Subpoena Tsunami: House Democrats Issue Hundreds of Secret Subpoenas Targeting GOP Colleagues and Others

Below is my column in The Hill on the subpoena tsunami coming out of the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6th riot in Congress. The list of hundreds of targets include not only GOP members of Congress but demands for secrecy from these companies on the identity of targets. Just two months ago, the Democrats denounced such secret orders by the Justice Department as a threat to our civil liberties.

Here is the column:

“We have quite an exhaustive list of people. I won’t tell you who they are.” With those words, House Select Committee Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) confirmed that a subpoena storm was about to be unleashed in the investigation of the Jan. 6 riot in Congress. The targets would include Republican members, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who have already been told to preserve their phone records to be surrendered to the committee. The Democrats are reportedly trying to prove their prior claims that Republicans conspired or assisted “insurrectionists,” even though the FBI reportedly found no evidence of a planned insurrection.

The Democrats’ move to investigate members of the opposing party is a dangerous precedent in an institution that has always protected the privacy and confidentiality of phone and office records.

Two months ago, House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) was on practically every network denouncing one of “the most dangerous assaults on our democracy” — meaning the Trump administration’s search of phone log information related to Schiff and Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) while looking for leakers. For his part, Swalwell publicly fretted about this “fragile time for our democracy” if members could have their phone logs seized through secret surveillance orders issued to telephone companies.

After those disclosures, I testified in Congress on the need for greater protections from secret surveillance for members and reporters alike. At the hearing, the Democratic members expressed nothing short of disgust at the notion of such seizures of member phone logs.

Thompson has now admitted that he has sent letters to telecommunications companies to preserve documents — including phone logs — for hundreds of people, including members of Congress. He would offer only a type of “the usual suspects” response when asked for specificity: “you know, in terms of telecom companies, they’re the ones that pretty much you already know, maybe the networks, the social media platforms, those kinds of things.” Reports indicate that among the “hundreds” will be Trump family members and leading Republicans. The House has decided to subpoena them all and let God (and the courts) sort them out.

This is not the first such subpoena tsunami in the House. A couple years ago, Schiff unleashed a massive secret surveillance order to companies. Schiff expressly barred the companies from informing targets — another abusive tactic that was the subject of the June House hearing. That practice was denounced by many as negating Section 222 of the Federal Communications Act which allows for targets to challenge such orders.

As with the Schiff subpoenas, Thompson is not only refusing to list names of the targets, he has also asked the companies to keep the subpoenas secret. It is not clear that Congress has such enforcement authority for secret subpoenas. What’s more, the Democratic House Judiciary Chairman denounced such secrecy demands just last month, saying “they deny American citizens, companies, and institutions their basic day in court and, instead, they gather their evidence entirely in secret.”

The storm of secret subpoenas also seems to run against the thrust of recent Supreme Court decision, Trump v. Mazars, which addressed congressional subpoenas seeking personal information of the president. In sending the case back for further consideration, the court recognized the broad authority of Congress to issue subpoenas; however, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that congressional subpoenas must address a “valid legislative purpose” and be “related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.”

The “task” at hand in this subpoena storm is highly questionable. The announcement follows an extensive investigation by the FBI and the Justice Department which reportedly did not find any planned insurrection on Jan. 6. The vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters were not charged. Of the roughly 570 people arrested, virtually all face relatively minor charges for trespass or parading. Only 40 face conspiracy charges. As with violent protests in places like Portland and Seattle, a small percentage of Jan. 6 protesters came prepared and eager for violence and property destruction.

The FBI has already seized the phone records for those arrested, including the small number facing more serious charges. Nevertheless, according to media reports, they found that “90 to 95 percent of these are one-off cases … There was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.”

Moreover, despite federal investigations, neither the FBI nor Congress found any evidence to support the much publicized claims of Democratic members that Republican colleagues helped plan or supplied access or “reconnaissance” tours to “insurrectionists.”

As someone who has long favored congressional authority (and once represented the House), my natural default still remains with the authority of the House to acquire records under Article I. However, even if there were a cognizable legislative purpose, it would not make this move right. Democratic leaders, it seems, clearly do not like the fact that the FBI did not establish a conspiracy to overthrow the country or identify co-conspirators among their Republican colleagues. So, Congress apparently will substitute its own investigation by a special committee entirely controlled by Democrats with virtually no Republican members.

Of course, this is not what Schiff previously denounced as the “politicization of the Justice Department.” Congress is by definition politicized, which is why such fishing expeditions targeting the opposing party are so dangerous. It is using subpoenas to try to embarrass or label members of the minority.

