Suicide Torts: Recent Bizarre Cases Raise Questions Over “Jumper” Liability

A couple of bizarre recent cases raise a question that we occasionally discuss in my torts class: the liability for suicidal acts, particularly jumping from buildings. This week, a 31-year-old man jumped from a high-rise in Jersey City, New Jersey and landed on a BMW. The car was heavily damaged but he was able to walk away after plunging nine floors.

A witness said that the man stood up and asked “what happened?”

What happened was that he landed on roof of the car and fell through the sun roof.

The witness took photos and videos of the aftermath, including graphic footage of the man who was soon screaming in pain.  He initially refused help and said that he wanted to die.

Recently, a man jumped from a parking garage in San Diego, Calif., and landed on a woman who was walking with a date below. She was killed but he initially survived. He later died at the hospital.

These cases raise the question of whether a suicide survivor (or a decedent’s estate) can be sued for intentional or negligent acts.

Intentional torts can be based on either actual intent or reckless conduct. A suicidal jump is clearly reckless.  Likewise, intentional infliction of emotional distress can be based on an individual who throught “extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm.”

A suicidal jump is also clearly negligent. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 283B (1965) (“Unless the actor is a child, his insanity or other mental deficiency does not relieve the actor from liability for conduct which does not conform to the standard of a reasonable man under like circumstances.”). Indeed, as an unlawful act under most state laws, it is negligent per se.

The most obvious defense is insanity, but that is not widely accepted as a defense to an intentional tort or negligent tort.

The basis for this rule is often expressed to (1) guarantee that victims are “made whole” for injuries by the accused or guardians of the accused and (2) avoid the abuse of such a defense by those who feign mental illness. There are also rationales for giving incentives to families and guardians to take precautions to protect other’s from unstable loved ones.

States can differ in their approaches, though most follow this rule. In my class, we often discuss the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling in Breunig v. American Family Ins. Co. where the defendant caused a crash when she had a delusion that she could fly like Batman — resulting in a head-on collusion. (This may have been conclusive proof of insanity since Batman cannot in fact fly). The court noted:

“We think the statement that insanity is no defense is too broad when it is applied to a negligence case where the driver is suddenly overcome without forewarning by a mental disability or disorder which incapacitates him from conforming his conduct to the standards of a reasonable man under like circumstances. These are rare cases indeed, but their rarity is no reason for overlooking their existence and the justification which is the basis of the whole doctrine of liability for negligence, i.e., that it is unjust to hold a man responsible for his conduct which he is incapable of avoiding and which incapacity was unknown to him prior to the accident. . . . All we hold is that a sudden mental incapacity equivalent in its effect to such physical causes as a sudden heart attack, epileptic seizure, stroke, or fainting should be treated alike.”

The lack of an insanity defense or a “subjective standard” has long been criticized by legal experts, including my late colleague David Seidelson. See David Seidelson, Reasonable Expectations and Subjective Standards in Negligence Law: The Minor, the Mentally Impaired, and the Mentally Incompetent, 50 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 17, 38-44 (1981) (calling the tort standard for mentally ill “almost facially unfathomable” and arguing for adoption of subjective standard).

Notably this barrier is largely lifted for children who are compared to a reasonable “child of like age, intelligence[, capacity] and experience,” which can include mental disabilities. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) TORTS § 283A (AM. LAW INST.1965).

Thus, under the common law, a suicidal person or the estate of that person can be sued for damages or deaths caused by a suicidal act, including the recent wrongful death in San Diego. Likewise, the New York jumper can be liable for the damage to the car after he recovers. He can also be liable for the emotional distress in some cases.

However, absent a physical injury, New York limits negligent infliction of emotional distress claims to “immediate family members” who are bystanders. Thus in Trombetta v. Conklin, 82 N.Y.2d 549 (1993), the plaintiff was the adult niece of a woman who was killed. However, she was not deemed an immediate family member under the New York standard.  A stranger would obviously also be barred from recovery on the basis of being a pedestrian.

182 thoughts on “Suicide Torts: Recent Bizarre Cases Raise Questions Over “Jumper” Liability”

  1. Interesting post, but I saw this episode on Seinfeld and think you got just a few details wrong.

    Jerry drives the BMW, the jumper landed on George’s car, which was an 83 Chrysler LeBaron “Town and Country” convertible, … previously owned by “John Voight”.

    Not “the” Jon Voight mind you, ..just some guy named John Voight. George’s erroneous belief that it belonged “Jon Voight” the actor led to a higher valuation of the vehicle, at least in his own mind (perhaps he has a tort there with the Dealership for misleading him about the previous ownership? …not sure…).

    But as we see in the provided video of the incident, you’re quite correct, he did in fact have some difficulty in attempting to receive compensation…

    https://youtu.be/U89M5GdkzYY

    1. The Left has deified Fauci — a megalomaniac who considers himself, not a scientist, but the embodiment of science. He’s a perfect example of how, in this culture, one becomes famous not by actually achieving something, but by being a media whore. As they say in Hollywood of that type: He would go to the opening of a can.

      To borrow an expression from Plato: He is our scientist-king.

      1. Sam,

        Too true. I was amazed when he basically said that it was anti-science to disagree with him. Has he reached the level of megalomania that he believes he is the only font of scientific truth? Nothing could be more unscientific.

    2. So, it’s Breitbart that is the source of “Trump haters regret voting for Biden” meme, that several of you Trumpsters keep repeating.

      1. Nope, they were just linking to Megyn Kelly. Attacking Trump wasn’t a wise career move but hoping for Biden has proven to be much worse.

        1. Whether he’s worse or better is a matter of opinion.

          No surprise that people’s opinions differ on this.

            1. So when you said “I think a number of these people who hated Trump are thinking mistakes were made now that we have Biden,” you weren’t really talking about “people,” got it.

              1. Anonymous — Basically you have said a matter of opinion is a matter of opinion. What I said about other people was merely my opinion drawn from observation; my factual point was that Megyn who acted as if she hated Trump is not pleased with the present crowd either. Why do you even bother with this nonsense?

                Despite being coddled by a fawning and deceitful corporate media Biden’s numbers have plummeted. Imagine what they would be if the media treated him the way they treated Trump. But in one instance they can’t do that. Trump would stand in front of them and answer hostile questions at length. Biden turns his back on them and shuffles away.

                Trump never had the ‘Go Brandon’ type of chants at sports events that have become the norm for Biden.

                The election was stolen. Too bad they didn’t know there was a cow pie in the bag before they ran off with it.

                1. The election wasn’t stolen.

                  Trump tried to get allies to steal it for him, but fortunately he failed.

                    1. People make all sorts of crazy claims. Making a video for the Gateway Pundit is worthless as evidence.

                      If they’re as serious as they claim to be, they should submit affidavits under penalty of perjury. Given the claim that there were lies at the hearing, they should also file formal complaints, quoting what they claim are lies, providing evidence that what was said is false, and asking that the people be charged under the false statements law.

                    2. “If they’re as serious as they claim to be, they should submit affidavits under penalty of perjury.”
                      +++

                      The issue has been sent to the Attorney General who says he is going to investigate and, perhaps, has done already.

                      As for it ‘being worthless as evidence’ you still haven’t tumbled to the fact that nothing here is submitted for evidence. It is commentary and make of it what you will.

                      Similar commentary on other sites led me to believe that the Pfizer vaccine caused cardio problems in some people. You responded with an out-of-date Pfizer Fact Sheet that did not mention cardio problems. That was your evidence. Then I posted a current Pfizer Fact Sheet that expressly identified cardio problems and mentioned other risks not yet determined.

                      It was at about that point you fled that thread.

                      You aren’t a judge and this isn’t a court. It is more in the way of multiple conversations. But that time your ‘evidence’ was out of date.

                    3. You still haven’t “tumbled to the fact” that you and I have different views about whether people should include evidence when making an argument.

                      “You responded with an out-of-date Pfizer Fact Sheet that did not mention cardio problems.”

                      Because we were discussing what they originally said. If you want to discuss what they originally said, you have to go back to their original info sheet, even though it was no longer their current fact sheet. You often ignore relevant facts and then present distorted descriptions.

                      “It was at about that point you fled that thread.”

                      I didn’t.

                    4. Anon– Out of date fact sheet: “Because we were discussing what they originally said.”

                      +++

                      Nope. Dishonest. We were discussing whether the Pfizer jab caused cardio problems.
                      I said it likely did and you countered with out of date information. You broke off, fled, when I provided recent information that confirmed my conclusion.

                      Nobody cares as much about what Pfizer ‘originally said’ as they do about the obvious dangers of the vaccine now when they are trying to decide whether to get it.

                      Lately the Delta version seems to be hitting vaccinated people harder. The most vaccinated jurisdictions are getting slammed. When it does protect the protection is narrow and not very long lasting.

                      You got the jab based on old information. I waited for more information. You screwed up and now you can’t get it out of your body.

                2. Young says:

                  “The election was stolen.”

                  Does it ever concern you that Turley, whose legal opinion Trumpists respect, has NEVER said that he believes the election was stolen?

                  How is it possible that Turley can be so right in his opinions, and yet be so wrong that the election was *not* stolen? Can you explain that?

                  It’s true that Turley has never *publicly* said it was *not* stolen, but it stands to reason that he would have said it *was* had he believed it.

                  Suppose he ultimately does come out and say that it was all a big lie, will you Trumpists abandon him?

                  Do you think that Turley has remained closed mouth because he does not wish to suffer the fate that befell Liz Cheney when she dared to come out of closet to state that the election was *not* stolen?

                  Will you answer these questions? Will any Trumpist? If you ignore them, I’ll presume that they are too uncomfortable to contemplate.

                    1. Trumpist Bob says:

                      “Say goodnight Liz.”

                      Typical Conservative Cancel Culture

          1. Whether he’s worse or better is a matter of opinion.
            We could go through an objective list.

            Foriegn policy
            Covid response
            Economy
            Border
            ?
            ?
            ?

            Lots of metrics we can use

  2. And then there is this: https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1446208238601580547

    A black school shooter posts bail and is home while his victims are still in the hospital.

    The judicial system is going insane. The voters in this district need to commence a recall petition of this idiot judge. Maybe the governor or AG can intervene. The entire judicial district should be abolished and absorbed into those of adjoining counties.

    What is wrong with these people?

  3. “I was in analysis. I was suicidal. As a matter of fact, I would have killed myself, but I was in analysis with a strict Freudian and if you kill yourself they make you pay for the sessions you miss.”

    -Woody Allen

    I would kill myself if I thought it would solve all my problems.

      1. Bob, please don’t encourage someone to act on suicidal ideation, even if you’re guessing that the person meant it as a joke and you meant your reply as a joke. None of us can really tell what someone else here is going through.

        Jeff, based on your other comments, my guess is that you meant that as a quip rather than sincerely, but I’m not sure, and if you meant it sincerely, I’m sorry that you’re living with that feeling and want to check: can I do something to help?

        1. I was just joking. I wouldn’t give the Trumpists here the satisfaction. Thanks for your concern.

          My work on this blog is not done. I intend to be a thorn in the side of the Trumpists.

          I am looking forward to the day when Trump finally is held accountable for his lies and misdeeds, and Turley will not defend him to the outrage of the Trumpists.

          That day is coming, and it won’t be long.

            1. 😃 no wonder his work isn’t finished. His target is his own creation…trumpists. Conservatives on this blog just laugh at him. Sure, go after Trump or don’t, it won’t change one conservative’s mind. Especially given the disaster the Biden/Harris has proven to be.

