The FBI Comes Up Empty-Handed in its Search for an Insurrection

Below is my column in The Hill on the recent reports confirming that the FBI has not been able to establish a planned insurrection on January 6th despite the overwhelming references in the media.  The vast majority of charges concern trespass or unlawful parading. The absence of a major insurrection or sedition prosecution is conspicuous but has done little to temper the characterization of the riot in media accounts or political statements.

Here is the column:

It may be true, as Confucius said, that “the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name,” but it can also be the end of politics. For politicians, labeling controversies is often more important than addressing them. Even well-defined terms used in legislation must change to fit political needs, like “infrastructure.” When its real meaning stood in the way of real money, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) simply tweeted: “Paid leave is infrastructure. Child care is infrastructure. Caregiving is infrastructure.” Done.

The same is true with labeling political violence. When protests by Black Lives Matter and other groups turned violent last summer, the media was expressly told not to refer to “rioters” but rather “protesters.” Riots causing massive property damage were described by CNN as “fiery but mostly peaceful protests.”

Conversely, the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol could not be just a riot, let alone a “fiery” protest, but only an “insurrection.” Many in the media continue to awkwardly refer to “the insurrectionists” rather than the rioters. National Public Radio even ran a running account of the “Capitol Insurrection.” The term was further driven home by House Democrats by impeaching President Trump for “incitement to insurrection” despite undermining any chance for an actual conviction. Members of Congress like Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) are still in federal court claiming a conspiracy of “armed and organized insurrectionists.”

The characterization of the attack as an insurrection served a myriad of political and personal purposes. First, it painted anyone associated with challenging the 2020 election results as supporting sedition and the country’s overthrow. Second, if this was a protest allowed to turn into an uncontrolled riot, there would be more questions about the failure to properly protect the Capitol.

It is easier to excuse a response to an insurrection than a violent protest. That point was expressly made by former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund who insisted “this was not a demonstration. This was not a failure to plan for a demonstration. This was a planned, coordinated attack on the United States Capitol.”

Despite the adoption of the term by many in the media, there has been a growing disconnect with the actual cases in court. Indeed, a new report from Reuters disclosed that the FBI has struggled to support the account of a coordinated “insurrection” on Jan. 6. Reuters’ FBI sources said that, despite months of intense investigation, they could find “scant evidence” of any “organized plot” and instead found that virtually all of the cases are “one-offs.” One agent explained: ”Ninety to 95 percent of these are one-off cases. Then you have 5 percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.”

In other words, they found a protest that became a runaway riot as insufficient security preparations quickly collapsed. While there clearly were those set upon trashing the Capitol, most people were shown milling about in the halls; many took selfies and actively described the scene on social media.

More than 570 people have been arrested, but only 40 face conspiracy charges. Those charges are often based on prior discussions about trying to enter Congress or bringing material to use in the riot; some clearly came prepared for rioting with ropes, chemical irritants and other materials. Those cases, however, are a small group among the hundreds charged and an even smaller percentage among the tens of thousands of protesters on that day. They remain a couple insurrectionists short of an insurrection.

After five months of dragnet arrests nationwide, a few reporters noted that no one was actually charged with insurrection or sedition. The vast majority of people face charges like simple trespass. For example, the latest guilty plea is from San Francisco real estate broker Jennifer Leigh Ryan, who posted an account on social media of how “We’re gonna go down and storm the capitol.” She pleaded guilty this week to “parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building” and faces a maximum sentence of six months in prison and a fine of $5,000.

Yet, the characterization of the “insurrection” has continued as a virtual article of faith for those reporting on or writing about Jan. 6. Moreover, the treatment of many has remained severe, if not draconian by design. Justice official Michael Sherwin proudly declared in a television interview that “our office wanted to ensure that there was shock and awe … it worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C. because they’re, like, ‘If we go there, we’re gonna get charged.’ … We wanted to take out those individuals that essentially were thumbing their noses at the public for what they did.”

That “shock and awe” included holding people without bail and imposing “restrictive housing” for no obvious reason. That includes some of the most notable figures from that day, like Jacob Chansley (aka Jake Angeli), better known as “Chewbacca Man” or the “QAnon Shaman” for the distinctive horned headdress he wore during the riot. Angeli, 33, is not accused of attacking anyone while parading around the Senate floor in his bear skin. He always insisted he was not trying to overthrow the nation with his decorative outfit and spear-topped flagpole. While the government did not find a basis for an insurrection or sedition charge, it did learn that he has an array of mental illnesses including transient schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression and anxiety. Yet, he has been held since the riot and is charged with six crimes, including violent entry, trespass and parading, that collectively could yield up to 28 years in prison.

There is a fair distinction between those who tried to stop the certification of a presidential election and those who burn police stations or businesses during protests. While the majority of people who went to the Capitol were protesters and did not engage in the riot, there were some who sought to physically disrupt or prevent the certification, including the use of violent entry into the Capitol. Yet, there remains a striking contrast in how other riots are characterized or prosecuted. Most of those arrested for violent protests after the death of George Floyd saw their charges dropped by state prosecutors. For months, rioters sought to burn federal buildings or occupy state capitals and, in some cases, seized police stations, sections of cities, even occupied a city hall. They were not declared insurrectionists; they were rioters before being set free after brief arrests.

Many of us remain disgusted and angered by the Jan. 6 riot — but it was a riot. It also was a desecration. These people deserve to be punished, particularly those who went with an intent to try to enter the Congress. The question is whether you can have an insurrection without anyone actually insurrecting. That Zen-like question may find its way into the hearings of some pending cases.

Calling these people “rioters” does not minimize what they did, or undermine the legitimacy of their punishment. However, there is wisdom and even the chance for resolution when we “call things by their proper name.”

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

344 thoughts on “The FBI Comes Up Empty-Handed in its Search for an Insurrection”

  1. It is increasingly self evident that the only consequential distinction between Jan 6. and the Kavanaugh hearing disruptions was that no one locked portions of the capital during the Kavanaugh hearings.

    That is it.

    Turlery tries to make bizzare distinctions.

    Absolutely those attempting to use violence to disrupt congress committed a crime – on Jan 6th just as during the Kavanaugh hearings or in Portland. there is no difference.

    Those merely attempting through loud boisterous protest to thwart the actions of congress were not insurrectionists, they were not rioters, they were protesters.

    There is absolutely no meaningful difference between boisterous protests of the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice, between cornering Senators in the halls, in their offices and in hearings and demanding that they do not confirm a supreme court justice and those doing exactly the same things to attempt to derail an election certification.

    Again the only differences is that on Jan 6. Congress locked some of its doors in an effort to preclude protestors from entering “the peoples house”.

    Everyone of those charged with “tresspassing” or parading should have those charges dismissed.

    The capital police are responsible to keep congressmen safe. They are ALSO responsible to assure that people can visit and tour the capital – even protesting – loudly and boisterously whenever congress is in session.

    The right to free speech, the right to protest, the right to assembly, the right to petition government mean nothing, if the government can lock you out to foreclose meaningful excercise of that right.

    The purpose of free speech, the purpose of assembly, the purpose of protest, the purpose of petitioning government is to peaceably coerce those in government to change their minds or risk the wrath of the electorate.

    What is unique about Jan 6. aside from locking the capital, is that it is extremely rare that those on the right make the same efforts to intimidate government that those on the left do daily.

  2. Svelaz,

    It is said that one is judged by the company he keeps. If that is true, were I Turley, I would shut down this blog immediately! As I have already commented, I would be ashamed that my articles have attracted an overwhelming number of Trumpists. As we know, Turley is no more a Trumpist than you or I. Just because he criticizes the MSM, Trumpists suppose he is one of them. They could not be more wrong.