The use of subpoenas for political purposes is nothing new, particularly to paint others as “un-American.” In 1957, the Supreme Court reviewed the contempt conviction of a union official, John Thomas Watkins, who refused to name communist union members to the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction 6-1, and Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure.” Citing the statements of House members, the Court found that “the predominant result can only be the invasion of the private rights of individuals.”

As in the Watkins case, it would seem the point here is to establish that key figures of the opposing party are un-American or “insurrectionists.” Indeed, Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) even sought to censure members who refused to call the riot an “insurrection.”

There are times when the Congress may have serious concerns over whether an administration scuttled or undermined an investigation. No such claim has been made here.

Jan. 6 remains a national disgrace and a desecration of our constitutional process. Many of us welcomed any further inquiries that might shed light on what occurred or what might have prevented this tragedy. However, that is no license to weaponize a national tragedy for political purposes.

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

97 thoughts on “Subpoena Tsunami: House Democrats Issue Hundreds of Secret Subpoenas Targeting GOP Colleagues and Others”

  1. Watch as the Democrats make another huge error in judgment on their way to over stepping prior to an election. Remember when they did the whole Kavanaugh thing with such gusto that they lost momentum going into the election? Remember when they over stated the Mueller Report and suffered when it fizzled? REmember when they over did the impeachments and it hurt them in the polls? This will be another example of promising the moon and delivering nothing. Much like Schiff haying that he has hard evidence of collusion. Like Avenati saying there is proof of gang rapes. Like the Jan 6 panel.

    Watch as next year the SCOTIS overturns the TX abortion statute and the Dems fizzle again.

    When you scream with hyperbole the results end up hurting your cause.

  2. “Many of us welcomed any further inquiries that might shed light on what occurred or what might have prevented this tragedy.”

    All it would have taken is for Speaker Pelosi to have provided for the adequate protection of the Capitol. She refused to do this despite several offers of help from the Trump Administration.

    1. This is a terrible path they are going down. Whatever party is in power will have free reign to spy on the opposition using all the powers of the Federal Government. Which is why, if they go forward with this, subpoenas are necessary for all of Pelosi’s (and other Dems) phone and emails in the days leading up to and following Jan. 6. What’s good for the goose. My guess is Pelosi’s private communications would be an end to her political career and those of many high ranking Dems.

    2. All that was required was leaving the capital open and conducting routine security searches of protestors as they came into the building.

      There was no need for further security. There was no conflict between protestors and capital police or anyone else anywhere that protestors where protestors were free to do as ordinary people would have been allowed on any normal day at the capital.

  3. If I were a Democrat, I’d be leaving about now. As an independent, I’m not surprised, except by how ‘smart people’ continue to belong to this collection of liars and thieves. They despise Trump and then act worse than him.

    1. Bob,

      Why shouldn’t the Democrats rip a page out of Trump’s playbook? They learned hardball from the best!

      1. Democrats are not “ripping a page” out of Trump’s playbook – it is actually the opposite.

        First Trump’s tactics that irritate the left so much are right out of Alynsky’s “Rules for Radicals”.
        These have been practiced by those on the left atleast since the 60’s.

        Second the use of the powers of the federal govenrment to spy on political opponents is an exclusively democrat endeavor.
        It started with Obama – who was primarily spying on other Democrats and the press.

        Regardless, there are numerous independent issues.

        Congress regardless of what party controls it should have no power to supeona the records of private individuals.
        Congress is a legislative body, their investigative powers are limited to the executive and judicial branches of government.

        I broadly support the power of congress to obtain nearly any executive or judicial records they wish with ease.
        But secret subpeona’s of other members of congress is incredibly dangerous and stupid.

        I would further note that if you essentially grant congress the power to subpeona the records of members and private citizens – you must further subject them to the same constraints as apply to law enforcement – the same requirements for probable cause the same requirements for court approval, and the same prohibitions against making public anything that does not result in prosecutions.

  4. Tyrannical governance belongs to the left. Tocqueville suggested that a danger to democracy would allow the majority opinion to suppress individual judgment inherent to democratic theories. Added later by others to Tocqueville(s) statement “democratic states would use coercive and oppressive measures even more rigorously that their aristocratic predecessors”.
    Looking for a more refined description of today’s political left drew me to conclude the statement by L. Kolakowski in “Main Currents of Marxism” could best describe the Port side trying to weigh down our ship of liberty with so many anchors. Kilakowski states “Members of the working class in capitalist societies have interests which would rationally lead them to revolutionary action against the system. However ideology creates a ‘false consciousness’ which hides this reality from them. They therefore require leading into ‘correct political activity by a ‘vanguard party’.
    Marxist theory of “deception” of the working class” and the supposed oppressed is no longer over the horizon, but in plain view.