              1. Olly,

                You are in the Trump cult. I asked you repeatedly to deny that Trump was a chronic liar, and you refused to do so. Moreover, you believe the election was stolen. You are a Trumpist. You can’t deny it.

                1. Joe Biden is a pathological liar. Always was. Trump tells the truth about the things that matter. Biden lies about the things that matter.

                  This is the Truth.

                  1. No, Trump is a pathological liar. Always was. Trump lies about the things that matter. Biden sometimes lies too, but not nearly as much as Trump.

                    This is the Truth.

                    1. Here’s some Truth for Joe Biden:

                      In 2020, Biden had a 13-point win with Independent voters, a group Hillary Clinton lost by 4 points in 2016.

                      In September and October 2021, Biden is now at -16 points with Independents.

                      Let’s go Brandon!

                    2. Here’s the Truth:

                      Joe Biden is a liar

                      and an incompetent, corrupt, demented politician

                      with an astounding arrogance and totalitarian nature

                      who consistently turns his back on the White House press corps

                      and the American people and he shuffles away

                      without taking questions

                      AS IF *he* should not be questioned or scrutinized?

                      Here’s the Truth:

                      The tide has turned on Biden/Harris.

                2. Joe Biden is a chronic liar. Will YOU admit this truth? It can’t be denied because we have 50 years of evidence of Biden’s chronic lying.

            2. We shall see who has the last laugh over Trump. Never Trumpers or Trumpists. I wouldn’t be so cock—sure that Trump and his company will not face criminal indictment or civil penalties. You are a Trumpist; you will have to live with that for better or worse.

              1. You know what would be cool? To see actual lawbreaking prosecuted. Hunter Biden has numerous felonies racked up and all of them magically go away for him.

                Why doesn’t someone ask Joe Biden is HE has paid HIS fair share of taxes? Here’s a hint: he hasn’t.

                People like you actually believe we have a “justice” system. Now THAT is funny.

                1. We saw how fast indictments, prosecutions and prison sentences can be handed out against Trump associates didn’t we? Justice can be swift, sometimes, can’t it?

                  It’s amazing how long it takes to “investigate” Democrat lawbreakers, isn’t it?

                  1. should read:

                    “justice” can be swift, sometimes.

                    because we know what we are witnessing is not justice.

                    it’s injustice.

  4. One of our Church committee leaders sent out the following advisory from this DOJ/FBI agency InfraGard stating:

    INFRAGARD MEMBERSHIP PURGE: Please be advised that the InfraGard Program Office at FBI HQ intends to purge dormant members within the next few months. This means InfraGard membership will be subject to termination unless members sign into the portal and update their password before the membership purge. Please go to http://www.infragard.org and log into the Portal today. If you forgot your password, contact the InfraGard Helpdesk for assistance: InfraGardTeam@FBI.gov.

    Now given the ongoing infrastructure debate and everything else going on with this administration, DOJ and FBI, their choice of the term purge doesn’t instill a sense of confidence that this public/private partnership will be retaining existing or approving new members whose background check doesn’t meet a particular orthodoxy.

  5. I think we need new signs on buildings – “If you are going to jump off this building, please ensure that there is no one walking below you and that you don’t land on anyone’s car. Don’t be selfish!”

    1. “Did you know hospital staff are being forced to take the vaccine or lose their job?”

      That is another example of the insane, monomaniacal attitude: “STOP COVD!” Without regard to the destructive consequences, they: lockdown, shutdown, compel masks (on children!), suspend civil liberties, arrest people for not wearing a mask outdoors, compel vaccines, lie about the science, make people miserable and terrified.

      The one you mentioned is particularly self-destructive, given that there was already an acute shortage of hospital staff. So now, what emergencies, medical procedures, and operations will go untended or canceled? How are those fired to support themselves? What of the destruction of their careers and their psychological pain?

      How many more people will suffer and die because of this monomaniacal stupidity?

      There’s an old joke about a surgeon who deftly removes the wrong organ, killing the patient. The surgeon responds: “But the operation was a success.”

      Now, though, it’s no joke.

      1. Absolutely not a joke. Take a look at the supply chain catastrophe we have right now. It’s a great metaphor for Democrat’s myopic governance style. It’s void of systems-thinking. And the damage that ripples out has and will continue to ruin lives.

        Now there is another explanation. They are thinking strategically and they are trying to destroy this country. Same result, but the response needs to be different.

        1. Olly,

          Two excellent points: “void of systems-thinking” and “they are trying to destroy this country.”

          My view is that the bulk of the Covid fascists are of the first type. They quite literally cannot think beyond: “What’s for lunch?” When you ask them to consider the broader and future consequences of shutdowns, lockdowns, et al. — they draw a blank.

          The second are the more evil type — the ones who “never let a good emergency go to waste.” They’re the ones who use Covid as a means to an ends — power and the destruction of individual liberty. And to spread culture-wide, debilitating terror.

          The two types need each other: Active destroyers and useful idiots.

          1. The two types need each other: Active destroyers and useful idiots.

            Exactly. The destroyers have the perfect weapon to seize total power: pandemic lawfare.

            The people most likely to resist their abuse of power and not be a reliable force to defend them, are those honorable men and women in law enforcement and the military that still believe their oath means something. Vaccine mandates and CRT are being used to purge these folks from the ranks.

            1. And the destroyers have a lot of useful idiots to support them. Check out what Merriam-Webster’s did for them on October 4th:

              Previous versions of the “anti-vaxxer” webpage suggest that the word used to be defined as “a person who opposes vaccination or laws that mandate vaccination.” (emphasis added). It wasn’t until sometime on Oct. 4, the same day that U.S. officials outlined specific instructions for all federal employees to comply with President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for government workers, that Merriam-Webster swapped the word “laws” for “regulations.”

              https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/08/merriam-webster-thought-police-just-changed-the-definition-of-anti-vaxxer-to-attack-opponents-of-government-mandates/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_federalist_daily_briefing_2021_10_09&utm_term=2021-10-09

              1. “Previous versions of the “anti-vaxxer” webpage . . .”

                My word, I had not seen that. But it is unsurprising. Tyrants always use propaganda — the manipulation of words — to achieve submission.

                So if I resist government coercing me to undergo a medical procedure, I’m *not* defending individual liberty or limited government or my right to direct my own health care. I’m smeared as an “anti-vaxxer”?!

                Objective definitions are the bellwether of rationality. Nonobjective ones toll its death.

        2. “. . . the supply chain catastrophe . . .”

          Speaking of catastrophes caused by these monomaniacal, short-range mentalities:

          Over the weekend, Southwest Airlines canceled some 2,000 flights. (?!) The airlines dutifully implemented Biden’s vaccine mandates. And now (in a shocker), are faced with pilot and staffing shortages (in a market already stressed with labor shortages).

          The contortions of the apologists are almost comical. The airlines (and sundry commentators) are blaming the cancelations on “bad weather” and ATC snafus.

          Oddly enough, the “bad weather” and “snafus” only affected Southwest.

          1. “The airlines dutifully implemented Biden’s vaccine mandates”

            No, they didn’t. Biden directed OSHA to develop a regulation, and OSHA hasn’t yet put forth that regulation. You only imagine that this mandate already exists.

          2. The disparity between Southwest’s operation and other airlines fueled speculation on social media that employees were calling out sick.

            The Southwest Airlines Pilots Association, Southwest pilots’ labor union said that “we can say with confidence that our Pilots are not participating in any official or unofficial job actions.”

            “Our Pilots will continue to overcome SWA management’s poor planning, as well as any external operational challenges, and remain the most productive Pilots in the world,” it said.

            Earlier on Saturday, the union noted that the company’s recent announcement that it will comply with the Biden administration’s requirement that federal contractors must mandate staff Covid vaccinations is contributing to distractions for aviators.

            “Make no mistake about it – due to months of staffing issues and inefficient scheduling practices we have been operating at a higher than normal operational risk,” the union’s safety committee told members in a post on Saturday.

            It said reports of fatigue, which require pilots not to fly, are triple historic norms.

            “All of these challenges have led to an added distraction in the cockpit,” it said. “This week’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate announcement by the Company only exacerbates the situation.”
            https://drrichswier.com/2021/10/11/southwest-airlines-walk-out-because-of-tyrannical-vaccine-mandates-more-than-1000-flights-cancelled/

            I’m going to go with Climate Change as the culprit or systemic racism. Sprinkle in a bit of Trump and you have the perfect storm. 😏

            1. “I’m going to go with Climate Change as the culprit or systemic racism. Sprinkle in a bit of Trump . . .”

              No. No. No.

              Clearly, it’s plot by the enemies of the state — the insurrectionists or the unvaccinated. Maybe both.

  6. “FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS.”
    ___________________________________________________________________

    Whatever happened to Res ipsa loquitur?

    Apparently, GWU has admonished Professor Turley to avoid the fray – to effectively support the communist takeover by omission.

    GWU appears to have seen the writing on the wall and has no desire to be “dead right.”

    Whatever will a Constitutional scholar do without a Constitution – during the total destruction of the Constitution, in the absence of the Constitution, and during the imposition and in the presence of the Communist Manifesto?

    Will GWU direct Professor Turley to study and transform himself into a Communist Manifesto scholar?

    Perhaps GWU will “…tear down this [university]” and “fundamentally transform” GWU into KMU, aka Karl Marx University.

    Barry Soetoro and company must be smiling broadly, no?

    Wait! Who defines “ability” and who defines “needs?”

  7. Don’t sue a suicide attempter. He will kill himself in court
    All those smokers out there are committing suicide. 480,000 died of smoking last year.
    Guns are quicker.

  8. A major US government witness against Julian Assange has admitted he lied. He is also somehow tied in with the FBI.

    https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/06/27/us-case-against-assange-struck-major-blow-as-key-witness-admits-he-lied/

    This is apparently undesired information since it is getting little if any coverage in the US. A quick search of Google brought up nothing but articles against Assange. Using the same search term with Bing brought up several articles plus some videos. Don’t trust Google results on narrative subjects.

    https://www.medialens.org/2021/a-remarkable-silence-media-blackout-after-key-witness-against-assange-admits-lying/

    He was very busy, but I wish Trump had pardoned Snowden and Assange before leaving the White House. The Democrats and some Republicans truly despise these two, a journalist and a whistleblower, because they have made them look so bad and, probably, they are terrified of what they may uncover next. The FBI and DOJ look more evil than ever.

    1. The Constitution loves Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.

      They revealed the unconstitutional corruption of America by the “swamp” in the global communist Deep Deep State.

      1. I didn’t say one would not get Google results with carefully tailored searches. Most of us use general terms and find what we are looking for if the subject isn’t contra-narrative. I used the same term in Bing that I used in Google and it worked perfectly. There is more than one way to be a deceptive a***ole and Google is perfecting it.

        This has come up before and I keep wondering how it is you rush in to cover for Google with insults so quickly. And why.

        1. Ha! I’m not rushing in to cover for Google, I’m entertaining myself noting your crappy search skills.

          1. ATS: “I’m entertaining myself noting your crappy search skills.”
            +++

            But your entertaining didn’t extend to explaining why a search term that worked instantly in BING came up dry in Google.

            That was the problem and the question; not my search skills.

            As others have noted, when you have difficulty explaining something or you are cornered you resort to insults and diversion into other areas. Pretty much everyone has a read on you now.

            1. This may come as a surprise to you, but I don’t trust you to be truthful. You didn’t say what your search term was, so there’s no way for me to test your claim.

              “when you have difficulty explaining something or you are cornered you resort to insults and diversion into other areas.”

              Oh, the irony, given that you regularly address me as ATS.