    You may be correct that Turley wallows in the number of hits to his blog. One of the first questions I would pose to him is his explanation why his commentaries attract so many people whose poisoned attitudes he utterly rejects? Why doesn’t he disabuse Trumpists who mistake his criticisms of some on the Left as tantamount to validating Trump? The fault is Turley’s own since he will not criticize his employer Fox News for the same complaints he levels at the MSM. He won’t even criticize the far-Right networks, Newsmax, OAN and Infowars! The only networks he will call out by name are Fox’s chief broadcast rivals on the Left.

    Turley has attached himself to a news company which, but for its advocacy, there could not have been Trumpism. Having created this Trumpist Frankenstein, Fox is now trying to distance itself from Trump’s Big Lie for which it is being sued for billions for advocating it to millions. And the sad fact is that were Turley not hamstrung by his loyalty to Fox, he would not spare it his criticism. His silence is his great shame and one that will be lasting. And no matter how many fans he has managed to cultivate among Trumpists, Turley has lost the wide respect of his colleagues with whom he associates in the faculty lounges at George Washington Law School as well as the admiration of most of his law students who are Never Trumpers. All of which explains his inordinate attention to defending the free speech of disfavored academics at institutions of higher learning. More and more, I am getting the distinct impression that Turley himself feels vulnerable professionally for his disgraceful decision to join the ranks of, and thereby implicitly validate, the disreputable prime time hosts at Fox who single-handedly promoted Trump and all his lies.

  3. A somewhat lawsuit filed this morning –
    Zoe Tillman (Buzzfeed): “New lawsuit filed today by US Capitol Police officers seeking to hold Trump liable for the violence on Jan. 6 — it also names Roger Stone, the Proud Boys, and individual defendants charged with participating in the riots.
    “Complaint: s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21049557/8-26-21-smith-v-trump-complaint.pdf “

  4. Biden’s Cruise Line

    If Biden owned a cruise line, this would be his company’s policy:

    In the case of a sinking ship, it’s officers and the captain off first. Passengers last.

    1. Trump’s Cruise Line policy too — in fact, the Trump Admin totally stopped processing SIVs after March 2020.

      The Biden Admin says “Since August 14, the U.S. has evacuated and facilitated the evacuation of approximately 95,700 people.” Tell us how many people Trump evacuated after negotiating and starting the withdrawal.

      1. Mr.Trump’s plan was to leave some security forces behind ……Biden changed every action that was set in place ….Biden pulled out our officers overnight…..Literally overnight…..We were there that afternoon and the very next morning most bases were empty……Once Biden took office it was all on him so how dare you question or criticize Mr.Trumps plan when Biden changed it immediately after taking office…….Mr.Trump also had the upmost respect by the world…..He was all action not just talk……Dont know why I wasted this time bringing the facts to light to someone who worships government but it’s the right thing to do for the utterly misinformed……..I listen to no MSM and gather the facts from the sources themselves……Democrats are to lazy to question anything and take what their told as truth…….I’ll be praying for you my friend…….

  5. It can’t be overstated that this lawsuit was found to be fraudulent. Up to now, Turley has resisted acknowledging the existence of Trump’s Big Lie. He must come to terms with it because this district court and other courts were used by these Trumpist lawyers to give credence to it. Now, these lawyers will answer for essentially lying under oath.

    The question is: will Turley *finally* admit publicly that the assertion that the election was stolen has been and continues to be a flagrant lie?

    1. My guess is he *may* go as far as “many of us have commented that the truth has been stretched a bit…” around the election lie but his m.o. on the public stage has always been to say ‘I’ll allow it’. That’s whether called to action to construct a way to impeach a president for having sex with an intern, or to ignore the active crimes of trump.

      If hovering around the money could be compared to always hunting the wolf where it’s been rather than where it might go, let’s just stipulate Turley’s been a good hunter.

      eb

      1. Please list any crimes of Mr.Trump while president …….And list the credible source that affirms your claims because as of now you have only stated your opinion which means nothing……..

    2. Can’t handle the facts.

      Fiction is a good alternative, but not worth much of anything when dealing in this subject matter.

  6. OT –
    Attorneys who are allies of Trump are sanctioned by the court for having filed frivolous election contest cases and dishonesty. Quite the ruling:
    storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.172.0_3.pdf

    1. Good. They gamed the courts in an attempt to legitimize lies and false rhetoric about the election. I hope the penalties are commensurate with their actions.

      eb

      1. This Michigan district judge, Linda Parker, was appointed by Obama so naturally the Trumpists will cry foul, but not so Turley because, unlike Trumpists, he will NOT impugn her character by virtue of who appointed her. Moreover, she earned her JD at GW law school!

        Turley has decried attempts to hold Trumpist lawyers accountable for ethics violations in alleging election fraud on the strength of “people are saying.” For example, he lamented the suspension of Giuliani’s law license pending a full hearing whether he should be disbarred. He wrote in a blog post:

        “This week, New York’s Supreme Court took the extraordinary step of suspending Rudy Giuliani, former federal prosecutor and counsel to former President Trump, from practicing law. As a long-standing critic of Giuliani for his baffling, self-defeating and at times bizarre statements, I found the action was, on some level, reaffirming.

        However, the fluid standard applied in Giuliani’s case raises serious concerns over how and when such suspensions will be imposed against lawyers in public controversies. Indeed, the Giuliani standard would seem to implicate a wide array of attorneys who straddle the line of legal and political advocacy.

        The 33-page opinion is damning and embarrassing; in all likelihood, it will result in Giuliani’s eventual disbarment.”

        This Michigan judge also penned a damning and embarrassing 110 page opinion in which she adamantly affirmed:

        “… despite the haze of confusion, commotion and chaos of counsel intentionally attempting to create by filing this lawsuit, one thing is perfectly clear: Plaintiffs’ attorneys have scorned their oath, flouted the rules, and attempted to undermine the integrity of the judiciary along the way.”

        The court declared it was duty bound to grant the motions for sanctions.

        Turley will have his work cut out for him if he attempts to argue that these Trump lawyers acted in good faith in the face of this judge’s opinion that they ABSOLUTELY did not!

        1. Very interested to see what Turley has to say here, Jeff. As you’ve been saying there will come a point where he has to either fish or cut bait around the Big Lie(s) that animate the movement he’s signed on to work for. He’s danced around taking a stand, throwing out hints of his position here on this blog for sure — and also been received similarly to how trump was the other night when he openly said at his rally in Alabama that his followers should get vaccinated…

          As you know, I’ve openly speculated and directly tried to implore Turley on the blog comments to ‘take the Barr off ramp’ when the opportunity presents itself. Hard not to see that this might be a good time to do it. To be honest I have no idea what he’s going to do. I guess what keeps me coming back here is the hope that Turley has enough of a conscience left to wake the f up and read the writing on the floor in this case. But I also think he’s sailed past so many opportunities in the past to do just that in the interests of not rustling feathers with his employer over the big lie. Many in the legal community who once would show deference and respect toward Turley now openly call him a hack publicly because of his signing on to the Roy Cohn school of lawyering at Fox.

          Let’s see…

          eb

          1. Eb,

            It is noteworthy that there are no reputable scholars or well-known academics participating on this blog- at least none willing to identify themselves. It could be true that Turley is largely dismissed nowadays by the legal community especially since he became associated with the disgraceful Fox News not unlike had he signed-on with Infowars. Admittedly, appearing on Hannity’s show is not as despicable as appearing with Alex Jones, but for most intellectually honest lawyers and academics, it’s nonetheless way over the line of respectability.