    1. Yes, the governing spectrum is from least to most authority, from right to left, where American conservatavism: Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, without diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment), under a constitutional, not democratic/dictatorial framework, occupies the center.

    2. Observations regarding the failure of democracy and the tyranny of the majority are far from limited to Tocqueville

      Our founders loathed democracy. This country is not a representative republic by accident.

      Mill and many others noted that kinds and other individual totalitarian leaders tend to be LESS tyranical than majoritarian rule.
      While they often have ultimate power, they are also obviously individually responsible. When “subjects” chaffe at restrictions on their liberty – their target is ALWAYS the king. No Ruler can get away with constraining their neighbor to the extent that busybodies in a democracy can. The local councel can dictate what color you can paint your house and get away with it. While a king could not.

  5. There is a Maoist/Stalinist tendency among Democrats. They don’t want the truth – they are just looking for opportunities to gain power and control the population through fear, smears, and harming those who oppose them.

      1. Over what ?

        Most of us thought the “culture war” was over almost a decade ago.

        Women are outperforming men accross much of the market. More women graduate from college, they do better in college, women under 40 are paid more than men. Outside of a few STEM fields women are near universally ahead of men.

        When I was in college you could be jailed for being Gay. Today you can not be fired, and the worst discrimination you face is being unable to force someone else to bake your wedding cake.

        We have bazillions of means of contraception, as well as morning after pills and even in TX you can get an abortion for 6 weeks.

        Data from Gutmacher – PP’s information subsidiary long ago demonstrated that the only impact of legal late term abortions was women chosing to wait longer and pay more for a far more dangerous abortion.
        Put differently all restrictive abortion laws have ever done is gotten women to choose an abortion earlier.
        Those on the right who think they are saving babies are wrong. But they are pushing women to save money by choosing lower cost methods earlier.

        With the exception of a few tough cases – even the tiny portion of the population that is Trans is pretty much fully accepted today.
        We have problems with those who were men through puberty competing in womens sports. and we have problems with anatomical men in the same bathrooms as female children and teens.

        Otherwise let your freaq flag fly.

        With respect to race Black or brown your future is exactly as dim or bright as similarly situated whites.
        Make good choices – finish high school, do not become a parent before you can afford to care for a child, get a job – even a crappy job, avoid crime. and do not form a family until you can afford to – and you will succeed – exactly like the white person from the same class who makes the same choices.

        What “Culture War” is it that you seek to “bring on” ?

        I would further ask why left wing nuts who are principle the whitest of the whites, pasty whimps. would stupidly seek our actual conflict with the half of america that owns on average 2 guns each and knows how to use them ?

        I have noted here and elsewhere that there are fewer KKK in the US than antifa in portland.

        More recently I saw a VLOG on the rise of militias in the US. This is much different from the 80’s and 90’s.
        The militia movement has mostly purged racists and nazi’s. A significant portion of militia members are law enforcement or military or ex law/military or their families, Women, blacks, and hispanics are well representated.
        Their relationship – specifically with police is much more cooperative than hostile as it was in the past.

        Militias were instrumental over the summer of 2020 supporting beleaguered police accross the country, and despite provocative efforts by groups like Antifa they have primarily stuck to assisting law an order and not otherwise engaged.

        You, the left, democrats are rightly terrified by Jan. 6th. Not because of what did occur – but because of what very easily could have occured. As even the FBI has noted – protestors inside the capital and out were not armed. They were not organized.
        There was no actual insurection or sedition. There was little to distinguish the Jan 6 protests from the Kavanaugh protests.

        But these protestors COULD have been organized, they COULD have been armed.

        Democrats wrapped the capital in barbed wire and subjected the military and national guard to ideological purity tests – their fear ran so high. There were weekly spikes in the threat level and fears of conspiracies. Yet none emerged.

        What happens if/when the fears of those on the left are no longer fears – but reality ?

        More than 100M people in this country right now beleive the election was stolen. Many of these serve in the military, or as law enforcement or served in the past. They are well armed, they are well trained.

        At Tianemen square a single person faced down a company of tanks – because the Tanks were unwilling to engage against a citizen.