  9. When someone commits suicide, or tries to, their mind is not functioning right. They are desperate to end themselves. This is different than the cries for help that are intended to show they are in serious need, but want to be stopped. When someone really, desperately wants to die, they are crafty about it. They lie to their loved ones and say they’re fine. They send them away on an errand or go on one themselves. They find a way that they think won’t fail, and they’re usually right. All it takes is a few minutes.

    I don’t think most of them can be held accountable for their actions. I think it’s a form of insanity. They can see the same set of data as someone else, but their reality is completely different. Many really do think people will be better of without them, which is insane.

    Suicide is the wound that those they leave behind never heal from. They never recover.

    To hold loved ones responsible for the damage a suicide leaves in his wake seems unconscionable to me. Usually, they would have done all they could to prevent it from happening. They’re already second guessing themselves, comparing notes on the lies told to reassure them, castigating themselves for not seeing it. It’s the problem you can’t fix because it’s already done.

    I disagree with the torts law on this. You cannot expect people suffering irrational breakdowns to act rationally. They try their best, such as choosing a location away from family, but they are not firing on all cylinders. They can’t be held to the same standard.

    I am especially sorry for those who are accidentally killed by someone committing suicide, such as the innocent woman killed by a jumper.

    1. I don’t think most of them can be held accountable for their actions. I think it’s a form of insanity. They can see the same set of data as someone else, but their reality is completely different. Many really do think people will be better of without them, which is insane.

      That’s an oversimplification of a complex problem. I’ve known two people that committed suicide; my sister and a close friend. Both of them shared in my reality, but I was unaware of theirs. As I learned later, both of them were in deep despair over the failure in their marriages. And both of them made sure their estranged spouse was punished from the act. My sister died on her daughter’s birthday with the car running in the garage. We still believe she intended for her husband to find her before she died. He was late to the party. My friend called his wife to meet him at the beach and when her car pulled up next to him he pulled the trigger on his shotgun.

      On a lighter note, I do believe it’s insane to argue against natural rights and instead insist that all your rights are created by government.

      1. My condolences about your sister and your friend. Several of us (you, me, Karen, perhaps others) have had people we loved commit suicide, and in my experience, the sadness that they felt such despair and of no longer having them in our lives never leaves.

      2. Olly, I’m so terribly sorry for your losses, especially as your sister sounded like she might have not wanted to go through with it. And your poor niece.

        You’re right; it is a complex problem.

        Anonymous is right that I’ve lost 2 people, as well, one of them a beloved relative. The regret I feel over not catching the signs is terrible and unceasing.

        1. Thank you Karen. Same to you. If anything positive has come out of this it would my increased sensitivity towards possible signs that someone might be asking for help .

          1. It’s hard enough for most everyone to get those we’ve known & loved a proper burial the first time & everyone does the best they can.

            People have to move forward with life though.

            1. People have to move forward with life though.

              Isn’t that ironic. They just buried a loved one that chose not to. This is where I learned you cannot skip any stages of grief.

        2. “The regret I feel over not catching the signs is terrible and unceasing.”

          I’m sorry for your losses, Karen and Olly. I, too, have lost people and have worries about others. It creates a hole that never really heals.

    2. Karen, I almost always agree with you and in fact I can’t remember the last time I didn’t…until this comment. As much as I sympathize with the person committing suicide I have to say that feeling “especially sorry for … the innocent woman killed by the jumper” just doesn’t satisfy the situation here. That woman’s loved ones were robbed of her existence due to the actions of the jumper and they deserve some relief. Of course it isn’t, or probably isn’t anyone’s fault, but it was certainly negligent of the jumper and maybe his family as well.

      1. Hullbobby – I cannot imagine the anger and grief the woman’s loved ones must be feeling about her senseless loss. Her loss was indeed the direct result of the jumper’s decision.

        I just don’t think the families of suicide victims could have prevented most suicides. They would have if they could.

        This is definitely a complex issue. I’m probably biased because I’ve known 2 people who committed suicide. Having felt such losses, I can sympathize with the family of people who are accidentally killed by people committing suicide, such as jumpers. Her parents and family lost her, her future children, and she missed out on so much of life.

        Perhaps it would be more a matter of recompense from the person’s estate, rather than holding their relatives negligent or liable in most cases.

  10. Important issue.

    Just worth noting, as preliminary question, the issue of causation. First, one must observe, whether the act of tort, has been inflicted due to insanity ( I mean, the concrete act itself).

    Many times, the person is sick. Insane. But, the conduct itself, didn’t stem from it( from the insanity) although, the sick background of the person, may intuitively suggest it.

    Many times, sick persons, can suffer from sort of fluctuation: sometimes they are sick. Sometimes not, sometimes in remission etc…..

    Thanks

    1. Many times, sick persons, can suffer from sort of fluctuation: sometimes they are sick. Sometimes not, sometimes in remission etc…..

      Impaired judgement, cognitive decline, depressive symptoms, anxiety, pain, physical illness, etc, all adversely impact decision making. This is why granting such individuals the authority to end their own life should never occur. Likewise, allowing children and young individuals under the age of 25 to undergo gender transition is a grave error. The frontal lobe of the brain does not reach full maturation until ~ age 25. Note the apoplexy of gender transition proponents when real adults seek to protect those very young individuals. Ditto for abortion

      Those who seek the destruction of souls and hence terminate life, prey on individuals with chronic illness, depressive disorder, cognitive impairment and / or intellectually / psychologically / emotionally immature. Add to this the targeting of young women again under age 25 by Planned Barrenhood for abortion. That is no coincidence. Connect the dot$.

      Mental Disorders, Cognitive Impairment and the Risk of Suicide in Older Adults
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8423910/

      Maturation of the Adolescent Brain
      https://www.dovepress.com/maturation-of-the-adolescent-brain-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-NDT

  11. “The Senate Judiciary Committee in a report released Thursday revealed new information about how Trump tried to pressure Department of Justice officials to back up his claims of election fraud, leading top officials [Trump appointed] to threaten resignation.”

    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Interim%20Staff%20Report%20FINAL.pdf

    You would think that this news would be *commentary-worthy* by a dutiful legal analyst. But since this report was censored by Hannity, Carlson and Ingraham last night, I suppose it is not surprising that Turley would censor it as well.

    I have said it before, but it bears repeating- Turley is a sellout (unless he comments on this Senate Report and gives his legal analysis of Trump’s attempt to overturn the election).

    Please Turley, say something- anything- about this report. Screw Fox News’ blackout.

    1. Please Turley, say something- anything- about this report. Screw Fox News’ blackout.

      Please stay on topic, or better yet steal all of the good Profs readers, and do your own blog.

      1. It is important that readers are aware that Turley *may be* ignoring a far more important news story because he is not willing to cross his employer Fox. I say *may be* because I may be misjudging him. I am hoping he will write an article about Trump’s attempt to place his stooge in power who was willing to do his bidding until the White House Counsel and his deputy and many other high-ranking Trump appointees threatened to resign en masse if Trump made that move.

        1. Jeffy-Please keep your daily diatribe mentioning President Trump because it reminds those who did not vote for him the mistake of their lives. Please don’t forget to mention this administration has the lowest approval rating of any administration. It struck me the other day with the gag restraints placed on President Trump by social media Americans need posters like you to remind us of what we had. Tell your handlers great idea.

          1. Margot,

            I don’t make fun of your name. Please act your age. I don’t think that is too much to ask.

          2. Margot: to attach the title of “President” to that bloated, draft-dodging, puxxy-grabbing, narcissistic, lying, misogynist, election-stealing loser is profane. It demeans the office that your hero wanted just for the attention and adulation. Please stop. Calling that pig “President” is offensive to the majority of Americans. And, whatever alt-right media you rely on misinformed you on “this administration” having the “lowest approval rating of any administration”. No other administration has had to deal with daily alt-right fake “news” organizations criticizing everything he does and constantly lying about everything. Here’s a huge whopper: that raising the debt ceiling is needed to fund Biden’s projects, so Republicans should refuse to do it. That is a complete lie that I’ve heard on Fox. The debt is to pay for existing programs, like Social Security, military pay, funding for all other government projects that already exist, including those put in place by Trump. And, if your fat hero hadn’t cut taxes for the wealthy, raising the debt ceiling wouldn’t be needed so soon.

            Why does your hero keep pretending that the majority of Americans didn’t vote his fat ass out of our White House, and why does he do everything possible to get in front of cameras and bloviate about things, especially trying to blame Biden for problems with the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which is mostly his fault for not getting an agreement with the Taliban for a continued presence in Afghanistan, for abandoning air bases, for drawing down troops from 14,000 to 2,500 and for demoralizing the Afghan government for agreeing to concessions without even involving them? Why does he keep trying to do everything possible to undermine Biden’s presidency, including encouraging people NOT to get vaccinated, and then trying to blame Biden for people refusing to get vaccinated? Why does he keep encouraging Republicans to resist working with Democrats to pass laws that are overwhelmingly popular with the American people? Why? The power he is so hungry to assert, and because dopes like you fall for the rhetoric, which is working, so they’ll keep it up. Why are Republicans pretending that Trump didn’t try to overturn our government when, after multiple recounts and court challenges failed, he told his faithful to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”? How in the world could any sane person fail to see what a desperate loser Trump is by refusing to accept the will of the American people, by refusing to accept his defeat graciously, and to keep on lying about his “landslide victory” being “stolen”. You want to know what was the “mistake of their lives”? Those fools like you who still can’t see the fat slob you worship for what he really is: a wannabe tinpot dictator lacking in any semblance of patriotism and hungry for power, praise and adulation. You are incapable of perceiving his failures: he trashed a successful economy, leading to the worse recession since the Great Depression; he lowered taxes for the ultra-wealthy, thus leading to the need to raise the debt ceiling; he never got any significant legislation passed, he mishandled COVID and allowed it to get out of control, and he constantly lied. He still lies constantly, despite all proof establishing the fact that he DID lose the election. The mess he left for Biden to clean up will take time, but Fox, OAN, News Max, Brietbart will never stop hounding, pounding and criticizing. And people like you will not stop believing in this loser.

        2. It is important that readers are aware that Turley …

          That’s a massive, ego driven level of hubris to tell other people what is important. I can’t think of very many things less important than a political hit piece coming out of a congressional committee. Those paying attention, see the raw politics at play. Congressional committees have less credibility than today’s DoJ led by legal hack Garland

          That same ego that believes he can order strangers to dance to the tune played by random internet guy

          1. Iowan2 says:

            “Congressional committees have less credibility than today’s DoJ led by legal hack Garland.”

            Turley praised Garland when he was nominated:

            “President-elect Joe Biden made a highly commendable decision to nominate Judge Merrick Garland as the next United States Attorney General. Like many, I praised Garland as an outstanding choice and a move that advanced Biden’s earlier pledge to seek unity.”

            This is why I remind you Trumpists that Turley is unlike you people. He is on my side.

            1. Since Garland it trying to nationalize, elections, local police, and local school boards, I doubt -* a Constitutional Law Prof, would still hold the same high opinion. Thank God and McConnell for avoiding Garland on SCOTUS . Garland has no concept of the structure of the government. And ignores the fact States have the power to govern themselves with out interference from the DoJ

              1. Iowan2,

                I am going to rip a page out of the Trumpist playbook and dismiss all your comments about Garland because you are suffering from GDS- Garland Derangement Syndrome.

                And just like, my accusation of GDS settles the argument!

                When Turley disparages Garland as you do, I’ll take it seriously. Until then, get help with your GDS.