            I would not call Turley a “Roy Cohn!” That goes to far. Cohn was a fraudster and was disbarred. Turley passionately believes in law and order. He would never engage in Trumpism by disparaging accredited investigations as “witch hunts” or discrediting the mainstream media as “the enemy of the people” or delegitimizing government as the “Deep State.” He will disappoint Trumpists in the final analysis because he is not like them; he is like us.

            1. Jeff, Eb, I agree with your views here and I find if much more enjoyable to watch a real discussion in this blog when it actually happens. I will admit I am not as erudite in writing as you are but I certainly try. It’s especially difficult when you have so many trolls and those who are hopelessly ignorant.

              I think Turley has fallen victim to the very same thing that keeps feeding Trump’s ego. The allure of attention. He may be a scholar and a very good lawyer, but he’s still vulnerable to the addiction that can come from seeing numbers of “subscribers” or “members” in his blog. Have you noticed how his enthusiasm spiked whenever he mentions the success of his blog? He attributes the popularity of his blog by how many people either join or comment on it, but he never engages in his own blog despite saying all the time, “ we have discussed, we all know, we are, us”, etc. I get that he’s a professor and that his style after so many years of using “we”, “us”, etc may be just be a habit of addressing his students. But I still think his credibility has suffered due to his addiction to the attention that he gets throughout his social media presence. With so many right leaning and some certifiable nut jobs in this blog it’s hard not to bask in the aura of attention he gets.

              1. I think Turley has fallen victim to the very same thing that keeps feeding Trump’s ego. The allure of attention.

                😏 A classic Narcissist statement made to boost the egos of two other Narcissists.

              2. Jeff and Svelaz, I agree I went over the edge with the Roy Cohn comparison, that’s probably more for the Rudy Giulianis and Lin Woods of the world. And if Turley had been truly corrupt he’d have gotten caught up somehow by now. That clearly hasn’t happened.

                I do subscribe to the addiction to attention theory though, and here Turley wanders into guilt by association territory. Not to mention I’d be shocked if Turley didn’t profit. somehow by monetizing the list of email addresses he gets from frequenters of the blog. Perfect hotlist for fundraisers on the right and also to sell the latest ‘awesome’ new investment advice if you ask me. I suppose the perfect test for that would be to see if I’m receiving mail in my spam folder from similar sources. But the truth is I have to sign in here anonymously because my real email addresses have gotten bounced from being able to sign on here due to past interactions I’ve had with trolls on this site. I’m effectively banned under my own identity.

                I will stand by this though, Turley’s lack of addressing the big lie puts him squarely in the group who openly promote it. Covering his butt by the linguistic splitting of hairs makes him a full partner at this point as far as I’m concerned.

                eb

                1. Eb,

                  Yes, Giuliani replaced Roy Cohn. Lin Wood is too incoherent to be compared with the shrewd Roy Cohn. Though both of them may end up ultimately being disbarred like Roy Cohn. Turley’s great sin, as you point out, is one of omission as opposed to commission.

        2. Jeff is exercising. He is trying to build himself up by tearing another down.

          It won’t work. Turley is a scholar, and you are nothing.

          1. Yet again, Allan S. Meyer engages in the behavior he tries to attribute to others, “trying to build himself up by tearing another down.”

            1. No, Anonymous the Stupid. I am responding in kind. Do you not think Jeff is tearing Turley down? You wouldn’t think so because you are blind to anything you disagree with. It’s purposeful blindness, and that is why you became Anonymous the Stupid. You always claim to have more brains than you show, which might have a bit of merit, but you don’t wish to show it.

              1. Allan S. Meyer: you are the one who told Jeff that he is “nothing.” Jeff did not say anything of the sort about Turley.

                As for “You wouldn’t think so because you are blind to anything you disagree with. It’s purposeful blindness, and that is why you became Anonymous the Stupid. You always claim to have more brains than you show, which might have a bit of merit, but you don’t wish to show it,” your insults continue to describe you much better than they describe the people you wish to denigrate.

                The fact is that Jeff complimented Turley along with a conditional that is mild critique. When Jeff notes “unlike Trumpists, he will NOT impugn her character by virtue of who appointed her,” that is a compliment. Are you capable of complimenting Jeff? How about you quote what Jeff wrote that you believe constitutes “tearing [Turley] down”? The conditional, “Turley will have his work cut out for him if he attempts to argue that these Trump lawyers acted in good faith in the face of this judge’s opinion that they ABSOLUTELY did not!,” doesn’t tear Turley down. If you weren’t in such a rush to denigrate, you’d recognize that.

                1. “Allan S. Meyer: you are the one who told Jeff that he is “nothing.” Jeff did not say anything of the sort about Turley.”

                  Anonymous the Stupid, Jeff didn’t call Turley a ‘nothing’, an opinion, which means very little, except in Jeff’s case and your own. Jeff has libeled the professor over and over again. Are you too Stupid to make the distinction?

                  “The fact is that Jeff complimented”

                  Jeff’s compliments of Turley, for the most part, are saying he is a nothing. Turley is far ahead of the pack. Jeff tries to place him among the pack. You and Jeff are on the bottom of the pack.

                  Jeff is a libeler, and libel’s the person’s ability to earn money. If Jeff weren’t such a ‘nothing’, it might count, but Jeff is an envious nothing thinking he is on par with the professor’s worst student ever.

                  1. Indeed, S. Meyer, your opinions are “an opinion, which means very little” to anyone except you.

                    1. That is correct, Anonymous the Stupid. No one has to agree with my opinions, but that doesn’t mean Jeff should libel Turley.

                2. Thanks, Anonymous for defending me. I have NEVER denigrated Turley by calling him a Trumpist! I have repeatedly pointed out that he rejects Trumpism! He has acknowledged that Trump is a liar:

                  https://jonathanturley.org/2020/12/20/how-scared-should-we-be-cnns-jake-tapper-leads-show-with-conspiracy-in-the-oval-office-on-possible-declaration-of-martial-law/

                  For the most part, I generally agree with his observations about the MSM; my criticism is that he NEVER criticizes Fox News, Newsmax or OAN, etc., by holding their hosts to the same journalistic standard. My complaint is his hypocrisy; not his views as such. Though I do disagree with his arguments on free speech. For example, I don’t agree with his take here:

                  https://jonathanturley.org/2020/12/27/trumpunity-sunstein-calls-for-broader-use-of-defamation-lawsuit-to-curtail-misinformation/

                  I was hoping to get more information on his position with his response to the Michigan district judge who found the Trumpist lawyers had violated their oaths of office by filing a fraudulent lawsuit. I worried that Turley would dredge up another inane criminal case to distract us from such a momentous ruling which the latest murder in a 55-gallon drum post is a perfect example.

                  Turley did report the case on Twitter, but he has not analyzed the judge’s ruling. He may not, unfortunately, because, as I have speculated, he could be deposed in the Smartmatic and Dominion defamation lawsuits against Fox News. It stands to reason that he would be a relevant witness since he appeared on the shows which are at the heart of these lawsuits. The Cass Sunstein article I referenced above was his only analysis of the liability of Fox News for broadcasting the Big Lie, but it occurred BEFORE Fox was sued.

                  I am very much looking forward to Turley’s law review article on free speech which he announced a couple of days ago here. I implore him to post a link to it since that particular journal may be available only to paid subscribers. His law review article will be more scholarly than polemical and provide more insight into his position since he will likely anticipate the challenges to his viewpoint- something which he has avoided up to now because he won’t answer any questions.

                  1. You’re welcome Jeff. If JT announces when the article is published, I’ll see if I can find a non-paywalled copy.

  7. (OT)

    Our Words Alter Facts

    At least according to the Biden administration.

    They are now claiming that the Afghanistan exit debacle is a “success.”

    This administration is completely detached from reality.