        There is already video of Capital police welcoming the Jan 6 protestors into the capital. We KNOW that the conflicts the press featured were the exception rather than the norm.

        Regardless, What are democrats going to do when faced with actual organized citizen opposition – whether armed or not.

        The reason that Lt. Byrd is not being prosecuted for the murder of Alishi Babbitt is that it is necescary for democrats to sustain the illusion that if it came to that – that the capital police would Kill for them.

        Regardless, I am 63, I will be watching our political future from the sidelines.

        But if you should be careful what you wish for – if you ask for a war – you may well get one.

  6. Der Fuhrer Obama issues orders through SS Obergruppenführer Rice for the Gestapo to assure Reich security.

  7. Fishing? Oh no Professor Turley….this is nothing to do with fishing this is out and out abuse of power, usurpation of the Constitution and Federal Law for purely partisan political reasons.

    Also…it is doing so on a grand scale and an arrogance that is stunning even for the Democrat Party.

    In time….the corrupt Democrats are going to discover that the definition of “Trip Wire” means….in the fullest context.

    When that happens there shall be no turning back the clock….the penalty shall be fully assessed and paid upon demand.

    1. Great Post and True. The American Citizens are SICK of the Democrat Corruption w/Pelosi leading the way. SHE, is the one who should be investigated for her “INSIDER TRADING DEAL SHE DISCLOSED TO HER HUSBAND TO ‘ENRICH THE PELOSI FAMILY TO THE TUNE OF $45MILLION DOLLAR DEAL.” She is a spiteful, hateful and corrupt woman, who has TDS and CAN’T get Him OUT OF HER Thoughts and it’s EATING HER UP LIKE A CANCER!

  8. Hopefully the Republicans will make an attempt to see that the next election will be free of manipulation by the Marxist. Our nation is teetering on complete decimation.

  9. “Bread and circuses”
    (or bread and games);
    from Latin: panem et circenses) is a metonymic phrase referring to superficial appeasement.

    It is attributed to Juvenal
    a Roman poet active in the late first and early second century CE — and is used commonly in cultural, particularly political, contexts.

    In a political context, the phrase means to generate public approval, not by excellence in public service or public policy, but by diversion, distraction or by satisfying the most immediate or base requirements of a populace— by offering a palliative: for example food (bread) or entertainment (circuses).

    Juvenal, who originated the phrase, used it to decry the “selfishness” of common people and their neglect of wider concerns. The phrase implies a population’s erosion or ignorance of civic duty as a priority.
    dennis hanna

  10. “ So, Congress apparently will substitute its own investigation by a special committee entirely controlled by Democrats with virtually no Republican members.”

    Turley forgets that it was republicans who refused to participate in creating a bipartisan investigation of the Jan 6 events.

    They had plenty of opportunity to join.

    Virtually no republican members? There ARE Republican members.

    1. Svelaz, the Republicans McCarthy wanted on that committee were loyal Trump allies who need to be questioned regarding their roles in the insurrection.

  11. Wow, Turley sure is doing a whole lot of mental gymnastics and taking a lot of liberties with the facts.

    First he argues that democrats were against such subpoenas and the democrats secrecy when Republicans sought the phone logs of reporters and any potential leakers. He claims democrats are essentially hypocrites. Turley is a smart man, but he’s still deliberately equating two different issues.

    Democrats decried the republicans when they sought phone logs in secret because it was a clear attempt at retaliation for the leaks. It was a form of retribution not a legitimate congressional need. Biden, phone call with the Taliban was just recently leaked. Does this justify the Biden administration applying the same tactic of seeking the phone logs of the reporters who published the leaks?

    The congressional committee has legitimate reasons to issue such subpoenas even in secret. Turley himself admits as much. But he tried poorly to make the argument against it by making false equivalencies.

    He states that very few people were arrested without mentioning the fact that there were not enough officers to arrest everyone who was there. There are still arrests ongoing as the FBI pores over the video footage of all the people who were there.

    Republican congressmen should be worried, because their own participation or real conversations with the White House at the time will either expose them as conspirators or hypocrites to their base. It’s especially bad when congressional elections are not too far away.

    1. Nancy is responsible for Jan 6. If there were as many police on JUNE 6 with ANTIFA and BLM COMMUNIST rioters there would have been many dead legislators.