                1. Jeff; So you agree the federal government has the authority to “protect’ local school boards? Separation of powers and States rights have always been mythical?

                  I raised three separate actions taken by Garland, that by my understanding, he has no power to interfere. The derangement is you defending this unconstitutional overreach.

                  1. Iowan2,

                    If Garland is overreaching his authority as much as you think, I have no doubt that our resident Constitutional scholar will so inform us. If he remains silent on the subject, what am I to think?

                    That he does not agree with you Trumpists? Or he is trapped under something heavy, and he can’t reach his computer?

                  2. iowan,
                    Take note that Silberman will hypothesize that JT is not aligned with conservatives when he is silent on the actions of this administration. And then he will hypothesize that JT is a FoxNews hack when he is silent on all things Trump and conservatives. Even Paint Chips isn’t that schizophrenic.

      2. Oh, have some compassion for Silberman. He’s been humiliated so often and for so long, he’s begging for a win. After all, since his party and the entire machine behind it own every disastrous current event, his only play is Trump. Hopefully JT’s suicide post doesn’t…

        1. “his party and the entire machine behind it own every disastrous current event”

          They don’t.

          The investigations being carried out by congressional committees are current events, and the GOP owns Trump’s attempted autogolpe. The referrals of Trump lawyers John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark to legal disciplinary bodies are current events.

          The GOP’s irresponsibility with respect to the debt ceiling — a debt largely accrued by Republicans — is a current event.

          Another current event: Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), who rallied with white nationalists earlier this year, is now promoting a website that publishes neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and Holocaust deniers.

          There are a slew of harmful current events owned by the GOP.

          1. There are a slew of harmful current events owned by the GOP.

            Rampant and massive distrust of MSM
            Vigilant populace of deep state machinations
            A citizenry aware of Dems rigging elections
            A slew of newly appointed top notch Federal Judges
            COVID-19 vaccine
            GOP control of state legislatures (30 vs 18)
            GOP control of state governments (23 vs 15)

            and others but why humiliate you more.

        2. Here’s another current event involving Trump:

          “Today, Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, the Chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, sent a letter to the General Services Administration (GSA) detailing new concerns about former President Trump’s lease for the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C., his failure to disclose significant losses and debts in public filings and lease documents, and his conflicts of interest as President. The Committee’s discoveries were based on documents recently obtained from GSA. …
          “These documents show:
          “– Former President Trump Reported Massive Revenues at the Trump Hotel, Concealing that the Hotel Suffered $70 Million in Net Losses. …
          “– While in Office, President Trump Received Preferential Treatment Potentially Worth Millions from a Foreign Bank. …
          “– The Trump Hotel Received Over $3.7 Million from Foreign Governments. …
          “– Former President Trump Concealed Debts When Bidding on Old Post Office Building Lease. …
          “– The Trump Hotel Moved Around Millions of Dollars in Opaque Transactions with Other Trump Businesses. …
          “In light of these troubling new revelations, Chairwoman Maloney and Chairman Connolly highlighted the need for further investigation and legislative reform. The Chairs also requested that GSA provide additional documents, including documents related to the Trump Hotel’s loan from Deutsche Bank, due diligence performed by GSA on the financial records it received from President Trump, foreign government payments to the Trump Hotel, and loans by Trump or his businesses to the Trump Hotel.”

          Detail here: https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-uncovers-evidence-that-trump-concealed-millions-in-losses-hid-debts

          1. Here’s a partial list of current events involving Biden / Obama / Clinton / DNC :

            “Master List Of Official Russia Claims That Proved To Be Bogus”

            Matt Taibbi

            “What follows is a brief list of official claims that proved untrue. Initially published on March 18th, I’ll be updating this list regularly, placing the collapsed claims in roughly chronological order. It’ll take a while. So far:

            1. Update 3/21/21 The “Back Channel to Russians” story, Yahoo! September 23, 2016. Yahoo! published a story by Michael Isikoff called, “U.S. Officials Probe Ties Between Trump Adviser and Kremlin.” The piece identified Trump advisor Carter Page as a “possible back channel to the Russians,” and claimed he passed information from the Kremlin to figures higher up in the Trump food chain, like former campaign chair Paul Manafort.

            The assertion that a Trump-connected figure was a Russian cutout who’d met with high-ranking Putin aides like Igor Divyekin and “high-ranking sanctioned individuals” like Rosneft chief Igor Sechin became the basis for countless future news stories. Yahoo! wrote up the Sechin allegation as follows (emphasis mine):

            That meeting, if confirmed, is viewed as especially problematic by U.S. officials because the Treasury Department in August 2014 named Sechin to a list of Russian officials and businessmen sanctioned over Russia’s “illegitimate and unlawful actions in the Ukraine.”

            This proved incorrect on all fronts, with no evidence of any Page meetings with either man. In fact, the irregularities involved with the Isikoff story – particularly the use of information from British ex-spy Christopher Steele, identified as a “well-placed Western intelligence source” – became a bigger story than the alleged improper relationship between Page and Russians.

            On the day the Isikoff story ran, the Hillary For America campaign released a statement about the “Bombshell Report On Trump Aide’s Chilling Ties to Kremlin.” They wrote:

            “It’s chilling to learn that U.S. intelligence officials are conducting a probe into suspected meetings between Trump’s foreign policy adviser Carter Page and members of Putin’s inner circle while in Moscow.”

            The Clinton campaign, of course, did not disclose that it was the source of this story, meaning that all outlets quoting the press release about a “chilling” connection – see here, here, and here, for instance – had been fed disinformation.

            An investigation by Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz later concluded that the FBI “did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele’s reporting” either at the time of the Isikoff piece or afterward, when it used the Steele allegations as a means to obtain authority to conduct secret surveillance of Page using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”…..

            and 24 more lengthy items…..

            “One could go on and on with this list, from the bogus claims about Maria Butina that ended up as Times headlines (“Suspected Secret Agent Used Sex in Covert Plan”), to overhype of the Cambridge Analytica story (which turned out to have nothing to do with Brexit), to the bass-ackwards denunciations of the so-called “Nunes memo” (validated almost entirely by Horowitz), and on, and on.“

            Read the entire list of lies fabricated by Democrats, MSM, FBI, DOJ, CIA at

            https://taibbi.substack.com/p/master-list-of-official-russia-claims

          2. “– Former President Trump Reported Massive Revenues at the Trump Hotel, Concealing that the Hotel Suffered $70 Million in Net Losses. …

            Revenues are but one piece in the calculations of profits.
            No rational person takes the financials of any real estate mogul single enterprise seriously. It is very common knowledge real estate is the number one legal way to avoid paying taxes. Exactly how Congress designed the tax code.

            This report you are flogging has no useful purpose except to fool the rubes. You posting it proves my observation.

            1. “No rational person takes the financials of any real estate mogul single enterprise seriously.”

              But we’re not discussing typical real estate financials. We’re discussing financials of the President (who has to fill out specific financial forms that aren’t required of people in real estate generally) re: the DC Trump Hotel, a building that he leased from the government.

              You’re the one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about here.

              1. You’re the one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about here.

                You have no idea about financial reports. Different reports will have wildly different bottom lines and both will be correct and legal
                Tax reports and the financial disclosure required by the President, are not even on the same planet with each other. For one thing, the numbers used are ranges, and can vary several hundred percent. The financial disclosures depend on interpretations of almost every word. It is impossible to hold anyone to account for anything. Exactly as written by politicians as intended. To fool the rubes. Again, it is clear it’s working great.

        3. Olly-We can’t ever offer compassion to these people, do they offer any to you? As their mentor has written “let them live up to their own rules”. The good compassionate Americans must learn their MO and by the same rules.

    2. The Senate Judiciary Committee in a report released Thursday revealed new information about how Trump tried to pressure Department of Justice officials

      Fact check; The President of the United States has the Constitutional, plenary power to direct the Dept of Justice.
      On a side note. Even the corrupt DoJ has people that will resign rather than act against their personal views. A lesson Gen. Milley sorely needs. If we take people at their word, People in State, DoD, Intel, all advised against the Biden Plan. All acquiesced and allowed the President to carry out such a stupid, plan costing the lives of thousands, US citizens, and allies. All the paper tigers at the head of all these agencies refuse any responsibility, but none would think of resigning due to principles.

      1. Iowan2,

        Thanks for your viewpoint, but with all due respect, I would prefer to read Turley’s reaction to the Senate Report if it’s all the same to you.

        Aren’t you the least bit curious what he has to say?

      2. Fact check: the President has a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and does not have “the Constitutional, plenary power to direct” anyone to act unconstitutionally.

        1. does not have “the Constitutional, plenary power to direct” anyone to act unconstitutionally.

          You have not learned the meaning of plenary yet.

          Obama spied on a Presidential election campaign, and Presidential Transition. That is fine by you. Asking about instituting an investigation is the very definition of plenary power.
          How do you feel about the Speaker of the House giving orders to the Chairman of the Joints Chief? Huge separation of powers violation. The President directing the DoJ? Nope, enumerated Constitutional power.

          In the end you know nothing of the constitution, and care even less about abuse of power…as it used to harass political enemies.

          1. “ In the end you know nothing of the constitution, and care even less about abuse of power”

            +100

          2. “You have not learned the meaning of plenary yet.”

            I do. I’m pointing out the fact that the President does NOT have a plenary power to direct people to break the law. Nixon said “when the President does it, that means it is not illegal,” but Nixon was wrong. The President has a sworn fiduciary duty to uphold the laws.

            “How do you feel about the Speaker of the House giving orders to the Chairman of the Joints Chief?”

            Give me evidence that she did it. Regardless, if she tried, then she would fail, as he does not report to her.

            “In the end you know nothing of the constitution, and care even less about abuse of power”

            Both parts of that claim are false. Perhaps you should learn more about the Constitution and abuse of power yourself.

            1. President does NOT have a plenary power to direct people to break the law

              Asking your subordinates to institute an investigation is not against the law. Spying on a political campaign is against the law.

              We know Pelosi called Milley . Talk about grand kids and golf? That’s a solid lie from the past you believed If you gave a hoot about “norms” Pelosi should have avoided the appearance of impropriety.
              You are all in a twist because The President called over to people at the DoJ. That is in the Presidents purview. Congress calling the military is not.

              Give up. All you have is wildly partisian double standards.

              1. “Asking your subordinates to institute an investigation is not against the law.”

                That isn’t what Trump did. Again: have you read the documents?

                “We know Pelosi called Milley”

                Yes, but your claim was that she gave him an order, and you’ve so far provided zero evidence of it. Milley testified to Congress (under penalty of false statements) about what she said and how he responded. Did you listen to his testimony about it?

                “You are all in a twist because The President called over to people at the DoJ”

                No, I’m not. Instead of making false assumptions, try paying attention to what I’ve actually said.

    3. Here’s your reply: continued beating of this dead horse is itself a violation of the Hatch Act to a far greater and more sinister extent than any of the allegations against Trump, which are still awaiting support from NARA and witnesses.

      Now run along and go EABD, krassentein jr.

    4. He should address not only the report, but also the news that Trump is directing his co-conspirators to ignore subpoenas:

      “Former President Donald Trump is directing a group of his former aides to ignore a subpoena from the House committee probing the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and signaling he will go to court to block their testimony to the investigators. The committee has subpoenaed documents and testimony from four Trump administration alumni: former social media czar Dan Scavino, former Defense Department official Kash Patel, former chief of staff Mark Meadows, and former White House adviser Steve Bannon. The four men were ordered to turn over documents related to Jan. 6 by Thursday and to sit for interviews with investigators next week. But Trump is saying otherwise. In a letter that POLITICO viewed, a Trump lawyer tells them not to cooperate with the probe. The letter stated the committee is seeking materials that are covered by executive privilege, as well as other privileges. “President Trump is prepared to defend these fundamental privileges in court,” the letter said.”
      https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/07/trump-jan-6-committees-subpoena-515593

      Trump needs better lawyers. Executive privilege can only be asserted by the current President. Unless Biden asserts privilege on Trump’s behalf, Trump has no executive privilege. Bannon wasn’t even an executive branch employee at the time.

