one cannot scientifically say he is wrong. Instead, one needs to say he is probably wrong to the degree that it is more likely the sun will not rise tomorrow.

                      I understand the shorthand used in this type of blog that dulls distinctions. I guess that though we differ in absoluteness, a considerable part of that difference is in the shorthand.

                      The other differences involve reality as to what appears to be possible and time factors since humans live only so long. That means, letting the science of economics take its time can cause us to wait for the extinction of all human life before specific changes occur. The final difference is that though I am a big free market believer (of the Milton Friedman type), I nonetheless hold some doubt in its long-term efficacy and even what the words free market means.

                    18. SM – I do not think we are in the same political sphere.
                      while there are elements of liberty in your values, you are fundimentally conservative.
                      I am not. We are at odds on many things.

                      That said we also have much common ground.

                      I also have common ground with some on the left I do not with you.
                      However for the left the ends justifies the means – and I can not get on board with that.
                      It is vile – evil.

                      As to “going too far”.

                      Chenney has just be removed from Republican power, this is a reflection of an important change in power in the GOP – one that goes beyond even the Republican movement away from neo-cons.

                      It is a rejection of the politics of compromise.

                      Republicans spent decades compromising with the left.
                      The result was the left got bolder and stronger.

                      The left has actively sought to divide the country.

                      Over my lifetime the republican party has moved significantly to the left.
                      Much of that in good ways. Real liberals won the culture war.
                      Even the most conservatives may not wish to be forced to provide services various different groups that are at odds with their beleifs,
                      but equal rights for everyone is a faite accompli.
                      If you are gay you can get married,

                      The remaining battlegrounds are in areas where the left is WRONG.

                      There are some structural changes that can and are being made to address Transgenderism. But there are a few areas that can not be accomidated or that can not be accomodated quickly.

                      Nor can the left prevail on censorship or compelled speech – these are not merely wrong – they are evil.

                      Nor will the left’s racist “anti-racism” prevail. That is one of the most dangerous efforts of the left.
                      There is no significant “white supremecy” in the US.

                      Tim Scott put his foot firmly down that the the US is not a racist country.
                      That compelled Both Biden and Harris to tepidly agree – despite their own overtly racist policies – which are unlikely to survive the courts.
                      Racial preferences in Covid Relief have already been shot down.

                      You can not fight racism with racism.
                      You especially can not fight non-existant racism with racism.

                      The left’s faux “anti-racism” is with near certainly going to create racial conflict in this country – It will not merely revive white supremecy, but it is already pissing off asians, who are being actively discriminated against by leftist policies.

                      Put simply with few exceptions the conflict between the left and right has shrunk to little more than socialism.
                      The left may win that conflict – but only temporarily – because it is an ideology that does not work and results in copious bloodshed.

                    19. “elements of liberty in your values, you are fundimentally conservative.
                      I am not.”

                      John, that depends on how you define the word “conservative” I guess you would call Milton Friedman a conservative and possibly Hayek as well. I mostly look at policy and the Constitution but think I am closest to a classical liberal. I also believe steel bends where iron breaks, so I try to stay away from fixed ideologies that will never succeed.

                      “It is a rejection of the politics of compromise.”

                      Cheney’s removal represented reality.

                      I am not a fan of the Republican Party, and I never was.

                      Though interesting, the rest of your response had little if anything to do with what I wrote.

                    20. To continue.

                      While the conflict between you and I is small – I am libertarain – not conservative, not republican, and there are real differences that I am not going to cede.

                      I noted in the prior post that compromise has gotten republicans nowhere.

                      You keep trying to pretend there is some middle ground. There is not.

                      You do not wish to take a back and white approach to regulation.
                      If you allow the camels nose int he tent – the rest will soon follow.
                      Again and again we have seen that.

                      Regulation almost always goes only one way – infinitely expanding.
                      That MUST ultimately slowly choke everything.

                      You may not like my absolutist position, but it is the only one that is sustainable.

                    21. “While the conflict between you and I is small – I am libertarain – not conservative, not republican, and there are real differences that I am not going to cede.”

                      John, what you say is fine with me. However, but be careful that we don’t end up in a definitional dispute. I do not believe I am conservative based on the most accepted definition, nor am I a Republican.

                      “If you allow the camels nose int he tent – the rest will soon follow.”

                      That will happen no matter what approach you espouse unless the country has a complete change. Many people voted for Trump not because they liked him but because they felt Biden would do more damage. Some held to their strictest of principles and essentially threw away a vote.

                      Principles are beliefs frequently in conflict with one another. I guess on that $1.9Trillion package, you would prefer to agree to that bill’s expenditure rather than vote outside the halls of Congress so the bill wouldn’t pass.

                      The nation will suffer dearly for that decision that I presume you believe is the correct one as that person placed his absolutist principle above the nation’s economic health.

                    22. Nearly everything related to the use of force including government is and must be BLACK AND WHITE.

                      We can not have the rule of law – when what is criminal and what is not, is a whim decided after the fact,
                      I would note that the maleable defintion of what is a crime is not merely a feature of the modern left – but of past communists and socialists, and it is central to their bloody nature and downfall.

                      Absolutely the world has boundless shades of grey – OUTSIDE the domain of the use of force.

                      It is only the domain of Force that must be as close to absolute as possible.

                      Your digression on science is in some instances wrong, but mostly irrelevant.
                      Science is not within the domain of government.

                      I would note that the left drastically misunderstands science.

                      Science is a quest, not an endpoint.

                      The scientific method should result in failure 99% of the time – and we learn from that.
                      Nearly every hypothesis proves wrong. Even when we think that the data supports a hypothesis real science remains skeptical.

                      We learn as much or more from failure.

                      We see this in the “experts” in the past year.

                      While some of Faucci’s lying is unforgiveable – No matter what might ultimately prove the origen of Covid, it is 100% certain that Faucci has been lying for over a year to hide his personal connections to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Being wrong in science is excusable – it is even lauditory when you can admit it. lying is not forgive able.

                      The problem with the failed advice of scientists and experts over the past year is not that their advice was wrong, It is that it was accepted as gospel and imposed by force.

                      That is NOT science, that is religion.

                      As we have seen over the past year – Science is USUALLY wrong. That is its nature.

                      And it is why we can not vest science with public power.

                      Science advises – not government, but people, and people choose how to respond INDIVIDUALLY.
                      Nothing else works.

                    23. “Your digression on science is in some instances wrong, but mostly irrelevant.
                      Science is not within the domain of government.”

                      Where did I say science was in the domain of government. Science is. That is it.

                      I don’t think I even mentioned government.

                      There is no way Fauci should have been in charge. He is a bureaucrat without the ability to handle such an emergency. He used his MD and status to promote his authority. Neither of them provided him the qualifications for the job of managing Covid.

                    24. You clearly think something would be acheived if I read your linked article.

                      But in a whole series of exchanges you have provided no reason at all for anyone to actually read the article.

                      You rant about wasting time – absolutely you have wasted your own and everyone else’s.

                      What you have not done is provided a basis to beleive that reading your article would not be a further waste of time.

                    25. “Rock on. But do it away from me, please.

                      EB 25”

                      If you post here, by doing so you accept that others may respond to your posts.

                      You are entitled to express your views anonymously.
                      You are not entitled to expect others not to respond.

                      If you continue to post stupidity.
                      I will respond to it with facts, logic and reason.

                      You waste your time by not actually learning from your real mistakes.

                2. You presciently note that we are not going to read your NYT article.

                  Why would that be ?

                  For the same reason that I would not invest in stock in the NYT.

                  Because they have destroyed their own credibility,
                  Because they have ruined their reputation – and it is their reputation for truth and accuracy that is the fundamental asset of a newspaper.

                  We have listened to all kinds of garbage from NYT in particularl for half a decade or more.

                  It has proven to be garbage.

                  Right wing tin foil hat nut job Alex Jones has a better track record for accuracy than NYT.

                  You want ANYONE with half a brain to read your article ?

                  Then present FACTS to demonstrate that it is worth reading.

                  You have ranted constantly about Trump and money – but you have not ONCE presented a factual argument.
                  I do not care that you do not like Trump.
                  I do not care that you are green with envy of his wealth.

                  One does not have to support Trump, or Bloomberg, or Sorros or …. to accept that they are all entitled to do as they please with THEIR wealth.

                  Much of the claims of those on the left is that Trump did not “earn” his wealth. That in reality he has been “bailed out” repeatedly in some fashion were his net worth magically increases.

                  If trump started as a begar on the street and has without the use of force persuaded other to give him Billions of dollars – SO WHAT ?

                  While that claim is ludicrously stupid – because it did not happen.
                  Even if True – it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

                  Do you have evidence that Trump USED FORCE to take money form others ?

                  If you do not – Go away. You are selling nothing but envy and resentment.

                3. Can you point to a FACT that is actually relevant ?

                  As I have pointed out over and over – Not Banks, In fact NO ONE – but Government provides others with money without expecting to get even more money in return.

                  This SIMPLE FACT deflates nearly everything leftists and NYT ever say about money.

                  We went through much of this nonsense with Manafort.

                  There is no difference with Trump.

                  Few lend money to people they do not Trust.

                  Outside of family and close friends TRUST is acheived by a record of past conduct AND by verification.

                  If you go to a bank and to borrow money the amount you can borrow will NOT be based on your winning personality, your charm, or shared ideology.

                  It will be based on:

                  Your past track record of paying back what you had borrowed.
                  The collateral that you provide as security.
                  Your ability to repay what you have borrowed.
                  Business Analysis of what you plan to do with that money.

                  If you have tried to get a home equity or car loan from a bank – you KNOW this already.
                  If you want a larger loan this is all even MORE true.

                  Trump’s net worth – about $3B is the sum of the value of his assets less the sum of the value of his liabilities.

                  It is possible – even probable that Trump has $20B in loans today. Loans that he is constantly repaying.
                  If he has $20B in loans those are on assets that are worth $25B or more.
                  Banks do not loan significant money without collateral – security.

                  If you did not know this otherwise you should have learned it in 2008.

                  The entire financial crisis was cause because the value of homes dropped suddenly
                  That is the value of collateral on about $0.5T in loans.

                  Only governments give away money without doing extensive due dilligence.

                  No nonsense from NYT will ever alter that.
                  Innuendo is not FACT.
                  Envy is not FACT.

                4. Let us examine the possibility that Trump got wealthy from “money laundering”.

                  That means that someone gave Trump Billions of dollars of money that they made in some nefarious way,
                  and that they expect all of that money BACK,

                  Even Drug dealers and criminals do not just give away the money they make.

                  So called “money laundering” laws are not about fighting crime – they have little at all to do with crime.
                  As we have seen over the past few years – they are merely the means by which government tries to control and punish us.

                  Paul Manafort made alot of money as a political consultant in Eastern Europe.

                  While I do not personally understand the value of his services – his clients do – and they paid him alot.

                  That was HIS MONEY. To do with as he pleased.

                  It was not YOURS, it was not Muellers, It was not the US governments.

                  If you make money in NY – Texas or California can not tax what you made in NY.

                  That is a requirement To the extent that taxes are legitimate at all – and not theft.

                  Can Sri Lanka tax you and wealth you create in the US ?

                  There is only one form of crime where the criminal profits without having to work for those profits – Theft.

                  Even Drug dealers – sell a product and it is bad business to sell products that kill their clients or are of poor quality.

                  The point is that even criminals have to trade value for value to make money.

                  Only theives and govenrment can confiscate money by force.
                  And only government can mame money from thin air.

                  Everyone else – including criminals makes money by trading value for value.

            2. “Actually trump got to the point no one would do business with him because he bailed on so many loans and had to lean on his father until he died (when trump got an alzheimer ridden trump sr. to change his will and cut out other family members). ”

              This is an idiotic claim – typical of left wing nuts. Trump is worth about 3B today. The Trump family is worth several times that – including the assets of those family members you claim were “cut out”. Trump Senior was worth about 140M at most.
              So how is it that Trump Sr, “Bails out” Trump in such a way that Trump and the entire Trump family end up worth many times more than Trump Sr. was ever worth ? Magic fairy dust ?

              “Deutche Bank was the only bank left that would touch him,”
              Deutche Bank has a reputation as the most conservative bank in the world.
              They do not “Bail People out” – again more nonsense.

              I would further note that you and the left and democrats and your prosecutors are absolutely clueless about banks and lending.

              One of my businesses is “Due Diligence” – this is the specific area of Bank Financing of comercial property.

              If you have a 300K car wash and you wish to borrow against it form ANY bank or lendor, There will be a “due diligence” investigation by the bank.

              There will be an Bank Apraisal, an independent appraisal, an independent environmental assessment, an independent property condiction assessment, independent review of your finances, Cashflow, and profitability.

              Banks do not just say “hmm, lets loan that guy millions of dollars”

              I have personally done property condition assessments for dozens of buildings in NYC – including very prestigeous buildings on Central park with hundreds of millions of dollars.

              In 2006 we saw the consequences of massive numbers of bank loans written badly at the direction of the federal government.
              And now we have similar requirements for home loans as Banks have always had for commercial loans.

              I would note that there has never been a large scale commercial loan default as we saw with the housing crisis.

              Why ? Because government does not try to use commercial loans to accomplish social purposes.

              The left, the media, the democrats seem to think that money is loaned out willy nilly with no thought of the ability of those who borrow to repay.

              That NEVER happens in a free market. You ONLY see that when government is lending or when government coerces private lendors.

              Regardless, NO ONE “Bailed Trump out”. Banks loaned him money. And those loans REQUIRED repayment. Those loans were secured by assets. Had Trump failed to repay – the Banks would seize those assets.

              I would further note that borrowing money is nor merely the norm – it occurs nearly 100% of the time with commercial real estate.

              A typical commerical property is refinanced every 4-7 years. Refinancing allows the owner to “cash out” – typically to reinvest in more commerical property.

              Banks require that commercial borrowers retain a 20% stake in their property – because if the borrower defaults it is always possible to sell the collateral for 80% of its value. And Due dilligence is entirely about making absolutely certain that in every possible way the collateral is WORTH what the borrower claims.

              Banks do not just accept what the borrower says a property is worth. Nor do they loan money because some officer in the bank favors a borrower. Many people – completely independent of the bank not only have to “sign off” – but they have to stake their own professional reputations on the valuation of the building. Further the reputation of those independent assessors is baked by professional liability insurance. If these people botch the assessment of a property – they will be sued for large amounts and they will lose.

              “which makes the supoened material from them some of the most fascinating in investigations in NY state.”

              This is more left wing nut wishful thinking.

              Lets presume that Deutche Bank really just gave Trump massive amounts of cash without any due dilligence.

              What business is that of yours or the NY AG or Mueller ? Deutche Bank is answerable to the shareholders of the bank – not you, not the US government for its loans.

              Banks do not loan money as political favors. Only governments do that. But even if they actually did – what business is it of yours ?

              Why do you or the NY AG or any other government entity have any right to decide or even look into private lending ?

              It is not your business. If DB actually just gave Trump money with no expectance of being repaid – that would not be a crime.
              It would be an issue solely for DB shareholders.

              But that is not what happened. Banks do not just give money away. They not only expect to be repaid. They go to a great deal of trouble to assure that they WILL be repaid.

              “Notable that as soon as Deutche Bank was compelled to give up its records on their workings with trump that the two people managing those loans both resigned because, in a public relations sense, it’s shows the beginnings of a campaign to cut ties with trump publicly in order to save face.”

              Yup, You make Your attentions clear here. This is not about any actual crime – the purpose of all this is to intimidate lenders.

              To assure that Banks will know that in the future they have to add political calculations to their lending.

              “To me this was a striking occurence because it happened just prior to the election last year”

              You do not seem to grasp.

              IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

              Neither you nor government are entitled sniff arround in who lends money to who.

              YOU are free to give to whatever charity you please. You are free to loan money to anyone you wish – with whatever strings you want.
              You are free to use the courts to assure that the agreements you have with others – such as those for repayment of a loan are honored.

              DB is free to use the courts to compell Trump to repay his loans – if he ever actually failed to do so.

              Your freedom to do with your wealth as you please REQUIRES that government does not meddle in your free choices.

              I do not give a $hit what you find “interesting” – none of this is your business.

              The purpose – contra your idiotic claims is NOT to find crimes – that is quite litterally not possible.

              There is no crime ever in the free choice of free people to loan money to others.

              But there is a crime in using political power to intimidate lenders. To use the power of government to investigate where government has no business and where actual crime is not possible.

              But you are too clueless to understand.

              Though you know all about intimidating people.

              You KNOW that the reason that 28 states REQUIRE secret ballots – is to prevent voters from being intimidated.

              In 2020 we saw lots of woke left wing nuts post their mailin ballots on social media.

              This is illegal. A secret ballot requires that no one is ever able to prove how they voted.

              Not even a husband can know for certain how a wife voted.

              But YOU are intent on destroying that.

              You are tryjng to sell the repressive and idiotic “social capital” system of the PRC.

              You want everyone’s private choices – who they lend to, who they vote for EVERYTHING to be subject to public scrutiny.
              So that people can be shamed and coerced into behaving as you wish – regardless of their own preferences.

              “The “business people” you speak of will turn out to Russian organized crime who the Trump organization laundered money for.”

              Right – that of course is why there has been absolutely no actual link between Trump and Russia todate.

              That is why Trump Tower Russia was never built. Trump is in left wing nut world – a Putin Puppet.
              It is not necescary in left wing nut world for any claim to actually make sense.

              It is true – just because it fits your ideology.

              Never mind that democrats – Clinton, Biden actually received money, favor and support from Russia.
              Never mind that Trump did not.

              BTW – please explain exactly how this “money laundering” works ?

              Even criminals do not just GIVE money to people. When criminals lend money to be laundered – they EXPECT THAT MONEY BACK.
              And when you borrow from criminals and you do not repay – they KILL you.

              Your entire thesis makes ZERO sense.

              You do not care.
              It has never mattered to left wing nuts that anything they say make sense.

              “These things are a matter of public record.”
              What things ? Private conduct is not a matter of public record. Everything is not your business.
              Everything is not governments business.

              How about a deal – You get to scrutinize Trump’s records using AG’s and special investigators all you please,
              But when they find nothing – THEY go to jail!

              You do not seem to grasp that Government is not a tool for you to intimidate people you do not like or to intimidate people who do business with those you do not like.

              If you manage to succeed in the idiocy you are engaged in – you will drive the country and yourself to ruin.

              “drop into a shame spiral after the election”

              Absolutely – show precisely what you are about.

              It is your wish to be able to pry into everyones lives and to do so for the purpose of shaming them into supporting your stupid ideology.

              ” and begin posting under another identity on the site. Oops, that’s what you did, my bad.

              EB”

              Says someone who posts as anonymous.

              Atleast you are mostly Signing your posts.

              Though you do understand that is still an anonymous post. Anyone can post anonymously and add “EB” to the end of they post.

              1. a banquet of magat vomit by john say. always good to get the viewpoint of an idiot. keep on being special. we’re here for you.

                1. John Say argues with logic and fact. You have neither so you argue with “magat vomit”, the only thing your mind can think up.

            3. I am a ding bat left wing nut who is entirely clueless about everything. Who would not know a fact if it hit me upside the head.

              I desparately seek to control other peoples lives – actually productive people – because I am ashamed as I have never accomplished anything consequential myself. So i want to destroy those who have and use the power of government to do so.

              EB

              1. hey EB! notice you lack a number marking which makes you even dumber than you claim to be. since you’ve become an ayn rand fan overnight how about you explain how that happened?

                twenty five

              2. “I am a ding bat left wing nut who is entirely clueless about everything. Who would not know a fact if it hit me upside the head.”

                Bug, though you write this response with a bit of sarcasm, you do so knowingly. That is the first step to a cure that will lead you out of your fog.

          2. Those on the left are completely clueless about Trust.

            Free exchange does not occur without Trust.

        2. Whoa Nellie (Ohr), that was the most insipid, insane rant yet by a Corrupt, Lying, Quisling, “Useful Idiot” for his Leftist masters, Fraudulent, Moronic, Borg-Minded, hate-America, hate-Freedom, pathetic, Leftist lemming!! Your sponsors should double your pay to $1.50 per hour! Especially loved the “blatant hypocrisy” line since Leftists are the absolute masters of 100% total hypocrisy – along with the corruption & lying!! The American Left -> no lie too great, no corruption too vile, no evil they will not indulge. This fraud must have his PhD from Cloward/Piven University with a thesis on Rules for Radicals (just like Hillary)!

        3. EB,

          Is it just me, or do you think that “John Say” is “S.Meyer”? They both seem to share the same inane mindset. Until the real John Say stands up, I’m adding him to my “ignore list.”

          If I had a blog- which I admit no one would read (so you can spare me the insult), I would insist that everyone somehow proves who they are and posts under their real identities. The worst thing about the Internet is anonymity. There is no accountability and shaming to induce people to self-censor. I am sure Turley would agree.

          1. I have criticized SM for this kind of idiotic nonsense of trying to guess who is posting under multiple identities.

            I am not going to respond to the incredibly stupid claim that I am SM. Reading the posts should aptly demonstrate that.

            But then your cognative skills have not be that good.

            I do not personally see the point at using multiple identities.

            Nor am I going to cease posting as JBSay unless wordpress of Facebook make that impossible.

            I have estalished a reputation for FACTS, LOGIC, REASON as jbsay over decades and would not surrender that by choosing to post under another identity.

            While there is little wrong with SM’s posts – Why would I want to pretend to be him ?

            Further why would you care if I did ?

            1. “I have criticized SM for this kind of idiotic nonsense of trying to guess who is posting under multiple identities.”

              John, your mind acts differently than mine. My previous piece explains this in greater detail.

              I must also let you know that to keep abreast of the news cycles, one of my daily reads is the NYT headlines. If interested, I will read the article in part or in total. None of this is idiotic nonsense.

              1. SM – this is not about how ones mind works.

                It is not possible to determine if two posting identities are really the same person.
                Nor does it serve a purpose.

                The norms learned from millenia of experience is that new voices are trusted less than old ones.
                that voices with a reputation for credibility are trusted more than those without,
                that anonymous voices are only trusted more than those that are know to lie constantly.

                Abandoning one identity to shift to another means starting over with respect to credibility.

                I have ZERO interest in ever letting go of the reputation for trust, credibility and integrity I have built as JBSAY.

                If I post anonymously it is either an accident or because wordpress is being evil that day.

                There are legitimate reasons for anonymous posting. There are occasionally some truths it is not safe to say in ones own name or even as a psuedonym, But that is rare. Especially in the US until recently.

                Regardless, I am not going to deliberately engage in a snipe hunt.

                If someone posts under two identities – I am not going to try the impossible – to connect them.

                Stupid is stupid – no matter what name you post under. And smart is smart,

                Truth is NOT determined by who posted. But the credibility we give some claim is.
                What is true is true – even if expressed by Hitler.

                But we are more likely to assume that those with a past reputation for truth are likely to be speaking truth in the present.
                Because they value their reputation.

                If some poster beleives they have damaged their reputation so much they must slink away and post under a different name.

                Let them.

                Who knows, maybe they will learn that credibility is not a right, or an entitlement.

                1. “Nor does it serve a purpose.”

                  It doesn’t serve a purpose for you. I like to have continuity to analyze the logic behind the response. You rely on an ideology with a fixed playing field which only requires an on off switch.

                  Just remember that credibility is poorly evaluated by the American public. How many still think Russia when they think of Trump.

          2. I doubt Turley would agree. I certainly do not. Allowing anonymous posts is a non-default WP option.

            Jay, Hamilton and Madison posted under pseudonyms while writing the federalist papers. Possibly the most important documents about the governance of our country except the constitution.

            I have repeatedly pointed out to Anonymous that anonymous posts come with consequences – a lack of credibility or trust.
            At the same time posting as anonymous is a right.
            But that right comes not only at a cost in trust and credibility, but also the loss of an identity.

            1. “Jay, Hamilton and Madison posted under pseudonyms while writing the federalist papers. ”

              John, most persons on this blog use pseudonyms or aliases. The difference between their papers and the anonymous posting we see on the blog today is that one can follow their logic from one paper to the next. That is the failure of anonymous posting on this blog. Reason disappears, and one is then left with silliness.

              To you, a person’s logic has no meaning. To me, logic is frequently more important than facts.

              In some of my higher mathematics training, when a student made a mistake, the professor was so good he could explain the student’s logic behind the error. That is teaching and along with teaching comes learning.

                1. Just as I previously stated posting as anonymous leads to silliness. Here is Anonymous the Stupid proving what I said. He sounds stupid because he is stupid.

                  1. …and posting as S. Meyer leads to “silliness.”

                    He calls others “stupid.” when it’s his own stupidity that’s on full display.

                    1. Anonymous the Stupid, you promote your own Stupidity. You entered a serious discussion, but serious discussions are above your intellectual capacity. That is why you return to silliness.

                    2. Mostly he calls anonymous stupid

                      I have no problem with that.

                      You can not defame an anonymous poster.

                      Further it fits.

                      You are free to post under a name – and then you need not feel insulted when SM attack some anonymous poster.

                2. Anonymous can not sit in judgement of the credentials of others – as anonymous has none.
                  Anonymous has no identity

              1. There is a difference between writing under your own name.
                Writing under a pseudonym
                and writing anonymously.

                Each has different advantages and disadvantages, and different levels of credibility

                1. I agree, John. I used to believe in total anonymity, but I find it upsets the balance of an intelligent blog like this one. In the past I have been part of discussion groups where names, professions, and even addresses were known, but today with the leftist plague of violence that is not something desirable especially if peaceful and on the right.

                  Look at what we get from Ben Marcus or Anonymous the Stupid presently the two worst offenders. I disagree with a bunch of others but I don’t say the same as they maintain one or only an occasional shift in identity.

                  1. I have no problem with anonymity
                    I take issue with anonymous posters who want to have it all

                    Identity credibility trust

                    You may not have and can not earn these anonymously

                    Nor is it the duty of others to group anonymous posts together based on guessed identity

                    1. “I have no problem with anonymity”

                      John, I have no problem with anonymity either, until they use that anonymity to permit themselves to lie to others and themselves.

          3. For someone so interested in shaming others – you have no shame yourself.

            Modern Leftism is morally repugnant.

            Someday when you grow up, you may find yourself ashamed of your past postings.

            But I agree – you should wear them as an albatross arround your neck. ‘

            I have never written anything in my life that I am ashamed of.
            I have not done anything in my life I am ashamed of.
            My few regrets are what I have not done.

            When you finally reach adulthood, I doubt you will feel the same.

          4. Jeff S.,
            “If I had a blog- which I admit no one would read (so you can spare me the insult), I would insist that everyone somehow proves who they are and posts under their real identities.”

            I appreciate the anonymity of this blog (though not the ridiculous behavior by some anonymous posters). I value my privacy and thus post with a pseudonym. I would be greatly saddened if Professor Turley required everyone to post with their true identity. I would probably not sign on anymore.

            “There is no accountability and shaming to induce people to self-censor.”

            That’s what a conscience is supposed to do.
            I don’t like the phrase self-censor; it carries too many bad connotations, even if it is similar to a mother’s admonition that ‘if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” I agree that some things are better left unsaid, especially in the interest of effective and civil discourse.

      3. TIT – Turley prosumes something that is logically possible – but highly improbable.

        That the House democrats would move forward in a partisan fashion, ignore all due process, act in secret, Try to Hide everything exclupatory they found. and that there would STILL be sufficient evidence to prove the case if only they proceded correctly.

        Possible ? Yes, Likely ? Nope.

        People tend to rush to judgement to short circuit due process and to work in the dark – when they do not have a case, know that and are hiding it.

        While I am not sure that democrats knew they had nothing.
        I do not think they cared.

        Democrats did not procede with either impeachment with any intention of making a case by evidence,
        Both were partisan emotional appeals.

        The left does not care about evidence.

    2. @JeffS

      No Trump could not be found guilty of either impeachment.
      Mueller’s team (clearly not Mueller based on his testimony in front of Congress) was throwing out very twisted and far reaching theories to get Trump.
      They even ignored precedents which show that they couldn’t proceed. (e.g. Bush pardons ended an investigation into Iran/Contra. Its not obstruction if a legal act conflicts with the investigation.)

      1. The left things aby effort to thwart their tyranny must be illegal.

        You can tell that leftist legal theories are bat$hit when they ONLY apply them one way.

        Biden Blackmailed the Ukraine for the personal financial benefit of his son.

        That is illegal in the Ukaine AND the US.

        Trump at worst mildly coerced Ukraine to investigate Biden’s wrong doing.
        That is NOT illegal. And aparently unknown to Trump or house democrats – Barr was already investigating exactly that.

        Mueller’s investigation was without justification.

        You can not obstruct the illegal acts of government trolls.

        With respect to Jan. 6 – Maybe someday we will know the actual extent of Fraud in the 2020 election.
        But we already know that the election was conducted lawlessly.

        That alone justifies everything Trump did AND things he did not do.
        That alone more than justifies an actual insurection – which did not happen.

    3. I think your claim that a state prosecution will not proceed without overwhelming evidence is dubious at best.

      We have myriads of examples of baseless state partisan prosecutions.
      Many of which failed.

      Lets see some EVIDENCE.

  4. Y’know Par, I’m not a rocket scientist but I told you that the bridge is out on the road you’re on & that that car you’re driving isn’t the the General Lee & it’ll never ever jump & clear that river coming up!

    But you just go ahead & get on down there & test out the laws of physics & science.

    ( And these below are just the early symptoms. What happens later? )

    ***

    Health
    Rock Legend Eric Clapton Blasts Vaccine Safety ‘Propaganda’, Says He Had ‘Disastrous Reaction’ to AstraZeneca COVID Shot
    by Jamie White
    May 16th 2021, 10:31 am
    Anti-lockdown guitarist said he was afraid he’d never play again after suffering alarming side effects.
    Image Credit:
    Gareth Cattermole/Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images
    Share
    Fund the InfoWar. Donate Now!
    Keep up to date with our latest:
    Email
    Sign Up Now
    Have an important tip? Let us know.
    Email us here.

    Rock icon Eric Clapton railed against the coordinated vaccine safety “propaganda”, claiming he suffered severe side effects after taking AstraZeneca’s COVID shot.

    In a message to his producer, Clapton, a lockdown skeptic, said his hands and feet became “useless” after taking the jab – prompting fears he would never perform again.

    “I took the first jab of AZ [AstraZeneca] and straight away had severe reactions which lasted ten days,” Clapton wrote to music mogul Robin Monotti Graziadei.

    “My hands and feet were either frozen, numb or burning, and pretty much useless for two weeks, I feared I would never play again…”

    “I should never have gone near the needle,” Clapton continued. “But the propaganda said the vaccine was safe for everyone.”

    “I’ve been a rebel all my life, against tyranny and arrogant authority, which is what we have now,” he added.

    Clapton condemned the British government earlier this year, collaborating with fellow anti-lockdown musician Van Morrison on an anti-lockdown song called “Stand and Deliver”.

    Notably, the AstraZeneca jab has been halted in over a dozen countries in Europe, Asia, and North America over blood clot issues.

    https://www.infowars.com/posts/rock-legend-eric-clapton-blasts-vaccine-safety-propaganda-says-he-had-disastrous-reaction-to-astrazeneca-covid-shot/

    1. BTW:

      My daughter is one of those long suffered daddy syndrome. That’s where no matter what I adviser her it’s seems she’ll always do the opposite.