    And on a related note —

    Someone asked an astute question about Biden’s domestic and foreign policies: “If you set out to consciously destroy America, would you do anything differently?”

    My reply: “Be more subtle.”

    1. Sam,
      They claim they will get every American citizen out that wants to get out. With that qualifier, they can claim success at any time. They could shut it all down today and simply claim any American citizen remaining in Afghanistan is not stranded, but rather made the choice to not leave. These people have no conscience. They will have blood on their hands and stare straight into the camera and tell everyone that it was a mass suicide.

      1. “but rather made the choice to not leave.”

        Yep. Blame the victims for their own murderous incompetence.

        Reminds me of the scum who once did the equivalent of the following:

        He punctured all four tires of a man’s car.

        The victim then said: “I can’t drive it like that.”

        The destroyer replied: “That’s your choice.”

    2. My reply: “Be more subtle.”

      That ship has sailed. The Oregon government has waged an all out war against law enforcement. Then they assert the lawlessness needs a national response.

      herein lies an interesting connection to the most recent disaster we’ve been watching abroad: In Portland, city leaders demand say their refusal to back their own police or enforce their own laws “is a national problem that demands national resources,” adding that “the idea that Portland, or any city, can single handedly defeat white nationalism is a fallacy.”
      https://thefederalist.com/2021/08/25/you-dont-need-to-go-to-kabul-to-see-the-end-of-american-order-its-right-here-among-us/?&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_federalist_daily_briefing_2021_08_25&utm_term=2021-08-25

      1. The word you’re looking for is police state… a federal police state.

        Same thing in Louisville, Kentucky.

  8. “For example, the latest guilty plea is from San Francisco real estate broker Jennifer Leigh Ryan, who posted an account on social media of how “We’re gonna go down and storm the capitol.” She pleaded guilty this week to “parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building” and faces a maximum sentence of six months in prison and a fine of $5,000.”

    I’ve always just thought of 1/6 as a bunch of a hole entitled white people playing at the game of uprising after feeling resentful at the demonstrations around the killing of George Floyd. Their own stupidity is what got them into being considered an insurrection rather than a riot.

    The real organized activity is in trump’s systematically leaning on individual states to over write election results. i’ve been waiting on you daring to comment on that but you’ve wussed out hard on it. That’s where the real coup lives, and continues to exist. I’m trying to find a reason that your carrying water for voter suppression doesn’t make you equivalent to someone selling drugs to school children, Turley. Playing on the magats gullibility is like fostering someone’s drug habit. I see you standing all up in that territory, Jon. Own it. Turns out you were born to do it.

    eb

    1. I’ve always just thought of 1/6 as a bunch of a hole entitled white people playing at the game of uprising after feeling resentful at the demonstrations around the killing of George Floyd.

      Of course you miss the irony that your racist feelings assume others are being motivated by their racist feelings.

      That’s where the real coup lives, and continues to exist.

      Is it a coup to challenge election results? There have been numerous efforts across the country challenging the results. Which of them, if any, were in violation of the law and more importantly, meet the legal definition of a coup? Conversely, given everything that happened during Trump’s presidency, do you see anything that was done against the President as a violation of the law and more importantly, meet the legal definition of a coup?

      1. “Of course you miss the irony that your racist feelings assume others are being motivated by their racist feelings.”

        Only mention of the word ‘racist’ was by you. I get it, identification and all.

        “Is it a coup to challenge election results? There have been numerous efforts across the country challenging the results. Which of them, if any, were in violation of the law and more importantly, meet the legal definition of a coup? Conversely, given everything that happened during Trump’s presidency, do you see anything that was done against the President as a violation of the law and more importantly, meet the legal definition of a coup?”

        To quote a fat orange hog: “I just want you to find 11 thousand votes.”

        eb

      2. Yes, it is a coup to challenge election results when you know that your “challenge” is factually basless, provably false, and when you stir people into rioting based on lies, including invading the Capitol in an effort to prevent the VP from accepting certified votes from the 50 states.. It is a coup to try to bully election officials into changing votes for your opponent, too.

            1. eb,

              You need to go back to your riots & burning the rest of your ghetto check your Racism.

          1. A recount is not an audit. Recounting absentee ballots that fail to meet the laws to assure election integrity, is just a replay of the same illegal actions.

            1. What? Let’s see if I understand you correctly. I gave someone $60 and they said I only gave them $40 because one of the $20’s was counterfeit. I then proceeded to recount the money and said nope, it’s all there. They still refused to accept the alleged counterfeit $20 and suggested we get an expert opinion. To which I said I didn’t need to do that because I recounted it again and still came up with $60. Surely there must be a reasonable way to resolve this allegation.

              Is that about right?

            2. I suppose if you could provide *any* proof of absentee ballots not being legal you’d have a leg to stand on. But you can’t, so you don’t.

              eb

                1. Sorry, just because you don’t like what absentee ballots said doesn’t cast doubt on to their legal status.

                  What really needs to be forensically monitored is the money and rhetoric being tossed around about the need for forensic auditing of absentee ballots. That’s where the voting fraud lives. Not in the ballots themselves, but rather in the lobby wanting them discounted.

                  eb

                  1. ROTFL

                    According to you a crime has not been committed until you have arrested and find the thief guilty.

                    Your logic is our of this world. LOL

                    1. Clearly it’s out of your world, the world where an orange con man cries over getting his ass kicked and maintaining it could only happen through an illegal vote.

                      Here are the facts: trump never won a popular vote and the commission he put together to find an illegal vote in the ’16 election came up with nothing and disbanded in relative silence.

                      Here’s a question for you, actually two questions…

                      Would you be willing to have every single state put under an audit, not just the ones trump lost? And would you be willing to have every state trump won in the midwest that gave him an electoral college technical victory in ’16 under audit?

                      Ok…, here’s a third question…, since Florida did have signs of Russian tampering in ’16 would you be willing to have that state’s voting tally put under audit?

                      And please, explain why the Cyber Ninjas shouldn’t just be laughed out of the room.

                      eb

                    2. “Here are the facts: trump never won a popular vote ”

                      Typical. Before we get to the questions, haven’t you yet learned how the presidential election winner is determined?

                      I am for audits where there are questions of lawlessness. There was no tampering in Florida, but I would want a full audit if there were evidence of problems.

                      Better yet, stop the potential fraud before it happens. Voter ID and strict voting procedures are needed. That way, all these questions don’t occur. Unfortunately, you don’t want strict voting procedures to prevent fraud.

                    3. Than you’re all for voting ID through the SS# system. Cool. You’re automatically registered to vote at birth. I’m all for that, too. Exclusionary I.D.;s are poll taxes.

                      eb

                    4. Without question, anyone having a legal SS number over the specified age should vote as long as ID is assured. (I’ll leave it up to the states to determine if crazy people or criminals can vote)

                    5. By the way, you totally avoided my questions other than in making a broad disclaimer about there being no tampering in Florida.

                      eb

              1. I believe Scott Peterson used a similar thought process. Fortunately Laci and the baby were found and forensic evidence proved Scott murdered them both.

                So it’s refreshing to see you recognize the value of a forensic audit, as that is best way to prove the allegations true or false.

                1. John Solomon’s group has been doing methodical, roll up your sleeves research on the validity of the 2020 election. Like most audits or in this case investigative reporting, if they discover an irregularity they go deeper. In the link below, look for the tab “Dig In” and it will take you to the raw FOIA documents. The raw data is extensive.

                  Like he tells his readers, “If you don’t believe me, here are my sources and you can read them and make up your own mind.”

                  The lack of policy in this county is concerning. The fact that a larger majority of the altered documents were changed in favor of Biden is a red flag. Look at the raw data. It is right there. Not an opinion.