      I look forward to Trump losing in court again, but it’s frustrating how long this is likely to take.

      1. “Former President Donald Trump is directing a group of his former aides to ignore a subpoena from the House committee probing the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and signaling he will go to court to block their testimony to the investigators.

        Any decent lawyer will tell you never talk to investigators. Me? I would follow the lead of Obama administration officials like Lois Learner. Plead the 5th. Or just lie, Like Comey, etal

        1. First, it’s false that “Any decent lawyer will tell you never talk to investigators,” since it depends on what you’re being questioned about. Even if it were true, there’s a difference between obeying a subpoena and then refusing to answer questions vs. ignoring the subpoena, in which case you’re in contempt.

          Pleading the 5th is legal, but pleading the 5th isn’t always a legal option. You cannot plead the 5th in refusing to produce documents, you cannot plead the 5th to protect someone else (e.g., if you’re being asked about a conversation you heard between two other people, which doesn’t expose you to the possibility of a criminal prosecution), and you cannot plead the 5th if you’ve been offered immunity.

          In related news:
          “Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) asked the District of Columbia’s disciplinary counsel to launch an ethics investigation into a former Justice Department lawyer’s alleged role in the Trump-inspired bid to undermine the 2020 election result” — the lawyer is Jeffrey Clark: news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ethics-probe-sought-of-ex-doj-lawyer-over-trump-election-claims
          “A bipartisan group of former public officials and lawyers are urging the California bar association to investigate a conservative lawyer who reportedly tried to convince then-Vice President Mike Pence that he could overturn the election results on January 6” — this lawyer is John Eastman: cnn.com/2021/10/05/politics/john-eastman-california-bar-complaint/index.html

          Will Republicans eventually turn on Trump for his attempted autogolpe? Only time will tell.

          1. .Even if it were true, there’s a difference between obeying a subpoena…

            There’s always lying. It’s works well for Democrats for decades. Of course telling the truth is fine, as no crimes have been alleged. But we know the left is forced into the position of prosecuting process crimes during the “investigation” because there is no crime. The process is the punishment. No crime is being investigated.

            1. An attempted unconstitutional autogolpe is being investigated, and associated with that, hundreds of crimes were committed on January 6.

              You are in denial.

              1. hundreds of crimes were committed on January 6

                And Congress lacks constitutional power to investigate even one of those alleged crimes.

                If you ever get ‘plenary’ understood, you can start working on separation of powers. (you may want to brush up on, ‘fudiciary’ also)

                Your own observation proves the House committee is nothing but opposition research.

                1. OK, you made me look

                  You have autogolpe wrong also.

                  Trump never abetted the military to take over the government.

                  Now…The Speaker of the House in allience with the Military….A call to the Chairman of the Joints Chief. You’re getting a lot closer.

                  I always get a giggle when people use obscure words…with the wrong context.

                2. Congress has the constitutional power to investigate anything that’s reasonably related to its constitutional powers (e.g., its legislative and oversight powers, its role in certifying the EC vote), unless it’s precluded by separation of powers.

                  An autogolpe doesn’t require the military. It occurs when someone who is in office legally then uses unconstitutional means to remain in office.

                  1. Congress has the constitutional power to investigate anything that’s reasonably related to its constitutional powers

                    And congress has no power to pursue criminal matters. That is an express power of the executive. So what congress is doing, re.1/6 has nothing to do with crimes. Its all for show and opposition research

                    1. “And congress has no power to pursue criminal matters. That is an express power of the executive.”

                      Congress has constitutional authority to pass certain kinds of criminal legislation and the power to investigate conduct linked to that authority. It doesn’t have the power to charge people, but that doesn’t imply that it has no power to investigate. As long as it’s legitimately related to their legislative authority, the investigation is allowed.

            2. iowan2,
              This is a very good speech in the latest Imprimis out of Hillsdale College regarding the Jan 6 insurrection hoax:

              Hayek’s overriding concern in The Road to Serfdom was to combat the forces that were pushing people further along that road to servitude. His chief concern was unchecked state power. In a new preface to the book’s 1956 edition, Hayek noted that one of its “main points” was to document how “extensive government control produces a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people.”

              “This means,” Hayek wrote, “that even a strong tradition of political liberty is no safeguard if the danger is precisely that new institutions and policies will gradually undermine and destroy that spirit.”

              This dismal situation, Hayek continues, can be averted, but only if the spirit of liberty “reasserts itself in time and the people not only throw out the party which has been leading them further and further in the dangerous direction but also recognize the nature of the danger and resolutely change their course.”

              Note the power of that little word “if.” It was not so long ago that an American could contemplate totalitarian regimes and say, “Thank God we’ve escaped that.” It’s not at all clear that we can entertain that happy conviction any longer.

              That’s one melancholy lesson of the January 6 insurrection hoax: that America is fast mutating from a republic, in which individual liberty is paramount, into an oligarchy, in which conformity is increasingly demanded and enforced.

              Another lesson was perfectly expressed by Donald Trump when he reflected on the unremitting tsunami of hostility that he faced as President. “They’re after you,” he more than once told his supporters. “I’m just in the way.”

              Bingo.
              https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/january-6-insurrection-hoax/?utm_campaign=imprimis&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=167743687&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–Coz3DzbR-U2QdEHnm83C3jMQd9KBH3SvBSjGkgEkNiXnnVRdvOSIKYDwFMu1vITKsBgoCLiI1yVR3OnawehMotNoBkA&utm_content=167743687&utm_source=hs_email

              1. No, we were after Trump, because Trump is a danger to the US. We’re only after Trump supporters who are dangers, such as the Jan. 6 insurrectionists, who tried to help Trump with his autogolpe, and Trump’s neo-Nazi supporters, who are a danger to our national well-being as the Nazis were to Germany.

                There is no “insurrection hoax.” Trump asked his supporters to come to DC on the day that Congress would be certifying the EC vote and then riled them up and sent them to the Capitol to prevent the certification. Trump tried to pressure Pence into acting unconstitutionally and rejecting the legally chosen electors.

                The following applies even more to Trump and the GOP: “America is fast mutating from a republic, in which individual liberty is paramount, into an oligarchy, in which conformity is increasingly demanded and enforced.” Trump demands obeisance and threatens Republicans who don’t support him.

                The two parties are similar in that they each support some kinds of liberty and oppose other kinds of liberty. They simply differ in what falls in each category.

          2. Anonymous:

            Various government agencies abused their power to sabotage, undermine, spy upon, and try to oust President Trump, work against the Republican Party, and get Democrats elected.

            This behavior included the IRS discriminating against conservative organizations, the NSA spying upon the Trump campaign for Obama and then lying about it, and various wrongdoing by the FBI. An FBI agent was charged for altering a CIA email exonerating Carter Page, who worked for them, in order to make the email express the opposite. Then there was the Russian hoax paid for by Hillary Clinton, and promoted by Democrat activists who worked for the FBI.

            Many of us objected to country wide mail in ballots without being requested. This is because Democrats regularly oppose purging the voter rolls of duplicate entries, old addresses, the deceased, felons who lost the right to vote, and others who are not allowed to vote. I, personally, received ballots for the former owners of this house, one of whom I know has passed away. It’s incredibly easy to vote multiple times by collecting mail in ballots. I did not, but relying upon the integrity of millions of people is foolish. My husband’s cousin found out someone mailed her ballot in and voted in her name. Then there’s the ballot harvesting by activists. The pressuring of old people in elder care facilities by caregivers and activists to vote how they’re told. The many “lost” original ballots, leaving only digital records. The Republican poll watchers kicked out of districts infamous for fraud, while vote counting went on during the night.

            I don’t think we’ll ever know the extent of the fraud. How can anyone tell how much fraud occurred in CA, for example, since the Democrats won’t purge the voter rolls? My husband’s cousin’s ballot could be accurately counted. It’s physically there. It would still be there during a recount, but she sure didn’t cast it. There are so many missing original ballots. So many voter rolls with many names and addresses of people who died, moved, lost their right to vote, never had the right to vote… There have been single addresses receiving hundreds of mail in ballots.

            We’ll never know what percentage fraud contributed, compared with the boost that Biden got because people didn’t have to exert any effort to vote for him. They didn’t have to request a mail in ballot. Didn’t have to drive to a polling place. Didn’t have to take 5 minutes out of their day. All they had to do was check a box and dump an envelope in outgoing mail. I do believe that people who would have been totally unmotivated to exert themselves in any way for Joe Biden legitimately voted for him due to the ease of mail in voting. His legitimate vote count using mail in ballots was probably a lot higher than it would have been for regular voting. So I can’t say whether fraud tipped the scale or not, nor can I say how much fraud occurred.

            Considering the FBI actively worked against Donald Trump during his presidency, in a shocking conspiracy, it is no wonder that he would urge the DOJ to investigate and exhaust all avenues to root out fraud. Many of us do believe that fraud occurred; we just don’t know how much. To claim no fraud happened, especially in places like Michigan which is infamous for it, is naive.

            I’m also sure lawyers advised Pence on whether or not they thought he could interfere with a contested election result. Lawyers tend not to agree on legal opinions, which is one of the basis for the entire court system – lawyers disagreeing. I think Pence made the right call. He’s a good man, and very careful not to overstep. Too bad he didn’t run the FBI. Pence was treated badly by the Democrat press, and deserved better.

            Democrats question every election they lose. They question election integrity and ballot counting. They question ballot design. They scrutinize hanging chads. They get lawyers involved. Some, like Stacey Abrams, never concede their losses. This is couched as patriotic. When Republicans question election integrity, it’s a constitutional crisis. Sedition.

            If Trump thought election fraud took place, then he had every reason to request the DOJ investigate, reason with them from all angles, and to exhaust every option available to him. There are going to be people who work for those departments who vigorously disagree.

            There were FBI agents who vigorously disagreed with Comey not charging Clinton for having an illegal bootleg server in her house containing top secret information she’d backed up to the Cloud, and then deleted while under subpoena.

            There are plenty of higher ups who objected to Private Schmucketelli, AKA Joe Biden, for removing all military presence from Afghanistan, for leaving civilians and Special Immigrant Visa Holders vetted with a 2 year process behind while removing totally unvetted Afghans, for leaving millions of dollars of usable military equipment and tech behind, and for allowing terrorists to control access to the airport, rendering it impossible for many of our people to get through.

            These constant investigations of Trump are politicized. Joe Biden is losing his mind on international TV, and his approval ratings have tanked into the 20s on certain issues in some polls. Democrats always resort to painting Trump as the despot to deflect from poor job performance. In this case, bad job performance means allowing massive waves of Covid-positive illegal aliens to enter the country during a pandemic, and causing the torture and death of the people we abandoned in Afghanistan. Then there’s crack head Hunter Biden selling childish “art” for massively inflated value to people who might be buying favors from his Dad, in yet another pay to play scheme. You can’t get worse than that.

            1. Karen,
              Responding to any of the Leftist’s on this blog, especially the Anonymous, is as fruitful as watering a dead tree. Just remember this quote from Yuri Bezmenov from back in a 1984 interview:

              The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already for the last 25 years. Actually, it’s over fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. …he will refuse to believe it…. That’s the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.