      Now thinking about it I guess I should have told her to get the shots, but I told her not too. Well, she really stepped in it this time, as someone who for health reasons shouldn’t have went anywhere near those big Pharma Frankenstein Shots she did. Know it’s appear as she’s experiencing long term health effects the last 2 months.

      It makes me sick & pissed off at the same time.

    1. I don’t see why Youtube would take down that video. And I’m truly sorry that Clapton is experiencing pain in his hands and feet because he is quite the musician and a voice for recovery from addiction that is to be reckoned with for sure…

      But, by the standards of this Mill line of argument, he’d be in support of Cicciline’s position. The argument about election results has been settled. And January 6th was an insurrection. Since Mill doesn’t categorize degrees of ‘rightness’, and since when the stakes of lying about the election and the insurrection are amplified no one disputes these facts, Cicciline is just trying to prevent a disingenuous PR campaign on the part of the rigtht to play politics with the truth from being granted access to formal Congressional procedure. I applaud his efforts.

      EB

      1. “But, by the standards of this Mill line of argument, he’d be in support of Cicciline’s position. The argument about election results has been settled.”
        How so ? Magical thinking ?

        Has there been an actual inquiry ?

        Please tell me what state counted its votes throughout the state with full public scrutiny of the process ?

        I have repeatedly noted that the result of the GA Cobb county Signature audit were damning.

        But nothing happened. The audit PROVED that there is a very high probability that 120,000 GA votes that were illegitimate were counted – though the actual number could be 240K or more. It proved that there is a very high probability that 12,000-24,000 Fraudulent votes were case in GA.

        Was there further inquiry ? It is not difficult to go from the high probability results of a 5000 ballot random audit to and actual full audit of one or more counties.

        “And January 6th was an insurrection.”
        It is increasingly evident that is false.
        It is also irrelevant.

        You are constantly making errors regarding FORCE.

        At your whim you presume that all uses of FORCE by government are justified and all other uses of FORCE are not.
        Except when it suits you to claim otherwise.

        There was very little force used at Jan. 6. Most of it in response to NUMEROUS government violations of our rights.

        The first and obvious issue is that the lockdown of congress was unconstitutional infringement on the right to protest, assemble and petition government. As recent video exposes – even the capital police understood they could not interfere with peaceful protests.

        With the exeception of those few who can be directly tied ot violent acts – the charges against everyone arrested on Jan. 6 must be dropped – because they did not tresspass – the both could not, and were not asked to leave by the capital police. They were told they WOULD be allowed to protest. OOPS.

        But there is a 2nd bigger argument – and that is was the use of FORCE Justified. Right now that is an incredibly close call.

        There is no doubt that the government lost the trust of the people.

        Regardless actually read the declaration of independence – that is a document JUSTIFYING and insurrection – the use of force against an illegitimate government.

        “Since Mill doesn’t categorize degrees of ‘rightness’, and since when the stakes of lying about the election and the insurrection are amplified no one disputes these facts,”

        No one disputes ? Where do you live Mars ? No one in your bubble may dispute what you call facts.
        But tens of millions of people dispute what you call facts, and they have had a far better track record than you.

        Why do you expect Trump supporters – or anyone – to beleive you or the media or democrats ?

        You have told so many lies.
        Do we have to list a few AGAIN ?

        Just today Klimnick has come forward and refuted all the idiotic claims about him – nor do we need to rely on his word – though his accuses have lied so much who would beleive them – but he has provided DOCUMENTATION.

        Once Again Mueller and his gang of angry partisans LIED – to the public and to the courts.

        And aparently the IRS was investigating the Clinton foundation for Criminal Tax Fraud and mysteriously dropped the case and now a federal judge wants an explanation.

        There is of course the myriads of LIES about “russian disinformation”.

        Yup – some computer repair shop owner is actually a russian spy, as are the numerous real american people who confirm many details.

        “How can you tell if a lefty is lying ? When they open their mouth”

        No EB – your “facts” are not generally accepted – nor is that the standard for whether something is a fact.
        Myriads of popular opinions are and have been wrong.

        You are not credible when you claim “no one disputes” – when many posters here dispute nearly every claim.

        You can not manufacture facts.

        “Cicciline is just trying to prevent a disingenuous PR campaign on the part of the rigtht to play politics with the truth from being granted access to formal Congressional procedure. I applaud his efforts.”

        You would – you have applauded myriads of corrupt efforts over the past several years.

        If you wish to be be considered trustworthy – you need to act in a trustworthy fashion.

        Quit LYING.

        You explicitly said “no one disputes these facts” – that is FALSE and you know it.

        Recent CNN polls indicate that 4 months after Jan 6 – the same percent of republicans as an Jan. 6 beleive the election was stolen.

        “No One” is not the same as “no one in my bubble”

        Make your arguments truthfully.

  5. So Republicans can be censured, disbarred, or prevented from employment for questioning election integrity, but Democrats are heroes for spending millions of taxpayer dollars, and years in multiple investigations of 2016 election integrity, all based upon a fake hit piece paid for by Hillary Clinton?

    Stand up for what’s right.

    The election cases were tossed for lack of standing, not lack of evidence.

    1. Republicans are not “questioning election integrity” because all proof PROVES there was no widespread election fraud. Republicans are buying into the BIG LIE, and it’s killing this country. And, you continue proving what a total dope you are when you keep repeating the “hit piece paid for by Hillary Clinton” meme. For the last time, Karen, the Mueller investigation was NOT triggered by the Steele Dossier, and that document was started by a fellow Republican

      “Stand up for what’s right”, you say? How about not promoting the BIG LIE? The election cases were tossed for lack of any semblance of proof. There were : recounts, re-recounts, signature match validations, hand recounts, machine recounts. TRUMP LOST because Americans didn’t want him in the first place, half of us never approved of him, every poll predicted he would lose, and he DID lose.

      All you ever do, Karen, is mimic what you hear on the alt-right media you are faithful to because you are a gullible disciple.

      1. “Republicans are not “questioning election integrity” because all proof PROVES there was no widespread election fraud. ”

        If one understands what proof actually means, one recognizes that there is more proof that there was election fraud then there was no election fraud.

        1. “Man charged with wife’s murder illegally cast her ballot for Trump, officials say: ‘I just thought, give him another vote’”

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/15/murder-voter-fraud-trump-morphew/

          Excerpt:

          Then came the charges of illegal voting.

          Morphew’s case is not the only allegation of fraudulent Trump votes to emerge amid Republicans’ baseless insistence that electoral wrongdoing boosted President Biden. Last month, a Pennsylvania man pleaded guilty to voter fraud charges after he cast a ballot for Trump under his dead mother’s name, after registering with her driver’s license.

          Bruce Bartman apologized for his actions and blamed them on pandemic isolation and listening to “too much propaganda,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Two other men in Pennsylvania have been accused of committing voter fraud by casting illegal ballots for Trump, the Inquirer reported.

          Trump and his supporters promoted myriad claims of fraud in the 2020 election, challenging the results in lawsuits rejected by at least 86 judges and fueling the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Local, state and federal authorities have said there is no evidence of fraud that could have cost Trump the election.

          — Washington Post

          1. He should be jailed if true. one can never trust the Washington Post, but I won’t dispute the facts for they promote my view that we need voter ID. We also need to stop the types of voting that promotes the ability to use someone else’s name. That means voting in person, registered, with ID, cross checked and stiff jail terms.

            You have proven my point.

            1. Allan, you make sweeping statements of opinion. You never really “prove” your points because at a minimum you never engage in dialectical thought analysis.

              EB

              1. Notice Bug, you provide nothing to prove your contentions. You almost never do. You are a talker, not a doer. Lots of tall stories, but you always come up short.

                Anonymous proved my point. We need to reduce the ability to cheat in our elections no matter which side the cheating occurs. The fact that you didn’t address the criminal action under discussion demonstrates you talk without any visible signs of intellect.

                SM

              2. “Allan, you make sweeping statements of opinion.”
                What would those be ?

                You are constantly making “sweeping statements of opinion” of the form – “XXX is wrong about something” – without ever even telling is what “something” is much less why XXX is wrong.

                That is not an argument – that is as you say a “sweeping generalization” – actually it is worse. There is not even much of a generalization.
                It is just sweeping ad hominem.

                “You never really “prove” your points”
                Which points would those be.

                You can make whatever stupid remarks you want. But an actual argument requires FACTS – What are the points you think “Allan” has not proven ? Why ?

                FACTS, LOGIC, REASON – not YOUR “sweeping generalizations” – or just plain ad hominem.

                “because at a minimum you never engage in dialectical thought analysis.”
                Your lack of self awareness is incredible.

                Please can you cite me any instance in which you have made any substantial argument.

                Oh, BTW I am not interested in nonsense phrases like “dialectical thought analysis”
                Do you actually think about what it is you are saying ?

                Dialectic is the exchange of opposing ideas – when have you done that ?
                Do you ever seriously examine anything that is critical to your position ?

                Can you cite an instance in which your response to evidence of error on your pact – i.e. dialectic, has been anything but fallacy ?

                Further – can you atleast be consistent ? Either you wish to engage in logical debate – dialectic, or you do not.

                It is tedious dealing with left wing nuts who run scurrying claiming they were not and are not actually here to debate – just to comment – as if there is a meaningful difference on a legal blog, and then start uttering nonsense about failure to engage in dialectic.

                Who is “allan” or anyone else supposed to engage in a dialectic with – certainly not you.
                You gun rushing into ad hominem and fallacy the moment real facts are presented.
                You do not engage in “dialectic” by insulting others or there arguments,
                FACTS, LOGIC, REASON.

                And I would ask you to think about what phrases like “dialectical thought analysis” before using them.
                You pretty clearly have no clue what dialectic means.

                Putting together a string of big words you clearly do not understand – does not make you look smart – it makes you look stupid.

                I suggest taking Orwell’s advice and KISS. If you can not manage an argument using simple language that even a 5th grader would understand – you are going to tangle yourself in knots with more complex language.

          2. No One – not I nor Republicans have argued that there was no Republican voter Fraud.

            It is ONLY democrats who have argued that there is no fraud or only Trump fraud.

            There has never been any doubt that some instances of Fraud by Trump supporters would come to light.

            HOWEVER – the actual evidence is that there is likely far more fraud that democrats are willing to admit.

            Further – we ALREADY know that of all the election adjustments that have had to be made so far – more than 95% have favored Trump.

            The odds against that occuring by random chance are astronomical.

            So you are clear – There have been errors found in every state that harmed Biden. There has been fraud found that Harmed Biden.

            But there have been about 20 times as many errors that harmed Trump.

            That is highly unlikely to occur without large scale fraud.

          3. Then why aren’t YOU and WaPo supporting deeper inquiry ?

            The few audits that are actually taking place will find many forms of Fraud and error.
            They will find it – whether committed by democrats or republicans.

            I expect that those who committed fraud will be prosecuted – regardless of who benefited from their fraud.

            If audits result in thousands of Trump voters going to jail – that is fine with me.
            What about you ?

            Are you prepared to actually look into fraud in the election and follow it wherever it leads ?

        2. Jonathan Turley tweeted:

          https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1394002301975736321

          “Jonathan Turley
          @JonathanTurley

          President Trump declared “The DELETION of an entire database and critical Election files of Maricopa County is unprecedented.” The problem is that it remains unprecedented because officials say it never happened …”

          “Maricopa County Republican official calls Trump ‘unhinged'”

          BY MYCHAEL SCHNELL – 05/16/21 08:08 AM EDT

          https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/553745-maricopa-county-republican-official-calls-trump-unhinged

          1. “Jonathan Turley
            @JonathanTurley
            ·
            3h
            …With all of the hyperbolic rhetoric and mixed motives on both sides, we should be able to establish this single objective fact. Republican and Democratic election officials are stating categorically that the database has not been deleted and is readily available…

            Jonathan Turley
            @JonathanTurley
            ·
            3h
            …This is not like the Easter Bunny, it is not a matter of faith. It exists or it does not. President Trump needs to retract this statement or somehow support it. The latter may be rather challenging when the Republican chair says that he has access on his computer.”

            1. Turley is correct – the people who were responsible for deleting the databases say those databases were not deleted.

              The people responsible for auditing the election say those databases WERE deleted – and they have been recovered.

              This is not a difficult to establish fact.

              The election systems were all imaged before the machines were returned to Maricopa county.

              Those original images exist.

              While forensic experts are quite good at recovering deleted files – the original images will still establish whether the files were deleted or not.

              Given that the media has been wrong about so much – and republicans and particularly Trump have been right about so much – until presented evidence tot he contrary I am not including to beleive the media, the left, democrats or never trumpers.

          2. Anonymous the Stupid, I am looking for the proof you provided on this page. It doesn’t exist.

            If one understands what proof actually means, one recognizes that there is more proof that there was election fraud then there was no election fraud.

          3. Trump’s claim is not “unhinged” it is correct.

            The problem has been resolved because Computer experts recovered the the deleted databases.

            That is not surprising – it is quite difficult to delete something such that it can not be recovered – it requires skills and tools that are not typically found in election officials and on voting machines.

            Nor are Trump’s purportedly ‘unhinged” claims the only claims of misconduct regarding Maricopa county that have been PROVEN so far.

      2. “Republicans are not “questioning election integrity” because all proof PROVES there was no widespread election fraud. ”

        What “proof” Nutacha ?

        Aside from the NV, AZ and Windham, NH audits the only other “audit” was the GA Cobb County signature audit and the results of that Were BAD for democrats – a 6% rate of ballots that should have been rejected from an afluent county where the rate would be low and a 0.6% rate of fraud in a country were fraud would be low, in a state that was only won by Biden by 0,25%.

        There have been a few machine recounts – I would expect that a machine recount would always produce the same results. It it does not that would be a big problem.

        Other than the above there has been no real scrutiny.

        Who has examing the ballots or voting records from Atlanta, Detroit Milwaukee, Philadelphia, or pretty much anywhere ?
        No one.

        No one has checked to make sure that registered voters that voter are actually live, real, eligable voters.
        No one has checked for forged ballots.
        No one has checked for ballots counted multiple times.

        No state has done any actual scrutiny. No court has permitted any scrutiny.

        And all this in an election that 6 courts in 4 states have found was lawless.

        This is your idea of “proof” that there was no widespread fraud ?

        “Republicans are buying into the BIG LIE”

        There have been alot of lies over the past 4 years. Lies from the left, lies from the media.

        We have had to deal with the “collusion delusion”.
        Now even the Biden administration can not choke down the “Russian Bounty Lie” – One that Chenney, as well as her left wing nut compatriots like Schiff and Swallwell were selling.
        There is the LIE that Hunter Biden’s laptop was “russian disinformation”
        We have heard lies about Covid, Lies about masks, Lies about the election – all from the left.

        And you think Republicans are spreading some “Big Lie” ?

        What would that be ?

        We listened to Hillary and her harpies rant that the 2016 election was stolen by Russian meddling.
        People RIOTED in washington – engaged in ARSON, burning things down.

        Then we have the lefts LIES about Jan 6. Now we have video of the Capital Police telling the Qshaman at the capital that they are allowed to be there, they are allowed to protest, they are allowed to speak and be heard – just no violence.

        And who was MURDERED at the capital ? Not a congress person had a hair on their head touched.
        Not a capital policeman. The only person killed much less murdered – was a Trump supporter.

        I have had Anonymous ranting that she was tresspassing – as if that is a justification for Murder.

        Except that she WAS NOT. Criminal tresspass requires being warned and asked to leave and refusing – not only didn’t that happen,
        but clearly the Capital police were allowing the protests.