                  An institution should never fear audit or the accreditation process if they are following and meeting the standards. It is good for both sides to be accountable.

                  “In all, more than 5,000 of the 148,000 absentee ballots cast — or about 3% — in Georgia’s largest county required some form of human intervention, according to logs obtained from Fulton County by Just the News under an open records act request.”

                  https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/georgia-ballot-adjudication-spoiled#article

                  1. Like he tells his readers, “If you don’t believe me, here are my sources and you can read them and make up your own mind.”

                    Solomon’s reporting is so unimpeachable that the idiots on the Left’s only option is to attack him personally.

        1. Natch– “It is a coup to try to bully election officials into changing votes for your opponent, too.”

          **(

          The way movie brats and politicians tried to get elctors to change their votes when Trump won?

  9. But He’s My Fascist

    Continuing his campaign to pressure private companies to do government’s bidding, Biden pressures them to mandate vaccines.

    “Today I’m calling on more companies…in the private sector to step up the vaccine requirements,” Biden said.

    Remind me, again, which is the party of fascism?

    (For those who are ignorant about the nature of government, it is *not* a suggestion society. It is an institution of physical force — its police powers. Behind every “call,” “urging,” “request” is law enforcement with a gun. A politician, and especially a president, is *not* a private citizen. He is a functionary of the government. As such, when he speaks, he does so with those police powers in his pocket.)

  10. Jonathan: So, it was only a “riot” not an “insurrection”? Yours is the latest attempt at historical revisionism relating to the assault on Jan. 6 at the Capitol–the worst such violence at the Capitol since the Civil War. Everyone knows what a “riot” is, e.g., Watts in 1965, what just happened in Portland between the Proud Boys and anti-fascists. An “insurrection”, on the other hand, is an organized and violent uprising against constituted authority or government. Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and others planned and organized the event at the Capitol and was carried out by Trump’s supporters including fascist groups like the Proud Boys and others. It was “violent”. Five people died and over 100 Capitol police officers were injured–many seriously. And there was extensive damage to the Capitol. Had the people who broke into Capitol been able to find Speaker Pelosi or VP Pence we might have seen real mayhem. The whole purpose of the assault was to stop the certification of the Electoral College vote to keep Trump in power. It was an attack on constituted authority, i.e., the Constitution. Congress and our Democracy.

    Since Jan. 6 Republicans have tried to change the description of what happened. Trump says the insurrection was “peaceful” and there was “love in the air”. Republican members of Congress have echoed Trump’s description. One called it a “normal tourist visit”. Marjorie Taylor Greene, big on conspiracy theories, says that “FBI operatives organized and participated” in the violence inside the Capitol. Some Republicans falsely claimed that Antifa also participated. Now you are adding to this revisionism by conflating what happened on Jan. 6 with the BLM mostly peaceful protests in many cities over the murder of George Floyd last summer. There was property damage then but the real violence was committed by others. Remember that Kyle Rittenhouse, armed with an assault rifle and a supporter of right-wing groups, shot and killed 2 peaceful protesters and seriously wounded a third in Kenosha, Wis. BLM and its white supporters weren’t trying to overturn an election or attempting to change the constituted authority of Congress. They were protesting racist police practices.

    A number of the people who participated in the assault on the Capitol have received lighter sentences because they didn’t commit any acts of violence. But others are doing serious time. Paul Allard Hodgkins pleaded guilty to a felony and was sentenced to 8 months. Another was convicted of federal charges and could face up to 10 years in prison. The FBI is still trying to identify those who planned the assault on the Capitol. Whether anyone is prosecuted under the sedition laws is beside the point. Under federal law “sedition” is defined as a conspiracy to overthrow the Government or “to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States”. This certainly describes what Trump, Giuliani and others wanted. But the law also requires proof of “intent” which could prove difficult for prosecutors.

    However historians describe the events of Jan. 6, whether a “riot” or “insurrection”, they will not conclude, as you do, that it was no different than the protests by BLM last summer. You may be a respected conservative constitutional scholar but, in trying to downplay the attempt to overthrow our Constitutional order, your attempts at historical revisionism will ultimately fail.

    1. Dennis–

      I think your screeds are too long for anyone to bother to read.

      Then, too, there are the many falsehoods, but if you keep your falsehoods in more compact packages someone may actually read them.

    2. Dennis McIntyre wrote, “the assault on Jan. 6 at the Capitol–the worst such violence at the Capitol since the Civil War.”

      It’s interesting that you’ve forgotten about the actual bombing in the US Capitol by a terrorist on November 7, 1983?

      Now who is trying to revise history?

      It was a riot and it doesn’t fit your preferred narrative, so get over yourself.

      1. You, personally, may think that there was more violence in the 1983 bombing. But many more LE officers were injured on 1/6/21 (AFAIK, no person was injured in the 1983 blast), and there was more damage done to the buildings as well.

        So instead of insisting that Dennis was revising history, maybe you should explain why you believe 1983 was more violent.

      2. Steve,

        With all do respect can we first see all the exculpatory evidence, like 14/15000 hours of security video of the capital bldg on or about 1/6/2021, before you people Red Queen/condemn the peaceful 1.000,000 + Trump supporters of 1/6?

        And please, we’re all very interested, tell us all about why the military Tanks were called into Waco, who order them there & thus Massacre of women & child burnt Alive to Save them, & the ATF/FBI/SPLC+Mil.+Tim McVay & the Gray Sticks of butter planted wired inside , witnessed by state employees there @ the Murrow (sic) BLDG in OKC, ( Clinton’s Records just happened to be stored there. ) Then the 1st time when the FBI got caught in court attacking the World Trade Center & the among the greatest hits GW & the Dick, Chaney, & Marvin Bush heading up Security of the World Trade Centers.

        Hell Yeah, many Americans are all ears listening to you people explain to the public it all was nothing more then a couple White Supremacist Red Necks had a couple beers stumbling out of the Rust Spur Saloon that cause all those incidents & not Nancy Pelosi/Schumer/McConnell/McCarty all running a Insurrection & Treasonous Sedition against the US Constitution to hid the complete Election Fraud of Nov 3/2021.

          1. Yet you replied to Oky, and you didn’t reply to “instead of insisting that Dennis was revising history, maybe you should explain why you believe 1983 was more violent.”

            1. Anonymous wrote, “Yet you replied to Oky, and you didn’t reply to “instead of insisting that Dennis was revising history, maybe you should explain why you believe 1983 was more violent.” “

              There is no real reason to continue that particular discussion, we already disagreed and it’s quite clear that nothing is going to change our opinions.

              I know you’re completely obsessed with your attack dog tactics towards me but do at least try not to beat a dead horse.

              1. “it’s quite clear that nothing is going to change our opinions.”

                It may be that nothing will change your opinion, but I regularly change my mind about things when presented with good evidence. I think it’s too bad that you’re unwilling to present the evidence that leads you to conclude that the 1983 bombing was more violent.

                “I know you’re completely obsessed with your attack dog tactics towards me …”

                No, you apparently believe that, but your belief isn’t knowledge.

          2. Steve,

            I hope you know the game “They” are playing against us is for keeps. ie: How many people & US Military did Biden/Pelosi/McConnell/US Intel, writ large, cause be mur*dered/injuries in Afghanistan yesterday?

            And I’m sure almost any judge in the US will be thrilled to hear certain rotten b*stards inside the govt/DOJ/FBI/etc are turning over the names & addresses of former/current loyal members of our nation to all our Enemies.

            “reply to that deflection pile of trolling regurgitated innuendo”

            Yes I’ve known for years people have a hard time grasping complex thoughts of why some might speak of the foundation when they just see that the bldg is falling down. I’m assuming not a Judges are stupid.