              1. This blog would be a lot more enjoyable if folks stopped feeding the trolls. Karen, please stop feeding Jeff, Anonymous, Natch, et al

            2. part 2 of 2:

              “It’s incredibly easy to vote multiple times by collecting mail in ballots.”

              But you cannot vote multiple times legally, and the issue isn’t solely whether it’s easy to commit voter fraud, but whether voter fraud is caught when it occurs. The evidence I’ve seen is that people are caught when they try to commit voter fraud, so not that many people do it, even though it’s not particularly hard to try.

              “My husband’s cousin’s ballot could be accurately counted.”

              “Could be” doesn’t mean “was.” What’s your evidence that it was accepted rather than rejected? Did she report it as having been fraudulently cast? What happened?

              “Considering the FBI actively worked against Donald Trump during his presidency, in a shocking conspiracy, it is no wonder that he would urge the DOJ to investigate and exhaust all avenues to root out fraud.”

              But that wasn’t what he was urging. Did you read the documents to see what this is about?

              “To claim no fraud happened, especially in places like Michigan which is infamous for it, is naive.”

              Who is claiming that? I’m not. Some fraud occurred. We know this because some people were arrested and convicted of voter fraud. The issue isn’t whether some fraud occurred (it did), but whether there was anywhere close to enough fraud to have affected the election results (I have not seen any evidence of that, lots of audits have concluded that the answer is “no,” and if you’re trying to convince me that the answer is actually “yes,” then present some evidence for it).

              “If Trump thought election fraud took place, then he had every reason to request the DOJ investigate, reason with them from all angles, and to exhaust every option available to him.”

              ONLY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION. He is trying to prevent people from producing documents and testifying about actions that may NOT have been within the bounds of the law and the Constitution. If everything he’d done was legal, he wouldn’t be trying to prevent the testimony and document production.

              Have whatever opinions you want about Biden, etc. We can agree to disagree about those. But I’m not going to agree to disagree about factual issues. We should be able to work out what the truth is on factual issues. Choose a factual issue from the above and let’s try to resolve it.

              1. I’ve seen is that people are caught when they try to commit voter fraud, so not that many people do it, even though it’s not particularly hard to try.

                I see Democrats have already demanded The Governor to ignore signature verification on mail in ballots….because covid.
                The steal has already started more than a year out of election.

                1. LOL, “The Governor,” as if I’m supposed to read your mind and know what state you’re referring to.

              2. Anonymous, since CA Democrats fight efforts to correct voter rolls to remove the deceased, and those who don’t have the right to vote, how would they get caught?

                I know of someone who is a resident of Canada who had absolutely no idea he wasn’t supposed to vote. He didn’t get caught. He was mailed voter materials, so he voted. He’s law abiding, so he became upset when he learned he wasn’t supposed to vote. He’s not going to get caught because ballots went out to a totally inaccurate voter roll. His physical vote was counted, and would get counted again if there was a recount.

                I could have voted for someone who was deceased, but I did not. That would not have been caught because, again, the ballots went out to an inaccurate voter roll. There is no way for most of the ineligible votes to be caught.

                How would CA know if an illegal alien voted, if they don’t purge the rolls of illegal aliens, and don’t even ask immigration status on many documents anymore?

                CA was supposed to fix its voter rolls as part of its settlement with Judicial Watch, yet I received voting materials for other people yet again. There are counties with more people on the voting rolls than the number of residents over 18. And they got ballots.

                I know I regularly get voting materials for people who used to own this house years ago. I know of someone who voted who did not have the right to vote. So I know both voter fraud, and those who don’t realize they are not allowed to vote, both happen. But again, I cannot give you any totals or percentages, because the voter rolls were not cleaned up. I can’t cross check millions of death records against the voter rolls, and the voting history, for the millions of people in CA. But some journalist have taken a sampling of the death records and discovered that zombies are voting in CA. Their individual investigations find a few dozen here, a couple hundred there. But it would be an enormous job to review millions of records. That doesn’t count illegal aliens and felons who are on the voter rolls.

                https://www.judicialwatch.org/tom-fittons-weekly-update/judicial-watch-uncovers-millions-on-dirty-voter-rolls/

                https://www.kqed.org/news/10976877/are-californians-casting-ballots-from-the-grave

                1. You should read the second link Karen posted because it disputes her claims:

                  “It makes me angry, because someone is just using his name, and who knows how they’re voting,” says Givens. “He’d be rolling over in his grave, definitely, if he found out they were voting *Republican*. He was a die-hard *Democrat.*” (My emphasis)

                  “The California Secretary of State’s office says elections officials do check against death records, and voter fraud like this is very rare.”

                  “The idea that there are dead voters on the rolls is shocking, agrees Alexander, but it’s important to put the numbers into context.”

                  “When it comes to elections, we have this attitude that there is no acceptable error rate, that we have to get every election 100 percent perfect,” says Alexander. “When you look at the numbers we’re talking about in LA County — 215 voters out of 4.7 million registered voters in LA — you’re talking about an error rate that’s .0000453 percent.”

                  Like most things Karen exclaims, she grossly exaggerates the problem in order to make her point. It’s an unfortunate tendency on her part that she would do well to correct for her own good. I keep cautioning her to be more circumspect in her contentions, but she can’t seem to break her wayward habit.

                  1. The claim is that one manner of voter fraud is to vote in the name of the deceased.

                    The daughter wondered if someone voted Republican in her Democrat father’s name. However, she has no idea how the fraudster voted. Would it be OK if he voted Democrat in her father’s name? That would still be a fraudulent Democrat vote. Can the dead indicate their wishes through seance or Ouija board? No representation without respiration.

                    As stated previously, independent journalists only took samples of cross referencing the death rolls of the SSA, with the voter rolls, and then looked up if they voted. They did not investigate 40 million people.

                    When examples of voter fraud are submitted, the usual excuse is to claim that it’s no problem because you found so few. Now go back and review 40 million people and get back to us in a decade when you’re done.

                    We have no idea how many legal residents and illegal aliens are on the voter rolls. I’ve already mentioned that I know of a Canadian who had no idea he wasn’t supposed to vote. How many are like him? No idea because Democrats resist audits.

                    When people fight against efforts to make fraud harder, it’s because they want to cheat. Many local, state, and federal elections are won by a thin line, a line that’s easy to fudge.

                    1. Karen says:

                      “We have no idea how many legal residents and illegal aliens are on the voter rolls. I’ve already mentioned that I know of a Canadian who had no idea he wasn’t supposed to vote. How many are like him? No idea because Democrats resist audits.”

                      The burden of proving MASSIVE fraud is on YOU! Democrats don’t want to waste tax payer money on cockamamie conspiracy theories that are being laughed out of Court and SUBJECTING THE TRUMPIST ATTORNEYS TO DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THEIR ETHICS BOARDS AS WELL AS BEING MADE LIABLE TO DEFAMATION LAWSUITS FOR LYING!

                      If you were a Trump lawyer, would you risk paying millions of dollars and losing your law license by standing before a judge, raising your right hand and stating:

                      “We have no idea how many legal residents and illegal aliens are on the voter rolls…. I know of a Canadian who had no idea he wasn’t supposed to vote. How many are like him? I rest my case, your Honor.”

                      Giuliani and the other Trump lawyers stand to lose everything by swearing to the truthfulness of Trump’s lies.

                      Karen, you would not dare put your hand on the Bible and swear that the election was stolen!

                2. Karen,

                  A simple internet search on california charged voter fraud pulls up examples of people in CA being charged, so despite your belief that there’s no way to catch voter fraud in CA, you’re clearly mistaken about this. Election boards in CA also correct voter rolls, though the corrections are 100% perfect. Here’s one article about corrections after non-citizens were mistakenly included: https://abcnews.go.com/US/1500-noncitizens-registered-vote-california-dmv-error/story?id=58377069

                  Again:
                  The issue isn’t whether some fraud occurred (it did), but whether there was anywhere close to enough fraud to have affected the election results (I have not seen any evidence of that, lots of audits have concluded that the answer is “no,” and if you’re trying to convince me that the answer is actually “yes,” then present some evidence for it).

                  1. Regrettably, Karen wildly exaggerates as I have repeatedly pointed out to her to no avail. Like Trump, she cannot keep matters in perspective. There is a religious fervor in her writings which rely more on faith than facts.

                    If she responds to you, you will get more of the same. Sadly, there is no getting through to her. If only she could temper her zeal and hew to the facts.

                  2. Anonymous – I am aware of the various charges.

                    I didn’t say you cannot catch any voter fraud. I said, “How can anyone tell how much fraud occurred in CA, for example, since the Democrats won’t purge the voter rolls?”

                    I also said this: “How would CA know if an illegal alien voted, if they don’t purge the rolls of illegal aliens, and don’t even ask immigration status on many documents anymore?”

                    Of course there are occasional cases of voter fraud convictions, despite Democrats’ efforts to preserve inaccurate voter rolls. But they have successfully shielded a system ripe for the picking.

                    Here is another example of elder voter fraud in Texas and Philadelphia, that is a problem nationwide. The ballots in nursing homes are being filled out by caregivers or activists however they want. My own grandmother had Alzheimer’s, as unfortunately so many elders suffer. Someone with dementia would still be on the voter rolls. Their ballots would be sent out. Caregivers or activists could fill out those ballots, which would be counted, or recounted accurately. Yet it would still be fraud.

                    https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/vote-fraud-election-seniors-pennsylvania-20171103.html

                    https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/13/reaching-across-aisle-texas-lawmakers-target-voter-fraud-nursing-homes/

                    In a rare bipartisan moment, Democrats actually agreed with Republicans about the need to fight voter fraud in nursing homes in Texas.

                    1. Karen noyes:

                      “In a rare bipartisan moment, Democrats actually agreed with Republicans about the need to fight voter fraud in nursing homes in Texas.”

                      How does any Democratic agreement with Republicans square with your evangelical belief that Democrats are literally evil incarnate hell bent on stealing EVERY election from Republicans.

                      I think that requires some Trump-splaining.

                    2. “I said, ‘How can anyone tell how much fraud occurred in CA, for example, since the Democrats won’t purge the voter rolls?'”

                      Thanks for correcting me. Democrats do sometimes purge the voter rolls (I already gave you an example of a news story where the state became aware that non-citizens had been added to the voter rolls and worked to correct that). I guess I’ll just leave it at: if someone claims that Trump won due to illegal votes, the onus is on that person to prove the claim.

                      Re: your claim that Democrats try “to preserve inaccurate voter rolls,” no that’s not the aim. The aim is to make sure that people who are legal voters don’t get purged even if they don’t vote regularly, even if they share a name with someone who has died, etc.

                  3. Here is another problem with ballots being mailed to everyone on the inaccurate voter rolls, without being requested.

                    Turnout is usually around 40%. If someone shows up to vote in person, and someone else mailed in their ballot, they will be given a provisional ballot. However, 60% of people on the voter rolls tend not to vote. That means that 60% of stolen mail in ballots can be successfully voted without getting caught.

                    Although I received voting materials for several other people, I never did get my own mail in ballot. I voted in person, and they didn’t mention anything about a provisional ballot. A lot of people in my conservative rural area did not receive their mail in ballots, either. Those who planned to vote just went in person.

                    When people request a mail in ballot, then at least you know they want to vote by mail. By sending mail in ballots to 100% of people on a very inaccurate voter roll, it makes fraud very easy.