        So we had an impeachment based on a LIE, and we continue to have left wing nuts selling LIE after LIE.

        What is the Republican “Big Lie” Nutacha ?

        “and it’s killing this country.”
        No, Nutacha – YOU are killing the country.

        YOU are the intolerant ones. YOU are the ones accusing everyone who deviates from leftist dogma “hateful, hating haters”.

        You are the racist, You are the denier of reality. You are the one who wishes to impose your will on others by force.

        “And, you continue proving what a total dope you are when you keep repeating the “hit piece paid for by Hillary Clinton” meme.”
        Not, A Meme – a fact. It is only disputed by Nut Cases.

        “For the last time, Karen, the Mueller investigation was NOT triggered by the Steele Dossier, and that document was started by a fellow Republican”

        What was the Mueller Investigation triggered by ? Answer that ? What else have you ?
        Whether you like it or not, it was the basis for everything. The entire ordeal YOU put the country through.

        The FBI determined on Jan. 4th 2017 that The Dossier, CrossFire Razor, and CrossFire Huricane had FIZZLED. There was nothing left to investigate. There was no there, there. I biased FBI still had run aground and could not continue.

        So on Jan. 5th 2017, Obama, Biden, Comey, Rice and others Plotted a soft coup against the incoming president.

        Nothing like that has ever happened in our history – and YOU are still trying to pretend it did not happen.
        These people should be in jail.

        You are angry because Trump refused to concede.
        While he was on his way out the door did he mine the oval office ?
        Did he Frame Biden’s incoming staff for laughably faux crimes ?

        You want to raise Mueller – Go ahead. WHY was there a Mueller investigation ?
        As noted the FBI had already found there was no basis to continue an investigation.
        The Horowitz Report confirmed that.

        Mueller was ILLEGAL, and likely knew that before or shortly after being appointed.
        Mueller actually was engaged in a witch hunt – but you on the left slandered anyone who said that as a Liar.

        Here is a list of media and left significant Lies during the Trump Era.
        https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/04/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/

        And we are off to a good start with the list of media and left lies of the Biden era.
        https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/05/media-mistakes-in-the-biden-era-the-definitive-list/

        ““Stand up for what’s right”, you say? How about not promoting the BIG LIE?”
        What lie would that be ?

        The election was lawless – ANY other claim is a LIE. 28 US states including 5 of the six swing states have state constitutional amendments requiring Secret Ballots. Mailin voting violates those amendments. The Federal government shoul dhave such an amendment we know how much fraud you eventually get when you do not have secret ballots – the election fraud of the 19th century was infamous.

        “The election cases were tossed for lack of any semblance of proof.”
        Nope. What court held actual evidentiary hearings ? You can not claim there was no proof when there was no oportunity to present proof.
        Were any witnesses question ? Were any witnesses called ? NO!

        The courts failed us BEFORE and AFTER the election.

        You do not seem to grasp THAT MAKES IT WORSE!

        You can have the rule of Law, or the rule of man.
        The Rule of Law – requires following the law. Our courts DID NOT. Not Before, and not after.

        “There were : recounts, re-recounts, signature match validations,”
        There were ? Aside from a single signature match investigation in Cobb county GA were 5000 ballots were selected at Random and 300 – 6% that is about 20 times the rate needed to flip GA, were found to not meet the lowest signature matching standard allowed by GA law.
        Worse still 0.6% were found to be outright fraud. Again almost 3 times the number needed to flip GA.
        But nothing happened. Raffensburger ignored it, The courts ignored it, the press ignored it.
        The only Signature match done was an abysmal failure for the left in all ways except successfully burying the results.

        There were no Hand Recounts – Raffensburger promissed a Hand Recount – but did a machine recount instead.

        Windham, NH did a hand recount and found nearly every democratic candidate with over 300 votes tallied that they never received – and Windham as Svelaz points out is a small place with not many people.

        But 85% of NH uses the same machines that failed at Windham.

        So where Nutacha were hand recounts actually done ?

        “hand recounts, machine recounts. TRUMP LOST because Americans didn’t want him in the first place, half of us never approved of him, every poll predicted he would lose, and he DID lose.”
        If you honestly beleive that – then why have democrats thwarted every effort to do the things that were not done that you say were ?

        Why didn’t the courts actually look at evidence ?
        Why didn’t states do real hand recounts ?
        Why didn’t states do real signature matches ?
        Why didn’t states follow their own laws and constitutions ?
        And Why did the courts allow this ?

        Very Early Turley posted a column saying that Biden should get behind an effort for real scrutiny. That the odds of Trump getting the numbers he needed to flip the election were extremely low. That audits and recounts almost never change results except int he most razor thin of races. So why didn’t Biden and democrats push for Transparency ?

        As the Washington Post says “Democracy dies in Darkness” – so why were you so busy turning out the lights ?

        You say Trump lost – if that is so, if you actually beleive that, then open Everything up to scrutiny.

        The recounts in NV, AZ, and NH are being live streamed – anyone can watch – that is as opposed to the counts in the 6 cities that flipped this election that all occured int he dark of night with no one watching.

        If as you say Trump lost and this is all a “Big Lie” – then LET THE SUNSHINE IN”

        You want Unity – that is how to acheive it. But you don’t.

        Today polls have as many republicans beliving the election was stolen as did on Jan. 6th.

        And these are real people – who walked ot drove to the polls, presented ID and voted.
        We KNOW that nearly every Trump vote is real. You can not say that about most Biden votes.

        Before the election – Trump had huge ralies. Biden could not get 100 people to an event.
        After the election Biden can not get anyone to watch his SOTU.
        The left Media is tanking.

        27M people watched Biden’s SOTU – you really want us to beleive that 80M people voted for him ?

        48M people whatched Trump’s 2017 SOTU. 63M people voted for him.

        It is barely plausible to beleive that 40M people voted for Biden based on that. Just so you are clear I am NOT claiming that half of Biden’s votes are Fraud. Only that any claim that people enthusiastically supported Biden is hogwash.

        In 100 days Biden has reversed innumerable Trump initiatives – and things are going to h3ll faster than anyone could predict.

        I honestly hope we are just seeing economic speed bumps at the moment – but just a month ago predictions were Full Steam ahead – 8% growth in 3Q 2021. Now we are starting to see questions as to whether there will be any serious growth at all.
        Everyone has been predicting inflation – now the question is how bad.
        No one was predicting that unemployment would remain high – yet it is.

        With Trump we had 4 years of relative peace – even in the mideast.

        Had the Military not lied to Trump we would be out of Afghanistan.
        We are not, and now who knows when we will be – Biden has trapped us there forever.

        And he is falling all over himself to re=invigorate the stupid Iran deal – Why ?

        Does the Ayatolah have some Dirt on the democrats ?
        Why in gods name would we want to get in bed with a regime which no one – not event eh Iranians likes ?

        Regardless, so far it appears that despite Biden that Abraham accords are holding.

        But again we have mass violence in the mideast.

        As bad as Bush was, his wars in iraq and Afghanistan did not expand to the mideast.

        Trump reduced both overall fighting and US involvement – something Obama promised – and yet not merely failed to deliver, but actually increased violence in the midest.

        And Biden is following suit.

        We are seeing the highest numbers of illegal immigrants in US history. We are seeing 800% increases in drugs accross the border.

        We are seeing gas lines that we have not seen since carter.
        We are seeing gas prices rise again – as well as other critical prices.

        This is your idea of a leader ?

        “All you ever do, Karen, is mimic what you hear on the alt-right media you are faithful to because you are a gullible disciple.”

        That would be you Nutacha – not Karen.

        Karen knows real facts. Not “The Big Lies” of the left.

  6. OI: Election audit in small New Hampshire town could have implications for 2020 results statewide
    In tiny Windham, a November hand recount in a state legislative race revealed vote count discrepancies up and down the ballot — all benefiting Democrats.

    An audit team sent to conduct a forensic examination of the 2020 election results in Windham, N.H. started the process off well enough on Tuesday. But by Wednesday, they hit a major snag: The live stream cameras that had been broadcasting the audit room around the clock went offline for close to 90 minutes, potentially obscuring any problematic intervention.

    The team decided Thursday morning to reinspect the ballot machines on camera in an attempt to maintain observers’ faith in their process. They needed to determine whether the machines had been tampered with over night…

    Cont: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/hold-new-hampshire-election-audit?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

    1. The Windham audit was triggered because a DEMOCRAT lost the house by 26 votes and asked for a recount.

      That Recount resulted in the discovery that ALL republicans had approximately 300 votes subtracted from their actual totals.
      It also resulted in the Democrat losing by 400 votes instead of only 26.

      But the big issue is that the error appears to be with the Voting Machines, and these voting machines are used throughout New Hampshire.
      They are the only approved voting machine for NH and they are an older Dominion Voting Systems machine.

      This REQUIRES further investigation. It REQUIRES an audit of the entire state.

      It REQUIRES an audit of every state using this DVS equipment.

      There is absolutely zero doubt at this point that there is a Voting machine problem.

      In Windham it specifically targeted ALL republicans. It is possible this is some real fraud being perpitrated by DVS, or the DNC or the NH DNC or the Windham DNC.

      It is also possible that it is just a software glitch that exists nowhere else, or that in other places favors all democrats.

      It is more likely to be unintentional than intentional.

      But no matter what it is , it is a serious problem, and it is a reason that we can not blindly trust elections – and particularly black boxes in elections.

      Before 2020, there was a meaningful proposal in GA to conduct post election random audits of elections as a matter of standard procedure. This was abandoned as too expensive.
      But it is an absolute requirement. It should happen in ALL ELECTIONS EVERYWHERE.

      While part of the reason is to catch problems such as Windham. Another part is to PREVENT real fraud.

      The left does an absolute disservice to people by constantly saying there is no fraud in elections.

      Even if that were true – which it is most definitely NOT, the lack of fraud is SOLELY because of laws, regulations, procedures etc that assure that those committing fraud are likely to get caught.

      It is far more important and easier to CATCH fraud than it is to prevent it.

      It is near impossible to design a voting system where fraud is not possible.

      It is easy to design one where nearly all fraud will be detected and caught eventually.
      Few will commit election fraud if they KNOW they are going to get caught.

      That is why universal random audits are critical.

      I fully support what is going on in Windham, in NV and AZ, and in Michigan.
      But these large scale audits are NOT what we need as the NORM.

      We need automatic random statewide audits quickly after every single election.

      We need those that might engage in fraud to be unable to tell if a subsequent audit will expose their misconduct.

      No form of large scale election fraud is feasible where there are reasonably designed random audits after the election.

      Raffensberger agreed to a Signature audit in GA – but he gamed the process and then failed to heed the results.
      Instead of a statewide random audit, or a random audit where problems were likely, Raffensberger choose to audit Cobb County – one of the least likely places to find mailin voting fraud.

      Then 5000 ballots were randomly selected, they were reviewed and 300 were found to not match the lax standards that the GA law and consent decree required – that sounds small but it is 6% of the sample. That is approximately the same as the historical rejection rate of mailin ballots in states that have been using mailin voting for decades. But it is 24 times the actual rejection rate in GA.

      So the signature audit exposed a REAL problem, one more than large enough to have effected almost every single GA 2020 election result.

      Yet because the sample size was small it was easy to ignore than the error was quite large.

      Worse – 30 of the 5000 ballots were found to likely be deliberatly fraudulent and refered to the GA AG for prosecution.

      Again this is small – because the sample size was small. This is still a 0.6% fraud rate, that is 3 times larger than what would be needed to alter most GA election results.

      Raffensburgers signature audit proved that there was likely a very very serious problem in GA. Yet, that result was burried. The press failed to give it the attention it deserved, the courts ignored it, Raffensberger ignored it, and GA’s results were certified – which NEVER should have happened.

      Hunter Biden’s laptop is “russian disinformation”. Any evidence of election problems, lawlessness or fraud is “the Big lie”,

      I can go on and on about the vast array of lies the left and the media have told us and for the most part gotten away with.

      Trump is purportedly the big liar – yet no one saying that has a consequential example to cite.

      While the lies of the left and the media are low hanging fruit.

      1. John say,

        “But the big issue is that the error appears to be with the Voting Machines, and these voting machines are used throughout New Hampshire.
        They are the only approved voting machine for NH and they are an older Dominion Voting Systems machine. ”

        That is false.

        The machines in question are were not manufactured by Dominion voting systems.

        “The four machines being audited are AccuVote optical scanning systems, which were manufactured by Global Elections Systems Inc., which was ultimately acquired in 2010 by Dominion Voting systems. Dominion owns the intellectual property of the AccuVote machines and its related election management system, but did not manufacture the machines being used in New Hampshire.”

        “There is absolutely zero doubt at this point that there is a Voting machine problem.”

        false. There has been no conclusion that the machines have been a problem. That is merely your own opinion.

        “In Windham it specifically targeted ALL republicans. It is possible this is some real fraud being perpitrated by DVS, or the DNC or the NH DNC or the Windham DNC. ”

        False. John say tries to present pure speculation as fact. There is absolutely no evidence for such a claim.

        “It is more likely to be unintentional than intentional.

        But no matter what it is , it is a serious problem, and it is a reason that we can not blindly trust elections – and particularly black boxes in elections. ”

        Most likely the best explanation in a post riddled with irrational conclusions with no real evidence. It’s not a “serious” problem as John say leaves out the fact that this involves just four machines used in a county that has a total population of just 14,800. The issue apparently has to do with only one machine which seemed to count more votes for Biden than the other three. A more rational explanation can be that more people who chose to vote for Biden ended up using that machine more. While it is not hard fact. It is my opinion that is the most likely reason. The audit is did not make any significant findings of tampering with the machines or programming.

        “The left does an absolute disservice to people by constantly saying there is no fraud in elections.”

        False.

        Nobody on the left or anyone for that matter claims there is no fraud. That is incorrectly implying that zero fraud is being claimed. What is being claimed is the amount of fraud that does occur is not significant enough to affect an election’s outcome. What IS happening is fraud is being caught by the current safeguards that are in place. Then we have the problem of innocent mistakes being made that are unintentional and being caught. Many on the right use these minor issues as proof of a more “sinister” issue is afoot.

        1. Last report I heard from some of the math,computer,stats geeks was that so far from the states/counties results they’ve went through, I think the consistent anomaly that’s showing up in most all of their forensic audits is 5.6% for Biden.

          AKA it couldn’t be human error, it’s AI, but I’ll just wait for their finished reports.

          Looks, smells, walks like a duck so far.

          1. Oky,

            “Last report I heard from some of the math,computer,stats geeks was that so far from the states/counties results they’ve went through, I think the consistent anomaly that’s showing up in most all of their forensic audits is 5.6% for Biden.”

            Would more people voting for Biden be considered an anomaly? Why? It could just be that MORE people voted for Biden. There seems to be an expectation that Trump should have gotten more votes, but based on what?

            It seems that trump supporters are just not grasping the concept that simply more people voted for Biden. He did win the popular vote by 81 million over trump. So rationally those “anomalies” are not really anomalies, but just more voters actually choosing Biden over trump.

          2. There are lots of claims of serious problems with 2020 election that require further inquiry.
            There are a few that have been proven beyond any doubt and never should be allowed to happen again.
            There are also a few that have been refuted – the Benfords law claims are nonsense.
            The statistical claims that purportedly show a pattern of Trump plateau followed by a decline are equally bad.
            The scatter plot can easily be seen as a diagonal line not a ramp and plateau. Further the patter is the result of a statistical tautology and you will get the same if you look at Biden.

            But a few bad claims DO Not alter the FACTS.

            The election was Lawless. PERIOD. The states and the courts did not follow their own laws and constitutions – not before and not after.

            While there was no “insurection” on Jan 6. there could have been and it would have been justified.