    2. Wow, slevas sure is doing a whole lot of mental gymnastics and taking a lot of liberties with the facts. It’s your style slevis…see how this works. Trump never put laws up that were directly confrontational to the constitution but piglosi and senile biden have…and are giddy to do more. You down with that ?. Piglosi and the FBI undercover henchmen are much to blame for the violence and scams of 6 jan. Just like they are neck deep in the witch Michigan’s alleged kidnapping plot. Meanwhile scum like Harris organized and bailed out violent antifa and violent minorities , most felons and or with a long record of crimes during the leftist riots last year . But your okay with that..we know .

    3. Svelaz,

      Did you happen to see Congressman Jordan do his Ralph Kramden “Homina homina” impersonation when asked whether he spoke to Trump on 1/6?

      Hysterical! He came unglued!

  12. Turley Fears Investigation Will Uncover Something Close To A Conspiracy

    It’s known that several Trump allies in Congress spoke to Trump by telephone on January 6th including Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan. If they were beseeching Trump to call an end to the violence, those conversations are highly relevant.

    Did Trump ignore their pleas? Did Trump take his good sweet time before issuing statements to end the violence? These are important questions that need to be settled.

    1. Did Trump ignore their pleas? Did Trump take his good sweet time before issuing statements to end the violence? These are important questions that need to be settled.

      We all know what President Trump said. He urged citizens to peacefully assemble and then go to the capital to peacefully petition the government for redress. Protest is very patriotic, and we know from the previous 10 months that protest can never be questioned or suppressed. I know this because elected Democrat Governors, Mayors Police chiefs, and legislators all explained to the nation just how important protest is for the health of democracy.

      Your worst case scenerio, that lacks a shred of evidence, still violates no laws.

  13. Since the FBI could find no evidence of any planned insurrection, Democrats are simply, once again, abusing their authority to surveil political opponents. They must be salivating at the opportunity to read the private emails, texts, and phone logs of Republicans under this pretext.

    It’s similar to Lt Gen Flynn. The FBI could find no evidence of wronging, so they went after him anyway. Although the DOJ later dropped the case because there was no legitimate reason for that interview in the first place, the damage was most emphatically already done.

    And that’s what they care about – the damage they can do. It’s Machiavellian.

    Democrats ignored pleas from residents and business owners, who were in danger from Democrat looters, rioters, and arsonists. Don’t like it? Racists! They promoted defund the police rhetoric. Yet when a group of people broke into the Capitol Building, disrupted proceedings, and took selfies in Pelosi’s office, they called in the National Guard for months, put up razor wire wall (which suddenly was not xenophobic or racist), increased their police armed security, and now this.

    Amazing, how much more protective Democrats in Congress are of their own person than of their constituents.

    1. “the FBI could find no evidence of any planned insurrection”

      The FBI itself has not said this. That’s why JT keeps saying “reportedly.” Can you deal with the fact that the FBI has not said this?

      “It’s similar to Lt Gen Flynn. The FBI could find no evidence of wronging, so they went after him anyway.”

      Flynn made materially false statements to the FBI. If someone does that knowingly, it’s a felony. The FBI had evidence of that wrongdoing. I’ll ask you the same thing I asked you earlier: can you admit that Flynn made false statements to the FBI, and if so, are you familiar with what he made false statements about?

      “the DOJ later dropped the case because there was no legitimate reason for that interview in the first place”

      BS. The VERY legitimate reason is that Flynn, the incoming NSA, lied to Pence, the VP-elect, about his conversations with the ambassador of an adversary. It’s amazing that you believe that Flynn lying to Pence about conversations with the Russian ambassador isn’t a legitimate reason to try to find out why. Pence said Flynn lied to him. Trump said Flynn lied to Pence. So why is this hard for you to accept?

      1. Gen Flynn did not make false statements to the FBI. Read the transcript of phone call and then read the charging documents. The FBI lied. The same way they did with George popadapoulus

        1. Nope. The charging document is consistent with the 302, and it didn’t even include all of the false statements that were recorded in the 302.

          You refer to a single phone call. Don’t you know that there was more than one? The other transcript was never made public. And you understand that there was other evidence, including texts and emails of communications between Flynn and the Transition Team, right?

          “The FBI lied.”

          Please do quote the lie and provide evidence that it’s a lie.

      2. Is “lying to Pence” a violation of some law in the United States? The VPOTUS’ only Constitutionally delegated role is to preside over the Senate. Other than that, he does whatever the POTUS tells him to do. Did Trump put Pence above Flynn in the chain of command when it comes to foreign policy matters-or any matters? Of course Trump went along with this crap because it was early administration and he REA:LLY didn’t know what he was doing. He should have had Pat Buchanan (who served in the WH under three Presidents) at his side in the early days. Maybe Trump specifically tasked Pence with questioning Flynn about his conversations with the Russian ambassador, but I don’t recall that being reported.