            The short of the long is when anyone of even a somewhat sound mind at a glance can plainly see that govt organizations such as DOJ/FBI/CIA, HHS/FDA/CDC/ etc have a massive rap sheet of felonious criminal behaviour, satanism, pedophile, mu*rder crimes against humanity, etc…

            ie: What was that case just a couple of weeks ago some man, agent/or directly involved with the FBI forced his wife to go to an employee to orgie & stand by & let them Sexual Assult her & the beat the holy hell out of her later because she didn’t like getting Raped/Assaulted by them! Those ARE NOT Men! Those are Mentally Ill Deviants that need not be anywhere close to any power or leadership, Chris Wray/Garland!

            I’m not saying all employees & associates are evil, but many of those past/current leadership clearly are rotten/evil as hell & they are making defamatory/slanderous, baseless allegations in court, bearing false witness under the penalty of perjury, at those around the 1/2021 Trump Rally & other issues like vaccine safety concerns, who have consistently shown themselves to be Honorable Characters Society.

  11. There were two actual bombs planted nearby at the RNC and DNC. This is likely to take police officers away from the Capitol when the insurrection was happening.

    Turley ignores what actually happened on 1/6 in order to make his usual point that white conservatives are victims of everything.

    1. 8 months later the FBI has no suspects. They know who planted the bombs, to reveal their identity is to reveal who was inciting violence.

    2. Ask that Ret Lt Gen Pelosi hired for Security later & why was he in videos planting them? Let’s see the video & clear it all up!

  12. Calling these people “rioters” does not minimize what they did, or undermine the legitimacy of their punishment. However, there is wisdom and even the chance for resolution when we “call things by their proper name.”

    Yes Jonathan there is some honest wisdom in calling things by their proper name, I’ve mentioned this before that we need to stop soft-balling what’s happening in the USA when I wrote in a previous comment…

    Jonathan,
    When are you going to stop soft-balling these people that are actively trying to maintain the “progressives” narratives by censoring the speech of those that may present an opposition to their narrative?

    It doesn’t matter if these people directly attack speech by hacking websites to censor speech, or using corporate proxies to do the bidding of “progressives” and their army of irrational social justice warriors to censor speech, or those that openly applaud the censoring of speech they don’t like; call these people what they really are right to their face, they’re anti-American totalitarians and their actions of undermining the United States Constitution will render it so irrelevant that it’s effectively unenforceable. These people aren’t just becoming, they already are an enemy to the United States Constitution and therefore enemy of the United States of American and its people.

    A fair amount of the 21st century political left (the extreme left has taken over) are flaming irrational bigots and are willing to openly persecute those that disagree with them and suppress their rights right down to their right to choose what medical procedures to inflict upon themself, these people are an enemy of the people!

    I don’t know who came up with the following but it’s a fair representation of how irrational mission creep into persecution can take hold.

    ENJOY!

    ———————————————————-
    “Who’s Been Vaccinated?”
    starring Abbot and Costello…

    Bud: ‘You can’t come in here!’
    Lou: ‘Why not?’
    Bud: ‘Well because you’re unvaccinated.’
    Lou: ‘But I’m not sick.’
    Bud: ‘It doesn’t matter.’
    Lou: ‘Well, why does that guy get to go in?’
    Bud: ‘Because he’s vaccinated.’
    Lou: ‘But he’s sick!’
    Bud: ‘It’s alright. Everyone in here is vaccinated.’
    Lou: ‘Wait a minute. Are you saying everyone in there is vaccinated?’
    Bud: ‘Yes.’
    Lou: ‘So then why can’t I go in there if everyone is vaccinated?’
    Bud: ‘Because you’ll make them sick.’
    Lou: ‘How will I make them sick if I’m NOT sick and they’re vaccinated.’
    Bud: ‘Because you’re unvaccinated.’
    Lou: ‘But they’re vaccinated.’
    Bud: ‘But they can still get sick.’
    Lou: ‘So what the heck does the vaccine do?’
    Bud: ‘It vaccinates.’
    Lou: ‘So vaccinated people can’t spread covid?’
    Bud: ‘Oh no. They can spread covid just as easily as an unvaccinated person.’
    Lou: ‘I don’t even know what I’m saying anymore. Look. I’m not sick.
    Bud: ‘Ok.’
    Lou: ‘And the guy you let in IS sick.’
    Bud: ‘That’s right.’
    Lou: ‘And everybody in there can still get sick even though they’re vaccinated.’
    Bud: ‘Certainly.’
    Lou: ‘So why can’t I go in again?’
    Bud: ‘Because you’re unvaccinated.’
    Lou: ‘I’m not asking who’s vaccinated or not!’
    Bud: ‘I’m just telling you how it is.’
    Lou: ‘Nevermind. I’ll just put on my mask.’
    Bud: ‘That’s fine.’
    Lou: ‘Now I can go in?’
    Bud: ‘Absolutely not?’
    Lou: ‘But I have a mask!’
    Bud: ‘Doesn’t matter.’
    Lou: ‘I was able to come in here yesterday with a mask.’
    Bud: ‘I know.’
    Lou: ‘So why can’t I come in here today with a mask? ….If you say ‘because I’m unvaccinated’ again, I’ll break your arm.’
    Bud: ‘Take it easy buddy.’
    Lou: ‘So the mask is no good anymore.’
    Bud: ‘No, it’s still good.’
    Lou: ‘But I can’t come in?’
    Bud: ‘Correct.’
    Lou: ‘Why not?’
    Bud: ‘Because you’re unvaccinated.’
    Lou: ‘But the mask prevents the germs from getting out.’
    Bud: ‘Yes, but people can still catch your germs.’
    Lou: ‘But they’re all vaccinated.’
    Bud: ‘Yes, but they can still get sick.’
    Lou: ‘But I’m not sick!!’
    Bud: ‘You can still get them sick.’
    Lou: ‘So then masks don’t work!’
    Bud: ‘Masks work quite well.’
    Lou: ‘So how in the heck can I get vaccinated people sick if I’m not sick and masks work?’
    Bud: ‘Third base.’

    End Scene
    ———————————————————-

    The extreme political left’s movement towards a mentality of rights for me but not for thee is totalitarian, call it by its proper name, the people must capitulate to the totalitarian hive mind of the extreme political left, even when it comes to their own medical decisions, or be openly persecuted and canceled. Remember what happened to the Jews in 1930’s-1940’s Germany.

    CALL THING BY THEIR PROPER NAME!!!

    I completely agree.

    1. Abbott and Costello, thank you for sharing. It says it all. can you create a link for that so that it can easily be shared.

    2. Witherspoon says:

      “These people aren’t just becoming, they already are an enemy to the United States Constitution and therefore enemy of the United States of American and its people.”

      And you intend to kill us as you would any enemy of the people.

      When there is no limit to what you can call Leftists, it is easy for you Trumpists to believe there is no limit to what you can do to us.

      1. “there is no limit to what you can do to us.”

        Wow! This privileged white guy is claiming victimhood.

      2. jeffsilberman wrote, “And you intend to kill us as you would any enemy of the people.”

        Only a moron, a liar, an internet troll or all the above would twist what I wrote into that.

        Stop your ignorant trolling.

        jeffsilberman wrote, “…it is easy for you Trumpists to believe there is no limit to what you can do to us.”

        Only a moron, a liar, an internet troll or all the above would imply that I’m a “Trumpist”.

        It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

        jeffsilberman just removed all doubt.

        1. The reason Nazis called Jews “vermin” is the same as many of you call Leftists the “enemy” or a “plague” on this country. It is not a sufficient means to exterminate a people, but it surely IS a necessary one.