            Those ranting about court decisions do not grasp THAT MAKES THIS WORSE.

            The impramatur of legitimacy of government comes from the consent of the governed.

            A plurality of americans thought the election was stolen. A majority thought there was serious fraud.

            The whining of the left that, that was not true are irrelevant. Government derives its authority and legitimacy from the consent of the governed.

            Government itself DOES NOT GET TO DECIDE whether it has that or not.

            The nature of the election REQUIRED deeper inquiry.

            When people can not trust the results of elections – that is what causes insurrections, revolutions.

            That is also what justifies them.

            Had the courts done their job – conducted real open inquiry, and actually found that the election outcome was a correct reflection of the vote, that would be different.

            Though fundimentally that is a conclusion that is impossible to reach. The election was conducted lawlessly – that is the end, proof of fraud is just icing on the cake.

            We can not have lawless elections.

        2. More Deceptive word games by Svelaz.

          “That is false.

          The machines in question are were not manufactured by Dominion voting systems.

          “The four machines being audited are AccuVote optical scanning systems, which were manufactured by Global Elections Systems Inc., which was ultimately acquired in 2010 by Dominion Voting systems. Dominion owns the intellectual property of the AccuVote machines and its related election management system, but did not manufacture the machines being used in New Hampshire.””

          Otherwise known as THAT IS TRUE.

          If I said that a Corvette was a GM car would you call that false ?

          GM acquired Chevrolet long ago.

          DVS does not merely own the IP. DVS bought and completely OWNS GES, They are the successor company.
          DVS today is GES yesterday. Nor is GES the only company bought by DVS.

          GES did manufacture the systems used in NH – and GES is now part of DVS.
          What was GES in the past is NOW GES.

          1. “More Deceptive word games by Svelaz.

            “That is false.

            The machines in question are were not manufactured by Dominion voting systems.”

            My Iphone was not manufactured by Apple – so what ?

            DVS is a successor to GES – DVS bought GES.

            We have been through this. When you buy a company – that company becomes part of your company. The good and the bad.

            And why are you fixated on this stupid and false issue ?

            There is clearly a problem with Voting machines in NH. While you failed to get DVS off the hook – how would succeeding change anything ?

            Assuming the innocent hypothesis is correct – that the problem is counting ballot creases as overvotes – while I am skeptical. that still changes nothing. There is still a significant error, that favored democrats this time – maybe next time it will favor republicans.

            Further it is an error that is likely to be present in most AccuVote machines to varying degrees.
            That means a large error in NH vote counting.

            Next it is plausible that it is present in other voting machines.

            Yet, you wish to stuff your head int he sand.

          2. “GM acquired Chevrolet long ago.”

            2010 was long ago.

            You note that DVS acquired GES’s IP.

            There are likely three things DVS wanted when it bought GES.

            GES’s customers.
            GES’s IP
            GES’s people – such is the software developers.

            All of these become PART of DVS after the acquisition.

            GES’s IP is not likely to have just sat there doing nothing – it is likely to have been incorporated into DVS systems.

            It is unlikley that DVS had GES software developers sit on their thumbs. They likely participated in future products sold by DVS.

            Any problems with GES systems easily could have propogated to DVS.

        3. “”There is absolutely zero doubt at this point that there is a Voting machine problem.”

          false. There has been no conclusion that the machines have been a problem. That is merely your own opinion.”

          Aparently you can not read and are unacquainted with logic.

          Maybe you are more familiar with Sherlock Holmes ?

          When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, stated by Sherlock Holmes

          In Windham they have counted the votes by hand multiple times, as well as by machine multiple times.
          Unless you wish to argue that the Democrat requested hand counts had exactly the same error REPEATEDLY
          The only possible conclusion remaining is a problem with the AccuVote system.

          There is ALOT we do not know yet.
          We do not know if this problem is isolated to a few machines in Windham.
          We do not know if the problem is deliberate or unintentional.

          But we DO know that it is a voting machine problem.

          I would further not Svelaz that we KNOW something else that even YOU can not reject.

          THERE IS A PROBLEM.

          You can point fingers however you wish. But multiple hand counts and multiple machines counts are at odds with each other.

          THERE IS A PROBLEM.

          And AGAIN – the Democratic house candidate who thought she had lost by 26 votes requested the recount that exposed this.
          Ending up about 400 votes behind.

          Republicans did not expose this mess – Democrats did.

          1. There is a voting machine problem.

            Even if they work perfectly they are no longer trusted. We have lost confidence in the integrity of our elections. Even if perfect the machines must go to restore belief in our system.

            And there appear to be growing indications that they are not perfect. The fight to block audits only increases suspicion. What, people wonder, is being hidden? So far the audits are reported to have uncovered discrepancies. We will see. Maybe not, maybe so.

            We just had a major pipeline shut down by hacking, causing distress in many states. Is it still so hard to believe that these machines might be vulnerable to tampering when the fate of an entire nation is at stake? Just the suspicion and fear are enough. The machines, however flawless they may be, should go.

            1. You can not ever have black boxes in elections that we are required to accept on Trust.

              Personally, I would get rid of all use of machines prior to making public the first set of raw vote totals.
              Once you have the lowest level of totals publicly reported – it is impossible to skew things above without getting caught.

              But it is possible to have machines count votes – but only if there is a rigorous and completely independent auditing process for every black box result. This is a closed loop system.
              What we have is open loop and that is not reliable enough for elections.

        4. “In Windham it specifically targeted ALL republicans.”
          FACT.

          “It is possible this is some real fraud being perpitrated by DVS, or the DNC or the NH DNC or the Windham DNC. ”
          Speculation – that is what the word “possible” means.

          “John say tries to present pure speculation as fact.”
          Nope. When I say something is possible – I mean it is possible.

          pos•si•ble pŏs′ə-bəl►
          adj. Capable of .. being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.

          It is not proven true, but it is also not contradicted by known facts.

          “There is absolutely no evidence for such a claim.”
          FALSE. There is not sufficient evidence to PROVE the claim.

          Regardless, you are making a stupid black and white error.

          You correctly note that I speculated – that is what POSSIBLE means.

          You are LYING when you say I presented speculation as fact.
          Again POSSIBLE means that something is not at this time a proven FACT.
          But it also means it is not at this time DISPROVEN.

          Possible means something that we can not currently state with certainty is either True or False.

          You CONSTANTLY presume that everything that is possible rather than certain is either absolutely true or absolutely false as required to suit your ideology.

          I have REPEATEDLY pointed out to all lefties, that there is very little that is proven TRUE, and an infinite body of absolute falsehood.
          But most of the domain of human knowledge is what we can not prove with certainty, but we can successfully estimate its probability of truth.

          It is POSSIBLE (based on what I know at this moment) that the results at Windham, are a GOP effort to further foster democrats so called “big lie”.
          But that is highly improbable. Red Flag operations do exist. But they are not that common, further if this was a red flag operation it would likely have been brought to light much sooner and received more attention.

          But if you wish to speculate that this is a demonstration fo malfeasance by republicans – make your case.

          I honestly care very little. My primary point is that election fraud is real – not that it is solely the domain of either the DNC or GOP.

          In fact in most every election there is some fraud by each party and that should not be so.

          I would further point out to you that nearly the entirety of quantum physics is about what is POSSIBLE (probable).

          Nearly everything we call a FACT, is merely something that has a very high probability of being true.

        5. ‘Most likely the best explanation”
          What is the most likely best explanation – you have not offered that.

          “in a post riddled with irrational conclusions”
          Then you can point those out – one at a time.

          “with no real evidence.”
          I presented a great deal of evidence.

          “It’s not a “serious” problem”
          Why is it not a “serious” problem.

          “as John say leaves out the fact that this involves just four machines used in a county that has a total population of just 14,800.”
          It is correct that windham’s population is approx, 14,800.
          It is correct that the issue was with 4 machines. How many machines do you think there are in Windham ?
          Further these Same machines were used to count 85% of NH votes.

          BTW ONE current hypothesis is that the machines are misreading ballot fold lines as votes and that the design of the ballot coincidentally resulted in democrats far more frequently getting “over votes” than republicans.

          Need I note HYPOTHESIS – a claim to be tested – POSSIBLE, Not PROVEN, not a FACT.

          “The issue apparently has to do with only one machine which seemed to count more votes for Biden than the other three.”
          Svelaz – you do not know what you are talking about.

          This is not a Biden/Trump specific problem. It was found as a result of a recount request by a down ballot democrat, and it benefited multiple democrats.

          “A more rational explanation can be that more people who chose to vote for Biden ended up using that machine more. ”
          Again you are clueless – it is Not ONE machine, I beleive the problem is with 3 of 4 machines, and I beleive there are only 4 total machines.
          Regardless, this is NOT a Trump/Biden specific problem – it effected MOST of the races in Windham county.
          Next, the hand count and the machine count DO NOT AGREE.

          Your “more rational explanation” – is not even POSSIBLE – it is contradicted by the facts. If as you claim more democrats used specific machines, then the hand recount would have confirmed the machine count.
          That is NOT what occured.

          Your “more rational explanation” is a “pile of Schiff”.

          “While it is not hard fact. It is my opinion that is the most likely reason.”
          Give up Svelaz – you are just WRONG.

          But you are doing a very good job of demonstrating that most opinions are demonstrably FALSE.

          “The audit is did not make any significant findings of tampering with the machines or programming.”
          Correct – that is because the audit is not complete. It has made no findings at all at this point.

          What we do know is that BEFORE the current audit, several hand recounts PROVED there was a serious problem.
          And in the middle of an audit that was being conducting publicly – being live streamed on the internet.
          The Auditors shut down the live stream and suspended the audit. And they did so while examing the machines,

          We do not know WHY this occured YET – but PROBABLY it means they found something

          Before posting on this again – PLEASE get the FACTS straight.

          The odds of your “opinion” being valid declines radically when you are not aware of the facts.

          Remember for something to be POSSIBLE it must NOT conflict with known facts.
          Otherwise it is FALSE.

          I would further remind you that most assertions are FALSE. Being familiar with the FACTS increases the odds of an assertion atleast being POSSIBLE.

        6. “Nobody on the left or anyone for that matter claims there is no fraud.”

          False. There are myriads of statements by the left, the media and democrats that can not be read any other way than “Zero Fraud”.

          “What is being claimed is the amount of fraud that does occur is not significant enough to affect an election’s outcome.”
          That is what Democrats SHOULD be saying. But they have gone beyond that.

          Further even that is demonstrably FALSE.

          How many elections do you need decided by less than 1% of the vote ? or by 0.25% of the vote ? or by 6 votes ?
          To grasp that no matter how low you think fraud is it is large enough to effect election outcomes.

          As to your claim that fraud is small – what is your evidence ?
          The FACT is that the means by which we conduct elections is not able to catch myriads of forms of fraud.
          That was the purpose of Voter ID laws – to DECREASE the possibility of Fraud.
          But in 2020 we went the wrong way – Mailin election CAN NOT BE SECURED.

          Explain to me how you prevent coercion of inducement in a mailin election ? It can not be done.
          And that is only one means of mailin fraud.

          Even under the NEW GA election law – there will be unattended ballot collection boxes for mailin ballots.

          Please explain what checks you have on that ?

          “What IS happening is fraud is being caught by the current safeguards that are in place.”
          It is ? HOW ? Please explain ?

          I have been actively involved in the debate over election fraud since 2001. I opposed Bush’s Helping America Vote Act that the time, and have fought the use of voting machines. It has taken decades but MOSTLY we have eliminated the unauditable computerized voting terminals – through the hard work and opposition of people like me.

          WHERE WERE YOU ?

          Personally i want to see the elimination of ALL computer systems in the handling and direct counting of ballots.
          Publicly Hand count paper ballots and publicly report batch totals. Once batch totals are public it is impossible to successfully corrupt higher level counting, and that can be done by computer – because anyone with access to a calculator can check higher level totals.

          But you can use scanners to count votes, but only if you have random manual audits shortly after the election.

          I am an embedded software developer. I work with systems exactly like these all the time.
          Voting systems today (whether manual or by computer) are “open loop” – which is INHERENTLY error prone and unreliable as well as more vulnerable.

          An independent audit – and by that i mean one that does not use the same people, machines or processes, is absolutely necescary to be able to trust an open loop system.

          You are absolutely wrong that the current system has good checks in place – it has very few checks. Those were insufficient BEFORE 2020,
          But mailin voting introduces far more problems that do not have checks.

          “Then we have the problem of innocent mistakes being made that are unintentional and being caught.”
          False, and false.
          What is it that you think is an innocent mistake ? Voting for your dead grandmother ? Voting in a state you do not live in ?

          “Many on the right use these minor issues as proof of a more “sinister” issue is afoot.”‘

          Nope. You are clueless.

          I am still a libertarian – not “on the right”.
          I have been fighting to fix our broken elections for two decades – where were you ?

          The Bush Gore 2000 election terified me specifically because the odds of there being less than 1000 fraudulent votes cast in FL was near zero. I spent almost 2 months terrified that the narative would shift from hanging chad to which party cheated the most,.
          Fortunately it did not. But the REALITY is that there is no means of knowing that the 2000 election was not tipped by Fraud.
          And this has repeated itself in election after election since then.

          Democrats spent the past 4 years arguing the most stupid fraud claim in existance – because persuasion is not fraud – even if conducted by a foreign power.

          And now in 2020 they wish to pretend there is no election fraud ?

          The entire history of US election laws – including the 28 state constitutional amendments REQUIRING secret ballots, which Mailin Voting can NEVER meet, is BECAUSE of past EGREGIOUS fraud.

          If our voting systems are not good enough to thwart fraud – we will get fraud. And they are inarguably NOT good enough.

      2. John say, says. “I fully support what is going on in Windham, in NV and AZ, and in Michigan.
        But these large scale audits are NOT what we need as the NORM.” But, he first says,

        “This REQUIRES further investigation. It REQUIRES an audit of the entire state.

        It REQUIRES an audit of every state using this DVS equipment.”

        If any discrepancy occurs, which is what will undoubtedly happen in every election due to innocent mistakes or just simple human error John say’s “REQUIRED” demand would be never ending. It’s silly and a paranoid reaction.

        “Raffensberger agreed to a Signature audit in GA – but he gamed the process and then failed to heed the results.
        Instead of a statewide random audit, or a random audit where problems were likely, Raffensberger choose to audit Cobb County – one of the least likely places to find mailin voting fraud.”

        Again John say makes many assumptions without evidence. Does he have proof that Raffensberger gamed the process? What is the evidence to make this claim?

        Multiple audits were made in GA and all confirmed that no fraudulent voting on a large scale occurred. Was Cobb county really chosen or was it randomly chosen? What is the proof that it was deliberately chosen because it was the least likely place to find mail-in voting? cite your sources.

        1. “Multiple audits were made in GA and all confirmed that no fraudulent voting on a large scale occurred.”
          FALSE. the only “audit” in GA was the Cobb county signature audit.
          The remainder of GA was subject to a recanvass and machine recount. Neither of those look for fraud.
          In fact neither of those are likely to turn up much – and yet they did turn up about 6500 Trump votes as well as a 300 Biden votes.
          None of which are part of the certified count.

          “Was Cobb county really chosen or was it randomly chosen?”
          Cobb country was picked. The request was to do a full signature audit of all GA mailin ballots.
          Alternatively a full audit of Fulton county.

          Raffensberger chose Cobb County. Cobb is an afluent democratic county. Just about the lest likely place for either error or fraud.

          “What is the proof that it was deliberately chosen because it was the least likely place to find mail-in voting? cite your sources.”

          Because it is. I do not need sources for the obvious. We KNOW that the error rate of all forms of voting decline as median income goes up.
          The median income in Cobb county is the highest in GA.
          We also know that fraud is more prevalent in large urban centers. Cobb county is suburban.