        1. “Is “lying to Pence” a violation of some law in the United States?”

          No. But the incoming NSA lying to the VP-elect about his conversations with an adversary are absolutely a valid reason for the FBI to question the NSA about why.

          If you cannot admit that, then perhaps you’re not interested in having a sincere discussion.

        2. BTW, Trump tweeted “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.” Do you accept what Trump said? Are you denying that it’s illegal to lie to the FBI?

    2. From what public evidence we all ready it’s reasonable to believe the reason FBI/DOJ dropped the insurrection investigation that it was certain leaders in the FBI/DOJ/Military/Pelosi/McConnell & their co-conspirators that were actual the ones that were then & now still running the in insurrection on 1/6/21.

      1. “the reason FBI/DOJ dropped the insurrection investigation …”

        Both are continuing to investigate. Neither one has dropped the investigation.

        1. Just like having some of the bank robbers investigate their on going bark robberies!

          Why isn’t Pelosi, McConnell, James Comey, McCabe, former CIA directors, & the rest of the list, George here has, are not already in prison by now???

          It isn’t because everyone can’t see they are guilty has hell.

    3. Courts can throw out cases which they determine to be frivolous, but what can we as taxpayers do who make that determination and resent having our tax monies used in such a wasteful way.

    4. Karen, we’ve only scratched the tip of the iceberg regarding January 6th. So your pronouncement that all facts are out is totally premature.

  14. These are a threat to our “criminal liberties” not “civil” liberties. Some people think we all have a right to throw stones at other humans or the right to invade the Capital bldg and assault or kill other humans. This is called Trumpism. “Trumpism” is like communism back in the McCarthy era in the fifties.

    1. Trumpism was on display last summer in Seattle and Portland. Only back then we called it a summer of love.

      1. Bob, does that mean January 6th was just a big What About?? Like, “If ANTIFA gets to riot, ‘we’ get to riot”.

        1. Antifa rioted and looted and assaulted people for about 100 days. The cops were told to stand down and do nothing. This happened in more than one city. This isn’t 2 wrongs make a right. This is people who felt frustrated about politicians who let a bunch of left wing punks have their way with cities in this country. This like the Russian army having their way with Berlin in may 1945. What happened on January 6th was nothing more than pure frustration. I didn’t approve of what the demonstrators did, but I did understand it. Say what you want.

    2. In what way does calling for charges, for instance of trespassing, against the Jan 6 participants indicate a belief that t hey have the right to invade the Capitol building or kill anyone? Republicans did not condone this behavior. In fact, they call for the law to be applied equally, including to the BLM and Antifa looters, rioters, and arsonists.

      The Jan 6 rioters did not, in fact, kill anyone.

      Your comment is called cognitive dissonance. You cannot hold the facts, and your opinion, in your head at the same time, because they contradict each other. So you have to drop the facts.

      1. Karen, looters in last year’s riots SHOULD be prosecuted. But thieving amid race riots and attempting to stop the certification of a presidential election are two completely different ballgames.

        1. attempting to stop the certification of a presidential election are two completely different ballgames.

          Congress certifying the election is not ceremonial. Congress is the last check and balance to free and fair elections. Citizens letting their voices be heard is what democracy looks like. Democrarts have done exactly the same thing.

          1. No, Democrats haven’t broken into the Capitol during the certification of the EC vote with the aim of preventing the certification from occurring.

            What on earth are you referring to by “Democrarts have done exactly the same thing”?

              1. The WH isn’t the Capitol, and Democrats didn’t storm the WH last summer. Not sure what “try” you’re imagining. Can you even name someone who illegally stepped onto WH property last summer?

    3. re: Liberty2nd

      99% of Black Lives Matters supporters (like Trump supporters) are law abiding and non-violent. Same for NRA supporters, women rights supporters, LGBT rights supporters, etc.

      Unless a group is publicly has a constitutionally-subversive mission, we can’t stereotype entire groups based on the bad behavior of the less than 1%. When we do that some police and national security agencies perceive that as “probable cause” to investigate the other 99% without obtaining judicial warrants from judges.

      Let’s prosecute the “individuals” that broke laws but we can’t broad-brush an entire group based on a handful of nuts making up less than 1%.

Leave a Reply