          1. The Nazis called the Jews vermin to dehumanize them so that people would not have problems with their conscience when they stole and killed them. It’s a leftist tradition to dehumanize people or otherwise assassinate their character. Stalin was also an expert at that.

            You don’t know your history.

              1. Anonymous the Stupid, for your information, there is no dehumanization. It is a matter of Stupid people who make Stupid statements being told where they fit in the hierarchy of intelligence. They have to use their two ears and two eyes instead of their one big mouth.

            1. Apparently you have never listened to “The Savage Nation” wherein hate-monger and Trumpist Michael Weiner routinely calls Liberals “vermin.” Trump is a big fan of Weiner, and Weiner prides himself on being the ideological godfather of Trumpism with his mantra of “Borders, Language, Culture.”

              1. Not everyone from the right is friendly, and not everyone from the left is a horror show.

                You pick anecdotes. I chose to use things that have been proven historically and in the present.

                You can live with your anecdotes. At least they show that what you say only carries meaning to those that do not think.

                1. Do you suppose the Nazis could have passed the Nuremberg Laws had they not dehumanized Jews first? That’s not anecdotal. I don’t deny that there are those on the Left who have called Trumpists dehumanizing names. They should be condemned as well. I would welcome you or anyone providing *specific* examples of *Leftist leaders* doing so, and I will gladly denounce them.

                  I have never called Trumpists the “enemy.” I call them “liars” for insisting that Trump is NOT an inveterate liar. I don’t hate Trumpists. I pity them.

                  1. “Do you suppose the Nazis could have passed the Nuremberg Laws had they not dehumanized Jews first? ”

                    Killing and savagery of man need not require the dehumanization of anyone. Perhaps as man becomes more civil, he needs to justify what he is doing, and dehumanization is one way, but you miss the point.

                    The ideas behind destroying groups of people, cultural norms, and many other things come from a desire to wield power. For the most part, it is the left that wants to wield such power within our country.

                    You look at the Nazis as right-wing, but there is a reason they are called national socialists… because they are. Just look at the basic structure of the left. They want a bigger government, not a smaller one. They want absolute control over speech. They want corporations doing their bidding, though that can be accomplished in many ways.

                    From Germany’s Hitler to Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao’s China, all the great leftist powers wanted those three things. The right or at least the libertarian or classical liberal want smaller government, freedom of speech and government uninvolved with corporations.

                    Do not tell me how Republicans meet those specific criteria. Democrat or Republican, a politician is a politician. Forget about what the politicians all want (power), and think about what you want the country to live by.

                    Do you want some type of oligarchy controlling your speech?

                    Do you want an all-powerful government that rules with an iron fist or a government with limited powers, which is what the Constitution called for?

                    Do you want large corporate interests working hand in hand with the government, one supporting the other?

                    Those are the types of things you should be thinking about. Forget ideology and judge everything based on whether it offers you more freedom or less freedom.

                    Government is necessary, but just because more freedom might lead to additional risk doesn’t mean one gives up freedom. Freedom is hard to get and easy to give away.

                    1. Well, this post has a staggering disregard for history, doesn’t it? Good job in that respect, anyway.

                      And it also produced one of the best ‘Homer Simpson on sociology’ quotes ever: “The ideas behind destroying groups of people, cultural norms, and many other things come from a desire to wield power. ” It’s pure rhetoric with the special touch of “…and many other things” to further cloud whatever point the writer was trying to get at.

                      My guess is we’re hearing Allan huff himself up in full Anonymous mode as he’s proclaimed he likes to do when he doesn’t want to attach himself to what he’s actually saying. Here’s my vote the vast, vast, vast majority of what he posts be attributed similarly in the future because, well yeah, it fits.

                      eb

                    2. “Well, this post has a staggering disregard for history, doesn’t it?”

                      Stick to basketball. Even the 22 ounce is too big for you. Maybe you should use the Nerf basketball. I hear toddlers do well with that weight.

                      You claim that the Nazis did not want:

                      Larger government?
                      Control over corporate production?
                      Control over the news media?

                      You are a dummy.

                    3. Eb, I use my name when not dealing with a slobbering old man who knows nothing. That is obvious to all.

                      Your rhetoric doesn’t deal with the basic structure of various ideologies. The best you can do is dribble.

                      I wonder if eb has ever read a book.

                  2. “the Nuremberg Laws”

                    First, define individuals on the basis of their race. Then blame them for a society’s ills.

                    That sounds eerily familiar.

              2. Not everyone from the right is friendly, and not everyone from the left is a horror show.

                You pick anecdotes. I chose to use things that have been proven historically and in the present.

                You can live with your anecdotes. At least they show that what you say only carries meaning to those that do not think.

          2. jeffsilberman wrote, “The reason Nazis called Jews “vermin” is the same as many of you call Leftists the “enemy” or a “plague” on this country. It is not a sufficient means to exterminate a people, but it surely IS a necessary one.”

            Again; It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

            No, the comparison you present is not even close to equivalent; however, “vermin” is along the lines of the “racist” rhetoric that the left has been using against anyone that disagrees with them and racist are considered to be the equivalent to evil. Now if you want to compare the far left “progressives” to fascists you are much, much closer; progressives really have become totalitarians just like the fascists and they’re pressuring corporations to do their bidding so the Constitution can be effectively sidestepped, they are using the Marxist playbook from top to bottom. The left has become the “evil” fascists that they profess to be against.

            An enemy is not something you simply “exterminate”, not even in war, that’s called genocide.

            Read the following…

            Enemy of the ________!

            1. Apparently you have never listened to “The Savage Nation” radio show wherein Trumpist Michael Weiner routinely calls Liberals “vermin.” Trump is a big fan of Weiner, and Weiner prides himself on being the ideological godfather of Trumpism with his mantra of “Borders, Language, Culture.”

              “Throughout last summer, he railed against Black Lives Matters protesters as “thugs,” “feral dogs,” and “vermin” who should be “rounded up” and “put into detention immediately.”

              https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/04/michael-savage-donald-trump-presidio-trust-san-francisco/

              It is impossible for Trumpists to make this country great again when you are confronted daily with an “enemy media” persuading a majority of the population that you are demonstrable liars. No President can long tolerate a constant undermining of the legitimacy of his leadership. Since the “vermin” will never accept your lies nor keep quiet in the face of them, they have to be silenced one way or the other.

              Do you disagree?

              1. You opened with the same paragraph as you did above. perhaps my response will post here as it hasn’t posted there.

                “Not everyone from the right is friendly, and not everyone from the left is a horror show.

                You pick anecdotes. I chose to use things that have been proven historically and in the present.

                You can live with your anecdotes. At least they show that what you say only carries meaning to those that do not think.”

              2. jeffsilberman wrote, “Apparently you have never listened to “The Savage Nation” radio show wherein Trumpist Michael Weiner routinely calls Liberals “vermin.” “

                Never heard of him and I don’t bother to listen to loud-mouthed pundits.

                As for you basically condemning the entire political right as murderers based on Michael Weiner, you’re being immoral.

                I based my opinion on the verifiable pattern of behaviors, tactics and actions from the entire “progressive” movement and their army of social justice warriors not one loud-mouthed pundit.

                Now Mr. jeffsilberman, how about you throw a leash on your trolling attack dog routine and go defecate on someone else’s lawn.

                Again; It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

                1. Steve, when you say things like “how about you throw a leash on your trolling attack dog routine and go defecate on someone else’s lawn,” you are engaged in the behavior you decry.

                  1. Anonymous wrote, “Steve, when you say things like “how about you throw a leash on your trolling attack dog routine and go defecate on someone else’s lawn,” you are engaged in the behavior you decry.”

                    I’d really like to see you try to support the innuendo contained within that claim.