                    Now, I’m not saying that the Gavin Newsom recall failed because of fraud. CA is a deep Blue state, and an extraordinary amount of out of state money defended Newsom. However, it is not responsible to allow a system to continue that is easy to cheat.

                    https://townhall.com/columnists/johnrlottjr/2021/09/14/very-concerning-evidence-of-vote-fraud-in-california-recall-election-n2595826

                    1. Karen cites Townhall as a source of information. Townhall is Fake News. If you Trumpists can wantonly accuse the MSM of being “Fake News,” you certainly cannot object to my determining what sources of information *I* consider fake. We both reserve the right to *cancel* news and information sources. Agreed?

            3. [I’m still trying to figure out why my comment isn’t posting. I broke it in 2, and the second half made it through, but the first half is still rejected, so now I’ll try breaking that in parts.]
              part 1a:

              Karen,

              You’ve made a lot of claims, and a number are false or misleading.

              For example, you say “the NSA spying upon the Trump campaign for Obama and then lying about it.” The NSA did not spy on the Trump campaign. They spy on certain foreign nationals, and if members of either campaign are communicating with those foreign nationals, that subset of the campaign’s communications will be reviewed by the NSA. That is not spying on the campaign, as the campaign isn’t the target.

              1. Anonymous:

                First, Word Press’s nickname is Word Mess. Occasionally, our comments get stuck in the filter for no apparent reason. There are occasions when I can’t post anything. It just somehow snags.

                If the NSA wants to spy on someone without a warrant, they spy upon a foreign national that the target is going to contact as part of their job. Then they unmask them. That’s the workaround.

                https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/05/30/obama-admin-illegal-spying-worse-than-watergate-glenn-reynolds-column/102284058/

                1. “If the NSA wants to spy on someone without a warrant, they spy upon a foreign national that the target is going to contact as part of their job. Then they unmask them. That’s the workaround.”

                  You’re mistaken. It sounds like you don’t know how masking works. If a foreign national is surveilled, and an American end ups talking with that foreign national, the American’s name is redacted (masked). If someone asks for that name to be unmasked, they do not know the identity of the person whose name was redacted. They only find out the identity after the name is unmasked. Also, only certain people can make requests for a name to be unmasked.

                  One of these people can’t say, for example, “unmask Flynn.” They can only say, for example “in this particular conversation, unmask the masked name(s) so I can understand who Kislyak is having this specific conversation with.”
                  They do not know ahead of time that Flynn is the person whose name will be revealed. There are certainly problems with Americans’ information sometimes being included inappropriately in NSA surveillance, but Flynn’s discussions with Kislyak is not an example.

              2. Anonymous, you claimed I’ve made false and misleading claims.

                I provided information to back up my assertions, including articles from Jonathan Turley about Carter Page and Gen Flynn, a copy of a court case in which it was found that the IRS discriminated against conservative organizations, and Lois Lerner of the IRS’s own testimony admitting they discriminated against conservatives.

                Do you care to retract your allegations?

                1. Karen,

                  Similarly, I trust you will reply to my criticisms of your commentaries.

                  I wish you would take issue with my commentaries if you find them as misleading as I find yours. I am certainly not above criticism even by lying Trumpists. As I have already stated, even liars can make a valid point if they stop lying.

                  1. Man, Common On Jeff, Even You Surely Can’t Get Any Lower!

                    Trolling a Suicide Thread On Saturday Night, Wow! That’s a new low! Get a Life.

                    Think About It!

                    **********

                    When You Say Nothing At All : Keith Whitley & Allison Krauss
                    716,496 views
                    May 16, 2019

                    1. Oky1,

                      Like everyone of us, if we had a life, do you think we would be here? I think we all can be honest enough to admit.

                      I am not trolling Karen, although she could use a good hard trolling. I am merely requesting that she respond to my comments to a couple of her recent posts. I am doing her the favor of sharing my constructive criticism in the spirit of goodwill.

                      Though we disagree on everything, at least we have one thing that unites us- TURLEY

                  2. Jeff,

                    Truth is I’ve been considering backing off this website a bit. Funerals if having to take care of them I will, but I’ve dealt with enough.

                    Those “Safe & Effective” mRNA Death Jabs, I mean so called “Vaccines” very loosely, experts I’m following have the current US death count somewhere between 200,000 & 600,000 from the vaxxes, with some saying much more.

                    All I know is my long time friend down the street, Dr Fauci/Bill Gates Bio-Weapon Covid19 & Clot Shots took one of my friends out of the big game of life.

                    And one of Biden’s Nut Job health guys last week, it was reported, they’ve cooked up to brand new viruses for us this winter.

                    Everyone best find their best Doctor. And have Medicine at hand to hit their virus as soon as signs 1st apper.

                    Mean while I & others will be trying to pass out the latest info to leaders that need to know.

                    So I don’t know?

                    1. Oky1,

                      Very amusing! You are a funny guy! Are you a professional comedian?

                      Because if you are not joking with me, you are certifiably mad. I’m serious.

                      “Death Jabs?”

                      You have lost natural mind….

                2. No, I’m not retracting my claims. I’ve responded to what you wrote, and in some cases, I think you still misunderstand some relevant facts. Re: the IRS discrimination, I didn’t say that your original claim was false or misleading. I said “I don’t know whether your claim is true or false. … I’d be happy to read your evidence.” Thanks for citing evidence.

            4. part 1b:

              “An FBI agent was charged for altering a CIA email exonerating Carter Page, who worked for them, in order to make the email express the opposite.”

              Another misleading comment. Clinesmith pleaded guilty to altering the email. But the email did not “exonerate” Carter Page, and Clinesmith did not change the email to “express the opposite.” Clinesmith changed the email in a way that he believed was true, as Page was a “digraph” but not what the FBI considers a “source,” so he added that Page was not a source. Still, Clinesmith shouldn’t have altered the email.

              1. In what way was it misleading?

                The CIA confirmed Carter Page worked with them, and had reported any and all Russian contacts immediately.

                The FBI agent altered the email so that it read the opposite, and used this fraudulent document with the FISA court. Reversing the email does not change it “in a way that he believed was true”. Why would you think completely reversing its meaning could be true? It’s tampering with exculpatory evidence. He’s been charged with a crime.

                I am in no way misleading you. Read Jonathan Turley’s article below in which he discusses how the CIA shared “direct exculpatory information” about Page:

                https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/474570-an-apology-to-carter-page

                “Early on, Horowitz found that an unnamed government agency, widely acknowledged to be the CIA, told the FBI that it was making a mistake about Page and that he was working for the agency as an “operational contact” in Moscow. Indeed, he was working as an asset for the CIA for years. While it was falsely reported that Page met with three suspicious individuals there, he had no contact with two of those individuals. More importantly, Page did the right thing and told American officials about being contacted by the third person, because he felt they should know.

                It gets even worse. Throughout Operation Crossfire Hurricane, evidence continued to flow into the FBI that Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote the infamous dossier, was unreliable and working against the election of Trump. Not only was he known to be trying to get this false information to the press, but evidence mounted that he misrepresented sources and stated false information. While it took long, someone at the Justice Department finally decided to act on the FISA matter regarding Page. The official in charge of FISA applications, Kevin Clinesmith, was told to ask the CIA again about whether Page had been working for the agency. He was again told that Page in fact was, yet Clinesmith allegedly changed the CIA response to describe Page as not working for it. He is now being criminally referred by Horowitz for falsifying that information.

                Investigators also found an array of messages against Trump on the social media accounts of Clinesmith, including one declaring “vive le resistance” after Trump won. Meanwhile, throughout this period, the FBI was leaking aplenty but no one leaked the Page was actually a CIA asset. Instead, he was left to twist slowly in the wind. Media reports all but convicted Page of being a Russian spy. Evan Hurst wrote about him last year asking, “Why the hell are Republicans dying on this hill to defend Carter Page,” whom Hurst described, in all caps, as “a literal actual Russian intelligence asset.”

                Natasha Bertand later wondered why anyone would question the case against Page. After all, she wrote, Senator Mark Warner, who is ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, had warned reporters to “be careful what you wish for” and one of his aides told her that is is “simply impossible to review the documents” on Page and conclude anything other than that the FBI “had ample reason” to investigate him. Her article was published long after the FBI had been told that Page was working with the CIA, but many other stories ran with similar comments from senators suggesting that anyone defending Page would be ridiculed after the release of some damning evidence. Mueller and Horowitz have now confirmed that there was never such evidence showing Page was a Russian asset. Indeed, the evidence showed he was an American asset.

                As Horowitz has now stressed, there is a difference between starting an investigation based on mere allegations and continuing the investigation based on known falsehoods. His report documents how direct exculpatory information was quickly shared with the FBI. I do not know anything about Page other than what I have read in these reports. All I know is that he is an American citizen put under a secret surveillance operation based on a dossier shown to be both unfounded and unreliable. He then remained under surveillance with three renewals of secret warrants, even though the FBI was told repeatedly that Page was working with the CIA and that the dossier used to obtain those warrants was considered unsupported. Finally, Page was the subject of an alleged falsification of a document presented to the FISA court to obscure that exculpatory information.

                You’re wrong if you think Carter Page was not exonerated. The man was the victim of a vicious, politically driven smear campaign that ruined his reputation and materially damaged his life.

                Will there be any consequences for those who perpetuated the Russian Hoax that undermined a presidency? There are still people today who think Carter Page is a spy, and that Donald Trump was a Russian asset. There’s no way to stuff that false propaganda back into Pandora’s box.

                1. “As Horowitz has now stressed, there is a difference between starting an investigation based on mere allegations and continuing the investigation based on known falsehoods.”

                  And there is a difference between lying in public that an election was stolen on account of massive fraud based upon anecdotal hearsay evidence and going into court and trying to prove those falsehoods under oath.

                  1. Jeff Silberman says there is a difference between lying in public and testifying under oath. Indeed there is.

                    Regarding the events of January 6th…..

                    Has Pelosi answered any questions yet? Under oath?

                    Has the DC Mayor Bowser answered any questions yet? Under oath?

                    Has the FBI answerered questions yet? How many Feds and undercover IC were part of the Jan 6 “riots”?

                    Why have we heard nothing from the FBI about who placed the bombs placed outside DNC and RNC headquarters on Jan 5? There are cameras everywhere in Washington, DC. Why nothing at all from the FBI?

                    Have they released the 14,000 hours of video footage from Jan 6 at the Capitol? Why are they sitting on all that information?

                    We have never had a full public accounting of what happened on Jan 6 or in the lead up to Jan 6.

                    What is Pelosi hiding? What is the Capitol Police hiding? What is the FBI hiding? Why are they all lying to the people?

                    1. btw, Pelosi’s “Jan 6 Commission” has nothing to do with providing a full accounting of the events of Jan 6 to the public. Quite the contrary. It is Pelosi herself who should be questioned under oath.

                    2. “Why have we heard nothing from the FBI about who placed the bombs placed outside DNC and RNC headquarters on Jan 5? There are cameras everywhere in Washington, DC. Why nothing at all from the FBI?”

                      You seem to be unaware that the FBI has a $100,000 reward for info about that person, whose identity isn’t yet known: https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/seeking-info/suspected-pipe-bombs-in-washington-dc

                      As you can see, they have some photos and video, but the person’s face is obscured, so they still haven’t been able to identify the person.

                      You ask a lot of questions, but don’t seem to have bothered trying to look up the answers.

                    3. “You seem to be unaware that the FBI has a $100,000 reward for info about that person, whose identity isn’t yet known: https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/seeking-info/suspected-pipe-bombs-in-washington-dc

                      As you can see, they have some photos and video, but the person’s face is obscured, so they still haven’t been able to identify the person.”