          Are you really debating this ? As to fraud – we have 200+ years of historical data on this.

          Raffensberger CHOSE Cobb county. Do you think he threw darts at the map ?

          REGARDLESS, Though you keep ignoring it the Cobb county signature audit DID reveal serious problems.

          Only 5000 ballots were randomly chosen. That is actually sufficient to test for widespread problems.

          The rejection rate for those 5000 ballots was 6%. Pretty much the same number that we have seen historically with absentee and mailin ballots accross the country for decades. Also what we would expect to see from an afluent county.

          In NJ in May they were seeing signature rejection rates of 25% – this is typical of 1st Time mailin or absentee voters in less afluent urban centers. It is what we would have expected in Milwaukee, Detriot, Philadelphia, Pittsburg. and Atlanta.
          While closer to 6% is what would be the historic norm for first time afluent absentee or mailin voters – in Cobb County or Pheonix, or Las Vegas.

          Yet the reality is we saw mailin ballot rejection rates in ALL these places of about 0.25% – that is quite litterally impossible.

          I would note that we are NOT talking about a fraud rate here. We are talking about an error rate.

          In person voting with voter ID has a typical error rate of 1-2% – that is the BEST error rate that we see historically.

          In FL in 2000 the error rate was about 3.5% – and that was for inperson voting. That means that in counties like Broward and Miami Dade that were fighting to find every possible Gore vote they could and were trying to figure out how to count “hanging chad” – Democrats still rejected 3.5% of the ballots cast as invalid.

          And you really want the world to beleive that in Nov. 2020 us voters who had never had a mailin election before and inarguably did not know what they were doing had a miraculously low error rate of 0.25% ?
          What are you smoking ?

          Significant error is quite common in elections. You can not design a system that will have no errors.
          Voters and systems are just not perfect. It is quite litterally impossible to determine the winner of an election when the margin of victory is below 1%. That is why GA and a few other states have automatic Runoff’s for all offices except president.
          That is actually a good system – though the runnoff should be sufficiently soon to severely limit additional campaigning.
          The purpose of a runnoff is not to give candidates a 2nd bite at the apple, but to give voters the chance to be more clear.

          Regardless, even the bad was that Runnoff’s are currently done is a significant improvement over the existing alternatives.
          We do not want election officials and judges deciding the outcome of elections. That corrupts government, and errodes trust in government.

          We saw that in 2000. Every single election decision by every single court int he Bush Gore contest was viewed by those who lost that decision as corrupt and partisan. we saw the same in the Franken/Coleman election – and many many other close elections.

          Runnoffs keep government from putting its fingers on the scales and result in greater trust in the outcome.

          Regardless the claim that there was a 0.25% error rate in mailin voting in 2020 – is laughably stupid.
          And the Cobb county audit PROVED that.

          Only having proved a likely 6% error rate for mailin ballots – NOTHING WAS DONE. No court interviened, Raffensburger did nothing, the press for the most part fixated on the fact that only 300 ballots were rejected NOT that fact that 300 out of 5000 is 6% that is 20 times more than needed to change the outcome of the election.

          I would note that Cobb county also found a fraud rate of 0.6% – that is almost 3 times Biden’s “margin of victory” in GA.
          But again – Raffensburger did nothing, the courts did nothing, the media pretended that 30 fraudulent ballots was small – when it was 30 of 5000 which is between 12,000 and 24,000 fraudulent mailin ballots for the entire state of GA. Again more than enough to alter the election outcome.

          Did Cobb county PROVE that there were more than 100,000 mailin balots that should have been rejected in GA – of course not. A random audit can not prove the error rate for the entire state. But it does PROVE that there is a high PROBABILITY is that the number of invalid mailin ballots counted in GA was 100,000-200,000. Absolutely it could be Less. It could also quite easily be more.
          Nor did the Cobb county random audit PROVE there was 12,000-24,000 fraudulent mailin ballots.
          Bit it did PROVE a high probability that there was that many fraudulent ballots.

          Yet, Raffensberger did nothing. The courts did nothing. The media said nothing.
          THAT is “The Big Lie” about the 2020 election.

          Democrats, the left, the media, the courts, all put their heads in the sand and refused to do ANY serious examination of the election.

          Right now REAL audits are taking place in AZ, NV, and Windham NH.
          Those Audits WILL find error and fraud. that is beyond any doubt. This ludicrously stupid claim that there were no problems with the 2020 election is just stupid. There are ALWAYS problems – and they have been large enough to tip close elections for a LONG time.
          This is a serious problem we MUST deal with. It is not going to get any better until we do.

          It is possible that these audits will confirm Biden’s victory – despite the error and Fraud.
          Regardless, we should KNOW the actual rates of error and fraud.

          The last hypothesis I heard regarding Windham was that the machines overvoted when ballot creases were positioned over candidates boxes. If that is the case that is something we should KNOW. Further it is likely a statewide problem as 85% of NH uses AccuVote.

          It is also something that we should look at elsewhere. It is Probable that this crease problem is specific to the AccuVote machines.
          But it is not certain and will not be until we test it.

          Further that is currently ONLY a hypothesis. It is one that has a number of flaws, but it still COULD be correct.

          The other possibility is FRAUD of some kind.

          Innocent error that nearly all goes one way is extremely rare.

          Turley has actually written about this.

          It is one of the reasons that recounts do not tend to change much – because though lots of errors occur in elections. It is NOT common for the error to go mostly one way. In a close election – all else being equal the errors will be approximately equal.

          The problem is that in 2020 all other things were not equal. Republicans by overwhelming majority voted in person where the error rate is low and where most error was detected and ballots were rejected.

          Democrats overwhelmingly voted by mail where the error rate is atleast 3 times higher, and where almost no errors were detected and few ballots were rejected.

          The mailin error rate found in Cobb county would with certainly alter the outcome of the GA election – probably by 40,000+ votes.

          If mailin votes ran 2:1 for Biden – they likely favor Biden even more, then 120,000 invalid ballots is – 80,000 invalid Biden ballots and 40,000 invalid trump ballots.

          OOPS.

          And we have not discussed the actual FRAUD found.

      3. Democrats want to nationalize elections and have ultimate control exercised by Washington, District of Corruption.

        Wait. That’s what happens now.

  7. Just one question for Cicilline

    The dems all say it was in insurrection
    ,
    Cicilline was one of the House Impeachment Mangers.

    Why didn’t they write an article of impeachment for insurrection? Because as stupid as the dems on the impeachment team are, not a single one is so stupid as thinking they could .meet the minimum elements of Insurrection.

  8. I didn’t see this post below so I reposted it:

    It was pointed out to me last week those aholes can’t be fascist because they can’t make the trains run on time, they can’t build anything, just destroy everything.

    It’s clear that they are American Hating (Redruming) Scum!

    Knowing there was to be 1 million people, +-, in DC on Jan 6 for a permitted pro-Trump/America rally requesting the USC be followed by congress & wait 10 days & investigate the known voter Fraud in certain states, why did Pelosi, Shumer, McConnell, McCarty, Mayor DC pull security forces from around the US capital & placed most of the rest for traffic control?

    It’s publicly known Biden/Pelosi/ etc…, favorite goon forces of antifa/BLM were were Planning for weeks in advance, aka John Sullivan, etc., , & likely the US intel’s Q psyop group & US intel’s undercover were the main ones instigating/commenting all the violent/destructive acts against the people’s govt.

    One of thing main things citizens need to get their head around is the fact Pelosi, Shumer, McConnell, McCarty, Mayor DC, etc. hate this country & the people’s govt just look around. They’ve declared war against us wither you want to admit it or not. They can’t stand us being free.

    Their current flooding the southern border with illegals, the shutting down of 30 to 40 oil/NG pipelines, using stored lake waters now to make sure there’s no water this summer to put their fires, this Massive Voter Fraud (Now Proven!), & much more.

    And they’ve hit us with their Massive Bio-Weapons, Chicom virus & the different gene therapies & they’ve more in their lab piplines!

    **

    IE:

    Dr. Mercola Warns Against Covid Vaccines: ‘The People Behind This Should Be Put in Jail’
    May 14, 2021 by Elizabeth

    Dr. Joseph Mercola, author of The Truth About Covid-19, says no rationale person should take the experimental covid vaccines, which have caused more deaths from all vaccines combined in the last 15 years.

    https://warroom.org/2021/05/14/dr-mercola-warns-against-covid-vaccines-the-people-behind-this-should-be-put-in-jail/

    We now know that Commies are the ones that took over Texas’s power & shut it off during last winters severe ice/snow storms.

    ERCOT Admits It Cut Power To Texas Gas Facilities In February

    Published on May 14, 2021

    https://principia-scientific.com/ercot-admits-it-cut-power-to-texas-gas-facilities-in-february/

  9. JT says “As for Rep. Gosar, he criticized the handling of the investigations and prosecutions by the Justice Department as excessive and pointed out how the lead prosecutor boasted on television that they sought to hit defendants so hard as to create “shock and awe” to deter others. He specifically questioned the handling of the investigation into the death of Ashli Babbitt, a case that raised concerns for many including myself.

    Again, I do not agree with some of the characterizations or rhetoric of these members.”

    What do you take exception to, JT?

    1. You are wasting your time if the think Turley will be specific. Like a good politician, he attempts to be all things to all people- never wanting to alienate any potential support by being unmistakeable in his beliefs other than the general principle of the First Amendment which no one is against. It’s maddening that Turley remains inaccessible to clarify just exactly where he stands. No doubt, he prefers it that way- less accountability.

    2. I have no idea what JT takes exception to – I take exception to the incredible hypocracy of the left.

      We can quibble over whether Jan 6. was an insurection. I do not think it was.
      But if you wish to claim it was “So What ?”

      It was an insurrection caused by a lawless election.

      Had an actual insurrection taken place. Had protestors forced congress to audit the election – that would have been a GOOD THING.

      When government loses the trust of large portions of the people – and insurrection is what you get.

      Did Trump or republican law makers encourage future insurrections ? Arguably.

      Again “so what ?” Are we supposed to do nothing when government becomes lawless and tyranical.

      We have little idea of what was found in AZ and NV at this point. But 6 courts have found the election conduct of atleast 4 states LAWLESS. If you are going to fixate on the court decisions against Trump – you are STUCK with the findings of these courts too.

      We DO KNOW that Democrats (and some republicans) in AZ and NV have fought tooth and nail by any means to thwart the NV and AZ audits.

      We do know that elections records were destroyed in violation of federal law – all election data must be maintained for 2 years.
      We do know that the Ballots turned over in AZ were a mess – with seals cut, and the count of actual ballots inside envelopes not even close to the numbers recorded on the outside.

      We also know that an audit is going on more publicly in Windham NH and its results are problematic and likely to trigger a statewide recount of all offices. Machine counts are WRONG – consistently wrong, and all errors favor democrats.

      I would note that the Windham audit was initially requested by a DEMOCRAT who lost by 26 votes.
      The subsequent audit fount that she lost by more than 400 votes, AND it found that almost every republican on the ballot was shorted about 300 votes. Nor are those the only errors found.

      Most importantly these errors are almost certainly the result of problems with DVS AccuVote system.
      And it is likely the problem is pervasive throughout NH – 80% of NH uses that DVS system. The only other legal means of counting votes in NH is by hand.

      While this specific DVS system appears only to be used in NH, it is still a huge problem for those claiming that Dominion systems are not a problem.

      The “Big Lie” is that of democrats and the left and the media – that there is nothing to see here, that elections need no scrutiny.

      Some REAL problems have been self evident since late November and still not appropriately confronted.

      Raffensbergers Signature audit in Cobb county – not the country likely to have significant problems, still found 300 ballots that should not have been counted of 5000 randomly selected.
      If that error rate remained true for the entire state of GA – that would have been about 120,000 mailin ballots that should have been rejected that were counted.

      Further of those 300 invalide ballots – 30 were refered to the GBI as clearly FRAUDULENT. Again if the same fraud rate was found through the rest of GA mailin ballots – that would be 12000+ fraudulent ballot that were counted.
      These are REAL numbers from REAL signature audits. The Cobb County GA random signature audit should have resulted in a state wide FULL signature audit. Worse Cobb County is an affluent Democrat leaning county where neither fraud nor invalid ballots are likely. Fulton county, is both much larger and much more likely to have both fraud and error.

      I would note that signatures in GA were NOT verified as required by GA law.

      Again LAWLESS ELECTION.

      And you want to rant about an insurection ?

      What does it take for those of you on the left to accept that sometimes insurrection is NECESCARY ?

      Lexington and Concord were a REAL insurrection – 77 British soldiers were KILLED. The only person killed at the capital on the 6th was a Trump supporter killed by the capital police.

      The rest of us tolerated democrats storming the capital to oppose Kavanaugh. Invading senators private offices, cornering senators in cloak rooms and elevators, breaking into hearing rooms. Few people were arrested, all were ultimately not prosecuted.

      What was different ? Protestors irrate over something congress was about to do in both cases.

      Just as Kavanaugh protestors had the “right” to storm the capital. So did Trump supporters.

      THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

      What was different between the events ? No one closed the capital while congress was in session to thwart Kavanaugh protestors.
      Kavanaugh protestors actually got IN THE FACES of legislators.

      On Jan 6th, lawless election protestors were denied the right to petition government, They were denied the right to confront congressmen directly. And they were murdered for trying to do so.

      And what of the protestors lead by Schumer who tried but failed to break into the Supreme Court ?

      And what of the protestors who tried to break through the fence at the whitehouse in June ?

      And what of the protestors throughout the country burning police stations and demanding that Chauvin be convicted ?
      What of the congressmen – and the president leading or cheering this on ?

      Why is it that you think Jan 6th is illegitimate, but what those ont he left do is somehow legitimate ?

      Whatever standards you choose – you MUST be consistent.

      Though I would note that a LAWLESS election ALWAYS “trumps” all else.

      Confirming Kavanaugh though offending many people would not have been a breach of “the rule of law”.
      It would not – even if Kavanaugh was actually a rapist. You can argue it is a mistake, but not that it is a breach of “the rule of law”.

      Nothing that BLM has protested is a breach of “the rule of law”.

      But a LAWLESS election is an egregious breach of the rule of law.

      It is possible that in addition to being LAWLESS, this election was also FRAUDULENT.

      But it is inarguably LAWLESS – and that alone is not merely sufficient to justify election protests.
      Those are ALWAYS justified – even when the election is done well, according to the law and without Fraud.

      In every presidential election in which a republican has won since Nixon – and probably long before, Democrats have challenged the election. It is their right to do so. It is the right of congressmen to vote against certification. It is the right of candidates, parties, and citizens to challenge election results at every possible level – right up to the Capital on Jan 6.

      It is NOT within the power of congress to thwart that. Regardless of who won or by home much or how well the election was conducted.

      It is further the right of Citizens to VIOLENTLY revolt against government when government is LAWLESS – or even when it has lost the trust of the majority of people.

      A government without trust is not legitimate.

      That is why the it was a serious error to conduct the election lawlessly. Why it was a serious error on the part of the courts to allow that both before and after.

      Absolutely trust in government was undermined – by the mething that trust in government is ALWAYS undermined. But the behavior of GOVERNMENT.

      1. John Say,

        Answer me this: will you accept a jury’s verdict if Trump is ever prosecuted for a crime such as tax evasion? I will accept an acquittal if you will accept a conviction. I will not argue that the process was illegitimate after all the appeals have been heard. I have faith in our judicial system and believe no man is above the law. Do you?

            1. Anonymous the Stupid, even Jeff said it was he. You are a loser any way you look at it.

          1. Yes, it was my question which none of you Trumpists so far are willing to answer and commit to. I can’t explain why some of my posts fail to acknowledge my name. I want to be held accountable by name for what I have to say unlike the majority of people here.