                    1. I consider comments like “how about you throw a leash on your trolling attack dog routine and go defecate on someone else’s lawn” to themselves constitute trolling.

                      “do you understand what metaphors are and how they’re used?”

                      Yes, thanks.

                  2. Anonymous wrote, “Steve, when you say things like “how about you throw a leash on your trolling attack dog routine and go defecate on someone else’s lawn,” you are engaged in the behavior you decry.”

                    Also; do you understand what metaphors are and how they’re used?

                    Metaphor: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

                2. Witherspoon,

                  You evaded my question:

                  “It is impossible for Trumpists to make this country great again when you are confronted daily with an “enemy media” persuading a majority of the population that you are demonstrable liars. No President can long tolerate a constant undermining of the legitimacy of his leadership. Since the “vermin” will never accept your lies nor keep quiet in the face of them, they have to be silenced one way or the other. Do you disagree?”

  13. No surprise in the FBI’s finding (it was always a leftist fantasy about insurrection); the real stunner is the FBI had that much integrity left. Guilt over their failed coup attempt, no doubt.

    1. Mespo– “the real stunner is the FBI had that much integrity left. Guilt over their failed coup attempt, no doubt.”
      ***
      Maybe, but I think their default behavior is CYA and trying to get ahead of damaging revelations that are beginning to come out. Integrity and capacity for guilt don’t seem part of the FBI kit.

    2. I was just wondering if there are any Frank Serpico types left in the US. Maybe, hopefully there are.

  14. Even if you restrict the consideration to water (a restriction that was definitely not part of the claim), the volume of 1 gm of water depends on its temperature.

    1. No, I assumed anyone who knew what a cc was understood that the statement applied to water at its densest temperature, roughly 4 degrees.

      I always thought it was kind of neat that a standard mass could be related to a volume of water measured in centimeters which are related to the distance from the pole to the equator. Those are only approximations now that standards have been made more precise and even the standard meter in Paris has been replaced by a measure based on physics. Still, kind of beautiful though.

      But what was the claim and who made it?

      1. By the way, 1 cc is also 1 mililiter so units of mass, volume and length are all tied to water and the distance from the pole to the equator. Nice package of standards.

          1. You still haven’t said who made the claim.

            And permit me to assume you don’t know as much as you pretend to know.

            1. Anonymous the Stupid, you didn’t know, but you decided to show how smart you were based on what you did know. If you wanted to prove intelligence, you would have done what Young did and said: “densest temperature, roughly 4 degrees”. You didn’t. That proves at best you are silly. You were silly when Young made his initial statement and then sillier when you played one-up-man-ship trying to show how smart you were. You were so ‘brilliant that you made yourself look Stupid.

              You have talked about the compliments made to you. It seems your scut work paid off in getting you compliments, People like that are badly needed for those with brains. They weren’t saying you were a deep thinker. You are shallow, demonstrated by your postings and links, many leading nowhere presently under this alias and another that has been here awhile.

          1. Thanks, Olly. It’s fun and the system is one of the few good things to emerge from the turmoil of the French Revolution. Replacing the old system with the metric system worked but trying to do the same thing with the calendar didn’t go so well. The week was extended to 10 days and months changed in length and were renamed so that what we call July became Thermidor. I think the fellow who did the calendar work went to the guillotine, not for the calendar but for failing to keep up with the radical leftist narratives. The Left has been amazingly consistent in its nastiness over the years.

  15. Two short excerpts from a thoughtful piece that Bari Weiss linked on Substack:

    By growing more severe and repressive in its methods, the regime hemorrhages legitimacy at home and around the world. As many have noted, it can no longer inspire or seduce, but must compel.

    I suspect our struggle here though is just beginning. Formal institutions and avenues of influence are all but closed to those outside the managerial consensus. Most of America has been deemed “deplorable” as a citizenry whose wishes are no longer of any consequence to those in authority, and are not entitled to representation in any meaningful way. It is my hope this can be changed peacefully. Stranger things have happened.

    https://im1776.com/2021/08/20/requiem-for-the-stan/

  16. “So dumb” says the guy who believes scientists aren’t certain that mass is different from volume.

    AFAIK, Young has never stated what kind of law he practices. He’s certainly free to say that he lacks the relevant expertise.

    1. “So dumb” says the guy who believes scientists aren’t certain that mass is different from volume.”
      ***
      Who said that?

  17. EM speaks for many Trumpists, I dare say, when he said:

    “Mr Turley you milquetoast response draws my disgust and anger that you haven’t forcefully come down on the side of the constitution an American public.”

    As I have predicted, Trumpists will eventually turn against Turley because he will not parrot their conspiracy-driven notions of the MSM being the “enemy of the people” or the paranoid “Deep State” narrative. Turley does NOT believe the Trumpist “Big Lie” though he has never expressly denied it, and he repeated his denunciation of the 1/6 riot as a “desecration.” How’s “desecration” as word to describe 1/6? Any you Trumpists accept Turley’s characterization? Well do you?

    I agree with Turley’s point that politicians- on both sides- frame a debate by their choice of words. They have been doing this since time immemorial. It’s intellectually dishonest. I have never referred to 1/6 as an “insurrection”; I have referred to it as a riot.

    EM will be joined by many in the weeks to come who openly will voice their disgust with Turley. Trumpists cannot tolerate ANY dissension among the ranks. For Trumpists, you must be with them 100%; otherwise, you are against them. Loyalty is paramount. Trumpists may point to a Turley statement, here and there, which they may rip out of a larger context to bolster one of their narratives, but a full reading of Turley’s commentaries makes it abundantly clear that though he often criticizes those whom Trumpists love to hate, he rejects Trumpism absolutely.

    1. I guess a new person is using EM. I have not posted on this thread but put a period offer my initials. Coincidence?
      Perhaps.

    2. “I agree with Turley’s point that politicians- on both sides- frame a debate by their choice of words. They have been doing this since time immemorial. It’s intellectually dishonest. I have never referred to 1/6 as an “insurrection”; I have referred to it as a riot.

      EM will be joined by many in the weeks to come who openly will voice their disgust with Turley. Trumpists cannot tolerate ANY dissension among the ranks. For Trumpists, you must be with them 100%; otherwise, you are against them. Loyalty is paramount. Trumpists may point to a Turley statement, here and there, which they may rip out of a larger context to bolster one of their narratives, but a full reading of Turley’s commentaries makes it abundantly clear that though he often criticizes those whom Trumpists love to hate, he rejects Trumpism absolutely.”
      *******************************
      Behold a perfect example of the famous Gibbon quote:

      “The most worthless of mankind are not afraid to condemn in others the same disorders which they allow in themselves; and can readily discover some nice difference in age, character, or station, to justify the partial distinction.”

      ―Sir Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

    3. “Turley does NOT believe the Trumpist “Big Lie” though he has never expressly denied it, and he repeated his denunciation of the 1/6 riot as a “desecration.” How’s “desecration” as word to describe 1/6? Any you Trumpists accept Turley’s characterization? Well do you?”
      ***********************
      Just a little theological point perhaps you and JT overlooked. To “desecrate” something, it has to be holy in the first place. If you and JT really think that House is in any sense “holy” let me ask you guys: Need any oceanfront property in Arizona?

      1. Mespo,

        I will note your vehement disagreement with Turley’s belief that the Capitol is holy. I didn’t say it; he did!

        Thanks for answering my question. You are the only Trumpist willing to do so, but I suspect that you are not alone in denouncing Turley’s characterization of the events of 1/6. As Turley emphatically stated:

        “Calling these people “rioters” does not minimize what they did, or undermine the legitimacy of their punishment.”

        Stick around, there will be lots more you Trumpists will take issue with Turley in the weeks to come.

Leave a Reply