                      —————————–

                      Sure thing. The FBI still haven’t been able to identify the person. Right.

                      Meanwhile, the FBI is busy deploying its resources to threaten and intimidate parents from voicing their opinions and concerns and exercising their first amendment RIGHTS at school board meetings across the country. Concerned parents are now “domestic terrorists” according to the FBI.

                      In case you had not noticed the FBI is now being used as an enforcement and intimidation arm of ‘The Party’ (ie Democrats) against its political opposition.

                    4. Put Pelosi under oath. Put DC Mayor under oath. Release the 14,000 hours of footage.

                      Stop hiding the truth, Pelosi. Jan 6 was a setup and you know it.

                    5. “The FBI still haven’t been able to identify the person. Right.”

                      Right.

                      According to you, how would they identify that person?

                      As for your other claims, you make them without evidence, and I dismiss them without evidence.

                    6. Put Trump under oath. Stop hiding the truth. Jan 6 was an attempted self-coup to continue his presidency even though he lost, and you know it.

                2. “In what way was it misleading?”

                  a) Carter Page wasn’t “exonerated.” Perhaps you and I simply mean different things in using that word.
                  b) The original email that Clinesmith changed didn’t say that Page was a “source.” It said that he was a “digraph,” which is distinct from a source.

                  “Why would you think completely reversing its meaning could be true?”

                  Because it wasn’t “completely reversing.” A CIA digraph is not the same thing as a source.

                  “I am in no way misleading you. Read Jonathan Turley’s article below …”

                  The problem is: Turley makes a lot of factual mistakes in his columns. I’m not saying that you were trying to mislead, only that what you wrote was misleading because it doesn’t distinguish between “digraph” and “source,” and that distinction matters in this case.

            5. part 1c:

              In other cases, such as “the IRS discriminating against conservative organizations,” I don’t now whether your claim is true or false. You haven’t said what you’re taking as evidence, and offhand, I don’t have reason to think that they investigate or prosecute conservative organizations more than they do liberal ones. I’d be happy to read your evidence.

              “Then there was the Russian hoax”

              What are you using the phrase “the Russian hoax” to refer to? It’s true that an Australian diplomat contacted the US about Papadopoulos saying while drunk that a Russian had contacted the campaign about Russia releasing info to benefit the Trump campaign. Russia had hacked the DNC and released stolen data through Wikileaks, timing the release to help distract from negative Trump news. It’s a fact that Manafort passed campaign data along to Russian agent Kilimnik, which could have been used to help the Russian troll farms target voters. Roger Stone had contact with Guccifer 2 re: Wikileaks. Flynn made inappropriate requests of Russian ambassador Kislyak, undermining Obama’s actions when Obama was President. Please clarify what “hoax” you have in mind.

              1. Not sure if you followed the Lois Lerner IRS scandal, and its persecution of various conservative organizations, of which True the Vote was particularly targeted.

                https://rightwingtribune.com/2019/08/25/just-in-obamas-irs/

                True the Vote won a lawsuit against the IRS for discrimination. See above link for court documents.

                http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/true-the-vote-wins-stunning-court-ruling-against-irs-in-lois-lerner-scandal/

                “- The True the Vote v. IRS lawsuit has finally come to a close with a stunning ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton ruling in favor of True the Vote; penalizing the IRS with maximum attorneys fees due to their unconstitutional discrimination against the group and their unethical behavior in the case.
                This decision marks the end of a nearly decade long battle that first began in 2010, when federal government agencies including the IRS, DOJ, FBI, ATF, OSHA weaponized against True the Vote and its founder, Catherine Engelbrecht. Under Obama Administration leadership, the agencies leveled a barrage of attacks, including twenty-three audits, investigations, and inquiries, against the group in an attempt to stop their work in election integrity. “
                At one point the IRS got Child Services to try to take Ms. Engelbrechts’ children from her—this is how vicious Lerner and the crowd became, to stop honest elections. To stop those exposing the corruption of elections.

              2. Biden’s IRS sued for discriminating against Christian organizations:

                https://conservativefiringline.com/biden-irs-sued-for-targeting-christians-for-discrimination/

                https://capitalresearch.org/article/irs_tea_party/

                “Left-wing Democrat Lois G. Lerner, then the director of the Exempt Organizations Division at the IRS, did the Obama administration’s bidding, harassing conservative groups and funders. Lerner testified before Congress, and after protesting her innocence she suddenly invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to continue testifying.

                But earlier Lerner had confirmed the IRS abuses. IRS employees in the agency’s Cincinnati office targeted conservative 501(c)(4) groups, she said…Lerner admitted that groups that included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their documents were singled out for heightened scrutiny. Yet she denied that orders to make conservative activists’ lives difficult had come from on high in Washington.

                Nobody buys that line, especially given President Obama’s frequent promises to dole out punishment to his opponents. The very fact that Lois Lerner isn’t in prison right now is proof of political interference at the highest levels. Lerner lied to Congress, committed contempt, and engaged in obstruction of justice on a massive scale. Yet nothing happened to her.”

              3. On Gen Flynn, by Jonathan Turley, which disputes your claim that Flynn made any inappropriate requests:

                https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/500247-michael-flynn-transcripts-reveal-plenty-except-crime-or-collusion

                The newly released transcripts of the calls made by Flynn are deeply disturbing, not for their evidence of criminality or collusion but for the total absence of any such evidence of misconduct. The transcripts, which were declassified yesterday, strongly support new investigations by the Justice Department and by Congress, starting with Senate testimony next week by former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

                It turns out the calls were not only predictable but even commendable at some points. When the Obama administration had imposed sanctions on Russia before leaving office, the incoming Trump administration tried to avoid a major conflict at the start of its term. Flynn had asked Kislyak to focus on “common enemies” in order to seek cooperation in the Middle East. The calls covered a variety of issues, including sanctions.

                What was not discussed was anything untoward or unlawful. Flynn said what was already known to be Trump administration policy in seeking a new path forward with Moscow. Flynn did not offer to remove sanctions but rather encouraged the Russians to respond in a reciprocal manner if they felt they had to respond. The calls, along with the identity of Flynn, were leaked by several officials as the Obama administration left office, which is a serious federal crime, given their classified status.”

                1. “On Gen Flynn, by Jonathan Turley, which disputes your claim that Flynn made any inappropriate requests”

                  Yes, Turley and I have different opinions about that. The Turley column that you quote from also ignores key issues. Some of those issues:
                  * One of the relevant transcripts — for the first phone call — wasn’t declassified. Turley is silent about this fact and pretends that all were declassified. Turley is silent about the UN request, which was the focus of the first phone call. That request was inappropriate.
                  * The Mueller team never suggested that Flynn committed a crime in his phone calls. The crime occurred in lying to the FBI about some aspects of the phone calls. According to Pence’s public statements, Flynn had lied to Pence about Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, and the FBI interviewed Flynn in order to figure out why Flynn was lying to Pence about the calls. Turley is silent that the transcript that was declassified confirms that Flynn lied to the FBI.
                  * It was not “commendable” for Flynn to undermine Obama’s sanctions (or, for that matter, to undermine what the Obama Admin was doing at the UN with Israel, about which Turley was silent). There is only one President at a time, and it was inappropriate for anyone on the President-elects team to undermine the current President, especially without informing the current President.

                  1. Anonymous points out:

                    “Turley is silent that the transcript that was declassified confirms that Flynn lied to the FBI.”

                    Turley conveniently overlooks or ignores facts which do not strengthen his contentions.

                    For example, when he contends that the Mueller Report did not find “collusion,” he knows full well the Report was concerned about a “criminal conspiracy” not collusion which is not a legal matter. Collusion is nothing more than a secret arrangement as in Manafort handing over polling data to a Russian agent Kisliyiak.

                    Moreover, Turley fails to point out that Manafort lied to investigators and lost his cooperation agreement. He, like others who testified, knew that if they kept their mouths shut, Trump would likely pardon them as he eventually did. Turley does not mention these material facts when he concludes that the Report did not find collusion.

                    Turley’s failure has never been what he says- which has been critical of Trump and his lies, but, rather, what is does NOT say, chief among them is his refusal to condemn Trump continuing to push the Big Lie and condemning the lawyers who lied in court alleging that falsehood. Turley will not add his voice to those holding Trumpists legally accountable for lying to the public.

                    It is a moral failure for which he will look back one day in great shame.

      2. Anonymous,

        You would think that Turley cannot avoid indefinitely commenting upon the investigation into the events leading up to 1/6 which he called a “desecration” in order to separate himself from Trumpists who characterize it as a patriotic parade.

        It’s indefensible to ignore the 1/6 investigation. Obviously, Fox News will give it short shrift, but Turley has to maintain his academic credibility. In addition to his allegiance to Fox, the other disincentive is Turley’s long-standing friendship with Barr who ran this DOJ. Even though Barr jumped ship when he saw that Trump was making ludicrous demands of the DOJ, criticizing Barr’s underlings and fellow DOJ colleagues could be a touchy subject since it impugns Barr’s administration.

        We have to remember that there is a lot of politics behind the scenes to which we are oblivious which likely explains Turley’s silence to date. Certainly, he has personal and employment conflicts of interest which incline him to self-censor.

        The weeks to come will be very interesting indeed as the noose keeps tightening around Trump’s neck and Turley’s continued silence appears more and more cowardly.

  12. Thomas Szasz, the libertarian psychiatrist and legal scholar, argued that everyone has a right to kill himself but not to inflict his suicide on others. And he pointed out that the monopoly on drugs that the state-enforced medical establishment enjoys plays a role in limiting people’s ability to kill themselves discreetly.

    1. The Thomas Szasz post here reminds me of several issues concerning suicide, libertarian defense of suicide, and even whether it is ever morally or legally required for a third person to prevent anothers suicide. Two of the pillars of libertarianism is self ownership and the liberty or freedom to do what one wants as long as it doesn’t seriously harm others in terms of their life, liberty and property.
      Self ownership for the libertarian includes complete control of one’s life that does not seriously harm others. Examples include the freedom to commit suicide, phisically injure one self, sell body parts, take drugs that are harmful. Libertarians argue that “no harm (to others) no foul”. Mill considered the no harm principle to be the main constraint on what government can coerce, setting up the philosophical foundation of limited government.
      We are considered negligent (commiting a sin of omission) if we allow the abandoned baby at our doorstep to die by ignoring it. Good samaritan laws hold that one must, if possible and reasonably safe, try to prevent crimes commited against other people. Some argue against pacifism by saying while its ok to let others harm you its not ok to allow others harm others. (Note the criticism of Gandhi’s pacifism during the holocaust).
      I used to tell my Ethics classes that the good samaritan law is wrongly named . It is actually a law against crimes of omission and negligence, a requirement to be “not evil” rather than good. If one goes beyong the call of duty to save others (such as risking one’s life) we call that supererogation (good).
      Final thought: I told my classes that libertarians are wrong that one owns oneself, and wrong to say that the self is the property of the self and disposable if needed. And further that libertarian should include the prohibiton of serious harm not just to others but to oneself as well. I submit that serious harm itself (regardless of the recipient) is an evil that is an inescapable presumption of the human condition (inalienable part of human nature). So I would claim that is not only permissable to interfere with suicide , but also sometimes the right thing to do and in cases (where there is safety in interference) may even be required.

    2. Thomas Szasz also wrote “The Myth of Mental Illness”; arguing that mental illness does not really exist, an idea that has caused considerable trouble despite being obviously wrong.

Leave a Reply