              1. Anonymous the Stupid who remains anonymous is giving advice as to how one can sign their name. What a Jerk.

              2. Most of the time my name is noted. I never know if it will be made anonymous until after the comments posts.

            1. Again, from the first word there is BS. Young already answered you. You only want to be held accountable if what you say is considered true even when it is not. As soon as another provides proof your gone and no longer accountable.

        1. So the Biden family, which is patently guilty of influence peddling and money laundering, is, similarly, not above the law?

          How about the co-conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America, which was also de facto criminal, and is now concluded, lest, of course, the Eminent and Honorable John Durham miraculously awakens from the dead.

          And Hillary, who couldn’t be charged without compelling the conviction of Obama (i.e. the party with the pseudonymous e-mail account linked directly to that of the perpetrator) according to Andrew McCarthy, was it not criminal for her to use servers illegally, destroy evidence and obstruct justice with Bleachbit software?

          Are they also above the law?

          You are honest, principled, without fault and without sin, my friend – it’s obvious to all.

        2. “I have faith in our judicial system and believe no man is above the law. Do you?”
          ***
          Not so much after seeing the Chauvin trial and, before that, watching essentially all of the courts cower under the bed and decline to review cases touching on fraud in the last election.

          No man is above the law? Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton, the crews that filed false documents to the FISA court, the BLM/Antifa rioters in multiple jurisdictions, and many others.

          One of the many statues toppled by our current Red Guards in and out of government is the that of Lady Justice.

          1. Young,

            As you have so little faith in our judicial system, what do you suggest can be done to fix it? If all these people – Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton, the crews that filed false documents to the FISA court, the BLM/Antifa rioters in multiple jurisdictions, and many other- are prosecuted, convicted and sentenced, would that restore your faith?

            And until those convictions happen first, I take it that Trump should not face any criminal or civil justice?

            1. Yep. Start there. Until Democrats have to face consequences…nobody else should either…..Without double standards…and all that. Same standards, same actions. period.

        3. Answer me this: will you accept a jury’s verdict if Trump is ever prosecuted for a crime such as tax evasion?

          Taxes??? you still looking for that pony in the pile of horse manure?

          Dozens of CPA’s and lawyers sign off on President Trumps taxe.s Trumps taxes are so complex, it is standard procedure to have an IRS agent officed in the same offices as the CPA’s to rule on the spot about how to categorize expense, capital gains, losses carried forward and such. Its cute you think the Dems are actually working on trying to find something. Its all slight of hand.

      2. NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW

        – John Say
        _________

        So the Biden family, which is patently guilty of influence peddling and money laundering, is, similarly, not above the law?

        How about the co-conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America, which was also de facto criminal, and is now concluded, lest, of course, the Eminent and Honorable John Durham miraculously awakens from the dead.

        And Hillary, who couldn’t be charged without compelling the conviction of Obama (i.e. the party with the pseudonymous e-mail account linked directly to that of the perpetrator) according to Andrew McCarthy, was it not criminal for her to use servers illegally, destroy evidence and obstruct justice with Bleachbit software?

        Are they also above the law?

        You are honest, principled, without fault and without sin, my friend – it’s obvious to all.

      3. John Say,

        “Had an actual insurrection taken place. Had protestors forced congress to audit the election – that would have been a GOOD THING.

        When government loses the trust of large portions of the people – and insurrection is what you get.

        Did Trump or republican law makers encourage future insurrections ? Arguably.

        Again “so what ?” Are we supposed to do nothing when government becomes lawless and tyranical. ”

        The biggest problem with your claim is that the government was not lawless. It never was. The claims about “lawless” are based on either falsehoods or deliberate mischaracterization of a process.

        From the Pennsylvania supreme court ruling to cases dismissed due to lack of standing. The Pennsylvania issue was about a state rules that were followed. The problem was republicans wanted to follow it to it’s narrowest literal interpretation possible. Unfortunately that is not possible because the justices correctly pointed out in clear detail why that was not possible. The law was clear where ambiguity was intentional it left it to the justices to interpret it as what the legislators intended and to the court’s power to define what certain phrases or words mean.

        In cases of lack of standing where the evidence could not be presented, the argument that they were not determined on their merits and only on a technicality implies that the cases should have been heard by ignoring the law. In essence they were calling for the courts to ignore standing. Court’s and the law would be in violation of their duties. It was the fault of trump campaign lawyers for being incompetent or too rushed to file claims that were flimsy at best.

        1. “Did Trump or republican law makers encourage future insurrections ? Arguably.”
          That is both FALSE and irrelevant.

          It is perfectly acceptable to openly advocate for the overthrow of the US government.
          Antifa does it all the time. The US communist party has done so for decades.

          The ONLY issue is whether there was advocacy of UNJUSTIFIED violence.

          Please note the KEY WORD – UNJUSTIFIED.

          When government is lawless – violent revolution is JUSTIFIED – Read the declaration of independence.

          Even Chris Cuomo publicly said as much about the BLM riots in the summer.

          There are TWO key questions. First was their VIOLENCE.

          From May through to the present BLM and Antifa have CONSTANTLY been engaged in violence.

          The next question is “was that violence JUSTIFIED” – Please provide a justification for the arson, looting, and murders that occured for the past year ?

          With respect to Trump supporters – There was very little violence. The overwhelming majority of people in the Capital were NOT tresspassing. Not only is it lawless and unconstitutional to lock down the capital while in session – in fact MOST of the protestors were ALLOWED in by the Capital police – as both past and recent video shows.

          There were a few people who engaged in actual violence – breaking windows and doors, But very few, and that still leaves the question of Why was the capital locked ?
          There were a few engaged in open violent conflict with the capital police.

          Overall the “violence” was quite exagerated.

          The next question is was Violence justified ?

          Lets be clear ALL non-violent actions on Jan 6th were JUSTIFIED.
          Protestors were Free to enter the capital. They were free to petition government. They were free to demand a stop to the certification of lawless elections. They were free to demand an audit, and investigation into allegations of fraud that the courts had ducked.

          Absolutely none of that was improper.

          The ONLY valid question is whether they were ALSO free to use violence to accomplish that.

          I would suggest that you READ the declartion of independence.

          The good news for the left is that the misconduct of democrats, states, governors, the courts and governments PROBABLY does not yet reach to the level sufficient to justify violence.
          The Bad news – we are NOT far from that.

          We need a real inquiry – not into the alleged insurrection. But into the actual lawlessness of government.

          As Franklin described our government – “we have a republic – if we can keep it.”

          We are not that far from losing it.
          We are not that far from violent revolution being justified.

          YOU are the problem – not those at the Capital on the 6th. Not Trump.

          We all grasp you hate him.

          But you are under the delusion that you are free to use the awesome power of government to punish people purely because you do not like them. That is WRONG. Keep it up we ALL will be the victims – Including you.

          Actual Tryany – YOUR tryany, never ends well – not even for the supporters of the tyrants.

          “The biggest problem with your claim is that the government was not lawless. It never was. The claims about “lawless” are based on either falsehoods or deliberate mischaracterization of a process.”
          Of course this election was LAWLESS – in numewrous ways – there is not “mischaracterization” here.

          28 States in this country – 5 of the 6 key states have constitutional amendments requiring secret ballots. Most have other constitutional amendmets that were also violated by this election. Regardless, Mailin voting does not qualify as a secret ballot. Nor can it EVER.
          In arguably mailin voting in every state with a secret ballot amendment – that is most of the states in the country that ran an election using mailin ballots violated their constitution. There is no argument here. There is no pandemic waiver to the constitution.

          Next EACH of the key states – and most US states have voter ID laws. Mailin voting CAN NOT meet those laws.
          But worse still – while some games were played to pretend Voter ID laws were being followed – requiring signature validation and DL #’s – which DOES NOT meet the Voter ID requirement of presenting yourself to vote with a valid PHOTO ID and verification of YOU are the person in the PHOTO. Even those weak efforts to conform to Voter ID law requirements were thwarted. Signature validation was not done or done so badly as to be meaningless.

          When you do not follow laws (and constitutional amendments) put into place to thwart Fraud – you can not know whether there was fraud.

          Following the law would be important regardless. We follow laws – even bad laws – until we change them.
          That is what being lawfull means.

          When you do not follow the law you are LAWLESS – that is not spin, it is not mischaracterization. It is LAWLESNESS pure and simple.
          And whent eh courts bless lawlessness – that is WORSE.

          “The Pennsylvania issue was about a state rules that were followed:”
          No it was about foloowing the PA constitution and the LAW – not “rules” – actual PA constitutional amendments, and actual PA LAWS.

          “The problem was republicans wanted to follow it to it’s narrowest literal interpretation possible.”
          An exageration. but also irrelevant. When the PA constitution says Voting must be by secret ballot – that is exactly what it means.
          It does not mean – any means of voting that I like. Secret Ballot

          According to Wikipedia (and centuries of law) A secret ballot must meet the following requirements
          1). an official ballot being printed at public expense,
          2). on which the names of the nominated candidates of all parties and all proposals appear,
          3). being distributed only at the polling place and
          4). being marked in secret.

          ALL of those requirements must be met.

          I would further note that the law must ALWAYS be read narrowly. Reading the law broadly is quite litterally LAWLESS.

          It would not take reading more than a handful of statues broadly to end up with a conflicting morass that is precisely what John Adams warned us of “the Rule of MAN, not of Law”

          We read the law and constitution – narrowly with respect to government powers and broadly with respect to individual rights.
          Because even if that is wrong – we can fix it by changing the law or constitution.

          We can not fix reading the law broadly.

          But lets address your claim.

          The PA constitution says that the election occurs on ONE day. How is early voting or mailing voting consistent with that ?
          The PA constitution requires a secret ballot – how is it that the 2020 election met that requirement ?
          This is why you are not allowed to bring cell phones into a polling place – a secret ballot is not about YOUR right to keep your vote secret.
          It is about the right of ALL voters to assure that YOUR vote can not be coerced or induced – that you can not be threatened or paid to vote to a candidate. That requires that YOU are unable to show your ballot to anyone. Mailin voting van never meet that.
          The PA Constitution requires that you must vote in person on election day EXCEPT for specific causes listed in the constitution.
          Those do not include pandemics.

          Thee are ONLY the constitutional provisions that PA SCOTUS read out of existance.

          PA has voter ID law. A compromise between Govenor Wolf and the PA Legisture permanently ended the legal battles over Voter ID in PA in return for more liberal Absentee and early voting (which is unconstitutional).

          Yet, in 2020 – Wolf completely ignored the PA Voter ID requirements.

          The PA election law REQUIRES that Ballots must be delivered to a Single office in Each County. This was to assure that Ballots would always have a secure chain of custody – that there would be no means to stuff ballot boxes or to intercept ballots.
          PA Scotus wrote that requirement out of the law and allowed the state to provide numerous unattended ballot boxes for voters to drop off ballots – so that anyone could drop off a ballot, so that there was no chain of custody, so that ballots could easily be inserted or removed from the election.

          This is just one of many provisions of the PA election law – that the PA legislature passed and that Gov. Wolf signed that the PA Scotus creatively made vanish.

          Further these provisions of the PA election law all had a non-severability clause. That specified that if the courts found a provision to be invalid or unconstitutional, that the court was NOT free to fix the problem or just reject the problematic provision of the law.
          That the PA election law was passed as a WHOLE – that the Governor and the courts had to impliment the WHOLE thng exactly as written – or the entire law was self nullifying – if a single provision was modified by the court or struck by the court – the entire law was self repealing.
          And PA would revert to the prior law.

          Again this is not about “narow literal” reading. It was about reading the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the law.
          Not changing it such that it was unrecognizable.

          Whether you like it or not the PA election law and the PA constitution WERE NOT FOLLOWED
          This is not even a close call.

          I have addressed PA – because I am familiar with it. But Other states are similar.
          And in fact in several states – not only was the election law and constitution NOT FOLLOWED, But the Supreme court in those states RULED that the election was lawless.

          You are off in lala land claiming the election was not lawless.
          Numerous courts found it was lawless.

          What they refused to do – was their duty, and fail to allow the certification of a lawless election.
          And often they openly admitted that.

          Not only did PA SCOTUS – But the US Scotus FAILED to deal with the unconstitutionality of PA election law.

          The US SCOTUS Heard the PA cause – but Split 4:4 – because Barrett had not been confirmed. As a result the case was delayed until after the election. When the court refused to hear the case because the election was over and they were un willing to fix a lawless election by requiring the rejection of millions of lawless votes.

          Many people discussed this in PA prior to election day.
          Many of us warned mailin voters that they were in danger of having their votes not counted – because they were lawless votes.

          Voters were informed of the risk that mailin votes might not be counted.
          The option existed to vote in person. PA had provisions that allowed a person who had already voted by mail to cancel their mailin vote by voting in person.

          PA Mailin votes should never have been counted – they were inarguably unconstitutional as well as lawless.
          And most everyone voting that way understood the risk in doing so.

          The courts are required to follow the law and the constitution.

          There is no “we do not like the remedy” option.

          The Courts YOU cite OPENLY admit they were unwilling to to reject millions of mailin votes – as that remedy was too drastic.

          But that is quite litterally the rule of man not the rule of law. That essentially says that lawlessness is OK if the courts are scared to apply the required remedy.

          That is the defintion of the rule of man, not the rule of law.

          EB – you have LOST this argument – badly. This is not even a close call.

          And you do not grasp that precisely the judicial conduct you applaud is itself LAWLESS and therefore a significant justifying factor for the violent revolt against government.

          You keep pretending – when convenient that government is essentially self legitimizing – it is NOT.
          You keep pretending that there is a right for government to exist – there is not.

          Government exists only with the consent of the governed. That is PRECISELY what the declaration of independence says and means.
          That the VIOLENT overthrow of government is not merely legal and moral, but that it is REQUIRED when government is LAWLESS.

          “Unfortunately that is not possible because the justices correctly pointed out in clear detail why that was not possible. ”
          You are both wrong – even if the facts matched your claims – which they do not, and even more wrong – because they do not.

          The PA (and other Judges) were BY DEFINITION lawless – there is no “pointing out” that they do not wish to follow the law or constituion, that the do not like the results that might result in. A law is constitutional – or not. If it is constitutional – it must be followed AS WRITTEN.
          If it is not – the courts are not free to change it to suit themselves.

          But worse there constitution itself is the ultimate law of the land. It is outside the scope of the state supreme courts to ignore their own constitutions. There is no “not possible” – the constitution is NOT A CHOICE for judges – or governors – they SWORE and OATH to UPHOLD it. Not to rewrite it to suit their desires. Constitutions are changed by amendment. Not by the legislature or the governor, or the courts.

          In PA constitutional amendments are proposed and voted on by the legislature and if approved are placed on the ballot for approval by the voters. There is not supposed to be a role for the governor or the courts in the amendment process.

          Though wit just witnessed in PA a stupid effort by Governor Wolf to mangle the language of proposed PA constitutional amendments to spin them such that Voters would reject them – but PA voters saw through that Spin and several amendments passed restricting the Governors powers unconstrained powers to manufacture states of emergency and self empower the executive.

          “The law was clear where ambiguity was intentional it left it to the justices to interpret it as what the legislators intended and to the court’s power to define what certain phrases or words mean.”

          This is just horse$hit.

          The PA law WAS clear. It was NOT ambiguous, Even the PA Scotus actually admitted that. They did not mangle the law because it was unclear – but because they did not like it. As one specific example the PA election law specified EXACTLY where ballots were to be delivered – either by hand or by mail. It specified a single place for each county – unambigously. It specified a place where there would ALWAYS be a human to receive the ballot and therefor Ballots would never be in the hands of third parties – only Voters and election officials.

          The PA SCOTUS admitted that was what the law clearly stated – and then ignored the law. No where in the law were there provisions for multiple locations to receive ballots, nowhere in the law were there provisions for myriads of unlimited and unattended ballot dropboxes.
          The PA SCOTUS created those provisions from whole cloth.
          Further they did so in defiance of the provision of the PA election law that invalidated the entire law if portions of the law were modified.

          EB you are full of $chiff – you are free to like what the PA Scotus did. You can argue that it is how the law and constitution SHOULD have been. But there is no argument that what SCOTUS did violated the PA constitution and concocted new law without legislation.
          Which is not a power of the courts.

          If you wanted what PA SCOTUS waived into existance – you should have changed the law and amended the constitution.
          That is the only LAWFUL way to deviate from the law and constitution we have.

          I would further note that the PA election law was passed in 2019 – there was an extensive record, there were significant negotiations between Gov. Wolf and the legislature to craft what was past.Both sides compromised.

          There was no “ambiguity” – Wolf got somethings he wanted, and Republicans got some they wanted, and both gave up some of what they wanted in return for what they got.

          Everyone involved was CLEAR what the law said.
          And then Wolf used Covid as an excuse to ignore the deal he struck with the legislature and impliment voting law from thin air that he personally liked. And the courts blessed his doing so.

          The very actions you are endorsing ARE the justifications for violence against government.

          The governor and the courts behaved as if they alone could make whatever law they wanted – that is the definition of LAWLESS.
          Governors are not dictators. And the courts are their to thwart tyranny – not create it.

          “In cases of lack of standing where the evidence could not be presented, the argument that they were not determined on their merits and only on a technicality implies that the cases should have been heard by ignoring the law. In essence they were calling for the courts to ignore standing. Court’s and the law would be in violation of their duties. It was the fault of trump campaign lawyers for being incompetent or too rushed to file claims that were flimsy at best.”

          You do not seem to grasp that the entire concept of standing is court created law. There is no such thing as Standing in any constitution or in legislatively passed law.

          There are some legitimate reasons for standing – we can not have just anyone suing over anything.
          Standing generally requires that the moving party prove that the misconduct they allege would harm them.

          Decisions on standing REQUIRE that the courts presume the alleged misconduct actually occured.

          As an example if Trump alleges that voter fraud deprived him of a victory – and the courts wish to reject that claim on standing,

          They must accept that the fraud occured.
          Rejecting a cause on the grounds of standing is like a type of summary judgement – The moving parties claims must be accepted – for the purpose of standing analysis to be true.

          Standing is most commonly used to preclude YOU from suing because something bad happened to someone ELSE.

          I would further note that The 2020 Standing decisions are inherently deeply flawed. Lets say the court CORRECTLY decided the Trump campaign did not have standing. That does not change the fact that SOMEONE must have standing for ANY alleged harm.

          All rejecting a case on the grounds of standing does is say – YOU are the wrong party to bring the case.
          It does NOT and CAN NOT say – this case can not be brought.

          In the 2020 Election cases – either Trump had standing, the Legislators had standing or individual voters had standing.
          Or in the case of the TX SCOTUS case – the states have standing.

          No matter what someone ALWAYS has standing.

          Otherwise you are saying that some real harm can occur and no remedy would ever be possible.

          Lets say the tables were turned and in 2024 – Democrats lose in a questionable election.
          Rural and suburban areas of states produce hundreds of thousands more votes that is the norm. There is no oversite, no scrutiny, and the courts are asked to atleast allow inquiry into whether there was malfeasance.

          If you follow the precident set by 2020 – Republicans in 2024 can engage in massive election fraud, and neither democrats nor their candidates have any recourse – because no one has standing.

          The courts in 2020 abused the concept of standing that they created, and that will likely come to be rued by Democrats.

          But what is new – the left never looks to the unintended consequences of their stupidity.

  10. EB says: “Wait until it all comes down!! Mueller will spontaneously combust and Durham will bring in the big charges!!!”

    Pushing back against what Turley calls “the age of rage” on this blog is akin to sweeping back an ocean tide with a broom. Let Turley continue to flirt with the Trumpists by not telling them what they don’t want to hear. In the long run, he will regret it. I would love to watch Turley greet a group of his blog commentators in person to witness his visceral reaction to the sorts of commentary routinely made here! Regrettably, we cannot know what he actually thinks about the attitudes expressed by the “Turley Trumpists” because he will not respond to anything they have said.

    If Trumpism is to be crushed, a necessary though perhaps not sufficient step will be the prosecution of Trump for any crimes he may have committed. Though the dead-enders will refuse to accept a jury’s unanimous verdict, I know Turley will. And Turley’s stand on the rule of law will finally negate all the goodwill he has engendered with the Trumpists. He will quietly leave Fox News’ employ and its hold on him, and he can try to rehabilitate his credibility with the Left.

    This awful moment in our history will inevitably pass, and the end begins with Trump being exposed as a crook and conman to his cultists. It’s a shame that Turley will not be able to claim that he had a hand early on in defeating this scourge. To his everlasting discredit, he will be remembered for not having done what he could have, but ultimately he must- and he will- side with you and me, EB, albeit too little and too late.

    1. It is sad, Jeff and will indeed lead to Turley’s discredit. I’m not sure why he isn’t making the cauculation other than he’s bound up in a Fox contract thet prohibits him to speak on certain issues…, a non compete clause of sorts. Writing is on the wall though, it will be shocking if there aren’t charges in NY state and the state won’t press them until the case is beyond solid because the prospect of prosecuting an ex president is so touchy. The Trump horde,, while siding with Turley now, will turn on him the nanosecond he doestn’t complain about a Trump conviction. The only cauculation I see Turley making re the involvement with Fox is a running out the clock into retirement arrangement, profiting the way he can. Maybe he’s counting on Trump being caught in limbo in the courts for the rest of his life (both Trump’s and his) and a full judgement won’t ever have to be made…

      Indeed, that’s a personal policy of laziness and betting on the worst of human nature — something Trump does each and every day. i guess I’m over being truly shocked by Turley’s acquiescense, but it still is a bit shocking. I actually see it as being a business decision that seems to make sense but is a really bad and shortsighted one ultimately. And that’s not even contending with how history will regard him.

      EB

      1. Fear has a way of changing people…and, often, they ‘go along to get along.’ (The lure of money changes people, as well.)

        “Turley: Home, office ‘inundated with threatening messages’ since impeachment testimony”

        https://thehill.com/homenews/media/473387-turley-home-office-inundated-with-threatening-messages-since-impeachment

        “Anti-impeachment witness says he’s received threats since Judiciary Committee hearing”

        https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/politics/jonathan-turley-impeachment-expert-congress

        Jonathan Turley is one of those people who is going to play it safe, not wanting to alienate good friends like Bill Barr…and others.

        And we know how much he likes his ‘creature comforts.’

      2. You spew claims about Turley’s alleged contract with Fox.

        Do you have that contract ?
        Have you read it ?

        Or are you like a typical leftist idiot randomly speculating ?

        Beleiving your own BS.

        Exposed left wing LIE of Today.

        Konstantin Klimniik has gone public – not only with words – but Documents.

        He is a Ukrainian – not a Russian. He is no ones spy. He provided copies of his passpoirt – he does not hold a Russian diplomatic Passport
        Meuller LIED – Repeatedly.

        He did not meet with Manafort in Spain in 2017 – and his passport proves that – another Mueller LIE.
        No one on the Mueller team (or with the US government) tried to contact him to corraborate ANYTHING they Claimed about him.
        He has not been hiding.

        Mueller witness Gates has confirmed much of what Klimnick has said.

        Klimnick did not provide secret poll data to the russians. He provided NOTHING to the russians, and he never had SECRET poll data.
        He did share PUBLIC SOURCED polls (not Raw poll data) with Manaforts UKRAINIAN clients to try to get them to pay their outstanding bills and to continue as clients.

        No US intelligence agency has EVER identified Klimnick as a possible Spy – only Mueller and now the Biden Treasury have – and both have failed to produce ANY evidence.

        And on and on. Mueller LIED. He attorney’s lied. In some cases they were forced to roll back bogus claims – but not all, and there has been no consequences for this long stream of lies.

        https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/05/19/accused_russiagate_spy_kilimnik_speaks_-_and_evidence_backs_his_no_collusion_account_777328.html

  11. Democrats perpetrated the Russiagate psyops in an attempt to overturn election 2016 and obstruct the peaceful transfer of power. The perpetrators of that slow-motion coup attempt include Obama, Biden, Comey, Rice, Brennan, etc. The Democratic Party-aligned MSM and Big Tech repeated the Russiagate lie for 4+ years.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/inconvenient-truths-2/

    For election 2020, Democrats used the excuse of Covid to ram through last-minute election law changes concerning absentee ballots and signatures; this allowed them to get away with behavior that Democrats themselves would never tolerate if a Democrat’s career was at stake. Just look at how Democrats in California scrutinized signatures on the recall petition for Gov Gavin Newsom: they studied the slant of the letters, the spacing, etc.

    Separately, is there any presidential election since 1988 that Democrats themselves have not challenge if they did not win? NO. Take a look at 2004. Jerrold Nadler was one of the leading voices that alleged fraud.

    What Democrats are now doing is attempting to criminalize their political opposition. They particularly want to label all Trump supporters or supporters of populism as “terrorists.” Biden plans to create a Stasi-like system of payments to private citizens to snitch on neighbors whom they allege are subscribing to “narratives of concern.” Just like the Stasi in East Germany.

    Democrats are ushering in fascism. Like frogs immersed in water that is slowly and almost imperceptibly reaching a lethal boiling point, the masses are acquiescent to Democrats’ power grab and fascist crackdown.

  12. It would benefit voters and high school teachers of both parties to watch the films:

    “Boogie Man The Lee Atwater Story”
    “Fair Game” (starring Sean Penn)
    “Why We Fight” (2006 starring members of the Eisenhower family and military experts)

  13. Turley, you’ve now sunk to the level of pathos–your marching orders from Fox make you look like a fool. It is not a “dissenting viewpoint” that the January 6th incident at the Capitol was an attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power that the U.S. is famous for. It was not tourists visiting the Capitol–it was white supremacist followers of Trump who thought they could force Congress to allow their fat hero to remain in power by preventing Congress from accepting the will of the American people. They were carrying Trump flags, wearing t-shirts with “Camp Auschwicz” and White Supremacist logos, and they beat police officers, sprayed them with bear spray, broke windows and refused to cease and desist. Those Republicans who try to downplay what happened not even 6 months ago are LIARS, pure and simple. What happened was captured on video. We all saw it, along with the gallows and chants of “Hang Pence”. How the hell you can defend this as a “dissenting viewpoint” is baffling. This is the first time in American history that a losing presidential candidate fomented an insurrection despite proof of his loss by recount after recount, court challenge after court challenge and bullying that still couldn’t get the election results overturned. His defeat was predicted by every poll, by a record-setting run of low approval ratings, a trashed economy and a pandemic that he lied about and downplayed, so in desperation because of his serious mental illness, he continued to insist that his “landslide victory was stolen”, BIG FAT LIE. That is the significance of January 6th, a date that will live in infamy.

    Those Republicans who have decided to get on board with the Big Lie are not “questioning irregularities”–they DO know that Biden’s win was legitimate, and so do you. To defend this conduct is beyond the pale. This is not a valid dispute between people of good faith. Republicans know that their support continues to weaken. The only way to maintain power is to gerrymander districts to water down Democrat votes, to pass “model laws” to address election fraud that didn’t happen, but which is calculated to limit early and mail-in voting, and other measures calculated to prevent likely Democratic voters from being able to vote. As it turns out, this “model legislation” was drafted and disseminated by a well-financed organization of wealthy people and corporations who want to suppress Democratic votes. Why do you lend whatever credibility and credentials you still have to this effort?

    1. What a crock of BS.. Delusional Democrats like you are a Danger to Society and the People around you.I hope you don’t own any GUNS.

    2. Another Corrupt, Lying, Quisling, hate-America, Fascist Leftist is heard from! Why did Pelosi & the Mayor of DC refuse REPEATED offer of additional security from President Trump? Because they had a PLAN to slander & target EVERY Patriotic American citizens as “potential domestic terrorists” when every Patriot KNOWS who the REAL domestic enemies of the United States are – Pelosi & her ilk!

        1. Progressive “fact check”?? okey dokey…like those sites aren’t ever biased….EVER!!! Look at all the previous “Russian Collusion” fact checks that were wrong for 5 years…(and some still are repeating the lies of the left)

        2. Anonymous posted a fact check by scopes that said LBJ was somewhat racist. They did their best to sugar coat it. I asked her what the hell somewhat racist meant? She still hasn’t answered my inquiry.

  14. “Recognizing such varied motives and actions does not legitimize the violence or dismiss the seriousness of the attack.” Bingo. But Democrats’ (like Cicilline) motives are very clear, and it is getting old fast. Did they care about surveillance abuse; targeting political opponents; using the Justice Depart against political enemies; attacking the institution of the Supreme Court; the political encouragement of rioting and looting last year;; not to mention rewriting election law all last year; or encouraging and aiding our enemies? So they can sit down and pound Anti-American salt.

  15. “Rep. David Cicilline is demanding a resolution to censure Republican Reps….for remarks that he felt downplayed the violent attack on the Capitol…”

    – Professor Turley
    _______________

    Cicilline wants to force people to say what he commands no matter how nutty.

    Of course an insurrection is distinctly not an insurrection, and is merely a riot, if it is not armed and has no hope or possibility of having any discernible effect, specifically the overthrow of a sitting government.

    The goal of the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) is the full and immutable “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

    Americans don’t need to be free.

    Americans need merely do what they’re told by their intellectual superiors who are, you guessed it, the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs).

    Yep. That’s what the American Founders concluded and prescribed in their fundamental law – communist enslavement.

    Not!
    ____

    The inmates have taken over the asylum.

    The inmates are communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs).

    Communists are the direct and mortal enemies of America and its Constitution.

    1. Apparently 4 years of sedition and a coup were not enough to even whet their appetite.

      1. Not until we see the guillotine working like a metronome in the plaza will they be close to satisfying that appetite.

      2. The successful Obama Coup D’etat in America was the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history.

        The co-conspirators are:

        Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann, James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Sally Yates, James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr,

        Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner,

        Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama, Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, et al.

        1. Someone has been following the bouncing ball! I would add Perkins Coie and Natalia V. Veselnitskaya . Who specifically let her in the country when she was on a no fly list and why?

          1. Natalia V. Veselnitskaya was a left setup. She met with Fusion GPS immediately before and after the Trump tower meeting.

            Personally, I do not care much. If Russian’s wish to provide US politicians with actual dirt on their rivals – I am OK with that.

            If they wish to lobby for US adoption law changes – I am OK with that.

            I am OK with Hunter Biden selling his purported influense to Burisma.

            What I am NOT OK with is the fact that the State department took Hunter Bidens calls – BECAUSE he was “Hunter Biden”,
            AND that Burisma got the results they wanted as a result of Vice President Biden throwing the weight of the US government arround.

            This is little different – except WORSE that the Sen. Menedez situation in NJ.

            i have no problem with the jury failing to convict Menedez. The standard of proof for a crime is deliberately high.

            I have major problems with the fact that Menedez is STILL a Senator.

            There is no right to be a senator. The accusations against him were sufficiently well proven to remove him from office.
            The Senate should have done so. The State of NJ should have done so.

            And Joe Biden should not be president. Do I know beyond a reasonable doubt that VP Joe Biden threatened a foreign country for the purpose of personal profits for his son ? Nope. Do I know that what VP Biden did in the Ukraine violates ethics laws and regulations and should have resulted in his removal for office ? Absolutely.

Leave a Reply